Maccabee Tombs

Emmaus 31 50 21.69N
34 59 21.35E
There is nothing to see on the picture, which is very blurry, but there are numerous Panoramio photographs clustered around the site.

Usually when I arrive at Ben Gurion airport, I take the bus or a sherut up to Jerusalem; once I even caught the train (I describe the journey elsewhere on this site). There is nowhere to park in Jerusalem and a car is a distinct encumbrance. Someone contacted me recently to ask for my advice on what to see, where to stay and how to do it in Israel and I strongly urged him not to hire a car while he was in Jerusalem. I suspect he ignored my advice, because on his return he wrote to thank me and remarked, "Your advice about not driving in Jerusalem was equally sound - wish I had taken it ..."

There have been a few occasions, however, when for various reasons I did hire a car at the airport and drive up to Jerusalem (before driving on elsewhere, I hasten to add). The route is quite straightforward: you leave the airport and follow the signs across the coastal plain towards the hills. Just as the Trappist monastery of Latrun comes in sight you reach the hills and immediately start to climb steadily, for Jerusalem is nearly 2,000 feet above sea level.

This is the point to keep your eyes open, because during the fighting in 1948 a Jewish convoy to Jerusalem was ambushed by Arab forces and more or less destroyed. Rusted trucks used to lie, tumbled and broken, among the rocks on the left of the road, left there as a memorial. Recently they have been dragged out and mounted on concrete plinths, which makes them look tawdry and, in my opinion, mocks the dead.

A few years ago, as I reached the Latrun junction, I saw a sign I had not noticed before, pointing left to Modin. I sat up straight, because Modin was where the Jewish revolt of the Maccabees began. Unfortunately on that occasion I was in a hurry to get wherever I was going and had to leave the place unexplored and it wasn't until a year or so later that I deliberately arranged my schedule so as to have time to investigate.

The ruins of the church at Emmaus
The ruins of the church at Emmaus/Nicopolis.

The first thing I saw when I turned off the highway was an area of ruins surrounding a church on the right, which, like a good archaeologist, I promptly investigated. A pleasant young Greek Orthodox monk came bustling out and charged me a couple of shekels for admission, then lingered to tell me about the ruins. They were, he assured me, the ruins of Emmaus.

I stared at him in surprise. Not only is there another Emmaus which is hallowed by the weight of tradition (Roman Catholic tradition, but tradition nonetheless), but this site was a good 15 miles as the crow flies and rather further as the road twists. The traditional Emmaus is much closer, a mere five miles, and other locations which have been proposed are similarly close to Jerusalem.

The difficulty lies in the gospel of Luke, which tells the story of how, after His death, Jesus appeared to two of His disciples who were walking from Jerusalem to Emmaus. They failed to recognise Him - they knew that He was dead, after all - and the three had a lengthy conversation until they reached Emmaus as night was falling. The two men invited Jesus to stay with them and only as they sat down to eat did they recognise Him. Jesus immediately disappeared and the two men rushed back to Jerusalem to tell the eleven apostles what had happened. They reached Jerusalem while the apostles were still awake and as they told their tale, Jesus Himself appeared in the room.

According to the King James Version, Luke says that this Emmaus was 60 stadia from Jerusalem, and a stadium was 607 feet long, so 60 stadia would be 14.1 miles, which would make Latrun about the right distance. At a steady four miles an hour - which is a brisk walk - the trip would take three and a half hours, which would give plenty of time for the extensive Bible study at which Luke hints.

It is the coming back again that is the problem: only a very fit individual could manage four miles an hour uphill all the way to Jerusalem! Even if we assume that the men arrived in Emmaus an hour or so before sunset, it would have taken some time for them to prepare the meal they laid before their Guest, so it must have been 6.00 pm at the earliest before they recognised Him and set out on the return journey. Even if they did do four mph, it would be 9.30 pm by the time they reached Jerusalem and in all probability it was at least an hour later - and in those days before electricity, people kept early hours.

A more modern version of the Bible - the New International Version - has emended Luke to say "seven miles", which certainly fits the story much better but it does contradict the majority of Greek manuscripts and - so the young monk assured me - also contradicts the near unanimous testimony of early Christian authors such as Eusebius and Jerome.

A sign pointing to the Maccabean graves
A road sign pointing to the Maccabean graves.

I took a few photographs and went on my way with much about which to think. A few miles further I came to Modin, a ghastly modern Jewish settlement with acres of drab housing and a few spectacularly ugly concrete monstrosities that show the architect's bold defiance of convention - or something. Searching for something old - there isn't anything - I carried on past the settlement and reached the 431 road, where, to my delight, I came to a sign pointing to "Maccabee Graves". The trouble was that the sign didn't actually appear to be pointing anywhere in particular. I tried one likely-looking road to the "Hasmonean Village", only to find myself at the locked gates of what appeared to be a particularly disreputable hippy commune, from which I beat a hasty retreat.

Eventually, after driving back and forth a couple of times, I found them - a series of grave pits cut in the bedrock, over which large slabs of stone had been positioned as covers. Needless to say, every single one had been levered aside and whatever the graves once contained by way of bodies and grave goods was long gone. Still, I took out my video camera and recorded a short film, which you can view on the NWTV website.

The head of Antiochus Ephiphanes
A coin bearing the head of Antiochus IV Ephiphanes.

In case you are not familiar with the story, around 167 BC Antiochus IV of Syria was on his way home from Egypt and he was not in a good mood. After a brilliant campaign in which he soundly defeated the old enemy, the Ptolemies who ruled in Egypt, he was on the verge of completing his victory by capturing the Egyptian capital of Alexandria when an aged Roman senator, summoned by the Alexandrians, appeared and ordered him to leave Egypt.

According to the story, Gaius Popillius Laenas told Antiochus that it was the will of the senate and people of Rome that he withdraw. Antiochus politely said that he would discuss the matter with his council, whereupon the old man used his staff to draw a circle in the sand around the king and peremtorily informed him that he must give his answer before leaving the circle. Having spent fourteen years in Rome as a hostage for his father's good behaviour, Antiochus knew just how powerful and implacable Rome was and agreed, reluctanty, to the humiliating retreat.

When, on his way north, he heard that the turbulent Jews had rioted and expelled the high priest he had appointed, Antiochus saw the chance to humiliate someone else as balm to his wounds. He promptly attacked Jerusalem and captured it, massacred its inhabitants - according to 2 Maccabees, 80,000 were lost, half of them killed and the other half sold as slaves. He then ordered that the Jews should prove their loyalty by adopting the Greek religion and to underline the point he ordered that a pig should be sacrificed to Zeus on the altar of the temple.

It became a criminal offence to keep the Sabbath, circumcise a baby, or sacrifice to YHWH. Instead Greek commissioners were sent round all the towns and villages to force everyone to sacrifice to Zeus. When the commissioners arrived in Modin and a Hellenising Jew stepped forward to offer the prescribed sacrifice, the local priest saw red and promptly killed the man and the commissioners into the bargain. Accompanied by his five sons, the priest, Mathias, fled to the hills and raised the standard of revolt.

Their primary target was fellow Jews who had "sold out" to the Greeks and adopted Greek manners and customs, but they struck at the Antiochid forces when opportunity offered. Naturally the Greeks hit back and in one of the early battles gained a stunning victory over a group of rebels who had taken refuge in some caves.

They fought against them on the Sabbath day and they burnt them as they were in the caves, without resistance and without so much as stoping up the entrances of the caves. They avoided to defend themselves on that day because they were not willing to break in upon the honour they owed the Sabbath, even in such distresses, for our law requires that we rest upon that day.
Josephus, Antiquites of the Jews XII.vi.2

Mathias, who was nothing if not pragmatic, promptly issued the Jewish equivalent of a fatwah and decreed that it was lawful to fight on the Sabbath day.

His speech persuaded them and this rule continues among us to this day, that if there be a necessity, we may fight on Sabbath days.
Josephus, Antiquites of the Jews XII.vi.2

It is highly likely that Jesus referenced this Maccabean decree when He went to heal a man in a synagogue one Sabbath and became aware of a wave of hostility from the religious zealots in the congregation.

Another time Jesus went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, "Stand up in front of everyone."
Then Jesus asked them, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?"
But they remained silent. He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, "Stretch out your hand."
He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.
Mark 3:1-6

If it was lawful to kill on the Sabbath, how much more lawful must it be to heal? The strick religionists didn't see it that way, however. A recently translated scroll from Qumran contains a discussion on this point. The conclusion is that if you are walking beside a river on the Sabbath and see a man drowning, you may attempt to pull him out. If he is beyond your reach you may take off your belt and throw the end of it towards him, but if he is still beyond your reach and there happens to be a long piece of wood lying there which would certainly reach him, you may not pick the wood up because that would be to break the Sabbath. The unfortunate man will doubtless drown happy in the knowledge that the Sabbath has not been desecrated on his account.

The rigorous conditions of life as a guerilla fighter proved too much for old Mathias, who died a year later, but the revolt was carried on by his son Judas, so successfully that within a short time the Maccabean forces had gained the upper hand over their Syrian oppressors and were able to re-enter Jerusalem in triumph and cleanse the temple. According to legend, the fire on the altar could only be lit from holy fire, but that had long since been extinguished. In this dilemma someone noticed a walled up niche in the temple, broke the plaster and discovered a lamp that had been burning away for three years. To this day Jews still celebrate this discovery with candles and lamps in the festival of Hanukkah.

There is another version of the story in which there was a sacred flame but no holy oil to keep it alight. A container was found with enough oil for a single day but in fact the flame burned for eight days, long enough for the priests to dedicate some more holy oil. Take your pick.

Notice that I mentioned three years. Both Josephus and the books of Maccabees are quite definite that the temple was defiled for exactly three years.

Now it so happened that these things were done on the very same day on which the divine worship was stopped three years before; for the temple was made desolate by Antiochus and remained so for three years. The temple was made desolate in the year 145, on the 25th day of Appelleus in the 153rd Olympiad; and it was rededicated on the same day, the 25th of Appelleus, in the year 148 and the 154th Olympiad.
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XII.vii.6

Now the fifteenth day of the month Casleu, in the year 145 they set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar and built idol altars throughout the cities of Judah on every side. ... On the 25th day of the month they sacrificed on the idol altar on the altar of God.
1 Maccabees 1:54, 59

On the 25th day of the ninth month, Casleu, in the year 148, they rose up early in the morning and offered sacrifice according to God's law on the new altar of burnt offerings which they had made. On the same day and time that the heathen had profaned it they re-dedicated it with songs and musical instruments.
1 Maccabees 4:52-54

Now on the same day that the gentiles profaned the temple, on the very same day it was cleansed again, even the 25th day of Casleu.
2 Maccabees 10:5

According to a popular theory the Biblical book of Daniel was not written - as it claims - in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, but four centuries later during the Maccabean revolt. The unknown author dressed up a retelling of contemporary history as prediction in order to encourage those who were fighting against their Syrian oppressors.

As evidence for this view some theologians, who ought to know better, have pointed to the prophecy of Daniel chapter 8, where a period of 2,300 days, during which a holy place will be profaned, is interpreted to refer to this defilement of the temple by Antiochus. It is an indication of how theologians, who can split a Greek infinitive in umpteen different ways are remarkably ignorant of anything which requires factual knowledge, that they can present this interpretation with a straight face.

2,300 days works out at six years and 110 days (or fifteen weeks and five days), which would seem to put Antiochus right out of the reckoning. However Daniel 8:14 uses a curious construction and instead of saying "two thousand and three hundred days" it actually says "two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings", which allows these smart alecks to claim that the period is actually one thousand one hundred and fifty evenings and the same number of mornings, thus making 1,150 full days. (It would be more in accord with the rules of grammar to assume 2,300 of each.)

1,150 days works out at three years, seven weeks and six days. Some have pointed out that the Jews used a 360 day year when calculating prophecies, but that doesn't improve matters, as it makes three years and ten weeks.

The point is that no matter how you calculate it, the time period comes to significantly more than three years - yet the historical sources are quite clear that the period of defilement was exactly three years, to the very hour!

That poses a conundrum, because if the anonymous author wrote Daniel after the temple was dedicated he would have known that the period was exactly three years. If, however, he wrote before the temple was cleansed, although he is to be congratulated for guessing at roughly three years, there is no way that such an obviously false prediction could come to be regarded as divinely inspired and incorporated into the Jewish canon of Scripture!

On the other hand, if Daniel is a genuine prophecy, written by its eponymous author back around 539 BC, then the prediction of chapter 8 cannot refer to Antiochus because, quite apart from any other discrepancies - and there are quite a few - the time period doesn't fit.

The Byzantine cross uncovered
Archaeologist Dan Shacker wipes a wet sponge over the Byzantine cross claimed to mark the last resting place of a Jewish hero.

All these cogitations were triggered off by the news this week (September 25, 2015) that archaeologists in Israel have uncovered what they claim may be the tombs of the Maccabees. As evidence they point to a mosaic cross in the bottom of one of the putative graves, claiming that although the cross is probably Byzantine, it must have been put there to mark the grave of someone important and that can only be the Maccabees.

The site was investigated and dismissed by Charles Clermont-Ganneau, a French scholar, back in 1871. who discovered that same cross and decided that the building which housed it was a Byzantine church from the fifth century AD. There were many churches and monasteries in the area at the time and it required a leap of faith to conclude that this particular one housed the remains of the Jewish leaders.

In fact, given that by this time hostility towards the Jews, often provoked by Jewish hostility towards Christians, was such that it was highly unlikely that Jewish political leaders such as the Maccabees would be honoured by Byzantine Christians.

Being a cynic I note that according to some news reports, "The Israeli Antiquities Authority, which sometimes relies on private funding to help finance digs, is soliciting donations so it can keep searching for evidence." Wealthy Jewish backers are unlikely to finance a dig to uncover a Byzantine church, whereas they might easily be persuaded to help uncover the tombs of their national heroes. If, at the end of the day, Amit Reem, the archaeologist leading the dig, has to say "Sorry, no tombs", it will be too late for the sponsors to get their money back.


criminal offence There is almost certainly a reference to this period of persecution in the letter to the Hebrew where the author declares that he has not time to tell of great heroes of faith "whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. Women received back their dead, raised to life again. There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection." (Hebrews 11:34, 35) Return

without resistance Which does rather raise the question of whether God was on the side of the Jews in this struggle. Assuming that one takes literally the stories of Divine intervention in the various battles of the Israelites recorded in the historical books of the Bible, one might expect that God would work miracles to defend those who so tenaciously sought to keep His law that they were willing to die rather than defend themselves on the Sabbath. One is forced to the conclusion that either those earlier stories are false or, at best, wildly exaggerated, or that God was displeased with the Jews and sent the Syrians - just as in previous times He used Midianites or Assyrians to punish His people - to punish the Jews for their sins. Given the later history of the Hasmonaeans (Maccabees), I favour the latter alternative. Return

© Kendall K. Down 2015