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.
470 Victor L. Parker
of Judas and his men, i.e. Jerusalem. In other words v. 33 is connected
by context to vv. 30-32.
Now with regard to v. 33 Benedictus Niese pointed out long ago
that 2 Maccabees implies that Judas had to take Jerusalem with
violence when he entered it in the year 164 B.C. (52). The reference to
Callisthenes’ punishment for burning the sacred gateway in v. 33 (in
the course of the celebrations after Judas’ entrance into the city) finds
its explanation in other references to a fire in this structure —
apparently set by enemies of Judas in the course of what could only
have been a violent confrontation between them and Judas (53). The
later reference to those whom Judas banned from Jerusalem (2 Macc
10,15) points in the same direction. In any case, Flavius Josephus
(following in all probability an ultimately non-Jewish source) (54) also
speaks of Judas’ violent taking of Jerusalem (55). If 2 Maccabees
preserves traces of this (historically more probable) version, it has
sought to obfuscate the episode. The Epitomator may have subjected
this episode to a rather drastic abridgement, leaving behind only a
single verse.
The verse which he left behind, however, bears an interesting
thematic relationship to what precedes. V. 33 tells how an impious
man, Callisthenes, met with his just deserts. V. 32 — which ends the
episode involving Timothy — concludes with the mention of the death
of an “officer†in Timothy’s forces, “a most impious man who had
done the Jews much harm†(56). This theme extends into vv. 34-36
(52) NIESE, Kritik, 467.
(53) 2 Macc 1,8; cf. 1 Macc 4,38.
(54) See A. BUCHLER, “Les sources de Flavius Josèphe, Iâ€, REJ (1896) esp.
181-183. Buchler suggests Polybius as the ultimate source, though through a
“Zwischenquelleâ€, perhaps Nicolaus of Damascus.
(55) Josephus, Bell. Iud., I 39 and Ant. Iud. XII 7,6.
(56) The man receives no name, but merely the title “phylarchâ€. Occasionally,
scholars took fulavrch" as a personal name — Phylarches — (e.g. BEVENOT,
Makkabäerbücher, 211; GRIMM, II Buch, 144; BUNGE, Untersuchungen, 280, still
considers taking it as a name), but the name is generally fulavrco": fulavrch"
usually denotes a rank – see HABICHT, II Makkabäerbuch, 242; ABEL, Livres, 394.
Conceivably, however, we should not translate “cavalry commander†(as does
Habicht following, e.g., Hdt. V 69) but rather “tribal chieftain, sheik†– see esp.
Strabo, XVI 1, 28, p. 748 (though here the form is indeed fulavrco"); cf. H.
BENGTSEN, Die Strategie in der Hellenistichen Zeit (München 1952) III, 304;
BAR-KOCHVA, Judas, 511. The correct translation of to;n fulavrchn tw'n peri;
Timoqeon ajnei'lon would then read “they slew the sheik who was with Timothyâ€
v
– referring, perhaps, to the head of a clan of Bedouin whom Timothy had
persuaded or hired to fight on his side (cf. 1 Macc 5,39; 2 Macc 10,24 and 12,10).