APPENDICES

APPENDIX A (p. 16)

Coins of this Xerxes have been found with the Greek legend Baσidéws Eépfov, and showing a bearded head with the Armenian tiara (Babelon, Rois de Syrie, pp. cxcv. 212). According to Marquart (Philologus, liv. p. 505) the Greek Xerxes represents in this case, not the Persian Kshayarshā, as it ordinarily does, but the Armenian Shaüarsh. The theory which makes the Antiochus in question Antiochus Epiphanes may be dismissed. It is astonishing that Babelon should find any difficulty in there being three princesses with the same name Antiochis. As if there were anything more characteristic of these royal families than the recurrence of the same names !

APPENDIX B (p. 42)

A fragment quoted by Athenaeus as from the Europaïca of Agatharchides of Cnidus (527 f.; F.H.G. iii. p. 194) is thought by Meyer (Gesch. des Pontos, p. 53, note) and Niese (ii. p. 640, note 5) to refer to this moment. The fragment runs-Αρυκανδείς, φησι, Λυκίας, ὅμοροι ὄντες Λιμυρεῦσι, διὰ τὴν περὶ τὸν βίον ἀσωτίαν καὶ πολυτέλειαν κατάχρεοι γενόμενοι καὶ διὰ τὴν ἀργίαν καὶ φιληδονίαν ἀδυνατοῦντες ἀποδοῦναι τὰ δάνεια, προσέκλιναν ταῖς Μιθριδάτου ἐλπίσιν, ἆθλον ἕξειν νομίσαντες χρεῶν ἀποκοπάς. The Mithridates referred to is supposed to be the son of Antiochus, who had been sent at the head of the land-forces to Sardis. It seems to me more likely that there is some mistake in the attribution of the passage to Agatharchides, and that it refers to the time when Asia Minor was convulsed by the conquests of the great Mithridates in 88 B.C The expression ταῖς Μιθριδάτου ἐλπίσιν does not appear to fit negotiations in which a Mithridates acts as a mere subordinate (especially since there is nothing to show any activity of this Mithridates at all in Lycia, and Antiochus was present in person), but rather points to the great expectations raised by the appearance of Mithridates Eupator in 88 as the saviour of Greek society.

Dan, x1.17

APPENDIX C (p. 48)

Strabo xiii. 624; Michel, Nos. 291, 550. Niese (ii. p. 642) propounds the theory that a treaty by which Antiochus had recognized the rights of Attalus over the Ionian and Hellespontine cities lapsed with his death, and that the recovery of them by Antiochus had to do with this circumstance. As has been pointed out, the whole question of what the arrangement between Antiochus and Attalus after the fall of Achaeus was is quite obscure. The comparison of Polyb. v. 77, 1, with iv. 48 would rather suggest that Achaeus won back from Attalus much that the latter seized during Achaeus' absence in Pisidia, so that we do not know whether, on the advent of Antiochus, Attalus stood possessed of anything outside his πατρώα ἀρχή.

APPENDIX D (p. 57)

Liv. xxxv. 13, 4. This Cleopatra was distinguished as the Syrian (App. Syr. 5). "And he (Antiochus) shall set his face to come with the strength of his whole kingdom, but (first) he shall make an equitable pact with him (Ptolemy), and he shall give him the daughter of women, to work ruin," Daniel 11, 17. What the terms of this equitable pact were was already a matter of controversy fifteen years after. The court of Alexandria contended that they included a retrocession of CaleSyria to Egypt as Cleopatra's dowry; this the Seleucid court denied (Polyb. xxviii. 20, 9). The retrocession certainly did not take place. Most modern historians have accepted the explanation of Josephus (Arch. xii. § 155) that a part of the taxes levied on Cœle-Syria were granted to Egypt. The difficulty in accepting this explanation lies in the fact that Polybius, in passages dealing with the controversy, shows no knowledge of such an arrangement, whilst the statement of Josephus is accounted for by his having to find some way out of the contradiction in which his chronological confusion has involved him. He places the story of Joseph, who collects taxes for the Egyptian government, a generation too late. See Wellhausen, Isra. u. jüd. Gesch. (ed. 2), p. 232, note.

APPENDIX E (p. 163)

I incline to doubt, with Willrich (Judaïca, p. 58) and Büchler (Tobiaden u. Oniaden, p. 143 f.), the genuineness of the letters of Antiochus III, given by Joseph. Arch. xii. § 138 f., not so much because of any impossibility in them (which I do not think Willrich or Büchler succeeds in making out), but because of the readiness with which such documents were forged in post-Maccabaean times (see Willrich, Juden u. Griechen, Judaïca, passim). If, however, they are not genuine, they are forged by some one familiar with the history of the time and the style of such rescripts. He knew of Zeuxis, the governor of Lydia (perhaps from

Polybius), and Ptolemy, the son of Thraseas, the governor of Cœle-Syria. (In objecting that Ptolemy was made governor in 218, Juden u. Griechen, p. 40, Willrich is thinking of the date in which he was in the Egyptian service, Polyb. v. 65, 3. That he deserted to the Seleucid in 218 with Ceraeas and Hippolochus, Polyb. v. 70, 10, is a conjecture only. When he was made governor of Cale-Syria there is absolutely nothing to show.) He is also right in exhibiting the Jews as friendly to Antiochus. The detail of the Egyptian garrison, not mentioned in our fragments of Polybius, may therefore be taken as true. That Antiochus should in such circumstances have shown some favours to the Jews and made presents to the Temple is in itself extremely likely.

APPENDIX F (p. 163)

The inscription is Michel, No. 1229. Πτολεμαῖος Θρασέα | στραταγὸς καὶ ἀρχιερεὺς Συρίας Κοίλας καὶ Φοινίκας | Ερμᾷ καὶ Ἡρακλεῖ καὶ βασιλεῖ μεγάλῳ Αντιόχῳ. There are also traces of smaller administrative divisions, that, for instance, of the country this side of Jordan into Cale-Syria (=Galilee ?), Phoenicia, Samaria and Judaea (Joseph. Arch. xii. §§ 154, 175; cf. Strabo xvi. 750). Idumaea is mentioned as a separate eparchia in 311, and for eparchia (equivalent to hyparchia, the subdivision of a satrapy) the term satrapy is sometimes loosely substituted (Diod. xix. 95, 2; cf. ibid. 98). We hear in the Maccabees of a strategos of Idumaea (2 Macc. 12, 32). Whether meridarches (1 Macc. 10, 65) is equivalent to eparchos is a question. Then we have the Egyptian term nome used for districts of Samaria-perhaps a legacy of the Ptolemaiïc rule (1 Macc. 11, 34 = Joseph. Arch. xiii. § 127). And this word is in Josephus exchangeable with Tоrаpxía (Arch. xiii. § 125). Judaea (under the Romans, but in accordance, no doubt, with an old system) is divided in 10 or 11 Tожарɣíαι (Joseph. Bel. iii. § 54; Plin. v. $70), to which again the term Kλnpovxía is applied. Gorgias is σTpaTηyds TŵV Tóпшν (2 Macc. 10, 14). It would obviously be hopeless to attempt to reconstruct the official organization from literary authorities; they were not concerned to burden their readers with the precise use of each term, or give them clearer notions than an ordinary Englishman has of the Lieutenant-Governors, Magistrates, Collectors, Deputy Commissioners, etc., of the Anglo-Indian system).

APPENDIX G (p. 171)

According to 1 Macc. (followed by Schürer) it was his first campaign of 170-169; according to 2 Macc. (followed by Niese) his "second expedition to Egypt” (περὶ δὲ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον τὴν δευτέραν ἄφοδον ὁ Αντίοχος εἰς Αἴγυπτον ἐστείλατο, 5, 1). This is generally taken to mean the expedition of 168, and, if so, there is, of course, an irreconcilable contradiction between the two books of the Maccabees. But I submit

that the expression of 2 Macc. may mean "second" in reference to the apparently abortive expedition of a few years before mentioned in ch. 4, 21. At that time Antiochus heard that Egypt was preparing war and came south with a force. (The force is proved by the word κατεστρατοπέδευσεν.) Antiochus therefore might perhaps be described as setting out in 170-169 for his second apodos eis AïуUTTоv; it was the second time that Cœle-Syria had experienced the passage of an army led by the King against Egypt, although the first time that he actually attacked Egypt.

APPENDIX H (p. 176)

The accounts of the great victories won by the Jewish bands in these early days over superior numbers of the King's troops one might be inclined to attribute to the self-glorification of the Jews. But indeed men filled with religious enthusiasm are likely to perform prodigies against merely professional soldiers. The story of the rise of Mahdism echoes strangely the Maccabaean story. On the first signs of revolt, the Governor-general of the Sudan sends two companies to capture the Mahdi. The two captains quarrel, and the force is set upon by the bands of the Mahdi and killed with nothing but simple sticks (July 1881). A few months later the Mudir of Fashoda advances against the Dervishes. He is drawn into a forest and his whole force massacred, before they have time to alight from their camels. Then the Egyptian government (March 1882) sends a serious expedition from Khartum to co-operate with another from El Obeid. They effect a junction, but their camp is suddenly surprised in the early morning by the Mahdists, and only a few escape. And so on, till Gordon meets the fate of Nicanor (Ohrwalder, Ten Years Captivity in the Mahdi's Camp). Nor was it only against the Egyptian soldiery that the Mahdists won their successes. Englishmen will not need to be reminded that, in spite of the disparity of arms, they were able to "break the British square."

APPENDIX I (p. 177)

Personally I think the case for this document a very strong one. One can imagine no possible reason for forging it. If a Jew had forged it he would have given some indication that Antiochus repented of his persecution it is in fact adduced by Jason of Cyrene to prove this— but so far from doing so, Antiochus refers with satisfaction to his conduct in the past as having been beneficent.

Modern writers are apt to lose sight of something which the ancient Jewish writers did all they could to cover with oblivion-this Hellenizing Jewish community. It is one of the most interesting facts which Niese's Kritik has brought out that in representing Jerusalem as desolate and the Temple courts overgrown with wild shrubs in 165, the writer of 1 Macc. is intentionally making a vacuum where really there was a Hellenistic

population. The two accounts of what happened to the Temple, (1) that it was given over to heathen worship, (2) that it was forsaken, are in fact inconsistent.

APPENDIX J (p. 180)

The order of events in this part of Maccabaean history is notoriously doubtful. A great deal, of course, turns upon whether the documents given in 2 Macc. 11 are genuine. I follow Niese in supposing that they are. But if so, certain things follow. (1) When they were written, in 165-164, at the end of the first invasion of Judaea by Lysias, the death of Antiochus Epiphanes was already known in Syria, and 1 Macc. is therefore wrong in putting the death of Antiochus in 164-163, after Lysias had returned to Antioch. (2) But it also follows that at the time when they were written the insurgent Jews had not yet recovered possession of Jerusalem and the Temple. The rescript of Antiochus Eupator to Lysias orders that the Temple shall be restored to them, and even if this might mean that their de facto possession of it shall be acknowledged, the next rescript, that to the Jewish gerusia, makes it plain that the nationalists had not yet re-entered the city. It grants them permission to do so, promising an amnesty to those who do so before the 30th of Xanthicus. And here the First Book of Maccabees comes in corroboratively, placing the recovery of Jerusalem and cleansing of the Temple after the expedition of Lysias. It may well be that it is also right in representing Lysias as setting out before the death of Antiochus Epiphanes. The most serious difficulty is that as to the date of the cleansing of the Temple, which is given in 1 Macc. 4, 52, as the 25th of Chislev, year 148, i.e. in December 165 B.C. Can the documents of 2 Macc. 11 have been written in one of the preceding months of the year 148, which only began by the government reckoning in the autumn? Three of the documents are dated exactly; the letter of Lysias to the Jews is dated Dioskorinthios 24, but the month signified is absolutely uncertain; the letter of the Romans, Xanthicus 15, but here Niese shows a corruption. Neither of these therefore helps us. The rescript of Antiochus V to the Jews remains, and this is dated Xanthicus 15. But here also there is surely some mistake, for the rescript gives the 30th of Xanthicus as the date before which the Jews must return in order to profit by it-a date ostensibly fifteen days only after it was given under the King's hand at Antioch! But in any case, if the nationalists returned to Jerusalem in consequence of the negotiations with Lysias, and Lysias began these negotiations after the death of Antiochus was known, and his death took place at the earliest in the autumn of 165, the cleansing of the Temple can hardly have come about as soon as December 165. We must therefore put it a year later, in December 164. The month and day (Chislev 25) are fixed by the annual celebration, but the celebration would not give the same guarantee for the correctness of the traditional year.