Siege of Bethsura

[Ged]

I date the siege of Bethsura to 163bc. Anyone got a refinement on that? Early summer maybe? Relevant texts include 1 Maccabees 6:20, 2 Maccabees 13:1. Are there others?

In the year one hundred and forty-nine, Judas understood that Antiochus Eupator was coming with a multitude against Judea, And with him Lysias the regent, who had charge over the affairs of the realm, having with him a hundred and ten thousand footmen, five thousand horsemen, twenty-two elephants, and three hundred chariots armed with hooks.
(2 Maccabees 13:1-2)

So king Antiochus died there in the year one hundred and forty-nine. And Lysias understood that the king was dead, and he set up Antiochus his son to reign, whom he brought up young: and he called his name Eupator. Now they that were in the castle, had shut up the Israelites round about the holy places: and they were continually seeking their hurt, and to strengthen the Gentiles. And Judas purposed to destroy them: and he called together all the people, to besiege them. And they came together, and besieged them in the year one hundred and fifty, and they made battering slings and engines.(1 Maccabees 6:16-20)

[semiopen]

Battle_of_Beth_Zur

The Battle of Beth Zur was fought between the Maccabees led by Judas Maccabeus and a Seleucid Greek army led by Viceroy Lysias in 164 BC.[1]

Timeline_of_Jerusalem

164 BCE 25 Kislev: The Maccabees capture Jerusalem following the Battle of Beth Zur, and rededicate the Temple (see Hanukkah). The Hasmoneans take control of part of Jerusalem, whilst the Seleucids retain control of the Acra (fortress) in the city and most surrounding areas.

the 25th day of Kislev is sort of December 25 and is the date that Hanukkah is celebrated.

footnote 1 -

This date may be disputed since the Maccabean revolt was not until 140 BC according to Jewish reckoning and information with Jewish sources (Talmud). [Mattis Kantor, "The Jewish Timeline Encyclopedia," (1989: Jason Aronson, Inc., NJ), p.83] See the article Missing Years (Hebrew calendar) for further clarification.

[wiki]Missing_Years_(Hebrew_calendar)[/wiki]

The missing years in the Hebrew calendar refer to a chronological discrepancy between Rabbinic chronologists for the destruction of the First Temple in 423 BCE (3338 AM)[1] or 403 BCE (3358 AM)[2] and the modern secular dating for it in 587 BCE.

The wiki discusses how the missing years are sort of important when interpreting Daniel'

http://markmoore.org/resources/essays/l ... mental.pdf

1. He gathered about 6,000 men from the towns.
2. Attacked at night and in surprise.
3. Two first great victories:
a. Apollonius at Samaria, 1 Macc. 3:10-12 (also Ant 12.7.1).
b. Seron, governor of Coelesyria, at the passes of Beth-horon. 1 Macc. 3:13-24
(also Ant 12.7.1).
4. Antiochus took half his forces and marched to Persia and Armenia to collect
tribute from the rebel nations. At the same time he placed the other half of his
troops in the hands of Ptolemy Macron (also called Lysias) with the command to
exterminate the Jews with the 40,000 infantry and 7,000 cavalry as opposed to
Judas' 6,000 men. See 1 Macc. 3:27-60 for the rousing victory of Judas, Gideon
style (cf. Ant 12.7.2-4).
5. The following year, Lysias again met Judas with 60,000 chosen foot and 5,000
horses at Bethsura against Judas' 10,000 men. Judas routed him (cf. Ant 12.7.5).
6. Meanwhile, Roman troops moved from Alexandria to Antioch to investigate
Seleucid anti-Roman activity. They gladly heard Jewish accusations against
Antiochus. Hellenizers, represented by Menelaus and Judaizers, represented by
John, met there. Antiochus even returned from the east. He removed all bans on
Jewish worship and removed the Syrian troops from Jerusalem. Menelaus was
driven out.
7. This opened the way for the Maccabeans to enter Jerusalem. When they did,
Menelaus and his supporters fled, giving the Maccabeans the entire city except
the fort of Akra. They purification the temple on the 25th of Chisleu exactly 3
years after its desecration (Dec. 165 B.C. = 153rd Olympiad2
[Josephus says that
the destruction of B.C. 168 was 408 years after Daniel's prophecy]). The
following festival became the Feast of Dedication, now called Hanukkah--Feast
of lights (Jn. 10:22; Ant 12.7.6).

I think the Olympiad mentioned in 7 relates to

When the quadrennial games were being held at Tyre and the king was present, (2Ma 4:18 NRS)

I'm not sure what would lead one to think 163 BCE. There is nothing other than Maccabees 1 and 2 to document the war.

[spin]

A good discussion of the evidence is found in Bezalel Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus, Cambridge 1989/2002, chapter 12. (The 163 BCE date comes from 2 Macc's placement of the battle of Beth-Zur after the rededication of the temple.)

[Ged]

It seems the battle of Beth-Zur came after the re dedication which was the Greek 148th year according to Josephus - 164 bc.

The Greek 149th/150th years of Macc 13:1 looks like 163 bc to me. Something doesn't quite come together.

[semiopen]

A good discussion of the evidence is found in Bezalel Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus, Cambridge 1989/2002, chapter 12. (The 163 BCE date comes from 2 Macc's placement of the battle of Beth-Zur after the rededication of the temple.)

Amusing, I was going to comment that taking Beth-Zur may have been of questionable value in capturing Jerusalem. On the other hand, you probably don't want 60,000 unfriendly guys 10 or 15 miles from your siege or whatever.

Maybe the Assyrians were busy reading the newly published Daniel to see if their names were in there.

[DCHindley]

Remember that any particular Year of the Greeks (Seleucid era) may be stated according to a local calendar with a Fall or a Spring epoch (depending on specific region). This means that the Greek year will span parts of two years stated according to our Julian reckoning (January 1st epoch), which has been artificially projected backwards in time from its actual establishment in the mid 1st century BCE. This can be complicated by the fact that regional calendars not only use different epochs, but may also count the year of the Greeks as starting at different dates due to use, or non use, of "Accession Years."

In 1 Maccabees, it is not always clear whether the calendar used has a new year in the Spring (in proper Seleucid and Babylonian style) or in the Fall (that used by the government in Judea, as well as for Sabbatical years). All the dates given in 1 Macc, except the date of the rededication of the Temple, are compatible with a year starting in the Fall, but fewer would be compatible with one starting in Spring.

In 2 Maccabees, on the other hand, dates correlate better with a new year beginning in Spring.

164, Dec 14 1 Macc. 4:36-60; 2 Macc. 10:1-8
Rededication of the alter in the temple and fortification of Jerusalem and key towns in Judea.

164/163 1 Macc. 4:35; 2 Macc. 10:10-11
Lysias heads to Antioch to secure throne for his puppet Antiochus V Eupator, and get reinforcements to resume battle with Judas.

164 or 163 2 Macc. 10:12-13
Good relations with Ptolemy, an advisor to Antiocus V, until he is denounced as a traitor and he commits suicide.

164-162 1 Macc. 5:1-68; 2 Macc. 10:14-38; 12:1-45
Judas fights off attacks by the Syrian generals Gorgias, Timothy, and Nicanor. In the process, Judas carries the battle for Jewish freedom to foreign soil to strengthen his rebel Jewish government and protect Jews from persecution by their neighbors in Gentile towns and villages.

163/162 1 Macc. 6:18-28
Judas lays siege to the Citadel in Jerusalem, which is still held by the Syrians, and Beth-zur, eventually taking that latter town.

163, Fall 1 Macc. 6:29-54; 2 Macc. 13:1-22
Taking advantage of the Jewish Sabbatical year (Fall 164-Summer 163), Antiochus V and Lysias return with a large force fortified with mercenary troops and they lay siege to Jerusalem and Beth-zur. Due to a lack of provisions, Beth-zur was abandoned to the Syrians and Judas’ forces defending the Sanctuary are seriously reduced.

163/2 1 Macc. 6:55-62; 2 Macc.11:1-38; 13:23-26
Lysias finds out that there is a contender to Antiochus V’s throne and makes peace with Judas in order to be able to head for Antioch, but tears down the city walls.

163/2 2 Macc. 13:3-8
Menelaus, who had joined Lysias’ and Antiochus V’s war party, is accused by some of having started the rebellion through his misrule, and Antiochus has him executed.

DCH (called in sick ...)

It seems the battle of Beth-Zur came after the re dedication which was the Greek 148th year according to Josephus - 164 bc.

The Greek 149th/150th years of Macc 13:1 looks like 163 bc to me. Something doesn't quite come together.

[spin]

It seems the battle of Beth-Zur came after the re dedication which was the Greek 148th year according to Josephus - 164 bc.

The Greek 149th/150th years of Macc 13:1 looks like 163 bc to me. Something doesn't quite come together.

Perhaps you should deal with a little more of the evidence: 1 Macc 4:26-35. Here we have the battle of Beth-Zur prior to the rededication, which was prior to the 9th month of the 148th year (4:52) = Dec 164. Judas later fortified the place (4:61) which was eventually besieged.

[Ged]

Perhaps you should deal with a little more of the evidence: 1 Macc 4:26-35. Here we have the battle of Beth-Zur prior to the rededication, which was prior to the 9th month of the 148th year (4:52) = Dec 164. Judas later fortified the place (4:61) which was eventually besieged.

So the battle of Beth Zur (164bc) and the later siege (163bc) came in 2 stages with a gap of ?months in-between. Seems good to me. Ill look into it.

[Ged]

It's hard to see the wood for the trees sometimes, so I find it quite useful putting events on to a timeline. Here is the 'Maccabean revolt' decade. The greek years are on the top and julian in the middle. The Hebrew years are on the bottom measured from nisan to nisan. (except the Sabbath year which is offset to tishri)



Actually, I never clicked that there were 2 battles at Bethsura. It makes sense when you realise it. Anyway, if anyone wants to discuss my dates, Id appreciate the feedback. 'want to get it right. Thanks.

[semiopen]

The basic premise of the thread is highly dubious.

Maccabean Chronology: 167-164 or 168-165 BCE
Author(s): Lester L. Grabbe
Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 110, No. 1 (Spring, 1991), pp. 59-74

Books around the turn of the century, when giving the time for the "abomination of desolation" during the Maccabean revolt, would usually specify the dates as 168-165 BCE.1 However, E. J. Bickerman, in his study Der Gott der
Makkabiier, argued for a revision to 167-164 BCE? This position has been widely accepted and is found in many standard references. Yet K.-D. Schunck still argued for 168-165 on the basis of a particular dating for the Seleucid era, and his dating was followed by W. H. Brownlee.4 Most recently, K. Bringmann has challenged the consensus by arguing for 168-165.

The basic question revolves around the use of the Seleucid era in dates in many documents from the Seleucid period, including 1 and 2 Maccabees. During the wars of the Diadochoi, Seleucus I (with the help of Ptolemy I) defeated Antigonus at Gaza in the summer of 312 BCE. This opened the way for Seleucus to retake Babylon. At some point, probably some years later,
Seleucus introduced the Seleucid era (commonly abbreviated SE) which was calculated to begin with his retaking of Babylon.6 This was an important innovation because it imposed a common dating system over a wide area, one that continued in use in some areas until well into the Common Era. The problem is that since different calendars were used in different areas of the Seleucid empire, the Seleucid era was calculated differently from one place to another. Two major systems were in use: the Babylonian, which counted year 1 SE as beginning with Nisan (spring) 311 BCE; and the Syro-Macedonian, which began year 1 SE with Tishri (autumn) 312 BCE. A major question is which system was used in 1 and 2 Maccabees.

Grabbe concludes

I argue that a system dating from Nisan 312 BCE is demanded by certain passages in 1 Maccabees (6:20 [cf. also 2 Macc 13:1]; 7:1, 43, and 9:3; 14:1-3; 7:1-25 in comparison with 2 Macc 14:3-4); further, the passages thought to refute such a dating (4:28; 10:1-21) are not decisive in the light of current knowledge. It should be stressed that my thesis of Jewish dates counting from Nisan 312 is not absolutely essential to maintain the period 168-165 BCE as the time when the Jerusalem temple was in pagan hands, but such a thesis does ease matters. The main evidence is a straightforward reading of the sequence of events and dates in 1 Maccabees.

So far as I know this issue is not settled.

Similarly the discussions of the Shmita issues are obscure. Grabbe points out that these were not regularly observed, despite the every seven years etc. When you get to a tishrei vs nisan discussion things get even crazier.

The other little problem with all this is that 1 and 2 Maccabees are probably mostly Hasmonean propaganda. So the entire story is pretty close to bullshit, there are some basic facts that are true like there was some kind of conflict and the Hasmoneans eventually emerged in control.

Maccabean_Revolt

Professor John Ma of Oxford University argues that it is possible to read the main sources for the events as suggesting that the loss of religious and civil rights by the Jews in 168 BC was not a result of religious persecution, but rather an administrative punishment by the Seleucid Empire in the aftermath of local unrest, and that the Temple was restored upon petition by the High Priest Menelaus, rather than liberated and rededicated by the Maccabees.[4]

This is a more in depth view of Ma's article.

Re-Examining Hanukkah - John Ma deconstructs the Maccabean History http://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/r ... -hanukkah/

Ma considers the four letters in 2 Maccabees 11:16-38 to be important evidence that Menelaus was the key character.