Chapter Eight

Reports about the Romans that prompted Judas to seek an alliance with Rome (1 Macc 8:1-16). The conclusion of the alliance (1 Macc 8:17-32).

1 Maccabees 8:1–2. Judas heard of the fame of the Romans, that they are mighty and powerful and look favorably on all who come to them, and with all who came to them they made friendship. And that they are mighty and powerful — he was told about their wars and the brave exploits they performed against the Galatians, how they subdued them and made them tributaries; Although the brilliant victory over Nicanor gave the land a respite, it was only for a short time. Everything led one to expect and fear that the Syrian king would endeavor to avenge this defeat and would direct against Judea such an army as would crush by sheer numbers the small band of Judas’s comrades, as had happened the last time under Antiochus Eupator (chapter VI). — In view of this, Judas hastened to make use of the brief interval of peace to conclude an alliance with the Romans, so that through this alliance he might gain powerful protection against the threat of complete enslavement of his people by Syria. He was moved to this step by reports reaching him from all sides about the unparalleled valor of the Romans and their invincibly victorious strength. — “Judas heard of the fame of the Romans...” — more precisely, as in the Slavonic: “Judas hearing the name of the Romans...” (ακούειν τό ὄνομα — as in III:41). — Following the main clause of this verse (“Judas heard...”) come 3 others, setting out the content of the reports about the Romans thematically, and this theme is then developed in more detail by reference to corresponding events (vv. 3–16). — First, the report that the Romans are “mighty and powerful” — δυνατοί ἰσχύϊ, cf. II:42; second, that they “look favorably on all who come to them”; third, that “with all who came to them they made friendship.” — Proceeding to cite the corresponding facts on the first theme, the author repeats it once more for clarity: “and that they are mighty and powerful — (in confirmation of this) he was told...” — “He was told” — διηγήσαντο — implies that before deciding to seek an alliance with the Romans, Judas made careful inquiries about them. Among their “brave exploits,” mention is made first of the subjugation of the Galatians. By these Galatians some understand the Galatians of Asia Minor or Celts, who were organized by Attalus, king of Pergamon, into a special district of Asia Minor called Galatia or Graecogallia, and in 189 BC were subdued by the consul Cn. Manl. Vulso (Liv. XXXVIII, 12, 20 ss. 37 ss.). Others, on the contrary, find that the text speaks here of the cisalpine (on the far side of the Alps) or Italian Gauls, whose cities, wars with Rome, and complete extermination are described by Polybius (II, 14–34). This latter opinion has three arguments in its favor: 1) only these, and not the Asian Gauls, were made tributaries of Rome; 2) these Gauls are mentioned before the Spaniards, whereas the Asian Gauls should have been mentioned later; and 3) Rome’s wars with these Italian Gauls were events that could have been reported to the East earliest of all. To these arguments must be added the fact that Rome spent far greater resources and time in conquering Italian Gaul than in subduing Asian Galatia.

1 Maccabees 8:3. also about what they did in the land of Spain to seize the silver and gold mines there, “In the land of Spain...” — Spain, as is well known, was the chief object of dispute and the arena of conflict during the second Punic War between Rome and Carthage, and after the battle of Zama in 201 BC formally passed from Carthage to Rome; but the final consolidation of this country under Roman rule cost Rome great struggle and many efforts, owing to the freedom-loving character of its inhabitants. Only in 19 BC, with the subjugation of the Cantabri, was the conquest of the entire peninsula completed, so that the Romans at the time of our historian were not yet fully sovereign masters of the whole country.

1 Maccabees 8:4. and with their prudence and steadfastness they gained control over the whole region, even though that region was very far from them, as well as about the kings who came against them from the ends of the earth, and they crushed them and dealt them a great defeat, while the rest pay them tribute every year; By the kings who “came against them (i.e., the Romans) from the ends of the earth...” — it is most likely that we are to understand the Spanish and especially the Carthaginian kings, or simply the chiefs of the various Spanish peoples and commanders, who in antiquity were often called kings.

1 Maccabees 8:5. they also crushed in war and subdued Philip and Perseus, king of the Kittim, and others who had risen against them, Philip mentioned here is Philip III, son of Demetrius II, king of Macedonia from 221 BC; after a long war with the Romans he was utterly defeated by Quinctius Flamininus in 197 BC at the Cynoscephalae hills (in Thessaly) and was forced to conclude a humiliating peace (Liv. XXXI, 5; XXXIII, 1–13, 30; Flor. II, 7). — Perseus, the son and successor of Philip, was defeated in 168 BC by Aemilius Paullus at the battle of Pydna, and died five years later in captivity (Polyb. XXIX, 6 and 7; Liv. XLIV, 40 ff.; XLV, 4 ff.; Flor. II, 12). — “King of the Kittim...” i.e., of Macedonia, see note on I, 1. — “And others who had risen against them...” i.e., probably, the peoples and princes who aided Perseus, such as the Epirotes, Thessalians, Thracians, and Gentians from Illyria.

1 Maccabees 8:6–8. and Antiochus, the great king of Asia, who came out against them in battle with one hundred and twenty elephants, with cavalry and chariots and a very large army, and he was defeated by them; they took him alive and required him and the kings who came after him to pay a large tribute, to give hostages, and to permit partition; and the region of India and Media and Lydia and some of the finest of his provinces, taking them from him, they gave to King Eumenes; The victory over Antiochus the Great is recalled. Antiochus is called “king of Asia” as the ruler of Syria and most of Asia Minor. After the battle of Magnesia (189 BC), all his Asian territories on this side of the Taurus passed to the Romans, who then transferred a portion of these territories (namely, Mysia, Lydia, and Phrygia) to the Pergamene king Eumenes II (Liv. XXXVII, 55; XXXVIII, 39). Nevertheless, even after this the Syrian kings of the Seleucid dynasty did not cease to call themselves “kings of Asia” — probably continuing to press their claims to the lost provinces (cf. 1 Macc 11:13; 2 Macc 3:3). — Antiochus advanced to war against the Romans with 120 elephants. This figure is not in absolute contradiction with Livy’s statement — XXXVII, 39 — that Antiochus had only 54 elephants at the battle of Magnesia. It is well known that a significant defeat of Antiochus had already preceded that battle, and therefore, while it may be accurate that in the final engagement (at Magnesia) the king had 54 elephants, it may equally be true that at the start of the war he had more of them. — Eumenes, the king to whom the Romans gave the best of the territories taken from Antiochus, greatly contributed to the defeat of the latter by throwing his chariots (at the battle of Magnesia) into complete confusion. The statement that Antiochus was at that time taken prisoner (καί ἔλαβον αὐτὸν ζῶντα) is at odds with the accounts of all other classical historians and spread as an exaggeration of Roman glory. The tribute that Antiochus was required to pay after this defeat consisted — according to Polyb. XXI, 15, 4–6 (Liv. XXXVIII, 38) — of 15,000 Euboean talents, of which 500 were paid immediately on the conclusion of peace, 2,500 upon ratification of the peace treaty, and the remaining 12,000 over 12 years (1,000 talents annually); in practice, payment dragged on longer, so that even Antiochus Epiphanes was still seeking funds in 173 BC to pay off this indemnity (Liv. XLII, 6). — “To give hostages and to permit partition...” διδόναι ὅμηρα καί διαστολήν, the Slavonic more precisely: “to give pledges and a statute.” The meaning of the original is not entirely clear. Some understand by διαστολή here the portion taken from Antiochus’s dominions and given to Eumenes — v. 8 — in which case the καί at the beginning of that verse should be understood as “namely.” — The mention of the region of India and Media (χώρα ἡ Ἰνδική καί Μήδεια) among the territories alienated from Antiochus is incorrect. India was never subject to Antiochus, and he was not obligated to cede Media, only the provinces on this side of the Taurus, the greater part of which (Phrygia, Mysia, and Lydia) subsequently went to Eumenes. This inaccuracy must be explained by the insufficient knowledge that Jews of that era had concerning foreign peoples and lands.

1 Maccabees 8:9–10. and how the Greeks planned to come and destroy them, but this plan became known to them, and they sent against them a single commander and made war on them — and many of them fell slain, and they took their women and children captive, and plundered them, and seized their land, and demolished their fortresses, and enslaved them to this day; The account of Greece’s struggle with Rome also has the character of “rumors” in which the actual historical course of events is badly confused. Nothing is actually narrated anywhere about a plan by the Greeks to “destroy” the Romans: apparently what is referred to in general terms here is the affair of the Romans with the Greeks in the war against the Achaean League in 147 and 146 BC. — At that time Thebes and Chalcis were indeed destroyed, Corinth was taken, all the men were slaughtered, all the women and children sold into slavery, the cities were barbarously plundered and burned, the walls of the remaining cities were demolished, and shortly afterward all of Greece was made a Roman province under the name of Achaea (Pausan. VII, 16, 562; Liv. Epit. LII; Flor. II, 16; Justin XXXIV, 2). — But if so, the question arises: how could the author speak of this event in the time of Judas, when Judas died fifteen years before the events described as belonging to his era? — To explain this anachronism, which does not undermine the general reliability of the book, one must take into account: first, that the historian wrote this book twenty to twenty-five years after the destruction of Corinth by the Romans; second, that the Jews of Palestine in general could have been insufficiently well informed about the historical and chronological details of this war between Rome and Greece; and finally, that in our verse (v. 10) the final outcome of the Greeks’ struggle with Rome may already be being cited.

1 Maccabees 8:11. And other kingdoms and islands that had ever risen against them they laid waste and enslaved. “Islands...” — here Sicily, Sardinia, and the Greek islands of the Archipelago may be intended.

1 Maccabees 8:12. But with their friends and those who trusted in them they maintained friendship and gained control over kingdoms near and far, and all who heard their name feared them. “They maintained friendship...” — insofar as this was consistent with Rome’s policy, Rome did indeed show itself loyal to friendship; but the ultimate aim of this friendship, in keeping with that same Roman policy, was always such that the allied country was turned into a province of the Roman Empire. The Jews too came to learn this through bitter experience. — “And gained control over kingdoms near and far...” — in the context of what precedes, these words are a direct continuation of the previous statement, and mean to say that the Romans possessed sufficient strength and authority that even their allies became powerful and capable of conquering kingdoms hostile to them.

1 Maccabees 8:13–14. If they want to help someone and make him king, he reigns; and whomever they wish, they depose; and they have become very great. But for all of this, none of them has ever put on a crown or dressed in purple to exalt himself with it. 1 Maccabees 8:15–16. They established a council among themselves, and every day three hundred and twenty men meet to deliberate about everything concerning the people and their welfare; and each year they entrust the leadership over themselves and dominion over all their land to one man, and all obey one person, and there is neither envy nor jealousy among them. The accounts of the Roman form of government and administration suffer from significant inaccuracies and errors, showing that at that time the Jews in general lacked adequate knowledge on this subject. — “They established a council among themselves...” — βουλευτήριον ἐποίησαν ἑαυτοῖς — the Slavonic more precisely: “and they made themselves a council chamber.” — What is meant here is the Roman Senate. “Every day,” as is said here, it did not convene; rather, it met mostly on the Kalends, Nones, Ides, and on feast days; but it could convene more than once in a day. The number of senators under King Tarquinius Priscus was established at 300, remaining unchanged until C. Sempronius Gracchus, who in 123 BC (thus considerably after the time of Judas) increased this number by admitting 300 knights. — The statement in v. 16 that the governance of the Roman people was annually entrusted to one man could have arisen from the fact that the alliance treaty that followed the Senate’s decision mentioned, beside the names of the envoys, the name of the senatorial chairman (see according to Mottlen). — “And there is neither envy nor jealousy among them...” — this report is accurate to the extent that the disorders of the Gracchi, the internal factional struggle, and conflicts such as the long strife between patricians and plebeians, were in reality not expressions of the will and condition of the whole. Foreign lands could have heard little of this internal factional struggle, and it normally left no trace on Rome’s foreign policy.

1 Maccabees 8:17. Then Judas chose Eupolemus, son of John, son of Accos, and Jason, son of Eleazar, and sent them to Rome to conclude friendship and alliance with them, Judas sent Eupolemus and Jason to Rome. The father of this Eupolemus — John — is known from 2 Macc 4:11 for having obtained for the Jewish people gracious royal concessions through his intercession. — “Accos” — (“son of Accos”) — appears to designate the name of the clan to which Eupolemus and John belonged. Such a clan of Accos — among the priestly clans (τοῦ Ακκως) — is mentioned in Neh 3:4; Ezra 3:61; cf. 1 Chr 24:10 — to which Eupolemus and John probably belonged. — Jason, son of Eleazar — nothing more is known about him; judging by the name, he may also have belonged to a priestly clan.

1 Maccabees 8:18. and to lift the yoke from them, for they saw that the Greek kingdom wanted to enslave Israel. “The Greek kingdom...” i.e., the Syrian kingdom.

1 Maccabees 8:19. So they set out for Rome, though the journey was very long, and they entered the assembly of the council, and coming forward they said: “The journey was very long...” — because this sea voyage was customarily made not along a straight course across the open sea but along the coasts, so that, for example, the ship on which the holy Apostle Paul traveled to Rome spent a full six months on its voyage from Palestine to Rome (Acts 27:1). — The remark about the length of the journey to Rome shows that for the Jews this journey (to Rome) was still something novel.

1 Maccabees 8:20–22. Judas Maccabeus and his brothers and the whole Jewish people have sent us to you to conclude an alliance and peace with you, and to have you enroll us among your allies and friends. And this proposal was pleasing to them. And here is a copy of the letter that they wrote back on bronze tablets and sent to Jerusalem, so that it might serve them there as a memorial of peace and alliance: The Romans wrote their written decree in response to the envoys’ request “on bronze tablets and sent it to Jerusalem...” Josephus transmits this passage with the addition that the original decree was deposited on the Capitol, while a copy of it was sent to the Jews. Judging by the fact that at the conclusion of the peace treaty with the Carthaginians — according to Polyb. III, 6, 1 — the same procedure was followed, it may be presumed that in the present case as well Josephus’s addition is more consistent with the truth.

1 Maccabees 8:23–28. “May it go well with the Romans and with the Jewish people on sea and on land forever, and may sword and enemy be far from them! If war comes first upon the Romans or upon any of their allies throughout their entire dominion, the Jewish people shall assist them wholeheartedly in the war, as the occasion may require; and to those at war they shall not give or supply grain, arms, money, or ships — for so it seems good to the Romans; they shall carry out their obligation without receiving anything. In the same way, if war comes first upon the Jewish people, the Romans shall assist them wholeheartedly in the war, as the occasion may require; and to those who assist them in the war they shall not give grain, arms, money, or ships — so it seems good to Rome; they shall carry out their obligations — and without deceit. The text of the peace treaty opens with the customary Roman formula in such cases, expressing goodwill to the contracting parties: κάλως γένοιτο ... etc. — “May it go well...!” Then follow the articles — one for each contracting party, of approximately the same content (vv. 24–26 concerning the Romans, vv. 27–28 concerning the Jews). — The essence of the treaty is that both sides — first, obligated themselves to assist each other in time of war; and second, to do so without requiring from the side at war any grain, weapons, money, or ships. In this way the Jews became “allies” of the Romans, subjecting themselves to the fate of all other Roman allies, who typically ended up under the Roman yoke. This was a mistake on Judas’s part, although perhaps an unavoidable and forced one given the difficult circumstances. Nevertheless, some quite rightly note that if Judas had taken greater care to verify the reports about the Romans and had become convinced that under the guise of friendship they were treacherously enslaving their allies, he would certainly never have desired any alliance with the Romans. This alliance is found objectionable also in another respect: it shows how far this era of “the people of God” had departed from the better times of its antiquity, and how the more recent impulses of that people stood below the pure inspiration of that antiquity — in the time of the prophets, this method of self-defense would have been decisively protested. However, Judas did not live to see the formal conclusion of the alliance, or at least did not wait for the return of his envoys from Rome, having laid down “his life for his people” in the final battle against Bacchides.

1 Maccabees 8:29–32. On these terms the Romans concluded an alliance with the Jewish people. But if after these terms either side decides to add or remove anything, they may do so at their mutual discretion, and whatever they add or remove shall be valid. As for the harm that King Demetrius is doing to the Jews, we have written to him as follows: “Why have you made your yoke heavy on our friends and allies the Jews? If they come to us again with a complaint against you, we shall defend their rights and make war on you by sea and by land. * * * Notes The Books of Maccabees have been translated from the Greek, since they do not exist in the Hebrew text.