Глава VI

Death of Antiochus Epiphanes (cf. 2 Mac. 9) (1 Mac. 6:1–17). The complaint of the Jewish apostates and the Syrian garrison to Antiochus Eupator against Judah and the king’s great preparations for a new campaign against Judea (1 Mac. 6:18–30). Siege of Bethsura and Battle of Bethsachar (1 Mac. 6:31–47). Siege of the church mount fortifications, surrender of Bethsura (1 Mac. 6:48–54). Conclusion of a truce; treachery of the king and removal to Antioch (1 Mac. 6:55–63) (cf. Ios. Antt, XII, 9, 3–7 and 2 Mac. 13:18–27). 1Mac 6:1 Meanwhile King Antiochus, passing through the upper regions, heard that there was in Persia a city called Elimais, famous for its wealth, silver and gold, On his way through the “upper countries” (see III: 31 and 37), Antiochus “heard that there was a city in Persia called Elimais,” famous for its church and untold riches, where he headed... This expression, included in the textus receptus, that Elemais is a city in Persia, represents an obvious geographical error, since in Persia there was not a city of Elimais, but ' Ελυμαίς – Greek form of Hebrew. named ... - a province of the Persian kingdom (Dan VIII: 2 - the region of Elam with the capital city of Susa). – The name of this “Elemais” as a city could have been due to the fact that in the original there was ..., “locality”, erroneously translated by the translator through πόλις. He was especially encouraged to do this by the fact that in Art. 2 and 3. We are talking specifically about the city. But in this case, it would be more correct to express it simply: “I heard (Antiochus) that there is a έν Ἐλυμαίδι έν τη Περσίδι city...”, etc. This seems to be given only by different readings of the text: έν Ἐλυμές (code. Alex.), έν Ελυμαίς (Comp.), έν λυμαίς (Syn.), έν Ἐλυμαίς and έν Ελυμαίδι (Fritzsche). – They do not mention the name of the city and other historical evidence about this event. So, Polyvius only says that Antiochus, wanting to get money, undertook a campaign “to the church of Artemis in Elymaida,” but his goal was not achieved (XXXI, 11). Appian mentions that Antiochus robbed τό της Ελυμαίας ᾿Αφροδίτης ᾿ιερόν (Syr. p. 66). – 2Mac IX: 2, reporting this event, gives the name of the city - Persepolis, but this is based on a simple guess. 1 Mac.6:2 And in it is a very rich church, and there are golden coverings, armor and weapons, which Alexander, the son of Philip, king of Macedon, the first to reign over the Greeks, left there. “Left there by Alexander,” that is, as dedicated gifts and trophies of victory. - “The first to reign over the Hellenes.” See to I: 1. 1Mac 6:3-4 And he came and tried to take the city and plunder it, but he could not, because his intention became known to the inhabitants of the city. They rose up against him in war, and he fled and left there with great sorrow to go to Babylon. "Left... to go to Babylon." This does not contradict the report of Polyvius that Antiochus died in Tabae, because it only says that Antiochus went to Babylon, on the way where death overtook him. 1Mac 6:5 Then someone came to him in Persia with news that the armies that had gone into the land of Judah had been put to flight, 1 Mac.6:5–7: Summary of what Antiochus described III: 32; IV: 60 events. - “Someone came to him... with news...” - απαγγέλων τις - it was probably a special messenger from Lysias. – “The armies that went into the land of Judah...”, the troops of Ptolemy, Nicanor and Gorgias (III:38, IV:1). - “The Fox walked... ahead of everyone...”, έν πρώτοις, glor.: “in the first,” that is, not in the sense of “above all,” but as the highest of all, as the commander-in-chief (IV: 28 etc.). 1Mac 6:6-7 that Lysias went with a strong army ahead of all, but was defeated by the Jews, and they became stronger both in arms and in army, and in many spoils, which they took from the troops they defeated, and that they destroyed the abomination that he had built over the altar in Jerusalem, and they still surrounded the sanctuary with high walls, also Bethsura his city. “They destroyed the abomination...” In the expression - το βδέλυγμα - the writer puts his own Jewish view into the mouth of the pagan messenger. - “Bethsur, his city” - πόλιν αύτού - that is, the city rightfully belonged to him, the Syrian king. 1Mac 6:8-9 When the king heard these words, he was greatly afraid and alarmed, fell on his bed and fell into exhaustion from sadness that it did not come true as he wished. And he stayed there for many days, for great sadness was renewed in him; he thought he was dying. “He stayed there...”, έν τή Περσίδι, where the messenger Lysias found him. 1Mac 6:10-11 And he called all his friends and said to them, “Sleep has departed from my eyes, and I am faint in heart for sorrow.” And I said in my heart: to what sorrow I have come and to what great confusion in which I am now! And I was useful and loved in my dominion. “I was useful and loved in my dominion.” Antiochus cannot be denied natural kindness and good intentions; It is also true that he tried - often to the point of ridiculousness - to become the favorite of his people. 1Mac 6:12-13 Now I remember the atrocities that I committed in Jerusalem, and how I took all the gold and silver vessels that were in it and sent them to destroy those who dwelt in Judea to no avail. Now I know that these troubles befell me because of this, and behold, I am perishing from great sorrow in a foreign land. “I am perishing... in a foreign land...” Persia, although it belonged to the kingdom of Antiochus, was, however, a remote province, which, after the campaigns he undertook there, really became a stranger to him, so one could not count on its participation in his sad fate. In Antiochus's pointing to the iniquities he committed in Jerusalem as the cause of his disasters, not everything should be attributed to the historian's Judeo-apologetic pragmatism. For some plausibility of the reasoning and feelings he put into the mouth of the dying king - it is said not only by Polyvius’s note that Antiochus, from some terrible signs of the Divine, for the plunder of the Elymaid Church, fell into insensibility and died - but also by all the circumstances of the case itself. His imagination depicted, on the one hand, all the horrors of his last persecution of Judaism, on the other, all the bitterness of his last failures: it was so easy and natural for a person to put both in a causal and mutual connection - in a state of special inclination to give a mystical explanation of events. 1Mac 6:14 And he called Philip, one of his friends, and made him ruler over all his kingdom; Philip - in 2 Mac IX: 29 - also called the king's co-educator - σύντροφος - was apparently from the “barbarians” - a Phrygian by birth, appointed by Antiochus as governor of Judea in order to “oppress the people” (2 Mac V: 22, VIII: 8). 1Mac 6:15 And he gave him a crown, and his royal robe, and a ring, that he might guide Antiochus his son, and train him up to reign. “I gave him... and a ring...” - τό δακτύλιον, with which all written orders and decrees of the king were sealed. 1 Mac 6:16 And king Antiochus died in the one hundred and forty-ninth year. “King Antiochus died in 149...” e. Seleucus. - 164 BC. Through the presentation of royal regalia to Philip, Antiochus declared him and legitimized him as the ruler of the kingdom and guardian of his son during his minority. Comparing this with III: 32–34, we find it strange that the king transferred these powers not to Lysias, but to Philip. “It seems that Philip tried and managed to gain the trust of the disheartened king regarding the distant Lysias, against whom Antiochus was already opposed after the defeats he suffered in Judea. However, if we take into account the fact that Philip was a co-educator of Antiochus, and, therefore, stood in relation to the king almost as close, if not closer, to the king, who came from the royal family of Lysias, then it will be possible to assume that - by appointing Philip as the ruler of the kingdom and educator of his son - Antiochus did not mean to offend Lysias at all. And if this appointment led, however, to an internecine war, then the ambition of Lysias was more to blame for this, who did not submit to the last will of the king and did not limit himself to power over one half of the kingdom, but now wanted to seize the entire kingdom. – Polyvius names the place of death of Antiochus as Tabae in Persia; bliss Jerome - and Dan XI - Tabes oppidum Persidos. According to Curtius V, 13, this city lay in Paraetacene ultima, that is, in an area that extended north from Persia and east from the Susian province to the Median. 1Mac 6:17 When Lysias learned that the king had died, he installed his son Antiochus, whom he had raised in his youth, in his place as king, and named him Eupator. According to Appian (46 and 66) - the new king, Antiochus Eupator, had only 9 years at his accession to the throne, according to Eusebius (chron. armen. p. 187) - 14 years; the first reading seems more correct. 1Mac 6:18-20 Meanwhile those who were in the fortress pressed Israel around the sanctuary and always tried to do harm to him, and to serve as a support for the pagans; then Judas decided to drive them out and called all the people to besiege them. Everyone gathered and besieged them in the year one hundred and fifty, and he arranged arrow-throwing guns and machines against them. In 150 AD. Seleucus. – 163 BC. 1Mac 6:21-22 But some of those who were besieged went out, and some of the wicked Israelites came to them; and they went to the king and said, “How long will you not execute judgment and avenge our brothers?” “How long... will you not avenge our brothers?”, that is, this refers to the pagans besieged in the fortress and the Jews who were in communication with them - the questioners consisted of both of these varieties. 1Mac 6:23-28 We have agreed to serve your father and walk in his commandments and follow his commandments; and the sons of our people besieged the fortress and for this they alienated us, and whoever they found among us they killed, and they plundered our property, and not only did they stretch out their hand against us, but also over all our borders. And so, now they besieged the fortress in Jerusalem in order to take it, and fortified the sanctuary and Bethsura. If you are not quick to warn them, they will do more than this, and then you will not be able to stop them. Hearing this, the king became angry and gathered all his friends and the commanders of his army and the commanders of the cavalry; “The king was angry and gathered...” Since the king was still a boy (see in v. 17), everything attributed here to the king was done, in his name, of course, by the ruler of the kingdom, Lysias. It is possible, however, that the messengers had an audience with the young king in the presence of Lysias and with their messages made him angry and belligerent, and Lysias, presenting this as sufficient authority for himself, began the necessary preparations for the upcoming war. - “His friends...”, i.e. members of his royal council. 1Mac 6:29 Hired troops came to him from other kingdoms and from the islands of the sea, “They came to him from other kingdoms...”, that is, probably from Asia Minor - Pergamum, Bithynia, Pontus and Cappadocia. – “From the sea islands...”, i.e. Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete and the islands of the Archipelago. 1Mac 6:30 So the number of his troops was: one hundred thousand footmen, twenty thousand horsemen, and thirty-two elephants, accustomed to war. 2 Mac XIII:2 - represents the military forces of Eupator and Lysias even more formidable - 110,000 infantry, 5,300 cavalry, 32 elephants and 30 chariots with scythes - each. But this testimony hardly deserves much credibility - not only because it gives a special army to the young Eupator and Lysias, but because of the obvious improbability of such large numbers, especially if we take into account that half of the Syrian troops should still have been in Persia with Philip - and that even Antiochus the Great, in the battle of Magnesia, could put no more than 80,000 troops against the Romans - at a time when the Syrian kingdom was much larger and his strength was not yet so exhausted as under Antiochus Epiphanes; and, finally, Lysias could hardly have recruited so many troops in the Greek lands - without causing a conflict with the Romans, in the peace treaty with whom Antiochus pledged not to recruit in the lands under Roman protection, not to accept either defectors or volunteers from them, not to train elephants for battle anymore and not to acquire them (Poliv. XXII, 23 (26); Liv. XXXVIII, 38). Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that Lysias’s army must have reached at least the figure indicated by Art. 30. - In fact, if Lysias was defeated twice - first with 40,000, then with 65,000 - by the 10,000th detachment of Judah (IV: 28-35), then now, when Judah strengthened the church mount and Bethsura and so raised the spirit of the strength of his companions that he undertook a siege of the Syrian garrison in the fortress of Jerusalem, - Lysias had to move even more against the Jews a larger army, if only he wanted to decisively suppress this uprising of the Jews and establish himself again in Judea. Other equally important considerations should have prompted him to do this. In addition to affairs in Judea, he foresaw difficulties both on the part of Philip upon his return from Persia, and on the part of the Romans, if on the issue of succession to the throne they spoke not in favor of Eupator, but of another candidate - his uncle - Demetrius. Both could sufficiently induce him to exert all the forces of the Syrian kingdom in order to create an army ready for all anticipated difficulties. 1Mac 6:31 And they passed through Idumea, and pitched their camp against Bethsura, and fought many days, and built engines; but they made a sally and burned them with fire and fought bravely. “They passed through Idumea...”, see V: 29. 1Mac 6:32 After this Judah retreated from the fortress and pitched his camp at Bethsachar opposite the king's camp. “Judas retreated from the fortress,” that is, he stopped for now the siege of the Jerusalem fortress, where the Syrian garrison was sitting (cf. v. 20), and headed towards the advancing enemy. - Bethsahara - Βηθζαχαρία, - where Judah encamped, lay 70 stadia north of Bethsura, the present Beit Sakarieh (Ios. Antt. XII, 9, 4; bell. jud. I, 5). 1Mac 6:33-34 And the king rose early in the morning, and hastened with his army along the road to Bethsahara, and the troops prepared for battle and blew the trumpets. The elephants were shown the blood of grapes and mulberries to excite them to fight, “The blood of grapes and mulberries...”, i.e. red wine or the juice of these berries, which looks like blood. Drinking this wine drove the elephants into an uncontrollable frenzy, which was usually greatly used in battles (3Mac V: 2). “In this case, the wine was only shown to the elephants, without being given, which made their rage even more terrible. 1 Mac.6:35-37 And they divided these animals into companies and assigned to each elephant a thousand men in iron mail and with copper helmets on their heads, besides, five hundred chosen horsemen were assigned to each elephant. They stood in advance where the elephant was, and where he went, they walked together, not lagging behind him. Moreover, they had strong wooden towers covering each elephant, strengthened on them with bristles, and in each of them there were thirty two strong men who fought on them, and with the elephant there was an Indian. “And with the elephant there was an Indian,” that is, the leader, the manager, was Indian, because the elephants were Indian. The number of people - 32 - on each elephant seems absolutely incredible. Both according to ancient and new evidence, elephant towers could accommodate only 3 or 4, at most 5 people, and a tower with 32 armed warriors would occupy a circle that could not possibly fit the back of the largest elephant; Obviously, therefore, this incredible number entered the text by mistake of the translator or copyist, perhaps through a confusion of numbers. The original text here probably had Hebrew. ... - three or two, from where - at a time when elephants were still unknown in Syria - thirty-two could easily have come from. 1 Mac.6:38-43 The rest of the horsemen were placed here and there - on two sides of the army, to give signs and reinforcement in tight places. When the sun flashed on the gold and copper shields, the mountains shone from them and shone like fiery lamps. One part of the royal army was stretched across the high mountains, and the others through low-lying areas; and they walked firmly and orderly. And everyone who heard the noise of their multitude and the procession of such a horde and the sound of weapons were confused, for the army was very large and strong. And Judah and his army entered the battle, and six hundred men of the king's army fell. Then Eleazar, the son of Savaran, saw that one of the elephants was covered with royal armor and was superior to all, and it seemed that there was a king on it, “Eleazar, son of Savaran...” - see II: 5. 1Mac 6:44-46 And he gave himself, that he might save his people, and win for himself an everlasting name; and boldly ran towards him in the middle of the detachment, striking right and left, and they parted from him in both directions; and he ran under that elephant, lay down under it and killed him, and the elephant fell on him to the ground, and he died there. “Lay down under him...” – ' υπέθηκεν (εαυτόν), glav.: “lie down under him.” – Eleazar’s action can hardly be described by the expression: “lay down under him.” It is much more correct to present the matter by analogy with 2 Mac XIV: 41 and - as directly indicated in Jos. Fl. (Antt. XII. 9, 4) that Eleazar “planted” (' υπέθηκεν) - not himself, but τό ξίφος - a sword, as is found in some manuscripts, and - thus - piercing the elephant from below, killed him. Eleazar's assumption (v. 43) that there was a king on this elephant turned out to be erroneous. Probably, it was some other important “person”, but the king could hardly even be here, because he was still a child, completely useless for the battle: in the turmoil of the battle, he would need a special eye, reinforced security, and this would only be an unnecessary hindrance to the fighters. If the king had died with the elephant, this, of course, would not have happened without severe panic in the army, and this time it would have given in to disorderly flight. The integrity of the king is finally visible from what follows (48 art. etc.). 1Mac 6:47-48 But when the Jews saw the strength of the king's army and the swiftness of the troops, the Jews turned away from them. The royal troops went against them to Jerusalem: the king sent troops to Judea and Mount Zion. For the first time, Judas retreats from the enemy, finding that without extremes one should not risk the forces, which this time were too obviously inferior to the enemy, even if there was no lack of courage. Guarding the army and not losing hope of outwitting the enemy, Judas returned, as it seems, to Jerusalem, having the advancing enemy behind (v. 48; cf. Ios. Antt. XII, 9, 5; De bell. jud. I, 5). - “The king’s troops...”, glor.: “he who is from the king’s regiment” (οί έκ τών), i.e. part of the army, the main detachment, - while the other part led the siege of Bethsura and, upon its surrender, had to remain there for protection. - “Sent against them to Jerusalem...” - είς συνάντησιν αύτών - this expression and the text in general in this place - does not give clear indications as to where Judas went and where he was located. According to Jos. Antt. XII, 9, 5 - he and his detachment imprisoned themselves in the church fortifications; but in this case it seems strange that later - at the conclusion of peace (58 v.) - the name of Judas is not mentioned, not to mention the fact that 54 v. can hardly be reconciled with this assumption. It was generally not in Judah’s character to hide from enemies in a fortress, and in this case, however, he could do this because, due to the Sabbath year, the church mount would have experienced a severe shortage of food. It is possible, therefore, that Judas, having left part of the detachment in Jerusalem, actually went (with another part) to Gothna, to the mountains, as Flavius ​​presents the matter elsewhere. 1Mac 6:49 And he made peace with them that were in Bethsura, who went out of the city: for they had no provisions to keep it under siege, because it was a sabbatical year in the land. The immediate consequence of the victorious attack of the Syrians on Judea was that the fortress of Bethsur had to surrender, forced to do so especially by the lack of food. In the mention of this event, which was not so pleasant for the Jew, the writer’s desire is noticeable - as far as possible - to smooth out the unpleasantness of the impression. Thus, he does not say - as was usually expressed in such cases - that the Jews went out to the enemy to surrender themselves (cf. 1 Sam. πόλεως. Likewise, the expression: “he made peace with those who were in Bethsura...”, obviously, is simply a “delicate” designation of the fact that the fortress capitulated to the king. But if the primary source in this case is so brief and secretive, then there are more detailed and more frank evidence of this. Josephus Flavius, who generally knew how to spare the pride of the Jewish reader, in this case admits even much more: that “the Bethsuriites, fearing the multitude of enemies..., surrendered the city to the king,” taking an oath to protect them from all troubles. But Antiochus, having received the city, “did not cause any other harm to the inhabitants, as soon as he ordered them to be driven out of the city naked.” This is what it is like... 1Mac 6:50-51 And the king took possession of Bethsura and left guards there to keep watch over it. Then he besieged the sanctuary for many days and placed there arrow-throwing weapons and machines, and fire-throwing, and stone-throwing, and spear-throwing weapons, to throw arrows and stones. “He besieged the sanctuary...”, that is, the strongly fortified mountain of the church (see IV: 60). 1Mac 6:52-53 But the Jews also formed engines against their engines and fought for many days; there were not enough food supplies in the storehouses, because it was the seventh year, and those who sought safety from the pagans in Judea had used up the remnants of the supplies; “Those who sought safety in Judea from the pagans...”, that is, those who migrated from Gilead and Galilee, V: 23, 45. 1Mac 6:54-61 And a few men remained at the sanctuary, for the famine had overcome them, and they dispersed each one to his own place. Lysias heard that Philip, who had been entrusted by King Antiochus during his lifetime to raise his son, Antiochus, for the reign, had returned from Persia and Media and the troops that went with the king with him, and that he was trying to take over the affairs of the kingdom. Why did he hastily go and tell the king, the commanders of the army and the nobles: every day we suffer a shortage and we have little food, and the place we are besieging is strong, meanwhile the care of the kingdom lies with us. So, let us give our right hand to these people and make peace with them and with all their people. And let us leave them to do according to their laws as before; for because of their laws, which we abolished, they became irritated and did all this. And this word pleased the king and the leaders, and he sent to them to make peace, which they accepted; and the king and the rulers swore to them. After this they left the fortress. “After this they came out...”, επί τούτοις, glav.: “about these”, i.e. it is more correct not “after this,” but “on these,” or “on this,” in the sense in which they say: “on this they decided,” i.e., “on these conditions they left the fortress,” surrendering it to the Syrians. 1Mac 6:62 And the king went up to Mount Zion and, having examined the fortified places, despised the oath that he had sworn, and ordered the walls around to be destroyed. “To Mount Zion...”, that is, to the fortifications of the church mount. The writer views the king’s command to “destroy the walls all around” as a violation of the oath that “the king swore” at the conclusion of peace (v. 61). Some object to this that it is not clear from the narrative itself that the inviolability of the walls was one of the points of the peace treaty, however, this is assumed by itself. 1Mac 6:63 Then he set out hastily, and returning to Antioch, he found that Philip was in possession of the city, and he entered into battle with him and took the city by force. From Jerusalem the king hurriedly went to Antioch and, finding there that Philip owned the city, he entered into battle with him and took the city by force. To this message, Joseph Fl. in Antt. XII, 9, 7 - adds that Philip is captured and killed, while according to 2 Mac IX: 29 - Philip, out of fear of Antiochus Eupator, retires to Ptolemy Philometor in Egypt. Joseph further narrates that the king, leaving Judea, took with him the high priest Onias, who was renamed Menelaus, and, on the advice of Lysias, ordered him to be killed in Beria, as the main culprit of all the troubles between the Jews and the Syrian king. This event is also conveyed in 2 Mac XIII: 4–7, only placed in a different place - before the arrival of Lysias and Eupator in Judea. Относительно всех этих различий изложения будет сказано в своем месте, при толковании 2Мак IX и XIII. The books of Maccabees are translated from Greek because they are not in the Hebrew text.