The American archaeologist and the French Dominican

 

 

by

 Damien F. Mackey

  

 

A famous name for his authentication of the Dead Sea Scrolls,

[Albright] can be a most fascinating study. Although a conventional scholar,

schooled in a system of chronology and archaeology that disallows its exponents from being able to demonstrate the historicity of the Bible – and imbued also with

the erroneous, pre-archaeological JEDP Documentary Theory – professor Albright yet had the ability occasionally to burst through the seams of that suffocating system and to produce some very insightful new observations.

 

 

 

Introduction

 

The nation of ancient Egypt, which had been so biblically prominent when Abram came to Canaan (c. 1900 BC), who was then forced to go to Egypt to survive a famine, and which completely dominated the biblical landscape during the long years of (Jacob) Joseph and Moses, will fade right out of the Bible now, for centuries, after the devastating Plagues, with Pharaoh Neferhotep’s seed destroyed, his army drowned (whether or not he himself had also died), and the invasion of Egypt and long occupation thereof by the Hyksos foreigners.

 

Joseph, but even more so Moses, had turned out to be quite complicated studies, not because of a lack of evidential material (which certainly used to be the case for me), but because of an excess of it, their long lives spanning, as they did, conventional Egyptian kingdoms and dynasties.

 

Thus it has taken an extended time for us to extricate ourselves from the land of Egypt, so as to follow the path of the MBI Israelites as they trek towards the Promised Land.

 

Indeed, Moses would learn that it was easier to take the Israelites out of the heart of Egypt than it was to take the hearts of Israel out of Egypt.

 

Anyway, here are we now standing on dry, if rather rocky and barren (moonscape) ground, ready to trace the Exodus Israelites archaeologically, to the Holy Mountain, and through the desert into Transjordania, and then across the River Jordan into the Promised Land.

 

There, the Israelites led by Joshua (Moses since having departed) will wreak havoc upon many of the old Canaanite cities and dwellings – a fact that ought to make the archaeology of it all very easy and obvious to pinpoint.

 

And so it is.

Unfortunately, however, a terrible mis-dating of the history and the archaeology of the Promised Land by the ‘experts’ has led to conclusions that can be described only as diabolical, sowing complete and utter confusion, and causing many people to doubt the historicity of the Old Testament.

 

Our American archaeologist and the French Dominican had a leading part to play in this.

 

Professor Foxwell Albright and

Fr. Louis-Hugues Vincent (OP)

 

William Foxwell Albright

 

A famous name for his authentication of the Dead Sea Scrolls, he can be a most fascinating study.

 

Although a conventional scholar, schooled in a system of chronology and archaeology that disallows its exponents from being able to demonstrate the historicity of the Bible – and imbued also with the erroneous, pre-archaeological JEDP Documentary Theory – professor Albright yet had the ability occasionally to burst through the seams of that suffocating system and to produce some very insightful new observations.

 

This may be explained partly as being due to his conservative Christian upbringing (Evangelist Methodist), according to which he was taught to revere the Bible as the Word of God.

 

And so we get some inspiring statements by W.F. Albright, which will turn out to be quite ironic given the damage that he also managed to do to biblical archaeology.

 

One outstanding example of W. F. Albright’s upsetting of the pattern of early dynastic history was his groundbreaking view – relevant to Abram – that Egypt’s first dynastic ruler, the famous Menes (traditionally thought to have been the Pharaoh of Abram), was conquered by the mighty Akkadian king, Naram-Sin.

 

Why this is so bold and striking for a conventional scholar is that, whereas Naram-Sin 

is considered to have reigned in the 2200’s BC, the reign of Menes is regarded as being the very beginning of Egyptian dynastic history, fixed at c. 3100 BC.

 

Yet here was W.F. Albright insisting that the Mannu dannu, Menes ‘the Great’, whom Naram-Sin claimed to have conquered, was the Menes typically dated nearly a millennium earlier: Menes and Narâm-Sin | Semantic Scholar

“… In a Babylonian chronicle … we read '(Naram-Sin) who went to Magan, and vanquished (not 'captured') [Mannu, the mighty], king of Magan'.”

 

This was most radical, indeed!

 

As an event contemporaneous with Abram – Menes being his Pharaoh and Naram-Sin being his northern contemporary, “Amraphel of Shinar” (Genesis 14:1) – the whole package needs to be re-dated even lower, to c. 1900 BC.

 

Now, this is only one example (albeit the most dramatic one) amongst several that I could give of Foxwell Albright’s uncanny ability (the Fox) to think outside the box.

 

Anyway, I had just completed an article listing the insights of W.F. Albright, more recently revised as:

 

William Foxwell Albright a conventional fox with insight ‘outside the box’

 

(2) William Foxwell Albright a conventional fox with insight 'outside the box'

 

when a fellow-Australian, an archaeologist, dampened my enthusiasm about him with this e-mail. She wrote:

 

….

Hi Damien. I am just coming up to the Balaam material in my thesis-writing, so this is welcome. I have had my sympathy for Albright considerably reduced, however, to find he was among those present at the secret meeting in Jerusalem in 1922 that 'fixed' the wrong dates to the archaeological eras ... Fr Pere Vincent's initiative, but Albright was complicit. ….

 

The Australian archaeologist has since corrected the original description, “secret meeting in Jerusalem”, by clarifying that it was not actually “secret”.

 

Mathilde Sigalas will recount how W. F. Albright came to be in Jerusalem in 1922, there connecting with “a French scholar from the École biblique, Father Louis-Hugues Vincent”: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-55540-5_10

 

Between Diplomacy and Science: British Mandate Palestine and Its International Network of Archaeological Organisations, 1918–1938

 

….

The collaboration was also effective in terms of archaeological methodology at the beginning of the 1920s. The Presidents of the BSAJ, John Garstang (1920–1926), and of ASOR, William F. Albright (1920–1929/1933–1936), joined by a French scholar from the École biblique, Father Louis-Hugues Vincent, reflected together on a new dating method to classify antiquities. … This classification was designated as that of the “Three Ages” … dating of the Bronze Age, Iron Age and Modern period was modified to adapt to recent discoveries and ethnographic information on Palestine. The three scholars submitted their method to the scientific community during meetings of the POS. Adopted in 1922, the classification was implemented in archaeological sites for antiquities registration and analysis. The political context was also a reason for the policy, in an attempt to avoid subjective interpretations in favour of a particular civilisation.

 

This classification is an example of the effects of international collaboration within a foreign intellectual knowledge network, which developed in Jerusalem at the beginning of the 1920s.

The three scholars were from “the three archaeological Schools in Jerusalem” … and two were on the Board of Directors of the Palestine Oriental Society in 1922, Albright as President and Garstang as Director. The “New Chronological Classification of Palestinian Archaeology” was published in the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (no. 7. October 1922) and the Revue Biblique (vol. 32. 1923) of the EBAF. This example demonstrates the openness of the scientific community based in Palestine and the shared aim of anchoring Palestinian archaeology as a scientific and formal discipline. ….

 

[End of quote]

 

 

 

Fr. Louis-Hugues Vincent (OP)

 

He and W. F. Albright were apparently very close, with the latter dedicating an article as a eulogy (1961) to the French Dominican, “In Memory of Louis Hugues Vincent”, after he had died aged 88:  In Memory of Louis Hugues Vincent on JSTOR

 

“To every generation and to every field there is given a man who is justly revered by his contemporaries and disciples. Pére L. H. Vincent, O.P., was such a man. In him were uniquely combined genius and industry, charm and humility, enthusiasm and balance. But for his tremendous contributions as scholar and as teacher, Palestinian archaeology could never have attained its present status among fields of antiquarian research”.

 

According to another article:

The connections to France - Graham Addison's Author Website

 

Father or Pere Vincent was a Dominican monk who had joined the order as a young man. Vincent came to the Ecole Biblique et Archaeologique in Jerusalem in 1891 and dedicated the rest of his long life to archaeological study in the Holy Land. He was a widely respected scholar and expert. In an obituary, the monk was described as combining ‘genius, industry, charm and humility, enthusiasm and balance’ in his work as a scholar and teacher.

…

Vincent brought his unrivalled knowledge of Jerusalem, gained over many decades, to his work. Professor Kathleen Kenyon said Father Vincent’s work in remapping the tunnels and shafts helped salvage a very unsatisfactory enterprise. She said Vincent was small, charming and elegant, but anyone who ‘disagreed with him came in for a terrific pounding, though always couched in the most polite terms.’ The plans he produced of the tunnels formed the basis of all archaeological work in these places for the next century. ….

[End of quote]

 

Herschel Shanks (1987) will add a further touch of colour and bite:

 

The Jerusalem Wall That Shouldn’t Be There - The BAS Library

“A Touch of Vehemence”—Père Vincent’s Passionate Rejection of the Third Wall

 

Father Louis-Hugues Vincent (1872–1960), head of Jerusalem’s famed École Biblique et Archéologique Française, with somewhat unscholarly aggression rejected the “Third Wall” hypothesis.

 

In the words of Israeli archaeologist Michael Avi Yonah … “The revered master [Vincent] unfortunately introduced into the debate [about the wall] a touch of vehemence. … One may even suspect that the force of his assertions in fact concealed a certain lack of confidence in them. No stick was too bad to belabour his opponents. Newspapers and weeklies which had nothing to do with the world of learning are quoted [by Vincent] at length; his adversaries and their opinions are described in terms which at the same time arouse our doubts about his scholarly impartiality and our admiration for his extensive vocabulary. Even the descriptions of the remains discovered, usually a tedious and dry-as-dust subject, are coloured by the same fervid style. …

The line rejected by P[ère] Vincent is nor a ‘normal’ wall—it becomes a Dracula-type ‘phantom rampart,’ a ‘moving rampart.’”

 

The debate on the Third Wall, says Avi-Yonah, “has suffered ever since” from the vehemence of Father Vincent’s critique. ….

 

Consequences

 

Thanks to the likes of Père Vincent and W.F. Albright, the Early Bronze III city of Jerich0 that fell to Joshua and his Israelite forces (c. 1450 BC), has been back-dated by a millennium (c. 2400-2300 BC), so that now historians and archaeologists must consider it to be far too early to accord with the biblical account. 

 

Joshua and his Conquest of Canaan are now to be viewed only as “a mirage”, a pious story based on a real historical event that had occurred about a millennium earlier.

A Proto-Joshuan event, if you like – some have admitted this, whilst refusing to accept a real historical Joshua.

 

So, in this case, and unlike the millennium shift forwards with Menes and Naram-Sin, W.F. Albright has shifted the dating backwards by a millennium, he and Père Vincent, with the most disastrous consequences for the historicity of the Bible.

 

 

Apollonius governor of Greater Syria poised as Quirinius of Luke’s Census

 

by

 Damien F. Mackey 

 

“His position as the Governor (Legate) of Syria at this time is confirmed

by the discovery of a tombstone in Beirut, known popularly as the

Q. Aemilius Secundus inscription. In it, Quirinius is called

the “legato Augusti Caesaris Syria”.”

Bryan Windle

  

Efforts to correlate the life of Herod ‘the Great’ with the Birth of Jesus Christ, and with the census – and there are many of them – are generally quite tortuous to read, and they tend to arrive at rather unhelpful conclusions.

Here is a part of one such example from the Christian Publishing House Blog:

Reconciling Herod's Death: A Debate Between 4 B.C.E. and 1 B.C.E. Through Biblical and Historical Lenses - Christian Publishing House Blog

 

Are the Conflicting Dates for Herod’s Death Irreconcilable?

 

Exploring the Dispute Over Herod’s Death

 

The timing of Herod the Great’s death has long been a source of discussion in biblical scholarship. Some assert that Herod died in 4 B.C.E., while others maintain that 1 B.C.E. best aligns with the biblical and historical data. This difference greatly affects how one understands the date of Jesus’ birth. There is confidence in the scriptural record that Jesus was born in 01 or 02 B.C.E., an event that occurred near the end of Herod’s reign. Many rely heavily on the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, while those who place greater emphasis on the biblical text look to Luke’s Gospel and related chronological references. The question is whether the data from Josephus, classical sources, and archaeological finds truly conflict with the biblical chronology. A closer look reveals ways to reconcile the debate without undermining the reliability of Scripture.

 

Why the Date of Herod’s Death Matters

 

The sequence of events recorded in the Gospels places the birth of Jesus before the death of Herod the Great. Matthew 2:1 mentions that “Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king.” Herod’s order to slaughter male children two years of age and under (Matthew 2:16) indicates that he was alive for a period following Jesus’ birth. If Herod died in 4 B.C.E., some would argue that Jesus must have been born earlier. However, the biblical evidence places Jesus’ birth in 01 or 02 B.C.E. Luke’s references to the Roman census under Quirinius, a governor of Syria, reinforce that Jesus’ birth took place when Caesar Augustus had ordered a registration (Luke 2:1, 2). Reconciling these overlapping events hinges upon identifying the accurate date of Herod’s death. The entire timeline of Jesus’ early life, including the journey of his family to Egypt and their subsequent return, must align with the time at which Herod was still alive.

 

Josephus’ Accounts and Their Complexities

 

Josephus is often cited as a central figure in placing Herod’s death in 4 B.C.E. He mentions that Herod died shortly after a lunar eclipse but before a Passover (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 167, 213 [vi, 4; ix, 3]). An eclipse did occur in March of 4 B.C.E. Many chronologists seize on this partial eclipse as the one referred to by Josephus. However, Josephus’ chronological data sometimes contain inconsistencies. For instance, Josephus dates the capture of Jerusalem by Herod as 37 B.C.E. in one passage but also connects it to the earlier capture of Jerusalem by Pompey in 63 B.C.E., creating a potential one-year discrepancy (Jewish Antiquities, XIV, 487, 488 [xvi, 4]). Josephus also employs Roman consular dating, which can be difficult to correlate exactly with regnal year counting. There is also the question of accession-year versus non-accession-year systems, in which one source might begin counting a king’s reign as soon as he assumed power, whereas another source might start counting only after the next new year. Such details can create apparent chronological variations.

 

Josephus’ reliability is often considered high regarding first-century events he personally witnessed, but the data about Herod’s death occurred decades before Josephus was born (37 C.E.). He relied on records, oral traditions, or earlier sources whose details might have varied.

 

There are also differences in how certain Roman rulers are listed. Josephus identifies Quintilius Varus as governor of Syria during and after Herod’s death. Some interpret these statements as conclusive proof that Quirinius was not governor at that time. Yet Josephus mentions scenarios where two officials in Syria served concurrently (Jewish Antiquities, XVI, 277, 280, 344 [ix, 1; x, 8]), indicating that Roman administrative structures could be more nuanced. ….

[End of quote]

 

The trouble is that, heretofore, we have not had the whole story.

 

A new base for yielding proper estimations

 

According to my revised view of the history of this time, greatly affecting early Luke, the Infancy of Jesus Christ occurred during the Hellenistic period when the wicked king Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ determined to impose Greek-ness upon the Jews.

It was the desperate era of the Maccabean (Jewish) revolt).

 

This was one of the worst times for the Jews (Israelites) in the entire Bible.

 

Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ was the Caesar, Augustus, who attempted to unify his kingdom, and who called for a census (Luke 2:1): “In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world”. Well, that is the usual translation, but Luke himself says nothing about “Roman” in the Greek original (Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις ἐξῆλθεν δόγμα παρὰ Καίσαρος Αὐγούστου ἀπογράφεσθαι πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην).

 

This Caesar Augustus was, in fact, a Seleucid Greek:

 

Rome surprisingly minimal in Bible

 

(3) Rome surprisingly minimal in Bible

 

 

The “decree” of Augustus to his whole kingdom would correspond approximately (whether it be the same document, or not) with the far-ranging and vicious edict of Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ addressed “to his whole kingdom” (I Maccabees 1:41-53):

 

Then the king wrote to his whole kingdom that all should be one people and that all should give up their particular customs. All the nations accepted the command of the king. Many even from Israel gladly adopted his religion; they sacrificed to idols and profaned the Sabbath. And the king sent letters by messengers to Jerusalem and the towns of Judah; he directed them to follow customs strange to the land, to forbid burnt offerings and sacrifices and drink offerings in the sanctuary, to profane Sabbaths and festivals, to defile the sanctuary and the holy ones, to build altars and sacred precincts and shrines for idols, to sacrifice pigs and other unclean animals, and to leave their sons uncircumcised. They were to make themselves abominable by everything unclean and profane so that they would forget the Law and change all the ordinances. He added, ‘And whoever does not obey the command of the king shall die’.

In such words he wrote to his whole kingdom. He appointed inspectors over all the people and commanded the towns of Judah to offer sacrifice, town by town. Many of the people, everyone who forsook the Law, joined them, and they did evil in the land; they drove Israel into hiding in every place of refuge they had.

 

Luke’s “those days” (2:1), the time of the census, were also, as the Evangelist informed us a bit earlier (1:5) - and as all would accept: “In the time of Herod king of Judea”.

 

King Herod, a close friend to Augustus, was, in my revised context, Philip the Phrygian, the second only to the king himself, and the ruler of Jerusalem (2 Maccabees 5:22): “However, [king Antiochus] left governors behind to oppress the people: at Jerusalem he left Philip, a Phrygian by birth and with a more barbarous nature than the one who appointed him”.

And, when the Seleucid king was dying (I Maccabees 6:14-16):

“Then he summoned Philip, one of his Friends, and put him in charge of his whole kingdom. He gave him his diadem, his robe, and his signet ring, so that he might guide the king’s son Antiochus and bring him up to be king. So King Antiochus died there in the one hundred and forty-ninth year.

 

This Philip, placed in charge of Jerusalem, was also King Herod, therefore, and he was, as well, the second right-hand man to Caesar Augustus, Marcus Agrippa:

 

Herod, the emperor’s signet right-hand man

 

(4) Herod, the emperor's signet right-hand man

 

In the standard history, now Herod, now Marcus Agrippa, will die before Augustus.

However, in my revised history, Augustus, as Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, pre-deceased Herod/Marcus Agrippa – who, as said, was also the Philip who outlived his revered king, Antiochus.

 

A re-setting such as this proposed one will obviously impact considerably upon the Lucan scenario involving Caesar Augustus, King Herod, and the Birth of Jesus Christ.

 

It may perhaps even enable for a Maccabean identification of the elusive Quirinius.

 

And although this revised scenario may add another layer to the cake - the Maccabean era now collapsed into the Lucan scenario - it ought, in the long run, to provide a more pleasingly structured dessert. 

 

Indeed, the parallels start rolling in.

 

We have just read of the controlling edict to the kingdom issued by king Antiochus, by Caesar Augustus.

And of a wicked barbarian in charge of Jerusalem.

 

Now, further, I would suggest, as Joseph and Mary went, according to the census edict, to Joseph’s home town of Bethlehem (Luke 2:3-5), so, too, did the Maccabean family of Mattathias recently move from Jerusalem to their ancestral home of Modein (cf. I Maccabees 2:1; 13:25).

This important town has, unfortunately, been quite wrongly located:

 

Must look elsewhere for Maccabee town, Modein

 

(5) Must look elsewhere for Maccabee town, Modein

 

That this was no peaceful time for the kingdom of Judea is apparent from the legends about Judas the Galilean and his revolt at the time of king Herod and his son, Archelaus. See e.g.  my article:

 

Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus

 

(4) Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus

 

P. G. Cavalcanti has concluded somewhat similarly in his article:

 

Luke’s Census Solution: Judas the Galilean and Judas ben Hezekiah as a Single Seven-Year Revolt

 

(4) Luke's Census Solution: Judas the Galilean and Judas ben Hezekiah as a Single Seven-Year Revolt

 

though without his having recognised that the revolt of Judas the Galilean (and his colleague, Matthias) was the very same revolt as that of Judas Maccabeus (triggered by his father, Mattathias) - that the Maccabean age occurred, partially, during the Infancy of Jesus Christ.

Whereas the Maccabean family found itself right in the wrong place at the wrong time, the Holy Family had providentially escaped to Egypt for the worst of it.

 

They escaped King Herod’s Slaughter of the Innocents (Matthew 2:16-18), a murderous horror which was perfectly in keeping with the infanticidal régime of king Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ (I Maccabees 1:59-61):

 

On the twenty-fifth day of the month they offered sacrifice on the altar that was on top of the altar of burnt offering. According to the decree, they put to death the women who had their children circumcised and their families and those who circumcised them, and they hung the infants from their mothers’ necks.

 

And Mattathias had lamented before his death (1 Maccabees 2:7-9):

 

‘Alas! Why was I born to see this,
    the ruin of my people, the ruin of the holy city?

The people sat idle there when it was given over to the enemy,
    the sanctuary given over to strangers.
Her Temple has become like a person without honor;

her glorious vessels have been carried into exile.
Her infants have been killed in her streets,
    her youths by the sword of the foe’.

 

All of a sudden our seemingly over-layered cake has begun to look far more tasty.

 

A tyrannical emperor, who has appointed a barbaric governor to Jerusalem, orders a controlling edict for his entire kingdom, and people must return to their ancestral homes for it. Babies are slaughtered, a revolt has erupted.

 

Also, in the books of Maccabees, as in the Infancy accounts of Luke and Matthew, there is abundant angelic activity at the time, as well as signs and portents in the heavens.

 

2 Maccabees 5:1-4:

 

About this time Antiochus made his second invasion of Egypt. And it happened that over all the city, for almost forty days, there appeared golden-clad horsemen charging through the air, in companies fully armed with lances and drawn swords— troops of horsemen drawn up, attacks and counterattacks made on this side and on that, brandishing of shields, massing of spears, hurling of missiles, the flash of golden trappings, and armor of all sorts. Therefore all men prayed that the apparition might prove to have been a good omen.

 

Furthermore – and this is most telling, and could be decisive – there is a revolutionary Judas in both the Maccabean and the Lucan (Acts) layers, and he, in the latter case, coincides with a census.

 

And he coincides in time with the Governor of Syria, Quirinius. 

 

Judas the Galilean

 

Apart from chronological factors and the Roman era location of Judas the Galilean, as opposed to Judas Maccabeus at the time of the (“earlier”) Greek Seleucid invasion – matters with which I have dealt above – Galilee would not be considered to have been from where the Maccabean family had originated.

 

Their ancestral home of Modein has today been fixed rather confidently - and it is quite far from Galilee (about 135 km) - at Modiin-Maccabim-Reut:

Modiin-Maccabim-Reut - Nefesh B'Nefesh

“Strategically located in the center of Israel between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, Modi’in offers access to most of Israel quickly and conveniently”. 

 

 

This is demonstrably incorrect - see my “Must look elsewhere for Maccabee town, Modein” above. The Maccabean family could well have hailed from Galilee.

 

If the great Judas Maccabeus was the same as Judas the Galilean, which I believe, then Rabbi Gamaliel does him a great disservice in Acts 5:37: “…  Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered”.

 

That’s it!

 

This slight moved me to write:

 

Judas the Galilean: What was Gamaliel thinking?

 

(3) Judas the Galilean: What was Gamaliel thinking?

 

Quirinius Governor of Syria

 

We know that Luke’s Quirinius was a genuine historical character:

Quirinius: An Archaeological Biography – Bible Archaeology Report

“His position as the Governor (Legate) of Syria at this time is confirmed by the discovery of a tombstone in Beirut, known popularly as the Q. Aemilius Secundus inscription.  In it, Quirinius is called the “legato Augusti Caesaris Syriae.” …. So we know that Quirinius was the Governor (Legate) of Syria … and it would appear he oversaw a census in conjunction with taxing the population. …”.

 

And now it should be quite easy to find him in our ‘parallel universe’ of the Maccabees as the Governor of Syria right at the beginning of the revolt of Judas (the Galilean).

He is “Apollonius, the son of Menestheus and governor of Coelesyria and Phoenicia”.

 

For an early account of the apparently malicious Apollonius, before king Antiochus had turned fully rogue, we go firstly to 2 Maccabees 4:4-6:

 

Onias recognized that the rivalry was serious and that Apollonius, the son of Menestheus and governor of Coelesyria and Phoenicia, was intensifying the malice of Simon. So he betook himself to the king, not accusing his fellow citizens but having in view the welfare, both public and private, of all the people. For he saw that without the king’s attention public affairs could not again reach a peaceful settlement, and that Simon would not stop his folly.

 

Next, to vv. 21-22:

 

When Apollonius the son of Menestheus was sent to Egypt for the coronation of Philometor as king, Antiochus learned that Philometor had become hostile to his government, and he took measures for his own security. Therefore upon arriving at Joppa he proceeded to Jerusalem. He was welcomed magnificently by Jason and the city, and ushered in with a blaze of torches and with shouts. Then he marched into Phoenicia.

 

But Judas Maccabeus, early, would bring the career of this Apollonius (my Quirinius) to a shuddering halt (I Maccabees 3:10-12):

 

 Then Apollonius gathered together nations and a large force from Samaria to fight against Israel. When Judas learned of it, he went out to meet him, and he defeated and killed him. Many were wounded and fell, and the rest fled. Then they seized their spoils, and Judas took the sword of Apollonius and used it in battle the rest of his life.