historical perspectives: from the hasmoneans to bar kokhba in light ...

ANTIOCHUS IV EPIPHANES IN JERUSALEM 53
during the second visit (11:30). Similarly, line 7 of 4Q248, according
to Broshi and Eshel's reconstruction, corresponds to Josephus'
brief reference to the theft of money alone during the first visit, while
a much more interesting story begins at the end of line 8, with the
second campaign to Egypt. Here, as we see from the words
(echoed in Dan. 12:7) at the outset of line 9, we have an
apocalyptic story, parallel to the rest of Daniel 11 and 12.
More broadly, I posit that if there were two attacks on Jerusalem
before the Hasmonean revolt, the more serious one would likely be
the second attack, the one that touched off the final deterioration
into rebellion and persecution. Thus, we have assumed that an attack
on individuals, especially if they are recognized as enemies of Antiochus
IV (as Josephus reports), would have been less likely to touch off the
critical series of events than a looting of the Temple, especially if
accompanied by massacre and enslavement. Indeed, that is how
Daniel tells the story; so, too, in 4Q248 the real story begins only
with the second visit. Such a reconstruction easily fits 2 Maccabees
as well, because the serious attack on Jerusalem and the Temple
comes just before the more serious persecutions and revolt.
One might well ask why the author of 1 Maccabees would claim
that a serious attack on the Temple failed to elicit any response, followed
by a period of quiet, which was only interrupted "after two
years of days" when something new happened. At this point we enter
the realm of speculation. So I'll be brief and simply point out that
if, as emerges from 2 Macc. 5:11, Antiochus thought that the Jews
were rebelling against him in 168 BCE, then he was probably correct.
We must assume that Antiochus had the means, probably even before
reaching Jerusalem and certainly upon his arrival, to know whether
there was a rebellion there; certainly the Jews of Jerusalem could
have made the situation clear to him, were they not in rebellion.
Despite the fact that the apologetic diasporan author of 2 Maccabees
wants us to believe that the "rebellion" was a misunderstanding, I
would tend to trust Antiochus more. But, if so, then we must ask,
"Who rebelled?" The obvious answer is that whoever it was, it wasn't
the Hasmoneans. Judah Maccabee is mentioned first only at the end
of 2 Maccabees 5, and even then only in passing, just as 1 Maccabees
mentions the Hasmoneans only from chapter 2 onwards, in the context
of 168/167 BCE. So we conclude, with Tcherikover, that non-
Hasmonean Jews rebelled against Seleucid rule in 168 BCE, and
that it was their rebellion that elicited Antiochus' massive attack on