Chapter Ten

The accession of Alexander and his rival Demetrius’s overtures to the Jews, who received great privileges (1 Macc 10:1-14). Alexander’s gifts to Jonathan: the high priesthood, a purple robe, and a golden crown (1 Macc 10:15-21). New promises of Demetrius to the Jews, which failed to earn their trust (1 Macc 10:22-47). Alexander’s victory, the death of Demetrius, the alliance with the Egyptian king, the favor of both kings toward Jonathan (1 Macc 10:43-66). Jonathan’s clash with Apollonius, the general of Demetrius, the defeat of the latter, and new honors from Alexander (cf. Antt. XIII, 2, 1–3 and following) (1 Macc 10:67-89).

1 Maccabees 10:1. In the one hundred and sixtieth year Alexander, the son of Antiochus Epiphanes, came forward and seized Ptolemais; and they received him, and he reigned there. “In the 160th year” (Seleucid era), i.e., 152 BC. Alexander is called here ο του Αντίοχου — “son of Antiochus.” According to Liv. Epit. 52, he was homo ignotus et incertae stirpis, and according to Diodorus (in Muller, Fragm. hist. Graec. ll praef. p. XII, n. 14), there lived in Smyrna a boy by the name of Balas, who closely resembled the deceased king Antiochus Eupator and was of the same age as he, and who presented himself as the son of Antiochus Epiphanes, though he was in reality of low birth (cf. Ios. Antt. XIII, 4, 8 — Αλεξανδρος ο Βαλας λεγόμενος). This pretended son of Antiochus Epiphanes was put forward as a claimant to the Syrian crown by Attalus II, king of Pergamum, who — through Heraclides, the former treasurer under Antiochus Epiphanes — presented the young man along with a certain girl, Laodice (an actual or supposed daughter of Antiochus Epiphanes), to the Roman Senate, in order to gain weight and force for their supposed claims to the Syrian throne by having them recognized there as children of Antiochus and securing assistance. After that, Attalus of Pergamum, with the help of Ptolemy of Egypt and Ariarathes of Cappadocia, raised a special army for Alexander, with which Alexander marched against Demetrius, who had become hateful both to the aforementioned kings for his constant intrigues and warlike enterprises, and to his own subjects for his arrogance and negligence in the conduct of affairs (Jos. Fl. Antt. XIII, 2, 1; cf. Polib. Hist. XXXIII, 14 and 16, 7–14; Justin XXXV, 1; Appian Syr. 67). Alexander seized Ptolemais — according to Josephus — εκ προδοσίας των ενδοθεν στρατιωτών (through the treachery of soldiers within).

1 Maccabees 10:2–3. When King Demetrius heard of it, he gathered a very large army and went out against him to make war. And Demetrius sent letters to Jonathan with peaceful proposals, as if wishing to exalt him, “To exalt...” μεγαλύνειν — not in the sense of “to praise” or “to flatter,” but precisely “to elevate with great power and princely dignity.”

1 Maccabees 10:4–6. for he said: let us make haste to make peace with him before he makes peace with Alexander against us; otherwise he will remember all the harm we have done against him and his brothers and his people. And he gave him authority to gather troops and to prepare weapons, so that he might be his ally, and ordered the hostages held in the citadel to be handed over to him. Although Bacchides had, some time before this, concluded a peace with Jonathan, that peace was more like a suspension of military action — a truce — and if it had not yet been reviewed and confirmed by the king himself, it could obviously now be proposed again on terms that were more advantageous for Jonathan and more solid for Demetrius.

1 Maccabees 10:7–8. Jonathan came to Jerusalem and read the letters aloud before all the people and those in the citadel; and they were all seized with great fear when they heard that the king had given him authority to gather troops; The authority granted to Jonathan “to gather troops” and so on threw everyone into great fear — not only the Syrian garrison but also the city’s inhabitants: the pro-pagan party, which had held some influence in Jerusalem, was afraid of Jonathan’s vengeance; the faithful Jews too may have been alarmed at the prospect of a new war, and in any case by the fact that the Syrian garrison would not leave Jerusalem peacefully and Jonathan would have to drive it out by force.

1 Maccabees 10:9–11. And those in the citadel released the hostages to Jonathan, and he returned them to their parents. And Jonathan settled in Jerusalem and began to build and restore the city, and told those carrying out the work to build the walls and around Mount Zion with squared stones for strength — and they did so. “The walls and around Mount Zion.” — τα τείχη καί το ορός Σιων — not simply “walls around Zion,” but τα τείχη, i.e., the city walls — in which, since the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (I, 33), the City of David (Zion) had not been reckoned, having been turned into a citadel (acra) — and then separately τό ορός Σιων — Mount Zion, i.e., walls around Mount Zion.

1 Maccabees 10:12. Then the foreigners who were in the fortresses that Bacchides had built fled: “The foreigners who were in the fortresses...” — these appear to be not the soldiers of the Syrian garrison but specifically foreigners (αλλογενείς), non-Jews who had settled in those fortresses.

1 Maccabees 10:13–18. each left his place and went away to his own land. Only in Beth-zur there remained some of those who had forsaken the law and commandments, for it served as a refuge for them. And King Alexander heard of the promises that Demetrius had sent to Jonathan, and they told him of the wars and brave deeds that Jonathan and his brothers had accomplished, and of the hardships they had endured. Then he said: shall we find another such man as this? Let us make him our friend and ally. And he wrote and sent him a letter in these words: “King Alexander to his brother Jonathan — greetings. Alexander calls Jonathan “brother” here as a sign of special brotherly disposition and friendship toward him. — “Greetings...” χαίρειν — corresponding to the Hebrew... — the customary salutation at the beginning of letters — is mentioned not only in our book but also in the New Testament (Acts 15:23; Jas 1:1).

1 Maccabees 10:19. We have heard of you, that you are a man mighty in strength and worthy to be our friend. “We have heard...” — the plural, in which royal persons customarily speak of themselves even today in decrees and letters, though there are also cases where the singular is used (2 Macc 9:20 and following; Ezra 4:8-22 and following; Dan 3:98 and following; Dan 4:1 and following; Dan 6:25 and following).

1 Maccabees 10:20. Therefore we appoint you this day as high priest of your people; and you shall be called the king’s friend (he sent him a purple robe and a golden crown) and you shall take our side and maintain friendship with us. The high priesthood, according to the Law of Moses, was hereditary, and the succession was determined by the right of primogeniture, so that the appointment of a high priest by secular authority was unthinkable. But with the introduction of royal power, the high priesthood came into a subordinate relationship to the king, so that Solomon had already deposed Abiathar for treason (1 Kgs 2:26-27), though without violating the lawful right of succession. At that time there stood beside Abiathar another co-equal high priest of the line of Eleazar — Zadok, and through the removal of the former it was achieved that the dual high-priestly authority of the Eleazarites and Ithamarites, which had become entrenched from the anarchic period of the Judges, was brought to an end, and a definite and more lawful order restored. This order — the inheritance of the high priesthood in one specific family, that of Zadok — continued not only until the Babylonian Captivity, but beyond it — until the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, without any particularly sharp violations or interventions by the secular power. Such interference and encroachment on this central point of theocratic religion on the part of secular authority begins, in fact, with the degeneration of the high priesthood itself. Thus, after Alexander the Great, when the Hellenistic-pagan way of life was spreading ever more widely even within Judaism and finding adherents within the very high-priestly family, it became possible for the pro-Greek Jason to seek the office of high priest for money from Antiochus Epiphanes (2 Macc 4:7 and following), and from this it was not far to the point where pagan kings — the masters of Judea — took into their own hands the right to appoint high priests at their own discretion, determined now by political ends, now by crudely self-interested ones such as improving their finances; in the best case this right was merely one of confirming and recognizing those who came to the high priesthood by succession. After the death of Alcimus (IX:56), whom Antiochus Eupator had forced on the Jews (see on VII:5), the position of high priest remained vacant for 7 years. Now Alexander makes use of this right of his predecessors and summons Jonathan to the high priesthood. And Jonathan could accept this office, since from the house of Jeshua, which had exercised the high-priestly ministry since the time of the Captivity, there was now — after the murder of Onias III and the departure of his son to Egypt (cf. Ios. Ann. XIII, 3, 1) — no other lawful successor. The sole such successor was Jonathan. — The translation of verse 20 is rendered more faithfully in the Slavonic than in the Russian text, preserving the infinitives in dependence on “we appoint”: καθεστακαμεν… καί φρονείν… καί συντηρείν — “we have appointed... to be called the king’s friend, and to hold our side, and to maintain friendship...” — The purple robe and golden crown — proper signs of royal dignity — were frequently given by kings, as a mark of special favor and goodwill, to highly placed and most distinguished persons (cf. Esth 8:15, and also in our book X:62, 64, XI:58 and 2 Macc 4:38).

1 Maccabees 10:21. And Jonathan put on the sacred vestments in the seventh month of the one hundred and sixtieth year, at the Festival of Tabernacles, and he gathered an army and prepared many weapons. What the Maccabees had been unable to achieve through all their victorious exploits — the freedom of the people from the Syrian yoke and independent self-government — all this came about completely unexpectedly, thanks to the dispute over the succession to the throne that was flaring up in Syria. A vivid expression of this was Jonathan’s investiture with the dignity of high priest and simultaneously with the marks of royal distinction. The mood of the people and the state of affairs fitted this news as well as could be. Jonathan had only just gained the undivided sympathy of the people as a leader who had won major successes from his skillful use of Demetrius’s offers, which had enabled him to renovate the holy city and clear it for the first time of its Syrian garrison. He was fully worthy of the new office both by his lineage and by the rights that had opened before him; it was welcomed too as the much-desired end of the prolonged seven-year vacancy of the high-priestly see, which had wearied everyone with the wait for a worthy candidate; finally, the very timing of Jonathan’s appointment — for the Festival of Tabernacles — caused his appearance in this dignity to be greeted with joy, without which for so many years the great Day of Atonement, which preceded the said festival, had passed with the deep sorrow of the people’s consciousness, as a day of unresolved repentance. All of this was evidently the crowning triumph not only of Jonathan but, in his person, of the triumph of the cause he had inherited from Mattathias and Judas — a cause which, through the unexpected convergence of so many favorable circumstances, had become the triumph of the whole people, the triumph of their freedom — brilliant, complete, both religious and political.

1 Maccabees 10:22–24. And Demetrius heard of this and was grieved and said: what have we done, that Alexander has gotten ahead of us in making friendship with the Jews to strengthen himself? I too will write them words of encouragement, of honor, and of promises, so that they may help me. “Words of encouragement, of honor, and of promises...” — a very unsatisfactory rendering of Demetrius’s meaning, more accurately and faithfully expressed in the Slavonic text: “words of entreaty (παρακλήσεως) and of elevation (καί ύψους) and gifts (καί δωμάτων) ...” — “Words of entreaty” — i.e., encouraging, consoling words. “Of elevation” — i.e., not merely praising them in words, but actually elevating their position in the kingdom by granting greater rights. “And gifts...” — not promises, even though in practice this was only a promise.

1 Maccabees 10:25. And he sent them a letter in these words: “King Demetrius to the Jewish people — greetings. King Demetrius addresses his letter not to Jonathan, as Alexander did, but to “the Jewish people.” This is probably explained by the fact that he no longer counted on Jonathan personally preferring him and retained hope only in the success of his overtures among the more credulous hearts of the people. That hope is immediately apparent in his letter, which he begins with ingratiating expressions of gratitude for their proven loyalty and steadfastness toward him. He then promises the people every possible privilege and gift. But these promises, which on their reverse side were merely a long list of the most extreme burdens imposed on the Jews by taxes and levies over the preceding decades, showed more clearly how oppressive their servitude had been and how hateful their oppressors deserved to be. On the other hand, most of these new promises and privileges were simply the removal of what would by now have been unthinkable abuses of Syrian power in any case: such as restoring to Jerusalem its sacred character, returning the legitimate use of sacred tithes and temple collections, which had hitherto gone into the king’s pocket, and so on. There are also undeniably generous concessions by Demetrius to the Jewish people, but from the whole tone in which they are offered one could not help noticing that all these apparently brilliant proposals, inspired more by harsh necessity, depended heavily on the still unresolved and doubtful fate of Demetrius, whom the people had reason not to trust — both because of his personal two-faced character and in general.

1 Maccabees 10:26–27. We have heard and rejoiced that you keep our covenants, remain in friendship with us, and have not gone over to our enemies. Continue now to maintain faithfulness to us, and we will repay you for what you do for us: “What you do for us...” — more precisely in the Slavonic: “what you do with us.” The Greek ποιείν μετά τίνος is a translation of the Hebrew... — ordinarily in the sense of doing something pleasant for someone, as in Ps 125:3: “the Lord has dealt greatly with us...” (cf. Ruth 2:11 and Ps 107:21 according to the LXX). — In Russian a similar construction exists to express an unpleasant act done by someone: “what have you done to me?” and so on.

1 Maccabees 10:28–29. we will grant you many exemptions and give you gifts. And now I release and exempt all the Jews from tribute and from the salt tax and from the crown tax; “The salt tax...” — on salt extracted in large quantities from the waters of the Dead Sea. — “...The crown tax,” i.e., on the golden garlands that were customarily sent as marks of honor by independent kings and free cities to the rulers of other cities (cf. XIII:37; 2 Macc 14:4); this is the so-called “crown levy” — στεφανίτης φόρος (aurum coronarium), mentioned by Cicero (In Pison. c. 37) and in other places in our book (XI:35; XIII:39).

1 Maccabees 10:30. and as for the third part of the grain-tax and the half of the fruit-tax that is due to me, I cancel the taking thereof from the land of Judea and from the three districts added to it from Samaria and Galilee, from this day forward and forever. This entire verse is clearer and more precise in the Slavonic rendering: “and that which instead of the third part of the grain... is due to me to take...” — i.e., arranging the words correctly by sense, we get: τού επιβάλλοντος μοι λαβείν αντί τού τρίτου... — “and that which is due to me (i.e., the money) in place of the third part of the grain...” and so on. — Here, therefore, it is redemption money that is meant, not a tax on one-third of the grain, as some thought who placed this verse in close connection with the preceding one, specifically with the expression άπο της τιμής (“from the tax on...”). This kind of levy was so burdensome that only the most fertile land could bear it. — “From the three districts added to it from Samaria and Galilee...” These three districts are named specifically in XI, 34: Apherema, Lydda, and Ramathem (cf. verse 38). The addition of “and Galilee” to “from Samaria” presents a difficulty, and it probably needs to be deleted as an error inconsistent with historical reality. Even if the geographical location of Apherema and Ramathem cannot be determined exactly, it is beyond doubt that no district from Galilee was then attached to Judea, since both these countries were spatially separated from each other by all of Samaria in between. However, some commentators find it plausible that Galilee is mentioned here as a land entirely distinct from Samaria and from the districts detached from Samaria and added to Judea, reading this passage (with a comma after “Samaria”) thus: “(I cancel the taking thereof) from the land of Judea and from the three districts attached to it from Samaria, and from Galilee.” Other commentators explain the addition of καί της Γαλιλαίας by supposing that the writer may have had in mind Demetrius’s promise to cede Ptolemais with its district as a gift to the Jerusalem sanctuary (verse 39). It is also possible to explain this addition by the writer’s view that Samaria and Galilee formed one whole, by virtue of which — although the distant districts constituted properly a part of Samaria — the writer presents them as part of the whole, i.e., Samaria and Galilee together. The occasion for attaching the three districts from Samaria to Judea is not more precisely known.

1 Maccabees 10:31. And let Jerusalem be holy and free, along with its surrounding area, its tithes and its revenues. “Let Jerusalem be holy...” In the edict of Antiochus the Great, according to Ios. Ann. XII, 3, 4, what was to ensure the sacred character of the city is enumerated in more detail: no pagan and no foreigner (αλλοφύλω) was permitted to enter the part of the temple closed to them, nor was any ritually impure Jew allowed to do so; furthermore, no meat or hides of unclean animals were permitted to be brought into the city, and only animals prescribed by the Law of Moses might be offered in sacrifice. The mention of the “liberation” of the tithes and revenues of the temple itself implies that up to this point these too had been subject to taxes going into the royal treasury, cf. 2 Macc 11:3 — “like other pagan temples.”

1 Maccabees 10:32–33. I also grant authority over the citadel of Jerusalem and give the high priest the right to place in it men of his own choosing to guard it; and every person from among the Jews taken captive from the land of Judea anywhere in my kingdom I set free without payment: let all be exempt from taxes on their persons and on their cattle. “And every person from among the Jews...” — more precisely in the Slavonic: “and every soul of the Jews...” — πασαν ψυχήν Ιουδαίων, i.e., man and woman, young and old...

1 Maccabees 10:34. All festivals and Sabbaths and new moons and appointed days — three days before a festival and three days after a festival — all these days shall be days of exemption and freedom for all Jews throughout my kingdom. “Three days before a festival and three days after a festival...” — the time needed for the festival journey there and back.

1 Maccabees 10:35–39. No one shall have the right to oppress or burden any of them in any matter. And let up to thirty thousand men from among the Jews be enrolled in the royal forces — they shall be given wages on the same terms as all the royal forces. And some of them shall be placed in charge of the great strongholds of the king; some of them shall also be placed over the affairs of the kingdom that require trustworthiness; their overseers and commanders shall be from their own people, and they shall live according to their own laws, as the king has commanded in the land of Judea. And the three districts that have been annexed to Judea from the region of Samaria shall remain annexed to Judea so as to be counted and subject as one, and shall not come under any other authority than that of the high priest. Ptolemais with its surrounding area I give as a gift to the sanctuary in Jerusalem to cover the expenses needed for the sanctuary; Demetrius gives Jerusalem Ptolemais, which was already in the hands of King Alexander. A crafty gift — to give what has already been taken away, in order to take it back — first by the hands of others, and then by his own. The calculation here was in any case to entice the Jews to take up arms against Alexander.

1 Maccabees 10:40–42. And I will give fifteen thousand shekels of silver annually from the royal revenues from the appropriate places. And all the surplus that those in charge of the revenues had not paid in, as in former years, shall henceforth be paid for the work of the temple. In addition, the five thousand shekels of silver that had been taken from the income of the sanctuary from the annual collection — those too are given up as belonging to the officiating priests. Allocations for the needs of the temple had been made previously by the Persian kings Darius Hystaspes and Artaxerxes I (Ezra 6:9 and following; Ezra 8:25), as well as by Ptolemy Philadelphus and Antiochus the Great (Ios. Antt. XII, 2, 7; III, 3) and Seleucus Philopator — according to 2 Macc 3:3. — “And all the surplus that those in charge of the revenues had not paid, as in former years...” — i.e., also that larger amount (τω πλεονάζον) which it had been established to give to the temple in the times of the Persians, Ptolemies, and Seleucids before Antiochus Epiphanes, and which since the time of that Antiochus those in charge of the revenues (οι από των χρειών, cf. XII, 45 and XIII, 37) had stopped paying as it had been paid in former years... — “For the work of the temple...” — τα εργα τού οίκου — in the sense of 2 Chr 35:2; Neh 10:33 and following.

1 Maccabees 10:43. And all who take refuge in the temple of Jerusalem and in all its surroundings on account of royal obligations or any other matter shall be free with everything that belongs to them in my kingdom. Here the temple of Jerusalem with all its surroundings is promised the right of asylum for insolvent debtors. According to the Law of Moses, the right of asylum was granted only to accidental killers and in cities of refuge, and by ancient custom — at the altar of the Tabernacle or temple (Exod 27:2; 1 Kgs 1:50), but not in the temple and its precincts in general, and not for insolvent debtors. This extension of the right of asylum is of Greek origin (Plutarch. de vitando aere al. c. 3). — “Shall be free with everything that belongs to them in my kingdom...” — i.e., nothing of their property shall be either confiscated or taxed on this account.

1 Maccabees 10:44–45. And for the building and restoration of the sanctuary the costs shall be met from the royal revenues. And for the building of the walls of Jerusalem and their fortification all around — the costs shall be met from the royal revenues, as also for the building of walls in Judea. “For the building of walls in Judea...” — i.e., in the other fortified places of the land. The Slavonic translation of the last two verses is more precise and closer to the original, preserving its infinitives: “to build and to restore the works of the holy place... and to build the walls of Jerusalem, and to fortify them all around... and to build walls in Judea” — for all of this “the expenses shall be given from the royal treasury (collection)...” (44–45). Finding Demetrius’s promises too generous, some scholars have cast doubt on the very authenticity of his letter. But one cannot fail to see that all these apparently generous promises are given so calculatedly that they in no way touch the essential interests and the supreme authority of the king in Judea. Thus, first, although he grants the high priest authority over the citadel of Jerusalem and the three districts annexed to Judea (verses 32, 38) — from which it might appear that all of Judea was to be subject to the high priest’s authority — he does not state this explicitly, and likewise says not a word about the order of succession to the office of high priest, the right to appoint to which the Syrian kings had claimed for themselves since Antiochus Epiphanes, so that the high priest, when appointed by the king or confirmed in his appointment by him, was no more than the Syrian king’s viceroy. Furthermore — although the high priest is given the right to govern the citadel of Jerusalem at his own discretion — the royal letter says nothing about withdrawing Syrian garrisons from the remaining Jewish fortresses. The privileges declared in case Jews were to join the royal forces grant nothing exceptional compared with all the rest of the king’s subjects. — Second, the king’s other promises concern mainly the unimpeded practice of the Jewish religion and the payment of annual subsidies for the needs of the temple. But Jews had both under the Persians, Ptolemies, and early Seleucids, and they were taken away only under Antiochus Epiphanes. The promise to subsidize from the treasury the construction of the walls of Jerusalem and the other fortresses of Judea was a kind of “gift of the Danaans,” by means of which the king could more completely bring Judea under his power by placing all the Jewish fortresses under Syrian garrisons and locking Jewish detachments in the other cities of the province. — Finally, third, only freedom from the heavy taxes and levies remains as genuine evidence of royal goodwill, preferable to that shown all other subjects and conveying to the Jews the rights and standing of the king’s allies; but even this was in large measure dependent on whether Demetrius truly intended to keep all these promises, or whether they were, like his praises of their loyalty at the beginning of the letter, mere captatio benevolentiae?...

1 Maccabees 10:46–47. Jonathan and the people, when they heard these words, did not believe them and did not accept them, for they remembered the great calamities that Demetrius had brought on the Israelites, oppressing them cruelly, and they preferred the alliance with Alexander, for he had been the first to make peaceful proposals to them — and they helped him in his wars all his days. As was to be expected, the Jews treated Demetrius’s promises with well-deserved contempt (verses 5, cf. chs. VII–IX) and remained on Alexander’s side. — “For he had been the first to make peaceful proposals to them...” — αρχηγός λόγων ειρηνικών — more precisely in the Slavonic: “because this man had been the initiator of peaceful words for them...” — i.e., first (or leader) not in chronological order, but in terms of worth and authority: “for he was the superior and more generous and more reliable party in his peaceful proposals.” In terms of time, Demetrius had approached Jonathan with peaceful proposals even earlier than Alexander (verses 3 and 6).

1 Maccabees 10:48–50. King Alexander gathered a large army and marched against Demetrius. And the two kings engaged in battle, and the army of Demetrius fled; Alexander pursued him and prevailed, and pressed the battle very hard until the sun went down — and Demetrius fell that day. According to Justin XXXV, 1, 10 and following, the two kings fought two battles, of which only the second and decisive one is mentioned in our book, as in Josephus. In the first, victory went to Demetrius; in the second as well it had initially been inclining toward him, but — due to an unfortunate incident involving the king (whose horse got stuck in a swamp) — it ended badly for him, and he himself perished. — The length of his reign is determined from a comparison of VII:1 with X:57 — 11 years, probably a bit more, which gave Polybius III, 5, 3 grounds to count 12 years.

1 Maccabees 10:51. After that Alexander sent envoys to Ptolemy, the king of Egypt, with these words: Ptolemy, the king of Egypt, mentioned here is Ptolemy VI Philometor, who reigned from 180 to 145 BC, initially under the regency of his mother. The name of his daughter is given further on — Cleopatra (verse 57), born of his marriage to a sister of the same name.

1 Maccabees 10:52–56. “I have returned to the land of my kingdom and have seated myself on the throne of my fathers, I have taken supreme power, I have crushed Demetrius and have become master of our land. I engaged him in battle and he was defeated by us and by our army, and we have taken the throne of his kingdom. So let us now establish friendship between us, and give me your daughter as a wife, and I will be your son-in-law and I will give gifts to you and to her worthy of you.” And King Ptolemy answered thus: “Happy is the day on which you returned to the land of your fathers and seated yourself on the throne of their kingdom. Now I will fulfill for you what you have written; only come out to meet me at Ptolemais, so that we may see each other, and I will become your father-in-law, as you have said. Ptolemy calls Alexander to a meeting in Ptolemais. Evidently (cf. verse 1), after overcoming Demetrius, he had settled in the capital of the kingdom — Antioch. Ptolemy’s ready consent to become allied by marriage with Alexander had its own self-interested calculations. He hoped by this means to regain his former influence over the affairs of Syria, and in favorable circumstances to recover once more the provinces — Coele-Syria and Phoenicia — that had been lost since the time of Antiochus the Great. Subsequent events fully confirm these suspicions (ch. XI).

1 Maccabees 10:57. And Ptolemy set out from Egypt, he and his daughter Cleopatra, and came to Ptolemais in the one hundred and sixty-second year. The 162nd year of the Seleucid era — from autumn to autumn of 151–150 BC.

1 Maccabees 10:58–61. King Alexander met him, and he gave him Cleopatra his daughter and celebrated her wedding in Ptolemais with great splendor, as befits kings. King Alexander also wrote to Jonathan, asking him to come out to meet him. And Jonathan went to Ptolemais with pomp, presented himself to both kings and gave them and their associates gifts of silver and gold and many other presents, and gained their goodwill. And there gathered against him certain malicious men from among Israel, lawless men, to accuse him; but the king paid no attention to them. “Malicious men... lawless men...” — i.e., those who had fallen away from the Law of Moses.

1 Maccabees 10:62–67. And the king commanded that Jonathan’s garments be removed and that he be clothed in purple — and they did so. And the king seated him beside himself and said to his governors: go out with him into the middle of the city and make a proclamation that no one should dare bring any accusation against him in any matter and that no one should trouble him in any way. When those who had accused him saw his glory, how he was proclaimed and clothed in purple, they all fled. And the king honored him and enrolled him among the foremost of his friends, and appointed him general and governor. And Jonathan returned to Jerusalem in peace and gladness. But in the one hundred and sixty-fifth year Demetrius, the son of Demetrius, came from Crete to the land of his fathers. The 165th year of the Seleucid era — 147 BC. The Demetrius mentioned here is Demetrius II, surnamed Nicator (App. Syr. c. 67), the elder of the two sons of Demetrius Soter. The latter, at the start of the war with Alexander, had sent them to one of his friends — to the city of Cnidus in Caria with a large treasury, ut belli periculis eximerentur et, si ita fors tulisset, paternae ultioni servarentur (Justin). Receiving word of the great weakening of Syria due to the excessive luxury and negligence of Alexander, Demetrius II judged the moment favorable for asserting his claims to “the land of his fathers,” and with an army assembled for him by the Cretan Lasthenes, landed in Cilicia (Liv. l. c., Just. l. c., Ios. Antt. XIII, 4, 3).

1 Maccabees 10:68. When King Alexander heard of it, he was deeply grieved and returned to Antioch. “He returned to Antioch...” — apparently from Ptolemais (cf. verse 57).

1 Maccabees 10:69. And Demetrius appointed Apollonius as commander, the governor of Coele-Syria — and he gathered a large army and encamped at Jamnia and sent word to Jonathan the high priest, saying: Coele-Syria — Κοίλη Συρία... — in the most immediate sense referred to the low-lying plain between Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon, but sometimes this name was used to encompass Phoenicia and Palestine up to Raphia (in Polybius). It is in this broader sense that “Coele-Syria” is understood here. — Apollonius — apparently the same man who in Polyb. XXXI, 19, 6 and 21, 2 is mentioned as a σύντροφος and friend of Demetrius I during his stay in Rome (probably the son of the Apollonius mentioned in 2 Macc 3:5-7). Hence it is understandable why he so readily declared himself for the new claimant, the son of his friend Demetrius.

1 Maccabees 10:70. You alone exalt yourself against us, while I have been made a laughingstock and brought to shame through you. Why do you set yourself against us in the hills? “I have been made a laughingstock and brought to shame through you...” — that is, by having allowed you all this time to remain on Alexander’s side, whereas I should long since have either brought you into submission to the lawful king (Demetrius II) or destroyed you.

1 Maccabees 10:71–72. If you are confident in your military strength, come down to us on the plain, and there we will test each other, for with me is the army of the cities. Ask and find out who I am and who the others are who help us, and they will tell you: you cannot stand before us, for your fathers were twice put to flight in their own land. “Your fathers were twice put to flight in their own land.” An allusion to two setbacks of the Maccabean period: the first — either V:60 (which, however, did not occur “in their own land”) or II:28, or still better VI:47 and following; the second — IX:6, 18. — If the expression “your fathers” is not understood in the more precise sense of “your ancestors,” then in that case the allusions of Apollonius may have had in mind the two most devastating defeats of the Jews at the hands of the Philistines — one under the high priest Eli, when the ark of the covenant was also captured (1 Sam 4:10), and the other under Saul, when that king himself perished (1 Sam 31).

1 Maccabees 10:73–75. And now you cannot withstand such cavalry and such an army on the plain, where there are no stones, no ravines, no place of refuge. When Jonathan heard these words of Apollonius, he was moved in spirit, and choosing ten thousand men he went out from Jerusalem, and his brother Simon joined him to help him. And he encamped before Joppa; but they would not let him into the city, for there was a garrison of Apollonius in Joppa, and they began to fight against it. Joppa — present-day Jaffa, on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, 2 3/4 geographical miles or 4 1/2 hours’ travel from Jamnia, where Apollonius had encamped (verse 69).

1 Maccabees 10:76–77. Then the frightened inhabitants opened the city to him, and Jonathan seized Joppa. When Apollonius heard of this, he took three thousand cavalry and a large army and marched to Azotus, as if making a passage, but meanwhile he went out onto the plain, for he had a great number of cavalry and was relying on them. On Azotus, see at V:68 — a city in the valley of Shephelah (on the Mediterranean coast) to the south of Joppa.

1 Maccabees 10:78–81. And Jonathan pursued him to Azotus, and the forces joined in battle. Meanwhile Apollonius had left a thousand horsemen hidden in the rear; but Jonathan learned that there was an ambush behind him. And they surrounded his army and shot arrows at the people from morning until evening, but the people held their ground as Jonathan had ordered; and at last the cavalry grew tired. According to Josephus, Jonathan drew up his army in the Roman fashion — as a “tortoise,” which made it nearly invulnerable to arrows and to the enemy’s cavalry. And when that cavalry had grown sufficiently exhausted by futile attacks and had spent its supply of arrows, the “tortoise” opened up and, simultaneously with Simon’s strike from his ambush position, drove the enemy in flight.

1 Maccabees 10:82–83. Then Simon brought forward his army and attacked the detachment, for the cavalry had grown exhausted — and they were routed by him and took to flight. And the cavalry scattered across the plain and fled to Azotus, and entered Beth-dagon, their temple, to find safety. “Beth-dagon...” — Βηθδαγών — 1 Sam 5:2 — “the temple of Dagon,” the chief idol of the Philistines, depicted as half human and half fish (with human head and arms, and a fish body and tail).

1 Maccabees 10:84–86. But Jonathan burned Azotus and the surrounding cities and took their plunder, and he burned the temple of Dagon with those who had fled into it. And those who fell by the sword, together with those burned, numbered up to eight thousand men. Jonathan then moved from there and encamped before Ashkelon; and the inhabitants of the city came out to meet him with great honor. Ashkelon — an ancient Philistine city on the Mediterranean coast, south of Azotus — today only ruins remain (destroyed by the Turks in the 13th century).

1 Maccabees 10:87–89. And Jonathan returned with all who were with him to Jerusalem, bringing much plunder. When King Alexander heard of these events, he honored Jonathan still more and sent him a golden clasp, such as was customarily given to the king’s kinsmen, and gave him Ekron and all its surrounding district as a hereditary possession. On the “golden clasp” see also XI:58 and XIV:44. — Apart from the king’s kinsmen in the strict sense, this distinction was also conferred on others who had distinguished themselves most and enjoyed the king’s special favor, similar to the present-day royal Order of St. Andrew the First-Called. — Ekron — Ακκαρών — one of the five principal Philistine cities, on the border of Judea, on the site of the present-day village of Akir. * * * Notes The Books of Maccabees are translated from the Greek, because they do not exist in the Hebrew text.