to have suffered heavily from his anger.' If the robberies of temples, of which the king was guilty in numerous cases beyond the limits of Palestine also, everywhere created the profoundest revolt, what must have been the agitation of Israel, with its rigid ideas about the unique sanctity of the temple at Jerusalem, and in face of the alliance which the king had contracted with a Menelaus! But Menelaus had now recognised only too clearly that he had against him not alone the party of the strict, but the moderate as well, for these would greatly have preferred a Jason. Accordingly, although his partisans became weaker and weaker, he was necessarily driven to the resolve sooner, if necessary, to suppress the whole Judean system by force, and throw off the last trace of shame, than give up his official position; and soon enough the king was to meet him in this very effort with something more than zeal. In the year 169 B.C. the king had brought to an end a campaign against Egypt, at the close of which, though completely victorious, he was compelled by the ambassadors of various northern kingdoms to surrender against his will almost all the advantages he had gained. He accordingly returned in deep dudgeon to Asia, learned on his way much that was displeasing about the conduct of the Judeans, because he only lent an ear to the apostates, and brooded over new plans for crushing all opposition in a country which he regarded as a possession won with difficulty by his own and his father's exertions, and which he continued to hold without the definite sanction of the Romans. The resistance which he encountered in various ways in Egypt and Palestine only increased his determination to shatter it with one blow. He made preparations, therefore, for a decisive campaign against Egypt, and resolved beforehand, with the aid of the small party which was bound to obey him, to reconstitute Judah entirely after his own views. For this purpose he continued in need of large sums of money, and in the Syrian kingdom matters had now come to such a pass that the sovereign might congratulate himself on having still a portion of his territories and subjects to impoverish and reduce on any pretext in the most unsparing - manner, simply to obtain with the greater speed and security money and other resources. Early in the year 168, therefore, he despatched against Jerusalem, under the command of Apollonius, a powerful army, which took advantage of a sabbath to fall on the defenceless inhabitants. The sale of numerous captives helped to fill the empty treasury of the king. The city of David, on the south, was made into a strong military post,3 while the whole of Jerusalem, after the partly compulsory partly voluntary flight of the stricter party, was transformed into a regular heathen city. Shortly after this there arrived from Antioch the most definite instructions to obliterate throughout the entire country every trace of the ancient religion. Not even circumcision, nor the observance of the sabbath, nor the use of the sacred book of the law, was to be tolerated. The temple at Jerusalem was to be changed into one of Zeus Olympius, that on Gerîzîm to one of Zeus Xenius; the heathen usages and feasts were to be all celebrated, and the inhabitants compelled to participate in them by force. Thus from their very roots did the kings strive to extirpate the ancient deity and spirit of the nation, in order to secure obedient subjects, and, in particular, money for himself! Orders so decided and severe were obeyed, moreover, by not a few besides those who had long been thoroughly heathen in their tone; the party of 1 Cf. in particular also the evidence of the Greek authors cited by Josephus, Contr. Ap. ii. 7, in reference to the plundering of the temple at Jerusalem by this king. 2 Probably the same who has been already mentioned, p. 292. On the meaning of ăкpa, according to the usage of the first book of Maccabees, cf. vol. iii. p. 123 note 5. According to 1 Macc. i. 29-40, iii. 45; the names of the persons concerned are, in accordance with its general practice, given more definitely in 2 Macc. v. 24-26, cf. ver. 22 sq.; but this book does not discriminate with sufficient exactness between the various occasions. In general, the second book of Maccabees proves less satisfactory wherever the first enters more into details.-To this period also must be referred what is stated in the long speech in Jos. Bell. Jud. v. 9, 4, about an attack of Antiochus Epiphanes on Jerusalem, which resulted so disastrously for the people. The attack is there represented as led by the king in person, which points to some wholly different source of information. 5 In 2 Macc. vi. 1 we should follow the 6 Vulgate in reading γέροντα Αντιοχέα (a senator, i.e. an official of Antioch) in place of, or before 'A@ŋvatov. The whole occurrence is also described in 1 Macc. i. 41-64 (cf. in particular the chronology in vv. 20, 29, 54), with the same essential features as in Macc. vi. sq.; but the latter, as usual, elaborates and magnifies many details in oratorical fashion. According to the simple narrative 2 Macc. vi. 2, cf. v. 22 sq., there is not the remotest need to look for the evil cause which Josephus, Ant. xii. 5, 5. refers to, viz. that the Samaritans, out of pure hatred against Judah, had of themselves, in a base letter to Epiphanes, solicited the honour of being allowed to give this name to their temple. Although the letter of the Samaritans and the king's reply are given in this passage with all possible verisimilitude, Josephus has evidently derived the whole account from the untrustworthy source already indicated, p. 48. Moreover, Zeus Xenius is made into Zeus Hellenius, while 2 Macc. correctly intimates that the name was connected with the fondness of the Samaritans for hospitality. the free-minded and the Greeklings seemed completely to have triumphed. All the sacrifices of such venerable custom in the temple entirely ceased, and over the great altar of burnt offerings was constructed a smaller one for the sacrifices to Zeus.' Loudly did the king boast of having for ever exterminated the deity of the Judeans,2 while his whole life showed that he had no real honour for any other of the gods of his subjects, not even for the Hellenic deities for which he was desirous to secure everywhere the highest place. There was but one god, it was known, that he reverenced and feared-the war god of the Romans. The only sanctuaries which he valued, it was known equally well, were strong fortifications. Whoever respected these sanctuaries, and that god of his, or brought him money for the purpose, was highly honoured by him, and was endowed with power and authority, acres and lands. He had certainly secured adherents in Israel who were of necessity entirely devoted to his cause, who were masters of the temple and the whole of Jerusalem, and who could only stand or fall with him. This party of the apostates, it must be confessed, was resolute and powerful enough;5 but how little consideration had the king paid to the real inner forces of this party and of the radical opposition of its antagonist. He kept up an army of spies and wardens, accusers and watchmen, but how little could he protect himself against that spy and accuser whom he could neither seize nor avoid, and whom the strict-minded, 11 Macc. i. 54, iv. 38-54, vi. 7; cf. 2 Macc. vi. 5. This is the frightful abomination' which is purposely not designated more closely in Dan. ix. 27c, xi. 31, xii. 11, cf. viii. 10-12, but to the immeasurable horror of which such prominence is given; and as the book of Daniel was certainly translated into Greek before the time of the Greek translator of the first book of Maccabees, it is not surprising that the latter retains the rendering βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεως, or, more briefly, ẞdéλvyua alone, like Matt. xxiv. 15. The more specific expression the frightful wings of abominations,' Dan. ix. 27, perhaps alludes to the peculiar form which this erection assumed; even to the Greek translator, however, it was obscure. 2 The proud sayings' are often mentioned, and must certainly have been proud enough, Dan. vii. 8, 20, viii. 23, xi. 36. According to 1 Macc. i. 24 he had already begun this line of action two years previously, which in a certain sense may be very true. Nothing won for the king such ill-fame as these insolent 4 speeches; no wonder that they got him the permanent name already explained, p. 293 note 2. This is justly enlarged on with great force in Dan. xi. 36 sq. This is the true meaning of the words in Dan. xi. 38 sq.; ver. 39 runs 'thus does he with the strongholds (cf. vv. 38, 24, 15) as with the strange god; whoso acknowledges (and honours) them, to him he gives much honour,' &c. In this way ver. 39 simply illustrates further what has been said in ver. 38. Whether Mars proper is intended, or the Jupiter Capitolinus, to whom, according to Liv. xli. 20, he began to build a splendid temple at Antioch, is a matter of comparative indifference according to the meaning of the book of Daniel. 5 This even the two first books of Maccabees cannot conceal, and it is equally clear from Dan. ix. 27a, xi. 23, 32, 34, xii. 2, 10, viii. 25. cf. On these éπíσкоTоι Sее 1 Macc. i. 51; 2 Macc. v. 23, and the Psalms of Solomon, xii. whom he so mercilessly persecuted, were better acquainted with and above all reverenced more than he. 2. The Martyrs. The Book of Daniel. The persecutions of the party of the strict now rose rapidly to the fearful height which is only reached in periods of the most passionate excitement. Young children, just circumcised, were torn from their mothers; sacred books, wherever they were found, were burnt. Everywhere insolent wantonness and the wildest cruelty were let loose; often, it may have been, greater excesses were committed by subordinate officers or evil-minded informers than the king desired. The full fury of a mortal religious struggle was enkindled, and martyrs of every rank and both sexes were soon to be counted in crowds. To persecution was added (by the special orders, it was said, of the king himself) wanton contumely. On the transformed altar in the temple swine were offered, the greatest abomination to the feelings of those who were faithful to the law. But in the growing wrath excited by these bitter sufferings, the fidelity of the conscientious gradually learned to hold on with the greater courage, and resist the more indomitably, although individuals were obliged to be silent for a time, and the more spirited fled away into the wilderness. In every great crisis of this kind, however, one essential advantage results when the half-hearted and undecided can no longer maintain their ground through the violence of the situation itself. In this case, the folly of the king and his adherents was amply sufficient to bring about a strongly marked division of the people into two parties only; every iniddle course was rendered impossible, and every petty and obscure endeavour was necessarily for the moment laid to rest. Accordingly, out of the keen hot glow of this period issued the party of the Chasîdîm,3 i.e. the pious, which took its place for the first time as a new power in the age, firmly compacted, and 1 The narrative of these proceedings in 2 Macc. vi. 10-vii. 42 has certainly been freely adorned in an oratorical style, especially in the two long stories of Eleazar with his ninety-nine years, and the seven sons with their mother. But in all essential points it is fairly in harmony with what is related in 1 Macc. i. 55-64 without specific names. Compare also Dan. xi. 33-35, 41, 44, xii. 1, 10. A similar typical narrative of a somewhat later period is found in 2 Macc. xiv. 37-46. 2 According to 1 Macc. i. 53; 2 Macc. vi. 11; Pss. Sol. xvii. 18 sqq. S P. 282. The name ' does not, it is true, occur in the book of Daniel, which is not surprising, as its author belonged himself to this party of the pious, who were only so designated by their opponents. The name of boot occurs, however, with extraordinary frequency in the Psalms of Sol. iv. 9, viii. 28, 40, ix. 6, x. 7, xii. 5, 8, xiii. 9, 11, xiv. 2 (twice), 7, xv. 9, xvii. 18. aspiring with marvellous courage, and it quickly attached to itself, even if at first only by sympathy and silent effort, all the spirits in Israel that were not yet entirely degenerate. 1) Of the deep spiritual struggles of this party, however, which was now for the first time coming forward with a bold front, a much more vivid picture than that supplied us by scattered historical statements is afforded by the works to which it gave birth in the very midst of its severest sufferings. Of these but two have been preserved, by no means long, but very striking. In the little book of the Psalms of Solomon' we possess in all probability a genuine and unadorned product of the age, the simplicity of which renders it all the more effective. The true date and origin of these songs became obscure at a very early period; so that subsequently, as they could not be included in the Davidic Psalter, they were referred to Solomon. Closer investigation, however, leaves no doubt that they did not see the light till later times. They were probably composed soon after the events in the year 170, when the king had occupied and plundered Jerusalem as a hostile city. Moreover, they are certainly the work of a single poet,2 who thus breathes out the sighs of the pious of his day, but whose language and song give us the most eloquent evidence of the deepest feelings of all who shared his aims. They show that the pious did. not then feel courage enough to take on themselves the whole burden of the grave struggle direct against the king;3 but the striving of their soul for deliverance and salvation had reached its utmost strength, their faith and hope their greatest intensity. Amid the ashes of the Messianic hopes, which had Published at last in Fabric. Cod. Pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. pp. 917-72. There are eighteen in all, but certainly Pss. i. and ii., perhaps also vi. and vii., have been improperly divided; and, in general, they still need a regular redaction. They were originally written in Hebrew, but exist now only in a Greek version. According to ii. 1, cf. viii. 1 sqq., Jerusalem had been reduced by a siege. The siege had not, however, been very severe, and cannot have lasted very long, as is clear from the description of the treachery of the nobles, and the stealing in of the conqueror, viii. 18 sqq. To the numerous prisoners there are references in ii. 6, viii. 24, ix. 1, xvii. 23 sq.; and that the conquest of Pompey or Herod is out of the question follows from the prominence given to the way in which the apostates of Israel were the first to stain the temple, i. 8, ii. 3, viii. 12-1. There is a closer allusion also to Epiphanes (the king,' xvii. 22) in the statement that he came from the end of the earth,' viii. 26, namely, from Rome, without any proper right to the succession; cf. Dan. ix. 26a, according to p. 293; and he is still more clearly indicated as the great dragon who would, it was to be hoped, expire in Egypt (Ezek. xxix.), and the presumptuous despot, ii. 29-33; cf. also the Jahrbb. der Bibl. Wiss. vol. xi. p. 215. 2 This may be inferred from many indications; for instance, from the repeated use of the strange expression before the sun,' ii. 13, 14, iv. 21, viii. 8 (in quite a different connection and meaning, however, from the phrase of Koheleth, 'under the sun'). 3 Cf. in particular the clause no one takes the weapons from a mighty one,' v. 4, with the following clauses. |