� 7. Simon, B.C. 142-135

§ 7. SIMON, B.C. 142-[235]
[235] The date of Jonathan’s death is not given in the First Book of Maccabees, which between 11:19 and 13:41 makes no mention of any particular year. But since, according to 13:41 and 14:27, the year of Simon’s rule is to be connected from Seleucid year 170, or B.C. 143-142, Jonathan’s death must be placed at the end of B.C. 143 or the beginning of B.C. 142. It is given in 1Ma_13:22 as occurring in winter. With this also agrees the statement of Josephus, that Simon reigned for eight years (Antiq. xii. 7. 4), from B.C. 142 to B.C. 135; while the statement in Antiq. xiii. 6. 5, that Jonathan had been high priest for four years, is erroneous.
SOURCES
1Ma_13:31 to 1Ma_16:22.
Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 6-7. A summary of it in Zonaras, Annal. iv. 24, v. 1.
Some dates from Megillath Taanith; see Derenbourg, pp. 67-69.
On the Shekel coins which have been ascribed by many to Simon, see Appendix IV.
LITERATURE
The works on Syrian history by Clinton, Foy-Vaillant, Frölich, Flathe, Stark, etc.
The treatises and commentaries on the books of Maccabees by Wernsdorff, Michaelis, Grimm, Keil, Bissel, Wace, etc.
EWALD’S History of Israel, v. 333-342.
HERZFELD, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 320-334.
GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden, Bd. iii., 4 Aufl., or Geschichte der Judäer von dem Tode Juda Makkabi’s, etc., 1888, pp. 50-63.
HITZIG, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 450-459.
Art. “Simon” in Winer’s RWB., and Schenkel’s Bibellexicon.
STANLEY, Jemsh Church, vol. iii. (1877) 361-368.
BY the heroic deeds and successes of Jonathan, the Maccabean party had passed out far beyond its original aims. It had not at first intended to strive for anything more than the restoration of the Jewish worship, and the securing of the free exercise of the Jewish religion. But even Judas, when he had attained this end, did not rest satisfied therewith. He and his party then wished also to gain the supremacy in the control of home affairs. In the time of Jonathan this end was completely won. By Jonathan’s appointment as high priest the ruling power was placed in the hands of the Maccabean party, and the Hellenistic party was driven out. But even this no longer seemed sufficient. Favourable circumstances—the weakness of the Syrian empire—tempted them to strive after thorough emancipation from the Syrian suzerainty. The last acts of Jonathan were important steps in this direction. The significance of the reign of Simon consists in this, that it completed the work of Jonathan, and made the Jewish people wholly independent of the Syrian empire.
In Syria, Demetrius and Trypho, as tutor-regent for the young king Antiochus, still occupied a position of antagonism to one another. Trypho, who had hitherto appeared only as representative of his youthful protégé, about this time or not much later, let fall the mask, secured the assassination of Antiochus VI., and had himself crowned king.[236]
[236] Macc. 13:31, 32. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 7. 1. Diodorus in Müller, Fragm. Hist. Graec. t. ii. p. xix. n. 25. Livy, Epit. 55. Appian, Syr. c. 68; Justin, xxxvi. 1.—The murder was committed by surgeons. Compare Livy: Alexandri filius, rex Syriae, decem annos admodum habens, a Diodot, qui Tryphon cognominabatur, tutore suo, per fraudem occisus est corruptis medicis, qui illum calculi dolore consumi ad populum mentiti, dum secant, occiderunt.—Josephus and the non-Jewish sources place the murder of Antiochus VI. somewhat later, after Demetrius II. had been taken prisoner by the Parthians. The First Book of Maccabees records it in the above connection, even before Demetrius had entered upon his Parthian campaign. Compare on this discrepancy, above, page 176.
After the last hostile proceeding on the part of Trypho, it was clear that Simon would unhesitatingly attach himself to Demetrius. But he did this only after he had exacted the promise that Demetrius would recognise the freedom of the Jews. While he continued eagerly to proceed with the building of the fortresses of Judea, he sent an embassy to Demetrius “to secure for his country exemption from tribute.” Since Demetrius had actually no longer any power in the south of the empire, it was in his interest to act the part of the munificent, and to guarantee to the Jews all that they desired. He therefore not only granted remission of all outstanding taxes, but also perfect exemption from all paying of tribute in the future.[237] Thus was the political independence of Judea recognised. “The yoke of the Gentiles,” as the First Book of Maccabees expresses it, “was taken away from Israel.” In order to give expression to this fact, they now adopted a mode of reckoning of their own, beginning with the Seleucid year 170, or B.C. 143-142. Documents and treatises were dated according to the year of Simon as high priest and prince of the Jews.[238]
[237] Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, Bd. iii., 4 Aufl. p. 566, and Derenbourg, p. 69, refer to Megillath Taanith, § 6. According to this authority, the 27th Ijjar, or May, was the day when the tribute was remitted.
[238] Macc. 13:33-42; compare 14:27. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 6. 6.—In Justin’s extract from Trogus Pompeius the freedom of the Jews is made to date from the time of Demetrius I. He says of Antiochus VII. Sidetes (Justin, xxxvi. 1. 10): Judaeos quoque, qui in Macedonico imperio sub Demetrio patre armis se in libertatem vindicaverant, subegit (instead of patre, Merzbacher proposes, in Zeitschrift für Num. v. 310, to read fratre, because Demetrius II. is meant). Also Justin, xxxvi. 3. 9: A Demetrio cum descivistent, amicitia Romanorum petita primi omnium ex orientalibus libertatem acceperunt, facile tune Romanis de alieno largientibus.
With this statement of the First Book of Maccabees we ought to combine a fact derived from a study of numismatics. There are Jewish shekel and half-shekel coins which, in the opinion of most numismatists, were stamped in the time of Simon. They bore on the one side the inscription ירושלם קדשה or ירושלים הקדושה, on the other side, according to their weight, either שקל ישראל, Israel’s shekel, or חצי השקל, half-shekel. On the whole shekel and on the half-shekel the number of the year was impressed, and there are specimens of both coins with the year numbers א, ב, נ, ד (1, 2, 3, 4), and one specimen of a whole shekel with the date ה or 5.[239] The era here used is held to be the era of Simon referred to in the First Book of Maccabees. Now these coins, if indeed they were stamped in the time of Simon, are not to be considered properly as coins of Simon, but as coins of the civic commune of Jerusalem, for after the fashion of the Hellenistic communes Jerusalem is regarded as in a position of authority over all Judea (compare § 23, I. and II.). Also the number of the year on the coins does not designate the year of Simon’s reign, but the year of a civil era of Jerusalem; as also other cities of Phoenicia, such as Tyre, Sidon, Ascalon, had begun toward the end of the second century before Christ, in token of the freedom which they had obtained, to adopt a cycle of their own.[240] But even were it possible that the era used upon the coins was identical with “the years of Simon” spoken of in the First Book of Maccabees, the first year of Simon is just the same as the first year of Jewish freedom.[241] But a difficulty is presented by the fact that up to the present time out of the great number of specimens of shekel coins only one piece is found bearing the mark of the year 5; and that no higher numbers are found, whereas the era of Simon, according to 1Ma_13:41-42; 1Ma_14:27, began in the Seleucid year 170, and Simon did not die before the Seleucid year 177 (1Ma_16:14), so that coins of his time might have been expected at least with the years 6 and 7. Merzbacher has therefore assumed that the era of Simon had been made in the First Book of Maccabees to begin two years too early. Its actual starting-point was the third year of Simon, the Seleucid year 172, or B.C. 141-140, in which Simon was pronounced by a popular decree hereditary high priest (1Ma_14:25-49). Then, too, for the first time did Demetrius confer the privileges that have been mentioned upon the Jews. But the author of the First Book of Maccabees has erroneously used the official “first” year of Simon as interchangeable with his actual first year.[242] The reasons for this hypothesis are set forth by Merzbacher with acuteness and skill of combination, but on closer examination they do not prove convincing.[243] The plain and distinct statement of the First Book of Maccabees, that a beginning was made in the Seleucid year 170 to number the years of Simon (13:41, 42; compare 14:27), cannot be thus set aside. Also Merzbacher’s theory is set up simply in order to overcome the difficulty above referred to which the year numbers on the shekel occasion. But besides this difficulty there are still other considerations which tell against the supposition that the shekel was issued under Simon.[244] It cannot therefore be regarded as by any means certain, though indeed most numismatists are in favour of the idea.[245]
[239] The literature about these shekel coins is given in the Appendix IV.
[240] Tyre has an era beginning B.C. 126, Sidon one beginning B.C. 111, Ascalon one beginning B.C. 104. See on this subject the works enumerated in Div. ii. vol. i. p. 57, especially those of Noris and Eckhel. On Ascalon, also Div. ii. vol. i. p. 75.
[241] The striking statement of the First Book of Maccabees runs (1Ma_13:42): καὶ ἤρξατο ὁ λαὸς Ἰσραὴλ γράφειν ἐν ταῖς συγγραφαῖς καὶ συναλλάγμασιν· Ἔτους πρώτου ἐπὶ Σίμωνος ἀρχιερέως μεγάλου καὶ στρατηγοῦ καὶ ἡγουμένου Ἰουδαίων.
[242] Merzbacher in Sallet’s Zeitschrift für Numismatik, Bd. v. 1878, pp. 292-319. He is followed by Madden, Coins of the Jews, 1881, pp. 65-67.
[243] Merzbacher refers specially to the following: 1. In the popular decree of the Seleucid year 172 it was determined among other things that all State documents should be written in Simon’s name (1Ma_14:43 : ὅπως γράφωνται ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ πᾶσαι συγγραφαὶ ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ). If this was then resolved upon for the first time, they could not have begun two years earlier to date documents and treaties according to the years of Simon, as is affirmed in 1Ma_13:42 : γράφειν ἐν ταῖς συγγαφαῖς καὶ συναλλάγμασιν· Ἔτους πρώτου ἐπὶ Σίμωνος, etc. But even if we should grant that γράφειν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι precisely means: to date according to the years of Simon, the contents of that popular decree are by this argumentation adjudged to be false. When this has been done nothing new is introduced, but only that which we already had is firmly established and confirmed. 2. Merzbacher lays special stress upon the fact that as motive for the popular decree of the Seleucid year 172, among other things, it can be shown that King Demetrius confirmed Simon in his position as high priest, and assigned to him distinguished honours, because he had heard that the Romans had respectfully received the ambassadors of Simon (1Ma_14:38-40). The charter of Demetrius thus belongs to a period later than that of Simon’s embassy to Rome, which was sent in the Seleucid year 172 (1Ma_14:24 compared with 14:1). Hence that charter, for the issuing of which a beginning was made in the dating of the years of Simon, would not have been sent out in the Seleucid year 170, but in 172, immediately before the popular decree. But thia argumentation proves too much. At the time of the popular assembly Simon’s embassy was still on its way to Home; perhaps it had not yet even started, for it did not return before the Seleucid year 174 (1Ma_15:15 compared with 15:10). If, then, it had been in consequence of its success that Demetrius granted the charter, then it must have been issued after the popular gathering that gave forth the decree, which naturally Merzbachcr does not assume. The statement that the charter of Demetrius was occasioned by the success of Simon’s Roman embassy must therefore be pronounced untenable. It is an inexact expression of the fact that Demetrius’s treatment of the Jews was determined by their friendly relations with the Romans, which had already existed for a long time (compare Keil, Commentar, p. 233, Anm.). But with this admission the whole argument falls to pieces.
[244] According to 1Ma_15:6, it was Antiochus VII. Sidetes, in the Seleucid year 174, or B.C. 139-138, who first gave Simon the right of issuing coins. On this point, however, no special weight should be laid, since it may quite fairly be regarded as simply the confirmation of a privilege that had been previously usurped. Of more importance is the fact that the coins of Simon’s immediate successor, John Hyrcanus, are of quite a different style. Hence a very thorough change in the art of minting must have taken place.
[245] See details about the minting of the shekel and its date in Appendix IV.—Besides the shekel, copper coins with the inscription on the obverse לגאלת ציון, and on the reverse שנת ארבע: the deliverance of Zion, year 4 are assigned by many numismatists to the age of Simon. The support for this supposition is even less certain than that for the shekel coining. Decidedly false, and now generally abandoned, is the conjecture of the earlier numismatists, that the coins which bore the name of Simon belong to Simon the Maccabee. See on these two classes of coins the details in Appendix IV.
The charter of Demetrius conferred privileges which, indeed, Demetrius had it not in his power to give away. It was Simon’s policy rather to emphasize and give effect to these in face of the power of Trypho, which was more perilous to him. In order to confirm his position, Simon sought above all to get possession of two of the fortresses that would be of chief value to him—the city of Gazara and the citadel of Jerusalem; and in both cases he had the good fortune to be successful. Gazara, the old Geshur, not far from Emmans-Nicopolis in a westerly direction, at the base of the mountains, had been up to that time a Gentile city. Possession of it was of importance to the Jews, because it was one of the places which commanded the passes of the mountains, and the holding of it was thus absolutely necessary in order to maintain connection between Jerusalem and the port of Joppa, which had been already annexed by the Jews. Simon opened against the city a skilfully directed siege, conquered it, expelled all Gentile inhabitants from it, and settled it with “men who observed the law.”[246] Simon’s son Jonathan was appointed governor of Gazara.[247]
[246] 1Ma_13:43-48; compare 14:34. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 6. 6. Strabo, p. 759: ἐν δὲ τῷ μεταξὺ καὶ ἡ Γαδαρὶς ἔστιν, ἣν καὶ αὐτὴν ἐξιδιάσαντο οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. The Gadaris here referred to by Strabo is identical with our Gazara.—The manuscripts of the First Book of Maccabees have in our passage (1Ma_13:43) Γάζαν. That instead of this Γάζαρα should be read, is proved, not only by the parallel text of Josephus, but also by the text of the First Book of Maccabees, in another passage referring to our incident (1 Macc. 13:53; 14:7, 34; 15:28, 35; 16:1; 19:21). It is the Old Testament נֶּזֶר, an important Canaanitish town. On its situation Eusebius, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 244, remarks: καὶ νῦν καλεῖται Γάζαρα κώμη Νικοπόλεως ἀπέχουσα σημείοις δʼ ἐν βορείοις. This statement of Eusebius has been confirmed by recent researches. The Tell-Jezer discovered by Clermont-Ganneau in A.D. 1873, in the immediate neighbourhood of Abu Shusheh, lies in fact four Roman miles from Emmaus-Nicopolis, though rather in a westerly than a northerly direction. Clermont-Ganneau found in several places in the neighbourhood, at equal distances from Tell-Jezer, the similarly expressed inscription תחם גזר, “the borders of Gezer,” by which it is highly probable the limits of a Sabbath day’s journey from the town were indicated. The statements of the Old Testament and the First Book of Maccabees agree with the assigning of this locality to the town, 1Ma_4:15 and also 7:45, which makes it a day’s journey from Adasa, and 1Ma_14:34, τὴν Γάζαρα τὴν ἐπὶ τῶν ὁρίων Ἀζώτου; for that the district of Gazara should border upon that of Ashdod is, in consequence of the wide extension of the district belonging to that city, extremely probable. It may therefore be taken as certain that the situation of the ancient Gezer or Gazara is to be fixed in accordance with these statements. Compare Clermont-Ganneau, Bulletin de la Société de géographie, sér. vi. t. 5, Paris 1873, p. 123 sqq., which was not accessible to me. Clermont-Ganneau, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres de l’année, 1874, pp. 201, 213 sq. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statements, 1873, p. 78 sq.; 1874, pp. 56, 276 sqq.; 1875, pp. 5, 74 sqq. Mühlau in Riehm’s Handwörterbuch, art. “Geser.” The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, ii. 417, 428-440, and the large English Map, Sheet xvi. (right above at Abu Shusheh). Clermont-Ganneau, Revue critique, 1881, No. 50, p. 476; and in Archives des missions scientifiques, troisième série, t. xi. 1885, p. 243 sq. Ebers and Guthe, Palästina, ii. 192 ff., 455. The inscriptions are given in Chwolson, Corpus Inscr. Hebraicarum (1882), col. 58-60, 225, tab. I. n. 2 and 2a.—Older literature on Gezer: Winer’s RWB. and Schenkel’s Bibellexicon. Grimm, Exegetisches Handbuch on 1Ma_4:15. Raumer, Palästina, p. 191. Guérin, Judée, i. 26-29. Henderson, Palestine, 79.
[247] 1Ma_13:53; 1Ma_16:1; 1Ma_16:19; 1Ma_16:21.
Soon after the conquest of Gazara, Simon compelled the Syrian garrison of the citadel of Jerusalem to capitulate through famine. The national struggles of the Maccabees had long been directed to the attainment of this object, for so long as the citadel was in the hands of the Syrian kings the Jews were really their subjects. Now at last Simon succeeded in making himself master of this stronghold. On the 23rd day of the second month of the Seleucid year 171, that is, in May B.C. 142, he entered with great pomp and ceremony into the citadel.[248]
[248] 1Ma_13:49-52; compare 14:7, 36, 37. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 6. 6. The date 23rd Ijjar, that is, the second month, is given not only in 1Ma_13:51, but also in Megillath Taanith, § 5. Compare Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, Bd. iii., 4 Aufl. p. 565. Derenbourg, p. 67. If the conjecture is correct that the Seleucid era of the First Book of Maccabees begins in spring, in Nisan, then Ijjar of the Seleucid year 171 corresponds to May B.C. 142.—With the story of the conquest of the citadel Josephus connects, in Antiq. xiii. 6. 6 and Wars of the Jews, v. 4. 1, the remarkable statement that not only was the citadel destroyed, but also the whole hill on which it was built was levelled by the uninterrupted labour of the people during three years, so that the site of the temple should be higher than that of the citadel. Since the First Book of Maccabees says nothing about this, but, on the contrary, says that Simon strengthened the citadel and placed in it a Jewish garrison (1Ma_14:36-37, compare also 15:28), the historical reliability of the statement is very questionable. It seems to me that the thing is not in itself improbable, since the place where the citadel stood is now in fact almost level, whereas it must previously have had another form more suitable as a position for a citadel. The Jews had, indeed, a strong inducement to level it in the fact that from that point, so soon as it fell into the hands of a hostile power, the temple mount would immediately be placed in extremest peril. This only in the narrative is unhistorical, that Josephus makes the levelling to have taken place in the time of Simon. This, according to 1Ma_14:36-37; 1Ma_15:28, is quite impossible. Compare on the whole question the above cited literature; also Crome, art. “Jerusalem” in Ersch and Gruber’s Allgem. Encyklop. section ii. Bd. 15 (whereas pp. 291-295, the history of the fortress, is given in detail, and the reasons against the story of Josephus are wrought out fully, but in part on the basis of false premises); Grimm, Exegetisches Handbuch on 1 Maccabees, pp. 22 f., 205.
Since the Syrian kings were not in a position to be able to give any attention to proceedings in Judea, several years passed of undisturbed prosperity and peace for the Jews. As such a period the reign of Simon is generally characterized in the First Book of Maccabees. The securing of Joppa as a harbour, and the conquest of Gazara, Beth-zur, and the citadel of Jerusalem, are there represented as the chief services rendered by him.[249] Also express mention is made of his care for the spiritual and material wellbeing of the country, for strict administration of justice and the re-establishment of the Jewish law. “Then did they till their ground in peace, and the earth gave her increase, and the trees of the field their fruit. The ancient men sat all in the streets, communing together of good things, and the young men put on glorious and warlike apparel. He provided victuals for the cities, and set in them all manner of munition, so that his honourable name was renowned unto the end of the world. He made peace in the land, and Israel rejoiced with great joy: for every man sat under his vine and his fig-tree, and there was none to fray them: neither was there any left in the land to fight against them: yea, the kings themselves were overthrown in those days. Moreover he strengthened all those of his people that were brought low: the law he searched out; and every contemner of the law and wicked person he took away. He beautified the sanctuary, and multiplied the vessels of the temple.”[250]
[249] 1Ma_14:4-7. Compare also the motive for the popular decree in 1Ma_14:33-37. In these two passages are gathered together what had already previously been told in connection with the story of the First Book of Maccabees. Compare on Beth-zur, 1Ma_11:65 ff.; on Joppa, xii. 33 f., xiii. 11; on Gazara and the citadel, xiii. 43-52.
[250] 1Ma_14:8-15.—On the severe proceedings of Simon against the apostates, Grätz, Bd. iii., 4 Aufl. p; 565, and Derenbourg, Histoire, p. 68 sq., refer to the statement in Megillath Taanith, § 15.
In these words of the First Book of Maccabees expression is given to the feeling of satisfaction which the majority of the people had in Simon’s reign. The ultimate aims of the Maccabean struggles had been secured. The government was in the hands of the national party; the country was emancipated from the suzerainty of the Syrians. Thus Simon now reaped the full fruit of the common labours of the Maccabees: the formal legitimizing on the part of the people of their family as the ruling sacerdotal family. It had, indeed, been an act of usurpation by which the son of Mattathias attained unto the supremacy. Up to the outbreak of the Maccabean revolt the office of high priest had been hereditary in another family. In the course of events that family had been driven out of its place. The Maccabean brothers had undertaken the leadership of the national party, and the Syrian king had transferred to them the high-priestly rank. For the maintenance of Simon’s government it was of supreme importance that the legitimacy of his rule should be expressly recognised by a popular decree as affecting his own person and that of his descendants. Such an act was successfully carried out in the third year of Simon’s reign. On the 18th Elul of the Seleucid year 172, that is, in September B.C. 141, it was resolved in a great assembly “of the priests, and the people, and the princes of the people, and the elders of the land,” that Simon should be high priest and military commander and civil governor of the Jews (ἀρχιερεύς, στρατηγός and ἐθνάρχης), and that “for ever until there should arise a faithful prophet” (1Ma_14:41).[251] By the last phrase it was meant that this popular decree should remain in force until an authentic communication from God should make some other enactment. Henceforth therefore Simon’s official rank was regarded as “for ever,” that is, hereditary. The significance of this popular resolution lies not so much in the fact that it conveyed to him any new dignity, but rather in this, that it legitimized and pronounced hereditary those dignities which he already had. In this way a new high-priestly priestly and princely dignity was founded, that of the Asmoneans.[252] The terms of the popular decree were engraved on brazen tablets, and these were set up in the court of the temple.[253]
[251] See generally, 1Ma_14:25-49. The content of the decree, 1Ma_14:41-46, is made dependent by a ὅτι, 14:41, on the preceding ἠκούσθη, 14:40. That this ὅτι must be erased, has long been admitted by expositors.—The official title of Simon was a threefold one, as is shown by the three following passages which in all essential points agree: 1Ma_13:42 : ἐπὶ Σίμωνος ἀρχιερέως μεγάλου καὶ στρατηγοῦ καὶ ἡγουμένου Ἰουδαίων; 1Ma_14:41-42 : τοῦ εἶναι αὐτῶν Σίμωνα ἡγούμενον καὶ ἀρχιερέα … καὶ τοῦ εἶναι ἐπʼ αὐτῶν στρατηγόν; 1Ma_14:47 : ἀρχιερατεύειν καὶ εἶναι στρατηγὸς καὶ ἐθνάρχης τῶν Ἰουδαίων καὶ ἱερέων. Less complete is 1Ma_15:1 : ἱερεῖ καὶ ἐθνάρχῃ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, and 1Ma_15:2 : ἱερεῖ μεγάλῳ καὶ ἐθνάρχῃ. Also in the passage 1Ma_14:27 : ἐπὶ Σίμωνος ἀρχιερέως ἐνσαραμέλ, the enigmatical word ἐνσαραμέλ or ἐνασαραμέλ belongs certainly to his title. It has been conjectured that σαραμέλ is שַׂר עַם אֵל, and so equivalent to ἐθνάρχης. The εν remains unaccounted for. I venture to guess that originally σεγεν for the Hebrew סנן stood here; for that corresponds to the Greek στρατηγός. Compare Div. ii. vol. i. p. 258, note 131. Other attempts at explanation are given in Winer’s RWB. art. “Saramel,” and Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, v. 179; and by Michaelis, Grimm, and Keil in their commentaries on 1Ma_14:27, and in Derenbourg, Histoire, pp. 67, 450 sq.
[252] Compare on the significance of the popular decree, Lucius, Essenismus (1881), pp. 86-88.—The family name of the dynasty is οἱ Ἀσαμωναίου παῖδες (Josephus, Life, i.; Antiq. xx. 8. 11, xx. 10), τὸ Ἀσαμωναίων γένος (Antiq. xv. 11. 4), οἱ Ἀσαμωναῖοι (Wars of the Jews, ii. 16. 3, v. 4. 1), after the ancestor of the race Ἀσαμωναῖος (Antiq. xii. 6. 1, xiv. 16. 4, xvi. 7. 1), not mentioned in the First Book of Maccabees. In the Mishna, Middoth i. 6, they are called בני חשמונאי or בני חשמוני, the latter form in the Cambridge manuscript edited by Lowe. In the Targum of Jonathan on 1 Samuel 2:4 they are בית חשמונאי. For other rabbinical passages, see Levy, Chald. Wörterbuch und Neuhebr. Wörterbuch, under the word חשמונאי.—Wellhausen, Pharisäer und Sadducäer, p. 94, Anm., had ventured the guess that Hasmon may have been the grandfather of Mattathias, and that in 1Ma_2:1 ben chashmon may have stood in place of τοῦ Συμεών.
[253] 1Ma_14:27; 1Ma_14:48-49.
The legitimizing on the part of the people was soon followed by recognition on the part of the Romans. Just about the time when that popular decree was issued, Simon sent an embassy, under the leadership of Numenius, to Rome, which carried as a present a golden shield weighing a thousand minas, and treated about the renewal of the covenant. The embassy was courteously received by the senate, and obtained a decree of senate, which guaranteed to the Jews unrestricted possession of their own territory. Information regarding the contents of the decree of senate was sent to the kings of Egypt, Syria, Pergamum, Cappadocia, and Parthia, and to many of the smaller independent states and communes of Greece and Asia Minor; while, at the same time, they were charged to deliver up to the Jewish high priest any evil-doers who might have fled to them from Palestine.[254] The terms of the decree of senate is given us probably in the Senatus consultus communicated by Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 8. 5, which Josephus, however, assigns to the time of Hyrcanus II. The relations presupposed in this document are precisely the same as those of 1Ma_14:24; 1Ma_15:15-24 : Jewish ambassadors, of whom one is named Numenius, carried as a present a golden shield, with a request for the renewal of the covenant; and the senate concluded in consequence of this to insist upon the autonomous cities and kings respecting the integrity of the Jewish territory. The session of senate referred to took place, according to Josephus, εἰδοῖς Δεκεμβρίαις, that is, on the 13th December, under the presidency of the praetor Lucius Valerius. This president may possibly be the same as “Consul Lucius,” who, according to 1Ma_15:16, sent out the circular letter to the kings and cities.[255] It is, however, also possible that by this term is intended L. Calpurnius Piso, one of the consuls for B.C. 139, who, according to the correct reading of Valerius Max. i. 3. 2, has the praenomen, not of Cneius, but of Lucius.[256] In any case, the arrival of the Jewish ambassadors at Rome must be assigned to B.C. 139, for they returned to Palestine in the Seleucid year 174, that is, B.C. 139-138 (1Ma_15:10; 1Ma_15:15). Without doubt, therefore, the statement of Valerius Maximus about the establishment of a Jewish propaganda at Rome in B.C. 139 has reference to the proceedings of these ambassadors.[257]
[254] Compare generally, 1Ma_14:24; 1Ma_15:15-24.—The First Book of Maccabees speaks as if the Romans had even previously, of their own accord, addressed a letter to the Jews about the renewal of the covenant (1Ma_14:16 ff.). This is scarcely historical.—According to 1Ma_14:24 compared with 14:25 ff., it must be assumed that the embassy had already gone away before the popular decree of 18th Elul of the Seleucid year 172, or September B.C. 141. This is hardly conceivable, since it did not return before the Seleucid year 174, or B.C. 139-138 (1Ma_15:10; 1Ma_15:15). Perhaps the author had by anticipation inserted the account of the starting of the embassy before that of the popular decree, because in consequence of the incorrect version of the popular decree (1Ma_14:40) he was led to regard it as the result of that embassy.—It is also to be observed that the list of states to which the Roman circular letter was addressed (1Ma_15:16; 1Ma_15:22-23) corresponds exactly to the state of matters at that time. For all the little separate states and communes which are named alongside of the kings of Egypt, Syria, Pergamum, Cappadocia, and Parthia, were at that time, in fact, subject neither to the Romans nor to any of these kings. See the proof of this in Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. i., 2 Aufl. 1881, p. 333 ff., and elsewhere; also Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, iii. 1 (1887), p. 670.
[255] So Mendelssohn (in the work referred to in the next note), although he assumes that in consequence of translation into Hebrew, and from Hebrew again into Greek, the word “praetor” was erroneously changed into “consul.”
[256] So Ritschl and others.—The identity of the Senatus consultus in Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 8. 5, with that occasioned by Simon’s embassy, was admitted by Ewald, History of Israel, iv. 336, and Grimm, Exegetisches Handbuch on 1 Macc. p. 226 f., and independently of them also by Mendelssohn; and in this opinion most moderns, with the exception of Mommsen, agree. In consequence of Mendelssohn’s researches on this question and on matters related thereto, a whole literature has sprung up in the years 1873-1877. See Mendelssohn, De senati consulti Romanorum ab Josepho Antiq. xiv. 8. 5 relati temporibus, Lips. 1873, incorporated in Ritschl’s Acta societatis philologae Lipsiensis, t. v. Lips. 1875.—Ritschl, Eine Berichtigung der republicanischen Consularfasten, a contribution to the history of the Roman-Jewish international relations, in the Rhein. Museum, Bd. xxviii. of 1883, pp. 586-614.—Ritschl, Nachtrag (appendix to preceding) in Rhein. Museum, Bd. xxix. of 1874, p. 337 ff.—Grimm on 1 Maccabees 8 and 1Ma_15:16-21, according to the researches of Mommsen and Ritschl in Zeitschrift für wissenschaft. Theologie, 1874, pp. 231-238.—Lange in Bursian’s Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der classic. Alterthumswissenschaft, Bd. i. for 1873, pp. 872-876.—Mommsen, Der Senatsbeschluss bei Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 8. 5, in Hermes, Bd. ix. 1875, pp. 281-291.—Mendelssohn and Ritschl, Nochmals der römische Senatsbeschluss bei Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 8. 5, in Rhein. Museum, Bd. xxx. of 1875, pp. 419-435.—Keil, Comm. über die Bücher der Makkabäer, 1875, p. 239 ff.—Wieseler, Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1875, p. 524 ff.—Grimm, Die neuesten Verhandlungen über den “Consul Lucius,” 1 Makk. 15:16, in Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theol., 1876, pp. 121-132.—Wieseler, Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1877, pp. 281-290.
[257] Valerius Maximus, i. 3. 2: “Idem (viz. the praetor Hispalus) Judaeos, qui Sabazi Jovis cultu Romanos inficere mores conati erant, repetere domos suas coegit.” Compare in addition, Div. ii. vol ii. p. 233 f.
Meanwhile the government of Simon seems not to have been going on so smoothly as it had hitherto. He became once more involved in Syrian affairs. Just about this time Demetrius II. had been temporarily withdrawn from the scene of Syrian politics. He had allowed himself to be entangled in a tedious war with the Parthian king Mithridates I., which ended by Demetrius being taken prisoner by the Parthians in B.C. 138.[258] In place of Demetrius, his father Antiochus VII. Sidetes now took up the struggle against Trypho. Like all Syrian pretenders, who had first of all to win their throne by conquest, Antiochus hasted to secure the aid of the Jews by flattering promises. He had heard in Rhodes of the imprisonment of Demetrius. Even before his landing on the Syro-Phoenician coasts, “from the islands of the sea” he wrote a letter to Simon, in which he confirmed to him all the privileges granted by former kings, and expressly gave him the right of coining money.[259] Soon thereafter, in the Seleucid year 174, or B.C. 139-138 (1Ma_15:10), Antiochus landed in Syria, and quickly gained the victory over Trypho. The latter was obliged to fly to Dora, the strong fortress on the Phoenician coast, and was there besieged by Antiochus.[260] Trypho, indeed, succeeded in effecting his escape from that place. He fled by Ptolemais[261] and Orthosias[262] to Apamea. But there he was again besieged, and in the siege lost his life.[263]
[258] 1Ma_14:1-3. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5. 11. Appian, Syr. c. 67. Justin, xxxvi. 1, xxxviii. 9. Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, i. 255 sq. Syncellus, ed. Dindorf, i. 554. On the chronology, see above, page 176.—Almost all the sources give the name of the Parthian king as Arsaces, which, according to Strabo, xv. 1. 36, p. 702, and Justin, xli. 5, was a name common to all the Parthian kings. But according to Justin, xxxviii. 9, Demetrius was taken prisoner by the predecessor of that Phraates who afterwards set him free again. But the predecessor of Phraates was, according to Justin, xli. 6, xiii. 1, Mithridates I.
[259] 1Ma_15:1-9.—An explanation of the ἀπὸ τῶν νήσων τῆς θαλάσσης of 1Ma_15:1 is supplied by Appian, Syr. c. 68: πυθόμενος ἐν Ῥόδῳ περὶ τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας.
[260] 1Ma_15:10-14. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 7. 1-2.—On Dora, see Div. ii. vol. i. p. 87.
[261] Charax, in Stephen of Byzantium under the word Δῶρος. On this see Müller, Fragmenta hist. graec. iii. 644, n. 40.
[262] 1Ma_15:37.—Orthosias lies north of Tripoli, on the Phoenician coast. See Ritter, Erdkunde, xvii. 1. 805 ff.; Winer, RWB. under word “Orthosias”; Kneucker in Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, iv. 370 f.
[263] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 7. 2.—Compare also Appian, Syr. 68, and Strabo, xiv. 5. 2, p. 668. The latter says of Trypho: τοῦτον μὲν οὖν Ἀντίοχος ὁ Δημητρίου κατακλείσας εἴς τι χωρίον ἠνάγκασε διεργάσασθαι τὀ σῶμα.
No sooner had Antiochus gained some advantage over Trypho than he assumed another attitude toward the Jews. Even during the siege of Dora, Simon sent him two thousand auxiliary troops, and besides, silver and gold and weapons for their equipment. But Antiochus declined to accept what was offered, repudiated all his former promises, and sent one of his confidants, Athenobius, to Jerusalem in order to obtain from Simon the surrender of the conquered cities of Joppa and Gazara and the citadel of Jerusalem, as well as of all places outside of Judea that had been taken possession of by the Jews. If Simon should be unwilling to restore them, then he was to pay for them altogether the sum of a thousand talents, to be, as it was made to appear, once for all the sum of acquittance. The demands were justified by the plea that for their conquests the Jews had not been able to show any legal title. But Simon refused to yield to these terms, and declared that he would pay only one hundred talents. With this answer Athenobius returned to the king.[264]
[264] 1Ma_15:25-36. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 7. 2-3.
Antiochus had resolved to enforce his claims by violent measures. While he himself was still engaged in conflict with Trypho, he appointed his general Kendebäus to conduct the campaign against Simon. Kendebäus made Jamnia his headquarters, fortified Kedron,—a place not otherwise known, probably in the neighbourhood of Jamnia,—and made raids upon Judea.[265] Simon was prevented by his age from personally taking the field. He sent, therefore, his sons Judas and John with an army against Kendebäus. Both justified the confidence placed in them by their father. In a decisive engagement Kendebäus was utterly defeated. When Judas was wounded, John undertook the pursuit, and chased the enemy to Kedron and down into the territory of Asbdod. He returned as conqueror to Jerusalem.[266]
[265] 1Ma_15:38-41. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 7. 3.—Κενδεβαῖος as well as Κανδυβεύς is from the town Κάνδυβα in Lycia; Stephen of Byzantium on the word; Pliny, IIist. nat. v. 101. Benndorf and Niemann, Reisen in Lykien und Karien, 1884, p, 133.
[266] 1Ma_16:1-10. Josephus, l.c.
So long as Simon lived, the attack was not repeated on the part of Antiochus.
It thus seemed as if Simon were to be allowed to end his days in peace. But it was not so to be. Like all his brothers, he too died a violent death. His own son-in-law Ptolemy, who was military commander over the plain of Jericho, entertained bold and ambitious schemes. He wished to secure to himself the supreme power, and so plotted by what stratagem he could put Simon and his sons out of the way. When, therefore, in the month Shebat of the Seleucid year 177, that is, in February B.C. 135 (1Ma_16:14), Simon, on a tour of inspection through the cities of the land, visited Ptolemy in the fortress of Dok near Jericho, Ptolemy made a great feast, during which he had Simon and his two sons who were with him, Mattathias and Judas, treacherously murdered.[267]
[267] 1Ma_16:11-17; Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 7. 4.—Δώκ, 1Ma_16:15, is in any case identical with the Δαγών of Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 8. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 2. 3. The name is still retained in that of the fountain Ain ed-Duk, north of Jericho, on the border of the mountain land, in a position very suitable as the site of a fortress. See Robinson, Bibl. Researches in Palestine, vol. ii. 309. Bitter, Erdkunde, xv. 1. 460; English translation, vol. iii. 18, 35. Raumer, Palästina, p. 184. Mühlau in Riehm’s Wörterbuch, art. “Doch.” Guérin, Samarie, i. 218-222. The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, iii. 173, 190, 209, and the large English Map, Sheet xviii.
Thus was the last of the sons of Mattathias gathered unto his fathers.