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.
468 Victor L. Parker
campaign stands in the middle of a narrative of fighting against
Nicanor and that nothing in this larger context explains who Timothy
and Bacchides are or why Judas is fighting them, this view clearly has
merit.
Nevertheless, the Epitomator, when he introduced the campaign
against Timothy in chap. 10,24-38, made clear that he knew that he
had mentioned an earlier campaign against Timothy since he
introduced this section with the words Timovqeo" de; oJ provteron
htthqei" “Timothy, who had previously been defeated…†(46). Finally,
J v
9,3 contains another reference to this first defeat of Timothy and
explicitly places it before Antiochus IV’s death (47). We should, again,
concede that the Epitomator knew what he did; and that he thought that
the campaign at 2 Macc 8,30-32 had preceded that at 10,24-38 and
indeed Antiochus IV’s death. If he thought so correctly is another
matter entirely.
Let us then investigate the verses 8,30-32 more closely. The author
seems already to have brought the story of the fighting against Nicanor
to an end: vv. 24-25 speak of Judas’ victory and vv. 27-29 of his
division of the spoils. Despite the lack of any sort of transitional
statement, v. 30 could begin the account of another, less important
campaign, which Judas fought immediately subsequent to that against
Nicanor. After all, the mere act of epitomising may have rendered the
connexion between this campaign and its narrative context unclear (48).
One may refer to countless examples in Florus, Eutropius, Justin and
Diodorus of how the respective Epitomator may accidentally have
——————
10,24-38 are doublets: 2 Maccabees wildly inflates all numbers of enemy forces
and enemy slain, and two inflated figures, grabbed out of thin air anyway, may
have coincidentally come out about the same.)
(46) 2 Macc 10,24. GOLDSTEIN, 2 Maccabees, 395-397, argues that the text
should read Timovqeo" de; oJ prw'ton hJtthqeiv" and suggests that we understand this
as meaning, “the Timothy who was defeated first [i.e. the first of two by that
name]â€. This is strained Greek which furthermore requires a radical re-
interpretation of the text at 2 Macc 8,32: for (the perfectly intelligible) to;n
fulavrchn tw'n peri; Timovqeon ajnei'lon, “they slew the ‘phylarch’ of Timothy’s
troopsâ€, GOLDSTEIN, II, 340, suggests understanding, “of the two men called
Timothy they slew the one who was a ‘phylarch’â€. The passage in Polybius (V
1,7-9) which Goldstein cites in this context does not support his interpretation of
the wording of 2 Maccabees. Nevertheless, this passage does shew that a better
translation of the idiom in question might be “they slew Timothy’s phylarchâ€.
(47) Cf. here BÃœCHLER, Tobiaden, 301, n. 14.
(48) GRIMM, II Buch, 143; Cf. BAR-KOCHVA, Judas, 512.