Читать книгу A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ - Emil Schürer - Страница 15

The First Book of Maccabees is the main source to be relied upon for the first forty years of our history, from B.C. 175 to B.C. 135. The second book treats only of the first fourteen of those years, B.C. 175 to B.C. 161; but in respect of credibility stands far below the first, and can scarcely be said to be of independent value except in regard to the period that precedes the rise of the Maccabees. On the character of both of these works and the circumstances of their origin, all that is necessary will be found under § 32 and 33, in Div. ii. vol. iii. pp. 6–13, 211–216. All that we are required to do here is to determine what is to be regarded as the starting-point of the Seleucid era, in accordance with which both of these books fix their dates. The usual Seleucid era begins with autumn 312 B.C. But it is open to question whether in the two Books of Maccabees, or whether even in one of them, this usual starting-point is presupposed. In order to help to a decision, we set down in order the examples of dating by months given in the First Book of Maccabees:—

Chap.	1:54:	τῇ πεντεκαιδεκάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ Χασελεῦ.
”	1:59:	τῇ πέμπτῃ καὶ εἰκάδι τοῦ μηνός.
”	4:52:	τῇ πέμπτῃ καὶ εἰκάδι τοῦ μηνὸς τοῦ ἐννάτου, οὗτος ὁ μὴν Χασελεῦ.
”	7:43:	τῇ τρισκαιδεκάτῃ τοῦ μηνὸς Ἀδάρ.
”	7:49:	τὴν τρισκαιδεκάτην τοῦ Ἀδάρ.
”	9:3:	τοῦ μηνὸς τοῦ πρώτου ἔτους τοῦ δευτέρου καὶ πεντηκοστοῦ καὶ ἑκατοστοῦ.
”	9:54:	μηνὶ τῷ δευτέρῳ.
”	10:21:	τῷ ἑβδὁμῳ μηνὶ ἔτους ἑξηκοστοῦ καὶ ἑκατοστοῦ ἐν ἑορτῇ σκηνοπηγίας.
”	13:51:	τῇ τρίτῃ καὶ εἰκάδι τοῦ δευτέρου μηνὸς ἔτους ἐνὸς καὶ ἑβδομηκοστοῦ καὶ ἑκατοστοῦ. For the same occurrence the Megillath Taanith gives the date 23rd Ijjar.
”	14:27:	ὀκτωκαιδεκάτῃ Ἐλοὺλ, ἔτους δευτέρου καὶ ἑβδομηκοστοῦ καὶ ἑκατοστοῦ.
”	16:14:	ἐν μηνὶ ἑνδεκάτῳ, οὗτος ὁ μὴν Σαβάτ.

From these dates it is put beyond all doubt that the author reckoned the months from the spring season. With him Ijjar or Zif is the second mouth (chap. 13:51); Tizri, therefore, the month of the Feast of Tabernacles, was the seventh (chap. 10:21); Chisleu is the ninth (chap. 4:52), and Shebat is the eleventh (chap. 16:14). The numbering of the months, therefore, begins with Nisan or Abib, that is, in the spring (see list in Appendix III. at the end of vol. ii.). From this it seems to be put beyond all reasonable doubt that the year by which the author reckoned also began in the spring season. But the Seleucid era, according to which he reckons, is usually supposed to start with autumn, just as it was customary in Syria generally to commence the year in the season of harvest. Among the Jews, too, it was the custom in very early times (Ex. 23:16, 34:22) to begin the year in autumn,—a custom older probably than that of starting with the spring. In the post-exilian times we certainly have both of these methods of reckoning the beginning of the year existing side by side. The cycle of religious festivals begins in the spring season; and so from it the months are counted in the First Book of Maccabees as well as in the Priestly Code. But just as even the Priestly Code could not prevent the celebrating of the new moon of the month Tizri with a religious festival (Lev. 23:23–25; Num. 29:1–6), in later times the beginning of the year came to be counted from that day, ראֹשׁ הַשָּׁנָה. The Mishna, indeed, says distinctly that “for the year” simply, therefore for the numbering of its months, the beginning is made with the 1st of Tizri. According to Josephus, too, the beginning of the year with Nisan, as ordained by Moses, holds good with reference only to sacred things; whereas, on the other hand, “for buying and selling and other business,” the year begins with Tizri according to the more ancient pre-Mosaic ordinance. In these circumstances it is quite possible that the First Book of Maccabees too, notwithstanding the numbering of the months from the spring season, may have reckoned its dates from the autumn. We should indeed have felt ourselves obliged, if no very decided reasons could be adduced against such a supposition, to accept this as the most probable explanation, seeing that it is from autumn as a rule that the dates in the Seleucid era are reckoned. This is the view taken by Wernsdorff, Clinton, and myself in the first edition of this work. But now it seems to me that weighty grounds can be given for thinking that the era of our book begins with the spring.

1. According to 1 Macc. 7:1, Demetrius I. withdrew from Rome in the year 151 of the Seleucid era, and became king of Syria. After this we meet with no other note of time in the First Book of Maccabees until we come to the 43rd and 49th verses of the 7th chapter, where we are told that Nicanor lost the battle and his life in fighting against Judas on the 13th Adar. The year is not thereby determined. But in chap. 9:3 it is further said that in the first month of the year 152 of the Seleucid era a new army was sent by Demetrius into Palestine. According to this statement, it must then be assumed that the defeat of Nicanor took place on the 13th Adar of the year 151 of the Seleucid era. Since, then, by the “first month” of the year 152, after what had just been stated, the month Nisan of that year must evidently be understood, and since, further, Nisan follows immediately after Adar, if we suppose the year to begin, not on 1st Nisan but on 1st Tizri, a space of three months would intervene between the one event and the other. But according to the context of the story it is much more probable that the one followed almost immediately upon the other, and that therefore the beginning of the year was counted from 1st Nisan.

2. According to 1 Macc. 10:1, Alexander Balas raised himself to the Syrian throne in the year 160 of the Seleucid era. According to chap. 10:21, Jonathan put on the high priest’s garments for the first time “in the seventh month” of this same year 160 of the Seleucid era, at the Feast of Tabernacles, therefore on the 15th Tizri. If, therefore, the year had begun on 1st Tizri, it would follow that all the occurrences reported in 1 Macc. 10:1–21 would have taken place within fourteen days, which is impossible. Should we insist upon putting the beginning of the year in the autumn, we would be obliged to set it later than the Feast of Tabernacles, and then that festival would be thrown into the end of the year, as indeed is presupposed in the old legislation of Ex. 23:16, בְּצֵאת הַשָּׁנָה. But after what has been said above about the New Year Festival on the 1st Tizri, on the supposition of the year beginning generally in the autumn, for our period only the 1st of Tizri can come into consideration.

3. When in the year 150 of the Seleucid era, which date is given us in 1 Macc. 6:20 and 7:1, Antiochus V. Eupator and Lysias came into Palestine with a great army, the garrison of Bethzur was obliged to submit to them, and those besieged in the fortress of Mount Zion suffered the direst privations (1 Macc. 6:48–54). And both of these disasters happened from their being deprived of the means of sustenance on account of the Sabbatical year, “the year of rest to the land” (1 Macc. 6:49, 53). This seventh year of rest was counted from autumn to autumn, as is shown in the passage quoted above from Rosch haschana i. 1. The want of victuals, however, could not have been felt before the middle of the seventh year, after the stores of the previous year had been used up and no new fruits were coming in during spring and summer. On the other hand, at the time when these events occurred, the Sabbath year had not yet expired (chap. 6:49: σάββατον ἦν τῇ γῇ; 6:53: διὰ τὸ ἕβδομον ἔτος εἶναι). They must therefore have taken place in the period between spring and 1st of Tizri. But we know that the siege of Jerusalem by Herod and Sosius also occurred during a Sabbath year (Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 16. 2; comp. xv. 1. 2). That siege, however, is certainly to be dated in the summer of B.C. 37 (see below, § 14). Thus the year B.C. 38–37 was a Sabbath year. If, then, we reckon back from this, we shall find that the year B.C. 164–163 reckoned from autumn to autumn was also a seventh year of rest. The occurrences in question must therefore fall to the summer of B.C. 163. But the year B.C. 163–162 corresponds with the year 150 of the Seleucid era. Had that been counted from autumn, this reckoning would not tally. It will agree only if the Seleucid era is made to begin with spring.

As a confirmation of our understanding of the Sabbath year, may be quoted the somewhat late rabbinical note that it was מוֹצָאֵי שְׁבִיעִית when the temple was destroyed by Titus (Seder Olam, ed. Meyer, p. 91 ff.: אותו היום מוצאי שבת היה ומוצאי שביעית היתה. So, too, Arachin 11b, Taanith 29a). By מוֹצָאֵי שְׁבִיעִית, according to the well-established usage, is certainly to be understood the year after the Sabbath year (see Schebiith v. 5, vi. 4; Sota vii. 8; Machschirin ii. 11; comp. מוצאי שבת, meaning the day after the Sabbath, and ערב שבת, meaning the day before the Sabbath, in Chullin i. fin.). Accordingly the year A.D. 68–69 was a Sabbath year. And if we reckon back from this, we shall find that also the years B.C. 164–163 and B.C. 38–37 were Sabbath years.

Only one historical date on a Sabbath year stands opposed to the views that have been here set forth. According to 1 Macc. 16:14, Simon Maccabeus died in the month Shebat of the year 177 of the Seleucid era. Since Shebat corresponds in part with our February, this date, whether one counts the Seleucid year from spring or from autumn, must be rendered February B.C. 135. But, according to the report of Josephus, after the murder of Simon, John Hyrcanus besieged Simon’s murderer in the fortress of Dagon, and was then obliged after some time to raise the siege when the Sabbath. year came round in which the Jews are required to rest. His words are these: “The year of rest came on upon which the Jews rest every seventh year as they do on every seventh day” (Wars of the Jews, i. 2. 4). “That year on which the Jews used to rest came on; for the Jews observe this rest every seventh year as they do every seventh day” (Antiq. xiii. 8. 1). The year B.C. 135–134 must therefore have been a Sabbath year, whereas according to our calculations we should have expected it to have been B.C. 136–135. The statement of Josephus, however, is open to suspicion on other grounds. The reason given there to show the necessity of raising the siege is that rest is enjoined during the seventh year as on the seventh day. This was indeed the idea that prevailed among Gentile writers. So Tacitus says, Hist. v. 4: dein blandiente inertia septimum quoque annum ignaviae datum. But in the Pentateuch rest in general during the seventh year is by no means enjoined, but only the leaving of the fields unsown (see Lev. 25:1–7). And so far as my knowledge goes, even the later refinements on the interpretation of the law have never gone farther than this. There is therefore good reason for the suspicion that Josephus, who is in this place following Gentile authorities, as is certain on other grounds, has simply transcribed without sifting the statements which were before him. It would also appear that the real occasion of the raising of the siege was not the coming round of the Sabbath year, but the failure of provisions during the course of that year of rest to the land. If this interpretation be accepted, then B.C. 136–135 will be the Sabbath year in full agreement with the other dates.—Wieseler, who indeed places the Sabbath year in B.C. 136–135, sets down the death of Simon as occurring in Shebat, or February B.C. 136; and seeing that this, according to our reckoning, would be the Shebat of the year 176 of the Seleucid era, he makes the Seleucid year of the First Book of Maccabees begin in accordance with the Roman practice in January,—an eccentricity of view that need not now be seriously criticized.

Against the cycle of the Sabbath year here adopted I argued in the first edition of this work that the year A.D. 40–41 could not have been a Sabbath year, as according to our cycle it must have been. For the Jews omitted to sow the seed in the last month before Caligula’s death, during November A.D. 40, not because it was the Sabbath year, but because for weeks they were going in great crowds to lay before Petronius their complaints on account of the profanation threatened to the temple (Antiq. xviii. 8. 3; Wars of the Jews, ii. 10. 5). From this it would appear that the sowing of the fields during that year had been expected. But we are obliged to admit that this indirect argument, when put over against other possible explanations that may still be given, is not strong enough to overturn the very positive proofs that have been advanced in favour of regarding this year as a Sabbath year.

Compare generally on the reckoning of the historically attested Sabbath year in our periods (which by many are made about a year later than by us): Anger, De temporum in actis apostolorum ratione, Lips. 1833, p. 38 (and the earlier works of Scaliger, Petavius, etc., there quoted).—Gumpach, Ueber den altjüdischen Kalender, Brussels 1848.—Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Jisrael, ii. 458 ff.—Zuckermann, Ueber Sabbathjahrcyklus und Jobelperiode, Breslau 1857 (and the older literature quoted there, pp. 2, 3).—Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, Bd. iii. (3 Aufl. 1878) pp. 636–639, note 7.—Wieseler, art “Aere,” in Herzog’s Real-Encyclop. 1 Aufl. i. 159 f. Also: Stud. und Krit. 1875, p. 527 ff.—Caspari, Chronological and Geographical Introduction to the Life of Christ, 1876, pp. 23–28. Also: Die geschichtlichen Sabbathjahre (Stud. und Krit. 1877, pp. 181–190).—Rösch, Stud. und Krit. 1870, p. 361 f., and 1875, p. 589 ff.—Sevin, Chronologie des Lebens Jesu, 2 Aufl. 1874, p. 58 ff.—Riess, Das Geburtsjahr Christi, 1880, pp. 45 f., 229–236.

Besides the reasons which we have adduced for believing that the Seleucid years of our book begin with the spring, we may also add the important fact that it is also from the spring that it numbers the months. Even had it not been otherwise impossible to suppose that its cycle of years began in autumn, this circumstance would have caused very great difficulty, especially in those passages in which the name of the month is not mentioned, but only the number of the month and the year. Thus we read “in the first month of the year 152, ” chap. 9:3, etc. This form of expression would scarcely have been adopted unless a uniform mode of determining the order of the month had prevailed.

We assume then, with the great majority of critics, that the Seleucid era of the First Book of Maccabees begins, not in autumn, but in spring. And however extraordinary it may at first sight appear that in Palestine they had a Seleucid era which differed to the extent of about half a year from that current in the rest of Syria, this will no longer appear extraordinary to one who is acquainted with the circumstances. Almost every one of the more important cities in the neighbourhood of Palestine had during the Graeco-Roman period its own era, yea, even its own calendar (see § 23). It is therefore quite conceivable that the Jews on adopting the imperial era should modify it in accordance with their calendar. We find, too, that exactly this same era was in use in the city of Damascus. The year began in Damascus and in the Roman province of Arabia in the spring (see Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, i. 413, 437). But the coins of Damascus are dated according to the Seleucid era. And although on an inscription discovered in recent times a specifically Damascene era is spoken of, this can mean nothing else than the Seleucid era beginning in spring, just as in our book.

By all that has been said, the question is not yet settled as to whether the era of our book begins half a year before or half a year after the date usually assigned, whether in spring B.C. 312 or in spring B.C. 311. The French scholar Gibert pronounces in favour of the former view. But the opinion generally accepted, that spring of B.C. 312 is the starting-point, can be proved to be certainly the right one. It will be enough here, apart from all other grounds, to refer to the remarks made in reference to the Sabbath year. If the year 150 of the Seleucid era were to be regarded, as Gibert desires, as equivalent to B.C. 162–161, then the Sabbath year must be fixed a year later, which would be in direct conflict with the date of the siege of Jerusalem by Herod and Sosius, with which Gibert can reconcile himself only by very artificial and far-fetched reasoning.

The era of the Second Book of Maccabees is still more open to dispute than that of the first book. We have also an apologetic interest in determining the era, inasmuch as certain dates of the second book are reconcilable with those of the first only if the years in each era were reckoned according to different eras. And, indeed, the era of the second book seems to have a later starting-point than that of the first. But in regard to this matter, too, the most diverse opinions prevail. Some assume half a year’s difference, some a whole year’s, and some a year and a half. The last mentioned is the view of Ideler, who dates the epoch of the first from spring B.C. 312, and that of the second from autumn B.C. 311. The dates upon which arguments are based are indeed very few; practically only the following two:—1. The death of Antiochus Epiphanes is set down in 1 Macc. 6:16 at the year 149 of the Seleucid era; whereas, according to 2 Macc. 11:33, he must have died at the latest in the year 148 of the Seleucid era, for there a decree of his successor Eupator is quoted, bearing the date of that year. 2. The second campaign of Lysias, according to 1 Macc. 6:20, was undertaken in the year 150 of the Seleucid era; whereas, according to 2 Macc. 13:1, it is placed in the Seleucid year 149. But in reference to the former date, the facts of the case are different from what at first appears. The subject treated of in 2 Macc. 11:33 is not really the date of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, but rather the date of the first campaign of Lysias. And although 2 Macc. 11:33 assigns that event to the Seleucid year 148, this is quite reconcilable with 1 Macc. 4:28, 52. The difference consists, therefore, not in a diverse mode of reckoning time, but simply in this, that the Second Book of Maccabees erroneously sets down the first campaign of Lysias after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, while both books agree in assigning it to the year 148 of the Seleucid era. In the other pair of passages, however,—1 Macc. 6:20 and 2 Macc. 13:1,—we actually do come upon a diversity of dates. But Grimm on 2 Macc. 13:1 has justly remarked, after repeating his own earlier opinion, that one “certainly does too much honour to the abounding historical and chronological errors of which the author of the second book has been convicted, by a great expenditure of combinations either in reconciling diversities, or in seeking, by the assumption of a different beginning of the Seleucid era, to explain the chronological difference between him and the First Book of the Maccabees.”—There is therefore no sufficient ground for assuming a special era for the Second Book of the Maccabees. We have therefore before us the choice of regarding the era of that book as the Palestinian Seleucid era employed in the First Book of the Maccabees, or as the Seleucid era prevailing throughout the rest of Syria.

Compare on the eras of the two Books of Maccabees: Froelich, Annales compendiarii regum et rerum Syriae (ed. 2, 1750), Proleg. p. 22 sqq.—Wernsdorff, De fide historica librorum Maccabaicorum, 1747, pp. 18–31 (contests the view previously maintained by Scaliger, Petavius, Usher, Prideaux, Foy-Vaillant, des-Vignoles, Froelich, and others, that the era of the First Book of Maccabees begins with a spring year).—Gibert, Mémoire sur la chronologie de l’histoire des Machabées (Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, alte série, t. xxvi. 1759, pp. 112–156).—Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, iii. 375–382.—Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, i. 531–534.—Wieseler, Die 70 Wochen und die 63 Jahrwochen des Propheten Daniel, 1839, p. 110 ff. Also: Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels, 1864. Also: art. “Aere,” in Herzog’s Real-Encyclop. 1 Aufl. i. 159 f. Also: Stud. und Krit. 1875, pp. 520–532; and 1877, p. 510 ff.—Grimm, Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen, iii. 11 f., iv. 186 f. Also: Bissel and Wace (in Speaker’s Comm.) in their Introductions to Maccabees.