MACCABEES măk’ a bēs (Μακκαβαῖοι, a surname given to Judas, son of Mattathias [̓Ιουδασ ὁ καλούμανος Μακκαβαῖος, 1 Macc 2:4, 66; 3:1; Jos. Antiq. xii. 6. 1 § 266], the derivation of which is quite obscure and may have the meaning of “extinguisher” or “quencher” of Hellenism [מַכַּבִּי from כָּבָה, H3882, “to be extinguished, quenched”] but more prob. it means “hammer” referring to his crushing military exploits or “hammer-head” referring to a physical characteristic, viz., his head was the shape of a mallet, cf. M. Bekhoroth 7:1 [מַקָּבִי from מַקֶּ֫בֶת֒, H5216, “a hammer”]). The latter of the last of the two meanings is preferable because it was common in the Hel. world to designate people by their physical characteristics and seems to be the case in the designation of Judas’ brothers (1 Macc 2:2-4). This name was extended to his family and party who defended the Jewish rights and customs in the 2nd cent. b.c. On the other hand, the family name according to Josephus (Antiq. xii. 6. 1 § 265) came from the great-great grandfather of Judas, Ḥashman, hence the designation “the Hasmoneans” reflected in the rabbinic lit. (See Hasmoneans.)
I. Historical background
Only a brief historical background will be given in order to give a proper setting for the Maccabean revolt.
A. Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.). Alexander was b. in 356 b.c. and from thirteen years of age was taught by Aristotle. He was convinced of the Gr. way of life and consequently his dream was to Hellenize the world (see Hellenism, Hellenists). With the death of his father Philip of Macedon in 336 b.c., he made immediate plans to invade the Pers. empire. He invaded Asia Minor in the spring of 334 b.c., defeating the Persians at the Granicus River and continued to push them out of Asia Minor. In October 333 b.c. he defeated Darius III at Issus and marched southward conquering Tyre and Gaza. Finally Egypt was in his control by the winter of 332/1 b.c. Sometime while he was in Pal. (difficult to know the exact sequence) according to Josephus (Antiq. xi. 8. 5 § 329-39; cf. also BT: Yoma 69a), he visited Jerusalem and offered sacrifices to God in the Temple under the direction of the high priest Jaddua. The priests showed him from the Book of Daniel that he was the one predicted to destroy the Pers. empire (cf. Dan 8:5-7, 20, 21). He accepted this interpretation and being favorably disposed he granted the Jews’ request that Jews in Palestine, Babylonia, and Media be allowed to live according to their ancestral laws and be exempt from tribute every Sabbatical year. Hence there was a friendly relationship between Alexander and the Jews. In the spring of 331 b.c. he marched eastward and defeated Persia and declared himself king over Persia by July 330 b.c. He d. in 323 (see [http://biblegateway/wiki/1. Alexander (\"the Great\") ALEXANDER THE GREAT]).
B. Israel under the Ptolemies (323-198 B.C.). Following Alexander’s death there was much strife among his generals in their attempt to gain and hold their portions of his kingdom. By 311 b.c. Seleucus was acknowledged as the ruler of Babylonia, this year marking the commencement of the Seleucid dynasty/era. Palestine was the battlefield for much of the strife. From 323 to 315 b.c. Pal. was under Ptolemaic control but was possessed by Antigonus (ruler over Asia Minor and northern Syria) in 315 b.c., regained by Ptolemy in 312 b.c., but he had to withdraw leaving Antigonus in control. However, in 301 b.c. Antigonus was killed in a decisive battle at Ipsus in Phrygia and an agreement had been made (in 303 b.c.) that on Antigonus’ defeat, Coele-Syria should be given to Ptolemy. Ptolemy had not taken part in the battle so it was now decided to give it to Seleucus but Ptolemy forestalled Seleucus and took possession of Pal. This action was the bone of contention between the two houses for decades to come. Palestine remained under Ptolemaic control until it was lost to the Seleucids in the person of Antiochus III (the Great) at the Battle of Panias (Caesarea Philippi of the NT) in 198 b.c. (Jos. Antiq. xii. 3. 3 § 132-137; Dan 11:13-16). The Seleucids had now acquired the land which they considered rightly theirs.
C. Israel under the Seleucids (198-63 B.C.). Israel remained under the Seleucids until Pompey made it a province of Rome in 63 b.c. The scope of this article deals only with the first sixty-five years of their reign in conjunction with Israel’s reaction toward them (for the later development, see Hasmoneans). After the victory over the Ptolemies at Panias, Antiochus III granted the Jews freedom of worship according to their laws; allowed them to complete and maintain the Temple; exempted the council of elders, priests, and the scribes of the Temple from taxes which exemption the citizens of Jerusalem also enjoyed for the first three years and after that period they were exempted a third part of their taxes; and released the prisoners (Jos. Antiq. xii. 3. 3, 4 § 138-153). Hence the Jews enjoyed a brief period of tranquillity under the Seleucid rule. Of course one reason for this was that the Seleucids were concentrating their efforts in the W. Rome had defeated Hannibal at Zama (near Carthage) in 202 b.c. and then the Macedonian monarchy in 197 b.c. After making a peace treaty with Ptolemy V Epiphanes (cf. Polybius xxviii. 20; Appian, The Syrian Wars, 5; Jos. Antiq. xii. 4. 1 § 154; Dan 11:17), Antiochus invaded Thrace in 196 b.c., and with the influence of Hannibal he invaded Greece (which the Romans had evacuated) in 194 b.c.; but the Romans retaliated, defeating him at Thermopylae in 191 b.c. and at Magnesia in Asia Minor in 190 b.c. A peace treaty was signed at Apamea in 189 b.c. where Antiochus agreed to give up Asia Minor N and W of the Tarsus Mountains, much of his military force, and pay a heavy indemnity over a twelve year period. He had to deliver twenty hostages to Rome until the indemnity was paid, one of the hostages being his son Antiochus IV Epiphanes (App ian, The Syrian Wars, 36-39; Polybius xx-xxi; Livy xxxvi-xxxvii; Dan 11:18, 19; 1 Macc 1:10; 8:6-8; Jos. Antiq. xii. 10. 6 § 414).
Antiochus was succeeded by his second son Seleucus IV Philopator in 187 b.c. Because of the heavy indemnity to be paid to the Romans he had to abstain from expensive adventures. The Jews remember him in his unsuccessful attempt to rob the Temple of Jerusalem via his chief minister Heliodorus (2 Macc 3:7; cf. also Dan 11:20). In 175 b.c. Heliodorus assassinated Seleucus and attempted to seize the throne, but Antiochus III’s third son, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, having just been released from Rome as a hostage, went to Syria and ousted Heliodorus and made himself king. Since his newly acquired kingdom lacked political and financial stability, he attempted to unify it by a vigorous Hellenization program (Tac. Hist. v. 8). Religion was one of the unifying factors encouraging the people (c. 169 b.c.) to worship his own person in the form of the Olympian Zeus. His title “Theos Epiphanes” meaning “the manifest god” was changed by his enemies to “Epimanes” (which requires only one letter change in the Gr. spelling ἐπιφανής, G2212, to ἐπιμανής) meaning “mad man” or “insane” (Polybius xxvi. 10). Soon after Antiochus’ accession he was called upon to settle a dispute between the high priest Onias III who was pro-Ptolemaic and Onias’ brother Jason (Gr. name which he preferred over the Heb. name Joshua/Jesus) who was pro-Seleucid. In 174 b.c. Jason secured the high priesthood by offering a larger payment of money to Antiochus and by pledging his wholehearted support in the Hellenization of the Jerusalemites (1 Macc 1:10-15; 2 Macc 4:7-17; Jos. Antiq. xii. 5. 1 § 237-241). In 171 b.c. Jason’s friend Menelaus offered Antiochus 300 more talents than Jason for the position of high priest. Antiochus gladly accepted this, for it would help him financially; and since Menelaus was ou tside of the Aaronic line (according to 2 Macc 4:23 and 3:4 he was a Benjamite) it would break a great unifying force among the Jews. Jason went into hiding in the Ammonite country.
Next year in 170 b.c. the amateur regents Eulaeus and Lenueus advised their minor king Ptolemy VI Philometor (see Ptolemy) to avenge Panias and recover Coele-Syria. Antiochus got wind of their plans and with a large army invaded Egypt in 170/169 b.c., defeating Ptolemy VI. He proclaimed himself as king of Egypt and allowed a rivalry to exist in Egypt by making Ptolemy VI Philometor king of Memphis and his brother Ptolemy VIII Euergetes king in Alexandria (Dan 11:25-27). On his return from Egypt Antiochus heard that the Jerusalemites with the help of Jason (who came out of hiding) had forced Menelaus to take refuge in the Acra. The Jews had revolted against Menelaus because he plundered the Temple and Antiochus feeling this was rebellion against himself, decided to subdue Jerusalem (2 Macc 5:11-17). With Menelaus, Antiochus desecrated and plundered the Temple of its treasures, leaving the city under one of his military commanders, Philip, a Phrygian (1 Macc 1:20-29; 2 Macc 5:18-22; Jos. Antiq. xii. 5. 3 § 246, 247).
II. Maccabean revolt
A. Antiochus’ vengeance (168-166 B.C.).
The next contact Jerusalem had with Antiochus IV was after his second campaign in Egypt in 168 b.c. The rival brothers had agreed to unite against their uncle Antiochus IV. Antiochus went to Egypt in the spring of 168 b.c. He subdued Memphis and when he was at Eleusis, a suburb of Alexandria, the Rom. representative Popillius Laenas (whom Antiochus knew at Rome) handed him an ultimatum from the senate to evacuate Egypt at once (cf. Polybius xxix. 2. 1-4; 27. 1-8; Livy xlv. 12. 1-6; Diodorus xxxi. 2; Velleius Paterculus i. 10. 1, 2; Appian, The Syrian Wars, 66; Justinus, Epitome xxxiv. 3; Dan 11:28-30). Having learned of Rome’s might when he served as a hostage for fourteen years, he quickly retreated.
With bitterness he retreated to Pal. (Polybius xxix. 27. 9; Dan 11:30) and determined to make Pal. loyal to himself in order to act as a buffer state between himself and the Romans. Considering himself Zeus Epiphanes he ordered a cultic Hellenization policy in Pal. In 167 b.c. Antiochus determined to exterminate the Jewish religion by forbidding them to live in accordance with their ancestral laws. He forbade the observance of the Sabbath, customary festivals, traditional sacrifices, and circumcision of children, and ordered the destruction of copies of the Torah. Idolatrous altars were set up and the Jews were commanded to offer unclean sacrifices and to eat swine’s flesh (2 Macc 6:18). The climactic deed was on Chislev 25 (16 December, 167 b.c.) when the Temple of Jerusalem became the place of the worship of the Olympian Zeus, offering swine’s flesh upon the altar of Zeus which was erected on the altar of burnt offering (Dan 11:31, 32; 1 Macc 1:41-64; 2 Macc 6:1-11). These were to be offered on the twenty-fifth day of each month since that date celebrated the birthday of Antiochus Epiphanes; hence the sacrifices were offered to him.
B. Mattathias (166 B.C.). Every village in Pal. was required to set up its heathen altar and imperial legates were present to see that citizens offered the heathen sacrifices. In the village of Modein (seventeen m. NW of Jerusalem) there lived an aged priest named Mattathias who lived with his five sons—John, Simon, Judas, Eleazar, and Jonathan. Antiochus’ agent came to Modein compelling the people to renounce God and to offer unclean sacrifices. Mattathias, as an acknowledged leader of the village, was asked to be an example by being the first to make an offering, but he refused. When another Jew stepped out to offer the sacrifice Mattathias slew him and the king’s legate. He then tore down the altar and proclaimed, “Let every one who is zealous for the law and supports the covenant come out with me” (1 Macc 2:15-27; Jos. Antiq. xii. 6. 1, 2 § 265-272; Dan 11:32-35). Mattathias, his sons, and many followers fled to the mountains. This marked the beginning of the Maccabean revolt. While hiding they heard the news that 1000 men, women, and children had been slain because they refused to fight on the Sabbath. To avoid extermination Mattathias and his friends decided that they could defend themselves even on the Sabbath (1 Macc 2:19-41). It was about this time that the Hasidim, who were a religious group within Judaism with a great passion for the law of God (see Hasidim), joined Mattathias in a struggle against Hellenization. Mattathias’ forces waged war against the Jews who complied with Antiochus, tore down heathen altars, circumcised children who had been left uncircumcised, and exhorted Jews everywhere to follow in their struggle. During this struggle Mattathias died (166 b.c.), leaving the battle in the hands of his third son Judas, with whom a new era in the fighting commenced (1 Macc 2:42-70; Jos. Antiq. xii. 6. 2-4 § 273-286).
C. Judas Maccabeus (166-160 B.C.)
1. Rededication of the Temple (166-164 B.C.). Mattathias’ selection of Judas was the right choice, for he was the terror of his enemies and the pride of his nation. Under him the Maccabean struggle went from guerilla warfare to well-planned battles. In his first year of leadership he became popular and won more volunteers to fight for freedom when he defeated the Syrian governors Apollonius and Seron (1 Macc 3:10-26; Jos. Antiq. xii. 7. 1 § 287-292). Since Antiochus was having troubles in the E, he ordered Lysias, regent of the western part of the empire, to make an end of the rebellion and to destroy the Jewish race (1 Macc 3:32-36; Jos. Antiq. xii. 7. 2 § 295, 296). Lysias dispatched a large army under the command of Ptolemy, Nicanor, Gorgias followed by merchants who expected to purchase Jewish slaves (1 Macc 3:38-41). But Judas decisively defeated Gorgias at Emmaus, causing the Syrian soldiers to flee (1 Macc 4:1-22; Jos. Antiq. xii. 7. 4 § 305-312). In 164 b.c. Lysias personally led a larger army to attack Jerusalem from the S, but was completely defeated at Beth-zur and withdrew to Antioch (1 Macc 4:28-35; Jos. Antiq. xii. 7. 5 § 313-315). Judas had regained the entire country and his next move was to restore the worship in the Temple. He marched on Jerusalem and occupied all of it except the Acra. This left him free to restore the Temple. He selected priests who had remained faithful, destroyed the altar of the Olympian Zeus and built a new one, and rebuilt and refurbished the Temple. And so on Chislev 25 (14 December, 164 b.c.), exactly three years after its desecration, the Temple with its altar was rededicated and the daily sacrifices commenced (1 Macc 4:36-59; 2 Macc 10:1-8; Jos. Antiq. xii. 7. 6, 7 § 316-326). This marked the commencement of the Jewish Feast of Dedication or Lights (Heb. Hanukkah). Immediately after this Judas fortified the Jerusalem walls and the city of Beth-zur on the border of Idumea. This completes the first stage of the Maccabean war. Up to this point they never experienced defeat.
2. Religious freedom gained (163 B.C.). The victories of Judas had resulted in making Judah reasonably secure. There were two things Judas still needed to accomplish. First, although Judah was reasonably secure, Judas and his brothers Jonathan and Simon determined to gain independence for all of Pal. All the Jews in all of Pal. must be brought under their rule. Therefore Judas carried out several campaigns against the Idumeans in the S, the Baeanites in Trans-Jordan, and the Ammonites NE of the Dead Sea (1 Macc 5:1-8). Because other Jewish communities asked for their help he sent his brother Simon with an army into Galilee while he and his other brother Jonathan went to Gilead. Subsequently Judas went against Idumea capturing Hebron and then against Philistia, capturing Ashdod (1 Macc 5:9-68; Jos. Antiq. xii. 8. 1-6 § 327-353).
Having accomplished his first goal he now started on his second one, viz., to get rid of the Syrian control of the Acra in Jerusalem. Their domination was a constant reminder that Antiochus’ decree forbidding the practice of the Jewish religion had not been withdrawn. In the spring or summer of 163 b.c. Judas laid siege to it. There were some Syrian soldiers and Hel. Jews who escaped and went to Antioch for help (1 Macc 6:18-27). Antiochus IV was already dead and was succeeded by his nine-year-old son Antiochus V Eupator. On his deathbed Antiochus IV appointed one of his friends, Philip, as regent and guardian over Antiochus V but Lysias who had been given these privileges at an earlier date asserted his responsibility by crowning Antiochus V as king (both were in Antioch when Antiochus IV died) (1 Macc 6:5-17). Immediately Lysias and the boy-king went S where he defeated Judas at Beth-zechariah (SW of Jerusalem) and laid siege to Jerusalem (1 Macc 6:28-54). Judas being in desperate straits because of the food shortage (due to it being a Sabbatical year) was saved when Lysias heard that Philip was marching from Persia to Syria to claim the kingdom for himself. Hence Lysias was anxious to make a peace treaty with Judas and guaranteed him religious freedom but he did tear down the walls of Jerusalem (1 Macc 6:55-63). The Jews were still under the Syrian rule, but had obtained religious freedom.
3. Political freedom desired (162-160 B.C.). Having achieved the goal of the Maccabean revolt, Judas now wanted political independence for the nation. The Syrian government did not want this, so they had to strengthen the Hel. element among the Jews. Although the reports are conflicting, it seems that Lysias appointed Alcimus (Heb., Jakim, Jehoiakim) as high priest. He was of the Aaronic descent, but ideologically a Hellenist (cf. 1 Macc 7:14; 2 Macc 14:3-7; Jos. Antiq. xii. 9. 7 § 384-388; xx. 10. 3 § 235). This was unacceptable to Judas (prob. because Alcimus was a Hellenizer and possibly also Judas may have wanted the position of high priest for himself), who prevented Alcimus from taking up his position in Jerusalem. Meanwhile there were political upheavals in Syria. Demetrius, nephew of Antiochus IV and cousin of Antiochus V, escaped from Rome, seized and put to death both Lysias and Antiochus V, and assumed the throne of Syria as Demetrius I Soter. The Hel. Jews and Alcimus complained against Judas and consequently Demetrius confirmed Alcimus as the high priest in 162 b.c. and sent him to Jerusalem with an army under general Bacchides. Certain scribes and the Hasidim sought to establish peace with Alcimus and Bacchides which would be a marked split from Judas’ ranks. The reason for this move is not mentioned, but prob. it was that the Hasidim were satisfied that Alcimus was of the Aaronic line and that the Syrians had guaranteed them freedom of worship. Alcimus, however, who had promised that he would cause no evil to them, slew sixty of the Hasidim; hence they turned against him and returned to Judas (1 Macc 7:15-20; Jos. Antiq. xii. 10. 2 § 393-397). This is seen in the record where Alcimus asked Demetrius for more military help against Judas and his followers, called the Hasideans, who were causing trouble (2 Macc 14:6). Demetrius sent an army with general Nicanor in order to capture Judas and to confirm Alcimus in the high priesthood. Nicanor on Adar 13 (9 March 161 b.c.) was defeated and killed at Adasa (the Jews celebrated the victory annually as Nicanor’s day) and his army fled to Gazara and was wiped out. Alcimus fled to Syria (1 Macc 7:26-50; Jos. Antiq. xii. 10. 3-5 § 398-412).
At this stage Judas sent ambassadors to Rome to ask for protection against Syria. This move by Judas reveals his political aspirations. A treaty was concluded and Rome warned Demetrius that any interference with Judas would mean war with Rome. However, before Rome could have done anything, Demetrius had already taken steps to avenge Nicanor’s defeat. Only weeks after the defeat Demetrius sent an army under Bacchides who was accompanied by Alcimus. Because of the might of the Syrian army many men deserted Judas and in a battle at Eleasa (c. ten to twelve m. N of Jerusalem) Judas was slain. His brothers Jonathan and Simon took his body to be buried at Modein (1 Macc 8:1-9:22; Jos. Antiq. xii. 10. 6-11. 2 § 413-434).
D. Jonathan (160-143 B.C.). Judas’ death was a great blow to morale. His youngest brother Jonathan was selected to succeed him. The Hellenists were in control temporarily while Jonathan and his followers were in the wilderness of Tekoa, only able to carry on guerrilla warfare. Bacchides fortified Jerusalem and other Judean cities against a possible Maccabean attack. In May of 159 Alcimus died and soon after that Bacchides left his command in Judah and returned to Antioch. After two years of peace the Hellenizers requested Bacchides to return to Judah where he suffered defeat at Beth-basi (six m. S of Jerusalem). Bacchides made a peace treaty with Jonathan.
This peace treaty greatly weakened the Hellenizers, for they no longer enjoyed the undivided support of the Syrian government. Moreover, since Demetrius I did not appoint a high priest after Alcimus’ death they had no real leadership, and certainly with this new peace treaty Jonathan would oppose an appointment of a high priest since he would have authority over Jonathan. After the treaty was signed Bacchides returned to Antioch and Jonathan made his headquarters at Michmash (nine m. N of Jerusalem) where he judged the people, punishing the Hellenizers (1 Macc 9:23-73; Jos. Antiq. xiii. 1. 1-6 § 1-34). For the next five years Judah enjoyed peace and since a high priest was never selected Jonathan’s power increased.
In 152 b.c. Judah was further helped by internal struggles for power in Syria. A pretender, Alexander Balas, who claimed to be the son of Antiochus Epiphanes, challenged Demetrius I. Both vied with each other for Jonathan’s support. Demetrius first offered to hand over to Jonathan Jewish hostages held in the Acra and permitted Jonathan to raise an army. Also Demetrius abandoned all the fortresses except Beth-zur, Acra, and Gazara (cf. 1 Macc 10:14; 11:41; 13:43). Jonathan exploited the situation and moved his headquarters from Michmash to Jerusalem (1 Macc 10:1-14; Jos. Antiq. xiii. 2. 1 § 35-42). Alexander Balas in turn appointed Jonathan high priest (there had been no high priest since Alcimus’ death in May of 159 b.c.) and gave him the title “Friend of the King” (1 Macc 10:15-21; Jos. Antiq. xiii. 2. 2 § 43-45). Not to be outdone, Demetrius offered more promises; viz., exemption from many taxes, surrender of the Acra, attachment of three toparchies of Samaria to Jerusalem, subsidy of the Jewish army and Temple, and money for rebuilding the city walls. Fortunately Jonathan sided with Alexander Balas, for in 150 b.c. Demetrius was slain in a battle against Alexander. Alexander made Jonathan general and governor of Judah and was considered one of his chief friends (1 Macc. 10:22-66; Jos. Antiq. xiii. 2. 3, 4 § 46-61; 4. 1, 2 § 80-85). This was certainly a strange alliance i.e., Alexander Balas professed son of Antiochus Epiphanes in league with a Maccabean!
In 147 b.c. Alexander Balas was challenged by Demetrius’ son, Demetrius II Nicator, and was finally defeated and assassinated two years later. Demetrius II ascending the throne in 145 b.c. was only sixteen years of age. Jonathan took advantage of his inexperience and his insecure position on the throne by attacking the Acra where the Hellenizing Jews were still in control. Demetrius demanded that he withdraw the siege and report to him at Ptolemais. Jonathan boldly ordered his men to continue the siege while he went to Ptolemais with many gifts for Demetrius. Demetrius impressed by his audacity made him “Friend of the King,” confirmed his high priesthood, and granted Jonathan’s request of annexation of three districts of Samaria to Judah and exemption from tribute. Demetrius being weakened by the concessions and having trouble with his own army, Diodotus Tryphon (a general of Alexander Balas), claimed the Syrian throne for Alexander Balas’ son, Antiochus VI. Jonathan took advantage of the situation and sided with Tryphon who in turn made Jonathan head of the civil and religious aspects and his brother Simon head of the military.
Jonathan turned to the diplomatic field by sending an embassy to Rome to reconfirm their alliance with Rome. Jonathan’s successful campaigns from Gaza to Damascus and his fortification of cities throughout Judah made Tryphon apprehensive. By deceit Tryphon was able to convince Jonathan to come with him to Ptolemais with only a few men. After Jonathan arrived Tryphon arrested him. At Adida (near Modein) Tryphon bargained with Jonathan’s brother Simon to release Jonathan for a hundred talents and two of Jonathan’s sons as hostages. Simon complied but Tryphon did not free Jonathan. Tryphon killed Jonathan at Bascam (NE shore of the Sea of Galilee) in 143 b.c. He was buried at Modein (1 Macc 10:67-13:30; Jos. Antiq. xiii. 4. 3-6. § 86-212).
The only remaining son of Mattathias, viz., Simon, became Jonathan’s successor. For his reign and the succeeding Hasmoneans, see Hasmoneans.
Bibliography E. Schürer, HJP, I, i, 186-254; E. R. Bevan, The House of Seleucus, 2 vols. (1902), passim; E. Bevan, Jerusalem under the High-Priests (1904), 69-108; E. R. Bevan, “Syria and the Jews,” CAH, VIII (1930), 495-533; E. Bickerman, From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees (1947), 93-145; S. Tedesche and S. Zeitlin, The First Book of Maccabees, Eng. tr., introd., and comm. (1950), passim; J. C. Dancy, A Commentary on I Maccabees (1954), passim; W. R. Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus (1956), 47-158, passim; R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75, 2nd ed. (1956), 40, 41; V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (1959), 117-239; S. K. Eddy, The King Is Dead (1961), 183-238; S. Zeitlin, The Rise and Fall of the Judaean State, I (1962), 37-140; D. S. Russell, The Jews from Alexander to Herod, Vol. V of The New Clarendon Bible (1967), 1-57; B. Reicke, New Testament Era (1968), 42-62; Y. Aharoni and M. Avi-Yonah, The Macmillan Bible Atlas (1968), 110-128.