^{page 148 note 1} B.J. 11, 1, 1–5,‘2 (1–75); Ant. xvii, 9, 1–10, 10 (206–95).

^{page 148 note 1} Ant. xvii, 10, 6 (277).Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 2} Ant. xvii, 12, 1–2 (324–8, see especially 330 and 335).Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 3} Indeed it was to a grandson of this Mariamne, Herod Agrippa I, that the Romans turned before they were able to set over the Jews a king who had any popular support at all.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 4} I.e. the names borne by the early Maccabees, Mattathias, Judas, John, Jonathan, Eleazar and Simon.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 5} The coins they minted help us to establish this fact. See Reifenberg, A., Ancient Jewish Coins, Rubin, Mass (Jerusalem, 1947).Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 1} Of course the Maccabaean family was not the only one to use these names. There is some evidence which suggests the possibility that within only a brief period after the death of Mattathias and Judas these names had already become popular and were being adopted by families fighting alongside the Maccabees, but so far as we know not related to them by blood ties. Cf. I Macc. xi. 70 where we have Mattathias son of Absalom and Judas son of Chalphi who were noted field captains under Jonathan. See also I Macc. xiii. ii where after the death of Jonathan we are told that Simon sent Jonathan son of Absalom on an important assignment to Joppa.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 1} I. Macc. v. 62.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 2} Ant. XIV, 9, 2 (159–60); B.J. 1, 10, 5 (204–5) Herod ‘finding that there was one Hezekias, a captain of a band of robbers, who overran the neighbouring parts of Syria,… he seized him and slew him, as well as a great number of the other robbers that were with him; for which action he was greatly beloved by the Syrians…. So they sang songs in his commendation, in their villages and cities, as having procured them peace, and the secure enjoyment of their possessions, and on this account it was that he became known to Sextus Caesar, who was a relation of the great Caesar's, and was now governor of Syria.’Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 3} Ant. XIV, 9, 3–5 (163–77); B.J. 1, 10, 6–8 (209–11).Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 4} Ant. XIV, 9, 4 (168). To imagine that these were mothers of Galilean outlaws creates serious difficulties.Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 1} Cf. the genealogy of the family of the young Jewish aristocrat Josephus.Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 2} Vita, i, 1–6.Google Scholar

^{page 152 note 1} Ant. xiv, 16, 4 (488–90).Google Scholar

^{page 152 note 2} Ant. xv, 1, 2 (9–10).Google Scholar

^{page 152 note 3} When Herod's son Antipas beheaded John the Baptist it made John into a martyr, and some of the Jews believed that Herod Antipas' subsequent defeat by the Arabian king Aretas was a sign of divine judgement upon Herod for his unjust treatment of John.Google Scholar

^{page 152 note 4} It was customary, if not mandatory, in the ancient world for a monarch to send one or more of his sons to live in the capital of that power upon which the security of his own rule rested. The reasons for this practice are obvious and explain why the custom prevails to this day.Google Scholar

^{page 152 note 5} Cf. II Macc. i. 9, 18; x. 6–8. For Athronges and Ethrog see articles in The. Jewish Encyclopedia.Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 1} Narkiss, Coins of Palestine, Part 1, p. 63.Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 2} I Macc. iii. 1–8; the material on Athronges has been excerpted and edited from the parallel accounts in Ant. XVII, 10, 7 (278–84) and B.J. II, 4, 3 (60–5).Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 3} I Macc. iii., 55–IV. 25.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 1} Ant. xvii, 10, 9 (291), which we know from the fact that one of the first things that Varus did on coming down from Syria was to burn Emmaus in reprisal for the attack which Athronges and his brothers had carried out.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 2} I Macc. xiii. 27. Josephus records that it was still standing in his day, and part at any rate survived until the fourth century.Google Scholar Cf. Euseb. Onom. Sacra, 2nd ed. Lagarde, Paul de (Göttingen, 1887), p. 276.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 3} The question naturally arises as to how, if these men we have been discussing had Maccabaean connexions, as we have suggested, Josephus could have failed to record such facts. Some of the things I have written about the motivating factors in Josephus's historiography in The Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus (New York, 1956) would be relevantto this question. In addition to what I have there written, I would point out Josephus's dependence upon sources for this period. These sources might have been ignorant of such Maccabaean connexions, or they could have purposely suppressed such information. Why, for example, are we not given the names of Athronges and his four brothers? If we assume for a moment that his name was Judas or Simon the ethrog (Judas Maccabaeus was sometimes called simply ‘Maccabaeus’, I Macc. v. 34; II Macc. viii. 16; xiv. 27, 30; cf. I Macc. ii. 4; iii. I; II Macc. viii. 1), and his four brothers had Maccabaean names, as they probably did if they were the sons of Mattathias Antigonus, then it is apparent why any source hostile to Athronges, as Josephus's source certainly was, would have as soon omitted these names.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 4} It is not inconceivable that he is responsible for those coins which used to be attributed to Simon Maccabaeus, but are at present dated in the first revolt, and upon which the ethrog is featured prominently. See Reifenberg, A., Ancient Jewish Coins, p. 39, plate I. Mattathias Antigonus had already initiated the practice of using on Jewish coins symbols associated with temple worship by introducing the use of the seven-branched candlestick. If Athronges was responsible for these coins on which the throg is featured prominently, we have evidence that his revolt lasted at least four years.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 1} Ant. xviii, i, 1 (5–10); B.j. ii, 8, 21 (117–18).Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 2} Ant. XVII, 10, 6 (277); xvii, 10, 8 (285).Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 3} I have drawn attention elsewhere (JTS, April, 1952, p. 64) to the fact that Maccabacan names figure prominently in the circle of Jesus' close friends, especially among his disciples, and also within his immediate family. It should be added that Maccabaean names also figure prominently in the genealogies of Jesus presented in both Matthew and Luke. This is bound to be of some interest once it is recognized that Jewish royal claimants could rest their claims on the basis of Maccabaean as well as Davidic descent. And it may not be without significance that John, who tells us about the attempt to make Jesus king, seems to show no interest in either Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, or in his descent from David. It is not suggested that Jesus was of Maccabaean descent, though he may well have been. It is however, quite possible that Jesus' family may have been descendant from pioneer Jewish settlers who left Judaea in order to resettle the new frontier lands of the expanding Maccabaean kingdom. Such a family history would help explain the fact that though Jesus' family was from Galilee itwas believed to have hadJudaean origins. It would also help explain the prominence of Maccabaean names among the immediate progenitors of Jesus and among his brethren. Maccabaean names would have been quite popular among these pioneer settlers, especially in military settlements created for the defence of the Galilean frontier.Google Scholar