Victor L. Parker, «Judas Maccabaeus' Campaigns against Timothy», Vol. 87 (2006) 457-476
Both 1 and 2 Maccabees mention various campaigns of Judas Maccabaeus against
an opponent called Timothy. The author argues that although 1 Maccabees in
several instances does provide more accurate detail, 2 Maccabees’ presentation
of these campaigns as chronologically discrete has the greater historical
plausibility. Additionally, 2 Maccabees alone preserves a record of a third,
historically plausible campaign against Timothy. Overall, 2 Maccabees deserves
more esteem as an historical source than it commonly receives.
Judas Maccabaeus’ Campaigns against Timothy 461
Second, with regard to the last campaign against Timothy in both
books, much fighting takes place near the town of Carnaim. Thereafter
both books have Judas attack and take Ephron. In addition, the town of
Caspin (in 2 Macc 12,13) is probably identical with that of Caspho (1
Macc 5,36) (13): Judas fights at each place in the respective books.
Moreover, at the end of both books’ accounts of this campaign, Judas
marches towards Scythopolis or, as 1 Maccabees prefers to call it,
Beth-Shan (2 Macc 12,29 and 1 Macc 5,52) (14). Finally, the belea-
guered Jews of “Toubias†at 1 Macc 5,13 are surely identical with the
Jews called “Toubianoi†to whom Judas comes at 2 Macc 12,17 (15).
We may entertain no doubt that both books are here describing the
same campaign against the same commander in the Transjordan.
Third, both books describe this mysterious commander called
Timothy in the same way and attribute to him similar actions. Both
books present him as a tenacious opponent of Judas, but neither
(curiously) assigns to him any official Seleucid position. While 2
Maccabees does present Timothy as acting in concert with Seleucid
officials (16), it never claims for him any post (17); and 1 Maccabees
(13) Ibid., 517.
(14) See above, n. 4.
(15) ABEL, “Topographieâ€, 515-516: cf. Judg 11,3; 2 Sam 10,6; Ptolemy, 5.18.
Although, strictly speaking, Judas in 1 Maccabees never actually goes to the
rescue of these Jews (at least not explicitly), this is surely implied. On the region
involved (and its history) see B. MAZAR, “The Tobiadsâ€, IEJ 7 (1957) 137-145,
229-238, esp. 139; see also H. WILLRICH, “Zur Geschichte der Tobiadenâ€, Archiv
für Papyrusforschung 7 (1924) 62-63.
(16) 2 Macc 8,30 (cf. 1 Macc 9,1); 2 Macc 12,2 (Against I. LEVY, “Notes
d’histoire hellénistique sur le second livre des Maccabées. II. Ptolemée, fils de
Makronâ€, Annuaire de l’Institut de Philologie et d’Histoire Orientales et Slaves
10 (1950) 695 with n.1, oJ kata; tovpon strathgov" is no official Seleucid rank, [see
B. BAR-KOCHVA, The Seleucid Army (Cambridge 1976) 85-93] but rather a catch-
all term — “commander in the area†— which could denote any military leader
against whom Judas fought, not just those with official appointments from the
Seleucid court.)
(17) From time to time scholars have attempted to turn Timothy into a Seleucid
official, e.g. F.X. KUGLER, Von Moses bis Paulus (Münster 1922) 385 and 396;
BRINGMANN, Hellenistische Reform, 61 (cf. 162: “seleuk. Strategeâ€); SCHUNK,
Quellen, 111. (Schunk argues that Timothy’s use of oiJ th'" ∆Asiva" i{ppoi “the horses
of Asiaâ€, demonstrates that the Timothy at 2 Macc 10,24-38 was indeed a Seleucid
officer since such cavalry were “Regierungstruppen†— 111-112. On this,
however, see B. BAR-KOCHVA, Judas Maccabaeus (Cambridge 1989) 514: all that
is meant [rightly or wrongly] is that Timothy was employing the particularly
impressive battle-horses of Iran, i.e. had mustered a terrifying army. Schunk’s
other arguments in this context are dealt with at the appropriate points.)