MACCABEES, THE (el Matocapalot). The illustrious and heroic family who bore this appella tion were descended, according to Josephus xii. 6. i), from one Asamonwus, a citizen of Jerusa ]em, and a priest of the order of Joarib or Jehoiarib, as the name appears at r Chron. xxiv. 7, where it stands first in the twenty-four orders of priests. From this man they were also known by the name of Asmonmans, which is hardly less common than that of Maccabees. The origin of either designation, however, is a matter of extreme uncertainty. The name of Maccabee, according to some, was derived from the banner of the tribe of Dan, which contained the three last letters of the names of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Others imagine that it was made up of the first letters of some words in the itth ver. of the 15th ch. of Exodus, Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods ;'* words, therefore, which were conspicuous in the first triumphant war-song of the youthful nation, when they cele brated their deliverance under Moses from the hosts of Pharaoh. Others suppose it to have been a personal appellation of Judas, from the word''' Makkab, meaning a hammer, and given to him as a corresponding designation was bestowed on Charles Martel, the hero of the Franks. If Judas, however, was not the first of his family who bore this name, as has been said, this derivation of it would seem to be questionable. With regard to the other name of Asmonman, it is not more cer tain what was its original form or meaning. The Hellenistic orthography is In Ps. lxviii. 32 we meet with a word mnjri, to the supposed singular of which, the name in question is commonly referred. In this case it might have been given to the priest of the course of Joarib to signify that he was a wealthy or a powerful person. In Josh. xv. 27 we find a town in the tribe of Judah called linL,17, from which this name might equally be derived. Herz feld's proposed derivation from Cbri, to temper steel,' is fanciful and groundless. The word in the first instance appears more like a family than a personal name. The later Hebrew form is The first of this family who attained distinction was the aged priest Mattathias, who dwelt at Modin, a city west of Jerusalem and near the sea, but of which the site has not yet been identified by modern ingenuity and research. He was the son of John, the son of Simon, the son of Asamonmus, as Josephus tells us, and was himself the father of five sons—John, otherwise called Caddis ; Simon, called Thassi ; Judas, called Maccabwus ; Eleazar, called Avaran ; and Jonathan, surnamed Apphus. Ewald remarks that Simon and John were fa vourite names in this family. After the expulsion of Antiochus Epiphanes from Egypt by the Romans, that monarch proceeded to vent his rage and indig nation on the Jews, B. C. 168. He massacred vast numbers of them in Jerusalem on the Sabbath, took the women captives, and built a fortress on Mount Zion, which he used as a central position for harassing the people around. He ordered one Athenxus to instruct the inhabitants of Judxa and Samaria in the rites of the Grecian religion, with a view to abolishing all vestiges of the Jewish worship. Having succeeded in bringing the
Samaritans to renounce their religion, he further went to Jerusalem, where he prohibited the ob servance of all Jewish ceremonies, obliged the people to eat swine's flesh and profane the Sabbath, and forbade circumcision. The Temple was dedi cated to Olympian Jove, and his altar erected upon the altar of burnt-offering, which the first book of Maccabees, apparently quoting Daniel, calls the setting up of the abomination of desolation. When, therefore, Apelles, the king's officer, came to Modin to put in force the royal edict against the national religion, he made splendid offers to Mattathias if he would comply. The old man, however, not only refused, but publicly declared his determination to live and die in the religion of his fathers ; and when a certain Jew came forward openly to sacrifice in obedience to the edict, he slew him upon the altar. He slew, moreover, the king's commissioner, and destroyed the altar. Then offering himself as a rallying point for all who were zealous for the law, he fled to the moun tains. Many others, with their wives and children, followed his example and fled. They were pursued, however, by the officers of Antiochus, and, refusing even to defend themselves on the Sabbath day, were slain to the number of 1000. On this occa sion the greatness of Mattathias displayed itself in the wise counsel he gave his companions and countrymen, which passed subsequently into the ordinary custom, that they should not forbear to fight upon the Sabbath day when it was in order to defend themselves. While in this position, he was joined by the more austere of the two parties which had sprung up among the Jews after the return from the captivity—viz., the Assidmans, i. e., the Hhasidim, or pious [CHAsiorm] ; the Puritans, who subsequently became the Pharisees. They not only observed the written law, but superadded the constitutions and traditions of the elders, and other rigorous observances. The other party were called the Tsaddikim, or righteous, who contented themselves with that only which was written in the Mosaic law. Thus strengthened, Mattathias and his comrades carried on a sort of guerilla war fare, and exerted themselves as far as possible to maintain and enforce the observance of the national religion. Feeling, however, that his advancing age rendered him unfit for a life so arduous, while it warned him of his approaching end, he gathered his sons together like the patriarchs of old, exhorted them to valour in a speech of great piety and faith fulness, and having recommended Simon to the office of counsellor or father, and Judas to that of captain and leader, died in the year 166, and was buried in the sepulchre of his fathers at Modin. The allusion that is made in this speech to the history of Daniel, leads Ewald to remark that Mattathias died when the book of Daniel could scarcely have been long written or spread abroad— an assertion, as it seems to us, entirely without foundation, and one that the context appears not to warrant, but rather to refute.