CHRONOLOGY 1. the Calendar System of the Books of The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
APPENDIX II CHRONOLOGY 1. The Calendar System of the Books of the Maccabees The books of the Maccabees, in general, report events in their chrono- logical sequence and give a series of precise dates based upon the so- called Seleucid era. According to the counting system prevalent at the court of Antioch and in the Macedonian colonies of the Seleucids (the “Macedonian system”), this era began in the year 312 B.C., more precisely, in the autumn of that year, since the beginning of the Macedonian year fell in the autumn. Wherever the civic New Year fell in a differ- ent part of the solar year, the epoch of the imperial era was adjusted accordingly. Since the Babylonians, for instance, began their year in the spring, they also counted the Seleucid years by starting with the spring (fi rst day of Nisannu) of the year 311 B.C. As is shown by the double date, “in the reign of Demetrius, in the year 169,” found in an offi cial document from Jerusalem from the year 143 B.C. (II Macc. 1:7), the Jews, too, calculated their calendar according to years beginning in the spring and with the same epoch as the Babylonians. For the Jews, the Seleucid era started with the fi rst of Nisan in the year 311 B.C. Accordingly the author of I Maccabees (a man from Jerusalem) also calculated the years according to this method, prevalent in Judea. An example: I Macc. 10:1 mentions an event from the year 160 Sel. The author then reports a whole series of subsequent events and then tells us (10:21) that “Jonathan assumed the vestments of the high priest in the seventh month of the year 160 at the Feast of Tabernacles.” Since the festival is celebrated from the fi fteenth to the twenty-fi rst of Tishri, it is clear beyond doubt that the author dates the year starting with the fi rst of Nisan, not with the fi rst of Tishri. A comparison with secular dates shows that he, of course, like all people in Jerusalem at the time, counted the years by beginning with the fi rst of Nisan of the year 311 B.C. On the other hand, it can be demonstrated that some dates in I Maccabees are given according to the offi cial era which started in the autumn of the year 312 B.C. Thus, in 1:10, we read about Epiphanes: Bickerman_f45_1025-1149.indd 1136 5/9/2007 6:54:05 PM chronology 1137 “he succeeded to the throne in the year 137 of the Greek era.” As is shown by the dates given on coins, Antiochus IV ascended the throne after October, 176 B.C. But in Babylonia, dates were counted according to his reign as early as the year 136 Sel. Babyl., i.e., in the spring of 176/5, after the October of 176 and before March 30, 175. But this winter, according to the statement found in I Macc. 1:10, falls into the year 137 Sel. only if, in this case, the years are reckoned beginning with the autumn of 312, not with the spring of 311. How is one to explain this double system of counting found in I Macc.? It can be shown that all dates connected with the history of the realm (ascension to the throne, deaths, foreign campaigns of the Seleucids) are given accord- ing to the era of 312. And, as far as we can test, only dates of general history are given according to that system. We may assume, therefore, that the author of I Maccabees, when he wrote his work toward the end of the second century B.C., took these dates, which he had used as fi xed points in his Jewish chronicle, from some Seleucid work. Here, of course, the dates were given according to the offi cial system. The author of I Maccabees failed to make the necessary recalculations, which were without import to him and his readers. Such a dependence upon the calendary system of the sources, used at various points, can be demonstrated in the case of many ancient historians, e.g., Josephus or Porphyry, and even in Polybius. This conclusion is contradicted by only one single date in I Mac- cabees: that of the campaign of Antiochus V Eupator against Jerusalem. According to I Macc. 6:34, this campaign took place during the summer, more precisely: the summer of 163 B.C. For, on the one hand, Eupator had to break off the operations because Philip, whom Antiochus IV had appointed viceroy on his death bed, was marching with the king’s generals against Antioch (I Macc. 6:55; II Macc. 13:2). Since Antiochus IV died at Isfahan during the fi rst months of the year 163 B.C., the march of Philip must fall into the next summer: the general certainly did not wait a whole year before he started the struggle for the regency. On the other hand, during Eupator’s campaign the Jews suffered from a shortage of food, “as it was a sabbatical year when the land was left fallow” (I Macc. 6:49), “because of the sabbatical year” (I Macc. 6:53). Since the sabbatical year ran from the autumn of 164 until the autumn of 163, it was the harvest of the year 163 that was omitted, and, as a result, the hard summer can only have been that of 163, for in April of 162 the new harvest already was ripe. In I Macc. 6:20, however, we read that the campaign of Eupator had been occasioned by the attack Bickerman_f45_1025-1149.indd 1137 5/9/2007 6:54:05 PM.