An

 Overview  of  Maccabees  

By Jay Rogers

Judas Maccabeus (191 to 160 BC) was part of the Hasmonean family. The name
Maccabee or Maccabeus was a nickname possibly derived from an Aramaic word
maqqaba meaning “the hammerer.” He and his six brothers organized a successful
resistance against the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes from 167 to 165 BC. The
Maccabees engaged at first in what would be known today as guerilla warfare, then met
Antiochus’ forces in the field, drove them out of parts of Judea and then finally
recaptured Jerusalem. The exploits of the Maccabeans, led to the Hasmonean Dynasty.
Judas died in 160 BC in a conflict with the neighboring Idumeans, who were descended
from Israel’s historic enemy the Edomites. Before Judas was killed, he set up an alliance
treaty with the Romans. This led to a period of 100 years of semi-autonomy for the nation
of Judea from 165 BC to the conquest by the Romans in 64 BC.

How should Protestants view 1 and 2 Maccabees?

The historical record of 1 and 2 Maccabees – and parts of 3 Maccabees – is indispensable

to any Bible student wanting to rightly understand the prophecy of Daniel in the preterist
perspective. The events of 1 and 2 Maccabees also shed great light on the cultural
background of the New Testament. Conservative Bible scholars – whether preterist,
historicist or futurist – are in general agreement that the slaughtering of a pig in the
Temple by the Seleucid ruler, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, was a foreshadowing or a type of
the “abomination of desolation” predicted by Jesus in the Mount Olivet Discourse.

“So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet
Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let
those who are in Judea flee to the mountains” (Matthew 24:15,16).

The interpretation of Jesus’ words as to whether the predicted “abomination” occurred in

AD 70 – or is yet to occur – divides preterists from futurists. In the Gospel According to
Luke, Jesus further defines what the abomination of desolation means.

“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its
desolation is near” (Luke 21:20).

The preterist view is that the fulfillment of the “abomination of desolation” predicted in
Daniel 12:7,11 occurred in AD 70. Jesus explicitly said that this desolation would be
“near” when the Christians in Jerusalem saw the city surrounded by armies.

Yet Jesus’ disciples may have understood that the “abomination of desolation” had a
reference to the time of the Maccabees. On closer scrutiny, it appears that the
“desolation” mentioned Daniel 8 and 11 refers to the abomination of desolation in the
time of Antiochus Epiphanes, while Daniel 9 and 12 speak of the abomination of
desolation that occurred in the time of Vespasian and Titus during the destruction of the
Temple at Jerusalem in AD 70.

It is significant that Antiochus Epiphanes occupied the city of Jerusalem for exactly six
years, three months – or 2300 days – as predicted in Daniel 8:9-14,23-26. This desolation
occurred when Antiochus entered the land in 171 BC and lasted until the Temple was
purified on December 25, 165 BC.

The “abomination that causes desolation” that occurred in AD 70 as predicted in Daniel

12:11 – refers to the First Roman-Jewish War that began under Nero in April AD 67 and
ended with the destruction of the Temple in September AD 70 – roughly three-and-a-half
years or 42 months or exactly 1290 days.

An interesting connection between Maccabees and the Gospels is the date of December
25th as a date for Jesus’ birth. Contrary to popular skepticism, December 25th actually has
strong merit as a date for the Nativity. The traditional date was first proposed by several
Church Fathers including Hippolytus in Chronicon in AD 235. It was based on a
calculation that John the Baptist was conceived a few days after the Day of Atonement on
September 22nd, 6 BC and born nine months later on June 24th, 5 BC (Luke 1:5-58). Jesus
would have been born six months after John (Luke 1:26). Since the Jewish festival
calendar follows the lunar year, the days of the feasts fall on different days of the solar
year, which is the calendar we use today. However, it just so happened that December
25th was the last day of the Festival of Lights in 5 BC. If Jesus was born on this day, then
it is fitting that the “miracle of lights” fell on the day that the Savior came into the world,
thus ending an “era of desolations” for the people of God.

King Herod the Great was looking for a king who might overthrow him. So he sought to
kill Jesus. The “massacre of the innocents” in Bethlehem, a tiny village in the vicinity of
the Temple Mount (Matthew 2:13-18), may have been another fulfillment of the
“abomination that causes desolation.” As we shall see in the upcoming sections on the
Maccabean revolt, this event illustrates the disconnect between two groups of Jews in
Jesus’ time who held two differing views of the Messiah. The origins of this schism
began during the Maccabean/Hasmonean Dynasty.

The Maccabeans revolted when Antiochus Epiphanes, the usurper king, tried to reassert
Seleucid rule over Coele-Syria – the tract of land between Egypt and Syria that included
Judea. Judas Maccabeus and his brothers made peace with Rome in order to guard their
independence from Egypt and Syria. The Maccabean/Hasmonean Dynasty was a 100-
year period that punctuated the last days of Seleucid and Ptolemaic rule in 164 BC and
the beginning of complete Roman subjection in 63 BC. The conflicts between the Oniads
and the Tobiads, who later became the Sadducees and Pharisees, led to a situation in
which the Idumean Herodians became the rulers over Judea.
During the Festival of Lights, which is also called the Feast of Dedication, Jesus rebuked
an angry group of Pharisees by explaining to them that He was the true Christ, but not the
“Christ” they were looking for.
 At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was
winter, and Jesus was walking in the Temple, in the colonnade of
Solomon. So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long
will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly” (John
10:22-24, emphasis mine).

This confrontation between Jesus and the Jews illustrates one of the main themes of
Maccabees. Since the Maccabean/Hasmonean period up until the time of Jesus, the
Jewish people had been hoping for a military leader like Judas Maccabeus who helped
deliver them from Seleucid oppression. Now they were waiting for deliverance from the
Romans. The anger the Jews felt toward Jesus was based on charges of blasphemy.

“It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for
blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God” (John 10:33).

This confrontation shows that the Jews from the time of the Hasmonean Dynasty onward
were only “helped with a little help” (Daniel 11:34). The New Living Bible, which is a
paraphrase, translates this as, “During these persecutions, little help will arrive, and many
who join them will not be sincere.” Indeed, the false motives of those with messianic
expectations came about in part because of the Maccabean movement. This began as a
pure move of God to secure deliverance from tyrannical oppression, but soon became
corrupted by those among the Jews who sought political power. The deeper need of
God’s people at this time was not deliverance from political oppression, but deliverance
from sin through the hope of the Son of God in the flesh, Jesus Christ, in Whom is eternal
life. God used these persecutions to groom a remnant that would be purified through the
years so that in the time of the Messiah there would be hearts prepared to believe. The
unbelief of the Pharisees and Sadducees at the time of Jesus makes sense in light of the
history of Maccabees, and clarifies why Jesus addressed this hardness of heart during the
Festival of Lights.

The two Judean parties during the Hasmonean period are described in 1 and 2
Maccabees. These were the Oniads (proto-Sadducees) and the Tobiads (proto-Pharisees).
Initially, the Oniads defended the Law of Moses and Temple worship, while the Tobiads
embraced the Hellenistic culture of their Seleucid and Ptolemaic rulers. The history
recorded in Maccabees shows how both groups became corrupted by pagan influences.
Over time, the Oniads/Sadducees won out. They also formed the controlling power bloc
of the Jewish Supreme Court, the Sanhedrin. As the Sadducees rose in power, it then
became advantageous for the Pharisees to promote synagogue worship. This era of
apostasy among the Jews at the time of Jesus had been forming for close to 200 years.
The study of Maccabees makes this clear.

We should also note that the Jewish Essene sect came about as a reaction to the
compromises among the Hellenized Jews of this era. The community at Qumran is
thought by many to have been made up of pious Jews – perhaps Essenes – who were
waiting out foreign oppression. They hoped and prayed that the domination of the
compromised political party in power in Jerusalem until “the war of the sons of light and
sons of darkness” would commence. It was during this time that Jewish chiliasm
developed – the idea that the Messiah would come as a military judge – like Moses,
David or Elijah. This strongman would drive their enemies from the holy land and reign
in Jerusalem for 1000 years. This Jewish chiliastic influence became pervasive in the
early Church for a few decades in the mid-second century AD. Therefore, it is important
to understand this time period when examining the early Christian urge toward
premillennialism.

Daniel’s prophecy sought to convince the people of God that they must persevere through
a long era of desolations lasting 490 years (Daniel 9:24-27). The hope of obedient Jews
was not to be delivered out of persecution through escape or military victory. Their hope
was to be cleansed and purified through patient suffering knowing that God would
strengthen them through persecution. Daniel wrote, “Many shall be purified, made white,
and refined, but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand,
but the wise shall understand” and “Blessed is he who waits” (Daniel 12:10,12).

The moving sermon of the dying Mathathias to his sons in 1 Maccabees 2:48-64 seems to
have been the rubric for the “faith hall of fame” of Hebrews 11:35. The writer of 1
Maccabees alludes to Daniel chapters 3 and 6.

Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael were saved from the flames because they
had faith. Daniel was a man of integrity, and the Lord rescued him from
the mouth of the lions (1 Maccabees 2:59,60).

Who through faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained

promises, stopped the mouths of lions (Hebrews 11:35).

Since 1 Maccabees seems to have been a pattern for several important New Testament
passages, this raises the question as to how much authority 1 and 2 Maccabees have in
light of interpreting biblical prophecy.

The Standard for Canonicity

Are 1 and 2 Maccabees canonical or apocryphal?

In support of 1 and 2 Maccabees being included in the canon, it should be noted that there
are several parallels between the historical narratives of 1 and 2 Maccabees and the
Nativity of Jesus, the “Feast of Dedication” in John 10, the Mount Olivet Discourse, and
the “faith hall of fame” of Hebrews 11. If Maccabees contains the historical “types” for
important New Testament truths, then how do we treat the text itself – as apocryphal or
canonical? Can Maccabees be seen as a “bridge” between Daniel and the New Testament
in the same vein as the prophecies of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi; and the narrative
writings of Ezra, Esther and Nehemiah?

The main objections to including 1 and 2 Maccabees in the canon from a Protestant
viewpoint are as follows.
1. Neither 1 nor 2 Maccabees was written by a recognized prophet. In fact,
the authors are unknown. The author of 2 Maccabees claims to be
condensing the five books of Jason the Cyrene, although no other record
of this person exists. One could counter that we don’t know the authors of
Job and Esther either. However, all the other books of the Old Testament
were compiled by scribes with prophetic authority, such as Samuel or
Ezra, who recognized Job and Esther as having inspiration and authority.

2. The two books contain no prophecy. Although 1 Maccabees 2:59,60

alludes to Daniel – providing evidence for a canonical acceptance of
Daniel at an early date – the writers of Maccabees themselves did not
claim to be prophets or make prophetic pronouncements.

3. Both works were probably written in Hebrew or Aramaic, as Josephus

testifies and certain Hebraisms in the text tell us, but the only manuscripts
we have today are in Greek. No other Old Testament book lacks a
manuscript in the original language. There is no doubt that 1 and 2
Maccabees had a literary pedigree at one time, but it has been lost.

4. All other books in the Bible have a definite prophetic origin or at least
were confirmed as canonical by a later prophet of the Old Testament, an
apostolic writer of the New Testament, or by Jesus himself. Roman
Catholics have argued that 2 Maccabees 7:1,13,14 has a reference in
Hebrews 11:35-37. Protestant scholars consider this reference to be
questionable. You may judge this for yourself.

5. The books of Maccabees contain questionable (if not erroneous) historical

details. 1 and 2 Maccabees were written by Jews with an excellent
knowledge of the events within Judea during this time period, but
sometimes not as much of the events in the surrounding nations that enter
into the narrative. 2 Maccabees includes letters that seem to be
embellishments on the story and contain details that seem impossible and
in error. The style of these embellishments seems similar to other ancient
historians writing narratives, such as Josephus, who embellished for
stylistic purposes and also committed historical errors – although
infrequently. Roman Catholic defenders of the canonicity of 1 and 2
Maccabees will argue that none of the details in Maccabees are
impossible, however implausible they might appear to modern critics.

6. The books of Maccabees contain false doctrines or false practices. The

major objection to Maccabees by Protestants here is that there is a
supposed “prayer for the dead” in 2 Maccabees. Not only does it record
that Judas Maccabeus sacrificed for the sins of the dead, but it makes the
comment that this is a good practice. I will not delve into the theological
controversies that this provokes, but here is the text in question.
 “And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of
silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the
dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection,
(for if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again,
it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,)
and because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with
godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy
and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be
loosed from sins” (2 Maccabees 12:43-46 DRA).

7. Yet another reason 1 and 2 Maccabees were not included in the Jewish
canon has to do with their date of composition. The Great Assembly that
began in the time of Ezra recognized additional books from the Exile and
Post-Exile periods as inspired, prophetic books. Since 1 and 2 Maccabees
were written well after this time in the mid to late-first century BC, they
were not included in the canon.

This last reason is important when we consider the authenticity of Daniel. If the Book of
Daniel belongs to the Maccabean period, then it becomes problematic that the Jews
would consider Daniel to be canonical, since they did not include 1 and 2 Maccabees. It
is only when the composition of Daniel is placed prior to the time of Ezra that its
canonicity is consistent with the rest of the Tanakh, the books of the Jewish canon – the
Law, the Prophets and the Writings – which were recognized by Jesus in Luke 24:44,45.

To summarize, Maccabees should be read as an accurate history of what occurred in the

50-year time period between the coming of Antiochus IV Epiphanes to Jerusalem until
the establishment of Jewish semi-autonomy under the Hasmonean Dynasty. There are no
other periods of history with no prophetic witness within the timeline of canonical
scripture. Protestants ought to concede that there are not “silent years,” as some like to
call the Intertestamental Period. God is always revealing His will through the providential
circumstances of history. 1 and 2 Maccabees contain testimonies that explain how certain
prophecies of Daniel were fulfilled. In fact, only the Mount Olivet Discourse and the
Book of Revelation give us more insight into the Book of Daniel’s fulfillment than 1 and
2 Maccabees. Therefore, these two books should be read and studied by the serious Bible
student as a backdrop to biblical history in the same way that we would value the writings
of Josephus.

1 Maccabees was completed no earlier than 134 BC, which is the last date mentioned in
the book. It probably written during the reign of John Hyrcanus I between 134 BC to 104
BC.

2 Maccabees was composed no earlier than 124 BC, which is the date of the second
letter contained in the introduction to the book. Many scholars assign the date of the book
to the early first century BC.
What about 3 and 4 Maccabees?

Neither of these books is considered canonical by any church, although they appear as
appendices in the Greek Orthodox Bible. Neither book is primarily about the Maccabean
revolt and therefore the titles are misleading.

3 Maccabees is the story of an earlier persecution of the Jews in Egypt under Ptolemy IV
Philopator (222-205 BC). The book is a sort of prequel to 1 and 2 Maccabees and none of
the Maccabean/Hasmonean family appear in the story. The book includes no claim to
divine inspiration and is considered to be a historical romance, freely mixing historical
fact and fiction. However, it contains useful historical information in corroborating the
prophecy of Daniel 11:11,12. The book cites 2 Maccabees and therefore was probably
composed in the late second or early first century BC.

4 Maccabees is not a book of history, but can be described as either a Jewish homily or
a Stoic philosophical treatise on the supremacy of reason over the passions. It is called 4
Maccabees because the martyrdom of Eleazar and the seven brothers (2 Maccabees 6:18-
7:42) is introduced to illustrate the author’s thesis. The writer appears to have been
an Alexandrian Jew, preceding Philo, who used a philosophical approach in order to
defend religious piety. For many years, the early Church Fathers ascribed the book to
Josephus. However, 4 Maccabees was almost certainly not written by Josephus. The book
was probably composed in the first century BC – though some place it as late as the first
century AD.

Can 1 and 2 Maccabees be harmonized?

One of the objections I have often read concerning 1 and 2 Maccabees is that the two
books contradict each other at certain points. However, I have not found any
contradiction or difficulty to be any greater than that harmonizing the Gospels and other
so-called “Bible difficulties.” In fact, the most often cited objection has to do with the
place and manner of Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ death. There are actually several Seleucids
named Antiochus in the two Maccabean accounts. Some will interpret name “Antiochus”
to represent only the one ruler, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and are thereby confused by
conflicting accounts of the death of “Antiochus.”

That being stated, a harmony between the two books can be confusing at first glance
because unlike 1 and 2 Samuel; 1 and 2 Kings; and 1 and 2 Chronicles – 2 Maccabees is
not a continuation of 1 Maccabees, but begins earlier and purports to be a condensation of
the now lost “five books of Jason the Cyrene.” 2 Maccabees begins with two letters that
recount recent events in the later part of the second century BC and then backtracks to a
time earlier than that of 1 Maccabees. The rest of the book overlaps quite a bit of the
action of 1 Maccabees. To solve the confusion, 1 and 2 Maccabees contain useful anchor
dates within the text from a calendar based on the conquest of Alexander the Great. Some
modern translations render these as the recognizable “BC” or “BCE” years in the
footnotes.
The Book of 1 Maccabees 1:1-9 summarizes in the first few verses everything that
occurred from the time of Alexander’s invasions until the year 175 BC. Then verse 10
picks up with the main part of the story of “Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the renegade
Jews.” It recounts the beginning of the reign of Antiochus in 175 BC up to the time of the
beginning of the Hasmonean Dynasty and Jewish semi-autonomy in 134 BC. 1
Maccabees provides a link between the time of Alexander in the late fourth century and a
more detailed extensive history of the mid-second century BC.

The introduction of 2 Maccabees begins with two letters written to the Jews in
Alexandria, Egypt from the Jews in Jerusalem in the year 124 BC. The first letter
mentions a previous letter written 143 BC that gave the history of the Maccabean revolt
and the miraculous provision of holy oil in the Temple. It also encourages the Jews in
Egypt to celebrate the Festival of Lights as the Jews in Judea have already been
accustomed to do. It quotes material from a second letter describing how the altar fire in
the Tabernacle was miraculously rekindled by Nehemiah, how the prophet Jeremiah hid
embers from the Tabernacle altar fire in the wilderness, and how fire fell from heaven on
the altar in Solomon’s day. Then chapter 2 contains an author’s preface explaining that
the rest of the book will be a condensation of the five books of Jason the Cyrene.

The main body of the history portion 2 Maccabees then begins chronologically from
chapter 3 onward from events prior to the time of 1 Maccabees. It recounts the story of
Heliodorus plundering the Temple in 175 BC. This is valuable in demonstrating the
fulfillment of Daniel 11:20 concerning the “raiser of taxes.” 2 Maccabees then runs in
chronological order paralleling the events of 1 Maccabees recording the persecutions of
Antiochus Epiphanes up until the time shortly after the death Judas Maccabeus in 160
BC.

3 Maccabees takes place in no definitive year. The story is not found elsewhere in
history, but precedes both 1 and 2 Maccabees and begins by mentioning the conquest of
Ptolemy IV Philopator over Antiochus III at the battle of Raphia – a piece of land on the
modern day Gaza strip between Palestine and Egypt.

In summary, 1 and 2 Maccabees are indispensable in order to understand how Daniel 8:9-
14,23-26 and 11:20-35 were fulfilled.

What follows is a chronology and harmony of 1 and 2 Maccabees. The same events can
also be corroborated by the Jewish historian Josephus. However, he is mostly retelling
what is set down in the Maccabean narratives with his usual embellishment in places.
There are also accounts by the Greek historian Polybius, the Roman historian Livy, and
the Christian historian Severus Sulpicius, which deal with the conflict between the
Seleucid and Ptolemaic Empires, otherwise known as the Sixth Syrian War. Thus the
historical context of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms during the time of Maccabees
is well-established from various perspectives.

In researching the Maccabean period, I could not find a source other than Bishop James
Ussher’s chronology, The Annals of History, that harmonized 1 and 2 Maccabees verse
by verse in chronological order. I have provided a condensed version of Ussher’s
harmony below. I have included short treatments before each section that describes how
the action of the story might have looked.