2 Maccabees Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature (CEJL)

Home , 2 Baruch, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, Doron Mendels, Johanan (High Priest), Onias IV

Daniel R. Schwartz 2 Maccabees Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature (CEJL)

Edited by Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Pieter W. van der Horst · Hermann Lichtenberger Doron Mendels · James R. Mueller

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York Daniel R. Schwartz

2 Maccabees

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York Ü Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Schwartz, Daniel R. 2 Maccabees / Daniel R. Schwartz. p. cm. – (Commentaries on early Jewish literature (CEJL)) Includes an English translation of the text of 2nd Maccabees. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-3-11-019118-9 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Bible. O. T. Apocrypha. Maccabees, 2nd – Commentaries. I. Bible. O. T. Apocrypha. Maccabees, 2nd. English. Schwartz. 2008. II. Title. III. Title: Two Maccabees. IV. Title: Second Maccabees. BS1825.53.S39 2008 229’.73077–dc22 2008038566

ISBN 978-3-11-019118-9

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at

© Copyright 2008 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, 10785 Berlin, Germany All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

Printed in Germany Cover Design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin Typesetting: Dörlemann Satz, Lemförde Printing and binding: Hubert & Co GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen Preface V

Preface

In the 1980s my late teacher, Prof. Menahem Stern of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, best known for his Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Ju- daism, was among the main movers of a project to publish a series of annotated Hebrew translations of Jewish literature of the Second Temple period. Stern himself undertook to prepare the volume on the Second Book of Mac- cabees, one of the central works of Hellenistic Judaism – but he was murdered a few months later (22 June 1989), at the age of sixty-four, in the context of what came to be known as “the first Intifada.” This brutal act, which snatched him from his family, his friends, his colleagues and his students, denied the world the opportunity of seeing both his History of the Second Temple Period, of which many incomplete drafts were found, and his analysis and interpretation of this central work of Hellenistic Judaism, of which only a short draft was found (published below, in my translation, as Appendix 7). May he rest in peace, and may the memory of him long continue to be a blessing. Eventually, the publisher transferred the project to me, unprepared though I was. True, I was not unfamiliar with the book; already in the mid- seventies it had been one of the major texts upon which Prof. Stern had tested me in my M.A. examinations. Nevertheless, during the next decade my work had focused on later sources – Josephus, Philo, and the New Tes- tament. Stern’s death brought me back to the Hasmonean period – first to editing, from some of the drafts for his projected History of the Second Temple Period, a volume entitled Hasmonaean Judaea in the Hellenistic World: Chapters in Political History (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar, 1995 [in Hebrew]), and then to work on Second Maccabees. Numerous responsibilities at the Hebrew University ensured that the project would take much longer than ever expected. The fact that it was eventually completed, with the publication of my Hebrew translation and commentary in 2004, is due to the support of many institutions and individuals. I am very grateful, first of all, to Hebrew University’s Institute of Ad- vanced Studies, at which I was able to spend two fruitful years of research and writing. A semester at Yale University’s Dept. of Religious Studies, toward the end of the project, allowed me the leisure to bring it to completion. Besides such institutional help, there are many colleagues and friends. Here, pride of place goes to two: Dr. Emmanuelle Main, with whom I went VI Preface over, in detail, my Hebrew translation of every verse of the book, and Prof. Joseph Geiger, who wrote a detailed critique of the original Hebrew manuscript. Although I did not always accept their advice, all of it was invalu- able; it is a privilege to have such support and to receive such input. Dr. Noah Hacham, Dr. Daniel Stoekl-Ben Ezra, and Dr. Amram Tropper also spent many hours going over the Hebrew translation – and all of that impacted, very directly, on this English version as well. Others who generously proffered advice, about one or another historical or literary problem or about how to render this or that word, include Profs. Robert Doran, Erich Gruen, Galit Hasan-Rokem, Jan Willem van Henten, Moshe David Herr, Avi Hurvitz, Lee Levine, Hermann Lichtenberger, Doron Mendels, Joseph Mélèze Modrzejewski, Tessa Rajak, David Satran, Israel Shatzman, Avig- dor Shinan, Adiel Shremer, and Uri Rappaport; and my special debt to Prof. Bezalel Bar-Kochva should be obvious from the multitude of my references to his Judas Maccabaeus. And there were many others as well; above all – my students. The many years I spent on this project afforded several opportunities to give seminars on Second Maccabees, and thereby to run up many flags and see who salutes; ,lvkm rtvy ydymltmv ,ytlk>h ydmlm lkm. I hope I have not stolen too many ideas without proper acknowledgement. The present English volume is, to a large extent, the product of several extended stays at the Department of New Testament Theology at the Uni- versity of Munich, courtesy of a prize from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and of the outstanding hospitality of the Department’s director, Prof. Jörg Frey, and his staff. These stays supplied ideal working conditions that allowed the project to move forward. In this connection, a special word of thanks to two assistants, Tanja Schultheiß and Eva Preuß, who helped with the proofreading in Munich. Back in Jerusalem, grants from Hebrew University’s Charles Wolfson Fund and from Scholion (Hebrew University’s Interdisciplinary Research Center in Jewish Studies) allowed for proofreading by Deenah Pinson, Yonatan Miller, Nadav Sharon and Maya Sher- man; Scholion also provided me with superb working conditions for this project. Professor Loren Stuckenbruck of Durham read through the entire manuscript, and my friends Michael Blaustein and Judy Klitsner read through my translation of the Greek text and helped weed out translationese and other problems. My sincere thanks to all of them – as well as to the editors of CEJL for their invitation to me to participate in this series. Although this volume is based, to a significant extent, on the Hebrew one, there are various differences. Apart from adding general Comments before the verse-to-verse commentary on each chapter, from replacing citations of Hebrew bibliography with references to works in western languages, from eliminating various comments relevant only to the Hebrew Preface VII used in my translation (such as citations to demonstrate the existence of some odd word I felt compelled to use or to inform the reader that it was from Menahem Begin’s memoirs that I picked up the phrase I used at 7:3 to describe how a prisoner might infuriate his interrogator), from citing and using some new publications (and especially – a newly-discovered and very apposite Attalid inscription – see Appendix 2), and from integrating various second thoughts, corrections, and revisions, including corrections and suggestions by some reviewers of the Hebrew version, the most important change relates to the fact that the English translation is not only new but also qualitatively different from the Hebrew one. Namely, while my Hebrew translation strove to render Second Maccabees’ Greek diction as closely as possible, even at the expense of readability, my Eng- lish translation of the Greek is freer and, consequently, more idiomatically English. That is, if it is impossible to read even a few lines of my Hebrew translation without realizing that it is a translation, this should not be the case with the present English translation. The reason for this difference derives from the chasm between Hebrew vocabulary and syntax and their counterparts in Greek, which ensures that any idiomatic Hebrew translation would be very far-removed from the Greek original. Given the facts that the book’s author invested such an effort (with sweat and tears – 2:26) into his work, and that the result is often quite impressive, I was loath to replace it with something far- removed. I wanted, rather, to reveal– as best I could – the beauty and the structure of the Greek to my students; for it was my students I saw in my mind’s eye while I wrote, and most of them cannot read the Greek themselves. Accord- ingly, I rendered the text fairly literally, referring readers who want something more readable to other Hebrew translations of the work. Thus, for Hebrew readers I chose to do what Brock calls “bringing the readers to the book.”1 For the present English translation, however, I allowed myself more freedom, for two reasons: (1) I contemplate more readers who know Greek (and assume that those who do not will, by and large, go on reading the standard translations in their Catholic Bibles or Protestant Apocryphas); (2) because English is much closer to Greek than Hebrew is, with regard to vocabulary and syntax, so the moves that allow for more idiomatic English usually entail less deviation from the Greek. For an example of this, see p. 6, n. 9. That is, in comparison with the move from Greek into Hebrew, when translating Greek into English one hardly has to choose between “bringing the readers to the book” and “bringing the book to the readers.”

1 See p. 68 of the Hebrew volume, which cites S. Brock, “Aspects of Translation Tech- nique in Antiquity,” GRBS 20 (1979) 73. VIII Preface

Thus, for example, when at 8:4 our author condemns the murder of infants as παρνομο«, lit. “law-violating,” a standard idiomatic Hebrew translation would use the root i>r, “wicked,” and indeed both Kahana and Artom employ that root in their translations. However, such natural He- brew usage does not at all reflect the Greek’s reference to nomos, “law,” and since I was loath to hide that element, which is so central to our auth- or’s conception of Judaism (see below, p. 275), I chose to use a clumsy He- brew formulation that does reflect it (qvx irvp). In the present English translation, however, I used “lawless,” which does reflect the basic element and deviates from the Greek only insofar as it refers to the action as being “without” law rather than as being in violation of it (for “illegal” seems too low-key). This seemed to be a small and reasonable price to pay for idiomatic English. Cases like this one abound. As for the commentary, it is meant, primarily, to justify the translation and, as far as content and ideas are concerned, to elucidate the book as an expression of diasporan Judaism of the Hellenistic age. I have not attempted to reconstruct the history of all the book narrates, although I have attempted to do some of that and to supply assistance and bibliography to those who would pursue it. To borrow a phrase from Ernst Haenchen (Acts of the Apostles, vii), I have instead attempted to be “a reader of Second Maccabees,” and to share my understanding – of the book, and so of its author’s world – with other such readers. Hopefully, it will be useful. Second Maccabees is a book by a diasporan Jew about the life and struggles of Jews living in and around Jerusalem. My work over the last many years on this ancient diasporan composition, while living in Jerusa- lem, has certainly seen some mutual influencing. On the one hand, it must be that living the life and struggles of modern Israel has impacted upon my understanding of this ancient book; readers will decide to what extent it has skewed it and to what extent – enhanced it. On the other hand, it is also the case that my work with this book has enriched my understanding of the life and struggles of contemporary Israel, and especially of the options Jews and “Judaism” (this book’s invention?) have in defining their place in this world. In other words, it has contributed to my consideration of the differences between Jewish life in the Diaspora, where I grew up, and life “at home,” where I have spent the last three and a half decades. I dedicate this book to my wife and my children, who share with me, each in her or his own way, as with so many others, the challenges of confronting these complexities.

Jerusalem, August 2007 Daniel R. Schwartz Preface IX

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

I. Subject, Purpose and Date ...... 3 II. Sources and Development ...... 16 III. Historical Worth and Leading Ideas ...... 38 IV. Between the Bible and Greek Literature ...... 57 V. Language and Style ...... 67 VI. Reception and Text ...... 85 VII. Literature ...... 97 VIII. Abbreviations and Bibliography ...... 98

TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY

Introductory Letters (1:1–2:18) ...... 129 Author’s Preface (2:19–32) ...... 170 Chapter III ...... 181 Chapter IV ...... 207 Chapter V ...... 247 Chapter VI ...... 270 Chapter VII ...... 296 Chapter VIII ...... 320 Chapter IX ...... 349 Chapter X ...... 369 Chapter XI ...... 392 Chapter XII ...... 414 Chapter XIII ...... 445 Chapter XIV ...... 463 Chapter XV ...... 492 X Table of Contents

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: On the Letters in Chapters 1–2 ...... 519 Appendix 2: “to register the people of Jerusalem as Antiochenes” (4:9) ...... 530 Appendix 3: “his second invasion” (5:1) ...... 533 Appendix 4: “as the residents of the place requested” (6:2) . . . . 537 Appendix 5: A Ptolemaic Account of Antiochus’ Decrees? (2 Macc 6:7) ...... 541 Appendix 6: “the tribute (still owed) to the Romans” (2 Macc 8:10, 36) ...... 544 Appendix 7: M. Stern, “The Battle Against the Galatians” (8:20) . 546 Appendix 8: “their own foods” (11:31) ...... 549 Appendix 9: “to be his successor” (14:26) ...... 551 Appendix 10: “the Syrian Language” (15:36) ...... 553 Appendix 11: “and ever since the city was taken over by the Hebrews it has been in their hands” (15:37) ..... 556

INDICES

Index of References ...... 561 Index of Names and Subjects ...... 596 Index of Authors ...... 608 INTRODUCTION

I. Subject, Purpose and Date 3

I. Subject, Purpose and Date

These three topics are linked together, for discerning what the book is about will help us determine why and when it was written. The subject is very clear: the history of the city of Jerusalem from the beginning of institutionalized Hellenization under the high priest Jason around 175 BCE and until Judas Maccabaeus’ victory over the Seleucid general Nicanor in the spring of 161 BCE. The focus upon the city of Jeru- salem is clearly indicated by the brackets that surround the story: it begins (after the letters and preface that fill Chapters 1–2) with an idyllic municipal “once upon a time” at 3:1 (“The Holy City being inhabited in complete peace …”) and it ends with an unambiguous statement of cause and effect at 15:37: “Since the affairs concerning Nicanor turned out this way, and ever since the city was taken over by the Hebrews it has been in their hands, here I too will conclude this account.” One cannot imagine a clearer indication of the work’s subject: the book is about Jerusalem, and so the restoration of an idyllic situation there completes the circle that began at 3:1 and thus completes the book.1 As for the upper chronological border being the beginning of institutionalized Hellenization under Jason ca. 175 BCE, here matters are a little more complicated, for Jason first appears in Chapter 4, in the same verse

1 Note that the author pays no attention to the fact that the original idyll had a Jewish high priest ruling the city under Seleucid kings while, by the end, Seleucid rule has for all intents and purposes ceased. That does not interest our author, either because he knew that the latter was soon to be restored (see 1 Macc 9) or because he simply did not care about foreign rule as long as Judaism and its institutions were unthreatened. For the basic principle, that a book’s end is the best indication of the author’s objective, see Tyson, “Jewish Public,” 582. In this case, the genitive absolute in 15:37 (“Since …”) makes this all the more clear; see Appendix 11. J. Geiger (“History of Judas Maccabaeus”) has suggested, in contrast, that 2 Maccabees should be viewed as a monograph about Judas Maccabaeus. Indeed, Judas is the main hero of the book. However, he appears for the first time only at 5:27 and then again only from Ch. 8. Athough this is not in and of itself a fatal objection (compare for example the Books of Judith and Ezra, where the heroes appear only at 8:1 and 7:1 respectively), it does suggest that we should look elsewhere for characterizing the book as a whole – and the brackets at 3:1 and 15:37 show us where. 4 Introduction that introduces Antiochus IV Epiphanes (4:7), and some significant material precedes this: the letters in 1:1–2:18; the author’s preface in 2:19–32; and the narrative of 3:1–4:6, which reports events under Antiochus’ brother and predecessor, Seleucus IV Philopator, who is named at 3:3 and whose death is reported in 4:7. True, there is no problem with viewing Chap- ters 1–2 as separate from the book itself, as these letters and the preface are clearly distinguished from it. But marginalizing 3:1–4:6, which features the long and sensational story of Heliodorus’ failed attempt to enter the Temple, in the days of Seleucus IV, requires some justification. There are two main considerations. First, it seems that the book itself characterizes its story as one that begins with Jason: this is stated more or less explicitly in the first of the two letters prefixed to the book, at 1:7;2 it seems that even the second letter, in its original form, presumed the same;3 the author’s summary of the book’s contents, appearing in his preface (2:20), refers to the days of Antiochus Epiphanes as the book’s point of departure; and the summaries of Jerusalem’s tribulations at 8:2–4 and 8:17 have, accordingly, nothing to say about the events of Chapter 3. Second, note that the story of Chapter 3 is indeed a unit closed within itself, having its own happy end with Heliodorus’ defeat and recognition of the power of the Jewish God; the story does not move the book forward at all. Note especially, in this connection, that apart from 4:1b, which could well be editorial, Heliodorus and his “conversion” serve no function at all in 4:1–6, where we read of Simon’s complaints against Onias (vv. 1–4) and Onias’ decision to appeal directly to the king (vv. 5–6). Any reader should wonder why Onias makes no attempt to enlist Heliodorus, whose life he has just saved and who has recognized Onias’ sterling qualities.4 Thus, on the one hand, had the story proceeded from the opening idyll (3:1–3) and Simon’s squabbling with Onias (3:4) directly to the worsening of Simon’s complaints (4:1–4 [without v. 1b]) and Onias’ consequent decision to go to the king in Antioch (4:5–6), the Heliodorus story would never have been missed.5 Taken together with the book’s positive references to

2 For the assumption that the first letter was composed in order to accompany our book, see below, pp. 525–527. 3 See NOTE on 1:12, For He Himself drove out … 4 The fact that 4:1–6 functions without reference to the Heliodorus story is also apparent in the fact that while 3:5 had Apollonius the son of Thraseas serving as governor of Coele Syria and Phoenicia, 4:4 has Apollonius son of Menestheus in the same position, without any hint of a need to explain what happened to his predecessor. 5 As Doran noted (Temple Propaganda, 51), the Heliodorus story “hardly deserves the elaborate treatment it receives … [i]t is, after all, an isolated incident which does not I. Subject, Purpose and Date 5

Jason as its starting point, we conclude that we should, indeed, characterize the story as one beginning with Jason. On the other hand, however, it is clear from the authorial reflections at 5:18 that the Heliodorus story was part of the book that our author prepared. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the Heliodorus story is quite similar to the one in 3 Maccabees 1–2 about events under Ptolemy IV, who shared the same royal throne-name (Philopator) as Seleucus IV,6 and it is also striking that the story as we have it in 2 Maccabees 3 often avoids the name “Onias” and settles, in a stylistically disconcerting way, for “the high priest” (vv. 4, 9, 10, 15, 16, 21, 32, 33).7 These two considerations make it likely that our author inserted into his narrative a story that he found which, although giving another name for the high priest (such as “Simon”

influence further historical developments.” I would add that the disproportionate length of the account itself suggests the use of a special source, for it is unlikely that an author would invest so much effort into creating a narrative which prescinds from his own agenda or, if he did, that he would fail to exploit it. Cf. for example Josephus’ long account of the conspiracy to assassinate Gaius Caligula (Ant. 19.1–273), which hardly has to do with “Jewish Antiquities;” on its source, see Feldman’s long note on 19.1 in the LCL edition. 6 True, these two kings were not homonyms in the full sense of the word, for our author was capable of referring to such kings as “Ptolemy” and “Seleucus” without even mentioning their throne-names; see 1:10, 3:3. But the opposite also occurs; see 4:21, “King Philometor.” In any case, it is usual for names of kings to change as stories about them float around, and having the same throne-name would only encourage this; see for example the way Jewish traditions mix up “Yannai” (Alexander Jannaeus) with Herod and others (Efron, Studies, 190–206). Tromp (“Formation,” 318–321) thinks that the story of 3 Maccabees was actually based on the one in our book, but this is hard to prove, especially given the widespread evidence for the floating motive of failed attempts to rob temples (see Stokholm, “Zur Überlieferung von Heliodor”); for the independence of the two stories, see Kasher, Jews in … Egypt, 212–213, n. 1, and Johnson, Historical Fictions, 136. 7 For a case in which Josephus does the same, preferring to use “the high priest” repeatedly rather than the name of the high priest in whose context he told the story, see Ant. 11.325–339. For the argument that Josephus’ source used another name, see my “On Some Papyri,” esp. 186–189. Cf. R. Marcus’ comment on Ant. 11.22, where Jo- sephus, whose chronological considerations led him to redirect to Cambyses a letter the Bible reported was sent to Artaxerxes, brought the document in the context of Cambyses but omitted his name, using instead only his title, “sovereign:” “By omitting the name Josephus avoids the awkwardness of openly correcting Scripture” (LCL Josephus, note c on Ant. 11.22). For other cases in which Josephus is similarly non-commital when he is unsure about the chronology of the events he is relating, see my “Cassius’ Chronology and Josephus’ Vagueness,” SCI 16 (1997) 109–112. 6 Introduction as in 3 Macc 1–2), served his purpose in a general way by illustrating God’s providential protection of the Temple of Jerusalem. Accordingly, while it is part of the book as our author produced it, the Heliodorus story should be understood as a prologue; the real story begins at 4:7. In any case, it is clear that the first three verses of Chapter 3 announce the subject of the book: Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the Jews’ capital city and also, as an ancient polis, the capital of its territory, Judaea – the same conception indicated already in the first verse of the book (1:1: “the Jews in Jerusalem and in the country of Judaea”).8 Accordingly, when problems first occur they concern “market supervision in the city” (3:4); and when in the next chapter Simon informs against Onias, who was in fact the “benefactor (euergetes) of the city” (4:2), Onias appeals to the king in an attempt to restore peace (4:6) and not, of course – as opposed to that villainous Simon – in order to accuse his “fellow-citizens” (politai – 4:5).9 This focus on the city remains dominant throughout, as some prominent examples indicate: Jason’s reform changed the city’s status and politeias (4:9–11); the delegates who complained about the theft of Temple vessels are first defined as defenders of the city and only thereafter as those of the Temple vessels (4:48); Chapter 5 opens with an apparition in the sky above Jerusalem, then goes on to blame Jason for attacking the city and killing his fellow-citizens (5:6) and to report attacks on

8 On city-states in the Hellenistic period, and on their preservation of identity and even a measure of independence despite the overarching monarchies, see: Ph. Gau- thier, “Les cités hellénistiques”, in: M. H. Hansen (ed.), The Ancient Greek City- State (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1993) 211–231; E. S. Gruen, “The Polis in the Hellenistic World,” in: R. M. Rosen & J. Farrell (ed.), Nomodeiktes: Greek Studies in Honor of Martin Ostwald (Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan, 1993) 339–354; Ma, Antiochos III. 9 Our book’s standard term for “fellow Jews.” See 4:5, 50; 5:6, 8, 23; 9:19 (!); 14:8. On the term, see below, p. 51, n. 116. The Greek nature of such usage is easily evident in (a) the way it is absent from 1 Maccabees, which instead uses “brother” and “people” much more than our book does (on “brother” see our NOTE on 10:21, brethren, and as for “people” – note that λα« appears 68 times in 1 Maccabees but only eleven times in 2 Maccabees, of which four are in the opening Jerusalemite epistles), and (b) the way modern translators of our book into Hebrew, a language which – as opposed to western languages (“fellow citizen, concitoyen, Mitbürger …”) – still has no way of rendering this sense, turn instead to ethnic terminology (“brother, people”). Thus, Kahana rendered the complaint that Jason killed “his own fellow- citizens” (τν πολιτν τν δ ν – 5:6) as if it referred to “the sons of his people;” he rendered the characterization of Razis as φιλοπολ τη« (14:37) as “lover of the sons of his people;” and when in 15:30 he rendered πολται “sons of his people” it forced him to use something else, “brothers,” to render μοενε« in the continuation of that verse (see, respectively, Kahana, HaSepharim, 194, 228, 230). I. Subject, Purpose and Date 7 the city by Antiochus and by Philip; Chapter 6 opens by formulating Anti- ochus’ decrees against the practice of Judaism as having prohibited Jews to “conduct their civic behavior” (πολιτεεσαι) according to God’s laws (6:1); after the martyrdom accounts of Chapters 6–7, which are exceptional in this regard,10 the city figures prominently alongside the Temple as what is threatened in Chapter 8 (vv. 2–3, 17, 36); in Chapter 9 Antiochus’ threats (v. 4) and his promises (vv. 14–15) focus upon the city; Chapter 10 takes for granted that the Jews begin all their campaigns from the city (v. 27), just as Chapter 11 makes clear in vv. 2–3 that the new Seleucid invasion is primarily a threat to the city; in Chapter 12, which deals with events in distant regions of Palestine, Jerusalem figures as the axis of events (vv. 31, 43), just as in Chapter 13 the Jews march out to meet the royal army at Modein rather than wait until “the king’s army invaded Judaea and took control of the city,” and Judas encourages his men “to struggle nobly until death for laws, temple, city, fatherland, constitution” (13:13–14); the last martyr of the book, Razis, is first of all characterized as “a man who loved his fellow-citizens” (φιλο- πολ τη« – 14:37) and Judas Maccabaeus, on the eve of his final victory, is characterized as undertaking to fight “due to the danger facing the city, the holy things and the Temple” (15:17), although – as in the abovementioned instance at 4:48 – the threat was in fact directed against the Temple (14:33). Consequently, we are not surprised that, after his victory, Judas is characterized as “he who with his whole body and soul had taken the lead in the struggle on behalf of his fellow citizens” (15:33), and that, as we have seen, a few verses later the author explains that his book has come to an end because the city returned to Jewish hands (15:37), reestablishing the idyllic status with which it all began at 3:1. So much for our book’s subject. As for the purpose of the book, it might appear to emerge easily from the comparison of two passages:

2 Maccabees 10:8 2 Maccabees 15:36 And they resolved by an And they all decided, in a decree made edict and decree made in in common (δογμτισαν δ πντε« common that the entire μετ κοινο χηφ σματο«), not at all to (δογμτισαν δ μετ allow that day to remain unmarked, but, κοινο προστγματο« κα rather, to keep as special the thirteenth χηφ σματο« παντ ) people day of the twelfth month (which is called of the Jews should celebrate “Adar” in the Syrian language), the day these days annually. before Mordechai’s Day.

10 On the striking absence of “political” focus or language in these accounts, see below, p. 19. 8 Introduction

Given the demonstrative parallelism between these two passages, the book obviously is meant to encourage the observance of these two holidays, Ha- nukkah and Nicanor’s Day, which celebrate two stages in the struggle the book depicts: the purification of the Temple and the establishment of stable Jewish rule in the city. As Niese put it, “the establishment of the two Mac- cabean memorial days constitutes the middle and conclusion of the entire work.”11 However, a few points show that in fact the book was meant, originally, to serve the latter holiday alone,12 while the interest in Hanukkah came only at a secondary stage. On the negative side, this emerges from two considerations: (1) the only passage in the book itself that refers to Hanuk- kah, 10:1–8 (concluding with the proclamation cited just above), sticks out like a sore thumb as an insertion, and (2) it is almost as clear that that passage was inserted by those Jerusalemites who added the letters at the beginning of the book. The first point, that 10:1–8 is a secondary insertion, results from the way it separates Antiochus IV’s death (at the end of Ch. 9) from the summary of that event (10:9); from the derogatory way it speaks about Gentiles, which is unusual for our book (see NOTE on 10:2, non-Jews); from the precedence which it gives the Temple over the city (10:1) and its interest in cultic details (v. 3), both of which depart from what is usual in our book;13 from its lack of worry about Dionysiac associ- ations (v. 7); and from its relatively simple Greek style, including even a good bit of parataxis (six occurrences of κα !) in v. 3.14 As for the second point, that the insertion is to be attributed to the Je- rusalemites who added the letters:15 this conclusion results from the fact

11 Niese, Kritik, 12; for the German original, and for the context, see below, n. 20. 12 On Nicanor’s Day, which seems still to have been celebrated in the days of Josephus (Ant. 12.412) and the post-talmudic period (see J. Tabory, “When was the Scroll of Fasts Abrogated?,” Tarbiz 55 [1986] 263–264 [in Hebrew]), see J. Schwartz, “Once More,” 272–273. 13 See below, pp. 46–48. 14 Apart from the first letter, where this is common, there is nothing else like this in our book. Similarly, note that after vv. 1–3 are simply linked one to another with “ands,” vv. 4–8, which are not, are each a single sentence; no periods. See also, in this connection, the NOTES on 10:1, took (unusually low-key diction) and 10:3, after a two- year period (unusual use of chronological terminology). 15 In support of that assumption about the letters it is enough to note, apart from the names of the writers given in 1:1, 10, that these letters appear prior to the author’s preface and that the first, and perhaps also the second, was written originally in Hebrew or Aramaic. See Appendix I. For retroversions of the letters, into Aramaic and Hebrew, respectively, see Torrey, “The Letters” and Hack, “Two Hanukkah Letters.” I. Subject, Purpose and Date 9 they needed such a passage, because otherwise the book did not justify, or even explain, the call to celebrate Hanukkah; from the common emphasis on all the people being called upon to celebrate (cf. esp. 2:17!); from the common interest in cultic details (note esp. the similarity of the list in 1:7 with that in 10:3), which contrasts sharply with what is usual for the rest of the book (see below, pp. 46–48); from the fact that only the story at 1:31–32 can explain the obscure reference to “igniting rocks and extracting fire from them” in 10:3; from the fact that of the whole book only 10:6–7 explains the letters’ characterization of Hanukkah as a type of Tab- ernacles festival (1:9, 18); and from the desideratum that we be economical and not hypothesize more editors and interpolators than the evidence requires. On the positive side, the fact that the book was meant, originally, to foster celebration of Nicanor’ Day results from two main considerations: (1) It comes at the end of the book, which prima facie means that it was the author’s intended objective (see above, n. 1). Thus, in a manner reminiscent of the establishment of commemorative festivals in Esther 9:26–32 and 3 Maccabees 7:18–19,16 2 Maccabees 15:36 represents not only the last piece of information in the book but also its purpose. (2) The arrangement of the book as a whole points to Nicanor’s central status: the first campaign (Ch. 8) and the final one (15) are both against Ni- canor. That this is a matter of authorial intention emerges all the more clearly from the fact that comparison with 1 Maccabees leads historians to well-founded doubts about the centrality of Nicanor in the first cam- paign17 and in the events recorded at 14:12–25,18 and also to doubt our book’s presumption that both narratives in our book refer to one and the same Nicanor.19 For our author and (so he assumed) for his readers there is no doubt at all: there was one Nicanor, termed “thrice-accursed” at both

16 Which says that the Jews decided to celebrate a holiday in memory of their deliverance π τ"ν τ#« παροικ α« α$τν ξρνον – throughout the time of their residence in Egypt (not merely “during the time of their stay” at Ptolemais, as the RSV might imply). See Grimm, 2 Macc, 277. 17 For according to 1 Macc 3:38 Nicanor was one of three commanders and 4:1, 5, 18 indicate that one of the other two, Gorgias, was in fact the main figure; Nicanor is nowhere mentioned in 1 Maccabees’ long account of this campaign after its opening verse. Our book, in contrast, mentions Gorgias only once in Chapter 8, and there he comes only “alongside” Nicanor and never functions in that story. 18 Concerning which events 1 Macc 7:8–10 has Bacchides instead of Nicanor. Our book mentions Bacchides only once, in a marginal role (8:30). 19 See NOTE on 14:12, immediately selecting Nicanor. 10 Introduction

8:34 and 15:3, and Judas Maccabaeus’ victories over him bracket all of his activity as depicted in our book. Having established, however, both from its end and from its structure, that our book was meant to lead up to and justify Nicanor’s Day, we must recognize that in its present form it is meant to do something else: justify the celebration of another holiday, Hanukkah.20 In fact, both letters attached at the beginning of the book invite their addressees to celebrate this latter holiday, making no mention of Nicanor or of the festival marking his defeat. Thus, in discussing the book’s purpose we must make a clear distinction between different layers of purpose. Looking at the book as it is, the obvious purpose is to encourage readers to celebrate the holiday of Hanuk- kah. However, this is only a formal statement, one that goes hand in hand with saying the book was “written” by the Jews of Jerusalem, since formally the book is an attachment to their two opening cover letters.21 His- torically speaking, however, we should conclude from the contrast between the letters, which point to Hanukkah, and the body of the book, which points to Nicanor’s Day, that the book was expanded, by Jerusalemites, in the opening chapters and in Chapter 10, to make it serve a purpose for which it was not originally intended. In doing so, however, they took care (as we saw in the comparison of the language of 10:8 to 15:36) to make their interpolation fit as best as possible into the book; the same is indicated by their use of “reconciliation” language at 1:5, which points, as we shall see (below, pp. 21–22), to a basic theme in our book.22

20 This discrepancy between form and current structure of our book was especially underlined by Momigliano: Prime linee, 67 and “Second Book of Maccabees,” 88. For a good example of how evident it is, however, note already the legerdemain with which Niese (Kritik, 12) moves, in referring to festivals, from singular to plural and then back to singular from one sentence to the next: “Der Hauptgedanke [of the opening letter], der sich in Anfang, Mitte und Ende findet, ist die Mahnung, das Fest der Tempelweihe mitzufeiern. Darin liegt zugleich der Zusammenhang mit der fol- genden Darstellung; denn die Stiftung der beiden makkabäischen Gedenktage bildet gleichsam den Mittelpunkt und Abschluss des Ganzen. Unterstutzt wird jene Mahnung weiter [in the opening letter] durch die Erzählung von der Einweihung des Tempels und der Auffindung des heiligen Feuers durch Nehemias. Denn dieses Fest ist ein Vorläufer der makkabäischen Feier und der Schriftsteller denkt es sich vielleicht an demselben Tage, dem 25. Kislev, begangen.” 21 For that characterization of the book, see esp. van Henten, “2 Maccabees as a History of Liberation;” cf. below, n. 100. 22 For some emphasis on the similarity of the first letter to the body of the book, see Toki, “The Dates,” 72–74. But there is no reason to infer that it was part of the book from the outset. As for the second letter, the differences between it and the rest of the I. Subject, Purpose and Date 11

Dating the book: This discussion of the relationship of the letters to 10:1–8 serves not only to defend our characterization of the book as one meant to justify and explain Nicanor’s Day by showing that that which points instead to Hanukkah is secondary. It also contributes to establishing the dating of our book. For if it is the case that 10:1–8 was inserted into an extant context, and that the epistles in Chapters 1–2 were added at the same time, as cover letters accompanying an extant book,23 then the date of the letters is a terminus ad quem for the book as a whole. Given the fact that the first letter was written in 169 of the Seleucid Era (henceforth: SE),24 as is stated in 1:7, i.e., 143/142 BCE, it emerges that the book was ready by then. That Jerusalemites would be interested in sending out a book like this, supplemented with the Hanukkah story, in 169 SE, is quite understandable. For this year, by the Jewish (Babylonian) reckoning (as we should expect from Jerusalemites), ran from the spring of 143 to that of 142 BCE, and, therefore, included the first half of 170 SE according to the Seleucid (Mace- donian) era (autumn 143 – autumn 142) – and according to 1 Maccabees it was precisely in that year, 170 SE according to the Macedonian system, that Demetrius II granted Judaea full exemption from taxes, a step quite properly heralded as the “removal of the Gentiles’ yoke from Israel” (1 Macc 13:41).25 True, it is usual to date our book at least two decades later, but the main argument is only the reading “Year 188” (SE = 125/124 BCE) in 1:10a. In our NOTE ad loc., and in Appendix 1, I explain why I prefer to follow those witnesses that read “148,” i.e., 165/4 BCE, and to take this not as the date of the letter, but as the date of the original event that the Hanukkah festival commemorates. Accordingly, I have translated 1:9–10, “And now (we

book are clear; see Toki, loc. cit., 71–72 and Stern, Studies, 353–354. But it seems to me that whoever added the first letter added the second as well; see Appendix 1. 23 See above, pp. 4, 8–9. 24 As is usual (but see our NOTE on 6:1, Not much time later) we assume that there were two different ways of calculating years SE: the Babylonian system, used also by Jews, counted from the spring of 311 BCE, while the Macedonian system, used by the Seleu- cids, began in the autumn of 312 BCE. For the issues and defense of this consensus view, see Lebram, “Zur Chronologie;” Bar-Kochva, JM, 562–565; and Goldstein, 1 Macc, 22–25. For a convenient rule for calculating conversions, see ibid. 22–23, n. 47. 25 The assumption that the reference to 170 SE in this verse is to be interpreted according to the Macedonian system is based on the fact that it appears in the verse right after Demetrius’ letter (1 Macc 13:36–40). That letter, as cited in 1 Macc, concludes without a date, but presumably had one at its end (as, for example, all the letters in 2 Macc 11), so it is natural to assume that the author of 1 Maccabees simply chose to weave it into his narrative. For another case of the same, see 1 Macc 15:10. 12 Introduction have written you) so that you shall celebrate the days of (the festival of) Tabernacles of the month of Kislev of the year 148,” and suggest it is to be understood in the way we would understand posters calling upon Ameri- cans, today, to celebrate the great events “of July 4, 1776.” On the other hand, we may also note that such an early dating of our book solves a riddle which has at times exercised scholars. The book was written by a partisan of Jerusalem and its Temple but its beginning (Chapters 3–4) and end (15:12–14) portray the high priest Onias as a hero. That poses a problem because the Temple of Onias, founded in Egypt sometime during the second century BCE (see below), competed with that of Je- rusalem and was (so we may assume) viewed as illegitimate, perhaps even as an abomination, by partisans of the latter – certainly in the early years of its existence, before it became a fixed part of the scenery.26 How could such a book portray Onias as a hero? Some, building especially on Josephus’ War (1.33, 7.423), explain that our book refers to Onias III, who was the high priest in Jerusalem, while it was his son, Onias IV, who founded the Temple in Egypt.27 But even if we were to accept that – despite the facts that our book (4:30–34) has its Onias (who is apparently Onias III) being murdered in Antioch, and that Josephus’ later and more detailed work, Antiquities, holds clearly, as we shall see, that it was Onias IV who founded the Temple in Egypt – it must be emphasized that our book does not distinguish between its Onias and his son. As Stern noted, to praise “Onias” without making clear that the reference is not to the well-known villain is not the way partisans write.28 Others would explain that we have here a subtle move on the part of our author, who is telling his readers that the real and laudable Onias was in fact devoted to the Temple of Jerusalem.29 But that might be too subtle and in any case there was no need for such a move, for all knew that Onias III had been high priest in Jerusalem and it was indeed from this fact that Onias IV, and the temple he founded, derived their claims to legit-

26 For expressions – even much later – of such criticism, which derives in general from beliefs about the “holy land” and specifically from the Deuteronomistic insistence that there be only one temple, see for example the satire at Ant. 13.65–71 and the legal rulings at m. Menahot 13.10; see also Schwartz, “Jews of Egypt,” 18 (and ibid. n. 24 – a response to Gruen, “Origins and Objectives,” 61–62). 27 For this debate, see NOTE on 3:1, Onias. 28 Stern, Studies, 41. For a similar case (rabbinic failure to differentiate between Agrip- pas indicating a lack of distinction between them) see Schwartz, Agrippa, 162. 29 G. Bohak, “Joseph and Asenath and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis” (Diss. Prince- ton, 1994) 137–144. (This section did not appear in the 1996 published version with the same title.) I. Subject, Purpose and Date 13 imacy. Rather, it seems that the easiest explanation is that these chapters were written before the Temple of Onias was in fact founded. Indeed, it seems they were written at a time when there was still a basic alliance between the Hasmoneans and the Oniads, because Onias IV could expect the Hasmoneans to restore him to the high priesthood in Jerusalem. After all, he was the heir apparent to the position, which had been usurped by Seleucid protégés (Jason, Menelaus, Alcimus), and he could hope that when the Has- moneans defeated the Seleucids they would give him that which was his due. To bolster this suggestion we should note that Josephus seems to have known exactly where to place the foundation story of the Temple of Onias. First, at Antiquities 12.237, when Josephus records the death of Onias III he mentions that he left behind an infant son named Onias (IV), promising to tell his story “in the (proper) place.” Next, at §§387–388, Josephus reports that that son emigrated to Egypt because he had been passed over for the high priesthood. In this passage Josephus proleptically mentions that this Onias built a temple in Egypt, but promises to give the details of that “in a more appropriate place.” Finally, at Antiquities 13.62, just after recording the death of Demetrius I, which occurred in 150 BCE, Josephus narrates in detail how Onias IV founded his temple in Egypt. Given such a carefully distributed story, we have no reason to doubt Josephus’ chronology – which is, in fact, quite reasonable from a political point of view. Namely, the same struggle that resulted in the death of Demetrius I saw Alexander Balas, Demetrius’ competitor, appointing the Hasmonean Jonathan to the high priesthood (1 Macc 10:15–21). Until then Onias could look forward to Hasmonean victory, playing the role of the legitimate heir to the high priesthood awaiting the opportunity to claim his birthright. Now, however, Jon- athan’s acceptance of the high priesthood meant a parting of ways between the Hasmoneans and the Oniads; it was effectively a Hasmonean announce- ment that to the victors go the spoils and that they would not content themselves with fighting and concede the high priesthood – which entailed a large measure of rule (see NOTE on 3:9, high priest of the city) – to someone else.30 It would be perfectly logical if, as emerges from Josephus’ location of the various segments of this story, Onias IV now set about building a temple of his own. This chronology conforms well with our suggestion above, that

30 For the Hasmonean statement on their own descent, in answer to those who would claim they lacked the proper pedigree, see 1 Macc 5:62. Similarly, the use to which the dynasty’s house historian (1 Macc 2:24–26, 54; see also 1:15, ζεψγ σησαν, with Num 25:3) put the Phineas story was obviously meant to justify the Hasmoneans’ claim to the high priesthood: as for Phineas (esp. Num 25:11–13), so too for the Has- moneans, zealotry entitled them to the high priesthood. 14 Introduction the pro-Onias material in our book was already composed before Onias’ Temple was built, having been written on the basis of the notion that the Oniads were partisans of the Temple of Jerusalem. That is, the status of Onias in our book urges us to move the book’s terminus ad quem up to a date before the Temple of Onias was founded. This is an additional argument for preferring to date the first letter, and so the book in its final form, to the 140s BCE, rather than moving it down to 125/124 or later. Finally, in this connection, we may note that the reference in 4:11 to “Jo- hanan (father of the Eupolemus who participated in the embassy concerning friendship and alliance with the Romans)” not only implies that the latter event (Judas Maccabaeus’ alliance with Rome in 161 BCE31) is fresh in the readers’ memories; it also implies that they know of only one such delegation to Rome. But from 1 Maccabees and Josephus we know of several other delegations sent by later Hasmoneans, beginning with the one sent by Jonathan in the mid- or late 140s; see 1 Maccabees 12:1–4; Josep- hus, Antiquities 13.260–265; 14.145–148, 247–255. It is easiest to understand 2 Maccabees 4:11 on the assumption that the author wrote before such later delegations. To summarize: our book was originally composed as a history of the trials and tribulations of Jerusalem under Antiochus Epiphanes, including the institutionalized Hellenization initiated by Jason at the outset of Anti- ochus’ reign, that king’s decrees against Judaism, and Judas Maccabaeus’ wars down to his victory over Nicanor in the spring of 161. That victory was perceived to be the final salvation of Jerusalem, and, accordingly, the book culminates in the holiday celebrating that victory – Nicanor’s Day. In time, however, the victory over Nicanor turned out to be a transient one, for Judas was killed, Jerusalem was returned to Seleucid rule and the Hasmon- eans fled the city (1 Macc 9:33). But matters of state are one thing, matters of religion are another; despite the Seleucid revanche in Judaea, the decrees against Judaism were not renewed and the Temple remained in Jewish hands – so in time the festival of Hanukkah came to seem more significant. In any case, it seems that in 143/142 BCE, upon the achievement of Judaean independence, Jerusalemite propagandists superficially adapted the book to their own purposes by adding a section on Hanukkah (10:1–8) and append- ing two letters, one of their own and one purporting to be from Judas Mac- cabaeus on the eve of the first Hanukkah, inviting the Jews of Egypt to join in the celebration of that holiday.

31 For this alliance, see 1 Macc 8. For defense of its historicity, see Stern, Studies, 51–76; Gruen, Hellenistic World, 1.43–45; Gera, Judaea, 303–312. I. Subject, Purpose and Date 15

Thus, it seems that our book was written somewhat before our other main source for the period it describes, 1 Maccabees, since that work was written no earlier than John Hyrcanus’ succession of his father in 135/134 BCE (the event with with which it ends), and perhaps even a few decades later.32 This conclusion deviates somewhat from the generally accepted hypothesis, which depends upon reading “Year 188” in 1:10,33 although it is widely agreed that Jason of Cyrene, upon whose work 2 Maccabees is based (see the next section), wrote very close to the events.34

32 Concerning the date of 1 Maccabees’ composition, there have been two main ap- proaches. One takes the reference in the work’s last two verses to “the book of chronicles of John Hyrcanus’ high priesthood” that recounts “the rest of his works” as evidence that he was dead already, which results in a terminus post quem at the end of his tenure, with his death in 104 BCE; this is then bolstered by emphasizing hints in the book to a long passage of time since events it mentions (such as 13:30). The other takes the book’s closing reference merely as a biblicizing phrase (cf. 1 Kgs 14:29, 16:27; 2 Kgs 10:20, 20:34) that means only that the author considered Hyrcanus to be a ruler like his biblical forebears; the result is a terminus post quem for the book at the beginning of Hyrcanus’ reign (135/134), which may then be bolstered by the impression that the author witnessed some of the events he reports and that the author was not aware of later events. For the former approach, see e.g. Niese, Kritik, 9; for the latter (and a broad review of the issue) – Bar-Kochva, JM, 152–168. 33 Given this usual terminus post quem for the book, usual datings proceed on the assumption that it was written between then and the Roman conquest of Judaea, which would have precluded the statement at 15:37. Thus, for example, Niese, Kritik, 9; Goldstein, 1 Macc, 3. 34 For a list of scholars supporting the view that Jason was a contemporary of Judas Maccabaeus, and the characterization of that view as one that can hardly be doubted seriously, see Habicht, 2 Macc, 175–176, n. 45. Habicht bases his opinion especially on the reference to “Johanan, father of the Eupolemus …” in 4:11 – which we have used the same way, but with reference to our book, not to Jason’s original opus. As perusal of Habicht’s discussion shows, it is only the date “188” in 1:10 that forces him to make this distinction. 16 Introduction

II. Sources and Development

In the preceding section we argued that the letters in 1:1–2:18 and the story in 10:1–8 were added to an extant book. What of the rest of the book? Is it all of one piece? Already the preface at 2:19–32 indicates that the volume is the product of a fairly complicated process: it reports that the present work is a condensed version of a five-book history written by one Jason of Cyrene. In the present section we will ask whether all of the book, from 3:1 to the end, apart from 10:1–8, is to be traced back to that Jason, as well as what we can know about the sources used in producing the book and how it used them – questions of cardinal importance for the evaluation of the book and for its use as an historical source, whether as a witness to the events it describes or as witness to its own values and ideas. As a point of departure we shall note the welcome fact that the received division of our book into chapters is indeed appropriate and meaningful, and that, with one exception (Ch. 14), the author indeed seems to have related to the chapters, as we have them, as separate and complete units. Four chapters (3, 7, 13, 15) end with formal transitional summaries; to them we may add Chapter 9, on the basis of our argument (above, p. 8) that it originally ended with a transitional summary such as the one now found at 10:9 after the interpolation concerning Hanukkah. Another five chapters (4, 5, 8, 10, 12) are defined by the fact that the chapters that follow them open with new chronological markers.35 Chapter 11 too is easily defined by the end of the fourth document, although in this case the transitional summary comes only in the first verse of Chapter 12.36 This leaves only Chapter 6 and Chapter 14, both of which are parts of two-chapter sections:

35 In some cases more than one criterion applies to the same chapter. Thus, for example, Ch. 13, which is concluded by a formal summary, is also followed by a chapter opening with a new chronological marker. Or, for another type of closure, note that Ch. 4 ends with two words (π βοψλο« καεστ)«) that figure prominently in the chapter’s first two verses, thus neatly rounding out the chapter. 36 For a similar phenomenon, note that there is not infrequent disagreement among Bibles as to whether a given verse should be viewed as the final verse of a given chapter or the first of the next (so, for example, at the transition from Num 29 to II. Sources and Development 17

– Chapter 6, which tells the story of the first persecutions, focusing on Eleazar, is followed by Chapter 7, which recounts the martyrdom of the mother and her seven sons. As Doran noted, the last verse of the latter, 7:42 (“Let that, on the one hand, be enough said about the eating of the entrails of sacrifices [σπλαγξνισμο«] and the tortures [α κ α«] which exceeded all bounds”) alludes separately to the two chapters, since of the two Greek terms cited, the former appears only, but prominently (vv. 7, 8, 21), in the Eleazar story and the latter appears only, but just as prominently, in that of the mother and her seven sons (vv. 1, 13, 15).37 Thus, the author treats Chapters 6–7 as being two separate but linked units, sharing a basic theme. – Chapter 14 ends with the death of Razis but still in the middle of the Nicanor story. Moreover, Chapters 14–15 are closely bound together by the way 15:34 fulfills 14:36 and 15:30, 32 respond tit for tat to 14:33. Thus, in this case it seems the story was simply too long to fit into one chapter and was therefore divided into two pieces. In analyzing the book below, however, we will handle them together.38 Our conclusion is that of Chapters 3–15 we may treat each chapter (and Chapters 6–7 and 14–15 together) as a discrete unit, so – all things being equal – whatever we can show about a part of a chapter we may expect to be true for the chapter as a whole. Now, as far as composition-criticism and source-criticism are concerned, let us now ask whether they are all of a kind. Are they all condensed from Jason’s work, so we should really call the man responsible for the final product39 only “epitomator,” as is usual, on the basis of his statement at 2:23–31? Or did he do more, sufficient to war- rant terming him the “author?” It is convenient to begin this discussion from the end. We have already noted that Chapters 14 and 15 are a unit, as is shown by the way the victory and Nicanor’s punishment in Chapter 15 correspond, even literally, to the threats in Chapter 14.40 Now we may add that Chapter 15 is very similar to Chapter 8. Both use the rare term “thrice-accursed” to describe Nicanor;

Num 30); some do it this way, some that. On the way transitional summaries function the way our modern indenting and paragraphing do, and on the difficulty of deciding whether to put them at the end of the last unit or at the outset of the new one, see Wif- strand, Epochs, 97–98. 37 See Doran, Temple Propaganda, 22. 38 The case is therefore similar to that of the second letter, which is broken into two at the end of Ch. 1. Cf. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.320. 39 Apart, of course, from the Jerusalemite additions in Chs. 1–2 and 10:1–8. 40 Apart from the parallels at 15:34//14:36 and 15:30, 32// 14:33, note also 15:8 (τν νν *φοδον)//14:15 (το Νικνορο« *φοδον κα τ,ν π εσιν τν νν). 18 Introduction both have him invading Judaea; both have Judas Maccabaeus encouraging his soldiers with a speech that recounts biblical salvation stories including that in the days of Sennacherib; in both Nicanor is defeated; and there are several literal parallels between the two chapters (see NOTE on 15:7, that assistance would be made available). It is very difficult to imagine that the two chapters were written by different authors, and there is no evident reason to consider such a possibility. But Chapters 14–15 are also very similar to Chapters 3–4. Note the central role of Onias in Chapters 3–4 that recurs in 15:12–16; the great similarity, in reverse, of the good Onias’ appeal to the king in 4:1–6 and the wicked Alcimus’ at 14:3–10;41 and the way antagonists are dramatically poised against each other at 3:22–23;42 14:33–34; 15:5–6, 25–26. So again, and certainly when we acknowledge a methodological preference for the presumption that a book stems from a single writer, we see no reason to doubt that Chapters 3–4 come from the same hand as Chapters 8 and 14–15. Next, however, we may add that Chapter 5 is closely linked to Chapter 4, inasmuch as 4:26 has Jason fleeing to Ammonitis and Chapter 5 has him returning to Jerusalem but again fleeing to Ammonitis (5:7) after his unsuccessful attempt to take over the city. Accordingly, Chapter 5 thus comes easily along with Chapter 4, just as easily as it links up in its own right with Chapter 3, with which it shares the interest in gifts by foreign kings to the Temple of Jerusalem (3:2–3//5:16) and with Chapter 15, where too we read of the exploitation of the Sabbath by someone who would attack the Jews (5:25//15:1–2). But if it is thus fairly easy to confirm, via interlocking comparisons, that Chapters 3–5, 8, and 14–15 may safely be assumed to be (as we find them) of one and the same work, from this point things become somewhat more difficult. Concerning Chapter 6, first of all, it seems we must distinguish between the first eleven verses, the next six, and the rest of the chapter. The first eleven verses are much like the rest of the book: the notion that the observance of Judaism is comparable to the observance of a municipal law code (πολιτεεσαι – v. 1), the paralleling of Jerusalem and Gerizim in v. 2 (as at 5:22–23),43 the prominence of Dionysus in v. 7 (as at 14:33), the “pathetic” exploitation of women’s breasts in v. 10 (as at 3:19; contrast

41 See below, pp. 81–82. 42 See our NOTE on 3:22, on the one hand. 43 See Appendix 4. And note that the fact that our pro-Jerusalem author has no difficulty with such a parallel with Jerusalem’s cultic competitor sits well with his general lack of interest in temple cult per se; see below, pp. 46–48. II. Sources and Development 19 the prudish 1 Macc 1:61, which speaks here only of necks), and the sanctity of the Sabbath in vv. 6 and 11 (as at 5:25; 8:26–27; 12:38; 15:1–2)44 are all well at home in our book. When one adds that Chapter 6 opens with the Temple’s being polluted (v. 2 – μολναι) just as Chapter 5 had ended with Judas Maccabaeus and his men avoiding pollution (v. 27 – μολψσμο),45 and that 6:3 (π στασι« τ#« κακ α«) plays with 5:22 (πισττα« το κα- κον), it becomes even more certain that 6:1–11 are from the same hand as Chapters 3–5, 8, and 14–15. Skipping for the moment over the next six verses (12–17), in which the first-person singular is used to address readers and encourage them to draw the proper theological conclusions from the story, we come now to the martyrdom stories of 6:18–32 (Eleazar) and Chapter 7 (the mother and her seven sons). It appears that with respect to these it must be concluded that although they do constitute part of the book, their origin is different from the rest; that is, they reflect the use of a source. That their origin is different results from several considerations: – They are entirely devoid of all “political” terminology – no πλι«, πολ τη«, ποολιτεεσαι, or πολιτε α;46 – Assuming – as the reader must – that the persecutions described took place in Jerusalem or at least somewhere in Judaea,47 they contradict the rest of the story insofar as they place the king there and not back in Syria (where he went in 5:21, and whence he sent out his agents according to 5:24 and 6:1); – 8:2–4, a prayer which lists all the Jews’ sufferings in order to move God to mercy, makes no reference to these major episodes; the closest it

44 See our NOTE on 5:25, pretended. 45 Which in turn prepares us for the contrast at 14:32 with Alcimus, who had willingly polluted himself (Ψκοψσ « δ μεμολψμμωνο«). 46 See H&R, 2.1180. The entry for πλι« is especially impressive: it appears 24 times in our book prior to 6:10 and another 24 times from 8:3 until the end of the book, but not once in between. In this whole family of words, the only exception is πολιτε α, which appears in a few witnesses to 6:23 – but no one would defend that reading. In contrast, Ch. 7 prefers another view of the law: πτριοι νμοι (ancestral laws [7:2, 24, 37]; note also “ancestral language” in vv. 8, 21, 27). This way of looking at Jew- ish law recurs only once elsewhere in our book (6:1). So too, note that Ch. 7 twice mentions Moses (vv. 6, 30), who is never mentioned elsewhere apart from the opening epistles, and that it never mentions the Temple (a point noted by Bowersock, although I would reject the conclusion he built on this; see below, n. 51). 47 Although Jerusalem is not mentioned explicitly, this is the only natural assumption for readers. For the possibility that, in fact, the persecutions were originally linked to Antioch, see below, n. 212 (on the cult that developed these). 20 Introduction comes is a reference to “the destruction of innocent infants,” but that refers back to the episode recorded at 6:10 (for no one would claim that the seven brothers of Ch. 7 were infants). – Finally, there are several strange phrases in the martyrologies of Chapters 6–7. Even if we stop short of Habicht’s suggestion that they reflect translation from the Hebrew,48 they may reflect an attempt to biblicize the style, something that is all but absent in the rest of the book.49 Thus, it seems that these narratives were not written by whoever wrote the chapters discussed until now. This means either that they were added to the book after it was composed or that they reflect the use of a source by its author.50 It seems that the latter is more probable. For the chapters are quite “at home” in the work and, indeed, constitute a very integral part of it.51

48 See Habicht, 2 Macc, 171, along with his notes 1a, 2b, 6a, 9ab, 17a and 23a on Ch. 7 and our NOTE on 6:30, fear. Habicht thought that the chapter was translated from Hebrew and added to the book after it was composed, but see below, n. 51. 49 Other exceptions: 5:13; 15:14, 24. 50 One way or another, our conclusion goes hand in hand with the fact that despite our book’s general lack of popularity among Jews (see below, pp. 85–88) the martyrdom stories were widely diffused; that is, they had a life of their own. On the Jewish traditions, see Doran, “The Martyr;” Spiegel, Last Trial, 13–16; Gutman, “The Mother;” G. D. Cohen, “Hannah.” As to whether one or two sources underlie the story of Elea- zar and that of the mother and her seven sons, see Habicht, 2 Macc, 171, n. 19. For Christian life of the martyrologies, see below, pp. 88–89. 51 For emphasis upon the fact that the martyrologies fit 2 Maccabees well, see Doran, Temple Propaganda, 22; although he concludes that the story existed independently, and that “no one can tell whether Jason or someone else used the story,” he concludes that “it fits its present context in the epitome admirably, both through the summary at 2 Macc 7:42 and through the theme of reconciliation through suffering.” See also idem, “The Martyr,” 191; Kellermann, Auferstanden, 54–60; and S. Schwartz, SCI 15 (1996) 308. Schwartz’s remarks there, in a review of Bower- sock’s Martyrdom and Rome, are directed against Bowersock’s “arbitrary” suggestion (ibid. 9–13) that Chs. 6–7 were added to our book only after the appearance of Christianity, a suggestion required by his main thesis that Christian martyrdom derives from Roman precedents, not from Jewish ones. Indeed, most of Bowersock’s considerations pertain not to the date of these chapters, but, rather, to differences between them and the rest of the book; as we have seen, such considerations can point to the use of a source and not only to interpolation. His only consideration which, at first glance, might pertain to the dating of our book’s martyrologies is the fact that they do not at all mention the Temple, which suggests they were composed after its destruction in 70 CE. However, just as later authors could refer to the Temple as if it were still standing (see e.g. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.193–198), so too could earlier authors ignore it. Indeed, we shall suggest that the author of our book itself was not very interested in it; see below, pp. 46–48. II. Sources and Development 21

To understand this we shall have to realize that, for our book’s author, it is very important to emphasize that troubles come upon Israel due to sins. This may be seen most clearly in three sections of authorial reflections that precede the martyrologies that begin in 6:18: – 4:16–17: “For this reason they were overtaken by a difficult state of affairs, and those for whose ways they were enthusiastic, and whom they wanted fully to imitate, became their own enemies and nemeses. For it is no trivial matter to be impious vis à vis the divine laws. But this shall be shown by the next period.” – 5:17–20: “And Antiochus’ mind went soaring, for he did not see that it was due to the sins of the city’s residents that the Sovereign briefly distanced Himself from it in anger, and that was why the Place was unsupervised. Had it not happened that they had been caught up in many sins, he too – just as Heliodorus, who had been sent by King Seleucus to audit the treasury – immediately upon moving forward (into the Temple) would have been flogged and overturned from his insolence. But God did not choose the people on account of the Place; rather, He chose the Place on account of the people. Therefore the Place itself, having shared in the disasters which befell the people, later shared also in the benefactions, and that which had been abandoned in the anger of the All-Ruler was again reestablished with full honor when the great Sovereign was reconciled.” – 6:12–16: “Now I call upon the readers of this book not be depressed due to the sufferings, but rather to consider that the punishments were not to destroy our nation, but, rather, to edify it. For not to allow evildoers a free hand for a long time, but, rather, immediately to bring down punishments upon them, is a sign of great benefaction. For whereas concerning other peoples the Sovereign long-forbearingly awaits until they reach the plenitude of sins, whereupon He punishes them, He did not deem it appropriate to handle us that way, so as not to take vengeance upon us later, after our sins are complete. Therefore He never removes His mercy from us, and while edifying us with suffering He does not abandon His own people.” These statements, which definitely bespeak the position of the book as it is, assume that although usually God watches providentially over the Jews, their city and the Temple, the Jews’ sins can cause Him to look away (5:17), at which point troubles come upon them through the agency of non-Jews, such as Antiochus, who do not realize they are acting as God’s agents. These troubles are meant to “edify” (6:16) the Jews and return them to the straight and narrow, after which God becomes “reconciled” (5:20) with them and restores His providential care. This understanding of history is without any doubt based upon Deuteronomy 32, where we find God hiding 22 Introduction

His face due to the Jews’ sins (v. 20), at which point a foreign power persecutes the Jews (v. 21) – a persecution which will afflict Jews of all ages and sexes, in their houses and outside (v. 25).52 The foreigners, in their ignorance, think that they are successful due to their own valor alone, not realizing that God is allowing them their successes (vv. 27–31); eventually, however, after atonement has been worked, God will be “reconciled” (v. 36) with “His servants” (ibid.), punish the Gentile persecutors and avenge the blood of His slain servants (vv. 35, 41–43). The “brief time” element is contributed by Isaiah 54:7, which links up with Deuteronomy 32 via the divine face-hiding mentioned in the next verse.53 But this understanding of history, which is just as basic to our book as the “political” terminology which is missing from the martyrologies, is very prominent in Chapter 7: – Already at 7:6, in the context of the torture of the first son, Deuteron- omy 32:36 is explicitly quoted, promising that God will become reconciled with His servants. – Indeed, 7:6 serves as an opening bracket for the chapter that is answered in v. 33, where the seventh son tells Antiochus that “if for the sake of punishment and edification our living Lord briefly became angry, He will again be reconciled with His own servants.” Such a collection of motifs from the author’s reflections – “edification,” “brief,” “reconciled,” “servants” – cannot be by chance. Rather, someone very familiar with the author’s reflections is at work in Chapter 7. I see no reason not to assume that that person was the author himself. But this type of language also continues in Chapter 8, building on the martyrologies. True, we have noted that the sufferings enumerated in vv. 2–4, that caused God’s anger to turn to mercy, ignore 6:18–7:42. But 8:29 does not: here the Jews “petitioned the merciful Lord, asking that He become completely reconciled with His servants.” Here again we have “reconciled” and “servants” – the latter appearing elsewhere in our book only in the biblical citation at 7:6 and in 7:33! – and it seems that “com-

52 For the probability that our book specifically imitates Deut 32:25 in this context, see our NOTE on 5:13, young and old … 53 See my “On Something Biblical,” 228–232 and my “Divine Punishment.” In the latter, building upon the contrast between 0π)ργισται (5:17) and π)ργισται (7:33), I detail the subtle progression from portraying God as taking vengeance upon His sinning people (4:16–17) and turning His face aside from them, thus allowing Gentiles to hurt them (ibid. and 5: 16//Deut 32:20), to a God who faces His sinning people and punishes them face-to-face as a father edifies his son (7:34//Deut 8:5). For the two concepts side-by-side and explicit preference for the latter, see 10:4. II. Sources and Development 23 pletely” (ε « τωλο«) in 8:29 indicates a reference to a process that has already begun but has not yet been completed. Where did it begin? With the hope expressed by the seventh son, at 7:38, “that, with me and my brothers, shall be stayed the anger (1ργ2) of the All-Ruler which was justly loosed against our entire nation.” That prayer was answered at 8:5, where we read that God’s 1ργ2 did indeed turn to mercy, and now, at 8:29, Judas and his men pray that God will continue the process to completion. Thus, our book needs Chapter 7: it explains Judas’ success in Chapter 8 just as much as the Razis story, which concludes Chapter 14, explains Judas’ success in Chapter 15; and the book’s language underlines this. As for the Eleazar story (6:18–31), it is firmly linked to Chapter 7, at least in its current state: – 6: 31 underlines that Eleazar’s death was an example “not only for the youths” – an obvious lead-in to Chapter 7. – 7:42 summarizes, as we have seen, not only the story of the mother and her seven sons but also that of Eleazar. True, both of these points regard only the framework, and leave open the possibility that the Eleazar story was tacked onto the book with a little bit of such splicing. However: – The reference to serving as a model for youths occurs also in the body of the story, at 6:28. – Eleazar is made to give a speech just before expiring, and in it he bespeaks the distinction between body and soul (6:30) – just as the seventh son at 7:37 and similar to Razis at 14:46.54 – Eleazar’s fear, at 6:24, is that if he dissembles submission to the decrees in order to save his life it will be thought that he has “gone over to foreignism;” “foreignism” (0λλοφψλισμ«) is a very rare word but one that is centerpieced by our book at 4:13. – Such a mistaken impression, he fears, will lead others “to go astray” (πλανησι – v. 25), just as 7:18 has the sixth son warn Antiochus not to “go astray” (μ, πλαν) due to his own successes. – Eleazar’s thought is said, at 6:23, to be “honorable,” lit. “urbane” (0στεον), which is part and parcel of a complex of terms, widely in use in our book, that contrasts the civilized life of the city with wild and animal- like rustic life.55

54 True, the distinction at 6:30 and 7:37 is between “body” and “soul,” while that at 14:46 is between “life” and “spirit.” It does not appear, however, that this difference should be pushed very far, since no attempt is made to use such terms with any precision. 55 See NOTE on 14:30, coarser. 24 Introduction

Our conclusion is that the two martyrologies of 6:18–7:42, although orig- inating in a source or sources different from that which supplied the rest of the book, were inserted into it by whoever put the book into its present form – more particularly, by whoever undertook to speak with an authorial first-person voice in the three sets of reflections at 4:16–17, 5:17–20 and 6:12–17. Who in fact speaks as an author in those sets of reflections – Jason or the epitomator? It seems clear that we must assume, as is usual, that it is the epitomator, i.e. he who speaks to us in 2:19–32 and 15:37–39. This results, first and foremost, from the use of the first person in 6:12, 15–16 – just as it is used by the epitomator in 2:19–32 and 15:37–38. Having used the first person to introduce himself as an epitomator in Chapter 2, it would be dis- honest, if not impossible, for that writer to pass on someone else’s first person in Chapter 6. Moreover, our confidence that it is the epitomator who authored the reflections in Chapter 4, 5, and 6 is bolstered by three more points: – If above we emphasized that the complex of sin/divine turning away/ “briefly”/“reconciliation” is shared by those reflections and by Chapter 7, now we must emphasize that, apart from 8:29 and 10:4 (παιδεεσαι), the latter of which is part of the Jerusalemite insertion to justify Hanukkah (see above, pp. 8–9), this language, which is so important to the author as shown by his reflections, appears nowhere else in the narrative. This leaves us with two options. Either we assume that one author, Jason, wrote the materials from which the whole book was produced but ignored these fundamental matters completely except for in his reflections and when working (in Chapters 6–7) on the basis of a special source, or we assume that Jason wrote the materials from which most of the book was produced but the “epitomator” added in Chapters 6–7 and also the three sets of reflections, emphasizing in his additions the ideas which were important to him. It seems obvious the latter hypothesis is more likely. That is, it seems that the epitomator indeed confined himself to making Jason’s work better, as he says at 2:23–31; but when he added in other material, to help the reader understand the story’s import, he allowed himself more freedom. – At 6:17 the author of the third set of reflections distinguishes between them and the real story, and at 2:32 the epitomator distinguishes between his preface and the real story; in both cases, the latter is termed δι2γησι«. It is easy to infer that he used this term to apply to the material he got from others, that he was editing. – Phrases in common: καπερ, although a common enough Greek term, appears in our work only in passages that are, on our hypothesis, to be attributed to the “epitomator” (2:27, 29; 6:14; 7:6, 37; 15:39), so too ντψγξν (2:25; 6:12; 15:39) and ο$ 34διον (2:26//4:17). II. Sources and Development 25

Hence, we conclude not only that the martyrological stories of 6:18–7:42, although of separate provenance, were integrated into the book, but also that this was done by the epitomator. But if so, we must further conclude that the designation “epitomator” is too restricted; he did not only make Jason of Cyrene’s work more readable, but also undertook to add new material, including guidance interpreting the story at the most fundamental level. Moreover, in any case Jason’s work is lost and we cannot uncover it in any detail by analysis of 2 Maccabees – a work which was produced by the epitomator. If that person allows himself to speak as author in his reflections in Chapters 4, 5 and 6, and to add much new material in Chapters 6–7 (and – as we shall see – in Chapters 10–11), giving the story its basic inter- pretive scaffolding, “author” would seem the more appropriate title.56

At this point, having traced 3:1–6:17 (apart from the Heliodorus story and the authorial reflections at 4:16–17, 5:17–20 and 6:12–17) along with Chapters 8, 14–15 to the basic work (Jason), 6:18–7:42 to a separate source incorporated by the author, and 10:1–8 to the Jerusalemites who turned the book to their own purposes (and added in the two opening epistles), we must turn to Chapters 9–13. These chapters constitute, from the point of view of the historical narrative, the roughest part of the book. True, there is no problem with Chapter 9 in and of itself; it is full of the gloating tit for tat and the games with the name “Epiphanes” found elsewhere in our book, and it is clear that a book such as ours had to have a chapter narrating this king’s death, which was a popular theme in religious and other ancient historiography.57 Moreover, it is clear that the way Chapter 9 begins, with the king who had defiled and robbed the Jews’ temple trying to do the same to

56 So too, for example, van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 20: “I consider 2 Macc. 2:19–15:39 a unity and the epitomist its ‘author’” (similar in idem, “2 Maccabees as a History of Liberation,” 65–66). See also the discussion in Lichtenberger, “History- Writing and History-Telling,” 106–109, which reports, inter alia, the results of an unpublished stylometric study of 2 Macc by B. Meißner that concludes that the obviously editorial passages (such as 2:19–32; 5:17–20; 6:12–17) are of the same style as the rest of the book. 57 On tit for tat see 9:8, 10 and NOTE on 4:16, those for whose ways; on games with “Epiphanes” see NOTE on 9:4, arrogantly (περηφν «). As for the popularity of recounting his death, see: 1 Macc 6:1–16; 2 Macc 1:13–17 (with our NOTE on 1:12, For (γρ) He Himself drove out ( ωβρασε)…), Polybius 31.9, Josephus, Ant. 12.354–359 (based on 1 Maccabees but refers to Polybius), Diodorus 31.18a, Ap- pian, Syriakê 11, §66, Porphyry (apud Jerome on Dan 11:36 = Stern, GLA II, no. 464a), etc. On these texts see Holleaux, Études, 255–279; Mendels, “Note;” Lorein, “Some Aspects,” 166–171. 26 Introduction another people’s temple, conforms well to our author’s purpose,58 and that 9:8–10 closes a circle that our author opened at 5:21. So we have no reason for second thoughts about the contents of Chapter 9. Its location, however, is another matter, as we shall see when we turn to Chapters 10–13. These four chapters – which no one would have missed had they not been there, i.e., had the story proceeded from the death of Antiochus IV (Chapter 9) directly to Demetrius I’s ascent to the throne “in the third year thereafter” (14:1) – create serious difficulties, especially in light of their location after Antiochus IV’s death in Chapter 9, and even without comparison to any other source. Here are the seven main problems: 1. In Chapter 11 we read of the lesson Lysias learned after his defeat at Beth-Zur: “Since he was not mindless, he mulled over the defeat that had befallen him. Realizing that the Hebrews are invincible due to the powerful God who is their ally, he sent to them and urged them to settle with him according to all that is just …” (11:13–14). This lesson was the basis of the peacemaking described in the rest of Chapter 11. Any reader must, accordingly, be startled and mystified when he or she reads, at the opening of Chapter 13, that Lysias and the king set out for a new and massive invasion of Judaea. Of course, it is possible that Lysias forgot the lesson he had learned, or decided to ignore it, or whatever; but an author owes his readers some sort of explanation or comment to that effect. There is none. 2. Similarly, both of these chapters report campaigns focusing upon Beth-Zur, but there is no recognition, in Chapter 13, that the reader has already been introduced to the site, or to a military engagement there. Indeed, readers should be bothered by the fact that Chapter 13 not only ignores the fact that they had been introduced to Beth-Zur in Chapter 11, but also that it identified it in another way: 11:5 describes it as “Beth-Zur, a strong place about five schoinoi from Jerusalem” but 13:19 has “Beth-Zur, a strong fortress of the Jews.” By way of contrast, note that although 1 Maccabees too recounts two such campaigns, there is no such problem, for there the reader is well-prepared: at 4:35 Lysias is said to have returned to Antioch after the first campaign in order to prepare a new expedition; at 4:61 Judas Macca- baeus fortifies Beth-Zur in order to prepare for such an eventuality; and at 6:26 the latter fact is mentioned by those who encourage the Seleucids to renew their attempt to subdue Judas. Accordingly, there is nothing surpris-

58 Just as the fact that those who violate the Jews’ sancta might do the same to those of others as well also emerges from the fact that the murder of a Jewish high priest entailed violating the sanctity of a pagan shrine; see our NOTE on 4:33, in Daphne … II. Sources and Development 27 ing about the new expedition reported in 6:28ff. In 2 Maccabees there is nothing of this sort. But it is not likely that this happened as a result of epitomizing pure and simple, since our author loves to use such words as “aforementioned” when referring to characters known to the reader (see NOTE on 2:32, aforementioned); note especially 10:24, “But Timothy, who had previously been defeated by the Jews.” Why is there nothing like this in Chapter 13 with regard to Beth-Zur?59 3. At the end of Chapter 9 we read that Philip, one of Antiochus IV’s courtiers, went to Egypt out of fear of Antiochus Eupator. But at the end of Chapter 13 we read that Philip revolted in Antioch, so Antiochus Eupator and Lysias hastened back to Antioch. The reader is left wondering when and why Philip, despite his fear of Antiochus Eupator, returned from Egypt to Syria. But there is nothing offered to help the reader, nor any indication of awareness that there is anything surprising or mysterious here. 4. Judas’ men kill Timothy in Chapter 10 (v. 37) but in Chapter 12, beginning with v. 10, they are still chasing after him. Of course, this could be a different Timothy, but authors, especially authors that pride themselves on the attention they devote to reader ease (2:24–31), are supposed to indicate such things. Our author knows very well how to introduce a previously unknown character by adding τι« or the like (see e.g. 3:4, 4:40, 12:35, 14:3); note esp. our NOTE on 12:35, Dositheus. 5. At the opening of Chapter 12 we read that “After these covenants (σψν#και) had been concluded, Lysias, for his part, went back to the king, and the Jews, for theirs, turned to their farming.” It is natural to assume that the opening words allude to the four documents that conclude Chapter 11. However, those documents are not “covenants;” the first three are uni- lateral concessions and the last is just a letter. See our NOTE on 12:1, these covenants. Moreover, 12:1 sounds as if Lysias were hitherto not with Anti- ochus V, but the text has said nothing to explain this; on the contrary, the story as told in Chapter 11, which in v. 1 terms Lysias the king’s “guardian,” implies that they were together.60

59 And see our NOTE on 3:5, Apollonius son of Thraseas, on the way our author took care, in Ch. 4, to distinguish between Apollonius son of Menestheus and his predecessor. It is difficult to imagine how someone so concerned about such things could, if he authored both Chs. 11 and 13, be so unaware in the latter of what he had written in the former. 60 And although 11:18 may be taken today, by those in the know, to reflect the fact that Antiochus IV was off campaigning in the East, it is clear that our author, and hence his usual readers, thought that Antiochus IV was dead and that the king in question was Antiochus V. 28 Introduction

6. The telegraphic style of several verses in Chapter 13, beginning with the battle at Modein, is puzzling; see esp. v. 14 and then from v. 19 until the end of the chapter. The style is extremely staccato and asyndetic – nouns and verbs are piled up without benefit of conjunctions, subordination, or participles (on the latter characteristic of our book’s style, see below, p. 73). Although the book was formed, to a large degree, by epitomizing a longer account, it was done with an eye to making the book more readable; these verses in Chapter 13 serve anything but that purpose, and hence require an explanation. There is no other instance in the book of such a sequence of verses as here, and, indeed, only two other cases of such style in the whole book (14:21, 25). 7. Another problem in Chapter 13: vv. 3–8, on the death of Menelaus, not only interrupt the main story of the new invasion (vv. 1–2, 9ff.); they contradict it quite frontally. For the Menelaus story is based on the premise (v. 4) that the king and Lysias recognized that Menelaus was “the cause of all the troubles” and we therefore are entitled to assume that with that realization and the execution of Menelaus the invasion will be called off. In- stead, however, v. 9 reports, without any explanation, that “the king, becoming barbaric in his intentions, began to display himself toward the Jews in ways as bad as the worst which had happened in his father’s days …” One needs no exaggerated suspicion or hypercriticism to imagine that the verses on Menelaus’ death are a secondary insertion. As a key to dealing with these seven difficulties, let us note that three would be avoided if we were to move Chapter 13 up to earlier in the narrative. Problem 1 would be eliminated if Chapter 13 came before Chap- ter 11, Problem 3 would be eliminated if Philip rebelled in Antioch (Chapter 13) before fleeing to Egypt (Chapter 9), and Problem 5 would be eliminated if Chapter 13, which ends with σψν#και (v. 25) and with Lysias going to Antioch, came before Chapter 12, which opens with a reference to the just-concluded σψν#και and to Lysias going to the king. Building on this, we suggest, as a working hypothesis, that the original order of these chapters was: Chapter 13: Lysias and Antiochus Euptator invaded Judaea, reach Jeru- salem via Beth-Zur, but come to agreements with the Jews and return to Antioch due to Philip’s rebellion.61

61 It should be underlined that Ch. 13, beginning with its first two verses, has Eupator acting independently, and Lysias at his side; there is no recognition of the fact that Eupator was a young boy and Lysias was his guardian. Indeed, although 13:2 identifies Lysias as “guardian (epitropos) and head of state,” he is not said to be Eupator’s II. Sources and Development 29

Chapter 12: Those agreements are followed by local campaigns that include the capture of Timothy and his release in return for hostages (vv. 24–25). Chapter 9: Death of Antiochus Epiphanes and Philip’s return to Egypt, via Syria. It was his arrival in Syria, which was taken to mean a rebellion against Lysias and Eupator, that caused them to break off the Judaean campaign of Chapter 13. Thus, according to this reconstruction, Chapter 13 will have reported the clash between Lysias and Euptator on the one hand and Judas on the other during Antiochus IV’s lifetime, continuing the story until Philip’s return to Syria. That in fact occurred after Antiochus Epiphanes’ death, but the author postponed the story of Antiochus’ death in order first to recount, in Chapter 12, the immediate results, in Judaea, of the end of the royal expedition. He then turned to catch up with the story of Antiochus IV in the East, his death there, and Philip’s return. The reader was supposed to understand what was perhaps clearer in the original: that the events of Chapter 9 chronologically overlapped those recounted in Chapters 13 and 12; that it was Philip’s return after Antiochus Epiphanes’ death, reported at the end of Chapter 9, that put an end to the campaign reported already in Chapter 13, and that Philip’s flight to Egypt was the result of the failure of his rebellion in Antioch. This hypothetical order of events, which we have suggested solely on the basis of dead reckoning building upon some internal problems and indications in 2 Maccabees, differs from what is presented in 1 Maccabees: that book has both the battles with neighbors (1 Macc 5) and Antiochus’ death (1 Macc 6:1–16) preceding the second Beth-Zur campaign, whereas according to our suggestion the latter (2 Macc 13) originally preceded the other two in our book (2 Macc 12 and 9). However, the order of things in 1 Maccabees now seems to be wrong. Namely, it claims that the second Beth-Zur campaign was a result of Judas’ siege of the Akra, which it dates to 150 SE (1 Macc 6:20), i.e., either autumn 163/2 or spring 162/1 (see above, p. 11, n. 24); it is this datum that led Bar-Kochva (JM, 543–551), as others, to date the second campaign to 162 BCE. However, (1) 1 Macca- bees goes on to claim, at 6:55ff., just as our own book does at 13:23, that the second campaign was broken off due to Philip’s arrival in Antioch; (2) we know from our book (9:29) that Philip accompanied Antiochus’

guardian; contrast 11:1 (on which see below) and 1 Macc 3:3–33. As we shall see, this incorrect picture of their relationship had consequences for the history of our book. 30 Introduction corpse back to Syria, just as 1 Maccabees 6:55–56 implies an immediacy between Antiochus’ death and Philip’s arrival in Syria that forced Lysias to give up his second campaign; and (3) new cuneiform evidence (which became available after Bar-Kochva wrote), discussed by Gera and Horo- witz,62 shows that Antiochus’ corpse was passing through Babylon, on its way back to Syria, already in January of 163 BCE. This forces us to move the second Beth-Zur (Beth-Zechariah) campaign up to late 164 or very early 163; so (1) the battles with neighbors (1 Macc 5//2 Macc 12) must have come later and (2) if, as 1 Maccabees 6:20 reports, Judas began to besiege the Akra in 150 SE, this was not the factor that engendered Lysias’ second campaign. Having discussed the original order of Chapters 13, 12, 9, we must now turn to Chapters 10–11. These two chapters, even apart from 10:1–8 (which we have attributed to post-authorial Jerusalemite editing), are quite different from those around them. First of all, in contrast to what we have just seen they assume that Antiochus Eupator reigned, with Lysias at his side (or vice versa), only after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes. Thus, as we have noted, at 10:11 it is Eupator (not Epiphanes, as at 1 Macc 3:32–33) who appoints Lysias, and he appoints him to be “head of state;” in this formal statement nothing is said of him being the king’s guardian,63 just as there had been no mention of Lysias throughout Nicanor’s campaign of Chapter 8, although 1 Maccabees 3:38 has Lysias in fact mandating that campaign and appointing its generals. Our author’s position that Lysias is a totally new character who first appears after Antiochus Epiphanes’ death is plain in his introduction of him as “one Lysias” (Λψσ αν τιν) at 10:11. Thus, the tradition that underlies 10:10ff. plainly assumed that Antiochus Eupator’s reign and activities came after those of Antiochus IV, thus dia- metrically contradicting 1 Maccabees and our reconstruction of the original order of 2 Maccabees 13–12–9. But there are also differences of another type between these two sets of chapters. Even if we ignore the fact that Chapters 10 and 11 each have words which appear nowhere else in the book, something which is not so surprising for a book with so rich a vocabulary (see below, pp. 67–71), the use of a different measure – schoinoi in 11:5 and stadia in 12:9, 10, 16, 17, 29 – is very significant, as is also the number of phenomena and words which appear in both Chapters 10–11 and nowhere else in the book:

62 See Gera & Horowitz, “Antiochus IV,” 249–252, also Kasher, “A Second Century BCE Greek Inscription,” 20, n. 98. 63 See n. 61. II. Sources and Development 31

1. Only in these chapters do angels participate in battles (10:29–30; 11:8). 2. Only in these chapters does the enemy “gather” (σψναρο ζ) soldiers before attacking (10:24; 11:2 – the only occurrences of this verb in our book). 3. Only in these chapters do the opposing forces “draw near” (σψν- εγγ ζ) one another (10:25, 27; 11:5; in the entire Septuagint the verb appears only once more – Sir 35:17). 4. Only in these chapters do soldiers “take up” (0ναλαμβν) arms (10:27; 11:7; this verb appears another 3–4 times in our book but never in connection with weapons). 5. Only in these chapters do we read of a “siege” (πολιορκ-), whether as noun (10:18–19) or verb (11:6); in the entire book the root appears only once more (12:21 – δψσπολιρκητον). It is especially telling that no such term appears in Chapter 13, where the siege of Beth-Zur is reported. 6. In these chapters all of the Jews are termed “brethren” (10:21; 11:7) but never – “fellow citizens” (πολται). This, in stark contrast to the rest of the book, which (as noted above, p. 6, n. 9) habitually uses the latter term but never – apart from the opening letters and one exception at 12:6 – uses “brethren” in a broad sense; cf. 2:19; 4:7, 23, 26, 29; throughout Chapter 7; 8:22; 12:24–25; 14:17; 15:18. 7. In these chapters only the name “the Maccabee” is used of Judas, twelve times; he is never designated “Judas.” This, in contrast to the rest of the book, where the latter name is regularly employed.64

Of course, no one could (or should) claim that it is impossible that there be such commonalities between two successive chapters of a book, as opposed to the rest of the book, even if one hand composed it all. But these differences, alongside the basic historical difference concerning the status of Antiochus

64 Apart from the twelve occurrences of plain “the Maccabee” in Chs. 10–11, it appears only another nine times; another four times it appears alongside of “Judas.” For all the data, see Doran, Temple Propaganda, 16, n. 51 or Bunge, Untersuchungen, 264–265. In Chs. 12–13, which are the main object of comparison here, plain “the Maccabee” appears only three times and “Judas” – twelve. Bunge suggested using this datum in order to argue that our author used a source which was also used by the author of 1 Maccabees, which too preferred “Judas;” in his opinion, Chs. 10–11 thus reflect much work by the epitomator. Doran responded that changing names are not enough to justify such separation of sources, and insisted that other criteria too must be adduced. Here we have adduced a whole list, but note that they point to a conclusion that is the opposite of Bunge’s. 32 Introduction

Eupator and Lysias during Antiochus Epiphanes’ lifetime, lead us to suggest that 10:9–11:38 (end of Ch. 11) are based on a source other than Jason.65 Such a suggestion, of course, could also account for the first two problems enumerated above, namely, the failure of the narrative of Chapter 13 to recognize that it contradicts Chapter 11 concerning Lysias (Problem 1) and the failure of Chapter 13 to reflect the fact that the reader has already heard of a siege of Beth-Zur (Problem 2);66 such inconcinnities are easier to imagine as products of sloppy editing after combining materials than as wit- less first-hand composition by one and the same hand. And if, moreover, this suggestion will also generate a simple explanation as to why the original order of these chapters (as we have reconstructed it) was changed, that itself will be an argument in favor of the suggestion. In order to understand what seems to have happened, let us imagine what our author might have done if, as we suspect, he had indeed prepared a draft of Chapters 13–12–9 in that order and then happened to come across (or indeed searched for and found) a source that supplied the materials in Chapters 10–11.67 As we have seen, at first he had thought that Anti- ochus Epiphanes had gone east, leaving Eupator and Lysias as his guardian, and that they had fought against Judas in 149 SE (13:1) and returned to Antioch upon Philip’s return to Antioch after Antiochus IV’s death. That is, our author had believed that Antiochus Epiphanes died no earlier than 149 SE – which is indeed the year of his death according to 1 Macca- bees 6:16. However, with the acquisition of the new material, now compris- ing or underlying 10:10–11:38, which includes the valuable and dated documents quoted at length in the latter half of Chapter 11, our author had to revise his notions. As a point of departure we must realize that, as is obvious from the way he presented Chapter 11, and by the way it was read by just about everyone

65 For the suggestion that Ch. 11 derives from a separate, Seleucid, source, see already Bar-Kochva, JM, 276. His suggestion is based on the accuracy of the distance noted at 11:5, in contrast to what is usual for our book. But cf. below, p. 454. 66 And note, in this connection, that Ch. 13 includes formulations that are very similar to those appearing elsewhere in our book; compare for example 13:25 (δψσφροψν … 0ετεν τ« διαστλσει«) to 14:28 (δψσφρ« *φερεν, ε τ διεσταλμωνα 0ετ2σει); places full of δωοψ« κα ταραξ#« in 13:16 and 3:30; blaspheming peoples in 13:11 and 10:4, 34–36; π π»σι το« δικα οι« σψνελη (13:23)// σψλλεσαι π π»σι το« δικα οι« (11:14); Judas assigns motto “God’s victory” (13:15)//Judas assigns motto “God’s help” (8:23). 67 In this discussion, our references to Ch. 10 do not apply, of course, to its first eight verses; see above, pp. 8–9. II. Sources and Development 33 prior to Richard Laqueur (“Griechische Urkunden,” 1927),68 our author thought the only “king” reflected by these documents was Antiochus Eu- pator. Apparently he found the documents together, and in any case the second is bound up (as he presents them, perhaps also as he received them) with the first; since the second makes it clear at 11:23 that its “king” was Eupator, our author assumed this throughout. But since three of the four documents are dated to 148 SE, and one of them (the second) refers to Anti- ochus IV’s death, our author concluded that Antiochus Epiphanes must have died by that year, in fact by Xanthicus (spring) of that year – and not by 149 SE. Thus, the new find, which enriched his narrative significantly, also caused him to rearrange his narrative, in consequence of his mistake: Chapter 9, which deals with Antiochus’ death, would have to come before Chapter 13, which opens with a dating in 149 SE. This, all by itself, would force the revision of the order of the chapters from 13–12–9 to 9–13–12, and assuming, as we do, that he found Chapters 10–11 together, in that order, he would easily arrive at 9–10–11–13–12. Anyone would do the same if, upon discovering 10:10–11:38, he inferred that Antiochus V is “the king” of all of the documents. And that inference, if false, would nonetheless be a reasonable one if indeed, as we have supposed, all the documents were found together. After all, the Seleucid monarchy in 165/164 BCE was somewhat anomalous, with a king in the east and his successor already functioning (under the tutelage of a guardian) in the west, and we can understand how an author, unaware of that, might arrange his materials on the usual assumption of only one king per kingdom at any given time, At this juncture, we are left to explain, in the context of our hypothesis, only one additional point with respect to the rearrangement of Chapters 9–13: Why did the author move Chapter 12 to its present location, preceding Chapter 13, instead of leaving it after Chapter 13? We may note two considerations supplied by the new material (Chapters 10–11) that may have brought him to do so, although neither is quite satisfying. First, given the accession of such impressive documentary material in Chapter 11 we might understand the author rushing to assume, as have most readers ever since, that they constitute the “covenants” (σψν#και) mentioned at 12:1.

68 See for example Niese, Kritik, 74 and Laqueur, Untersuchungen, 3, 32. For the importance of Laqueur’s observation that the only letter in Ch. 11 that was clearly written by Antiochus Eupator happens to be undated, see Tcherikover, HC, 214: “All these surmises [of scholars] were unsuccessful in solving the problem [of the reference to Antiochus IV’s death in the second letter, thought to be, as the others, from the spring of 164 when he was still alive] till Laqueur showed that the chronological difficulty vanishes if we separate the second document from the rest.” 34 Introduction

Although we have argued that this could not have been the original intent, as those documents are not “covenants,” we see that readers who are not sticklers about terminology have been willing to accept this transition from Chapter 11 to Chapter 12 without difficulty; perhaps our author too thought it appropriate. Second, the documents of Chapter 11 are dated to Xanthicus (Nisan, early spring) of 148 SE, and since Chapter 12 reports battles before and after Pentecost (12:31–32), a holiday which comes about two months later, it would have seemed reasonable, for this reason too, to have Chapter12 come after Chapter 11. Perhaps other factors figured as well. We have, so far, offered explanations for the genesis of the first five of the problems listed above. As for the sixth, the telegraphic, staccato style of 13:14 and 13:19–26, we may now observe that the author’s decision to en- rich his narrative by adding 10:10–11:38 meant that his book would now have two accounts of fighting at Beth-Zur. For us, having read 1 Maccabees, this does not constitute a problem, since that book – our main source for the events of this period – indeed reports two such campaigns, in Chapters 4 and 6, and they are properly coordinated one with another; see above, p. 26. But, as we see, our author shows no sign at all of believing that there were two separate campaigns;69 no attempt is made to coordinate the two narratives in any way. Rather, it seems, having inserted Chapters 10–11 he now found the Beth-Zur campaign of Chapter 13 something of an embarrassment, or a puzzle, and it may be that the style in which he left it is that of notes – on Jason’s original narrative – that he never wrote up properly because he did not quite know what to do with it.70 This, in any case, seems to me to be the most reasonable explanation for the style. The notion that our author took notes on his source and later wrote them up (with “sweat and sleepless nights” – 2:26) is not only reasonable but also fits in with what Lu- cian’s handbook for historians leads us to expect.71 The only other explanation I know of was offered by Zeitlin, who supposed that the style of these verses in fact belongs to Jason himself.72 However, it is nigh imposs-

69 An opinion shared by a few modern scholars, such as Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 152–154. Against this view, see Bar-Kochva, JM, 275–276. 70 Indeed, even if we hold there were two campaigns, as is usual on the basis of 1 Macc 4, 6, it still seems that we should resist the natural temptation to view 2 Macc 11 and 13, respectively, as accounts of each. Rather, it seems that both are accounts of the second campaign; see our opening COMMENT on Ch. 11. 71 For the preparation of a short and rough version as a preparatory step prior to the composition of the final version, see Lucian, How to Write History, 47; Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 85–104. 72 Zeitlin, 2 Macc, 22–23. II. Sources and Development 35 ible to imagine any Greek author who could write this way; the notion that there is anything attractive about the style here (à la “veni vidi vici”) is, in my opinion, farfetched.73 Rather, the story in Chapter 13 definitely gives the impression that the author is embarrassed by the whole matter and is trying to finish it up and move on as fast as possible. It seems that this was the price he paid in return for the valuable material he picked up somewhere and turned into Chapters 10–11. The seventh and final problem listed above was posed by the fact that 13:10 picks up and flows easily from 13:2,74 but the material on Menelaus’ death, in 13:3–8, not only interrupts the narrative but also requires the introduction, in v. 9, of a sudden and unexplained turnabout in the king’s disposition. This seems so artificial that it is hard to avoid the notion that the material on Menelaus was introduced secondarily into an extant narrative. As we can see elsewhere (4:42; 5:7–10; Ch. 9; 15:28–35), our author was very concerned with making sure that his villains got their just deserts (see esp. NOTE on 4:16, those for whose ways …), so if Jason’s account did not detail the end of Menelaus, or did not do so very colorfully, we can well understand that our author would be happy to supplement Jason’s materials at this point if he found something suitable for the purpose. The conjecture that the narrative on Menelaus’ death at 13:3–8 is based upon a separate source derives strong additional support from two types of considerations: (a) internal: There is, in this passage, a concatenation of Persian motifs: “king of kings” (v. 4), an exotic method of execution known from Persia (see NOTE on 13:5, fifty cubits high), and an echo from the Book of Esther: “fifty cubits” (ibid.; cf. Esth 5:14). Although some words in our book recall

73 For such a positive evaluation of this style see Gil, “’Sobre el estilo,” 21, followed by Richnow, “Untersuchungen,” 101–107. Grimm (2 Macc, 7), in contrast, seems to me to be somewhat closer to the mark when he characterizes this style as cheap rhetorical effect which is out of place (“eiteles Haschen nach rhetorischem Effect, noch dazu ganz an unrechter Stelle”), and Doran (Temple Propaganda, 44), seems to be even closer, insofar as he gives up on seeing here any rhetoric at all and views it simply as a way to “provide a rapid overview of what happened.” In my opinion, the style in this section is ugly and nigh unbearable; and if it were thought to be beautiful or efficient why does it not appear elsewhere (apart from 14:21, 25 [of which the latter might be acceptable, stylistically])? At most, one might want to go Mugler’s way and view the passage as an interpolation (“Remarques,” 420, n. 1); at least that recognizes how strange the passage is. But it only moves the question elsewhere: Why would someone else write that way? 74 For the usual way the story resumes by having one side hear about the movements of the other, see below, p. 77. 36 Introduction

Esther,75 nowhere else does is there such a concentration, so it may be that it is evidence for the use of a separate source. Similarly, note that at 13:12 we read of fasting for three days as in Esther 4:16; it may be that this too reflects some impact of the source used just a few verses before. (b) external: Josephus has, at Antiquities 12.384–385, a passage on the death of Menelaus that shows close verbal parallels to ours: if our book has Ly- sias convincing Antiochus V that Menelaus was the cause of the troubles (6ιτιον τν κακν), Josephus has him 6ρ7αι τν κακν, and if our book claims that Menelaus’ had set his eyes upon rule (π τ#« 0ρξ#«), Josephus said what he did was so that he himself could rule (8να α$τ"« 6ρξ9). Now it seems clear that Josephus did not use 2 Maccabees; see below, pp. 86–87. So if it was not here that he found his Menelaus story, nor in his main source for the period, 1 Maccabees (which makes no mention of Menelaus), then he probably found it in some other Jewish source.76 Perhaps our author too found it there. Now if we suppose that 13:3–8 is based on a Jewish source that served Josephus too, and we have already posited that 10:9-end of Chapter 11 is based on a source different from our author’s usual source (Jason), then economy requires us at least to consider the possibility that both passages are from the same additional source.77 I see no reason to be confident about this. Nevertheless, it might be pointed out, in the present connection, that apart from the story of Menelaus’ death the most striking agreement78 between Josephus (although not in his Antiquities) and 2 Maccabees comes precisely in Chapter 11: Josephus (War 1.41), just as 2 Maccabees 11:4, makes the extravagant claim that there were eighty elephants in Lysias’ army during the campaign that we know, from 1 Maccabees 6, to be the second. The assumption that they found this outlandish number in the same source cannot be proven, but is most economical.

In summary, it seems that 2 Maccabees was formed as follows:

(a) It all began with Jason’s work, which is said (2:23) to have filled five books. We can only guess about the length of these books.79

75 See NOTES on 8:34, thrice-accursed Nicanor (τρισαλιτριο«), 14:6, to attain stability, and 14:28, he was disconcerted. 76 So too Stern, Studies, 44–45; Bar-Kochva, JM, 541, n. 80. 77 Note that we are not suggesting that this same additional source supplied the other sections we have attributed to other sources: the Heliodorus story in Ch. 3 and the martyrologies in Chs. 6–7. 78 For others, see below, p. 86, n. 200. 79 See NOTE on 2:23, in one composition. II. Sources and Development 37

(b) An anonymous craftsman undertook to turn that work into a shorter and more readable one. But although Jason’s work indeed supplied most of what went into his work, the craftsman used other materials as well: the Heliodorus story (Ch. 3) and the martyrologies (6:18-end of Ch. 7). He also added a preface (2:19–32), an afterword (15:37–39), and three sections of reflections (4:16–17; 5:17–20; 6:12–17). Due to his use of materials apart from Jason’s, and his extensive work on the book well beyond mere epitomizing, I prefer to term him “author” rather than the mere “epitomator.”

(c) In the course of his work the author also came upon a source that supplied him the materials that lie behind 10:9-end of Chapter 11. Given his mistaken impression that the letters of Chapter 11 showed Antiochus IV had died by 148, the introduction of these new materials led the author to rearrange his materials at this point, changing 13, 12, 9 into 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.

(d) Other new material, perhaps from the same source, was introduced at 13:3–8, but this required only some minor, if artificial, coordination in 13:9.

(e) Finally, in 143 or 142 BCE the Hasmonean authorities in Jerusalem decided to send the book out to the Jews of Egypt (and possibly other diaspora communities as well) in order to encourage them to celebrate the Hanukkah festival. For this purpose they added a section on that festival’s origins into the book at 10:1–8 and attached two accompanying letters at the book’s outset. This completed the formation of the book in its present form,80 and it was thus sent out. We do not know how successful it was in encouraging the celebration of Hanukkah,81 but it is a fact that the book managed to become included in the collection of works which was to become the Septua- gint – and so to survive.

80 Although there were probably some additional interpolations or glosses added at various times; see our NOTES on 1:12, for (γρ) He Himself drove out; 7:18, amazing things have happened; 11:1, the king’s guardian; 14:21, a litter came forward; and Appendix 4. 81 See below, p. 87. 38 Introduction

III. Historical Worth and Leading Ideas

Wir erfahren darüber näheres nur aus dem zweiten Makkabäerbuch, das sich vielfach als unzuverlässig zeigt wo man es kontrolliren kann, und also auch da Mistrauen verdient wo man es nicht kontrolliren kann. Der Be- richt lautet wie folgt. (J. Wellhausen, Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte [Berlin: Reimer, 19045] 248)82

Wir erfahren darüber näheres nur aus dem zweiten Makkabäerbuch. Des- sen Bericht lautet wie folgt … (idem, Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte [Berlin: Reimer, 19076] 243)83

1. 2 Maccabees as a Witness to the Events It Describes

Given our conclusion in Section I that 2 Maccabees was written not long after the events it recounts, and our conclusion in Section II that 2 Macca- bees is based upon sources, which must have originated even closer to the events, we may now approach the question of the book’s historical value with some optimism. True, in the past the field was dominated by the axiom that 1 Maccabees is the more accurate of the two books, and this presumption still prevails. To a large extent, this simply reflects recognition of the diasporan origin of our book, which means that its author was further – both geographically and culturally – from the Palestinian events it describes. However, the presumption also derived from three apparent errors. One is the psychological fallacy that leads us to think that if one book is accurate, the other is not; this type of thinking has misled other aspects of the study of 1–2 Maccabees as well.84 Then there is the widespread opinion that 2 Maccabees was composed several decades later than we suggested; see

82 “We find details about this only in 2 Maccabees, a book that often turns out to be un- trustworthy in those passages where we can check it and therefore deserves mistrust even where we can’t check it. Its report is as follows.” 83 “We find details about this only in 2 Maccabees. Its report is as follows.” 84 Compare the notion that if 1 Maccabees is Sadducean, 2 Maccabees must be Phari- saic; see our NOTE on 12:43, resurrection. III. Historical Worth and Leading Ideas 39 above, pp. 11–15. And the third is the notion that since, as opposed to the sober and down-to-earth narrative of 1 Maccabees, our book reports many supernatural and miraculous events, the author must not have been very be- holden to historical truth. However, if we avoid the psychological fallacy, revise the chronology, and bear in mind that even a religious author may tell the historical truth, even if he or she packages it in religious interpretation and decorates it with religious motifs, there is room to reopen the discussion of our book’s historical worth. The fact is that the last century in general, and the past several decades in particular, have seen a great improvement in the assessment of 2Maccabees. This process began in 1900 when Benedictus Niese, a prominent student of antiquity (best known for his edition of Josephus’ writings and for his three- volume history of the Greek and Macedonian states), published – first in a respected philological journal (Hermes), then as a separate volume – a detailed monograph, Kritik der beiden Makkabäerbücher, of which the bottom line was an improved appreciation of 2 Maccabees at the expense of its Palestinian counterpart. As Paul Wendland immediately noted in the first column of his review of Niese’s study (see our bibliography), it “opened a new age in the literary-historical evaluation of the two works and in their use as sources.” True, in general Niese was more successful at undermining 1 Maccabees than in confirming 2 Maccabees, but the result was the same: it was no longer so easy to depend on the former to the exclusion of the latter. Indeed, Niese’s work was followed in short order by a whole spate of studies in which 2 Maccabees was accorded a status it had never hitherto enjoyed. E. Bevan’s The House of Seleucus (1902) emphasized the importance of Niese’s work and frequently depended on 2 Maccabees, and in the same year an article by Emil Schürer, dean of historians of the Jews in the Greco-Roman period, was dedicated to demonstrating the reliability of 2 Maccabees 6:7. In 1903 Otto Procksch opened his article on Lysias’ campaign(s) with explicit reference to Niese, in the course of his study coming to the conclusion that 1 Maccabees’ claim that there were two campaigns is to be rejected and that 2 Maccabees’ account – assuming (as we suggested above) that Chapters 11 and 13 both refer to the same campaign – is to be preferred.85 Hendrik Elhorst opened his article of 1905 with a complaint about the widespread skepticism with respect to 2 Maccabees that is

85 Note that there is no necessary connection between these two claims, for it could be that there were two campaigns (as is said in 1 Maccabees) and that our book happens to have two accounts of one. 40 Introduction frequently coupled with a naïve willingness to unswervingly follow 1 Mac- cabees, and that same year Julius Wellhausen published a detailed monograph reviewing each episode of our book and evaluating its historical worth. While his conclusions are mixed, they were so positive as to engender the striking difference between his formulations concerning our work in the 1904 and 1907 editions of his standard textbook on the period, quoted at the outset of this section, that moved the burden of proof from those who would believe 2 Maccabees to those who would doubt it. Just how standard this new appreciation of our book was to become is well reflected by Eduard Meyer’s comment, as early as 1921, that at least 2 Mac- cabees 3–6 and 11 are worthy of our trust and that this is admitted by most scholars, even if with considerable reluctance (“wenn auch widerwillig genug”!).86 In the meantime epigraphists and papyrologists were also becoming involved, demonstrating the reliability of 2 Maccabees time and again with regard to terminology, institutions, and even individuals of the Hellenistic world. Three works compiled in the 1930s were particularly important in this regard: C. B. Welles’ Royal Correspondence, E. Bickerman’s Institu- tions des Séleucides,87 and an article by A. Wilhelm (“Zu einigen Stellen der Bücher der Makkabäer”88). The first two made extensive use of 2 Mac- cabees and integrated it into the growing corpus of evidence for the period, while the third was devoted to resolving problems in 2 Maccabees by interpreting its text in light of other evidence in that corpus. Then, in the 1950s, epigraphy made two further contributions to bolstering the status of our book: Sachs and Wiseman showed cuneiform evidence supports our book’s claim (in Chapters 9–10, contrary to 1 Macc 4–6) that Antiochus IV died prior to the rededication of the Temple, and Habicht showed that

86 Works quoted in this paragraph: Bevan, House of Seleucus, esp. 2.168, n. 2 and 298–299; Schürer, “Zu 2Mcc 6,7;” Procksch, “Der Friede des Lysias;” Elhorst, “Die beiden Makkabäerbücher,” 367–368; Wellhausen, “Wert;” Meyer, Ursprung, 2.144, n. 2. For some Jewish opposition to the new trend, due in part to the fact that 2 Mac- cabees ignores Mattathias, who is the main figure of the story in Jewish liturgy, see Abrahams, “Niese,” esp. 515–519, also his article on the Books of Maccabees in Jew- ish Encyclopedia 8 (1905) 243. For a review of opinion a generation after Niese, see Ettelson, Integrity, 376–380. 87 The title page of this volume gives the author’s name as Bikerman, just as his publications in German give it as Bickermann. For convenience I have used Bickerman throughout the present volume. 88 Wilhelm made reference to our book in several other studies as well; see our bibliography. III. Historical Worth and Leading Ideas 41

Greek epigraphical evidence confirms our book’s allusion to Hegemonides (13:24).89 More recently, an Attalid inscription published in 1997, in which Eumenes II agrees to the petition of a Phrygian community to allow it to organize itself as a polis, shows at numerous points, with reference both to contents and to diction, that our book’s report of the founding of a polis in Jerusalem (4:7–15) is just what would have been expected.90 Fin- ally, a decade later, a tantalizing inscription of 178 BCE has turned up, documenting the fact that Seleucus IV ordered Heliodorus to do something about the temples of Palestine. Although the contents of the order were not preserved, this puts us at least into guessing range of the story told in 2 Maccabees 3.91 Already the point, based upon cuneiform evidence, about the chronology of Antiochus IV’s death, which relates to a cardinal element of the story told by 1–2 Maccabees, was a major nail in the coffin of the presumption that 1 Maccabees should always be assumed the more accurate of the two.92 Indeed, since the 1950s it seems that although 1 Maccabees takes precedence as far as details of the military campaigns and their geography are concerned (matters about which 2 Maccabees offers next to nothing), it is widely recognized that with regard to much of the rest, and especially – with regard to the world at large, within which this Judaean story transpired, 2 Maccabees is a very important and reliable source. This reliability is apparent with regard to various details. Our author is right that: (a) Antiochus Epiphanes had an especial affinity for Athens (6:1, 9:15; see NOTE on 6:1, Geron the Athenian). (b) Appolonius was a Mysarch (5:24), not a “tax official” as he is termed in 1 Maccabees 1:29; see NOTE on 5:24, the Mysarch Apollonius. (c) Lysias, the king’s syngenes, was the holder of an aulic title (2 Macc 11:1), not a member of the king’s family as he is termed in 1 Mac- cabees 3:32; see NOTE on 11:1, kinsman.

89 See, respectively, Sachs & Wiseman, “A Babylonian King-List” and our NOTE on 13:24, Hegemonides. 90 See Ameling, “Jerusalem;” Kennell, “New Light;” and our Appendix 2. 91 See Cotton and Wörrle, “Seleukos IV to Heliodoros” and the end of our opening COMMENT on Chapter 3. 92 And the point more recently received further confirmation from other cuneiform evidence that dates Antiochus’ death to late 164 BCE and, apparently, Lysias’ second campaign to 149 SE, as is said at 2 Macc 13:1, not in 150 (1 Macc 6:20). See above, n. 62. 42 Introduction

(d) Heliodorus (Ch.3), Ptolemy Macron (10:12–13) and Hegemonides (13:24) – none of whom is mentioned in 1 Maccabees – were all high Seleu- cid officials, as is shown by inscriptions (see NOTES on 3:7, Heliodorus and head of state; 10:13, because he had abandoned Cyprus; and 13:24, Hegemonides). Again, in Chapter 11 our author cites four important documents, generally accepted today as authentic, that provide the foundation for all we know about negotiations between the Jews and the Seleucids in 164–163 BCE. More generally, we may note various minor indications that our author was simply well at home in the basic facts of the period. Thus he knows, for example, of Cilician revolts against Seleucid rule (4:30), that Antiochus made two campaigns into Egypt (5:1), of the indemnities the Se- leucids had been paying Rome since the Treaty of Apamaea (8:10, 36), etc. All of these, taken together, endow our book with the presumption that it is to be taken seriously, so that – to reverse Wellhausen’s original formulation – it is so often confirmable that we must follow it, all things being equal, even when it cannot be confirmed. This is particularly the case for the period that preceded the Hasmonean revolt, a period that drew only mini- mal attention from the dynastic historian who produced 1 Maccabees: he had no interest in dealing with high priests who had preceded the Hasmon- eans and whose heirs continued (in Egypt and perhaps elsewhere) to deny the legitimacy of the Hasmonean upstarts, nor with rebels who preceded the Hasmoneans and thereby might have stolen some of their luster (see our NOTE on 5:7, coming to a shameful end). 2 Maccabees, in contrast, devotes three chapters (3–5) to the pre-Has- monean period, and the years that saw the rise of the book’s stock in general also saw intense scholarly attention devoted to these chapters in particular; such lively interest continues until today. It began in 1937 with Bickerman’s Gott der Makkabäer,93 followed a few years later by another detailed article of his on the Heliodorus story; Tcherikover responded to Bickerman with a detailed study in the fifties.94 These studies focused on Jewish Hellenizing in Jerusalem prior to the Hasmonean revolt and on the question of the initiative – Jewish or Seleucid? – for Antiochus’ decrees.95

93 Appeared in an English translation by H. R. Moehring, but without the notes and two of the appendices: The God of the Maccabees (SJLA 32; Leiden: Brill, 1979). 94 See Bickerman, Gott and Studies, 2.159–191 (appeared originally in AIPHOS 7 [1939–1944] 5–40); and Tcherikover, HC, 175–203 (ch. 5; began as a Hebrew article in 1953/54; see p. 255, n. 7). 95 Immediately upon publication of Bickerman’s Gott der Makkabäer I. Heinemann picked out this issue as the heart of the matter; see his “Wer veranlaßte den Glau- III. Historical Worth and Leading Ideas 43

They deal primarily with 2 Maccabees 3–5, and stimulated very numerous responses; note especially the books by M. Hengel, K. Bringmann and O. Keel/U. Staub and detailed articles by F. Millar, R. Doran, N. Hyldahl, M. Stern, F. Parente, G. M. Cohen and, most recently, in connection with the abovementioned epigraphical discoveries, by W. Ameling and N. M. Ken- nell on the one hand and H. M. Cotton and M. Wörrle on the other.96 We should note two other phenomena that seem to have contributed to the improvement of 2 Maccabees’ reputation in recent decades. First, the Second World War and the Cold War made scholars, as others, amply aware of the nature of government-sponsored propaganda and propagandistic history, and this placed a major question mark next to the claim of the dynastic history, 1 Maccabees, to be accepted at face value.97 More importantly, recent decades have seen a general flowering of scholarship – literary and archaeological – concerning Jewish Hellenism, and with it came the collapse of the earlier notion that Hellenistic Judaism was an exclusively diasporan phe-

benszwang der Makkabäerzeit?” On this and other responses to Bickerman’s 1937 book, which – given the focus on issues concerning persecution and martyrdom – often reflected the Holocaust in one way or another, see C. Hoffmann, Juden und Ju- dentum im Werk deutscher Althistoriker des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts (Leiden: Brill, 1988) 241–244. 96 Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, esp. 267–309; Bringmann, Hellenistische Reform, 66–96; Millar, “Background;” Doran, “Jason’s Gymnasium” and “High Cost;” Hyldahl, “The Maccabean Rebellion;” Stern, “Antioch in Jerusalem;” Parente, “ΤΟ<Σ ΕΝ ΙΕΡΟΣΟΛ<ΜΟΙΣ;” Cohen, “The Antiochenes;” Keel, “Kultischen Massnahmen;” Ameling, “Jerusalem” and Kennell, “New Light;” and Cotton & Wörrle, “Seleukos IV to Heliodoros.” 97 It is of course usual since Geiger (Urschrift, 206–219) to view 1 Maccabees as pro- Hasmonean propaganda. Nevertheless, this really took hold only with Niese, and it is in fact only recently that far-reaching conclusions have been drawn from this, such as: a willingness to view its claim that Jews themselves initiated radical Hellenization, even to the point of abrogating circumcision (1 Macc 1:11–15), as pro-Hasmonean propaganda aimed against internal opponents (Hyldahl, “The Maccabean Rebel- lion,” 193–194 in the wake of Bringmann, Reform, 146); the suggestions that stories have been transferred from Judas Maccabaeus, or even from John Hyrcanus, back to Mattathias, in order to lend legitimacy to the entire line via its founder (Schunck, Quellen, 62); and the suggestion that Judas served as high priest (VanderKam, “People and High Priesthood,” 219–221 – although he doesn’t specifically claim that it was repressed as part of an effort to let Simon’s line shine all the more; cf. our NOTE on 14:13, and install Alcimus as the high priest). On 1 Maccabees as pro-Has- monean propaganda and not especially reliable insofar as that affected its story, see S. Schwartz, “Israel,” and N. Martola, Capture and Liberation (Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 1984). 44 Introduction nomenon.98 With the publication of such seminal works as Lieberman’s Hel- lenism in Jewish Palestine (1950), Smith’s “Palestinian Judaism in the First Century” (1956), Hengel’s Judentum und Hellenismus (1969; English 1974), and Stern’s “Judaism and Hellenism” (1989) it became a common- place that the Jews of Palestine too underwent a process of Hellenization early on; recent volumes by Levine and edited by Collins and Sterling only reinforce that conclusion, whatever the debates about dating, scope and intensity.99 But this recognition qualifies the a priori doubts about the great cultural gap that separated the author of our book from the events he describes, just as it encourages us to accept our book’s claim that Hellenizing Jews played a major role in the events that preceded Antiochus’ decrees and the Hasmonean revolt. In short, it is not at all surprising, but rather quite natural, that 2 Mac- cabees stands today, alongside 1 Maccabees, as a firm foundation for the construction of the history of the period with which it deals. While 1 Mac- cabees remains the primary source for the battles, 2 Maccabees is the main source not only for the Hellenistic world in which the story played itself out, but also for the Jewish world within which that happened – the world which the author of 1 Maccabees, for readily understandable reasons, had to portray in a way that was monochromic and only background for his own heroes.

98 As a salient sign of the times, note that the division of ancient Jewish literature between “Hellenistic” and “Palestinian” in the original German editions of Schürer’s Geschichte was replaced by one based on language of composition in the new History (vol. 3/1–2, 1986–1987); see Schwartz, “From the Maccabees,” 30–31. Note also, in this connection, the evidence for a good deal of Hellenization of the Hasmoneans themselves; see inter alia Rappaport, “Hellenization of the Hasmoneans;” Rajak, “The Hasmoneans and the Uses of Hellenism” in eadem, Jewish Dialogue, 61–80; Baumgarten, “The Hellenization of the Hasmonean State,” in: Amit & Eshel, Has- monean Period, 77–84 and D. Mendels, “The Hasmonean State in the Ancient World,” ibid., 85–92 (both in Hebrew); Levine, Judaism and Hellenism, 39–46. This too tends to close the gap between their world and that of 2 Maccabees. On Hellen- ization in 1 Maccabees, see Gera, “Battle of Beth Zachariah.” 99 Levine, Judaism and Hellenism; Collins & Sterling, Hellenism in the Land of Israel. As for the debates, see inter alia Millar, “Background;” Rajak, Jewish Dialogue, 3–10; L. H. Feldman, “Hengel’s Judaism and Hellenism in Retrospect,” JBL 96 (1977) 371–382; idem, “How Much Hellenism in Jewish Palestine?,” HUCA 57 (1986) 83–111. III. Historical Worth and Leading Ideas 45

2. 2 Maccabees as a Witness to Its Author’s World

2 Maccabees is a diasporan book.100 It is based upon a work written by Jason of Cyrene, a Jew of the Hellenstic diaspora, and it is very similar to some works which have clear roots in Alexandrian Judaism: first of all 3 Maccabees, but also the Letter of Aristeas and Philo’s historical works – the Embassy to Gaius and Against Flaccus. Scores of entries in Hatch and Redpath’s A Concordance to the Septuagint have references to 2 Maccabees and 3 Maccabees alone, and similarly impressive lists may be composed of words in common with Pseudo-Aristeas and Philo’s works too.101 The fact that a book is diasporan can express itself in a number of ways. Ideally, we should distinguish between that which is characteristic of Jewish diasporan historiography in general and that which characterizes Jews of the Hellenistic diaspora in particular.102

100 Van Henten begins his two-sentence discussion of this issue just as roundly, saying the opposite: “It is obvious that 2 Maccabees is of Judaean origin” (Maccabean Martyrs, 50). But as is evident from the second sentence (“This becomes apparent through the examination of various texts, most notably from the content of the history of liberation and the headings of the festal letters [1:10, 10]”), this (repeated in his “2 Mac- cabees as a History of Liberation,” 83) is only a formal statement about the book as it is now: formally, it is two Judaean letters with an “attachment.” Our present discussion applies to the latter, i.e., the body of the book – Chs. 3–15. As for where in the Diaspora it originated, I would guess Alexandria, but no more than that; see below, p. 52, n. 120. I should of course note that it is possible that the diasporan writer of our book wrote it in Palestine; just as Paul, of Cilician Tarsus, could spend time in Jerusalem, so could our writer. Maybe he even lived there. What matters in this context is not his location but, rather, his religious, political and cultural orientation which, as I will argue, are those typical of Jews of the Hellenistic diaspora. 101 For such lists, see Koppidakes, Third Maccabees and Aeschylus, 24–34. As for the vocabulary our book shares with 3 Maccabees, see below, n. 201. 102 There seems to be surprisingly little scholarly discussion of the category “diasporan historiography” in connection with ancient Jewish historiography, although the observations made by scholars on various diasporan books frequently point in the same direction. For some comments on the category with regard to Jewish Hellenistic literature see Jossa, “La storiografia giudeo-ellenistica” and my “From the Maccabees.” In this field much comparative work would be useful, both concerning Jewish diasporan works from other places and times and non-Jewish diasporas as well. As a start on the former, I would note that anyone who reads Joseph of Rosheim, Historical Writings (ed. H. Fraen- kel-Goldschmidt; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1996 [in Hebrew]), will find, in these sixteenth- century Jewish writings full of narratives about Jewish informers, martyrs, Gentile kings and neighbors, and God’s providence, a world very reminiscent of that of our book; see for example p. 47 of Fraenkel-Goldschmidt’s introduction. See also below, n. 113. 46 Introduction

From all Jewish diasporan historiography we would expect a religious and political orientation that is suitable for Jews who do not live in their own land. To begin with religion, in our case we find, first of all, that our author is pedantically emphatic about the people being more important than the Temple (5:19); this is precisely what we would expect from someone who is very aware of the fact that the Temple exists only in one land, while the Jews are all over.103 Indeed, he has little interest in the Temple per se and in the sacrificial cult characteristic of it – a type of worship in which diasporan Jews can only rarely participate.104 This point is particularly apparent in the comparison between 2 Maccabees 5:16 (“holy vessels”) and the detailed list in 1 Maccabees 1:21–23, as also in that between 8:14–20 and the Temple-centered detail in 1 Maccabees 3:43–54.105 Similarly, note that while both 1 Maccabees 5:54 and 2 Maccabees 12:31–32 report that Judas’ troops take a break in Jerusalem in the midst of a campaign, only the former has them visiting the Temple and bringing sacrifices. Again, note that when our author does have his heroes offer sacrifices, he characterizes them as a subset of the larger and more basic category of “prayer” (3:31 and 12:44), which was available to him too, in the Diaspora, and that when his story leads him to focus on the Temple vessels he characterizes those concerned about them as those “who had spoken for the city and the populace and the holy vessels” (4:48), thus putting them into what he considers

103 The tension between this authorial statement, on the one hand, and the Heliodorus story in Ch. 3, which plays up the importance of the Temple, God’s special protection of it, and the efficacy of sacrifice (v. 32), joins other considerations arguing that our author did not himself compose that story. 104 I realize that this is a surprising claim, given the story our book tells. It is more usual to characterize our book the way Doran did in the title of his wonderful monograph about it: Temple Propaganda; Lichtenberger’s statement that “Der Tempel von Jeru- salem, seine Bedrohung, Entweihung und die festliche Begehung seiner Wiedereinwei- hung sind das zentrale Thema von der ersten bis zur letzten Seite des Buches” (“Gottes Nähe,” 136) is another quite representative of literature on our book. Of course there is something to this, but I believe it reflects, to a large degree, too easy a slide from city to Temple. In the next few paragraphs I will indicate why I believe that the book shows a relative lack of interest in the Temple and its cult and a preference for types of worship available equally to diasporan Jews. Accordingly it seems that even when the book does deal with the Temple, it treats it more as an element of the Jewish polis, Jerusalem, than as the Jews’ cultic center. 105 And note that while 1 Macc 3:58–59 characterizes the enemy as coming to “wipe out (7»ραι) us and our Temple,” our book summarizes their goal as “to wipe out (7»ραι) the entire nation of Judaea” (8:9) – just the shift in emphasis that the abovementioned 5:19 would lead us to expect. III. Historical Worth and Leading Ideas 47 their proper context; for a similar case see 13:11, 14, where the Jews fear that they would be deprived of “the Law, fatherland, and holy Temple” and therefore Judas encourages his men to fight for “laws, temple, city, fatherland, [and] constitution.” Accordingly, we are not surprised to find that the competition between the Temple of Jerusalem and that at Mt. Gerizim does not exercise our author: he views the Samaritans as part of the same Jewish “people” (5:22–23) and – according to what seems to be the original version of his text (see Appendix 4) – mourns the attack on their temple on Mt. Gerizim in parallel to his mourning over similar events in Jerusalem (6:2). His attitude probably was similar to the indifference expressed in John 4:21–24, although without the polemics and without the eschatology. Rather than being enthused about any terrestrial House of God, our author prefers God to be the God of Heaven, hence equally accessible all over: 2:21; 3:15, 20, 34, 39; 8:20; 9:4, 20; 10:29; 11:10; 14:34; 15:3–4, 8, 21, 23, 34.106 But his insistence that God is in heaven does not make Him far from His covenantal partners, the Jews, for His providence is emphasized again and again – in virtually all of the just-mentioned passages, as well as others (see NOTE on 3:39, watches over). His providence is also expressed in the way He presides over history, a point that is “documented” both by impressive apparitions (see NOTE on 2:21, heavenly apparitions) and – more subtly – by the way things happen in symmetric ways that, as believers know, cannot be mere coincidence. This is particularly the case concerning the way villains get their just deserts, with the punishment fitting the crime tit for tat, most spectacularly at 5:9; 8:25; 9:5–6, 28; and at 13:3–8 (see also NOTE on 4:16, those for whose ways they were enthusiastic), but it is so in other ways as well; note, for example, 10:5, which points out that the date of Hanukkah was no coincidence at all, and 12:40–41, which points out that those individuals who died in battle had all been sinners, not just unlucky. The story, in short, is one of sin that leads to appropriate punishment and suffering – but the punishment and the suffering come within the framework of a covenant and are meant to chasten and edify (παιδε), not to destroy, as the author (6:12) and the seventh son (7:33) pedantically remind us.107 Thus, the suffering, which culminates in the martyrdom of the faithful, ultimately arouses God’s mercy and thus

106 For the diasporan nature of this preference it is enough to cite, beyond the logic of the matter, the simple point that a glance in a concordance of the Hebrew Bible will show that “God of Heaven” is found almost exclusively in literature of the Persian period – Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Aramaic part of Daniel (as also in Judith and in the Elephan- tine papyri). See Schwartz, Studies, 7 and “Wo wohnt Gott?.” 107 On this complex of ideas, see above, pp. 21–22. 48 Introduction catalyzes redemption; see especially the whole turning point of the book at 8:5, which reaps the fruits of Chapters 6–7. This is a message that works wonderfully for the Jews of the diaspora, and indeed the focus on martyrdom is typically diasporan, as a comparative glance at 1 Maccabees, which has no patience for them since its context has room for Jewish soldiers, makes abundantly clear (see below, p. 50). But if God is in heaven, and providentially rules the world in general and the Jews in particular, then He may be worshipped from anywhere, via prayers. Indeed, there are numerous prayers in our book (3:15, 18, 20, 22, 30, 31; 5:4; 7:37; 8:2–4, 14–15, 29; 10:4, 7, 16, 25–26, 38; 11:6; 12:6, 15, 28, 36, 41–42, 44; 13:10–12; 14:15, 34–36, 46; 15:21–24, 26–27, 29, 34)108 and only two Jewish sacrifices (3:32; 12:43), and, as we have noted, both of the latter are even made to seem as if they are types of the main category: prayer.109 This too is especially conspicuous in comparison to 1 Mac- cabees.110 Finally, it is important for our diasporan author to emphasize that God’s power is recognized not only by Jews, but also by Gentiles, especially their notables, who – after learning the lesson the hard way – time and again are made to go and proclaim the Jewish God (3:36–39; 8:36; 9:12–17; 11:13). This concern that Gentiles too evince respect for the Jewish God is, of course, part and parcel of the diasporan disposition. As for politics, our diasporan author insists repeatedly that Gentiles and their rulers respect the Jews and Judaism and are benevolent toward them (3:1–3; 4:6, 35, 49; 12:30–31).111 Why not? After all, as Shylock would say, we are all “men.”112 And as for the Jews, all they want to do is keep the peace (4:6; 12:1–2). Indeed, with both sides so right-minded and the system so perfect, any disruptions must be due either to misunderstandings or to the misdeeds of “bad apples” on one or both of the two sides – minor officials or advisors on the Seleucid side (4:34, 45; 12:2;

108 On prayer in our book see esp. Lichtenberger, “Gottes Nähe,” 139–149. 109 See NOTE on 3:31, call upon. An exception in this regard is our book’s interest in votive offerings to the Temple by non-Jewish kings (3:2–3; 5:16; 9:16; and 13:23) – which interest him as expressions of non-Jewish respect for Jews, our next topic. 110 Where, after Ch. 5, we find only a very few brief, and pale, prayers or references to prayer. See below, pp. 63–64, n. 154. True, neither do we find many sacrifices there; but see above on the contrasts between 2 Macc 5:16 and 1 Macc 1:21–23; between 2 Macc 8:14–20 and 1 Macc 3:43–54; and between 2 Macc 12:31–32 and 1 Macc 5:54. 111 On this theme, see also Weitzman, Surviving Sacrilege, 41–46. 112 See NOTE on 4:35, of the man. III. Historical Worth and Leading Ideas 49

13:11) or self-seeking apostates and troublemakers on the Jewish side (3:4–5; 4:7, 25; 14:3). These glitches, although they do make for interesting stories, and sometimes – for tragedies, are not truly representative of either side; if the king hears that the Jews have rebelled, this is only a mistaken “inference” (5:11) from infighting between two villains. Thus, for example, when one of our villains suborned one of their villains to murder our hero in Antioch, this could only happen because the king was absent from the scene;113 the Gentiles and Greeks of the city are just as upset about it as the Jews; and the king – when he returns to the city and dis- covers what had happened – is enraged and immediately sees to the demonstrative punishment of the murderer (4:32–38). All of this, of course, contrasts with 1 Maccabees, which begins with nine verses explaining that all Gentile kings are arrogant and wicked (and summarizes the century and a half of Hellenistic kings between Alexander and Antiochus as having “multiplied wickedness in the world” – v. 9), which needs no explanation for Gentiles hating and attacking Jews other than that they are Gentiles (who attack the Jews because they are successful [5:1], because they are defenseless [12:53], or simply out of hatred [13:6]), and which assumes that Gentiles’ promises are not meant to be kept (see esp. 7:10, 27, in contrast to 2 Macc 14:18–25).114 In this connection, it is important to emphasize that, correspondingly, our author speaks, for the most part, only of individual Jewish villains. If 1 Maccabees speaks of Jewish parties, of “many” on the other side (1:11, 43, 52; 2:16; 9:23, 69; see also 6:21; 7:5, 22; 9:58; 10:14, 61; 11:25), 2 Maccabees speaks of Simon, Jason, Menelaus, Lysimachus, Auranus, and Alcimus. The contrast is especially salient between 1 Maccabees 7:5, where Alcimus leads a delegation of “all the lawless and impious men of Is- rael” to complain to Demetrius I about Judas and his brothers, and our

113 Compare Shevet Yehudah, Ch. 60, a sixteenth-century work of diasporan historiography, which asserts “the king of Portugal was a gracious king” so of course the Lisbon massacre of 1506 could take place only in his absence; see Yerushalmi, Lisbon Massacre, 61. For another example, note that Azariah de’ Rossi, a sixteenth-century Italian Jewish writer, has a section (’Imrei Binah, Ch. 55) entitled “That the Jews, Ac- cording to the Prophets and Ancestral Custom, Always Pray for the Peace of Their Kings …,” and that in this context he cites our Heliodorus story, from Josippon (ed. Flusser, 61–62; see below, p. 90) – a version which has Onias refer to Jewish prayers for the king; see ‘Azariah de’Rossi, Selected Chapters from Sefer Me’or ’Einayim and Matsref la-Kessef (ed. R. Bonfil; Jerusalem: Bialik, 1991) 365–373, esp. 367 (in He- brew). 114 See also 1 Macc 1:30, 6:62, 7:18 (!), 11:53, and 15:27, along with Schwartz, “The Other.” 50 Introduction

14:3, where Alcimus goes alone and out of his own self-interest. True, even our book occasionally reveals that the Jewish villains were not just a few isolated individuals; see 4:3 (“Simon’s men”), 40 (3000 supporting Lysim- achus) and 10:15. But these cases are exceptional. In general our author tries to hide the divisiveness within his own community; diasporan minor- ities are not fond of displaying their dirty laundry in public. The author of 1 Maccabees, in contrast, has no problem with the notion of rifts and parties among the Jews, provided that his readers understand that the party he represents is the best one. Anyone who is familiar with the differences between Israeli newspapers, on the one hand, and diasporan Jewish newspapers in the vernacular, on the other, will recognize this contrast between the two books. Another expression of diaspora-ism in 2 Maccabees is the behavior of the main heroes of the book: they are willing to die, not necessarily to fight (and even when they do fight, they are of course willing to die – 8:21; 13:14); see NOTE on 7:2, ready to die. Martyrs, rather than soldiers, are the real heroes of the book, and the long central section of the book, Chap- ters 6–7, dedicated to martyrs, provides the turning point; after those scenes, and because of the blood of those martyrs (7:38; 8:3–4), everything changes. These stories, moreover, are said to be paradigmatic for the youth (6:24–28, 31), a point demonstrated by Chapter 7. Contrast 1 Maccabees, which devotes only a few verses to martyrs, at the end of Chapter 1, where they are not part of the solution but only exemplify the problem; they serve as foils for those who bring the real solution, beginning at the outset of Chap- ter 2 – the Hasmonean rebels. As if to underline that point, 1 Macc 2:29–41 immediately proceeds to depict the Hasmonean decision to fight in self- defense even on the Sabbath, for the alternative – taken by some other naïve foils – would be simply to die. For 2 Maccabees, martyrs do not simply die; they die effectively. That is the best Jews of the Diaspora can do, and it is worthy of respect. The author of 2 Maccabees was not, however, a generic diasporan Jew. He was specifically from a Hellenistic diaspora, and this too had its impli- cations. First, we note the prominence of the city.115 As we noted above (pp. 6–7), the book focuses upon the city of Jerusalem, from the opening of the story (3:1) to its end (15:37); this is the basic category it uses to tell its story. Accordingly, the usual term for a Jew, when mentioned in conjunction with other Jews, is πολ τη«, just as our author uses – invents? – the term

115 This topic was especially developed by Renaud, “Loi et lois,” 58–64. See also Schwartz, “Temple or City?” III. Historical Worth and Leading Ideas 51

φιλοπολ τη« (“lover of his fellow-citizens”) to describe a particularly outstanding man (14:37). Such usage of πολ τη« was very usual among the Jews of Egypt,116 just as one could speak of the νμο« πολιτικ« τν BΙοψδα ν,117 which paralleled the πολιτικο νμοι of Greek cities, in Egypt as elsewhere. Jewish law was, thus, conceived of as parallel to the laws of a Greek city, just as a whole complex of terms contrasted the civilized life of the city with the barbarian and animal-like life of those who would persecute the Jews.118 The book’s “urbanity” is also well-expressed in some of the restrained phrasing it employs, such as its assertion that the murder of Onias was “unreasonable” (4:36) and that the defenders of Kaspin behaved “quite uncouthly” toward Judas’ men (12:14). Greek impact on 2 Maccabees is also readily apparent in its assessment of individuals and their qualities; it is full of terms that are quite foreign to biblical usage and, indeed, frequently quite difficult to render into Hebrew. Its heroes are “noble” and display their “manly” “virtue;” their behavior is “worthy” of their virtues and even of their beauty and their age; martyrs are “paradigms” for youth, etc.119 As for literary motifs, see below, pp. 65–66.

At this point, having recognized the diasporan nature of 2 Maccabees, we must emphasize – despite what we said in the first half of this section about the historical worth of 2 Maccabees – that it behooves us to take special care with regard to that part of the book where it serves as the main witness. As we have emphasized, Chapters 4–5 are of great importance, and virtually alone bear witness to institutionalized Hellenization in Jerusalem in the years preceding Antiochus’ decrees and the Hasmonean revolt. But it is striking that Hellenism in Jerusalem, “Antioch in Jerusalem,” as portrayed in our book, is very similar to what we may imagine to have been the Sitz im Leben of our book’s author himself: Jewish life in a Greek polis under the rule of a Greek king. Indeed, as a Jew living in the Hellenistic world the author should not have seen any problem, from a Jewish point of view, in the notion of Jerusalem turning into a Greek polis. Rather, he would have portrayed such a situation in the image of his own: just as the

116 See Let. Arist. 3, 36, 44, 126; 3 Macc 1:22; Philo, Leg. 211, etc.; Lüderitz, “‘Polite- uma’,” 194–195; Cowey & Maresch, Urkunden, 22–23. 117 Compare CPJ 1, no. 128, l. 2 to no. 19, lines 43–44, and see Tcherikover, ibid., 238 and Mélèze, Jews of Egypt, 107–112. 118 See NOTE on 14:30, coarser and, for example, on 14:14, in droves. 119 See NOTES on 6:28, noble … nobly; on 8:7, And the fame of his manly valor spread everywhere; and the last few NOTES on Ch. 6 In general, see esp. Himmelfarb, “Judaism and Hellenism.” 52 Introduction

Jews of Alexandria,120 for example, could prefer to see no contradiction between their being Jews and their being Hellenized, and could participate in the life of the city despite their being Jews and within the limits that imposed,121 so too the Jews of Antioch in Jerusalem (4:18–20); just as the Jews of Alexandria preserved the sanctity of Jewish law and institutions, so too the Jews of Jerusalem (4:39–42); just as Alexandria sent “observers” to festivals held by other cities,122 and delegates as needed to the kings, so too the Jews of Antioch in Jerusalem (4:18); just as the Jews of Alexandria had, alongside the city’s institutions, their own council of elders (Philo, In Flac- cum 74123), so too the Jews of Jerusalem (4:44); and so on. Thus, the Jews of Antioch in Jerusalem are said to have lived comfortably and fully in both worlds – the Greek world and the Jewish one – just as comfortably as the Jews of Alexandria did, or would have liked to. It is difficult, therefore, to know how much of this picture is true and how much of it is a projection of

120 For a reasonable example, given the fact that much of Jewish Hellenistic literature originated there, given the ease with which so much of our book’s usage is illustrated by Egyptian evidence (see esp. NOTES on 14:3, in the times of strife, on 15:7, that assistance would be made available; and on 3:3, Asia; also Appendix 5). But perhaps our author came from elsewhere, just as Jason himself came from Cyrene (another part of the Ptolemaic kingdom). Zeitlin (2 Macc, 19) argued that the book originated in Antioch, but apart from the appearance of “Hebrews” at 7:31 and 15:37, which (despite the fact that it appears more often in 4 Maccabees, for which an Antiochan origin has been posited) proves nothing, his only argument is from the Antiochan connections of the martyrdom story – which too proves nothing, given the fact that Ch. 7 had a life of its own (see above, n. 50). Moreover, there is little room for any confidence about 4 Maccabees being of Antiochan origin; see the discussions by H. Anderson, in OTP 2.534–537 (leaves issue open) and van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 78–81 (argues for provenance in Asia Minor). Similarly, but in an even weaker chain of arguments, Spicq – although convinced that the Epistle to the He- brews was written by an Alexandrian Jew – suggested that it was addressed to the Christian community of Antioch, and that this would explain Heb 11:35–38’s reference to the Maccabean martyrs and other similarities between Hebrews and 1–2 Mac- cabees (cf. below, p. 88); see C. Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux, I (Paris: Gabalda, 1952) 209–210, 250–252. But in fact there is little room for any confidence about that identification and location of the letter’s addressees; see E. Gräßer, Aufbruch und Ver- heißung: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Hebräerbrief (Beihefte zur ZNW 65; Berlin & New York: De Gruyter, 1992) 10–14 (on p. 14 this survey mentions a number of possible locations and Antioch isn’t even mentioned). On the diasporan origin of 2 Mac- cabees, see also above, p. 45, n. 100. 121 See Mélèze, “How to be a Jew?,” esp. 77–85. 122 See Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 1.170. 123 See NOTE on 14:37, one of the elders of Jerusalem. III. Historical Worth and Leading Ideas 53 how the author thought things ought to be.124 Indeed, in the absence of additional source-material testifying directly to a Jerusalem polis, such as the coins or inscriptions that are regularly available for other Hellenistic cities, we cannot even be sure that a polis was founded in Jerusalem.125 True, it does seem clear, today even more than earlier (see Appendix 2), that our author was of the opinion that one had in fact been founded, but direct confirmation that he was right about this would still be very welcome.126 So, while as a narrative our book’s account may stand as testimony to what its author thought should be the proper relationship between Judaism and Hellenism and between Jews and their Gentile rulers, for that very reason its status as historical witness to Jerusalem is somewhat suspect.127 The clarification of the diasporan nature of our book also allows us to evaluate better one of the more prominent differences between it and its Ju- daean parallel – 1 Maccabees: its version of the etiology of Antiochus’ persecution of Judaism. As we have noted, our diasporan author preferred to present the decrees against Judaism as the result of a misunderstanding: Antiochus inferred, mistakenly, that the Jews had revolted against him (5:11). Similarly, our diasporan author preferred to make the turnabout, and the Jewish victories, depend upon the blood of martyrs; he recounts their deaths at great length. All of this contrasts with 1 Maccabees, which did not need to offer any explanation for the decrees since Antiochus was a

124 Thus, for example, when Tcherikover (Hellenistic Civilization, 166–167) adduces 2 Macc 4:18–20 as evidence that citizenship in Antioch-in-Jerusalem did not require violation of Jewish law (“Scholars see in this ‘strange’ behavior of the Antiochenes a contradiction to their new status as citizens of a Greek city; but there was here no such contradiction, for Jason’s reform was not a religious one, and no law bound the citizens of Antioch-at-Jerusalem to make sacrifices to the gods”), we must wonder whether that was the case in Jerusalem or, rather, in Alexandria – or what the author wanted the case to be there. 125 For coins of Antiochus IV thought to have been minted in Jerusalem ca. 167–164 BCE, see Barag, “Mint of Antiochus IV.” But they do not name the minting authority, and seem to be a royal initiative. 126 Here I would take issue with Kennell, who wrote that “Thanks to the Tyriaion inscription, no reasonable doubt remains that Jason’s intention was to transform Jeru- salem into a polis along Greek lines” (“New Light,” 23); a more accurate summary of that inscription’s important contribution (shown so ably by Kennell, as also by Amel- ing [“Jerusalem”]) would be achieved by adding three words before “Jason’s intention:” “2 Maccabees means.” 127 Just as we suspect that our author’s account of Antiochus’ persecution of the Jews, and of Nicanor’s threat at 14:33, is colored by what a resident of the Ptolemaic kingdom would expect; see Appendix 5. 54 Introduction

Hellenistic king, all of whom were by definition wicked, and which explained the victories as having come about by virtue of Hasmonean heroism. As we have noted, it is obvious that the brief references to martyrs, at the end of 1 Maccabees 1, are meant only to highlight the differing program of the Hasmoneans, who are presented immediately thereafter (2:1ff.). In addressing this contrast between the two books, it is easy to admit that, on the one hand, 1 Maccabees is a court history and its narrative of these central events is meant to serve the Hasmonean dynasty, proving to all just how bad the Seleucid rulers who preceded them had been and how the means by which the Hasmoneans opposed the Seleucids were the only ones that produced results; all other Jews were either wicked or naïve. But just as above we warned against the false contrasting of these two books, so too here must we stress that the fact that 1 Maccabees had such an axe to grind does not mean that 2 Maccabees is any more reliable. The fact is that the claim that only mistakes and misunderstandings can explain how Jews get into trouble with their rulers is a common and indeed almost a necessary claim for diasporan historiography, for the alternative – that there is something real and fundamental that militates against peaceful co-existence under non-Jewish rule – is intolerable. Thus, for two examples, note that 3 Maccabees 1 claims that Ptolemy IV became wrathful toward the Jews only because he failed to understand that their refusal to let him enter the Holy of Holies of the Temple of Jerusalem was not out of hostility toward him, as they too were excluded from it; similarly, the Babylonian Talmud claims that the war that brought about the destruction of the Second Temple began because Nero was told that the Jews had refused to offer a sacrifice that he had sent, but was not told that the refusal did not bespeak rebellion but was merely due to the fact that the animal had been mutilated by a troublemaker.128 Here then as well we must ask: Must we really believe that no Judaeans rebelled against Antiochus IV Epiphanes upon hearing of his troubles in Egypt? Must we really believe that the rumors of Judaean rebellion that reached Antiochus had been false but the Jews of Jerusalem were for some reason incapable of making that clear to the king upon his arrival at the city? On the contrary, it seems – as Tcherikover argued (see NOTE on 5:7, coming to a shameful end) – that in fact a rebellion was underway, and that hints of this may be discovered in 2 Maccabees 5 despite

128 BT Gittin 55b-56a. Josephus, of course, tells a similar story in War 2.411–417, but there the refusal of the sacrifice was a matter of principle. For Josephus writing the War according to Judaean notions and learning to write diasporan history by the time he produced the Antiquities, see my Studies, 29–34 and “From the Maccabees,” 32–40. III. Historical Worth and Leading Ideas 55 our author’s attempt to cover it up. Similarly, we must ask if it is really clear that the martyrdom stories of 2 Maccabees belong where they are found. In fact, it instead seems these are “floating” stories which can easily move from one context to another, and we have already seen (pp. 19–20) that they were not originally part of Jason’s work. Were all of the material from 6:18 to the end of Chapter 7 to be absent, no one would miss it, just as is the case with the Razis story too (14:37–46); indeed, in both cases the story would have been smoother. But the desire to laud Jews willing to suffer and even to die for their faith is just as much part of standard diasporan historiography as is the motif of “the pious king” (see above, n. 113 and p. 50). To put matters more broadly: 2 Maccabees is a diasporan work dedicated to describing affairs in Judaea, affairs which lay in the background of the formation of a sovereign Jewish state there. It certainly gives us a good opportunity to look into the world of Hellenistic Jews, reflecting something of their diasporan experience and something of their Hellenistic experience. But as for the Palestinian events that it describes, respect and suspicion must go hand in hand. Respect, for the book preserves valuable material unpar- alleled elsewhere – material which at many points has been corroborated by other finds; suspicion, because most of those points are of secondary importance to the greater story – one that 2 Maccabees tells from the point of view of diasporan Jews, who lived in circumstances very different from those who lived the story and played it out. That is, the diasporan nature of our book may be seen not only in what it does not offer, such as details about the geography and topography of Palestine, but also in what it does offer, and in each case we must consider whether its content reflects only its own world or, rather, also the world it claims to describe. In the nature of things, it is not always possible to answer that question with any great security.

To summarize this chapter, we may note simply that the Hasmonean revolt, and its antecedents, are known to us via two main sources, both of which have their biases: one is dynastic and one is diasporan, one is well at home in the Land of Israel, its ways and its population, and one is well at home in the surrounding Hellenistic world and its culture. We need not choose between the two, nor give them marks, nor – even when recognizing their biases – must we despair. No historical source comes to us devoid of biases; with no interest, no one would write history. To have two such detailed sources about such a short period is not only exceptionally rich by the standards of ancient history; it also allows us to use the one to correct the other. Compare, for example, the situation regarding the first Jewish revolt against Rome, where we have Josephus’ Judaean War and very little more; 56 Introduction although we know there were other histories,129 they did not survive. Con- cerning the second revolt, under Hadrian, we know of no whole work at all and, apart from what archaeologists can supply, are dependent upon a few lines here and there and a page of Cassius Dio.130 For the Hasmonean rebellion we have two whole books, written within a few decades of the event, and there is every reason for confidence that, within the limits imposed by the distance of more than two millennia, careful evaluation of them can allow for a responsible reconstruction of “what really happened.”

129 See Josephus, War 1.1–8 and Ag. Ap. 1.46; Stern, GLA 1.455–457. 130 See Stern, GLA 2.393–395. IV. Between the Bible and Greek Literature 57

IV. Between the Bible and Greek Literature

Canonical Status: 2 Maccabees was transmitted as part of the Septua- gint.131 It is, of course, no surprise that it is not part of the Jewish canon, for the rabbis who defined that canon in the first and second centuries would never have considered including anything obviously composed in Greek, not to mention the fact that – as opposed to Daniel – it was so evidently composed after the days of Alexander the Great, which they took as a cut-off for the creation of divinely inspired writing.132 But for Christians, who were for obvious reasons firm believers in the possibility that works later than Alexander could be inspired, and for whom Greek was a natural language, there were no such impediments.133 True, even among Christians the status of Old Testament works not part of the Hebrew Bible – especially those composed in Greek – was somewhat problematic, and various canon-lists leave them out or group them at the end, as an appendix.134

131 Among the uncial codices, it appears, together with 1 Maccabees, in the Alexandrinus after the historical books and in the Venetus at the very end. It does not appear in the Sinaiticus. For additional lists, see below, n. 134. 132 “ … that is Alexander the Macedonian, who reigned for twelve years; until this point prophets prophesied in the holy spirit, but from now on: lend your ear and hearken to the words of the Sages” (Seder Olam Rabba, 30 [ed. Ratner, 140]). This opinion is already reflected in 1 Macc 9:27, which alludes to the end of the era of prophets; cf. ibid. 4:46 and 14:41, also Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.41, who alludes to the cessation of the exact succession of the prophets in the Persian period. See E. E. Urbach, “When Did Prophecy Cease?,” Tarbiz 17 (1945/46), esp. 2 (in Hebrew), and Milikovsky, “The End of Prophecy.” 133 The Christian need to believe in the continuation of prophecy may, of course, have played a role in Jewish denial thereof. See Urbach, loc. cit., 8–11, and, in general, on Jewish contrariness, C. Gordon, “Jewish Reaction to Christian Borrowings,” in: C. L. Meyers & M. O’Connor (ed.), The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1983) 685–690. 134 On the status of the apocryphal books in the early church see, in general: Beckwith, Old Testament Canon, 386–395, and Sundberg, Old Testament of the Early Church. For Christian canon lists (from biblical manuscripts, patristic writings and records of synods) see Sundberg, ibid., 58–59; H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testa- ment in Greek (rev. by R. R. Ottley; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 19142) 201–214; 58 Introduction

Nevertheless, despite the recognition of their secondary status these books were in practice accepted as full members of the canon. To cite some third- fifth century evidence of this ambiguous situation: – Origen: In a formal list of Holy Scriptures (cited by Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.25 [GCS 9/2, 576]) he included only twenty-two books, but then added that “apart from these there are τ ΜακκαβαCκ, which bear the title Σαρβησαβαναιελ.” It is not clear whether Origen is referring to 1 Maccabees alone,135 but in any case it is said, here, that τ ΜακκαβαCκ are outside the canon. However, one should note that Origen’s list is meant to reflect the Hebrew Bible, not to claim that only those books are holy (something which, of course, no Christian would suggest).136 Accordingly, we should not be surprised to find that elsewhere he cites 2 Maccabees (7:28) as proof for the belief in creatio ex nihilo and had no problem com- menting that the belief was thus documented on the authority of the Scrip- tures (“ex scripturarum auctoritate”).137 – Jerome: Here too, we find a discrepancy between formal status and actual use. On the one hand, Jerome rules that the authority of the apocry-

R. B. Cox, Jr., “The Nineteenth Century British Apocrypha Controversy,” (unpublished PhD. dissertation, Baylor Univ., 1981) 503–530. For use of the apocryphal works in the New Testament, see Bleek, “Stellung der Apokryphen.” For a partial list of citations from such works in other early Christian writings, see Cox, ibid., 553–565. 135 In which case the plural, τ, would be referring to “the events” rather than “the books” of the Maccabees. Since Origen’s term seems to reflect a Hebrew or Aramaic original (perhaps: sepher beit sarbanei ’el = book of those who rebelled [on behalf of? against?] God), indeed it is usually assumed that it refers to 1 Maccabees alone; see, for example, Menahem (Edmund) Stein, Dat veDa‘at (Cracow: Miflat, 1937/38) 116–117 (in Hebrew); Goldstein, 1 Macc, 15–21. However, it could be that the plural in fact means to refer to more than one book; for the assumption that 2 Maccabees too is meant, see Sundberg, Old Testament of the Early Church, 161–162. Note, in this connection, that in the passage from his De principiis mentioned below Origen refers to a passage from 2 Macc as being “in Machabaeorum libris.” This seems to indicate that he related to 1–2 Macc as parts of a larger work, comparable to Kgs or Chr. 136 A point emphasized by Sundberg, Old Testament of the Early Church, 135–138. Sundberg shows that Origen distinguished between the Jewish corpus and the Chris- tian Old Testament canon, the latter including some books not part of the former. See too: R. P. C. Hanson, Origen’s Doctrine of Tradition (London: S.P.C.K., 1954) 133–137; Hanson emphasizes Origen’s willingness to use such apocryphal works. 137 De principiis 2.1.5 (GCS 22, 111). Cf. Hilary of Poitiers, De Trinitate 4.16 (CCSL 62, 117): “Omnia enim secundum profetam facta ex nihilo sunt.” It is sometimes thought that his reference to an unidentified “prophet” alludes to 2 Macc 7:28. IV. Between the Bible and Greek Literature 59 phal books is less than that of the books of the Hebrew canon; the former should be read “ad aedificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem Ecclesiasti- corum dogmatum confirmandam” (for the edification of the people, but not to serve as the basis for church dogmas – MPL 28, 1243). Correspond- ingly, when preparing his Latin translations for what was to be the Vulgate, he left out 2 Maccabees and some other apocryphal books because he did not consider them as sacred as the others.138 Nevertheless, he uses our book several times, quoting it as “scriptura” when it suits his needs (to prove from 2 Macc 1:10 that “anointed” in Daniel 9:26 refers to a high priest).139 – Augustine: As with his predecessors, so too with Augustine we find a formal position excluding 2 Maccabees from the canon; indeed, we even encounter a polemic emphasis, as the context required, that Jesus made no reference to it at all when he referred to all of Holy Scriptures as the Torah, the Prophets and Psalms (Luke 24:44). But in the very same context Augustine also emphasizes that the Church had accepted the book as “not without profit, if it is read or heard soberly” (“si sobrie legatur vel audiatur”).140 Elsewhere, moreover, he cites our book just as if it were part of the Bible.141 In this manner the Church continued handling 2 Maccabees (as other apocryphal works) throughout the Middle Ages – formally excluding it while actually including it, as long as no one pressed the issue. During the Reformation, however, the status of all the apocryphal books became a major bone of contention as a corollary of the anti-Latin tendency to give preference to Hebrew for the Old Testament and Greek for the

138 On the Latin translation of our book included in the Vulgate see De Bruyne, An- ciennes traductions, xxxii–xxxiii. 139 CCSL 75a, 870. For the contrast between strict principle and lenient praxis in Je- rome’s definition of the canon and use of apocryphal books, and for their development over time, see Skehan, “St. Jerome and the Canon” and J. Braverman, Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel (CBQMS 7; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1978) 35–52. 140 CSEL 53, 237. This comes in the course of Augustine’s argument with Gaudentius, who was planning suicide in demonstration of his faith and depended inter alia on the example of Razis (2 Macc 14:37–46); Augustine, here as in his Epistle 204 (CSEL 57, 320–322), rejects such dependence upon our book. 141 See for example CSEL 80, 40–41, where 2 Maccabees is listed, without qualification, among the works of Holy Scripture. So too in CSEL 90, 47–49, the exemplum of the mother and her seven sons (2 Macc 7) is cited alongside that of Job as the Bible’s testimony (“de veteri testamento … scripturae illae”) concerning courageous people of faith. On Augustine’s use of our work, esp. Ch. 7, see: J. W. Wiles, A Scripture Index to the Works of St. Augustine in English Translation (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1995) 76–77. 60 Introduction

New.142 Beyond that, however, the status of our book in particular became an issue because Luther, throughout his career, had severe complaints about it: – Already in the Leipzig dispute of 1519 he rejected the belief in Purga- tory and the proof of it from the end of 2 Maccabees 12; – Defending that position in 1521 Luther emphasized that it is suspicious that in all of Holy Scriptures that belief appears only “inn dem ger- ingsten, vorachtisten (sic) buch” (“in that most valueless and despicable [?] book”); – In 1530, in a special pamphlet about Purgatory, Luther argued that proper interpretation of the end of Chapter 12 actually belies the belief in Purgatory, but just to make sure added some more words about that “unge- wissen verworffen” (uncertain [and] rejected) text. – In 1545, in the introduction to his translation of 2 Maccabees, Luther complained about Razis’ suicide (Ch. 14) and the differences between our book’s depiction of Antiochus IV’s death and the one appearing in 1 Macca- bees 6. According to his summary of the matter, although it could have been justified to include 1 Maccabees in the canon, it was justified to exclude 2 Maccabees, although the book does have some redeeming features.143 Luther died the next year, about two months before the Catholic Church published its formal response to all of this: in a reaction typical of such polemics, the Council of Trent decided to recognize all the books of the Vulgate, including 2 Maccabees, as having equal sanctity and authority.144

142 On “sacred philology” and its impact upon the canon, see J. Pelikan, The Reforma- tion of the Bible, The Bible of the Reformation (New Haven: Yale, 1996) 3–21. 143 M. Luther, Die gantze Heilige Schrifft Deudsch (1545, reprinted München: Rogner & Bernhard, 1972), 2.1900–1901 (on 1 Maccabees see ibid., 1841). On Luther on 2 Maccabees see Grimm, 2 Macc, 27–28; Ziegenaus, Kanon, 210–213; H. Volz, “Luthers Stellung zu den Apokryphen des Alten Testaments,” Luther-Jahrbuch 26 (1959) 96–97. For the above citations from 1519, 1521, and 1530, see, respectively, D. Martin Luthers Werke (Weimarer Ausgabe), 2.324–325; 7.453; and 30/2, 369. On Luther’s translations of the apocryphal works, which are in general freer than those of the canonical books, given their lesser authority, see: [C. L.] W. Grimm, “Luthers Übersetzung der alttestamentlichen Apokryphen,” TSK 56 (1883) 375–400 (391–396 on 2 Maccabees). 144 See see esp. P. G. Duncker, “The Canon of the Old Testament at the Council of Trent,” CBQ 15 (1953) 277–299; H. J. Sieben, “Die Kontroverse zwischen Bossuet und Leibniz über den alttestamentlichen Kanon des Konzils von Trient,” JBT 3 (1988) 201–214. For the council’s “Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures,” see Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (trans. H. J. Schroeder; Rockford, Illi- nois: Tan, 1978) 17–20. IV. Between the Bible and Greek Literature 61

The Reformers, now led by Calvin, responded of course with more of the same,145 and – as the rabbis would put it (m. ’Avot 5:17) – “an argument for the sake of heaven goes on forever.”146

2 Maccabees and the Hebrew Bible

Canonical status does not, of course, dictate our assessment of our book’s biblical nature. Is it like Ben-Sira (Ecclesiasticus), which is so similar to Proverbs and Ecclesiastes that it could have been part of the canon had – as was the case for Daniel – its post-Persian date not been known? Or is there a real divide between our book and those of the Hebrew Bible? As with so many other topics, the assessment of our book’s biblical nature usually is made, in introductions and encyclopedia articles, in comparison with that of 1 Maccabees. The result is nearly always the same: 1 Mac- cabees was composed in biblical (or pseudo-biblical) Hebrew, imitates biblical style, and generally has a biblical spirit, whereas 2 Maccabees was composed in Greek, does not imitate the Bible, and reads like a Greek work.147 Of course, there is a great bit of truth to these three generaliz- ations: the first (languages) is a given and the second, concerning imitation

145 On Calvin’s position see: W. Neuser, “Calvins Stellung zu den Apokryphen des Alten Testaments,” in: Text – Wort – Glaube: Studien … Kurt Aland gewidmet (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 50; ed. M. Brecht; Berlin & New York: de Gruyter, 1980) esp. 302–303, 316. Calvin, as Luther, opposed our book as part of the Purgatory controversy, emphasizing that the early Church did not accept the book fully into its canon; but he also opposed it because of the support it lends (at 3:31, 33; 15:14) to the belief that saints might intercede on behalf of others. As part of his argument Cal- vin is happy to pounce on our author’s admission (15:38) that his book might be less than perfect as proof that he did not even claim divine inspiration. See Calvin’s Insti- tutio 3.5.8 as well as his reaction to the Trent decision cited in our preceding note; see ibid., 411, 413. 146 See Cox’s dissertation (above, n. 134); Sundberg, Old Testament of the Early Church, 7–24; Ziegenaus, Kanon, 213–233; and the collection: Die Apokryphenfrage im ökumenischen Horizont: Die Stellung der Spätschriften des Alten Testaments im bib- lischen Schrifttum und ihre Bedeutung in den kirchlichen Traditionen des Ostens und Westens (ed. E. Jahr; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1989). As for disputes between Catholics and Protestants concerning the historical worth of our book, which was a pendant of the main dispute about canonical status, see Bickerman, Studies, 2.24–26. 147 We refer, of course, to the body of the work, not to the opening epistles. 62 Introduction of the Bible, is more or less true, although there are some cases in 2 Macca- bees as well:148 – It quotes one biblical verse (7:6 – Deuteronomy 32:36) and explicitly alludes to another (10:26 – Exod 23:22). And these are not isolated; rather, the use of Deuteronomy 32 at 7:6 is part of a much larger “reconciliation” complex, as we have seen (above, p. 22), and the allusion to Exodus 23:22 at 10:26 explains the appearance of the angels in 10:29 (see Exod 23:20, 23). – Both of Judas Maccabaeus’ speeches prior to battle with Nicanor cite the biblical precedent of the destruction of Sennacherib’s army (2 Macc 8:19; 15:22 – Isa 37:36//2 Kgs 19:35). – Nicanor’s arrogant threats, with outstretched arm (2 Macc 14:33; cf. 15:30, 33), seem likewise to be built upon Isaiah’s portrayal of the Assyrian king, who “stretched out his hand against the mountain of the house/ daughter of Zion” (Isa 10:32). – Similarly, the arrogance of Antiochus IV, and his worm-eaten end (9:9) seem to be meant to remind the reader of Isaiah 14’s portrayal of the rise and fall of the king of Babylonia,149 while his “stench” (9:9) is doubtless meant to be that of “the northerner” according to Joel 2:20. – The four preceding verses in Joel 2 (vv. 16–19), moreover, on other peoples who ask derisively “where is their God?,” on the Jews’ anxiety and prayers before the altar, and on God’s arousal to act on behalf of His land and His people, are echoed at 3:15 and 10:26. – The “officials to torment the people” (5:22) that Antiochus sent to Je- rusalem and Gerizim recall150 the “tax officials” (Exod 1:11) Pharaoh sent “to torment” (Deut 26:6) the Israelites, just as the prayer, “Let those who come with blasphemy against Your holy people be stricken down by Your great arm” (15:24), seems clearly to reflect the Israelites’ prayer at the Red Sea, “Let terror and fear fall upon them through Your great arm” (Exod 15:16). – Various other allusions, with this or that degree of certainty, may also be cited, including: the fifty-cubit high contraption of 13:5 and the three- day fast of 13:12 may recall Esther 5:14 (with 7:10!) and 4:16, just as the former may recall Ezekiel 28:18; Jason, who killed many of his countrymen and then fled to Ammanitis (5:7), is curiously similar to Ishmael ben Net- ania, who did the same and fled to the Ammonites (Jer 41:1–15); invisible

148 On the use of the Bible in 2 Macc see esp. van der Kooij, “The Use of the Greek Bible,” along with the index to Goldstein, 2 Macc, 573–595. 149 See NOTE on 9:9, worms. 150 Esp. in the Greek; see our NOTE on 5:22, officials to torment. IV. Between the Bible and Greek Literature 63 angels surround and defend Judas Maccabaeus (10:26–30) as if he were El- isha (2 Kgs 6:15–18);151 the mother of the seven sons seems to reflect a his- torization of Jeremiah 15:9 and at 7:28 she herself seems to allude to Isaiah 40:26; etc. Nevertheless, when all is said and done it remains the case that – apart from the pervasive and determinative use of Deuteronomy 32 – the biblical allusions in our book are not very numerous, and even if suggestions may be added to the list, it is not always clear – even with regard to some of those listed – that allusion to the Bible was in fact intended. In any case, these are exceptions to the rule that basically prove it. A writer who at 14:30 passes up the opportunity to mimic Genesis 31:2 cannot have been very concerned about echoing the Bible.152 Thus, the second generalization comparing 2 Maccabees to 1 Maccabees may basically be allowed to stand. Not so, however, with regard to the third. In my opinion, the generalization that 1 Maccabees is written in the spirit of the Hebrew Bible,153 and 2 Maccabees is not, is in need of serious revision. True, characterizing 1 Mac- cabees is not our concern here, but in order to set up our analysis of 2 Mac- cabees it is appropriate to focus on it briefly, citing the verdict on 1 Macca- bees authored by one of the most thorough students of both books, C. L. W. Grimm: “Since the book’s character and the tone of its story are, like its language, simple and like those of the Hebrew Bible, the book is usually compared, in this respect, to the Books of Samuel and Kings. Only in one not insignificant point (Nur in Einem nicht unwesentlichen Puncte) does it differ from the old Israelite historiography and align itself rather with the post-ex- ilic Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, namely, in that – in contrast with the old theological pragmatism – it no longer presents events in a supernatural light and no longer allows God, following a specific plan and directing events in miraculous ways, to move in and out through the webs of natural cau- sation.”154

151 See NOTE on 10:30, blindness. 152 See our NOTE on 14:30, But Maccabaeus, seeing. 153 See, for example, Kahana, HaSepharim, 84: “Its author wrote it in Hebrew and precisely in the style of the biblical books, for he was very well at home in them and full of their spirit. As a result he was able to write a book which is something of another link in the chain of the Holy book itself …” (my translation; emphasis in the original). 154 Grimm, 1 Macc, xvii–xviii (my translation). For similar observations, see Rappaport, “A Note on the Use of the Bible,” 175–178, and Schwartz, “Something Biblical,” 223–225. See also Gera, “Battle of Beth Zachariah,” 49–51. Gera suggested that we see in God’s general non-involvement a sign that 1 Macc is a Sadducean work, given Josephus’ statements about their denial of Providence (War 2.164–165 and Ant. 64 Introduction

One may well wonder how far Grimm’s tongue was into his cheek when he wrote that the notion of divine providence is, in assessing the biblical nature of an historical work, “not insignificant.” But this central element of biblical historiography,155 generally absent from 1 Maccabees (especially after its first four chapters), is very prominent in 2 Maccabees. This is evident first of all in the numerous and impressive apparitions,156 in numerous prayers (see above, p. 48), in speeches bespeaking trust in God and entrusting the outcome of events to Him (Ch. 7 passim; 8:16–20; 13:13–14; 15:7–9), in the enemies’ recognition, one after the other, of God’s superior power (3:39; 8:36; 11:13), in the author’s pedantic excurses to edify his readers about their own sins and God’s guiding hand (4:16–17; 5:17–20; 6:12–16), and in the frequency with which the villains are punished in ways precisely appropriate to their sins – which cannot, of course, be a matter of chance.157 If from the beginning to the end of 1 Maccabees the reader is encouraged to conclude that it is appropriate that the Hasmoneans rule Judaea, from the

13.173). Even if it is difficult to prove such a specific assessment (see Bar-Kochva, “The Description of the Battle of Beth Zacharia,” 17–20), it seems to me that Gera pointed in the right direction; note that 1 Macc is clearly a court history, written in the late second century BCE, and that around then the Hasmoneans were turning to Sad- duceeism (Josephus, Ant. 13.296; b. Qiddushin 66a; b. Berakhot 29a). In any case, it seems difficult to justify Stern’s assessment (Studies, 350), that the author of 1 Macc had “a deep religious sense,” explaining the author’s avoidance of direct reference to God as an expression of reverence. Rather, it seems to me that what isn’t mentioned isn’t there. Similarly, note that the entire book is devoid of the notion that suffering comes as a result of sin, that there are no “apparitions” and miracles, and that it is thrice noted that there are no longer any prophets (see 4:46; 9:27; and esp. 14:41, where it is difficult to imagine that the pro-Hasmonean author was interested in their reappearance). Again, God (ε«) is not mentioned at all, and after the first few chapters, which may reflect a generation that was still more biblically oriented, there is hardly any other reference to the Lord (Κριο« appears for the last time in Ch. 5, and even “Heaven” is mentioned only three times after that chapter), nor hardly any praying (see only 7:41–42, 9:71, 9:46 and the diplomatic window-dressing in 12:11). This development seems to reflect the success of the Hasmonean dynasty, which is quintes- sentially the opposite of the diaspora experience reflected by our book; cf. Deut 8:11. 155 On the “double causality” characteristic of biblical historiography, which leaves room for God’s real reasons alongside of human initiative, see Seeligmann, “Men- schliches Heldentum.” Seeligmann (73) discussed 1 Maccabees only briefly, focusing on its early chapters, and therefore did not address the absence of such a biblical orientation as the book progresses. See also Amit, “Dual Causality Principle” (who, however, does not discuss 1 or 2 Maccabees). 156 See NOTE on 2:21, heavenly apparitions. 157 See NOTE on 4:16, those for whose ways … IV. Between the Bible and Greek Literature 65 beginning to the end of our book the reader is encouraged to realize that God rules history and that He is the Jews’ covenantal partner – the main elements of biblical historiography. Moreover, we should stress that the structure of our book is no less biblical than it is Greek. The basic structure is simple and transparent: it begins with a rebellion against the ancestral regime in Jerusalem itself (Ch. 4) and the author immediately promises that, as the sequel will show, this must entail punishment: “For this reason they were overtaken by a difficult state of affairs, and those for whose ways they were enthusiastic, and whom they wanted fully to imitate, became their own enemies and nemeses. For it is no trivial matter to be impious vis à vis the divine laws. But this shall be shown by the next period.” (4:16–17) Indeed, difficulties begin to present themselves in the very same chapter, and they continue and intensify in the next, and in the next two after that as well – problems that begin between Jew and fellow Jew and turn into royal persecutions. But those latter lead to martyrdom, which makes for atonement, for the martyrs’ blood calls out of the ground to God, whose wrath therefore turns into mercy (8:4–5 – the book’s turning-point). From now on the Jews win their battles, for now God no longer stands aside (“hides His face”) as the Gentiles attack the Jews; rather, He now stands firmly behind them, and if any Jews fall in battle, it is because they, as individuals, have sinned and are therefore deserving of their fate (12:34, 39–41). This is a classic Greek structure, but also a classic biblical structure. On the one hand, it is the story of a city thrust into troubles and civil strife, saved by virtue of the death of a hero – a frequent topic in Greek literature. As van Henten has shown, the comparison to Euripides’ Phoenician Women is especially relevant; it opens with a struggle between two brothers and salvation comes when one of the city’s citizens commits suicide in circumstances quite similar to those of Razis; both scenes are the penultimate ones in their respective works, immediately preceding, and thus serving as the premise for, the city’s salvation.158 Moreover, Greek topoi abound; note, for some examples, the way Antiochus’ arrogance is implicitly compared with that of Herodotus’ Xerxes (see NOTE on 5:21, land navigable) while Eleazar’s death is implicitly compared with that of Socrates159 and the youngest of the seven sons is implicitly compared to Antigone (our NOTE on 7:30, What are you waiting for?), the way the Scythians are taken for

158 See NOTE on 14:43, did not manage to place the sword-stroke well. 159 See NOTE on 6:30, on the verge of dying … said. 66 Introduction granted as the barbarians par excellence (see NOTE on 4:47, Scythians) and the way drinking unmixed wine is a prime characteristic thereof (see NOTE on 15:39, wine by itself), and the way the civilization of the city is compared time and again to the animal-like life of the “boor” (see NOTE on 14:30, coarser). But whatever the language and whatever the topoi, it is – as we have seen (pp. 21–23) – equally clear that our author saw his story as a fulfillment of the script outlined in Deuteronomy 32: our sins bring God to hide His face, which allows for persecution (by unwitting foreign agents of God), which begets suffering and atonement and reconciliation and eventual salvation, along with vengeance visited upon the persecutors. There is no need to choose between these two models, just as there is no need to choose, with regard to specific topoi, between Jewish antecedents and Greek ones.160 True, our author was not a biblical author. But he was a Jewish author. Moreover, he was one of those happy people who was able to express a synthesis between two identities in a way that approached an integrated whole.161 We term this synthesis “Jewish-Hellenistic,” but for our author it was simply “Judaism,” which was a legitimate and respected way to be Greek.162

160 See, for example, our NOTES on 9:8, give orders to … waves, … weigh … mountains; 9:9, worms; 14:45, his blood flowing like a fountain. 161 Only “approached,” for in the nature of things double identity must impose some qualifications on each component, and there is also some basic tension between being religious and being part of this world. See, in general, Schwartz, “How at Home,” 352–357. 162 On the Jews of Egypt as a type of Greeks, see Mélèze Modrzejewski, “How to Be a Jew?.” V. Language and Style 67

V. Language and Style

“Wir müssen den geschwätzigen Schriftsteller nehmen so wie er ist.”163

The language and style of 2 Maccabees depart greatly from that usual in the Septuagint.164 Apart from the translationese and biblicizing language of the letters in Chapters 1–2, the book is, rather, a good example of the Hellen- istic koine of its day.165 In particular, its vocabulary is quite similar to that of another historian of the second century BCE, Polybius, and indeed this comparison is frequently quite useful.166 But that is not to imply any special relationship between the two works.167 Rather, Polybius simply serves us as a good witness to the standard Greek of the period, well known – also quite helpfully – from numerous inscriptions.168 The author of our work is well at home in Greek, his language is quite rich, and he uses the language with sovereignty. He plays with words (examples below), he uses rare words, and it may be that he also invented some; I noticed twenty-six words for which Liddell-Scott-Jones refers to our book alone, and perhaps there are more.169 In general, at any rate, the

163 Niese, Kritik, 14 (“We must take the blathering author the way he is”). 164 To illustrate this point I checked about 40% of H&R and found 116 words in our book that do not appear elsewhere in the Septuagint, not to mention many others that appear elsewhere in the Septuagint only in 3 Macc; see above, p. 45, and below p. 87. 165 The main studies of our book’s Greek are: Richnow, “Untersuchungen;” Gil, “Sobre el estilo;” Hanhart, Text; and Doran, Temple Propaganda, 24–46. See also Mugler, “Remarques.” 166 As is, therefore, Mauersberger’s Polybios-Lexikon. For this similarity see Grimm, 2 Macc, 7; Niese, Kritik, 31; Richnow, “Untersuchungen,” 63–71; and Risberg, “An- merkungen.” 167 One must remember that the sample is not huge; our book and Polybius’ are the long- est works of Greek historiography that survive from the Hellenistic period (Geiger, “History of Judas Maccabaeus,” 2). 168 For the similarity between Polybius’ Greek and that of the inscriptions, see E. Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa (Leipzig: Teubner, 1923) 152–154. 169 0λλοφψλισμ« (4:13), 0ναγνε α (4:13), 0πεψανατ ζ (6:28), 0ποστρεβλομαι (9:7), 0ργψρολγητο« (11:3), 0ρρενδ« (10:35), δεινζ (4:35), δεψτερολογω 68 Introduction author was fastidious about varying his vocabulary. True, at times such varying appears to be forced or artificial, such as when he changes terminology from one verse to the next, for example: – In two successive verses of his preface (2:26–27) he refers to his work as not having been easy, but he uses two separate words to do so (34διο«, ε$ξερ2« – rendered “light,” “simple”). – At 4:39–40 he uses two different terms for the populace of Jerusalem: “ … the multitude (τ" πλ#ο«) gathered up … the populace (τν Eξλν) being aroused …” – At 12:10–11 the same people are termed “Arabs” in one verse but “nomads” in the next. – At 12:24–25 Timothy presses his captors “to be set free” (7αφεναι) and they indeed “release” (0πωλψσαν) him. – At 12:31–32 Judas and his men go to Jerusalem to celebrate “the Fes- tival of Weeks” but leave it after “Pentecost.” In such cases the reader must at times pause to check whether both loc- utions are indeed referring to the same thing. But usually there is no such problem. Furthermore, in some cases the varying is positively enriching. Thus, for example, at 15:12, 14 we read that Judas Maccabaeus, in his dream, saw Onias praying (κατεξεσαι) for the Jews and introducing Jeremiah, who too is said always to pray (προσεψξμενο«) for them. The use of the unusual prefix for Onias’ prayer reflects the fact that he is (as in Ch. 3) portrayed as a priest and therefore ascribed the stance of a priest who prays blessings down upon the Jews (see NOTE on 15:12, having stretched out his hands …), while Jeremiah is left with the usual verb; he brings down to the earth not blessings but, rather, a sword. Similarly, the seemingly trivial difference between 0π)ργισται (5:17) and π)ργισται (7:33) turns out, upon reflection, to be part and parcel of a larger progression within the book, from a model which has God turning His face (παρρασι« – 5:17) away from the Jews in anger, thus leaving the Jews to the mercies of their enemies, to one in which He chastises them face-to-

(13:22), δισταλσι« (13:25), δψσπωτημα (5:20), λεψστωον (6:17), ρακισμ« (5:3), λεοντηδν (11:11), μψσρξη« (5:24), μοιχηφο« (14:20; but LSJ does list μχηφο«), παρεισπορεομαι (8:1), πολεμοτροφω (10:14; 14:6), προενωξεσαι (5:18), προπτ (6:20), προσε7ηγωομαι (15:11), προσπψρ (14:11), σπλανγξ- νισμ« (7:42), σψμμισοπονερω (4:36), σψνεκκεντω (5:26), Fπεψλαβωομαι (14:18), and ξρον σκο« (11:1). See also NOTE on 10:30, they scattered about in all directions. Of course, the fact that LSJ lists our book alone for a given word does not prove it doesn’t exist elsewhere, or that our author created it. V. Language and Style 69 face, as a father chastises his children (τοG« ο$ραν οψ« παδα« – 7:34; cf. 10:4 and Deut 8:5).170 The same awareness of language that leads our author to vary his terminology in adjacent verses also brings him time and again to repeat terms at strategic places so as to close circles or make related points. Thus, for example: – When Heliodorus first came to the city he was “received” by the high priest (0ποδεξε «), but when he left, having been humiliated, it was he who “received” (0ποδε7μενο«) the high priest (3:9, 35). – In the first verse of Chapter 4 Onias is accused as if he had been (“been appointed” – καεστηκ)«) the troublemaker, and in its last verse Menelaus goes on being (καεστ)«) the real troublemaker. – At the beginning of Chapter 5 the Jerusalemites had no idea whether the 7οπλισ α they saw boded good or bad (v. 2), but by the end of the chapter, going out to see the 7οπλισ α outside the city’s walls (v. 25), they learned the bitter truth. Moreover, the book displays a great variety of vocabulary, as we may illustrate by reviewing its story in outline form:171 – The Jews’ enemies “boast” (μεγαλαψξω [15:32]) and “lord over” (Fπερα ρ [5:23]) them, which is not surprising given the fact that they are characterized by “haughtiness” (0γερξ α [9:7]) and “arrogance” (Fπερηφαν α [5:21; 7:36; 9:7]); they let their “hearts soar” (μετερισμ« τ#« καρδ α« [5:21]) and “stretch out their necks” (Fχαψξω [15:6]), considering themselves – in their hybris, their “complete” and “superhuman” “imposture” (0λαζονε α [9:8; 15:6]) – to be above the bounds of man. – An enemy soldier might be armed with a “knife” (μξαιρα [5:3]), a “sword” (7 φο« [12:22]) or a “broadsword” (3ομφα α [15:15–16]), which he might use to “skewer” the Jews (κκεντω [12:6]; σψνεκκεντω [5:26, 13:15 – our author’s invention?]; σψγκεντω [12:23]) or even to “impale” them (0ναπε ρ [12:22]). – Such attacks could, of course, lead not only to “anguish” (0γν α [3:14, 16; 15:19], 0γνι [3:21]) but also to all sorts of “suffering” (τα- λαιπρ α [6:9], σψμφορ [6:12, 16], πνο« [7:36; 9:18]), “anguish,” “torture” (α κ α [7:42], α κισμ« [8:17]) or “torment” (βσανο« [7:8; 9:5]), and just plain “pain” (6λγο« [3:17], 0λγηδ)ν [6:30; 7:12], 1δνη

170 See Schwartz, “Divine Punishment.” 171 The following list does not attempt to exhaust the evidence for the words cited, but only to illustrate. 70 Introduction

[9:9]), not to mention “intense racking” (0ποστρεβλομαι [9:7 – our auth- or’s invention?]).172 – Faced with such threats, leaders must “awaken” the Jews (7εγε ρ [13:4], διεγε ρ [15:10]), “encourage” them (παρακαλω [6:12; 7:5]), “render them courageous” (ε$αρσε« παρ στημι [8:21]), “buoy up their spirits” (πιρρ)ννψμι τα« χψξα« [11:9]), “arm them with security” (καοπλ ζ 0σφλειαν [15:11]), “exhort” them (παραγγωλλ) and thus “bring them to a better morale” (προψμοτωροψ« κα στημι [15:9]) so as to “propel” them forward (παρορμ [15:17]). – For they must not succumb to “terror” (δωο« [3:17, 30; 12:22]), “fear” (φβο« [6:30; 12:22]), or “cowardice” (δειλ α [3:24]); the only fear they should allow themselves is the fear of God (“piety” – ε$σωβεια [3:1; 12:45]), which is what distinguishes them from their “impious” (0σεβε« [4:13; 8:2]) enemies. – The result, accordingly, is that the Jews indeed fought with “high morale” (ε$χψξ α [14:18]), “courageously” (ε$αρσ« [7:10]), and especially: with “manly valor” (0νδραγα α [14:18], ε$ανδρ α [8:7; 15:17]), “manfully” (0νδρε « [6:27], 0ρρενδ)« [10:35 – our author’s invention?], 0νδρδ« [14:43]) – that is, “eagerly” (ε$ρ)στ« [10:17]), “like lions” (λεοντηδν [11:11 – invention?]). – Which allowed them not only “to attack” their enemies (προσβλλ [10:17; 13:23], σψμβλλ [8:23], πιβλλ [12:9; 15:1]) but also to “rush out” against them (7ορμ [11:7], ρμ [12:20]) or “run in” among them (ε στρωξ [5:26]), to “throw themselves” into battle (μφωρ [15:17], πιφωρ [12:35], ντινσσ [11:11]), “storming” whatever lay in their way (νσε 3:25; 4:1; 12:15) and – rather than merely fighting from afar – “interweaving themselves” (μπλακωντε« [15:17]) among the very ranks of the enemy. – True, wars have their casualties: some Jews “die” (0πον2σκ [7:2], τελεψτ [6:30; 7:5, 14, 41]), “pass out of life” (μεταλλσσ τ"ν β ον [4:7; 5:5]; διαλλσσ τ"ν β ον [6:27]), or “leave life behind” (κλε π τ"ν β ον [10:13]) – but it is in a good cause, “dying the good death” (0πεψανατ ζ [6:28 – an invention?]).173

172 Note that 4 Macc followed our author in this regard, and in building upon 2 Macc (see below, p. 86) he developed an “almost inexhaustible torture-vocabulary” (Brei- tenstein, Beobachtungen, 181–183). 173 Not to mention “passing over to the gods” (ε « εοG« με στημι [11:23]). De Bruyne commented on the richness of our book’s vocabulary on dying; see his “Notes,” 408–9. With regard to death too, as torture (see n. 172), 4 Macc follows in our book’s footsteps; see Breitenstein, Beobachtungen, 185–186. V. Language and Style 71

– Moreover, they should never despair of the help supplied by God – who is, inter alia, the “All-Ruler” (Παντοκρτρ – 5:20; 6:26, etc.), “the all-powerful lord ( παγκρατ2« κριο« – 3:22), “the ruler of the spirits and of all authority” ( τν πνεψμτν κα πση« 7οψσ α« δψνστη« – 3:24), “the most high” ( Iχιστο« – 3:31), “the creator of the universe” ( το κσμοψ κτ στη« – 7:23), “the great Sovereign” ( μωγα« δεσπτη« – 5:20), “the living Lord” ( ζν κριο« – 7:33, 15:4), and “the all-seeing Lord” ( παντεππτη« κριο« – 9:5).174 – Indeed, with His help the Jews ultimately manage not only to “close in” upon their enemies (παρακλε [4:34]), but also to “overcome” them (ξειρ [4:34, 42]), “knock them down” (καταβλλ [4:42]), “smite” them (κπτ [5:12; 10:35]) or even “cut them down” (κατακπτ [1:13], κατασφζ [8:24; 10:37]), “lay them low” (καταστρ)ννψμι [5:26]) and “kill” them (0ναιρω [8:30, 32; 10:17]), thus “uprooting” them (κριζ [12:7]), “eliminating” them (παναιρω [14:2, 13]), “destroying” them (0πλλψμι [8:20; 10:23; 12:19], προσαπλλψμι [13:4]) – “wiping them out” (7αιρω [8:9]) and utterly “removing them from the world” (0πο- κοσμω [4:38])! This great variety of vocabulary, which – as noted – is at times enriching and at times contrived, means that there is a very large number of different words in our book. In this respect it is similar to other Hellenistic works,175 including other Jewish-Hellenistic ones.176

174 That 2 Macc is “an Gottesbezeichnungen sehr reich” was recently noted by Zimmer- mann, Namen des Vaters, 393. 175 See Cicero, Orator 37–42. On Greek wordiness see Acts 17:21; Plutarch, Life of Mar- cus Cato, 22–23; and N. Petrochilos, Roman Attitudes to the Greeks (S. Saripolo’s Li- brary 25; Athens: Faculty of Arts of the National and Capodistrian Univ. of Athens, 1974) 35–37. 176 As the following comparison will indicate. According to Breitenstein (Beobach- tungen, 15–17) there are 1582 different words in 4 Macc and 1734 in Wis. In Rahlfs’ edition of the Septuagint, where both books appear in the same format, the former fills 28 pages and the latter – 32, which means that each has around 55 words per page. As for 2 Macc, in order to estimate the number of words I counted the number of entries in which it is listed in about 40% of H&R (609 out its of 1497 pages) – not including entries for proper nouns, for variant readings, or for combinations of more than one word. 2 Macc is listed in 903 entries; if this sample is representative, then 2 Maccabees has altogether more than 2200 different words (apart from proper nouns). Given the fact that it fills around 39 pages in Rahlfs’ edition, this averages to 56.5 different words per page, very similar to the other two books. By way of comparison, see R. Morgenthaler, Statistik des neutestamentlichen Wortschatzes (Zürich: Gotthelf, 1958) 164: a table showing how many different words are used in each 72 Introduction

Style

Apart from its verbal richness the book’s style is also conditioned by two facts: (a) it is an abbreviation of a longer work; (b) it deals with struggles, both internal and external. The former makes for brevity, the latter – for intensity.

(a) Abbreviation: The book flows; at times, runs. The author, as he states in his preface, was not interested in “the precise clarification of each and every detail.” Rather, he strove “to follow the rules laid down for epitomizing” (2:28) and applied himself to “to arousing the imagination of those who wish to read (the story) [and] to making it easier for those who take pleasure in memorizing” (2:25); again at 10:10 he reminds us that he is out to “summarize,” just as at the end of his work he expresses the hope that readers will have found it “to the point” (15:38). To achieve this, he took two major steps: he left material out, and he formulated his narrative in ways that allowed him, as it were, to smuggle information in without actually having to pause to supply it. 1. Material left out: In the nature of things it is difficult to know what our author left out. Nevertheless, at times it is clear that he did exclude information. First of all, this is the case in the few instances where the text assumes that the reader knows a character who has not, in fact, previously been mentioned; thus Ptolemy son of Dorymenes (4:45), Callisthenes (8:33), Apollophanes (10:37) and Esdris (12:36).177 Altogether, however, there are not many slips like these. Similarly, it twice happens that a document quoted promises an attachment that is not brought (9:25; 11:17), and it may well be that the original works included them.178

book of the New Testament. The book with the highest number of different words is Acts, which – although significantly longer than 2 Macc (for it totals 18,374 words whereas 2 Macc, which fills 1186 lines in Rahlfs with an average of 8.85 words per line, has less than 10,500) – employs only 1,778 different words, apart from proper nouns, as opposed to the 2,200 we estimated for 2 Macc. 177 See Doran, Temple Propaganda, 81 and Bar-Kochva, JM, 170, n. 53; both apply this point as part of their rejection of Richnow’s suggestion (in his “Untersuchungen”) that our book is not, in fact, an epitome of a longer work, our author having invented Jason of Cyrene. For the assumption that when a book refers to characters as if they are known, but they are not, it may indicate that the book is a secondary version of a longer original, see e.g. G. Hölscher’s comments on Josephus’ War 1 and its lost source by Nicolas of Damascus – RE 1/18 (1916) 1944–1945. 178 See, however, our NOTE on 9:25, the things written below. For the way things should work, see e.g. Welles, RC, nos. 10–13 (three letters by Antiochus I to a governor and V. Language and Style 73

Much more frequent are the places where the author gives us the impression that he knows more than he reports. Thus: Jason sent Menelaus to Antioch “to take care of memoranda concerning pressing governmental matters” (4:23), Judas betook himself “to more pressing places” (10:19), and later his forces encountered a unit that Timothy had left “in a certain place” (12:18); Judas sent “the necessities” to those in Beth-Zur (13:20); eventually Judas and Nicanor “held the appropriate discussion” (14:22); etc. Moreover, although the entire procession of events is punctuated by one side learning of the other’s moves, apart from the badmouthing by Simon and Alcimus in Chapters 3 and 14 (which are part and parcel of the story) we never hear how this happens. Rather, Antiochus “received notice” of Ptolemy’s hostility (4:21) and later “news reached Antiochus” of the putative revolt in Jerusalem (5:11) and of the setbacks suffered by Nicanor and Timothy (9:3), just as Judas and his men somehow “received notice” of Lysias’ first invasion (11:6) and “news reached them” concerning Nicanor’s first and Lysias’ second (8:12; 13:1). How did they learn of each other’s movements? Spies? Informers? Deserters? We do not know, nor do we even know if our author knew – that is, if the original work gave these details. What is important, from the point of view of style, is that by alluding to the result and omitting the details the author gives us readers the impression, time and again, that he wants to rush on and not waste our time on such details. 2. As for brevity of phrasing – this too propels us along in our reading. The main tools our author employs are participles and passive verbs. Participles: These are much more frequent in our book than in other contemporary literature.179 This usage has two advantages. First, it allows the writer to smuggle into his narrative information about the background and circumstances of events without having to devote separate sentences to them. Moreover, especially when such participial clauses come before the main sentence they push readers along, not allowing them to pause. Thus, for example, the whole story opens as follows: (1) “The Holy City being inhabited in complete peace and the laws being observed optimally due to the high priest Onias’ piety and hatred of evil, (2) it happened that the kings themselves honored the Place and aggrandized the Temple with the most outstanding gifts, (3) just as King Seleucus of Asia

the latter’s cover-letter forwarding them to the city of Ilium); 1 Macc 11:30–37; 12:7, 19–22. 179 See Mugler, “Remarques,” 419–423, followed by Stern, Studies, 41–42. 74 Introduction supplied out of his own revenues all the expenses incurred for the sacrificial offices.” There is only one finite verb in this whole long period – “it happened” at the beginning of v. 2. Accordingly, the reader cannot stop after v. 1. But even “it happened” says very little, so the reader has to keep going to find out what happened, and that pushes him or her immediately into v. 3, which, in turn, is made to depend on v. 2 by the opening “just as.” Anyone who gets through these first three verses, perhaps breathless, will have received – having read only one “sentence” – a total picture of the background idyll, and is now fully poised to be upset by the opening “But” of v. 4. Or take the following section from Chapter 15: (20) “And while they were all expecting the coming decision, and the enemies had already come together, and the army had been arrayed and the beasts had been stationed in an opportune place and the cavalry had been posted in the wings, (21) Maccabaeus – seeing the arrival of the hordes, the diversity of weapons with which they were equipped, and the wildness of the beasts – raised up his hands toward heaven and called upon the miracle-working Lord, for he knew that it was not through weapons, but, rather, according to how He deems, that victory is secured for them who deserve it. (22) And calling upon Him he spoke in the following manner: […]” Here too, all the scene-setting in v. 20 and well into v. 21 contains no finite verb, and so – while giving us a good bit of information – propels us forward toward the final clash.

Passive verbs: The first verse of the story (3:1), quoted above, can also illustrate the usefulness of these: by saying that the city “was inhabited” and the laws “were observed” the author can avoid having to tell us who did these things, depending upon readers to figure it out for themselves, if they so desire. In this case it’s simple: both verbs obviously refer to the population of Jerusalem. Sometimes it is more difficult, for example at 6:11: “Others, who had come together in nearby caves in order to celebrate the seventh day secretly, were – after having been informed upon to Philip – burned together …” How many actors and actions have been thrust together here! The main actors are the “others,” and we hear of their previous action (“had come together”) and its reason (“to celebrate”) and their present “action” (being burned together). But we also hear of another actor, Philip, and we must infer that he acted (ordered the burning of “the others”) as well. Then there are also hints of other actors, unidentified: whoever did the informing (unknown, but probably some Jew) and whoever did the burning (Philip’s soldiers?). Thus, the full story was as follows: V. Language and Style 75

Actor Action “others” gathered together unknown Jew(s) (?) informed Philip ordered Philip’s soldiers burned

By using two participles (σψνδραμντε«, μηνψωντε«) and two passive verbs (the latter and σψνεφλογ σησαν) the author allowed himself to skip the details of the second and fourth items, details which were less important (perhaps also embarrassing – who informed?), and thus crowd the whole story into one heavily-loaded but nonetheless acceptable sentence. In this case, as opposed to that of 3:1, it is in fact not simple for us to fill in all the missing information; we do not know who did the informing. Sometimes it is even harder, although the case of 13:21 (“he was sought out and arrested and shut away”) is an extreme exception (see our NOTE ad loc. on one of the Jewish unit).180 But whatever they might lack in clarity, such sentences definitely possess in abundance the power to impress upon us that the author wants us to plow forward without delay. Two other standard Greek ways of pushing us along are the constant linkage of sentences to their predecessors by the use of some sort of conjunction; you can never really stop for long because your eye sees the next verse holding onto this one’s coattails, as it were, if only with a δω. More- over, the author frequently employs oppositional constructions, and once we’ve encountered the μων we of course have to push on until we get to the answering δω. Thus, for example, readers who finally get to the end of the long stories of Heliodorus (Ch. 3) and of the martyrs of Chapters 6–7 find in each case that the last verse includes a loud μων that pushes them on, willy-nilly, into the next chapter, with something of the knowledge that whatever plateau they had just reached, and might have thought about staying at for a while, will soon be upset by something “on the other hand.” Again, the author pushes us along by yet another method: by making frequent promises about what the continuation of the story will show. These function for us as checks, and we run along to see if and how they will be covered. Of course the most blatant cases of this are the three main authorial excurses (4:16–17; 5:17–20; 6:12–17), of which the first announces the tribulations to come and the other two promise relief. But there are also numerous shorter remarks that function the same way, such as:

180 In general, on the asyndetic formulations in the latter half of Ch. 13, see above, p. 34. 76 Introduction

8:11: “not expecting the All-Ruler’s justice which was going to pursue him.” 8:29: “they together petitioned the merciful Lord, asking that He become completely reconciled with His own servants.” 9:13: “And the abominable man made a vow to the Sovereign – who would no longer be merciful to him – saying as follows …” 15:5: “Nevertheless, he did not successfully carry out his abominable design.” All of these intimations about what is yet to come, even when it sounds surprising, urge us, as it were, to keep on reading.

(b) Struggles: The fact that the book is devoted to struggles is reflected in two primary aspects of the narrative, both of which make it a fast one: there are numerous scenes that portray confrontations, and lively language is used to involve the reader emotionally in the heat of the struggles. The confrontations are, first of all, real: numerous violent conflicts are portrayed. But time and again the author also employs rhetoric in order to make us feel the conflict. As is usual in antithetic Greek writing, he puts the characters on a stage, as it were, facing each other off before our very eyes. So, for example, in the Heliodorus story in Chapter 3, the scene preceding the climax: (22) “So they, on the one hand, were calling upon the all-ruling Lord to preserve the trusts whole and in complete security for them who had entrusted them, (23) while Heliodorus, on the other hand, was beginning to do that which had been decided upon,” is matched by one after it: (29) “Thus he, on the one hand, was voiceless and totally lacking hope and salvation, having been cast down by the divine intervention, (30) while they, on the other hand, were praising the Lord who had wonderfully glorified His own Place; and the Temple, which had just before been replete with terror and tumult, was filled with joy and mirth due to the apparition of the all-ruling Lord.” These two scenes surround the story in an inclusio that contrasts the two camps before and after, and already at the first scene readers are primed to wonder how it will turn out. Who could possibly stop reading in between? The same approach to antagonists appears throughout the book: 8:18: “For they trust in arms and audacity,” he said, “but we trust in the all-ruling God, who can with a single nod of His head overthrow not only those who are coming upon us, but the whole cosmos.” 10:28: “ … but as soon as the rays of dawn spread out they attacked one another: these having – along with their own virtue – their dependence upon V. Language and Style 77 the Lord as their guarantor of success and victory, while the others made their rage the guide of their struggles.” 12:14–15: “Those within, trusting in the strength of the walls and in the stockpiled food, behaved quite uncouthly toward Judas’ men – cursing and even blaspheming and saying things that are not allowed. (15) But Judas’ men, after calling upon the great Ruler of the world, who without battering rams and war-machines flung Jericho down in the days of Joshua, stormed the wall ferociously.” 15:6–7: “And so Nicanor, on the one hand, his neck outstretched in complete imposture, set his mind upon erecting a common trophy (celebrating his victory over) Judas’ men. (7) But Maccabaeus, on the other hand, was without letup in his total faith, with complete hope that assistance would be made available to them by the Lord …” Again, whenever the narrative resumes after some apparent resting- point, this occurs by a renewal of conflict. So, for example, at 12:1–2: (1) “After these covenants had been concluded, Lysias, for his part, went back to the king, and the Jews, for theirs, turned to their farming. (2) But some of the local governors – Timothy, and Apollonius son of Gennaeus, and also Hieronymus and Demophon – and, additionally, Nicanor the Cy- priarch, did not allow them to settle down and keep still.” And so too the resumption of activity at the beginning of Chapter 13: (1) “In the 149th year the news reached Judas’ men that Antiochus Eupator had come with hordes against Judaea, (2) and with him Lysias his guardian and head of state, each having a Greek force of 110,000 foot-soldiers, 5300 cavalrymen and 22 elephants, along with 300 scythed chariots.” The beginning of Chapter 14 is especially instructive in this connection: (1)“ In the third year thereafter the news reached Judas’ men that Demetrius son of Seleucus, having sailed into the port of Tripoli with a strong force and fleet, (2) had taken control of the country …” As opposed to the other examples, in this case the fact is that what is reported does not directly resume the clash between the Seleucids and the Jews, and the fact that Judas’ men heard what they did about the Seleucids in fact elicits no response at all. If the author nevertheless chose to formulate the resumption of his story this way, it is a particularly eloquent expression of his basic position that his story is one about clashes, so anything which happens in the Seleucid camp, if it is to be interesting, must be reported in terms of the Jews hearing about it. By doing so, he as it were begs his readers’ patience, promising them that this Thronwechsel will soon turn out, nevertheless, to prove relevant to his story. And we readers, in consequence, indeed go rushing on to see whether the credit we have afforded the author was well-placed. 78 Introduction

The intensity of the struggle is also reflected in the author’s willingness to highlight and celebrate his enemies’ defeats. Despite all his urbanity, these struggles were so intense that he felt not at all bound by any expectation of sine ire et studio; he wrote with no holds barred, was sure that his story was a tale of the forces of good vs. the forces of evil, and when the latter got what they deserved, gloating was the legitimate order of the day. Thus: 3:28: “And so he who just before had entered the aforementioned treasury with a large entourage and all his bodyguard was carried off, powerless to aid himself with his weapons, having plainly recognized the power of God.” 5:9–10: “Thus he who had forced great numbers (of people) from the fatherland to go abroad himself perished abroad, having set sail to the Spartans hoping to find shelter by virtue of kinship. And thus he who had cast forth a multitude of people without burial was himself unmourned, having neither a funeral nor burial in an ancestral grave.” 8:36: “Thus he who had undertaken to take care of the tribute (owed) to the Romans by taking the Jerusalemites captive proclaimed that the Jews have Someone who fights for them, and that it is for this reason that the Jews are invulnerable: because they follow the laws ordained by Him.” 9:10: “And he who just a bit earlier had thought he could touch the stars of heaven – no one could bear him due to the intolerable burden of his stench.” 13:7–8: “Such a death happened to befall Menelaus, without his even attaining (any burial place) in the ground, and very rightly so – for since he had committed many sins against the altar, of which the fire and ashes are pure, death came to him in ashes.” Some of these examples also testify to the “make the punishment fit the crime” rule discussed above; it too makes sense only when our story is viewed as one ridden with conflict, in which one side persecutes the other. The reader who reads of the “tit” is already on the lookout for the “tat” that, in this world governed by Providence, simply must come. The other way the struggles impact upon the book’s style is in the way the author depicts them employing very lively language meant to spark an emotional response in the reader, who will thereby share something with the actors themselves. Such style is usually termed “pathetic,” and since Niese and Bickerman our book has been considered one of the prime examples of this style of Hellenistic historiography.181 In the Heliodorus

181 For the characterization of our book’s style as “pathetic,” see Bickerman, Gott, 147; Tcherikover, HC, 387; Adinolfi, Questioni bibliche, 59–74; Geiger, “History of Judas V. Language and Style 79 story we actually have nearly explicit invitations to share the feelings of the actors,182 as our italics in the following two passages indicate: 3:14–17: “And the anguish all over the city was quite considerable. The priests, throwing themselves before the altar in their priestly vestments, called to heaven, upon Him who legislated concerning deposits, to preserve them inviolate for their depositors. And it pierced the mind to see the high priest’s face, for his appearance and the changes of coloration revealed the anguish of his soul. For the man was inundated by terror and bodily trembling, through which the pain in his heart became apparent to his observers.” 3:21: “And anyone who saw the prostration of the entire community all mingled together, and the anxiety of the highly anguished high priest, had to be moved to pity.” But even without such invitations, the result is the same: 7:20: “The mother was exceedingly amazing and worthy of being remembered well – she who, after watching the destruction of seven sons on one and the same day bore it in high morale due to her hopes upon the Lord.” 15:19: “Among those who had been left behind in the city there was no merely marginal anguish, for they were upset about the (upcoming) assault in the open field.” Most frequently, however, it is simply the lively diction that is meant to arouse us, e.g.: 5:11–13: “… his spirit maddened like a beast’s, after coming back from Egypt he took the city at spear-point and ordered his soldiers mercilessly to smite those who fell into their hands and to cut down those who had returned to their houses. And there was destruction of young and old, disappearance of women and children, slaughter of virgins and infants.”183 11:6: “When Maccabaeus’ men received notice that he (= Lysias) was besieging the strongholds, together with the populace they beseeched

Maccabaeus,” 2. Niese (Kritik, 33–34) meant the same thing when he used the adjective “rhetorical,” as do others who – in the wake of Polybius 2.56.10–11 – use “tragic;” so for example Bar-Kochva, JM, 172–178. I prefer “pathetic,” for “rhetorical” is too general and “tragic” has been part of the problematic thesis that there was a school of ancient historiography that actually advocated writing history like tragedies; see Doran, Temple Propaganda, 84–89, following Walbank, “History and Tragedy.” 182 This too is characteristic of “pathetic historiography;” see for example Diodo- rus 17.36.1–2. 183 See our NOTE ad loc.; the poetic nature of v. 13 heightens the pathos all the more. 80 Introduction the Lord, with wailing and tears, to send a good angel to the rescue of Israel.” 14:45–46: “Still breathing, and burning up in rage, he stood up – his blood flowing like a fountain and his wounds quite severe – and after traversing the multitudes on the run he stood up on a precipitous rock. Totally out of blood, he bared his innards and, taking them in both his hands, threw them into the mob; and in this manner, after calling upon the ruler of life and spirit to return them to him again, he passed away.” Another way of heightening the pathos, cheaply but effectively,184 is the use of exaggerated numbers when describing the size of enemy armies (2:21; 8:9, 20; 11:2, 4; 12:20; 13:2) and Jewish casualties (5:6, 14, 26).185 The author also uses word-play to underline contrasts between heroes and villains, such as: 4:6: “For he saw that without royal providence (πρνοια) it would be impossible for the state to attain peace again, nor would Simon’s folly (6νοια) ever cease.” 4:27: “Menelaus, for his part, took over the government (κρτει), but as for the monetary payments he had promised the king – he did not at all keep them up (ο$δν ε$τκτει).” The use of the rhyming verbs (even at the expense of using the proper tense)186 points up the fact that Menelaus, although the ruler, looked out for himself alone.187 5:9: “Thus he who had forced great numbers (of people) from the fatherland to go abroad (τ#« πατρ δο« 0πο7εν)σα«) himself perished abroad (π 7ωνη« 0π)λετο).” The prefix 0π quite properly moves from Jason’s sin to his punishment, tit for tat. 8:36: “Thus he who had undertaken to take care of (κατορ)σασαι) the tribute (owed) to the Romans by taking the Jerusalemites captive proclaimed (κατ2γγελλεν) that the Jews have Someone who fights for them,

184 In this case, the ploy is not limited to pathetic historiography. Although it is typical of the latter (see for example Adinolfi, Questioni bibliche, 30–31, 72–73, and Bar- Kochva, JM, 64–65), it characterizes 1 Macc as well; see our NOTE on 2:21, so that although they were few in number. 185 But the latter can’t be done after the battles because they all take place after God has again become merciful (8:5), so even a few Jewish deaths require special explanation (as at 12:40). 186 See below, p. 557, n. 120. 187 For a similar case, note 10:14: “But Gorgias, upon becoming commander of the region, collected mercenaries (7ενοτρφει) and at every occasion waged war (πολε- μοτρφει) against the Jews.” The rhyme points up the fact that whatever he did just caused trouble. V. Language and Style 81 and that it is for this reason that the Jews are invulnerable (δι τ"ν τρπον τοτον 0τρ)τοψ«): because they follow the laws ordained by Him.” In the Greek κατορ)σασαι and κατ2γγελλεν are juxtaposed, highlighting the contrast. As for the last phrase, it may well be that the tongue-twisting concatenation of t…tr…t…tr…t (pointed out to me by Emmanuelle Main) is calculated to make us laugh at Nicanor’s expense in this closing verse of the central chapter of our book. 9:17–18: Antiochus vows “that, moreover, he would become a Jew and, visiting (πελεσεσαι) all inhabited places, would proclaim the power of God. But since the suffering did not at all let up – for he had already been visited (πεληλει πB α$τν) by the just judgment of God – he gave up hope for himself and wrote the Jews the letter …” 11:2, 4: Lysias invades “thinking (λογιζμενο«) to make the city a residence for Greeks” but “not at all giving more thought (ο$δαμ« πιλο- γιζμενο«) to the power of God.” 14:29, 31, the hero beats the villain at his own game: “ … (Nicanor) awaited an opportunity to fulfill (the king’s order) by stratagem (στρατηγ2ματι) … When he realized that the man had out-stratagemized him with aplomb (γεννα « … στρατ2γεται)…” Many of these cases have a satirical bite to them. In particular we may note the way the author likes to play with prepositional prefixes, such as with λογιζμενο« … πιλογιζμενο« in 11:2, 4 (above). Or, for a case that contrasts not villains and heroes but, rather, the real Fighter to the apparent ones, see 13:14–15: in two successive verses Judas first entrusts (δοG« δω) the outcome of the battle to the Creator and only thereafter “assigns” (0ναδοG« δω) a motto to his men.188 For a special case of this, note the frequent jokes at the expense of Anti- ochus Epiphanes: already two verses in the author’s preface (2:20–21) move from Antiochus “Epiphanes” to the heavenly epiphaneiai (apparitions), Chapter 9 includes several plays on Antiochus’ hyperephania (arrogance – vv. 4, 7, 11) and it is emphasized that it was precisely Antiochus’ own suffering that allowed God “to appear” (become phaneran – v. 8); the parting shot comes in Chapter 10 which, after referring to the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, introduces his son, Antiochus Eupator (= Good-father!), as “the son of that impious man.”

188 For other cases of apparent emphasis on the prepositional prefix, see NOTES on 7:11, look beyond, and on 13:18, by devious routes. For a case in which the desire to play such a game (Fποτσσν Fπ" πωτασον) apparently overrode practical considerations, see NOTE on 4:12, sun-hats. 82 Introduction

In order to remind readers that the story is one of righteous vs. wicked, and also so as to move it along briskly, the author uses stereotypical descriptions of his characters; the similarity among them functions like uni- forms associating them with this or that side, and so the author needn’t pause to characterize them individually. Thus, for example, as Goldstein notes (2 Macc, 476), the big picture is that in Chapters 14–15 Alcimus plays the role Simon played in Chapters 3–4 and Nicanor plays that of Heliodorus in Chapter 3 and that of Antiochus Epiphanes beginning in Chapter 6. But at the level of details as well, anyone who reads the account of Menelaus’ mission to the king (4:23–24) will recall Jason’s mission (4:7–9) and realize that they are similar villains, and anyone who reads of Alcimus’ mission, which is presented in 14:5 as an attempt to fulfill his madness (τ#« δ α« 0νο α«), should recall Simon’s madness (6νο α) of 4:6, which will in turn remind him or her of the good Onias’ mission and clarify just how hypocritical Alcimus was:

2 Maccabees 14:7–10 2 Maccabees 4:5–6 I have now come hither, first out (Onias) betook himself to the of genuine concern for the king’s king, interests, and secondly having regard also for my own fellow- not as a plaintiff against his citizens (τν δ ν πολιτν). fellow citizens (τν πολιτν), For due to the thoughtlessness of but, rather, with his eyes set the aforementioned people our upon the benefit of each entire nation has in no small and every member of the measure become disinherited. And community. For he saw that you, O King (βασιλε), knowing without royal providence all of this, give providential attention (βασιλικ#« προνο α«) it (προνο2ητι) to the country and would be impossible to our beleaguered nation, with the same love of mankind with which you graciously receive everyone. For as long as Judas for the state to attain peace is around it will be impossible again, (0δνατον εJναι τψξεν for the state to attain peace ε ρ2νη« *τι τ πργματα) (0δνατον ε ρ2νη« τψξεν nor would Simon’s folly τ πργματα). (τ#« 0νο α«) ever cease.

Thus, just as the allusion at 14:3 to Alcimus’ willing self-defilement during hard times casts him as the opposite of Judas Maccabaeus and his men (5:27) and concomitantly prepares the way to make the soon-to-be-men- V. Language and Style 83 tioned Razis (14:38) into the antithesis of Alcimus and into a new Judas-like hero, the passages compared in this table are meant to display Alcimus as a poor parody of Onias. Or, for another example, anyone who reads the long list of promises in 9:16 is supposed to recall 3:3 and see the contrast between the villain who belatedly promises everything and his predecessor, Se- leucus, who did what he undertook to do:

2 Maccabees 9:16 2 Maccabees 3:3 … and that he would deck out the Holy Temple – which he had previously pillaged – with the most beautiful votive offerings, and that he would restore many times over the sacred vessels and King Seleucus of Asia supplied out supply from his own revenues of his own revenues all the the expenses incurred for the expenses incurred for the sacrifices (τ« δ πιβαλλοσα« sacrificial offices (ξορηγεν κ πρ"« τ« ψσ α« … κ τν δ ν τν δ ν προσδν … τν προσδν ξορηγ2σειν). ψσιν πιβλλοντα).

This type of repetition clarifies for the reader that the book deals with the same conflict throughout, even when the actors change, thus allowing the author to save time introducing the new ones.189 In fact, moreover, at a basic level the main actors do remain the same throughout. The first verse of the middle chapter (8:1), right before the turning-point of the whole book (8:5), characterizes its heroes as “those who remained in Judaism;” and it is this pivotal point that accords unity to the book. Looking back, the struggles depicted in the preceding chapters (and now summarized in 8:2–4) may now be understood as having been between those Jews who wished to adopt “Hellenism” (4:13)/Greek ways (4:10, 15; 6:9; 11:24)/“foreignism” (0λλοφψλισμ« [4:13; 6:25]) and those foreigners who wished to impose such upon the Jews, on the one hand, and, on the other, those Jews who “remained in Judaism.” Looking forward, the clashes from this point on may now be understood as one prolonged struggle waged by those who remained in Judaism, to free Jerusalem – the book’s focus – from those who would sever it from Judaism.190 The difference between the two sections of the book derives from the difference between the Jews being

189 For more play with the same terminology, see NOTE on 4:14, ministries. 190 See NOTE on 2:21, for Judaism. 84 Introduction in a state of sin, and hence deserving of suffering, in the first section, and the Jews being in a state of atonement in the second section; but the nature of the struggle does not change at all. This unity is made all the clearer by the arch that now begins to stretch from this middle chapter to the final chapter, both of which are devoted to clashes with “thrice-accursed Nicanor” (8:34; 15:3).191 Accordingly, readers of Chapter 14 will recognize that Razis’ loyalty to Judaism during the time of persecution (14:38) is another round of that of Judas and his men (5:27; 8:1), just as Razis’ martyrdom is another in the series narrated at length in Chapters 6–7, and this will lead readers to expect that just as those events were followed by the first victory over Ni- canor, so too the events in their image presage a new victory over him. This new victory, moreover, may justifiably be expected to fulfill not only the prayer of 14:35–36, which pertains to the current episode, but, in fact, given the way we have been reminded of Chapter 8, it should also fulfill the prayer for “total reconciliation” which came at the end of that first victory over Nicanor (8:29).192 Thus, the book’s story is not about a series of events over a given period of time, but about a single prolonged struggle. This unity, with its frequent presaging of the next step, denies readers convenient stopping points and urges them on to the end.

191 For the artificial nature of this unity, see NOTE on 14:12, Immediately selecting Nicanor. 192 On the verbal similarities between Chs. 8 and 15, which contribute to the reader’s understanding that it is all one story, see above, pp. 17–18. VI. Reception and Text 85

VI. Reception and Text

1. Who Read 2 Maccabees? 2 Maccabees was written with Jewish readers in mind, and although we may occasionally discern hints that the author – if not some copyist – took non-Jewish readers into account,193 it is not at all surprising that prior to the rise of Christianity there is no evidence for non- Jewish readers. After all, “the fact … is that the translation of the Holy Scrip- tures into Greek made no impression whatever in the Greek world, since in the whole of Greek literature there is no indication that the Greeks read the Bible before the Christian period.”194 But there is not much evidence for Jew- ish readers either. True, the book was transmitted as part of the Septua- gint,195 and the letters appended to its beginning indicate that official Jeru- salem, of the Hasmonean period, encouraged the Jews of the Diaspora to

193 See NOTE on 7:1, forbidden flesh. 194 See V. Tcherikover, “Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered,” in: Eos 48/3 (1957 = Symbolae Raphaeli Taubenschlag dedicatae, III) 177. See also Stern, GLA 1.361–362 and Rinaldi, Biblia Gentium. On the general ignorance of the Romans with regard to Jewish literature see also M. Radin, “Roman Knowledge of Jewish Lit- erature,” CJ 13 (1917–1918) 149–176. (For the suggestion that a papyrus of the first or second century CE, P. Oxyrhynchus 2944, shows that Philiscus of Miletus, of the fourth century BCE, knew the story of Solomon’s judgment [1 Kgs 3:16–28], see J. Mélèze Modrzejewski, “Philiscos de Milet et le jugement de Salomon: La première référence grecque à la Bible,” BIDR3 30 (1988) 571–597. But maybe the text was authored by a Jew, and in any case we should distinguish between knowing this famous story and knowing it from the Bible; note [with Stern, GLA, 1.viii, n. 5] that it mentions neither Jews nor Solomon.) Rinaldi’s book, that deals with references to the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament in pagan literature of the first few Christian centuries, cites no evidence for anyone reading 2 Macc, apart from Porphyry of Tyre, of the third century CE. Fragments of his Adversus Christianos – as preserved in Je- rome’s commentary on Dan 11 (CCSL 75a, esp. 919–932; see also Stern, GLA II, nos. 464q-464s) – clearly reflect knowledge of the first two Books of Maccabees, as is shown by their contents and by occasional references to that which “we read in Mac- cabees” (in Machabaeis legimus) and to the Maccabaeorum libri, although some allusions are hard to pin down and it is also not clear whether those explicit references to the books are Porphyry’s or Jerome’s. 195 See above, p. 57. 86 Introduction read it.196 Nevertheless, until the late first century C.E. (at the earliest)197 we know for sure of only one Jewish reader of our book: the author of 4 Mac- cabees, who retells at length the martyrdom stories of 2 Maccabees and also includes a version of the Heliodorus story. Philological comparison leaves virtually no room for doubt about its use of our book.198 As for other possible Jewish readers, there is not much to discuss. In all of Philo’s corpus there is, it seems, only one passage which might indicate knowledge of 2 Maccabees, and even that passage (That Every Good Man is Free, 89), which alludes to cruelty and torments, lacks any very specific pointers to our book.199 Josephus seems clearly – given both what his books do include and what they do not include – not to have known 2 Maccabees. True, there are a few tantalizing points at which he agrees with its story,200 even against his major source (1 Maccabees), but in the absence of common errors or the like there is little reason to suppose that he got his material

196 So too, we may note that here and there it seems that glosses have been introduced into the text; see above, p. 37, n. 80. The fact that they are attested to by many or all of the witnesses points to their antiquity. 197 For this usual dating of 4 Maccabees see Breitenstein, Beobachtungen, 173–175; van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 73–78; idem, “Datierung.” Recently van Henten has raised the possibility of redating the work to the third or fourth century CE; see idem, “Martyrdom and Persecution Revisited,” 62–63. 198 See van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 70–73; Dupont-Sommer, Le quatrième livre, 26–32. For a list of numerous words that appear in both parallel narratives see Brei- tenstein, Beobachtungen, 18–19 (who doesn’t even bother proving that it is 4 Macc that depends on 2 Macc and not the other way around, for – at least since Dupont- Sommer – that is more or less universally accepted). 199 The passage relates to cruel tyrants who dismember their subjects while still alive but in the end suffer the same terrible fate, and it has been thought that this alludes specifically to 2 Macc 7:4–5 and 9:9. So Zambelli, “Composizione,” 197, n. 1, followed by Habicht, 2 Macc, 177. But although it is indeed likely that the reference is to Anti- ochus IV, given the facts that the event is said to have occurred in “the (Jewish) land” and is followed by something that seems to refer to Herod and so probably alludes to some earlier tyrant, there does not seem to be sufficient reason for confidence that Philo drew specifically upon our book and not on general knowledge or some other source. For skepticism, see Momigliano, “Second Book of Maccabees,” 88 (“no evidence”) and Goodman in Schürer, History, 3.534. 200 See especially Goldstein, 2 Macc, 26–27, n. 80. For the main agreements, compare 6:2, 11; 11:4; 13:3–5; and 14:1, respectively, to Ant. 12.257–264, 274 (burning is not mentioned in 1 Macc 2:29–38); War 1.41 (eighty elephants); Ant. 12.384–385 (see above, p. 36); and 389 (Tripoli is not mentioned in 1 Macc 7:1). For the usual assumption, that Josephus, nevertheless, did not use our book, see Grimm, 2 Macc, 13, 20–21 and Stern, Studies, 44–45. VI. Reception and Text 87 from our book in particular. Growing up in Jerusalem he could have learned details of the Jewish side of the story (such as the fact that those who fled to caves were burned [6:11]) from any number of sources, and as for details of Seleucid history (such as the fact that Demetrius arrived in Syria specifically at Tripoli [14:1]), we know that he had access to detailed material on that dynasty and its history. As for 3 Maccabees, here the picture is less clear, for it has much in common with 2 Maccabees, beginning with numerous words201 and including Temple-invasion stories (2 Macc 3//3 Macc 1–2) that are quite similar one to another.202 Nevertheless, given the fact that it tells a different story even in this case it is difficult to infer dependence, and since although 3 Maccabees is a later book203 its Temple-invasion story appears to be simpler (= more original?) than that of 2 Maccabees, it seems wiser to ascribe the similarities to a common cultural background, and perhaps to common traditions, than to literary dependence.204 It is hard to guess why the cupboard is so bare. Arnaldo Momigliano suggested that 2 Maccabees was doomed because it was meant to be read in public; in his opinion it was too complicated for that, and was also hampered by the fact that it is built to lead up to Nicanor’s Day, rather than to Hanuk- kah.205 That suggests that had it been fit for Hanukkah it would have enjoyed more use. However, the problem might be deeper, for there is in fact no Jew- ish-Hellenistic evidence of interest in Hanukkah, apart from Josephus – who grew up as a priest in Jerusalem and proud descendant of the Hasmoneans, and so can hardly represent all of Hellenistic Jewry concerning this topic.206

201 For a list of twenty-five common words or combinations see Emmet’s introduction to 3 Maccabees in APOT 1.156. A check of about 40% of H&R (see above, n. 164) uncovered another fifteen. 202 See above, p. 5. 203 It is usually dated to sometime in the first century BCE; see Tromp, “Formation” and Parente, “Third Book of Maccabees.” The former tends toward the end of that century, while the latter – as also Alexander (“3 Maccabees, Hanukkah and Purim”), Johnson, Historical Fictions, 129–141, and Hacham, “Third Book of Maccabees,” 221–243 – tends rather towards its beginning. 204 So too Emmet (above, n. 201) 157: “The impression left is that both books belong to the same school of thought, and probably to the same period.” Recently, however, Alexander, who is preparing a commentary on 3 Macc, has expressed the assumption that it used our book and even reacted to it; see his “3 Maccabees, Hanukkah and Purim,” 332–339. 205 See Momigliano, “Second Book of Maccabees,” 88. 206 The same goes for the reference to Hanukkah in John 10:22, which too seems to reflect Palestinian tradition; see C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1963) 210–211, 426–427. 88 Introduction

That is, the lack of interest in 2 Maccabees (and a fortiori – in its Hebrew counterpart, 1 Maccabees) displayed by Hellenistic Jews may be only one aspect of their more general lack of interest – due to their different cultural, religious and political situation – in the Temple, in holidays in its honor, and in the history of a sovereign Jewish state that did not last very long.207 In contrast, there is much evidence for Christian interest in our book. Within the New Testament canon it is generally recognized that the Epistle to the Hebrews shows knowledge of it. For when we read at He- brews 11:35–36 that “Women received their dead by resurrection (5Ελα- βον γψνακε« 7 0ναστσε«), others were tortured on the torture-wheel (τψμπαν σησαν) … and yet others suffered mocking (μπαιγμν)…” it is all but impossible not to see here allusions to 2 Maccabees 6:19, 28 (τ" τμπανον) and the story of Chapter 7, including the μπαιγμ« of 7:7 and the mother’s prayer at 7:29 to receive her children back at the resurrection (7:29); similarly, the reference in Hebrews 11:38, to those forced to take refuge in the deserts and mountains and caves, points straight to our 10:6.208 As for post-canonical Christian literature, Abel compiled an impressive list of allusions to our book, beginning with a single and general reference in the Shepherd of Hermas in the mid-second century and flowering into specific references and citations in Clemens Alexandrinus, Hippolytus, Origen and others.209 Lactantius’ De mortibus persecutorum, written in the fourth century, describes those who persecuted Christians as latter-day Antiochuses à la 2 Maccabees; Rougé even dubbed Lactantius’ work “the Fifth Book of Maccabees.”210 Naturally the martyrdom stories in our book were particularly popular among Christians, and they were cited repeatedly, eventually taking on a life of

207 For the general lack of Jewish-Hellenistic interest in the Temple per se, see above, pp. 46–48. For Hanukkah as a part of Hasmonean propaganda which was not welcomed enthusiastically by all Diasporan Jews, see Stemberger, “La festa di Hanuk- kah,” 528 and Alexander, “3 Maccabees, Hanukkah and Purim,” 332–339. 208 See e.g. O. Michel, Der Brief an die Hebräer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 196612) 418, n. 3 (“Der Sprachgebrauch des Hebr ist offenbar durch 2Makk ge- formt”); C. Rose, Die Wolke der Zeugen: Eine exegetisch-traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Hebräer 10,32 – 12,3 (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1994) 312–315. Cf. above, p. 52, n. 120. 209 See Abel, Macc, viii–xi. On the impact of our book’s martyrologies on the Apostolic Fathers see J. W. van Henten, “Zur Einfluß jüdischer Martyrien auf die Literatur des frühen Christentums, II: Die Apostolischen Väter,” ANRW II 27.1 (1993) 700–723. 210 See Rougé, “Le de mortibus,” and Creed’s introduction to his edition of DMP, xxxvii–xxxix. VI. Reception and Text 89 their own,211 especially given the development of a Christian cult in memory of the Maccabean martyrs.212 Thus, for example, a recently-published papyrus, apparently of the third century, includes a Coptic version of 2 Maccabees 5:27–7:41,213 and in the fourth century we find John Chry- sostomus’ three sermons “On the Maccabean Martyrs and Their Mother” (MPG 50, 617–628). But not only the martyrdoms attracted such attention. Inclusion of the book in the Christian canon, however qualified (see above, pp. 57–59), guaranteed that it would be read and used more generally. Thus, for example, it seems that Chrysostomus’ fifth sermon against the Jews uses our book (without direct citation) as part of an attack on Julian’s attempt to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem: depending on the story told by the second introductory epistle, the Antiochian father pointed out that even had Julian succeeded, his temple, given the absence of fire from heaven, would have lacked all holiness.214 Another popular section was the end of Chapter 12, from which one could derive support for belief in resurrection, purgatory and the efficacy of intercessional prayer; as we have seen (above, p. 60), this was, accordingly, a passage that would eventually elicit barbed criticism from Luther. But in other and less controversial fields as well, such as the belief in angels, miracles and creatio ex nihilo,215 our book served the Church well. And on a more popular level, it seems that medieval readers (and listeners) simply found 2 Maccabees to be good reading, supplying, as it does, an ancient version of a tale of knights in shining armor (and even some heavenly steeds), miracles, and saints.216

211 As we have noted (p. 20, n. 50), this could reflect, in part, the fact that they began with a life of their own. 212 On this Christian cult, celebrated on August 1, see: Maas, “Die Maccabäer als christliche Heiligen;” Rampolla, “Martyre et sépultre;” and Vinson, “Gregory Nanzianzen’s Homily 15.” On the possibility of Jewish antecedents, see Bammel, Judaica, 79–85 (= TLZ 78 [1953] 119–126); Downey, Antioch, 110–111; and Roth-Gerson, The Jews of Syria as Reflected in the Greek Inscriptions (Jerusalem: Shazar, 2001 [in He- brew]) 241–250. Everything points to Antioch as the place where the cult originated. 213 See E. S. Meltzer & H.-G. Bethge, in: J. E. Goehring (ed.), The Crosby-Schøyen Codex Ms 193 in the Schøyen Collection (Lovanii: Peeters, 1990) 81–133. 214 Compare MPG 48, 900 on Julian’s “abominable hands” (μιαρ« κε νοψ ξερα«) to 2 Macc 5:16, and see Brändle, “Auswirkungen,” 238. 215 See NOTE on 7:28, God did not make them out of existing things. 216 On the popularity of the book in the Middle Ages, see Dunbabin, “The Maccabees as Exemplars.” It seems that the first commentary on our book was written (along with one on 1 Maccabees) in the ninth century (MPL 109, 1223–1256); see Savigni, “Istanze ermeneutiche.” 90 Introduction

Rabbinic literature and medieval Jewish literature, in contrast, show next to no interest in our book (as most of apocryphal literature). True, the story of the mother and her seven sons may be found in several works, but – as we have seen even with regard to 2 Maccabees itself (above, pp. 19–20) – it had a life of its own, so there is no need to trace Jewish retellings of the story to our book, especially given the fact that it was in Greek and they were in He- brew.217 Josippon, a tenth-century Jewish version of Josephus which quite obviously used some version of 2 Maccabees, is a striking exception.218

Text

Given 2 Maccabees’ inclusion in the Christian canon and popularity among Christians, it is not surprising that, as Habicht notes (2 Macc, 191), there is a “relatively rich” textual tradition, both direct and indirect (translations and citations). But the tradition is nevertheless quite secure; according to

217 On the original independence of the martyrologies of Chs. 6–7, see above, pp. 19–20. On their history in Jewish literature, see n. 50. For the suggestion that the differences between the story of the mother and her seven sons in Pesiqta Rabbati (ed. Ish-Sha- lom, 180b) and that in Lamentations Rabbah (ed. Buber, 84–85) indicate that the former used 2 Macc 7, see: I. Lévi, “Le Martyre des sept Macchabées dans la Pesikta Rabbati,” REJ 54 (1907) 138–141. But this is not much more than speculation. Against Levi, see G. D. Cohen, “Hannah,” 58–59, n. 62 (where, however, the presentation of Levi’s case is somewhat inaccurate). For a possible echo of our book in a Jewish liturgical poem, see NOTE on 15:33, cutting the tongue … ; but the poet could have gotten this detail from another tradition, or perhaps he made it up. Similarly, there is a striking similarity between our Ch. 9 and the death of Antiochus IV as depicted in a liturgical poem by Rabbenu Gerschom Meor HaGolah (eleventh century): see Rabbenu Gerschom Meor HaGolah, Selihot uPhizmonim (ed. A. M. Haberman; Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1953/54) 21 (in Hebrew) and my “Why Did Anti- ochus?,” 259–260. But given the fact that there is a similar account in Josippon (ed. Flusser, 1.84–85), and it seems that R. Gerschom copied Josippon (see Flusser, ibid., 3–6, but also the doubts expressed recently by H. Soloveitchik, “Halakhah, Herme- neutics and Martyrdom in Medieval Ashkenaz,” JQR 94 [2004] 280–281), there is no need to assume he saw our book too. For the Hasmoneans in Jewish medieval consciousness, see Flusser, “Memory of the Maccabees;” see also Elizur, “Piyyutim.” 218 For Josippon’s use of 2 Macc see ed. Flusser, 1.61–106 and 2.397 (index). In something of a Jewish version of Abel’s love for the Vetus Latina (see below, n. 222), Zeit- lin used Josippon very frequently in his commentary to 2 Macc. For another case of exceptional interest in our book among pre-modern Jews, a manuscript of 1442 con- taining a Hebrew translation (from the Latin) of about 9 chapters, see Rothschild, “Une pièce tardive.” VI. Reception and Text 91

2 Maccabees’ editor in the Göttingen Septuagint, Robert Hanhart (Text, 60), there is hardly a case in which textual problems impact upon the sense of our book’s historical content. The foundations for modern textual work on the text were laid by Hanhart’s predecessor, Werner Kappler, in his 1929 Göttingen dissertation on the subject: De memoria alterius libri Macca- baeorum. Kappler’s work was first held up by officials who thought that work on the Old Testament was an occupation too narrow and marginal for a classicist and did not fit the Nazis’ focus of classical philology upon the classical period; later, in 1939, Kappler was drafted into the German army and died in service in 1944.219 His work was eventually inherited and completed by Hanhart, whose edition (“copiis usus quas reliquit Werner Kappler”) was published in 1959; its corrected second edition, published in 1976, is the basis for the present translation. In brief, the textual testimony may be summarized as follows.220 Al- though not in the Sinaiticus, our book is included in the other two of the great Septuagint uncial manuscripts: the Alexandrinus (fifth century) and Venetus (eighth), as well as in more than thirty miniscules, of which the earliest is from the ninth century.221 These Greek witnesses are divided into two main groups: those that reflect the editorial work of Lucian of Samosata (d. ca. 312), who strove to improve and regularize the received Greek texts, and those – including the Alexandrinus – that do not. Hanhart, following Kappler, naturally built especially on the latter. This fairly simple picture is complicated by the Vetus Latina. This text, which became available in the twentieth century due to the efforts of Dona- tien de Bruyne, who (together with B. Sodar) published it in full in 1932 (Les anciennes traductions latines des Machabées), just after Kappler finished his dissertation, aroused great enthusiasm – especially in the work of Abel, whose influential commentary was the next to appear; Abel frequently adopted its readings.222 Although as a translation one might expect this version to enjoy only a secondary status, two main arguments have been urged as reason to give its testimony special status: it is quite similar to

219 See C. Wegeler, “ … Wir sagen ab der internationalen Gelehrtenrepublik:” Altertums- wissenschaft und Nationalsozialismus – Das Göttinger Institut für Altertumskunde, 1921–1962 (Wien, Köln & Weimar: Böhlau, 1996) 236–237. 220 The following summary is based for the most part upon the introduction to Hanhart’s edition, upon Katz’s review of it (“Text”), upon Hanhart’s response (Text), and upon Kilpatrick’s 1963 review of both of Hanhart’s works (see bibliography). 221 For an annotated list of the manuscripts see Rahlfs, Verzeichnis, 387–390. 222 For Abel on the Vetus Latina see his Macc, lv-lvii. Among the enthusiastic reviews, see E. Bickerman, TLZ 58 (1933) 340–341 and A. Vaccari, Bib 14 (1933) 477–481. 92 Introduction the version of 2 Maccabees evidently used by Cyprian in the mid-third century, and thus bears witness to a pre-Lucianic text; and some of its readings seem best to explain the varying and problematic readings of other witnesses. 2 Maccabees 9:9 is an excellent example: where most of the Latin witnesses have worms coming out of Antiochus’ eyes (“de oculis”), which represents the Greek κ τν 1φαλμν, and most of the other witnesses (including the Greek ones) have them coming from “his body” (κ το σ)- ματο«), the Venetus has them coming out of “the eyes of his body” (τν το σ)ματο« 1φαλμν), which makes no sense. Here it seems likely, as De Bruyne argued, that the Latin witnesses preserve the original text, which would have been κ τν 1μμτν; that copyists who had trouble with this poetic word for eyes either substituted (as in the Greek witnesses) the more normal 1φαλμν or else – consciously or unconsciously – “corrected” it into το σ)ματο« instead; but that “eyes” – although using the more common 1φαλμν – survived long enough to be incorported alongside of “body” in the Venetus.223 There are other cases like this, and especially the cases as this one, where the Greek is longer than the Latin and seems to be a combination of the original reading (preserved in the Latin) and a corrected one, are convincing.224 Another contribution of the Vetus Latina is the discovery that many cases thought to have been Lucianic corrections are actually older readings.225 Nevertheless, a translation is still only a translation, and at times it is difficult, or even impossible, to decide when a better reading is better because it’s more original and when it’s better because it solves a problem in the original. And even when we try to work according to the usual guidelines, preferring the harder readings and the shorter readings (lectio difficilior, lectio brevior) on the presumption that copyists will tend to make hard texts simpler and to add rather than omit, in practice their application is far from

223 See De Bruyne, Anciennes traductions, viii (note on 9:9), also idem, “Notes philologiques,”407–8. In this case De Bruyne is followed by Hanhart half-way: while he agrees to read only “eyes,” he uses 1φαλμν although De Bruyne (“Notes philologiques,” 409) had concluded that “On n’hésitera pas à accepter ομματν comme la vraie leçon.” Typically (see below), Hanhart doesn’t even mention that possibility in his apparatus ad loc. 224 For a list of such passages, see De Bruyne, Anciennes traductions, vii-ix. See also ibid. x–xi, on “minuses” in the Latin as compared to the Greek, which might indicate secondary expansion of the Greek; in support of this see esp. Katz, “Text,” 18–21. Han- hart (Text, 21–28), in contrast, tends to view them as evidence for shortening by the Latin translator. 225 For the higher assessment of Lucianic witnesses in the wake of study of the Vetus Latina, see esp. Kilpatrick’s review of Hanhart, 19–21. VI. Reception and Text 93 simple.226 Frequently, for example, we hesitate to prefer the harder reading precisely because it is so difficult that although it is unlikely a scribe created it deliberately, it seems just as unlikely that the author did. That is, difficult readings may simply be errors.227 Moreover, arguments asserting that we should prefer a putative lectio difficilior to the received text typically claim that the correction will solve some problem with the received text – but that claim means, ipso facto, that the received text is “difficult” – so maybe it should be preferred after all. As for the lectio brevior rule, what is the validity of the presumption that the shorter reading is to be preferred when we are dealing with a book whose author clearly loved to play with words and pile them on, even to the point that a copyist might view some of them as superfluous? Shall we, for example, eliminate 7:32 because it repeates things said in 7:18 and 7:33 (see NOTE on 7:32, suffer … sins)? Or, for a case within a single verse (3:15): “The priests, throwing themselves before the altar in their priestly vestments, called to heaven, upon Him who legislated concerning deposits, to preserve them inviolate for their depositors.” One might well think the words “to heaven” (ε « ο$ρανν) superfluous, and already Niese proposed they be excluded as an unnecessary gloss; subsequently it also became known that most Latin versions lack these words, leading Katz to join the call to exclude them.228 However, Hanhart quite properly responded that the same duplication recurs at the end of the book, at 15:34 (“And turning toward heaven [ε « τ"ν ο$ρανν] they all blessed the God who had become manifest”), according to the Latin evidence as well, and that the reference to “heaven” in Chapter 3 serves to prepare us for v. 34 (add: and v. 39), which underline that succor indeed came from heaven.229 In this case, therefore, it seems quite easy to agree with Hanhart that the Greek text, although longer, should be preferred over that represented by the Latin which he views as Lucianic “ironing out” of putative difficulties. In any case, the doubt hardly matters from most points of view. Other cases are harder, sometimes more weighty too. Let us look, for example, at the first verse of Chapter 7: “It also happened that seven

226 On both rules, see Tov, Textual Criticism, 302–7; on lectio difficilior, see also Al- brektson, “Difficilior lectio probabilior.” 227 See Tov, ibid., 303: “However, although the basic validity of this rule cannot be denied, many scholars have recognized that the rule is nevertheless problematic and impractical, since it fails to take into consideration simple scribal errors. After all, by definition, often a scribal error creates a lectio difficilior.” 228 See Niese, Kritik, 111; Katz, “Text,” 13. 229 See Hanhart, Text, 18. 94 Introduction brothers had been arrested together with their mother and were being forced by the king, tortured by whips and cords, to touch the forbidden flesh of swine.” The explanation that swine-flesh is “forbidden” is not found in three Greek miniscules, nor in the Vetus Latina, and so the latter’s editors, again followed by Katz, surmised that it is an explanatory gloss added by copyists of the Greek text: “Un juif aurait jugé superflu de noter que la chair de porc était une nourriture défendue.”230 Hanhart, however, thinks it likelier that the Greek manuscripts lacking the word lost it via homoioteleuton: τν 0εμ τν Fε ν κρεν.231 Note, in this connection, that Jews know that the Sabbath is a holy day, and nevertheless our author notes that fact at 5:25 – according to all witnesses. Is it so clear that a Jewish author would not point out, perhaps for Gentile readers, perhaps simply for rhetorical effect, that pork is forbidden to Jews? Indeed, may we not assume that most Gentiles – certainly most Bible copyists – know that? And couldn’t we imagine that some who themselves eat pork might in fact prefer to leave the word out? Conjectures like these can go back and forth endlessly. Regarding lectio brevior potior we may summarize, then, by noting, with Kilpatrick, that the rule is applicable only insofar as all other things are equal, and that that condition is met, as Hanhart showed, much less frequently than one might think.232 As for lectio difficilior potior, it is not always simple to know what is easy and what is hard, nor what is so difficult that it is not reasonable or possible. After all, every mistake is difficult for someone who knows the truth. Let us take two examples, one minor and one more central to our book’s story. At 10:26, Judas’ men are said to have thrown themselves, in prayer, upon the κρηπ « opposite the altar – so the Greek witnesses. Ac- cording to several Latin witnesses, however, they threw themselves opposite the crepis of the altar. Given the fact that κρηπ « typically means “foundation,” there is some room to prefer the Latin witnesses: as Abel points out (Macc, 413), the Latin text makes our passage parallel the scene at Joel 2:17 where the priests lament “between the porch and the altar,” that is, across from the altar. (For use of Joel 2:16–20 in our book, see also above, p. 62.) However, Joel speaks of what the priests did, while our text speaks of all of Judas’ men – and non-priests were not allowed to approach the altar. More- over, we know that there were steps leading from the Court of Israel to that

230 So De Bruyne, Anciennes traductions, x; so too Katz, “Text,” 19 and Abel (in his commentary [Macc, 371], although he retains the word in the Greek text printed in his edition). 231 Hanhart, Text, 25. 232 See Kilpatrick, “Text,” 12; Hanhart, Text, 22. VI. Reception and Text 95 of the priests (where the altar was), and that it was common to pray upon them.233 So can we really be sure – sure enough to depart from all our Greek witnesses – that the Latin witnesses are correct, and not just a learned attempt to bring our text into line with Joel? Our more central example is one which – exceptionally – is of consequence for the historical content of our book: what shall we say of the pedigree of the book’s first villain, Simon (3:4)? The Greek evidence unanimously identifies him as a Benjaminite. But if that is the case, then – given the fact that our author claims Menelaus was Simon’s brother (4:23) – the result is that Menelaus, who was to become high priest, was not, according to our author, of priestly descent (for Jewish priests are Aaronites, of the tribe of Levi). That would be surprising, and many would also claim it is impossible, especially in light of the fact that the book makes no comment about this anomaly. Hence the enthusiasm with which the Vetus Latina’s de tribu balgea was received and accepted, for it identifies Simon (and hence Menelaus) as a member of one of the priestly families, Bilgah (1 Chr 24:14); even Hanhart adopted this reading into his edition. However, accepting that reading assumes not only (a) that it was impossible or very improbable that Menelaus could have been high priest if of Ben- jaminite descent, but also (b) that our author – who did not find the Temple cult and its details of the greatest interest (see above, pp. 46–48) – could not have written that, at least not without adding words taking umbrage at it, or (c) that the statement at 4:25 that Menelaus was not equipped with anything worthy of the high priesthood cannot imply knowledge of the problem with his descent; and (d) that only modern scholars, but not ancient ones (even those who were well at home in the Bible and knew that high priests ought not be of Benjaminite descent), could be so bothered by “Ben- jamin” that they would be happy to change it by assuming that it had been written, in error, by someone unfamiliar with another name that began with a B – like “Bilgah.” None of these assumptions is a given. And there are other considerations as well, such as the presumption that φψλ2 refers to one of the twelve tribes of Israel (such as Benjamin) and not to a priestly clan (for which the normal Greek term is φημερ «/ α),234 and that 1 Macca-

233 For more on this, see our NOTE on 10:26, threw themselves … 234 For the standard use of φψλ2 for tribes and φημερ «/ α for priestly courses (as in Jo- sephus, Ant. 7.367; 12.265; Vita 2; Luke 1:5, 8), see BDAG, 1069 and 418. Although identification of Jews by reference to the Israelite tribes is rare in the Second Temple period, it is not unheard of, especially not with regard to the tribe of Benjamin, which was thought to be among those that returned from the Babylonian Exile; see Ezra 1:5, 4:1 etc.; As. Mos. 4:8; Rom 11:1; Phil 3:5. 96 Introduction bees 7:14, where the pious greet Menelaus’ successor with enthusiasm because he is an Aaronite, seems to imply that Menelaus was not an Aaronite. Given these doubts, I prefer to adhere to the Greek text in this case, although no one can claim certainty. In short, although each case has to be addressed separately, in general I retain the Kappler-Hanhart preference for the Greek tradition, especially insofar as it is free of Lucian retouching. We should note, however, that alongside the general praise for Hanhart’s edition there was also not a little criticism concerning not these basic preferences but, rather, his aversion to modern conjectures. Numerous conjectures have been offered over the years, based on context and on parallels, but Hanhart by and large ignored them and even refused to register them in his critical apparatus if they are not found in extant witnesses. Hanhart’s critics, on this point as others, eli- cited a detailed response from him, and – as I note at various passages – it seems to me that in most cases his defense of his text is to be accepted, or that his text is to be defended in some other way; for an example, see Ap- pendix 8.235 Nevertheless, at times I have preferred to depend upon secondary witnesses, or upon conjectural emendation of the text, especially when the presumed error may readily be explained palaeographically.236

235 For some other examples, see our NOTES on 2:25, those who take pleasure; 6:8, At Ptolemy’s suggestion; 6:18, to open his mouth; 8:9, from various peoples; 8:23, and also Eleazar; 10:11, governor-in-chief …; 10:30, Two of them; 12:28, who with power; 12:42, that the sin that had occurred; 14:29, sought an appropriate opportunity; 14:40, for he thought to cause them suffering by arresting him; and 15:11, than anything else. See esp. Hanhart, Text, 31–32, where – as he exemplifies concerning 14:29 – he states his basic position that readings which are possible in Hellenistic Greek, and well-testified, should not be emended away; if they are unusual readings, that is not very surprising for such a flashy author as ours (see above, p. 67). 236 For some examples, see our NOTES on 1:21, When they informed him that in fact they found no fire; 1:35, drawn out; 4:48, who had spoken …; 9:12, “ … being mortal …”; 11:18, I approved them myself; 14:17, minor … appeared; and 15:33, of his head. VII. Literature 97

VII. Literature

Hanhart’s edition is the major resource for any study of 2 Maccabees. Among the commentaries, I have found four to be the most useful, as follows: – Grimm’s 1857 commentary is still the most useful for all that regards the language itself and parallels in Greek literature; – Abel’s 1949 edition is very good with regard to religious issues and biblical parallels, although his translation is often free (and its frequent preference for the Vetus Latina, noted above, is not always a blessing); – Habicht’s 1976 translation and commentary, which is much shorter than the others, is precise and particularly helpful with regard to the Hel- lenistic context; – Goldstein’s 1983 commentary, almost six hundred pages long, is helpful concerning just about every issue, large and small alike, that the book raises or touches upon. It is somewhat difficult to use this commentary on a hit and run basis, however, because he has some overriding theories about the book’s sources and about “what really happened,” and because these are bound up with theories he began to build in his preceding volume on 1 Maccabees.237 As for the translation, apart from Liddell-Scott-Jones’ Greek-English Lexicon, I found Mauersberger’s Polybios-Lexicon, Spicq’s Notes de lexicographie néo-testamentaire, Walbank’s Historical Commentary to Poly- bius, and Welles’ Royal Correspondence to be most helpful. For the commentary there is no end, of course, to potentially useful literature, some of which I have listed in the bibliography. But I should note that Bar-Kochva’s Judas Maccabaeus, Van Henten’s Maccabean Martyrs, Gera’s Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, and Stern’s The Documents on the History of the Hasmonaean Revolt were especially important for my work.

237 Some reviewers took Goldstein to task for interpreting the book on the basis of such theories; see, among others, E. S. Gruen, CBQ 47 (1985) 520–521 and S. J. D. Cohen, JAOS 105 (1985) 799–800. However, it is clear that things really happened and that there were sources, so one cannot condemn attempts to find them. Cf. K.-D. Schunck, TLZ 112 (1987) 263–265. 98 Introduction

VIII. Abbreviations and Bibliography1

AB Anchor Bible ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vols.; ed. D. N. Freedman; New York: Doubleday, 1992) AC L’antiquité classique AfP Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete AGAJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Ag. Ap. Josephus, Against Apion AIPHOS Annuaire de l’Institut de philologie et d’histoire orientales et slaves AJAH American Journal of Ancient History AJP American Journal of Philology ALGHJ Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt Ant. Josephus, Antiquities APOT R. H. Charles (ed.), Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testa- ment, I–II (Oxford: Clarendon,1913) ARW Archiv für Religionswissenschaft AS Ancient Society ASE Annali di storia dell’esegesi ASNSP Annali della scuola normale superiore di Pisa: Lettere, storia e filosofia AWW Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-historische Klasse BA Biblical Archaeologist BAIAS Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society BAR Biblical Archaeology Review BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BBB Bonner biblische Beiträge BCE Before the Common Era BCH Bulletin de correspondance hellénique BDAG F. W. Danker (ed.), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (based on W. Bauer’s Griechisch-deut- sches Wörterbuch …; Chicago: Chicago Univ., 20003) BEATAJ Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Juden- tums

1 My thanks to Ms. Tanja Schultheiß and Mr. Nadav Sharon for their assistance in checking bibliographical details. VIII. Abbreviations and Bibliography 99

BeO Bibbia e Oriente BFC Bollettino di filologia classica Bib Biblica BIDR Bullettino dell’istituto di diritto romano ‘Vittorio Scialoja’ BIHBR Bulletin de l’Institut historique belge de Rome BJS Brown Judaic Studies BM Beit Mikra BN Biblische Notizen BSJS Brill’s Series in Jewish Studies BZ Biblische Zeitschrift CA Classical Antiquity CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CBQMS CBQ Monograph Series CCSL Corpus Christianorum Series Latina CE Common Era CEJL Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature CII J.-B. Frey (ed.), Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum, I–II (Città del Vati- cano: Pont. Ist. di Archeologia Cristiana, 1936–1952; repr. of vol. I with Prolegomenon by B. Lifshitz: New York: Ktav, 1975) CJ Classical Journal CP Classical Philology CPJ V. A. Tcherikover, A. Fuks and M. Stern (ed.), Corpus Papyrorum Ju- daicarum, I–III (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard, 1957–1964) CQ Classical Quarterly CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum DGE F. R. Adrados (ed.), Diccionario Griego-Español (Madrid: CSIJ, 1980–) DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert DMP Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum (ed. & trans. J. L. Creed; Ox- ford: Clarendon, 1984) DPH Dissertationes philologicae halenses DSD Dead Sea Discoveries EA Epigraphica Anatolica EB Études bibliques EFN Estudios de filologia neotestamentaria EP Études de papyrologie FGrH F. Jacoby (ed.), Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin: Weidmann, 1923–) FHG C. Müller (ed.), Fragmenta historicorum graecorum (4 vols.; Paris: Didot, 1841–1868) GCAJS Gratz College Annual of Jewish Studies GCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte GLA M. Stern (ed.), Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, I–III (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974–1984) GRBS Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 100 Introduction

H&R E. Hatch & H. A. Redpath (ed.), A Concordance to the Septuagint, I–III (Oxford: Clarendon, 1897–1906) HC Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization HCS Hellenistic Culture and Society HSAT Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testamentes HSCP Harvard Studies in Classical Philology HTR Harvard Theological Review HTS Harvard Theological Studies HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual HZ Historische Zeitschrift IEJ Israel Exploration Journal IG Inscriptiones Graecae IL Israelietische Letterbode JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion JAC Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum JANESCU Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JBT Jahrbuch für biblische Theologie JH Jewish History JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies JJS Journal of Jewish Studies JM Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus JQR Jewish Quarterly Review JRS Journal of Roman Studies JSHRZ Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period JSJSup Supplements to JSJ JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSP Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha JTS Journal of Theological Studies JWH Journal of World History KEHA Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des Alten Testamentes LAB Pseudo-Philo, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum LCL Loeb Classical Library Leg. Philo, Legatio ad Gaium LSJ H. G. Liddell and R. Scott (compilers), A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1992; repr. of rev. 9th ed. by H. S. Jones et al., 1940; includes 1968 Supplement) LXX Septuagint MAAR Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome MGWJ Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums VIII. Abbreviations and Bibliography 101

MH Museum Helveticum MPG J. P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus: series graeca MPL J. P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus: series latina MUSJ Mélanges de l’Université Saint Joseph NAW Nachrichten (von) der (königlichen) Gesellschaft/Akademie der Wis- senschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse NovT Novum Testamentum NTS New Testament Studies OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis OGIS W. Dittenberger (ed.), Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae, I–II (Lipsiae: Hirzel, 1903–1905) OLD P. G. W. Glare (ed.), Oxford Latin Dictionary, I–II (corrected edition; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996) OTP J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983–1985) OTS Oudtestamentische Studiën PCPS Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society Phil Philologus PL Mauersberger, Polybios-Lexikon PW Philologische Wochenschrift RA Revue archéologique RB Revue biblique RC Welles, Royal Correspondence RDGE Sherk, Roman Documents RE Paulys Realenencylopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft REA Revue des études anciennes REG Revue des études grecques REJ Revue des études juives RF Rivista de Filologia RhM Rheinisches Museum für Philologie RHPR Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses RHR Revue de l’histoire des religions RP Revue de philology RQ Revue de Qumran RSR Recherches de science religieuse RSV Revised Standard Version RTP Revue de théologie et de philosophie SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series SBLTT Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations SCI Scripta Classica Israelica SCS Septuagint and Cognate Studies SE Seleucid Era SEG Supplementum epigraphicum graecum SFSHJ South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 102 Introduction

SHR Studies in the History of Religions SIFC Studi italiani di filologia classica SIG G. [W.] Dittenberger (ed.), Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum, I–IV (Lip- siae: Hirzel, 1915–19243) SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series SP Studia Patristica SPA Studia Philonica Annual SPB Studia Post-Biblica ST Studia Theologica: Scandinavian Journal of Theology STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah SVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha TAPA Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association TCAAS Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung TSAJ Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism/Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum TSK Theologische Studien und Kritiken TZ Theologische Zeitschrift UF Ugarit-Forschungen VC Vigiliae Christianae VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Supplements to VT WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins ZKT Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft ZPE Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

Abel, F.-M., Les livres des Maccabées (EB; Paris: Gabalda, 1949). Abrahams, I., “Niese on the Two Books of the Maccabees,” JQR o.s. 13 (1901) 508–519 (review of Niese, Kritik). Adinolfi, M., Questioni bibliche di storia e storiografia (Brescia: Paideia, 1969). Africa, T., “Worms and the Death of Kings: A Cautionary Note on Disease and His- tory,” CA 1 (1982) 1–17. Albrektson, B., “Difficilior lectio probabilior: A Rule of Textual Criticism and Its Use in Old Testament Studies,” Remembering All the Way (OTS 21; Leiden: Brill, 1981) 5–18. Alexander, L., The Preface to Luke’s Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1.1–4 and Acts (SNTSMS 78; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1993). VIII. Abbreviations and Bibliography 103

Alexander, P. S., “3 Maccabees, Hanukkah and Purim,” Biblical Hebrews, Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman (ed. A. Rapoport-Albert and G. Greenberg; JSOT Supplement Series, 333/The Hebrew Bible and Its Ver- sions 2; London and New York: Sheffield, 2001) 321–339. Alon, G., Jews, Judaism and the Classical World (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977). Ameling, W., “Jerusalem als hellenistische Polis: 2 Makk 4,9–12 und eine neue Inschrift,” BZ n. F. 47 (2003) 105–111. Amir, Y., Die hellenistische Gestalt des Judentums bei Philon von Alexandrien (For- schungen zum jüdisch-christlichen Dialog 5; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1983). Amir, Y. “Measure for Measure in Talmudic Literature and in the Wisdom of Solomon,” Justice and Righteousness: Biblical Themes and Their Influence (ed. H. G. Reventlow and Y. Hoffman; JSOT Supplementary Series 137; Sheffield: Sheffield, 1992) 29–46. Amit, D. and H. Eshel (ed.), The Hasmonean Period: Sources, Summaries, Selected Episodes and Supplemental Materials (Idan 19; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1995 [in Hebrew]). Amit, Y., “The Dual Causality Principle and Its Effects on Biblical Literature,” VT 37 (1987) 385–400. Arenhoevel, D., Die Theokratie nach dem 1. und 2. Makkabäerbuch (Mainz: Mat- thias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1967). Artom, E. S., The Second Book of Maccabees (in: idem, The Apocrypha [Tel-Aviv: Yavneh, 1969 (in Hebrew)]). Avenarius, G., Lukians Schrift zur Geschichtsschreibung (Meisenheim/Glan: Hain, 1956). Avi-Yonah, M., Historical Geography of Palestine: From the End of the Babylonian Exile up to the Arab Conquest (Jerusalem: Bialik, 19844 [in Hebrew]). Baer, Y. F., “The Problem of Religion in the Hasmonean Period,” in: Knowledge of the Past in the Consciousness of the Nations and of the Jewish People (Jerusa- lem: Historical Society of Israel, 1968/69) 56–84 (in Hebrew; reprinted in idem, Studies in the History of the Jewish People, I [Jerusalem: Historical Society of Is- rael, 1985] 49–77). Bammel, E., Judaica (WUNT 37; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1986). Barag, D., “The Mint of Antiochus IV in Jerusalem: Numismatic Evidence on the Prelude to the Maccabean Revolt,” Israel Numismatic Journal 14 (2000/2002) 59–77. Barclay, J. M. G., Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora From Alexander to Hadrian (323 BCE – 117 CE) (Edinburgh: Clark, 1996). Bardtke, H., “Der Mardochäustag,” in: Jeremias (ed.), Tradition und Glaube, 97–116. Bar-Kochva, B., “The Description of the Battle of Beth Zacharia: Literary Fiction or Historical Fact?,” Cathedra 86 (January 1998) 7–22 (in Hebrew). Bar-Kochva, B., “On Josephus and the Books of the Maccabees, Philology and His- toriography,” Tarbiz 62 (1992/93) 115–132 (in Hebrew). 104 Introduction

Bar-Kochva, B., “Judaism and Hellenism – Between Scholarship and Journalism,” Tarbiz 63 (1993/94) 451–480 (in Hebrew). Bar-Kochva, B., Judas Maccabaeus: The Jewish Struggle Against the Seleucids (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1989). Bar-Kochva, B., Pseudo-Hecataeus, On the Jews: Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora (HCS 21; Berkeley: Univ. of California, 1996). Bar-Kochva, B., The Seleucid Army: Organization and Tactics in the Great Cam- paigns (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1976). Baumgarten, A. I., “Qumran and Jewish Sectarianism During the Second Temple Period,” The Scrolls of the Judaean Desert: Forty Years of Research (ed. M. Broshi et al; Jerusalem: Bialik and Israel Exploration Society, 1992) 139–151 (in Hebrew). Beckwith, R., The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and its Background in Early Judaism (London: SPCK, 1985). Bell, H. I., “Philanthropia in the Papyri of the Roman Period,” Hommages à Joseph Bidez et à Franz Cumont (Collection Latomus 2; Bruxelles: Latomus, 1949) 31–37. Bengtson, H., Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit. Ein Beitrag zum antiken Staatsrecht, I–III (Münchner Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte; München: Beck 1937–1952; 2nd ed. of vol. III, 1967). Bergren, T. A., “Nehemiah in 2 Maccabees 1:10–2:18,” JSJ 28 (1997) 249–270. Berve, H., Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen, I–II (München: Beck, 1967). Bevan, E. R., The House of Seleucus, I–II (London: Routledge and Paul, 1966). Bévenot, H., Die beiden Makkabäerbücher (HSAT IV/4; Bonn: Hanstein, 1931). Bickerman [Bickermann], E., Der Gott der Makkabäer: Untersuchungen über Sinn und Ursprung der makkabäischen Erhebung (Berlin: Schocken, 1937). Bickerman [Bikerman], E., Institutions des Séleucides (Paris: P. Geuthner, 1938). Bickerman, E., Studies in Jewish and Christian History, I–III (AGAJU 9/1–3; Leiden: Brill, 1976–1986).2 Bilde, P. et al. (ed.), Religion and Religious Practice in the Seleucid Kingdom (Aar- hus: Aarhus Univ., 1990). Bleek, F., “Über die Stellung der Apokryphen des alten Testamentes im christlichen Kanon,” TSK 26/1 (1853) 267–354. Blinkenberg, C., Lindos: fouilles et recherches 1902–1914: Fouilles de l’Acropole, II: Inscriptions publiées den grande partie ï après les copies de K. F. Kinch, I (Nos 1–281; Berlin u.a.: de Gruyter, 1941). Bonnet, C., Melqart: Cultes et mythes de l’Héraclès tyrien en Méditerranée (Leuven u.a.: Peeters, 1988). Bons, E., “ΕΛΠΙΣ comme l’espérance de la vie dans l’au-delà dans la littérature juive hellénistique,” Ce Dieu qui vient: Études sur l’Ancien et le Nouveau Tes-

2 As the present volume was going to press there appeared, in two volumes: E. J. Bick- erman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History: A New Edition in English including The God of the Maccabees (AJEC 68/1–2; ed. A. Tropper; Leiden: Brill, 2007). VIII. Abbreviations and Bibliography 105

tament offertes au Professeur Bernard Renaud à l’occasion de son soixante-cin- quième anniversaire (ed. R. Kuntzmann; Paris: du Cerf, 1995) 345–370. Bousset, W., Deutsche Literaturzeitung, 22 (1901), cols. 1669–1674 (review of Niese, Kritik). Bowersock, G. W., Martyrdom and Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1995). Box, H. (ed. with an introd., transl. and comm.), Philonis Alexandrini In Flaccum (Oxford: Oxford Univ., 1939). Brändle, R., “Die Auswirkungen der Zerstörung des Jerusalemer Tempels auf Johannes Chrysostomus und andere Kirchenväter,” Tempelkult und Tem- pelzerstörung (70 n. Chr.): Festschrift für Clemens Thoma zum 60. Geburts- tag (Judaica et Christina 15; ed. S. Lauer and H. Ernst; Bern: Lang, 1995) 231–246. Breitenstein, U., Beobachtungen zu Sprache, Stil und Gedankengut des Vierten Makkabäerbuchs (Basel: Schwabe, 1976). Bringmann, K., Hellenistische Reform und Religionsverfolgung in Judäa: Eine Un- tersuchung zur jüdisch-hellenistischen Geschichte (175–163 v.Chr.) (Abhand- lungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philologisch-historische Klasse, 3. Folge, 132; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983). Broshi, M. and E. Eshel, “The Greek King is Antiochus IV (4QHistorical Text = 4Q248),” JJS 48 (1997) 120–129. Brown, P., The Body and Society (New York: Columbia Univ., 1988). Brüll, N. “Das Sendschreiben der Palästiner an die Alexandriner,” Jahrbücher für Jüdische Geschichte und Litteratur 8 (1887) 30–40. Bruston, C., “Trois lettres des Juifs de Palestine (2 Makkab. I–II,18),” ZAW 10 (1890) 110–117. Buckler, W. H., “Labour Disputes in the Province of Asia,” Anatolian Studies Pres- ented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (ed. idem and W. H. Calder; Manchester: Univ., 1923) 27–50. Büchler, A., “Das Sendschreiben der Jerusalemer an die Juden in Aegypten in II Makkab. 1,11–2,18,” MGWJ 41 (1897) 481–500, 529–554. Bückers, H., “Das ‘ewige Leben’ in 2 Makk 7,36,” Bib 21 (1940) 406–412. Bunge, J. G., “Die sogenannte Religionsverfolgung Antiochos IV Epiphanes und die griechischen Städte,” JSJ 10 (1979) 155–165. Bunge, J. G., “‘Theos Epiphanes’: Zu den ersten fünf Regierungsjahren Antio- chos’ IV. Epiphanes,” Historia 23 (1974) 57–85. Bunge, J. G., Untersuchungen zum zweiten Makkabäerbuch: Quellenkritische, lite- rarische, chronologische und historische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Makka- bäerbuch als Quelle syrisch-palästinensischer Geschichte im 2. Jh. v.Chr. (Diss. Bonn, 1971). Buschmann, G., Das Martyrium des Polykarp (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru- precht, 1998). Camponovo, O., Königtum, Königsherrschaft und Reich Gottes in den frühjüdi- schen Schriften, (OBO 58; Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag, and Göttin- gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984). 106 Introduction

Caquot, A., “Pour une étude de l’initiation dans l’ancien Israël,” in: C. J. Bleeker (ed.), Initiation (SHR 10; Leiden: Brill, 1965) 119–133. Chantraine, P., “Les verbes grecs signifiant ‘lire’,” AIPHOS 10 (1950) 115–126. Chazon, E. G., “‘Gather the Dispersed of Judah:’ Seeking a Return to the Land as a Factor in Jewish Identity of Late Antiquity,” in: Heavenly Tablets: Interpre- tation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism (JSJSup 119: ed. L. LiDonnici and A. Lieber; Leiden: Brill, 2007) 159–175. Cigoi, A., Historisch-chronologische Schwierigkeiten im zweiten Makkabäerbuche (Klagenfurt: Leon, 1868). Cohen, G. D., “Hannah and Her Seven Sons in Hebrew Literature,” in: idem, Studies in the Variety of Rabbinic Cultures (Philadelphia and New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1991) 39–60. Cohen, G. M., “The ‘Antiochenes in Jerusalem’ – Again,” Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (ed. J. C. Reeves and J. Kampen; JSOT Supplement 184; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994) 243–259. Cohen, S. J. D., The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (HCS 31; Berkeley: Univ. of California, 1999). Collins, J. J. and G. E. Sterling (ed.), Hellenism in the Land of Israel (Notre Dame: Univ. of Notre Dame, 2001). Corradi, G., Studi ellenistici (Torino: Società editrice internazionale, 1929). Cotton, H. M. and M. Wörrle, “Seleukos IV to Heliodoros: A New Dossier of Royal Correspondence from Israel,” ZPE 159 (2007) 191–205. Cowey, M. S. and K. Maresch, Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis (144/3 – 133/2 v.Chr.) (P. Polit. Iud.) (Papyrologica Coloniensia, 29; Wies- baden: Westdeutscher Verlag, 2001). Dancy, J. C., A Commentary on I Maccabees (Oxford: Blackwell, 1954). Daniel, S., Recherches sur le vocabulaire du culte dans la Septante (Études et com- mentaires 61; Paris: Klincksieck, 1966). Danker, F. W., Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testa- ment Semantic Field (St. Louis: Clayton, 1982). De Bruyne, D., (avec la collaboration de B. Sodar), Les anciennes traductions latines des Machabées (Anecdota Maredsolana 4; Maredsous: Abbaye de Maredsous, 1932). De Bruyne, D., “Notes de philologie biblique,” RB 30 (1921) 400–409. Deissmann, A., Bible Studies (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1901). Deissmann, A., Licht vom Osten: Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-römischen Welt (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 19234). Delorme, J., Gymnasion: Étude sur les monuments consacrés à l’éducation en Grèce (des origines à l’Empire romain) (Paris: Boccard, 1960). Dimant, D., “4Q127 – An Unknown Jewish Apocryphal Work?” Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman and A. Hurvitz; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 805–813. VIII. Abbreviations and Bibliography 107

Döpler, J., Theatrum Poenarum, suppliciorum et executionum criminalium …, II (Leipzig: Lanck, 1697). Dommershausen, W., 1 Makkabäer, 2 Makkabäer (Neue Echter Bibel 12; Würzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1985). Donner, H., “Argumente zur Datierung des 74. Psalms,” Wort, Lied und Gottes- spruch: Beiträge zu Psalmen und Propheten, Festschrift für Joseph Ziegler (ed. J. Schreiner; Forschung zur Bibel 2; Würzburg: Echter Verlag – Katholisches Bi- belwerk, 1972) 41–50. Doran, R., “The High Cost of a Good Education,” Hellenism in the Land of Israel (ed. John J. Collins; Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 13; Notre Dame: Univ. of Notre Dame, 2001) 94–115. Doran, R., “Jason’s Gymnasion,” Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins Presented to John Strugnell on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday (ed. H. W. Attridge, J. J. Collins and T. H. Tobin; Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1990) 99–109. Doran, R., “The Martyr: A Synoptic View of the Mother and Her Seven Sons,” Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms (ed. J. J. Collins and G. W. E. Nickelsburg; Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1980) 189–221. Doran, R., Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees (CBQMS 12; Washington, D. C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981). Doran, R., “2 Maccabees 6:2 and the Samaritan Question,” HTR 76 (1983) 481–485. Dover, K. J., Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle (Oxford: Blackwell, 1974). Downey, G., A History of Antioch in Syria (Princeton, N.J.: Univ. Press, 1961). Drew-Bear, T., “Recherches épigraphiques et philologiques, I: Où mourut Anti- ochos IV?,” REA 82 (1980) 155–157. Dunbabin, J., “The Maccabees as Exemplars in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries,” The Bible in the Medieval World: Essays in Memory of Beryl Smalley (ed. K. Walsh and D. Wood; Studies in Church History, Subsidia 4; Oxford: Black- well, 1985) 31–41. Dupont-Sommer, A., Le quatrième livre des Machabées (Sciences historiques et philologiques 274; Paris: Champion, 1939). Eckstein, A. M., Moral Vision in the Histories of Polybius (HCS 16; Berkeley: Univ. of California, 1995). Edson, C., “Imperium Macedonicum: The Seleucid Empire and the Literary Evi- dence,” CP 53 (1958) 153–170. Elhorst, H. J., “Die beiden Makkabäerbücher und die Vorgeschichte des jüdischen Freiheitskrieges,” Vierteljahrsschrift für Bibelkunde, talmudische und patristische Studien, 2 (1905) 367–394. Efron, J., Studies on the Hasmonean Period (SJLA 39; Leiden: Brill, 1987). Eliav, Y., God’s Mountain: The Temple Mount in Time, Place, and Memory (Bal- timore: Johns Hopkins, 2005). 108 Introduction

Elizur, S., “Piyyutim of Hanukkah: Symbol vs. Realia,” in: Amit and Eshel, The Hasmonean Period, 303–310 (in Hebrew). Enermalm-Ogawa, A., Un langage de prière juif en grec: Le témoignage des deux premiers livres des Maccabées (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1987). Eshel, H. and Amit, D. (ed.), Refuge Caves of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (Tel-Aviv: Israel Exploration Society, Academic College of Judaea and Samaria and C.G. Foundation [Jerusalem], 1998 [in Hebrew]). Ettelson, H. W., “The Integrity of I Maccabees,” TCAAS 27 (1925) 249–384. Exler, F. X. J., The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter of the Epistolary Papyri (3rd c. B.C. – 3rd c. A. D.): A Study in Greek Epistolography (Washington D. C.: Cath- olic Univ., 1923). Fiensy, D. A., Prayers Alleged to be Jewish: An Examination of the Constitutiones Apostolorum (BJS 65; Chico, Cal.: Scholars, 1985). Fischer, T., “Heliodor im Tempel zu Jerusalem: Ein ‘hellenistischer’ Aspekt der ‘frommen Legende’,” Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten Israel: Festschrift für Siegfried Herrmann zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. R. Liwak and S. Wagner; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1991) 122–133. Fitzmyer, J. A., “Some Notes on Aramaic Epistolography,” JBL 93 (1974) 201–225. Fitzmyer, J. A., Tobit (CEJL; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2003). Flusser, D., “Kiddush Hashem in 2 Maccabees,” Mahanaim 41 (Hanukkah 1959/60) 53–56 (in Hebrew). Flusser, D., “The Dedication of the Temple by Judas Maccabaeus: Story and History,” in: The Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman World: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern (ed. I. M. Gafni, A. Oppenheimer and D. R. Schwartz; Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar and Historical Society of Israel, 1996) 55–82 (in Hebrew). Flusser, D., “The Memory of the Maccabees Among Medieval Jews,” Cathedra 75 (April 1995) 36–54 (in Hebrew). Fraser, P. M., Ptolemaic Alexandria (3 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1972). Gärtner, B., The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation (Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1955). Gafni, I. M., “Josephus and I Maccabees,” Josephus, the Bible, and History (ed. L. H. Feldman and G. Hata; Leiden: Brill, 1989) 116–131. Gafni, I. M., Oppenheimer, A. and Schwartz, D. R. (ed.), The Jews in the Hellen- istic-Roman World: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar and the Historical Society of Israel, 1996 [in Hebrew]). Gardiner, E. N., Athletics of the Ancient World (London: Oxford Univ., 1930). Geiger, A., Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der in- nern Entwicklung des Judenthums (Frankfurt am M.: Madda, 19282). Geiger, J., “The History of Judas Maccabaeus: One Aspect of Hellenistic Histori- ography,” Zion 49, 1 (1984) 1–8 (in Hebrew). Gera, D., “The Battle of Beth Zachariah and Greek Literature,” The Jews in the Hel- lenistic-Roman World: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern (ed. I. M. Gafni, VIII. Abbreviations and Bibliography 109

A. Oppenheimer and D. R. Schwartz; Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar and Historical Society of Israel, 1996) 25–53 (in Hebrew). Gera, D., Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 219 to 161 B.C.E. (BSJS 8; Leiden: Brill, 1998). Gera, D., “On the Credibility of the History of the Tobiads (Josephus, Antiquities 12, 156–222, 228–236),” in: Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel: Collected Essays (ed. A. Kasher, U. Rappaport and G. Fuks; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi and Israel Exploration Society, 1990) 21–38. Gera, D. and W. Horowitz, “Antiochus IV in Life and Death: Evidence from the Babylonian Astronomical Diaries,” JAOS 117 (1997) 240–252. Gieschen, C. A., Angelomorphic Christology (Leiden: Brill, 1998). Gil, L., “Sobre el estilo del libro segundo de los Macabeo,” Emerita 26 (1958) 11–32. Giovannini, A. and H. Müller, “Die Beziehungen zwischen Rom und den Juden im 2. Jh. v.Chr.,” MH 28 (1971) 156–171. Glucker, J., “Herbal Nutrition Squashing the Intellect,” Katharsis 4 (2005/6) 133–152 (in Hebrew). Goldstein, J. A., I Maccabees (AB 41; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1976). Goldstein, J. A., II Maccabees (AB 41A; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983). Goldstein, J. A., “The Tales of the Tobiads,” Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, III (SJLA 12/3; ed. J. Neusner; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 85–123. Goodblatt, D., “Medinat Hayam – The Coastal District,” Tarbiz 64, 1 (1994) 13–37 (in Hebrew). Goodman, M. (ed.), Jews in a Greco-Roman World (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998). Goodman, M., “Kosher Olive Oil in Antiquity,” A Tribute to Geza Vermes (ed. P. R. Davies and R. T. White; JSOT Supplement 100; Sheffield: JSOT, 1990) 227–245. Graetz, H., “Das Sendschreiben der Palästinenser an die ägyptisch-jüdischen Ge- meinden wegen der Feier der Tempelweihe,” MGWJ 26 (1877) 1–16, 49–72 (= idem, Geschichte der Juden, III, 2, Leipzig 19065) 673–687. Grainger, J. D., The Cities of Seleukid Syria (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990). Grainger, J. D., A Seleukid Prosopography and Gazetteer (Leiden: Brill, 1997). Granier, F., Die makedonische Heeresversammlung (Münchener Beiträge zur Papy- rusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 13; München: Beck, 1931). Grimm, C. L. W., Das erste Buch der Maccabäer (KEHA 3; Leipzig: Hirzel, 1853). Grimm, C. L. W., Das zweite, dritte und vierte Buch der Maccabäer (KEHA 4; Leip- zig: Hirzel, 1857). Grintz, Y. M., Sefer Yehudith (The Book of Judith) (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1957 [in Hebrew]). Gruber, M. I., “Women in the Cult According to the Priestly Code,” Judaic Per- spectives on Ancient Israel (ed. J. Neusner, B. A. Levine and E. S. Frerichs; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 35–48. 110 Introduction

Gruen, E. S., “Fact and Fiction: Jewish Legends in a Hellenistic Context,” Hellen- istic Constructs: Essays in Culture, History, and Historiography (HCS 26; ed. P. Cartledge, P. Garnsey and E. Gruen; Berkeley: Univ. of California, 1997) 72–88. Gruen, E. S., “Hellenism and Persecution: Antiochus IV and the Jews,” Hellenistic History and Culture (HCS 9; ed. P. Green, Berkeley: Univ. of California, 1993) 238–274. Gruen, E. S., The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (2 vols.; Berkeley: Univ. of California, 1984). Gruen, E. S., Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (HCS 30; Berkeley: Univ. of California, 1998). Gruen, E. S., “The Origins and Objectives of Onias’ Temple,” SCI 16 (1997) 47–70. Gruen, E. S., “The Purported Jewish-Spartan Affiliation,” Transitions to Empire: Essays in Greco-Roman History, 360–146 B.C., in Honor of E. Badian (ed. R. W. Wallace and E. M. Harris; Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma, 1996) 254–269. Guéraud, O., ΕΝΤΕΕΙΣ: Requêtes et plaintes adressées au roi d’Égypte au IIIe siècle avant J.-C. (Le Claire: Impr. de l’Inst. Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1931). Gutberlet, C., Das zweite Buch der Machabäer (Münster i. W.: Aschendorff, 1927). Gutman, Y., The Beginnings of Jewish-Hellenistic Literature (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Bialik, 1958–1963 [in Hebrew]). Gutman, Y., “The Mother and Her Seven Sons in the Aggadah and in the Second and Fourth Books of Maccabees,” in: Commentationes Iudaico-Hellenisticae in Memoriam Iohannis Lewy (1901–1945) (ed. M. Schwabe and I. Gutman; Jeru- salem: Magnes, 1949) 25–37 (in Hebrew). Habicht, C., Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte (Zetemata 14; München: Beck, 19702). Habicht, C., “Hellenismus und Judentum in der Zeit des Judas Makkabäus,” Jahr- buch der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften für das Jahr 1974 (ed. Hei- delberger Akademie der Wissenschaften; Heidelberg: Akad. 1975) 97–110. Habicht, C., “Royal Documents in Maccabees II,” HSCP 80 (1976) 1–18. Habicht, C. “Der Stratege Hegemonides,” Historia 7 (1958) 376–378. Habicht, C., 2. Makkabäerbuch (JSHRZ I, 3; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1976). Hacham, N., “The Third Book of Maccabees: Literature, History and Ideology” (unpublished PhD. Dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2002 [in Hebrew]). Hacham, N., “3 Maccabees: An Anti-Dionysian Polemic,” in: J.-A. A. Brant, C. W. Hedrick and C. Shea (ed.), Ancient Fiction: The Matrix of Early Christian and Jewish Narrative (SBL Symposium Series 32; Leiden: Brill, 2005) 167–183. Hack, M., “Two Hanukkah Letters,” Sinai 12 (1942/43) 92–99 (in Hebrew). E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971). VIII. Abbreviations and Bibliography 111

Hanhart, R., “Die Heiligen des Höchsten,” in: Hebräische Wortforschung: Festsch- rift zum. 80. Geburtstag von Walter Baumgartner (VTSup 16; ed. B. Hartmann et al.; Leiden: Brill, 1967) 90–101. Hanhart, R. (ed.), Maccabaeorum liber II, copiis usus quas reliquit Werner Kappler (Septuaginta 9, 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19762). Hanhart, R., Zum Text des 2. und 3. Makkabäerbuches: Probleme der Ueberliefe- rung, der Auslegung und der Ausgabe (NAW 1961, no. 13; Göttingen: Vanden- hoeck & Ruprecht, 1961). Hanson, V. D. (ed.), Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience (London: Routledge, 1991). Harvey, G., The True Israel: Uses of the Names Jew, Hebrew and Israel in Ancient Jewish and Early Christian Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1996). Heinemann, I., “The Relationship Between the Jewish People and their Land in Hellenistic-Jewish Literature,” Zion 13–14 (1948–1949) 1–9 (in Hebrew). Heinemann, I., Philons griechische und jüdische Bildung (Breslau: Marcus, 1932). Heinemann, I., “Wer veranlaßte den Glaubenszwang der Makkabäerzeit?” MGWJ 82 (1938) 145–172. Hengel, M., “Das Johannesevangelium als Quelle für die Geschichte des antiken Judentums,” in: Oppenheimer (ed.), Jüdische Geschichte, 41–73. Hengel, M., Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellenistic Period, I–II (London: SCM, 1974). Henten, J. W. van, “The Ancestral Language of the Jews in II Maccabees,” Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda (ed. W. Horbury; Edinburgh: Clark, 1999) 53–68. Henten, J. W. van, “Datierung und Herkunft des vierten Makkabäerbuches,” Tradition and Re-Interpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honour of Juergen C. H. Lebram (ed. J. W. van Henten et al.; Leiden: Brill, 1986) 136–149. Henten, J. W. van, Die Entstehung der jüdischen Martyrologie (Leiden: Brill, 1989). Henten, J. W. van, “Judas the Maccabee’s Dream (2 Macc. 15:11–16) and the Egyp- tian King’s Sickle Sword,” Zutot: Perspectives on Jewish Culture, IV (ed. S. Berger, M. Brocke and I. E. Zwiep; The Nethelands: Springer, 2004) 8–15. Henten, J. W. van, The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People: A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees (JSJSup 57; Leiden: Brill, 1997). Henten, J. W. van and F. Avemarie (ed.), Martyrdom and Noble Death: Selected Texts from Graeco-Roman, Jewish and Christian Antiquity (London and New York: Routledge, 2002). Henten, J. W. van, “Martyrdom and Persecution Revisited: The Case of 4 Macca- bees,” Märtyrer und Märtyrerakten (ed. W. Ameling; Altertumswissenschaft- liches Kolloquium 6; Stuttgart: Steiner, 2002) 59–75. Henten, J. W. van, “Pantokrator Theos in 2 Maccabees,” YHWH – Kyrios: Antithe- ism or The Power of the Word – Festschrift für Rochus Zuurmond, (ed. K. A. Deurloo and B. J. Diebner; Dielheimer Blätter, Beiheft 14; Heidelberg: Selbstver- lag des DBAT, 1996) 117–126. 112 Introduction

Henten, J. W. van, “2 Maccabees as a History of Liberation,” in: M. Mor, et al. (ed.), Jews and Gentiles in the Holy Land in the Days of the Second Temple, the Mishnah and the Talmud (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2003) 63–86. Herkenne, H., Die Briefe zu Beginn des zweiten Makkabäerbuches (1, 1 bis 2, 18) (Biblische Studien 8/4; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1904). Herman, G., Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1987). Hertz, J. H. (ed.), The Authorised Daily Prayer Book (3 vols.; London: National Council for Jewish Religious Education, 1943–1945). Himmelfarb, M., “Judaism and Hellenism in 2 Maccabees,” Poetics Today 19 (1998) 19–40. Hölscher, G., “Die Feldzüge des Makkabäers Judas,” ZDPV 29 (1906) 133–151. Holladay, C. R., Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, I–IV (Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1983–96). Holleaux, M., Études d’épigraphie et d’histoire grecques, III: Lagides et Séleucides (Paris: Boccard, 1942). Horst, P. W. van der, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs (Kampen: Kok, 1991). Horst, P. W. van der, “Hellenistic Parallels to the Acts of the Apostles (2.1–47),” Studies on the Hellenistic Background of the New Testament (ed. P. W. van der Horst and G. Mussies; Utrechtse Theologische Reeks 10; Utrecht: Rijksuniver- siteit, 1990) 131–142. Horst, P. W. van der, Philo’s Flaccus: The First Pogrom (Philo of Alexandria Com- mentary Series, 2; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003). Houghton, A., “The Seleucid Mint of Mallus and the Cult Figure of Athena Mag- arsia,” Festschrift für Leo Mildemberg/Studies in Honor of Leo Mildenberg (ed. A. Houghton et al.; Wetteren: Editions NR, Belgium 1984) 91–110. Hunt, S. and Edgar, C.C., Select Papyri, II: Official Documents (London: Heine- mann, 1934). Hyldahl, N., “The Maccabean Rebellion and the Question of ‘Hellenization’,” in: Bilde, Religion and Religious Practice, 188–203. Ilan, T., Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine (TSAJ 44, Tübingen: Mohr [Sie- beck], 1995). Ilan, T., Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity, I (TSAJ 91; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 2002). Ilan, T., “The Names of the Hasmoneans in the Second Temple Period,” Eretz- Israel 19 (1987) 238–241 (in Hebrew). Jacobson, H., The Exagoge of Ezekiel (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1983). Jaeger, W., Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture (3 vols.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1945). Jeremias, G., H.-W. Kuhn and H. Stegemann (ed.), Tradition und Glaube: Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt – Festgabe für Karl Georg Kuhn zum 65. Geburtstag (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971). Johnson, S. R., Historical Fictions and Hellenistic Jewish Identity: Third Maccabees in Its Cultural Context (HCS 43; Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: Univ. of California, 2004). VIII. Abbreviations and Bibliography 113

Jossa, G., “La storiografia giudeo-ellenistica: Il secondo libro dei Maccabei e la Guerra giudaica di Flavio Giuseppe,” La storiografia della Bibbia (Atti della 28 Settimana Biblica; Bologna: Dehoniane, 1986) 93–102. Joüon, P., “Les mots employés pour désigner le Temple dans l’Ancien Testament, le Nouveau Testament et Josèphe,” RSR 25 (1935) 329–343. Kah, D. and P. Scholz (ed.), Das hellenistische Gymnasion (Wissenskultur und gesellschaftlicher Wandel 8; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2004). Kahana, A. (ed.), HaSepharim HaHizonim, II/1 (Tel-Aviv: Meqorot, 1936/37 [in Hebrew]). Kahrstedt, U., Syrische Territorien in hellenistischer Zeit (Berlin: Weidmann, 1926). Kampen, J., The Hasideans and the Origin of Pharisaism: A Study in 1 and 2 Mac- cabees (SCS 24; Atlanta: Scholars, 1988). Kappler, V. [= W.], De memoria alterius libri Maccabaeorum (Diss. Göttingen, 1929). Kasher, A., “Athenians in the Persecutions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes,” Tarbiz 51 (1982) 537–542 (in Hebrew). Kasher, A., Jews and Hellenistic Cities in Eretz-Israel: Relations of the Jews in Eretz-Israel with the Hellenistic Cities During the Second Temple Period (332 BCE – 70CE) (TSAJ 21; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1990). Kasher, A., Jews, Idumaeans, and Ancient Arabs: Relations of the Jews in Eretz-Is- rael with the Nations of the Frontier and the Desert During the Hellenistic and Roman Era (332 BCE – 70 CE) (TSAJ 18; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1988). Kasher, A., The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal Rights (TSAJ 7; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1985). Kasher, A., “A Second-Century BCE Greek Inscription from Iamnia,” Cathedra 63 (April 1992) 3–21 (in Hebrew). Kasher, A. and A. Oppenheimer (ed.), Dor Le-Dor: From the End of Biblical Times Up to the Redaction of the Talmud: Studies in Honor of Joshua Efron (Jerusa- lem: Bialik Institute, 1995 [in Hebrew]). Katz, P., “Eleazar’s Martyrdom in 2 Maccabees: The Latin Evidence for a Point of the Story,” SP 4/2 (1961) 118–124. Katz, P., “The Text of 2 Maccabees Reconsidered,” ZNW 51 (1960) 10–30. Keel, O., “Die kultischen Massnahmen Antiochus’ IV.: Religionsverfolgung und/ oder Reformversuch? Eine Skizze,” in: Keel and Staub, Hellenismus und Juden- tum, 87–121. Keel, O. and U. Staub, Hellenismus und Judentum: Vier Studien zu Daniel 7 und zur Religionsnot unter Antiochus IV. (OBO 178; Freiburg, Switzerland: Univer- sitätsverlag, and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000). Keil, C. F., Commentar über die Bücher der Makkabäer (Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1875). Kellermann, U., Auferstanden in den Himmel: 2 Makkabäer 7 und die Auferste- hung der Märtyrer (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 95; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibel- werk, 1979). Kennell, N. M., “New Light on 2 Maccabees 4:7–15,” JJS 56 (2005) 10–24. 114 Introduction

Kilpatrick, G. D., Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 215 (1963) 10–22 (review of Hanhart, 2 Macc and Hanhart, Text). Reprinted, with original pagination, and with a brief addition that does not address 2 Maccabees, in: S. Jellicoe (comp.), Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations (New York: Ktav, 1974) 418–433. Kippenberg, H. G., Die vorderasiatischen Erlösungsreligionen in ihrem Zu- sammenhang mit der antiken Stadtherrschaft (Frankfurt am M.: Suhrkamp, 1991). Kochabi, S. “Sources of the First Book of the Maccabees,” BM 28 (1982/83) 278–290 (in Hebrew). Koenen, L., Eine ptolemäische Königsurkunde: (P. Kroll) (Wiesbaden: Harrasso- witz, 1957). Kolbe, W., Beiträge zur syrischen und jüdischen Geschichte: Kritische Untersu- chungen zur Seleukidenliste und zu den beiden ersten Makkabäerbüchern (Bei- träge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament, n. F. 10; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1926). Kooij, A. van der, “The Use of the Greek Bible in II Maccabees,” Journal of North- west Semitic Languages 25 (1999) 127–138. Kopidakes, M. Z., Third Maccabees and Aeschylus: Reminiscence of Aeschylus in the Vocabulary and Thematics of III Maccabees (Heracleon, Crete: Vikelaia Vivliotheke, 1987 [in Greek]). Kosters, W. H., “De polemiek van het tweede boek der Makkabeën,” Theologisch Tijdschrift 12 (1878) 491–558. Kraft, R., “Christian Transmission of Greek Jewish Scriptures: A Methodological Probe,” Paganisme, Judaïsme, Christianisme: Influences et affrontements dans le monde antique – Mélanges offerts à Marcel Simon (Paris: Boccard, 1978) 207–226. Laconi, M., Primo e secondo libro dei Maccabei (Padova and Torino: L.I.C.E. – Gottardo, n.d. [1960?]). Lapp, P. W. and N. L. Lapp (ed.), Discoveries in the Wâdi ed-Dâliyeh (Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 41; Cambridge: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1974). Laqueur, R., “Griechische Urkunden in der jüdisch-hellenistischen Literatur,” HZ 136 (1927) 229–252. Laqueur, R., Kritische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Makkabäerbuch (Strassburg: Trübner, 1904). Launey, M., Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques, I–II (Paris: Boccard, 1949–1950). Reprinted with addenda in 1987. Lebram, J. C. H., “Zur Chronologie in den Makkabäerbüchern,” Das Institutum Judaicum der Universität Tübingen in den Jahren 1968–1970, 63–70. Lemaire, A.,“Tarshish-Tarsisi: Problème de topographie historique biblique et as- syrienne,” Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography Pres- ented to Zecharia Kallai (VTSup 81; ed. G. Galil and M. Weinfeld; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 44–62. VIII. Abbreviations and Bibliography 115

Lenger, M.-Th., Corpus des ordonnances des Ptolémées (C. Ord. Ptol.) (Académie royale de Belgique, classe des lettres: Mémoires, collection in-8o, deuxième série, 56/5; Bruxelles: Palais des académies, 1964, 19802). Le Rider, G., “Les ressources financières de Séleucos IV (187–175) et le paiement de l’indemnité aux Romains,” Essays in Honour of Robert Carson and Kenneth Jenkins (ed. M. Price, A. Burnett and R. Bland; London: Spink, 1993) 49–67. Le Rider, G., Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes (Paris: Geuthner, 1965). Lévi, I., “Sur les deux premiers livres des Macchabées,” REJ 43 (1901) 215–230. Levine, L. I., Jerusalem: Portrait of the City in the Second Temple Period (538 B.C.E. – 70 C.E.) (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2002). Levine, L. I., Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence? (Seattle: Univ. of Washington, 1998). Lévy, I., “Notes d’histoire hellénistique sur le second livre des Maccabées,” AIPHOS 10 (1950) 681–699. Levy, J. H., Studies in Jewish Hellenism (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1960 [in Hebrew]). Lewis, N., The Interpretation of Dreams and Portents (Toronto: Stevens Hakkert, 1976). Lichtenberger, H., “Gottes Nähe in einer Zeit ohne Gebet: Zum Geschichtsbild des 2. Makkabäerbuches,” in: Gottes Nähe im Alten Testament (Stuttgarter Bibel- studien; ed. G. Eberhardt and K. Liess; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2004) 135–149. Lichtenberger, H., “History-Writitng and History-Telling in First and Second Mac- cabees,” in: Memory in the Bible and Antiquity: The Fifth Durham-Tübingen Resarch Symposium (Durham, September 2004) (WUNT 212; ed. S. C. Barton, L. T. Stuckenbruck and B. G. Wold; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007) 95–110. Lieberman, S., “Some Aspects of After Life in Early Rabbinic Literature,” Harry Austryn Wolfson Jubilee Volume, II (Jerusalem: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1965) 495–532. Lieberman, S., Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Life and Manners of Jewish Palestine in the II–IV Centuries C.E. (New York: Feldheim, 19652). Lieberman, S., Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs and Manners of Palestine in the I Century B.C.E. – IV Century C.E. (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 19622). Lieberman, S., Studies in Palestinian Talmudic Literature (ed. D. Rosenthal; Jeru- salem: Magnes, 1991 [in Hebrew]). Liebmann-Frankfort, T., “Rome et le conflit judéo-syrien (164–161 avant notre ère),” AC 38 (1969) 101–120. Lifshitz, B., “Sur le culte dynastique des Séleucides,” RB 70 (1963) 75–81. Lissarague, F., “Around the Krater: An Aspect of Banquet Imagery,” in: Murray, Sympotica, 196–209. Lorein, G. W., “Some Aspects of the Life and Death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes: A New Presentation of Old Viewpoints,” AS 31 (2001) 157–171. Lucian, The Syrian Goddess (De Dea Syria), Attributed to Lucian (ed. and trans. H. W. Attridge and R. A. Oden; SBLTT 9; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1976). 116 Introduction

Lüderitz, G., “What is the ‘Politeuma’?,” Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy (ed. J. W. van Henten and P. W. van der Horst; AGAJU 21; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 183–225. Lührmann, D., “Epiphaneia: Zur Bedeutungsgeschichte eines griechischen Wor- tes,” in: Jeremias et al. (ed.), Tradition und Glaube, 185–199. Ma, J., Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor (Oxford: Oxford Univ., 1999). Maas, M., “Die Maccabäer als christliche Heiligen (Sancti Maccabei),” MGWJ 44 (1900) 145–156. Main, E., “Les Sadducéens et l’origine des partis juifs de la période du Second Temple” (PhD. Diss., Hebrew University [Jerusalem] and École pratique des hautes études [Paris], 2004). Mariani, B., “L’alleanza e l’amicizia dei Maccabei con i Romani sotto l’aspetto teo- cratico,” Divinitas 9 (1965) 75–104. Mason, S., Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees (SPB 39; Leiden: Brill, 1991). Mauersberger, A., Polybios-Lexikon (Berlin: Akad.-Verlag, 1956–). Mayser, E., Grammatik der griechischen Papyri, I–II (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1970). (Each volume has three parts. Vol. I of this edition has been reedited by H. Schmoll, while Vol. II is a reprint of the edition of 1926–1934.) Mélèze Modrzejewski, J., “How to Be a Jew in Hellenistic Egypt?,” in: S. J. D. Cohen and E. S. Frerichs (ed.), Diasporas in Antiquity (BJS 288; Atlanta: Scholars, 1993) 65–92. Mélèze Modrzejewski, J., The Jews of Egypt from Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian (Philadelphia and Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, 1995). Mendels, D., “A Note on the Tradition of Antiochus IV’s Death,” IEJ 31 (1981) 53–56. Menxel, F. van, Ελπ «: Espoir, Espérance – Études sémantiques et théologiques du vocabulaire de l’espérance dans l’Hellénisme et le Judaïsme avant le Nouveau Tes- tament (Europäische Hochschulschriften 23/213; Frankfurt-Bern: Lang, 1983). Meyer, E., Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums, II (Stuttgart and Berlin: Cotta, 19211–3). Milikowsky, C., “The End of Prophecy and the Closure of the Bible in Judaism of Late Antiquity,” Sidra 10 (1994) 83–94 (in Hebrew). Millar, F., “The Background to the Maccabean Revolution: Reflections on Martin Hengel’s ‘Judaism and Hellenism,’” JJS 29 (1978) 1–21. Mitford, T. B., “Ptolemy Macron,” Studi in onore di Aristide Calderini e Roberto Paribeni, II (Milano: Ceschina, 1957) 163–187. Mölleken, W., “Geschichtsklitterung im I. Makkabäerbuch (Wann wurde Alkimus Hoherpriester?),” ZAW 65 (1953) 205–228. Mørkholm, O., Antiochus IV of Syria (Classica et mediaevalia, Dissertationes 8; København: Gyldendalske – Nordisk, 1966). Moffatt, J., “The Second Book of Maccabees,” APOT 1.125–154. Momigliano, A., Prime linee di storia della tradizione maccabaica (Torino: 1931; repr. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1968). VIII. Abbreviations and Bibliography 117

Momigliano, A., “The Romans and the Maccabees,” Nono contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico (Storia e Letteratura 180; Roma: Ed. di Storia e Letteratura, 1992) 747–761 (originally in: A. Rapoport-Albert and S. J. Zipperstein [ed.], Jewish History: Essays in Honour of Chimen Abramsky [London: P. Halban, 1988] 231–244). Momigliano, A., “The Second Book of Maccabees,” CP 70 (1975) 81–88. Montevecchi, O., “Pantokrator,” Studi in onore di Aristide Calderini e Roberto Paribeni, II (Milano: Ceschina, 1957) 401–432. Motzo, [R.] B., Ricerche sulla letteratura e la storia giudaico-Ellenistica (ed. F. Par- ente; Roma: Centro editoriale internazionale, 1977). Mugler, C., “Remarques sur le second livre des Macchabées: La statistique des mots et la question de l’auteur,” RHPR 11 (1931) 419–423. Murray O. (ed.), Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposium (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990). Nagel, G., “Les Maccabées,” RTP 26 (1938) 193–201 (review of Bickerman, Gott). Nagel, G., “Révolte et réforme à Jérusalem (169–166 avant Jésus-Christ),” Recueil de la faculté de théologie protestante de l’Université de Genève 8 (1942) 5–22. Nelis, J. T., II Makkabeeën, uit de grondtekst vertaald en uitgelegd (De boeken van het Oude Testament 6,[2]; Bussum: Romen: 1975). Nelis, J. T., “La distance de Beth-Sur à Jérusalem suivant 2 Mac. 11,5,” JSJ 14 (1983) 39–42. Nestle, E., “Einiges zum Text des zweiten Makkabäerbuchs,” Septuagintastudien, IV (Wissenschaftliche Beilage zum Programm des königl. Württembergischen evangelisch-theologischen Seminars Maulbronn; Stuttgart: Vereins-Buchdruck- erei, 1903) 19–22. Nestle, W., “Legenden vom Tod der Gottesverächter,” ARW 33 (1936) 246–269. Nickelsburg, G. W. E., “1 and 2 Maccabees – Same Story, Different Meaning,” Concordia Theological Monthly 42 (1971) 515–526. Nickelsburg, G. W. E., Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertesta- mental Judaism (HTS 26; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ., and London: Ox- ford, 1972). Niese, B., Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten, III (Hand- bücher der alten Geschichte 2; Gotha u.a: Perthes u.a., 1903). Niese, B. Kritik der beiden Makkabäerbücher, nebst Beiträgen zur Geschichte der makkabäischen Erhebung (Berlin: Weidmann, 1900).3 Nock, A. D., Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, I–II (ed. Z. Stewart; Cam- bridge, Mass.: Havard Univ., 1972). Nodet, E., “La dédicace, les Maccabées et le messie,” RB 93 (1986) 321–375.

3 I cite according to the pages and text of this book, which originally appeared in two installments in Hermes 35 (1900). To find pages in Hermes, add 267 to my references up to p. 40 and 413 for the rest. 118 Introduction

O’Brien, E., “The Scriptural Proof for the Existence of Purgatory from 2 Macha- bees – 12:43–45,” Sciences ecclésiastiques 2 (1949) 80–108. Ogle, M. B., “The Sleep of Death,” MAAR 11 (1933) 81–117. Oppenheimer, A. (ed.), Jüdische Geschichte in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit: Wege der Forschung – Vom alten zum neuen Schürer (München: Oldenbourg, 1999). Otto, W., Zur Geschichte der Zeit des 6. Ptolemäers (München: Akademie der Wis- senschaften, 1934). Otto, W. and H. Bengtson, Zur Geschichte des Niederganges des Ptolemäerreiches: Ein Beitrag zur Regierungszeit des 8. und des 9. Ptolemäers (München: Akade- mie der Wissenschaften, 1938). Parente, F. and Sievers, J. (ed.), Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (Leiden: Brill, 1994). Parente, F., “Onias III’s Death and the Founding of the Temple of Leontopolis,” in: Parente and Sievers (ed.), Josephus and the History, 69–98. Parente, F., “Le témoignage de Théodore de Mopsueste sur le sort d’Onias III et la fondation du temple de Léontopolis,” REJ 154 (1995) 429–436. Parente, F., “The Third Book of Maccabees as Ideological and Historical Source,” Henoch 10 (1988) 143–182. Parente, F., “ΤΟ<Σ ΕΝ ΙΕΡΟΣΟΛ<ΜΟΙΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΞΕΙΣ ΑΝΑΓΡΑΧΑΙ (II Macc. IV,9): Gerusalemme è mai stata una ΠΟΛΙΣ?,” Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 30 (1994) 3–38. Parker, R., Miasma (Oxford: Clarendon, 1983). Pearson, B. A. (ed.), The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991). Pédech, P., La méthode historique de Polybe (Paris: “Les Belles Lettres,” 1964). Penna, A., Libri dei Maccabei (La Sacra Bibbia; Torino and Roma: Marietti, 1953). Porten, B. and A. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, I: Letters (Jerusalem: Hebrew University [Dept. of the History of the Jewish People], 1986 [Hebrew and English]). Porter, S. E., Καταλλσσ in Ancient Greek Literature, with Reference to the Pau- line Writings (EFN 5; Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 1994). Prato, G. L., “La persecuzione religiosa nell’ermeneutica maccabaica: l’ellenismo come paganesimo,” Ricerche storico bibliche, I [Israele alla ricerca di identtà tra il III sec. a.C. e il I sec. d. C.] (1989) 99–122. Preisigke, F., Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden: mit Einschluß der griechischen Inschriften, Aufschriften, Ostraka, Mumienschilder usw. aus Ägyp- ten (ed. E. Kießling; Berlin: Selbstverlag der Erben; from Suppl. 2: Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz-Verlag, 1925ff.). Pritchett, W. K., The Greek State at War, I–V (Berkeley: Univ. of California, 1971–1991). Procksch, O., “Der Friede des Lysias vom Frühling 164 v.Chr.,” Theologisches Literaturblatt 24 (1903), cols. 457–464, 481–484. VIII. Abbreviations and Bibliography 119

Rahlfs, A., Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments (NAW Beiheft, 1914 = Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen 2; Berlin: Weidmann, 1914). Rajak, T., “Dying for the Law: The Martyr’s Portrait in Jewish-Greek Literature,” Portraits: Biographical Representation in the Greek and Latin Literature of the Roman Empire (ed. M. J. Edwards and S. Swain; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997) 39–67 (= eadem, Jewish Dialogue, 99–133). Rajak, T., The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome: Studies in Cultural and Social Interaction (AGAJU 48; Leiden: Brill, 2001). Rampolla del Tindaro, M., “Martyre et sépultre des Macchabées,” Revue de l’art Chrétien 48 (1899) 377–392. Rappaport, U., “Akko-Ptolemais and the Jews in the Hellenistic Period,” Cathedra 50 (December 1988) 31–48 (in Hebrew). Rappaport, U., “The Extradition Clause in 1 Maccabees, XV, 21,” Immigration and Emigration Within the Ancient Near East: Festschrift E. Lipin´ ski (ed. K. van Lerberghe and A. Schoors; Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 65; Leuven: Peeters, 1995) 271–283. Rappaport, U., “The Hellenization of the Hasmoneans,” in: Jewish Assimilation, Acculturation and Accomodation: Past Traditions, Current Issues and Future Prospects (Studies in Jewish Civilization 2; ed. M. Mor; Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1992) 1–13.4 Rappaport, U., “A Note on the Use of the Bible in I Maccabees,” in: Stone and Cha- zon (ed.), Biblical Perspectives, 175–179. Reeg, G. (ed.), Die Geschichte von den zehn Märtyren: Synoptische Edition mit Übersetzung und Einleitung (TSAJ 10; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985). Renaud, B., “La loi et les lois dans les livres des Maccabées,” RB 68 (1961) 39–67. Richnow, W., Untersuchungen zu Sprache und Stil des zweiten Makkabäerbuches (Diss. Göttingen, 1967). Rigsby, K. J., Asylia: Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World (HCS 22; Ber- keley: Univ. of California, 1996). Rinaldi, G., Biblia Gentiun: A First Contribution Towards an Index of Biblical Quotations, References and Allusions Made by Greek and Latin Heathen Writers of the Roman Imperial Times (Rome: Sacre Scritture, 1989). Risberg, B., “Textkritische und exegetische Anmerkungen zu den Makkabäerbü- chern,” Beiträge zur Religionswissenschaft 2 (1918) 6–31. Rokeah, D., “The Jewish Bible and the New Testament in the Pagan World” (Re- view of: Rinaldi, Biblia Gentium), Tarbiz 60 (1990/91) 451–464 (in Hebrew). Romilly, J. de, Magic and Rhetoric in Ancient Greece (Cambridge: Havard Univ., 1975). Roth-Gerson, L., The Jews of Syria as Reflected in the Greek Inscriptions (Jerusa- lem: Zalman Shazar, 2001 [in Hebrew]).

4 An expanded Hebrew version appeared in Tarbiz 60 (1990/91) 477–503. 120 Introduction

Rothschild, J. P., “Une pièce tardive à verser au dossier médiéval des Livres des Maccabées,” Biblische und judaistische Studien: Festschrift für Paolo Sacchi (ed. A. Vivian; Judentum und Umwelt 29; Frankfurt am M.: Lang, 1990) 545–574. Rougé, J., “Le de mortibus persecutorum, 5e livre des Macchabées,” SP 12/1 (1975) 135–143. Rowley, H. H., “Menelaus and the Abomination of Desolation,” Studia Orientalia Ioanni Pedersen: septuagenario A. D. VII id. nov. anno MCMLIII a collegis, discipulis, amicis dicata (Hauniae [Kopenhagen]: Munksgaard, 1953) 303–315. Sachs, A. J., and D. J. Wiseman, “A Babylonian King-List of the Hellenistic Period,” Iraq 16 (1954) 202–211. Savigni, R., “Istanze ermeneutiche e ridefinizione del canone in Rabano Mauro: Il commentario ai Libri dei Maccabei,” ASE 11 (1994) 571–604. Schatkin, M., “The Maccabean Martyrs,” VC 28 (1974) 97–113. Schiffman, L. H., “2 Maccabees,” Harper’s Bible Commentary (ed. J. L. Mays; San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988) 898–915. Schubart, W., “Das hellenistische Königsideal nach Inschriften und Papyri,” AfP 12 (1937) 1–26. Schürer, E., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135) (3 vols. in 4; new English ed. G. Vermes et al., Edinburgh: Clark, 1973–1987). Schürer, E., “Zu II Mcc 6,7 (monatliche Geburtstagsfeier),” ZNW 2 (1901) 48–52. Schunck, K.-D., “Makkabäer/Makkabäerbücher,” Theologische Realenzklopädie 20 (1991) 736–745. Schunck, K.-D., Die Quellen des I. und II. Makkabäerbuches (Halle a.d. Saale: Niemeyer, 1954). Schwankl, O., Die Sadduzäerfrage (Mk 12,18–27 parr): Eine exegetisch-theologische Studie zur Auferstehungserwartung (BBB 66; Frankfurt am M.: Athe- näum, 1987). Schwartz, D. R., Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea (TSAJ 23; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1990). Schwartz, D. R., “Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Jerusalem,” Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 37; ed. D. Goodblatt, A. Pinnick and D. R. Schwartz; Leiden: Brill, 2001) 45–56. Schwartz, D. R., “The Battles of Judas Maccabaeus” (Review of Bar-Kochva, JM),” Tarbiz 60 (1990/91) 443–450 (in Hebrew). Schwartz, D. R., “Divine Punishment in Second Maccabees: Vengeance, Abandon- ment or Loving Discipline?,” Der Mensch vor Gott: Forschungen … für Her- mann Lichtenberger zum 60. Geburtstag (ed. U. Mittmann-Richert, F. Avemarie and G. S. Oegema; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2003) 109–116. Schwartz, D. R., “From the Maccabees to Masada: On Diasporan Historiography of the Second Temple Period,” in: Oppenheimer (ed.), Jüdische Geschichte, 29–40. Schwartz, D. R., “Hasidim in I Maccabees 2:42?,” SCI 13 (1994) 7–18. VIII. Abbreviations and Bibliography 121

Schwartz, D. R., “How at Home Were the Jews of the Hellenistic Diaspora?,” CP 95 (2000) 349–357. Schwartz, D. R., “‘Judaean’ or ‘Jew’? How Should We Translate Ioudaios in Josep- hus?,” in: Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World/Jüdische Identität in der griechisch-römischen Welt (AJEC 71; ed. J. Frey, D. R. Schwartz and S. Gripen- trog; Leiden: Brill, 2007) 3–27. Schwartz, D. R., “The Jews of Egypt Between the Temple of Onias, the Temple of Jerusalem, and Heaven,” Zion 62 (1997/98) 5–22 (in Hebrew). Schwartz, D. R., “ΚΑΤΑ ΤΟ<ΤΟΝ ΤΟΝ ΚΑΙΡΟΝ: Josephus’ Source on Agrippa II,” JQR 72 (1981/82) 241–268. Schwartz, D. R., “Mizpeh, Alema, Mella, Pella (I Maccabees 5:35): Philology and Historical Geography in Judas Maccabeus’ Campaign to the Gilead,” Studies in the History of Eretz Israel Presented to Yehuda Ben Porat (ed. Y. Ben-Arieh and E. Reiner; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2003) 27–38 (in Hebrew). Schwartz, D. R., “On Some Papyri and Josephus’ Sources and Chronology for the Persian Period,” JSJ 21 (1990) 175–199. Schwartz, D. R., “On Something Biblical About 2 Maccabees,” in: Stone and Cha- zon (ed.), Biblical Perspectives, 223–232. Schwartz, D. R., “The Other in 1 and 2 Maccabees,” Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity (ed. G. N. Stanton and G. G. Stroumsa; Cam- bridge: Cambridge Univ., 1998) 30–37. Schwartz, D. R., “Philo’s Priestly Descent,” Nourished with Peace: Studies in Hel- lenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel (ed. F. E. Greenspahn, E. Hilgert and B. L. Mack; Scholars Press Homage Series 9; Chico, California: Scholars, 1984) 155–171. Schwartz, D. R., “The Priests of Ep. Arist. 310,” JBL 97 (1978) 567–571. Schwartz, D. R., Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (WUNT 60; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992). Schwartz, D. R., “Temple or City: What did Hellenistic Jews See in Jerusalem?,” The Centrality of Jerusalem: Historical Perspectives (ed. M. Poorthuis and C. Safrai; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996) 114–127. Schwartz, D. R., “Why Did Antiochus Have to Fall (II Maccabees 9:7)?,” in: Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism (JSJSup 119: ed. L. LiDonnici and A. Lieber; Leiden: Brill, 2007) 257–265. Schwartz, D. R., “‘Wo wohnt Gott?’ – Die Juden und ihr Gott zwischen Juden- staat, Diaspora und Himmel,” in: Gottesstaat oder Staat ohne Gott: Politische Theologie in Judentum, Christentum und Islam (Linzer philosophisch-theologische Beiträge 8; ed. S. J. Lederhilger; Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2002) 58–73. Schwartz, J., “Once More on the Nicanor Gate,” HUCA 62 (1991) 245–283. Schwartz, J. and Y. Spanier, “On Mattathias and the Desert of Samaria,” RB 98 (1991) 252–271. Schwartz, S., “The Hellenization of Jerusalem and Shechem,” in: Goodman (ed.), Jews in a Graeco-Roman World, 37–45. 122 Introduction

Schwartz, S., “Israel and the Nations Roundabout: 1 Maccabees and the Has- monean Expansion,” JJS 42 (1991) 16–38. Schwartz, S., “John Hyrcanus I’s Destruction of the Gerizim Temple and Judaean- Samaritan Relations,” JH 7/1 (Spring 1993) 9–25. Schwarz, A., “Taanith Esther,” Festskrift i Anledning af Professor David Simonsens 70-aarige Fødselsdag (København: Hertz’s, 1923) 188–205. Scullard, H. H., The Elephant in the Greek and Roman World (London: Thames and Hudson, 1974). Scurlock, J., “167 BCE: Hellenism or Reform?,” JSJ 31 (2000) 125–161. Seeligmann, I. L., “Menschliches Heldentum und göttliche Hilfe: Die doppelte Kau- salität im alttestamentlichen Geschichtsdenken,” TZ 19 (1963) 385–411. Seeligmann, I. L., The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of Its Problems (Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap “Ex Oriente Lux,” Mededelingen en verhandelingen 9; Leiden: Brill, 1948). Seeligmann, J. A., “Jerusalem in Jewish-Hellenistic Thought,” Judah and Jerusa- lem: The Twelfth Archaeological Convention (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1957) 192–208 (in Hebrew). Shatzman, I., The Armies of the Hasmonaeans and Herod: From Hellenistic to Roman Frameworks (TSAJ 25; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1991). Shatzman, I., “The Hasmonean Army,” in: Amit and Eshel (ed.), The Hasmonean Period, 21–44 (in Hebrew). Sherk, R. K., Roman Documents from the Greek East: Senatus Consulta and Epis- tulae to the Age of Augustus (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1969). Sievers, J., The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters From Mattathias to the Death of John Hyrcanus I (SFSHJ 6; Atlanta: Scholars, 1990). Sievers, J., “Jerusalem, the Akra, and Josephus,” in: Parente and Sievers (ed.), Jo- sephus and the History, 195–209. Sievers, J., Synopsis of the Greek Sources for the Hasmonean Period: 1–2 Macca- bees and Josephus, War 1 and Antiquities 12–14 (Subsidia Biblica 20; Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2001). Skard, E., Zwei religiös-politische Begriffe: Euergetes – Concordia (Oslo: Dybwad, 1932). Skehan, P., “St. Jerome and the Canon of the Holy Scriptures,” A Monument to Saint Jerome (ed. F. X. Murphy; New York: Sheed and Ward, 1952) 259– 287. Sluys, D. M., De Maccabaeorum libris I et II quaestiones (Diss. Amsterdam, 1904). Smith, M., “Palestinian Judaism in the First Century,” in: Israel: Its Role in Civili- zation (ed. M. Davis; New York: Harper and Bros., 1956) 67–81. Sowers, S., “On the Reinterpretation of Biblical History in Hellenistic Judaism,” Oikonomia: Heilsgeschichte als Thema der Theologie (ed. F. Christ; Hamburg/ Bergstedt: Reich, 1967) 18–25. Sperber, D., A Dictionary of Greek and Latin Legal Terms in Rabbinic Literature (Dictionaries of Talmud, Midrash and Targum 1; Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan Univ., 1984). VIII. Abbreviations and Bibliography 123

Spicq, C., Notes de lexicographie néo-testamentaire, I–II + Supplément (OBO 22/1–3; Fribourg, Suisse: Éditions universitaires, and Göttingen: Vanden- hoeck & Ruprecht, 1978–1982). Spiegel, S., The Last Trial: On the Legends and Lore of the Command to Abraham to Offer Isaac as a Sacrifice: The Akedah (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication So- ciety, 1967). Starcky, J., RB 66 (1959) 424–430 (review of Hanhart, 2 Macc). Stemberger, G., “La festa di Hanukkah, il libro di Giuditta e midrasˇim connessi,” in: G. Busi (ed.), We-zo’t le-Angelo: Raccolta di studi giudaici in memoria di Angelo Vivian (Associazione Italiana per lo Studio del Giudaismo: Testi e studi, 11; Bologna: AISG, 1993) 527–545. Stemberger, G., Der Leib der Auferstehung: Studien zur Anthropologie und Eschatologie des palästinischen Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (ca. 170 v.Chr. – 100 n.Chr.) (Analecta Biblica 56; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1972). Stern, M., “‘Antioch in Jerusalem:’ The Gymnasium, the Polis and the Rise of Menelaus,” Zion 57 (1991/92) 233–246 (in Hebrew). Stern, M., The Documents on the History of the Hasmonaean Revolt (Tel-Aviv: HaKibbutz Hameuhad, 19722 [in Hebrew]). Stern, M., “The Land of Israel in the Hellenistic Period (332–160 B.C.C.),” in: M. Stern (ed.), The Hellenistic Period and the Hasmonean State (332–37 B.C.E.) (The History of Eretz Israel 3; Jerusalem: Keter and Yad Ben-Zvi, 1981) 9–190 (in Hebrew). Stern, M., Hasmonaean Judaea in the Hellenistic World: Chapters in Political His- tory (ed. D. R. Schwartz; Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar, 1995 [in Hebrew]). Stern, M., “Jewish-Hellenistic Literature,” in: Stern and Baras (ed.), The Diaspora, 208–237, 346–355 (in Hebrew). Stern, M., “Judaism and Hellenism in Palestine in the Third and Second Centuries B.C.E.,” in: Acculturation and Assimilation: Continuity and Change in the Cul- tures of Israel and the Nations (ed. Y. Kaplan and M. Stern; Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar, 1989) 41–60 (in Hebrew; reprinted in idem, Studies, 3–21). Stern, M., Studies in Jewish History: The Second Temple Period (ed. M. Amit, I. Gafni, M. D. Herr; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1991 [in Hebrew]). Stern, M. and Z. Baras (ed.), The Diaspora in the Hellenistic-Roman World (Jeru- salem: Am Oved, 1982/83 [in Hebrew]). Stokholm, N., “Zur Überlieferung von Heliodor, Kuturnaääunte und anderen miss- glückten Tempelräubern,” ST 22 (1968) 1–28. Stone, M. E. and E. G. Chazon (ed.), Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpre- tation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 28; Leiden: Brill, 1998). Strobel, K., Die Galater: Geschichte und Eigenart der keltischen Staatenbildung auf dem Boden des hellenistischen Kleinasien, I (Berlin: Akademie, 1996). Sundberg, A. C., The Old Testament of the Early Church (HTS 20; Cambridge, Mass.: Havard Univ., 1964). 124 Introduction

Tcherikover, V., “The Documents in 2 Macc 11,” Tarbiz 1/1 (1929) 31–45 (in Hebrew; reprinted in idem, The Jews in the Graeco-Roman World, 181–198). Tcherikover, V. A., Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Pub- lication Society, 1959). Tcherikover, V. A., The Jews in the Graeco-Roman World (Tel-Aviv: Neumann, 1960/61 [in Hebrew]). Toki, K., “The Dates of the First and Second Books of Maccabees,” Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute 3 (1977) 69–83. Torrey, C. C., “Die Briefe 2 Makk. 1,1–2,18,” ZAW 20 (1900) 225–242. Torrey, C. C., “The Letters Prefixed to Second Maccabees,” JAOS 60 (1940) 119–150. Tov, E., “Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings,” Melbourne Symposium on Septua- gint Lexicography (ed. T. Muraoka; Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series 28; Atlanta: Scholars, 1990) 83–125. Tov, E., Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, and Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 20012). Trindl, M., “Ehrentitel im Ptolemäerreich” (unpublished diss. München, 1942). Tromp, J., The Assumption of Moses: A Critical Edition with Commentary (SVTP 10; Leiden: Brill, 1993). Tromp, J., “The Formation of the Third Book of Maccabees,” Henoch 17 (1995) 311–328. Tyson, J. B., “The Jewish Public in Luke-Acts,” NTS 30 (1984) 574–583. Urbach, E. E., The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1975). VanderKam, J. C., “Calendrical Texts and the Origins of the Dead Sea Scroll Com- munity,” in: Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site (ed. M. O. Wise et al.; New York: NY Academy of Science, 1994) 371–388. VanderKam, J. C., From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests After the Exile (Minnea- polis: Fortress, and Assen, the Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 2004). VanderKam, J. C., “People and High Priesthood in Early Maccabean Times,” The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters (ed. W. H. Propp, B. Halpern and D. N. Freedman; Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1990) 205–225. VanderKam, J. C., “2 Maccabees 6, 7A and Calendrical Change in Jerusalem,” JSJ 12 (1981) 52–74. Vergote, J., “Les principaux modes de supplice chez les anciens et dans les textes chrétiens,” BIHBR 20 (1939) 141–163. Vinson, M., “Gregory Nanzianzen’s Homily 15 and the Genesis of the Christian Cult of the Maccabean Martyrs,” Byzantion 64 (1994) 166–192. Volkmann, H., Die Massenversklavungen der Einwohner eroberter Städte in der hellenistisch-römischer Zeit (Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschaft- lichen Klasse der Akademie der Wissenschaften und Literatur, 1961, Nr. 3; Wies- baden: Steiner, 1961). VIII. Abbreviations and Bibliography 125

Wacholder, B. Z., “The Letter from Judah Maccabee to Aristobulus: Is 2 Macca- bees 1:10b–2:18 Authentic?” HUCA 49 (1978) 89–133. Wagenaar, L., “Juda Makkabi und die Hohenpriesterwürde,” IL 8 (1882/83) 133–142. Walbank, F. W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius, I–III (Oxford: Clarendon, 1957–1979). Walbank, F. W., “History and Tragedy,” Historia 9 (1960) 216–234. Wegner, J. R., “Philo’s Portrayal of Women,” “Women Like This:” New Perspec- tives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World (Society of Biblical Litera- ture: Early Judaism and Its Literature, 1; ed. A.-J. Levine; Atlanta: Scholars, 1991) 41–66. Weinfeld, M., “The Common Heritage of Covenantal Traditions in the Ancient World,” I Trattati nel mondo antico: Forma, Ideologia, Funzione (ed. L. Can- fora, M. Liverani and C. Zaccagnini; Saggi di storia antica 2; Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1990) 175–191. Weinreich, O., “Türöffnung im Wunder-, Prodigien- und Zauberglauben der Antike, des Judentums und Christentums,” Genethliakon Wilhelm Schmid (Tübinger Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 5; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1929) 200–452. Weitzman, S., Surviving Sacrilege: Cultural Persistance in Jewish Antiquity (Cam- bridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ., 2005). Welles, C. B., “Hellenistic Tarsus,” MUSJ 38 (1962) 43–75. Welles, C. B., Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period: A Study in Greek Epigraphy (New Haven: Yale, 1934). Wellhausen, J., “Ueber den geschichtlichen Wert des zweiten Makkabäerbuchs, im Verhältnis zum ersten,” NAW 1905, 117–163. Wendland, P., Berliner philologische Wochenschrift, 21/1 (5 Jan. 1901), cols. 1–7 (review of Niese, Kritik). Wheeler, E. L., Stratagem and the Vocabulary of Military Trickery (Mnemosyne Supplementum 108; Leiden: Brill, 1988). Wifstrand, A., Epochs and Styles: Selected Writings on the New Testament, Greek Language and Greek Culture in the Post-Classical Era (WUNT 179; ed. L. Rydbeck and S. E. Porter; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 2005). Wilhelm, A., “Ein Brief Antiochos III.,” Anzeiger der AWW, 57 (1920) 40–57. Re- printed, with original pagination, in his Akademieschriften zur griechischen In- schriftenkunde (1895–1951), II (Leipzig: Zentralantiquariat der DDR, 1974). Wilhelm, A., “Neue Beiträge zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde, V”, Sitzungsbe- richte der AWW 214, 4 (1932) 3–51. Reprinted in vol. I of his Akademieschrif- ten, with original pagination. Wilhelm, A., “Zu einigen Stellen der Bücher der Makkabäer,” Anzeiger der AWW 74 (1937) 15–30. Reprinted ibid., vol. II, with original pagination. Wilhelm, A., “Zwei Epigramme aus Delphi,” Anzeiger der AWW 68 (1931) 78–96. Reprinted ibid., vol. II, with original pagination. Wilken, R. L., The Land Called Holy: Palestine in Christian History and Thought (New Haven: Yale, 1992). 126 Introduction

Will, E., Histoire politique du monde hellénistique, I–II (Nancy: Presses universitaires de Nancy, 19792). Will, E. and F. Larché et al., ‘Iraq al Amir: Le château du Tobiade Hyrcan (2 vols.; Paris: Geuthner, 1991). Williams, D. S., “Recent Research in 2 Maccabees,” Currents in Biblical Research 2 (2003/4) 69–83. Winston, D., The Wisdom of Solomon (AB 43; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1979). Woess, F. von, Das Asylwesen Aegyptens in der Ptolemäerzeit (Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 5; München: Beck, 1923). Wolff, C., Jeremia im Frühjudentum und Urchristentum (Texte und Untersuc- hungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 118; Berlin: Akademie-Ver- lag, 1976). Yerushalmi, Y. H., The Lisbon Massacre of 1506 and the Royal Image in the Shebet Yehudah (HUCA Supplement 1; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College – Jewish In- stitute of Religion, 1976). Young, R. D., “The ‘Woman with the Soul of Abraham’: Traditions about the Mother of the Maccabean Martyrs,” “Women Like This:” New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World (Society of Biblical Literature: Early Judaism and Its Literature, 1; ed. A.-J. Levine; Atlanta: Scholars, 1991) 67–81. Zambelli, M., “La composizione del secondo libro dei Maccabei e la nuova crono- logia di Antioco IV Epifane,” Miscellanea greca e romana (Roma: Istituto ita- liano per la storia antica, 1965) 195–299. Zeitlin, S. (ed.), The Second Book of Maccabees (with English trans. by S. Tedesche; New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954). Ziegenaus, A., Kanon (Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte, I, 3a [2]; Freiburg: Herder, 1990). Zimmermann, C., Die Namen des Vaters: Studien zu ausgewählten neutestamentlichen Gottesbezeichnungen vor ihrem frühjüdischen und paganen Sprachhor- izont (AJEC 69; Leiden: Brill, 2007). Zollschan, L. T., “The Earliest Jewish Embassy to the Romans: 2 Macc 4:11?,” JJS 55 (2004) 37–44. TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY

Introductory Letters (1:1–2:18) 129

Introductory Letters (1:1–2:18)

First Epistle

(1) To their brethren the Jews in Egypt (from) the Jews in Jerusalem and in the country of Judaea: greetings (and) good peace. (2) And may God be beneficent unto you and remember His covenant with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob His faithful servants; (3) and may He give you, all of you, a heart to revere Him and to do His will wholeheartedly and with a willing spirit; (4) and may He open your heart in His Torah and in the commandments, and make peace; (5) and may He hear your requests and become reconciled with you and not abandon you in an evil time. (6) And now, we are praying for you here. (7) In the reign of Demetrius, year 169, we Judaeans have written you concerning the oppression and the crisis which came upon us in these years, beginning when Jason and those who were with him rebelled against the Holy Land and the kingdom. (8) And they set fire to the gate and spilled innocent blood, and we prayed to the Lord and He hearkened unto us, and we brought sacrifices and fine flour. And we lit the lamps and presented the showbreads. (9) And now (we have written you) so that you shall celebrate the days of (the festival of) Tabernacles of the month of Kislev (10) of the year 148.

Second Epistle

The people in Jerusalem and those in Judaea and the Council of Elders and Judas to Aristobulus the teacher of King Ptolemy, who is of the line of the anointed priests, and to the Jews in Egypt: greetings and good health. (11) Having been saved by God from great dangers, we – who drew ourselves up for war against the king – give great thanks unto Him. (12) For He Himself drove out those who drew themselves up for war in the Holy City. (13) For when the leader came to Persia along with an army thought to be irresistible, they were cut down in the temple of Nanaia, the priests of Na- naia having employed a stratagem. (14) Namely, when Antiochus and his Friends came to the place as if to cohabit with her, in order to take the great sums of money (that were there) as a payment towards her dowry, (15) and 130 Translation and Commentary after the priests of the temple of Nanaia had displayed them and he, accompanied by a few people, had come to the precinct of the sacred enclosure, then, after Antiochus entered, they locked the temple and, (16) having opened the secret door of the compartment in the ceiling, they thundered down upon the leader, throwing rocks (through it); after cutting them to pieces and severing their heads they cast them out to those outside. (17) For all this is our God to be blessed, who handed those who did impiously over (to their condign fate). (18) As we are about to celebrate on the twenty-fifth of Kislev the purification of the Temple, we thought it necessary to inform you so that you too shall celebrate it as the holiday of Tabernacles and fire that Nehemiah (celebrated) when, after constructing the Temple and the altar, he offered up sacrifices. (19) For when our fathers came to the Persian country the pious priests of the time, having taken fire from the altar, secretly hid it in the hollow of an empty cistern, and they secured it there so that the place remained unknown to all. (20) But after enough years had passed, as seemed appropriate to God, Nehemiah – who had been delegated by the king of Persia – sent the descendants of the priests, who had hidden the fire, to bring it. (21) When they informed him that in fact they found no fire, but only a viscous liquid, he ordered them to draw it up and bring it. And when the things pertaining to the sacrifices had been offered up (on the altar) Nehemiah ordered the priests to douse with the liquid the pieces of wood and that which lay upon them. (22) When that was done and time passed, the sun lit up – having previously been clouded over – and a great fire broke out, so that everyone was amazed. (23) And the priests prayed while the sacrifice was consumed – the priests and everyone else, Jonathan leading and all the others, including Nehemiah, chiming in. (24) Their prayer had the following form:

“O Lord, O Lord God, creator of all, who is terrible and powerful and just and merciful, who alone is king and good, (25) who alone sustains, who alone is just and All-Ruler and eternal, who preserves Israel from all evil, who chose the Patriarchs and sanctified them – (26) accept this sacrifice on behalf of all Your people Israel and protect Your portion and hallow it. (27) Gather in our diaspora, emancipate those who are enslaved among the Gentiles, look down upon those who are set at naught and held to be abominable, and let the gentiles know that You are our God. (28) Torment those who oppress and outrage in arrogance. (29) Plant Your people in Your holy Place, as Moses said.”

(30) And the priests sang the hymns. (31) When the parts of the sacrifice had been consumed, Nehemiah ordered that the remaining liquid be Introductory Letters (1:1–2:18) 131 poured out upon large rocks. (32) When that was done, fire broke out, but it was consumed when the light was reflected back from the altar. (33) When what had happened became known, and the king of Persia was told that in the place, where the exiled priests had hidden the fire, this liquid had appeared from which Nehemiah’s people had sanctified the parts of the sacrifice, (34) the king – after getting confirmation of the event – fenced off (the place) roundabout and made it into a temple. (35) And the king took large sums of money and bestowed them upon the people who had drawn out (the liquid). (36) Those who were with Nehemiah called it nephthar, which in translation means “purification,” but among most people it is called nephthai.

(Chapter 2: Continuation of Second Epistle)

(1) And it is found in the writings that the prophet Jeremiah ordered the exiles to bring some of the fire, as has been indicated, (2) and that the prophet, in giving them the Law, enjoined the exiles not to forget the Lord’s commandments and not to go astray in their minds when seeing golden and silver idols and all their ornaments. (3) And saying other similar things he encouraged them not to let the Law depart from their hearts. (4) In that text it is also (written) that the prophet – upon the occurrence of a divine oracle – ordered (some people) to follow him with the Tabernacle and the Ark (of the Covenant), when he went out to the mountain from which Moses, after ascending it, viewed the inheritance of God. (5) And Jeremiah, after going there, found a cave-like house and brought into it the Tabernacle and the ark and the altar of incense, whereupon he blocked the way to the door. (6) When some of them who had together followed him approached in order to mark the way, they could not find it. (7) When Jeremiah learned of this, he rebuked them saying:

“This place shall also remain unknown until God will gather in the people and be merciful. (8) Then will the Lord display these things, and the glory of the Lord and the cloud will be seen, as it was also evident in the days of Moses – just as Solomon too asked that the Place be sanctified greatly.”

(9) And we have also been informed that, being wise, (Solomon) offered up a sacrifice for the rededication and completion of the Temple. (10) And just as Moses prayed before the Lord, and fire descended from heaven and consumed the parts of the sacrifice, so too did Solomon pray, and fire 132 Translation and Commentary descended and consumed the whole burnt offerings. (11) And Moses said: “Since the sin-offering was not to be eaten, it was consumed.” (12) So too did Solomon celebrate the eight days. (13) And the same things are also related in the records and in the memoirs of the days of Nehemiah, as well as that he, having founded a library, collected the books concerning the kings and the prophets, and also David’s books, and kings’ epistles concerning votive offerings. (14) So too did Judas gather all (the writings) which had been scattered by the war which transpired, and they are with us. (15) So if you ever have need of any of them, send people to bring them to you.

Conclusion of Second Epistle

(16) So, as we are about to celebrate the (holiday of) purification, we have written you; and you will indeed do well if you celebrate the days. (17) For the God who saved His entire people and returned to all (of us) the inheritance, including the kingdom and the priesthood and the sanctity, (18) as is promised in the Law – in that God we place our hope, that He will speedily be merciful to us and gather us from (all places) under heaven unto the Holy Place; for He saved us from great evils and purified the Place.

COMMENT

The first two chapters of our book are not really part of it. Rather, they con- sist of two letters (1:1–10a; 1:10b–2:18) and the epitomator’s preface (2:18–32). Formally, the book itself, which begins with the idyll at 3:1, is an attachment to the letters. Indeed, the seventh verse of the first letter seems explicitly to refer to the book, summarizing it as the story of events which began with Jason.1 The first letter, of which the paratactic Semitic (Hebrew or Aramaic) style is very tangible beneath the Greek (with κα appearing three-four times in most verses, eight in v. 8), is addressed in general by the Jews of Je- rusalem and Judaea to those of Egypt, inviting them to celebrate the festival commemorating the rededication of the Temple. It is very straightforward: the opening salutation (v. 1) is followed by a series of stylized

1 For the understanding of Ch. 3, which reports events prior to Jason, as something of a prologue, see above, pp. 4–6. Introductory Letters (1:1–2:18) 133 expressions of good will (vv. 2–5), whereupon the writers segue in v. 6 into the matter at hand (vv. 7–10a): they summarize the story from the advent of Jason to the rededication of the Temple and then urge the recipients to join in the celebration of the holiday instituted to commemorate that event. The second letter, in contrast, is more convoluted, due to two reasons: (a) its first section (1:11–17) seems to have suffered an extensive interpolation (vv. 13–16), and (b) the main body (1:18–2:15) tells its story in reverse historical order. It begins somewhat like the first letter: a salutation from the Jews of Jerusalem to the Jews of Egypt (which adds some specific names on both sides – v. 10b) is followed by a summary reporting that God had rescued them, and the Holy City, from great troubles. It concludes, similar to the first one, with an invitation (2:16–18) to join in the celebration of the holiday. In between, there are two main parts and each presents some difficulties. The first part, 1:11–17, follows its opening statements, about God having saved “us” (v. 11) by expelling those who had drawn up for war against the Holy City (v. 12), with a story (vv. 13–16) about Antiochus IV’s troubles and death in Persia, after having attacked a temple there. While this contributes to the general case that God punishes evildoers in general – especially for attacks upon temples – and punished Antiochus IV in particular, it focuses on the wrong temple. Moreover, there is some evident clumsiness at its introduction, as is seen by the repetition of γρ in both v. 12 and v. 13; and it is also significant that the verb used in v. 12, of those “expelled” from the Holy City (which in our book refers to Jerusalem), is the same as the one used at 5:8 to refer to the expulsion of Jason from Je- rusalem. It seems, therefore, that someone has interpolated, into a letter that focused upon the salvation of Jerusalem and the expulsion of a Jewish villain, a section which “enriched” the letter by telling a story about the downfall of Antiochus Epiphanes, who is also a prominent villain in our book. At this point, 1:18, the letter initiates its second main move, namely, the tracing of the history of the central functional element of the Temple of Je- rusalem: the fire on its altar. The story begins with Nehemiah, describing how at his direction the priests, at the time of the building of the Second Temple, found a viscous liquid in the cave in which the fire from the First Temple had been hidden at the time of its destruction. This liquid, when poured upon the altar, ignited in an amazing way; thus, more or less miraculously, the fire on the altar of the Second Temple may be seen to be identical with, and hence just as legitimate as, the fire which was on the altar of the First Temple. 134 Translation and Commentary

Having shown that, and having noted that Nehemiah had instructed the priests to pour the remaining oil onto rocks, which evidently absorbed it (the significance of which will be explained below), the epistle now goes on, in its continuation in Chapter 2,2 to trace the Temple’s fire back through the First Temple period. As in 1:18–19, he moves backwards. First he shows how Jeremiah, at the time of the destruction of the First Temple, arranged for the fire to be hidden (thus amplifying the brief account in 1:19), along with some other of the Temple’s appurtenances.3 Then he moves back with some statements about Solomon and Moses, which are not entirely clear, but which do include, at 2:10 and 2:12, the two most important points for the author of the letter: that the fire in use in the First Temple descended from heaven when Solomon dedicated it (a claim explicit already in 2 Chr 7:1) and that Solomon celebrated the Temple’s dedication for eight days (so 1 Kgs 8:66 and 2 Chr 7:9–10). These two points guarantee, respectively, the ultimately heavenly and hence sacred origin of the fire in use in the Second Temple, and the appro- priateness of celebrating the Temple’s rededication for eight days. Accord- ingly, after documenting his claims by referring to documents collected first by Nehemiah and then again by Judas Maccabaeus, the epistle ends with a call upon its recipients to join in the celebration of the new festival celebrating the Temple’s rededication – Hanukkah (2:16). This invitation is bolstered by a heavy peroration (vv. 17–18) that underlines the unity of the Jewish people. As for the question of why Nehemiah had the unused oil poured onto rocks, the answer is given in 10:3: when Judas Maccabaeus and his men rededicate the Temple, the fire for the altar was supplied by “igniting rocks and extracting fire from them.” That is, these rocks served the same function as had the cave chosen by Jeremiah: to store and preserve the original sacred fire, in one form or another, until opportunity arose to revive it. Thus, the most recent link in the story, that of Judas Maccabaeus, is attached to a chain which links it back to Solomon, and so to heaven, assuring the legitimacy of the restored Temple – and leaving no doubt about the propriety of celebrating its rededication. Q.E.D. Questions concerning the dating and authenticity of these two letters are dealt with in Appendix 1.

2 For the artificial and merely technical division between Chs. 1 and 2, see above, p. 17. 3 For an interpretation of this story that focuses upon the way it allowed Jews to believe the preservation of the Temple, for the future, transpired beyond the reach of foreign rule, see Weitzman, Surviving Sacrilege, 25–28. Introductory Letters (1:1–2:18) 135

NOTES

1:1. To their brethren. This is a standard salutation in letters between Jews. Note, for some other cases of letters concerning holidays: “the Passover epistle” from Elephantine (A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. [Oxford: Clarendon, 1923], no. 21) and Rabban Gamaliel’s letters cited in t. Sanh 2:6 (ed. Zuckermandel, 416–417): “To our brethren the Galileans … and to our brethren the southerners … and to our brethren of the Babylonian diaspora …”4 Cf. NOTE on 10:21, brethren. the Jews in Jerusalem and in the country of Judaea. This formulation implies that the city of Jerusalem has its “country” (ξ)ρα), that is, Judaea is the territory that surrounds Jerusalem and is defined by it. The writer is using standard Hellenistic terminology, just as, for example, 1 Macca- bees 14:36–37; Letter of Aristeas 83; Josephus, Antiquities 13.284 (ν BΙε- ροσολμοι« κα τP ξ)ρQ); Acts 10:39 (*ν τε τP ξ)ρQ τν BΙοψδα ν κα BΙεροψσαλημ), etc.; see also above, p. 6, n. 8. Such usage is especially prevalent with regard to Alexandria and Egypt; so e.g. Letter of Aristeas 107–111; 3 Maccabees 3:1; Philo, In Flaccum 5; and LSJ, 2015, s.v. ξ)ρα (fin). In rabbinic literature, the equivalent of ξ)ρα would seem to be medina, which is frequently paired with ‘ir (“city”); so, for example, “it is allowed in the ‘ir and forbidden in the medina” (t. Demai 4.12 [ed. Lieber- man, 80]), “fruit in Jerusalem and money in the medina” (m. Maaser Sheni 3.4). greetings (ξα ρειν). This is a standard Hellenistic opening, which appears in various combinations; cf. v. 10, also 11:16, 22, 27, 34; 1 Macca- bees 10:18, 25; etc. For the particular order used here, “to X (addressee) ξα ρειν from Y (the writer),” see Exler, Greek Letter, 42–44, 65–67. As Exler notes, the usual order puts the writer first, as in the letters in Chap- ter 11, so the order employed here usually bespeaks the writer’s wish to portray himself as less important than the recipient – the same usage that figures as part of the joke at 9:19, below. But that does not seem to be the case in the present epistle, and anyway the end of this verse will show that it is not to be judged by the standards of Greek letters.

4 On rabbinic reports concerning the emissaries who brought calendrical information from Palestine to the Diaspora see R. T. Beckwith, Calendar, Chronology and Wor- ship: Studies in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (AGAJU 61; Leiden & Bos- ton: Brill, 2005) 8–14. 136 Translation and Commentary good peace. A typically Aramaic formulation; the wish for “peace” appears at the end of almost every Aramaic letter. See Fitzmyer, “Notes,” 214–217. Goldstein (2 Macc, 140) suggests that these words allude especially to Jere- miah 33:9, “for all the good and all the peace,” and it is indeed possible, in light of what is assembled in our next note.

2. be beneficent unto (!γα"οπο ησαι). From here until v. 5 we have a string of blessings overflowing with biblical diction; see Enermalm-Ogawa, Langage de prière, 56–58. It seems that there is particular reference to Jere- miah 32 which, beginning in v. 26, refers to the Babylonian conquest of Je- rusalem (for comparison of Antiochus Epiphanes to the Babylonian king see also NOTE on 9:9, worms) and to the Babylonians’ introduction of their abominations into the Temple (Jer 32:34; cf. below, 6:4–5 and 10:2–3), but also has Jeremiah expressing his hope that God will “be beneficent” to the residents of the city (Jer 32:39, 40, 41) and even – as in our next verse – that “I will give them one heart and one way to fear Me” (Jer 32:39). remember His covenant. A frequent motif in prayers, e.g. 1 Maccabees 4:10. The formulation, here and in the continuation, recalls prayers ascribed to Moses, such as Deuteronomy 9:27 (“Recall for your servants, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”) and Exodus 32:13 (“Remember for your servants, Abra- ham, Isaac and Jacob, to whom You swore …”). However, it is especially important to cite here Exodus 2:24 and Leviticus 26:42. In both of these passages, recalling the covenant with the fathers introduces the end of exile – just as in Jeremiah 32 (v. 37), and as such is especially appropriate in a letter from Jerusalem to the Diaspora. with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. For reference to them in a similar context, in a letter urging celebration of a holiday, and expressing the hope that God will become reconciled with the addressees, see 2 Chronicles 30:6.

His faithful (πιστ#ν). On πιστ« and related terms in our book, see NOTE on 3:22, to preserve the trusts … entrusted. For Abraham as “faithful,” see Nehemiah 9:8 (in the wake of Gen 15:5: “and he believed” – ]ymXh, π στεψσεν) and Sirach 44:20 (“in a test he was found to be faithful” – ]mXn, πιστ«). servants (δο%λ ν … πιστ#ν). On δολο« in ancient religious terminology and the depth of obligation which it expresses, see: Spicq, Notes, 1.211–215 and Enermalm-Ogawa, Langage de prière, 135–136. See also 7:6, 33; 8:29. Introductory Letters (1:1–2:18) 137

3. and may He give you, all of you. There is an apparent emphasis upon the fact that the letter is addressed to all the Jews of Egypt – a call for national unity made even more explicit at the end of the second letter (2:17) and, again, in the narrative about the institution of the Hanukkah festival (10:8). (For links between 10:1–8 and these opening letters, see above, pp. 8–9.) a heart to revere him. We have already noted, in NOTE to v. 2, be beneficent unto, that both elements of this seem to recall Jeremiah 32:39; now we may add that Jeremiah’s reference there to one heart fits our verse’s implied call for unity. wholeheartedly (καρδ ' μεγλ)). Lit.: “with a big heart.” But it is clear that what is intended is the common biblical phrase, “with a complete heart” (,l> blb), for which see especially 1 Chronicles 28:9 where, as here, it is joined by “and with a willing spirit.” The same phrases reappear in Rabbi Alexandri’s prayer quoted in b. Berakhot 17a preserved in the daily Uva leZion prayer: “May He open our heart unto His Torah … that we may do His will and serve Him with a perfect heart” (Hertz, Authorised Daily Prayer Book, 1.204–5).

4. may He open your heart in His Torah. This phrase too reappears in the Uva leZion prayer, on the basis of the prayer of Mar, son of Rabina, cited in the Talmud (loc. cit.): “He will open our hearts in his Torah.” For a remarkable medieval understanding of the phrase that takes the implied physiology quite seriously, see I. Ta-Shma, JQR 87 (1996/97) 237–238. Cf. Apostolic Constitutions 8.6.5 (ed. F. X. Funk, 478 = Fiensy, Prayers, 92–93: “open the ears of their hearts”). the commandments (προστγμασι). This term compares the commands of the Torah to those of Hellenistic kings, for whose decrees this was the standard term (see Lenger, Corpus); see NOTE on 7:30, decree of the king … decree of the Law. (Elsewhere, we indeed translate “decrees,” even – as in 7:30, 10:8 and 15:3 – in connection with Jewish law, in order to underline – as the author seems to desire – the contrast between God’s “decrees” and those of the king. But here, in light of this letter’s Semitic background, we stuck to the Jewish term “commandments,” just as we used “Torah” instead of Law for νμο« earlier in this verse.) and make peace. Goldstein (2 Macc, 141) suggested omitting these words, viewing them as a marginal gloss on “good peace” at the end of v. 1. How- ever, his argument is only that vv. 3–4 “imply that the Jews of Egypt are 138 Translation and Commentary sinners who have not yet repented and have not yet been forgiven … only after the mention of God’s forgiveness in vs. 5 is there room for a prayer for peace in vss. 3–5.” Even if we subscribed to his reading of the implication of vv. 3–4 we could still read the text as is with no difficulty: the peace-making mentioned here would be the result of – or would allow for – God’s hearing of prayers, and that, in turn, would move Him to reconciliation. Moreover, the whole point of departure is doubtful, for vv. 3–4 can easily be taken as general language always appropriate to prayer, which need not imply any specific statement about the Jews of Egypt.

5. and may He hear your requests. This is polite: to express the wish that God hear the recipients’ prayers eliminates the impression that the writers think their own prayers for the Egyptian Jews are sufficient, the only prayers that matter. become reconciled (καταλλαγε η) with you. As Spicq pointed out (Notes, 1.407–411), in the Septuagint only our book uses this word, in its various forms (5:20; 7:33; 8:29). However, it is not only exceptional; it is also central to the entire historiographical scheme of our book, for “reconciliation” is one of its central motifs. See above, pp. 21–22. In general, see esp. Porter, Καταλλσσ in Ancient Greek Literature. The use of this verb here, in this letter attached to the book, means that the Judaean readers of the book, who wrote this letter to accompany it, correctly recognized the notion’s centrality, and alluded to it here. For a similar move on their part, see NOTE on 10:4, fall … edified. The assumption that these words reflect the Judaeans’ reading of the book and not – pace Goldstein (see NOTE on v. 4, and make peace) – any particular view on Egyptian Jewry, is important regarding the next bit of text as well: and not abandon you in an evil time. Just as we shied away, in v. 4, from seeing any special reference to the sins of Egyptian Jewry, so too here we hesitate to follow those who, such as Bickerman (Studies, 2.155–156), would infer that Egyptian Jews were undergoing particular troubles at the time of this letter; see Appendix 1, p. 524, n. 18. Rather, these are routine elements of prayer; see for example Psalms 37:18–19 (“The Lord knows the days of the blameless, and their heritage will abide for ever; they are not put to shame in evil times, in the days of famine they have abundance”) and Flusser, “Jerusalem,” 277–278, n. 31. For “evil time” see, for example, Jeremiah 2:27–28; 11:12. Cf. 4Q525, fragments 2–3, col. ii, lines 3–5 (DJD 25.122): “happy is the man who acquires wisdom … and does not abandon it in a time of trouble.” Had the writers of our letter seen their ad- Introductory Letters (1:1–2:18) 139 dressees as suffering some special troubles, it is doubtful that they could have ignored that in the continuation of the letter, when they get down to brass tacks. Here, until the transition in vv. 6–7, we are still reading the general introduction.

6. And now. Transitional words, as in Ezra 4:17 and 5:17, and in almost every Aramaic letter; see Fitzmyer, “Notes,” 216. Cf. Acts 5:5, 33. Here the transition is from the general introduction to the practical part of the letter; note its recurrence, as if to emphasize the practicality of the matter, in the final urging in v. 9. For the same usage in prayers, see esp. our NOTE on 14:36, And now. praying for you. Mention of the prayer on behalf of the addressees is meant to encourage them to acquiesce to the writers’ request. Compare, for example, Jonathan’s letter to his Spartan “brethren” (1 Macc 12:11) and Paul’s opening of his first letter to the Thessalonians.

7. In the reign of Demetrius, year 169. We may assume that a letter from the Jews of Jerusalem uses the Jewish (Babylonian) method of reckoning the Seleucid era, viz., from the spring of 311 BCE; see Introduction, p. 11, n. 24. That means the present date is equivalent to the year which began in the spring of 143 BCE, which was indeed during the reign of a Demetrius: the Seleucid king Demetrius II, who ruled 145–139 BCE and then again (after captivity in Parthia [1 Macc 14:1–3]) 129–125 BCE. According to a letter preserved at 1 Maccabees 13:36–40 this Demetrius freed Judaea of all taxation, something which the author of 1 Maccabees takes to mean that “in the 170th year the yoke of the Gentiles was removed from Israel” (13:41). Demetrius’ letter, as preserved in 1 Maccabees, bears no date, but the original must have had one, at its conclusion (see e.g. the letters in Ch. 11); since the very first verse after the document refers, as we have seen, to the year 170, it is relatively easy and secure to guess that the author found the date in the document itself and wove it into his narrative (for a similar case, see 1 Macc 15:10). This means, however, that the date in 1 Maccabees 13:41 should be understood according to the Seleucid’s own (Macedonian) system, counting from the autumn of 312 BCE, in which case 170 SE was the year that began in the autumn of 143. That year overlapped with the one specified here between the autumn of 143 and the spring of 142 BCE, and we may assume, therefore, that this letter was written during that period, in anticipation of the celebration of Hanukkah 143 or 142 BCE – the first celebration of the holiday in conditions of Jewish independence. For more detail, see Appendix 1. 140 Translation and Commentary we Judaeans. Here the context seems to require “Judaeans” rather than “Jews;” after v. 1 clarified that both the writers and the recipients are Jews, the former now identify themselves according to their residence. For such issues, see my “Jew or Judaean?.” have written (γεγρφαμεν). The use of the perfect here has engendered difficulties because normally, in Greek, it would refer to something written prior to the present document. This led commentators, beginning with Bickerman (see Appendix 1), to propose viewing the next few verses as a quotation from such an earlier letter. However, as Torrey noted (“Letters,” 123; so too Zeitlin, 2 Macc, 101), the verb refers to the present letter itself. On such usage, which reflects the point of view of the recipient (who is reading after – perhaps even long after – the letter was written), see D. Dempsey, “The ‘Epistolary Perfect’ in Aramaic Letters,” BN 54 (1990) 7–11. For Hebrew, see Miqsat Ma‘ase HaTorah, C26 (DJD 10.62): “We too have written (vnbtk) you some matters of Torah that we thought appropriate for you and your people;” the reference is to the same letter itself. For parallel usage even in Greek, see Welles, RC, lxx- lxxi. So too below, 2:16, although there the verb is in the aorist and not perfect; that is of no significance here, for our letter was translated from a language – Hebrew or Aramaic – that does not distinguish between the two. concerning the oppression and the crisis which came upon us ( ν τ* "λ χει κα, ν τ* !κμ* τ* πελ"ο%σ) -μ.ν). We translated on the assumption that there is an allusion here to Proverbs 1:27: “when oppression and crisis come upon you” (LXX: *ρξονται Fμν λχι« κα πολιορκ α). For 0κμ2 as a crisis, a “pinnacle” of troubles, cf. 4:13 and 12:22, along with LSJ, 51, s.v. As for “concerning,” we translated on the assumption that the Jews of Judaea were not, according to our author, suffering from oppression and crisis at the time of writing, in 169 SE, since the rest of our verse makes it clear that the troubles belong to a past generation, the period between Jason and the rededication of the Temple – twenty years and more before he wrote. There- fore, we took the preposition ν to mean “about,” as for example in Deute- ronomy 6:7 (LXX: κα λαλ2σει« ν α$το«). The writers evidently mean his vv. 7–8 to summarize the main points of the book which the letter will accompany, namely: beginning when Jason and those who were with him. The episodes concerning Jason are in Chapters 4–5, thus, the writers do not relate at all to the He- liodorus story reported in Chapter 3. This is one of the reasons we assume Introductory Letters (1:1–2:18) 141 that the book, accompanied by this letter, was basically understood as one dealing with the period that opened with Jason; see above, pp. 4-6. rebelled (!πωστη). The Hebrew sar, which apparently lies behind the Greek here, is frequently used in the sense of rebellion; for examples from another work of the second century BCE see Damascus Document 1:13–14 and 7:11–13. Thus, the use of this word intimates an element of insolence, rebellion, not just innocent “going astray.” the Holy Land. This is the only time this term appears in our book, which otherwise focuses upon a city; see above, pp. 6–7. Here, however, the Ju- daean letter-writer bespeaks his own point of view, not that of the book itself. As Wilken emphasizes (Land Called Holy, 24–25), the expression “holy land” is altogether rare in ancient Jewish literature; cf. Winston, Wis- dom of Solomon, 238. This is its first occurrence in Greek, and its first appearance altogether since Zechariah (2:16: >dqh tmdX//τ,ν γ#ν τ,ν 4γ αν). It seems that it was only centuries later, with the loss of Jerusalem, that it would become more widespread, among Jews, to focus on the land rather than the city. and the kingdom. Which kingdom? The phrase is ambiguous: does it refer to the Seleucid kingdom or to that of God? The former is perhaps simpler from the point of view of language and context (given the reference to Demetrius only one verse back), but it is difficult – despite Heinemann, “Wer veranlaßte,” 151, n. 18 – to view Jason as a rebel against the Seleu- cids. Even if he brought about the abrogation of the privileges granted by Antiochus III (4:11), he did it with the cooperation of Antiochus IV. And in any case it is difficult to think that a nationalist Judaean writer, such as the author of the present letter, would characterize Jason, whom he viewed as a villain, as having done something of which such a writer would approve – rebelling against the Seleucid government. Similarly, this passage should not be taken as alluding to Jason’s fight with Menelaus, described in Chapter 5; the writer had no reason at all to view that as one against God’s kingdom, hardly reason to view it as a revolt against the Seleucid kingdom, and no reason at all to condemn it as such if that were, nevertheless, how he considered it. Moreover, if the present reference were to events described in Chapter 5, this summary of the book would be skipping not only the events of Chapter 3, which we are prepared to accept, but also those of Chapter 4, for which we see no justification. Rather, we should see here a characterization of Jason as having rebelled against the kingdom of God. Note that the same verb is used at 5:8 to speak of Jason having rebelled against the laws 142 Translation and Commentary

(τν νμν 0ποσττη«), where the reference is to Jewish law, which amounts to rebelling against God. And the same interpretation is supported by the details supplied in v. 8, which too point to sins against the Temple (or Jerusalem) and the Jews, not against the Seleucid government. The term “kingdom” was probably selected in order to serve the same purpose as that of προστγματα in v. 4: the writers wish to remind their brethren in Egypt of the kingdom of God, which is supposed to oblige them all. On this concept in general see Camponovo, Königtum; pp. 186–188 on this verse.

8. And they set fire to the gate. Of the Temple; see NOTE on 8:33, holy gates. and spilled innocent blood. See esp. 5:6, but also 1 Maccabees 7:17 (on Al- cimus, not Jason), which cites Psalms 74:79: “they spilled their blood like water around Jerusalem.” This psalm, which opens “Gentiles have come into Your inheritance and defiled Your holy sanctuary,” could – like Jere- miah 32 (see NOTE on v. 2, be beneficent unto) – easily be read in connection with the events of this period. For a consideration of the pros and cons of the once widely-held view, that Psalm 74 was in fact composed in this period, see H. Donner, “Argumente.” and we brought sacrifices and fine flour. For a similar account in the book itself, see 10:3. It seems that whole-offerings and meal-offerings are meant; see Daniel, Recherches, 222, 257. Some witnesses read “sacrifice” in the singular (ψσ αν rather than ψσ α«), thus pointing to the familiar phrase hxnmv xbz (e.g. Isa 19:21; Jer 17:26; Ps 40:7); so Kahana, HaSepharim, 178 and Torrey, “Letters,” 142 (Xxnmv xbd). the lamps (λ%ξνοψ«) and presented the showbreads. The former were on the arms of the candelabrum. For the lamps and the showbread, in that order as here, see Leviticus 24:1–9. Note that, just as here, so too at 10:3 apart from sacrifices the only appurtenances of the Temple that are mentioned are the candelabrum and the showbread. As we have argued, it seems that the two passages are the work of the same Jerusalemite hands; see above, pp. 8–9. The candelabrum and showbread figure together frequently in ancient rep- resentations of the Temple (on coins and elsewhere), and were apparently considered to be its prime symbols; see D. Barag, “The Menorah in the Roman and Byzantine Periods: A Messianic Symbol,” BAIAS 1985/86, 44–47. However, note that the table (upon which the showbread was set out) almost always precedes the lamp, as already in the Bible (Exod 25:23, 31; 2 Chr 13:11, etc.), whereas here – as in Leviticus 24 – the lamps come Introductory Letters (1:1–2:18) 143 first. It may be that this reflects the context, given the fact that Hanukkah is known as the festival of lights (so already Josephus, Ant. 12.325). On the Temple’s candelabrum during the Second Temple period see L. I. Levine, “The History and Significance of the Menorah in Antiquity,” in: From Dura to Sepphoris: Studies in Jewish Art and Society in Late Antiquity (Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 40; ed. L. I. Levine & Z. Weiss; Portsmouth, Rhode Island: JRA, 2000) esp. 134–142.

9. And now. Enough history; the writer now gets to the point of the letter. Cf. NOTE on v. 6, And now. so that you shall celebrate (0να 1γητε). So too in v. 18, but there the main verb (“to inform”) is explicit; here the present phrase depends, implicitly, on “have written you” in v. 7, which we have parenthetically repeated for the sake of clarity. the days of (the festival of) Tabernacles (σκηνοπηγ α«) of the month of Kislev. This name for Hanukkah recurs below, v. 18. In the Septuagint, σκηνοπηγ α is the usual term for the holiday of Tabernacles (so too 1 Macc 10:21; John 7:2; etc.); the present designation of Hanukkah seems, accordingly, to reflect an early interpretation of Hanukkah that links it, and the fact that it was eight days long (note “days” here), to Tabernacles. This is explained below, at 10:6–7 (yet another link between this letter and 10:1–8).

10. Of the year 148. Of the Seleucid era; assuming again (as at v. 7), as is appropriate for a letter such as this, that the Jewish (Babylonian) reckoning is followed, this turns into the year beginning in the spring of 164 BCE, the year which includes, in Kislev (ca. December), Judas Maccabaeus’ rededication of the Temple – the first Hanukkah. In other words, this letter, which is dated to 143/142 BCE (v. 7), is inviting the addressees to celebrate the holiday commemorating the famous event “of the year 148.” The reading “148,” which we have adopted, is found in two miniscules (nos. 55, 62), of which the former is said to be nearly as valuable as the uncials (Hanhart, 2 Macc, 37); and it was accepted by various scholars, such as Kolbe (Beit- räge, 118) and Momigliano (Prime linee, 77–78).5 True, in recent decades it has been more popular to adopt another and better-attested reading, “188” (= 124/123 BCE on Jewish reckoning), and to view the letter as having been

5 Although the latter two thought it was the opening of the second epistle. 144 Translation and Commentary written in that year and quoting one written in 169 SE. But that relies upon a misunderstanding of the verb in v. 7 (see our NOTE ad loc. on have written). Moreover, there seems to have been no particular reason to send such a letter as this in 124 BCE, nor, if they were sent annually, is there any apparent reason for this particular letter to have been attached to the book; but 188 (ΡΠΔ) could easily turn into 148 (ΡΜΔ). For more details, see Ap- pendix 1.

The people in Jerusalem. As in v. 1; that they are “Jews” (or “Judaeans”) is taken for granted. the Council of Elders. On the gerousia see NOTE on 4:44, Council of Elders.

Judas. Apparently – Maccabaeus. That is, the letter purports to be written by him (and his colleagues) to the Jews of Egypt after having received news of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes (vv. 13–17) and on the eve of celebrating the first Hanukkah (v. 18 and 2:16). The order of events is thus as below, Chapters 9–10, and the letter would seem to be a notification of the Jews of Egypt of the decision reported at 10:8 (which would, of course, have been taken prior to the celebration). But the fact that the order of events conforms to that in the body of the book does not prove that this letter is an integral part of the book, for it seems that 10:1–8 itself is a secondary addition to the book; see above, pp. 8–9. It is difficult to guess when this letter was written, and – pace Goldstein, 2 Macc, 157–159 – it cannot be excluded that it is based upon an original going back to Judas himself; see Wacholder, “Letter from Judah Maccabee” and Flusser, “Dedication of the Temple,” 55–78. However, if there was such an authentic kernel, it grew; see NOTE on v. 12, For (γρ) He Himself drove out.

Aristobulus the teacher of King Ptolemy. The importance of this Aristobu- lus is underscored by the writer’s failure to give any byname for the king, as if the Jerusalemites couldn’t care less if the reference is to Philadelphus, Philopator or Philometor. So too “Demetrius” (above, v. 7), just like “Dem]trius” and “Antiochus” in the first column of Pesher Nahum from Qumran (DJD 5.38), and so frequently in Palestinian texts. In the body of our book, however, written by a Hellenistic Jew, we hear of “Philometor” (4:21) and “Ptolemy Philometor” (9:29). As for the identity of this Aristo- bulus, it seems clear that the present verse should be linked up with evidence (from Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius) for a Jewish philosopher of the same name; see esp. Holladay, Fragments, 3, with pp. 45–46 on this verse. Introductory Letters (1:1–2:18) 145 who is of the line of the … priests. This notice that Aristobulus was a priest is not supported elsewhere, and it certainly does fit the interests of the writer, who is clearly fascinated by the Temple. But neither consideration is reason enough to doubt the notice. The high status of priests in the Jewish community of Egypt is known from other sources too, such as Letter of Ar- isteas 3106 and 3 Maccabees 6:1; see my “The Priests,” 569–571. anointed. Although anointment of priests is mandated by the Pentateuch (Exod 30:30), the rabbis held that this was not done during the Second Temple period since the anointment oil was one of the things lost at the time of the destruction of the First Temple; see t. Sotah 13.1 (ed. Lieberman, 229) and parallels, along with S. E. Loewenstamm, Kiryat Sepher 34 (1958/59) 47–48 (in Hebrew). But our verse does not in fact claim that Ar- istobulus himself was anointed. to the Jews in Egypt. The way Aristobulus is singled out alongside this collective implies that he held some administrative or representative position within the community – similar to that of Judas Maccabaeus, who is singled out alongside the other authors of the letter. We know that Egyp- tian Jewry had “ethnarchs” (Strabo, apud Josephus, Ant. 14.117; ibid 19.283) and/or “genarchs” (Philo, In Flaccum, 74) in the Roman period; perhaps such positions existed in the Hellenistic period too (in general, see Stern, GLA, 1.280–281). But apart from any inference from our verse we have no evidence for Aristobulus filling such a role. For an Alexan- drian Jewish philosopher, said (by Jerome) to have been a priest, who did fulfill communal responsibilities, see Philo’s Legatio 178ff. and his

6 For the argument that the priests mentioned at Let. Arist. 310 are not Alexandrian but rather, Judaean, such as those mentioned in §184, see C. Zuckerman, “Hellenistic politeumata and the Jews: A Reconsideration,” SCI 8–9 (1985/88) 183, n. 30. How- ever, Zuckerman’s argument is merely the claim that “Alexandrian priests are mentioned in §53 only to demonstrate their ignorance of the Tora prescriptions” (so the author would not want to depend upon them in §310). In my opinion that is quite an arbitrary reading of §53(–56), for all that is said there is that when some priests and other Alexandrian Jews told the king he could build a larger table for the Temple of Jerusalem, if he so desired, he decided to preserve the current measurements; the Torah is not mentioned, and the story is meant to show not the priests’ ignorance of it but, rather, the king’s respect for Jewish tradition. Lüderitz too has rejected Zucker- man’s interpretation: “Politeuma,” 206. (In general, Zuckerman’s case against the existence of Hellenistic Jewish politeumata, of which the priests would be part of the leadership, has since been undermined by Cowey & Maresch, Urkunden; see esp. A. Kasher’s review of the latter: JQR 93 [2002/3] 257–268.) 146 Translation and Commentary

De specialibus legibus 3.3; Josephus, Antiquities 18.259; and Schwartz, “Philo’s Priestly Descent.” greetings and good health. This is a standard wish, but only in private letters; see Habicht, “Royal Documents,” 5 and the NOTE on 9:19, many greetings … Bickerman (Studies, 2.136–137) depended on this formulation to date the present letter, since – apart from one instance in the fourth century BCE – it is not in evidence before the middle of the first century BCE; so too Goldstein, 2 Macc, 164–165. But such considerations are not very reliable, for salutations are among those parts of documents that are most vulnerable to editing in texts passed on from one generation to the next.

11. Having been saved. The genitive absolute indicates both the timing and the causal relationship: we give thanks to God after He saved us because He saved us. from great (μεγλ ν) dangers. These words can apply to the entire story told by the book, through the dedication of the Temple in Chapter 10. For a summary, see 8:2–4. we – who drew ourselves up for war against the king. That is: we, who drew ourselves up for war against the Seleucid king, must thank God. The next verse will explain why. Here there is a clear subscription to the notion of dual causality (see Seeligmann, “Menschliches Heldentum,” and Amit, “Dual Causality Principle”): we drew ourselves up to fight, but it is God who achieved the results. Some scholars would emend the text here, so as to have it say that God alone “drew Himself up” for war against the king; so Abel (Macc, 290) and Habicht (2 Macc, 202, n. 11a) in the wake of Brus- ton, “Trois lettres,” 115, n. 1. But there is no manuscript support for this, and if our verse were to say already that God Himself did battle, the next verse would become somewhat redundant. give great (μεγλ «) thanks. The use of the adverbial form of the adjective used earlier in the verse underlines that the thanksgiving is commensurate with the dangers faced.

12. For (γρ) He Himself drove out ( ωβρασε) those who drew themselves up for war in the Holy City. This explains the declaration in v. 11, as if to say: “True, we drew ourselves up for war, but what was more crucial is that He did.” As for what this verse refers to, however, there is room for doubt. The next verses (introduced by another “for”) assert that the refer- Introductory Letters (1:1–2:18) 147 ence is to Antiochus Epiphanes, but in fact they do not refer to him being “driven out” but, rather, to him being killed – and that in Persia, not in the Holy City (Jerusalem). Rather, it seems that the real reference is – i.e., originally was – to Jason, who was “driven out” (7εβρση) of Jerusalem after attacking it (5:8). In the entire Septuagint, there is only one other passage where κβρζ is used, so its use in our two passages is significant. That is, just as in the first epistle (v. 7), so too here Jason is presented as the main villain. But this means that the next several verses, which tell a story about Antiochus Epiphanes in Persia, are a secondary addition, by someone who had another story to tell about the death of the infamous king; cf. Enermalm-Ogawa, Langage de prière, 58–59. Note that by defining vv. 13–16 as an interpolation we remove the main objection to the assumption that the author of the second letter knew our book; see below, Appen- dix 1, p. 527. in the Holy City (ν τP 4γ Q πλει). It has been thought that the context requires that the preposition be taken to mean “against the Holy City;” so Abel, Macc, 291 (“contre la ville sainte”) and Goldstein, 2 Macc, 154 (“made war on the Holy City”). This would point in the direction of a He- brew Vorlage for this letter, something which – as Goldstein himself notes in this connection (2 Macc, 169–170) – would be exceptional for this letter, despite some biblicizing style. In fact, however, there is no reason not to take the preposition ν here in its usual sense, “in,” which contrasts neatly with the opening 7- of the verb (“drove out”) and also fits the fighting within Jerusalem described in Chapter 5.

Holy City. On this appellation, see NOTE on 3:1, Holy City.

13. For (γρ). The secondary nature of this passage is easily detected in the clumsy repetition of “for.” when the leader came. It is clear that this refers to Antiochus Epiphanes, whose name appears in vv. 14–16. But why term him “the leader” (Tγε- μ)ν), rather than “king?” If it is not a piece of irony, it may reflect a desire to avoid using the latter title with regard to flesh and blood monarchs out of deference for the “kingdom” of God, see NOTE on v. 7, and the kingdom. Similarly, according to 2:17 “the kingdom” has been given to all of Israel. In this connection, note too the use of Tγομενο« instead of “king” in 1 Mac- cabees (9:30, 13:42, 14:41 etc.; cf. NOTE on 14:16, the leader’s) and the trouble some Qumran texts take to distinguish between kings and other “rulers;” thus Pesher Nahum 1.3 (DJD 5.38) refers to “the kings of Greece” 148 Translation and Commentary but “the rulers of the Kittim” (Republican Rome); cf. D. R. Schwartz, “The Messianic Departure from Judah (4Q Patriarchal Blessings),” TZ 37 (1981) 259–261 and A. Rofé, “Qumranic Paraphrases, the Greek Deuteronomy and the Late History of the Biblical Xy>n,” Textus 14 (1988) 169–174. But one shouldn’t expect consistency in such things; note “King Ptolemy” in v. 10 and “King of Persia” in vv. 20 and 33. Or was our writer especially sensitive about Antiochus Epiphanes, that villain? to Persia. This general toponym seems to be used without any particular intent; see NOTE on the end of the verse, in the temple of Nanaia. On Anti- ochus’ Persian expedition of 165/164 BCE, which led to his death, see also Chapter 9; 1 Maccabees 3:27–33 and 6:1–16; Polybius 31.9; Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 170–180; Le Rider, Suse, 311–324; Walbank, Polybius, 3.473–474; Will, HP, 2.352–355; Gera & Horowitz, “Antiochus IV,” 243–249. along with an army thought to be irresistible. We have no data about the size of Antiochus’ army. But it was preceded by a military procession at Daphne, near Antioch, which included more than 40,000 infantry and thousands of cavalrymen; see Polybius 30.25 and our NOTE on 5:2, according to units. According to Diodorus 31.17a, following this procession – which just preceded the Persian campaign – Antiochus was considered the most powerful king of his day; see Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 166–167. Of course, we should not forget that our writer’s purpose here is to contrast the force which was thought to be irresistible to the divine power that truly is (cf. 8:5!); see Otto, 6. Ptolemäer, 86–87, n. 4. in the temple of Nanaia. A Babylonian goddess identified by the Greeks with Artemis. Indeed, Polybius (31.9.1 = Josephus, Ant. 12.358) and Josep- hus (ibid. §354) report that the temple Antiochus wished to rob was of Ar- temis. According to our verse this temple was in “Persia,” and 9:1–2 agrees that Antiochus’ defeat came in the “Persian regions,” in “the city called Persepolis.” However, Josephus (loc. cit.), 1 Maccabees (6:1, Josephus’ source) and Appian (Syriakê, 66) all speak instead of Elymais (Elam), and Strabo (Geog. 16.1.18, p. 744) indeed mentions a wealthy temple of Arte- mis in Elam. Hundreds of kilometers separate Susa, the capital of Elam, and Persepolis. Rather than viewing this as a serious disagreement, it seems more reasonable, given our writer’s limited knowledge and lack of interest about such things, to see here only his inaccuracy concerning the details of far-off eastern regions. For discussion, see Le Rider, Suse, 323, n. 6 and Wal- bank, Polybius, 3.473–474. Introductory Letters (1:1–2:18) 149

14. Friends (φ λοι). That is, his courtiers; so too at 7:24; 8:9; 10:13; 14:11. On them, see Bickerman, Institutions, 40–50; Corradi, Studi, 318–343; Spicq, Notes, 3.940–943; G. Herman, “The ‘Friends’ of the Early Hellen- istic Rulers: Servants or Officials?,” Talanta 12–13 (1980–1981) 103–149; and I. Savalli-Lestrade, Les philoi royaux dans l’Asie hellénistique (Hautes études du monde gréco-romain 25; Genève: Droz, 1998). On those in Anti- ochus IV’s court, see Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 102–106. to cohabit with her. There was good ancient Mesopotamian precedent for marriage between a king and a goddess, and since it is known that Antiochus Epiphanes married Atergatis in Hieropolis (Bambyke) and so took treasures from her temple as her dowry (see Granius Licinianus, ed. Flemisch, 5, reprinted by Flusser in “Dedication of the Temple,” 81), there is nothing surprising about the present story. It seems, however, that the priests of Nanaia (unlike Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 132) quite reasonably doubted the sincer- ity of Antiochus’ intentions and suspected that what drew him to the goddess was her money; for a Greek observer of the same opinion, see Granius Licinianus, loc. cit. Indeed, according to Polybius 30.26.9 Antiochus looted most of the temples of Egypt, and there is papyrological evidence for the destruction of a temple in the Fayyum by his soldiers; see Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 93, also Broshi & Eshel, “The Greek King,” 127–128. And then, of course, there is the raid on the Jerusalem temple too (5:15–16 and 1 Macc 1:20–24). Thus, the priests of Nanaia could know what to expect. the great sums of money. On treasures in temples, see NOTE on 3:6, treasury in Jerusalem. as a payment towards (ε2« … λ3γον). On the terminology, see NOTE on 3:6, applied to the account …

15. the temple of Nanaia. For the names of temples such as Νανα ον, built on a divine name + ιον, see also 12:26 and P. Walters, The Text of the Sep- tuagint (ed. D. W. Gooding; London: Cambridge, 1973) 54–56. displayed them. I.e., displayed the treasures. This is the stratagem mentioned in v. 13: they let the king think that they were in fact prepared to turn over the treasures, and thus lured him into entering the temple with his guard down.

16. the secret door (τ,ν … κρψπτ,ν ραν). The use of the definite article seems to indicate that the reader takes for granted that eastern temples have 150 Translation and Commentary all sorts of secret passageways. Indeed, it is a common motif; see for example the apocryphal story of Bel and the Dragon (end of LXX Dan), vv. 15 and 21, and Josephus, Antiquities 18.74. See too Heron of Alexan- dria, Pneumatica 1.38–39 (on automatic opening devices for temple doors), along with Weinreich, “Türöffnung,” 407–410. cutting them to pieces. In the eastern fashion, including the decapitation mentioned in the sequel; see Walbank, Polybius, 2.97. On decapitation see also NOTE on 15:30, to cut off Nicanor’s head … they cast them out to those outside. I.e., to the rest of Antiochus’ contingent, apart from the “few” who had gone in with him (v. 15).

17. handed … over (4δ κε) … (to their condign fate). The parenthetical expansion appears to be required by the context. Some witnesses indeed give παρωδκε (or Latin “tradidit”), which is frequently used in this fatal sense in Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian literature; see 10:4; 14:31; and Spicq, Notes, 3.510–513. those who did impiously (0σεβ2σαντα«). This could apply equally to Anti- ochus and his associates or to Jason (termed 0σεβ2« at 4:13). That is, this verse could have been in the original version too, prior to the interpolation of vv. 13–16 (see NOTE on v. 12, For (γρ) He Himself drove out …).

18. As we are about to celebrate. For the implied date, see NOTE on v. 10, Judas. The writer now turns to the main point of his letter. Several witnesses quite appropriately insert here an οUν, as at 2:16 – which repeats the language of this verse and thus indicates the end of the historical review that begins here. For such usage, cf. e.g. 2:32 and 3:22. we thought it necessary to inform you (διασαφ5σαι). This “informing” is the main content of the letter: the demonstration of the legitimacy of the sacrificial fire of the Temple of Jerusalem. The story is told as a three-linked chain, moving backward from Nehemiah to Jeremiah to Solomon. The verb διασαφω, that here introduces the first link, will return to introduce the last one as well (2:9), thereby signaling to the reader that the story is about to end. so that you too shall celebrate it as the holiday of Tabernacles (σκηνο- πηγ α«) and fire. In repeating his agenda, which is basically identical to that of the first letter too (v. 9), the present writer adds in the element of fire, Introductory Letters (1:1–2:18) 151 which will be his focus from now on. This may well reflect a development in the history of Hanukkah, from the original analogy to Tabernacles to a focus upon lights (according to Josephus, Ant. 12.325, “lights” was indeed the name of the holiday), in which case the present letter would play an important role in explaining the transition. See too our NOTE on 1:8, the lamps …

Nehemiah … after constructing the Temple and the altar. Of course, they were in fact built in the late sixth century BCE, more than half a century before the earliest possible date of Nehemiah’s arrival in Judaea (it is usually assumed, for good reason, that the Artaxerxes under whom he served was the first – 464–425 BCE). But however erroneous, it was nonetheless common to link Nehemiah to the reconstruction of the Temple (and the rabbis indeed contemplated identifying him with Zerubbabel – b. Sanh 38a [top]). See Bergren, “Nehemiah,” 254–263; L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, VI (New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1968) 438–439, n. 26; and U. Kel- lermann, Nehemia: Quellen, Ueberlieferung und Geschichte (BZAW 102; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1967) 146; Kellermann tries to minimize the problem by taking the chronological reference here more generally (see ibid., 122). The mistake derives not only from the fact that Nehemiah, as Zerubbabel, was termed tirshata (Neh 7:65 and 8:9), but also from a general telescoping of the Persian period (the two centuries between Cyrus and Alexander) in Jew- ish historical memory, something in evidence in Qumran, in Josephus and in rabbinic literature (of which the latter claims the whole period was only 34 years – b. Abodah Zarah 8b etc.); see Schwartz, “On Some Papyri,” esp. 184–185. This telescoping, in turn, seems to have derived from the paucity of data about the period combined with the fact that too many Persian kings bore the same names (three each for “Artaxerxes” and “Darius”). In any case, Nehemiah was famous for having built in Jerusalem (see Neh 3–4; also Sir 49:13, where he is cited right after Zerubbabel and his contemporary, Joshua b. Jehozadak), so it was not difficult to add more to his credit. Bergren (loc. cit.) adds yet another factor: it may be that the emphasis upon Nehemiah reflects an attempt by our writer, or more generally by pro-Has- monean propagandists, to compare Judas Maccabaeus to this great hero of the past. offered up sacrifices. This is our author’s first claim: if Nehemiah, that exemplary figure, offered up sacrifice in Jerusalem, it must have been legitimate to do so. This means that, if the proper measures are taken, such as those the author will now report, the cult can be resumed after destruction (and, by implication, after desecration). 152 Translation and Commentary

19. our fathers. The writer emphasizes the commonality of the entire people, including the Jews of Egypt – a point to be emphasized again in his summation; see NOTE on 2:17, His entire people … to the Persian country. I.e., Babylonia, following the destruction of the First Temple – another case of our writer’s lack of concern for the details of eastern geography (see NOTE on v. 13, to Persia). But by referring to Persia our writer has the advantage of making the continuity between the First and Second Temple periods, which is his major theme, all the simpler. the pious priests of the time. For someone writing after the days of Jason, Menelaus and Alcimus, it is clearly not superfluous to point out that some priests were pious. Later in the letter, at 2:1, we will learn that it was Jere- miah (himself a priest: Jer 1:1) who supervised the hiding of the fire. having taken fire from the altar. Fire which, given its heavenly origin (known to pious priests and about to be explained to readers), had to be preserved if at all possible; the notion of igniting a new fire all by themselves, when the time came, was unthinkable (see Lev 10:1–2). in the hollow of an empty cistern. Lit.: “in the hollow of a cistern which was in a dry condition” (τ7ιν *ξοντο« 6νψδρον). For the text (cf. 9:18) and translation, see Hanhart, Text, 30–31 (vs. Wilhelm, “Zu einigen Stellen,” 15–19 and Katz, “Text,” 12–13). secured it there (κατησφαλ σαντο). This seems to imply a very thorough sealing, something easily done in cisterns, as was emphasized by Wilhelm, “Zu einigen Stellen,” 17–18; for the verb, he compares 3 Maccabees 4:9 and Matt 27:54.

20. enough years had passed, as seemed appropriate to God. It is not clear whether the writer means that God had fixed in advance the length of the Babylonian Exile, a notion which corresponds to Jeremiah’s prophecy that it would last seventy years; see Jeremiah 25:11–12; 29:10; Daniel 9:2. In any case, he did not mention that number, if only because – despite his confusion (see NOTE on v. 18, Nehemiah … after constructing the Temple and the altar) – he knew that more time than that had elapsed by the days of Nehe- miah; so Goldstein, 2 Macc, 177. Others, such as Habicht (2 Macc, 203), translate as if the text refers to “many years.” But although “many” can be the right translation for Vκαν« (and so we translated at 8:25), its basic Introductory Letters (1:1–2:18) 153 meaning is “enough,” “appropriate;” see 5:25 and Spicq, Notes, 3.345–346; Mauersberger, PL, 1.1172–1175. In the present case, it seems that the basic meaning is also indicated by the explanation “as seemed appropriate to God,” for these words explain Who it is that decided how much is “enough.”

Nehemiah – who had been delegated by the king of Persia. To be governor in Jerusalem; see Nehemiah 2.

21. When they informed him that in fact they found no fire. The translation assumes a minor and generally-accepted emendation: instead of Tμν, which would have them informing “us,” Risberg suggested reading W μ2ν, “truly,” “in fact;” for this expression, used in oaths and emphatic statements, see LSJ, 1127, s.v. μ2ν, §II,1. See B. Risberg, “Konjekturer till några ställen i de apokryfiska böckerna,” Eranos 15 (1915) 33–35, followed by Wilhelm, “Stellen,” 19; Katz, “Text,” 13; and Habicht, 2 Macc, 203–204. Reading “us,” although supported by most witnesses and retained by Han- hart (who defends it as a forgivable stylistic oddity – Text, 30), makes no sense, as the writer is clearly writing long after Nehemiah’s day.

And when the things pertaining to the sacrifices. The animals along with their accompanying meal-offerings and libations. On the construction and punctuation here, see Hanhart, Text, 31. had been offered up (!νηνωξ"η) (on the altar). And were now awaiting fire. For the use of 0ναφωρ for sacrificing, not merely for “bringing along” (as Katz, “Text,” 13) see 1:18, 2:9 and 10:3; Hanhart, Text, 31, n. 6; Spicq, Notes, 1.91–93; and Daniel, Recherches, 240, 255. to douse with the liquid (τ7 8δατι). Lit. “with the water.” The use of Iδρ (lit. “water”), as already earlier in this verse (where, together with “viscous,” we had to use “liquid” and not “water”), is strange, and it may be meant to hint at something which makes the story even better, by an allusion to the Elijah story at 1 Kings 18:33–35: not only had the original fire disappeared, but what was found should have, like water, made it even harder to ignite a new fire. Note, however, that while Iδρ is more or less (but only more or less) unambiguously “water” in ancient Greek (which offers Fγρ« for “liquid,” e.g. in Aristotle, Meteorologica 4.6, 383b), there is no ancient Hebrew word for “liquid” and so mayyim (“water”) serves also for liquids in general; see e.g. Jeremiah 8:14; the qeri of 2 Kings 18:27 and Isaiah 36:12; Ezekiel 7:17 and 21:12. The word used here may, accordingly, point us to a Semitic Vorlage – for this story, if not for the whole letter. 154 Translation and Commentary

22. the sun. That is, not only was the fire of the Second Temple preserved from the First; it too was lit up from heaven.

23. while the sacrifice was consumed. By the fire. For such usage of δα- παν see v. 32; 2:10; and Appendix 8.

Jonathan. Otherwise unknown. Perhaps the reference is to a high priest mentioned at Nehemiah 12:11, also known as Johanan (ibid. v. 23). True, it seems – to us – that his floruit was a few decades after Nehemiah’s, but problems like that need not have bothered our writer; see NOTE on v. 18, Nehemiah, after constructing … Goldstein (2 Macc, 178) speculates that “Jonathan” here is a corruption of “Mataniah,” who seems to have been, in Nehemiah’s days, something like a prayer leader (Neh 11:17). That would fit his function here. However, apart from the fact that the witnesses here unanimously read “Jonathan” it should also be noted that the meaning of Nehemiah 11:17, and what it says of Mataniah, is not very clear. all the others … chiming in. This seems to mean that Jonathan began and the others responded. Cf. Judith 16:1 (Rahlfs 15:14): “Then Judith began this thanksgiving before all Israel, and all the people loudly sang this song of praise.” Both accounts are similar to that envisioned by R. Nehemiah for the recitation of the Song of the Sea (Exod 15): “Like people who say the Shema in the synagogue: as it is written, ‘and they said, saying’ (Exod 15:1) – this means that Moses would first open and then Israel answered after him and completed it with him, viz.: Moses said ‘Then Moses sang’ and Israel answered ‘I will sing unto the Lord etc.;’ Moses said ‘The Lord is my strength and my song’ and Israel said ‘this is my God and I will praise Him;’ Moses said ‘The Lord is a man of war’ and Israel said ‘the Lord is His name’” (t. Sotah 6.3 – ed. Lieberman, 183–184). On the division of prayer between the cantor and the congregation, on the basis of this and other texts, see E. Fleischer, “Towards a Clarification of the Expression ‘Poreis ‘al Shema’ (im> li crvp),” Tarbiz 41 (1971/72) 133–144 (in Hebrew).

24. the following form. In general, on this prayer, see Enermalm-Ogawa, Langage de prière, 59–86.

O Lord, O Lord God. For the same opening, which of course recalls Moses’ highly effective (post-Golden-Calf!) prayer at Exodus 34:6, see e.g. 3 Mac- cabees 2:2 and LXX Esther 4:17a. Introductory Letters (1:1–2:18) 155 creator of all. We translated κτ στη« in accordance with the usual Septua- gintal use of κτ ζ “create.” So too in other prayer contexts – 7:23 and 13:14. For Hellenistic usage, of “foundation,” see NOTE on 6:23, divinely- established legislation. For God as creator, see Zimmermann, Namen des Vaters, 345–383; in her discussion of 2 Maccabees (pp. 350–351) Zimmer- mann emphasizes the link our book establishes between God’s being the creator and the expectation that He will intervene to save those in need of His assistance.

25. who alone is just. For emphasizing God’s justice before making requests of Him, see also 12:6, 41–42.

All-Ruler (Παντοκρτρ). Used frequently of God in our book (5:20; 6:26; 7:38; 8:11, 24, etc.), as in the rest of the Septuagint (where it usually accompanies Kyrios as the translation of “Lord of Hosts;” see H&R, 2.1053–1054). It is a particularly apt term for our book, which is frequently bent on demonstrating God’s strength (κρτο«) – 3:34; 7:17; 9:17; 11:4. See Enermalm-Ogawa, Langage de prière, 67–69; van Henten, “Pantokrator;” and Zimmermann, Namen des Vaters, 233–271 (248–249 on 2 Maccabees, with emphasis on the characteristic usage of this epithet in prayers, as here). For the suggestion that the term is of Jewish origin, although there are others close to it in older Greek literature, see Montevecchi, “Pantokrator,” 403–406. who chose the Patriarchs and sanctified them. This is not particularly relevant to the issue of restoring the Temple, but is eminently important for the writer; see NOTE on v. 19, our fathers. So too:

26. all Your people Israel. Again the same emphasis, here expressed via “all” (as in 2:17) rather than “fathers.”

Your portion. Perhaps an echo of “For the Lord’s portion is His people” (Deut 32:9). For the use of this chapter in our book, see pp. 21–22. How- ever, given the move to “diaspora” in the very next verse, it could well be that the reference is instead to the Land of Israel, just as “inheritance,” which appears in the continuation of Deuteronomy 32:9 (“and Jacob is his allotted inheritance”), is taken to refer to it later in this letter (2:4, 17).

27. Gather in our diaspora. For prayers for the ingathering of the Dias- pora, see Chazon, “‘Gather the Dispersed;’” at p. 164 she notes that our verse, as Sirach 36:11 (quoted below), “seem[s] to use Isa. 49:5–6, perhaps 156 Translation and Commentary intertextually with Isa. 11:12,” noting that “2 Macc 1:27’s connection with this Isaiah passage is suggested by the additional motif of the despised nation, which it shares with Isa. 49:7 (Goldstein, II Maccabees, 179).” For some prime parallels, see Sirach 36:11, “Gather all the tribes of Jacob, and give them their inheritance, as at the beginning,” and Psalms of Solomon 8:28: “Gather together the dispersed of Israel, with mercy and goodness.” It is interesting that in our Hellenistic Jewish book it is only here, in this Pa- lestinian letter attached to it, that the term “Diaspora” (διασπορ), or a prayer for its ingathering, appears; see Enermalm-Ogawa, Langage de prière, 75–76 and W. C. van Unnik, Das Selbstverständnis der jüdischen Diaspora (AGAJU 17; Leiden: Brill, 1993) 122–123. For a diasporan author who believes that the people is more important than the place (5:19), this is as expected. So too: emancipate those who are enslaved among the Gentiles … set at naught and held to be abominable. Another expression of a Palestinian view of the nature of life in the Diaspora. See NOTE on 10:2, non-Jews. look down. As in the prayer in Deuteronomy 28:15. Again, as opposed to what is emphasized in the body of our book (2:21; 3:15, 20, 34, 39; 8:20; 9:4, 20; 10:29; 11:10; 14:34; 15:3–4, 8, 21, 23, 34), that it is from heaven that He looks down upon (i.e., providentially supervises) us – a point which is already emphasized in Deuteronomy (ibid.) and in Psalms 33:13–14 – this Palestinian letter, even when, as here, it assumes God is in heaven, does not point that out. It is to the rest of our book precisely what the Judaean 1 Mac- cabees 7:36–38 is to its parallel in our 14:34–36 (see NOTE on 14:35, You are not in need of anything). that You are our God. Or, perhaps: “that You, our God, are,” i.e., really exist. Such phrases are frequent in the Bible, e.g. Exodus 8:18; 2 Kings 19:19; Isaiah 37:20, 45:3.

28. those who oppress and outrage ( ψβρ ζοντα«) in arrogance (περη- φαν '). No names are mentioned, but it is difficult – also due to the last- cited word – to avoid the assumption that the reference is to Antiochus Epiphanes, who is described as an arrogant braggart (see esp. 5:21 and 9:8–12); on hybris see NOTE on 8:17, outrage. So much the less reason to imagine that this is indeed a prayer from the days of Nehemiah.

29. Plant Your people in Your holy Place, as Moses said. In Exodus 15:17: “Thou wilt bring them in, and plant them on thy own mountain, the place, Introductory Letters (1:1–2:18) 157

O Lord, which thou hast made for thy abode, the sanctuary, Lord, which thy hands have established.” This allusion to the Song of the Sea, the first step of the Israelites on their way from Egypt to the Promised Land, is a very apt one in the present context, which has expressed the hope for the ingathering of the exiles – first and foremost, of the addressees, namely, the Jews of Egypt. For the hope of the exiles being gathered to the Holy Place, see also the last verse of this letter (2:18). The metaphor of planting for firm establishment was – esp. on the basis of this verse in Exodus and 2 Sa- muel 7:10, but here it is especially apposite to cite also Jeremiah 32:41 (see NOTE on v. 2, be beneficent unto) – popular in Jewish literature of the Sec- ond Temple period; see S. Fujita, “The Metaphor of Plant in Jewish Litera- ture of the Intertestamental Period,” JSJ 7 (1976) 30–45; P. A. Tiller, “The ‘Eternal Planting’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” DSD 4 (1997) 312–335.

30. And the priests sang the hymns. Levites, who are known from our sources to have been the Temple singers (1 Chr 25 etc.; Josephus, Ant. 20.216–218), are not mentioned at all in our book, just as in general they are quite rare in the literature of the Second Temple period; see J. Liver, Chapters in the History of the Priests and Levites (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1968) esp. 64–72 (in Hebrew), and Schwartz, Studies, 93–98. “Temple singers” (Vεροχλται) are mentioned in Antiochus III’s decree cited in An- tiquities 12.142, but even there it is not said they were Levites. Note, however, that it is difficult to render “Levites” in Greek; indeed, at Antiquities 20.216 Josephus felt the need to gloss “the Levites” and explain to his readers that they are “a tribe.” Accordingly, it would be understandable if some original references to Levites turned, in Greek texts such as ours, into “priests.”

31. When the parts of the sacrifice had been consumed. By the fire, as in v. 23. the remaining liquid. Which, it should be recalled, was a metamorphosis of the First Temple’s altar fire. upon large rocks. The ones from which Judas Maccabaeus will extract old- new fire to rededicate the Temple, according to 10:3, which is the raison d’être of this whole story. For the text here, see Kappler, Memoria, 66, as well as Katz, “Text,” 13, on the one hand; Hanhart, Text, 29, on the other. Kappler thought the preposition π must be added and that without it the text – as in Hanhart’s edition: Νεεμ α« κωλεψσε λ οψ« με ζονα« κατα- ξεν – sounds like Hebrew, not Greek; Katz backed Kappler up by showing 158 Translation and Commentary that the preposition could have been elided by homoioteleuton. Hanhart responded that a Hebraism is not surprising in a text translated from Hebrew or Aramaic (see Introduction, p. 8, n. 15). However, it seems that Hebrew too would require a preposition here; note that Torrey (“Letters,” 145), Ka- hana (HaSepharim, 181), Artom (2 Macc, 11), and Hack (“Two Hanukkah Letters,” 98) all felt the need to insert ‘al, and Torrey explicitly noted that the Greek text wrongly lacked the π .

32. fire broke out. Thus proving that the liquid was still combustible. was consumed ( δαπαν"η) when the light was reflected back (!ντιλμ- χαντο«) back from the altar. Apparently we are to understand that the flames of the fire that broke out on the rocks were reflected back from the altar, and when that happened the fire went out – was “consumed” by the rocks; no longer needed, for the present, the fire was stored in the rocks until needed again – at 10:3.

33. the king of Persia was told. Judaea being part of his empire at the time of Nehemiah. That the non-Jewish ruler is not named indicates lack of knowledge (see NOTE on v. 18, Nehemiah … after constructing the Temple and the altar), lack of interest (see NOTE on v. 10, Aristobulus the teacher of King Ptolemy), or both.

34. getting confirmation (δοκιμσα«). On the verb, see NOTE on 4: 3, one of Simon’s partisans. fenced off (the place) roundabout. This is a crucial step in the foundation of any temple; note that the term τωμενο«, “sacred enclosure,” derives from τωμν – “to cut,” “to separate.” Our author imagines the Persian king built a temple to honor the site where the Jerusalem fire had so miraculously been preserved. On Persian temples and their focus upon fire, see esp. K. Schipp- mann, Die iranischen Feuerheiligtümer (Berlin & New York: de Gruyter, 1971).

35. large sums of money. This is the usual meaning of διφορα in the Hel- lenistic period; cf. NOTE on 3:6, discrepancies. drawn out. Our translation assumes another of Risberg’s emendations (“Anmerkunken,” 17–18): 7ηρσαντο (“who had drawn out”) instead of ξαρ ζετο, which is the reading in Hanhart’s and Abel’s editions, based upon the Venetus and the Latin and Syriac versions. As for what the latter Introductory Letters (1:1–2:18) 159 might mean, Abel (Macc, 298) thought the implication is that the king took large sums of money and gave them to those he favored. But this is difficult, for such a statement would have nothing to do with the current context; for the use of τοτο (“it”) in the next verse shows that we are still talking about the remarkable liquid, but such an elliptic reference would be impossible if the intervening verse had turned to another subject. To solve this problem, in their translations Abel, Habicht and Goldstein all replace “it” in v. 36 with “the liquid” – a deviation that merely points up the problem. So too, all the more, does the fact that Abel inserted “en” into his translation of our verse (“Le roi faisait part des grands revenues qu’il en reti- rait”), to indicate that the sums of money were derived from the new temple; this restores the context wonderfully, but there is nothing to support it in the Greek, just as there is nothing in the story to indicate that this temple produced any revenue. Goldstein (2 Macc, 180–181) took another route, based on the fact that the verb ξαρ ζετο does not appear here in the Alexandrinus. He adopted this shorter reading (which may be read in Swete’s edition) and explained that the king took great sums of money and gave them to “them,” i.e., to Nehemiah’s people mentioned in v. 33. But the fact that a full verse (34) separates “them” from its suggested antecedent makes it difficult to accept this reading – as is shown by the fact that, in his translation (p. 155), Goldstein does not in fact content himself with “them” and instead explicitly names “Nehemiah and his followers.” All in all, Ris- berg’s solution seems the best: the verb he inserts maintains the context (those who were rewarded are those who drew out the liquid) and is paleo- graphically similar to ξαρ ζετο but much rarer (see LSJ, 588, s.v. 7αρ, citing inter alia Plutarch, Quaestiones convivales 637e).

36. nephthar (νεφ"αρ), which in translation means “purification” (κα"α- ρισμ3«). The latter is our writer’s preferred term for Hanukkah (1:18; 2:16). That is, the holiday of purification should be celebrated in memory of the “purification,” that is the pure nephthar, which allowed for continuity from the First Temple to the Second, and which was absorbed into rocks at the dedication of the Second Temple, thereby allowing renewed continuity when Judas Maccabaeus rededicated the Temple. On naphtha (νφα), i.e. crude oil, see esp.: Strabo, Geog. 16.1.5, p. 743; Plutarch, Life of Alexander, 35 (including ibid., §§3–4, on its speedy combustibility, similar to what is reported in our v. 32); R. J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology, I (Leiden: Brill, 1955) 12–14. Forbes offers various suggestions about the etymology of naphta. But we do not know in what language the word nephthar (sic) is supposed to mean – as the writer claims – purification. Grimm (2 Macc, 48–50) and Goldstein (2 Macc, 181) suggest deriving the term from the Hebrew 160 Translation and Commentary niphtar, i.e. “released,” “freed from obligation,” as if it refers to becoming free of pollution, i.e., “purification.” This is just as likely as anything else.

2:1. it is found in the writings. We can hardly even guess as to what writings in particular are meant, or whether the claim in v. 13 that “the same things” are related in “the records and in the memoirs of the days of Nehemiah” applies only to the events reported about Solomon and Moses (vv. 8–12) or, rather, to the Jeremiah material as well; see Wolff, Jeremia, 22–23, n. 5. There are several Jewish sources that discuss the fate of the vessels and appurtenances of the First Temple and Jeremiah’s role in hiding them: Eupole- mus (apud Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 9.39.5 = Holladay, Fragments, 1.134); Paraleipomena Ieremiou 3:8–11 (ed. R. A. Kraft & A.-E. Purinton [Mis- soula, Montana: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972] 16–17); and esp. 2 Ba- ruch 6. For rabbinic lists of what was missing during the Second Temple period, see Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-Fshutah, VIII: Nashim (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1973) 733 (on t. Sota 13.1); Goldstein, 1 Macc, 547, n. 1. Note also Massechet Kelim (in A. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch: Samm- lung … [Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 19673] 88–91), republished along with translation and some relevant inscriptions from Beirut by J. T. Milik, “Notes d’épigraphie et de topographie palestiniennes,” RB 66 (1959) 567–575. On Jeremiah’s role in the present story, see esp. Wolff, Jeremia, 61–71. the prophet Jeremiah. Around whom the second stage of our letter’s story focuses: if the first stage told how Nehemiah discovered and “resuscitated” the fire of the First Temple, this second stage will tell how that was all made possible by Jeremiah, who had hidden the fire. Jeremiah, who went into exile in Egypt at the time of the Temple’s destruction (Jer 43–44), was a popular figure among the Jews of that country; for traditions concerning his burial there, and that Alexander the Great used his bones when founding Alexandria, see Wolff, Jeremia, 39–42, 90. Hence, it was a wise move by the authors of this letter to mobilize Jeremiah for their story; so too the author of our book, at 15:14–16. as has been indicated. In 1:19; here we are told that the pious priests oper- ated under Jeremiah’s instructions.

2. in giving them the Law. In the apocryphal Epistle of Jeremiah, building upon Jeremiah 10:2–11, the prophet repeatedly warns his people not to be tempted into idolatry. Perhaps this was one of the “writings” cited by our author in v. 1; see Wolff, Jeremia, 23, n. 1, and D. Dimant in DJD 30.107–108. Introductory Letters (1:1–2:18) 161 not to go astray in their minds (8να μ, 0ποπλανησι τα« διανο αι«). For the verb here, see NOTE on 6:25, go astray. This seems to allude to verses in Deuteronomy 29 where Moses warns the Israelites not to go astray after the idols of Egypt; see its v. 17 (“and you have seen their detestable things, their idols of wood and stone, of silver and gold, which were among them” – our writer, who refers to “their ornaments,” apparently took “them” to refer to the idols) and v. 19 (“one who … blesses himself in his heart, saying, ‘I shall be safe, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart’” [LXX: τW 0ποπλαν2σει τ#« καρδ α« μοψ πορεσομαι]). The present passage bespeaks a tradition according to which Jeremiah repeated such a warning to those who were exiled to Babylonia. Such a tradition lies behind the Epistle of Jeremiah; see also 4Q385a, Frg. 18 I a-b (DJD 30.159–163). For “stubbornness of heart” as the source of sin, see esp. Damascus Document 2:17–3:12.

3. he encouraged them not to let the Law depart from their hearts (μ: !ποστ5ναι τ;ν ν3μον !π; τ5« καρδ α« α<τ#ν). Cf. Deuteronomy 4:9 (“lest they depart from your heart;” LXX: μ, 0ποστ2τσαν 0π" τ#« καρδ α« σοψ) and such verses as Isaiah 59:21 (“they shall not depart from your mouth …”) and Joshua 1:8 (“this book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth …”).

4. in that text. I.e., the one mentioned in v. 1. Or perhaps we should translate “In (that) Scripture”? For such usage, see BDAG, 206. upon the occurrence of a divine oracle. On this sense of ξρηματισμ« see BDAG, 885; Macrobius, On Scipio’s Dream, 1.3 (in Lewis, Dream Inter- pretation, 20–23). For another meaning, see NOTE on 11:17, document. For the suggestion that the present reference is to Jeremiah 3:16, see Weitz- man, Surviving Sacrilege, 26–27. ordered (some people) to follow him with the Tabernacle and the Ark. Without the parenthetical insertion, the verse would mean that he ordered the Tabernacle and the ark to follow him, which would be a miracle that should have been made explicit. Since v. 6 makes it clear that people accompanied Jeremiah on this expedition, it seems most reasonable to infer they are assumed here too. See esp. Grimm, 2 Macc, 51. For the juxtaposition of the Tabernacle and the Ark, cf. t. Sotah 13 (ed. Lieberman, 229): “When the First Temple was built the Tabernacle was hidden (see 1 Kgs 8:4) … when the Ark was hidden …” 162 Translation and Commentary the mountain from which Moses, after ascending it. Mt. Nebo; see Deute- ronomy 3:27 and 34:1. This site, where Moses was buried “and no one knows his burial site until this very day” (34:7), was apparently thought to be an especially appropriate place to hide holy things. For other traditions linking Jeremiah and Moses, see Wolff, Jeremia, 79–83. viewed the inheritance of God. Here, clearly: the land of Israel; see Num- bers 27:12–13. Usage of this term in this sense amounts to a delicate hint by the Palestinian author: while others used “God’s inheritance” of the people (so e.g. LXX Esth 10:3, and see NOTE on 6:16, His own people), the present writer uses it of the Land; so too in v. 17. In this way – reminiscent of “the Holy Land” in the first letter (1:7) – he reinforces his appeal to the Jews of Egypt to participate in the celebration of the Temple’s centrality; cf. NOTE on 1:27, Gather in our diaspora. On biblical usage of “inheritance,” see H. O. Forshey, “The Construct Chain nahalat YHWH/’elohim,” BASOR 220 (Dec. 1975) 51–53. See also Pseudo-Philo, LAB, ch. 21 (end), and NOTE on 1:26, Your portion. Contrast our NOTE on 14:15, His own people … His own portion.

5. cave-like. According to 2 Baruch 6, the earth opened up and swallowed the holy vessels. altar of incense. Which was not mentioned above, nor in the other lists of missing vessels (see NOTE on v. 1, it is found in the writings). The fact that this altar was covered with gold (Exod 37:26), and nevertheless – despite the emphasis on the taking of things made of gold (2 Kgs 25:15//Jer 52:19) – not mentioned among them, may explain the genesis of the legend that it was among the things hidden.

6. who had together followed him. See NOTE on v. 4, ordered (some people …). could not find it. Given the fact that they themselves had brought the vessels to the cave, we are to understand the fact that they couldn’t find it as a result of special divine intervention; cf. Genesis 19:1.

7. also (κα ) remain unknown. I.e., not only now, to you. until God will gather in the people. As in the prayer in 1:27. For the expression here (lit.: “gather in the gathering of the people”) cf. such biblical usage as at Isaiah 56:8 and Deuteronomy 30:3. Introductory Letters (1:1–2:18) 163

8. and the Glory of the Lord and the cloud will be seen. The definite article for the latter is intriguing, as if the reader is supposed to know what is meant; in context, it probably indicates that “the cloud” bears or implies the presence of the Glory of the Lord. This, along with the coming reference to Moses and Solomon, points us directly to Exodus 40:34–35 (“Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle; and Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting, because the cloud abode upon it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle”), in the context of Moses’ dedication of the Tabernacle, and 1 Kings 8:10 (“And when the priests came out of the holy place, a cloud filled the house of the Lord, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud; for the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord”), in the context of So- lomon’s dedication of his Temple. For the expected reappearance of the cloud in the end of days, see esp. Daniel 7:13 and Acts 1:9–11. just as Solomon too asked. Here begins the transition to the third link in the chain: from Nehemiah (1:18) to Jeremiah (2:1) and now to Solomon. Note that while the comparison to the days of Moses further supports the legitimacy of the Second Temple by underscoring its similarity to Moses’ Taber- nacle, there is no claim of continuity between the Tabernacle and the First Temple; the fire used in the latter, which is our writer’s focus, came down anew from heaven in Solomon’s day (2 Chr 7:1). Moreover, Solomon’s Temple dedication ceremony was an especially good precedent for Hanuk- kah, for it too was eight days long (v. 12) and was held on the festival of Tab- ernacles (1 Kgs 8:2, 65; 2 Chr 5:3; 7:8–10) – to which Hanukkah is compared (1:9; 10:5). Cf. NOTE on v. 12, So too did Solomon celebrate the eight days.

9. And we have also been informed (διασαφε.το). See NOTE on 1:18, we thought it necessary to inform you; the repetition of the verb reminds readers that they are reading a series of links in a chain. being wise. A famous tradition; see 1 Kings 3:9–12; Proverbs 1:1; Sir- ach 47:12–17; Wisdom, esp. Chapters 7–9; etc. See also above, p. 85, n. 194. the rededication and completion of the Temple. This is a direct precedent for what was done by Judas and his men (1:8; 10:3). The term “rededication” (γκαινισμ«), which recurs in v. 19, serves as one of the names of the holiday; see 1 Maccabees 4:26, 59; John 10:22. Note, however, that is the context alone, not the term itself, that justifies the translation “redi- cation;” neither the Greek term, nor the Hebrew term that it represents, hanukkah, implies in and of itself the restoration of a previous state. 164 Translation and Commentary

10. just as (κα"=«). This verse emphasizes the total parallelism between Moses and Solomon. Since the author has already told us, in v. 9, of Solo- mon’s sacrifice, the point of the present verse must be to show that what So- lomon did was based on good precedent.

Moses prayed before the Lord, and fire descended from heaven. See Leviti- cus 9:23–24: “And Moses and Aaron went into the tent of meeting; and when they came out they blessed the people, and the glory of the Lord appeared to all the people. And fire came forth from before the Lord and consumed the burnt offering and the fat upon the altar …” Although this does not really say that Moses “prayed,” blessing the people comes close enough for the purpose of constructing a parallel; cf. NOTE on 15:12, having stretched out his hands … so too did Solomon pray, and fire descended and consumed the whole burnt offerings. See 2 Chronicles 6 and the next verse – 7:1. Note that the parallel in 1 Kings 8 has the prayer but no fire from heaven, just as there is no parallel in 2 Samuel to 1 Chronicles 21:26’s claim that fire also came down from heaven to David’s altar in the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite. Thus, both our author and the Chronicler strive both to underpin the legitimacy of the Temple by making it as parallel as possible to its predecessors, and to coordinate between legitimizing the Temple and nonetheless believing that God Himself is actually in heaven and not in His “house.” See S. Ja- phet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (BEATAJ 9; Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 19972) 83–85.

11. And Moses said: “Since the sin-offering (τ; περ, τ5« 4μαρτ α«) was not to be eaten, it was consumed.” On the Greek terminology see NOTE on 12:43, a sin-offering. This verse is one of the most enigmatic in our book. It purports to be quoting Moses, but there is no verse like this one in the Bible or anywhere else. It seems, given the context and the repetition of the verbs at the end of v. 10 and here (0ν2λσε … 0νηλ)η), that it is the writer’s purpose, in citing this statement by Moses, to show that what happened in Solomon’s days repeated an event in Moses’. But what does the verse mean? It is reasonable to assume that it relates in some way to the story told in Le- viticus 10:16–20, that Moses looked for the goat for the sin-offering and discovered that it had been burnt, rather than eaten by the priests. So too it seems, given the present context, that the author understood that it had been burnt by the fire which – as reported in the preceding chapter (9:24) – had come down from heaven. Thus, our verse has Moses explaining that the sin- offering was not eaten (by the priests) because it had been consumed (by the Introductory Letters (1:1–2:18) 165 fire). The problem with this is that according to the story in Leviticus, Moses did not explain this point. Rather, he was angered when he discovered that the goat had been burnt and it was Aaron who explained why this had been done (Lev 10:19–20). Goldstein (2 Macc, 185) tried to deal with this difficulty by emending Moses’ statement here into the very same question asked by Moses. Another approach would be to imagine that the verse was made up by someone who wanted the story to have a happy ending. For there is quite a difficult problem with the story as told in the Bible, and our verse could resolve it. Namely, as the story is told in Leviticus 10:16 Moses was angry at Aaron’s sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, but was assuaged when Aaron, in v. 19, explained to him why he, Aaron, had not eaten the sin-offering: because two of his other sons had just died. How does this explanation, by Aaron and about Aaron, answer Moses’ question, which was put to Eleazar and Ithamar?! Indeed, according to v. 12 Moses had commanded all three – father and two sons – to eat the sin-offering, but v. 16 has Moses angry at the sons alone, as if he already understood why Aaron had abstained from doing so; so how does Aaron’s answer, in v. 19, change anything? Our verse might be meant to supply a response: the fact that the sin-offering was burned by the fire which came down from heaven, before the sin and death of Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10:1–2), means that to begin with it was not meant to have been eaten. Our verse has Moses himself pointing this out, realizing, as it were, that it was consumed because it was not supposed to be eaten. Perhaps the lack of clarity results from the mistranslation of an unvo- calized Hebrew text, which, using a present participle, said that the sin offering was consumed because it was not lkaXn – “regularly eaten,” “to be eaten.” If this was mistakenly taken to be a verb in the perfect, lk+Xn, the result would approximate our Greek text. It is worth noting that this is the way our verse was understood by three modern Hebrew translators, all of whom used a present participle, tlkXn (feminine because they use hatta’at for the sin-offering); see Kahana, HaSepharim, 182; Artom, 2 Macc, 13; and Hack, “Two Hanukkah Letters,” 98. This form can only serve to give the rule, not to recount what in fact occurred. On this difficult verse see also E. Regev, “Hannukkah, Succot and the Days of Milluim in II Maccabees,” BM 46/3 (no. 166 – April–July 2001) 236, n. 22 (in Hebrew).

12. So too did Solomon celebrate the eight days. Although nowhere has either letter noted that Hanukkah is an eight-day holiday (and it will be said only at 10:6), it is now taken for granted. Solomon’s celebration (1 Kgs 8:66//2 Chr 7:9–10), as Moses’ (Lev 9:1), was an appropriate and useful precedent and it was natural to follow it, as already was done in the days of Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:17). 166 Translation and Commentary

13. in the records and in the memoirs. Here, as in vv. 1 and 4, the writer “documents” his claims by referring us to written evidence; now he backs this up by explaining how it happens that the records exist. For the use of Fπομνηματισμο for historical records, cf. 2 Esdras 4:15 (ν βιβλ 8 Fπομνηματισμο = Ezra 4:15 Xynrkd rpcb) and U. Wilcken, “’<πομνη- ματισμο ,” Phil 53 (1894) 103. For another meaning, see NOTE on 4:23, take care of memoranda …. collected the books. We have no other information on such a role by Nehe- miah. But it may be an implication of the more basic belief, here, that Nehe- miah founded the Second Temple (see NOTE on 1:18, Nehemiah, after constructing …), for one of the typical things a Hellenistic king would do would be to establish an archives. See M. Haran, “Archives, Libraries, and the Order of the Biblical Books,” JANESCU 22 (1993) 59, also Bergren, “Nehemiah,” 263–264. concerning the kings and the prophets, and also David’s books. It seems clear that τ το Δαψιδ implies βιβλ α, hence “David’s books.” More- over, it seems quite likely, given Luke 24:44 (“everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled”) together with ibid. v. 27, and given Philo’s Contemplative Life 25 (“laws … prophets … psalms and the other [books]”), that David’s books are the Psalms, mentioned pars pro toto to represent the whole of the third division of the Hebrew Bible. See T. H. Lim, “The Alleged Reference to the Tri- partite Division of the Hebrew Bible,” RQ 20 (2001/2) 23–37. Lim, however, denies that the same may be said of Miqsat Ma‘ase HaTorah, C26 (DJD 10.58): “In the book of Moses and in the books of the prophets and in David,” and more recently doubt has been cast on the reconstruction of that MMT text; see E. Ulrich, “The Non-attestation of a Tripartite Canon in 4QMMT,” CBQ 65 (2003) 202–214. Be that as it may, it is clear, also from another passage in our book (15:9) and from the preface to Sirach (“the Torah and the Prophets and the other books of the fathers”), that in the second century BCE there was a notion of a third division but it was still less well defined than the first two – as was the case even a few centuries later, as is shown by the rabbinic discussions of the late first to mid- second centuries CE recorded in m. Yadayyim 3.5. See Bergren, “Nehe- miah,” 265–266; S. Z. Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence (TCAAS 47, 1–234; Hamden, Conn.: Archon, 1976) 28–30; H. M. Orlinsky, “Some Terms in the Pro- logue to Ben Sira and the Hebrew Canon,” JBL 110 (1991) 483–490; G. J. Brooke, “The Explicit Presentation of Scripture in 4QMMT,” in: M. Bern- Introductory Letters (1:1–2:18) 167 stein, F. García Martínez & J. Kampen (ed.), Legal Texts and Legal Issues (Leiden: Brill 1997) 85–87. kings’ epistles concerning votive offerings. An important topic in this book; see 3:2–3; 5:16; 9:16. For the Temple having an archives, see Josephus, Against Apion 1.28–36. Although Josephus refers to it there only for gen- ealogies, it is likely that it contained other documents as well, such as relevant epistles; see NOTE on v. 15, So if you ever have need of any of them. So too, note that Eupolemus, who seems to have been a Jerusalemite priest (see NOTE on 4:11, Johanan [father of the Eupolemus …]), cites correspondence between Solomon and Hiram of Tyre concerning the construction of the First Temple; see Holladay, Fragments, 1.120–123. True, Josep- hus claims, at Antiquities 8.88, that these letters were preserved in a Tyrian archives, but other copies could have been kept in Jerusalem too (which is not to say that their authenticity is guaranteed). For the preservation of lists of royal dedications to temples note esp. the chronicle of the temple of Athena at Lindos: Blinkenberg, Lindos, 152–181.

14. So too did Judas gather. The writer promises his readers that even now, despite all the calamities that befell the Temple and Jerusalem, the documents still exist. Josephus too claims that the Temple’s archives were reconstructed after catastrophes – Against Apion 1.34–35.

15. So if you ever have need of any of them. This is courteous, but is also a challenge directed to the addressees: either come and check yourselves, or believe us and draw the practical conclusions. Note, in this connection, that according to Josephus (Ant. 13.74–79) the Jews of Alexandria who – in a debate with Samaritans in the days of Ptolemy Philometor – defended the sanctity of Jerusalem and its Temple, did so on the basis of arguments “from the Torah and from the successions of high priests (διαδοξν τν 0ρξιερων), namely, that each one ruled the temple having received the position from his father,” and on the basis of the fact that “all the kings of Asia honored the Temple with votive offerings and magnificent gifts.” The arguments from high-priestly succession and royal gifts would have had to be based upon archives; indeed, Josephus too, in Against Apion 1.36, refers to the Temple archives specifically in connection with the succession of the high priests from father to son over two millennia.

16. So, as we are about to celebrate (Μωλλοντε« ο@ν 1γειν). The text echoes 1:18 and thus, as a Wiederaufnahme, reverts to the main theme after all the historical material that intervened. 168 Translation and Commentary we have written (γρχαμεν). Referring to the present letter; see NOTE on 1:7, have written. you will indeed do well. A standard polite formulation of a request; cf. 11:26; Welles, RC, no. 13, l. 13; 1 Maccabees 12:22; etc.

17. His entire people … to all (of us). Including the Jews of Egypt. The writer, as earlier (1:3, 19, 25–26), emphasizes that the Temple, and Hanuk- kah, are not the concern of the Judaeans alone; see Alon, Jews, 233–234, n. 113. See also Schwartz, Studies, 60–61, 67, where it is shown how this verse was (mis)used by A. Geiger and many followers, as if it bespoke a (pu- tatively Pharisaic) claim to universal priesthood – part of Geiger’s thesis that 2 Maccabees is an anti-Sadducean tract (see below, NOTE on 12:43, resurrection). the inheritance. This again seems to mean the Land of Israel; see NOTE on v. 4, viewed the inheritance. the kingdom and the priesthood and the sanctity. See Camponovo, König- tum, 189–190. According to the words at the opening of the next verse, “as is promised in the Law,” it seems clear that we have here an allusion to Ex- odus 19:6: “And you shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests and holy people.” In Jewish sources this verse is usually taken to refer to three different “estates”: kings, priests, and lay Israelites. On the interpretation of this verse in ancient Jewish literature, see Schwartz, Studies, 57–66. On the difference between the wording here and that in the Septuagint (which refers not to “kingdom and priesthood” but, rather, to a “royal priesthood”) see van der Kooij, “Use,” 129–131, 136–137; he suggests that our book’s version reflects a preference for separating kingship from priesthood. Of course, we should note that the kingship was not really returned to Israel in the days of Judas Maccabaeus; only two generations later, in the days of Ar- istobulus I (Josephus, Ant. 13.301), or perhaps only in those of his successor Alexander Jannaeus (so Strabo, Geog. 16.2.40, p. 762, and see now Main, “Les Sadducéens,” 375–389), did the Hasmoneans take the royal title. But in popular usage it seems to have been common to use the term “king” generally when speaking about rulers who actually bore other titles; note esp. Josephus, Antiquities 14.157, 165, 172; 18.93; Matthew 2:22 and 14:9; H. W. Hoehner, Herod Antipas (SNTSMS 17; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1972) 149–150. Accordingly, and certainly in light of the verse from Exodus, we should not be surprised by the use of the term here, nor should we build much upon it. All that is meant is independent rule, something Introductory Letters (1:1–2:18) 169 which Judas Maccabaeus definitely enjoyed at the time this letter claims to have been written.

18. as is promised in the Law. Exodus 19:6; see our preceding note. merciful to us and gather us. The prayer, and the notion that Jewish life in the Diaspora is a tragic situation that should arouse pity, are as above, 1:27. the Holy Place. The Temple, or Jerusalem and the Temple; see NOTE on 3:2, the Place. For the hope of being gathered in to the Place, see also 1:29. for He saved us from great evils. Which means that His power is proven, and He is thus definitely capable of doing what we ask; see NOTE on 1:25, All-Ruler. Perhaps there is a further element of “having come this far, only a little more is required for a complete redemption.” For such logic, see also 8:29.

Bibliography

Bergren, “Nehemiah.” Bickerman, “Ein jüdischer Festbrief.” G. Bohak, “Joseph and Asenath and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis” (Diss. Prince- ton, 1994) 126–137. Brüll, N. “Sendschreiben.” Bruston, “Trois lettres.” Büchler, “Sendschreiben.” Enermalm-Ogawa, Langage de prière, 56–86. Exler, Greek Letter. Fitzmyer, “Notes.” Flusser, “Dedication of the Temple.” Graetz, “Sendschreiben.” Hack, “Two Hanukkah Letters.” Herkenne, Briefe. Torrey, “Briefe.” Torrey, “Letters.” Wacholder, B. Z., “Letter from Judah Maccabee.” Wehofer, T. M., Untersuchungen zur altchristlichen Epistolographie (Sitzungsbe- richte der AWW 143/17; Wien: Gerold’s, 1901) 24–42. 170 Translation and Commentary

Author’s Preface (2:19–32)

(19) The matters concerning Judas Maccabaeus and his brothers, – and the purification of the greatest temple and the rededication of the altar, – (20) as well as the wars against Antiochus Epiphanes and his son Eupator, – (21) and the heavenly apparitions which occurred for those who nobly fought with manly valor for Judaism, so that although they were few in number they plundered the entire country and chased away the barbaric hordes (22) and retook the temple which was spoken of throughout the entire civilized world and liberated the city, and firmly reestablished the laws that were about to be abolished, the Lord having become merciful toward them in total grace – (23) (all this), which was recounted by Jason of Cyrene in five books, we have attempted to epitomize in one composition. (24) For having seen the confused mass of numbers and how difficult it is for those who wish to en- compass the narratives of history, due to the plethora of material, (25) we have given consideration to arousing the imagination of those who wish to read (the story), to making it easier for those who take pleasure in memorizing, and to the profit of all readers. (26) Now the drudgery of epitomization which we undertook was not light, but rather a matter of sweat and sleepless nights, (27) just as it is not simple for him who prepares a symposium and seeks to further the interests of others; nevertheless, we willingly undertook the drudgery in order to earn the gratitude of many. (28) Leaving to the author the precise clarification of each and every detail, we have striven to follow the rules laid down for epitomizing. (29) For just as the architect of a new house must consider the entire structure, while he who undertakes to paint it encaustically or to paint animals upon it needs to scrutinize what is necessary for the proper arrangement, so too, I believe, is it in our case. (30) Namely, to go into (the topic), giving an expansive report and occupying oneself with each and every detail are the province of a history’s originator, (31) while the pursuit of brevity of diction, along with an exemption from diligent inquiry into what happened, must be allowed to him who prepares a paraphrase. (32) Here, then, we shall begin the narrative, wrapping up (our preface) with the aforementioned matters. For it would be foolish to expatiate prior to the history and then to shorten the history itself. Author’s Preface (2:19–32) 171

COMMENT

An anonymous writer, using the first-person, introduces himself and his work to the readers. Employing some standard topoi about the pleasure and usefulness of historical literature, and about the efforts he himself invested in his work, he clearly distinguishes his own role from that of the original author, Jason of Cyrene, comparing himself to a decorator who adds beauty to the basic structure planned by another. We know nothing about the identity of Jason or of the present writer (the “Epitomator,” whom we prefer simply to term “the author” [see above, p. 37]), but his Greek education shines through clearly here, as does the fact that he is Jew- ish; in several excurses in which he reappears, later in our book, we can also see something of his theology; see above, pp. 21–25.

NOTES

2:19. The matters concerning. The author here begins a very long period which lasts until the end of v. 23, artfully sustaining the reader’s interest by postponing until its end, indeed until the very last word (πιτεμεν – “to epitomize”), a statement of his own purpose. On this preface, see Alex- ander, Preface, 148–151 and G. Engel, De antiquorum epicorum didacticorum historicorum prooemiis (Diss. Marburg 1910) 63–64. After studying the preface’s various motifs, Engel concludes that it is quite a typical one for a Greek work.

Judas Maccabaeus and his brothers. It sounds like the reference is to his brothers in the familial sense, not to his “brothers-in-arms” (see NOTE on 10:21, brethren). If this passage indicates that Jason’s work showed a general interest in Judas’ brothers, then one of the things our author did, in epitomizing Jason’s work, was to play down their role; in the work as it is, they get next to no attention (see only 8:22, 10:19–20, and 14:17). This need not be seen as polemics; see NOTE on 10:20, But Simon’s men … It might also be the case, however, that Jason’s work did not expand on the other brothers, and that the statement here bespeaks only our author’s awareness of them. “Judas and his brothers” is frequent in 1 Maccabees (4:36, 59; 5:10, 61, 65; 7:6, 10 etc.). the greatest temple. The same characterization reappears in the Nicanor story: 14:13, 31. Cf. the opening of v. 22, below. 172 Translation and Commentary the altar. The use of βμ« here departs from that which is usual not only for the Septuagint in general but also for our author (10:2): usually they took care to use βμ«, which is reminiscent of the Hebrew bamah, only for pagan altars, preferring a Jewish neologism, ψσιαστ2ριον, for the Jew- ish altar. See both the second letter (1:18, 19, 32) and the body of the book (3:15; 4:14; 6:5; etc.); note esp. 14:33, where even a non-Jew, Nicanor, is made to follow the same convention. But there is one other such exception in our book, at 13:8, and this fact led Daniel (Recherches, 24–25) to conclude that our book reflects a stage in the process in which Jewish writers began finding their way back to the usual Greek terminology, which was in fact common for both Philo and Josephus. It seems, in other words, that the matter became less sensitive as the fear of paganism diminished over time, and so the desire to use generally accepted terminology was able to overcome the original squeamishness.

20. the wars against Antiochus Epiphanes and his son Eupator. There is something comically ironic here: failure to repeat the name “Antiochus” for the latter king links him up very tightly to the preceding one (à la “John and Sam Jones” instead of “John Jones and Sam Jones”), as does also the name “Eupator,” which means “who has a good father” – but our book portrays Epiphanes as a villain. Similarly, summarizing all that happened in their days as “wars” contributes to the same effect. For similar irony see 10:10. On another front, note that Seleucus IV is not mentioned here – another reason to view Chapter 3 as only marginally part of the book; see above, pp. 4–6.

21. heavenly apparitions. The use of πιφνειαι continues the joking begun with the name “Eupator” (see preceding NOTE), contrasting the villain who claimed to be “Epiphanes” with the true “epiphanies” that actually helped his enemies. These apparitions are of great importance in our book, their occurrence turning into something of an axiom (see NOTE on 12:22, the apparition …); see 3:24–26, 33–34; 5:2–4; 10:29–30; 11:8; 12:22; 14:15; 15:27; Doran, Temple Propaganda, 98–104; Adinolfi, Ques- tioni bibliche, 123–154. For the Greek background of the word and the phenomenon, see Spicq, Notes, 1.284–287, and Pritchett, War, 3.11–46; see also NOTE on 5:2, there appeared in the air. For emphasis upon the fact that the term refers not merely to an apparition but specifically to one which brings aid, see: Lührmann, “Epiphaneia,” esp. 194. For believers’ pride in the apparitions with which they and their temples were privileged, see Blinkenberg, Lindos, 181–187. Author’s Preface (2:19–32) 173 nobly (φιλοτ μ «) fought with manly valor (!νδραγα"σασιν). These Hellenistic virtues are frequently predicated of Judas and his men in our book; see NOTE on 8:7, And the fame … for Judaism. This is how the author summarizes the issue; so too 8:1 and 14:38. The term “Judaism” (BΙοψδαCσμ«), which recurs a few times in Jew- ish-Hellenistic literature (4 Macc 4:26; Gal 1:13–14), is not known from any earlier source, and it clearly functions here as an antithesis to “Hellen- ism” and “foreignism,” which both appear in 4:13; the former, as far as LSJ knows, for the first time in this general sense and the latter – for the first time at all. See Y. Amir, “Der Begriff BΙοψδαCσμ« – zum Selbstverständnis des hellenistischen Judentums,” in: idem, Studien zum antiken Judentum (BEATAJ 2; Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1985) 101–113. While Gruen (Heri- tage and Hellenism, 3–4), and Bar-Kochva (“Judaism and Hellenism,” 464–465) have emphasized the fact that “Judaism,” although mentioned a few times in our book, is never juxtaposed with “Hellenism,” the facts that all of these words are new (our author’s inventions?), or new in this sense, and of the same structure (X + -ισμο«), seem fairly clearly to indicate that the author viewed each in the light of the other. The same would also seem to be indicated by the characterization of Antiochus’ decrees as the imposition of “Greek ways” – 6:9 and 11:24, and by the statement that those who resisted his decrees “remained in Judaism” (8:1). In general, on this contrast, see Prato, “Persecuzione religiosa,” 114–117, and Rajak, Jewish Dialogue, 61–63. so that although they were few in number. A common motif, and quite a useful one, for if you win you’re a hero and if you lose it’s not your fault; see NOTES on 8:20, 120,000, and on 11:4, myriads of foot-soldiers, along with Niese, Kritik, 33; Bar-Kochva, JM, 29–47; and Shatzman, Armies, 25–28. they plundered the entire country. On ξ)ρα see NOTE on 1:1. As for “plundering,” (λεηλατω), which appears here alone in the Septuagint, it is surprising insofar as there is nothing apologetic about it; contrast Esther 9:15, “but they laid no hands on the plunder.” Accordingly, various translators prefer to tone our text down, as if it refers to “conquest” alone (“they seized the whole land” [NRSV]; “das ganze Land zurückzuer- obern”1 [Einheitsübersetzung]). But there is nothing ambiguous about the

1 Note how “zurück-,” makes it even more acceptable; the Jews were only conquering “back” that which previously had been theirs. 174 Translation and Commentary verb; see for example Polybius 5.96.1 and 33.6.6. It seems, rather, that our author saw no reason for apologetics about such things; à la guerre, comme la guerre. See NOTE on 8:20, and they took much booty and on 10:17, cutting down. Niese (Kritik, 59–60) commented on the “naïve joy” of our author regarding such matters, here and below (8:5–7 and 12:16), as opposed to the more restrained and – surprisingly – apologetic author of 1 Maccabees. chased away the barbaric hordes (τA βρβαρα πλ"η). For this type of language, cf. 12:27 and 14:23. “Barbaric” refers both to their ethnic origin and to their wildness and cruelty; see 4:25; 5:22; 10:4; 15:2. By employing this adjective, which was generally used of non-Greeks, to describe a Greek king and his army, the author is attempting to present himself as a good Greek (of the Jewish type), hoping thereby to gain the sympathies of Greek readers.

22. the temple which was spoken of throughout the entire civilized world. Cf. 2:19; 3:12; 5:15; 14:13, 31; Josephus, Antiquities 13.77 (where Jewish defenders of the Temple of Jerusalem, arguing against defenders of the one at Mt. Gerizim, call it “the most famous temple in the entire civilized world”). See also Polybius, apud Josephus, Antiquities 12.136 (along with Stern, GLA, 1.115–116) and Philo, Legatio 191, 198. and reestablished … in total (μετA πση«) grace. The verb πανορ recurs in the story itself (5:20), there too along with μετ πση«, which is a turn of phrase our author loves to use (3:1, 22; 14:38; 15:1, 6–7, 17). For the use of πανορ of the restoration of a city or temple, see: Spicq, Notes, 1.259–260. Here then, as usual (see esp. 6:1), our author compares Jewish law to the law of a city – a part of his case for Jews and Judaism being Greek types; see NOTE on v. 21, chased away … and above, p. 51. the laws that were about to be. The author likes to impress the reader by underlining what almost happened, what was about to happen had not something – i.e., Someone – intervened just in the nick of time; cf. 3:28; 8:3; 9:8; 13:11, etc. The opposite case: 4:45 and 6:29. abolished (καταλ%εσ"αι). The verb recurs, with regard to Jason’s attack on the laws, at 4:11. the Lord having become merciful (0λε « γενομωνοψ) toward them in total grace ( πιεικε α«). So too in the course of the story, this is what punctuates, Author’s Preface (2:19–32) 175 and accounts for, the changes in the Jews’ fortunes. See 7:37; 10:26; and esp. 8:5, 29. For God’s “grace,” see also 10:4 and Spicq, Notes, 1.263–267.

23. Jason of Cyrene. Otherwise unknown. “Cyrene” is sometimes used not only for the city, but also for the whole region (“Cyrenaica”). A good deal is known about the Jews of the region in antiquity, but primarily during the Roman period; see S. Applebaum, Jews and Greeks in Ancient Cyrene (SJLA 28; Leiden: Brill, 1979); G. Lüderitz, Corpus jüdischer Zeunisse aus der Cyrenaika (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1983); Barclay, Jews, 232–242. As noted by Lüderitz (p. 31) and Habicht (2 Macc, 170, n. 12), “Jason” is a common name, among Jews and non-Jews alike; we may assume that this one was a Jew. It may be that the words “of Cyrene” indicate that he had left that place of origin; but, as “Philo of Alexandria,” it need not indicate anything more than that the person mentioning him, our “author,” was from a different place. And even that is not necessary. For the old-new suggestion that he be identified with Judas Maccabaeus’ envoy to Rome, Jason son of Eleazar (1 Macc 8:17), see Hyldahl, “Maccabean Rebellion,” 201; Momi- gliano, “Romans and the Maccabees,” 752–753. If that were true, it would mean that both envoys wrote histories; on the other one, see NOTE on 4:11, Johanan (father of the Eupolemus …). But it’s no more than a guess. in five books … in one composition. For the use of βιβλ ον to designate a unit within a larger composition (σνταγμα), see T. Birt, Das antike Buch- wesen (Berlin: Hertz, 1882) 29–30. We do not know the size of Jason’s “books” or how the material that now composes 2 Maccabees was divided among them, but we can show that our book, as it is, is indeed of normal size; see immediately below, NOTE on in one composition. to epitomize ( πιτεμε.ν). The verb recurs at the end of v. 32, thus quite appropriately rounding out this preface. Accordingly, in vv. 26 and 28 he uses the term “epitome” of his work, which has led scholars to term him, usually, the Epitomator. As explained in the introduction (p. 37), I prefer to term him “author.” in one composition (σ%νταγμα). A. Schumrick points first and foremost to this verse to illustrate that, despite its etymology, σνταγμα can denote not only a composition built by collecting a few works but also a single work (Obervationes ad rem librariam pertinentes [Diss. Marburg, 1909] 39). But epitomizing might be seen as “collecting” from various parts of the larger original. See also ibid., 41–43, on another nuance of the term, that emphasizes – as opposed to a Fπμνημα (see NOTE on 2:13, in the records and in 176 Translation and Commentary the memoirs), which could be rougher (ibid. 70–82) – the great effort that went into the preparation of a σνταγμα. See for example Cicero, To At- ticus 16.3.1, also J. Glucker in SCI 20 (2001) 306–307. That is, our author not only shortened the work, he also put a lot of work into editing it, as he shall next explain with the help of some comparisons. As for the size of our volume, we can compare it to other ancient books with the help of the tables provided by Birt, Das antike Buchwesen, 310–314. As is usual (see e.g. Josephus, Ant. 20.267), Birt quantified the sizes of ancient books by the number of lines they would have had in a manuscript, assuming an average of 35 letters per line (Birt, 194–202 and 310, n.1). For 2 Maccabees, from Chapter 3 to the end, I calculate 1,186 full lines in Rahlfs’ edition with about 50 letters per line; at 35 letters per line this would turn into 50/35 × 1186 = 1694 lines of the ancient size. That makes our book (beginning with Ch. 3) comparable to those of medium length, according to Birt’s tables, such as – among the historians – the fourth book of Strabo’s Geographia and various volumes of the fifth decade of Cassius Dio. That is, in this respect the final product of our author’s work justifies his claim.

24. For having seen (σψνορ#ντε«). The author loves to use the participle of this verb to reflect an actor’s – here: his own – considerations for doing something; see, for example, 4:4; 5:17; 8:8; 14:30. The verb implies not only seeing but also understanding; see BDAG, 974. confused mass of numbers. That is, the great quantity of numbers – distances, sizes of armies, and the like. Doran (Temple Propaganda, 77–78), who cites several translations that assume (as we have) that 0ριμ« here means “number,” as is usual (LSJ, 240), prefers Bickerman’s suggestion (Studies, 1.256, n. 36) that it in fact refers to the lines. That is, this would be yet another reference to the size of Jason’s work. However, although Doran assembles some evidence for such usage, it remains quite limited, and it seems out of place to refer to lines as an indication of size after already pointing to five books. Be that as it may, it is nevertheless true that a good number of numbers remain in our book; Bar-Kochva counted more than 50 (JM, 178, n. 82). the narratives of history. Note: not “the narratives of this history;” the in- definite reference is especially clear in Habicht’s translation [2 Macc, 208]: “für diejenigen, die sich von historischen Erzählungen umfangen lassen wollen.” Thus, the author directs his attention to those who wish to learn all history, and not just the story told in this book, and announces his intention to make life easier for them; cf. NOTE on in memorizing in the next Author’s Preface (2:19–32) 177 verse. In this way, the pose he takes is of one whose story is part of universal history – a pose appropriate for an educated participant in the Hellenistic world.

25. arousing the imagination. That is, by making the book easier to read he hopes to encourage readers to continue. On χψξαγγ α, see Walbank, “History and Tragedy,” 232 and I. Hadot, Seneca und die griechisch-rö- mische Tradition der Seelenleitung (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969); de Romilly, Magic and Rhetoric, 15, 74. In Polybius (e.g. 6.2.8) psychagogia is frequently paired with “usefulness,” in which case it takes on something of the nuance of “entertainment;” see Alexander, Preface, 149–150. to read … readers (!ναγιν=σκειν … ντψγξνοψσιν). Two different verbs are used, probably, as usual, only to vary the diction; see Introduction, p. 68. For these two verbs, of which the former refers more to the mere act of reading and the latter – more to checking and searching, see: Chantraine, “‘Lire,’” 115–123. The latter verb, accordingly, which recurs twice more in our book (6:12; 15:39), is more complimentary to readers, insofar as it as- cribes them a certain seriousness; indeed, in both reappearances it is used by our author in reference to his readers. those who take pleasure. For the text (φιλοφρονοσιν) and translation see Hanhart, Text, 38–39 and Goldstein, 2 Macc, 193. Risberg (“Anmer- kungen,” 18–19) suggested reading φιλοπονοσιν, and his suggestion was adopted by Katz, “Text,” 13; Habicht, 2 Macc, 208, n. 25a; and Doran, Temple Propaganda, 78–79, n. 8. True, the received verb is a rare one, but our author loves rare words (see p. 67), and in any case it is difficult to accept the emendation. For “love of effort/suffering” is something which authors are proud of concerning themselves, claiming that it has allowed them to serve their readers; note for example Thucydides 1.22.3 (πιπν«); Josep- hus, War 1.15–16 (φιλπονο« … πνοι«) and Life 338; Lucianus, How to Write History, 34, 74. But here our author is speaking of his readers, and his point is that he put in a lot of effort so as to enable them to learn easily, that is – without πνο«. Cf. NOTE on 7:36, suffering. in memorizing. On learning books by heart in antiquity, see W. V. Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ., 1989) 30–33. Note that here too, as with “history” in v. 24, the writer does not limit his scope to those who wish to read or learn his book alone. See also NOTE on v. 28, the rules laid down. 178 Translation and Commentary and to the profit of all readers. On the emphasis of a work’s Yφωλεια in its preface, alongside the pleasure of reading it, see Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 28–29; Alexander, Preface, 149–150. Note the fine balance within our verse, which turns first to these, then to those, then to all together (μων … δω … π»σι δω …): it offers entertainment to readers, brevity to memorizers, and thus to all the benefit they are seeking. Cf. Josephus’ opening of his Against Apion (§3): the book was meant to refute those who calumniate the Jews, on the one hand, to correct the ignorance of others, on the other hand, and to teach all who wish to know what is true (μων … δω … δ πντα«).

26. drudgery of epitomization … sweat and sleepless nights. Such complaints are standard in ancient prefaces. The term 0γρψπν α (“sleepless- ness”) was apparently invented by Callimachus (an Alexandrian poet of the third century BCE) in order to describe the work of a diligent author; see his Epigram 27, line 4 (ed. Pfeiffer, p. 88), also OGIS, no. 194, l. 24. See T. Jan- son, Latin Prose Prefaces (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964) 97–98, also 2 Corinthians 11:27 and – for a modern example – M. Baillet, DJD 7.xiv. not light (ο< BCδιον). Here and in the next verse (ε$ξερ2«), the author uses two synonyms for “easy,” as usual with no special reason apart from the desire to vary his diction; see above, p. 68.

27. for him who prepares a symposium. The author brackets the book by offering a similar comparison at its very end (15:39). On symposia, see Murray, Sympotica. By alluding to a symposium, rather than simply to a meal, the author implies that although his role is as that of a caterer, the project is an important one meant to nourish the mind and the spirit.

28. the rules laid down (πογραμμο.«) for epitomizing. Or perhaps “the models;” see LSJ 1877. See esp. Diogenes Laertius 10.35 and 84–85, which open, respectively, Epicurus’ own epitomes of his writings on physics and of his views about celestial phenomena. He emphasizes the need to organize the material under major headings so it can easily be remembered – the same goal our author posits in v. 25.

29. For just as the architect of a new house. To whom our author compares the work’s originator, Jason. he who undertakes to paint it. To whom our author compares himself. Author’s Preface (2:19–32) 179 encaustically. On encaustic painting – painting by applying heat to colored wax – see Pliny, Natural History, 35.39–40 along with M. Robertson, A History of Greek Art, I (London: Cambridge Univ., 1975) 485–489. to paint animals (ζ γραφε.ν). True, ζγρφο« can regularly apply to painters in general; see LSJ, 758. But this verse seems to require a distinction between two types of painting, a fact pointed up by the fact that those who choose the general meaning for our verb are forced either into making the preceding one much broader (so Habicht: “Dekorateur und Maler” – 2 Macc, 209) or making the two into one (so Abel: “décorer de peintures à l’encaus- tique” – Macc, 313). For the use of ζγρφο« of someone who paints animals in particular, see C. Wunderer, “Gleichnisse aus dem Gebiet der Malerei bei Polybios,” Phil 66 (1907) 472, in connection with Polybius 12.25e.7 and Pausanias 1.29.5. Ibid., 471–475, Wunderer discusses Polybius’ use of anal- ogies drawn from art; of especial interest are Polybius 12.25e.7 and 12.25h.2, where he contrasts the work of a true historian, who is comparable to a true artist since both work directly with nature, to that of a pseudo-historian, who works on the basis of books alone. Our author, like Polybius, makes a similar distinction, but compares his own work, that of the non-historian, to the artist. In the Hellenistic world, it was apparently more prestigious to be an artist than an historian. For a Jewish ζγρφο« in Rome, note CII, no. 109.

30. go into. On the nuances of μβατε, which include “entering” and also “taking possession,” see Ettelson, “Integrity,” 318–319, 328; here he translates “occupying the ground/position.” occupying oneself with each and every detail. The verb, πολψπραγμονω, implies some scorn, à la “busying onself;” see A. W. H. Adkins, “Poluprag- mosune and ‘Minding One’s Own Business:’ A Study in Greek Social and Political Values,” CP 71 (1976) 301–327. Thus, our author reveals that he is leaving out details not only because they are too numerous and would en- cumber readers, but also because they are not very important; although above he seemed to be taking the role of second fiddle, here he takes up the more usual stance of editors with regard to authors. For the image of an author serving up his book as a banquet (cf. v. 27!), and therefore leaving out less important details, cf. Lucian, How to Write History, 56: 0μελ2σει« δ τν ε$τελεστωρν – “ignore the cheaper things.” Compare Polybius’ critique of Timaios: at 12.25e.1–2 Polybius admits that occupying oneself with documents (ν το« Fπομν2μασι πολψπραγμοσνη) is part of the historian’s craft, but he emphasizes that it’s only the third of its three parts, and at 12.28.4–7 he criticizes Timaos because he thought it was the main 180 Translation and Commentary part. However, Polybius, an historian, contrasts this “occupying oneself” with real experience in life and personal examination of the scenes where things occurred – the first two obligations of the true historian, while our author, who does not claim to be an historian, contrasts it with the art of good writing and composition.

31. what happened. For such usage of πραγματε α note especially Poly- bius’ use of “pragmatic history,” i.e., history of events (not of topics); see Polybius 1.2.8 etc., along with Walbank, Polybius, 1.8,42; Spicq, Notes, 2.727, n. 1; Pédech, Polybe, 21–32.

32. Here, then ( ντεD"εν ο@ν). Thus the author signals clearly the transition to the body of his work; cf. NOTE on 1:18, As we are about to celebrate. narrative. Thus, δι2γεσι« is our author’s term for the body of his work, as opposed to this preface, his excurses, and other additions; see too 6:17. On the transition from preface to δι2γεσι« see Lucian, How to Write History, 55, also G. Zuntz, “Zum Aristeas-Text,” Phil 102 (1958) 245. aforementioned. Our author likes this pedantic adjective (that recurs at 3:7, 28; 4:1; 6:29; and 14:8), but it was not uncommon; already Mugler (“Remar- ques,” 420, n. 2) noted that the “emploi abusive” of προειρημωνο« was common to both our author and Polybius. It is also characteristic of 3 Maccabees (1:26; 4:17; 6:35–36) and the Letter of Aristeas (3, 11, 31, 63, 93, 99, etc.).

For it would be foolish to expatiate … On the proper proportions of a preface in comparison to the body of a work see Lucian, How to Write History, 23; Lucian complains about those who “attach the head of the Colossus of Rhodes to the body of a midget.”

Bibliography

Alexander, Preface to Luke’s Gospel. Avenarius, Lukians Schrift. T. Birt, Das antike Buchwesen (Berlin: Hertz, 1882) 29–30. G. Engel, De antiquorum epicorum didacticorum historicorum prooemiis (Diss. Marburg 1910). T. Janson, Latin Prose Prefaces (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964). A. Schumrick, Obervationes ad rem librariam pertinentes (Diss. Marburg, 1909). Chapter III 181

Chapter III

The Opening Idyll

(1) The Holy City being inhabited in complete peace and the laws being observed optimally due to the high priest Onias’ piety and hatred of evil, (2) it happened that the kings themselves used to honor the Place and aggrandize the Temple with the most outstanding gifts, (3) just as King Seleucus of Asia used to supply out of his own revenues all the expenses incurred for the sacrificial offices.

Simon vs. Onias, Round I

(4) But one Simon of the tribe of Benjamin, who had been appointed overseer of the Temple, had his differences with the high priest concerning market supervision in the city. (5) And since he was unable to overcome Onias, he went to Apollonius son of Thraseas, who was at that time the governor of Coele Syria and Phoenicia, (6) and informed him concerning the indescribable sums of money with which the treasury in Jerusalem was replete, to such an extent that it was impossible to calculate the massive discrepancies, and that since they had not been applied to the account of the sacrifices it was possible for them to revert to the royal authority.

Heliodorus’ First Mission

(7) After Apollonius met the king and reported to him about the moneys concerning which he had been informed, the king selected Heliodorus, the head of state, and, giving him orders, sent him to take care of impounding the aforementioned funds. (8) Heliodorus immediately made the journey, ostensibly in order to make the rounds inspecting the cities of Coele Syria and Phoenicia, but in fact in order to carry out the king’s assignment. (9) Upon arriving in Jerusalem and being received courteously by the high priest of the city, he reported about the disclosure that had been made, explained why he had come, and asked whether there happened to be any 182 Translation and Commentary truth in these matters. (10) Although the high priest pointed out to him that the moneys were deposits of widows and orphans, (11) some of them belonging to Hyrcanus the son of Tobias, a man of very high preeminence, and that matters were not as they had been misrepresented by the villainous Simon; that the silver totaled 400 talents and the gold 200; (12) and that it would be totally impossible to treat unjustly those who had placed their trust in the sanctity of the Place and in the augustness and immunity of the temple which is honored throughout the entire world – (13) the other, due to the royal orders which he had, said that the moneys must in any case be recovered in full for the royal treasury. (14) Having fixed a day, he entered to take care of the audit concerning them.

The City’s Anguish

And the anguish all over the city was quite considerable. (15) The priests, throwing themselves before the altar in their priestly vestments, called to heaven, upon Him who legislated concerning deposits, to preserve them inviolate for their depositors. (16) And it pierced the mind to see the high priest’s face, for his appearance and the changes of coloration revealed the distress of his soul. (17) For the man was inundated by fear and bodily trembling, through which the anguish present in his heart became apparent to his observers. (18) Many came flocking out of their houses for a supplication by the entire population in light of the fact that the Place was going to be disgraced. (19) Women, bound around with sackcloth under their breasts, congregated in the streets, and of the closed-in virgins – some ran together to the gates and some to the walls, while yet others peeked out through the windows (20) all of them making their entreaty, their hands stretched out to heaven. (21) And anyone who saw the prostration of the entire community all mingled together, and the anxiety of the highly anguished high priest, had to be moved to pity.

The Confrontation in the Temple

(22) So they, on the one hand, were calling upon the all-ruling Lord to preserve the trusts whole and in complete security for them who had entrusted them, (23) while Heliodorus, on the other hand, was beginning to execute that which had been decided upon. (24) But just as he, together with his bodyguards, was already at the treasury, the Ruler of the spirits and of all authority brought about a great apparition, so that all those who had been Chapter III 183 audacious enough to enter together were overwhelmed – stricken by the power of God – with weakness and cowardice. (25) For they saw a horse, with a fear-inspiring rider and outfitted with beautiful accoutrements; gal- loping wildly it stormed at Heliodorus with its front hooves. And it appeared that the rider sitting upon the horse had golden armor. (26) More- over, another two youths appeared to him, of outstanding strength, beautiful dignity, and splendid attire; standing on either side of him they flogged him incessantly and rained blows upon him. (27) After he fell suddenly upon the ground and was enveloped by thick darkness, they gathered him up and put him into a litter. (28) And so he who just before had entered the aforementioned treasury with a large entourage and all his bodyguard was carried off, rendered powerless to aid himself with his weapons, having plainly recognized the power of God. (29) Thus he, on the one hand, was voiceless and totally lacking hope and salvation, having been cast down by the divine intervention, (30) while they, on the other hand, were praising the Lord who had wonderfully glorified His own Place; and the Temple, which had just before been replete with fear and tumult, was filled with joy and mirth due to the apparition of the all-ruling Lord. (31) Immediately some of Heliodorus’ intimates asked Onias to call upon the Most High, so that He would bestow life upon him who was prostrate and breathing his absolutely final breath. (32) The high priest, being wary lest the king infer that the Jews had worked some wrong- doing in the matter of Heliodorus, brought a sacrifice for the man’s salvation.

Heliodorus’ New Mission

(33) As the high priest was performing the atonement, the same youths again appeared to Heliodorus, wearing the same garments, and while standing they said: “Be very grateful to Onias the high priest, for it is due to him that the Lord has graced you with life. (34) You, who were flogged from heaven – recount to all the greatness of the power of God.” Upon saying that they disappeared. (35) As for Heliodorus – after bringing a sacrifice to the Lord, making great vows to Him who had preserved his life, and receiving Onias, he returned with his soldiers to the king. (36) And he testified to all concerning the works of the most great God which he had observed with his own eyes. (37) When the king asked Heliodorus, “Who would be the most appropriate person to send some other time to Jerusalem?,” he said: (38) “If you have some enemy or conspirator against the state, send him thither, and you’ll get him back flogged, if he survives at all; for around 184 Translation and Commentary that place there is truly some power of God. (39) For He, though He has His residence in heaven, watches over and aids that place and with blows destroys those who come there to do evil.” (40) That, on the one hand, is how the affair of Heliodorus and the safe- guarding of the treasury turned out.

COMMENT

Just as the author announced at the end of Chapter 2, this chapter begins the story of 2 Maccabees. Accordingly, the first verses of Chapter 3 proclaim the story’s theme: by focusing on the Holy City and emphasizing that “once upon a time” all was fine there, they indicate to the reader that the book will focus upon Jerusalem and its ups and downs in the period covered by the book. Thus, the opening verses of our chapter form a bracket answered by another one at the book’s conclusion, when again things are said to be just fine in Jerusalem (15:37). As noted in the Introduction (pp. 4–6), this chapter is self-contained; the crisis caused by Simon is successfully resolved by its conclusion, and Helio- dorus – who failed in his attempt to violate the sanctity of the temple of Je- rusalem – learns the appropriate lesson. Thus, the story serves only as a introduction, an opening idyll that shows that even when things do go wrong, these are only glitches which – with God’s help – may be overcome, thus allowing for reestablishment of the status quo ante. As for what that status quo ante consists of, it is important to note that it maintains an easy and mutually respectful co-existence of respectable Ju- daism and benevolent foreign rule. That is how the story begins – with a pious high priest, and with benevolent Gentile kings in general and Seleucus IV (the contemporary ruler) in particular showing respect for the Temple of Jerusa- lem – and that is how it ends. Thus, the chapter is a statement of the terms of existence of Diaspora Jewry: Jews who are scrupulous about their own religion accept foreign rule of their terrestrial lives in return for the government’s acceptance of their right to worship their God who is in Heaven. What makes our book interesting is that it shows, on the one hand, a diasporan perspective on events that in fact transpired in Jerusalem itself, where, in the shadow of the Temple, it was not always so simple or natural to recall that God resides in heaven (see vv. 15, 20, 39) and not in what the Bible calls His “house.” See Introduction, p. 47. On the other hand, our book reveals its Hel- lenistic orientation by viewing the Temple as that of the city, as is shown by the progression “city”-“place”-“Temple” in vv. 1–3 and by the reference to “the high priest of the city” in v. 9; see also v. 14b and Introduction, pp. 6–7. Chapter III 185

Concerning historicity, finally, one cannot say much. True, the basic elements of the story are acceptable: Onias III, Seleucus IV, Hyrcanus the To- biad, and Heliodorus are all known historical figures; we have good corrob- orative evidence for Apollonius son of Thraseas (v. 5); and there is other evidence both for Seleucid subventions for the sacrificial cult and for the use of the Temple as a bank. But a heavenly horseman and handsome floggers are another story. Moreover, three related points are obvious: – The story is very similar to the one in 3 Maccabees 1–2, where the king is Ptolemy IV of Egypt and the high priest is Simon; – The body of our story prefers to refer to the Jewish protagonist awkwardly as “the high priest” (vv. 9, 10, 16, 21, 32, 33), avoiding the name “Onias” (which begins to reappear only toward the end: vv. 31, 33, 35) although that name is given by the story’s framework (vv. 1, 5); – Similarly, if somewhat less awkwardly, our story avoids the use of the king’s name (see vv. 8, 32, 35, 37) although the context (3:3 and 4:7) makes it clear that the author means Seleucus IV. These points lead us to suspect that the story is a “floating” legend, our author preferring, usually, to replace its proper names with titles rather than use other proper names and thus find himself required, time and again, to contradict his source frontally.1 This argues against historicity, indicating instead that our author borrowed the story from elsewhere in his quest for an introduction that would flesh out the idyllic status quo ante against which his real story should be read. Given its main ideas, it serves this purpose very well. In this connection we should note, however, that a recently-published inscription comes tantalizingly close to touching upon the story this chapter tells; see Cotton and Wörrle, “Seleucos IV to Heliodoros.” Namely, an inscription of unknown provenance, but probably from somewhere in southern Israel, preserves – i.e., published for ancient readers – a dossier of letters of the year 178 BCE that document Seleucus IV’s order to Heliodorus to do something about the temples of Coele Syria and Phoenicia (Palestine). As the dossier shows, Heliodorus passed the order on to a subordinate, Dory- menes – who in his turn passed it on to yet another – who apparently saw to the publication of the documents. Unfortunately, while the chain of command is well-preserved, the contents of the order are not. However, as Cot- ton and Wörrle show, it is a likely inference, from what does remain, that what was involved was the appointment of one Olympiodorus to supervise the province’s temples.

1 For Josephus’ similar practice, see above, p. 5, n. 7. 186 Translation and Commentary

Thus, this text puts us into guessing distance of our chapter’s story. True, it seems that if anyone came to Jerusalem as a result of the king’s order, it would have been Olympiodorus, not Heliodorus. Nevertheless, the text does testify to a move by Seleucus IV to interfere with the temples of Pales- tine, and it also shows that the requisite steps were implemented on the king’s behalf by Heliodorus. It is not such a jump for that to turn into a memory of Heliodorus interfering with the Temple of Jerusalem – a memory which could be fleshed out, as we have suggested, by a floating legend about such an event.

NOTES

3:1. Holy City. So too 1:12, 9:14, 15:14. The city’s sanctity derives from that of the Temple; cf. “the city of the Temple” in CD 12:1, 11QTemple 45:11–12, 16–17, and 4Q248 (Broshi & Eshel, “The Greek King,” 121), also “have mercy upon Your holy city – Jerusalem, the foundation of your residence” (Sir 36:12). “Holy city” also appears in Isaiah 48:1, Nehemiah 11:1, etc.; see Grimm on 1 Maccabees 2:7. On other “holy cities” see Bickerman, Institutions, 152–154. being inhabited (κατοικοψμωνεη«). It conforms to the author’s purpose to recall here that Seleucus IV’s father, Antiochus III, contributed to the proper inhabitation of Jerusalem by restoring to it those who had been dispersed in the course of the Fifth Syrian War (σψνοικ σαι τν διεσπαρμων – Ant. 12.139). in complete peace. Our author likes combinations with μετ πση« (2:22, 3:22, 5:20, 14:38, 15:1, 6, 7, 17). due to … Onias’ piety. Cf. Sirach 10:2: “A wild king will destroy a city, but a city is settled by virtue of the intelligence of its officials.” On the notion that the high priest ruled the city, see NOTE on v. 4, market supervision. piety (ε<σωβεια). One of the most positive terms which Hellenistic Greek can attach to a person’s name: “that which is more important than everything” (Let. Arist. 2), “the sweetest pleasure of mankind” (OGIS 383, ll. 12–13 [Antiochus of Commagene]), “the beginning of all the virtues” (Philo, Decal 52). On its place among the cardinal virtues, see S. C. Mott, “Greek Ethics and Christian Conversion: The Philonic Background of Titus II 10–14 and III 3–7,” NovT 20 (1978) 23–26. By featuring this term along- Chapter III 187 side of polis in the first verse of his story, our author clearly situates himself, and his story, in the Hellenistic world.

Onias. An abbreviation of “Johanan,” as results from the comparison of Sirach 50:1, which refers to Simon the son of Johanan, to Antiquities 12.237, which identifies Simon’s father as Onias; see also Antiquities 12.43. We know of four high priests of this name, of whom the first two belong to the fourth and third centuries BCE – too early to be identified with ours. As for the later two Oniases, since our book says its hero was murdered in Antioch (4:4–6, 34) in the days of Antiochus IV, while Josephus reports that an Onias son of Onias emigrated to Egypt and, about a generation later, founded a temple there (Ant. 12.387–388; 13.62–73), it is simple, and usual, to identify ours as Onias III and the other as his son. However, there has been debate about this, particularly because Josephus, in his earlier work (War 1.33, 7.423), indicates that it was Onias son of Simon who founded the temple in Egypt; it is usually assumed that it was Onias III whose father was Simon (II). For this debate, see Stern, Studies, 35–50; V. Keil, “Onias III. – Märtyrer oder Tempelgründer?,” ZAW 97 (1985) 221–233; Parente, “Onias III’s Death” and “Le témoignage;” Gruen, “Ori- gins and Objectives,” 48–57. To my mind, chronological considerations nevertheless favor the traditional view: since the way Josephus, in An- tiquities, repeatedly breaks up the story of Onias IV – placing his infancy, his emigration, and his foundation of a temple in three different contexts (Ant. 12.237, 387–388, 13.62–73) – seems to indicate that he knows what he is doing, we should take seriously the fact that he places the latter after the death of Demetrius I in 150 BCE. Moreover, in a world in which most men died by the age of 50, it is unlikely that someone who had been a high priest in the days of Seleucus IV (d. 175) would have been doing anything more than 25 years later. For some recent discussion of Onias III, see Van- derKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 188–197, 204–208. hatred of evil (μισοπονηρ α). This too, as “piety,” is a universal value (see e.g. Polybius 30.32.5; 32.6.6 and SIG 780 [= RDGE, no. 67], l. 31) emphasized in our book, where it characterizes not only a Jewish hero (here) but also good Gentiles (4:36, 49) and God Himself (8:4).

2. it happened (σψνωβαινε). As at the beginning of Chapter 5, this verb allows for the transition from the general context to the specific details which provide the background for our story: there are circumstances, something interesting “happened” amidst them, and the story can unfold accordingly. However, for our author it is clear that things do not just happen to 188 Translation and Commentary

“happen”; see esp. 12:34 and 13:7! In our case, the use of the imperfect allows for the painting of a static picture of what kings used to do in the good old days before our story began. the kings themselves. Royal respect for Jews and Judaism is very important to our diasporan author, and their votive offerings are also mentioned at 5:17, as already in the second epistle (2:13). There is in fact much evidence for such royal gifts to the Temple in the Hellenistic-Roman period; see Philo, Legatio 157, 317–319; Josephus, War 2.412–413 etc.; Schürer, His- tory, 2.312–313; S. J. D. Cohen, “Respect for Judaism by Gentiles Accord- ing to Josephus,” HTR 80 (1987) 412–415. the Place. As at 5:16 and 8:17, τπο« frequently denotes the Temple; cf. Joüon, “Mots employés,” 341–342. True, the term is absent from the LXX prior to 2 Maccabees but does appear in 3 Maccabees (1:9) and in the New Testament (Matthew 24:15; Acts 6:13, 21:28), and this led Nelis (2 Macc, 27) to suggest that it indicates a late date for our book. But the use of “place” (maqom) in reference to temples is well-attested to in biblical and cognate literature (see D. Vanderhooft, “Dwelling Beneath the Sacred Place: A Proposal For Reading 2 Samuel 7:10,” JBL 118 [1999] 628–630), and in theological contexts the term referred especially to the Temple (J. Gambe- roni, “maqôm,” TDOT 8 [1997] 544); note, especially, the comparison of 1 Chronicles 16:27 with Psalms 96:6. It is, therefore, difficult to see here such a linguistic novum as to allow us to draw chronological conclusions. As for the sense of the term, despite its application to the Temple it is nonetheless broader, referring to what surrounds the Temple as well (cf. 13:23!). Thus, here it serves well the author’s desire to slide from the opening reference to the city in general to the present focus upon the Temple in particular.

3. Seleucus. The fact that 4:7 precisely identifies his successor as Antiochus IV Epiphanes allows us to identify this king as Seleucus IV Philopator, who ruled 187–175 BCE.

Asia. Here this refers to the Seleucid kingdom, a usage known elsewhere as well, and one that makes sense especially from the Ptolemaic (African) point of view; see Appian, Syriakê 1–2; OGIS 54, l. 8 (Ptolemy III invades “Asia” during the Third Syrian War) and no. 253 (Antiochus Epiphanes is “savior of Asia and founder of the city”); 1 Maccabees 8:6, 11:13, etc.; An- tiquities 12.119, 129; 13.113; Bickerman, Institutions, 5. Antiquities 13.78 is especially apposite here, for there too the topic is the fact that the “kings Chapter III 189 of Asia” honored the Temple of Jerusalem with votive offerings and gifts, and the matter is said to have functioned in polemics in Egypt not far-removed from the time 2 Maccabees was composed. offices. The use of λειτοψργ α in connection with sacrifices, as at 4:14, is quite widespread in Hellenistic Greek; see Spicq, Notes. 1.475–481; Daniel, Recherches, 76–78. For the funding of sacrifices by a Hellenistic king, see also 9:16 and Schürer, History, 2.311–312.

4. But. For such heavy adversative use of δω in order to contrast with a preceding idyll, even when there is no foregoing μων, see also 12:2 and 14:5, 26. one Simon (Σ μν δω τι«). It seems that the author’s use of τι« here allows him not only to indicate that this is a new character, but also to voice some disparagement, as if to say, “Our problems began because some nincom- poop started a feud with such a wonderful high priest.” The situation is similar with regard to Auranus (4:40) and Alcimus (14:3), but not necessarily to Lysias (10:11). of the tribe of Benjamin. As seen in the Introduction, many scholars, including Hanhart, have preferred “Balgea,” following the Vetus Latina (De Bruyne, Anciennes traductions, x and 118–119). They see here the name of the family of priests into which Simon and his brother (4:23), Menelaus, were born; for this family, see 1 Chronicles 24:14, along with Hanhart’s apparatus here and, inter alia, Tcherikover, HC, 403–4. For our decision to prefer the Greek witnesses’ “Benjamin” see pp. 95–96. If this reading is indeed accepted, the implication would be that our story’s first troublemaker and its worst villain both lacked priestly descent. Although it might seem strange that our author did not harp upon this point, his general lack of interest in details of the Temple cult (see Introduction, pp. 46–48) and his general tendency to play down the importance of differential descent (see NOTE on 4:35, of the man), make this less surprising. appointed. For the use of κα στημι for appointments, see also 5:22 and 14:13 and, for example, H. Cotton, “The Guardianship of Jesus Son of Ba- batha: Roman and Local Law in the Province of Arabia,” JRS 83 (1993) 95. overseer of the Temple. We have no other direct evidence for a προσττη« in the Temple of Jerusalem, but later sources (Josephus, War 2.409 and 6.294; Acts 4:1; 5:24) refer to a strategos of the Temple and it may be that 190 Translation and Commentary they are the same; see, in general, including for rabbinic material, Eliav, God’s Mountain, 216. For προσττη« as the translation of paqid (official) of the Temple in 2 Chronicles 24:11, and of temple administrators in Egypt, see: Bickerman, Studies, 2.161. For its use with regard to Jewish communal officials, see Kasher, Jews in … Egypt, 111–114, also B. J. Brooten, “Iael προσττη« in the Jewish Donative Inscription from Aphrodisias,” in: Pearson, Future, 153–154. market supervision. The position of agoranomos, who supervised measures and prices in the market, is well known from the Hellenistic East; see Schwartz, Agrippa, 48. For his significant impact upon a city’s economy, as reflected in an inscription (IG XII,5, no. 129) of the island Paros roughly contemporary with our book (second century BCE), see W. H. Buckler, “La- bour Disputes in the Province of Asia,” in idem & W. M. Calder (ed.), Anat- olian Studies Presented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (Manchester: Man- chester University, 1923) 28. For rabbinic evidence see D. Sperber, “On the Office of the Agoranomos in Roman Palestine,” ZDMG 127 (1977) 227–243. Our story’s apparent assumption, that the high priest was involved in the affairs of this municipal officeholder, conforms well with its opening assertion that the high priest’s merits impacted upon the city as a whole; see also below, v. 9, “high priest of the city.” In his commentary to Psalm 54, Theodorus of Mopsuestia (d. 428) paraphrased v. 1 as follows: “The high priest of the people was Onias, a man most righteous and most god-fearing – at that time rule of the people was deposited with the high priests” (R. Devreesse [ed.], Le commentaire de Théodore de Mopsueste sur les Psaumes [Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, 1939] 351). For a theory about a broader political background for Simon’s delation, see below, NOTE on v. 11, Hyrcanus the son of Tobias.

5. Apollonius son of Thraseas. This family is well-known among the officials of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid dynasties. The best known representative was Ptolemy son of Thraseas, who moved from service of the former dynasty (Polybius 5.65.3–4) to that of the latter, becoming governor of Coele Syria and Phoenicia under Antiochus III after the latter conquered Pa- lestine during the Fifth Syrian War; see, inter alia, Antiquities 12.138; OGIS 230; and the Hefzibah inscription (Y. H. Landau, “A Greek Inscription Found Near Hefzibah,” IEJ 16 (1966) 54–70 – SEG 41, no. 1574). See also D. Gera, “Ptolemy Son of Thraseas and the Fifth Syrian War,” AS 18 (1987) 63–73; C. P. Jones & Ch. Habicht, “A Hellenistic Inscription from Arsinoe in Cilicia,” Phoenix 43 (1989) 317–346. It is possible that our Apollonius, who is otherwise unknown, was that Ptolemy’s brother; in any case, it Chapter III 191 would seem rash to assume – with Bengtson, Strategie 2.161–163 – that our author or text is in error and that we should see here an allusion to Ptolemy himself. This is so both because of the unanimity of the textual witnesses here and because it is difficult to imagine that a man who served Ptolemy IV during the Fourth Syrian War (219–217) was up to serving the Seleucids forty years later. See also Cotton and Wörrle, “Seleukos IV to Heliodoros,” 198, n. 45. Note also that when Chapter 4 refers to the next incumbent in this position, Apollonius son of Menestheus, it states that patronymic not only the first time he is mentioned (4:4), but also the second (4:21). This indicates that our author was aware that his readers knew of two governors named Apollonius, and took care to eliminate ambiguity.

Coele Syria and Phoenicia. For this province and its governors, see: Bengt- son, Strategie 2.159–169; Kahrstedt, Syrische Territorien, 51–60.

6. informed. For this nasty usage of προσαγγωλλ, rather than plain “told,” see 13:21, also some of the passages cited in LSJ, p. 1499, s.v. Here we overhear something of the revulsion of a minority, diasporan community for one of the most heinous crimes one of its members can commit – and this is the category which our author chose to use to characterize not only Simon’s crime (here and at the outset of Ch. 4) but also those of Alci- mus (14:4ff.; 26ff.) and of unnamed other villains (6:11, 14:37). treasury in Jerusalem. Mentioned also at 4:42 and 5:18, as well as 1 Macca- bees 14:49, John 8:20, etc. On it see Bickerman, Institutions, 167–170; Spicq, Notes, 2.654; N. Q. Hamilton, “Temple Cleansing and Temple Bank,” JBL 83 (1964) 365–370. See also NOTE on v. 10, deposits. discrepancies. I.e., budget surpluses. For this sense of διφορον (and not just “money” as at 1:35) see also 4:28 and Bickerman, Studies, 2.163–166. Thus, as Bickerman argued, Simon’s calumnious charge was that the Jews were not spending on sacrifices all the royal budget supplied for that purpose (v. 3), but were instead accumulating the money. Goldstein (2 Macc, 206) rejected this interpretation because if it were true the king (or Helio- dorus) would not have settled for recovering the funds, but would have moved to arrest and prosecute Onias and the Temple officials. However, had Heliodorus indeed been able to corroborate the charges that might have in fact happened, and in any case our author preferred to describe a sensational confrontation in the Temple and not go into legal details. As for Goldstein’s own suggestion (204–5), that Simon was referring to private deposits, as is shown by vv. 10–12, 15, 22, that is to be rejected not only be- 192 Translation and Commentary cause it divorces the story from its introduction (v. 3), but also because it would portray the king as an unmitigated villain. That might be fine for Pa- lestinian authors (see 1 Macc 1:9, 19, 21–23, 6:21–23; 2 Macc 1:14), but not for our diasporan author of 2 Maccabees, who prefers to portray Gen- tile kings as well-meaning. Rather, what our story means is that while in fact the money accumulated was from private deposits, the troublemaking Simon alleged, maliciously and untruthfully, that it was from the royal budget for sacrifices. applied to the account of the sacrifices. For the technical terminology here, see Bickerman, Studies, 2.165. For λγο« in the sense of “account,” see also 1:14 and 12:43, also the royal epistle (or spoof thereof; see NOTE on 9:21, I remember with sincere love) in 1 Maccabees 10:40, 44.

7. the king. According to the context (v. 3) – Seleucus IV. As for the fact that his name will not reappear here until his death (4:7), which may indicate the story was originally told about another king, see our opening COMMENT. reported to him. According to Mayser (Grammatik 2/2, 267), the verb μφαν ζ is usually officialese. Hence, it is very appropriate here and in 11:29.

Heliodorus. This senior official in Seleucid IV’s service is known from inscriptions (IG XI/4, nos. 1112–1113, 1114 [OGIS, no. 247]; see now also the inscription published by Cotton and Wörrle, “Seleukos IV to Heliodo- ros”) and from Appian, Syriakê 45. See Mørkholm, Antiochus, 33; D. Gera, “Philonides the Epicurean at Court: Early Connections,” ZPE 125 (1999) 78–80. head of state ( π, τ#ν πραγμτ ν). Literally: “He who is over the affairs.” For pragmata (“affairs”) in the sense of “state,” as also in v. 38, see Holleaux, Études 3.225–226. For this title of the highest official of a Hel- lenistic state, which also appears at 10:11, 11:1 and elsewhere, including the inscriptions mentioning Heliodorus just cited in the preceding NOTE, see Bickerman, Institutions, 187–188, 197; Walbank, Polybius, 1.571. Both of the latter translate “vizier” (Walbank adding in “grand”) and depend significantly upon Corradi, Studi, 256–267. aforementioned. Our author loves this pedantic adjective; see NOTE on 2:32, aforementioned. Chapter III 193

8. make the rounds. For this meaning of φοδε see 1 Maccabees 16:14; Mauersberger, PL, 2.1063 (of the captain of the guards checking up on sentinels); a Macedonian papyrus of the third century BCE (P. Roussel, “Un reglement militaire de l’époque macédonienne,” RA, 6 sér. 3 [1934] 40); and P. Tebtunis 703 (SP 204, late third century BCE) – the responsibilities of an official ν τZ φοδεειν. All of these conform to Heliodorus’ obvious intention here, to do something which would be viewed as regular and non- threatening. (Contrast the usage of the noun *φοδο« for “invasion;” see Ap- pendix 3.)

9. received courteously. For Jews happy to report the proper reception of dignitaries upon their arrival (adventus) at a city, as also at 4:22, see: An- tiquities 11.329–331, 12.138; 1 Maccabees 11:60; S. J. D. Cohen, “Alex- ander the Great and Jaddus the High Priest According to Josephus,” AJSRe- view 7–8 (1982–1983) 45–47. The present verse, which has Heliodorus being received (0ποδεξε «) upon his arrival in the city, is the opening bracket of a story which will end when, the tables having been turned, he receives (0ποδε7μενο«) Onias before departing the city (v. 35). On the verb, which implies goodwill, and which is common in the world of Hellenistic diplomacy, see: Welles, RC, 316; Mauersberger, PL, 1.178–179; R. Merkel- bach, “Der griechische Wortschatz und die Christen,” ZPE 18 (1975) 128–129. high priest of the city. Onias, according to vv. 1, 5; see the opening COM- MENT for the possibility that the use of the title rather than proper name, here and below, indicates that the story was originally told about another high priest. For the high priest as ruler of the city (and not only of the Temple, as would be said when things went badly – 14:13), see already vv. 1 and 4, also 4:2, Sirach 50:1–4; Josephus, Antiquities 20.237, etc. Accord- ingly, although the Venetus and some other witnesses would read “high priest and the city,” we may retain (with Rahlfs and Hanhart) the Alexan- drinus’ reading. The latter is also supported by the abovementioned parallelism between our verse and v. 35, which, using the same verb as here, has Heliodorus “receive” Onias just prior to his departure: since it is obvious that v. 35 is meant to be the closing bracket of the story beginning here, the fact that “the city” is not mentioned separately there supports the assumption that it was not mentioned separately here. whether there happened to be any truth in these matters. Namely, in the accusation that funds from the royal budget had been accumulated rather than spent on sacrifices. The phrasing of the question (“happened to be”) 194 Translation and Commentary seems to be especially polite, a hesitant opening for a matter unpleasant to both sides, especially in light of the respectful reception which Heliodorus had just received.

10. deposits. The author shows off with a classical form, παρακατα2κη, rather than the more usual Hellenistic form, παρα2κη. On the use of the verb παρακατα ημι for depositing, in the Hellenistic period, see esp. W. Schubart, “Παρακατατ εσαι in der hellenistischen Amtssprache,” PW 52 (1932), cols. 1077–1084 (col. 1080 on our verse). On deposits, their sanctity, and their storage in temples, see e.g. Philo, De specialibus legibus 4.30–32; Josephus, Antiquities 4.285; Spicq, Notes, 2.651–655; and the literature cited in NOTE on v. 6, treasury in Jerusalem. widows. For inheritance by widows, which was an innovation for Judaea in the Hellenistic period (cf. Num 27:8–11!), see esp. Judith 8:7; Sirach 22:4; Grintz, Sefer Yehudith, 188–189; Bickerman, Studies, 2.169–170; idem, The Jews in the Greek Age (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univ., 1988) 186–197. Documents from the Judaean Desert, of a somewhat later period, have added some new data and issues; see Ilan, Jewish Women, 167–174, and H. Cotton, “The Law of Succession in the Documents from the Ju- daean Desert Again,” SCI 17 (1998) 115–123. For similar material from Egypt, see G. Häge, Ehegüterrechtliche Verhältnisse in den griechischen Papyri Ägyptens bis Diokletian (Köln & Graz: Böhlau, 1968) 91–99, 244–245.

11. Hyrcanus the son of Tobias. That is, Hyrcanus son of Joseph of the To- biad clan. Josephus too locates him in the days of Seleucus IV (Ant. 12.234). The facts that Hyrcanus kept money in the Temple while Onias was high priest, and that Onias is said here to have pointed to Hyrcanus’ property in particular, have been taken to indicate that Onias really shared Hyrcanus’ pro-Ptolemaic tendency (see our next NOTE), something which could have been the real point of Simon’s delation to the Seleucids; see Tcherikover, HC, 157, followed by Will & Larché, ‘Iraq al Amir, 17–18. But that seems to be building quite a lot on very little. a man of very high preeminence. For Hyrcanus’ prestige and links to the Ptolemies (for whom his father had been a tax-farmer), and for his consequent wealth, see Antiquities 12.186ff. and Will & Larché, ‘Iraq al Amir, 19–22. Our book’s assumption, here, that a high Seleucid official should respect the rights and property of someone so close to the Ptolemies, fits in well with Josephus’ claim (Ant. 12.154) that when Seleucus IV’s sister Chapter III 195 married Ptolemy V she brought him, as dowry, the taxes of Coele Syria despite the fact that it had just been conquered by Antiochus III. True, it is usual to discard Josephus’ claim, along with his chronology for the story; see e.g. Tcherikover, HC, 128, and, more recently, Johnson, Historical Fic- tions, 82.2 However, the basic reason for this stance seems to be only the conviction that Ptolemaic taxation implies Ptolemaic rule, so the story must pertain to the third century BCE, prior to the Seleucid conquest of Coele Syria. But Josephus too knew that taxation normally implies rule, and if he was nevertheless willing to posit this anomaly, perhaps we should not lightly discard his testimony; cf. 4:30! For detailed debate of the issue, see Schwartz, “Josephus’ Tobiads,” along with G. Fuks, “Josephus’ To- biads Again: A Cautionary Note,” JJS 52 (2001) 354–356 and my re- joinder: “Once Again on Tobiad Chronology: Should We Let a Stated Anomaly be Anomalous? – A Response to Gideon Fuks,” JJS 53 (2002) 146–151. On Hyrcanus, see also Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1.272–277. villainous (δψσσεβ2«). The opposite of Onias, who was ε$σεβ2« (v. 1): so too Jason (4:13). Our author likes to compound with δψσ-; see esp. 12:21. Of the forty-four compounds opening with δψσ- listed in H&R, 1.357–358, eleven appear only in 2 Maccabees and another four – including δψσσεβ2« – appear only in 2–3 Maccabees.

12. totally impossible (!μξανον). That is, forbidden, but the implication is also that it in any case cannot be done. By phrasing the matter this way, Onias reinforces his refusal, but at the same time attempts to persuade Heliodorus that the matter is in fact out of his own hands, à la the British “I’m sorry but it’s really quite impossible.” For a similar apology in the same situation, see 3 Maccabees 1:11, where the Jews

2 Johnson goes so far as to assert here not only that Josephus’ claim was untrue, but also that Josephus “must have known it to be false.” But her only argument is that Polybius 28.20.9 contradicts Josephus’ claim, taken together with Goldstein’s argument (“Tales of the Tobiads,” 86), which she cites, that “the good evidence of Poly- bius … was surely available to Josephus (see, e.g., AJ xii. 9. 1 358).” However, Josep- hus might have thought Polybius was wrong. (Goldstein himself, ibid., does not assert that Josephus knowingly erred, and at p. 121 he admits the possibility that Josephus was unaware of the chronological difficulties of his own account.) As for Polybius’ considerations in this specific case, see my “Josephus’ Tobiads,” 51–52. (For a similar issue, this time regarding Polybius vs. 3 Macc, see my review of Johnson’s book in JQR 97 [2007] e25-e26, available only on Internet.) 196 Translation and Commentary explain to Ptolemy IV that even they, and even their priests, may not enter the Holy of Holies; see also Philo, Legatio 306, also Antiquities 12.145 (an edict by Antiochus III which forbids Gentiles to enter the Temple precincts but points out that even Jews may not enter unless they purify themselves; for the apologetic nature of the latter explanation, see Alon, Jews, 167, n. 34). immunity. For the bestowal of 0σψλ α upon temples and cities in the Hel- lenistic period, see Rigsby, Asylia. For Syria and Palestine in particular, see H. Seyrig, “Les rois Séleucides et la concession de l’asylie,” Syria 20 (1939) 35–39: for Egypt – von Woess, Asylwesen. See also 4:33 and – again with reference to the Temple of Jerusalem – 9:14 and 1 Maccabees 10:43 (and note that where ibid. v. 31 had only “holy and free,” Josephus, at An- tiquities 13.51, added in – probably, as Stern notes [Documents, 102], as his own interpretation and not on the basis of any other source – the technical term 6σψλο«). In his discussion of Jerusalem, Rigsby (pp. 527–531) emphasized that what is meant here is a general immunity which derived from the sanctity of the place, not from any explicit grant of immunity by some particular king – something which began to appear in this part of the world only in the latter half of the second century BCE. honored throughout the entire world. See NOTE on 2:22, the temple which was spoken of …

13. the other. Heliodorus. The use of “the other” emphasizes the parallel between these two servants of their respective sovereigns: as Onias, so too Heliodorus had no choice, and so the duel could not be avoided.

14. audit. For this technical meaning of π σκεχι«, see Welles, RC, p. 335; Mauersberger, PL, 2.952; Bickerman, Studies, 2.171. For non-technical usage, see 11:36. anguish. The author uses this loaded term, 0γν α, which appears in the LXX only in our book (here, 3:16 and 15:19), to summarize the coming scene, which – as 6:3–11 and 15:18–19 – is one of those moving “pathetic” scenes intended to arouse the reader to share the feelings of the characters involved. all over the city. That is, not just in the Temple: the author reminds us of his basic focus. Chapter III 197 quite considerable. Lit. “not at all inconsiderable.” The double negative (li- totes) has an intensifying effect, i.e., “very considerable;” cf. for example Acts 21:39 and Josephus, Vita 1. As Doran notes (Temple Propaganda, 42) our author is fond of this device; Doran notes another nine cases in our book (including another in connection with distress – 15:19) and remarks that there is not even one in 1 Maccabees.

15. The priests. The scene described here, and in the coming verses, is reminiscent of Joel 2:16–17. This is very suggestive, given the fact that Joel goes on to refer (v. 20) to the “northerner” (easily equated with the king of the North, i.e., Seleucid king, of Daniel 11), and his sufferings and stench, which probably underlies Chapter 9’s account of the death of Antiochus IV. See above, p. 62. called to heaven. God’s residence, as is made clear in v. 39. As at 14:34–35, it is especially important for a diasporan author to underline that even the priests in the Temple, which some might (with good biblical basis) consider God’s “house,” recognize this. On the text, see p. 93.

Him who legislated. This emphasis upon law and legislating, as in the opening verse of this chapter, is one facet of our author’s attempt to portray those who attack Judaism as if they are attacking a polis and its institutions, for each polis had its own laws. For this motif in 2 Maccabees, see esp. Re- naud, “Loi et lois,” 55–67; Kippenberg, Erlösungsreligionen, 183–191, 198–200. But it is important to note that it is God who is here viewed as legislator; so too 4:17, 6:1, 23; 4 Maccabees 5:25. In contrast, many Jew- ish-Hellenistic texts portray Moses as the Jews’ legislator; so, for example, Letter of Aristeas 144; Philo, Life of Moses 1.6 and elsewhere (see Amir, Hellenistische Gestalt des Judentums, 77–106); Acts 15:5, 21. In 2 Macca- bees, in contrast, apart from the second epistle appended at the outset (1:29, 2:4, 8–11), Moses is mentioned only in Ch. 7 (vv. 6, 30) – another indication that that chapter came to our book from elsewhere (see above, pp. 19–20). Thus, it seems that 2 Maccabees reflects a relatively early stage of the Jewish-Hellenistic adoption of this Hellenistic category, a stage in which the Torah was still God’s but He had become one legislator among others; the next stage would be to relativize it further, by making it the work of a human legislator. See Schwartz, Studies, 18.

16. pierced the mind. An invitation to the reader to share the experience; on such invitations, see above, p. 79. The verb τιτρ)σκ means “wound,” but since it appears in 11:9 with regard to walls, “pierce” is better. 198 Translation and Commentary the high priest. Onias; see NOTE on v. 9, the high priest of the city. his appearance and the changes of coloration. For changes in facial coloration, and trembling, as visible signs of 0γν α, see e.g. Antiquities 15.236 and Philo, Legatio 266–267.

18. supplication. As usual in our book, whenever a threat arises: 8:29, 10:16, 25; 11:6; 12:42; 13:12; 14:15. On Vκετε α, see NOTE on 9:18, in the form of a supplication.

19. Women, bound around with sackcloth under their breasts. The emphasis upon women’s suffering and the exposure of their bodies is among the standard moves of “pathetic” Hellenistic historiography; compare, for example, Diodorus 17.35–36, along with Polybius’ complaints at 2.56.7. See also below, 6:10 (the more prudish 1 Macc 1:61 has necks instead of breasts), and, for another Jewish Hellenistic example, the way Ezekiel the Tragedian (apud Eusebius, Praep. evang. 9.29.14; Jacobson, Exagoge, 62–65, lines 207–213) displays terrified women and children among the Is- raelites at the Red Sea, although there is no mention of them in Exodus 14. As for sackcloth as a sign of mourning, and of self-humiliation intended to arouse divine sympathy, see also 10:25; Jonah 3:8; Esther 4:1; Ju- dith 4:10–15; 1 Maccabees 2:14, 3:47; etc. But it seems not to have been widespread among the Greeks; see LSJ, p. 1581 (s.v. σκκο« II,3), which refers only to the Jewish practice. On Greek mourning costume, see G. Her- zog-Hauser, “Trauerkleidung,” RE II/12 (1937) cols. 2225–2229. closed-in virgins. For the notion that ideally virgins should be protected by keeping them out of the public eye, see also 3 Maccabees 1:18; Sirach 42:11 (“Keep strict watch over a headstrong daughter …”); Philo, In Flaccum 89 and De specialibus legibus 3.169; 4 Maccabees 18:7 (“I was a virgin and did not leave my father’s house”), etc. For similar Jewish and non-Jewish material, see Heinemann, Philons … Bildung, 107–108, 232–234; and A. Standhartinger, Das Frauenbild im Judentum der hellenistischen Zeit (AGAJU 26; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 101; van der Horst, Philo’s Flaccus, 179–180. It seems that this ideal is better documented for the Diaspora than for Judaea, and even in the former it may well have been honored more in the breach, as Standhartinger (ibid., n. 22) infers from Flac 95. See also Ilan, Jewish Women, 132–134.

20. hands stretched out to heaven. A classical stance for prayer; see also 14:34, 15:12; Ag. Ap. 1.209; 1 Esdras 8:73; 3 Maccabees 2:1; 4 Macca- Chapter III 199 bees 4:11; Deissmann, Licht, 354–355 (on CII 725a-b – Jewish inscriptions from Delos showing prayers and hands extended toward heaven; on the appeal to the Most High God in those prayers, as here in v. 31, see also: Enermalm-Ogawa, Langage de prière, 125–126). See also E. Zimmer, So- ciety and Its Customs: Studies in the History and Metamorphosis of Jewish Customs (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar, 1996) 78–88 (in Hebrew). For the ancient Near Eastern background, see J. F. Ross, “Prophecy in Hamath, Is- rael and Mari,” HTR 63 (1970) 3.

21. prostration (πρ3πτ σι«). This term appears in the LXX only in our book – here and at 13:12. Here Habicht translated “Auflauf” (tumult), but that might be too chaotic for the pious, even if they do allow themselves to be “all mingled together.” Moreover, it appears clear that at 13:12 it refers to prostration as an act of supplication (as Habicht agrees there: “Kniefall”) and that seems appropriate here too; so too 10:26: “threw themselves (προσπεσντε«) upon the step opposite the altar.” However, since the preceding verses did not mention prostration, it may be that the term is being used metaphorically, of supplication in general. community. This is clearly the translation of πλ#ο« here, not “horde” or “mob” or the like, which have a deprecatory nuance as at 2:21, 14:1, etc. For neutral or positive usage see: 4:5, 39; 11:16; Letter of Aristeas 310; 3 Maccabees 7:13 (quoted below in NOTE on 15:31, people … priests); Acts 19:9, etc; M. Schwabe, “The Ancient Synagogue of Apameia Syriæ,” Kedem 1 (1942) 92 (in Hebrew); S. Lieberman, “The Martyrs of Caesarea,” AIPHOS 7 (1939–1944) 426. Use of this communal term, rather than a more ethnic one, again identifies the author as a diasporan Jew. all mingled together (παμμιγ5). This word, which appears in the LXX only here and at 12:13 (“hodgepodge”), indicates just how bad things were: due to the severity of the situation no attention was given to the usual distinctions of rank and order. For the pride taken by Hellenistic Jews in the or- derliness of the Temple of Jerusalem, see 3 Maccabees 1:10 and Letter of Aristeas 92–96. anxiety (προσδοκ α). Lit. “expectation,” but (as noted in LSJ, 1507) usually fearful expectation is meant. had to be moved ( λεε.ν δ Eν). For the translation, see Grimm, 2 Macc, 72, who adduces 6:6 (add 14:29) and 3 Maccabees 1:29. 200 Translation and Commentary

22. So (ο@ν). As usual, the author uses this to indicate that he has finished setting the stage; see NOTE on 1:18, as we are about to celebrate. on the one hand. The author opens an inclusio which frames the main scene, the apparition. As in a play, he first uses μων … δω to portray the competitors opposite one another in vv. 22–23, and then, reversing their order, again in vv. 29–30. For a similar procedure, see 15:6–7 and 15:24–26. the all-ruling Lord. The use of παγκρατ# alludes to the epithet Pantok- rator, which is indeed used in the closing bracket of this inclusio (v. 30). On that epithet, frequently used in prayers for deliverance (such as 1:25, 8:18 and 12:28), see NOTE on 1:25, All-Ruler. to preserve the trusts … entrusted (τA πεπιστεψμωνα το.« πεπιστεψκ3σι). The formulation is similar to the one in v. 15, but here the use of pistis (“trust,” “faith”) emphasizes the religious dimension of the depositors’ dependence upon the inviolability of the Temple. This is a nice piece of mime- sis by our author: with Heliodorus they spoke of “deposits” (v. 10), and that too was the word used in the legal formulation of v. 15, but when it came to intensive prayer the language of “faith” is more appropriate. On pistis see Spicq, Notes, 2.697–703; D. R. Lindsay, Josephus and Faith: Π στι« and Πιστε%ειν in the Writings of Flavius Josephus and in the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1993); and – on use of the term in legalese in the Ptolemaic world (i.e., that of our author) – W. Schmitz, ’Η Π στι« in den Pa- pyri (Diss. Köln, 1964). For the use of pistis as a loanword meaning “de- posit” in rabbinic Hebrew, see Sperber, Dictionary, 145–147. and in complete security. Reminiscent of “in complete peace” in v. 1. For the same phrase, but as threat rather than hope, see 15:1.

23. beginning to execute. This would seem to be the sense of the imperfect here. that which had been decided upon. By the king; see NOTE on v. 13, the other.

24. bodyguards. Lit. “lance-bearers;” the allusion to their weapons intensifies the confrontation (see v. 28!).

Ruler (δψνστη«). This epithet too (lit. “power-holder”), just as pantokrator (see NOTE on v. 22, the all-ruling Lord), announces the main theme Chapter III 201 of the rest of the story: He who is truly powerful is revealed and in His power the arrogant are stricken (in this verse), which leads to Heliodorus recognizing His power (v. 28); he is then required to proclaim to all the greatness of God’s power (v. 34), and indeed does so (vv. 38–39). For usage of δψνστη« in Jewish Hellenistic literature, see Enermalm-Ogawa, Lan- gage de prière, 128–129 (where emphasis is also placed on the link between God’s power and His apparitions – e.g. 3 Macc 5:51; 6:39). of the spirits. Probably angels are meant, thus hinting at what is to come. Angels are “spirits” in Psalms 104:4 and frequently in Qumran and Enochic literature; see Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 114–116. been audacious (κατατολμσαντα«). The formulation of their intention as audacity, as arrogance, makes it crystal-clear that the intruders were evil and not simply victims of a misunderstanding. The same verb at 5:15 recurs in connection with Antiochus’ entrance into the Temple. Such an understanding of wickedness as a product and expression of arrogance (hybris) – such as at 5:21, 9:4, 10–12; 15:5, 32 etc. – is of course widespread in Greek literature. Cf. NOTE on 8:18, audacity. stricken. For such usage of καταπλ2σσ with passive and accusative, see also 8:16. cowardice. For δειλ α see also 8:13; Pritchett, War, 2.233.

25. they saw a horse. Heavenly horses reappear at 5:2 and return to earth at 10:29. But the careful phrasing leaves open the possibility that only He- liodorus and his men, but no others, saw the horse; so too vv. 26, 33; cf. 9:5; 10:29; 3 Maccabees 6:18; Mark 1:10–11 (contrast Matt 3:16–17 and its textual variants, which indicate debate concerning this point). Such care has two advantages: it allows the author, who might worry about rationalistic critics, to evade an unequivocal statement that a miracle occurred; and it allows for the continuation of the story, which depends upon Simon being able to claim that the attack was staged (4:1). outfitted with beautiful accoutrements. On such decorative equipment, see 5:2, 10:29, and J. K. Anderson, Ancient Greek Horsemanship (Berkeley & Los Angeles: Univ. of California, 1961) 85. armor. The term πανοπλ α (see also 10:30, 11:8, 15:28) refers not only to armor, but also to all of the armored soldier’s equipment. See A. M. Snod- 202 Translation and Commentary grass, Arms and Armour of the Greeks (Ithaca: Cornell, 1967; ch. 5 on the Hellenistic period).

26. another two youths. The phrasing sounds as if a youth or youths have already been mentioned, which is not the case. True, it might be only an instance of careless formulation; for other cases of 6λλο« or [τερο« in the sense of “and also” or “apart from him,” see NOTE on 14:11, the other Friends, also Luke 23:32, where the Christian writer reports that along with Jesus there were executed “two other (!) criminals;” cf. J. M. Mélèze Modrzejewski, Droit impériale et traditions locales dans l’Egypte romaine, (Hampshire: Variorum, 1990), IV, 106–8. That is, the text may indicate no more than that apart from the horse and rider there also appeared two youths. But it may also be that this is a remnant of an earlier version of this story, according to which other youths had already appeared from heaven. This possibility gains some probability from a comparison with 3 Macca- bees 6:18, where two angels descend from heaven. Those angels are said to be “fear-inspiring” (φοβεροειδε«) as is our horse’s heavenly rider (φοβερ"ν *ξν τ"ν πιβτην – v. 25), and since it is obvious that 3 Macca- bees 6:16–21 is an inlay (for beginning in the next verse the king reacts to something else but not to the angels), it may be that they bear witness to an earlier stage of this “floating” story. to him. To Heliodorus; although he was accompanied by others (v. 24), here too, as there (“was already”), the story focuses upon Heliodorus himself.

27. they gathered him up and put him into a litter. According to the flow of the story, one might understand that the two floggers put Heliodorus into the litter, but it is more reasonable to suppose that the reference is to members of his retinue. This inconcinnity, just as that examined in the preceding verse (“another”), is another indication that this story has a history; see too Bickerman, Studies, 2.173–174, and above, p. 5.

28. And so he who just before. Our author likes to celebrate his villains’ misfortunes, contrasting their heights to their depths and underlining just how little time was needed to bring them down; see also 5:7–10; 8:36; 9:8–10. Cf. NOTE on 2:22, the laws that were about to be. aforementioned. See NOTE on 2:32, aforementioned. power of God. The point of the story; see NOTE on v. 24, Ruler. Chapter III 203

29–30. he, on the one hand … they, on the other hand. The end of the inclusio; see NOTE on v. 22, on the one hand.

29. cast down (4ρριπτο). Bickerman (Studies, 2.173–174) thought that the use of the pluperfect here is incompatible with the imperfect used in v. 28, which had the bodyguards already carrying Heliodorus away; accordingly, he considered this evidence for the splicing of two traditions. However, it seems that having completed the details about Heliodorus the author is reverting to a more general view of what happened.

30. replete (γωμον) with fear and tumult. The narrator subtly reminds us that it was a complaint of what the Temple was replete (γωμειν) with that had caused all the trouble. “Fear and tumult” recur in 13:16.

31. call upon ( πικαλωσασ"αι). It should be noted that Heliodorus’ men are said to have asked Onias to call upon God, that is, to pray, not to sacrifice; the sacrifice mentioned in the next verse is, accordingly, taken to be a means of praying. That is, the main category is prayer, and one of the ways to pray is to bring a sacrifice. This reflects a Jewish-Hellenistic point of view, one to be expected from people who usually cannot sacrifice and do not want to think that they are excluded from the real thing. For the same, see our NOTE on 12:44, to pray. Note, similarly, the introduction of prayer, and emphasis upon it, in Wisdom 18:21–22, where the biblical original of the story (Num 17:12–13) has incense alone. So too Philo, Life of Moses 2.5, where the high priest’s responsibilities are mentioned, including the details of his prayers but no sacrifices: and see also his De specialibus legibus 1.97, where already when referring to the priests of other peoples Philo first mentions their prayers and only thereafter their sacrifices, while of the Jew- ish high priest he mentions prayers alone and forgets sacrifices altogether!

Most High. This epithet, a relativistic one which leaves room for other gods, was especially favored by Hellenistic Jews and in conversations with non- Jews. So already Genesis 14:18–22, so too here. See Enermalm-Ogawa, Langage de prière, 124–126; Jacobson, Exagoge, 151 and 217, n. 63; and, in general, H. Niehr, Der höchste Gott (Berlin & New York: de Gruyter, 1990) and Zimmermann, Namen des Vaters, 573–602.

32. infer (διλημχιν … σξ*). Wrongly, as also at 5:11. For our diasporan author, any royal notion that the Jews had plotted against him had better be mistaken. 204 Translation and Commentary

33. atonement (Vλασμν). See Daniel, Recherches, 321, 325. Here a sacrifice is meant, and it is characteristic of our author that he is no more specific about it than he is about the “holy vessels” of 5:16. Cf. Introduction, pp. 46–48. appeared to Heliodorus. Perhaps to him alone; see NOTE on v. 25, they saw a horse.

Be very grateful … graced. The Greek highlights the parallel: ξριτα« … κεξρισται …

35. after bringing a sacrifice. Apparently another one, not Onias’ (v. 33). Gentiles at times brought sacrifices at the Temple of Jerusalem (just as they also brought votive offerings – v. 2), although theologically it is not at all clear that they should have been allowed to do so: Should a jealous God, or His servants, consent to accept sacrifices from someone who sacrifices to other gods too? For the most fateful expression of a negative response, see Josephus, War 2.409; on the problem in general, see Schwartz, Studies, 102–116. In this case, however, the problem is not so acute, for Heliodorus is said to have acknowledged the power of the Jewish God. Accordingly, he is somewhere in the vicinity of a proselyte or “God-fearer,” reminiscent of another Syrian general of an earlier era (2 Kgs 5:15–17). See also Antiochus’ promises at 9:16–17. receiving Onias. That is, taking leave of him; so too 13:24. This closes the circle begun at v. 9. True, one would expect “receiving” to entail Onias coming to Heliodorus, whereas here it seems Heliodorus went to Onias. But this (pace Bickerman, Studies, 2.184, n. 155, followed by Ha- bicht, 2 Macc, 214, n. 35a) is not a sufficient reason to ascribe a rare meaning (“thank”) to 0ποδωξομαι here. Rather, the author’s desire to have the end of the story echo its beginning led him to use the same word although it does not precisely fit. Cf. NOTES on 6:3, onslaught of evil and 8:36, because they follow … (Alternatively, one cannot exclude the possibility that the author meant that Onias did go to Heliodorus, taking the opportunity to display respect to the royal official and so to demonstrate that now, the crisis behind them, normal relationships might be restored.)

36. And he testified to all. As the youths demanded of him (v. 34), and as Antiochus himself would later promise (9:17). The use of κμαρτψρω is interesting, for it underscores the fact that 2 Maccabees has no technical use Chapter III 205 of “martyr” or its forms, despite the fact that the book devotes a great deal of space to martyrs. The technical usage of the word appears only in the Christian period; see T. Baumeister, Die Anfänge der Theologie des Martyri- ums (Münster: Aschendorff, 1980) 257–268; van Henten, Maccabean Mar- tyrs, 6. See also above, p. 20, n. 51.

39. residence in heaven. As in vv. 15, 20. The author distinguishes clearly between God’s “residence” (κατοικ α) in heaven and the place over which He watches: He does not reside in the latter, but only “tents” in it (14:35). Such a distinction exists already in the Bible, but at times it is forgotten (and the Temple is regularly termed God’s “house”); for Jews of the Diaspora it was critical. Note especially Stephen’s speech (Acts 7), which has a “Hellen- istic” Jew (6:1) emphasizing just how accessible God is outside of the so- called Holy Land (esp. Acts 7:2, 9, 33) and admitting that the Tabernacle (which moved about) was legitimate (vv. 44–46) and God had His σκ2νμα there but denying that God resides (κατοικε) in the Temple (vv. 48–50), which was stationary. On the interpretation of that speech, see Schwartz, Studies, 117–127. See also below, NOTE on 14:35, Your tenting. According to the end of Acts 7, Jerusalemites stoned Stephen to death, not surprisingly; cf. above, NOTES on 1:7 (the Holy Land) and 1:27 (Gather in our diaspora). watches over. The notion that the heavenly God watches over us is underlined several times in our book (1:27; 7:6, 35; 8:2; 9:5; 12:22; 15:2), as elsewhere in Hellenistic Jewish literature: 3 Maccabees 2:21; Letter of Aristeas 16; LXX Esther 5:1a, 8:12d; Philo, Legatio 336 and Hypothetica apud Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 8.7.9; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.294; Deissmann, Licht, 357 (on CII 725: Κριε πντα φορν); Jacobson, Exagoge, 221, n. 53.

40. That … turned out. Such summary sentences appear at the end of Chapters 7, 9, and 13; see also 10:9 and 15:37; cf. above, pp. 16–17, n. 36. The same verb, ξρω (“turned out”) appears at the end of Chapter 13 and at 15:37; it implies both the process and its end. Compare, for example, Polybius 28.17.12 (“things did not turn out for them as expected”). on the one hand (μων). This verse ends the story but at the same time warns us that the problem has not been put finally to rest. For a similar but opposite transition, from an open problem to its solution, see 7:42. 206 Translation and Commentary

Bibliography

Bickerman, E., “Héliodore au temple de Jerusalem,” in: idem, Studies, 2.159–191 (appeared originally in AIPHOS 7 [1939–1944] 5–40). Cotton and Wörrle, “Seleukos IV to Heliodoros.” Doran, Temple Propaganda, 47–52. Fischer, “Heliodor.” Stokholm, N., “Zur Überlieferung von Heliodor.” Will & Larché, ‘Iraq al Amir. Chapter IV 207

Chapter IV

Simon vs. Onias, Round II

(1) But the aforementioned Simon, on the other hand, who had become an informer against the moneys and the fatherland, slandered Onias, as if it were he who had stormed Heliodorus and had been the troublemaker. (2) He had the temerity to say that he who was the city’s benefactor, the caretaker of the members of his people, and zealot for the laws, was a conspirator against the state! (3) When the hostility had gone so far that even murders were committed by one of Simon’s partisans, (4) Onias – seeing the intensity of the contentiousness, and that Apollonius son of Menestheus, the governor of Coele Syria and Phoenicia, was further inciting Simon in his wickedness – (5) betook himself to the king, not as a plaintiff against his fellow citizens, but, rather, with his eyes set upon the benefit of each and every member of the community. (6) For he saw that without royal providence it would be impossible for the state to attain peace again, nor would Simon’s folly ever cease.

Jason and His Innovations in Jerusalem

(7) When Seleucus passed away and the kingdom was taken over by Anti- ochus surnamed Epiphanes, Onias’ brother Jason corruptly usurped the high-priesthood (8) by promising the king, in a petition, 360 talents as well as another 80 talents of other revenue. (9) Additionally, he promised to sign over another 150 talents, if he would be allowed to found, on his own authority, a gymnasium and ephebeion and to register the people of Jerusalem as Antiochenes. (10) When he got royal approval and took control of the government, he immediately brought his co-religionists over to the Greek style. (11) Indeed, abrogating the benevolent royal privileges which had been fixed for the Jews through the agency of Johanan (father of the Eupolemus who participated in the embassy concerning friendship and alliance with the Romans), and abolishing the regular civic usages, he innovated lawless practices. (12) With relish he laid the foundations for a gymnasium directly beneath the acropolis, making the strongest of the ephebes submit to (wear- 208 Translation and Commentary ing) sun-hats. (13) And there was such an apogee of Hellenism and inroad of foreignism due to the extreme impurity of that impious and unhighpriestly Jason, (14) that the priests were no longer enthusiastic about the altar ministries. Rather, in their disdain for the Temple, and in their lack of concern for sacrifices, they hurried to participate in the lawless distributions in the palaestra which followed upon the call of the discus; (15) considering the ancestral values to be worthless, they considered the Greek honors to be the best. (16) For this reason they were overtaken by a difficult state of affairs, and those for whose ways they were enthusiastic, and whom they wanted fully to imitate, became their own enemies and nemeses. (17) For it is no trivial matter to be impious vis à vis the divine laws. But this shall be shown by the next period.

Two Scenes in the Life of “Antioch in Jerusalem”

(18) When the quadrennial games were being celebrated at Tyre, in the presence of the king, (19) the abominable Jason sent some of the Jerusalem Antiochenes as observers, conveying with them 300 silver drachmas for a sacrifice for Heracles. But those who conveyed the gift asked that it not be used for a sacrifice, as that would not be appropriate, but, rather, that it be applied to some other expense. (20) So these (drachmas), which he who had sent them meant to be spent for a sacrifice to Heracles, were instead applied, thanks to those who conveyed them, to the outfitting of triremes. (21) When Apollonius son of Menestheus was sent to Egypt for the prôtoklêsia of King Philometor, Antiochus – having received notice that he had become hostile toward his state – gave thought to his own security. Therefore, after coming to Joppe he went on down to Jerusalem. (22) He was received sumptuously by Jason and the city, and accompanied into it with torches and loud cries. Thereupon he brought his men back to their quarters in Phoenicia.

The Rise of Menelaus

(23) In the third year thereafter Jason sent Menelaus, the brother of the aforementioned Simon, to bring the money to the king and to take care of memoranda concerning pressing governmental matters. (24) But he, upon being presented to the king and evincing respect for him in the manner of a person of authority, shifted the high priesthood to himself by outbidding Jason by 300 talents of silver. (25) Upon receiving the royal orders, he came Chapter IV 209

(to Jerusalem) equipped with nothing worthy of high priesthood, but, rather, with the temper of a cruel tyrant and the anger of a barbarian beast. (26) So Jason, who had corruptly usurped his own brother, was corruptly usurped by another and driven to flee to the land of Ammanitis. (27) Mene- laus, for his part, took over the government, but as for the monetary payments he had promised the king – he did not at all keep them up, (28) despite the demand which was made by Sostratus, the commandant of the acropolis, who was charged with handling the discrepancies. For this reason both were summoned to the king. (29) Menelaus left his own brother Lysimachus as substitute in the high priesthood, while Sostratus left in his stead Crates, the commander of the Cypriots.

The Murder of Onias

(30) At this juncture it happened that the Tarsians and Mallotians rebelled because they had been given as a gift to Antiochis, the king’s concubine. (31) Therefore the king hurried off to stabilize the government there, leaving as his substitute Andronicus, who was one of those held in great honor. (32) Menelaus, thinking to seize this as a natural opportunity, bestowed upon Andronicus some golden vessels that he had purloined from the Temple, just as it happened that he had sold some others to Tyre and the surrounding cities. (33) Onias, after ascertaining what had happened, first took refuge in the asylum site in Daphne, outside of Antioch, and then expressed his indictment (of Menelaus). (34) Therefore Menelaus took An- dronicus aside privately and urged him to overcome Onias. So he, after coming up to Onias and greeting him with oaths by giving him his right hand, beguiled him – despite his suspicions – to come outside of the asylum; then he suddenly closed in on him, showing no regard at all for justice. (35) For this reason not only Jews, but also many of other nations were outraged and vexed about the unjust murder of the man. (36) So when the king returned from the Cilician regions he was petitioned by the Jews of the city – joined by the Greeks out of hatred for evil – concerning the unreasonable murder of Onias. (37) Antiochus, who was aggrieved in his spirit and moved to pity and tears due to the moderation and total discipline of the deceased, (38) in a burning rage immediately stripped Andronicus’ purple from him, tore his clothes away, and had him paraded around the entire city to the precise spot where he impiously attacked Onias. There he removed the abominable murderer from the world, the Lord allocating him his condign punishment. 210 Translation and Commentary

Robbery and Violence in Jerusalem

(39) But since there were many cases of robbery from the Temple in the city by Lysimachus, on behalf of Menelaus, and talk of it had spread abroad, the community gathered up against Lysimachus; for many golden vessels had already been scattered about. (40) The populace being aroused and totally enraged, Lysimachus armed about 3000 men and began (to act) with unjust hands; one Auranus was the leader, a man of advanced age and no less advanced folly. (41) When (the protesters) saw Lysimachus’ onslaught, some took stones, others – thick pieces of wood, while yet others scooped up handfuls of the ashes which were lying thereabouts and began to throw them in utter confusion at Lysimachus’ men. (42) As a result many of them were wounded, others were knocked down, and all were driven to flee; they overcame the temple-robber himself near the treasury.

Menelaus on Trial

(43) In connection with these matters charges were brought against Mene- laus: (44) when the king came down to Tyre, three men sent by the Council of Elders presented the case against him. (45) But when Menelaus was all but lost, he promised a substantial amount of money to Ptolemy son of Dorymenes, so that he would sway the king. (46) Ptolemy therefore took the king aside to a peristyle, as if to get some fresh air, and there he brought him over. (47) Accordingly, he acquitted Menelaus of all the accusations, although he was the cause of all the trouble, at the same time sentencing to death the poor unfortunates (who had accused Menelaus), although they would have been released as completely guiltless even if they had spoken before Scythians. (48) Swiftly they paid the unjust penalty – they, who had spoken for the city and the populace and the holy vessels. (49) For this reason the Tyrians, out of their hatred of evil, munificently supplied the funeral expenses. (50) But Menelaus remained in office due to the greed of the powerful, growing in evil while being a great conspirator against his fellow citizens.

COMMENT

After Chapter 3 ended with the restoration of the idyllic status quo, this chapter begins the real story. Namely, after a brief beginning featuring the renewed competition between the good Onias and the wicked Chapter IV 211

Simon1 – of whom the former will be murdered in this chapter and reappear only in heaven (15:12–14) and the latter will never appear again – two new and lasting villains appear, one after the other. First Jason supplants Onias as high priest and introduces Hellenizing innovations into Jerusalem, which our author roundly condemns, and then Menelaus supplants Jason and moves on to blatant crime: temple-robbery, murder of Onias, and bribery. And this time there is no solution Deus ex machina, so the chapter concludes with the triumph of injustice. Characteristically for our book, the only points of light in this chapter are supplied by Jews who participated fully in the Hellenistic world while remaining faithful to Jewish law (vv. 18–22), and by righteous Gentiles, especially Greeks (v. 36), who – beginning with Antiochus IV himself (who as- cends to the throne in v. 7) – properly take umbrage at the Jews’ subjection to injustice and do what they can to amend the situation (vv. 35–38, 49). Thus, the chapter makes it clear that Jews, not Gentiles, were to blame for the Jews’ troubles. Indeed, in an aside to his readers (vv. 16–17) the author assures us that the Jews’ suffering was deserved; although it came at the hands of Greeks, that was so it could be appropriate tit for tat punishment for Jewish imitation of Greek ways. As for historicity, 2 Maccabees is basically our only source for the events reported in this chapter. 1 Maccabees, although it does briefly refer to Hellenization in Jerusalem (1:11–15), says nothing at all about Onias, Jason or Menelaus, if only because the very existence of pre- Hasmonean high priests raised questions about the legitimacy of the new dynasty, and Josephus’ accounts of the period, in War 1 and Anti- quities 12, are so confused and bare-boned that they are virtually useless.2

1 As suggested above (pp. 4–6), this renewed opposition was originally the first round, which continued directly upon 3:4; only due to the insertion of the Heliodorus material did the opening of our chapter become a second round. 2 In War 1.31–33 Josephus makes no mention of Jason or Menelaus and has Onias (III, apparently, since he was old enough to function as high priest and be involved in politics) fleeing Antiochus Epiphanes to Egypt and founding a temple there, while in Ant. 12, where he changes his story and has Onias IV go to Egypt and found the temple there (see our Introduction, p. 12), he creates new problems: (a) he contradicts our book, insofar as he has (i) Onias III dying in office and being succeeded in a regular way by his brother since his own son was an infant (§237), (ii) claims that Mene- laus too was a brother of Onias III and Jason (§239), and (iii) has Menelaus rather than Jason initiating the Hellenistic reforms in the city (§§239–241); and (b) he runs up against common sense, insofar as he has Menelaus’ real name being Onias (§239), just as that of one of his brothers! See Tcherikover, HC, 392–397, and VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 199–222. As for how Josephus may have concluded that 212 Translation and Commentary

Accordingly, our book’s account is usually allowed to stand more or less uncontested. The main debates have concerned two issues: one on which our book’s account is less than clear, and one on which it is clear, but contradicted by other sources. The former issue focuses on v. 9: what, exactly, is meant by registering Jerusalemites as Antiochenes? Does this presume that Jason made Jerusalem into a polis – “Antioch in Jerusalem?” See Appendix 2. The other issue has to do with the death of Onias III: while our book clearly states that he was killed by Andronicus at Mene- laus’ behest, and that for this reason Antiochus executed Andronicus, Jo- sephus, in his War (1.32–33; 7.423), has Onias III alive and well and active in Egypt at a much later date; Theodorus of Mopsuestia (see our NOTE on 3:4, market supervision), who closely paraphrased a large part of our chapter, nevertheless follows Josephus’ War story; and Diodorus (30.7.2) gives another reason for Antiochus’ execution of Andronicus, namely, that he had killed a young son of Seleucus IV.3 All these points raise the possibility that Onias was not killed by Andronicus. However, none of them is very impressive. Note that Josephus corrects himself in his Antiquities (12.237, 387–388; 13.62), that Theodorus is late and evidently dependent on 2 Maccabees and Josephus’ War alone, and that the fact that some non- Jewish sources pin the execution of Andronicus on the murder of a royal prince does not contradict our book, for perhaps Andronicus killed Onias too – and if he did, we would well understand the preference of a Jewish writer, who knew what and Who really makes things happen in this world, to link Andronicus’ death to Onias’. Accordingly, many scholars have, quite reasonably, accepted our book’s version, and continue to do so despite some recent debate.4

Menelaus was a brother of Onias III and Jason, and how that might have forced him into concluding that Menelaus was originally called “Onias,” see Schunck, Die Quellen, 123–124, n. 2, and Stern, Studies, 44–45. They suspect that Menelaus was married to a sister of Onias and Jason, and if Josephus’ source called him, therefore, Onias IV’s “uncle,” it would not be difficult for the misunderstanding to arise that he was their brother. 3 The latter is also reflected by John of Antioch (frag. 58, FHG 4.558), although An- dronicus’ name is not mentioned. 4 Of the most recent discussions I have seen, VanderKam (who cites bibliography) tends to accept our book’s version of Onias III’s death and Johnson tends to reject it: VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 206–7; Johnson, Historical Fictions, 15–16. For other discussions, see NOTE on 3:1, Onias. Chapter IV 213

NOTES

4:1. But (δω). For the resumption of troubles after a respite, announced by such a heavy δω, see also 12:2, 13:9 and 14:26. aforementioned. See NOTE on 2:32, aforementioned. fatherland (πατρ «). Here too, as with πλι«, νμοι and the like, the author – as is made clear in the next verse – prefers to portray attacks upon the Temple as if they were attacks against the city; see Introduction, pp. 6–7. For Jerusalem as the Jews’ πατρ «, see also 5:8, 9, 15; 8:33; 13:3, 11, 14; 14:18. Philo too uses it, for example at Legatio 281 and Life of Moses 1.36. However, Philo also uses metropolis (“mother city”) of Jerusalem (Leg. 203, 281, 294 etc.), leaving patris available for Alexandria (as is very explicit in In Flaccum 46); this reflects diasporan Jews’ problems with “double loyalty.” See Kasher, Jews in … Egypt, 236–238. But even a diasporan Jew, such as our author, would have no trouble with using patris of Jerusalem when speaking of Judaeans. Note that patris can be juxtaposed with polis, as at 13:14, thus indicating a somewhat wider connotation, hence I have used the usual English “fatherland” rather than “father-city;” in general, however, there is no need to distinguish between the two and at times, as for example 8:33, it is clear that Jerusalem itself is intended. stormed Heliodorus. For the Greek verb here, πισε , LSJ (655) offers three main meanings: shake, urge on, assault. The first would seem to be excluded, here, by the fact that the attack on Heliodorus was much more than a mere shaking.5 Goldstein (2 Macc, 216) prefers the second meaning, rendering “This same Simon spread slanders about Onias, declaring that Onias it was who had incited Heliodorus and had been the author of the evil affair.” But clearly our author did not mean to say that Simon accused Onias of inciting Heliodorus to commit some crime against the king, and it is almost as unlikely that he meant Simon accused Onias before the Jews, claiming that he had incited Heliodorus to invade the Temple and raid its treasury. The latter might be more probable than the former, but it fails to fit the text, for the Jews aren’t mentioned and what is said is that Simon accused Onias of plotting against the state (v. 2), which can only mean the Seleucid state (see NOTE on 3:7, head of state), not Jerusalem. Rather, we must

5 And the same may be said of Bickerman’s suggestion (Studies, 2.189) that we take the verb to mean “frightened.” 214 Translation and Commentary assume that the accusation in question was made to the king, which is why Onias found it necessary to seek the king out. Accordingly, the third meaning, “assault,” is best here; Simon accused Onias of having engineered the attack upon him, “comme si ce dernier avait agi sur Héliodore et ourdi tous les maux” (Abel, Macc, 329). There is room to consider the possibility that instead of πισε (which appears in 2 Macc only here) we should read νσε – “storm,” “attack;” this verb appears in 2 Maccabees four times (3:25; 12:15, 37; 14:46), of which the first indeed describes what happened to Heliodorus. and had been (κα"εστηκ=«). Here intransitive κα στημι amounts to a verb of being; see Grimm, 2 Macc, 74 (on 3:28). Nevertheless, it seems that it retains something of its sense of appointment to a position; see NOTE on 3:4, appointed. That is, our author has Simon claiming that Onias, who had been appointed to fill a sacred role in the Temple, instead acted as if he had a different, opposite, position to fill. The same usage reappears in the last verse of this chapter, thus pointedly contrasting hero and villain. troublemaker (τ#ν κακ#ν δημιοψργ3«). Simon claimed that Onias had in fact staged the so-called “heavenly” attack upon Heliodorus. For such trickery see Xenophon, Hellenica 6.4.7 (“but some say all these things [miraculous portents which indicated the Lacedaemonians would be defeated] had been engineered [τηξνσματα] by the leaders”); Weinreich, “Türöff- nung,” 258–259.

2. had the temerity. See NOTE on 3:24, been audacious. benefactor. As ε$σεβ2« (see NOTE on 3:1, piety), so too ε$εργωτη« was one of the most respected and flattering titles one could give in the Hellenistic world, usually bestowed upon kings and other rulers. See Spicq, Notes, 1.307–313; Schubart, “Königsideal,” 14–15; Skard, Zwei Begriffe, 6–66; G. Rinaldi, “Nota,” BeO 12 (1970) 34; A. Pasoni Dell’Acqua, “Euergetes,” Aegyptus 56 (1976) 177–191; Danker, Benefactor; Rajak, Jewish Dialogue, 373–391. caretaker of the members of his people. As his father before him, according to Sirach 50:4 (“he considers how to save his people from calamity”). zealot for the laws. Onias’ devotion to the laws was underscored at the very outset (3:1); for the emphasis upon law, see also 3:15, Him who legislated. As for “zeal,” it should be noted that the root ζηλ- appears in 2 Maccabees Chapter IV 215 only in this chapter: Onias was zealous for the laws, but the young priests were zealous about sports (v. 16)! (For other such ironic contrasts, see e.g. NOTES on 3:30, replete with fear and tumult, on 4:14, ministries, and on 7:24, his appeal). “Zeal” for the law was a popular category in Palestinian Judaism, as is demonstrated by 1 Maccabees (2:24, 26–27, 50, 54, 58) and by Josephus (see M. Hengel, The Zealots [Edinburgh: Clark, 1989] 146–228), but, understandably, seems not to have attracted much positive attention in the Diaspora. On Philo, see: J.-A. Morin, “Les deux derniers des douze: Simon le zélote et Judas Iskariôth,” RB 80 (1973) 340–342. conspirator against the state. On the terminology, see, respectively, 3:38, and 3:7 (“head of state”).

3. one of Simon’s partisans. Which shows that Simon was not an isolated villain, however much the author tried to portray his Jewish villains as isolated bad apples; see also v. 40, 10:15, and above, pp. 49–50. The words το Σ μνο« δεδοκιμασμωνν are somewhat hazy. Literally they mean “one of those tested and confirmed by Simon”; cf. 1:34, also Mauersberger, PL, 2.565 (usage with reference to soldiers accepted into special units – Polybius 6.20.9).

4. Onias – seeing. See NOTE on 2:24, For having seen. contentiousness. In the Septuagint φιλονεικ α appears only here and in 4 Maccabees, but – just as hybris (see NOTE on 3:24, been audacious) and πλεονε7 α (4:50) – it is a common motif in the way Greek literature portrays strife; see Dover, Morality, 233–234. For a case close to ours, see Jo- sephus, War 7.431, where Onias’ foundation of his Temple in Egypt is said to have been an expression of φιλονεικ α vis à vis the Jews of Jerusalem.

Apollonius son of Menestheus. On the orthography of the patronymic, here and in v. 21, see Kappler, Memoria, 13. See also the end of our NOTE on 5:24, the Mysarch Apollonius. The family is known to us from Polybius (31.13.2–3) and inscriptions; see P. Herrmann, “Milesier am Seleukidenhof: Prosopographische Beiträge zur Geschichte Milets im 2. Jhdt. V. Chr.,” Chi- ron 17 (1987) 175–182. For the distinction between him and Apollonius son of Thraseas, his apparent predecessor, see NOTE on 3:5, Apollonius son of Thraseas.

5. betook himself. Here the passive of διακομ ζ is only a fancy way of saying “went;” cf. 9:29, betook himself. 216 Translation and Commentary not as a plaintiff. This need not reflect our author’s knowledge that someone claimed the opposite. Rather, within his own book it was important for the author to distinguish between Onias’ appeal to the king and those of such villains as Simon (3:5–6) and, especially, Alcimus (14:3–4; for the studied contrast between him and Onias, see above, p. 82). Cf. Paul’s similar disclaimer according to Acts 28:19. fellow citizens. Our author, as other Hellenistic Jews, regularly uses πολ- ται of Jews, as part of his general tendency to depict Judaism as if it were the constitution of the Jewish polis; see above, pp. 6–7, 51. community. See NOTE on 3:21, community.

6. providence. Like piety and benefaction (see NOTE on v. 2, benefactor), πρνοια was another one of the characteristics of the ideal Hellenistic king; see Schubart, “Königsideal,” 18–19; Pédech, Polybe, 216–220 (on Poly- bius’ heroes); H. A. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1976), esp. ch. 3 and pp.154–156; J. J. Farber, “The Cyropaedia and Hel- lenistic Kingship,” AJP 100 (1979) 506–507. Thus, our author again bespeaks confidence that the Jews may depend upon their Hellenistic rulers. On the use of πρνοια in the Jewish Hellenistic world, see: T. Rajak, “The Gifts of God at Sardis,” in: Goodman, Jews in a Greco-Roman World, 232–236; Sowers, “Reinterpretation.” In this case, note that the contrast between Simon’s “folly” (6νοια) and the king’s “providence” (πρνοια) in- volves, as so often in this book, playing with the prepositional prefixes; see above, p. 81. state. On τ πργματα, see NOTE on 3:7, head of state. Here the author has Onias including Judaea in the Seleucid state, as is proper for good subjects. folly. Our author likes to portray crimes against the state as if they were the result of faulty thought; for such 6νοια, see also v. 40 and 14:5; 15:33, along with 13:23 (0πνοια) and 14:8 (0λογιστ α). As noted, the villain’s 6νοια comes here in fine contrast to the good king’s πρνοια.

7. When Seleucus passed away (μεταλλ αντο« δH τ;ν β ον Σελε%κοψ). Lit. “passed out of life.” The phrasing μεταλλ7αντο« Σελεκοψ is also found at the opening of an Athenian inscription which deals with An- tiochus’ accession to the throne – OGIS 248; see Holleaux, Études Chapter IV 217

2.127–147; Stern, Studies, 38. However, the inscription does not add τ"ν β ον (“out of life”), which is characteristic of our book; see NOTE on 7:14, pass away from among men. It may be noted that Appian (Syr. 45) claims that Seleucus did not just die, but was murdered, by Heliodorus. But since that claim is not supported by any other source, and our author’s low-key allusion to Seleucus’ death is echoed not only by the Athenian inscription but also by a Babylonian chronicle, it may be that Appian merely reflects some nasty rumor; see Stern, ibid. (on the frequency of such nasty rumors, whenever rulers die; cf. Schwartz, Agrippa, 218). As for the date of Seleu- cus’ death, the abovementioned Babylonian chronicle fixes it at Septem- ber 3, 175 BCE; see Walbank, Polybius, 3.284–285, with discussion and bibliography concerning Antiochus IV’s succession to the throne. With Seeligmann and others, it should be noted that there is something of a break in our narrative between v. 6 and v. 7; perhaps the original version included more about Onias’ trip to Antioch (to which we shall return only in v. 33) and/or about Seleucus’ death. See Seeligmann, LXX Isaiah, 91–94. It is not surprising that the author would skip details about Seleucus’ death, which is outside his major theme (and if indeed Heliodorus killed the king our author would not want us to know it, given the fact that he had just become something of a Jew). But as for Onias, the author may well have written more, and there has been speculation to the effect that another version of our story had the high priest go to Egypt and found a temple there (a suggestion which entails viewing vv. 30–38, below, as a secondary interpolation). On such speculation, see our opening COMMENT. Beyond what is said there, it may be added that the recognition that something was left out here does not at all imply that vv. 30–38 are not authentic; for a defense of their authenticity, as part of the general thesis that Onias III was killed in Antioch and Onias IV founded the temple in Egypt, see Stern, Studies, 40–42.

Antiochus surnamed Epiphanes. Seleucus’ brother, who was born ca. 215 and ascended to the throne in 175 BCE; on him, see esp. Mørkholm, Anti- ochus. It should be noted that our book refers to a few other individuals with names and by-names, but only Antiochus Epiphanes has his name repeatedly emphasized – both coming and going, here and at 10:9! – by the use of προσαγορε. Contrast the cases of Judas “Maccabaeus” (5:27), Ptolemy “Philometor” (9:29) and Antiochus “Eupator” (10:10), where there is no verb at all, and for Ptolemy Macron the author uses the more low-key καλομενο« (10:12). It thus seems that the use of προσαγορε is an expression of reserve, similar to our “so-called,” with regard to the use of epiphan- in reference to a human, especially one who will turn out to be a villain. For our author’s sensitivity with regard to epiphan-, see NOTES on 218 Translation and Commentary

2:20, the wars against Antiochus Epiphanes and his son Eupator, on 2:21, heavenly apparitions, and on 9:4, arrogantly.

Jason. Josephus says his original name was Jeshua (Ant. 12.239); he will occupy center stage until v. 22 and then reappear at the beginning of Chapter 5. corruptly usurped. This rare verb, Fπονοε (from νο«, bastard), which appears in the Septuagint in this chapter alone (here and twice in v. 26), and for which LSJ (p. 1890) cites only one more instance (an astrological text), aptly indicates not only that Jason gained the high priesthood via illegitimate means, but also that he degraded the office by entering into it.

8. in a petition (δ2 ντε% ε «). On such, see Guéraud, ΕΝΤΕΕΙΣ; Spicq, Notes, 1.245–149; Chantraine, “Lire,” 122–123; and the end of our Ap- pendix 4.

360 talents as well as another 80 talents of other revenue. This apparently means an increase of the annual tribute (phoros) to 360 talents, along with a promise of another 80. But the amount of annual tribute prior to this time is unknown. True, according to a late source, followed by Bickerman and others in his wake, it was 300 talents per annum in the days of Seleucus “Ni- cator” (sic, although the context is that of Seleucus IV Philopator); see Sul- picius Severus, Chronicon 2.17.5 (and cf. ibid. 21.4); Bickerman, Institu- tions, 107–108. This would mean Jason raised the tribute by sixty talents – a fifth. But we do not know what Severus’ source was, and it may well be that he was only drawing a conclusion, a false one, from the Greek here, Ψ72κοντα πρ"« το« τριακοσ οι« (“sixty along with the three hundred”), which in fact means “360;” the next verse expresses “150” the same way. By way of comparison, note that Jonathan was to pay 300 talents for all of Judaea, including three districts of Samaria (1 Maccabees 11:28; see Stern, Hasmonaean Ju- daea, 51, n. 5), and that the annual Seleucid indemnities to Rome, according to the Treaty of Apamaea, were 1000 talents each (see below, Appendix 6). That treaty defined the weight of each talent as 26 kilograms (Le Rider, “Res- sources,” 50); on buying power, see below, NOTES on v. 19, 300 silver drachmas, and on 8:11, ninety slaves per talent. As for the assumption that the high priest was responsible for taxation, see also Josephus, Antiquities 12.158.

9. sign over (διαγρφειν). LSJ (392) distinguishes between “pay for,” “write an order for banker’s draft,” and plain “pay,” listing our verse in the latter category (§V), together with some Ptolemaic documents. But our Chapter IV 219 author would not like us to use a simple word if a more complicated one is available. on his own authority. That is, Jason’s, as high priest (see our NOTE on 3:9, high priest of the city), without the need to consult other Jerusalem authorities. gymnasium and ephebeion. Respectively: the central educational institution of a Greek city, and its student body. See esp. Delorme, Gymnasion; Kah & Scholz, Das hellenistische Gymnasion (including contributions by L. Burck- hardt and S. V. Tracy on the Athenian ephebeia in the Hellenistic period). On the Jerusalem gymnasium, mentioned only here and at 1 Maccabees 1:14 (along with texts which depend upon one or the other of these, such as Ant. 12.241), see: Delorme, ibid. 198–199; Stern, “‘Antioch in Jerusalem,’” 235–238; Doran, “Jason’s Gymnasium,” and idem, “High Cost.” Accord- ing to the map at the end of Delorme’s volume (fig. 63), which summarizes his findings, it appears that the one in Jerusalem was very isolated in its day – the only one between the Nile in the south and Laodicea in the north. See also Stern, loc. cit., n. 10. For the primary role of the gymnasium in the founding of a city, see the end of our Appendix 2. and to register the people of Jerusalem as Antiochenes. It seems that this verse, that has been the object of much debate, means registering Jerusale- mites as the citizens of a new city called “Antioch in Jerusalem;” see Appen- dix 2. For several epigraphic parallels to 0ναγρφειν with two direct objects in the accusative, of which one is a person and one is something predicated of the person (such as “‘writing up’ NN as a benefactor of the city”), see Kennell, “New Light,” 15.

10. royal approval ( πινε%σαντο«). Lit. “royal nod” (cf. “with a single nod of His head” – 8:18). For the same verb in other diplomatic contexts, see also 11:15 and 14:20. As is emphasized by both Ameling (“Jerusalem,” 107) and Kennell (“New Light,” 17), the use of this verb is – as is now shown by an At- talid inscription, where it appears in line 14 (πινεσαι) in the context of a Phrygian community’s request that Eumenes II “agree” to their organization as a new polis – good evidence for our author’s familiarity with Hellenistic chancellery usage. For more on the Attalid inscription, see Appendix 2. control of the government. That is, the high priesthood; for this view of that position, see also, inter alia, vv. 2, 19–20, 27, 50; 5:7; and see NOTE on 3:9, high priest of the city. For the same view in other contemporary literature, 220 Translation and Commentary see e.g. (Pseudo-?) Hecataeus apud Diodorus 40.3.5 (GLA I, no. 11) and Sirach 50:1–4. co-religionists (Iμοφ%λοψ«). Although φψλ2 and φλον can refer to groups defined by descent, we have translated here on the basis of 0λλοφψλισμ« in v. 13, which obviously refers to things one can choose to adopt. For the same usage, see Antiquities 12.23, where Josephus breaks Aristeas’ statement that “I am not a Jew” into the statements that he οϊτε γωνει προσ2κν α$το « οϊτε μφψλο« ]ν, i.e., that he is a Jew neither by birth nor by religion (i.e., by conversion). The term appears only here in 2 Mac- cabees, as opposed to “member of the people,” which appears in v. 2 and a few more times (5:6; 12:5; 15:30–31). It seems clear that the author, here, wanted a word which could contrast well with “Greek style,” and a word which refers to descent would have been beside the point.

Greek style. See on v. 13, Hellenism.

11. benevolent royal privileges. For φιλνρπα in the sense of privileges bestowed by kings, see: Welles, RC, 373; Walbank, Polybius, 2.332; Schu- bart, “Königsideal,” 10–11. See also NOTE on 6:22, humane treatment. It seems that the reference is to Antiochus III’s declarations on behalf of Jeru- salem and the Temple and his guarantee of the Jews’ right to live according to their ancestral laws; see Josephus, Antiquities 12.138–146 (Stern, Docu- ments, nos. 1–2). For our author, the introduction of Greek institutions into Jerusalem constituted a violation of those privileges. However, as we argue in Appendix 2, it is doubtful that all Jerusalemites were forced to become citizens of the new city and to participate in its institutions; those who wanted to go on observing the ancestral ways were certainly allowed to do so. (This will change only in the course of the persecution, which came later – Chs. 6–7). Accordingly, we should understand only that Antiochus’ decision to allow the formation of “Antioch in Jerusalem” gave those who associated themselves with it a certain advantage in the eyes of the crown, somewhat marginalizing traditional Jewish life in Jerusalem. Such a development would encourage Jews to abandon traditional Jewish values (as is illustrated in the next few verses) and to that extent there is truth in the assessment that Antiochus IV, already at this stage and prior to his decrees of persecution, was tending in a direction contrary to the one his father had underwritten some thirty years earlier.

Johanan (father of the Eupolemus who participated in the embassy concerning friendship and alliance with the Romans). Josephus’ report of Chapter IV 221

Antiochus III’s privileges (Ant. 12.138–146), ca. 200 BCE, does not mention the involvement of any Jewish delegates or diplomats, but it is reasonable to assume that some did participate. We do have additional evidence for Johanan’s son, Eupolemus, being sent to Rome in 161 BCE: the main source for that alliance with Rome identifies him as “Eupolemus son of Johanan son of Akkos” (1 Macc 8:17; Accos was one of the subdivisions [“courses”] of the priesthood [2 Chr 24:9]). That is, we have evidence for two generations, father and son, involved in international diplomacy on behalf of the Jews. Individuals such as these, who could respectably take part in negotiations with foreign powers, must have been at home in Greek culture to some significant degree – and so it is not surprising to see that while Johanan’s father, sometime in the latter half of the third century BCE, gave his son that Jewish name, a generation later Johanan was already naming his own son Eupolemus; he probably gave him a corresponding Greek education, as best he could. For other evidence of Hellenization in Jerusalem in the generation preceding the Hasmonean revolt, before things became polarized, see Levine, Judaism and Hellen- ism, 37–39, also Hengel’s chapter on Ben-Sira (Judaism and Hellenism, 1.138–153). The phrasing of this verse, which identifies Johanan by reference to his son, Eupolemus, who is identified by participation in the embassy to Rome, is unusual. For the suggestion that the problem be avoided, in part, by assuming that the verse refers to an otherwise unknown mission by Johanan to the Romans, see Zollschan, “Earliest Jewish Embassy.” How- ever, that interpretation would seem to give readers the confusing impression that the royal rights had been obtained from the Romans, and it also leaves us wondering why Eupolemus is mentioned at all. Rather, it seems, we should stick by the standard interpretation that associates John with the royal (Seleucid) privileges and Eupolemus with the mission to Rome (which is, after all, documented also in 1 Macc 8), and infer from the fact, that the former is identified by reference to the latter, that Eupolemus was a well-known personality. This lends support to the oft-suggested hypothesis that he is to be identified with the pro-Jerusalem historian of the same name who wrote, it seems, in the fifties of the second century BCE, of whose work fragments were preserved by Eusebius; see Holladay, Frag- ments 1.93–156. Perhaps our author knew this colleague, or his writings; perhaps his readers did too. For the Greek tradition which lies behind the notion that participation in a diplomatic mission (πρεσβε α) is a measure of Eupolemus’ importance, see D. J. Mosley, Envoys and Diplomacy in Ancient Greece (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1973). 222 Translation and Commentary

Finally, note that this verse contributes to our early terminus ad quem for 2 Maccabees, given the fact that it seems to be unaware of later delegations to Rome; see above, p. 14. regular civic usages (τ«^νομ μοψ«^πολιτε α«). We must either live with the application of this masculine adjective to the feminine noun (as e.g. Iso- crates, To Nicoles 22 and Josephus, Ant. 11.76), or adopt the Alexandrinus’ νμιμα«. More difficult is how to translate πολιτε α – normally “constitution,” as at 8:17 and 13:14. That hardly works in the plural, and the parallel with “practices” implies something less official. See esp. van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 197–198; he offers “lawful Jewish ways of life.” But “ways of life” omits the civic nuance of πολιτε α, which is so important for our author, and “lawful” sounds too well defined, given the parallel with “practices” and also the usual use of the substantive τ νμιμα, for normative practices not necessary on a par with laws; at 11:24 we used “regulations.” Thus, Philo (Hypothetica 7.6) distinguishes among “unwritten practices, νμιμα, and the νμοι themselves” and Josephus (Ant. 13.296–297) reports that Hyrcanus abrogated (καταλ, as here) the ancestral νμιμα which are not in the Mosaic νμοι; perhaps he was thinking of “halakhot.” Thus, our author avoids the unambiguous statement that Jason abrogated the heart of Jewish law. Rather, he hit around it, abrogating “regular usages” and innovating “lawless practices.” Had our author been able to specify some law violated by, or in, Jason’s gymnasium, for example, he certainly would have done so. The issue was a more general one of introducing “Greek style” (v. 10), which competed with and margin- alized Jewish practice. Note, however, that even when complaining about Hellenization, our author persists in using Hellenistic terminology with regard to Judaism: Jason’s measures impacted upon the Jewish πολιτε α, and Jason built his gymnasium right under Jerusalem’s “acropolis” (v. 12). This is all part of his attempt to depict true and proper Judaism as analogous to the code of a Greek city, and thus to undercut the notion that Jason’s measures could be understood as an attempt to bring Hellenistic progress to a primitive oriental city; see above, p. 51. On πολιτε α, see Renaud, “Loi et lois” 63; Spicq, Notes, 2.710–715; on “acropolis” see Sievers, “Jerusalem, the Akra,” 197. innovated. For the presumption that innovation in the religious sphere is in and of itself reprehensible, see e.g. Josephus, Antiquities 7.362; 15.178; 18.9; 20.216–218; P. Pilhofer, Presbyteron Kreitton: Der Altersbeweis der jüdischen und christlichen Apologeten und seine Vorgeschichte (WUNT II/39; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck] 1990). Chapter IV 223 practices. For Jewish Hellenistic usage of ισμ« (as at 12:38) and similar terms, such as *ο«, for something like “custom,” less binding than law, see: Welles, RC, 329 and Spicq, Notes, 3.194–201; D. Dimant, “4Q127: An Un- known Jewish Apocryphal Work?,” in: Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies … in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman & A. Hurvitz; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 809.

12. directly beneath the acropolis. Were the reference to the Akra, as in v.28, it would be difficult to understand the emphasis: what is so surprising or shocking about erecting a foreign institution alongside the city’s most demonstrative expression of foreign rule? Therefore, it may be that the reference is to the Temple Mount, something which would make the contrast in v. 14 all the more poignant. For “acropolis” in connection with the Temple of Jerusalem, see also Strabo, Geog. 16.2.37, p. 761. For the use of this Greek term, see above, v. 11, end of NOTE on regular civic usages. On the Temple Mount in the Second Temple period, see the first chapter of Eliav, God’s Mountain. Eliav underlines the general lack of interest in the Mount per se in the Second Temple period, but does not relate specifically to our verse. making … submit (Fποτσσν). I translated the verb as at 9:12; here it seems to mean that Jason forced them to wear the hat (cf. our next NOTE). The verb is a very strong one, chosen both to express reprobation and to allow for word-play: Fποτσσν Fπ" πωτασον (cf. NOTE on 5:20, disasters). On wordplay like this, see above, pp. 80–81. Recently, Kennell (“New Light,” 21–22) has argued that we should translate Fποτσσν with military overtones, à la “drew up,” “station,” and understand that the reference is to Jason’s selection of the “strongest” ephebes for a special unit, leaving it open whether that would be “a squad of personal bodyguards” or “the elite troops of Jerusalem’s new civic militia.” However, Kennell’s discussion ignores the reference to sun-hats. As explained above, it seems to me that the choice of verb here probably resulted merely from the use of that noun, so it would not be well-advised to build much upon it. the strongest (κρατ στοψ«). For this literal translation, see Kennell, “New Light,” 21–22. ephebes. The students of the ephebeion, citizens-in-training. See Stern, “‘Antioch in Jerusalem,’” 237, n. 15; Kennell, “New Light,” 22. sun-hats. The petasos was a typical Greek hat, broad-brimmed for protection against the sun; see E. Schuppe, “Πωτασο«,” RE I/37 (1937) 224 Translation and Commentary

1119–1124. As has been noted (by H. A. Harris, Greek Athletics and the Jews [Cardiff: Univ. of Wales, 1976)] 31, followed by Doran, “Jason’s Gym- nasion,” 106), this type of hat was so big that any wind could blow it off and it was therefore highly impractical for most types of sports. Accordingly, it seems that it was mentioned as a metaphor for Hellenism in general, to which we may add that it was a particularly welcome one insofar as it allowed for the wordplay mentioned just above (see NOTE on making … submit).

13. Hellenism. Equivalent here to the “Greek style” mentioned in v. 10 and the “foreignism” mentioned later in this verse, as well as to the “Greek ways” mentioned in 6:9 and 11:24. It is explicitly contrasted with “ancestral values” in v. 15, and implicitly with the “Judaism” mentioned in the introduction (2:21) and later on in the book (8:1; 14:38); see NOTE on 2:21, for Judaism. These terms are all very much at the heart of our author’s interest: the entries in LSJ (71, 536, 832) list our verse alone for 0λλοφψλισμ« (“foreignism”; add 6:24) and for the general meaning of ’Ελληνισμ« (i.e., “Hellenism,” not merely the knowledge of the Greek language), just as our book is the earliest witness for BΙοψδαCσμ«. impurity. LSJ (101) cites our verse alone for 0ναγνε α. For other use of 4γν – see 12:38; 13:8. impious. Jason’s 0σωβεια (so too v. 17) contrasts him – just as δψσσεβ2« contrasted Simon (3:11) – to Onias, who was presented as the epitome of ε$σωβεια (3:1). Accordingly, it is clear why the author is sure that Jason was… unhighpriestly. For our author it is clear that an impious man should not be a high priest. Indeed, it was common for Hellenistic Jews to assume that priests should be of special moral worth. This idea, although not without biblical roots (e.g. Num 25:10–12 and 1 Sam 2:12–16, 27ff.), flourished especially on the background of the Greek term for priest, Vερε«, which implies that a priest should be “holy.” See Schwartz, Studies, 63–66.

14. no longer enthusiastic. A standard complaint of all traditionalists with regard to youth attracted to new fashions. For a particularly close example, see Cicero, De oratore 2.5.21 (cited by Wilhelm, “Neue Beiträge, V” 46–47): Cicero complains about youths who leave his philosophy classes and run to anoint themselves the minute they hear the discus call. ministries. It seems that the author uses λειτοψργ α here in order to intensify the contrast between the disdained sacrifices and the preferred Chapter IV 225

ξορηγ α (mentioned just below), for the latter was considered a type of public λειτοψργ α. As Doran noted (Temple Propaganda, 44–45, n. 91), the author’s point is, accordingly, that they preferred the wrong “liturgy.” Moreover, the attentive reader will no doubt recall that part of our book’s opening idyll was the statement (3:3) that the good Seleucid king supplied (ξορηγεν) the needs of the sacrificial offices (τ« λειτοψργ α«), just as when Antiochus IV repents he promises to restore that practice (9:16); now, however, the same words are used to show just how wrong things are. the Temple. For our book’s distinction between νε)«, which appears in the Septuagint in this book alone and is identical to what is usually termed Vερν, Temple, on the one hand, and the more specific να«, “Sanctuary,” on the other, see: Joüon, “Mots employés,” 342–343, n. 32. See also our NOTES on 8:2 and 15:18, the Sanctuary. lawless distributions. For this sense of ξορηγ α see: Wilhelm, “Neue Beit- räge, V,” 45–46, who shows that the reference is probably to the distribution of oil, which was needed for wrestling. On the use of oil in gymnasia, see C. A. Forbes, NEOI (Middletown, Conn.: American Philological As- sociation, 1933), 21–22, 47; Gardiner, Athletics, 78; Kennell, “New Light,” 18–19; and B. Dreyer, “Die Neoi im hellenistischen Gymnasion,” in: Kah, Das hellenistische Gymnasion, 222–223. For the insistence of Jews, even in the Hellenistic diaspora, not to use oil prepared by Gentiles, see Antiquities 12.120, Marcus’ note ad loc. in the LCL edition, and Goodman, “Kosher Olive Oil.” On the talmudic discussions of the issue, in connection with m. ‘Abodah Zarah 2:6, see Z. A. Steinfeld, “Concerning the Prohibition Against Gentile Oil,” Tarbiz 49 (1979/80) 264–277 (in Hebrew). in the palaestra. The gymnasium’s wrestling arena. On the palaestra and its relationship to the gymnasium, see Gardiner, Athletics, 72–92. On wrestling: ibid. 181–195 and Delorme, Gymnasion, 253–271. call of the discus. A round piece of metal which was banged upon, as a gong, to summon people to the gymnasium; see Wilhelm, “Neue Beiträge, V,” 46–47. If we were to pursue the contrast the author emphasized at the beginning of this verse, we would recall the more legitimate noises attend- ant upon the Temple cult that, according to m. Tamid 3:8, called wor- shippers to the Temple even from afar.

15. ancestral values … Greek honors. I.e, the honors associated with serving in the Temple vs. the honors to be attained by success in the Greek institutions; see Kennell, “New Light,” 19. 226 Translation and Commentary considering … worthless ( ν ο<δεν τι"ωμενοι). Cf. Claudius’ letter to the Alexandrians, which, according to Josephus (Ant. 19.290), forbade the Jews of Alexandria to “consider worthless” (7οψεν ζειν) the religious beliefs of their Gentile neighbors.

16. those for whose ways (!γ γ«) they were enthusiastic ( ζλοψν). That is, the Greeks, whom Jason and his partisans wanted to imitate. On 0γγ2 (“practice,” “policy,” “way”), which also appears at 6:8 and 11:24, see Welles, RC, 309; Spicq, Notes, 1.38–40. As for ζηλ, see NOTE on v. 2, zealot for the laws. Authorial remarks like these (vv. 16–17), which comment on events, hint at their outcome, and explain them, also appear at 5:17–20 and 6:12–17 (and shorter ones at 8:11b, 9:13b, and 11:4a); see above, p. 21. This verse presents the first instance of talio (tit for tat) in our book: the Jews’ sin was imitation of Greeks, and it was precisely the Greeks who punished them. Such making the punishment fit the crime, which demonstrates the working of divine providence and justice, recurs often: see vv. 26, 38, 42; 5:9–10; 8:25, 33; 9:5–6, 28; 12:6; 13:3–8; 15:33. For the background and parallels, see Doran, Temple Propaganda, 94–95; Sowers, “Reinterpretation,” 19; Amir, “Measure for Measure;” Winston, Wisdom, 232–233 (a long note on Wis 11:16: “that they might know that by those things through which a man sins, through them he is punished”); and Urbach, Sages, 1. 372–373, 438–439; 2.881, n. 68. nemeses. Here the author announces a theologoumenon which will be developed later on: the Gentiles are tools God uses to avenge Himself against those who violate His laws. See esp. 6:15 (another authorial comment) and 7:9. For the biblical background of this idea, given the importance of Deute- ronomy 32 for our book (see above, pp. 21–23) it is especially important to cite its vv. 35 and 43.

17. to be impious (!σεβε.ν). See NOTE on v. 13, impious.

18. quadrennial (πενταετηρικοD). Lit. “quinquennial,” but according to Greek “inclusive” counting, which counted the first and last year in a sequence (so e.g. Olympic games are “quinquennial” – 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008), this was equivalent to our “quadrennial;” cf. NOTE on v. 23, In the third year thereafter. See Goldstein, 2 Macc, 521–522; L. Ziehen, “Penteteris,” RE I/37 (1937) 537–542. games. For quadrennial games in honor of Heracles/Melqart, founded by Alexander in Tyre after he conquered the city in 332 BCE (Arrian 2.24.6) Chapter IV 227 and celebrated for centuries thereafter (as is shown by epigraphic and numismatic evidence), see Bonnet, Melqart, 57–58.

19. abominable (μιερ3«). See NOTE on 5:16, abominable hands.

Jason sent. This verse and the next one clearly bespeak the author’s view that Jason himself ruled the city and was, accordingly, responsible for all that was wrong in it. See NOTE on 3:9, high priest of the city.

Jerusalem Antiochenes. That is, citizens of “Antioch in Jerusalem”; see NOTE on v. 9, and to register … As Bringmann noted (Hellenistische Re- form, 90), their participation indicates that their city was officially recognized; compare 1 Maccabees 10:59–66, where Jonathan’s participation at a royal wedding constitutes official recognition of him. observers. On the institution of ερο , delegates who enjoyed sacred immunity and who usually brought with them sacrifices as an indication of their city’s desire to participate in the festivals they visited, see P. Boesch, ΥΕΡΟΣ: Untersuchung zur Epangelie griechischer Feste (Diss. Zürich; Göttingen: Dieterichsche, 1908); P. Foucart, “La fête des Éleusinia,” REG 32 (1919) 192–194; L. Robert, “Notes d’épigraphie hellénistique,” BCH 49 (1925) 234–235; L. Ziehen, “Theoroi,” RE II/10 (1934) 2239–2244.

300 silver drachmas. For comparative data on the prices of sacrifices, see Goldstein, 2 Macc, 233, who, terming the present figure “the right order of magnitude,” cites epigraphic evidence for sacrifices costing 100–500 drachmas each (SIG 398, ll. 44–45; SIG 402, l. 30; OGIS 319, l. 20) and for cattle costing 70–120 drachmas per head. a sacrifice. Here, as in v. 20, the Greek uses a definite object – “the sacrifice,” i.e., the one normally to be expected.

Heracles. This Greek god was, early on, identified with Melqart, the chief god of Tyre. See Bonnet, Melqart; K. Preisendanz, “Melkart,” RE Supple- mentband VI (1935) 293–297; E. Lipin´ski, Dieux et déesses de l’univers phénicien et punique (Leuven: Peeters, 1995) 226–243. asked (J σαν). Some translators (such as Abel, Macc, 335 and Zeitlin, 2 Macc, 135) preferred to render the verb here in accordance with its original meaning – “thought right,” “considered proper,” as at 9:15, or even 228 Translation and Commentary

“decided” (Goldstein, 2 Macc, 217). But given the fact that apart from 9:15 all other use of the verb in our book is in the sense of “ask,” “request” (3:31; 5:4; 7:28; 8:14, 29 etc.), as is, overwhelmingly, Polybius’ usage (Mauers- berger, PL, 1.149–150) and that of the Hellenistic inscriptions (Welles, RC, 314), I opted for the latter; so too, for example, Habicht, 2 Macc, 218. not appropriate (μ, κα2κειν). For the use of this formulation in connection with what Jewish law allows and forbids, see also 6:4, 21; 14:31.

20. thanks to those who conveyed them. This story demonstrates that even “Antiochenes” need not violate Jewish law; see NOTE on v. 11, regular civic usages. Whether the story is true, or rather only an expression of the type of living in two worlds our Hellenistic Jewish author knew and took for granted, is another question; see above, pp. 51–53. triremes. Here too, as with the sacrifices (see NOTE on v. 19, a sacrifice), the Greek has a definite article (“the triremes”), as if we all know what is usual at such a Tyrian festival. Triremes were the standard warships of the classic and Hellenistic periods. For descriptions and illustrations, see J. S. Morrison & J. F. Coates, The Athenian Trireme (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1986); L. Casson, Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World (Princeton: Princeton Univ., 1971) 77–97 (94–96 on Phoenician triremes).

21. Apollonius son of Menestheus. According to v. 4, he was the governor of Coele Syria and Phoenicia under Seleucus IV. As stated in our NOTE on 3:5, Apollonius son of Thraseas, it seems that the repetition of the patro- nym here indicates our author’s awareness that this Apollonius is indeed to be distinguished from the one mentioned there; plain “Apollonius” no longer suffices. Apollonius’ trip to Egypt raises a problem, because Polybius (31.13.3) says he retired from politics upon Antiochus’ accession to the throne. But it should be noted that our verse does not say that Antiochus sent Apollonius to Egypt, nor that the latter reported back to Antiochus about Ptolemy’s hostility. All that is said is that Apollonius “was sent” and that Antiochus “received notice;” as frequently in our book, we are not told how new intelligence was garnered (see e.g. 11:6; 12:5, 8, 21; 13:10, 23; 15:1, along with Introduction, p. 73). In fact, in most cases the impression is that the reference is to the discovery of the enemy’s intentions via some clandestine source – so we should not expect Apollonius to be the source of Antiochus’ knowledge, and it may be that his very mission was part of the hostile picture. In this connection, since we know from Polybius that Apollonius had Chapter IV 229 served Seleucus IV, and also that Apollonius’ sons had remained close to Se- leucus’ son Demetrius I (who was the main in-house threat to Antiochus IV), we would suggest that Apollonius was sent to Egypt by Demetrius and that Antiochus, quite reasonably, viewed this as evidence of Ptolemy’s hostility toward him. For more detailed discussion, see D. R. Schwartz, “Apol- lonius, Son of Menestheus: Whose Ambassador?,” AJAH 7 (1982) 45–52. For the suggestion that the problem be resolved not by reinterpreting our passage but, rather, by rejecting Polybius’ testimony, see Gera, Judaea, 122–123, 265–267. prôtoklêsia. A royal ceremony celebrating Ptolemy’s attainment of matur- ity. There are various opinions as to the nature of the ceremony (which literally means “first reclining”): perhaps it refers to his first sitting at the head of a table, perhaps – to his coronation, or some similar ceremony. See Otto, 6. Ptolemäers, 15–17; Walbank, Polybius, 3.323–324; Bunge, “‘Theos Epiphanes’,” 70–72. In any case, it does not seem to be possible to infer from this reference the exact date of Apollonius’ visit in Egypt. True, Wal- bank (as others, including Gruen, Hellenistic World, 2.649, n. 185) thought that the present context in 2 Maccabees gives a terminus ad quem of late 172, given the fact that the next story begins “after a period of three years” (v. 23) and assuming that that refers back to Antiochus’ accession to the throne in 175, mentioned in v. 7. But see our NOTE on v. 23, In the third year thereafter. In general, we must content ourselves with dating this event to the late 170s, when Ptolemy VI (b. ca. 184/183 BCE?; see Otto, 6. Ptol- emäers, 3–7) was somewhere in his teens – the eve of the Third Macedonian War and the Sixth Syrian War. received notice. For this sense of μεταλαμβν, which recurs frequently (e.g. 11:6; 13:10), see J. Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste judäischer und samaritansicher Geschichtswerke (Breslau: Skutsch, 1875), 125, n. *. that he. Ptolemy, not Apollonius, both because Ptolemy was the last-mentioned and because Antiochus’ reaction shows that he feared a threat from Egypt. hostile toward his state (!λλ3τριον … πραγμτ ν). The identical phrasing recurs at 14:26. On πργματα, see NOTE on 3:7, head of state.

22. received sumptuously by Jason and by the city. On such receptions, see NOTE on 3:9, received courteously. As for the separate mention of Jason, 230 Translation and Commentary see ibid., NOTE on high priest of the city. Note that our author, on the verge of introducing the book’s worst villain, not only gives us a placid picture of life in Jerusalem and relations with the Seleucid government, but also passes up, for once, the opportunity to juxtapose some nasty adjective to Jason’s name. For a similar procedure, see Josephus, War 2.277; 7.263.

Thereupon (εK" ο8τ «). This phrase, which recurs at 15:13, implies both timing and cause. That is, his reception in Jerusalem convinced Antiochus that he need not worry about pro-Ptolemaic sympathy there. True, there is some evidence of support for the Ptolemies among the Jews; see Poly- bius 5.86.10; Daniel 11:14; Jerome on Daniel 11:14, 21–22 (CCSL 75a, pp. 909, 915 = GLA II, nos. 464L, 464N); Josephus, War 1.32. We must therefore adopt one or more of the following alternatives: either we play down the significance of those bits of evidence (so Gera, Judaea, 25–35, 158–159), or we assume that Antiochus did not see everything he might have seen. In any case, whatever we imagine Antiochus saw or might have seen, it is very clear that our diasporan author would not want his readers to imagine that good Jews could be rebellious; see esp. our NOTE on 5:7, coming to a shameful end. brought … back to their quarters. LSJ (914) renders καταστραποδε “march” (transitive), but cites only this verse for that meaning. Since the verb appears frequently in Polybius in the sense of “to encamp” (see Mauersberger, PL, 3.1339–1341), it seems best to prefer such a translation here. For the combination with ε «, as here, see Polybius 1.30.14; 3.91.10. in Phoenicia. Gera (Judaea, 123) surmised that Antiochus stayed with his forces (or at least left forces) in the southern part of Judaea’s coastal plain, so as to be able to confront any invading Ptolemaic forces; he cites evidence for the stretching of the toponym “Phoenicia” that far south, right down to the Egyptian border. This is reasonable, for otherwise the implication would be that Antiochus’ visit in Jerusalem eliminated his fears concerning Egypt itself, and that makes no sense at all. According to the context, we should understand that the king took his army back to the vicinity of Joppe. Probably, in fact, despite the attention our author naturally devotes to the Jerusalem visit, we should assume that the bulk of his army had remained in Joppe the whole time, and that only relatively few forces accompanied him on this side trip.

23. In the third year thereafter. Lit. “after a three-year period.” But note that the same phrasing, μετ δ τριετ# ξρνον, appears at 14:1, and there Chapter IV 231 it is clear – given the data in 13:1 and 14:4 – that the meaning is “inclusive,” i.e., “in the third year,” not “after three years.” We will allow that, as also the use of such “inclusive” chronology just above (see NOTE on v. 18, quadrennial), to guide our translation. Nevertheless, the present datum is far from clear. Our author, who indeed expressed his lack of interest in “numbers” (2:24), does not often supply dates (apart from those in the epistles in Chs. 1 and 11 there are only two – 13:1 and 14:4), nor even relative chronology (apart from this instance, there are only 10:3 and 14:1), and in the present case we cannot be sure where his count began: with Jason’s appointment (which v. 7 associates with Antiochus’ accession to the throne – 175 BCE), or, rather, with Antiochus’ visit in Jerusalem (which, in turn, we couldn’t date precisely; see NOTE on v. 21, prôtoklêsia)? Accordingly, we will leave the rise of Menelaus somewhere between 173/172 (the third year after Antiochus’ accession) and 168 (Antiochus’ second Egyptian campaign – 5:1). brother of the aforementioned Simon. Who was last mentioned at the beginning of this chapter. On our author’s pedantic use of “aforementioned” (as there too), see NOTE on 2:32, aforementioned. If indeed, as we argued in the Introduction (pp. 95–96), Simon was of the tribe of Benjamin, Mene- laus’ succession to the high priesthood constituted a radical departure from tradition, which limited the priesthood, and certainly the high priesthood, to Aaronites, of the tribe of Levi. However, this type of detail might not have interested our author very much; see our NOTE on 3:4, of the tribe of Benjamin. money. Promised by Jason, according to vv. 8–9. take care of memoranda concerning pressing governmental matters. The nature of which did not, evidently, interest our author, who likes to give us the impression that he knows more than he tells and thus avoids wasting our time; see above, p. 73. For Fπομνηματισμο as memoranda (more officialese, just as *ντεψ7ι« in v. 8), see Welles, RC, 372; Bickerman, Institu- tions, 194–195; Walbank, Polybius, 3.215–216. For another meaning of the term, see NOTE on 2:13, in the records and in the memoirs.

24. evincing respect for him (δο σα« α<τ;ν) in the manner of a person of authority. The expression is difficult, but it seems to mean that Menelaus, in expressing his respect for the king, deliberately gave the impression that he himself enjoyed authority among the Jews. This convinced the king to appoint him to the high priesthood – although the author also adds, perhaps 232 Translation and Commentary ironically, that the hefty promise of money mentioned later in the verse also played a role. See esp. Abel, Macc, 338, and Bringmann, Hellenistische Reform, 124. Goldstein (2 Macc, 236–237) would make Menelaus’ self- aggrandizement clearer by reading Ψαψτν. shifted … to himself. For this transitive sense of καταντ (as opposed to its usual intransitive usage for “come to,” “arrive” – as in 4:21, 44, and 6:14), see LSJ, 903, s.v., §II. However, while with reference to the present verse it translates “make to come back,” “bring back” (my emphasis), there is in fact no suggestion, here, that Menelaus had already once been the high priest.

300 talents. For comparable material, see NOTE on v. 8, 360 talents …

25. royal orders. The same phrase as 3:13. with nothing worthy of high priesthood. Concerning Menelaus’ descent, see Introduction, pp. 95–96. As for the assumption that the high priest should be “worthy” of his position, see the end of v. 13. cruel tyrant. This combination – which recurs at 7:27 – was guaranteed to make any Greek reader realize that Menelaus was a total villain. For τραννο« in its usual sense as a pejorative term for a lone ruler see e.g. Poly- bius 2.59.6 (“the very word ‘tyrant’ alone conveys to us the height of im- piety …”) and 5.11.6 (“It is indeed the part of a tyrant to do evil that he may make himself the master of men by fear …”) (trans. Paton, LCL); Berve, Tyrannis; P. Barceló, Basileia, Monarchia, Tyrannis (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1993). barbarian. For animals as barbarians, cf. 5:11; 15:2, 21.

26. had corruptly usurped … was corruptly usurped. Tit for tat; see NOTE on v. 16.

Ammanitis. In Transjordan, where the Tobiads lived; for their links with Ptolemaic Egypt, see NOTE on 3:11, Hyrcanus the son of Tobias. This may have something to do with the fact that Jason eventually fled to Egypt (5:8).

27. took over the government ( κρτει) … did not at all keep up (ο<δHν ε<τκτει). For the inclusion of this in a list of Endreime in our book see Richnow, “Untersuchungen,” 91; the paronomasia emphasizes the contrast Chapter IV 233 between what Menelaus did do and what he should have been doing. On the sense and tense of the first verb, see Appendix 11, along with ibid., n. 120. For the danger which could befall Jerusalem if the high priest failed to keep up the tribute payments, see Antiquities 12.159. For the high priest as ruler, see NOTE on v. 10, control of the government.

28. Sostratus, the commandant of the acropolis. Which was mentioned in v. 12. This verse indicates that there was a Seleucid garrison in Jerusalem even before the events described in the next chapter – probably ever since the eviction of the Ptolemaic garrison at the turn of the century (Ant. 12.133, 138). Its base was called the Akra, which was somewhere in the vicinity of the Temple Mount, “in the City of David” (1 Macc 14:36). Josep- hus used “acropolis” of the Antonia fortress, which was northwest of the Temple Mount (see Ant. 14.5 vs. War 1.121), but that is only one consideration among many in scholarly debate concerning the precise location of the Akra; for that debate, see Bar-Kochva, JM, 460–462; Sievers, “Jerusa- lem, the Akra,” 196; Levine, Jerusalem, 75–78. In any case, we may note that while this evidence for a Seleucid garrison is not supported by other evidence, there is nothing unlikely about it, nor about the implication that the Akra’s commander was responsible not only for military matters, but also for taxation; see Sievers, loc. cit., 197 and 203–204. the discrepancies. I.e., the overdue taxes. The same word is used in 3:6 of budget surpluses. summoned. This verb, προσκαλω, has a legal or administrative resonance to it, as also at 7:25 and 14:5; Acts 5:40; Welles, RC, no. 3, l. 42.

29. left … as substitute in the high priesthood. That is, in his absence. For the widespread assumption that a high priest’s brother might replace him, especially in the absence of a son, see also Antiquities 12.44, 237; E. Bam- mel, “Die Bruderfolge im Hochpriestertum der herodianisch-römischen Zeit,” ZDPV 70 (1954) 147–153 (= idem, Judaica, 21–27). Note that διδ- οξο« here does not mean that Menelaus gave up his position and appointed Lysimachus to succeed him, but only that Lysimachus was to stand in for Menelaus in his absence, just as Crates was only a temporary substitute for Sostratus, according to the end of our verse, and Andronicus only filled in for the king, according to v. 31 (διαδεξμενον); see Deissmann, Bible Studies, 115; M. Trindl, “Ehrentitel,” 116, n. 131. Menelaus will return to Jerusalem and the high priesthood in Chapter 5. On the meanings of διδ- οξο« see also Appendix 9. Accordingly, the use of 0πολε π (here, 10:19 234 Translation and Commentary and 13:23) does not by itself indicate the temporary nature of the appointment; rather, as also καταλε π (4:31; 5:22; 9:24) it is used of appointments in general. See Lifshitz, “Culte dynastique,” 78–80; Ma, Antiochos III, 52–53; and the inscription cited in our NOTE on 12:2, local governors. his own brother Lysimachus. As Menelaus, this too is a typical Greek name.

Crates, the commander of the Cypriots. Cypriot mercenaries, although not the most common in the Hellenistic world, are known from elsewhere as well; see 12:2 and Launey, Recherches 1.487–489.

30. happened. See NOTE on 3:2, it happened.

Tarsians and Mallotians. That is, the residents of Tarsus and Mallus, cities in Cilicia ruled by the Seleucids. (As for the controversial question, whether Tarsus is to be identified with biblical Tarshish, see A. Lemaire, “Tarshish- Tarsisi.”) Rebellion by these cities will have reflected not only their umbrage at being presented to a concubine but also, and more basically, the general weakening of the Seleucid hold on Asia Minor. For doubts as to the seriousness of these rebellions, see Mørkholm, Antiochus, 122. On Tarsus in the Hellenistic period, see C. B. Welles, “Hellenistic Tarsus,” MUSJ 38 (1962) 41–75 (49–52 on the present episode). On Mallus: A. Houghton, “The Seleucid Mint of Mallus and the Cult Figure of Athena Magarsia,” in: Festschrift für/Studies in Honor of Leo Mildenberg (ed. A. Houghton et al.; Wetteren, Belgium: NR, 1984) 97–102. they had been given as a gift. That is, the revenue from them. On such gifts, see Welles, loc. cit., also OGIS 225 (= Welles, RC, no. 18, according to which Antiochus II gave territory to his wife in the context of divorce ar- rangements), Cicero, In Verrem 2.3.33.76 (the kings of Persia and Syria used to marry numerous wives and required the possession of various cities to support them); and Josephus, Antiquities 12.154, which reports that the revenue of Coele Syria and Phoenicia was given as a dowry to Cleopatra Syra upon her marriage to Ptolemy V (see NOTE on 3:11, a man of very high preeminence).

Antiochis, the king’s concubine. Who is otherwise unknown, although a few Seleucid princesses of this name are known, including a daughter of Antiochus III. Welles (loc. cit., 50–51) suggested that the reference might be to Antiochus IV’s sister or niece, who married him, and that our author turned her into a concubine out of spite; but there is little to support this. Chapter IV 235

On royal concubines in the Hellenistic period see e.g. Diodorus 2.10.1 (on the kings of Syria), 17.77.6–7 (on Alexander the Great); Strabo, Geog. 13.4.3, p. 625 (on Mithridates the Great); Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.55 (on Pto- lemy V); Antiquities 13.380 (on Alexander Jannaeus). In general, see M. de Vries, Pallake (Amsterdam: Paris, 1927).

31. Therefore the king hurried off. For a similar case a couple of decades later, see 1 Maccabees 11:14. leaving as his substitute. In the capital, Antioch. On such stand-ins, see v. 29.

Andronicus … held in great honor (τν ν 07ι)ματι). On honorific titles in the Seleucid court, see Bickerman, Institutions, 40–50; Holleaux, Études 3.220–225.

32. opportunity (καιρ«). Lit. “time.” Our diasporan author expresses his confidence that it was only due to the absence of the king (who looks “providentially” after the Jews – v. 6) that attacks upon the Jewish Temple, and high priest, could be possible. For the same line in medieval diasporan historiography, see above, p. 49, n. 113. Note that in 2 Maccabees (as in the Babylonian Talmud [Berakhot 7b]) only the wicked have the advantage of favorable καιρο (here and 14:5, 29), while it is divine providence which looks out for the righteous. In 1 Maccabees, in contrast, where God hardly plays a role (esp. after the first four chapters – see above, pp. 63–64), it is indeed the καιρ« that governs human affairs, for Jews as for others (9:10; 12:1; 15:33–34). golden vessels. With the vague “some gold vessels,” compare the equally vague “holy vessels” of v. 48 and, especially, 5:16. Details about the Temple cult and its appurtenances are not our author’s forte. For golden vessels in temples see, for example, Seleucus I’s letter in favor of the Temple of Apollo in Miletus: OGIS 214, l. 26 (= Welles, RC, no. 5, line 17). that he had purloined from the Temple. That is, already before leaving Je- rusalem for Antioch; see v. 39. But our author’s arrangement of the material makes it seem as if not only the soon-to-be-reported murder of Onias, but also the robbery in Jerusalem, became possible only due to the king’s absence. just as it happened that he had sold. Some translators ignore the periphrasis, but it seems preferable to go with Grimm, 2 Macc, 92, who compares the 236 Translation and Commentary phrasing here (τγξανε πεπρακ)«) to 9:1 and translates “von anderen traf es sich, daß er sie verkauft hatte.” Indeed, it seems that one should not ignore the first verb; on “happening” in 2 Maccabees, see NOTE on 3:2, it happened.

33. Onias. His sudden appearance here, after his story broke off at v. 6, seems to point to a loss of material, whether when the original work was epitomized or at some later point; see NOTE on v. 7, When Seleucus passed away. took refuge in the asylum. According to the context, he fled out of fear of Menelaus. Readers should remember, as probably Onias did, that Menelaus was Simon’s brother, who had not balked even at committing murder; see v. 3. On sites of asylum in the Hellenistic world, see Rigsby, Asylia. in Daphne, outside of Antioch. This probably means that Onias took refuge in the temple of Apollo there; see Strabo, Geog. 16.2.6, p. 750; Rigsby, Asylia, 496–499; and Downey, Antioch, 110. It has been suggested that a pious Jew like Onias would not have taken refuge in such a pagan shrine, and/or that an author like ours would not report such a thing, so the reference must be to a synagogue; see Sluys, Quaestiones, 75, n. 1. But although a Byzantine source does refer to a synagogue in Daphne, we have no evidence as to its existence in the second century BCE; see Joh. Chrysostomos, Adversus Judaeos 1.6; Malalas, Chronographia (ed. Dindorf [Bonn]), 261; Downey, Antioch, 206, 447; L. Roth-Gerson in Diaspora, 108; C. H. Krael- ing, “The Jewish Community at Antioch,” JBL 51 (1932) 140–141. More- over, while we do know of Jewish synagogues in Ptolemaic Egypt which enjoyed the right of asylia, we have no such evidence for Seleucid Syria; see Rigsby, Asylia, 571–573, and A. Kasher, “Synagogues as ‘Houses of Prayer’ and ‘Holy Places’ in the Jewish Communities of Hellenistic and Roman Egypt,” in: Ancient Synagogues, I (SPB 47/1; ed. D. Urman & P. V. M. Flesher; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 215–216. And in any case, had the author meant to refer to a synagogue he could have done so (as Stern notes – Studies, 36, n. 7), and it rather seems that the vagueness (“asylum site”) points rather to some discomfort, which points us back toward the pagan temple; for vagueness as a way of avoiding problems, cf. p. 5, n. 7. On the other hand, the author did not want to pass up using the story, because the juicy combination of asylum violation and murder was too good to refuse, and depicted Menelaus – not only in Jewish eyes, but also in those of Gen- tiles – as a super-villain. For a similar move, note that our author has Anti- ochus attempt to rob a non-Jewish temple at 9:1–2. Chapter IV 237

34. to overcome. The verb ξειρ derives from ξε ρν, “worse,” and so means “overcome,” “subdue” and the like; it appears in 2 Maccabees only here and in v. 42. Of course, what it really means, in both passages, is “kill;” see immediately below, NOTE on closed in on. greeting him (δε ιασ"ε «). LSJ (p. 379) cites our verse alone for such passive usage of δε7ιζ, saying it amounts to a form of δε7ιομαι. But given the coming reference to the giving of the right hand, δοG« δε7ιν, this might be only an aspect of the textual problem here; see our next NOTE. giving him his right hand. There is some problem with the text here; see Hanhart’s apparatus and Habicht, 2 Macc, 221, n. 1. In any case, what is meant is shaking hands and swearing agreement; see also 11:26, 30; 12:11–12; 13:22; 1 Maccabees 6:58; Polybius 29.27.6; etc. On the expression and the practice, see A. Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien (Marburg: Elwert, 1897) 78–79; Weinfeld, “Common Heritage,” 181; G. Herman, Ritualised Friendship, 50–54. On its reflection in rabbinic literature, see S. Lieberman, Studies, 472–475. closed in on. This is the translation of παρακλε , but it is clear – if not already here, then from the next verse – that it means “killed”. Our author has a rich stock of verbs for killing; see De Bruyne, “Notes,” 408–409, and above, p. 71. justice (τ; δ καιον). As with “unjust” and “man” in the next verse, this use of universal categories is quite deliberate, explaining the general outrage about to be detailed. On δ κη and its identification, in Jewish Hellenistic thought, with providence (see e.g. Philo, In Flaccum, 104), see van der Horst, Philo’s Flaccus, 191–192; Sowers, “Reinterpretation.”

35. not only Jews. The fact that Gentiles (esp. Greeks; v. 36) joined the Jews in their outrage and mourning, in connection with what had been done to a Jew, is very important for the diasporan writer. See also: vv. 36–37, 49; 6:21–22; 10:12; 3 Maccabees 3:8–10. See A. E. Gardner, “III Maccabees – A Reflection of the Maccabean Crisis,” Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, vol. B/1 (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986) 4. outraged. LSJ (374) cites this verse alone for δεινζ; it appears again at 13:25, there too alongside δψσφορω. 238 Translation and Commentary of the man. Not just “unjust murder” and not just “of Onias” or “of him.” Just as by reporting that Andronicus had violated the asylum at Daphne, so too by emphasizing that a “man” had been killed, the author underlines the universal values which have been violated, thus explaining the involvement of non-Jews. Compare esp. 14:28, also 3:32; 5:6; 7:28; 12:6; 3 Macca- bees 3:8; 4 Maccabees 12:13. And note Acts 10:1, where too the heavy use of 0ν2ρ itself adumbrates the point that it’s right to evangelize non-Jews, for they too are “men.”

36. when the king returned. To Antioch. As Gera noted (Judaea, 129–131), since (a) we know from this story that it brought about the execution of Andronicus, but (b) we know (from Diodorus 30.7.2 and John of Antioch, frag. 58 [FHG 4.558]) that in fact the king killed him on the charge that he had murdered Seleucus IV’s son Antiochus, and (c) we know from a Baby- lonian document that the latter youth was killed in the summer of 170 (see Mørkholm, Antiochus, 42–49) – we may conclude that our story has now taken us to a time no earlier than that summer.6

Cilician regions. See NOTE on v. 30, Tarsians and Mallotians. joined by the Greeks out of hatred for evil. LSJ (1679) cites this verse alone for σψμμισοπονερω. “Hatred of evil” is a very important trait in our book, characterizing the book’s terrestrial hero (3:1), its heavenly hero (8:4), and good Gentiles (here and v. 49). unreasonable. The description of a murder as παρ λγον sounds strange, but in Greek terms it adds an additional aspect to the horror of the murder, until now characterized as “unjust” (v. 35): the murder violates not only “justice” (δ κη) but also logic (λγο«). See Mauersberger, PL, 4.1490, and esp. Polybius 2.38.5, which contrasts acts which are κατ λγον and those which are παρ λγον.

37. aggrieved in his spirit. Just as the other good Greeks of Antioch. For good kings upset by Jewish suffering, according to Jewish Hellenistic literature, see also 3 Maccabees 6:23 and Philo, Legatio 304.

6 Gera’s further specification, that the story is now in the latter half of 170, depends on his argument that the campaign mentioned in 5:1 is Antiochus’ first Egyptian campaign, despite the fact that our book calls it the second; see our Appendix 3. Chapter IV 239 moderation and total discipline. That is, Onias was the compleat Hellenistic gentleman; so too 15:12. As Grimm notes here (2 Macc, 94), our author is attempting to reflect the king’s point of view, not his own Jewish one, which instead emphasized Onias’ religious virtue (3:1); Grimm compares Anti- ochus’ Onias to Polybius’ Scipio Aemilianus (Polybius 31.25.8). On ε$τα7 α, see P. Brown, The Body and Society (New York: Columbia, 1988) 7. On σφροσνη, see Spicq, Notes, 2.867–874; Dover, Morality, 66–69; H. North, Sophrosyne: Self-Knowledge and Self-Restraint in Greek Litera- ture (Ithaca, NY: Cornell, 1966).

38. stripped … paraded. So as to let all see justice done, and thus be warned; for similar cases, see 6:10 and Polybius 2.60.7; Josephus, War 6.359 and Antiquities 20.136; Curtius 4.6.29; Eusebius, De martyribus Pa- laestinae 9.7. For the stripping away of an official’s purple vestment as a sign of humiliation, see e.g. Lactantius, DMP 28.3–4. purple (garment). For the purple worn by royal “friends” (see NOTE on 1:14, Friends) and other officials in the Hellenistic kingdoms, for which reason the Romans called them purpurati, see Corradi, Studi, 342; Bickerman, Institutions, 32, 42; and M. Reinhold, History of Purple as a Status Symbol in Antiquity (Collection Latomus 116; Bruxelles: Latomus, 1970) 29–36 (35 on the evidence of 1–2 Maccabees). removed … from the world. LSJ lists our verse alone for the use of 0πο- κοσμω of killing; cf. NOTE on v. 34, closed in on him. abominable murderer. The term reappears at 12:6 in a similar context. On the moral, not ritual, sense of μια-, see NOTE on 5:16, abominable hands. the Lord allocating (!ποδ3ντο«). For the assumption that the kings of this world are only tools in God’s hand, see NOTE on v. 16, nemeses. condign punishment. Poetic justice: Andronicus killed, and so he was killed, and precisely at the site of the crime. For this motif, see below, NOTE on v. 42, near the treasury.

39. robbery from the Temple. All Greeks abominated temple-robbery; see T. Thalheim, “’Ιεροσψλ α« γραφ2,” RE I/16 (1913) 1589–1590. See, for example, Polybius 31.9.4 (on Antiochus Epiphanes), 32.15 (on Prusias II of Bythinia). Note that the terms Vεροσολ α, Vερσψλο«, Vεροσολ, and the term used here, Vεροσλημα, appear in the Septuagint only in 2 Maccabees: 240 Translation and Commentary here and below, v. 42; 9:2; 13:6. They refer in general to the violation of temples, specifically to robbery. In this connection, note that among ancient Jew-haters there were some who derived the name of Jerusalem from these terms, viewing Jerusalem as a city of Temple-violators; so Manetho and Ly- simachus apud Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.249, 311 (= GLA I, nos. 21, 158). Ac- cordingly, it may have been especially important for our author to speak of Vεροσλημα of which the Jews, in Jerusalem (!), were the victims. in the city. I.e., Jerusalem. The fact that “the city” means Jerusalem although the last episode occurred in Antioch, and the fact that the robbery is said to have been in the city although it occurred specifically in the Temple, confirm the usual point of view of our book – it focuses on the Jewish polis, Jerusalem. For more of the same, see NOTES on 5:2, the city and 10:27, advanced a considerable distance outside of the city. on behalf of Menelaus (μετ» τ5« τοD Μενελοψ γν=μη«). Lit. “with Menelaus’ knowledge,” but it is clear that our author wants to make Mene- laus the prime mover. For γν)μη in the sense of “desire” see also 11:37 and 14:20 also e.g. Josephus, Antiquities 2.309 (where Pharaoh disobeys God’s γν)μη). the community (πλ5"ο«). See NOTE on 3:21, community. Here too it is clear that the reference is to positive characters, hence not to a “horde” or the like. for many golden vessels had already been scattered about. The author is careful to make us understand that the situation was so bad that even law- abiding subjects of the crown could no longer be expected to restrain themselves. For the scattering of vessels, cf. v. 32.

40. the populace. Of Jerusalem. For Eξλοι as the population of a city, not a mob, see also 11:6 and P. Joüon, “5ΟΞΛΟΣ au sens de ‘peuple, population’ dans le grec du nouveau testament et dans la Lettre d’Aristée,” RSR 27 (1937) 618–619 (on Let. Arist. 245, 267, 271 etc.); Mauersberger, PL, 4.1847. It seems that this meaning is required here, for the text says the Eξλοι became aroused, and had a mob been meant it would already have been aroused. Thus, the author has used two separate terms, πλ#ο« and Eξλοι, for the Jewish population of Jerusalem; for his delight in such variation, see above, p. 68. about 3000. Probably from among the “Antiochenes;” according to Tche- rikover (HC, 162), “the figure of 3000 is more or less in line with the Chapter IV 241 number of citizens usual in an aristocratic polis in Greece.” Another reason to assume the number is reliable is the fact that our author made every effort to keep us from learning about the degree of support which his villains enjoyed; sometimes the truth was so much a part of the story that it could not be repressed (see NOTE on v. 3, one of Simon’s partisans). one Auranus. For such an apparently disparaging introduction of a previously unknown villain, see NOTE on 3:4, one Simon. The name Auranus is otherwise unknown, and some would prefer to read τραννο«; see Han- hart, Text, 47–48, n. 1. Hanhart defends “Auranus,” noting that this is not the only case in which our book has an unprecedented name7 and that the context would seem to demand a proper name. To his arguments we may add that “tyrant” is, in our book, reserved for rulers alone, and is not used to denote their agents; see 4:25 (Menelaus is the ruler of Jerusalem – v. 27); 5:8; 7:27. folly. On 6νοια see NOTE on v. 6, folly.

41. Lysimachus’ onslaught. Despite all the provocations directed against the Jews, the diasporan author insists on claiming that Lysimachus’ men began the violence, despite the fact that v. 40 points in the opposite direction. Similarly, he makes sure his reader knows that the Jews, far from having easy access to weapons (contrast the Gentiles of 9:2!) were armed only with … wood … ashes (σποδοD). There is some ambiguity here: does σποδ« mean dust (as it is indeed translated here by one of the Latin witnesses [P] – “humum” [De Bruyne, Anciennes traductions, 137] and by Kahana – ‘afar [HaSepharim, 192]) or, rather, ashes? It can mean either; see LSJ, 1629. I have chosen “ashes,” as most translators, for two reasons. On the one hand, σποδ« is something typically thrown on the head as a sign of humiliation (see e.g. 1 Macc 3:47, 4:39; Jdt 4:11), but when our author speaks of such practice he uses γ# (10:26, 14:15), which clearly refers to dirt or dust; on the other, he clearly uses σποδ« for ashes at 13:8. That is, our author seems to have avoided the ambiguity. A more involved argument leads to the same conclusion. Namely, it is obvious that both dust and ashes are very inefficient as weapons, so an explanation is needed for mentioning

7 Note, however, that in our NOTE on 12:35, one of the Tobians, we take issue with Hanhart’s other example. 242 Translation and Commentary

σποδ« here (just as earlier, in our NOTE on v. 12, sun-hats, we noted that the petasos is not an efficient hat for sports but was mentioned to make a rhetorical point). That explanation would seem to be not only the author’s diasporan desire to depict the Jews as unarmed, but also his desire to suggest to us that the wood and ashes were from the altar, it itself being mobilized, as it were, to defend its sanctity against the crimes of Menelaus and his stand-in. That is, we have here something of an illusion to Menelaus’ crimes upon the altar, something that prepares us for the way his death is explained, tit for tat, at 13:8 – and so supports the translation “ashes” here.

42. were wounded. Lit., “made into wounded.” The same phrasing recurs at 8:24, there too alongside others who are made to flee. We translated τραμα as usual, of wounds; although the word does appear very frequently in the Septuagint with regard to death, in original Greek such as that of 2 Maccabees there is no need to consider such a translation; see also 8:24; 11:12. to flee. We are not told whither or until when, but the book does supply some hints: (a) Chapter 5 will reveal (nolens volens) that Jerusalem was in the hands of Jewish opponents of Menelaus (see NOTE on 5:7, coming to a shameful end); (b) 10:15 will refer, in passing, to Jews who fled from Jeru- salem and joined the Jews’ enemies. Understandably, our author tries to hide the former case (and portrays Antiochus’ attack on the city as a result of misunderstanding – see NOTE on 5:11, he inferred) and gives no details at all concerning the latter. Cf. NOTE on 14:14, And those Gentiles near Ju- daea. overcame. For the verb, see NOTE on v. 34, to overcome. For the assumption that Temple robbers should be killed, see Isocrates, Against Lochites 6; Demosthenes, On Syntaxis 14; m. Sanh 9:6 (along with G. Alon, Jews, Ju- daism and the Classical World, 114–117). For the additional denial of burial, see NOTE on v. 49, funeral expenses. near the treasury. Of the Temple (see NOTE on 3:6, treasury in Jerusalem), from which he had stolen; as in v. 38, it is appropriate, and indicative of true justice, that punishment comes at the scene of the crime. For that motif in Greek literature, see e.g. Xenophon, Hellenica 6.4.7: the Thebans were destined to defeat the Lacedaemonians at the very site where the latter had defiled Theban virgins (cf. Pausanias 9.13.5); Josephus, Antiquities 13.314. On its reflections in midrash, see S. Lieberman (ed.), Midrash Debarim Rab- bah (Jerusalem: Bamberger & Wahrmann, 1940) 82, n. 4 (in Hebrew). Chapter IV 243

43. against Menelaus. On whose behalf Lysimachus had acted, according to v. 39; see also v. 32.

44. Council of Elders. The gerousia; note that this time it is “three men,” not “Jerusalem Antiochenes” (v. 19), who were sent. The fact that the traditional body (last heard of in the days of Antiochus III – Ant. 12.138, 142) continued to exist through the days of Jason and Menelaus, the sweeping statement in v. 11 notwithstanding (see NOTE there on benevolent royal privileges), and that the king was willing to hear its delegates, confirms that traditional Jerusalem remained in existence despite the establishment of, and alongside, “Antioch in Jerusalem.” On the gerousia, see also 1:10; 11:27; 13:13; 14:37–38, and, in general, H. Sefer, “The Institution of the Elders in the Days of the First Hasmoneans” (PhD. diss., Univ. of Haifa, 1999/2000; in Hebrew). case. For δικαιολογ α (of which this is the only occurrence in the Septua- gint) see Polybius 3.21.3, 6; 22.12.1, etc.; Mauersberger, PL, 2.544.

45. when Menelaus was all but lost, he promised. For our author’s love of last-minute reverses, see above, p. 174. For λελειμμωνο« in the sense of “to be defeated,” see LSJ, 1036, which refers, inter alia, to Polybius 1.62.6.

Ptolemy son of Dorymenes. The fact that this is his first appearance but he is mentioned, nevertheless, with neither “one” (as e.g. 3:4; 4:40; 10:11; 14:3) nor words of identification (as e.g. 5:22 or 13:21) seems to be a result of careless abridging. This Ptolemy is mentioned at 1 Maccabees 3:38 as a Seleucid officer. There are those who would identify him with “Ptolemy, the governor of Coele Syria and Phoenicia” mentioned at 8:8, but see our NOTE ad loc. For more prosopographical detail and options in this connection, see Cotton and Wörrle, “Seleukos IV to Heliodoros,” 200–201. The author’s claim that the bribe was not given directly to the king but, rather, to a courtier who could influence the king, is quite an efficient one from the point of view of apologetic historiography, for accusing the king himself threatens the very basis of existence under foreign rule; “Where conflict does occur it is inevitably8 blamed not upon the king himself but upon

8 This goes a bit too far; some rare cases, such as that of Antiochus Epiphanes later in our book, and of Gaius Caligula, were too egregious to be avoided, and in those cases the option was at least to let some respectable underlings – such as Ptolemy Macron (10:12) and Petronius (Philo, Leg. 243–253; Josephus, Ant. 18.279–288) – oppose the king as best they can. Cf. our NOTE on 14:33, this sacred enclosure of God. 244 Translation and Commentary somebody else, usually his evil henchmen” (Johnson, Historical Fictions, 159). See, for example, 10:12–13; 14:11; 3 Maccabees 6:24 and 7:3; Letter of Aristeas 23; Antiquities 20.182–183 (only the villains’ bribes prevented the ratification of the Jews’ claim); Philo, Legatio 160, 172, 203–206. See also NOTE on 12:2, local governors.

46. get some fresh air. Lit. “refresh his spirit.” The use of the verb 0ναχξ (on which see Spicq, Notes, 1.94–95), which recurs at 13:11, introduces an element of irony into the story: Ptolemy took the king aside as if in order to “elevate” (0ν) his spirit/soul, but in fact misled him into the de- basement of condemning the innocent and acquitting the guilty.

47. cause of all the trouble (τ5« Lλη« κακ α« αMτιον). As in v. 41, it is important for the author to emphasize just where the guilt does and does not lie. Virtually the same characterization of Menelaus recurs at his end – 13:4; see our NOTE there on the cause of all the troubles. Note that this phrase is the opposite of a standard positive one; see NOTE on 11:19, a beneficial agent. sentencing to death. In ancient literature it is common to read of the execution of complainants if their serious accusations were rejected (“crimen ca- lumiae”). See, for example, Deuteronomy 19:16–21; Esther 7; Lucian, De dea syra, end of ch. 28. Wellhausen once suggested (“Wert,” 125) that those executed were not, in fact, merely delegates sent by the Jerusalemites to accuse Menelaus, for why – he argued – should the king care to hear complaints about theft from the Temple of Jerusalem (“als ob Epiphanes darn- ach viel gefragt hätte”)?! Rather, he theorized, they had been arrested in Jerusalem, charged with responsibility for the violence in which Lysimachus was killed, and sent to the king for trial. Perhaps he was right, perhaps not, but it is in any case clear that, at this point, our author still wants his readers to believe that the good king Antiochus was interested – and that the good Jews of Jerusalem thought he was interested – in defending the sanctity of the Temple of Jerusalem. poor unfortunates. A proleptic description; the author allows us no room to hope that they can defeat Menelaus.

Scythians. Who were known for their cruelty and barbarity; see NOTES on 7:4, scalping him about and on 15:39, wine by itself; Strabo, Geog. 7.3.6, p. 298; 3 Maccabees 7:5; 4 Maccabees 10:7; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.269. It has been suggested that already Jeremiah 50:41–42 (“Behold, a people comes Chapter IV 245 from the north … they are cruel, and have no mercy …”) refers to them. For a passage very similar to ours, see Cicero, In Verrem 2.5.58.150: Cicero mentions the Scythians as very barbaric people who nevertheless would be shocked by the suffering of innocent people.

48. unjust penalty. As that suffered by Onias (v. 35). who had spoken for the city and the populace and the holy vessels. In this too they are similar to Onias; see v. 2. As usual, note that while the problem concerned the Temple it is formulated as if it concerned, first of all, the city; see above, p. 6. As for the people (δ2μοψ, in the genitive), Hanhart follows the Alexandrinus and reads here the plural δ2μν – “districts,” “villages” or the like; he is followed by Abel, Habicht and Goldstein ad loc. But it is difficult to see how they might fit into the story, whereas δ2μοψ, as in the Venetus and other witnesses, gives a good parallel to 15:14: “for the people and the Holy City.” True, 15:14 uses another term for the people, λα«, which is the usual one in 2 Maccabees, rather than δ#μο«, and Habicht (2 Macc, 224, n. 48a) depends upon this as a reason to prefer “villages.” But variation of vocabulary is our author’s bread and butter (see Introduc- tion, p. 68); elsewhere he shows no interest at all in villages, and when he does mention them, at 8:1, 6, he uses another term.

49. the Tyrians. As usual, it is important for our author to emphasize that Gentiles too are shocked at Jewish suffering; see NOTE on v. 35, not only Jews. hatred of evil. Which they share with all good people, as with God Himself; see NOTE on v. 36, joined by the Greeks out of hatred for evil. funeral expenses. The importance of a proper burial is emphasized several times in this book; see 5:10; 9:15, 28–29; 12:39; 13:7. For the terrible and dangerous situation of death without burial, in the ancient world, see: Prit- chett, War, 4.235–241; Parker, Miasma, 43–45; Lieberman, “Some As- pects,” 513–530; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 118. See also NOTES on 12:39, collect …, and on 13:7, without his …

50. greed of the powerful. Our author preaches to his readers, pointing out what a tragedy ensued because Ptolemy son of Dorymenes fell victim to πλεονε7 α, greed – a standard sin in Greek and Hellenistic Jewish literature. See Spicq, Notes, 2.704–706; A. Fuks, Social Conflict in Ancient Greece (Jerusalem: Magnes & Leiden: Brill, 1984) 194–195 (originally AJP 92 246 Translation and Commentary

[1971] 52–53); M. Wolter, “Ethos und Identität in paulinischen Ge- meinden,” NTS 43 (1997) 436. Note that the author refers here to “the powerful” in general, abstaining from specific reference to the king; see NOTE on v. 45, Ptolemy son of Dorymenes. being (κα"εστ=«). This word, in the Greek the last in the chapter, closes the circle begun in its first two verses: that which Simon calumniously claimed about Onias’s role is in fact true about Simon’s villainous brother. conspirator against his fellow citizens. This too closes the circle opened at the beginning of the chapter: Simon claimed that Onias was a wicked conspirator (v. 2), but in fact it is Menelaus who fits that description. The fact that there the reference was to conspiracy against the state, and here it is to conspiracy against the Jews, only reinforces the diasporan author’s claim that the two share a common interest, and that only trouble-makers and corrupt people, on one side or the other, blur that fact; so too Philo, Legatio 159–161.

Bibliography

Ameling, “Jerusalem.” Bickerman, Gott, 59–65. Bringmann, Hellenistische Reform, 66–96. Cohen, “The ‘Antiochenes in Jerusalem’.” Delorme, Gymnasion. Doran, “High Cost.” Doran, “Jason’s Gymnasion.” Elhorst, “Die beiden Makkabäerbücher.” Kennell, “New Light.” Nagel, “Révolte et réforme.” Parente, “Onias III’s Death and the Founding of the Temple of Leontopolis.” Parente, “ΤΟ<Σ ΕΝ ΙΕΡΟΣΟΛ<ΜΟΙΣ.” Parente, “Le témoignage.” Schwartz, S., “Hellenization of Jerusalem and Shechem.” Stern, “‘Antioch in Jerusalem.’” Stern, “The Death of Onias III,” in idem, Studies, 35–50 (in Hebrew; originally published in Zion 25 [1959/60] 1–16). Tcherikover, HC, 152–174, 404–409. Zollschan, “Earliest Jewish Embassy.” Chapter V 247

Chapter V

A Military Apparition in the Sky above Jerusalem

(1) About that time Antiochus undertook his second invasion of Egypt. (2) And it happened that all around the city, for almost forty days, there appeared in the air running cavalry decked out with golden vestments, companies mustered according to units, (3) and deployed troops of horses. And there were attacks and charges of one against the other, and movements of shields and a multitude of spear-shafts and the drawing of knives and throwing of projectiles and the gleam of gilt equipment and of all sorts of breast-armor. (4) Therefore all prayed that the apparition was for the good.

Jason’s Putsch and Its Outcome

(5) A false rumor having arisen that Antiochus had passed away, Jason – taking with him no fewer than 1000 men – made a sudden onslaught upon the city. When those who were upon the wall were driven back and the city already being completely taken, Menelaus fled to the acropolis. (6) Jason mercilessly perpetrated massacres of his fellow citizens, not realizing that success against one’s kinsmen is the greatest misfortune, and supposing that he was erecting trophies over his enemies rather than over members of his own people. (7) But he did not gain control of the government; his conspiracy coming to a shameful end, he again fled and made his way to Ammani- tis. (8) In fact, in the end his fate took a turn for the worse: accused before Aretas, the tyrant of the Arabs, he fled from city to city, pursued by all, de- tested as a traitor to the laws and loathed as the executioner of his fatherland and fellow citizens, until he was driven out to Egypt. (9) Thus he who had forced great numbers (of people) from the fatherland to go abroad himself perished abroad, having set sail to the Spartans hoping to find shelter by virtue of kinship. (10) And thus he who had cast forth a multitude of people without burial was himself unmourned, having neither a funeral nor burial in an ancestral grave. 248 Translation and Commentary

Antiochus’ Rampage in Jerusalem

(11) When news of what had happened reached the king he inferred that Ju- daea was in revolt. Accordingly, his spirit maddened like a beast’s, after coming back from Egypt he took the city at spear-point (12) and ordered his soldiers mercilessly to smite those who fell into their hands and to cut down those who had returned to their houses. (13) And there was destruction of young and old, disappearance of women and children, slaughter of virgins and infants. (14) In a mere three days 80,000 perished – 40,000 were slaughtered in battle and no fewer were sold. (15) Not satisfied by that, he also dared to enter into the most sacred temple of the whole world, having Menelaus – that traitor both to the laws and to the fatherland! – as his guide, (16) taking the holy vessels with his abominable hands and seizing with his profane hands the votive offerings which had been given by other kings for the aggrandizement, honor and respect of the Place.

Some Authorial Reflections

(17) And Antiochus’ mind went soaring, for he did not see that it was due to the sins of the city’s residents that the Sovereign briefly distanced Himself from it in anger, and that was why the Place was unsupervised. (18) Had it not happened that they had been caught up in many sins, he too – just as Heliodorus, who had been sent by King Seleucus to audit the treasury – immediately upon moving forward (into the Temple) would have been flogged and overturned from his insolence. (19) But God did not choose the people on account of the Place; rather, He chose the Place on account of the people. (20) Therefore the Place itself, having shared in the disasters which befell the people, later shared also in the benefactions, and that which had been abandoned in the anger of the All-Ruler was again reestablished with full honor when the great Sovereign was reconciled.

More Suffering in Jerusalem

(21) Now Antiochus, having taken 1800 talents from the Temple, hurriedly departed to Antioch, thinking in his arrogance to make the land navigable, and in the soaring of his heart – to make the sea walkable. (22) But he left behind officials to torment the people: Chapter V 249

– in Jerusalem – Philip, who was of Phrygian descent and by nature even more barbaric than him who had appointed him; – (23) and in Argarizin – Andronicus; – and in addition to them – Menelaus, who worse than the others lorded over his fellow citizens, being of hostile disposition toward the Jewish citizens. (24) And he sent the Mysarch Apollonius with an army of 22,000 men, ordering him to cut down all the adults and to sell all the women and youth. (25) Upon arrival in Jerusalem he pretended to be peaceful, holding back until the holy Sabbath day. Then, catching the Jews while they were abstaining from labor, he instructed the men under his command to muster for parade: (26) he then skewered all those who came out to watch the show, and rushing with his armed men into the city they laid low great multitudes. (27) But Judas, also known as Maccabaeus, around whom a group of ten or so had gathered, fled to the mountains and, along with his men, lived there in animal-like fashion, for food limiting themselves to grass so as to avoid defilement.

COMMENT

After Chapter 4 ended at a low point, without even holding out a promise of change,1 the present chapter begins anew with another story, turning our view from an internal Jewish context to international events as if to say, “meanwhile, on the other side of town ….” Readers must assume that somehow these international events will impact upon the local story, but – just like the Jerusalemites of v. 4 who see an apparition and do not know how to interpret it – they have to wait to discover how that will happen.

In the event, things turn out badly. First, the wicked Jason, whom we perhaps thought we could forget, imagined Antiochus’ campaign to Egypt would be a suitable opportunity for him to restore himself to power in Je- rusalem. His attack on the city not only engendered a good bit of direct suffering, but also (so our author claims) created in Antiochus’ mind the false impression that the Jews had rebelled against him. Thus, although Jason’s escapade did have the salutary result of bringing about his own final downfall, in a typically tit for tat way (vv. 9–10), its major result was that it

1 That is, unlike Chs. 3 or 7, Ch. 4 ends without even an “on the one hand.” The wicked Menelaus is here to stay. 250 Translation and Commentary brought down Antiochus’ attack upon the city – which resulted in the slaughter of myriads of Jews and enslavement of myriads of others, robbery of the Temple, and the establishment of military rule in the city. Only the mention of Judas Maccabaeus and his men, who are first and only briefly mentioned in the chapter’s final verse, holds out a glimmer of hope. In this chapter, which shows for the first time a major clash between the Jews and their Gentile ruler, our author very explicitly propounds two main themes, which are tightly interlocked. The first is that God runs history. The author makes this point very heavy-handedly by the opening apparition, by Jason getting his just deserts, and then quite explicitly in the excursus in vv. 17–20, which emphasizes (as already 4:16–17) that it is the sins of the Jerusalemites that really explain their sufferings, Antiochus being only – and unwittingly – God’s agent to punish, most appropriately (as already explained at 4:16–17), those sinful “Antiochenes of Jerusalem.” The second theme is that the Jews’ rulers can have no good reason of their own to attack or persecute the Jews,2 so if they do, it can be due only to a misunderstanding (such as Antiochus’ impression that the Jews had rebelled), and – back to the first theme – to the fact, of which they are not aware, that God is using them to punish His people for their sins. As for historicity: with this chapter we have come to the point where our book’s story may be compared with that of 1 Maccabees (and of Josephus, which is mostly dependent upon the latter).3 With regard to this chapter, the comparison is not very difficult. True, we are immediately confronted by a chronological discrepancy: we know that Antiochus twice invaded Egypt, once in 170/169 BCE and once in the spring/summer of 168; but while 1 Maccabees 1:20, by dating Antiochus’ attack upon Jerusalem and robbery of the Temple to 143 SE, places the episode after the first campaign, the first verse of our chapter specifically places it after the second campaign. Appendix 3 sets forth the reasons why our book’s version appears to be preferable. Other than this point, both books basically tell the same story: Antiochus’ rampage in Jerusalem4 and robbery of the Temple were followed by the appointment of Apollonius the Mysarch (v. 24//1 Macc 1:29), who continues the persecutions. Attention should be drawn, however, to a major contribution of this chapter to the history of the period, against its author’s will: as Tcherikover

2 Just as Chs. 3–4 gave several opportunities to show that the Jews are loyal subjects of the kingdom; see 3:1–3, 9; 4:6, 22. 3 For a convenient tool, see Sievers, Synopsis. 4 Actually, 1 Maccabees refers to the Temple alone. Chapter V 251 showed, several points in this chapter indicate that there was a Jewish rebellion in Jerusalem against Seleucid rule during Antiochus’ Egyptian campaign, led not by Jason but, apparently, by Jewish traditionalists or nationalists, and that it was this – not some figment born out of misunderstanding – that Antiochus put down.5 See NOTE on v. 7, coming to a shameful end. Neither the author of 1 Maccabees (a Hasmonean mouth- piece who had no interest in reporting rebels who preceded his heroes) nor our diasporan author (who abhors the ideas of Jewish rebels in the absence of religious persecution) reported the rebellion – an event which, however, goes a long way toward explaining Antiochus’ attack upon the city reported in this chapter, and his persecution of the Jews reported in the next one.

NOTES

5:1. About that time (περ, δH τ;ν καιρ;ν τοDτον). Transitional phrases such as this one allow authors to impart some appearance of continuity to narratives which have in fact skipped to new places and themes; compare the openings of Chapters 6, 9, 11; so too, for example, Genesis 38:1. Cf. Schwartz, “ΚΑΤΑ ΤΟ<ΤΟΝ,” 246–254. his second invasion. In the spring of 168 BCE; see Appendix 3.

2. And it happened. In the nature of supernatural things, it is quite clear that it did not just happen to happen; see NOTE on 3:2, it happened. the city. Jerusalem, although most recently we have heard of Egypt and before that – of Tyre. Cf. 4:39 and 10:27. there appeared in the air. This is (after 3:24–26) the second apparition (πιφνεια) of those promised in the introduction (2:21). On this apparition, see Adinolfi, Questioni, 126–134. Clearly it is heralding military activity. Compare, for example, Diodorus 17.10. For other such apparitions, see Pritchett, War, 3.11–46, along with Julius Obsequens’ Book of Prodigies (in LCL Livy, 14.239–319); see also NOTE on v. 4, for the good. Note, however, that most of the Greek examples feature appearances of

5 On rebellion in other Syrian cities at the same time, see Porphyry apud Jerome on Dan 11:44–45 (CCSL 75a, 931 = FGrH 260 F56) – doubted by Mørkholm (Anti- ochus IV, 122–124) but bolstered by Barag (“Mint of Antiochus IV,” 70–75). 252 Translation and Commentary gods, whereas this Jewish text, of necessity, speaks only of others. For other apparitions above Jerusalem, which – as this one – were ambiguous but turned out to have presaged its destruction, see Josephus, War 6.298–299; Tacitus, Historiae 5.13.1 (GLA II, no. 281). companies (λ3ξοψ«). So according to Abel and Habicht ad loc., as opposed to Hanhart and Goldstein who read λγξα« – companies of soldiers armed with lances. It seems that the present verse deals with units and only the next with their weapons. mustered ( πλισμωνοψ«). The word reappears in v. 25, which will also allow the chapter to end by clarifying, cruelly, what exactly the apparition presaged. Cf. the citations from Polybius in the next NOTE. according to units (σπειρηδ3ν). This term is found in the Septuagint only here and at 12:2. Polybius seems to have used σπερα for units of 256 men; see Polybius 5.5.9 and Walbank, Polybius, 1.541. For parades by units, see e.g. Polybius 30.25, which describes Antiochus IV’s military procession at Daphne in 166 BCE, which was led by 5000 soldiers armed (*ξοντε« καοπλισμν) “in Roman style,” followed by Mysians (see v. 24), by Cili- cians armed (καπλισμωνοι) as “light” infantry, etc. See also below, NOTE on 8:9, from various peoples. On the Daphne procession, see F. W. Walbank, “Two Hellenistic Processions: A Matter of Self-Definition,” SCI 15 (1996) 125–129; for its date in 166 BCE, see ibid., n. 39, also Gera & Horowitz, “Antiochus IV,” 248.

3. shields … spear-shafts. The reference is to the main weaponry of the cavalry; see Bar-Kochva, JM, 11. drawing of knives. On the basis of some textual witnesses, and along with Grimm, Abel, Habicht and Goldstein, but contrary to Hanhart, we have moved these words (μαξαιρν σπασμο«) to here from the opening of v. 3. This restores order: first the units, then their movements, then their weapons. We translated μξαιρα according to classical usage, “knife,” although it could mean sword; see LSJ, 1085; Mauersberger, PL, 4.1514. Our author has other words for swords; see NOTE on 15:15, broadsword. throwing of projectiles (βελ#ν βολ«). Perhaps this refers to spears (although 15:11 uses λγξη); on them, see Walbank, Polybius, 1.704–705. For an illustration of a Thracian cavalryman preparing to throw a short spear, see Bar-Kochva, JM, 576. Chapter V 253 gleam of gilt equipment. For this motif in Greek literature, see 1 Macca- bees 6:39; Gera, “Battle of Beth Zachariah,” 27–31. breast-armor. This is the only reference given s.v. ρακισμ« in LSJ, 813.6 On breast-armor, see Walbank, Polybius, 2.281–282.

4. prayed. Lit. “asked,” but whom but God could they ask? For the use of 07ι for prayer, cf. 8:14, 29; 10:4, 16, 26; 12:42; Letter of Aristeas 245; CII 725a-b (see NOTE on 3:20, hands stretched out to heaven); BDAG, 94. for the good. But to find out the reader will have to wait until v. 25. The motif of ambiguous oracles and apparitions was widespread in antiquity. See, for example, Herodotus 1.53, 74; Diodorus 17.41.5–6; Cicero, De Divinatione 2.56.115–116; Josephus, War 6.312–313; Tacitus, Histories 5.13.1–2 (GLA II, no. 281); Suetonius, Vespasian 4.5 (GLA II, no. 312); Lieberman, Hellenism, 198–199 (who cites, inter alia, Cicero op. cit. and Esther Rabba on Esther 3:14: “the Gentiles have ambiguous prophecies and do not know whether they mean they will be killed or kill”).

5. false rumor … that Antiochus had passed away. For the phrase, see NOTE on 4:7, When Seleucus passed away. What caused this false rumor? It is likely that it arose out of the high-handed manner in which the Roman envoy, Popilius Laenas, humiliated Antiochus and ejected him from Egypt in the summer of 168; see Polybius 29.27. However, from Polybius (ibid.) and Daniel 11:30 it sounds like Antiochus left Egypt within a few days of this episode, and it is unlikely that such a short period could have allowed both for the creation and dissemination of the rumor, for its arrival in Palestine, and for Jason’s organization of his attack upon Jerusalem. Accordingly, either Antiochus stayed longer in Egypt, or else the rumor arose earlier; rumors in wartime are rampant. On this issue, see M. Gwyn Morgan’s response in Gruen, “Hellenism and Persecution,” 265.

Jason. Last mentioned in flight to Ammanitis (4:26). The present story will show that he still had supporters.

6 For the loan-word of the same meaning in Talmudic Aramaic, see A. Tal, “ThRQYH,” in: Studies in Rabbinic Literature, Bible, and Jewish History (ed. Y. D. Gilat, Ch. Levine & Z. M. Rabinowitz; Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan Univ., 1982) 256–260 (in Hebrew). 254 Translation and Commentary those who were upon the wall. We are not told for whom they were fighting, but the author’s wrath about their death, in the next verse, shows they were not Menelaus’ men; see NOTE on v. 7, coming to a shameful end. As for Jerusalem’s walls in this period, which were apparently still where Nehe- miah erected them (Neh 3–4; Sir 49:13), there are various views; see Levine, Jerusalem, 23–26.

Menelaus fled ( φψγδεψσεν). On the text and translation, see our NOTE on 14:14, who had fled before Judas. to the acropolis. The Temple Mount? See NOTE on 4:12, directly beneath the acropolis.

6. fellow citizens. The usual term; see above, p. 6, n. 9. not realizing. See on 4:6, folly. kinsmen … own people (σψγγενε« … μοενν). As opposed to “fellow citizens,” these terms view the Jews as people who share a common descent. This apparently intensified the pathos of the matter in our author’s eyes; so too 15:18. See also NOTE on 12:5, the members of his people. greatest misfortune. As in the case of Onias’ murder (“the man” – 4:35), our author prefers to formulate his principles universally. This shows him to be more cosmopolitan than a later colleague from Jerusalem, who noted that it is forbidden “to us” to take up arms against the members of our own people; Josephus, Vita 26. See also Antiquities 6.82. erecting trophies. On the Greek τρπαιον, mentioned also at 15:6, see Prit- chett, War, 2.246–275; A. H. Jackson, “Hoplites and the Gods: The Dedi- cation of Captured Arms and Armour,” in: Hanson, Hoplites, 228–249. To our author’s words here compare esp. Jocasta’s in Euripides’ Phoenician Women, lines 568ff.: in attempting to dissuade her son from attacking his native city, she ironically asks him what type of trophy he would like to erect and what inscription he would display upon it. Cf. above, p. 65.

7. government. The high priesthood and all that it entailed; see 4:10, control of the government. coming to a shameful end. We are not told who overcame Jason. But if Menelaus was still cowering in the acropolis (v. 5), and if Antiochus – not Chapter V 255 only from afar but even when he arrived at Jerusalem – heard rumors that the city had rebelled against him and indeed had to take it by force (vv. 11–14), and if our author, who hated Menelaus, was upset about those killed by Jason, then it seems clear, as Tcherikover saw (HC, 187–188), that there must have been – beside Jason’s and Menelaus’ contingents – a third Jewish force.7 Perhaps these Jews – traditionalists or nationalists – had ruled the city since the expulsion of Lysimachus’ men (4:42). In any case, it seems that these Jews had rebelled upon hearing the rumor of Anti- ochus’ death and that they were the ones killed defending the city against Jason (v. 5). to Ammanitis. As before (4:26). Note that the Tobiads lived there; given their Ptolemaic ties, it is significant that Jason is said to have continued on to Egypt. Especially against the backdrop of the recently completed Sixth Syrian War, it is not difficult to understand these moves on the part of a refugee from Antiochus. However, we should also note the remarkable similarity between Jason, as depicted here, and Ishmael son of Netania, the leader of those who assassinated Gedalia son of Ahiqam, the Babylonian governor of Jerusalem: after murdering eighty Israelite pilgrims he fled to the Ammonites (Jer 41:1–15). Could our author have seen Menelaus as something of a latter-day Gedalia, and Jason as Ishmael?

8. accused ( γκλη"ε «). For this reading, see Habicht, 2 Macc, 225, n. 8b, also Nestle, “Einiges,” 22. It seems that Jason wasn’t allowed to remain in Ammanitis due to a complaint and extradition request – on the part of Anti- ochus or some Seleucid official. On extradition in the Hellenistic world, see – apropos of 1 Maccabees 15:21 – Rappaport, “Extradition Clause,” esp. 274.

Aretas. Apparently the first of that name, king of the Nabataeans. This verse used to be the earliest evidence for a Nabataean king, but now there is earlier epigraphic evidence; see Goldstein, 2 Macc, 255–256, and R. Wen- ning, “Eine neuerstellte Liste der nabatäischen Dynastie,” Boreas 16 (1993) 27–29.

7 The fact that Tcherikover made his discovery around the Israeli War of Independence (and first published his reconstruction a few years after it (in ΣΞΟΛΙΑ [Eshkolot] 1 [1953/54] 86–109 [in Hebrew]) may help explain what opened his eyes to the possibility of a Jewish rebellion not in reaction to religious persecution. But it in no way vitiates his observations – which, in retrospect, seem quite obvious. 256 Translation and Commentary tyrant. For the use of this title for local rulers in this region, possibly without the pejorative connotation it frequently has (as at 4:25 and 7:27), see e.g. Josephus, Antiquities 13.235, 324; 14.40, 297; Strabo, Geog. 16.2.7 (fin) and 16.2.8 (fin); Berve, Tyrannis 1.432–434.

Arabs. See on 12:10, Arabs. laws … fatherland. For this shorthand way of summarizing what our story is all about, compare v. 15 and 8:21; 13:11, 14. executioner. The literal meaning of δ2μιο« is merely “[official] of the people,” but it came to apply particularly to executioners; so too 7:29. driven out to Egypt. The verb κβρζ (throw out) in the sense of “to expel” (here in the passive) is quite rare, but appears in a similar context in the second epistle opening our book; see NOTE on 1:12, For He Himself drove out.

9. Thus he … As usual, our author has no qualms about demonstrating an attitude contrary to the counsel of Proverbs 24:17//m. Avot 4:19: “Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles;” see Introduction, pp. 77–78. who had forced … abroad himself perished abroad. The Greek juxtaposes the two and additionally uses paronomasia (0πο7εν)σα« π 7ωνη«) so as to underline the poetic justice. As a matter of fact, we hear nothing specific about those Jason exiled or left unburied (see v. 10). While it is not unlikely that there were some, we should not put it past our author, who was a firm believer in providential talio, to have inferred, from the way he heard Jason died, that he must have committed such crimes. to the Spartans … kinship. According to Genesis 10, the Jews and the Greeks descend from different sons of Noah – Shem and Japhet, respectively. That is, ten generations before the first Jew, Abraham, their lines of descent were separated one from another. Nevertheless, the notion that the Jews were related to the Spartans is known from a few Jewish Hellenistic sources, esp. from Jonathan’s letter to them (1 Macc 12:5–23); see on this theme Gruen, “Purported Jewish-Spartan Affiliation” and Stern, Hasmon- aean Judaea, 63–70 (with much bibliography). Probably the Jews liked comparing themselves to the most disciplined of the Greeks; see esp. Josep- hus, Against Apion 2.225–231. In any case, the Spartans’ reply to Jonathan Chapter V 257

(1 Macc 14:20–23) does not evince much enthusiasm, and, correspondingly, the present story too suggests that the Spartans did not take the notion seriously. In fact, this story serves mainly as gloating irony: after dealing so terribly with his true kinsmen (σψγγενε« – v. 6) the wicked Jason thought he could find refuge with the Spartans on the basis of some dubious σψγγωνεια – and instead got what he well deserved. For Greek epigraphic evidence for claimed σψγγωνεια between cities and peoples, see Welles, RC, 217, and esp. D. Musti, “Sull’idea di σψγγωνεια in iscrizioni greche,” ASNSP, ser. II, 32 (1963) 225–239. find shelter. The use of σκωπη (“protection,” “refuge,” “patronage”) – which recurs at 13:17, the verb at 10:30 – was widespread in Ptolemaic Greek, in both technical (legal) and general senses. See von Woess, Asyl- wesen, 97–99, 190; M. Piatkowska, La ΣΚΕΠΗ dans l’Égypte ptolémaïque (Wrocław: Zaklad Narodowy, 1975), esp. 41–54.

10. Thus he. Having inserted the knife at the opening of v. 9, the author now enjoys turning it some more. cast forth a multitude of people without burial. Something typical of the worst villains; see 9:15. For this theme, prominent in our book, see NOTE on 4:49, funeral expenses. having neither a funeral nor burial in an ancestral grave. For similar gloating, see 9:28 (Antiochus Epiphanes), 13:7–8 (Menelaus), Psalms of Solo- mon 2:31 (Pompey).

11. he inferred. It is of cardinal importance for our author that we understand that the king’s notion, although perhaps reasonable, was in fact a mistaken inference. On the weakness of διαλαμβν in Koine in contrast to the stronger “to understand” in Attic Greek, see Welles, RC, 325, and LSJ, 400. (So too at 3:32: διλημχι« is a mistaken inference, just as Heliodorus’ attempt to take funds from the Temple, according to Ch. 3, was the result of an untrue report about the funds accumulated in the Temple.) Thus, according to our author, the conflict between the Jews and their king resulted from mere misunderstanding: an incorrect rumor that the king had died was followed by an incorrect surmise that the Jews had rebelled. Even worse: the king infers, here, that the Jews had rebelled (0ποστατεν), not realizing that they had in fact expelled from their land the truly villainous 0ποσττη«, Jason (v. 8). For similar apologetic historiography, note that Josephus has Gaius Caligula falsely believing (καταδο7σα«) that the Jews were about to 258 Translation and Commentary rebel against him (Ant. 18.302; see also ibid. §271: “We will in no way fight …,” and Schwartz, Agrippa, 81, n. 56). So too, b. Gittin 56a claims that the war that culminated in the destruction of the Second Temple began due to a villain who misled Nero into thinking that the Jews were in rebellion. Our author, Josephus and the rabbis of the Babylonian Talmud all bespeak the typical attitude of diasporan Jews, who attempt to convince themselves and others that true Jews would not think of rebelling against their rulers. spirit maddened like a beast’s. As Menelaus – 4:25. Our author likes to compare ardor to bestiality, especially of the wicked (see also 9:7) but also of the good (10:35; 12:15); in the Septuagint, ηρι (here) and ηριδ« (12:15) appear only in 2 Maccabees, while ηρι)δη« (10:35) is found additionally only in 4 Maccabees 12:13. See also NOTE on 9:15, bird-eaten to wild animals (Υηρ οι«). at spear-point (δοριλ τον). This expression, which recurs at 10:24, means “by military conquest;” see e.g. Polybius 23.10.6; 24.13.4.

12. mercilessly (!φειδ#«). As Jason (v. 6). On the topoi of capturing cities in ancient “pathetic” literature, see G. M. Paul, “Urbs capta: Sketch of an Ancient Literary Motif,” Phoenix 36 (1982) 144–155. smite. For the different senses of κπτ (smite, smite down, crush) see Mauersberger, PL, 3.1422. Cf. κατακπτ, “cut down” (1:13). returned to their houses. Lit. “gone up to their houses,” but 0να- here, as frequently, seems to refer instead to returning. On returning home from the marketplace cf. e.g. Polybius 10.4.6: 0ναβα νειν 0π" τ#« 0γορ»« `« π τ,ν ο κ αν. Note also our author’s usage of 0ναλ (8:25; 9:1; 12:7; 15:28) and 0ναζψγ2 (9:2; 13:26) in connection with withdrawal, retreat. For the biblical background of the phrase, see NOTE on v. 13, young and old …

13. destruction … disappearance … slaughter. This is a good example of our author’s love for variety; see Introduction, pp. 68–71. For 0φανισμ«, “disappearance,” i.e., causing to disappear, destruction, see M. Nouhaud, “Remarques sur 0φαν ζειν,” RP 56 (1982) 73–79 (with p. 78 on the mysterious and tantalizing nature of the verb, used by authors to provoke the imagination of their readers). young and old … women and children … virgins and infants. This verse has a poetic and almost Semitic style, and it seems clear that it, and the preced- Chapter V 259 ing one, are allusions to Deuteronomy 32:25: “In the open the sword shall bereave, and in the chambers shall be terror, destroying both young man and virgin, the sucking child with the man of gray hairs” (RSV). Otherwise, why should v. 24 distinguish between those killed outside or inside? For the role of Deuteronomy 32 (“Song of Moses”) as the foundation of our book’s understanding of the events it narrates, see above, pp. 21–23.

14. 80,000. This number is higher than most estimates of the total population of Jerusalem even at its apogee in the days of Herod. See: M. Broshi, “La population de l’ancienne Jérusalem,” RB 82 (1975) 5–14; J. J. Price, Je- rusalem Under Siege (BSJS 3; Leiden: Brill, 1992) 208–9. In general, on exaggerated numbers in our book, see above, p. 80. in battle ( ν ξειρ#ν νομα.«). Lit. “by right of hands;” see Mauersberger, PL, 4.1663; 3 Maccabees 1:5; A. Wilhelm, “BΕν ξειρν νομα« und ν ξει- ρν (ξειρ"«) νομZ,” Glotta 24 (1936) 133–144 (pp. 135–136 on our verse, 139 on Polybius); Jacobson, Exagoge, 196, n. 39. were sold. On the massive enslavement of inhabitants of captured cities, see: Pritchett, War, 5.223–245 and Volkmann, Massenversklavungen. For some Judaean examples. see Antiquities 14.120, 275 and NOTE on 8:11, ninety slaves per talent.

15. dared (κατετ3λμησεν). As Heliodorus and his retinue (3:24 – κατα- τολμ2σαντα«). The element of audacity makes the crime all the worse. most sacred temple of the whole world. For similar phrases, see NOTE on 2:22, the temple … traitor (προδ3τη«). Even now, the author still finds it important to insist upon the influence of evil advisors upon the king; see NOTE on 4:45, Pto- lemy son of Dorymenes. For temple-robbery as a type of treason, see Xeno- phon, Hellenica 1.7.22, who fixes the same law for both (Vεροσλοι« κα προδται«); see also Josephus, Against Apion 2.263 (Socrates “neither betrayed his city to its enemies nor did he rob any temple”). For Menelaus’ death, in the end, as one indeed fitting for traitors, see NOTE on 13:7, without his …

16. holy vessels. For temple-robbery by Antiochus IV, see NOTE on 1:14, to cohabit with her; for temple-robbery in general, see NOTE on 4:39, robbery from the Temple. The present passage, that offers only two brief words 260 Translation and Commentary to describe that which Antiochus took – contrasting starkly both with the long and detailed inventory in 1 Maccabees 1:21–238 and with the number of words allotted later in our verse to the general goodwill of Hellenistic kings – is an eloquent example of what does and does not interest our diasporan author. For similar material on his lack of interest in the Temple cult, and comparison with 1 Maccabees, see Introduction, pp. 46–48. abominable hands. On the severity of the touching of sancta with impure hands see, for example, Judith 10:13 along with Grintz, Sefer Yehudith, 192–193. But it seems that our author does not mean to refer to some ritual impurity, but, rather, to Menelaus’ wickedness; the adjective μιερ« (or: μιαρ«) appears in 2 Maccabees another four times (4:19; 7:34; 9:13; 15:32), and in each it is immorality which is meant; note esp. the parallelism in 7:34: “impious and most impure.” For the Greek background, see Parker, Miasma, esp. 2–5. For biblical and Jewish views of moral sin as pol- luting, which – in contrast to impurity resulting from physical sources – sometimes seems more metaphorical than real, see esp. J. Klawans, Impur- ity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (New York: Oxford, 2000) and C. E. Hayes, Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities (Oxford: Oxford Univ., 2002) 22–24. As Hayes emphasizes at p. 51, our verse does not indicate that Anti- ochus was impure qua Gentile, but, rather, that he was impure qua im- moral. profane hands. Similarly, Hayes emphasizes (ibid.) that this too refers not to his being a non-Jew but, rather, to his being a non-priest; even a Jew who is not a priest is “profane” (βωβηλο«). See also Spicq, Notes, 1.186–188. votive offerings (!νατε"ωντα). The text is according to Abel and Habicht ad loc., apparently supported by 2:13 and 9:16. Hanhart prefers 0νασ- ταωντα (“set up,” “erected”). However, see Josephus, War 2.413, where dedicated objects are said to have been “set up” in the Temple; hence, on both readings the meaning remains more or less the same. by other kings. In contrast to the “holy vessels,” these dedications interested our diasporan author greatly, as evidence for the respect in which others held Judaism; they were mentioned at the very start of his story (3:2). But they are not mentioned in 1 Maccabees 1:21–23, which details the

8 This observation does not depend on the identification of the two robberies as one and the same – for which we argue in Appendix 3. Chapter V 261 cultic appurtenances which were stolen. The author of 1 Maccabees, like the nationalist hotheads who started off the Great Revolt against Rome (Jo- sephus, War 2.409–417; see Schwartz, Studies, 102–116), probably considered such gifts abominable. The dedicatory offerings stolen by Antiochus are indeed mentioned by Josephus (Ant. 12.249); on the commonalities of his account with that of 2 Maccabees here, see Appendix 3.

17. mind went soaring. This – echoed in v. 21, which resumes the narrative after the present excursus – opens a circle which is closed only at 9:8, when Antiochus is brought back to earth. For the notion that thought is at the root of the problem, see our NOTE on 4:6, folly. At v. 21, it is instead Anti- ochus’ “heart” that goes soaring. did not see. I.e., did not understand; just as is predicted in Deuteron- omy 32:27. Our author likes this verb; see NOTE on 2:24, For having seen. The use of this verb, the self-conscious presentation of an historical interpretation in the next verses, the reference to the Heliodorus episode, and the very phrasing of v. 20 – all these show that the present section, vv. 17–20, are our author’s own reflections and not part of his source. due to the sins. This is a major theological premise of the book; see 4:16–17; 6:14–16; 7:32; and above, pp. 47–48. the city’s residents. The usual focus; see above, pp. 6–7.

Sovereign (δεσπ3τη«). A heavy epithet, used to emphasize that it is not due to lack of ability that God failed to defend Jerusalem, but, rather, that He so decided. The term recurs in v. 20, also at 6:14; 9:13; 15:22 (and as a verb at 14:46), in each case with reference to God. As opposed to the English “despot,” the Greek term does not entail a pejorative nuance; see J. B. Fischer, “The Term ΔΕΣΠΟΤΗΣ in Josephus,” JQR 49 (1958/59) 136. For the frequent use of the term with regard to God in Jewish Hellenistic literature, see Enermalm-Ogawa, Langage de prière, 126–128. briefly (βραξω «). So too the seventh martyred son (7:33). It seems that the combination of “briefly,” “anger” and “looking away” (the latter two yet to come in this verse) points to Isaiah 54:7–8: “For a brief moment I for- sook you, but with great compassion I will gather you; In overflowing wrath for a moment I hid my face from you, but with everlasting love I will have compassion on you, says the Lord, your Redeemer” (RSV). See also 2 Maccabees 7:29, which refers to “ingathering” at the time of “mercy.” 262 Translation and Commentary

But these Isaianic verses link up easily with our basic subtext here, Deute- ronomy 32, via the shared motif of God hiding His face (Deut 32:20). distanced Himself … in anger. Reading, as all editions, 0π)ργισται; note the contrast with π)ργισταi at 7:33. Here we are still in the time of God’s anger, and God turns away (thus allowing Antiochus free rein), but by 7:33 we’ll already be moving toward reconciliation and even when angry He will deal directly with the Jews; see above, p. 22, n. 53. the Place was unsupervised. Lit. “there was a looking away (παρρασι«) from the Place.” In the Septuagint, this term appears only here. It is to be understood, first of all, against the background of our book’s frequent emphasis upon the fact that God always, providentially, looks after His people; see NOTE on 3:39, watches over. Accordingly, we are now told that the current situation was an exception, which requires explanation. We may assume that here too, ultimately, the author has Deuteronomy 32 in mind (see NOTE on v. 13, young and old); this time he is thinking of its v. 20, which has God “hiding His face” from the Jews, in anger; as we saw, two NOTES above, this motif is linked to “briefly” by Isaiah 54:7–8. On God’s hiding His face, see also Ezekiel 39:23, which underlies CD 1:3, Tobit 3:6, 3 Maccabees 6:15, etc.; S. E. Balentine, The Hidden God: The Hiding of the Face of God in the Old Testament (Oxford: Oxford Univ., 1983). the Place. See on 3:2, the Place. Here too, the reference to the sins of the city’s residents shows that the term does not allude to the Temple alone.

18. been caught up (προενωξεσ"αι). LSJ (1481) cites this verse alone for this verb. he too. Antiochus. Some witnesses omit the “too” (κα ); they are followed by Abel and Hanhart ad loc. But as Habicht notes ad loc., the rhetoric of the argument here seems to require it.

Heliodorus. Ch. 3. This verse shows that that chapter was in the epitome from the outset; see above, pp. 5–6.

19. But God did not choose the people on account of the Place. A statement of paramount importance for Jews of the Diaspora. See NOTE on 6:16, His own people. Chapter V 263

20. disasters (δψσπετημτ ν). Again our verse is the only evidence for this word in LSJ (460). For our author’s love of δψσ- words, see above, NOTE on 3:11, villainous. Is it going too far to imagine that he liked this one because it reminded him of the πωτασο«, with which he already played at 4:12 (see our NOTE there on making … submit)? In any case, it is clear he liked it because of the contrast it affords with … benefactions (ε<εργετημτ ν). The paronomasia sharpens the contrast with the just-mentioned “disasters” and points us back to God’s most respectable role; see NOTE on 4:2, benefactor.

All-Ruler. See on 1:25, All-Ruler. reestablished. On πανρσι« see NOTE on 2:22, and reestablished … with full. μετ πση« is typical of our author; see NOTE on 3:1, in complete peace.

21. Now (γοDν). This alerts us to the fact that we are now reverting to the narrative. For similar usage of plain οUν, see 2:16 and 7:42. land navigable … sea walkable. Miracles. The description is meant to remind us of the classic arrogance of Xerxes, who wanted to dig a canal through Athos and build a bridge over the Hellespont (Herodotus 7.22–24,33–36); for the popularity of this story, about which Isocrates actually complained (Panegyricus 89), see Lysias, Funeral Oration 29; Aeschylus, Persians, 744–748; Diodorus 11.2.4; Josephus, War 2.358; etc.; M. Nouhaud, L’Utilisation de l’histoire par les orateurs attiques (Paris: Les belles lettres, 1982) 180–181. The same characterization is recalled at 9:8, when our author closes his accounts with Antiochus, and cf. NOTES on 8:35, made himself as destitute …, and on 9:1, disorderly retreat.

22. officials to torment ( πισττα« τοD κακοDν). Epistatai are well known as city governors in the Hellenistic world; see Holleaux, Études 3.216–219, 253–254; Guéraud, ΕΝΤΕΕΙΣ, xli–xlvii, lxvii–lxxii; Lifshitz, “Culte dynastique,” 79–80 (there too on the verb here, καταλε π – see NOTE on 4:29, left … as substitute in the high priesthood). But it is nonetheless the case that those who know their Septuagint will doubtless recognize here an allusion to the wicked Pharaoh of Exodus 1:11, who appointed “officials” “to torment” (LXX: πισττα« … 8να κακ)σσιν!) 264 Translation and Commentary the Hebrews. In this connection, see also NOTE on v. 24, the Mysarch Apollonius and on 6:3, onslaught of evil. the people (γωνο«). The Jews; other peoples, such as the Phrygians mentioned later in this verse, need be identified. Here the term applies equally to the two components specified immediately hereinafter: Jerusalem and Mt. Gerizim, Jews and Samaritans. The same parallelism recurs at the outset of Chapter 6. This reflects, first of all, the king’s point of view: he saw Jews and Samaritans as part of the same people. But it seems that it must also have been our author’s position, for he made no effort, in either instance, to distance himself from it. Such lack of opposition to the existence of the Sa- maritan temple, which competed with that in Jerusalem, is part of our auth- or’s general lack of interest in temple cult; see above, pp. 46–48. The term γωνο«, which recurs later in our verse of the Phrygians, refers specifically to common descent; cf. NOTES on v. 6, kinsmen … own people and on v. 9, to the Spartans … kinship; also on 1:10, who is of the line.

Philip, who was of Phrygian descent. On Phrygian mercenaries in the Hel- lenistic armies, see Launey, Recherches 1.481–483. more barbaric than him who had appointed him. Antiochus; for his barbarity, see v. 11.

23. Argarizin. It was common, both in Greek and in Hebrew, to write this toponym (Har [= Mt.] Garizim/n) as one word, as here and at 6:2; see Han- hart, 2 Macc, 26; De Bruyne, “Notes,” 405–407; S. Talmon, Masada VI (The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965 Final Reports; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Hebrew University, 1999) 142–146. Talmon tended to view the practice as typical of the Samaritans themselves; for doubts about that, see R. Pummer, “ΑΡΓΑΡΙΖΙΝ: A Criterion for Samaritan Provenance?,” JSJ 18 (1987) 18–25.

Menelaus, who worse than the others. Menelaus hardly belongs here, since these two verses are reporting new appointments. But as at v. 16 (and 4:47; 13:4) it is important for our author to emphasize that Menelaus was at the root of all troubles – just as in general he prefers to blame Jewish villains, such as Simon, Jason and Alcimus. Therefore he inserted Menelaus here too. See also NOTE on v. 24, and he sent. being of hostile disposition. Several scholars link these words to the next verse and make them motivate the sending of Apollonius; so Grimm, Abel, Chapter V 265

Habicht and Goldstein ad loc. But to begin now to explain Antiochus’ behavior toward the Jews seems late and superfluous, and it appears that it is rather Menelaus who is new here and the intended object of the author’s denigration. Therefore we have translated according to the punctuation in Hanhart’s edition; so too Bévenot and others. For διεσι«, “disposition,” which appears here in the sense of “attitude” at 14:5 as well, see Welles, RC, 324–325; Mauersberger, PL, 2.476–478. the Jewish citizens. Various witnesses omit “Jewish,” and it may be that it is indeed only a gloss. For use of plain πολται in the sense of a Jew’s fellow Jews, see pp. 50–51.

24. And he sent. In context, the subject of the verb is Menelaus, but it seems clear that the king is meant; Menelaus couldn’t dispatch Seleucid troops, and 1 Maccabees 1:29 clearly has Antiochus sending Apollonius. This inconcinnity bolsters the suggestion that our author has added Mene- laus into a context which originally made no mention of him; see NOTE on v. 23, Menelaus, who worse than the others. the Mysarch Apollonius. That is, the commander of mercenaries from Mysia in northwestern Asia Minor; compare “Cypriarch” at 12:2, “Lybarches” (Polybius 15.25.12; cf. Walbank, Polybius, 2.483–484; Lenger, Corpus, no. 18, l. 4). On these mercenaries, see Launey, Recherches 1.436–449; Wilhelm, “Zwei Epigramme,” 86; cf. Walbank, Polybius, 1.605. 1 Maccabees 1:29 calls this Apollonius a “tax official,” which in the original Hebrew presumably was sar missim; although some have supposed this reflected a misunderstanding (some translator mistaking missim for “taxes” instead of Mysians), it seems more likely that this was part of an attempt – reflected in our book too (see NOTE on v. 22, officials to torment) – to compare Antiochus to Pharaoh, who sent sarei missim to torment the Hebrews (Exod 1:11). For a similar move, see 1 Maccabees 3:32 (and see below, NOTE on 11:1, kinsman). Moreover, concerning 2 Maccabees we should note that for the Greek ear, μψσρξη« might well point to μσο«, “abomination” (as at 6:19, 25); see LSJ, 1156, where indeed the word was translated “originator of a foul deed;” only later, in the 1968 Supplement, p. 102, was this corrected to “Leader of the Mysians.” We may suppose that just as much as Jews familiar with the Hebrew Bible will have happily turned Mysians into oppressive tax officials, those who preferred Greek will have happily left them their “foul” nuance. Similarly, note that the various scribes who read cπολλ)νιον μα νεσαι when first introducing Apollonius son of Menestheus (4:4, 21), which led the Vulgate to read “Apollonium insanire” (4:4), probably enjoyed doing so. 266 Translation and Commentary

25. pretended. On Fποκρ νομαι see Spicq, Notes, 3.650–657. Apollonius’ treachery is also mentioned at 1 Maccabees 1:30, but there it is not connected with the Sabbath. Mentioning the Sabbath here is part of a general tendency of 2 Maccabees to emphasize the day’s sanctity (see also 8:26–28; 12:38; 15:1–2), so perhaps the author inserted it here gratuitously. A. Geiger (Urschrift, 217–218, 224–226) thought this was part of a general polemic against the Hasmoneans, who had decided to allow defensive war on the Sabbath (1 Macc 2:39–41). But in the absence of any reason to think that the author knew of that decision or particularly wanted to polemicize against the Hasmoneans, it seems reasonable, and sufficient, to view this simply as an emphasis on one of the central institutions of Judaism, one which functioned in the Diaspora as well and aroused considerable non-Jewish interest. See, for example, the documents collected by Josephus in Antiquities 14 (§§226, 242, 245, 258, 263); Philo, On Dreams 2.123; R. Goldenberg, “The Jewish Sabbath in the Roman World up to the Time of Constantine,” ANRW II 19.1 (1979) 414–447; R. Kraft, “Philo and the Sabbath Crisis: Alexandrian Jewish Politics and the Dating of Philo’s Works,” in: Pearson, Future, 131–141. On the whole topic of war on the Sabbath in Jewish antiquity, see M. D. Herr, “The Problem of War on the Sabbath in the Second Temple and the Talmudic Periods,” Tarbiz 30 (1960/61) 242–256, 341–356 (in Hebrew); Bar-Kochva, JM, 474–493; L. Doering, Schabbat: Sabbathhal- acha und -praxis im antiken Judentum und Urchristentum (TSAJ 78; Tüb- ingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1999) 537–565. Note that the present incident does not assume that the Jews of Jerusalem would abstain even from defensive warfare on the Sabbath (as did those the author of 1 Maccabees is happy to present as pious fools, foils for the Hasmoneans, at 2:29–41). Had that been the case, there would have been no need to trick them. Our story does assume, however, quite reasonably, that the Jews were in a lower state of readi- ness on the Sabbath. See below, our NOTE on 15:1, on the day of rest. the holy Sabbath day. A somewhat cumbersome formulation, perhaps meant to make sure that Gentile readers unfamiliar with the Sabbath would know that it is holy; cf. NOTE on 7:1, forbidden flesh. instructed. The verb παραγγωλλ appears here in its usual meaning, in Greek in general and Polybius in particular; see A. Fuks, “The Bellum Ac- haicum and Its Social Aspect,” JHS 90 (1970) 80, n. 10. Cf. NOTE on 12:5, he gave his men instructions. for parade. Here, finally, by the use of πλισ α (for which see Poly- bius 11.9.4, 9), which directs readers back to v. 2 (7πλισμωνοψ«), the Chapter V 267 author signals that we are about to learn the true interpretation of the apparition that opened the chapter: if at first the Jews prayed the heavenly signs would be for the good, now they acted on the assumption that they had nothing to worry about – and their fateful error will immediately become apparent.

26. skewered. LSJ (1706) lists our verse alone for this verb, σψνεκκεντω (cf. 7εκωντησεν in 12:6) – yet another item in our author’s repertoire for terms of killing; see above, pp. 69–70.

27. Judas, also known as Maccabaeus. For Mattathias’ sons and their by- names, see 1 Maccabees 2:1. As there, here too, and at 8:1 (his next appearance), Judas’ byname is Maccabaeus, which apparently means “hammer” (Isa 44:12; m. Kelim 29:7), whether that refers to some physical quality (see m. Bekhorot 7.1) or, rather, to his military prowess; see Schürer, History, 1.158, n. 49 and Ilan, Lexicon, 438. Note that Judas alone is named; there is no mention of his father or brothers, and no names are given for his comrades. See NOTE on 2:19, Judas Maccabaeus and his brothers. Judas is mentioned here so as to sow in the reader’s heart a little hope, which will then have time to grow before it flowers visibly in Chapter 8; compare, for example, the way Jewish tradition ends a weekly lection with Genesis 6:8. For the passage of time represented by Chapters 6–7 see NOTE on 6:18, was being forced. ten or so. D. Flusser (Judaism and the Origins of Christianity [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988] 518, n. 16) pointed to this verse as the earliest datable evidence for a minyan, the quorum of ten men that defines a Jewish community; for another testimony, of more or less the same period, see the Qumran Manual of Discipline 6:6–7. That is, it may have been important for the author to emphasize that just as flight to the hills did not entail violating Jewish dietary laws (as the verse goes on to note), neither did it entail giving up on communal prayer. fled to the mountains. Some witnesses read “fled to the desert … and lived in the mountains,” corresponding to the juxtaposition of mountains and desert in the same context in 1 Maccabees 2:28–29; see already An- tiquities 12.271; Habicht 2 Macc, 228, n. 27b; and J. Schwartz & Spa- nier, “On Mattathias,” 268–269. However, the attestation of this reading is not very impressive, and it may be that it reflects only the assumption – based on the biblical reports about Saul vs. David and Elijah vs. Ahab – that whoever flees, in Judaea, flees to the desert; see Hanhart, Text, 20; 268 Translation and Commentary

Bar-Kochva, JM, 198. Indeed, it may be that the tradition which adds in “desert” is merely a gloss explaining that Eρο« here, although usually meaning “mountain,” in fact has the rarer meaning, “desert;” see NOTE on 9:28, in the mountains. In any case, it is reasonable to suppose that Judas and his men did in fact flee to the desert, just as those described at 6:11 and 1 Maccabees 2:28–29; for the argument that the desert of Sama- ria is meant, as indicated inter alia by 15:1, see Schwartz and Spanier, loc. cit., 252–271. in animal-like fashion ("ηρ ν τρ3πον). The same expression recurs in the story of the Temple’s rededication (10:6). For our author, life in the mountains (or desert) is the radical opposite of civilized life, which is city life; see p. 23. For his interest in animals, see NOTE on v. 11, spirit maddened like a beast’s. for food limiting themselves to grass. Lit.: “persevering in eating grassy food.” Thus they avoided violating the Jewish dietary laws; the same solution was found by Essenes expelled from the group but still bound by their oaths (Josephus, War 2.143) and by Jewish prisoners in Rome (Josephus, Vita 14), as also by Isaiah himself, according to Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah 2:11 (“wild herbs,” according to M. A. Knibb’s translation in OTP 2.158). Note also Mark 1:6, along with J. A. Kelhoffer, The Diet of John the Baptist: “Locusts and Wild Honey”in Syntoptic and Patristic In- terpretation (WUNT 176; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). As for what such refugees actually ate, see also M. E. Kislev, “Vegetal Food of Bar Kokhba Rebels at Abi’or Cave near Jericho,” Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 [1992] 153–609 (on ten types of fruits and nuts [both culti- vated and wild], also grains and beans found in refuge caves); S. H. Steckoll et al., “Red Stained Bones from Qumran,” Nature 231 (18 June 1971) 469–470 (on madder [rubia tinctorum] roots); and A. C. Western, in: Lapp & Lapp, Discoveries, 88. defilement. This term, μολψσμ«, is used by our author to denote the practical distinction between good Jews, such as those described here, and bad ones (14:3); see also 6:2. For self-preservation from defilement in times of persecution, see also 14:38 and 1 Maccabees 1:62–63.

9 For a summary, see H. Eshel & B. Zissu in DJD 38.19. Chapter V 269

Bibliography

Broshi & Eshel, “The Greek King.” Gera, Judaea, 223–226. Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 88–101. Schwartz, “Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Jerusalem.” Tcherikover, HC, 186–200. 270 Translation and Commentary

Chapter VI

Antiochus’ Decrees against Judaism

(1) Not much time later the king dispatched Geron the Athenian to force the Jews to depart from the ancestral laws and no longer conduct their civic behavior according to the divine laws, (2) and both to defile the Temple in Jerusalem and change its name to “of Zeus Olympios,” and (to change the name of) the one in Argarizin, as the residents of the place requested, to “of Zeus Xenios.” (3) And the onslaught of evil was harsh and totally vexatious. (4) For the Temple was filled with licentiousness and reveling by the Gentiles, who amused themselves with whores and were intimate with women in the sacred courts, also bringing in things which are not appropriate. (5) And the altar was filled with forbidden things that the laws proscribe. (6) Thus there was no way to keep the Sabbath or to observe the ancestral festivals, nor even simply to admit to being a Jew. (7) Under bitter duress they were dragged off to eat the entrails of sacrifices on the king’s monthly birthdays, and when the festival of Dionysus came around they were forced, crowned with ivy, to make processionals for Dionysus. (8) At Ptolemy’s suggestion a decree was issued, calling upon the neighboring Greek cities to adopt the same practice concerning the Jews and have them eat the entrails of sacrifices, (9) and to cut down those who did not prefer to go over to Greek ways.

The First Martyrs

And one could really see the suffering coming on. (10) For two women who had circumcised their sons were hauled up (for punishment): they hung their babies from their breasts and then, after parading them publicly around the city, flung them down from the wall. (11) Others, who had come together in nearby caves in order to celebrate the seventh day secretly, were – after having been informed upon to Philip – burned together, in consequence of their scrupulous refusal to defend themselves due to their respect for the most august day. Chapter VI 271

Encouragement for Readers

(12) Now I call upon the readers of this book not to be depressed due to the sufferings, but rather to consider that the punishments were not to destroy our nation, but, rather, to edify it. (13) For not to allow evildoers a free hand for a long time, but, rather, immediately to bring down punishments upon them, is a sign of great benefaction. (14) For whereas concerning other peoples the Sovereign long-forbearingly awaits until they reach the plenitude of sins, whereupon He punishes them, He did not deem it appropriate to handle us that way, (15) so as not to take vengeance upon us later, after our sins are complete. (16) Therefore He never removes His mercy from us, and while edifying us with suffering He does not abandon His own people. (17) These things we had to say merely as a reminder. After a few words we should return to the narrative.

Torture and Death of Eleazar

(18) Eleazar, one of the prominent scribes, a man of advanced age and whose face had a handsome appearance, was being forced to open his mouth and eat swine-flesh. (19) But preferring death in good repute to life with abomination, he went to the torture-drum of his own accord, (20) spitting (the meat) out – taking the path which behooves all who persevere in abstaining from those things which one is not allowed to taste due to love of life. (21) Those who were assigned to the lawless entrails-eating took the man aside and encouraged him – since they knew him for a long time – to bring meat which it was appropriate for him to eat, which he himself had prepared, and pretend that he was eating the portions of meat ordered by the king, from the sacrifice, (22) so that by doing so he could escape death; thus could he elicit humane treatment from them thanks to his long-standing friendship with them. (23) He, however, adopting an honorable argument, one which was worthy of his age, of his hoary preeminence, of the magnificent white hair which he had come to have and of his superior de- portment since childhood, but especially – of the holy and divinely-established legislation, immediately declared, accordingly, that they should send him on to Hades: (24) “For it is not worthy of our age to dissimulate, of which the result would be that many of the youth, under the impression that the nonagenar- ian Eleazar had gone over to foreignism, (25) would themselves – due to my pretension and my short and merely momentary life – go astray because of me, and I would (thus) cause abomination and blemish to sully my old age. 272 Translation and Commentary

(26) After all, even if now I do escape punishment by humans, neither living nor dead will I escape the hands of the All-Ruler. (27) Therefore, passing out of life manfully I will on the one hand show myself worthy of old age, (28) and on the other I will leave to the youth a noble example of enthusiastically and nobly dying the good death for the august and holy laws.” Saying that much he immediately went up upon the torture-drum. (29) The benevolence of just a moment ago, of those who were leading him, turned into malevolence on account of the aforementioned words, which they thought were madness, (30) but he – on the verge of dying from the blows – groaned aloud and said: “It is evident to the Lord of holy knowledge that, although I could escape death and although, being beaten, I am suffering severe bodily pains, in my soul I suffer them gladly, out of fear of Him.” (31) Then he passed away in this manner, leaving behind – not only to the youth, but also to the multitude of his people – his own death as an example of nobility and as a memorial of virtue.

COMMENT

In this chapter things go from bad to worse. If Chapter 5 ended with a Se- leucid military takeover of the city,1 we now hear of decrees of persecution against the Jewish religion. And if Chapter 5 saw our author still making an effort to hide Jewish rebelliousness, which at that point could only have been an expression of Jewish nationalism, now, with the onset of religious persecution, our author can be very open about Jewish opposition. But the opposition upon which it focuses is, as may be expected (and in complete contrast to 1 Macc), that of the only type which is available to Jews of the diaspora: martyrdom. Indeed, for our author it is martyrdom that works atonement and therefore allows for reconciliation and salvation; martyrdom is not (as it is for 1 Macc2) part of the problem, rather – it is the sol-

1 Which, as 1 Macc 1:33ff. details, led to the establishment of a military garrison; there the author elaborates upon this extensively, even inserting a dirge to emphasize the horror of it (1:36–40). Our author, in contrast, a good diasporan Jew, says nothing about this assertion of foreign rule, but focuses only on the infringement of Jewish religious freedom. 2 Where martyrs get only short shrift at 1:60–64 and 2:32–38 as foils for the Hasmon- ean rebels, and where it is Judas’ heroism (3:8), not the blood of martyrs (2 Macc 8:2–5), that overcomes the ργ (“wrath” – which, indeed, only our book [8:5] defines as being God’s). Chapter VI 273 ution. Thus, this chapter and the next, which constitute the central section of the book, are also the pivot upon which it turns; they provide the turning point which will allow (as the author assures his readers in the excursus in vv. 12–17) for the move from the downhill begun in Chapter 4 to the uphill that will begin in Chapter 8. Along with continuing our book’s usual focus upon the city, which is expressed pointedly by the infinitive πολιτε εσαι that concludes the very first verse of this chapter, and with repeating Chapter 4’s contrast between “being a Jew” (v. 6) and adopting “Greek ways” (v. 9), the main new theme of this chapter is that suffering for one’s religion is a positive and useful thing. This is argued in three ways: – By implicit example: after characterizing Antiochus’ innovations in Je- rusalem as a matter of “licentiousness,” “whores,” and things that are “not appropriate” and “forbidden” (vv. 4–5), the author proceeds to relate an attempt to force Jews to participate in the pagan cult (v. 7) and horror stories about those who refused to do so (mothers killed brutally along with their circumcised babies and Sabbath-observers killed after villains “informed” upon them – vv. 10–11) – clearly expecting us to understand that those who died were positive models. – By explicit example: When it is Eleazar’s turn to suffer he gives a speech (vv. 24–28) which not only explains why he chooses death as a martyr but also explicitly presents this as a noble example for others to follow. – By theological argument: in his excursus in vv. 12–17 the author explains that it is actually a matter of divine grace for the Jews that God allows them to suffer as soon as they sin, rather than allow them to accumu- late a “plenitude of sins” and then punish them accordingly. As for historicity, there can be no doubt about the main claim, that Anti- ochus issued and enforced decrees against the practice of Judaism. This is corroborated not only by our other main source, 1 Maccabees (1:41–67), but also by such Jewish sources as Daniel (11:31ff.), the Assumption of Moses (Ch. 8), Josephus (War 1.34–35; Ant. 12.251–256), as well as pagan writers such as Diodorus 34–35.1.3–4 and Tacitus, Histories 5.8.2; among the Christians, Jerome’s commentary on Daniel, which drew upon the otherwise lost work of Porphyry, is especially important.3

3 For the latter, see esp. Stern, GLA 2.455–475. In general, on these persecutions, see Bickerman, Gott, 90–139; Tcherikover, HC, 175–203; Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 142–149; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1.283–292; Bringmann, Hellenistische Reform; and Prato, “Persecuzione religiosa.” 274 Translation and Commentary

Moving to the details, our book claims there were three main elements to the persecution: defilement of the Temple (vv. 2–5), prohibition of the practice of Jewish law (vv. 1, 6, illustrated in vv. 10–11), and enforced worship of Dionysus (v. 7). The first is corroborated by several other sources and stands at the very foundation of the festival of Hanukkah (“rededication” of the Temple), and the second as well is corroborated by a number of sources. Moreover, the persecutions are said to have applied especially to circumcision and to Sabbath worship, and since these are among the most salient aspects of Judaism in ancient pagan sources4 it indeed makes sense to think that they will have drawn Antiochus’ attention. The third element, however, worship of Dionysus, seems out of place for a Seleucid persecution, and might be no more than the contribution of a hyperactive imagination familiar with the Ptolemaic world; see Appen- dix 5.

NOTES

6:1. Not much time later. A new beginning, similar to “about that time” (5:1). Apparently, our author did not know or care much about the precise chronological or causal relationship between the doings of Philip and Apol- lonius, left ruling Jerusalem in Chapter 5, and the new events. It is usually assumed, on the basis of 1 Maccabees 1:20 (“143 SE”) + 29 (“two years later”) that the decrees (1 Macc 2:41ff.) were issued in 167 BCE; as we show in our COMMENT on Chapter 10 (p. 373), while this view cannot be derived from our book, it does explain a peculiarity of our book’s chronology. For the opinion that the decrees described here were in fact issued in 168, “not much time later” than Antiochus’ second Egyptian campaign, see Bringmann, Hellenistische Reform, 25, followed by Hyldahl, “Maccabean Rebellion,” 199. But their view is based on another basic approach to the translation of years SE to years BCE; for the rejection of that approach, see Bar-Kochva, JM, 562–565. dispatched. As with the sending of Nicanor to Judaea (14:12) with the demand that he “dispatch” Judas immediately to Antioch (14:27), we should understand the usage of the intensified αποστωλλ, rather than the plain and usual ποστωλλ used fourteen times in our book (e.g. 4:19, 21, 23), as an indication of intensification and urgency; compare D. R. Schwartz,

4 See the index to GLA, 3.114, 146. Chapter VI 275

“Two Pauline Allusions to the Redemptive Mechanism of the Crucifixion,” JBL 102 (1983) 261.

Geron the Athenian. This translation (and not “an old Athenian” or “an Athenian elder” or “Athenaeus the Elder”) is based upon Wilhelm, “Stellen” 20–22, who has been followed by many, including Stern, Studies, 586; cf. Hanhart, Text, 48; Kasher, “Athenians.” For Antiochus’ special relationship with Athens, which is reflected also at 9:15 (and in OGIS 248, on which see NOTE on 4:7, When Seleucus passed away), see Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 58–60, and Kasher, “Athenians.” ancestral laws. Our author deploys here a typically Greek term: every city had its own πτριοι νμοι, and every reader of Greek knew how reprehensible it was to violate or suppress them. See Renaud, “Loi et lois;” Kippen- berg, Erlösungsreligionen, 206–209; B. Schröder, Die ‘väterlichen Gesetze’: Flavius Josephus als Vermittler von Halachah an Griechen und Römer (TSAJ 53; Tübigen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1996; pp. 207–212 on 2 Maccabees). The term is very widespread in Jewish Hellenistic literature; see e.g. 3 Mac- cabees 1:23; Antiquities 12.267 (where Josephus follows 1 Macc 2:1–14 but it refers to the Temple and makes no mention of laws or of willingness to die for them; see Gafni, “Josephus and I Maccabees,” 124–125. See also NOTE on 7:2, ready to die.) Given our author’s desire to impress upon his readers, even non-Jews, that what happened to the Jews is comparable to something which could happen to them, it is understandable that it is only after defining the Jews’ laws as ancestral – with which all readers could identify – that he also defines them as God’s. See above, pp. 50–51. conduct their civic behavior (πολιτεεσ αι). On this verb, which recurs when the decrees are rescinded (11:25), see: Spicq, Notes, 2.718–720; P. Hermann, “Epigraphische Notizen, 10: πολιτεα – πολιτε εσαι,” EA 21 (1993) 70–72. It serves to compare religious life to life according to a municipal code; so too Antiquities 12.142 (used by Antiochus III); Acts 23:1; Phil 1:27 (and ibid. 3:20), etc. See also Josephus, Vita 12, along with Mason, Josephus on Pharisees, 347–352. And see the quote from Eu- menes II in Appendix 2 (p. 532).

2. to defile (μολ ναι). The verb is meant to remind the reader of what Judas and his men avoided (5:27 – το μολψσμο); for another apparent echo of Chapter 5, see NOTE on v. 3, onslaught of evil.

Temple. For this general sense of νε« see NOTE on 4:14, the Temple. 276 Translation and Commentary

“of Zeus Olympios.” Who was revered in Athens (see NOTE on v. 1, Geron the Athenian) but also in Seleucia, Antiochus’ birthplace, and in whose honor Antiochus Epiphanes began a project – uncompleted until the time of Hadrian, but often mentioned in the ancient sources (beginning with Poly- bius 26.1.11) – to rebuild a temple in Athens; perhaps he built him others as well. See Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 58, 122, 130–131; K. J. Rigsby, “Seleu- cid Notes,” TAPA 110 (1980) 233–238; Walbank, Polybius, 3.287–288. the one in Argarizin. On the toponym, see NOTE on 5:23, Argarizin. As for the Temple there, which the Samaritans had constructed somewhat earlier, see Y. Magen, H. Misgav & L. Tsfania, Mount Gerizim Excavations, I (Je- rusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology [Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria] & Israel Antiquities Authority, 2004) 3–6. as the residents of the place requested. Reading νετ γξανον. See Appen- dix 4, where we argue that this clause is secondary, and that, in the original, our author was equally upset about the pollution of the Samaritans’ Temple as he was about that of the Temple in Jerusalem – just as we would expect on the basis of 5:22–23.

“of Zeus Xenios.” On this epithet, see the beginning of Appendix 4.

3. onslaught of evil (πστασι« τ« κακα«). πστασι« means “to stand on,” usually in the sense of stopping; for “onset” LSJ (659, §III) lists only our verse and Acts 24:12. So too BDAG, 381 (top): “onslaught.” It seems that our author wanted to echo 5:22, πισττα« το κακον, a point apparently missed by some copyists (and Glucker, “Herbal Nutrition,” 148), who for some reason read πτασι« (“stretching, spreading out”); for our author’s willingness to make such connections even at the price of strange diction, see our NOTE on 3:35, receiving Onias. and totally vexatious. For το« λοι« in the sense of “totally,” “in all re- spects,” see also 7:5 and Mauersberger, PL, 4.1717–1718 (“gänzlich, völ- lig”). δψσξερ« (“vexatious”) reappears at 9:7, 24 and 14:45.

4. licentiousness … reveling … whores … women. On the nature of the cult involved, see esp. Bickerman, Gott, 90–116; Tcherikover, HC, 157–158; Hengel, JH 1.294–299; Stern, Studies, 583–584; Millar, “Background,” 18–20; Scurlock, “167 BCE.” Bickerman, followed by Tcherikover and Hengel, emphasized the oriental nature of the cult, linking it to Syrian gods and assuming that the women involved functioned as sacred prostitutes; Chapter VI 277 probably it should be linked to the Syrian soldiers garrisoned in the city. For doubts about sacred prostitution, see Scurlock, “167 BCE,” 150, n. 103; Scurlock’s doubts (viewing the reference to sexual intercourse in the sanctuary as an “obvious slander” and the notion that “sacral sex” was characteristic of Semitic civilizations as “an unfortunate survival of 19th century Orientalism”) may be well-founded even if one hesitates to follow her own broader theory: that Antiochus introduced Dionysiac practices into Jerusa- lem on the notion that it was appropriate for the Jews, whom he took to be a type of Egyptians. In any case, as Stern noted, even if this was a Syrian cult, the Jews viewed it as “Greek.” Jewish sensitivity concerning this type of activity was especially great given its introduction into the Temple; see Leviticus 15:31; Psalms of Solomon 8:12; CD 5:6–7. As for our “pathetic” author’s inclination to use women in order to intensify feelings, see also v. 10 and on 3:19; nothing like this appears in the more prudish 1 Maccabees. sacred courts. As in Isa 62:9; on them, see Eliav, God’s Mountain, 21–22. which are not appropriate. A usual formulation; see NOTE on 4:19, not appropriate. As often (see above, p.73), here too the author lets us imagine he knows the details but spares us as part of his “epitomizing.”

5. forbidden things ( εμτοι«). Given the next clause (“that the laws proscribe”), this word sounds as if the author wants us to understand that these things are not only proscribed but, rather, the law proscribes them because they are bad; ωμιτο« “refers primarily not to what is forbidden by ordin- ance but to violation of tradition or common recognition of what is seemly or proper” (BDAG, 24). That is, as opposed to idolatry, for example, which the law prohibits to Jews alone (12:40), here the author wants readers to suppose that what Antiochus imposed upon Jerusalem no civilized person could tolerate. This way he invites even the non-Jewish reader to share in the horror here. See also NOTE on v. 19, abomination. For the use of ω- μιτο« of that which the Torah forbids, here and in v. 20, cf. e.g. Josephus, Antiquities 14.72 and Vita 26; Acts 10:28; at 3 Maccabees 5:20, the wicked king is made to turn it on its head and uses it to describe the Jews. The Sep- tuagint has this adjective only in 2 Maccabees (here, 7:1 and 10:34; note also 12:14 – μ" ωμι«) and in 3 Maccabees 5:20 – another index of our auth- or’s Greek culture. See R. Hirzel, Themis, Dike und Verwandtes (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1907); J. Harrison, Themis (London: Merlin, 19632). that the laws proscribe (ποδιεσταλμωνοι«). For the translation, see NOTE on 13:25, to annul the instructions. 278 Translation and Commentary

6. to admit (μολογεν). Although the Septuagint usually uses this verb in the sense of giving thanks, here (as expected) it appears in its normal Greek sense; see Tov, “Greek Words,” 108. Compare As. Mos. 8:1–2, which refers – apparently with reference to Antiochus’ decrees – to Jews who “admitted circumcision” (“confitentes circumcisionem”) and others who deny (“negare”) it; as Tromp notes (Assumption of Moses, 217), circumcision is not the type of thing one need confess or can deny, so the reference is probably more generally to confessing to be Jewish, as in our verse (which, as he notes, the Vulgate renders with the same verb: “neque … se quisquam Judaeum esse confitebatur”). The confession “Christianus sum” was of central importance in ancient Christian martyrdom stories; compare, for example, Justin’s Dialogue with Tryphon 96.2: ναιροντα το#« μνον $μολογοντα« Ψαψτο#« ε&ναι Ξριστιανο «. On this motif, see G. Buschmann, Das Martyrium des Polykarp (Göttingen: Vanden- hoeck & Ruprecht, 1998) 193–198. Since apart from our book it is difficult to find additional evidence for this in such an early period, or with regard to Jews (note Buschmann, 193, n. 113 – a long list of sources that begins with our verse and then continues with Mark 14:61parr. and Christian martyrological texts!), one might suspect that we have here, in our book, a late motif which, given the book’s Christian readers and copyists, has worked its way into our text. However, already Pseudo- Hecataeus (late second-century BCE; see Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus), as quoted by Josephus, Against Apion 1.191, emphasizes that Jews, when persecuted by “Persian” rulers, preferred to suffer torture rather than repudiate (μ" ρνο μενοι) their patria; the verb refers clearly to verbal repudiation and the report probably reflects the persecution by Antiochus Epiphanes (see Bar-Kochva, ibid., 91–97). Similarly, Josephus himself reports, with pride, that the historical record shows that Jewish prisoners “have frequently endured torture and every sort of death in the theatres as the price for their refusal to utter even a single word against the laws and documents associated with them” (ibid. 1.43; cf. 2.219 and War 2.152–153).

7. the king’s monthly birthdays. Monthly celebration of royal birthdays is known from Ptolemaic Egypt, but only rarely from elsewhere in the Hellenistic world, and one may wonder whether our author, familiar with Ptolemaic realia, “enriched” his story with this element; see Appen- dix 5. festival of Dionysus. Here too there is reason to suspect that this reflects more what a Jew familiar with Ptolemaic Egypt would expect to happen, in Chapter VI 279 times of persecution, than with what actually happened in Seleucid Jerusa- lem; see Appendix 5. crowned with ivy. Lit. “having ivy;” the reference is to ivy wreaths (see Grimm, 2 Macc, 111, who cites the usage of κισσοστωφανο«). For ivy in the cult of Dionysus, see 3 Maccabees 2:29 and NOTE on 10:7, wands. processionals. For a list of thirty processionals in honor of Dionysus, here and there in the Hellenistic-Roman world, see F. Bömer, “Pompa,” RE I/42 (1952) 1936–1943 (nos. 109–138). Note however that this list, which opens with examples from Alexandria (nos. 109–110) and Athens (112–117), mentions no site in the Seleucid world apart from Jerusalem (for which only our verse is cited – no. 125); see our Appendix 5.

8. At Ptolemy’s suggestion (Πτολεμαοψ πο εμωνοψ). This is the reading of the majority of the Greek witnesses, followed by Hanhart and Habicht ad loc., Stern (Studies, 583), Bringmann (Hellenistische Reform, 102), and others. Other witnesses, led by the Vetus Latina, read “The people of Ptol- emais,” a reading adopted by such scholars as Bickerman (Gott, 121–122, n. 6), Abel (Macc, 363–364), Goldstein (2 Macc, 276–278), Rappaport (“Akko-Ptolemais,” 43), and Bunge (“Sogenannte Religionsverfolgung”). Each reading has its pros and cons. On the one hand, the hostility of the people of Ptolemais (Akko) to the Jews is mentioned at 13:25, and there is other evidence for this as well (see esp. Rappaport, loc. cit.), so it would not be surprising to hear of the city’s initiative here; add to this the fact that χφισμα usually refers to a decision by a city (see our next NOTE). On the other hand, the witnesses favoring that reading are mainly Lu- cianic or Latin, while the main Greek tradition reads “Ptolemy;” see Han- hart, “Text,” 49–50, who suggests that that name may have been changed into “Ptolemais” under the influence of the allusion, later in our verse, to “the neighboring cities.” So too, note that Ptolemais has not yet been mentioned in our book, while Ptolemy son of Dorymenes was, and there he was seen to be hostile to the Jews (4:45). Again, it is reasonable that an appeal to the cities of Coele Syria would issue from the capital, Antioch, and not from Ptolemais; why should Ptolemais be involved here in such a central way? However, if we would read “Ptolemy” we must ask who actually made the decision. Perhaps what is meant is that Ptolemy himself issued the decree; so Stern, Studies, 583. But this fails to account for the use of “suggestion,” and to judge from 4:45–46 we are to conceive of Ptolemy not so much as an office-holder who enjoys official authority as a courtier capable 280 Translation and Commentary of influencing the king.5 Accordingly, we would suggest that our author means the king himself issued the decree, enlarging – at the wicked Pto- lemy’s urging – the scope of his original decree. For such a broader usage of χφισμα, of royal decrees, Abel (Macc, 363) cites Josephus, Antiquities 13.262 and 18.69, along with LXX Esther 3:7 and 9:24. See also Goldstein, 2 Macc, 277.6 For our author’s attempt to convince us that – since the Jews are of course good neighbors – their difficulties with their neighbors in Pa- lestine must have derived only from the hostility of wicked Seleucid officials, see also 8:11, 10:14–15, and 12:2–3. a decree (χφισμα). Literally this refers to a decision arrived at by vote, with the votes signified by small stones used as counters; cf. $μοιοχφοψ in 14:20, of a unanimous vote. See F. Quass, Nomos und Psephisma (München: Beck, 1971). For a broader usage, as apparently intended here, see our preceding NOTE. was issued. For κππτ in connection with the result of a vote, see Xeno- phon, Symposion 5.10; at Polybius 30.32.10 it seems that the verb refers both to the arrival at the decision and to its publication. It preserves the original image of voting stones being dropped out of a ballot box in order to be counted. the neighboring Greek cities. I.e., those near Jerusalem. For the decrees applying outside of Jerusalem see also 1 Maccabees 2:15ff. (Modein – on which see below, 13:14), Antiquities 12.257ff., and Stern, Studies, 153–154. adopt the same practice. As in Jerusalem. On γγ, see NOTE on 4:16, those for whose ways … eat the entrails of sacrifices (σπλαγξνζειν). On the text here, see Habicht, 2 Macc, 230, n. 8b; for the translation – Spicq, Notes, 2.812–815. Accord- ing to this verse, the meat that will be given to Eleazar should be assumed to

5 True, some have thought Ptolemy son of Dorymenes was governor of Coele Syria and Phoenicia, but we shall argue against that at 8:8, Ptolemy, the governor of Coele Syria and Phoenicia. 6 For criticism of this broad interpretation, see Bringmann, Hellenistische Reform, 94–96. But his insistence that the word cannot mean a royal decree because the Se- leucid chancellery would not have used the word that way is not convincing, because the text we are interpreting is a Jewish book, not a Seleucid document. Chapter VI 281 be from a sacrifice, although this is not underlined in v. 18. The same also results from the comparison of v. 5 to v. 20, and from v. 21.

9. Greek ways (τ ’Ελληνικ#). The author sets forth the options in the most general and polarized way, just as with “Greek style” at 4:10; see also 11:24. “Judaism” will pointedly appear as the opposite pole at 8:1 (as at 2:21 and 14:38), immediately after the martyrology which we are now beginning. one could really see the suffering. As in the Heliodorus episode (3:16), the author is inviting us to imagine the scene and share the experience.

10. two women. Nothing can compare with the suffering of women to spice up a story and involve the reader; cf. 3:19. who had circumcised their sons. This probably means only that they had had their sons circumcised. Note, similarly, that while also 1Maccabees 1:60 refers to these women as having circumcised their sons, the next verse nonetheless refers to the execution not only of the women and children but also of “those who had circumcised them.” On the halakhic issue of women actually performing the operation, see D. Sperber, Minhagei Yisrael, IV (Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1995) 8–9, and R. Wilk, “Mattathias’ Enforcement of Circumcision,” Sinai 115 (1994/95) 283, n. 6 (both in Hebrew). Cf. Cacqot, “Pour une étude,” 132. hung. So as to display the reason for their execution. Cf. Lieberman, Greek, 162–164, who focuses upon Sifre Num. §137 (ed. Horowitz, 183–184): a woman being punished for pre-marital sexual intercourse asked to have un- ripe figs (a metaphor for her act) hung from her neck so people would know that she had done that and nothing worse. from their breasts. Which were also mentioned in the Heliodorus story (3:19), but not in the parallel to the present one at 1 Maccabees 1:61, which (just as the midrash cited in our preceding NOTE) more prudishly has the babies being hung from their mothers’ necks. On this difference between the books, see NOTE on v. 4, licentiousness … reveling … whores … women. parading them. As with Andronicus; see 4:38, stripped … paraded. publicly (δημοσ%). For this formulation of a demonstrative punishment, see also 3 Maccabees 2:27 and Acts 16:37. 282 Translation and Commentary flung them down (κρμνισαν). On the walls of Jerusalem, see NOTE on 5:5, those who were upon the wall. For a woman killed this way by a Se- leucid queen, see Athenaeus 13.593 (cited by Goldstein, 2 Macc, 279). As for the flinging of young boys from the city walls, this may well have been calculated to remind readers of the famous death of Hector’s son Astyanax, which was often recalled in literature and drama; see F. Graf, “Astyanax,” in: Brill’s New Pauly, 2 (ed. H. Cancik & H. Schneider; Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2003) 212; Wifstrand, Epochs and Styles, 174–175. Towards the end of our book, a hero will throw himself down (κατεκρμνισεν Ψαψτν) to his death and will thus – so we are to understand – contribute to the salvation of the city; see NOTE on 14:43, did not manage to place the sword- stroke well. Here the villains do the throwing, but the outcome is the same; see NOTE on 8:4, infants.

11. come together. This solidarity of the pious Jews, emphasized later in the verse by their being burned together (σψνδραμντε« … σψνεφλογση- σαν), contrasts pointedly with the behavior of the unnamed informers. to celebrate the seventh day. This story too, as that of the women and their circumcised children, is reported in 1 Maccabees – at 2:28–38 (caves – v. 36), which speaks of flight to the desert. Hiding in caves in the Judaean Desert is a well-known phenomenon; see NOTE on 5:27, fled to the mountains. Both books agree in reporting that those who fled were killed because they observed the Sabbath, but (a) our book makes them heroes while 1 Maccabees 2:39–41 has its heroes reject the way of these naïve Sabbath- observers; and (b) only our book says that these unfortunates left the city in order to observe the Sabbath. Both points are part of the generally special emphasis which our book places on Sabbath observance; see NOTE on 5:25, pretended. having been informed upon. As in 1 Maccabees 2:31 (and Josephus, Ant. 12.272) the identity of the informers is not stated. But the very use of “informing,” which implies a treasonous element, seems to point to Jews. As at 14:37, the use of the passive allows our author brevity and thus the avoidance of an unpleasant topic; see above, pp. 74–75. Apart from the few prin- cipal villains (Simon, Jason, Menelaus, Alcimus), our author does not like to talk about Jewish miscreants; see above, p. 49. burned together. This detail is not found in 1 Maccabees, but does reappear in Antiquities 12.274–275, which also mentions the caves. But this need not indicate that Josephus used 2 Maccabees; for the usual assumption that he Chapter VI 283 did not, see above, pp. 86–87. Rather, the very fact that both 1 and 2 Mac- cabees give versions of these two stories which are basically so similar may indicate that they circulated independently, in which case Josephus, who grew up in Jerusalem, could have had access to this detail not only via our book. In any case, it is the kind of detail easily supplied by experience or common wisdom; for Josephus’ very personal experience with this, note his War 3.350 (and compare, for example, his War 1.311//Ant. 14.428). Apart from burning the refugees in a cave, attackers could also smoke them out with fires set at their entrances; see Lapp & Lapp, Discoveries, 8 (P. & N. Lapp) and 18 (F. M. Cross). In general, for evidence on military operations in the Judaean Desert refuge caves, see G. D. Stiebel, “‘Dust to dust, ashes to ashes …’: Military Equipment from Destruction Layers in Roman Palestine,” Carnuntum Jahrbuch 2005, 99–108.

12. Now I call upon … Vv. 12–17, as already 4:16–17 and esp. 5:17–20, constitute a well-defined enclave in which the author, here using the first person singular, turns to his readers and explains the meaning of the events he is recounting. to consider (λογζεσ αι). Our author compliments his readers, that they are thinking people who want to have more than a superficial understanding of events as they seem to appear; cf. our NOTE on 2:25, to read … readers. For the verb, compare esp. v. 23 (λογισμν) and 11:2–4; 3 Macca- bees 4:4. the punishments were not to destroy (μ' πρ(« )λε ρον) our nation. As opposed to what they do to such wicked people as Menelaus (ε+« ,λερον – 13:6). Compare esp. 4 Maccabees 8:19, where the tyrant who tries to cajole prospective martyrs into surrender defines the tortures as λεροφρον, whereas the true view is that the torments in fact bring about reward (ibid. 9:8). our nation. In his authorial reflections the author makes no attempt to hide the fact that he is Jewish; see NOTE on v. 14, concerning other peoples. In the book itself, in contrast, he was careful to avoid this, referring to the Jews only in the third person; although the author frequently sides with the Jews, the only explicit self-identification as a Jew, it seems, is at 14:34. to edify (πρ(« παιδεαν). One of the most ponderous terms of the Greek world; see esp. Jaeger, Paideia. The term recurs several times in our book: v. 16; 7:33; 10:4. The idea, however, already appears in the Bible: “for as a 284 Translation and Commentary man edifies his son, so does the Lord your God edify you” (Deut 8:5; see also Prov 13:11–12 etc.). Note in particular that this motif is not found in the preceding collection of authorial reflections (4:16–17), where the author speaks of vengeance; see p. 22, n. 53.

13. to bring down (περιππτειν). This verb serves here, as at 10:4, and as is usual, to denote the advent of something bad; see Spicq, Notes, 2.684–685. is a sign of great benefaction. Here God is depicted as a benevolent Hellen- istic king; on ε.εργεσα see NOTE on 4:2, benefactor. For this type of theodicy, which insists that God is exacting with those He loves (punishing them for every little thing – Wis 12:2) so as to allow atonement for their sins, see Psalms 94:12–13; Wisdom 12; Urbach, Sages, 444–448.

14. concerning other peoples. Here again, as in v. 12, the author is un- abashedly a Jew. Cf. Wisdom 12:22, which contrasts the severe punishments God imposes upon others with the edifying ones (παιδε ν) He imposes upon the Jews. long-forbearingly (μακρο ψμ*ν). A frequent term in the Septuagint, but here used ironically. until they reach the plenitude of sins. And then He totally destroys them; cf. v. 12. For the notion, see Genesis 15:16 (“the Amorites’ sin is not yet full”), also Daniel 8:23 (with LXX); CD 9:20; 1 Thessalonians 2:16; Pseudo-Philo, LAB 26:13; etc.

15. so as not to take vengeance. For divine punishment as vengeance, see NOTE on 4:16, nemeses.

16. Therefore … while edifying us with suffering. The author begins to conclude this excursus by returning to the terms of its opening verse.

He does not abandon. But in the author’s preceding reflections (5:17) he said that God does indeed, at times, due to sins, turn away from the Jews for brief periods. As we have seen, as the book moves on it seems that the author subtly revises his message in this regard, moving, in his explanation of how the Jews can suffer, from God turning His face away in anger to God chastising His people as a father chastises His sons; see NOTE on 5:17, distanced Himself … in anger. Chapter VI 285

His own people. Perhaps based upon Psalms 94:14, “For the Lord will not abandon His people, nor will He leave His inheritance,” of which the first half recurs in 1 Samuel 12:22. See also below, 7:16. It may well be that the preceding two verses of Psalm 94 were already underlying our author’s thoughts in the preceding verses; see Goldstein, 2 Macc, 280. Note that while our verse links the verb καταλεπ, “abandon,” to “people,” the LXX of Psalms links it to “inheritance.” This exchange underlines how closely our book (as opposed to its Jerusalemite editors – see NOTE on 2:4, viewed the inheritance of God) identifies God’s “inheritance” as His people; see 14:15 and NOTE on 5:19, But God did not choose the people on account of the Place.

17. the narrative. At 2:32 the author used this same term, διγησι«, to refer to the body of the book as opposed to its introduction. It is usual to interpret the present verse as if the author means that now he is returning to the story after having given us, in vv. 12–16, a brief “reminder” concerning the theology of suffering; so, for example, Abel, Habicht and Goldstein ad loc. However, it seems that in fact we should distinguish between the “reminder,” which is indeed vv. 12–16, and the “few words;” and that the latter are yet to come, prior to the return to the “narrative.” Note that all agree that ε+ρσ in our verse refers to the things already said (just as δεδηλσ at the end of Chapter 7 refers to that which precedes it), and that all agree that λεψστωον, in 17b7 refers to what is to come; the question is, whether the words δ/0 λγν, “after a few words,” refer to the past or the future. To my mind it seems that their location in 17b points in the latter direction, and that if they referred to the past, they would be superfluous and 17b could have begun simply with “now.” Ac- cordingly, it seems that the author means to tell us that after he told us “these things” (vv. 12–16) as a reminder, he will get back to his narrative, but only after first giving us “a few words” – which will turn out to be the two long martyrologies which take us to the end of Chapter 7. That is, he is now introducing an excursus, which stands outside of the narrative; as it were, it stands still in time and illuminates the current situation. On this “time-out,” see NOTE on v. 18, was being forced. (For a similar procedure, see Josephus, Antiquities 12.137, who promises to return to his διγησι« after some extraneous material.) Our author concludes his excursus very self-consciously in the last verse of Chapter 7, and then the story resumes in 8:1.

7 Which is the only example for this word given in LSJ, 532, s.v. 286 Translation and Commentary

18. Eleazar, one of the prominent scribes. Scribes are mentioned occasionally in literature of the Second Temple period, but it is difficult to define them; see in general Schürer, History, 2.322–325 and, on some texts of the second century BCE, as ours: M. Himmelfarb, A Kingdom of Priests: An- cestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism (Phildadelphia: Univ. of Penn, 2006) 11–52. The sources closest to our book that mention them are Sirach 38:24 and Antiquities 12.142. Note, on the one hand, that the latter, a proclamation by Antiochus III, refers to scribes of the Temple, to which we might add that 4 Maccabees 5:4, another version of our present story, says that Elea- zar was a priest. It has indeed been noted that the name Eleazar was typical of priests during this period; see Stern, Studies, 97, n. 119. For allusions to exemplary priests named Eleazar in Jewish Hellenistic literature, see Letter of Aristeas 121ff.; 3 Maccabees 6:1–15; Antiquities 14.106–7. These data do not prove that our Eleazar was a priest, only that we have here a topos. On the other hand, there is good evidence for translating γραμματε« not as “scribes” but, rather, as “officials” (in the Septuagint it frequently renders shoterim – minor officials) and to see them as Levites, not priests; see Schwartz, Studies, 89–101. But that does not take us very far, because our sources on Levites in the Second Temple period are not any better than those on scribes; see NOTE on 1:30, And the priests sang the hymns. In any case, what was important for our author was that Eleazar – just as Razis (14:37–38) – was an exemplary Jewish individual who had served in some public Jewish role. advanced age. According to v. 24, he was ninety. His age will function throughout the chapter. handsome appearance. A fact which intensifies the horror of his suffering. And see v. 23: noblesse oblige. Compare the rabbinic story of the torture of R. Ishmael, “of whom it was said … that he was among the seven most beautiful people who ever lived and his face was similar to that of an angel of the Lord of Hosts” (Reeg, Geschichte, 62*ff.). was being forced. The use of the imperfect, which indicates continuity, corresponds to the author’s notice in v. 17 that we are now turning to something outside of time, a scene we can take time to observe without holding up the narrative; for the same move, see “were being tortured” at 7:1. Com- pare NOTE on 8:1, had been going in and out and around, and see P. Vil- lalba i Varneda, The Historical Method of Flavius Josephus (ALGHJ 19; Leiden: Brill, 1986) 171, where he shows how the timeless geographical excursus on the Galilee, in Josephus’ War 3.506–521, fills up, from the point Chapter VI 287 of view of the reader, the time needed to build boats – a project which is announced in §505 and completed in §522. Similarly, Josephus’ timeless account of the Jewish sects in Antiquities 18.11–25 allows us to feel, as it were, the passage of time between the beginning of Quirinius’ census of Ju- daea (announced at the beginning of the book) and its conclusion, which allowed for the resumption of the narrative, at 18.26. to open his mouth. So Hanhart’s edition, which we have followed here and in v. 20, despite Katz, “Eleazar.” Katz correctly noted the lack of unanimity and weakness of the textual tradition here, but his point of departure was in fact a problem with the human logic of the story: if Eleazar’s mouth had been forced open and non-kosher food inserted, as we read here, but he had spat it out (v. 20), then the friendly appeal in v. 21 would be totally out of place, much too late. Accordingly, Katz preferred the Latin and Lucianic evidence which instead of “open” (ναξανν) employs a verb of being, τψγξνν, which relates to Eleazar’s qualities listed at the opening of v. 18 (old and handsome), and instead of Eleazar “spitting” (προπτ σα«), in v. 20, has him serve as a model for others, a “prototype” – προτψπσα«. Hanhart, in response (Text, 52–56), pointed out how weak the textual support for these readings is and that they are “easy” readings, meant precisely to solve the putative problems Katz noted. I would add that Katz’s point of departure is not very convincing, for why is it impossible to suggest a com- promise after the failure of a direct confrontation? In fact, this way our author intensifies his story, by having Eleazar refuse not only to eat forbidden meat, but even to pretend to do so (v. 20). Similarly, in b.Gittin 57b (a rabbinic version of the story of Ch. 7, although the king is called “Caesar”), when the last son (as all his brothers before him) refuses to worship idolatrously the king offers to allow him to save himself by pretending to do so – an offer which the son, as Eleazar here, refuses. swine-flesh. According to v. 21, it was from a sacrifice; see NOTE on v. 8, eat the entrails of sacrifices. But referring to it as swine-flesh, and not as sacrificial, fits our author’s educational purposes, because it broadens our story into one that underlines just how important it is, for Jews, to abstain from eating non-kosher foods. Cf. NOTE on v. 20, taking the path which behooves all who persevere … It is interesting that our author has no problem defending the Jewish dietary laws, although elsewhere – e.g. Letter of Aristeas 144, Philo, Legatio 361 – we see they were the object of scorn. Perhaps it was especially easy to defend the abstinence from swine, for pigs were considered abominable, or at least impure and so inappropriate for sacrifice, in many parts of the ancient Near East; see J. Milgrom, 288 Translation and Commentary

Leviticus 1–16 (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991) 649–652; Scurlock, “167 BCE,” 139–142.

19. good repute (εϊκλεια). For the importance that the Hellenistic world attached to death with εϊκλεια, so as to leave a good example for youths and for future generations, see Polybius 6.54.2–3; 23.14.12. For emphasis upon the Greek, non-biblical, nature of this desideratum, see Adinolfi, Questioni, 103–122.8 abomination. It seems that μ σο« refers here both to moral blemish and to the impurity of swine; cf. NOTE on v. 5, forbidden things. Note also the parallelism in v. 25. On this term, see also 5:24, the Mysarch Apollonius. torture-drum (τμπανον). This seems to have been a flogging block, to which were bound those who were to be flogged, including those flogged to death. Cf. ποτψμπανζομαι – 3 Maccabees 3:27; Vergote, “Sup- plice,” 153–155; E. C. E. Owen, “ποτψμπανζ …,” JTS 30 (1929) 259–266.

20. spitting … out (προπτσα«). On the text, see NOTE on v. 18, to open his mouth. The fact that, as Katz (“Eleazar’s Martyrdom,” 120) pointed out, the word seems to be attested only here (LSJ, 1496), does not at all show the text is corrupt, given our book’s love for rare words; see Introduction, p. 67. taking the path which behooves all who persevere … Here we again clearly see our author’s educational agenda: Eleazar constitutes an example of proper behavior, as is made even more explicit in the next verse. On martyrdom stories as boundary-marking educational tools, see M. A. Tilley, “Scripture as an Element of Social Control: Two Martyr Stories of Christian North Africa,” HTR 83 (1990) 383–397, and van Henten, “Martyrdom and Persecution Revisited,” 69–74. not allowed (ο. ωμι«). See NOTE on v. 5, forbidden things.

8 However, one need not agree with Adinolfi (ibid.) that 1 Macc 6:43–46, which as- cribes to Eleazar such a motive, is accordingly condemning him. Rather, the passage does indeed seem to praise Eleazar (just as Judas Maccabaeus too gives thought to his own good name – 1 Macc 9:10), and is therefore among the ones that show just how far removed 1 Maccabees is from biblical historiography; cf. above, pp. 63–64. Chapter VI 289 due to love of life. On φιλοστοργα see NOTE on 9:21, I remember with sincere love. It seems that what is meant is that it is forbidden to taste such things even due to love of life (Habicht: “auch um der Liebe zum Leben wil- len”), i.e., in order to save one’s life. For “love of life” as an insufficient motive for shameful behavior in order to avoid death, see esp. Valerius Maxi- mus, Facta et dicta memorabilia, 9, Chapter 13 (De cupiditate vitae); M. Vogel, “Geschichtsschreibung nach den Regeln von Lob und Tadel: Ster- beszenen bei Josephus und im Neuen Testament,” in: Josephus und das Neue Testament (WUNT 209; ed. C. Böttrich & J. Herzer; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007) 537.

21. since they knew him for a long time. As Rajak notes (Dialogue, 122–123), “the whole scenario here … becomes blatantly Socratic,” recalling “Socrates’ friends in the Phaedo and the Crito, when they tell him he must allow them to arrange for him to escape from prison.” pretend (ποκρι ναι). They suggested to Eleazar that he do what the wicked Apollonius had done (5:25 – 3ποκριε«), but he of course rejected the offer out of hand (v. 24). There is a scene reminiscent of this one in the next chapter as well, when the king asks the mother to act against her con- science; in that case (7:25–29), she is allowed, as a woman, to play a game which the “noble” Eleazar could not or would not.

22. humane treatment (φιλαν ρ,πα). On philanthropia, see also 14:9 (and cf. 4:11; 9:27; 13:23); Spicq, Notes, 2.922–927; Schubart, “Königsi- deal,” 9–11; Bell, “Philanthropia.” Even in the midst of this terrible scene our author does not pass up the opportunity to point out that good Gentiles respected this exemplary Jew and tried to help him; cf. Introduction, p. 48.

23. honorable argument. On λογισμ«, a term which was has been the object of much scholarly attention and which – alongside the adjective “pious” – became the main topic of 4 Maccabees’ version of our story, see Dupont-Sommer, 4 Macc, 49–50. According to 4 Maccabees, he who is characterized by ε.σεβ"« λογισμ«, as are the heroic martyrs of 2 Macca- bees 6–7, is beyond all physical suffering. See NOTES on v. 12, to consider, and on 7:21, awakening her womanly reasoning power. For the precise sense of ε.σεβ"« λογισμ«, see also S. Lauer, “Eusebes Logismos in IV Maccabees,” JJS 6 (1955) 170–171, and R. Weber, “Eusebeia und Logismos: Zum philosophischen Hintergrund von 4. Makkabäer,” JSJ 22 (1991) 212–234. As for “honorable,” στεο«, we may assume that for our author, who put the city and its values at the center of his story, the 290 Translation and Commentary original derivation from 5στψ, “city,” was not forgotten. See Spicq, Notes, 1.152–153; Dover, Morality, 112–114; and E. S. Ramage, Urbanitas: Ancient Sophistication and Refinement (Norman, Okla.: Univ. of Okla- homa, 1973), esp. 8–19 and 153–160 on the Greek concept. Cf. 12:43; 14:40; and Introduction, p. 51. We should also note the usual contrast, in Greek, between λογισμ« and ψμ«; see, for example, Polybius 2.35.3, 8.8.1, and the sources and discussion in Dupont-Sommer, 4 Macc, 50–56. This means that “thinking” is considered to be “urbane” while ψμ« is wild and barbaric, more appropriate for animals than people; see esp. 4:25. Accordingly, in the present confrontation Eleazar excels as the thinking and cultured man of the city. As for the king, in contrast, who already had a record of animal-like behavior in attacking a city (5:11): although he is not directly contrasted with Eleazar, in the next story he is shown to be characterized by rage and raw instincts; faced with dignified people like Eleazar, he will even become 6κψμο« (7:3, 39; 9:4; cf. 14:27). magnificent (πιφανο «). For magnificent white hair, see also 15:13; on the adjective, see also Tov, “Greek Words,” 110–118. since childhood. Which again emphasizes that he is meant to serve as an example for the youth; see NOTE on v. 20, taking the path which behooves all who persevere …, and cf. NOTE on 15:12, a fine and good man. divinely-established ( εοκτιστο ) legislation. Cf. 3:15. The identification of God as a κτστη« (“founder”) fits in well with our author’s general presentation of Judaism as if it were the constitution of a city (see v. 1!), for every self-respecting city had its revered κτστη«. See W. Leschhorn, “Gründer der Stadt:” Studien zu einem politisch-religiösen Phänomen der griechischen Geschichte (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1984) 334–344 (on the Hellen- istic period in general). declared. This heavy verb (πφημι) occurs in our book only here and at 15:4, in both cases introducing courageous responses of persecuted Jews who thereby challenge those who torment them. accordingly (κολο ,«). That is, his declaration was consistent with the factors summarized earlier in the verse. send him on to Hades. I.e., kill him. For a similar formulation, see 3 Mac- cabees 5:42. In the Septuagint, “Hades” is usually used for the Hebrew sheol; see van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 172, and especially Fitzmyer, Chapter VI 291

Tobit, 307, on Tobit 13:2 (where the Greek “Hades” indeed corresponds to sheol in the Hebrew text preserved in 4Q200 6:6 – DJD 19.70). On Hades = Sheol = “the realm of the dead,” see also Fitzmyer, ibid., 178 (on Tob 4:19), and van der Horst, Epitaphs, 48, 115, 152. But our author had a more developed view of the afterlife; see NOTE on 12:45, in order that they be released from the sin.

24. gone over to. For such use of μεταβαν, of a constitutional change, see vv. 1, 9; Renaud, “Loi et lois,” 58–59, with references to Platonic usage, such as Republic 550d, 569c. foreignism. On λλοφψλισμ« see 4:13, where it parallels “Hellenism.”

25. due to my pretension and my short and merely momentary life. That is: due to my having chosen to dissimulate in order to protect something as worthless as that. go astray (πλανη *σι). Frequent in the Septuagint, and see 2:2 (μ" πο- πλανη7σι) and 7:18. abomination and blemish. See NOTE on v. 19, abomination.

26. neither living nor dead. The novum here is the latter: Eleazar hints that Hades is a place where sinners are punished, an idea especially developed at 12:43–45; see NOTE on v. 23, send him on to Hades.

27. passing out of (διαλλ#-α«) life. The expression is somewhat dim, but fits the point of the preceding verse: death is not the last word. For the same usage (and the same implication?), see OGIS 4, lines 3–4: 8λωανδρο« διλλαεν τ9μ (sic) μετ0 νρπν βον. Cf. 7:14, and the use of a cognate verb at 4:7. manfully (νδρε,«). This again illustrates the book’s educational aim, for it is clear that a righteous man should not himself make such a self-serving statement; see Proverbs 27:2! It is rather our author who wants to make sure his readers realize that such courage is praiseworthy; under the circumstances, there was no other mouth into which he could put the words. For “manful” in our book, see also NOTE on 8:7, And the fame … worthy (.-ιο«) of old age. Just like Razis (14:42). Compare the question the Roman governor is said to have asked R. Eliezer when he was charged with 292 Translation and Commentary being a min (Christian?): “Should an old man like you involve himself in such nonsense?!” (t. Hullin 2:24 [ed. Zuckermandel, 503]; b. Avodah Zarah 16b).

28. to the youth … example. And the next chapter will indeed focus on youths who followed Eleazar’s example. noble … nobly. In the Septuagint the various forms of γενναο« appear only in 2 Maccabees and 4 Maccabees; see H&R, 1.237. The adverb appears, as here, another seven times in our book, and the adjective another two or three; note also the noun γενναιτη« in v. 31. These lexical data well reflect Jewish Hellenstic adoption of this Greek value; on the latter see Dover, Morality, 33–35, and on its adoption, see Himmelfarb, “Judaism and Hel- lenism,” 33–35. enthusiastically (προ μ,«). For numerous examples of people praised for having served the public enthusiastically, see Skard, Zwei Begriffe, 18–23 (on this adverb – p. 23). dying the good death. LSJ (187) cites our verse alone for this verb, πεψα- νατζ – another case of our author’s predilection for varying his vocabulary concerning killing and dying (see Introduction, pp, 70–71).

29. benevolence … malevolence (ε/μωνειαν ε0« δψσμωνειαν). The similarity and juxtaposition of the words intensifies the contrast between them; for our author’s predilection for such play with prefixes, see e.g. NOTES on 4:6, providence, and on 8:36, to take care of … proclaimed. of just a moment ago. For our author’s habit of pointing out how things changed within short periods of time, see Introduction, p. 78. For the present phrase, μικρ: πρτερον, see also 3:30. those who were leading him. The opening of this verse is corrupt in the manuscript tradition; see Kappler, Memoria, 61–63, followed by Han- hart’s edition ad loc.; Risberg, “Anmerkungen,” 19–22. But the sense seems more or less assured. The only main question is whether we should build upon γντ7ν, which is found in the Alexandrinus and other witnesses and translate “those who were leading him,” or rather, build on παγντν which appears in the Venetus (but in the wrong place, at the end of the verse). The latter is a more intensive verb, “taking him away,” with, as Habicht explains, the apparent implication being “to be Chapter VI 293 executed.” Kappler and Hanhart take the first approach, Risberg and Habicht – the latter, Habicht translating “Die aber, die ihn zum Tode führten.” We have followed the former approach, for until this point we have not been told that Eleazar was to be executed, only that he was to be tortured. which they thought were madness. On πνοια see NOTE on 13:23, had taken leave of his senses. The fact that the wicked thought the virtuous hero was crazy is an ironic twist, similar to those in 7:17, 39.

30. on the verge of dying … said. The martyr’s last speech, before expiring, is of course a widespread topos; see all through Chapter 7; 14:46; Diogenes Laertius 9.27 (Zeno) and 9.59 (Anaxarchus) – both of the latter in van Henten and Avemarie, Martyrdom and Noble Death, 26–27; Acts 7:56, 59; Josephus, Ant. 19.347; etc. Especially the Socratic model should be recalled here, although Socrates’ speeches were much longer – as Eleazar’s will become in 4 Maccabees. For the comparison with Socrates, see esp. van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 208–9 and Rajak, Jewish Dialogue, 120–122 (along with NOTE on v. 21, since they knew him for a long time).

Lord of holy knowledge. There seems to be no reason to attach special significance to the use of “gnosis” here. Rather, it is as if Eleazar is saying “as God is my witness,” that is, the holy God knows that what Eleazar says is true. escape death. A literal repetition of that which was offered him in v. 22. suffering severe bodily pains, in my soul. On the coming distinction between body and soul, see NOTE on 14:38, body and soul. fear. The use of φβο«, rather than σωβεια, although the σεβ- root is so common in our book (including such compounds as ε.σωβεια, δψσσεβ;, σεβ«), has something of a Hebrew sound to it, pointing more to “fear” than to urbane “reverence.” So too “the multitude of his people” in the next verse, which sounds like the description of Mordechai in the last verse of Esther; and “in my soul … gladly,” just above, might reflect the Hebrew “willing soul,” which – in another formulation – we posited for the Hebrew original of 1:3. These Hebraisms might be added to the ones Habicht noted for Chapter 7; see Introduction, p. 20, n. 48. But they need not be taken as evidence for a Hebrew source; they are the type of biblicizing diction that any Jewish writer might insert in a context like this. 294 Translation and Commentary

31. passed away. But – in contrast to Seleucid kings (4:7; 5:5; 9:28) – not finally, not “from life;” see NOTE on 7:14, pass away from among men. leaving (καταλιπ1ν). In Greek this is the last word of the chapter, ending it, and Eleazar’s martyrdom, with finality. For its usage in more mundane contexts, see NOTE on 4:29, left … not only to the youth … example of nobility … memorial of virtue (το« νωοι« … π2δειγμα γενναι2τητο« κα3 μνημ2σψνον ρετ«). Compare an Athenian decision to honor the philosopher Zeno because “when youths came to seek contact with him he encouraged them to (seek) virtue and moderation … setting his own life as an example for all” (το#« ε+« σ στασιν α.τ: τ7ν νων πορεψομωνοψ« παρακαλ7ν π0 ρετ"ν κα/ σφροσ νην … παρδειγμα τον< =διον βον κε/« >πασιν … – Diogenes Laertius 7.10). For this sort of material in Hellenistic inscriptions see Dan- ker, Benefactor, 437–440. For historiography as literature which supplies examples (παραδεγματα) of the behavior of good people, so that it is possible to view history as “philosophy via paradigms” (see Pseudo-Dionysus, Ars rhetorica 11.398 [ed. Usener & Radermacher, 376], quoting Plato and Thucydides), see Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 24–25. virtue. The basic meaning of ρετ, which “was the central ideal of all of Greek culture” (Jaeger, Paideia, 1.15), began by referring to manliness and courage, a sense preserved below at 10:28 and 15:17, but over time turned more generally into a term used of the totality of good qualities: “virtue.” See Jaeger, ibid., 3–14 and Danker, Benefactor, 318. As is often the case with regard to words that are of such fundamental significance in the culture that produced them, translation is tricky; Danker in fact settled for transliteration because “‘virtue’ does not do justice to the emphasis on per- formance that is frequently conveyed through use of the word arete.”

Bibliography

Bickerman, Gott, 90–139. Bunge, “Sogenannte Religionsverfolgung.” Doran, “The Martyr.” Doran, “2 Maccabees 6:2.” Flusser, D., “Kiddush Hashem in 2 Maccabees.” Heinemann, “Wer veranlaßte.” van Henten and Avemarie, Martyrdom and Noble Death, 64–66. Chapter VI 295

Katz, “Eleazar’s Martyrdom.” Keel, “Kultischen Massnahmen.” Millar, “Background.” Prato, “Persecuzione religiosa.” Rajak, “Dying for the Law.” Rowley, “Menelaus.” Schürer, “Zu II Mcc 6,7.” Scurlock, “167 BCE.” Stemberger, Leib, 14–15. VanderKam, “2 Macc 6,7A.” Vergote, “Supplice.” 296 Translation and Commentary

Chapter VII

The Mother and Her Seven Sons

(1) It also happened that seven brothers had been arrested together with their mother and were being forced by the king, tortured by whips and cords, to touch the forbidden flesh of swine. (2) One of them becoming their spokesman, he spoke as follows: “What do you want to ask us and learn from us?! After all, we are ready to die and not transgress the ancestral laws!” (3) The king, losing his temper, ordered that skillets and pots be heated up. (4) As soon as they were heated up he ordered that they cut out the tongue of the one who had become their spokesman and, after scalping him about in the Scythian fashion, cut off his limbs while his remaining brothers and mother were watching. (5) Then, after he was totally helpless, he ordered that – still breathing – he be brought to the fire and fried. When the vapor had spread out considerably from the pan, together with the mother they encouraged one another to die nobly, saying: (6) “The Lord God watches over us and is in truth becoming reconciled with us, as Moses stated clearly in the song which face to face bears witness against us, saying, ‘And He will reconcile Himself with His servants’” (Deut 32:36). (7) The first having passed away this way, they led up the second to make sport of him. After they flayed the skin from his head, together with his hair, they asked him: “Will you eat rather than have your body punished bit by bit?” (8) But he, answering in the ancestral language, said forth- rightly: “No.” Therefore he too suffered the next torment, like the first (of the brothers). (9) As he was drawing his final breath he said: “You, O Avenger, free us from the present life, but the King of the cosmos will raise us up, since we have died for His laws, to eternal resurrection unto life.” (10) After him they made sport of the third, and when his tongue was demanded he immediately stuck it out, also courageously extending his hands, (11) and nobly said: “I acquired these from Heaven and on account of His laws I now look beyond them, hoping to receive them again from Him.” (12) Accordingly the king himself and those who were with him were stunned by the spirit of the youth, who accounted the pains as nothing. (13) He too having passed away they tormented the fourth one similarly, torturing him. (14) On the verge of death he said the following: “It is better Chapter VII 297 to pass away from among men in the expectation of the God-given hopes of again being resurrected by Him; you, in contrast, will have no resurrection unto life.” (15) Thereupon they led the fifth one forward and tortured him. (16) But looking at him he said: “Since you have authority among men you do what you want to do, although you are bound to perish. But do not think that our nation has been abandoned by God. (17) Be patient and you will observe His great strength, which shall torment you and your posterity.” (18) After him they led up the sixth, and when he was about to die he said: “Do not go astray idly; for we are suffering these things on our own account, having sinned against our own God. Amazing things have happened. (19) But you, who have undertaken to fight God – do not think you’ll get off scot-free.” (20) The mother was exceedingly amazing and worthy of being remembered well – she who, after watching the destruction of seven sons on one and the same day bore it in high morale due to her hopes upon the Lord. (21) In the ancestral language she encouraged each of them, filled with noble purpose. Awakening her womanly reasoning power with masculine fervor she said to them: (22) “I do not know how you appeared in my womb, nor was it I who bestowed upon you spirit and life; it was not I who arranged the various elements of each of you. (23) Therefore the Creator of the cosmos, He who designed the genesis of mankind and invented the genesis of everything, will in mercy return to you both spirit and life, just as you now look beyond yourselves due to His laws.” (24) Since the youngest boy still remained, Antiochus – thinking that he was being scoffed and suspecting the reproachful voice – made his appeal not only with mere words. Rather, he also promised, by oaths, that if the boy would turn away from the ancestral ways he would make him both rich and enviable, making him a Friend and entrusting him with commissions. (25) But since the youth paid him no attention at all, the king summoned the mother and urged her to be a counselor of salvation for the boy. (26) Since he urged her intensively, she agreed to influence her son. (27) Ben- ding down to him she spoke to him in the ancestral language as follows, mocking the cruel tyrant: “Son, pity me, who carried you about in my womb for nine months and nursed you for three years and brought you up and raised you and sustained you until your present age. (28) I ask you, child, to raise up your eyes and, seeing the heaven and the earth and all that is in them, know that God did not make them out of existing things; and so too did the human race come to be. (29) Do not fear this executioner. Rather, being worthy of your brothers, accept death, so that in the Mercy I will receive you back together with your brothers.” 298 Translation and Commentary

(30) As soon as she concluded that the youth said: “What are you waiting for? I will not obey the decree of the king, for I listen instead to the decree of the Law which was given to our fathers by Moses. (31) But you, having devised all the Hebrews’ troubles, will not escape the hands of God. (32) For we suffer for our own sins. (33) And if for the sake of punishment and edification our living Lord briefly became angry, He will again be reconciled with His own servants. (34) But you, O impious and most impure of all men, do not soar about prancing idly, trusting in some vague hopes, after you raised your hand against the children of Heaven. (35) For you have not yet escaped the judgment of the all-ruling overseeing God. (36) For our brothers, on the one hand, after undergoing brief suffering have come into God’s covenant of eternal life; you, on the other hand, shall in the divine judgment incur the just punishments for arrogance. (37) As for me, just as my brothers I give up both body and soul for the ancestral laws, calling upon God that He speedily become merciful to the people; and that you, after afflictions and scourging, will therefore admit that He alone is God; (38) and that, with me and my brothers, shall be stayed the anger of the All- Ruler which was justly loosed against our entire nation.” (39) The king, losing his temper and suffering bitterly from this sneering, treated this one worse than the others. (40) And so he passed away in purity, in complete faith in God. (41) The mother died last, after her sons. (42) Let that, on the one hand, be enough said about the eating of the entrails of sacrifices and the tortures which exceeded all bounds.

COMMENT

This is certainly the most famous chapter of our book, whether in the original, in translation, or in secondary versions, both Jewish and Christian, beginning with the Talmud and the midrash and through the Middle Ages. In a ruthlessly relentless way it pits seven brothers, one after the other, against the king, who demands that they submit to his decrees; each refuses, is tortured horribly, and dies nobly, all of them bespeaking their faith in God, some of them adding in their hope to be resurrected. And it all happens in the presence and with the encouragement of their mother, who in the end follows them to their fate. Coming as it does after Chapter 6, which pictured the elderly Eleazar as an example to youth, this chapter – which focuses on youths and on a woman and thus allows Jews of all ages and both sexes to share in martyrdom, just as 5:13, where, under the apparent inspiration of Deuteron- omy 32:25, they all share in the original suffering as well – concludes the Chapter VII 299 central martyrological section of the book. Its final verse carefully rounds out both chapters, and it is followed, immediately, and as a result, by God relenting and, hence, the beginning of redemption. Basically this chapter complements the preceding one. It should be noted, however, that there are two new emphases here – one on the national level and one on that of the individual. Concerning the nation (regarding which the Eleazar narrative took no interest), the present chapter emphasizes repeatedly that the death of martyrs causes God to become reconciled with His servants – vv. 6, 16, 33, 37–38. The language of “reconciliation” (καταλλσσ), used in vv. 6 and 33, shows – in consonance with the citation of Deuteronomy 32:36 in the former verse – that this hope builds upon the historical analysis presented in Deuteronomy 32: sin leads to punishment, punishment leads to suffering at the hands of a foreign oppressor (who, failing to realize that his license and success is solely due to God, becomes arrogant – Deut 32:27//above 5:17), suffering atones and hence “reconciles” God with His servants, whereupon He steps in and punishes the foreign oppressor. Thus, if already above (5:12–13, 17) we have seen our author’s use of Deuteronomy 32 to illumi- nate earlier parts of the story, he now applies it for the next step as well. Concerning the individual martyr: while for Eleazar (as for Socrates)1 it was simply noble to die rather than violate one’s principles, now we hear, repeatedly, that martyrs may hope for resurrection – vv. 9, 11, 14, 23, 29, 36. This is one of the earliest, and certainly the most intensive, sources for this belief in ancient Jewish texts – a belief that again surfaces, with emphasis, at the end of Chapter 12 and in the last verse of our book’s other martyrology (14:46). As for historicity: while there definitely were martyrs in the Antiochian persecutions (see 1 Macc 1:56–64; Daniel 11:32–33; As. Mos. 8), no one would claim that this story as such is anything more than a stylized didactic narrative, perhaps deriving, ultimately, from a historicization of Jere- miah 15:9, which refers to the unfortunate mother of seven who died the same day they did.2 Moreover, although the story seems to transpire in Je- rusalem and clearly has the king present, we know from Chapter 5 (and from 1 Macc 1) that in fact Antiochus was not in Judaea; having the king rather than some underling play the antagonist is characteristic of folklore.

1 For this comparison, see NOTE on 6:30, on the verge of dying … said. 2 For the possibility that it was preceded, in turn, by yet another story, about a father with seven sons (such as that later found in As. Mos. 9), see Nickelsburg, Resurrec- tion, 97–109. 300 Translation and Commentary

For the speculation that the story referred, originally, to a persecution in Antioch, see p. 19, n. 47.

NOTES

7:1. It also happened. The fact that the chapter neither links up to the preceding one (contrast Chs. 4, 8) nor opens with a comment about the passing of time (contrast Chs. 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14) reminds us that we are still in a timeless excursus, in which we are now, so to speak, about to view another tableau. Cf. NOTE on 6:17, the narrative. seven brothers … together with (μετ#) their mother. This picks up on the emphasis, at the end of Chapter 6, that Eleazar’s death should serve as an example for youth, the preposition setting off their mother as an addition. But see the beginning of NOTE on v. 21, awakening her womanly reasoning power. by the king. Here, and in the continuation of the chapter, the king is said to be present. Given the apparent presumption that the events are taking place in Je- rusalem, this is a problem, for above we were told that the king had returned to Antioch and that his decrees were enforced by various officials (5:21; 6:1; so too 1 Macc 1:24ff). This may well indicate that our story was not composed by our author, but was, rather, taken from an extant source. For other arguments leading in the same direction, see Introduction, pp. 19–20. If so, however, then it is characteristic of his interests that he took pains to make the chapter fit in theologically with the rest of his book (see COMMENT above, on “reconciliation” and resurrection), but overlooked the historical issue. were being … tortured. The imperfect is just as at the beginning of Eleazar’s story, for the same reason; see NOTE on 6:18, was being forced. to touch (φ#πτεσ αι). Some translate “eat” – so Grimm, Bévenot, Ha- bicht, and Goldstein ad loc., also Kellermann, Auferstanden, 20. But “touch” is the normal translation, and it is also reflected in some of the Latin versions (“contingere”), followed (as usual) by Abel (“toucher”). We should assume that this is a bit of rhetorical intensification: the king wanted to force them (as Eleazar) to eat the forbidden meat, but they refused even to touch it. forbidden flesh. On ωμιτο« see NOTE on 6:5, forbidden things … It may be that this clarification, that swine’s flesh is forbidden to Jews, is – just as Chapter VII 301 the similar notes about the sanctity of the Sabbath (5:25) and the prohibition of idols (12:40) – meant for non-Jewish readers. See Introduction, p. 94. of swine. As opposed to the preceding story, where the meat proffered to Eleazar was sacrificial (6:21), here the reference seems to be a problem of kashrut alone. For the educational advantages of this, see NOTE on 6:18, swine-flesh.

2. ready to die. A typically diasporan stance: we are ready to die, not to fight. Cf. Philo, Legatio 229–230; Josephus, Antiquities 18.271; Gafni, “Jo- sephus and I Maccabees,” 124–125; Jossa, “La storiografia giudeo-ellenistica,” 96; Kippenberg, Erlösungsreligionen, 206–209; Schwartz, Agrippa, 81.3 But when the Jews do have soldiers, they too are willing to die: 8:21; 13:14. ancestral laws. See NOTE on 6:1, ancestral laws. Note that apart from that verse the present chapter (vv. 2, 24, 37) is the only part of our book which uses this term. True, for a chapter about seven sons it might be especially appropriate to speak about “fathers,” but when taken together with the lack of all “political” terminology in this chapter, of the type which is so characteristic of the book as a whole, and with other considerations, it seems likely that this use of different concepts also reflects the use of a different source; see NOTE on v. 1, by the king.

3. losing his temper (6κψμο« γενμενο«). This expression appears in the Septuagint only in our book: here, v. 39, and 14:27. Note, moreover, that our book uses it negatively, the usual sense is positive – “spirited,” “ardent” (LSJ, 507). For Antiochus as a man of ψμ«, as opposed to his philosophical victims, see also NOTE on 9:4, Borne on the wave of his temper. skillets and pots. For a similar description in Jewish martyrological literature (“they took hold of him and put him in a gridiron and roasted him alive”), see Pesiqta Rabbati (ed. Ish-Shalom, §43, 180b; English: Pesikta Rabbati, II [trans. W. G. Braude; New Haven & London: Yale, 1968] 761). For Christian literature, see Döpler, Theatrum 2.538–539.

3 For the typically diasporan nature of this emphasis on martyrdom, see also Yudka’s speech in Haim Hazaz’s “The Sermon” (in English in: J. Blocker [ed.], Israeli Stories [New York: Schocken, 1966] 66–86). 302 Translation and Commentary heated up (κπψρο ν). For this sense of the verb, cf. Polybius 12.25.2, where it is used, as here, in describing a tyrant’s instrument of torture.

4. he ordered. I.e., the king ordered, as in the next verse as well. The king is mentioned explicitly very rarely in this chapter (vv. 1, 3, 12, 25, 30, 39), something which points up the fact that he is, throughout, the antagonist par excellence. cut out the tongue … limbs. In the best of Assyrian and Persian tradition; see esp. Arrian 4.7.3–4, together with A. B. Bosworth, A Historical Com- mentary on Arrian’s History of Alexander, II (Oxford: Clarendon, 1980) 2.44–45. Thus, Antiochus is depicted as a cruel oriental despot; for a similar report about Antiochus’ father, see Polybius 8.21.3 (and Walbank, Polybius 2.97). A Jew, of course, might do something terrible like this only to a corpse, and even then, of course, only to an arch-villain: 15:33. scalping him about in the Scythian fashion. For the fabled cruelty and general lack of culture of the Scythians, see NOTE on 4:47, Scythians. On Scythian scalping of their victims, reflected both in literature and in archeological finds, see Herodotus 4.64 and R. Rolle, The World of the Scythians (Berkeley & Los Angeles: Univ. of California, 1989) 82–85. For scalping see also v. 7.

5. nobly (γεννα,«). See NOTE on 6:28, noble … nobly.

6. watches over us (φορ4). A common motif in our book; see NOTE on 3:39, watches over. which … bears witness. This echoes the diction of Deuteronomy 31:19, which explains that the Song of Moses (Deut 32) is meant to be a witness on behalf of God against the sinful Israelites – proof, if ever needed, that they had been warned about the consequences of sin; see also vv. 26, 28. For the central role of Deuteronomy 32 in our book, see NOTE on the end of the present verse. face to face (κατ πρ2σ,πον). For the immediacy indicated here, see also Acts 25:16; BDAG, 888.

“And He will reconcile Himself with His servants.” This is the second line of the LXX version of Deuteronomy 32:36; the first line (which also appears as Ps 135:14) promises that God “will judge His people.” That is, taken together, the verse promises that God will judge His people and then become reconciled with them. The promise of reconciliation reappears in Chapter VII 303 our v. 33, in the words of the seventh son – thus framing this chapter – and it also shows up again at 8:29; in both cases the fact of allusion to our verse is clinched by the fact that the reference to “reconciliation” comes together, as in Deuteronomy, with terming the Jews God’s “servants” (δολοι). Note that while the present verse has παρακλησεται, as the LXX, the allusions in 7:33 and 8:29 instead use forms of καταλσσ; apparently the author, or copyists, took care to make the formal citation match the Septua- gint version but failed to do so regarding the allusions. In general, it is clear that it is the latter verb which our author used for “reconciliation;” on it, see Porter, Καταλλ#σσ, in Ancient Greek Literature. On the fundamental importance of Deuteronomy 32 for our book, see above, pp. 21–23.

7. having passed away (μεταλλαντο«). But, as Eleazar (6:31), not “from life;” see NOTE on v. 14, pass away from among men. flayed the skin from his head. An apparent reference to scalping, as in v. 4. For this type of torture, see: Herodotus 7.26; Aristophanes, Frogs 619 and Clouds 442; Xenophon, Anabasis 1.2.8; Ten Martyrs, 52*-54*; Döpler, Theatrum, 361–367.

Will you eat (ε0 φ#γεσαι). For such a formulation of a direct question, cf. 15:3 and Grimm, 2 Macc, 121. your body (τ( σ*μα) punished bit by bit (κατ μωλο«). Which is, quite appropriately, what eventually happened to Antiochus himself, according to 9:7 (τ? μωλη το σματο« ποστρεβλοσαι).

8. ancestral language. Hebrew, not Aramaic, which our book terms “Sy- rian” (15:36); see NOTE on 12:37, ancestral language. As Himmelfarb notes (“Judaism and Hellenism,” 37), our author could have allowed even the most provincial of Jews to say “no” in Greek, so the use of Hebrew here should be seen as an expression of defiance.

9. Avenger (λ#στ,ρ). For this idea, see NOTE on 4:16, nemeses. For the term, LSJ, 60–61, §I; Josephus, War 1.596; Antiquities 17.1. Gutman (“The Mother,”31) and van Henten (Maccabean Martyrs, 167), following the passive meaning of the term (LSJ, 60–61 §II), take it to mean, instead, “a person whose evil deeds merit vengeance.” However, that seems to conform less to the general trend of this chapter, both implicit in its general dependence upon Deuteronomy 32 (see opening COMMENT) and explicit (vv. 18, 32–33), as that of the book as a whole (see esp. 4:16–17; 5:17–20; 6:12–16), which em- 304 Translation and Commentary phasizes that the persecutor is in fact God’s agent to punish His sinful people. Of course, that does not make the persecutor (who is ignorant of the true situation that allows for his success) into a good person, hence the ambiguity of the term here. Cf. Kellermann, Auferstanden, 23: somewhat appropriately having it both ways, he translates “Verbrecher” but in his note adds, in connection with War 1.596, the parenthetical explanation: “Rachegeist.” free (πολει«). This is precisely the reverse of the situation in Chapter 6: there it was suggested to Eleazar that he be freed (πολψ@ – v. 22) from death by pretending to give in, and he refused to be freed (πολψAναι – v. 30), while here, according to the second son, a courageous stance which will bring about his death will in fact free him from the present life – which anyway, in comparison with eternal life, is only a pretence. For another twist of this motif, cf. below, NOTE on 12:45, in order that they be released from the sin. For the view of the body as an impediment to the soul, and its Platonic background, cf. esp. Wisdom 9:15: φαρτ9ν γ?ρ σ7μα βαρ νει χψξν (“for the perishable body weighs down the soul”), along with Win- ston, Wisdom, 207. Cf. the Greek expression which equates σAμα and σ7μα (grave and body) – Plato, Gorgias 493a, etc.; S. J. K. Pearce, The Land of the Body: Studies in Philo’s Representation of Egypt (WUNT 208; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), esp. 85–87. raise us up. For belief in resurrection in this period, see esp. Daniel 12:2 and 1 Enoch 91:10; Nickelsburg, Resurrection; Stemberger, Leib (5–25 on 2 Macc); Kellermann, Auferstanden (20–34: commentary on Ch. 7); Schwankl, Sadduzäerfrage, 173–292 (245–259 on 2 Macc). See also our NOTE on v. 14, pass away from among men. As especially Kellermann emphasizes, our chapter differs from Daniel 12:2 (echoed at Matt 25:46), which has all beings resurrected and then standing in differential judgment, in that it – in consonance with its view that the righteous may escape from their bodies (v. 9) – holds that only the righteous are to be resurrected (see esp. v. 14).4 So too, perhaps, Psalms 1:5–6: “the wicked will not arise in judgment … for their way shall perish.”

4 Stemberger (Leib, 18) argues that 6:26, where Eleazar says that if he (sinfully) gives in to the royal decrees he will escape God neither alive nor dead, shows that sinners too go living after their death and thus excludes the plain meaning of 7:14. But there is no need to expect totally consistent theology from our author, nor should Ch. 6 govern the interpretation of Ch. 7. Moreover, Eleazar was a Jew and a basically righteous man, and his confidence in his own life after death even if he sins here and there need not imply the same for such a thoroughly wicked person as Antiochus. Chapter VII 305 for His laws. See NOTE on 6:23, divinely-established legislation.

10. when his tongue was demanded he immediately stuck it out (ταξω,« προωβαλε). See NOTE on v. 4, cut out the tongue. The willing sticking out of the tongue was something of a martyrological topos; see, for example, Eusebius, Martyrs of Palestine 2.3 (σμων« προψβλλετο τ"ν γλBτταν).

11. nobly. As in v. 5. said. Some manuscripts of the Latin version omit this verse, but that may only be because someone wondered how he could talk after his tongue was cut out. But either one assumes that he managed to get the sentence in before it was cut out (after all, the cutting out is not actually mentioned in v. 10), or one concludes that questions like that are not appropriate to literature like this. Cf. Haenchen, Acts, 172, n. 1. from Heaven. That here this term (ο.ραν«) alludes to God Himself (and not just to the place of His habitation, as in 3:39 etc.) is shown by the use of “His laws;” as in v. 9, the laws are God’s. For “Heaven” as a way of referring to God, see also v. 34 and Urbach, Sages, 1.69–71. look beyond. Given the reference to Heaven in the first part of the verse, it seems that 3περορ here means not merely “ignore” or “despise” (cf. Spicq, Notes, 2.899–900); rather, we should emphasize the opening 3πωρ and understand that here, as in v. 23, the speaker is looking “above” his own body, toward heaven. Cf. above, p. 81. For the comparison of martyrs to ascetics, another type of religious hero who “looks above” his or her body, see M. A. Tilley, “The Ascetic Body and the (Un)Making of the World of the Martyr,” JAAR 59 (1991) 467–479. hoping. The use of “hope” in connection with resurrection recurs at vv. 14 and 20 (contrast v. 34!), and elsewhere seems to function almost as its syn- onym; see Acts 23:6; 24:15; 26:6, and van Menxel, 7Ελπ«: Espoir, Espér- ance, esp. 283–295; Bons, “ΕΛΠΙΣ,” esp. 356–360.

12. stunned. For the common motif that observers were astonished by the fortitude of those being tortured, see e.g. Diodorus 17.107.5; Josephus, Against Apion 2.233–234; Martyrium Polycarpi 3.2 (in which connection Buschmann [Martyrium, 118] notes that this is a traditional motif and adds further references). 306 Translation and Commentary

14. pass away from among men. For the translation, see Habicht, 2 Macc, 235, n. 14a. It seems that this full formulation, which adds “from among men,” explains the plainer “pass away” used here in connection with martyrs (vv. 7, 13, 40; see also 6:31 and 14:46), in contrast to others who “pass out of life” (4:7; 5:5; cf. “ended his life” at 9:28 and “left life behind” at 10:13). That is, the martyrs depart from among men alone, but they go on living – as opposed to others, especially the wicked, for whom death is the end of life; cf. v. 9, raise us up. For the Hellenistic background of the use of μεταλλσσ in connection with death see Welles, RC, 348; Spicq, Notes, 2.553; E. Kornemann, “Zur Geschichte des antiken Herrscherkulte,” Klio 1 (1901) 61, n. 1. At first the verb was used only with regard to heroes, thought to be immortal, but in time it became equivalent to plain “die;” see Stemberger, Leib, 10. The result is that when the author of a Seleucid document wants to claim immortality for someone the mere verb does not suffice and something must be added, as below at 11:23. expectation of … hopes. See NOTE on v. 11, hoping.

16. Since you have authority among men. That is, “over men” (Abel: “autorité sur les hommes”), as is reflected in some of the Latin versions: “potestatem hominum.” Habicht translated “Macht hast Du, als ein Ver- gänglicher, unter den Menschen …,” as if the point were that Antiochus’ authority is limited to the time in which he is among men. But this requires him to view the two elements of ν νρποι« 6ξν // φαρτ9« Hν as synonymous, and, furthermore, by leaving the object of power (the men Anti- ochus rules) unspecified Habicht’s reading fails to prepare us well for the next verse, where we read of God’s power over the king and his seed: the king has power over men, but God has power over him. although you are bound to perish (φ αρτ2«). For the same adjective in the same context, see Wisdom 9:15, cited above at v. 9, free. It is frequent in Philo; see, for example, On Dreams 2.253 (on the soul’s desire to pass from the φορν world to that which is 5φαρτον); The Worse Attacks the Better 49 (the wise man lives a life which is 5φαρτο« and seems to die to the life which is φαρτ«). Cf. esp. 1 Cor 15:42–55.

Do not think that our nation has been abandoned. Something which 6:16 says can never happen.

17. Be patient. There is some irony here, in that he who is being tortured asks his tormentor to be patient. This should be understood as a threat, à la “You just wait.” Chapter VII 307 observe His great strength. Just as it was seen by Heliodorus (3:28) and will be seen by Nicanor (8:36), Antiochus (9:11–12) and Lysias (11:13) – a very important point for our writer (see Introduction, p. 48).

18. Do not go astray idly … on our own account, having sinned. Here the sixth son applies the notion posited by our author in his excursus at 5:17: Antiochus, fulfilling Deuteronomy 32:27ff., did not understand that he was successful against the Jews only because their God was using him to punish them for their sins. For another case of such rhetorical concern for the tormentor, see 15:2. On the verb πλαν see NOTE on 6:25, go astray. suffering. For the nuances of πσξ see L. Boreham, “The Semantic Development of πσξ,” Glotta 49 (1971) 231–244. In the Hellenistic period the negative sense, “suffer,” came to predominate; so too here (as also in v. 32, which repeats our verse almost verbatim). For the tendency to use the verb even to denote death (e.g. Ant. 15.65; Acts 1:3), see BDAG, 785, §3aα; it could be that this too is implied here.

Amazing things have happened (.-ια αψμασμο γωγονε). If along with Hanhart, Abel and Goldstein we retain this parenthetical comment, its point is that amazing things have happened to the Jews as a result of their sins. Read this way, we must take this verse as in opposition with the next: “True, amazing things have happened (to us) …, but you …” But it seems that such an interpretation requires us to read quite a lot into a short text. Moreover, note that a number of witnesses lack these words, so perhaps we should omit them; for the suggestion that they began as a marginal note, see Katz, “Text,” 19–20, in the wake of De Bruyne, Anciennes traductions, xi. More- over, as Habicht suggests (2Macc, 235, n. 18a), it in fact seems likelier that such a marginal note was meant to refer to the next verse, as an alternative reading for the comment on the mother there (in which case the accenting would have been α [“worthy” in the feminine singular] rather than 5ια [“amazing things”]).

19. undertaken. See NOTE on 9:2, set his hand. to fight God. The motif of εομαξα was widespread in Greek literature, such as in Euripides’ Bacchae; see Gutmann, “The Mother,” 29–31; GLA, 1.86; Nestle, “Legenden;” J. C. Kamerbeek, “On the Conception of ΥΕΟ- ΜΑΞΟΣ in Relation with Greek Tragedy,” Mnemosyne, 4th series, 1 (1948) 271–283. See also Acts 5:39 and Josephus, War 5.378. At this point the author has not clarified how, precisely, persecuting Jews constitutes “fight- 308 Translation and Commentary ing God.” Perhaps no explanation is needed, but in any case it will be indicated at v. 34 where – again, as here, with reference to Antiochus having raised his hand – the Jews are characterized as the children of Heaven, that is, as God’s protégés.

20. The mother. By turning to the mother, when we all expect to hear of the seventh son, the author announces that the last scene will be more extensive than all the others. Indeed, more space will be devoted to it than to all the others combined. exceedingly amazing and worthy of being remembered well … high morale ( ’8περαγ2ντ,« … αψμαστ' κα3 μνμη« γα « -α … ε/χξ,«). For amazement at the martyr’s comportment, see NOTE on v. 12, stunned, and cf. esp. Polybius 16.30.2–4: the siege of Abydus was amazing (αψμσιο«) not so much due to the efforts of the besiegers as due to the nobility and outstanding spirit (ε.χψξα – see 14:18) of the besieged, who were worthy of memory (μνμη« α) and of being passed down from generation to generation. For epitaphs on graves of Jewish women, see van der Horst, Epi- taphs, 102–113 (with p. 45 on μνμη). seven sons. The author hereby gives up any chance of sustaining the readers’ suspense; throughout all the coming speeches, the reader knows that the last son too will die. on one and the same day. Lit. “in the time of one day”. The expression recurs at 3 Maccabees 4:14, and may derive, ultimately, from Jeremiah 15:9. hopes. See NOTE on v. 11, hoping.

21. ancestral language. See NOTE on v. 8, ancestral language. But there only one simple word (“no”) was said in the ancestral language, while here we are given an entire speech and the king cannot understand it.

Awakening her womanly reasoning power … masculine fervor (τ(ν λψν λογισμ(ν .ρσενι ψμ9 διεγερασα). Cf. 15:10: “Awakening them in their rage” (το« ψμο« διεγερα« α.το «). On λογισμ«, see NOTE on 6:23, honorable argument. By having the mother become masculine, the author inducts her into the same group as her sons, all of whom followed the manly model of Eleazar (6:31); cf. Young, “‘Woman’,” 70. But this verse’s notions concerning women and their reasoning, and in what sense the mother became masculine, are not at all clear. Does it assume that women have good Chapter VII 309 reasoning power but normally lack the fervor needed to translate their thoughts into actions? Or does it mean, rather, that their reasoning is in fact impaired, sluggish and in need of being awakened, because of their lack of fervor? The former notion would invite us to imagine this woman as an intelligent woman who was normally quiet and modest but departed from her usual limitations due to the special situation – a latter-day Deborah or Judith. But the other notion seems preferable, that is, our text seems to echo texts like Polybius 2.4.8, where the historian explained a queen’s wrong-headed policies by saying that she was following womanly reasoning (ξρμωνη δM λογισμο« γψναικεοι«). Such scorn for women is also apparent in Polybius’ statement about Prusias II of Bithynia: “He was not only a coward, but also unfit for all suffering, in short: womanly (κτεηλψμμωνο«) in both spirit and body throughout his life” (Poly- bius 36.15); see also 2.56.9, where bad historiography is said to be full of scenes that are ignoble and womanly (γεννM« κα/ γψναικ7δε«), and for example, Josephus, War 1.59, where John Hyrcanus, overcome by emotion and therefore unable to function, is said to have become a woman. See also van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 234, who cites, inter alia, Philo, Legatio 319–320: “women’s intellects are somewhat weak and cannot grasp any mental concept but only objects of sense.” See also Brown, Body and So- ciety, 9–10; Dover, Morality, 98–102 (referring inter alia to Euripides, Orestes, 1204–1205); Eckstein, Moral Vision, 150–157; R. A. Baer, Jr., Philo’s Use of the Categories Male and Female (ALGHJ 3; Leiden: Brill, 1970); D. Sly, Philo’s Perception of Women (BJS 209; Atlanta: Scholars, 1990) esp. 66–67 (on Philo’s avoidance of characterizing the matriarch Sarah as a woman, when he sets her up as an example for men – Spec. leg. 2.54–55); J. R. Wegner, “Philo’s Portrayal of Women.” For virility, on the other hand, see NOTE on 6:31, virtue, and below, NOTE on 8:7, And the fame of his manly valor. Given all of this, it is difficult to imagine our author thinking that the perfect combination is womanly reason and masculine fervor. It seems, rather, that he was of the opinion that thinking too is best when done by men, and that what we have here is an exceptional case of a woman attaining that masculinity. For the frequent motif in early Christian literature that a woman saint becomes – in some sense or other – a man (or even that “Jesus said: … every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven” [Gospel of Thomas §114, trans. Lambdin]), see E. Castelli, “‘I Will Make Mary Male:’ Pieties of the Body and Gender Transformation of Christian Women in Late Antiquity,” in: Body Guards: The Cultural Politics of Gender Ambiguity (ed. J. Epstein & K. Straub; New York & London: Routledge, 1991) 29–49. 310 Translation and Commentary

22. you … you … each of you. The second person plural is used, in light of the statement in v. 21 that she (had) encouraged each of the sons. spirit and life. As in the next verse, also in 14:46, although there reversed. arranged. LSJ (410) cites apart from this verse only a single inscription as evidence for διαρρψμζ, which literally means “arrange in rhythm or proportion.” The text is reminiscent of the line in the “Nishmat” prayer said on Jewish sabbaths and holidays, which refers to “the bodily parts which you distinguished within us and the spirit and the soul that you breathed into our noses” (Hertz, Authorised Daily Prayer Book, 2.418–419 [my translation]). the various elements (στοιξε,σιν). For the translation, see esp. Grimm, 2 Macc, 126, along with LSJ, 1647.

23. genesis of mankind … genesis of everything. See Hanhart, Text, 40–41. look beyond. See NOTE on v. 11, look beyond. due to His laws. See NOTE on v. 2, ancestral laws.

24. youngest. Lit. “the younger” (νετερο« – comparative, not superlative). For Hellenistic use of the comparative in a superlative sense (as also at 12:14 and elsewhere), see Mayser, Grammatik II/1, 49 (and ibid. 47 on the nuances of νετερο«). reproachful (:νειδζοψσαν) voice. The king suspected the voice because he couldn’t understand the mother’s words, which were in the ancestral language (v. 21, as also v. 27): since the words were in a reproachful tone,5 he thought he himself was being mocked. In fact, however, this is just a reflection of the king’s arrogance, his assumption that he must be in the center of things. In fact, as the readers know, the mother had ignored the king in her words (vv. 21–24), and although that ipso facto entails disre- spect for the king, what he had suspected to be words mocking him were in

5 Some translators render the verse as if it says Antiochus suspected the voice was rebuking; so for example Grimm, 2 Macc, 125–126; Abel, Macc, 377; and van Henten & Avemarie, Martyrdom and Noble Death, 69. But the text says, as the RSV renders, that “he was suspicious of her reproachful tone” (τ"ν νειδζοψσαν 3φορμενο« φνν); so too Habicht, 2 Macc, 236 (“die schmähende Stimme beargwöhnte”). Chapter VII 311 fact (so it seems) the mother’s earnest urging of her sons to be steadfast. Characterization of that as “reproachful” seems to imply that she was arguing against some tendency to give in to the king – an implication that plays up the mother’s role, as does this entire section of the chapter. his appeal. This translation of παρκλησι« is according to the context; so too at 13:23. But note that in this chapter the same root denotes the way the brothers (v. 5) and their mother (v. 21) encouraged one another to resist the king. So the king turns out to be pleading a case opposite the mother: he and she are competing with one another for the seventh son. That is, our author is exploiting the broad semantic field of this term, which runs the gamut from encouragement and consolation all the way to legal pleading; see the dictionaries and also J. G. Davies, “The Primary Meaning of ΠΑΡΑ- ΚΛΗΤΟΣ,” JTS n.s. 4 (1953) 35–38. Note too the promise, in v. 6, that God will “become reconciled” – παρακαλεται. Thus the stage is set for a clear-cut choice between two sides: here, God and family, there – the king. For similar moves by our author, who uses the same word for the alternatives chosen by both conflicting and competing sides, see NOTE on 4:2, zealot for the laws. a Friend. See NOTE on 1:14, Friends. commissions. For ξρωια as a function, service, and esp. as a position a king might bestow upon someone, see also 15:5; 1 Maccabees 13:37; Holleaux, Études 3.227–228.

25. youth … boy. On νεανα« and μειρκιον see LSJ, 1163 and 1093; between the two, a teenager would seem to be indicated; cf. NOTE on v. 28, child. summoned … counselor (προσκαλεσ#μενο« … σμβοψλον). These words too, as “appeal” in the preceding verse, contribute to the quasi-legal atmos- phere of the confrontation. On “summoning” see NOTE on 4:28, summoned.

27. mocking. Cf. 6:21: there Eleazar refused to mislead the Jews, but here the mother does indeed mislead the king, thus leaving the full-fledged open defiance to the boy. Note the irony here: at v. 24 the king thought he was being mocked, which was not really the case (see NOTE on v. 24, reproachful voice), and now, when he thought the mother was doing his bidding, she was in fact mocking him. This king is always wrong! 312 Translation and Commentary cruel tyrant. Same combination – 4:25. pity me. Here the author inserts an element of suspense, letting the reader think, for a moment, that the mother is going to ask her son to avoid martyrdom for her sake – which would not only be ignoble, but also contradict the statement that she mocked the king. nursed you for three years. For the rabbis’ assumption that nursing usually lasted two years, see m. Gittin 7:6; t. Niddah 2:2–4; H. Albeck, Shishah Sid- rei Mishnah: Tohorot (Jerusalem: Bialik & Tel-Aviv: Dvir, 1959) 584 (in Hebrew). For biblical hints of long nursing, see: Gruber, “Women in the Cult,” 48, n. 10. raised you and sustained you (κ ρωχασ#ν σε κα3 γαγο σαν). For the same combination of verbs see 1 Maccabees 6:15. According to Grimm (1 Macc, 95), the former refers more to physical care, the latter – to education. On the text here, see Hanhart, Text, 24.

28. child (τωκνον). For emphasis upon the fact that this term need not indicate anything about the child’s age, and that elderly parents could address even mature children this way (cf. NOTE on v. 25, youth … boy), see: G. Delling, Studien zum Neuen Testament und zum hellenistischen Juden- tum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970) 270–280. raise up your eyes. See NOTE on v. 11, look beyond (although another verb is used). The continuation seems to indicate an allusion to Isaiah 40:26: “Lift up your eyes on high and see: Who created these?” the heaven and the earth and all that is in them. This is a typical Semitic, non-Greek, formulation. See, for example, Exodus 20:11; Nehemiah 9:6; LXX Esther 4:17c; Acts 17:24; Gärtner, Areopagus Speech, 172–173; Zim- mermann, Namen des Vaters, 374. For other biblicisms in this chapter, see p. 20.

God did not make (ποησεν) them out of existing things. Rather, “ex nihilo.” Goldstein (2 Macc, 307–315) correctly notes that this doctrine is not set out here in a very exact form. However, our book is not a philosophical tract, and the lack of precision is not sufficient reason to reject the exegetical tradition which, beginning with Origen (see Introduction, p. 58), indeed sees here the doctrine of creation ex nihilo; for more references, see Goldstein, 2 Macc, 307. The point of the analogy is that just as God’s power is dem- Chapter VII 313 onstrated by the creation of a fetus with no participation by the fetus itself, so too is it demonstrated by the world which too did not participate in its own creation; such demonstrations of God’s power are meant to arouse in the believer’s mind the conviction that God will be able to reward him for his devotion. As Goldstein notes, there is a link between this belief and the belief in resurrection, for when the body is destroyed, for example via fire – as in the present chapter, as is explicit with regard to the first son – there is need for a new creation out of nothing in order to allow for resurrection; see, on this point, the exchange between J. A. Goldstein (“The Origins of the Doctrine of Creation Ex Nihilo,” JJS 35 [1984] 127–135) and D. Winston (“Creation Ex Nihilo Revisited: A Reply to Jonathan Goldstein,” JJS 37 [1986] 88–91). human race. The mother bespeaks, characteristically for our author, a universal philosophy and not one that regards the Jews alone; see NOTE on 4:35, of the man.

29. executioner. See NOTE on 5:8, executioner. in the Mercy (ν τ9 λωει). See also v. 38 and 8:5, 27. What seems to be meant is the time of mercy, namely, the one promised at Isaiah 54:7; see our next comment.

I will receive you back. Under the circumstances, this implies that the mother too will be resurrected. For the mother receiving her children back at the time of Mercy, after they had been abandoned “for a short time” during which God had “hidden his face” in anger (see our 5:17), see Isaiah 54:7–8.

30. As soon as. Hanhart’s text here, RΑρτι, was suggested by Kappler (Memoria, 64), instead of the 6τι of the witnesses, on the basis of 9:5; 10:12; and 3 Maccabees 6:16.

What are you waiting for? (Τνα μωνετε). This youth’s words and comportment remind us of Antigone’s stance before the tyrant Creon (according to Sophocles’ play): after she explained to him that she rejects his laws because they were given neither by Zeus nor by Justice (line 450ff.), but only by a mortal (νητ9ν ν0 – cf. below, 9:12), whereupon he threatened her with torture (line 473ff.), her response at l. 499 is merely τ δAτα μωλλει«, “why dally then?” (trans. F. Storr, LCL). So too Martyrium Polycarpi 11.1: when threatened with being burned alive the hero responds λλ τ βραδ νει«, “But why delay?” 314 Translation and Commentary decree of the king … decree of the Law. On προστγματα as royal decrees, see Hollleaux, Études 3.205–207 and Lenger, Corpus; as here, already the epistles use the term with regard to the laws of the Torah – 1:4; 2:2. See also the use of the verb in 15:3, 5 – there too in a confrontation between the Seleucid king and the heavenly One. Thus, the seventh son declares his refusal to submit by contrasting the king’s demands frontally with those of Judaism. The youth’s response is similar to Polycarp’s, when it was demanded that he swear by the genius (τ ξη) of the emperor: “How can I blaspheme my king who has saved me?” (Martyrium Polycarpi 9.3). For prostagma as a loan-word in rabbinic Hebrew, used (as here) of God’s laws in explicit contrast to those of earthly kings, see Leviticus Rabbah 27:6 (ed. Margaliot, 637); Sperber, Dictionary, 157–159. On the other hand, in more irenic circumstances we also find Jews happy to make the apologetic claim that those who observe God’s prostagmata will loyally observe the king’s as well; see 3 Maccabees 7:11 and Philo, Legatio 160. by Moses. Cf. NOTE on 3:15, Him who legislated.

31. having devised all the Hebrews’ troubles. For similar formulations, see 4:47 and 13:4 (both of Menelaus).

Hebrews. This term for the Jews appears only twice elsewhere in our book: 11:13 and 15:37, just as in general it is rare in literature and inscriptions of the Second Temple period. It has an archaic sound, hinting that the Jews so described are faithful adherents to the traditions of their ancestors. See Har- vey, True Israel, 114–115; D. T. Runia, “Philonic Nomenclature,” SPA 6 (1994) 14–17.

32. suffer … sins. Almost precise repetition of v. 18, and anticipation of v. 33 – so much so that De Bruyne (Anciennes traductions, xi) and Katz (“Text,” 20) would eliminate it as secondary. But as usual these considerations are a double-edged sword, for if the verse were so superfluous, why would someone add it (see above, p. 93)? Moreover, the fact that it repeats something said fourteen verses earlier is hardly a problem, and in contrast to v. 33 this verse refers explicitly to the Jews’ sins.

33. punishment. The term ππληι« is rare and in the Septuagint appears only here. It basically means “reproof,” “accusation,” but the meaning “punishment” is attested by papyri; see LSJ, 651 (which cites our verse in support of “in a strong sense, punishment”). Chapter VII 315 edification. Here the author picks up the heavy term paideia, which he used prominently in his introduction to this whole martyrology section (6:12, 16), thus signaling that he is beginning to summarize. living Lord. Recurs at 15:4, there too in the context of a declaration to a persecutor. For this emphasis upon God’s being alive, something which gives even youths the confidence to defy persecutors, Goldstein (2 Macc, 316) compared David’s confidence on the eve of his struggle with Goliath: 1 Samuel 17:26, 36. In general, see S. Kreuzer, Der lebendige Gott (Stutt- gart: Kohlhammer, 1983) and Zimmermann, Namen des Vaters, 385–531; as with regard to other texts that describe God this way, so too at pp. 389 and 472–474 with regard to our verse and this chapter in general, Zimmer- mann emphasizes the link between God’s being alive and His ability to revive the dead. briefly. See NOTES on v. 29, I will receive you back, and on 5:17, briefly. became angry. At us, face to face (see v. 6!); see our NOTE on 5:17, distanced Himself … in anger. be reconciled with His own servants. See NOTE on v. 6, “And He will reconcile Himself with His servants.”

34. impious. The nasty adjective νσιο« was associated with Jews by Manetho (Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.248 = GLA I, no. 21), and over time it became standard in anti-Semitic usage; see A. Fuks, “Aspects of the Jewish Re- volt in A.D. 115–117,” JRS 51 (1961) 103–4. On the adjective, see Dover, Morality, 253. In his n. 81 Fuks remarks that “before A.D. 115–117 the adjective was never a standing designation of the Jews,” but the way our author is happy, here and at 8:32, to use it of the Jews’ enemies, just as are the other Jewish authors cited by Fuks (Let. Arist. 289; Philo, In Flaccum 104), makes us wonder. Cf. our NOTE on 4:39, robbery from the Temple. most impure (μιαρ1τατε). See NOTE on 5:16, abominable hands. vague hopes. In contrast to the clear and certain ones held by Jews; see NOTE on v. 11, hoping. children of Heaven. Lit. “heavenly children.” On the text, see Hanhart, Text, 40. For “Heaven” as a way of referring to God, see NOTE on v. 11, from Heaven. The notion that the Jews are God’s children – a notion par- 316 Translation and Commentary ticularly useful in a chapter like this which is devoted to children and their mother but ignores their father – appears in other, similar texts, such as 3 Maccabees 6:28 (which also emphasizes that God is in heaven); Wis- dom 12:19; Psalms of Solomon 17:30. In connection with suffering, note esp. Deuteronomy 8:5, which has God “edifying” (punishing) the Children of Israel as a father does his sons; see our NOTE on v. 33, became angry. For the conclusion that our verse refers to the holy martyrs on earth as God’s children, see Hanhart, “Heiligen,” 94–95. Note, however, that the Hebrew phrase “sons of Heaven” or “sons of God” can also refer to angels; see 1QS 4:22 and 11:8; 1QH 3:21–22; 1 Enoch 6:2; 14:3, etc.; Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 104; M. Black, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch (SVTP 7; Leiden: Brill, 1985) 106–107. This fact is very interesting here, for the present chapter emphasizes the belief in resurrection, and at least one variety of that belief seems to have held that dead people destined to be resurrected spent the intermediate period, between death and resurrection, as angels or as similar beings: see Luke 20:36, also Acts 23:8 (which seem to mean that the Sadducees did not believe in resurrection at all, neither after an intermediary period as spirit nor after one as angel; see S. T. Lachs, “The Pharisees and Sadducees on Angels: A Reexami- nation of Acts XXIII.8,” GCAJS 6 [1977] 35–42; B. T. Viviano & J. Taylor, “Sadducees, Angels and Resurrection [Acts 23:8–9],” JBL 111 [1992] 496–498). Thus, it may be that our author is hinting at the martyrs’ future status. For the ascent of martyrs into heaven immediately upon their death, see Kellermann, Auferstanden.

35. all-ruling overseeing God. This formulation links together two of the central attributes of God according to our book: His power and His providence. See NOTE on 1:25, All-Ruler, and on 3:39, watches over.

36. suffering. On πνο«, see Spicq, Notes, 3.560–565; cf. NOTE on 2:25, those who take pleasure. have come into God’s covenant of eternal life. Scholars have debated whether the use of “eternal life” in the genitive (ενοψ ζA«) depends upon “covenant” (as we translated, following Kellermann, Auferstanden, 79 and others) or, rather, upon “suffering” (so Bückers, “Das ‘ewige Leben’,” followed by Stemberger, “Leib,” 21–22), as if the latter construction – which would say only that the brothers, having suffered the suffering requisite for eternal life, now participate in God’s covenant – did not mean that they had already inherited eternal life. Kellermann characterizes the latter reading as “futuristische Deutung,” and rejects it for that reason. Chapter VII 317

That, however, seems to be too pedantic a reading, for once the brothers paid the price for eternal life, a covenant-keeping God must bestow it upon them. As for διακη, its usual translation in this context is “covenant” (so too 1:2; 8:15), but its basic meaning is “testament” and that indeed goes well with the verb here, ππτ (“to fall,” i.e., come into one’s possession – see LSJ, 1407 s.v., §V3); the image is that God, as it were, bequeathed eternal life to the martyrs. (Against the suggestion [Abel, Macc, 380] that the verb should be emended here so as to allow the martyrs to “drink of” [πε- πκασι] eternal life, see Stemberger, Leib, 21–22.) The present claim that the brothers have already received their portions in eternal life proves that this chapter assumes the continuity of post-mortem life even before resurrection. Such a two-stage belief is similarly attested by Josephus, War 3.374 (which is similar to Ag. Ap. 2.218); see also Acts 23:8, and NOTE on v. 34, children of Heaven.

37. that you, after afflictions and scourging, will therefore admit (δι2τι) that He alone is God. As will happen in Chapter 9. “Therefore” – i.e., as a result of your afflictions and scourging. Here there is a clear tit for tat: you have been afflicting us and scourging us and we have not changed our mind about anything, but you will in fact give in under similar duress.

38. and that, with me and my brothers, shall be stayed the anger of the All- Ruler. That is, God will relent. The notion that the death of martyrs can put an end to divine wrath (ργ) recurs in numerous sources; see esp. As. Mos. 9:7 together with J. Licht, “Taxo, or the Apocalyptic Doctrine of Ven- geance,” JJS 12 (1961) 95–100; Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 96. Nickelsburg noted that this motif is not to be found in the words of the other six sons, who focused on their own devotion to observing the Law, on their faith in God, and on their recognition that punishment has justly come upon the Jews; now, at the peak of the chapter, our author has worked in the element which will make this chapter into the turning point of the national story. Thus, 8:4–5 are, as it were, the application of the present verse. See also NOTE on v. 29, in the Mercy, and, in general: Bar-Kochva, JM, 487–488. In contrast, note that in 1 Maccabees the wrath affecting the Jews is not said to be God’s (1:64) and Judas Maccabaeus ends it by his valor (3:8), not by his death.

39. losing his temper. Here too the author closes up the chapter by reverting to its beginning – v. 3. suffering bitterly (πικρ*« φωρ,ν). For similar expressions, see 11:1 (βαρω« φωρν) and 4:35 (δψσφροψν). Here we have another ironic 318 Translation and Commentary switch, as in v. 17 (“be patient”): the torturer is tortured. Cf. 14:29–31, where the “stratagemizer” is “out-stratagemized.”

40. he passed away in purity. It is remarkable that the entire chapter makes no reference to swine’s flesh as something impure, but only as something forbidden. Rather, the reference to purity here is more reminiscent of Chap- ter 6, where forbidden food is also abominable; see NOTE on 6:5, forbidden things. Thus, this reference to purity indicates that now, toward the end of his martyrology, the author is reminding us that his long excursus has included two episodes, which he now wants to draw together and conclude. He will be more explicit about this in v. 42.

41. died. It is very difficult to imagine that this laconic verse was composed by our author, whose tastes concerning suffering women are clearly shown at 3:19 and 6:10; see Introduction, pp. 18–20.

42. Let that, on the one hand, be enough said. Here is the formal ending of the excursus announced at 6:17. At this point the author will return us to his narrative, using “on the one hand,” as at the end of Chapter 3 and at 12:1, to push us forward into the next chapter. eating of the entrails of sacrifices. In Jewish ears the term σπλαγξνισμ«, with its plethora of consonants, sounds horrendous, as if already the word itself shows how disgusting the topic is. But perhaps there is such “Wort- malerei” here also for Greeks as well; LSJ (1628) lists our book alone for this term. Thus, given that it is such a distinctive word, the fact that apart from this verse it appears only in Chapter 6 (vv. 7, 21) but not in Chapter 7 (which lacks not only the term, but also the assumption that the proffered meat was sacrificial) shows clearly that the present verse is meant to summarize both chapters; so already Doran, Temple Propaganda, 22 (where he properly rejects Habicht’s argument [2 Macc 171, 174] that the contradiction between this verse and the rest of Chapter 7 indicates that the body of the chapter is a secondary addition, our verse originally having concluded Ch. 6). For an earlier hint in the same direction, see NOTE on v. 40, he passed away in purity. Chapter VII 319

Bibliography

Bückers, “Das ‘ewige Leben’.” Cohen, “Hannah and Her Seven Sons.” Doran, R., “The Martyr.” Gutman, “The Mother.” van Henten and Avemarie, Martyrdom and Noble Death, 66–70. van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs. Kellermann, Auferstanden. van Menxel, 7Ελπ«: Espoir, Espérance. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 93–109. Stemberger, Leib, 15–22. Rampolla del Tindaro, M., “Martyre et sépultre.” Schatkin, “The Maccabean Martyrs.” Schwankl, Sadduzäerfrage, 245–259. Young, ‘“Woman’.” 320 Translation and Commentary

Chapter VIII

Judas Maccabaeus Goes Into Action: The Beginning of the Reversal

(1) Judas Maccabaeus and those with him, on the other hand, had been going in and out and around secretly to the villages, summoning their kinsmen and those who remained in Judaism; growing in numbers, they gathered together about 6000 men. (2) And they called upon the Lord: To look down upon the people oppressed by all, / and to have pity upon the Sanctuary, which had been profaned by impious men, / (3) and to be merciful also to the city which was being destroyed and about to be leveled to the ground, / and to listen to the blood which was calling out to Him, / (4) and also to remember the lawless destruction of innocent infants and the blasphemies which had been committed against His name – / and (so) to act out of hatred for evil. (5) As soon as Maccabaeus got his corps together he could not be withstood by the Gentiles, the Lord’s anger having turned into mercy. (6) Coming upon cities and villages unexpectedly he set them aflame, and capturing strategic places he caused not a few of the enemies to flee. (7) He especially chose the nighttime as his collaborator for such attacks. And the fame of his manly valor spread everywhere.

Nicanor’s Invasion

(8) But Philip, seeing that the man was making progress bit by bit and being more and more frequently successful, wrote Ptolemy, the governor of Coele Syria and Phoenicia, (asking him) to come to the aid of the king’s government. (9) The latter immediately selected Nicanor the son of Patroclus, one of the First Friends, and sent him – with an army at his command of no fewer than 20,000 from various peoples – to wipe out the entire nation of Judaea. Along- side him he also placed Gorgias, who was a commander and had experience in military service. (10) Nicanor undertook to make up for the king the tribute (still owed) to the Romans, which came to 2000 talents, by making the Jews captives. (11) Immediately he wrote to the coastal cities, inviting them to the sale of the Jewish slaves, promising to supply them with ninety slaves per talent – not expecting the All-Ruler’s justice which was going to pursue him. Chapter VIII 321

(12) As for Judas – news of Nicanor’s invasion came to his ears, and when he informed those with him of the approach of the army (13) those who were cowardly and did not have faith in God’s justice ran away and fled the scene. (14) But the others sold everything which was left, and together asked the Lord to rescue them who had been sold by the impious Ni- canor (even) before he had met up with them (15) – if not for their sake, then due to the covenants with their fathers, and for the sake of His august and magnificent Name which they bore.

Judas Maccabaeus’ Speech

(16) Maccabaeus, gathering the 6000 in number who were with him, called upon them not to be panic-stricken by the enemies nor to be afraid of the multitude of Gentiles that was coming against them unjustly, but rather to struggle nobly, (17) keeping before their eyes the outrage they had unlawfully perpetrated against the Holy Place and the torture of the humiliated city, along with the abrogation of the ancestral constitution. (18) “For they trust in arms and audacity,” he said, “but we trust in the all-ruling God, who can with a single nod of His head overthrow not only those who are coming upon us, but the whole cosmos.” (19) He additionally recounted before them (His) acts of assistance that happened in the days of the ancestors, including the one in the days of Sennacherib, when 185,000 were destroyed, (20) and the one in Babylonia, when there was a confrontation with the Galatians, when only 8000 showed up for the task, together with 4000 Macedonians: when the Macedonians were in confusion, the 6000 destroyed the 120,000 by virtue of assistance from heaven, and they took much booty.

The Battle against Nicanor

(21) Having thereby rendered them courageous and ready to die for the laws and the fatherland, he divided them into something of a four-part army. (22) After he appointed his brothers Simon, Joseph and Jonathan as leaders of each unit, assigning to each 1500 men, (23) and also Eleazar, and after reading the sacred book and giving the motto “God’s help,” he himself led the first unit and threw himself at Nicanor. (24) Since the All-Ruler was their ally they cut down more than 9000 of the enemy; wounding and maiming the greater part of (those who remained of) Nica- nor’s army they forced them all to flee. (25) They took the money of those 322 Translation and Commentary who had come to buy them, but after pursuing them for a considerable distance they broke it off, being hemmed in by the lateness of the hour. (26) For it was the (day) before the Sabbath, and for this reason they did not long continue to run them down.

Prayers and the Division of the Spoils

(27) After collecting their weapons and stripping the enemy bare of spoils they went about (celebrating) the Sabbath, extraordinarily blessing and thanking the Lord who had preserved them until that day, having fixed it for them as the beginning of Mercy. (28) After the Sabbath, after distributing some of the spoils to those who had been mistreated, to the widows and to orphans, they and their children divided the rest among themselves. (29) Having completed that they together petitioned the merciful Lord, asking that He become completely reconciled with His own servants.

(A Similar Case)

(30) Clashing with Timothy’s and Bacchides’ men they killed more than 20,000 of them, gained control of very high strongholds, and distributed a great quantity of spoils, making equal portions for themselves and for those who had been mistreated, widows and orphans, as well as the old. (31) Col- lecting their weapons they carefully deposited them in strategic places, bringing the rest of the spoils to Jerusalem. (32) And they killed Timothy’s phylarch, a most impious man who had greatly harassed the Jews. (33) Con- ducting victory celebrations in the fatherland they burned those who had set fire to the holy gates and also Callisthenes, who had fled into a small building; thus he received fitting wages for his godlessness.

Nicanor’s Flight

(34) As for the thrice-accursed Nicanor, who had brought the thousand merchants for the sale of the Jews: (35) humbled with the Lord’s help by them whom he had thought were the lowest of all, he took off his glorious garment and, having made himself as destitute as a fugitive slave, he found his way through the hinterland back to Antioch, having succeeded especially in accomplishing the destruction of his army. Chapter VIII 323

(36) Thus he who had undertaken to take care of the tribute (owed) to the Romans by taking the Jerusalemites captive proclaimed that the Jews have Someone who fights for them, and that it is for this reason that the Jews are invulnerable: because they follow the laws ordained by Him.

COMMENT

This chapter portrays the beginning of the military struggle led by Judas Mac- cabaeus against the Seleucids. Emerging from his hiding, where we first (and last) saw him at the end of Chapter 5, Judas gathers a force which – now that God has been moved by the martyr’s blood to relent – is “bit by bit” (v. 8) successful against the Jews’ enemies. When the local garrisons are unable to deal with him, an expeditionary force commanded by Nicanor is sent from Syria, but Judas and his men – after properly preparing themselves via prayers and an encouraging speech recounting biblical precedents for divine assistance – defeat it. The victorious Jews follow this up by joyous celebration of the Sab- bath and charitable distribution of the booty, while the defeated Nicanor is made not only to flee in humiliation but also to recognize, as the chapter’s final verse tells us, the great power of the Jews’ Champion. Thus, this chapter begins to reap the benefit of the previous two: after the blood of martyrs caused God’s wrath to turn to mercy (8:5), it is clear that the normal covenantal relationship is restored, according to which the devout Jews are protected by their all-powerful ruler, no matter how bad the odds. The point is made both by Judas’ citation of examples from the past (vv. 19–20) and by the outcome of this story itself. Historically, this chapter parallels the story told by 1 Maccabees 2–4:23. There too we read first of the modest beginnings of the Hasmonean movement, of its growth, of the way they “went around” (1 Macc 2:45) the Jew- ish villages (as here, 8:1), and eventually drew the attention of the Seleucid officials; when the local commanders could not overcome them, they called in forces from Syria, but these too – after a speech by Judas in which he pointed out that the fact that the enemies were numerous did not pose any problem for God (3:18–22) – were defeated by Judas and his men. This is followed by yet another Seleucid campaign against Judas, this time led by a triad including Nicanor (3:38): this army, which came accompanied by prospective slave buyers (3:41), was eventually defeated by Judas in the Em- maus campaign. It is this campaign which is depicted in our Chapter 8, which, beginning with v. 9, focuses on Nicanor and includes (in v. 11) the reference to the expectation that his campaign will make numerous slaves available at cheap rates. 324 Translation and Commentary

Thus, on the one hand the main datum of our chapter is borne out by the much more detailed account of 1 Maccabees 3–4: there was a Seleucid invasion, of which Nicanor was at the head (see below), and it did fail. On the other hand, however, there are major differences between the two accounts. Mostly they are simply a matter of greater detail of 1 Maccabees, for most of our chapter’s account is taken up, typically, with religious matters (prayer, speech citing biblical precedent, reading the Torah prior to the battle and distribution of charity after it); the fighting itself is summarized in a few brief verses (23–26) that give us no inkling at all of the involved moves and topographical detail described in 1 Maccabees 3–4. Indeed, our book fails even to tell us where the fighting took place. This, of course, is consistent with the fact that 1 Maccabees also describes in detail no small measure of combat before this campaign as well – in Chapter 2, which deals with the days of Mattathias, whom our book does not mention (see below), and in the first half of Chapter 3, which deals with the first clashes with the Seleucids – events which our book covers only in the most general way in vv. 5–8. Differences such as those are not surprising, given our author’s usual religious interests and his stated intention to summarize other matters; see 2:23–24 and – especially with regard to warfare – 10:10. Four differences, however, should be pointed out in particular. The first two go to the heart of what our book is, and is not, about, and the latter two illustrate important values of its diasporan author: 1. 1 Maccabees 2 is devoted to Mattathias, the father of the Hasmonean dynasty, but 2 Maccabees makes no mention of him. In fact, vv. 1 + 5–7 of our chapter, which deal with the early growth and first successes of Judas’ force, might be taken as something of a brief summary of 1 Macca- bees 2:42–48 on the growth of the Jewish resistance under the leadership of Mattathias. This difference between the two books is fundamental, insofar as 1 Maccabees is built as a dynastic history, following each of the Hasmon- ean leaders until finally the dynasty is established by John Hyrcanus’ succession of his father Simon, at which point the book concludes. For 1 Mac- cabees, Mattathias is an essential character, for it is he who, as father of all the sons, allows for the establishment of the dynasty; indeed, 1 Maccabees 2:65 even has Mattathias proclaiming that Simon should be his main heir.1

1 The fact that this proclamation, tacked on at the end of Mattathias’ deathbed speech, is contradicted immediately by 1 Macc 3:1, which has Judas succeeding his father, indicates how important Mattathias was for the author of this book: although Simon’s inheritance of the leadership contradicted history, and the story as received, it could be justified if traced back to Mattathias. Chapter VIII 325

For 2 Maccabees, which focuses on Judas alone (see esp. Geiger, “History of Judas Maccabaeus”) and has no interest in (knowledge of?)2 the Hasmon- ean dynasty, Mattathias would have been useless, and indeed he is not mentioned. 2. Whereas our book has Nicanor alone head the Seleucid expeditionary force, 1 Maccabees 3:38 puts three officers at the head of it, and although Nicanor is listed among them, he is never mentioned again in this connection. Rather, it is another one of the three, Gorgias, who, according to 1 Maccabees, functions – consistently alone – as the chief of the Seleucid force (4:1, 5, 18). This difference between the two books is almost certainly to be traced to our author’s wish to build his book around struggles with Nicanor. By concentrating on them in the book’s middle chapter (here) and its final one, the book fulfilled its original mission of explaining and justifying the “Nicanor’s Day” festival. See Introduction, p. 9. 3. Although both books have scenes of prayer and encouragement prior to the battle, the one appearing in 1 Maccabees 3:43–54 focuses on the Temple and the cult, while these are not mentioned at all in 8:14–20. This is as to be expected from our diasporan author (see above, p. 46). 4. Although our vv. 6–7 seem to refer to the same events as 1 Macca- bees 2:44–48 and 3:5–8, only that book clearly states that the rebels’ attacks were directed against Jews (“sinners,” “lawless” and “impious” col- laborators with the Seleucids); our book speaks of attacks upon villages and flight by enemies but offers nary a word about who exactly was attacked or fled. Thus, whether or not he was aware of it, our author has suppressed evidence both for Jewish traitors and for fighting among Jews – which fits the diasporan tendency we noted earlier (see Introduction, pp. 49–50) to limit the number of Jewish villains as much as possible. In contrast, 1 Mac- cabees had no problem admitting that the Hasmoneans had many Jewish enemies; see 1 Maccabees 1:11, 52 and esp. 7:5 (contrast 2 Macc 14:3!).

NOTES

8:1. Judas Maccabaeus and those with him, on the other hand. Here we have both “on the other hand,” which makes our chapter flow out of the preceding one, and also a Wiederaufnahme which continues our story from the end of Chapter 5, where we last saw Judas. But the story line was in fact interrupted, as we saw, a little bit later, beginning with 6:12, which means

2 See above, p. 14. 326 Translation and Commentary that apart from 5:27 Judas appears in the story itself, now, right after the story about the women who were killed along with their circumcised babies and those who were killed for Sabbath observance (6:10–11) – which is where we find Mattathias appearing in 1 Maccabees; see 1 Maccabees 1:60–61 and 2:29–38. So there may be some common tradition at work here. On our author’s lack of interest in Mattathias, and focus upon Judas, see COMMENT above. had been going in and out and around (παρεισπορεψ2μενοι). This verse is the only example given for this composite verb in LSJ, 1334, and so I have allowed myself to follow the prefixed prepositions to give a fuller meaning than the unimaginative “enter” offered there. The use of the participle indicates that the activities mentioned here had been going on for a while, as it were during the time taken up by the two timeless tableaux; thus, the mere ten of 5:27 have had time to grow considerably. See NOTE on 6:18, was being forced. secretly … growing … gathered (σψνγαγον). This account of the beginnings of Judas’ movement recalls that of Mattathias’ movement – 1 Macca- bees 2:42–45. It is interesting that the latter account refers, at v. 42, to a community (σψναγγ) of soldiers (apparently not “Hasidim” – see Schwartz, “Hasidim”). Similarly, ibid. v. 47, as v. 6 here, apparently refers to the rebels’ attacks upon other Jews. Thus, it may be that one tradition underlies these parts of both books, just as we observed (in our first NOTE on this verse) concerning the two stories in 6:10–11. See esp. Schunck, Quellen, 117–118; Bunge, Untersuchungen, 230–232; and above, p. 43, n. 97. remained in Judaism. And did not adopt Hellenism; see NOTE on 2:21, for Judaism, and on 6:9, Greek ways. growing in numbers. On προσλαμβν, see Spicq, Notes, 3.583.

2. And they called upon. From here until v. 4 we are presented with a series of clauses linked by “and” (κα) – an imitation of biblical style. See NOTE on 10:3, After purifying. look down upon. A frequent motif in our book; see NOTE on 3:39, watches over. the Sanctuary (να2ν). For this translation, see NOTE on 4:14, the Temple. But here there was no reason to limit the reference to the central building of Chapter VIII 327 the Temple complex, and so it may be enough to assume that the author of this prayer preferred the fancier term, which also has the advantage of rhyming with λαν (“people”), mentioned a few words earlier. profaned by impious men. Not necessarily by non-Jews, nor by people defiled by this or that ritual impurity; their wickedness, their being “irrever- ent” (cf. 3:1; 4:13, 17; 10:10), is what makes them “impure.” This is basically a Hellenistic point of view, which equates wickedness and impurity. But is it not foreign to ancient Judaism; see NOTES on 5:16, abominable hands, and on 12:23, sinners.

3. about to be. As the author likes to point out; see NOTE on 2:22, the laws that were about to be. leveled to the ground (0σ2πεδον). I.e., destroyed. The same expression recurs at 9:4 describing Antiochus’ plans for the Temple of Jerusalem, and also at 3 Maccabees 5:43 – describing Ptolemy IV’s. Cf. 14:43 (ε+« πεδον) and TestJob 5:2 (ε+« τ9 6δαφο«). blood which was calling out. The expression is based upon Genesis 4:10, echoed for example in Philo’s The Worse Attacks the Better 48, 70 and m. Sanh 4:5. However, given the importance of Deuteronomy 32 in our book, esp. in the preceding chapter (see NOTE on 7:6, “And He will reconcile Himself …”), we should also think of Deuteronomy 32:43, “for He will avenge His servants’ blood and return vengeance upon His enemies.” The basic point was predicted by the seventh son: “with me and my brothers shall be stayed the anger of the All-Ruler which was justly loosed against our entire nation.” For the special effectiveness of blood in this regard, see e.g. R. Eleazar ben Shammua’s dictum, that “there is no atonement without blood” (b. Yoma 5a); in the Midrash of the Ten Martyrs (Reeg, Geschichte, 102*) the same sage explains, to his persecutor, that God is refraining from saving His servants precisely “so as to be able to demand their blood of you.” For the Greek background of the notion, see NOTE on 14:45, his blood flowing …

4. and also to remember … the blasphemies which had been committed against His name. For such usage of περ, see Grimm, 2 Macc, 135; that, plus the rhythm of the sentence, show that “the blasphemies” are another item in the long list of things God is being asked to recall. Accordingly, it is difficult to accept Abel’s suggestion, on the basis of Latin witnesses, that the blasphemies are instead to be linked to the verb at the end of the verse. 328 Translation and Commentary

Moreover, Abel’s suggestion, followed by Goldstein (who translates “to be mindful of the wicked massacre of innocent babes and also to avenge the blasphemies perpetrated against His name”) requires a transitive usage of μισοπονηρω (“to avenge”), and that is unlikely, for our author considers that verb itself to specify its object; see 4:36, 49, also 3:1. It should be noted, however, that blasphemies have not yet been mentioned in this book. So either they were mentioned in the original and our author omitted them, or else the persecutions and defilements are taken to constitute blasphemies. In any case, the topic will occupy our author later on (9:28; 10:34–35; 12:14; 15:24, 32), and so it is not surprising that he mentions it here too. innocent. For this widespread concept and its use in religious discourse see: H. Herter, “Das unschuldige Kind,” JAC 4 (1961) 146–162. infants. When it comes to motivating God to intervene, nothing can compete with the suffering of innocent babies. For the killing of babies as a type of supplication in times of stress, in Phoenicia and Carthage, see: I. Eph’al, Siege and Its Ancient Near Eastern Manifestations (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1996) 135–140 (in Hebrew). But it is not clear who is meant in our verse: Does it refer to the seven sons of Chapter 7, or to the babies of 6:10? If the reference is to the former, then it is quite overstated, for there even the youngest seems to have been in his teens; see NOTE on 7:25, youth … boy. Some would retain the reference to Chapter 7 by translating νηπν “children” instead of “infants,” but that is rather desperate. So too must we note that Chapter 7 does not at all say the seven sons were sinless. On the contrary, the sixth and seventh admit that they were being punished for their own sins; even if the nation as a whole is meant, the words apply to them too. But not to babies. Accordingly, it seems best to see the primary reference of our verse to the babies of 6:10; so too Grimm and Abel ad loc. This supports the assumption that the martyrological excursus (6:18-end of Ch. 7) came from a separate source. See above, pp. 19–20, and on v. 8, But Philip. and (so) to act out of hatred for evil. The “hatred of evil” is mentioned as a central virtue already in the first verse of our story (3:1), and then again at 4:36, 49; now we hear that God too, as good Jews and good Gentiles, shares this virtue. The verb’s appearance here, at the end of the long list of things to remember, is very sudden. This heralds, as it were, the turnabout in the Jews’ fortunes which begins in the very next verse. Chapter VIII 329

5. got his corps together (ν σψστωματι). As Grimm notes (2 Macc, 135), Polybius uses σ στημα frequently of the organization of military forces; see Polybius 1.81.11; 3.53.6; 8.26.8. Cf. NOTE on 15:12, entire Jewish corps. he could not be withstood (νψπ2στατο«) by the Gentiles. As opposed to the Seleucid army, which was only thought irresistible (1:13). The rest of our verse explains what made the difference. Note that the adjective applies to Judas himself, not to his force; from this point on the story focuses upon him. See esp. Geiger, “History of Judas Maccabaeus.” the Lord’s anger having turned into mercy. This is the turning point of the entire book, answering the prayer of vv. 2–4 and the hopes of 7:38. If Chap- ters 3–7 took us from the idyll to the pits of persecution, the way back up begins right here. Contrast 1 Maccabees 3:8, where it is the valor of Judas Maccabaeus that turns away the ργ – as at 1:64, not even said to be God’s – from Israel.

6. Coming upon cities and villages. As 1 Maccabees 2:44–48 and 3:5–8, it seems that the text is actually referring to attacks upon Jews (who collab- orated with the Seleucids); but our diasporan author, even if he was aware of this, would not say so. See the end of our opening COMMENT. strategic (πικαροψ«) places. This adjective, which recurs another three times in our book (v. 31 and 10:15; 14:22), appears nowhere else in the Septuagint. It is analogous to εϊκαιρο«, used frequently by Polybius for places with military or economic advantages; see Mauersberger, PL, 2.1027–1028; Pédech, Polybe, 535. As for what places are meant, our author gives no details at all, just as the rest of the chapter gives no geographical details concerning Nicanor’s campaign or the battle with him. It seems not only that the author wasn’t interested in such details, but that he wanted us to understand that right from the beginning; for a similar move, see NOTE on 4:23, take care of memoranda … In any case, the detailed account in 1 Maccabees 3:10–24 of Judas’ first two successes against the Se- leucids makes no reference to his capture of any fortresses. See Bar-Kochva, JM, 138 and 205.

7. especially chose the nighttime. On night-fighting, see Pritchett, War, 2.162–170; on Judas’ – see also 10:28; 12:6, 9; 13:15 and esp. 1 Macca- bees 4:1–25. In general, on the guerilla nature of Judas’ fighting in its early stages, see Bar-Kochva, JM, 138–141. 330 Translation and Commentary collaborator. In the Septuagint, σψνεργ« appears only here and at 14:5; in both cases it is a personification. For similar formulations, see Poly- bius 8.2.6 (τ … κατ? τνα« καιρο#« σψνργησε) and 31.29.2 (δι? τA« τ ξη« γωνετο σψνωργημα).3

And the fame of his manly valor spread everywhere. This constitutes a Sam- melbericht that serves both to summarize all that has been said and also to explain the next step of the story; cf. Exodus 1:7; Luke 4:37 (with Wif- strand, Epochs and Styles, 35–36, who compares LXX 1 Sam 14:19); Acts 5:11; H. Zimmermann, “Die Sammelberichte der Apostelgeschichte,” BZ n.s. 5 (1961) 71–82. As for Judas’ ε.ανδρα, I translated “manly valor” and not “multitude of men” (preferred by Doran, Temple Propaganda, 55) because the next verse goes on to speak about Judas alone; note that at 15:17, which is the only other time this word appears in our book (and the entire Septuagint), it parallels “nobly” and must refer to manly valor, not to numbers. For the same type of parallelism, see 6:28. On Judas’ manly valor, see also 14:18. On ancient notions of masculinity see: When Men Were Men: Masculinity, Power and Identity in Classical Antiquity (ed. L. Fox- hall and J. Salmon; London: Routledge, 1998), also our NOTE on 7:21, Awakening her womanly reasoning power … masculine fervor.

8. But Philip. Who was ruling Jerusalem, according to 5:22; last heard from at 6:11. Allusion to him here by name alone seems to indicate that he is more present in the reader’s mind than he actually is – another indication that 6:12–7:42 is secondary. For use of Philip’s name as a “handle” to switch the reader’s attention to another front, compare vv. 12 and 34 and 10:14. seeing. A favorite phrase of our author; see NOTE on 2:24, for having seen. bit by bit … and more frequently. Niese (Kritik, 112–113) understood the text to mean that Philip saw that Judas was not progressing slowly, but rather (δω) faster and faster; accordingly, he suggested inserting a negation. However, the δω need not be adversative, and κατ? μικρν usually means “gradually;” see Mauersberger, PL, 4.1619.

Ptolemy, the governor of Coele Syria and Phoencia. Who seems to be “Pto- lemy Macron” of 10:12–13, although there is room for doubt. True, 10:12

3 I am grateful to Ari Finkelstein for these references to Polybius. Chapter VIII 331 says Ptolemy was fair to the Jews due to the injustice which had been done to them, whereas here he is sending an army against them. But this is not a real contradiction: Ptolemy may well (in truth, or in our author’s mind) have done this and nevertheless, at the same time or later, sought justice for the Jews. Moreover, since in Chapter 10 the author wants to praise Pto- lemy’s fairness in contrast to the wicked people mentioned right after him (vv. 14–15), he may have stretched the truth; cf. Josephus, War 2.277; 7.263. Another objection may be raised on the basis of 1 Maccabees 3:38, which – with reference to the same campaign (see above, p. 323) – has Lysias send Ptolemy son of Dorymenes. The parallelism between the two books brought various scholars to put them together: to learn from 1 Maccabees that our “Ptolemy” is the son of Dorymenes, and to learn from the present verse that this Ptolemy was governor of Coele Syria and Phoenicia, hence the predecessor of Ptolemy Macron. So, for example, Habicht, 2 Macc, 223, n. 45a, and Lévy, “Notes,” 688–689.4 But the parallel with 1 Macca- bees 3 is not complete, for there Lysias sends and Ptolemy is sent (along with two others), whereas here Ptolemy sends two and Lysias is not mentioned at all – just as our author is altogether careful not to mention him prior to the death of Antiochus Epiphanes; Lysias first appears at 10:11 (see NOTE on 10:11, one Lysias). Thus, we have two conflicting versions of this campaign. Moreover, given the fact that Ptolemy son of Dorymenes does not function at all in 1 Maccabees’ version of this campaign, we need not ascribe much weight to the appearance of his name at 3:38. In other words, we would accept the plain implication of our book, that the Ptolemy mentioned here is the Ptolemy Macron of 10:12–13; this need not contradict the statement of 1 Maccabees, that Ptolemy son of Dorymenes was among the Seleucid commanders during this campaign.

9. Nicanor the son of Patroclus. This is the first appearance of the Seleucid general in our book, the only appearance of his patronymic. He is a central figure in our book, which ends with the establishment of a holiday in honor of Judas’ final victory over him; see 15:36. For the identity – at least in our author’s mind – of this Nicanor and the one of Chapters 14–15, see NOTE

4 Some scholars assumed that these two Ptolemies were in fact identical; so, for example, Abel (Macc, 387) and Marcus on Ant. 12.298 in the LCL edition. But this is a very difficult suggestion (and is properly rejected by Mitford, “Ptolemy Macron,” 176–177), for why should our author skip between patronymic and byname? And can we really imagine the villain of 4:45–46, 50 getting such a nice sending-off at 10:12–13?! 332 Translation and Commentary on v. 34, thrice-accursed Nicanor. Nicanor’s importance for our book explains also why he is listed first and Gorgias is mentioned (later in this verse) only in a secondary role and never again in this narrative; see Introduction, pp. 9–10. one of the First Friends. On this rank in the Seleucid hierarchy, see 1 Mac- cabees 11:27. In general, on such ranks, see NOTE on 1:14, Friends. I Mac- cabees 7:21 refers to Nicanor in only a general way as “one of the honored officials,” but Josephus, as our verse, says that he was the most loyal and trustworthy among the king’s Friends (τ7ν φλν – Ant. 13.402). no fewer than 20,000. For such double negations see NOTE on 3:14, quite considerable. Our author apparently liked the number 20,000 (“two myriads”); it recurs in v. 30 and again in 10:17, 23. 1 Maccabees 3:39 refers here to 40,000 soldiers and another 7,000 cavalry, which is totally outlandish, while our 20,000 is quite reasonable; see Bar-Kochva, JM, 40–41. (However, since it is not usual for our book to be modest and reasonable in contrast to an exaggerating 1 Maccabees, Bar-Kochva [171–172] suggests that our text has suffered from scribal error and originally referred to a “much higher” number. On exaggerated numbers in our book, see Intro- duction, p. 80.) from various peoples. The text mixes neutral and masculine (6νη ο.κ λττοψ«) but as constructio ad sensum it is acceptable; see Hanhart, Text, 33 (vs. Niese, Kritik, 113 and Katz, “Text,” 14) and below, 12:27 and 14:14. On the different national units in the Seleucid army, such as the Mysians, Cypriots, and Thracians mentioned in our book (5:24; 12:2, 35), see the descriptions of the Seleucid army at the battle of Raphia (217 BCE – Polybius 5.79), at the battle of Magnesia (190 BCE – Livy 37.40; Appian, Syriakê 32), and at the Daphne parade of 166 BCE, not long before the Emmaus campaign (Polybius 35.25; see NOTE on 5:2, according to units). See also Bar-Kochva, JM, 116–120; idem, Seleucid Army, 48–53. wipe out the entire nation of Judaea. A very exaggerated formulation, intended to intensify the threat. The verb αιρω (on which see Spicq, Notes, 3.276–277) appears only here in our book, but seventeen times in 1 Macca- bees – another thread linking our chapter to the latter; cf. NOTE on v. 1, secretly … growing. Note also, however, that in our book only the nation is threatened; 1 Maccabees 3:58–59, characteristically, mentions the threat to the Temple too. See above, p. 46. Chapter VIII 333

Alongside him he also placed Gorgias. As a matter of fact, Gorgias seems to have been the major figure, a fact which emerges not only from 1 Macca- bees 3–4 but also from his description here. Our author wanted to emphasize Nicanor; see Introduction, p. 9. a commander (.νδρα στρατηγ2ν). Here, as at 10:14, and as opposed to 3:5 and 4:4 where we used “governor,” the context seems to require the original military nuance. For the construction here, cf. 12:35: 6φιππο« νρ.

10. undertook (διεστσατο). As Habicht comments (2 Macc, 239, 10a), it is difficult to construe this verb in the present context, for it usually means “distribute” or “divide,” but we may be guided by the clear parallel in v. 36, where the verb is unproblematic: ναδεμενο«. tribute (still owed) to the Romans. According to the Treaty of Apamaea (188 BCE), in the wake of the Seleucid defeat at Magnesia. On these indemnities and the likelihood that, as our book claims, money was still due more than twenty years after the Treaty, see Appendix 6. by making the Jews captives. Followed, of course, by their sale; see the next verse and 1 Maccabees 3:41.

11. he wrote to the coastal cities. Lit. “the cities next to the sea.” See Good- blatt, “Medinat Hayam.” On them, see the convenient list of eleven in Tcherikover, HC, 91–96. At times they displayed hostility toward Jews: see 12:3–9; 13:25; Kasher, Jews and Hellenistic Cities, 54–90 (on the period of Antiochus IV and Judas Maccabaeus; 60–61 on the present episode). Here, however, after placing Nicanor at the head of the Seleucid campaign, our author makes him all the worse by making him responsible for inviting the slave merchants of those cities to join him and do business at the expense of the Jews – a claim he repeats at v. 34. According to 1 Maccabees 3:41, there was no need for a Seleucid official to invite such slave merchants; they came on their own initiative as soon as they heard of the coming opportunity. Our book presents the matter in a way which serves two of our author’s goals: it both denigrates Nicanor and allows for a more optimistic portrayal of Jewish-Gentile relations in general: if things go badly, it must be the fault of some villainous troublemaker. See also 10:14 and 12:2. ninety slaves per talent. Figuring six thousand drachmas per talent, as is usual, this works out to 67 drachmas per slave – a good deal less than the price of an animal (see NOTE on 4:19, 300 silver drachmas). By way 334 Translation and Commentary of comparison, see the table in R. Scholl, Corpus der ptolemäischen Skla- ventexte, I (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1990) 213, where data on the sale of twenty slaves, mostly from Syria, are assembled. Prices in drachmas for adults include 300, 200, 150, and 112. Thus, Nicanor thought he would take so many captives that he would drive prices down to a half or less of their usual level;5 for instances of such gluts on the slave market depressing prices, see Josephus, War 6.384, and Volkmann, Massenversklavungen, (117)-(118). not expecting the All-Ruler’s justice which was going to pursue him. Having arrived at the second half of his book, when things start improving for the Jews, our author takes care to make sure his readers know that things will turn out just fine. As for the use of “pursue” here, παρακολοψσειν, in connection with divine justice, it is interestingly reminiscent of the inscriptions which forbade Gentiles to enter the Temple, warning violators, somewhat vaguely and mysteriously, that their death would come “pursuant” (ακολοψεν) thereto (OGIS, no. 598).

12. As for Judas. Our author likes to set his antagonists one against the other, as if on a stage, turning back and forth between the villain and the hero. For similar contrasts, see, among others, 3:22–23 and 15:6–7; Intro- duction, p. 76. came to his ears. As usual, the author – whether or not he knew – does not explain how this happened; see above, p. 73.

5 V. Tscherikower, “Palestine Under the Ptolemies (A Contribution to the Study of the Zenon Papyri),” Mizraim 4–5 (1937) 75, n. 15, surveys some evidence for slave prices, but focuses on the Roman period, when, as he notes, prices were “considerably higher.” Nevertheless, he concludes that “also in Hellenistic just as in Roman times a full-grown slave cost, on an average, not less than 1000 drachmas.” However, his only evidence for that is P. Hamb. 28 (= Scholl, Corpus, no. 19), of ca. 173 BCE, where a female slave is deposited as security for 1200 drachmas. Although F. Heichel- heim (Wirtschaftliche Schwankungen der Zeit von Alexander bis Augustus [Jena: Fischer, 1930] 30–31, n. 4) had thought that 1200 silver drachmas was too high and had therefore suggested that they were copper – which at a rate of 60:1 would then be equal to 20 silver drachmas – Tcherikover finds the latter unacceptably low and, therefore, sticks with 1200 silver drachmas. Scholl (Corpus, 97–98), however, citing more recent literature, reverts to Heichelheim’s assumption that copper drachmas are meant but, using somewhat lower rates, translates them into either 60 or 30 silver drachmas. Chapter VIII 335

13. cowardly and did not have faith (δειλανδρο ντε« κα3 πιστο ντε«). On δειλα see NOTE on 3:24, cowardice; on πστι« see NOTE on 3:22, to preserve the trusts … entrusted. Here it seems the reference is to the ceremony mandated at Deuteronomy 20:8 and actually narrated as such (“according to the Law”) in the present context, in 1 Maccabees 3:56 – yet another point of similarity between the narratives (see NOTE on v. 1, secretly … growing). But it must be noted that our author, who was out to glorify Judas and his men, chose to portray the matter not as a mandated ceremony (which legitimizes cowardice) but, rather, as one which shows the reader who is and is not worthy of admiration. For the same reason, he ignores the other categories of those exempted from service, according to both Deuteronomy and 1 Maccabees: those who had built new houses or had become engaged to marry. That leaves the picture clear: here, cowards; there – Judas and his men.

God’s justice. About which the author began to write in v. 11. This terminology makes it clear, as best as our universalistic author can even in the current combative context, that he is not describing a special relationship between God and His chosen people, but, rather, simply that which is just. Cf. 4:35 and, in contrast, v. 15.

14. the others sold everything which was left. This seems to refer to the property left behind by the cowards, who departed helter-skelter. We are not told why their property was sold – to purchase military equipment? To turn it into cash, so as to allow for liquidity and flight? For the author, the sole item of importance here is the coming contrast between the valiant Jews, who prayed after selling off the property of cowards and faithless, on the one hand, and the impious Nicanor who sold the righteous before he even met up with them, on the other.

15. due to the covenants. For dependence upon covenants when there is no other merit, see Exodus 32:13; Psalms 74:20; Jeremiah 14:21; LXX Da- niel 3:34–36 (Prayer of Azariah); Wisdom 18:22; 1 Maccabees 4:10; etc. It has been noted that Greek authors and translators preferred to use the plural when the reference is to a covenant between God and more than one partner; see H. Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antqui- tatum Biblicarum (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1996) 1.435; 2.1079. and for the sake of His … Name. This too is a consideration frequently adduced by sinners hoping to move God to be gracious toward them; as it were, God’s own reputation is held hostage to their good fortunes. See, for 336 Translation and Commentary example: Psalms 115:1; Jeremiah 14:21; LXX Daniel 3:34, 43 (Prayer of Azariah). As is frequently the case, this argument appears here alongside the one which refers to the covenant; the two are more or less one, for God’s good name is also dependent upon His fulfillment of His promises. On this type of argument, see: P. D. Miller, They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994) 120–126.

16. 6000 in number. As promised in v. 1. Bar-Kochva (JM, 47–48) thinks the number reasonable. called upon. On παρακαλω, see NOTE on 7:24, his appeal. On pre-battle speeches in Greek literature, see W. K. Pritchett, Ancient Greek Battle Speeches and a Palfrey (Amsterdam: Gieben, 2002); pp. 28–29 on those in Polybius. Cf. NOTE on v. 19, acts of assistance. unjustly. See NOTE on v. 13, God’s justice. nobly. see NOTE on 6:28, noble … nobly.

17. outrage. On ?βρι« see N. R. E. Fisher, Hybris: A Study in the Values of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greece (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1994). unlawfully (ν2μ,«). It is superfluous to say that an outrage was done unlawfully, but our author is not the type to avoid rhetorical overkill; neither is the author of 3 Maccabees 6:12, who links up hybris with the adjective, 5νομο« (for the frequent similarity of the two books’ diction, see Introduc- tion, p. 87). Although the adverb appears only here in the Septuagint, the adjective is common. the Holy Place. The Temple; see NOTE on 3:2, the Place. For the events to which Judas is alluding, see 5:15–16 and 6:4–5. torture of the humiliated city. Most of what is reported in Chapters 4–7 fits this rubric. abrogation of the ancestral (προγονικ«) constitution. Thus, troubles began under Jason (4:11); so too 1:7, 12 (see Introduction, p. 4). On “ancestral,” cf. the allusion to “ancestors” in v. 19.

18. they trust … but we trust. This sounds like such verses as Psalms 20:8; cf. below, 10:28; 15:25–26. Chapter VIII 337 audacity (τλμαι«). That is, courage, but our author of course avoids the use of a positive word, such as ε.ανδρα (ascribed to Judas in v. 7); so too at 3:24 and 4:2. with a single nod of His head (Ψν3 νεματι). All that a real king needs to sig- nify his will; see NOTE on 4:10, royal approval.

19. additionally recounted before them. LSJ, 1501, s.v. προσαναλωγ, lists our verse alone for the medium of this verb. acts of assistance that happened in the days of the ancestors. For the term ντλημχι« see NOTE on 15:7, that assistance … Encouraging speeches such as this one, which list past instances of salvation, are common in our literature: for some examples, see 12:15; 15:9, 22; 1 Maccabees 2:49–64 and 4:8–11; 3 Maccabees 2:2–8; 6:2–15. The “ancestors” are termed προγνοι, thus linking our verse up with the earlier reference to the “ancestral constitution” (v. 17).

Sennacherib. See Isaiah 37:36; 2 Kings 19:35. This miracle is frequently cited in our literature, including below at 15:22; 1 Maccabees 7:41–42; 3 Maccabees 6:5; Sirach 48:21; Josephus, War 5.388. See also NOTE on 14:33, he extended his right hand …, and – on the importance of this precedent for salvation of Jerusalem – W. R. Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus: An Inquiry into Jewish Nationalism in the Greco-Roman Period (New York: Columbia, 1956) 97–111.

20. confrontation with the Galatians. For Galatians as terrifying warriors see e.g. Livy 38.16; R. R. R. Smith, Hellenistic Sculpture: A Handbook (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1991) 99–104; and Strobel, Die Galater, 224 (“their appearance and the terror they spread made the Galatian warriors, in the eyes of the their contemporaries, the epitome of the barbarian, the exist- entially threatening Other, who is no longer human, but rather bestial, a vi- olator of divine law and human order and a threat through the power of chaos” [my translation]). See also NOTE on 15:39, wine by itself. As for the battle alluded to here, it is usual – due both to the mention of Galatians (who inhabited a region under Seleucid control) and to the use of the term “Mace- donians” (see below) – to assume that it involved the Seleucids, but there is controversy as to the precise identification of the battle. See Bar-Kochva, JM, 500–507, and below, Appendix 7 (by the late Menahem Stern, who summarizes at pp. 547–548 that “it is in the nature of things that no suggestion is very convincing”). Thus, while we do know of a Galatian invasion of Asia 338 Translation and Commentary

Minor in the 270s (see Will, Histoire politique, 1.143–144; Strobel, Die Ga- later, 236–264), and of both Galatian (Launey, Recherches 1.490–534) and Jewish (Ant. 12.149; Launey, Recherches 1.541–554; Bar-Kochva, JM, 85, n. 47) mercenaries in Hellenistic armies, we nevertheless have no evidence for a battle between the Seleucids and the Galatians in Babylonia, or for Jew- ish participation in any battle between the Seleucids and the Galatians. Moreover, note that our verse does not explicitly say that the non-Mace- donians who fought the Galatians were Jewish. Although Stern (infra, Ap- pendix 7, n. 87) and Bar-Kochva (JM, 500–501, n. 1) thought that this goes without saying, in fact it seems that we should not exclude the possibility that a diasporan author might allow God to help good and courageous Gentiles – or, at least, that such an author would be happy not to limit such a possibility to Jews.

Macedonians. A common term for the Seleucids. See, for example OGIS 239; Strabo, Geog., end of Book 16; Josephus, Antiquities 12.434 and 13.273, etc.; Bickerman, Institutions, 5; and esp. Edson, “Imperium Mace- donicum.” were in confusion. As Edson notes (loc. cit, 163), given the equation of Macedonians and Seleucids it is especially apposite, in the present context, for Judas to recall a time when they were confounded and God helped others on to victory. the 6000. The author’s desire to arrive at a plain and impressive calculation, according to which each Jew (let us assume) killed twenty Galatians, but also to posit that the number of Jews was equal to that in Judas’ own force, seems to have gotten the better of him, contradicting the numerical datum given earlier in the verse: 8000. Whether the latter is the number of Jews alone, or rather includes the 4000 Macedonians mentioned there, the number of Jews is not 6000. Either the author was careless, or the text is corrupt, or we adopt some desperate harmonization, such as Goldstein’s suggestion (2 Macc, 333) that we are to assume that of an original 8000 Jews 2000 fled, like the cowards of v. 13.

120,000. A force twenty times larger than that of the Jews. Such exagger- ations were de rigueur in this type of historiography, which glorifies the few who fought the many and prevailed; cf. NOTE on 2:21, so that although they were few in number. assistance. Concerning βοεια, see NOTE on v. 24, ally. Chapter VIII 339 and they took much booty. So too in the battle of Emmaus, where the topic will receive much attention; see vv. 27–30. Our book’s attitude toward the taking of booty is similar to its attitude toward slaughter (v. 24), devoid of embarrassment. This is similar to Exodus 3:22: where the Hebrew uses somewhat vague formulations for how the Israelites’ shall acquire property from the Egyptians, the Septuagint has no problem with σκψλε , “de- spoil.” Even Philo views the taking of booty as legitimate in war, “the law of the victors” (νμ8 τ7ν κεκρατηκτν – Life of Moses 1.142). See also NOTES on 2:21, they plundered the entire country and 10:17, cutting down.

21. ready to die (Ψτομοψ« … πονUσκειν). Our author thus compares these soldiers to martyrs (see 7:2 – Vτοιμοι … πονUσκειν); so too 13:14. divided them into something of a four-part army. A reasonable division and one without biblical precedent, as opposed to that of thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens mentioned in the parallel at 1 Maccabees 3:24 and recalling Exodus 18:21, 24. See also below, 12:20.

22–23. his brothers Simon, Joseph and Jonathan … and also Eleazar. On the reading “Eleazar,” see the next NOTE. The present verse is one of the few in our book which relate to Judas’ brothers; see NOTE on 2:19, Judas Maccabaeus and his brothers. According to 1 Maccabees 2:1 as well Judas had four brothers, and there is only one difference between the two lists of names: here Joseph (and so too at 10:19, again next to Simon), there Joha- nan. Ilan (Lexicon, 7) suggests that we accept our verse’s testimony and add Joseph to the list; her main argument is that the name Joseph was popular in the Second Temple period. However, the name does not reappear in the Hasmonean family itself, although its onomasticon is well-documented.6 Moreover, in general it is preferable to assume that 1 Maccabees, the dynastic history, got it right, especially in light of the fact that Josephus himself, who had every interest not to forget a Joseph, confined himself to copying, in the same order, the five brothers that book lists (Ant. 12.265–266). But neither is it reasonable to think that “brothers” here should be taken in a general sense, as at 10:21; 11:7; 12:25; for the other three were indeed

6 The closest we get is Josephus’ grandfather (Vita 5) – but despite Josephus’ exaggerated formulations at Antiquities 16.187 and Vita 2, his was not an Hasmonean family: when Vita 4 gets down to details all it says is that one of Josephus’ ancestors, apparently in the second century BCE, married the daughter of an Hasmonean. 340 Translation and Commentary brothers in the literal sense. It seems, rather, that our author has simply erred, perhaps led astray by the combination of his knowledge that Joseph was a commander and that most of the commanders were Judas’ brothers. In fact, this Joseph is usually assumed to be identical with the Joseph son of Zechariah mentioned at 1 Maccabees 5:56.

23. and also Eleazar. Some witnesses read “Ezra,” apparently under the influence of “Esdris” of 12:36; this reading also neatly fits this character’s role here, as reader of the Torah, just like his famous forebear (Neh 8). However, in our NOTE on he himself led the first wait, later in this verse, we shall argue that it is not this person, but rather Judas, who is said to have read the Torah. For defense of “Eleazar,” see Hanhart, Text, 63, n. 1; Katz, “Text,” 14–15. after reading the sacred book and giving the motto “God’s help.” Although we are not told from what part of the Bible Judas read, probably we are supposed to infer that the lection suggested the motto. It seems, as is indicated by the parallel at 1 Maccabees 3:48, that the reference is to a type of divination: a chance opening of the Bible and selection of a text, on the assumption that God Himself is guiding the choice; on that verse, see esp. Abel, Macc, 68–70. For such divination, see Lieberman, Hellenism, 194–199. On the use of mottos (to signal the start of combat? as pass- words? as battle-cries?) see also 13:15 and 1QM 3–4 (including “God’s War,” “God’s Vengeance,” “God’s Struggle,” “God’s Requite” etc. – 4:13). For much Hellenistic material, see Bar-Kochva, JM, 220–221; Y. Garlan, “Études d’histoire militaire et diplomatique, XII: ΣWΝΥΗΜΑΤΑ,” BCH 100 (1976) 299–302. he himself led the first unit (τ« πρ1τη« σπερη« α/τ(« προηγομενο«). This seems plainly to mean that Judas himself took command of the first of the four units mentioned in v. 22, although he had appointed a separate commander for it. That is, Judas’ seniority and bravery are demonstrated by the fact that he himself, not another on his behalf, led the attack. So too 11:7; 12:22; and note the significant contrast at 10:19–23, which shows what can happen when someone else is in charge. Compare also Diodo- rus 17.57.6, which, describing Alexander the Great at Arbel, says he himself led the right wing (α.τ9« δM το δειο μωροψ« Yγο μενο«). Some copyists and interpreters were not happy with this plain meaning of our verse, and therefore tried to have vv. 22–23 name only three commanders, apart from Judas. Building on the way Eleazar’s name comes belatedly, some suggest excluding Eleazar (or “Ezra”) from the list of com- Chapter VIII 341 manders, leaving him only reading the Bible and giving the motto (so Goldstein), while others would erase his name altogether, assuming that it was later added by scribes familiar with 1 Maccabees (so Wellhausen, “Wert,” 133, n. 3, followed by Katz, “Text,” 14–15 and Habicht, 2 Macc, 241, n. 21a). But such an approach leaves Judas on a par with his brothers, which is certainly not our author’s position; see esp. J. Geiger, “History of Judas Maccabaeus.” Nor would it be easy to explain why particularly Elea- zar, of all the brothers, read the Bible and gave the motto; one would expect some explanation as to why this brother alone was defined as a religious figure. But there is nothing surprising about our author endowing Judas with a religious role; he is portrayed throughout as a religious leader (see 5:27; 8:18–19; 10:25–26; 11:6; 12:6, 42ff.; 13:14; 15:8ff.).

24. ally. For God as the Jews’ σ μμαξο« see also 10:16; 11:10; 12:36; cf. 3πωρμαξο« in v. 36. The term compares God to a political power, whose relationship with the Jews is similar to their σψμμαξα with Rome (4:11): the terminology of “help” and “assistance” – βοεια (vv. 20, 23, 35; 12:11; 13:13; 15:35), βοη« (3:39) and βοημα (15:8) – are other items in the same lexicon. Gafni (“Josephus on I Maccabees,” 126–127) underlines Jo- sephus’ reference to God’s role as the Hasmoneans’ σ μμαξο« at An- tiquities 12.285 as part of his effort to distinguish between them and the rebels of his own day, whom he wished to present as illegitimate, and who did not enjoy such divine support (War 2.390; 5.377). This need to legitimize rebels by showing their religious justification is a diasporan one; it motivated our author just as much as it motivated Josephus. For God as the Jews’ ally, see also Mariani, “L’alleanza e l’amicizia.” cut down. With no apologetics; see NOTE on v. 20, and they took much booty. more than 9000. Around half of Nicanor’s army, according to v. 9. wounding … forced them all to flee. For a very similar formulation, see 4:42.

25. the money. See v. 11. Our author loves turnabouts like this, where there is done unto evil others what they would have done unto us; compare esp. vv. 35–36; 3:28; 9:10. a considerable distance (φ7 =καν2ν). For a similar phrase, see e.g. Poly- bius 11.25.1, περαν … φ0 Zκανν (“considerable experience” – Paton in LCL edition). Cf. NOTE on 1:20, enough years. 342 Translation and Commentary

26. the (day) before the Sabbath (> πρ( το σαββ#τοψ). Friday, as also at Antiquities 13.255, Judith 8:6 (where Judith is said to have fasted every day ξρ/« προσαββτν κα/ σαββτν), and Mark 15:42, where the προσββατον is glossed as “preparation.” But it is not always clear whether all of Friday is meant, or rather the afternoon alone. As for the Sab- bath taking precedence over warfare, see NOTE on 5:25, pretended. As in that instance (Apollonius’ entry into Jerusalem), where 1 Maccabees 1:30 mentions the same event but with no reference to the Sabbath, so too here: the implication of 1 Maccabees 4:15 is that the Jews broke off their pursuit simply because they were getting too close to the coastal cities. For the this- worldly dynastic historian it sufficed to indicate that it was not wise, mili- tarily, to be there; our religious author had another agenda. On this basic difference between the two books, see Introduction, pp. 63–64. did not long continue. LSJ, 1075, lists our verse alone for this meaning of μακροτονω.

27. After collecting their weapons. The same is the case for active usage of the verb $πλολογω, which recurs in v. 31; see LSJ, 1240. and stripping the enemy bare (κδ σαντε«) of spoils. The verb corresponds to similar usage at 11:12. beginning of Mercy. See our NOTE on 7:29, in the Mercy. Here we see the author enumerating, as it were, the stations along the way to complete salvation. Next stop: v. 29.

28. distributing some of the spoils. The spoils are mentioned in 1 Macca- bees 4:23, but that this-worldly book (cf. NOTE on v. 26, the [day] before the Sabbath) makes no mention of charitable distribution – which our book details here and in v. 30. For distribution of spoils, cf. Numbers 31:25ff.; Pritchett, War, 5.363–401.

29. completed … together petitioned. The parallelism of the verbs here hints that not only the prayer, but also the charitable distribution of booty, was meant to have a positive influence upon God; cf. Sirach 7:10, “Do not be fainthearted in your prayer, nor neglect to give alms,” also Tobit 4:7–11 (which builds upon Prov 10:2; 11:4): “Give alms … Do not turn your face away from any poor person. Then God’s face will not be turned away from you … So you will be storing up good treasure for yourself against a day of need. For almsgiving preserves one from death” (trans. Fitzmyer, Tobit). Chapter VIII 343

Not much is known about the actual practice of charity during the Sec- ond Temple period; see G. H. Hamel, Poverty and Charity in Roman Pales- tine: First Three Centuries C.E. (Berkeley: Univ. of California, 1990), esp. 216–218. completely reconciled with His own servants. The conjunction of “reconciliation” and “servants” ensures that – just as 7:33, where as here we have the intensified possessive, His own servants – this is an allusion back to 7:6. Having seen the beginning (v. 27!) of “reconciliation,” the Jews express the hope that it will be completed.

30. Clashing (σψνερεσαντε«). This verb appears nowhere else in the Sep- tuagint, and our verse is one of only two references for it in LSJ, 1712.

Timothy’s and Bacchides’ men. Who have not yet been mentioned. It appears that this account was located here, out of historical context, because of the theme it shares with the present story: the charitable distribution of booty (see Momigliano, Prime linee, 79; Bar-Kochva, JM, 512). So despite the allusions at 9:3 and 10:24, we should not understand that the battle mentioned here necessarily occurred right after the one against Nicanor. Cf. NOTES on v. 31, to Jerusalem, and on v. 33, Callisthenes. very high strongholds. As usual, our author has no interest in the geographical details; see NOTE on v. 6, strategic places. “Very” (ε[ μλα – “right well”) recurs in the same type of context in 10:18, 32. a great quantity of spoils. But not all of the spoils, for some were brought to Jerusalem, apparently for the victory celebration; see v. 33. equal portions for themselves and for … widows and orphans, as well as the old. The author wants to emphasize that Judas and his men did not take for themselves more than they gave to the unfortunates listed here. But pace Risberg (“Anmerkungen,” 22, followed by Katz, “Text,” 15 and Habicht, 2 Macc, 242, n. 30d) it is not at all clear that emendation is required to make that point; cf. Hanhart, Text, 34. those who had been mistreated (?κισμωνοι«). In the present context, appearing alongside widows and orphans and before the surviving and their families, one would expect this term to refer to those wounded in battle. However, the literal meaning of the word is “those who had been outraged/ mistreated insultingly/tortured,” and since this root is typical of the marty- 344 Translation and Commentary rology in Chapter 7 (see above, p. 17), it may be that we are meant to understand this as a reference to the surviving victims of the persecution (so Abel, Macc, 393; so too RSV: “those who had been tortured”). If so, then here too, as in the prayer that opens this chapter and as in v. 21 (“ready to die”), our author is binding up Judas’ struggle with that of those martyrs.

31. strategic. Somewhere or other; see NOTE on v. 30, very high strongholds. As for πικαιρ«, see NOTE on v. 6, strategic places. to Jerusalem. Which, at this point of the story, has not yet been taken by the Jews; nor have we even been told that the victory over Nicanor would allow for that. Indeed, according to 1 Maccabees 4 it did not; yet another campaign (1 Macc 4:26–35) was still needed. This too indicates that the present pericope should be read not as part of the sequential narrative, but, rather, as an excursus illustrating and reinforcing an element of it: the proper distribution of spoils.

32. Timothy’s phylarch. According to the structure of this verse, “phylarch” (φψλρξη«) would seem to be a (military) rank or title; for discussion, see esp. Bar-Kochva, JM, 511, who cites Grimm (2 Macc, 144) and esp. Richnow (“Untersuchungen,” 121) for the view that it is a proper noun. Grimm’s assertion that it is “sicher Nomen proprium” is based on the claim that if it were a military rank or title it should be accompanied by τιν, “a (hitherto unmentioned) phylarch;” but that seems to be based on the unfounded assumption that Timothy’s force included more than one phylarch. As for Richnow, he in fact deliberates the issue without coming to a conclusion, even adding in the point that there is very little evidence for Phylarch as a proper noun – to which Habicht (2 Macc, 242, n. 32a) adds that such evidence as there is points rather to Phylarchos, whereas the spelling with η«, as we have it, points rather toward a title. If it is a title (as held for example by Habicht, ibid., and by Abel, Macc, 394), what would it mean here? In classical Athens phylarchs were the commanders of cavalry units of each tribe (φψλ – Herodotus 5.69), so Habicht (ibid.) translates “Reiterkommandeur;” for Timothy’s cavalry, see 10:24. See also Bunge, Untersuchungen, 280. But it does not seem that the term, which literally alludes to tribes and not to cavalry, moved completely from the former to the latter realm, and, indeed, it is difficult to find supporting evidence for “cavalry commander;” see LSJ, 1961. Bunge refers to Bengston (Strategie 2.305), who, along with additional bibliography, suggested that in Dura Europus the φψλρξη« was responsible for the Arab tribes in the vicinity of the city. Such an interpretation could fit our verse as well, for “no Chapter VIII 345 less than 5000” Arabs joined Timothy’s forces, according to 12:10. Com- pare the “arabarch” (ραβρξη«), known from the Roman period – the official in charge of customs-collection from the Arab tribes or regions; see Stern, GLA, 2.96–97. a most impious man (νοσιτατον). On this adjective, see NOTE on 7:34, impious. harassed. Apart from a variant reading in Herodotus 9.50, this is the only citation in LSJ, 644 for the active voice of πιλψπω.

33. victory celebrations (πινκια). On “the customary epinikia” (Arrian 5.20.1), which were post-victory celebrations and esp. sacrifices, see Prit- chett, War, 3.186–189, who cites much evidence, including Diodo- rus 16.86.6 and Polyaenus 1.43.2 and 7.43. fatherland. Jerusalem itself is clearly meant here, as is shown by v. 31. See our NOTE on 4:1, fatherland. burned those who had set fire. Tit for tat, what the end of this verse calls “fitting wages;” see NOTE on 4:16, those for whose ways … holy gates. The fact that they were burned is also mentioned in the first epistle (1:8), which indicates that Jason’s or Menelaus’ supporters had done such a thing; also in 1 Maccabees 4:38. We cannot know which gates are meant, and we in fact know very little about the Temple’s gates and those of its courts in this early period; most of our evidence pertains to the Herodian period. See Josephus, War 5.198–206 and Antiquities 15.410–420; m. Mid- dot 1:3–5; Schalit, König Herodes, 372–380 (on gates of Temple Mount), 385–392 (on gates of inner precinct); L. I. Levine, “Josephus’ Description of the Jerusalem Temple,” in: Parente & Sievers, Josephus and the History, 242.

Callisthenes. The fact that this character is unknown but not presented as such is, apparently, more evidence for the assumption that this pericope is out of context; see NOTE on v. 30, Timothy’s and Bacchides’ men. received fitting wages. As Andronicus (4:38). There are variant readings here, which apparently reflect copyists’ desire to punish not only Callis- thenes, but rather all of those who set fire to the gates; see Kappler, Mem- oria, 63–64; Hanhart, Text, 26–27, n. 4. 346 Translation and Commentary

34. As for … Nicanor. This leads us back into the main narrative, following the excursus in vv. 30–33. This is, then, another example of the author’s use of names as “handles” to move our attention in the direction he desires; see NOTE on v. 8, But Philip. thrice-accursed Nicanor (τρισαλιτριο«). For this colorful word LSJ (1822) cites only our verse and LXX Esther 8:12p. Use of such a rare description of Nicanor both here and at 15:3 shows clearly that our author thought that they are one and the same; that is indeed the reason he focuses upon him here; see Introduction, pp. 9–10. who had brought the thousand merchants. On Nicanor’s responsibility for this, see NOTE on v. 11, he wrote to the coastal cities. The number of merchants was not mentioned there, nor in 1 Maccabees 3:41. But the use of the definite article here makes it sound as if the reader knew of it; perhaps this was one of the numbers the author left out when editing Jason’s original (see 2:24). In any case, it is grossly exaggerated.

35. with the Lord’s help. In accordance with the Jews’ motto (v. 23); note that the author is not bothered by the use of ε« there and κ ριο« here, just as he generally alternates between the two without any apparent rationale. Thus, for example, in this chapter he uses κ ριο« in vv. 2, 5, 14, 27, 29 alongside of ε« in vv. 13, 18, 23, and in Chapter 10 the Jews pray to ε« in v. 25, before the battle, but depend upon κ ριο« in v. 28 and thank Him in v. 38; etc. made himself as destitute as a fugitive slave (δραπωτοψ τρπον). Tit for tat: he wanted to sell the Jews into captivity, but in the end only managed to escape by feigning the same plight. According to Josephus (War 2.358), Xerxes, the classic exemplar of royal arrogance (see NOTE on 5:21, land navigable …), in the end fled like a fugitive slave (ο\α δραπωτην); cf. Ae- schylus’ description of his flight in Persians, 734, 832–836, and Diodorus’ at 11.19.6. through the hinterland. Given his defeat he was afraid, or embarrassed, to go back via the coastal cities to which he had turned so confidently at the outset of his campaign (v. 11). having succeeded especially in accomplishing the destruction of his army. On the irony here, see Doran, Temple Propaganda, 58 (as opposed to Ha- bicht 2 Macc, 243, n. 35c); for more joking at Nicanor’s expense, see our Chapter VIII 347

NOTES on the next verse. The adverb 3περγαν (“especially”) is relatively rare but appears twice more in our book (10:34; 13:25) and is defended by Katz, “Text,” 15 and Kilpatrick, “Review of Hanhart,” 18, as opposed to Hanhart who reads and defends (Text, 39) 3πMρ >παν (“above all”).

36. Thus he. The author likes these gloating ad hominem summaries; see Introduction, pp. 77–78. to take care of … proclaimed. These two verbs are juxtaposed and very similar to one another (κατορσασαι κατγγελλεν), which highlights the contrast between his original plan and what he ended up doing; Cf. NOTE on 6:29, benevolence … malevolence. This seems to be the first of two cases of word-play, at Nicanor’s expense, in this final verse of the chapter; see below, NOTE on and that it is for this reason … because. the Jerusalemites. The book’s usual focus; see Introduction, pp. 6–7. proclaimed. Like Heliodorus (3:34–39), Antiochus’ promise (9:14), and Ly- sias’ conclusion (11:13).

Someone who fights for them. For God as the Jews’ 3πωρμαξο« see also 14:34; cf. above, NOTE on v. 24, ally. and that it is for this reason … because. The translation is based on the parallelism between the repeated use of δι?. Note that the concatenation of consonants makes τ9ν τρπον τοτον τρτοψ« into something of a tongue-twister, which may add to the mirth over poor Nicanor’s fate; cf. NOTE on to take care of … proclaimed earlier in this verse.

Jews are invulnerable. Lysias too will reach the same conclusion; see 11:13. The present verse conforms nicely to v. 5 and together they frame the chapter: there the Jewish author says that Jewish attacks cannot be withstood, and here the Gentile, having learned this lesson, preaches that those who would attack Jews come to a sorry end. That is just what is needed to prepare us for the next chapter. because they follow (κολοψ εν) the laws ordained (προστεταγμωνοι«) by Him. For the implied comparison of God’s laws to royal prostagmata, see NOTE on 7:30, decree of the king … As for “follow,” there are parallels for such usage of κολοψεν; see e.g. Judith 2:3 and Andocides, Against Alci- biades 4.19. Nevertheless, this meaning is rare enough to justify the suspi- 348 Translation and Commentary cion that it is used here to close a circle: God’s justice pursued Nicanor (παρακολοψσειν – v. 11), and the Jews followed His laws and thereby merited that He fight for them. For such usage of a somewhat inappropriate word in order to close a circle, cf. NOTE on 3:35, receiving Onias.

Bibliography

Bar-Kochva, JM, 219–274. Goodblatt, “Medinat HaYam.” Wellhausen, “Wert,” 132–138. Chapter IX 349

Chapter IX

Antiochus’ Disease and Fall

(1) About that time it happened that Antiochus had made a disorderly retreat from the Persian regions. (2) For he had entered into the city called Persepolis and set his hand to robbing the temple and securing the city – for which reason the masses, having rushed to arms for assistance, defeated them; and so it happened that Antiochus was put to flight by the natives and made a humiliating retreat. (3) When he was near Ecbatana there reached him the news of what had happened to Nicanor and to those with Timothy. (4) Borne on the wave of his temper he thought he could avenge upon the Jews also the misfortune which had been imposed upon him by those who had forced him to flee. He therefore ordered his wagon-driver to drive without letup so as to finish the trip – but the heavenly judgment kept up with him. For he arrogantly said, “When I get to Jerusalem I will turn it into a Jewish cemetery!,” (5) but the all-seeing Lord, the God of Israel, smote him with an incurable and invisible blow: right after he ceased speaking he was overcome by unrelenting pain in his entrails and bitter torments of his innards – (6) quite justly, for he had with numerous and exotic sufferings tormented the entrails of others. (7) But he in no way gave up his haughtiness, but was even filled with arrogance, breathing fire in his rage against the Jews and ordering (his driver) to make haste along the way. But it happened that, carried along by the rush, he fell from the chariot; in the severe fall it befell all the parts of his body to be racked intensely. (8) And so he – who until just now had thought, in superhuman vaing- lory, to give orders to the ocean’s waves, and who had supposed he could weigh on a scale the heights of mountains – came back to earth and, being carried in a litter, exhibited to all the revealed power of God, (9) in that also worms came bubbling up out of the villain’s eyes, and while he was still alive his flesh disintegrated in pain and suffering, and the entire camp was belabored under the stench of his decaying. (10) And he who just a bit earlier had thought he could touch the stars of heaven – no one could bear him due to the intolerable burden of his stench. 350 Translation and Commentary

Antiochus Repents

(11) At this point, shattered, he began to give up something of his arrogance and to come to his senses, for under the divine scourge his pains were continually becoming worse and worse. (12) No longer able even to stand his own stench, he said: “It is right to submit to God and, being mortal, not to think oneself equal to God.” (13) And the abominable man made a vow to the Sovereign – who would no longer be merciful to him – saying as follows: (14) that he would proclaim the Holy City – to which he had been hurrying in order to level it to the ground and rebuild as a cemetery – free; (15) and that he would set the Jews – whom he had considered not even worthy of burial, but had thought to throw out bird-eaten to wild animals, together with their babies – equal to Athenians; (16) and that he would deck out the Holy Temple – which he had previously pillaged – with the most beautiful votive offerings, and that he would restore many times over the sacred vessels and supply from his own revenues the expenses incurred for the sacrifices; (17) and that, moreover, he would become a Jew and, visiting all inhabited places, would proclaim the power of God.

Antiochus’ Epistle to the Jews

(18) But since the suffering did not at all let up – for he had already been visited by the just judgment of God – he gave up hope for himself and wrote the Jews the letter written below, in the form of a supplication, as follows: (19) To the respected Jews, fellow citizens, many greetings, health and success (from) the King and Governor Antiochus. (20) If you are well, and your children and your affairs are satisfactory, I pray the greatest gratitude to God, for my hope is in Heaven. (21) As for me, although I am in a weak condition, I remember with sincere love your respect and goodwill. Since while returning from the region of Persia I fell ill, and I am in a bad way, I have thought it necessary to give thought to the common security of all. (22) Although I do not despair of myself, and have full hope to get out of the clutches of this disease, (23) nevertheless: seeing that my father, whenever he campaigned to the highlands, appointed him who would succeed him, (24) so that if anything surprising should develop or any difficulty be reported, all the inhabitants of the country would know to whom the state had been left and would not be even more upset; Chapter IX 351

(25) and realizing, moreover, that the nearby and neighboring rulers are looking for opportunities and building expectations about developments; I have appointed my son Antiochus king, just as frequently, when I hastened up to the upper satrapies, I entrusted and recommended him to the majority of you. And I have written him the things written below. (26) Ac- cordingly, I call upon you and ask you that – recalling my benefactions to the commonalty and to each and every one of you – each of you maintain the present goodwill toward me and my son. (27) For I am convinced that he – graciously and humanely following my own policy – will be lenient with you.

Antiochus Dies

(28) Thus the murderer and blasphemer, suffering the worst possible fate, ended his life in the way he had treated others: in a foreign land, in the mountains – a most miserable death. (29) Philip, who had been reared with him, bore the body back, and then, wary of Antiochus’ son, betook himself to Egypt, to Ptolemy Philometor.

COMMENT

The death of Antiochus Epiphanes was a favorite theme in ancient de mortibus persecutorum literature (see Bibliography to this chapter), and our chapter is the earliest of them all. All that happens in this chapter is that our author – enjoying himself immensely – settles the Jews’ accounts with Anti- ochus IV Epiphanes. The king, whose very name bespeaks arrogance (see NOTE on v. 4, arrogantly) and whose mind had gone “soaring” (5:17, 21) since he hadn’t understood that his successes against the Jews were due to God’s desire to punish his sinful people (5:17), is brought back to earth in a very real and excruciating way, and so – to understanding God’s power. The story begins with a Persian mob defeating the king’s attempt to rob their temple, and proceeds to have him flee, hear bad news from Judaea, be stricken by a God-sent disease, and severely wounded by a fall from his chariot. Then, when he has begun to recognize that it is right to submit to God, he first makes all sorts of wonderful promises concerning Jerusalem, the Jews and God Himself – but it turns out that these too are only expressions of his arrogance, for he can in fact do nothing. So there is nothing left for him but shameful death, although not before the author shows himself to be a virtuoso in spoofing a royal deathbed epistle. 352 Translation and Commentary

As for historicity, most of what we have in this chapter is not the type of material one would expect to be able – or to want – to confirm or deny. It is, rather, a gloating combination of Greek and Jewish motifs about arrogant kings and their spectacular downfalls; many of the building blocks may be traced back, directly or indirectly, to Aeschylus’ Persians (on Xerxes) and Isaiah 14 (on the King of Babylon). See, respectively, our NOTES on v. 1, disorderly retreat, and on v. 9, worms. Nevertheless, it may be noted that the two basic facts – Antiochus’ death in the course of his eastern campaign, and in some connection to an attempt to plunder a temple – are borne out by other sources as well; see NOTES on 1:13, to Persia and in the temple of Nanaia.

NOTES

9:1. About that time. As at the opening of Chapter 5, which opens the same way with reference to Antiochus’ campaign to Egypt, our author has no interest in giving a precise date. Antiochus’ departure for the East is dated at 1 Maccabees 3:37 to 147 SE, that is – according to the Jewish system (see Introduction, p. 11, n. 24) – between the spring of 165 and that of 164 BCE. For literature on the campaign, see NOTE on 1:13, to Persia. it happened (τγξανεν). This too parallels the opening of Chapter 5, although the verb there is different; for ours, see NOTE on 4:32, just as it happened. In the present chapter also a few other things “happen” (σψνβαν – vv. 2, 7), and it is clear that the author wants us to understand that God made them happen; see NOTE on 3:2, it happened. disorderly (κ2σμ,«) retreat. Just like Xerxes’ army, according to Aeschy- lus’ Persians, lines 422, 470, 481. For other comparisons of Antiochus to Xerxes – both paragons of arrogance – in this chapter, see NOTE on v. 4, kept up with him, on v. 8, give orders to … waves … weigh … mountains, and on v. 12, “ … being mortal ( νητ2ν)…” the Persian regions. The phrasing is very general, probably because our author did not know, nor could he care less, where exactly these events transpired; cf. 4:36; 8:6, 31; 10:19; etc. Other more specific sources indicate that the event described in v. 2 happened in Elymais – which is, in a general way, part of “Persia;” so too 1 Maccabees 6:1. Cf. NOTE on 1:13, temple of Nanaia. Chapter IX 353

2. called. Such a formulation is usually used to apologize, as it were, before readers, upon introduction of foreign or strange-sounding words or names; thus, for example, 12:17, 21, 32; 14:6; 15:36. But Persepolis was certainly quite well known; see our next NOTE. Rather, in this case it seems that there was another problem: the name was understood to mean “city of the Persians,” and according to a well-established rule such names were supposed to remain divided into two words, such as Σκψ7ν πλιν in 12:29, as opposed to one word for the residents, Σκψοπολται, mentioned in the very next verse. Persepolis was for some reason exceptional, but our author, who preened himself on his Greek style, felt the need to demonstrate some unease. See J. Wackernagel, “Griechische Miszellen, 1: Περσωπολι«,” Glotta 14 (1925) 36–44 = idem, Kleine Schriften, II (3 vols.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1953[?]) 844–852.

Persepolis. The capital of ancient Persia, which became famous esp. upon its destruction by Alexander the Great; see E. N. Borza, “Fire From Heaven: Alexander at Persepolis,” CP 67 (1972) 233–245; M. Wheeler, Flames Over Persepolis (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1968). For this reason, and due to the fact that hundreds of kilometers separate it from Elymais, one may suspect that our author named this city only because he knew that the events to which he alludes happened somewhere in “Persia;” so, for example, Schunck, Quellen, 41. set his hand. The verb is πιξειρω, as at 7:19, and there too there is a strong nasty nuance; see also 10:15, 3 Maccabees 6:24 and Acts 12:1 (although above 2:29 it has no such nuance). the masses, having rushed to arms for assistance, defeated them. I translated as if an active verb had been used instead of the passive τρπησαν, so as to avoid ambiguity (that led some translators, such as the RSV, to add “Antiochus and his men” into the text). On the sense of the verb, see our NOTE on 12:27, defeated and destroyed. The scene is similar to the one played out in Jerusalem at 4:39–42, but our diasporan author, who here has Persians taking up weapons, limited his unarmed Jerusalemite heroes to whatever they could find; see NOTE on 4:41, wood … ashes.

3. Ecbatana. The capital of Media, found to the north of Elymais; today: Hamadan. According to Polybius 31.9, however, death overtook him at “Tabae which is in Persis,” hundreds of kilometers southeast of Ecbatana; see Walbank, Polybius, 3.474; Drew-Bear, “Recherches, I.” Perhaps our author knew of the special relationship between Antiochus Epiphanes and 354 Translation and Commentary

Ecbatana, which was reflected in the fact that the city renamed itself Epiph- aneia; see Mørkholm, Antiochus, 117. For a good map of the region, see A. B. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1988) 86. there reached him the news. As usual, our author would not want us to stop to wonder how; see Introduction, p. 73. what had happened to Nicanor and to those with Timothy. The reference to Nicanor is fine, but as for “those with Timothy,” whose defeat at the hands of the Jews is reported in 8:30–33, it seems (see NOTE on 8:30, Timothy’s and Bacchides’ men) that the story there was out of place historically, meant only to illustrate the topic of charitable distribution of booty. Here, however, as also in a brief allusion at 10:24, it sounds as if the event has already taken place. Although it is possible that these two references to Timothy’s men were added in after the book was completed, it seems more economical to assume (with Bar-Kochva, JM, 512) that already Jason had the material appearing in what is now 8:30–33 and that our author, in a mistaken attempt to bind the narrative together better, added in the present reference, as also the one at 10:24. 1 Maccabees 6:5ff. agrees that the king, while in Persia, heard of his forces’ defeat in Judaea, and that the news led to his death; but there the reference is especially to the defeat of Lysias in the first Beth-Zur campaign (and Timothy is not mentioned). For our author, who believed that Lysias was appointed to office only after the death of Anti- ochus IV (see 10:11), there had to be some other reference. Note, moreover, that if indeed, as suggested above (pp. 28–30), the original order of our book’s chapters at this part of its story was 8, 13, 12, 9, the defeats of Ni- canor (Ch. 8) and Timothy (Ch. 12) would indeed have preceded Anti- ochus’ death (Ch. 9).

4. Borne on the wave of his temper. The king’s reaction to this news from Judaea is similar to the one recorded at 5:11. For Antiochus being taken over by his rage (ψμ«), also v. 7 and NOTE on 6:23, honorable argument; for him becoming 6κψμο« see 7:3, 39 (and cf. 14:27). also the misfortune. That is, he could avenge upon the Jews not only what they did to Nicanor and Timothy, but also – what the Persepolitans had done to him. heavenly. I.e., of God; see NOTE on 7:11, from Heaven. Chapter IX 355 kept up with him. This is real irony: he is hurrying to attack Jerusalem, but the city’s Champion accompanied him, not even having to “pursue” him (8:11). The author might have Aeschylus, Persians, 742 in mind: “when man hasteneth to his own undoing, God too taketh part with him” (trans. Smyth, LCL); cf. NOTES on v. 1, disorderly retreat, and on 8:35, made himself as destitute as a fugitive slave. arrogantly (περηφ#ν,«). Here, as in vv. 7, 11 (3περηφανα) and 8 (φα- νερν) our author plays games at the expense of Antiochus’ illustrious byname, Epiphanes; this becomes, via repetition, something of a leitmotif in this chapter. So too, already, at 3:20–21 and the joke at 10:10; cf. above, p. 81. For Antiochus’ arrogance, see esp. 5:21. On this sin, see NOTE on 3:24, been audacious. For another Jewish Hellenistic author who saw fit to repeatedly urge kings against it, see Letter of Aristeas 211, 262, 263, 269. cemetery (πολψανδρεον). Lit., “place of many men;” may also be used of a whorehouse (so Philo, On Flight, 153), an overtone that makes the threat sound even worse (cf. 6:4!). For the calamity of a temple turning into a πολψανδρεον, see also Josephus, War 5.19.

5. all-seeing (παντεπ2πτη«) Lord. The adjective appears only here in the Septuagint, but the idea itself is frequent in our book; see NOTE on 3:39, watches over. On this adjective in a Gerasan inscription and on similar expressions in Greek literature, see A. H. M. Jones, “Inscriptions from Jer- ash,” JRS 18 (1928) 173, no. 42. smote him (π#τα-εν). The use of this verb might be meant to hint at the comparison of Antiochus to the biblical Pharaoh, who was (along with the Egyptians) the most famous victim of divine πατσσ; see H&R, 2.1103. For this comparison, see also NOTES on 5:22, officials to torment; 5:24, the Mysarch Apollonius; and 15:24, be terrified. For Luke playing a similar game with another persecutor, whom God’s angel “strikes” at Acts 12:23, see Schwartz, Agrippa, 120, n. 51. Already Polybius knew that there were those who thought that it was God who inflicted disease upon Antiochus, in His wrath at him for attempting to violate a temple; but Polybius was referring to the temple of Artemis in Elymais – see NOTE on 1:13, in the temple of Nanaia. Just as Josephus was to “wonder” (Ant. 12.358–359) at Poly- bius’ failure to connect the king’s death to the temple of Jerusalem, other Jews may have been bothered by the same problem; our book, just as 1 Mac- cabees 6 – shows a Jewish tradition linking the two versions together. Cf. our NOTE on 10:13; because he had abandoned Cyprus. For a comparison 356 Translation and Commentary of this Jewish version to the Prayer of Nabonid from Qumran (4Q242; DJD 22, 83–93), see Mendels, “Note.” invisible blow. But its results were visible; cf. 3:25, they saw a horse. entrails (σπλ#γξν,ν). Any reader used to our author’s style should realize that this term points back to the martyrologies (6:8, 21; 7:42) and that, accordingly, if the disease first manifested itself in the entrails this was:

6. quite justly. For similarly pedantic comments in similar contexts, see 12:45 and 13:8. for he had … tormented the entrails (σπλ#γξνα) of others. In context, this can only mean that he had forced Jews to eat – that is, he had imposed upon their entrails – forbidden foods.

7. in no way gave up. Our author refuses to let his victim learn, thus setting him up for the final fall. haughtiness … arrogance. See NOTE on v. 4, arrogantly. breathing fire (π ρ πνω,ν). Cf. the “fire-breathing (πψρπνοψν) arrogance” of the Jews’ enemies at 3 Maccabees 6:34. This especially graphic way of portraying anger may reflect folkloristic notions of dragons; see S. Thompson, Motif-Index of Folk Literature, I (Bloomington & London: Indiana Univ., 19662) 351, 473. in his rage. On Antiochus’ ψμ«, see NOTE on v. 4, Borne on the wave of his temper.

But it happened. Of course, such things do not just happen to happen; see NOTE on v. 1, it happened. he fell. This element, missing in all the other versions of Antiochus’ death, seems to have been required so as to correspond to Isaiah 14:12 and bring Antiochus literally back to earth after his earlier “soaring” (5:17, 21); see Schwartz, “Why did Antiochus?.” Adding this in engendered some rough- ness; see the first NOTE on v. 9. all the parts of his body. Readers geared by now to seeking tit for tat will recall 7:7, “have your body punished bit by bit.” Chapter IX 357 to be racked intensely. LSJ (220) lists our verse alone in its entry on ποστ- ρεβλομαι.

8. And so he – who until just now had thought. For such gloating knife-turning, here paralleled at v. 10, see NOTE on 3:28, And so he who just before. give orders to … waves … weigh … mountains. The first clause echoes 5:21. It is characteristic of our Jewish Hellenistic book, which bespeaks a synthesis of the two worlds, that it is impossible, and unnecessary, for us to decide whether the allusion here is – or is more – to Xerxes (Herodotus 7.24, 36–37; Aeschylus, Persians, 744–751, 820 etc.) or, rather, to Isaiah 40:12: “Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand … and weighed the mountains in scales …?” For στσειν of weighing, see Abel, Macc, 399. Either allusion would justify the author’s assumption that Antiochus’ ulti- mate sin was equating himself with God – as is explicitly said in v. 12. On this motif here and in Hellenistic and Roman literature, see Africa, “Worms,” 8–9. exhibited to all the … power of God. Just as, in other ways, Heliodorus (3:28), Nicanor (8:36) and Lysias (11:13); see above, p. 48. revealed (φανερ#ν). Another joke at the expense of “Epiphanes;” see NOTE on v. 4, arrogantly.

9. in that also (@στε κα3). This is an attempt to make the story flow, but in fact continues the story from v. 6; it is the bowel disease, not the fall (vv. 7–8), that created the worms that now come crawling up and out. See NOTE on v. 7, he fell. worms. A common motif in “death of tyrants” accounts – e.g. Sulla (Plut- arch, Sulla 36), Herod (Josephus, War 1.656; Ant. 17.169), Agrippa I (Acts 12:23); for other cases, see Plutarch, ibid., Judith 16:17; Pseudo- Philo, LAB 44.9; 63.4; b. Sotah 35a; etc. (Spicq, Notes, 2.805–6; Schwartz, Agrippa, 148). On these stories and their motifs, see esp. Nestle, “Leg- enden” (253–258 on lice and worms; 267 – summary table of who died how) and Africa, “Worms.” Note especially that Queen Pheretime of Cy- rene is said to have died this way as the gods’ punishment for having taken exaggerated vengeance upon her enemies (Herodotus 4.205; cf. ibid. §202), a point which may have been known to our Jason. But it is also important that the “King of Babylon,” an epithet easily applied to a Seleucid, is promised a wormy fate (although post-mortem) at 358 Translation and Commentary

Isaiah 14:11, and that that chapter’s account of that arrogant man’s rise and fall seems to be echoed at a few points in the present account; see Nickels- burg, Resurrection, 79, and Schwartz, “Why did Antiochus?,” along with the following NOTES: v. 10, touch …; v. 12, “… being mortal …;” and v. 28, in a foreign land. Thus, as with regard to the preceding verse, so too here with regard to this standard element in the “death of persecutors” dossier, it is difficult, but also unnecessary, to choose between Greek and Jewish. flesh disintegrated. This seems to be the sense of διαππτ here; cf. 2:14. Compare Qohelet Rabbah on Qohelet 9:12, which, in the context of a discussion of nations that besieged Jerusalem, reports that the limbs of the wicked spies of Numbers 14:37 sloughed off (whereas b. Sotah 35a has them being eaten by worms, which shows that this is all one complex). For Philo on tyrants who dismember their victims while still alive, but in the end suffer the very same fate themselves, see That Every Good Man is Free, 89; it is usually thought that the reference is to Herod (see above, p. 86, n. 199). For Antiochus’ dismemberment of his victims, see 7:4–5. stench. Which accompanied his disease; so too Herod’s (Ant. 17.169). Goldstein (2 Macc, 355) adduces Joel 2:20, where God promises that the stench of “the northerner” – whom one could easily identify as the Seleucid “King of the North,” as throughout Daniel 11 – will “rise” (spread out). For our author’s use of the immediately preceding verses in Joel 2, see In- troduction, p. 62.

10. And he who just a bit earlier … See NOTE on v. 8, And so he …; this time he is said to have taken on not only the oceans and the mountains, but heaven itself. touch the stars … no one could bear him. Some more ironic tit for tat; he thought to touch what mortals cannot, and mortals in fact couldn’t even bear him. On touching the stars, see Isaiah 14:13, of the arrogant King of Babylon: “And you said in your heart, ‘I will go up to the heaven, I will raise up my chair above the stars …’”. As for the inability to “bear” him, see also NOTE on v. 29, bore the body back (παρεκομζετο).

11. continually (κατ στιγμν). For the translation, see Hanhart, Text, 19; he compares κατ? μAνα in 6:7 and ]« στιγμ in LXX Isaiah 29:5.

12. “ … being mortal ( νητ2ν), not to think oneself equal to God (0σ2 εα).” The Venetus’ reading +σεα, attested already by Hippolytus Chapter IX 359 and Cyprian, was adopted by Abel, Habicht and Goldstein. Hanhart (Text, 42–43), after deliberation, adopted 3περφανα (“magnificent”), which is attested by the Alexandrinus and other Greek witnesses. But “equal to God” creates a better contrast with “mortal” than does “magnificent,” and it is surprising that Hanhart ascribed any weight to the fact that +σεα appears nowhere else in the Septuagint; see above, p. 67. For Greek parallels for +σεα, see Goldstein, 2 Macc, 355. As for the background here, note that at Isaiah 14:14 (see NOTE on v. 9, worms) the “King of Babylon” said he would “become like the Most High,” and that at Da- niel 11:36 we read that Antiochus Epiphanes will “elevate himself and magnify himself above all gods and speak ‘wonderful’ things about the God of gods.” Cf. Letter of Aristeas 263: the ruler must always remain a person (cf. NOTE on v. 4, arrograntly). But it seems that, as at 5:21, it is mainly the Xerxes story which functions here; see Aeschylus, Persians, 744–751, 820, where, in the context of the attempt to bridge the Helles- pont, the contrast between a νητ« and the gods recurs. See also Anti- gone’s protest to Creon in line 455 of Sophocle’s Antigone, cited in our NOTE on 7:30, What are you waiting for?

13. abominable man. See NOTE on 5:16, abominable hands. who would no longer be merciful to him. Just as in v. 4, our author takes care not to let his readers worry. saying as follows. Despite this opening, his words are brought in indirect speech. The long list of extravagant promises demonstrates that although he has decided to change his policy, he still thinks he can do anything he wants. Thus, he has moved only part of the way down. After pausing to enjoy this stage (vv. 14–17), the author will go on to depict his final despair (vv. 18ff.).

14. proclaim. As in vv. 23, 25; 10:11; 14:26. On ναδεκνψμι in Hellenistic Greek, see Bickerman, Studies, 3.2–5; Spicq, Notes, 3.38–39. The items proclaimed are each contrasted with what he had planned to do, thus showing his full turnabout.

Holy City. See NOTE on 3:1, Holy City. level it to the ground. As we heard at 8:3. cemetery. As we heard in v. 4. 360 Translation and Commentary free. This apparently refers to freedom from taxation and to asylum status, as obtained during the days of Antiochus III; see NOTE on 3:12, immunity; Rigsby, Asylia, 635 (index, s.v. λεψερ-); and Ma, Antiochos III, 160–165.

15. not even worthy of burial. Actually, we did not hear this about Anti- ochus, only Jason (5:10); but see our NOTE on v. 28, in a foreign land. For the horror implied, see NOTE on 4:49, funeral expenses. bird-eaten to wild animals ( ηροι«). Here too, as with the mountains of v. 8 and the worms of v. 9, it is impossible, but also unnecessary, to decide whether this is a Greek motif or a Hebrew one. See, on the one hand, Iliad 1.4–5; 11.162 etc. (M. Faust, “Die künstlerische Verwendung von κ ν ‘Hund’ in den homerischen Epen,” Glotta 48 [1970] 22–24); Sophocles, Antigone 29, 205–206, 698, 1017–1022; Lactantius, DMP 4.3 etc. On the other: Deuteronomy 28:26; 1 Samuel 17:44–46; Jeremiah 7:33; Eze- kiel 39:4; Psalms 79:2; Psalms of Solomon 4:21–22. On the importance of proper burial, see NOTE on 4:49, funeral expenses. As for ηρον, the Septuagint usually uses it for hayyah, not behemah, that is, it usually uses it for the wilder of the two; when in two of the abovementioned passages (1 Sam 17:44 and Jer 7:33) it nevertheless uses it for behemah (see H&R 1.650–651), this apparently indicates an awareness of the especially bestial nature of that which is alluded to. equal to Athenians. With whom Antiochus had a special relationship; see NOTE on 6:1, Geron the Athenian. Here too there is an ironic twist, because when we last heard of Athenians (ibid.) Antiochus was using one to persecute the Jews.

16. pillaged. As we heard at 5:15–16. votive offerings. On which see NOTE on 3:2, the kings themselves. supply from his own revenues the expenses incurred for the sacrifices. As his brother had done in the idyllic good old days; with the exception of “expenses,” the Greek wording here is identical with that of 3:3.

17. become a Jew. Here our author has really outdone himself; hitherto he has spoken only of Gentiles who recognized God’s power (see NOTE on v. 8, exhibited to all …). On “becoming a Jew,” see Cohen, Beginnings. With regard to our verse Cohen emphasizes (pp. 92–93, 129–130, 151) that what is meant is “Jew by religion,” i.e., worshipper of the Jewish God, not Chapter IX 361

“Judaean;” “after all, Antiochus is a Macedonian king and intends to remain one” (93). visiting … proclaim. As Heliodorus and Nicanor before him (3:36; 8:36). But our author will now delight in showing that, as opposed to them, Anti- ochus will not succeed, for although he promised to visit (πελε σεσαι)…

18. he had already been visited (πεληλ ει … π 7 α/τ2ν) by the just judgment of God. For the subject becoming object, cf. 14:29, 31; the present instance is similar to that at 11:2, 4 (λογιζμενο« … πιλογιζμενο«). For such games, see Introduction, pp. 80–81. As the author has explained (v. 13), the gates of repentance were closed to Antiochus. For rabbinic notions of this punishment as the lot of the worst people, see m. Avot 5.18, t. Ta’aniyyot 4.11 (Lieberman, 253); y. Hagigah 2:1 (77b), Urbach, Sages, 1.465–466. On the closing of the Temple’s gates (which amounts to the same thing) before arch-sinners, see Alon, Jews, 138–145. in the form of a supplication (=κετηρα« τ#-ιν). Supplicating bespeaks ipso facto a status inferior to that of the addressee; see, NOTE on 3:18, supplication; 10:25; 11:6; Philo, Leg. 228; Welles, RC, 57; C. Spicq, “Le philon- isme de l’Épître aux Hébreux,” RB 56 (1949) 549; J. Gould, “ΗΙΚΕΤΕΙΑ,” JHS 93 (1973) 74–103. Already this is enough to indicate that what we have is the work of a Jewish falsifier – who probably would have been miffed had anyone taken his work to be authentic. Rather, we are supposed to laugh along with him. For the inclusion of this letter – and only this letter, of all those in 2 Maccabees – in a list of royal letters in ancient literature which are “völlig stilwidrig” and not to be taken as seriously, see W. Schu- bart, “Bemerkungen zum Stile hellenistischer Königsbriefe,” AfP 6 (1920) 343. See also J.-D. Gauger, Authentizität und Methode: Untersuchun- gen zum historischen Wert des persisch-griechischen Herrscherbriefs in literarischer Tradition (Hamburg: Kovacˇ, 2000) 310–311, n. 36 (“nicht zu retten”).

19. To the respected Jews … (from) the King. The formulation is consonant with the term “petition,” not only in the use of “respected” but also in its “to X … from Y” form, which indicates X’s superiority; cf. NOTE on 1:1, greetings. fellow citizens. The king speaks like a Jew (as promised in v. 17 and exemp- lified in v. 20), denoting the Jews as his “fellow citizens;” see NOTE on 4:5, fellow citizens. This too is part of the joke. 362 Translation and Commentary many greetings, health and success. In the epistles of Chapter 11, which are authentic, the standard greeting is merely the first of these, “greetings” (ξαρειν). The addition of “health,” as in private letters and as in the Jewish letter at 1:10, is one of the prime indications that this letter is a spoof; the author is piling everything on. See Habicht, “Royal Documents,” 5–6.

King and Governor. No Seleucid king would stoop to adding “governor” to his title, but compare the spoof on Artaxerxes at LXX Esther 3:13a-b; see also Habicht, loc. cit. For the totality of “king,” in the Hellenistic world, which therefore makes any such addition only a joke, see Wifstrand, Epochs and Styles, 160–161.

20. If you are well. Standard style; see e.g. 11:28; Antiquities 12.148; Exler, Form, 103–107.

I pray … God … hope is in Heaven. After all, he did promise to become a Jew. For “Heaven” as stand-in for “God,” see NOTE on 7:11, from Heaven. But note also that “hope” hints at life after death or resurrection (see NOTE on 7:11, hoping); for the notion that the righteous are resurrected directly into heaven see NOTE on 7:34, children of Heaven. That is, Antiochus is supposed to be understood either as articulating the hope that God will save his life or – the hope that God will see to his resurrection into heaven just like one of the righteous. One way or the other, the reader is supposed to know, and has already been told (vv. 13, 18), that the hope was misplaced.

21. weak condition. I.e., sick, but this phrasing, with σεν7«, intensifies the contrast between the king and God – of whom only the latter has power, as the king in fact undertook to proclaim (v. 17). In fact, however, he goes on to talk about himself:

I remember with sincere love your respect and goodwill. Another standard line in royal epistles; see Welles, RC, 71, lines 3–4; Habicht, “Royal Docu- ments” 172, n. 12. For “sincere love” (φιλοστοργ-) in royal letters, see Welles, RC, 374; Spicq, Notes, 944–948. As for “goodwill” (εϊνοια), it is yet another element in the standard lexicon which adds to the humor here; see also v. 26 and on 11:19, If now you will maintain goodwill toward the state. Note also 1 Maccabees 10:26, where Demetrius I makes a similar statement; that long-winded epistle too is probably a Jewish forgery (or even spoof, as in the present case), as scholars have argued (for various reasons); see Schürer, History, 1.178–179, n. 14; Rigsby, Asylia, 528–531; and Main, “Les Sadducéens,” 274–281. Chapter IX 363

22. I do not despair of myself. Yet another joke, this time mocking the king’s dishonesty, for v. 18 has already revealed that the opposite is the case.

23. seeing that my father, whenever he campaigned to the highlands. That is, to Mesopotamia and Iran – “the upper satrapies” of v. 25. For Antiochus III’s famous anabasis (“journey up”) to them, 212–205 BCE, see Will, His- toire politique, 2.51–69. On his last eastern campaign, in 187 BCE, in the course of which he died, see ibid. 238–239. appointed him who would succeed him. It is known that Antiochus III first appointed his eldest son, Antiochus, as his heir – but he died in 193 BCE, whereupon another son, Seleucus, was appointed in his stead. For this and similar cases in the Seleucid dynasty, see Goldstein, 2 Macc, 367–368, and Bickerman, Institutions, 21–24.

24. if anything surprising should develop or any difficulty be reported. For such royal euphemisms see, for example, the testament of Ptolemy VIII, which was composed in 155 BCE, not long before our book. Although writing about what is to happen upon his death, he writes only ?ν δω τι σψμβανηι τ7ν κατ0 5νρπον – “if any of the things that happen to men should occur” (SEG 9 [1944] no. 7, lines 11–12). Similarly, when Herod went off to a fateful meeting with Augustus he first arranged that his brother, Pheroras, would take over the kingdom “if they hear anything an- noying (τι … δψσξερω«) about him” – Antiquities 15.184. the inhabitants of the country (ο= κατ τ'ν ξ1ραν). The Seleucid kingdom, that is, those who stayed at home when the king went off on his campaign; compare κατ? ξραν μωνειν (Polybius 4.72.4; 8.30.3; 8.33.13; etc.) in the sense of “staying at home.” to whom the state had been left (καταλωλειπται). See NOTE on 4:29, left … as substitute in the high priesthood. even more upset. Than they were already by the news of the death of their beloved king.

25. nearby and neighboring rulers are looking for opportunities. We do not know of any particular threat to which Antiochus might be supposed to be referring, but such considerations are always appropriate, even in imagin- ary letters. In general, Ptolemaic Egypt was the main competition; cf. 4:21 and Goldstein, 2 Macc, 368. There were also local potentates who could be 364 Translation and Commentary expected to dream of independence whenever the central Seleucid government seemed weak; see Habicht, 2 Macc, 248, n. 25a, and esp. Bickerman, Institutions, 166–169. Finally, although Antiochus, understandably, makes no mention of them, high officials of his own realm could never have been very far from suspicion; for the revolt of a provincial governor shortly after Antiochus’ death, see NOTE 15:27, no fewer than 35,000. my son Antiochus. Later known as Antiochus V Eupator; see 2:20 and 10:10. He was nine at the time of his father’s death, according to Appian, Syriakê, ch. 46 and 66. For defense of this datum against another which has him being twelve (Porphyry, FGrH 260 F32.13), see Mørkholm, Antiochus, 48, n. 41 and Jacoby, FGrH, II/D, 872–873. frequently, when I hastened up to the upper satrapies. On the expression “upper satrapies” see Walbank, Polybius, 2.315; so too, for example, An- tiquities 12.147. The element of haste here, and the very reference to the “upper satrapies,” imply military campaigning. But since we in fact know of no such campaign by Antiochus IV prior to the present one, and certainly not of anything “frequent,” this is evidently part of the joke: our author has Antiochus brag about his military exploits when it was widely known that they were purely fictional. The implied comparison to his father (cf. v. 23), who had indeed been victorious on many fronts and earned the title “the Great,” makes Epiphanes seem all the more pathetic. Note that had our author wanted to be fair he could instead have mentioned Egypt, where Antiochus had indeed campaigned just a few years earlier, and had even been successful – but that, of course, was not part of our author’s agenda. the things written below. There is no such attachment; for a similar situation in the case of an authentic letter, see 11:17. In the present instance, however, it may be there was in the original no such attachment; perhaps the author spared himself the trouble of concocting it, and just inserted the promise as part of the fun of imitating officialese.

26. my benefactions to the commonalty. Which of course have no basis in reality, according to our author. present goodwill. The same word, and same irony, as above; see NOTE on v. 21, I remember with sincere love your respect and goodwill.

27. For I am convinced (πωπεισμαι γ#ρ). Note that in this final sentence of his letter, the closest the king – who is supposed to now believe in God – Chapter IX 365 gets to “faith” is to affirm his belief in something which is obviously untrue; cf. NOTE on 3:22, to preserve the trusts … entrusted. In the rest of the verse the author lays the officialese on thick: graciously (πιεικ7«). Just like God, of course; see NOTE on 2:22, the Lord having become merciful … humanely (φιλαν ρ1π,«). See NOTE on 6:22, humane treatment. following my own policy. The use of προαρεσι« in the meaning of “policy” is another imitation of overblown royal diction; see 11:26 and Welles, RC, 310. lenient. So is this usage of σψμπεριφωρ; see Welles, RC, 365.

28. murderer (νδροφ2νο«) and blasphemer. Our author finally stops kid- ding around, and moves in for the kill, summarizing Antiochus as one who had committed the worst possible sins against man and God alike; the pedantic use of νδροφνο« for the former is meant to clarify the duality. For the abrupt transition here, between nice letter and angry Jewish rejection of the king, without any need to explain why the letter was without effect, cf. 1 Maccabees 10:46 (along with NOTE on v. 21, I remember with sincere love your respect and goodwill). The term νδροφνο« appears only here in the Septuagint, reminding us of the universalistic phrasing of 4:35. As for “blasphemous,” see NOTE on 8:4, and also to remember … ended his life. Totally and finally, with no hope for the future; see NOTE on 7:14, pass away from among men. in the way he had treated others. Here the author resumes the tit for tat theme of v. 6. in a foreign land. Just like Jason; see 5:9 and NOTE on v. 15, not even worthy of burial. True, we hear nothing specific about Antiochus exiling any Jews, but if he died abroad we are supposed to understand that it must be – given that God is just and punishes tit for tat – that he had. Moreover, denial of proper burial was forecasted for the wicked King of Babylon (Isa 14:18–20); see NOTE on v. 9, worms. in the mountains (ν το« )ρεσιν). It has been suggested that we take ρ« here to mean “desert” rather than mountain, the emphasis being upon Anti- 366 Translation and Commentary ochus dying far from civilization; see Drew-Bear, “Recherches, I,” 156–157. But that would be quite a rare meaning (cf. NOTE on 5:27, fled to the mountains), and here the use of the plural points more readily to mountains than to deserts; Drew-Bear, who translates “dans le désert,” in the singular, seems to ignore this. In any case, what we are supposed to note is that Antiochus died precisely in the type of place to which his innocent victims had been forced to flee: ν το« ,ρεσι (5:27 and 10:6), and the mountains can be just as far from civilization as deserts can. Note that LXX Isaiah 14:19 adds ν το« ,ρεσιν to the description of the death of the wicked King of Babylon; see NOTE on v. 9, worms, along with Seeligmann, Septuagint Version, 83–84. death. For this meaning of μρο« (lit. “fate”), as also at 13:7, see LSJ, 1147; Hanhart, Text, 45.

29. Philip. Not to be confused with the governor of Jerusalem (5:22; 6:11; 8:8), who evidently remained there. This Philip might be the person mentioned in an inscription of 166 BCE (OGIS 253, line 7); see Mørkholm, Antiochus, 100, n. 48, and 105–106. But there is no certainty about the identity, and in any case the inscription adds little. According to 1 Macca- bees 6:14, he was one of the king’s “friends;” on them, see NOTE on 1:14, Friends. reared with him (σντροφο«). On the practice of raising and educating members of aristocratic families together with royal princes, see Bickerman, Institutions, 42–43; Corradi, Studi, 269–281; Schwartz, Agrippa, 42–43, n. 20. bore the body back (παρεκομζετο). To Syria, for burial. For cuneiform testimony to the passage of the body through Babylon in late 164 or early 163, see Gera & Horowitz, “Antiochus IV.” Goldstein (2 Macc, 372) emphasizes the use of the imperfect here, which might indicate that Philip only tried to bring the body to burial; based on this interpretation, the reason Philip did not complete his mission is supplied by the continuation of the verse. This analysis might require us to read too much into the verse, for the verse does not actually say that Philip gave up his attempt to bring the body back for burial; had that been the case, we would expect our author to celebrate it more explicitly. Be that as it may, it is clear that the formulation here takes another potshot at Antiochus: while he was alive no one could “bear” (παρακομζειν) him because of the intolerable stench (v. 10), but now, in his death, he was more “bearable.” Chapter IX 367 wary of Antiochus’ son. Antiochus Eupator. No explanation is given for Philip’s fear. Perhaps this indicates only our author’s lack of interest; see e.g. 4:23 and 10:9. All that he cares about is that Antiochus was dead, and the ironic fact that he who cared for his body had to flee from the king’s own son. But it may be that our author was brief here because he knew, from Jason or otherwise, that in fact Philip’s fear was vis à vis Lysias, who was – as we learn from 1 Maccabees 3:32–33 – Antiochus Eupator’s guardian, having been appointed to the position at the time Antiochus left on his eastern campaign. Our author, who only introduced Lysias and Eupator into his story after the death of Antiochus IV (see esp. 10:10–11), and who put the designation of Antiochus Eupator as Epiphanes’ heir here at the end of Epiphanes’ eastern campaign, not – as is posited by 1 Maccabees 3:32, and as our v. 23 should have led us to expect – at its beginning, would have been hard pressed to deal with any statement concerning them prior to Anti- ochus’ death, hence the brevity here. For the struggle between Philip and Ly- sias, which led to the former’s flight to Egypt, see 1 Maccabees 6:55–63 and our 13:23 (and for the misunderstanding of the letters in Chapter 11 that apparently explains why our author placed the present account of Anti- ochus Epiphanes’ death before Chapter 13, see Introduction, pp. 30–34). betook himself (διεκομσ η) to Egypt. This fancy verb also describes Onias’ trip to Antioch at 4:5, but there it was only fancy. Here, given the fact that it applies to Philip going from one kingdom to another, it retains something of its literal meaning of moving from one side to another; cf. Mauersberger, PL, 2.483. For Ptolemaic involvement in the Seleucid infighting, see NOTE on 4:21, Apollonius son of Menestheus, also e.g. 1 Maccabees 10:51–58; 11:1–18; Antiquities 13.267–268. to Ptolemy Philometor. Who was Antiochus Epiphanes’ nephew, son of his sister. At the time of Epiphanes’ death, late in 164 BCE (see above, NOTE on v. 29, bore the body back), Philometor was entangled in various difficulties, especially – a struggle with his brother, Ptolemy Euergetes. This led Philometor to flee Egypt for a time, to Rome, beginning in October 164; he returned to Alexandria in the following spring (163). See Koenen, König- surkunde, 2; Will, Histoire politique, 2. 360–361. As such, our verse presents a problem, but various solutions are available: perhaps some time went by between Antiochus’ death and Philip’s move to Egypt (so Goldstein, 2 Macc, 372), or perhaps our text originally said only “Ptolemy” and our author added in “Philometor” on the assumption that the reference is to the king already mentioned at 4:21. The latter hypothesis may be preferable, for it can explain an anomaly: with reference to this king – who reigned for 368 Translation and Commentary a long time (180–145 BCE), including, apparently, while the book was written – our author usually writes plain “Philometor,” without the useless “Ptolemy;” see 4:21 and 10:3. If we assume that Jason referred to plain “Ptolemy” the historical problem would disappear, because we would take the text either to be a general reference to “whichever Ptolemy it was” or, alternatively, to Ptolemy Euergetes.

Bibliography

Africa, “Worms.” Drew-Bear, “Recherches, I.” DMP. Gera & Horowitz, “Antiochus IV.” Holleaux, M., “La mort d’Antiochos IV Épiphanès,” REA 18 (1916) 77–102 (reprinted with some corrections in idem, Études, III, 255–279). van der Horst, “Hellenistic Parallels.” D. J. Ladouceur, “The Death of Herod the Great,” CP 76 (1981) 25–27. Lorein, “Some Aspects.” Mendels, “Note.” Nestle, “Legenden.” Prato, “Persecuzione religiosa,” 111–114. Schwartz, Agrippa, 148, 217–218. Schwartz, “Why Did Antiochus Have to Fall?.” Chapter X 369

Chapter X

Hanukkah

(1) Maccabaeus and those who were with him, led forward by the Lord, took the Temple and the city, (2) and destroyed the altars which the non- Jews had constructed in the city-square and also the sacred precincts. (3) After purifying the Temple they made a new altar and – having ignited rocks and extracted fire from them – they offered up sacrifices after a two- year period, and they also took care of incense and lamps and the presentation of the showbreads. (4) Having done those things, falling upon their bellies they asked the Lord never again to make them fall into such troubles; rather, if they ever sin again – to be edified by Him Himself, with grace, and not to be given up into the hands of blasphemous and barbaric Gentiles. (5) And it happened that on the very date upon which the Sanctuary was profaned by the non-Jews, on that very date the Sanctuary was purified, on the twenty-fifth day of the same month – Kislev. (6) And with mirth they celebrated for eight days in the style of (the festival of) Tabernacles, recalling that not long before they had been grazing away the festival of Taber- nacles in the mountains and in the caves, as if they were wild animals. (7) Therefore, holding wands and also fresh branches, along with palm- fronds, they offered up hymns to Him who had made successful the path to the purification of His own Place. (8) And they resolved by an edict and decree made in common that the entire people of the Jews should celebrate these days annually.

Changes in the Seleucid Government

(9) Such, then, were the circumstances of the death of Antiochus surnamed Epiphanes. (10) Now we shall recount the events of (the reign of) Antiochus Eupator, the son of that impious man, summarizing the main calamities of the wars. (11) When he took over the kingdom he proclaimed one Lysias head of state and governor-in-chief of Coele Syria and Phoenicia. (12) For Ptolemy known as “Macron,” who had taken the lead in maintaining justice toward the Jews on account of the injustice which had been perpetrated 370 Translation and Commentary against them, attempted to deal with them peacefully, (13) and for that reason had been denounced to Eupator by the Friends. Continually hearing himself called a traitor – because he had abandoned Cyprus, which had been entrusted to him by Philometor, and gone over to Antiochus Epiph- anes, instead of dignifying his post with noble behavior – he drugged himself and left life behind.

Battles against the Idumaeans

(14) But Gorgias, upon becoming commander of the region, collected mercenaries and at every occasion waged war against the Jews. (15) Along with him the Idumaeans too, who were in control of strategic strongholds, harassed the Jews and, taking in those who had fled Jerusalem, set their hands to waging war. (16) Those who were with Maccabaeus first made an entreaty and asked God to be their ally; then they stormed out against the Idu- maeans’ strongholds. (17) Attacking them eagerly they gained control of all the sites, driving back all those who fought them from the walls and cutting down all those who fell into their hands; they killed no fewer than 20,000. (18) But when no fewer than 9000 took refuge in two very strong towers that were supplied with everything needed for a siege, (19) Maccabaeus took himself off to more pressing places, leaving behind Simon and Joseph, as well as Zachaeus and a considerable number of his men, to besiege them. (20) But Simon’s men, who loved lucre, were lucratively convinced by some of the people in the towers; taking 70,000 drachmas they allowed some to slip away. (21) When Maccabaeus was informed about what had happened he convened the leaders of the people and accused them of having sold out their brethren for lucre by allowing their enemies to go free against them. (22) He killed them, for they had become traitors, and then immediately took the two towers. (23) With his weapons he was successful all along the way, in all that he undertook, destroying more than 20,000 in the two strongholds.

Battles with Timothy

(24) But Timothy, who had previously been defeated by the Jews, having assembled a great number of foreign forces and collected not a few horses from Asia, came to Judaea to take it at spear-point. (25) When he approached, those around Maccabaeus – strewing dirt upon their heads in petition to God and girding their loins with sackcloth – (26) threw them- Chapter X 371 selves upon the step opposite the altar and asked that He, having become merciful to them, be an enemy to their enemies and adversary to their adversaries, just as the Law clearly states. (27) Upon completing their supplication and taking up their weapons they advanced a considerable distance outside of the city. When they had neared the enemy they kept to themselves, (28) but as soon as the rays of dawn spread out they attacked one another: these having – along with their own virtue – their dependence upon the Lord as their guarantor of success and victory, while the others made their rage the guide of their struggles. (29) A mighty battle having developed, out of heaven there appeared to the enemy’s soldiers five distinguished men on horses with gold-studded bridles, leading the Jews. (30) Two of them also took Maccabaeus between them and protected him unblemished, sheltering him with their own armor and throwing arrows and thunderbolts at the enemy. Accordingly, they were confounded by blindness and, filled with tumult, they scattered about in all directions; (31) 20,500 (soldiers) along with 600 cavalrymen were cut down. (32) As for Timothy himself – he took refuge in a stronghold named “Gezer,” an excellent fortress, of which Chaereas was the commander. (33) Maccabaeus’ men besieged the fortress with relish for four days. (34) Those inside, putting their faith in the place’s strength, were extraordinarily blasphemous and spewed forth forbidden words. (35) But at daybreak on the fifth day twenty of Maccabaeus’ youths, burning up with rage due to the blasphemies, manfully threw themselves upon the walls and with animal-like rage smote those who fell into their hands. (36) Others, who similarly climbed up and in by virtue of the diversion, set fire to the towers and, setting other fires as well, burned the blasphemers alive; they also broke through the gates, and (thereby) letting in the rest of the (Jewish) force they took the city. (37) They cut down Timothy, who had hidden in a cistern, and also his brother Chaereas and Apollophanes. (38) Having done all that, with hymns and prayers of gratitude they blessed the Lord, who had been greatly beneficent to Israel and given them victory.

COMMENT

This chapter is one of new starts at the capitals: the Jews retake Jerusalem, purify and rededicate the Temple (vv. 1–8), while for the Seleucids there is a new king, Antiochus V Eupator, accompanied by a new head of state, Lysias (vv. 9–13). Thereafter, we hear of two secondary theaters of war, first on the 372 Translation and Commentary southern front, vis à vis Gorgias and the Idumaeans (vv. 14–23), then – apparently in the north – vis à vis Timothy (vv. 24–38). The fact that Judas Maccabaeus is victorious in both campaigns, against secondary figures, sets the stage for the invasion by the king and his viceroy themselves in the next chapter. This chapter is very “Maccabean.” It begins with a focus on the Temple itself, even focusing on some cultic details in a way reminiscent of the Ju- daean epistle which is appended at the outset of our book (compare 10:3 to 1:8) and very uncharacteristic of our own diasporan author (cf. 5:16!); and it moves on to lengthy battle accounts in which it is Judas’ valor, and that of his soldiers, which carries the day. When one compares these accounts to our author’s two main battle scenes, in Chapter 8 and Chapter 15, one sees a striking contrast, for the latter are for the most part devoted to prayers, speeches dedicated to encouraging religious faith, and the like, while the battles themselves get much less attention. Nevertheless, although concerning the first eight verses of the chapter – which not only focus on cult but also create an unnatural separation between Antiochus’ death at the end of Chapter 9 and the summary of it at 10:9 – we suggested in the Introduction (pp. 8–9) that they were added along with the opening epistles by Judaean editors of our book, the battle scenes here are another story. Although for various reasons we have suggested in the Introduction (pp. 30–35) that our author got them from a source other than the one which supplied the body of his work (Jason), we do assume that – as with the martyrologies in Chapters 6–7, but as opposed to 10:1–8 – it was our author himself, not later Judaean editors, who used the materials. This is shown not only by the most basic consideration here, namely that it was such a source which (due to the dates supplied by the documents in Ch. 11) caused our author some confusion, but also by another factor, very apposite to the characterization of our book: these battle scenes are bracketed by prayers (vv. 16, 25–26, 38) and punctuated by divine intervention (vv. 29–30). Both of these are characteristic of our book. As for historicity, the big story in this chapter (as it now is), the rededication of the Temple followed by warfare in the south and north of Pales- tine, corresponds to the order of events reported in 1 Maccabees 4:36–5:8, and there is no reason to doubt it. Details are another matter. Our book does not give too many, but concerning those that it does give there are some major errors: 1. V. 2 says sacrifices had been suspended for two years, but Daniel (7:25, 8:14, 12:7; so too Josephus, War 1.32) speaks of three and a half and the combination of 1 Maccabees 1:54 and 4:52 results in three. While the date in Da- niel seems simply to be wrong, reflecting the fact that it is a prophecy written Chapter X 373 before the rededication actually occurred,1 it is nonetheless difficult to reject the clear data in 1 Maccabees, which are also followed by Josephus (Ant. 12.248, 319–322). Rather, the datum in our 10:2 seems to be wrong. The genesis of the error can perhaps be explained without much difficulty. Namely, we see that the Jerusalemite editors who introduced this passage (as we posit – see Introduction, pp. 8–9) assumed (1) that the Temple was rededicated in Kislev, and (2) that this occurred prior to the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, which is why they place the account prior to the summary of his death in 10:9.2 Both assumptions are what we would expect from Jerusalemite editors, as they are found in the Jerusalemite 1 Maccabees as well (which has the rededication in Ch. 4 and Antiochus’ death in Ch. 6). Now, since the documents of Chapter 11 seemed – misleadingly – all to apply to Antiochus Eu- pator and thus place the death of Antiochus Epiphanes prior to the spring of 148 SE (see Introduction, p. 33), the result is, according to our book, that the dedication of the Temple came in the Kislev that preceded that spring. At this point, all we need to assume is that someone – either the Jerusalemite editors of 10:1–8 themselves or some later editor – read the dates in Chapter 11 according to the Jewish system which had the year begin in the spring (see p. 11, n. 24). This would result in the inference that the Temple was rededicated in Kislev of 147 and hence two years after it was polluted in Kislev of 145 (the date given in 1 Macc 1:54). (True, the assumption that the Temple was rededicated in 147 SE would contradict 1:10, according to our understanding, which is that the Jerusalemite authors of that letter knew, just as the Jeru- salemite author 1 Macc 4:52 did, that the Temple was rededicated in 148 SE. But the contradiction is not frontal, as that chapter gives no relative dates and ours gives no absolute dates; hence no one had to notice it.) In fact, of course, our book is all wrong: Antiochus IV in fact died late in 164 and, as it happened, that is also when the Temple was rededicated; the dates in Chapter 11 are Seleucid, with the year beginning in autumn; and the king who figures in those letters, apart from the second one, is Antiochus Epiphanes, not his son.

1 For the dating of Daniel 7–8 to 167/166 BCE, and Dan 12 to somewhat later but still prior to Antiochus’ death, see J. J. Collins, Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 323–324, 343, 403. Daniel’s choice of “three and a half” is, of course, part and parcel of his general decision to divide history up according to “weeks of years” (i.e., seven year periods) or parts thereof. For three-and-a-half years as a standard number (half of a “week of years”) see J. Bergmann, “Die runden und hyperbolischen Zahlen in der Agada,” MGWJ 82 (1938) 364–365. 2 As we see from the fact that the death is summarized only at 10:9, after the rededication story. That is, readers should understand that the rededication happened more or less parallel to the events of ch. 9. 374 Translation and Commentary

2. The section on war against the Idumaeans opens at v. 14 with a reference to Gorgias which seems to indicate that he incited them against the Jews, something we would never have guessed from the parallel narrative in 1 Maccabees 5:3–5. In fact, however, our verse does not really say that Gor- gias incited them and there is no more talk of him in this connection. Thus, although 12:32 does have Gorgias being the Seleucid commander/governor of Idumaea, it may well be that the reference to him here is only part of our author’s general apologetic tendency to make the Jews’ problems with their neighbors seem to be only the result of hostile machinations by malicious officials; cf. 8:11 and 12:2. 3. At v. 24 Timothy, who is not identified, is said to have invaded “Ju- daea” with a huge force, a claim which fits in well with his taking refuge in “Gezer” (v. 32); Gezer is indeed in Judaea, at the beginning of the coastal plain, i.e., west of Jerusalem. However, 1 Maccabees 5:6–8 has Judas fighting the Ammonites, i.e., in Transjordan far to the east of Jerusalem, meeting a large unit commanded by Timothy; this is followed by the capture of “Jazer” (and, later on in 1 Macc 5, by battles with Timothy further north, paralleled by Ch. 12 in our book). Jazer is in Transjordan (see NOTE on v. 32, “Gezer”). Given the similarity of the two toponyms and our author’s tendency to focus on Jerusalem and Judaea, it seems that our author has glorified the fighting with Timothy, in Transjordan, into the repulsion of a major campaign into Judaea proper. 4. Timothy is killed in v. 37. However, this is an obvious error, for not only does 1 Maccabees 5 have him alive for more fighting in the north; so does our book itself, in Chapter 12 (v. 10ff.). This is one of the major signs that materials in Chapters 10–11 derive from a source other than Jason; see Introduction, pp. 30–35.

NOTES

10:1. took. The verb, κομζομαι, is very low-key and seems to refer more to entrance and taking control than to capturing; cf. Polybius 4.72.8; 18.18.6, where it refers to the transfer of cities via agreement; Mauersberger, PL, 3.1421 (“zurückerhalten”). Something similar emerges from 1 Macca- bees 4:36, but there it comes after the victory over Lysias at Beth-Zur, which allows for the ascent to Jerusalem and takeover of the city basically without combat, apart from some exchanges with the men of the Akra – ibid. v. 41; for our book, the battle of Beth-Zur is yet to come – as a result of confusion of the order of Chapters 9–13 (see Introduction, pp. 25–34). Nevertheless, the Jerusalemite editors of this passage write on their own presumptions, Chapter X 375 which are like those of 1 Maccabees. The use of the unadorned κομσαντο, as opposed to the more ornate παρεκομζετο and διεκομση in the preceding verse, typifies the lower register of the first eight verses of this chapter – one of the indications that they were added in by the book’s Judaean editors (see Introduction, pp. 8–9). the Temple and the city. It is clear that the city was “taken” before the Temple was, but the author of this section is reflecting their relative importance in his Jerusalemite eyes. This too reflects the secondary nature of these eight verses, for in the rest of the book the relationship is reversed, as already at the outset of the story – 3:1–2; see esp. NOTE on 4:48, who had spoken for the city and the populace and the holy vessels.

2. altars (β,μο«). Their construction is mentioned at 1 Maccabees 1:54. For the obligation to destroy them, see Deuteronomy 7:5 and 12:3; 1 Mac- cabees 2:25, 45; 5:68; Philo, Legatio 303; etc.; cf. below 14:33. For the terminology here, which conforms to that usual in the Septuagint in connection with non-Jewish altars, see NOTE on 2:19, the altar. non-Jews. I have used this term, which defines by exclusion, to approximate the Greek λλφψλοι, which appears in our book only here and in v. 5 – another indication of the special, Judaean, nature of this eight-verse section. Josephus (another Jerusalemite) also favored this term, including when (War 5.194 and Ant. 12.145) he wanted a more politically correct term than the λλογεν« supplied by his source (OGIS 598); on his usage see my “Should Josephus Have Ignored the Christians?,” in: Ethos und Identität: Einheit und Vielfalt des Judentums in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit (ed. M. Konradt & U. Steinert; Paderborn: Schöningh, 2002) esp. 166–170. Nevertheless, given the present context it is difficult to avoid the impression that here, and in v. 5, the word has a pejorative flavor, à la “goyyim,” more at home in 1 Maccabees than in our universalistic book or Josephus’ politically correct one; see, in general, Schwartz, “The Other.” sacred precincts (τεμωνη). The construction of which is mentioned at 1 Mac- cabees 1:47. This term too was used only to denote non-Jewish shrines; see NOTE on 14:33, this sacred enclosure of God.

3. After purifying (κα3 … κα αρσαντε«). At this point the text starts a series of clauses linked in series by κα/ (“and”), a typical sign of translation from a Hebrew Vorlage which is found elsewhere in our book only in the first epistle (1:2–5), which was translated from Hebrew or Aramaic (see p. 8, 376 Translation and Commentary n. 15); in 5:13, which imitates biblical poetry; and in the prayer at 8:2–4, which too imitates Hebrew style. the Temple. On the terminology, see NOTE on 4:14, the Temple. made a new altar. For details, see 1 Maccabees 4:43–47. having ignited rocks and extracted fire from them. This is a strange phrase, and may well reflect the difficulties of translating something from the He- brew; how can one ignite rocks? But it seems clear that this story is meant to continue the one told by the second epistle at the beginning of our book, where we read that in Nehemiah’s day priests poured onto rocks a viscous liquid which had remained from the fire of the First Temple (1:31). If now we hear of fire being extracted from rocks, it would mean that, as Nehe- miah had planned, some of the fire-oil had remained in the rocks, and was now available for use – thus guaranteeing that, notwithstanding all viciss- itudes, the fire now on the altar of the Temple of Jerusalem was the same fire that had come down from heaven in the days of Solomon (see 2:10). Thus, this verse too indicates the close relationship between the opening epistles and the present pericope. (Wacholder [“Letter,” 116] saw a contradiction between this verse and the second epistle, because he believed our verse referred to the need “to manufacture” new fire. However, that could have been said more simply, or, indeed, not at all; 1 Maccabees 4:41–58 says not a word about the origin of the fire in the rededicated Temple, nor does the first epistle above. Thus, introduction of something about fire and rocks seems to be an unambiguous pointer to the second epistle’s story about fire and rocks.) On the translation, cf. p. 528, n. 26. after a two-year period. Here we must translate this way, given the statement in v. 5; cf. NOTE on 4:23, In the third year thereafter. This datum is difficult, for according to 1 Maccabees 1:54 + 4:52 the interruption of sacrifices lasted three years, 148–145 SE; more or less the same emerges from Daniel 7:25 and 8:14. It seems clear that three years (167–164 BCE//148–145 SE) is to be preferred. In our opening COMMENT on this chapter we have suggested, within the context of our assumption that 10:1–8 is a Jerusalemite addition to an extant book, how the erroneous “two years” – if indeed the text is intact – may have come to be. incense and lamps and the presentation of the showbreads. As promised in the first epistle (1:8), although there for some reason a meal-offering was mentioned first. In any case, this is typical Palestinian and non-dias- Chapter X 377 poran interest in the details of the Temple cult; see NOTE on 5:16, holy vessels.

4. fall … edified. The verbs point to our author’s language at 6:12–16. That is, just as with the addition of the opening letters (see NOTE on 1:5, become reconciled), here as well, whoever added in this section used some of the book’s basic motifs. For the idea, cf. Psalms of Solomon 7:3. not be given up. For the use of παραδδμι in connection with being “transferred” to something bad, see NOTE on 1:17, handed … over.

5. And it happened. As usual, it didn’t just happen (see NOTE on 3:2, it happened), and the detail about to be announced proves it: on the very date … So too 1 Maccabees 1:59; 4:52–54. The motif is well- known. Thus, for example, the Messiah was born on the same day the Temple was destroyed (y. Berakhot 2:3 [5a]), Ventidius defeated the Par- thians on the anniversary of their defeat of Crassus (Eutropius 7.5), the Caesareans murdered thousands of Jews in their city “on the same day and same hour, as if out of divine providence” that the Jews perfidiously murdered Roman soldiers who had surrendered in Jerusalem (Josephus, War 2.457); etc. This motif, as other types of poetic justice, functions as another indication that God providentially rules the world. See I. M. Gafni, “Con- cepts of Periodization and Causality in Talmudic Literature,” JH 10/1 (Spring 1996) 28–29.

6. eight days. See NOTE on 2:12, So too did Solomon … in the style of (the festival of) Tabernacles. See 1:9; here too this pericope agrees with the first epistle. in the mountains. See on 5:27, fled to the mountains. in the caves. For caves as hiding-places see 6:11; for such life as appropriate for animals, as is said in the continuation and also in 5:27, compare for example an inscription of Agrippa (II?) which condemns outlaws who ηριδοψ« … νφλε σ[αντε« (“dwell in caves like animals” – OGIS 424).

7. wands ( ρσοψ«). The reference would seem to be to lulabim, palm branches waved by Jews on Tabernacles in fulfillment of Leviticus 23:40 (and that, indeed, is how, in their Hebrew translations, Grintz translated 378 Translation and Commentary

ρσο« at Judith 15:12 and Schalit – at Josephus, Ant. 13.372). For the use of this term for lulabim in a letter of the Bar-Kokhba period, P. Yadin 3, see H. Lapin, “Palm Fronds and Citrons: Notes on Two Letters from Bar Kosi- ba’s Administration,” HUCA 64 (1993) 116–118. Note, however, that the Greek term ρσο« typically refers to a “wand wreathed in ivy and vine- leaves with a pine-cone at the top, carried by the devotees of Dionysus” (LSJ, 812); cf. above, 6:7. Accordingly, use of the term for lulabim was liable to arouse the impression that Tabernacles (Sukkoth) is a Dionysiac festival; see, for example, Plutarch, Quaestiones conviviales 4.6 and Tacitus, His- toriae 5.5 (Stern, GLA I, no. 258 and II, no. 281); A. Reinach, “L’origine du thyrse,” RHR 66 (1912) 1–48. Presumably any diasporan author would be sensitive about that, and take pains to avoid it; for Jewish antipathy to Dionysiac cult see p. 543, n. 77.3 The fact that the author of the present section used ρσο«, although clearly he did not want to arouse the impression that the Jewish cult was Dionysian, means that the matter did not trouble him and so (just as other aspects of 10:1–8; see Introduction, pp. 8–9) bolsters our certainty that he – as Bar-Kokhba a few centuries later – was a Palestinian Jew who, as opposed to the diasporan author of 2 Maccabees, was not so sensitive about what non-Jews think about Judaism. Indeed, it may be that the author/translator of this verse, as that of 1 Maccabees 13:51 (see below), was not even aware of the Dionysian association. fresh branches (κλ#δοψ« Aραοψ«). With reference to our text Grintz (Sefer Yehudith, 173) translated ‘asei hadar, thus echoing Leviticus 23:40 and indicating his confidence that the reference is to the etrog (citron), also characteristic of Tabernacles. palm-fronds. They are listed in Leviticus 23:40 among the items for the celebration of Tabernacles, but they also functioned more generally in celebrations; see 14:4; 1 Maccabees 13:51; John 12:13. For the use of them as a symbol of Palestine, see S. Fine, “On the Development of a Symbol: The Date Palm in Roman Palestine and the Jews,” JSP 4 (1989) 105–118. had made successful the path (τ9 ε/οδ1σαντι). See NOTE on v. 23, was successful all along the way.

3 This might explain Philo’s strange failure to mention the four fruits of Lev 23:40 in his account of Tabernacles in Special Laws 2.204–213. Cf. Heinemann, Philons … Bildung, 99–100 (who instead thinks Philo’s silence might reflect the relative unim- portance of this practice in the Diaspora). Chapter X 379

8. an edict and decree made in common. On this formal Hellenistic terminology, πρσταγμα and χφισμα, see, respectively, NOTES on 7:30, decree of the king, and on 6:8, a decree. A very similar formulation recurs at 15:36 with regard to Nicanor’s Day; for the suggestion that the latter is more original than the present passage, which imitates it, see Introduction, pp. 9–10. the entire people of the Jews. The emphasis upon the fact that the festival was for all Jews may also be found in the second epistle; see NOTE on 2:17, His entire people …

9. Such, then … death of Antiochus. This line, which sounds like the last lines of Chapters 3, 13, 15 (v. 37), clearly concludes Chapter 9, and is the clearest sign that vv. 1–8 are a secondary intrusion. See Introduction, p. 8. surnamed Epiphanes. For this pointed allusion to the byname see NOTE on 4:7, Antiochus surnamed Epiphanes.

10. Antiochus Eupator, the son of that impious man. This is a joke, for “Eupator” means “who has a good father.” See NOTE on 2:20, the wars … summarizing the main calamities of the wars. The author repeats his introductory characterization of his work as a summary; see 2:23ff. For τ? σψνωξοντα as “the main points” see Risberg, “Anmerkungen,” 23–24, also LSJ, 1714, s.v. σψνωξ, §3. Risberg (followed by Habicht, 2 Macc, 250, n. 10c), omitted κακ, on the assumption that it was inserted only on the basis of someone’s mistaken notion that σψνωξοντα means “continuous.” But in fact it seems fine even given the true meaning of σψνωξοντα; Gold- stein (2 Macc, 387) quite appositely points to Philodemus’ phrase τ? σψνω- ξοντα γα (“the main good things”), cited in LSJ, ibid.

11. When. The use of γρ here seems to indicate that it was Lysias – who is introduced here and who replaced someone who had attempted to maintain justice toward the Jews (v. 12) – who was responsible for the renewed troubles. This, however, will be supported only by the narrative in Chapter 11. This is additional support for the assumption that Chap- ters 10 (beginning here) and 11 are closely related one to another; see above, pp. 30–31. proclaimed. He, not his father; see the next comment. For “proclaim,” see NOTE on 9:14, proclaim. 380 Translation and Commentary one Lysias. This type of reference, with τιν, indicates clearly that for our author this is a new appointment, the introduction of a new character, who, indeed, has not yet been mentioned; compare, for example, 3:4; 4:40; 12:35; 14:3. This postponement of Lysias’ involvement until after the death of Antiochus IV is a fundamental difference between our book and 1 Maccabees and of basic importance for understanding the order of Chapters 9–13; see Introduction, p. 30 (and NOTE on 9:29, wary of Antiochus’ son). head of state. On this title see NOTE on 3:7, head of state. governor-in-chief of Coele Syria and Phoenicia (Κολη« δB Σψρα« κα3 Φοινκη« στρατηγ(ν πρ1ταρξον). So Hanhart (edition, ad loc. and Text, 48–49); Grimm, 2 Macc, 158–159; Abel, Macc, 409; Kahrstedt, Ter- ritorien, 57; Bickerman, Institutions, 204. Others took the last-quoted Greek word as the proper name, Protarchos, of the new governor of Coele Syria and Phoenicia; so Stern, Documents, 44; Habicht, 2 Macc, 251, n. 11c; Goldstein, 2 Macc, 387; Bengston, Strategie 2.164–165; Lévy, “Notes,” 690–691, n. 5. For Protarchos as a personal name, see OGIS 139, line 29; CPJ, II, no. 149, line 1; Bar-Kochva, JM, 535, n. 56. If we were to adopt that reading, this verse would be similar to 13:24. However, although there is no room for certainty it seems that we should nonetheless prefer to assume our text means Lysias was appointed governor-in-chief, for: (1) in contrast to 13:24, where there is external evidence for Hegemon- ides, there is none for this Protarchos; (2) the absence of τιν here would indicate that while Lysias, who is the more important of the two, is not known to the reader (see our NOTE on one Lysias earlier in this verse), Protarchos is – which is not at all the case and in fact the opposite of what we would expect; (3) according to Chapters 11 and 13 Lysias did indeed function as chief governor of our region, until his death; (4) the contrast at 12:1–2 between Lysias and local officials best makes sense on the assumption that Lysias is considered a governor-in-chief; (5) all the ancient Latin versions prefer this reading (see De Bruyne, Anciennes traductions, 180–181); (6) a fragmentary inscription from Andros apparently testifies to the use of the title: τ]ο πρτρξοντο« στ[ρατηγο (IG 12/5, no. 724, line 3, cited in LSJ, 1544, s.v. πρτρξν; see also ibid., s.v. πρταρξω, “to be chief magistrate”).

12. Ptolemy … “Macron.” Who hitherto was governor of Coele Syria and Phoenicia; see NOTE on 8:8, Ptolemy … It seems that “Macron” was his grandfather’s name; see Mitford, “Ptolemy Macron,” 186. Chapter X 381 had taken the lead in maintaining justice toward the Jews. We know of no details, nor can we guess why the author would have omitted them – unless if we assume that here too, as at 9:29 (see NOTE there on wary of Anti- ochus’ son), the author’s reticence reflects his perplexity in the wake of his chronological error: if he heard that Ptolemy Macron had played a role in the abrogation of Antiochus IV’s decrees (as is suggested, for example, by Mørkholm, Antiochus, 188), he would understandably have left out the details here, given his own mistaken notion that the decrees were abrogated only later, by Antiochus Eupator.

13. Friends. Of Eupator; on them, see NOTE on 1:14, Friends. because he had abandoned Cyprus. Since our author viewed this Ptolemy as a friend of the Jews, he took care to make Ptolemy’s enemies sound ridiculous: they attacked Ptolemy for having changed his allegiance to the Seleucids! There is, in fact, other evidence for a Ptolemaic governor of Cyprus, named Ptolemy (son of Ptolemy?, with “Macron” being a byname), going over to Antiochus Epiphanes ca. 168 BCE; see OGIS 117 and Polybius 27.13.1; Ha- bicht, 2 Macc, 251–252, n. 13c; Walbank, Polybius, 3.311–312; and esp. Mitford, “Ptolemy Macron.” Whatever the reason for Macron’s suicide, our author is happy to use him as a foil for wicked Seleucids; the case may be similar to that of the execution of Andronicus, whose execution our book explains in a Jewish context although another one seems to be better testified (see our COMMENT on Chapter 4, also our NOTE on 9:5, smote him). Cf. Josephus’ conviction that it was God’s concern with properly recompensating Petronius, who had at risk to his life protected the sanctity of the Temple of Jerusalem, that brought about the assassination of Gaius Caligula (Ant. 18.306–9); Roman historians, who did not know about “double causality” (see p. 64, n. 155), thought it had to do only with Roman politics. instead of dignifying his post with noble behavior (ε/γενσαι). There are numerous variant readings here, bringing Kappler (Memoria, 44–45) and Hanhart (edition, 31) near to despair. Nevertheless, Kappler concluded that what is needed here is an infinitive, parallel to the two earlier in the verse (κλιπεν, ναξρAσαι), to which Risberg (“Anmerkungen,” 24) and Katz (“Text,” 15) added that only an infinitive would make it clear that it is the nasty Friends’ opinion which is being related, not that of our author. Ac- cordingly, we have accepted Risberg’s ε.γενσαι rather than the participle, ε.γενσα«, that Grimm (2 Macc, 159–160) had suggested and which still appears in Hanhart’s edition, albeit surrounded by daggers that indicate probable corruption. 382 Translation and Commentary left life behind (-ωλιπε τ(ν βον). For Polybius’ use of this elegant expression, as at 31.9.3 in connection with Antiochus Epiphanes, see Mauers- berger, PL, 2.725. For its use in connection with suicide, as here, see e.g. Lucian, Macrobioi 19.

14. But Gorgias. For use of his name as a “handle” to make the reader turn to a new front, compare v. 24 and, for example, 8:8, 12, 34. Gorgias’ participation in Nicanor’s campaign was briefly mentioned at 8:9, but he did not figure in the rest of that story. Neither will he figure again in this story; after his name is mentioned here the Idumaeans take over. True, at 12:32 we do hear that Gorgias was governor/commander of Idumaea, so it may be that he really did play a role in stirring the Idumaeans up. Whether or not he did so, it is important for our author to give us the impression that he did; see our opening COMMENT on this chapter. every occasion (παρ7 Eκαστα). So according to LSJ, 500, s.v. Vκαστο«, §III2 and Mauersberger, PL, 2.707, referring to Polybius 3.57.4; see also 3 Mac- cabees 3:23. waged war. LSJ, 1433, s.v. πολεμοτροφω, refers to our book alone; it recurs in the next verse and at 14:6.

15. the Idumaeans. About them see Kasher, Jews, Idumaeans, and Ancient Arabs, 1–6. For Mnasaes’ reference (early second century BCE?) to the “long war” between the Judaeans and the Idumaeans, see Josephus, Against Apion 2.112–114 (GLA I, no. 28). On the present clashes with them, see also 1 Maccabees 5:3, 65 and Kasher, op. cit., 24–27. harassed (γμναζον) the Jews. This verb, which in the Septuagint appears only here, literally refers to training, exercising; for numerous examples, see Mauersberger, PL, 1.404–405. For the present sense, see LSJ, 362, §II. those who had fled (φψγαδεσαντα«) Jerusalem. On the verb, see our NOTE on 14:14, who had fled before Judas. The author offers no details; apparently the topic is not a pleasant one for him. The reference is likely to Jews who had supported Menelaus; see the similar hint at 4:42, also 1 Mac- cabees 2:44; 7:6; 10:14; 15:21. It is likely that other Jews too were expelled from the city after Judas and his followers took over, and just as understandable that our author, for two reasons, suppressed any details he might have known: (1) he did not want to admit the extent of support for Jason and Menelaus, preferring to leave them individual villains (see Introduc- Chapter X 383 tion, p. 49); (2) expelling Jews from their homes, especially from Jerusalem, was the type of outrage he preferred to associate with a villain like Jason (5:9), not with a hero like Judas. set their hands. On πιξειρω see NOTE on 9:2, set his hand.

16. asked God to be their ally. See NOTE on 8:24, ally.

17. cutting down. The author saw no need to make things sound any nicer, neither here nor in v. 31; cf. NOTE on 8:20, and they took much booty. On massacres by the victors as a standard element in Greek warfare, see: W. Carlton, Massacres: An Historical Perspective (Aldershot: Scolar, 1994) 29–37. no fewer than 20,000. Both the figure and the formulation are standard for our author; see NOTE on 8:9, no fewer than 20,000.

18. very (εF μ#λα). This idiom (“right well”) is used of fortresses, as here, in v. 32 and 8:30.

19. Maccabaeus took himself off to more pressing places. That is, to places where there was more pressing work to be done. As usual (see Introduc- tion, p. 73), the author enjoys giving us the impression that he knows (from Jason) more than he says but does not want to waste our time with the details; this heightens the importance of the next story, which he does choose to tell us. leaving behind (πολιπν). For the verb, see NOTE on 4:29, left … as substitute. It hints that Judas is operating like a ruler, as if he were high priest or king (cf. 4:29, 31).

Simon and Joseph, as well as Zachaeus. For our author’s identification of the first two as brothers of Judas, see NOTE on 8:22–23, his brothers … Zachaeus is not mentioned elsewhere. But since one “Joseph son of Zechar- iah” is mentioned in a similar context at 1 Maccabees 5:56, it could be that our Zachaeus has somehow grown out of that patronymic; for “Zakkai” as a short version of Zechariah, see F.-M. Abel, Grammaire du grec biblique (Paris: Gabalda, 1927) 43–44; D. Schwartz, “Was Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai a Priest?,” Sinai 88 (1980/81) 37–38, n. 35 (in Hebrew). For comparable material, see Ilan, Lexicon, 23–24 (§§2.4.1.1–2). 384 Translation and Commentary

20. But Simon’s men, who loved lucre. The claims that Simon’s men accepted a bribe and that Judas took the towers immediately upon his return (v. 22), amount to criticism of Simon, as does also the story at 14:17 concerning a setback Simon suffered. These verses were, accordingly, one of the points of departure for the thesis that our book was a response to 1 Macca- bees, a book which glorifies the Hasmonean family in general (e.g. 5:65!) and in particular focuses on Simon, from Mattathias’ last words at 2:65 (which make Simon his heir)4 to the last episode of the book (the establishment of the Hasmonean dynasty with the accession of Simon’s son, John Hyrcanus); for that theory, see esp. A. Geiger, Urschrift, 209–214, 219–220, and Kosters, “Polemiek.” However, it is in fact difficult to show that 2 Mac- cabees is a response to 1 Maccabees, and it is equally difficult to argue that our book takes a particular interest in Simon;5 our verse and 14:17 combined offer very little support for such an argument. Note, first of all, that in the former case it is Simon’s men and not he himself who failed; as for 14:17, note that the author seems himself to belittle the dimensions and importance of the defeat, indeed excusing it by pointing to the suddenness of the enemy’s approach. Thus, rather than polemicizing against the Has- moneans or Simon, our author simply ignored them, focusing on Judas himself; see esp. J. Geiger, “History of Judas Maccabaeus,” 6, also Niese, Kritik, 38–39; Meyer, Ursprung, 457 (although Meyer goes too far when he argues [ibid. n. 1] that Simon, here, is not Judas’ brother but, rather, some unknown figure. Meyer derives this from the claim that v. 22 has Judas killing this Simon, but in fact “them” there refers back to our “Simon’s men,” which need not include Simon himself. For the expression οZ περ/ τ9ν X [“X’s men”] see Bar-Kochva, JM, 350–351.) were lucratively convinced (φιλαργψρσαντε« … ργψρ8). An ironic formulation; cf. Antiquities 14.490; 18.29; 20.119, 163, 183.

70,000 drachmas. An astronomical sum; cf. NOTE on 8:11, ninety slaves per talent. slip away (διαρρψναι). This verb, which appears only here in the Septua- gint, compares those who fled to leaking water; see Mauersberger, PL, 2.506, with examples from Polybius 2.122.11; 15.28.4; etc.

4 See above, p. 324, n. 1. 5 For an example of the lengths to which Kosters went in order to prove the opposite, see p. 460, n. 3. Chapter X 385

21. brethren. I.e., brethren-in-arms; for similar use in the days of Bar- Kokhba, see B. Lifshitz, “The Greek Documents from Nahal Seelim and Nahal Mishmar,” IEJ 11 (1961) 60–61. For loose usage of “brethren” in Jewish texts see for example 1 Maccabees 5:13, 16, 17; 6:22, and Fitzmyer, Tobit, 103. It is, however, rare in our book (as opposed to the Judaean epistle attached at its opening – 1:1), just as in general it was rare among the Jews of Hellenistic Egypt (see V. Tscherikower, “Jewish Religious Influence in the Adler Papyri?,” HTR 35 [1942] 32–33); for both, the preference was to view Jews as “fellow citizens” (coreligionists); see pp. 6, 51. to go free against them. That is, to go free and so to fight again against them in the future.

22. traitors. For the punishment of traitors, see NOTE on 13:7, without his …

23. was successful all along the way. This usage of ε.οδ, a high-sounding verb which was employed in v. 7 to describe what God did for the Jews, indicates that Judas is operating as God’s agent. destroying more than 20,000. As usual; see NOTE on v. 17, no fewer than 20,000.

24. But Timothy. For such use of a name as a “handle” to switch our attention elsewhere, see NOTE on v. 14, But Gorgias. As our book, so too 1 Maccabees 5:6–8 has fighting against Timothy follow upon fighting against the Idumaeans (vv. 3–5), and it relates (in v. 8) the conquest of Jazer which parallels that of “Gezer” here (v. 32). According to 12:2, it seems that Timothy was a local governor, apparently in northern Transjordan – which fits the reference in 1 Maccabees to Jazer. But it seems that our author thought that the present campaign was in the Judaean heartland; see NOTE on the end of the present verse, to take it at spear-point. who had previously been defeated. For the translation here, see Doran, Temple Propaganda, 59, n. 32 (vs. Goldstein, 2 Macc, 395–396). Just like 9:3, so too this verse indicates the author’s belief that the events recounted at 8:30–33 are, in fact, in the proper location from the point of view of relative chronology. That, however, seems not to be the case; see NOTE on 9:3, what had happened to Nicanor and to those with Tim- othy. 386 Translation and Commentary great number of foreign forces. I.e., mercenaries, such as those of the My- sians, Cypriots, and Thracians mentioned elsewhere in our book; see NOTE on 8:9, from various peoples. horses from Asia. Bar-Kochva (JM, 514) emphasizes that this refers to horses and not to the cavalrymen themselves; it may well be that the horses were made available to local troops, such as those commanded by Timothy. to take it at spear-point. I.e., by military force; see NOTE on 5:11, at spear- point. This formulation of Timothy’s intention is very overstated, for in fact the coming story is one which deals with a Jewish initiative against a local commander in Transjordan. Lévy (“Notes,” 695, n. 2) and Habicht (2 Macc, 253, n. 24a) view this whole invasion as a mere figment of imagination. But it is not only imagination; rather, our diasporan author understandably preferred to portray Jews who were on the offensive (so 1 Macc 5:6–8) as if in fact they themselves were the victims. Moreover, as Bar-Kochva notes (JM, 514), it could be that the original sin of turning Jazer into Gezer led our author further to conclude that Timothy was active in the Judaean heartland (a conclusion which figures in 12:2 as well), far from his bailiwick – so he must have invaded Judaea.

25. strewing dirt (γH) upon their heads. Similar: 14:15. For this gesture in times of stress, see also Joshua 7:6; 1 Maccabees 11:71; Philo, Legatio 228; etc. Sometimes we hear instead of the strewing of ashes on the head: Esther 4:1; Daniel 9:3 etc. Indeed, sometimes the use of σποδ« is ambiguous; see our NOTE on 4:41, wood … ashes (σποδο ). On the practice see also As. Mos. 3:4 and Tromp, Assumption of Moses, 166–167. girding their loins with sackcloth. See NOTE on 3:19, women …

26. threw themselves upon the step opposite the altar (τ'ν πωναντι το ψσιαστηροψ κρηπδα). For scenes like this, when faced with the threat of invasion, see also 3:21 and 13:12, 2 Chronicles 20:18, and esp. Ju- dith 4:11–12, where, as in v. 25, sackcloth is very prominent. It is not clear what step the author means, but we know (from m. Sukkah 5:4 and m. Middot 2:5) that “steps” in the Temple, especially those leading up to the main courtyard, where the altar was, were considered to be particularly appropriate places to pray. As noted in our Introduction, the text of this verse has been debated, for the usual meaning of κρηπ« is “foundation,” and this, together with most of the Latin texts (contra altaris marginem, ad altaris crepidinem, ante crepedinem arae – De Bruyne, An- Chapter X 387 ciennes traductions, 182–183), led Abel (Macc, 413) to consider a minor emendation, changing the case of κρηπ« so as to have them fall “opposite the foundation of the altar” (πωναντι τA« το ψσιαστηροψ κρηπδο«); Abel adduces LXX Joel 2:17, which has the priests wailing between the Porch and the altar (ν? μωσον τA« κρηπδο« το ψσιασ- τηροψ). For other use of Joel 2:16–20 in our book, see above, p. 62. But what priests might do not all of Judas’ men could do. For the view that κρηπ« here and in Joel (ibid.) refers to a step of the altar, see the LSJ Supplement (19962) 88. asked … having become merciful to them. As we heard at 7:37; 8:5, 27, 29. as the Law clearly states. At Exodus 23:22: “I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries.” This biblical phrase is also well known in Greek and Roman treaties. See M. Weinfeld, “Common Heritage,” 180; idem, “The Loyalty Oath in the Ancient Near East,” Uga- rit-Forschungen 8 (1976) 390–391. The verse in Exodus goes on to promise “for My angel will go before you” – as we shall see in v. 29 and at 11:8. On such biblical promises, see Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 66–67.

27. advanced a considerable distance outside of the city. Jerusalem, which has been mentioned here only by implication, by reference to the Temple. For other, and more extreme, cases of the assumption that it is at the center of attention even when unmentioned, or even when another city has been mentioned, see 4:39; 5:2; 11:7–8. they kept to themselves (φ7 Ψαψτ*ν Iσαν). I.e., avoided contact; cf. Josep- hus, Against Apion 2.227, “the Spartans, as long as they had their own city, kept to themselves” (φ0 Ψαψτ7ν).

28. as soon as the rays of dawn spread. Which shows they marched at night; see NOTE on 8:7, especially chose the nighttime. these … the others. Such contrasts are frequent in our book, characters being arranged opposite one another as if on a stage; see above, p. 76. virtue. Here the term is close to its roots; see NOTE on 6:31, virtue. made their rage the guide of their struggles. Allowing ψμ« to be one’s guide is the arch-characteristic of the wicked; see NOTE on 9:4, borne on the wave of his temper. It may also induce a tit for tat reprisal; see v. 35. 388 Translation and Commentary

29. A mighty battle having developed (γενομωνη« δω καρτερ»« μ#ξη«). Same phrase: 12:11. there appeared to the enemy’s soldiers. But not to the Jews; see NOTE on 3:25, they saw a horse. men. That is, angels, as requested; see NOTE on v. 26, as the Law clearly states. For the frequent use of “men” to describe angels as they appear to humans, see e.g. Genesis 18:2//19:1; Judges 13:6; Daniel 9:21; N. P. Brat- siotis, TDOT 1 (1974) 233. gold-studded (ξρψσοξαλν,ν) bridles. As one would expect of heavenly horses; see NOTE on 3:25, outfitted with beautiful accoutrements. For such extravagant bridles LSJ (2011) cites Herodotus 9.20 and Xenophon, Cyro- paedia 1.3.3.

30. Two of them (ο= δο). So according to Hanhart (edition ad loc. and Text, 28), following the Alexandrinus and the Vulgate and followed by Habicht (2 Macc, 253). Several other witnesses, however, including the Venetus and the Vetus Latina, omit “two,” thus allowing all five of the angels to shelter Judas. The latter version (accenting οJ) is preferred by Grimm, Abel and Goldstein ad loc., who explain that “two” was added in by some unimaginative copyist who did not understand how five angels could take Judas “between” (μωσον) them. Alternatively, Adinolfi (Questioni, 135–136) suggested that “two” was added by someone who couldn’t imagine the same angels at the same time both sheltering Judas and also shoot- ing at his enemies. But can we really imagine a copyist who was so troubled by such geometric or operational problems but yet willing to ignore the question he himself created, namely: What did the other three angels do? (Contrast the parallel at Josippon, ch. 19 [ed. Flusser, 87], where in fact two angels shelter and three fought, but there, indeed, the division of labor is explicit.) Is it not simpler to imagine that the original text said “two” but some copyists left that out because they knew there were five angels, and – since they did not know what the other three did (something perhaps clarified in the original source) – found it intolerable to ignore them? That difficulty, to the extent it is one, may be overcome without deleting the “two” by allowing the other three to go on “leading the Jews” (v. 29) and having the reference to the two reflect awareness of the other three, and that may be accomplished either by translating οZ δ ο “two of them” (so Hanhart, Text, 28) or by adding in ^ν, allowing for “five distinguished men … of whom, two.” As Habicht notes (2 Macc, 253, n. 30a), if the original text Chapter X 389 did include ^ν it could easily have been lost by haplography (ΤΝΙΟ- WΔΑΙΝΝΟΙΔWΟ). One way or another, as both Hanhart and Habicht note, it is difficult to imagine anyone creating the reference to “two” if it were not original. sheltering him (σκεπ#ζοντε«). See NOTE on 5:9, find shelter. throwing arrows and thunderbolts (κεραψνο«) at the enemy. A hint at Psalms 144:6 (“make lightning flash and scatter them, shoot Your arrows and rout them”)? Or a hint that our God is just as powerful as Zeus, the thunder God of whom κερα νειο« was a characteristic epithet? As usual, our Jewish-Hellenistic author had no need to choose; compare, for example, our NOTE on 9:8, give orders to … waves … weigh … mountains. blindness. Cf. what angels did at Genesis 19:11 and esp. 2 Kings 6:18. For the comparison of the present story to the latter one, about Elisha, see Schwartz, “Something Biblical,” 226, where it is shown that there are not numerous points of comparison nor any attempt to portray Judas as a latter-day Elisha. they scattered about in all directions (διε-πταντο). The text is according to Hanhart, following Kappler, Memoria, 58; διεπτασαι, which does not appear in LSJ, is an expansion of πτασαι, “to scatter.”

31. cut down. As above; see NOTE on v. 17, cutting down.

32. As for Timothy himself – he took refuge. Just as he will at the end of his next appearance (12:24). Our author, who firmly subscribes to the “manly” virtues (see NOTE on 8:7, And the fame …) and amongst them – the “willingness to die” (see NOTES on 7:2, ready to die and on 8:21, ready to die), refuses to let his villains die nobly in battle; just like Nicanor (8:34–35) and Antiochus (9:1–2) before him and Lysias (11:12) and Gorgias (12:35) after him, Timothy too will flee (here) or even be captured, only to achieve his release by guile (12:24). Moreover, if in the cases of Nicanor, Antiochus and Lysias it is said they learned the proper lesson about God and His protection of the Jews, in the case of Timothy the humiliation has no such redeeming feature.

“Gezer.” So according to all witnesses; our author’s assumption that Tim- othy was active in central Judaea is also evident at v. 24 (see NOTE there on to take it at spear-point) and at 12:10. Nevertheless, the parallel at 1 Mac- 390 Translation and Commentary cabees 5:8 refers to Jazer, which is in Transjordan, and it is apparent not only that both books are referring to the same place but also that “Jazer” is to be preferred; note that our book too, at 12:10ff., has Timothy active in Transjordan (see 12:17, along with Momigliano, Prime Linee, 69–70 and Bar-Kochva, JM, 512). The exact location of Jazer is not certain; see J. L. Peterson, “Jazer,” ABD 3.650–651.

Chaereas. Timothy’s brother, according to v. 37.

34. were … blasphemous and spewed forth forbidden words. This is a new element in our book apart from the general allusions in v. 4 and at 8:4. This verse is very similar to 12:14.

35. burning up with rage. Their rage makes them similar to Timothy’s men (v. 28), while “burning up” compares them to Antiochus (9:7). Thus, the players on both sides are equally inflamed – these for the good (just as Anti- ochus Epiphanes himself at 4:38) and those for evil. manfully (ρρενδ7«). For this adverb LSJ (247) lists our verse alone. For the theme, see NOTE on 8:7, And the fame … animal-like rage. As at 12:15, but also as Antiochus himself when first attacking Jerusalem (5:11). smote. On κπτ, see NOTE on 5:12, smite.

36. by virtue of the diversion. The term περισπασμ« usually refers to a 180-degree about-face by a unit of soldiers (Walbank, Polybius, 2.226), but that won’t fit here. For another meaning, “to be occupied with something else,” see Risberg, “Anmerkungen,” 24–25. Cf. e.g. Josephus, Vita 104. Ac- cordingly, it seems that our verse means that the direct attack on the walls, mentioned in v. 35, was in fact only a diversion to allow for the real attack, described here. burned the blasphemers alive. As at 8:33. But while there the punishment fit the crime, here there is no such special explanation. The biblical and rabbinic punishment for blasphemy was stoning; see Leviticus 24:13–16; m. Sanh 7:4. they also broke through the gates. I.e., from the inside. Chapter X 391

37. cut down. Although he will reappear in Chapter 12; see Introduction, p. 27.

Timothy, who had hidden in a cistern. While his soldiers were fighting and dying! See NOTE on v. 32, As for Timothy himself …

Apollophanes. Not mentioned elsewhere (see p. 72).

38. they blessed. As opposed to the blasphemers, but like 3:30; 8:27; 11:9; 12:41; 15:29, 34. Here this element creates a proper conclusion for the chapter. had been … beneficent (ε/εργετο ντι). See NOTE on 4:2, benefactor.

Israel. This name is rare in our book, appearing twice in the second epistle (1:25–26) and again only at 9:5 and 11:6. In all cases, it adds an element of religious depth which is not borne by “Jews,” and it appears, therefore, that – similar to the biblical style at the opening of Chapter 8 – it is intended to hint at the language of the prayer which is reported here. Compare esp. 3 Maccabees: it usually uses “Jews,” but for prayers “Israel” is used (2:6, 10, 16; 6:4, 9; 7:16, 23 [the book’s final verse, which ends with “Amen”]). For its religious aura, as opposed to “Jews” and even “He- brews,” see Harvey, True Israel.

Bibliography

Bar-Kochva, JM, 508–515. Flusser, “Dedication of the Temple.” Kasher, Jews, Idumaeans, and Ancient Arabs, 25–33. Lévy, “Notes.” Mitford, “Ptolemy Macron.” Wellhausen, “Wert,” 138–141. 392 Translation and Commentary

Chapter XI

The Beth-Zur Campaign

(1) After an entirely brief interval Lysias, the king’s guardian and kinsman and head of state, upon whom what had happened weighed quite heavily, (2) gathered about 80,000 men and all the (kingdom’s) horses and came upon the Jews, thinking to make the city a residence for Greeks (3) and the Temple a source of money like the sacred enclosures of the other peoples, and to make the high priesthood into something sold a year at a time – (4) having in mind his myriads of foot-soldiers and thousands of cavalrymen and eighty elephants and not at all giving more thought to the power of God. (5) Having entered Judaea and nearing Beth-Zur, a strong place about five schoinoi from Jerusalem, he pressed hard upon it. (6) When Mac- cabaeus’ men received notice that he was besieging the strongholds, together with the populace they beseeched the Lord, with wailing and tears, to send a good angel to the rescue of Israel. (7) And Maccabaeus, being himself the first to take up his arms, impelled the others together with him to en- danger themselves so as to aid their brethren; together they all stormed out with enthusiasm. (8) But right there, when they were still near Jerusalem, there appeared someone leading them on horseback, dressed in a white garment and brandishing golden weaponry. (9) Together all blessed the merciful God and – buoyed up in their spirits – they were ready to pierce not only men, but even the wildest animals and iron walls. (10) They moved forward in formation, having a heavenly ally – the Lord having become merciful toward them. (11) Like lions they threw themselves against the enemies and laid low 11,000 of them, as well as 1600 cavalrymen; they forced all (the others) to flee. (12) Most of them managed to escape, wounded and naked, and Lysias himself escaped by fleeing shamefully.

Negotiations and the Abrogation of the Decrees against Judaism

(13) Since he was not mindless, he mulled over the defeat that had befallen him. Realizing that the Hebrews are invincible due to the powerful God who is their ally, he sent to them (14) and urged them to settle with him ac- Chapter XI 393 cording to all that is just, (saying that) if so he would urge the king as well to be an indispensable friend to them. (15) Maccabaeus, giving thought to the benefit, approved everything which Lysias proposed; for the king agreed to everything which Maccabaeus transmitted in writing to Lysias concerning the Jews. (16) The letters written to the Jews by Lysias were as follows: Lysias to the community of Jews: greetings. (17) Johanan and Absalom, who were sent by you, having transmitted the document copied below, made requests concerning the things indicated in it. (18) I clarified, accordingly, which things it was necessary to bring before the king too; but those things which were possible – I approved them myself. (19) If now you will maintain goodwill toward the state, I will attempt to be a beneficial agent in the future as well. (20) As for the details, I have ordered them and my people to discuss them with you. (21) Be well. In the year 148, the 24th of Dioscorin- thios. (22) The king’s letter was as follows: King Antiochus to his brother Ly- sias: greetings. (23) Now that our father has passed over to the gods, in our desire that the people of the kingdom be untroubled and take care of their own affairs, (24) and having heard that the Jews did not willingly concur in their conversion to Greek ways by my father, but rather, preferring their own way of life, ask that their own regulations be allowed to them – (25) now then, in our policy that this people too should be untroubled we have decided to restore the Temple to them and that they should conduct their civic behavior according to the customs of their ancestors. (26) So you will do well if you send to them and give them the right hand, so that in per- ceiving our policy they will be in good spirits and happily go about taking care of their own affairs. (27) The king’s letter to the people was as follows: King Antiochus to the Jews’ Council of Elders and the other Jews: greetings. (28) If you are well, that is how we would have it; we too are healthy. (29) Menelaus has reported to us that you wish to return (home) and devote yourselves to your own affairs. (30) Accordingly: to those Jews who return by the thirtieth of Xanthicus there shall be extended the promise that without fear (31) they may use their own foods and laws as in the past, and no one of them shall in any way be troubled due to the things which were done out of ignorance. (32) And I have also sent Menelaus to encourage you. (33) Be well. In the year 148, the 15th of Xanthicus. (34) The Romans too sent them a letter, as follows: Quintus Memmius (and) Titus Manius, emissaries of the Romans, to the people of the Jews: greetings. (35) Concerning those matters which Lysias, the king’s kinsman, has allowed to you, we too willingly concur. (36) But as for those matters 394 Translation and Commentary which he decided to bring before the king, send us someone immediately after reviewing them, so that we shall be able to present (these matters) as suits you; for we are proceeding on to Antioch. (37) Therefore be quick and send us people, so we too shall learn what your opinion is. (38) Be healthy. In the year 148, 15th of Xanthicus.

COMMENT

After the preceding chapter dealt with clashes involving minor league combat against Idumaeans and secondary Seleucid officials in the south and the north, this chapter opens with a major campaign led by the viceroy himself. Lysias invades with a huge army and commensurate self-confidence, planning to take Jerusalem and convert the city and the Temple into Greek institutions, but is met by Judas’ forces who – their prayers for divine help being answered – manage to defeat and rout the Seleucid army. This leads Lysias to realize the power of God, and therefore to advise the king to make peace with the Jews – as is testified by the correspondence which fills the last half of this chapter. Thus Lysias’ campaign ends up not only as did Nicanor’s in Chapter 8, with Judas’ victory and the Syrian general’s recognition of God’s power, but with an official Seleucid abrogation of its anti- Jewish policy as well. This, will leave for the next chapter the question why the book cannot end with this one. The chapter divides into two sections, namely the Beth-Zur campaign and the correspondence, and each generates a complex of historical issues: (1) The Beth-Zur Campaign(s): 1 Maccabees recounts two Beth-Zur campaigns, the first prior to Antiochus’ death and the second – which resulted logically and causally from the first – somewhat thereafter. The first, narrated in 1 Maccabees 4:28–35, has Lysias and a large army camping near Beth-Zur, whereupon Judas and his men – after an appropriate prayer (vv. 30–33) – attack Lysias’ forces and force them to withdraw, not without promising to return for a second round (v. 35). This victory allowed for the Jewish takeover of Jerusalem and rededication of the Temple (1 Macc 4), as well as for some further Jewish campaigning in the south and north (1 Macc 5) – both of which (generally) parallel our Chapter 10. The promised second round at Beth-Zur soon comes, and is related in 1 Macca- bees 6:18–63, after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes: upon the urging of the “men of the Akra,” “the king” – but Eupator was but a child, so Lysias was the main mover – besieged Beth-Zur (which had been fortified by Judas, according to 1 Macc 4:26, 61) with a large army, whereupon Judas took an army to nearby Beth Zechariah. When battle was joined it resulted in a Se- Chapter XI 395 leucid victory, and in the garrisoning of Beth-Zur (v. 50), but shortly thereafter Lysias preferred to withdraw to Antioch so as to deal with the threat posed by Philip, whom Antiochus Epiphanes had appointed to be regent. Our book too seems to report two Beth-Zur campaigns: here and in Chapter 13. However, both come after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes (Ch. 9). Moreover, there is no logical or causal relationship between them: the second introduces Beth-Zur at 13:19 as if for the first time, as if the reader hadn’t read of a campaign there just two chapters earlier. Again, not only the timing, but also the details of both narratives read as if they refer to the second campaign as described by 1 Maccabees: both have the royal army besieging Beth-Zur (as 1 Macc 6:31 but not 1 Macc 4:28–35); both have the Seleucid force including elephants (as 1 Macc 6:30–46 but not 1 Macc 4:28–35); and the number of elephants our book gives at 11:4, eighty, although ridiculously high, is strikingly identical to the number given by Josephus in connection with the second campaign (War 1.41).1 Thus, it seems that both of our book’s Beth-Zur narratives, in Chap- ters 11 and 13, refer to the same campaign, and that that campaign is the second of the two narrated by 1 Maccabees, namely, the one in the days of Antiochus Eupator (which in fact corresponds to the fact that they are both placed, in our book, after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes in Chapter 9 and the succession of Antiochus Eupator in Chapter 10).2 The fact that they are not coordinated indicates the use of a separate source in Chap- ters 10–11; other arguments in favor of that conclusion are set forth above, pp. 30–34. (2) The Letters: The latter conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the letters (hereinafter termed Letters A-D, in the order in which they appear) that fill the latter half of our chapter seem to relate to the same period, for in v. 23, at the opening of Letter B, Antiochus Eupator explicitly refers to his father’s death. True, this is the only letter which explicitly identifies the re-

1 See Introduction, p. 36. 2 In the Hebrew version of this commentary (29, n. 34) I assumed that our chapter’s campaign was the first one, for two reasons: the fact that our chapter’s account ends, as does that of 1 Macc 4, with the Seleucids withdrawing due to Judas’ success, and not (as those of our Ch. 13 and 1 Macc 6) due to the threat posed by Philip, and the fact (as it seems) that it was found together with the letters of 148 SE. However, the first point is the kind of thing any pro-Hasmonean writer, certainly an epitomizer, would be happy to omit, and the latter point is not very probative, given the fact that the second letter is from the period after Antiochus Epiphanes’ death. Upon additional reflection, the circumstantial details mentioned above (siege, elephants, eighty) seem to be better guides. 396 Translation and Commentary igning king as Antiochus Eupator; Letter A and Letter D refer to “the king” and Letter C refers to “King Antiochus.” However, since Letter B is in the midst of this dossier, and since all the letters refer to Lysias who – according to our author (10:11) – makes his appearance only after the death of Anti- ochus Epiphanes, it is clear that our author placed the entire chapter in the reign of Antiochus Eupator, after his father’s death. But although our author’s placement of these letters thus bolsters our conclusion that both Beth-Zur reports pertain to the period after Antiochus IV died, it is clear that our author was wrong. This is shown sufficiently by cuneiform evidence now available, which shows that Antiochus Epiphanes’ death came more than half a year later than the spring of 164 BCE (Xan- thicus of 148 SE, the year given for Letters A, C, D – vv. 21, 33, 38).3 Even long before this evidence became available, however, Richard Laqueur (“Griechische Urkunden”) noticed that Letter B is both the only letter ascribed to the days of Antiochus Eupator and the only one without a date. All three of the others are dated to 148 SE but fail to identify the king, and so apart from the fact that our chapter juxtaposes them one to another, there is no particular reason to assume that their “king” is Eupator, as in Letter B. Hence, there is no particular reason not to interpret Lettters A, C and D historically (i.e., not as contemplated by our book’s confused author) on the background of the picture supplied by 1 Maccabees 6, according to which Lysias was in fact appointed regent when Antiochus Epiphanes left for the East. That is, apart from our author’s placement of this dossier there is every reason to assume that “the king” and “King Antiochus” of Letters A, C and D was Antiochus Epiphanes. This is, indeed, the prevailing assumption today, at least for Letter C, which is clearly dated. Letters A and D – which indeed display some verbal similarity (vv. 18//35–36), could go either way. True, Letter D has the exact same date as Letter C, but this is itself suspect, as is the use of a Seleucid date in this Roman letter. As for Letter A, given the uncertainty about the month mentioned it too could go either way, but since it seems to imply (in v. 18) that the king is at some distance from Lysias we may prefer to assume that here too “the king” is Anti- ochus Epiphanes, who in 148 SE was far away, in the East.4 But the fact that our author was confused, and wrongly mixed at least one letter applying to Antiochus Epiphanes into a file of which one or more of the others apply to the reign of his son, and apparently allowed this mistake to force an erroneous reorganization of this entire part of his book (see

3 See above, p. 41, n. 92. 4 See p. 27, n. 60. Chapter XI 397

Introduction, pp. 32–33), is more than compensated for by the value of these four documents which he preserved. They indicate, first of all, that the spring of 164 saw Antiochus Epiphanes, in response to Jewish resistance and an appeal by Menelaus (!), agreeing to give up his decrees against Ju- daism if the Jews put down their arms (Letter C). This is the type of datum which neither our book, which hates Menelaus, nor 1 Maccabees, which hates Antiochus Epiphanes, was interested in revealing. Second, these letters flesh out the negotiations between the Seleucid government and the rebels: Letter A, while referring to the Jews merely as a “multitude” and failing to dignify their Jewish emissaries – who bear very Jewish names (v. 17) – by terming them “ambassadors” or the like (cf. v. 34), nevertheless has Lysias making concessions and urging the king to do more of the same. This is something that 1 Maccabees would never tell us; as far as that book is concerned, whatever the Jews have achieved they owe to Hasmonean valor alone. Finally, Letter D is one of the earliest pieces of evidence for Roman interference in Seleucid affairs. Given Rome’s successes against Antiochus III (see Appendix 6) and more recently against Antiochus IV (see NOTE on 5:5, false rumor …), it fills in a bit of the picture of the international scenario which facilitated the Hasmoneans’ success.

NOTES

11:1. After an entirely brief interval. Apart from our verse, LSJ (2008) lists no other evidence for ξρονσκο«. The use – invention? – of such a diminu- tive seems to indicate that the author is somewhat puzzled and is attempting to force all he has to recount into a very short period. Presumably this reflects the need, created by the dates later in the chapter that showed (so he mistakenly thought – see Introduction, p. 33) that Antiochus IV was dead, and that Antiochus V was ruling, by the spring of what we call 164 BCE.

Lysias. Who was inserted into the story together with Antiochus Eupator (10:11) but nothing has yet been said of him; although he was “head of state,” he is not even said to have been behind Gorgias’ or Timothy’s campaigns reported in Chapter 10. In fact, his story should have already begun in the days of Antiochus IV, as regent while the king was on his eastern campaign; so it is at 1 Maccabees 3:32. Our author seems to have been unaware of that; see immediately below and NOTE on 9:29, wary of Antiochus’ son. the king’s guardian. That is, the guardian of the young Antiochus Eupator. Use of this title (repeated at 13:2 and 14:2) corresponds to 1 Maccabees 3:32 398 Translation and Commentary and 6:17 but contradicts 10:11, according to which Lysias was appointed by Antiochus Eupator himself. As we have seen, that statement – which reflects our author’s assumption that, as usual, but as incorrect in this case, a king takes office only after the end of his predecessor’s reign – was among the reasons for the assumption that the war materials in Chapters 10–11 came to our book from a separate source; on that assumption, the present identification must be considered a gloss. See p. 28, n. 61, and p. 37, n. 80. kinsman (σψγγεν«). A rank in the Seleucid hierarchy; see Stern, Hasmon- aean Judaea, 49–50, n. 3; Corradi, Studi, 281–290. In this case 1 Maccabees (3:32) is misleading, for it presents Lysias as “of the royal seed,” which could be taken to denote a real family tie. This need not mean that the author of 1 Maccabees did not understand the true situation; indeed, he was familiar with the aulic titles (see 1 Macc 10:89; 11:31), so perhaps – as Niese suggested (Kritik, 51) – he only wanted to give his narrative a biblical flavor. For “of the royal seed,” see 2 Kings 25:25, Jeremiah 41:1 and Eze- kiel 17:13. For a similar move at 1 Maccabees 1:29, see above, NOTE on 5:24, the Mysarch Apollonius. what had happened. In context, this refers to the failure of Timothy’s attempt to conquer Judaea (10:24), which explains the renewed attempt described here (vv. 2–3). However, the phrasing here is so vague that – just as “after an entirely short period” in v. 1 – it seems to indicate that our author is not certain, or bothered, about the precise context for the present story.

2. about 80,000 men. An entirely exaggerated figure, just like the 60,000 and 100,000 which 1 Maccabees 4:28 and 6:30 cite for the Beth-Zur campaigns; see Bar-Kochva, JM, 42, and Shatzman, “Hasmonaean Army,” 32 (“the data on the size of Lysias’ army are impossible”). thinking (λογιζμενο«). This is the opening of an impressive bit of word- play, to be concluded in v. 4: ο.δαμ7« πιλογιζμενο«.

3. a source of money. LSJ (236) cites our verse alone for ργψρολγητο«. Goldstein translates “subject to tribute,” but – as he notes (2 Macc, 404)– while our book might be well-informed, the fact is that we have next to no information about any levying of tribute upon temples in the Hellenistic world; on the Seleucids, see Bickerman, Institutions, 114–115 and M. Ros- tovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, I (Ox- ford: Clarendon, 1941) 506 with n. 282. In contrast, there is a good bit of evidence for the sale of priesthoods, which is mentioned further on in our Chapter XI 399 verse (see NOTE on something sold …). Accordingly, we have preferred to translate more literally, as Habicht (“zu machen … den Tempel zu einer Geldquelle”), and to assume that the end of the verse explains its opening: that which Jason and Menelaus had done (4:8, 24) would become the rule. the sacred enclosures of the other peoples. See NOTE on 14:33, this sacred enclosure of God. something sold a year at a time. In the Hellenistic world it indeed seems to have been common to sell high-priestly positions annually. See W. Otto, Priester und Tempel im hellenistischen Aegypten, I (Leipzig & Berlin: Teubner, 1905) 232–244 (and idem, W. Otto, “Kauf und Verkauf von Priestertümern bei den Griechen,” Hermes 44 [1909] 594–599); Bicker- man, Institutions, 115. From the point of view of Jewish tradition, Lysias’ plan involved three innovations: (a) that the high priest would be appointed; (b) that the appointment would be sold; (c) that the appointment would be only for a year. Traditionally, in contrast, the position was held by inheritance and was lifelong. Together, these threatened innovations would have undermined the high priesthood’s prestige and made it subject to the crown, just as our author has already condemned Jason and Menelaus for their respective usurpations of the position (4:7, 26). Indeed, in the days of Herod, the Roman procurators after him, and the last Herodians, high priests were switched frequently, so much so that occasionally we get the impression that it was an annual appointment (and perhaps it sometimes was); see An- tiquities 18.34–35 (along with Schwartz, Studies, 182–201); John 11:49 and 18:11; b. Yoma 9a; Alon, Jews, 61–65; U. Holzmeister, “‘Der Hohe- priester jenes Jahres’ (Joh 11,49.51; 18,13),” ZKT 44 (1920) 306–312. This image, coupled with rumors that the post was being sold (see b. Yoma 8b and Alon, ibid., 65–69), destroyed the position’s prestige.

4. myriads of foot-soldiers and thousands of cavalrymen and eighty elephants. The elephants were not mentioned in v. 2, and their number is very exaggerated (as is even the twenty-two mentioned at 13:2); see Bar-Kochva, JM, 307. It seems, accordingly, that our author has, as usual (for 1 Macc too), greatly exaggerated the enemy’s strength, so as to inflate the importance of the Jews’ victory; see NOTE on 2:21, so that although they were few in number. Note that Josephus, at War 1.41, speaks of eighty Seleucid elephants at the battle of Beth Zechariah – more confirmation that the present account refers to the second Beth-Zur campaign; it seems that Jose- phus used the same source as did our author (see COMMENT above, p. 395). On elephants in ancient warfare, see, in general, Scullard, Elephant; 400 Translation and Commentary

Bar-Kochva, Seleucid Army, 75–83; U. Staub, “Das Tier mit den Hörnern: Ein Beitrag zu Dan 7,7f,” in Keel & Staub, Hellenismus und Judentum, esp. 70–75.

5. Beth-Zur. For the identification of the site, which is north of Hebron on the border between Judaea and Idumaea, and on the finds there, see Bar- Kochva, JM, 285–287. From our text it emerges that Beth-Zur was in Jew- ish hands, a cardinal point indicating, again, that we are now reading about the second Beth-Zur campaign; cf. 1 Maccabees 4:61 and 6:31. Note that, characteristically, the Palestinian author of 1 Maccabees saw no need to add any words to identify Beth-Zur when he first mentioned it (4:29), as opposed to our author, who goes on to characterize the place and to state its distance from Jerusalem. about five schoinoi from Jerusalem. South of Jerusalem, near the road to Hebron. The schoinos is a Persian measure used widely in Egpyt. If each was equal to thirty stadia, as Strabo assumes (Geog. 17.1.24, p. 804), then the distance given here amounts to 150 stadia – some thirty kilometers (see NOTE on 12:9, the gleam of the flames …); this datum is more or less correct. See Bar-Kochva, JM, 276, also Abel and Goldstein ad loc. But Strabo also notes that there was some lack of consistency concerning the length of a schoinos (as other measures; see J. Geiger, “Julian of Ascalon,” JHS 112 [1992] 39). This is the only place where this measure is cited in our book; elsewhere in our book distances are stated only in Chapter 12 (vv. 9, 10, 16, 17, 29), and then only in stadia. Assuming the reading (based on the Alexandrinus) is correct, it is an important indication of the use of separate sources; see above, p. 30. Cf. Nelis, “La distance;” he argues that an original reading of “about two hundred” could explain the various readings in manuscripts here, on which hypothesis the reference to schoinoi was not original but only the contribution of Egyptian scribes who were familiar with that measure. But why should the original text have omitted the unit? In any case, as Bar-Kochva remarks (ibid.), it is difficult to accept a reading that is not testified by any of the numerous witnesses.

6. the strongholds. For the use of the plural ξψρματα although the reference is to a single fortress (Beth-Zur), cf. Polybius 2.69.9; 5.73.1. the populace. For this sense of ,ξλοι, see NOTE on 4:40, the populace. beseeched (Zκωτεψον). See NOTE on 3:18, supplication. Chapter XI 401 with wailing and tears. Which, as at 13:12, raises the dramatic tension; cf. 3:14, 16 and 15:19 and contrast 1 Maccabees, where we never hear of any tears, crying or wailing (not to mention more abstract “distress”). Cf. NOTE on 3:19, Women, bound around with sackcloth under their breasts. a good angel. Although figures come down from heaven a few times in our book, it employs the term “angel” (5γγελο«) only here and at 15:23, in both cases in a request that God send “a good angel;” the same specification also appears in the confidence expressed at Tobit 5:22. But while in the latter passage the rhetorical requirements of the situation (Tobit’s need to allay his wife’s fears) explain the adjective, here it is a puzzling formulation. Can anyone imagine that God might send a bad angel? True, God was presumed to have at His disposal angels of destruction, but why hint in prayer that without our special pleading He might send one? And if this prayer is continuing the one begun at 10:26, which refers to Exodus 23:22 which is itself followed by God’s promise to send an angel, there too it is taken for granted, but not stated, that it would be a good angel. Is not specifying the request for a good angel comparable to asking a host, who has offered a glass of water, to use a clean glass? I have no solution for this puzzle. For the assumption that the angel meant here is Michael, who frequently figures in military contexts, see Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 126.

7. the first to take up his arms. As at 8:23. brethren. That is, comrades in arms; see NOTE on 10:21, brethren.

8. there appeared. Not necessarily “was;” see NOTE on 3:25, they saw a horse. on horseback (Kφιππο«). Probably the good angel requested in v. 6. For horseback angels see also 10:29; cf. 3:25. brandishing golden weaponry. For πανοπλα see NOTE on 3:25, armor.

9. pierce. For this translation of τιτρσκ, see NOTE on 3:16, pierced the mind.

10. heavenly ally. See NOTE on 8:24, ally. the Lord having become merciful toward them. For this turnabout, see 8:5, 27, 29. 402 Translation and Commentary

11. Like lions (λεοντηδ2ν). LSJ (1038) lists only this verse. Correspond- ingly, Gil (“Sobre el estilo,” 27) notes our author’s love for forms ending in δον or δην, which have a poetic and archaic ring to them; see 3:18; 4:41; 14:14, 45.

12. naked. That is, without their weapons; cf. 8:27, Polybius 3.81.2, etc. fleeing shamefully. As usual; see NOTE on 10:32, As for Timothy himself …

13. he mulled. This is the only appearance of ντιβλλ in the Septuagint and the only reference LSJ (154) gives for this sense of the verb.

Realizing … the powerful God who is their ally. As his predecessors too had realized: 3:34–39; 8:36; 9:11–17.

Hebrews. For this formal name, which – as at 15:37 – seems to have been thought appropriate for such a major statement, see NOTE on 7:31, He- brews.

14. according to all that is just (π/ π»σι το« δικαοι«). The same phrase reappears at 13:23, after the “other” Beth-Zur campaign; as we have seen (p. 395), it seems the two are in fact identical. urge the king as well (κα3 τ(ν βασιλωα). That is, as well as Lysias himself. to be an indispensable friend to them. On the text here, which is difficult, see esp. Goldstein, 2 Macc, 407–8. Three verbs have been transmitted in the infinitive: πεσειν φλον α.το« ναγκζειν γενωσαι, and this seems to be impossible to render. Moreover, ναγκζειν is difficult because whatever the true facts of the matter, it is not likely that the king’s guardian would be said to have told subjects that he would “force” the king to do something. Habicht (2 Macc, 256, n. 14b, followed by Goldstein, ibid.), emphasized this latter consideration, but saw it as proof that ναγκζειν is, accordingly, the more difficult reading and hence to be retained; he suggested that we view πεσειν (“to convince”) as a gloss meant to avoid the problem. Hanhart tended toward the same solution, and so although he retained πεσειν in his edition he marked it as doubtful; see also his Text, 44. These scholars also thought that the repetition of πε at the beginning and end of this same verse was bad style, hence another reason to eliminate πεσειν. However, it seems that that parallelism is in fact to be welcomed, for it allows Lysias to appear in the role of mediator between the two sides; Chapter XI 403 cf. πεποασιν … πεποαμεν in 8:18. It seems, therefore, that we should retain πεσειν and resolve the problem another way, as Katz suggested (“Text,” 15, following others): by changing ναγκζειν into an adjective. Indeed, the Latin witnesses include one (P) that reads here “necessarius amicus;” see De Bruyne, Anciennes traductions, 189. For several illustrations of ναγκαο« in the sense of “vital,” “impossible without,” or – in connection with people – “very close,” “beloved,” and the like, see Mauersberger, PL, 1.92; Josephus, Antiquities 7.350; and esp. Acts 10:24: το#« σψγγενε« α.το κα/ το#« ναγκαοψ« φλοψ« (“his kinsmen and his closest friends”).

15. Maccabaeus, giving thought to the benefit. This – as also 12:12 and perhaps 14:20 – sounds like an apology, as if there is some problem with the notion of making agreements with foreign powers. Perhaps it was a theological problem: Should those who have God as their ally seek out, or accept, alliances with mortals, especially – with those who had persecuted the Jews?! See, for example, Exodus 23:32; Deuteronomy 7:2; Isaiah 36:5–6; 1 Maccabees 12:9; also Mariani, “L’alleanza e l’amicizia.” It may be that such second thoughts brought our author to explain that the agreements were advantageous. approved (πωνεψσε). See NOTE on 4:10, royal approval. for the king agreed. As Letter B will show. everything which Maccabaeus transmitted in writing to Lysias. Via the emissaries named in v. 17.

16. letters. But in fact there is only one from Lysias. There is, of course, evidence for the usage of the plural πιστολα for a single letter; see LSJ, 660, also Ettelson, “Integrity,” 320. But the closest we come to that in our book is at 14:13, where the text is however uncertain; see NOTE ibid. on letters. Otherwise, vv. 22, 27, and 34 below use the singular, and nowhere else does our author use the plural in reference to a single letter; see also 2:13 (plural for more than one letter) and 9:18 (singular for a single letter); indeed, according to BDAG 381, in “our literature” the plural almost always refers to more than one letter. Thus it seems we should understand that Lysias, as is stated in v. 17, attached to his own letter that which Judas sent him (mentioned in v. 15) – and it is unfortunate that it was not preserved. A similar situation: 9:25. 404 Translation and Commentary to the community of Jews. Here, given the tone of the letter, πλAο« clearly has a respectful meaning, not “horde.” See NOTE on 3:21, community. But it is not the name of a formal institution; contrast the gerousia, mentioned in v. 27. Thus, it is a peace-seeking letter from Lysias to the rebels. Note how our author insists that Judas runs the negotiations while Lysias, of course, ignores Judas; cf. the way Demetrius II writes “the nation of Jews” and ignores Jonathan at 1 Maccabees 10:26 after his competitor, Alexander Balas, came to an agreement with him (ibid. 18–21).

17. Johanan and Absalom. Otherwise unknown. The former name was extremely popular among Jews of the Second Temple period, the latter much rarer; see Ilan, Lexicon, 60–61, 134–143. But it too appears in a few Has- monean contexts: see 1 Maccabees 11:70 and 13:11; Antiquities 14.71; and the mystifying reference to “the House of Absalom” in 1QpHab 5:9. These data have engendered quite a bit of speculation; see Stern, Hasmonaean Ju- daea, 57–58, n. 26; W. H. Brownlee, The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk (SBLMS 24; Missoula, Montana: Scholars, 1979) 92. having transmitted. The same verb as in v. 15 (πιδδμι). document. For this meaning of ξρηματισμ« see Welles, RC, 375. Cf. NOTE on 2:4, upon the occurrence of a divine oracle. below. Judas’ letter was apparently attached, as is usual, but was lost, as happens; see NOTE on v. 16, letters.

18. I clarified, accordingly, which things it was necessary to bring before the king too. That is, Lysias distinguishes between those more far-reaching requests, which he must refer to the king, and the simpler requests he could – and did – approve himself. The former, he says, he indeed forwarded to the king (presumably with his own recommendation). We do not know what the requests were or how they were divided. As noted in our opening COM- MENT on this chapter, the fact that Lysias implies the king is far away leads us – since we know the story as told in 1 Maccabees – to assume that the reference is to Antiochus Epiphanes, not Eupator. But it is clear that our author thought the opposite.

I approved them myself. Most witnesses read σψνεξρησεν, “he agreed,” and this is followed by Hanhart. But other witnesses read σψνεξρησα, “I agreed,” and this is followed by many. As Habicht notes (“Royal Documents,” 176), the latter reading should be preferred on the basis of Chapter XI 405

Letter D, which explicitly says that Lysias (the present “I”) had “agreed” (σψνεξρησεν) to requests put forward by the Jews. As for the other reading here, “he agreed,” it may reflect the influence of the end of v. 15.

19. If now you will maintain goodwill toward the state. Lysias diplomati- cally ignores the wars, just as he ignores Judas (see NOTE on v. 16, to the community of Jews). Since this document deals with the future, not with the past or present, this passage, which is probably authentic, lacks the satirical effect of the similar words in the deathbed letter ascribed to Antiochus Epiphanes (9:21, 26). References to subjects’ goodwill (εϊνοια) and the king’s matching “providence” (πρνοια – see NOTE on 4:6, providence) are de rigueur in the Hellenistic period; see Welles, RC, 390–391 (index); Spicq, Notes, 3.316–321. For Jewish Hellenistic literature, see e.g. Letter of Aristeas 205, 225, 230, 264–265, 270. For εϊνοια toward the πργματα (“state”), as here, see Holleaux, Études, 3.226. a beneficial agent (παρατιο« γα *ν γενωσ αι). I.e., for you; some witnesses indeed insert 3μν. Describing a person as α=τιο« γα7ν for a city or other body was standard in Hellenistic Greek; see for example Poly- bius 7.11.7 (γα7ν … παρατιο« γωνετο) and OGIS, no. 4, ll. 8–9 (μεγλν γα7ν α=τιο« γωγονε τ»ι πλι). (For the equivalence of α=τιο« and παρατιο« in Hellenistic Greek, see LSJ, 1311.) For numerous examples, see Skard, Zwei Begriffe, 24–27. Cf. NOTE on 13:4, the cause of all the troubles.

20. I have ordered them. I.e., the aforementioned Jewish emissaries.

21. Be well (Kρρ,σ ε). For this standard conclusion of formal letters (as also at v. 33), see Welles, RC, 399, s.v. `ννψμι. It should not be confused with a wish for good health expressed at the opening of a letter, which is standard in private correspondence; see NOTE on 1:10, greetings and good health.

In the year 148, the 24th of Dioscorinthios. 148 SE, in the Macedonian reckoning, is the year that began in the autumn of 165 BCE; see above, p. 11, n. 24. But the month name given here is otherwise unknown, and is probably corrupt; for the suggestions that have been offered, see Hanhart, Text, 51–52 and Goldstein, 2 Macc, 411–414. Antiochus Epiphanes was alive throughout the year, and it is therefore clear that he is the king mentioned here (v. 18); the fact that he was away in the East readily explains why, as v. 18 implies, considerable time would go by before answers might be forth- 406 Translation and Commentary coming from the king concerning the matters referred to him. Nevertheless, the next two verses will immediately make it clear that – as the very placement of this chapter after Chapters 9–10 indicates – our author thinks “the king” is Antiochus Eupator. As explained above (pp. 32–33), this mistake is of cardinal importance for understanding the arrangement of Chapters9–13.

22. The king’s letter. This formulation makes it clear that the author assumes this king is the one mentioned in v. 18; the way it is cited without any introduction explaining its circumstances implies that it is, in fact, the king’s response to the questions Lysias forwarded to him, according to v. 18. his brother Lysias. For such honorific use of “brother” (which goes together with “our” in the next verse) see, Bickerman, Institutions, 43, 193, also: Habicht, 2 Macc, 257, n. 22a; cf. 1 Maccabees 10:18 and 11:30, and our NOTE on v. 1, kinsman.

23. Now that our father has passed over to the gods (ε0« εοL« μετα- στ#ντο«). That is: died (and perhaps also: became a god; see Habicht, Gott- menschentum, 177–178). For the expression, see also OGIS 308, ll. 2–4 and 339, l. 16; cf. OGIS 56, l. 55 (ε+« εο#« μετAλεν – “went over to the gods”). See the end of our NOTE on 7:14, pass away from among men. As we have noted, the present verse makes it crystal clear that the author of this letter is Antiochus Eupator, and its seamless placement alongside the other letters in this chapter shows that the author of our book (as most of his readers until Laqueur) thought, accordingly, that Antiochus Epiphanes was dead halfway into 148 SE, i.e., by the spring of 164 BCE. This is not true; we know he died more than half a year later; see Introduction, p. 41, n. 92. But it is a key to understanding the order of events as presented in this part of our book; see Introduction, p. 33. that the people of the kingdom. The king first states the general principle and only later applies it to the Jews (which will engender a repetition of the terms of this verse in v. 25). For the insistence, typical in Hellenistic royal letters, on spelling out general “whereas” principles before ordaining a specific application, see Welles, RC, xliv. be untroubled (ταρ#ξοψ«) and take care of their own affairs (τ*ν 0δ,ν). For the former see, for example, Diodorus 18.18.6; Josephus, Antiquities 14.157 (and for ταραξ, in contrast, as a standard term for trouble, see 3:30, 10:30, 11:25, 13:16, 15:29, and Koenen, Königsurkunde, 2). As for “their own affairs,” which recurs in vv. 26 and 29, see – in a similar context Chapter XI 407

(a royal decree defending the Jews) – 3 Maccabees 7:8, also (in connection with a royal amnesty!) Koenen, ibid., 16–17, with many examples. See also Spicq, Notes, 3.337–341 and esp. the references ibid., 341, n. 2, also Wil- helm, “Ein Brief Antiochos,” 44–45.

24. and having heard. Another diplomatic phrasing, as if he were referring to a mere report, not to anything that might have caused a war. did not willingly concur in (μ" σψνεψδοκοντα«). The gap between this diplomatic understatement and the facts of the matter is reminiscent of v. 19 (“maintain goodwill”) and of v. 31 (“things which were done out of ignorance”).

Greek ways (τ ’Ελλενικ#). For such a summary of the point of the decrees, see already 6:9; cf. NOTE on 4:13, Hellenism. own way of life. On γγ see NOTE on 4:16, those for whose ways … ask that their own regulations be allowed to them. This summarizes the Jews’ request, and the king grants it. For our author, who thought that “the king” of all these letters is Antiochus Eupator, the implication was that the decrees of Chapter 6 were still in force and only now abolished. For the truth, see below, NOTE on v. 25, the Temple …. For νμιμα, “regulations” or halakhot, see NOTE on 4:11, regular civic usages.

25. now then (οFν). For such transitions from the “whereas” part of a document to its operative contents, see NOTES on v. 23, that the people of the kingdom, and on 14:36, And now (κα3 ν ν). our policy (α=ρομενοι). Lit. “since we prefer;” we use “our policy” in light of the noun used in the next verse. to restore (ποκαταστα ναι). On this verb, which has a broad sense of restoration and reconstruction, see: Welles, RC, 316–317; cf. the apocalyptic usage at Acts 1:6 and 3:21, along with F. Mussner, Praesentia Salutis (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1967) 223–234. the Temple … conduct their civic behavior (πολιτε εσαι). The two themes addressed are precisely those addressed at the imposition of the decrees: life according to the “civic laws” of the Jews (6:1: μ" πολιτε εσαι) and the Temple (6:2, 4–5). The truth is that by the time Antiochus Eupator took 408 Translation and Commentary over, Judas and his men had restored the Temple to Jewish hands and rededicated it, late in 164; accordingly, the parallel narratives in 1 Macca- bees 5:59 and Josephus, Antiquities 12.381–382, refer only to the right to live according to Jewish law. But our letter shows Antiochus Eupator insist- ing, understandably, on the fiction that what a king had forbidden only a king might restore; note that Letter C had ignored the Temple.

26. you will do well. A polite request; see our NOTE on 2:16, you will indeed do well. if you send to them. Scil.: my decision. The way the chapter is organized it sounds as if he is referring to “the king’s letter to the people,” which comes next (vv. 27–33). However, that letter was clearly written by Antiochus IV; see NOTE on v. 27, to the people. and give them the right hand. On such cementing of agreements, see NOTE on 4:34, giving him his right hand. our policy. On προαρεσι« (lit. “preference”) in royal letters, see NOTE on 9:27, following my own policy. in good spirits (εϊψμοι). On this adjective in the Hellenistic period see Welles, RC, 337; Spicq, Notes, 1.314–317. Compare, in a similar context: Josephus, Antiquities 18.284. For a similar text with slightly different wording: P. Tebtunis 703 (Hunt and Edgar, Select Papyri, no. 204), ll. 42–43 (late third century BCE): an official is called upon to encourage the population and develop its confidence (παρακαλεν κα/ ε.αρσεστωροψ« παρασκεψζειν). On “encouragement,” see also below, NOTE on v. 32, to encourage (παρακαλωσοντα) you. taking care. Here it seems that ντλημχι« maintains its basic meaning, namely, “to take in hand.” For its technical meaning, which includes resolution of the problems in hand, see NOTE on 15:7, that assistance …

27. to the people. The heading distinguishes the letter from the preceding one, which was addressed to Lysias. However, the preceding one is so comprehensive that it leaves little to be desired – the king made his decision known to Lysias and instructs him to make it known to the Jews. From this discontinuity, just as from the date in the spring of 164 BCE, it becomes clear that this letter was – like the first one and unlike the second – written by Antiochus Epiphanes, who was still alive and well off in the East. Chapter XI 409 the Jews’ Council of Elders. See NOTE on 4:44, Council of Elders.

28. If you are well … we too are healthy. A standard opening line; see Welles, RC, nos. 56, 58, 59, 71. Cf. above, 9:20.

29. Menelaus has reported (νεφνισεν) to us. For this verb, usual in bureaucratic parlance, see NOTE on 3:7, reported to him. According to v. 32, Menelaus traveled to the king in order to present the state of affairs to him. This means that Menelaus, although not able to serve as high priest (see 13:3 and VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 225–226), was playing some important role in the lobbying to abolish the decrees. Of course our author offers no details about this, for he held Menelaus to be a complete villain; “particularly the mention in letter 3 of Menelaus, the arch-enemy of the Maccabees, as the mediator between the Syrian king and the Jews, makes it virtually impossible to regard the letters as later falsifications” (Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 164).

30. Accordingly. Again ο[ν; see NOTE on v. 25, now then. those Jews5 who return. That is, the king is announcing an amnesty. For similar announcements, see the mass of material assembled by Koenen, Kö- nigsurkunde, 12–15. by the thirtieth of Xanthicus. Sometime in April or May. As noted by Wil- helm (“Stellen,” 22), the same deadline is given in a similar context (a royal demand that exiles be returned) at Diodorus 18.56.3. It is a convenient date insofar as it is early enough in the campaigning season to allow for renewed warfare if ignored. there shall be extended the promise. Lit.: “right hand;” see NOTE on v. 26, and give them the right hand. without fear. On 5δεια in such legal contexts, see Preisigke, Wörterbuch, 1.18 and 3 Maccabees 7:12.

31. use (ξρAσαι). This verb is frequently used to describe life according to given laws (cf. “usus,” “usage,” “Brauch”); see for example Josephus,

5 The word “Jews” appears in the Greek in v. 31 but the English seems to require it here. 410 Translation and Commentary

Antiquities 12.150, 381; 16.213, 227, 246, 260; Welles, RC, no. 3, l. 50; also Wilhelm, “Stellen,” 24–25; Renaud, “Loi et lois,” 58. their own foods. On the text and translation see Appendix 8. things which were done out of ignorance (>γνοημων,ν). That is, things which were done without rebellious or criminal intent; at LXX Gen- esis 43:12 γνημα renders mishgeh (“mistake;” cf. Grintz, Sefer Yehu- dith, 114). This too, as vv. 19 (“maintaining goodwill”) and 24 (“did not willingly concur in”), is a piece of diplomatic courtesy: far be it from the king to imply that Jews may have deliberately violated the royal decrees! For another conciliatory Seleucid king’s usage of the same language concerning the Jews see 1 Maccabees 13:39; for its usage in Ptolemaic am- nesties of the second century BCE, see Koenen, Königsurkunde, 5–6. See also Lenger, Corpus, nos. 35 (l. 3), 53 (l. 3), 54 (l. 2); 3 Maccabees 3:9; etc.

32. to encourage (παρακαλωσοντα) you. On the verb, see NOTE on 7:24, his appeal. Cf. the papyrus cited above in NOTE on v. 26, in good spirits. As for the involvement of Menelaus, see NOTE on v. 29, Menelaus has reported (νεφνισεν) to us.

33. the 15th of Xanthicus. The authenticity of this date is doubtful, primarily because it allows only two weeks between the composition of the letter and the deadline for compliance with the ultimatum; and here we should recall that Antiochus was off in “Persia,” which would have significantly delayed the letter’s arrival in Judaea. True, one could imagine that this date is authentic and that the one given as the deadline is wrong; but this is less likely, given both the parallel in Diodorus (see NOTE on v. 30, by the thirtieth of Xanthicus) and the fact that it comes in the course of the letter, which is less subject to tampering and corruption than is the final dateline. Since the same date, 15 Xanthicus, recurs in v. 38, it seems likely that all we have here is an ancient scribal error which repeated that date in our verse as well. It is noteworthy that neither our document nor the historical narrative gives any attention at all to the fact that the 15th of Xanthicus was the first day of Passover (for the equivalence of Nisan and Xanthicus, see e.g. Josep- hus, Ant. 1.81), the Jewish festival of national redemption. The same phenomenon recurs at Josephus, War 7.401, where Masada is said to have fallen on the same date. Or did the ancient writers assume that readers would make the connection and would – each according to his taste and leanings – interpret the coincidence? (On such interpretation, see NOTE on 10:5, on the very date.) Chapter XI 411

34. The Romans too. On various Roman delegations to the East in this period, see T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, I (New York: American Philological Association, 1951) 438–441 (on 165–163 BCE). On the nature of Roman involvement in the East at this time, see below, Appendix 6. sent them a letter. Despite the way this letter is introduced, it is nevertheless clear that – as Gruen emphasized (Hellenistic World, 2.745–757) – the reference here is not to a Roman initiative but, rather, to a restrained Roman response to a Jewish initiative. The Roman delegates were in the East anyway, for their own reasons, and the Jews hoped to reap some benefit. It is understandable that our author would rather give another impression, more flattering to the Jews; cf. NOTE on 10:13, because he had abandoned Cyprus.

Quintus Memmius (and) Titus Manius. These Roman emissaries are unknown from elsewhere and there is in fact no great security about their names. Walbank (Polybius, 3.464–465), following Niese (Kritik, 72–74), argues that instead of the second name we should read Manius Sergius, which would make this delegation the one mentioned by Polybius at 31.1.6, datable to 163 BCE (see Broughton, loc. cit.). This view has been widely accepted; for more bibliography, but also for skepticism, see Gruen, Hellen- istic World, 2.746, n. 7. In any case, there is of course no need to assume, as does Walbank, that the fact that this letter comes after one that mentions the death of Antiochus IV (v. 23) means that this letter too was written after that king’s death. As we have seen, that fact reflects only our author’s confusion.

35. those matters which Lysias, the king’s kinsman, has approved for you. This points us back to v. 18, which too uses the verb σψγξρω. we too willingly concur (σψνεψδοκο μεν). A nice piece of Roman arrogance toward the Seleucid kingdom, as if Rome claimed the right to oversee not only that kingdom’s foreign affairs (see NOTE on 5:5, false rumor …) but also its decisions concerning its own subjects. Readers may note some irony in the reappearance of the relatively rare verb here, as in v. 24, as if to tell us, concerning Antiochus IV, not only that he failed to get the Jews to “concur” in his decrees but also that his decisions are even contingent upon Roman “concurrence.”

36. as for those matters which he decided to bring (προσανενεξ ναι) before the king. The repetition of the same verb as the one appearing in v. 18 412 Translation and Commentary indicates that the present letter was written after Lysias’ (vv. 16–21). On the other hand, the present letter indicates that the king (Antiochus IV) has not yet responded – and the Romans here offer to help influence the king concerning the requests that had been forwarded to him. However, Antiochus IV was in fact not in Antioch in the spring of 164, the date of this letter (v. 38), so how does the fact that the emissaries were on their way to Antioch explain anything? One way to deal with this problem would be to assume that the date here is corrupt, a possibility bolstered by the fact that the identical date appears in v. 33. However, in our NOTE on v. 33, the 15th of Xanthicus, we explained why it is likelier that that date is corrupt. Perhaps, therefore, we should settle for noting that since the emissaries say they’re on their way to Antioch but do not specifically say that they will see the king, all they mean is that in Antioch they’ll have some opportunity, if only indirect, to influence the king – e.g. by passing on messages to him or in discussions with high officials. after reviewing (πισκεχ#μενοι) them. Here the verb retains its non-technical meaning; contrast NOTE on 3:14, audit. The Venetus gives here πισ- κεχμενον, in the singular, which thus has only the Jewish emissary reviewing the issues; that is preferred by Meyer (Ursprung 214, n. 1) but rejected by Bickerman, Gott, 180, n. 3 and Habicht, 2 Macc, 260, n. 36a. This minor point might have something to do with the next one:

37. send us people (τινα«). So too acording to three of the six Latin versions (BMP – “aliquos;” De Bruyne, Anciennes traductions, 193). But the other three Latin witnesses (LXV – De Bruyne, ibid., 192), make no reference to any people here; they read “Ideoque festinate (re)scribere ut nos quoque sciamus cuius estis uolumtatis.” Moreover, in v. 36 the Romans asked that someone (τινα) be sent (and there all Latin versions indeed read “aliquem”). Thus, it could be that our τινα« represents a mistranslation of the original Latin, which may have referred not to the people being sent, but, rather, to the words the (single) messenger might be expected to bring.

38. Be healthy (γιανετε). There is no concluding 6ρρσε, the usual conclusion in Greek letters (such as vv. 21 and 33) which has the same meaning (see NOTE on v. 21, Be well). It seems that our text is the result of translation of the Latin valete; so Habicht, who adds: “I do not hesitate to regard this as the decisive argument in favor of the authenticity of the letter” (“Royal Documents,” 12, n. 24).

In the year 148, 15th of Xanthicus. See NOTE on v. 33, the 15th of Xanthicus. Chapter XI 413

Bibliography

Bar-Kochva, JM, 516–542. Bickerman, Gott, 179–181. Gera, Judaea, 239–253. Giovannini & Müller, “Die Beziehungen zwischen Rom und den Juden.” Gruen, Hellenistic World, 2.745–747. Habicht, C., “Royal Documents.” Koenen, Königsurkunde. Laqueur, “Griechische Urkunden.” Liebmann-Frankfort, “Rome et le conflit judéo-syrien.” Mariani, “L’alleanza e l’amicizia.” Nelis, “La distance.” Procksch, “Der Friede des Lysias.” Stern, Documents, 56–73. Tcherikover, “The Documents.” Tcherikover, HC, 213–219. 414 Translation and Commentary

Chapter XII

Tribulations in Coastal Towns

(1) After these covenants had been concluded, Lysias, for his part, went back to the king, and the Jews, for theirs, turned to their farming. (2) But some of the local governors – Timothy, and Apollonius son of Gennaeus, and also Hieronymus and Demophon – and, additionally, Nicanor the Cy- priarch, did not allow them to settle down and keep still. (3) And the Jop- pites went so far in their wickedness that having called upon the Jews who resided with them to embark, together with their wives and children, upon boats which they had prepared for them, as if they harbored no hostility at all toward them; (4) and the Jews, upon the united resolution of the entire city, agreed and set sail, for they were desirous of peace and did not suspect anything – they sank them, no less than 200 people. (5) When Judas received notice of the atrocity which had been perpetrated against the members of his people he gave his men instructions (6) and – after calling upon God, the righteous judge – he set out against the brethren’s foul murderers: at night he set fire to the port, burned the boats, and skewered those who had taken refuge there. (7) As the place was closed off he departed, planning to return and uproot the entire city of the Jop- pites. (8) And having received notice that the people of Jamnia too wanted to act in the same way against the Jews who lived among them, (9) he attacked the Jamniaites too by night and set fire to the port together with the fleet; the gleam of the flames was visible even in Jerusalem, 240 stadia away.

In Pursuit of Timothy

(10) Moving off from there nine stadia, making their way against Timothy, he was attacked by no fewer than 5000 Arabs, together with 500 cavalrymen. (11) A mighty battle developed, and after Judas’ men had with God’s assistance been successful, the defeated nomads – promising to supply cattle and also otherwise to be useful – asked Judas to give them the right hand. (12) Judas, supposing that they truly could be useful in many ways, agreed to keep the peace toward them; after taking the right hand they departed to their tents. Chapter XII 415

(13) And he attacked a strong city named Kaspin, surrounded by walls and inhabited by a hodgepodge of peoples. (14) Those within, trusting in the strength of the walls and in the stockpiled food, behaved quite uncouthly toward Judas’ men – cursing and even blaspheming and saying things that are not allowed. (15) But Judas’ men, after calling upon the great Ruler of the world, who without battering rams and war-machines flung Jericho down in the days of Joshua, stormed the wall ferociously. (16) After taking the city, in accordance with God’s will, they carried out an indescribable slaughter, such that the adjacent lake, which was two stadia wide, appeared to have been filled by the blood flowing down into it. (17) Moving off from there 750 stadia, they covered the distance to the fortified camp (of) the Jews called “Tobians.” (18) They did not catch Tim- othy along the way, for at the time he had departed the region without doing anything, leaving behind a very strong garrison in a certain place. (19) Dositheus and Sosipater, two of Maccabaeus’ officers, set out and destroyed those Timothy had left behind in the fortress – more than 10,000 men. (20) And Maccabaeus, having divided his army into units, appointed them over the units and stormed out after Timothy, who had with him 120,000 soldiers and 2500 cavalrymen. (21) Timothy, having received notice of Judas’ invasion, sent ahead the women and children and other baggage to the place called Karnion; for the place was difficult to besiege and difficult to approach, due to the narrowness (of passages) in the entire area. (22) When Judas’ first unit appeared and terror and fear descended upon the enemy due to the apparition of Him who oversees all, they rushed to flee, each one turning hither and thither, so that many were wounded by their own forces and impaled on the points of their swords. (23) Judas con- ducted the pursuit energetically and, skewering the sinners, destroyed about 30,000 men. (24) Timothy himself, having fallen into the hands of Dosi- theus’ and Sosipater’s men, asked with consummate guile that they set him free, given the fact that (his men) held a great number of (the Jews’) parents and brethren (as prisoners), for whom no one would show any consideration. (25) After he repeatedly committed himself to the stipulation to restore them unharmed they released him in order to rescue their brethren.

More Battles in the North

(26) Departing from there against Karnion and the temple of Atergatis he cut down 25,000 corpses. (27) After they were defeated and destroyed he also campaigned against Ephron, a strong city, in which there was found a multi-ethnic multitude; strong youths posted before the walls rebuffed the 416 Translation and Commentary attack energetically, and within there were numerous reserves of war-machines and projectiles. (28) After they called upon the Ruler, who with power breaks the weight of (His) enemies, they took over the city and laid low about 25,000 of those within it. (29) Departing from there they rushed toward Scythopolis, which is 600 stadia from Jerusalem. (30) But when the Jews residing there testified to the goodwill which the Scythopolitans had for them and to the gentleness with which they dealt with them in times of misfortune, (31) (Judas’ men), after thanking them and encouraging them to remain well-disposed toward the nation in the future as well, went on to Jerusalem, the Festival of Weeks being imminent.

A Battle against Gorgias

(32) After the so-called Pentecost they stormed out against Gorgias, the commander of Idumaea. (33) He came out (to meet them) with 3000 soldiers and 400 cavalrymen. (34) And it happened, after they had drawn themselves up opposite one another for battle, that a few of the Jews fell. (35) Dositheus, one of the Tobians, a strong cavalryman, grabbed Gorgias and, taking hold of his mantle, dragged him forcefully, desiring to take the accursed man while still alive; but one of the Thracian cavalrymen threw himself upon him and cut off his arm, allowing Gorgias to escape to Ma- rissa. (36) When Esdris’ men had fought for a long time and were very weary, Judas – after calling upon the Lord to appear as ally and guide in war, (37) and after opening in the ancestral language the war-cry accompanied by hymns – fell unexpectedly upon Gorgias’ men and imposed defeat upon them.

Why There Were Jewish Casualties

(38) Judas assembled the army and proceeded to the city of Adullam. Due to the onset of the seventh day they purified themselves according to the custom and celebrated the Sabbath there. (39) The next day, when the time came to do the task, Judas’ men went to collect the bodies of those who had fallen and, together with their kinsmen, to inter them in their ancestral graves. (40) And they found, under the tunic of each of the deceased, objects dedicated to the idols of Jamnia, which the Law prohibits to Jews. Thus it became clear to all that it was for this reason that those (soldiers) had fallen. (41) After they all blessed the Lord who judges righteously and who makes the hidden things visible, (42) they turned to petition, asking that the sin Chapter XII 417 that had occurred be completely obliterated. And the noble Judas called upon the multitude to preserve itself sinless, having seen with their own eyes that which had occurred due to the sin of those who had fallen. (43) After making a collection for each man, totaling around 2000 silver drachmas, he sent it to Jerusalem for the bringing of a sin-offering – doing very properly and honorably in taking account of resurrection, (44) for had he not expected that the fallen would be resurrected, it would have been pointless and silly to pray for the dead – (45) and having in view the most beautiful reward that awaits those who lie down in piety – a holy and pious notion. Therefore he did atonement for the dead, in order that they be released from the sin.

COMMENT

After Chapter 11 put an end to the clash between the Jews and the Seleucid state as such, this chapter is devoted to fighting between Judas’ men and their neighbors in Palestine. It begins with attacks upon Jews in coastal cities, and Jewish reprisals, and then continues with fighting in Transjor- dan; after a break in Jerusalem, for the celebration of the Pentecost festival (vv. 31–32), there is further fighting in the south. In general, this parallels the story of 1 Maccabees 5. Moreover, the story also parallels material in Chapter 10 of our own book, even to the extent of making Timothy the main antagonist in the fighting in Transjordan – just as he was in Chapter 10, which ended with his death. It is, accordingly, evident that material in this chapter is based upon a source different from that which supplied the war stories in Chapter 10. As we have seen, it seems that the present chapter reflects our author’s main source (Jason of Cyrene), while Chapters 10–11 reflect the use of a secondary source; see above, pp. 30–34. For the most part, this chapter is devoted to the heroism, perseverance and military prowess of Judas’ forces. As usual in our book, God’s help is mentioned throughout, whether as requested in pre-fighting prayers (vv. 6, 15, 28, 36) or as a fact postulated by the narrator (vv. 11, 16, 22). By way of comparison, note that neither God nor prayer is mentioned at all in 1 Mac- cabees 5, which our chapter parallels.1 God’s involvement in the story is particularly apparent in the last episode of the chapter (vv. 38–45), which explains that those Jews who had died in battle had been sinners. It does not suffice, from our author’s point of view,

1 Cf. Introduction, p. 64. 418 Translation and Commentary to report that they had died in battle; even if only a few died (v. 34) he feels compelled to state that each, individually, must have deserved his death. However, atonement for them was still possible, and desirable, for – as we know from Chapter 7 – not all ends with death: as the author underlines in the final verses of the chapter, the fact that Judas and his men donated sacrifices to atone for the sins of the dead indicates their belief in resurrection. Before addressing the historicity of the events, we must first point out one major correction in the order of events recorded in this chapter: it seems that vv. 17–19 should come before vv. 10–16. For after the opening fighting on the coast (vv. 1–9), there is no way nine stadia (v. 10) could be thought to take Judas’ men to a region where they would be attacked by Arabs (vv. 11–12) and right after that to fighting at Kaspin, in the Golan (vv. 13–16). Moreover, 1 Maccabees 5:25 puts the encounter with the Arabs after a three-day march after crossing the Jordan; this, indeed, could bring them to the vicinity of Kaspin. But the 750 stadia – around 150 kilometers – mentioned at v. 17 would in fact be about right for the distance from the coastal cities to Transjordan. Accordingly, it appears that the order of two pericopae should be reversed: vv. 10–16 should come after 17–19; the two pericopae, which begin identically (0Εκεεν δM ποσπσαντε« σταδοψ«), seem somehow to have been exchanged.2 Once that operation is made, the chapter tells a story basically paralleled, in the same order, by 1 Maccabees 5:

2 Maccabees 12 1 Maccabees 5 vv. 1–9, fighting in coastal cities –––– vv. 17–19, fighting against Timothy vv. 6–8 vv. 10–12, Judas makes peace with some Arabs v. 25 vv. 13–16, Judas besieges and captures Kaspin vv. 26–36 vv. 20–25 pursuit and capture of Timothy, including vv. 37–44 capture of Karnion vv. 26–29 siege and capture of Ephron vv. 46–51 vv. 30–31, interlude in Scythopolis and Pentecost visit vv. 52–54 in Jerusalem vv. 32–37 fighting in Idumaea, against Gorgias; vv. 55–68 some Jews die vv. 38–45 theological consideration of why some (v. 62) Jewish soldiers died

2 For more detail concerning this point and the places mentioned in 1 Macc 5, see Schwartz, “Mizpeh.” Chapter XII 419

There are, of course, numerous differences. Thus, for example, our book’s focus on Kaspin is not echoed in 1 Maccabees 5, which in v. 26 lists presumably the same town (called “Khaspo”) as just one of a series of “cities” attacked; 1 Maccabees does not actually record the capture of Timothy (whereas our chapter has him captured but then paroled); our book has Judas lead the fighting against Gorgias, but 1 Maccabees 5 reports that this was first in the hands of others, just as 1 Maccabees 5 has a whole campaign to western Galilee, led by Simon, which our book omits. Similarly, our book has the Jewish soldiers dying because they took idolatrous images as booty instead of destroying them, while 1 Maccabees 5:62 pins it on the simple fact, so important for the dynastic historian, that they were not Hasmoneans. That is, in general our book has simplified the story by leaving out numerous toponyms and related details (as the author promised he would – 2:23ff. and 10:10), and it also omits the Hasmonean focus of 1 Maccabees; on the other hand, it does find it significant to mention the celebration of Pentecost, while omitting all reference to sacrifices – in contrast to 1 Mac- cabees 5:54, that focuses on sacrifices. These differences in focus are typical of the two books; in general, nevertheless, they tell the same story. We should note, however, that (as argued in our Introduction, p. 28), this chapter seems to be out of place. It begins with the statement that “after these covenants had been concluded, Lysias … went back to the king,” but although Chapter 11 ended with documents and with Lysias, (1) the documents are not “covenants” and (2) Chapter 11, which knows of no king other than Antiochus Eupator, gives no indication that Lysias was not with him.3 In contrast, Chapter 13 does end with “covenants” between Lysias and the Jews (v. 25) and with Lysias’ departure to Antioch (v. 26). That is, our chapter would seem to belong after Chapter 13, and probably was there before our author came across the new material he used for Chapters 10–11. Now, if (as in the table above) we are sure that our chapter parallels 1 Mac- cabees 5, which describes events after the dedication of the Temple (1 Macc 4) and the death of Antiochus IV (which we know to have occurred around the same time, in late 164), the result is that the events of our chapter belong to 163 BCE, so those of Chapter 13 come right before that.

3 The second consideration is formulated to reflect the fact that, as we have argued, we – who know the fuller story told by 1 Maccabees – can take 11:18 to mean that Lysias had to refer issues to Antiochus Epiphanes, who was campaigning in the East. Readers of our book alone would not imagine that, or that Epiphanes was still alive for the events of Ch. 11. Contrast 13:26, which has Lysias appearing alone in Ptolemais and then returning alone to Antioch; that would flow without difficulty into 12:1. Cf. above, p. 16, n. 36. 420 Translation and Commentary

However, it is also the case that the campaign described in Chapter 13 is the second one, reported in 1 Maccabees 6; see COMMENTS on Chapter 11 (p. 395) and on Chapter 13 (p. 447). What we must now conclude, accordingly, is that the original form of our book indicated that the second Beth- Zur campaign (Ch. 13//1 Macc 6) occurred before Judas’ northern campaign (Ch. 12//1 Macc 5). This contrasts with the order of things in 1 Mac- cabees 4–6, and with that book’s late dating (6:20 – 150 S.E.) of the second Beth-Zur campaign, but new cuneiform evidence seems to show that 1 Mac- cabees was wrong about this; see above, pp. 29–30.

NOTES

12:1. these covenants. The documents which conclude Chapter 11 are not agreements and are not termed σψνAκαι; despite the fact that 11:15 refers to points which Lysias suggested and Judas agreed to accept, they are uni- lateral declarations. And certainly the Romans’ letter, which concludes Chapter 11, is no agreement at all. In general, see P. Kußmaul, Synthekai (Diss. Basel, 1969), and esp. H. H. Schmitt, Die Verträge der griechisch-rö- mischen Welt von 338 bis 200 v.Chr. (München: Beck, 1969) 438–439, where there are assembled more than 100 references to the use of this term for agreements between states in the Hellenistic period.

Lysias … went back to the king. But according to 11:1, which terms Lysias the king’s “guardian,” we would have assumed that they were together, in Anti- och; nothing in the story explains these words. As we have noted (see COM- MENT, above p. 419), it seems that this problem and the one discussed in our preceding NOTE point to this chapter originally having followed Chapter 13, which ends with covenants and with Lysias and the king far from one another. turned to their farming. That is, to “their own affairs” (11:23, 26, 29). The reference to agriculture creates an image of idyllic routine, here as in other documents. See, for example, U. Wilcken, Grundzüge und Chresthomatie der Papyrusurkunden, I/2 (Leipzig & Berlin: Teubner, 1912), no. 19, col. 2, lines 13–15; Josephus, War 4.84; Antiquities 16.271; 17.193; 18.284. Note that our story has ended; according to the diasporan author, the abrogation of the decrees against Judaism was followed by the establishment of peace between the Jews and the Seleucid monarchy. Hence the need for a new beginning:

2. But. On such heavy usage of δω to move from idyll to problems, see NOTE on 3:4, But. Chapter XII 421 local governors. For such usage of κατ? τπον cf. for example an inscription from Akko-Ptolemais in which a local governor (πολελειμμωνο« … π/ τ7ν τπν) honors Antiochus VII Sidetes (Lifshitz, “Culte dynastique,” 78–80). It is important for our author to stress that if there were Seleucid troublemakers, they were only low-level officials, not the king and his viceroy (Ch. 11). This is typical minority historiography; so too, for example, Philo (Leg., 299–305) has Pontius Pilate’s villainy being unknown to Tiberius, just as Josephus (War 2.350–354) has Agrippa II underline that Florus’ terrible behavior was unknown to Nero; etc. This is a variation on the motif of the wicked advisor, for which see NOTE on 4:45, Ptolemy son of Dorymenes.

Timothy. Who has already been mentioned a few times (8:30–32; 9:3), including at the end of Chapter 10 which culminates in his death. Of course, theoretically the present Timothy could be someone else, but that suggestion rings hollow; had our author been aware of this being a new homo- nym, he should have used τι« – as in v. 35, in 10:11, etc. And recall our author’s care to distinguish between two homonymous governors of Coele Syria and Phoenicia (see NOTE on 3:5, Apollonius son of Thraseas), and note the way Apollonius and Nicanor are identified in the continuation of this verse – which again seems to indicate that Timothy is known to the reader. But if this is so, then the report of his death in Chapter 10 must come from another source – as we have argued above, pp. 30–33.

Apollonius son of Gennaeus, and also Hieronymus and Demophon. All unknown.

Nicanor the Cypriarch. That is, commander of the Cypriot mercenaries (cf. NOTE on 5:24, the Mysarch Apollonius). For Cypriot soldiers, see NOTE on 4:29, Crates. Use of “the Cypriarch” is a good example of our author’s ability to distinguish between homonyms when he wants to, a point that in- creases our confidence that when he twice speaks of a “thrice-accursed” Ni- canor (8:34; 15:3) he means the same other person; see NOTE on 14:12, Immediately selecting Nicanor.

3. the Joppites. On the two episodes recounted from here until v. 9 see, in general: Kasher, Jews and Hellenistic Cities, 64–68. wickedness. On δψσσωβημα see NOTE on v. 21, difficult to besiege and difficult to approach. Note that while it is not actually said that the Joppites did what they did at the urging of the local officials, and while indeed it is not likely that that was the case (given the fact that Joppa was an auton- 422 Translation and Commentary omous city), nevertheless our author prefers to hint, if only by juxtaposition, that the anti-Jewish attacks in Joppa and Jabneh did not reflect bad relations between Jews and their neighbors, but, rather, were due only to the vile influence of relatively minor Seleucid officials. In fact, our author preferred to claim that the Jews’ neighbors usually had good relations with them; see v. 30, also 4:35–36, 49. For similar moves, aimed apologetically at presenting the Jews’ troubles with their neighbors as the result of incite- ment by Seleucid officials (since Jews are respectable and neighborly folk and so no clashes would develop without interference by nasty and med- dling outsiders), see 8:11, also 6:8 and 10:14–15. The story of these minor officials will be resumed in v. 10. the Jews who resided with them (σ#ν α.το«). Emphasis upon living together intensifies the horror of the crime. For similar formulations in other Jewish Hellenistic documents, see e.g. Philo, In Flaccum 52 and Josephus, Antiquities 19.281 (for the Jewish origin of the latter text see Schwartz, Ag- rippa, 100–5). There seems to be no other evidence for Jews in Joppa in this early period. to embark … upon boats. It is difficult to understand how the Jews of Joppa could have seen this as a friendly “invitation,” especially in light of the fact that it followed upon an official decision; what would have been the reason for such a formal invitation? And were the Jews of Joppa really so naïve about their neighbors’ intentions? Rather, it is preferable to assume that in fact the Joppites had decided to expel the Jews – an assumption which corresponds to that which is reported in 1 Maccabees 5 about the general hostility of the non-Jews of Palestine following Judas’ early victories – and then perfidiously sank their boats (or some boats sank and the Jews chose to blame the Joppites). For the sinking of ships carrying exiles, cf. Lactantius, DMP 23.8 and – for a case of Moriscos expelled from Spain in 1609 – B. Z. Kedar, “Expulsion as an Issue of World History,” JWH 7 (1996) 175–176.

4. upon the united resolution. On χφισμα see NOTE on 6:8, a decree. desirous of peace. The author already made this point in vv. 1–2 but wants to be very sure we know who was at fault.

5. the members of his people ($μοενε«). For this term, see also 4:2; 5:6; 15:30–31; it is similar to “brothers,” which appears in the next verse, in that both refer to the Jews with regard to their common descent and not as belonging to a religious or political collective. In this case it would have Chapter XII 423 been very difficult for our author to use his usual “fellow citizens” (πολ- ται – see above, p. 6), for here he is speaking of Jews living in another city. he gave his men instructions. This is the primary meaning of the verb παραγγωλλ; see NOTE on 5:25, instructed. But it may be that here, as in two other occurrences of the word in our book (13:10 and 15:10), “exhort” or “encourage” might be more appropriate; as is noted in LSJ, 1306, s.v. (II§2), its sense is not as strong as that of κελε , which often appears in our book (5:12; 7:5; 9:7; 14:27) and is clearly to be translated by “ordered.”

6. the righteous judge. This epithet recurs in v. 41. Here, beyond the usual reiteration of our author’s conviction that history is not chaotic, it indicates that what is to come is not merely one clan’s vengeance against another but, rather, an expression of universal justice. Cf. NOTE on 4:35, of the man. foul murderers (μιαιφνοψ«). This term too, as “the righteous judge,” recalls the murder of Onias; see 4:38. Both cases combine murder and breach of trust. at night … set fire. As in v. 9; see also 8:6–7. the port … the boats. Tit for tat, as is usual in our book; see NOTE on 4:16, those for whose ways. As noted by Diodorus 1.31.2, there was no important port between Joppa and Alexandria – which explains the importance the Hasmoneans would later attach to the capture of Joppa in the days of Simon (1 Macc 14:5, 34). On Joppa in the Hellenistic and Hasmonean periods, see J. Kaplan, “The Archaeology and History of Tel Aviv-Jaffa,” BA 35 (1972) esp. 88–90; A. Raban, “The Ancient Harbors of Jaffa,” Israel – People and Land: Eretz Israel Museum Yearbook 7–8 (1990–1993) 95–114 (in Hebrew). skewered. I.e., stabbed with swords; for the same verb, see 5:26.

7. As the place was closed off. Apparently – well-defended. uproot (κριζ7σαι) the entire city of the Joppites. As expected in pathetic historiography, neither good guys nor bad guys do anything only partially; cf. e.g. 2:21 (“they plundered the entire country”) and 8:9 (“to wipe out the entire nation of Judaea”). the entire city of the Joppites. “The city of the X-ites” is simply a standard Greek way of referring to a city named X. Compare, for example, Josephus, 424 Translation and Commentary

Vita 37, 241, 271, 280, etc. For the eventual Hasmonean conquest of Joppa, see 1 Maccabees 10:75–76; 13:11; 14:5.

8. having received notice. As usual, the author omits all details about how this happened; see above, p. 73. that the people of Jamnia too. This reference too points us toward 1 Mac- cabees 5 (vv. 58ff.); cf. NOTE on v. 3, to embark … upon boats. On Jabneh and its port in antiquity, see Tcherikover, HC, 74; Stern, GLA, 1.293; M. Fischer, “The Archaeology and History of Yavneh-Yam,” in: Yavneh, Yavneh-Yam and Their Neighborhood (ed. M. Fischer; Tel-Aviv: Eretz, 2005) 173–208 (in Hebrew); idem, Yavneh-Yam Reports, I (forthcoming). There is presumably some link between the Jewish attack on the port of Jab- neh and the inscription of summer 163 BCE in which the locals recall assistance they had given to the Seleucid government and, apparently, ask its assistance; see B. Isaac, “A Seleucid Inscription from Jamnia-on-the-Sea: Antiochus V Eupator and the Sidonians,” IEJ 41 (1991) 132–138; Kasher, “A Second-Century BCE Greek Inscription.” Either the inscription preceded the Jewish attack, in which case it may be that their assistance to the Seleucids contributed to the Jews’ decision to attack them, or else it came after the Jewish attack, which would explain the request for aid. The inscription is fragmentary and it is difficult to build upon it. For Jamnia’s continued functioning as an outpost of support for the Seleucids in Judaea, see also 1 Maccabees 10:69; 15:40. the Jews who lived among them. Although the Greek phrasing in v. 3 is different, the emphasis is the same.

9. the gleam of the flames was visible even in Jerusalem, 240 stadia away. Assuming, as usual, that a stadium is about 190 meters, this works out to around 45 km., which is close to the true figure. On the length of the stadium, see F. Lehmann-Haupt, RE II/6 (1929) 1931–1963 and Walbank, Polybius, 3.623–624. True, Bar-Kochva (JM, 514, n. 14) criticizes our book’s accuracy here, for while he admits that the stated distance is not far from the distance as the crow flies (although 55 km. would be closer), the distance along the roads would have been about twice as much. However, it is perfectly possible that our author, or his source, could figure the distance as the crow flies. As for the possibility of seeing so far, note that it is possible to see the coastal region from high spots in Jerusalem even without the aid of a massive fire; see Strabo, Geog. 16.2.28, 34, pp. 759, 760 (= GLA I, nos. 114–115) on seeing Joppa from Jerusalem, and Josephus, War 5.160, on Chapter XII 425 seeing the Mediterranean from the Psephinus Tower in the northwestern corner of Jerusalem, also Appian, Mithridatica 12.67, 278 – on seeing a great fire at the distance of 1000 stadia (close to 200 km.). Nevertheless, it would be foolish to insist on the accuracy of the present statement.

10. Moving off from there. The same phrasing recurs in v. 17, giving the chapter something of the nature of an itinerary. But as we have seen in our opening COMMENT (above, p. 418), it seems that the order of these two episodes has been reversed, i.e., vv. 10–16 should come after vv. 17–19. making their way against Timothy. Who was mentioned alongside others in v. 2, but no connection was made between him (or the others) and the intervening events in Joppa and Jabneh. he. Judas Maccabaeus. The fact that his name is omitted, and is rather taken for granted although within the immediate context the antecedent is in fact Timothy, highlights the fact that Judas is in fact the star of the entire chapter. See also NOTES on v. 26, Departing … he and 13:17, which had come to his aid.

Arabs. We do not know exactly who is meant. The same term appeared in 5:8, referring to Nabataeans, just as 1 Maccabees 5:25 reports that Judas encountered Nabataeans in the course of his expedition to the Gilead – but there we read of initial friendship, whereas here we read of peace which was reached only after a fight and then some real-political considerations. This could indicate that the reference here is not to the same Arabs; so Kasher, Jews, Idumaeans, and Ancient Arabs, 30, who suggests that the ones mentioned here had been incited by the Seleucids. However, it may also be that the difference between the two accounts derives only from our author’s desire both to give Judas an additional victory and to avoid a theological problem; see NOTE on v. 12, Judas, supposing that they truly could be useful.

11. A mighty battle developed. For the same phrasing, see 10:29. nomads. The “Arabs” of v. 10. This is a striking instance of our author’s love of variety. For others in this chapter, see vv. 24–25 (“set him free” … “released him”), vv. 31–32 (“Festival of Weeks”… “Pentecost”), and v. 38 (“the seventh day” … “the Sabbath”). In general, see Introduction, p. 68. to give them the right hand. In peace; see NOTE on 4:34, giving him his right hand. 426 Translation and Commentary

12. Judas, supposing that they truly could be useful. See NOTE on 11:15, Maccabaeus, giving thought to the benefit. As there, here too it seems that we should infer the need for apology for entering into an agreement with Gentiles.

13. a strong city (π τινα πλιν ξψρν). The Alexandrinus reads γεφψ- ροψν before ξψρν,4 as if that were the name of the city, but (a) no such city is known; (b) were this the name of a city we would expect that to be said, e.g. by “called” (9:2) or “named” in our verse; and (c) our verse deals with Kaspin. Hence, it seems preferable to view this word as the contribution of some helpful scribe who wanted to identify the place and, noticing that our v. 27 uses the same language (πλιν ξψρν) of Ephron, which is called Γεφροψν by Polybius at 5.70, inserted the identification here – but this is of course a Verschlimmbesserung, since Ephron is first mentioned, and introduced as someplace new (“a strong city”), in v. 27; our verse refers to Kaspin. If, therefore, we reject γεφψροψν, we should also reject, as a secondary attempt to make sense of the latter, the reading γεφ ραι« (“with bridges”) in Ms. 55. True, that reading would be nicely parallel to the “walls” and “peoples” also mentioned in dative plural in the continuation of our verse; but that reading shifts us from the frying pan into the fire, because, as Abel notes (Macc, 435), bridges do not contribute to the fortifi- cation of a city. All in all, it seems preferable to ignore the word, which is indeed missing from numerous witnesses; Hanhart marked it as probably corrupt and it was skipped by Abel, Habicht and Goldstein; see esp. Abel, Macc, 435–436 and Goldstein, 2 Macc, 439.

Kaspin. Hispin, in the Golan; on it, see O. Cohen & D. Talshir, “Hispin – The History of the Settlement and Meaning of Its Name,” ‘Al ’Atar 4–5 (Nisan 1998/99) 95–156 (in Hebrew), also D. Urman, “Public Structures and Jewish Communities in the Golan Heights,” in: idem & P. V. M. Flesher (ed.), Ancient Synagogues (SPB 47/2; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 556–561. Some scholars – such as Habicht and Bevenot ad loc., following Hölscher, “Feldzüge,” 149–150 – have argued that our text in fact refers to another site in the Aur- anitis: el-Muzerib, which is located within a lake whose size recalls that stated in v. 16. However, in antiquity this site was totally surrounded by the lake (see G. Schumacher, Across the Jordan [London: Bentley, 1886] 164–165), and such a special situation does not seem to be implied by v. 16. Therefore, it is

4 Ed. Swete reads and punctuates as follows: “ … π τινα πλιν γεφψρον, ξψρ?ν κα/ τεξεσιν περιπεφραγμωνην …” Chapter XII 427 preferable to assume that our text refers to Hispin, and resolve the problem of the “lake” another way; see NOTE on v. 16, the adjacent lake. inhabited by a hodgepodge of peoples (παμμιγωσιν K νεσι). This, as also v. 27 – seems to imply an element of scorn, à la “mongrels.” Note that the reference is not to something as respectable as separate national units in the Seleucid army, as at 8:9, but, rather, to the inhabitants of one and the same city. For the less than respectable nuance of παμμιγ«, see NOTE on 3:21, all mingled together (παμμιγ).

14. trusting in the strength of the walls. As at 10:34, and there too blasphemy is mentioned – another indication that Chapters 10 and 12 include two versions of the events, paralleling 1 Maccabees 5. Doran (Temple Propaganda, 42), following Gil (“Sobre el estilo,” 23), points to the present verse (πεποιτε« … ρψμντητι … παραωσει) as one of the good examples of alliteration in our book; cf. above, p. 80. quite uncouthly (ναγγτερον). The author sounds like a shocked schoolmaster; cf. NOTE on 14:30, coarser. For the use of the comparative instead of superlative, see NOTE on 7:24, youngest. cursing (λοιδοροντε«). On this verb see Spicq, Notes, 1.503–505; An- tiquities 17.37. blaspheming. As at 10:34; see NOTE on trusting … at the beginning of the present verse. things which are not allowed (μ' ωμι«). On this terminology, which too recurs in the parallel at 10:34 (εμτοψ«), see NOTE on 6:5, forbidden things.

15. battering rams and war-machines. On Hellenistic siege machines, see Bar-Kochva, JM, 19–21, with bibliography in n. 21. On rams in particular, see: Y. Garlan, Recherches de poliorcétique grecque (Paris: de Boccard, 1974), pp. 236–239. For similar emphasis on the fact that the walls of Jer- icho were demolished “without machines” (5νεψ μηξανημτν), see the Jewish-Hellenistic prayer preserved in the Constitutiones apostolorum 8.12.26 (ed. F. X. Funk, p. 504 = Fiensy, Prayers, 108–9). flung Jericho down. See Joshua 6. For such use of examples from the past, see also 8:19–20; 15:22. The case of Jericho is especially appropriate here because it featured a siege and high walls. 428 Translation and Commentary ferociously ( ηρι,δ*«). As at 10:35; see NOTE ibid., on animal-like rage.

16. an indescribable slaughter. As usual, the author is not squeamish about reporting warfare; see NOTE on 2:21, they plundered the entire country. the adjacent lake, which was two stadia wide. I.e., somewhat less than 400 meters. The identity of this lake is not clear. It is frequently assumed that the Sea of Galilee is meant, and, indeed, there is evidence for it being termed a λμνη, as it is here; see Polybius 5.70.4; Strabo, Geog. 16.2.16, p. 755; Josephus, War 3.506ff; Luke 5:1; etc. But the Sea of Galilee is not “adjacent” to Hispin, which is around 15 km. away, and its breadth is around 10 kilometers (“around forty stadia” – Josephus, War 3.506), not 400 meters. Moreover, λμνη usually denotes a swamp or lagoon; see LSJ, 1050; Mauersberger, PL, 4.1481. Accordingly, it seems best to think of some swamp in the vicinity of Hispin; see Abel, Macc, 436.

17. Moving off from there. As in v. 10.

750 stadia. Around 140 km. As we have seen in our opening COMMENT (above, p. 418), it seems that vv. 17–19 should precede vv. 10–16, the stated distance referring to the move from the vicinity of Jabneh to that of Trans- jordan. For another opinion, see NOTE on “Tobians” at the end of the present verse. they covered the distance. On διαν , which combines completion and arrival, see Mauersberger, PL, 4.499. fortified camp. Termed “fortress” in v. 19; for this sense of ξρα, see Gera, “On the Credibility,” 29–30; Bar-Kochva, JM, 510, n. 3; Pritchett, War, 2.134–135. The Bar-Kokhba letters once define one Joshua ben Galgula as the “head of a camp” and once – as being found in a krakh; see DJD 2/1, pp. 156, 160 (on the latter reading, see M. Mor, The Bar-Kochba Revolt: Its Extent and Effect [Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi & Israel Exploration Society, 1991] 115, n. 84 [in Hebrew]). called (λεγομωνοψ«). This is, as it were, an apology for the use of a foreign term which apparently was expected to sound strange to Greek ears; cf. NOTE on 9:2, called.

“Tobians.” I.e., of Tobias. They were evidently connected in some way to the military colony in Transjordan (centering around ‘Arak el-’Amir) which Chapter XII 429 was once headed by Joseph ben Tobias and his son Hyrcanus (see our NOTES on 3:11). Our story reports that Judas Maccabaeus’ men set out for their fortified camp in order to lend them assistance. That the Tobians were no longer in the vicinity of ‘Arak el-’Amir emerges from 1 Maccabees 5:9ff., which reports that many Jewish refugees from the Gilead had taken refuge in the “Dathema fortress;” there too, as here, we read that Judas and his men, after hearing of the fate of the Tobians (ibid., v. 13), set out to assist them. Thus, it seems that the refugees from the Tobiad colony took refuge in a fortified camp at Dathema; for suggestions as to where that was located, see F.-M. Abel, “Tell Hamad dans le Haurân,” JPOS 12 (1932) 1–5; Schwartz, “Mizpeh,” 31. Those who assume that 750 stadia separated the camp from the area in northern Transjordan where Judas was operating, according to vv. 10–16, assume that our verse is in fact referring to ‘Arak el- ’Amir, and that its claim is that Judas, moving far to the south, rescued Jews who had not fled from that center. See: Bar-Kochva, JM, 82–83, n. 42; Gera, “On the Reliability,” 29. Bar-Kochva holds that our author was simply in error, while Gera holds that he was right; but both agree that the distance is about right. It is, however, difficult to accept that our author would report the long trip south and not the return north for the continued pursuit of Ti- motheus (v. 21), and ‘Arak el-’Amir was much more than a fortified camp. Accordingly, we tend to think it likelier, as argued in our opening COM- MENT (p. 418), that the text is out of order, and that the present reference is to Dathema, wherever in the north that was.

18. the region. Lit. “the places” which they traversed. Goldstein (2 Macc, 440) suggests an allusion to Timothy’s title – π/ τ7ν τπν (as in v. 2). However, in that case we should expect – as Goldstein notes – a definite article ($). Moreover, given v. 10 we should not expect our author to add any words identifying Timothy. in a certain place. Of which, as usual, the identity did not interest our author; cf. NOTE on 8:6. Given the placement of this notice, following Tim- othy’s flight, and given the fate of the local inhabitants as reported in the next verse, perhaps the reference is to the place mentioned in 1 Maccabees 5:35: after Timothy’s men fled (v. 34), Judas attacked this new place, killed all its men and plundered it, and burned it down. But there are serious problems concerning the name of that town. Most of the manuscripts read Μααφα (Mizpeh) but that is impossible; at Antiquities 12.340 Josephus reads – according to some witnesses – Mella (or Malla) and no such place is known. However, it should be noted that 1 Maccabees 5:26 lists the names of places in which Jews were besieged, and all but one of these places are 430 Translation and Commentary scenes of action recounted later in the chapter. The exception is “Alema,” and some scholars have, accordingly, made v. 35 refer to Alema (so, for example, Abel [Macc, 99] and the RSV), a suggestion that draws support from the paleographic similarity between ΑΛΕΜΑ and Josephus’ ΜΕΛΛΑ, on the assumption that they refer to the same place; see R. Marcus ad loc. in the LCL Josephus and A. Schalit, Namenwörterbuch zu Flavius Josephus (Leiden: Brill, 1968) 85. However, the paleographic similarity is not so impressive, and anyway this suggestion hardly helps us, as there is no certainty about the location of Alema. Moreover, as Goldstein notes (1 Macc, 301), it does not seem that 1 Maccabees 5:26 in fact mentions a separate place named Alema; rather, it refers to Βοσορ ν0 Αλωμοι« (“Bosor-in-Alema”) – the latter term defining the location of the former, so in fact there is no reason for it to reappear in the chapter. But if we reject “Alema” as our “certain place,” and are left with Josephus’ “Mella,” perhaps we should consider this a corrupted version of “Pella;” the difference between ΜΕΛΛΑ and ΠΕΛΛΑ is only in the angle of the top bar of the first letter; for a similar case, see Appendix 1, p. 525. Pella, which was located a little southwest of the places mentioned in 1 Maccabees 5:26, was near whatever route Judas would have taken from Jabneh to the Golan, and was fortified.5 For the suggestion that Timothy depended upon support from cities like Pella, see: Kasher, Jews and Hellenistic Cities, 74–75.

19. Dositheus and Sosipater, two of Maccabaeus’ officers. Their names, just as Eupolemus and Jason (1 Macc 8:17), indicate that “Hellenizers” too were among those who joined the rebels. “Dositheus” recurs in v. 35; meaning “God’s gift,” just as such Hebrew standards as Jonathan and Mat- tathias, it was – along with Theodosius and Theodotus (14:19) – quite popular among Jews of the Second Temple period; see Tcherikover, CPJ 3.173–174, 176–177; Ilan, Lexicon, 273–276.

20. units. Cf. NOTE on 8:21, divided them into something of a four-part army. appointed them. Dositheus and Sosipater.

120,000 soldiers. Even more than the number ascribed to Antiochus Eu- pator and Lysias (13:2) – and even less reliable, given the fact that here the reference is to a local force.

5 For a more detailed discussion of this issue, see Schwartz, “Mizpeh.” Chapter XII 431

21. the women and children and other baggage. The term ποσκεψ refers to equipment, baggage; see Mauersberger, PL, 1.202. For its use of all that accompanies an army, including service personnel and family members, see Bickerman, Institutions, 91; Holleaux, Études, 3.15–26; Launey, Re- cherches, 2.785–790; Pritchett, War, 5.173–174; Bar-Kochva, JM, 45–46. On the attitude our passage bespeaks with regard to women and children (“and other baggage”), cf. Deuteronomy 20:14, Judges 18:21, Josephus, Against Apion 2.157; and E. Bickerman & M. Smith, The Ancient History of Western Civilization (New York: Harper & Row, 1976) 222–224 (section on “Shortage of Manpower, Use of Women, Children, and Other Animals”!). place called Karnion. On Karnaim in the Bashan, mentioned already in Genesis 14:5 and Amos 6:13, and usually identified with Sˇeä Sa‘d, 4 km. northeast of Tell ‘Asˇtara (some 35 km. east of the Sea of Galilee), see: D. Kel- lermann, “‘Asˇtarot – ‘Asˇt$rot Qarnayim – Qarnayim: Historisch-geograp- hische Erwägungen zu Orten im nördlichen Ostjordanland,” ZDPV 97 (1981) esp. 49–50; see also NOTE on v. 26, the temple of Atergatis. difficult to besiege and difficult to approach (δψσπολι2ρκητον κα3 δψσπρ2σιτον). Both adjectives are rare; in the Septuagint they appear here alone, and Polybius uses the former but once (5.3.4) and the latter not at all (preferring πρσιτο«; Mauersberger, PL, 1.216). For our author’s love of δψσ-words, see NOTE on 3:11, villainous.

22. first unit. Apparently this means that Judas himself took command of the first unit, as already at 8:23 and 11:7; without that assumption, Judas’ role in the battle itself would not be mentioned at all, despite the fact that he was the central character (see NOTE on v. 26, Departing … he). appeared (πιφανεση«). Where is not said; perhaps before the walls, where the battle in Karnaim itself is later said to have taken place (v. 26). Use of “appeared” both implies the impression caused by the sudden arrival of Judas’ forces and prepares us for: the apparition (πιφανεα«) of Him who oversees all. This time, as at 15:27, no details are given (contrast 3:24–26; 10:29–30), and it might be that the author is merely articulating the axiom that Judas’ victory must have been the result of divine aid; after all, is it not the case that God “by apparition always succors His own portion” (14:15)? On apparitions, see NOTE on 2:21, heavenly apparitions, and on “who oversees all” – see NOTE on 3:39, watches over. 432 Translation and Commentary flee … hither and thither, so that many were wounded by their own forces. Panic and death by “friendly fire” are routine features of ancient accounts of battles and flight. See, for example, Aeneas Tacticus, On Withstanding Siege 4.3; Polybius 11.33.4; Diodorus 16.80.2 and 17.34.8; Livy 38.21.8; Josephus, War 1.383 and 3.296; Appian, Mithridatica 85,386–387; Lucian, Zeuxis 10. See also NOTE on 13:2, along with 300 scythed chariots.

23. sinners (λιτηροψ«). By such a description, similar to the one used to describe Nicanor (τρισαλιτριο« – 8:34; 15:3) our Diasporan author reminds us that the struggle he describes is in fact one between good and bad, not – as it is for 1 Maccabees – one between Jews and Gentiles. Cf. NOTE on 6:5, forbidden things.

24. Timothy himself, having fallen into the hands. As usual, our author prefers not to let the enemy commander die honorably with his soldiers; see NOTE on 10:32, As for Timothy himself. consummate guile. For the use of γοητεα (“witchcraft,” “jugglery”) to indicate the ability to delude and mislead, see LSJ, s.v. 356 (“finesse”); Mauersberger, PL, 1.399 (“Verführungskunst” – Polybius 33.18.11); De Romilly, Magic and Rhetoric, 30–33. It is not clear where our author saw the “guile.” Perhaps what is meant is that in fact Timothy did not hold any hostages, or that he in any case did not contemplate freeing them; so Grimm, 2 Macc, 179. But since that is not stated, and below it is not even said that he broke his promise, it seems rather that in fact our author means to condemn the officers who agreed to the deal – even if Timothy fulfilled it. Be that as it may, it is clear that our author blames Judas’ officers but not Judas himself – similar to 10:19–20 and 14:17. This fits his general brief of lionizing Judas; see Geiger, “History of Judas Maccabaeus.” set him free (-αφεναι). Only here in the Septuagint, an obvious product of our author’s obsession about varying his diction, in contrast to πολ in the next verse; cf. NOTE on v. 11, nomads. for whom no one would show any consideration. This seems to be the sense of λογηAναι σψμβσεται: a politely formulated threat à la “too bad if anything should happen to them.”

25. in order to rescue their brethren. I.e., their relatives. For broad use of “brothers” see NOTE on 10:21, brethren. By adding this in the author ex- Chapter XII 433 plains that even if the Jewish officers erred in freeing Timothy, they did so out of good intentions. Cf. 14:17, where he similarly takes care to excuse another failure.

26. Departing … he. Judas; there is no need to mention his name; cf. NOTE on v. 10, he.

Karnion. See NOTE on v. 21, place called Karnion. If up until now we have heard of the fighting against Timothy’s forces after he sent his “baggage” to Karnion, now we turn from battle to “cutting down” (slaughter) in Karnion and, especially, in: the temple of Atergatis. On the form 8τεργτιον see NOTE on 1:15, the temple of Nanaia. In the parallel at 1 Maccabees 5:43–44 we read of a temple in Karnaim, that is, Ashterot Karnaim (see above on v. 21, place called Karnion). Atergatis, a latter-day version of Astarte, was a venerated goddess in Syria. See Lucian, De dea syra, and P. Bilde, Religion and Relig- ious Practice, 151–187. he cut down 25,000 corpses. The term σματα (bodies) can apply to slaves or prisoners (see Pritchett, War, 5.182–185), but it is clear that that is not the case here. Rather, it seems that the author chose this term in order to exhibit the results of the slaughter in as graphic a way as possible. Precisely on that background it is important to note that our diasporan author fails to tell us that which his Judaean colleague had no problems making explicit in 1 Mac- cabees 5:43–44: that what we are reading of is a temple, and that Judas’ men slaughtered those who had taken refuge in it and then burned it. Our author prefers to describe a battle with “enemies” (v. 22), all of whom are defined as “sinners” (v. 23), but passes over the fact that the “bodies” described here were of women and children, killed in violation of the laws of refuge (cf. 3:12; 4:34).

27. defeated and destroyed. Hanhart (Text, 24–25) thought that τροπ should be rendered “rout” here and in v. 37 – a normal sense of the word. However, if they were routed they were not destroyed, and our verse goes on to say that they were destroyed, just as the preceding verse says that they were slaughtered. It is therefore preferable to translate “defeat,” here and in v. 37; for the widespread use of the term in this sense, see Pritchett, War, 4.71. As for “destruction,” πλειαν, note that it is not reflected in the Latin witnesses; this led Katz (Text, 18–19) to suggest that it is in fact a gloss on τροπ meant to clarify the sense we have attributed to it. 434 Translation and Commentary he also campaigned against Ephron. Niese (Kritik 60, n. 5) quite properly noted the contrast between this narrative and that of 1 Maccabees: here we read of an unprovoked Jewish attack and slaughter, whereas 1 Macca- bees 5:46–51 tells the story as a latter-day version of the story outlined in Numbers 21:21–24, relating that the inhabitants of the city refused the Jews passage, thus leaving them no choice but warfare. This then, like “cutting down” in the preceding verse, is another case in which our author makes no attempt to make war seem any prettier than it is; see NOTE on 2:21, they plundered the entire country. Ephron is identified as et-Taiba near Pella, east of Beth-Shean (to which the Jews will continue in v. 29), around 12 km. southwest of Irbid; see Polybius 5.70.12; Avi-Yonah, Geographia, 160; Walbank, Polybius, 1.596. a multi-ethnic multitude. More mongrels, as in v. 13. According to Latin and Armenian witnesses to this verse, it reported also that Lysias used to live there (in Ephron) – “in qua Lysias habitabat;” this reading was adopted by several scholars, including Abel (Macc, 440), Habicht (2 Macc, 264) and Goldstein (2 Macc, 443–444). But there is no good Greek support for this reading, and it should be noted that some of the witnesses that support it in fact refer to Lysanias and not to Lysias; see p. 35 of Hanhart’s edition. Now, on the one hand it is quite difficult to imagine that we are supposed to think that Lysias, the right-hand man of Antiochus (father and son), resided in Ephron, and the suggestions of those who would adopt the reading just point up this difficulty: Grimm (2 Macc, 180) and Goldstein suggest that the text means only that Lysias maintained a residence in Ephron, to which Goldstein adds, alternatively, the possibility that it means that Lysias had previously lived there, before the time discussed here – as if that were of interest to the reader. On the other hand, however, it is easy to imagine a learned Christian scribe viewing Ephron as the residence of Lysanias, who was known to have lived somewhere in the north and who figures prominently as a peg for dating the beginning of Jesus’ mission in Luke 3:1. Ac- cordingly, along with Hanhart I have ignored these words. Cf. below, p. 555, n. 119. reserves. For this sense of παρεσι« in Hellenistic Greek, see Welles, RC, 352.

28. who with power breaks the weight of (His) enemies. Thus according to Hanhart’s text: μετ? κρτοψ« σψντρβοντα τ?« τ7ν πολεμν $λκ?«. Some witnesses and editors prefer λκ«, “strengths,” which is certainly easier to render; see Hanhart’s apparatus and, for example, Goldstein, 2 Macc, Chapter XII 435

444. Confusion between the two is in fact in evidence at Sirach 29:13; there, as here, the word is parallel to κρτοψ«, “power.” However, as Habicht notes (2 Macc, 264, n. 28a), the fact that $λκ« is more difficult is actually an argument in its favor. Moreover, the verb too, “break,” fits better with an object which has weight, and we should recall here the allusion to the walls of Jericho in v. 15. On God’s power (κρτο«) see NOTE on 3:24, Ruler.

29. Scythopolis. Beth Shean. On the form of the Greek toponym, in two words (Σκψ7ν πλι« – “city of Scythians”), see NOTE on 9:2, called. This verse supplies the earliest evidence for Jews in this city, according to G. Fuks, Scythopolis: A Greek City in Eretz-Israel (Jerusalem: Ben Zvi, 1983) 147 (in Hebrew).

600 stadia from Jerusalem. On converting stadia, see NOTE on 12:9, the gleam of the flames. 600 stadia are equivalent to approx. 115 km.; “accurate or fairly accurate” (Gera, “On the Credibility,” 29, n. 37). See also Avi- Yonah, Geographia, 117–118.6

30. gentleness (cμερον). As opposed to those of Joppa and Jabneh, described at the opening of this chapter. This adjective, used only here in 2 Maccabees, usually applies to tame animals as opposed to wild ones; see e.g. Letter of Aristeas 145–146; Josephus, Against Apion 2.137. Here it is part of a well-developed semantic field in use in our book; see above, p. 23.

31. the nation. See NOTE on v. 5, the members of his people.

Festival of Weeks. On which see esp. Leviticus 23:15–21 and Deuteron- omy 16:9–12. The reference to this holiday shows that the events described here occurred in the spring, “when the kings go out [to war]” (2 Sam 11:1//1 Chr 20:1). Zeitlin (2 Macc, 214), pointing to the fact that the name “Festi- val of Weeks” does not appear elsewhere in Jewish Hellenistic literature and that the next verse uses another name for this holiday, preferred some Latin

6 Kahana (HaSepharim, 221) for some reason translated our verse as if it refers to 300 stadia, but there is no basis for that (and Kahana’s commentary indeed reads “600”). I mention this lapsus only because Bar-Kochva (JM, 514, n. 14) apparently depended on that reading “300” as one of his few examples of our book’s lack of geographical accuracy. For the other two, see our NOTES on v. 12, the gleam of the flames, and – on the nine stadia between Transjordan and Jamnia (v. 10) – our opening COM- MENT on this chapter (above, p. 418). 436 Translation and Commentary witnesses which refer here to Passover. However, the designation “Festival of Weeks” was known well from the Bible, and is now known from an Ara- maic Enoch text as well (4Q196); on this and other evidence see Fitzmyer, Tobit, 131–132. Moreover, variation of diction is precisely what we would expect from our author; see NOTE on v. 11, nomads. Finally, note that substitution of Passover for Pentecost would also raise a real problem: why would Judas interrupt his campaign with a seven-week long break early in the season, after Passover? Or why would our author skip whatever Judas was doing during that long period? For these reasons we have retained the usual reading.

32. so-called Pentecost. This is the usual Greek name for the holiday in this period; see e.g. Tobit 2:1; Josephus, War 1.253 and Antiquities 13.252; Acts 2:1; A. Pelletier, “La nomenclature du calendrier juif a l’époque hellén- istique,” RB 82 (1975) 224–225.

Gorgias, the commander of Idumaea. This identification explains the reference to him in 10:14–15, where the district in his charge was not named; for “commander” see our NOTE on 8:9, a commander. On Gorgias’ position, see Kahrstedt, Territorien, 59; he notes, inter alia, that Josephus juxtaposed “the plains of Idumaea” with Gezer, Ashdod and Jabneh (Ant. 12.308, cf. 1 Maccabees 4:15, and note also “governor of Idumaea and Gaza” in Ant. 15.254). It therefore seems that “Idumaea” is used here in a general way of the southern part of Palestine.

34. And it happened. But not by chance, of course, as vv. 40–41 will demonstrate. Cf. NOTE on 3:2, it happened. had drawn themselves up … for battle. As usual, our author does not bother to say where this happened. But the next verse, and v. 38, point to the vicinity of Marissa. Similarly, 1 Maccabees 5:65–68 describes a campaign by Judas and his brothers in the south, and inter alia we read of some deaths in a battle near Marissa (v. 66). It is characteristic of the difference between the two books that the dynastic historian explains the deaths as a result of a failure to obey Judas and his brothers (cf. vv. 19, 61), while our book – in what is to come – will point to a religious sin. a few. For our author, who views the struggle as one between good and evil, a struggle supervised by God “who judges righteously” (vv. 6, 41) and “guides” the course of war (v. 36), even the death of a few Jews requires an explanation. Chapter XII 437

35. Dositheus, one of … A Greek name common among Jews; see NOTE on v. 19, Dositheus and Sosipater … The use of τι« here indicates that this Dositheus is a new figure, to be distinguished from the officer of the same name who figures there and in v. 24. one of the Tobians (τι« τ*ν Τοψβιαν*ν). On the text here see Katz, “Text,” 16 and Bar-Kochva, JM, 70, n. 3, both of whom adopt this reading of the Lucianic witnesses, as opposed to Hanhart, who refused to give up on “Bakenor,” the lectio difficilior supplied by the uncial witnesses; see Hanhart, Text, 47, and our NOTE on 4:40, one Auranus. “Bakenor” makes no sense, whereas reading “of the Tobians” has a clear context: earlier, in v. 17, we read that Judas set out to save people from the land of the Tobiads, and here it seems that some of them joined his forces. Their military experience (see below) could certainly be of use to him. a strong cavalryman. For a papyrus of 259 BCE mentioning a cavalryman from the Tobiad territory, see CPJ I, no. 1 (as was noted by Gera, “Credi- bility,” 29); on continual warfare in their region, see Josephus, Antiquities 12.229. On cavalrymen in Judas’ army see Bar-Kochva, JM, 69–70, where the discussion is based for the most part on the present verse. Cf. Stern, Hasmonaean Judaea, 39–40, n. 40.

Thracian cavalrymen. On Thracian soldiers see Launey, Recherches, 1.366–398, including pp. 395–398 on cavalrymen; Bar-Kochva, JM, 10–11, 260 and the illustration on p. 576. For their reputation for being especially cruel, see e.g. Valerius Maximus, Facta et dicta memorabilia 9.2.4 and Josephus, Aniquities 13.383. The latter reports that Alexander Jan- naeus’ extreme cruelty toward his enemies earned him the nickname “Thrakidas” – on which see esp. Stern, Studies, 125–127. allowing Gorgias to escape. As usual; see NOTE on 10:32, As for Timothy himself. to Marissa. The main city of Idumaea, in which (according to v. 32) Gorgias was responsible for Seleucid rule. On its remains see: A. Kloner, “Under- ground Metropolis: The Subterranean World of Maresha,” BAR 23/2 (March/April 1997) 24–35, 67; idem, Maresha Excavations Final Report I: Subterranean Complexes 21, 44, 70 (IAA Reports 17; Jerusalem: Israel An- tiquities Authority, 2003) 5–6. 438 Translation and Commentary

36. Esdris. He is otherwise unknown. Possibly he was introduced somewhere in Jason’s original work, in which case we encounter a rare instance of carelessness by our author; cf. Introduction, p. 72. See also the end of our NOTE on 8:22–23, his brothers … . On the text here, see Kappler, Memoria, 48–49. ally. For this concept, see NOTE on 8:24, ally. guide in war. Not just the guide of the Jews, but the guide of the war itself; see NOTE on v. 34, a few.

37. ancestral language. Apparently Hebrew is meant, the language of prayer; so too 15:29 (and see also 7:8, 21, 27). As Goldstein notes (2 Macc, 447), the special reference here seems to indicate that usually another language was used, Aramaic (“Syrian” – 15:36); so too van Henten, “Ances- tral Language.” See also Appendix 10. the war-cry accompanied by hymns. For the linkage of shouting and song (παιν), usual in Greek literature, see Gera, “Battle of Beth Zachariah,” and Pritchett, War, 1.105–108. However our author did not use παιν here; rather, he used dμνο« for Jewish songs, here as at 1:30 and 10:38, re- serving παιν for pagan songs (15:25). So too the Septuagint prefers to use dμνο«, and apart from our 15:25, where it is used of the war-song of Nica- nor’s forces, it never uses παιν. Philo too uses the “Jewish” term more than fifty times and the other only twice, one of which referring to the worship of Gaius Caligula as if he were a god (Leg. 96). For such distinctions see also NOTES on 2:19, the altar, on 14:33, this sacred enclosure of God, and below, on v. 40, to the idols (ε0δ1λ,ν) of Jamnia. defeat. For this translation of τροπ see above, on v. 27, defeated and destroyed.

38. city of Adullam. About 15 km. north-east of Marissa; see Avi-Yonah, Geographia, 113. The term “city” is quite an overstatement and reflects nothing more than our own author’s usual orientation. the seventh day. On the sanctity of the Sabbath in 2 Maccabees see NOTE on 5:25, pretended. they purified themselves according to the custom. On ισμ« see NOTE on 4:11, practices. The nature of this purification is not clear. Does it pertain to Chapter XII 439 purifying rituals for before the Sabbath, or for after battle? Goldstein (2 Macc, 447–448) refers to b. Shabbat 25b for the former and 1QM 14:2 for the latter, but as he notes, concerning the latter, if our reference were to impurity due to contact with the dead it would have required seven days (Num 31:19; see also Jdt 16:18, although there it is in explicit connection with the Temple). Moreover, as long as the returning soldiers were not planning to come into contact with the Temple or with holy things there would be no pressing need for them to purify themselves. So perhaps the reference is to plain washing prior to the Sabbath. In any case, this does not seem to be a reference to any Greek practice; as Pritchett emphasizes (War 3.196–202) there was no widespread Greek custom of purifying an army, and the scattered references which do exist refer to events during war and not following it. the Sabbath. See NOTE on v. 11, nomads.

39. when the time came to do the task (κα 7 Nν ξρ2νον τ( τ« ξρεα« γεγ2νει). The formulation is difficult, but one way or another it refers to the fact that work resumed after the Sabbath. For ξρεα in the sense of “task” see NOTE on 7:24, commissions. collect … inter them in their ancestral graves. For the importance of proper burial, in the eyes of our author and in general, see NOTE on 4:49, funeral expenses. On the collection of the bodies of fallen soldiers see P. Vaughn, “The Identification and Retrieval of the Hoplite Battle-Dead,” in: Hanson, Hoplites, 38–62. Vaughn (p. 57) emphasizes that it was imperative for his soldiers’ morale that a commander demonstrate concern for the proper care of the corpses of those who fall in battle; see Onasander’s instructions to commanders in Strategicus 36.1–2 and also, for example, Diodorus 13.61.6; 13.75.4; 17.68.4.

40. objects dedicated. These Zερματα were not necessarily amulets; at An- tiquities 1.322 the term refers to idols of gods (see ibid. §310). See Goldstein, 2Macc, 448–449. As he suggests, the reference may be to booty taken during the attack upon Jabneh (above, v. 9). Given that they were found “under the tunics” of the dead, they may have been pendants; for an example relating to an Egyptian god who was very popular in the Hellenistic period, see M. Fischer & R. E. Jackson-Tal, “A Glass Pendant in the Shape of Harpokrates from Yavneh-Yam, Israel,” Journal of Glass Studies 35 (2003) 35–40. Cf. Deuteronomy 7:25–26 (“You shall burn with fire the idols of their gods …”); 1 Chronicles 14:12 (contrast 2 Sam 5:21!); 1 Maccabees 5:68; etc. 440 Translation and Commentary to the idols (ε0δ1λ,ν) of Jamnia. Despite our author’s differential and derogatory terminology (cf. NOTE on v. 37, the war-cry accompanied by hymns), he means the that the objects in question were dedicated to the gods of Jabneh, Heracles and Hauran, who are mentioned in two inscriptions of the late second or early first centuries BCE discovered in Delos (Inscriptions de Délos, nos. 2308–2309); see P. Bruneau, Recherches sur les cultes de Délos à l’époque hellénistique impériale (Paris: de Boccard, 1970), 410, 475. which the Law prohibits to Jews. As in the case of such comments concerning the Sabbath (5:25) and pigs (7:1), here too it is likely that this explanation was meant for non-Jewish ears (however difficult it might be to imagine that even Gentiles would not know Jews were supposed to keep away from idolatry); see Introduction, p. 85. for this reason. And not just by chance; cf. v. 34, And it happened.

41. the Lord who judges righteously. As in v. 6, although here as one word (δικαιοκρτοψ); LSJ (p. 428) lists, apart from our verse, only a flattering petition to a Roman prefect of Egypt in 133 CE (J. de M. Johnson, V. Mar- tin & A. S. Hunt [ed.], Catalogue of the Greek Papyri in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, II [Manchester: Manchester Univ., & London: Long- mans Green, 1915] 96–97, no. 113, l. 35). Our verse, which links this epithet with a blessing, reminds us of the traditional blessing “Blessed is the true judge,” said upon receiving news of deaths or other tragedies (m. Be- rakhot 9.12; Sifre Deut 304 [ed. Finkelstein, p. 323]). who makes the hidden things visible. This may allude to Deuteron- omy 29:28 (“the hidden things are God’s …”), which follows directly upon a threat of divine punishment of the Israelites for worshipping idols.

42. to petition (ε0« =κετεαν). Or “supplication,” see NOTE on 9:18, in the form of a supplication. That verse too, as our v. 41, emphasizes that God is just, so all that one can do, against His judgment, is beg. that the sin that had occurred … having seen with their own eyes that which had occurred due to the sin of those who had fallen (τ( γεγον(« 4μ#ρτημα … τ γεγον2τα … 4μαρταν). The first phrasing politely avoids saying that the dead people had sinned, but the second one makes it clear that their fate was deserved – and calls upon observers to learn the lesson well (cf. Deut 13:11!). We have translated according to Hanhart’s text, despite the fact that two considerations spurred Wilhelm (“Stellen,” 25–28), Chapter XII 441 followed by Katz (“Text,” 16), to emend our verse. First, from the point of view of contents, Judas urges his soldiers to avoid sin “having seen with their own eyes (3π0 ,χιν)” what had happened, and Wilhelm insists that some of the soldiers did not see their fellows die. Second, there are witnesses which read κατασκεψσματα (“tools,” “products” or the like) in v. 43, where it is difficult to do anything with the word; while all Hanhart does, accordingly, is omit it there, Wilhelm suggests moving it up to our verse (as Katz explains, it seems Wilhelm surmised the word was originally in the margin, and a bit too low), reading 3π0 ,χιν Ψρακτα« τ? γεγοντα δι? τ"ν τ7ν προ- πεπτκτν 4μαρταν κατασκεψσματα. That is, Judas points to “the manufactured items that had been made and worn due to the sin of those who had fallen” as proof of their sin. However, this suggestion fails to convince me, for (a) the author probably takes it for granted that all of Judas’ soldiers saw their fellows die or that, at least, Judas’ words apply to the fact of having seen them dead (even Wilhelm, p. 27, is willing to accept this ren- dition, although it is “somewhat free”); (b) to keep the remaining soldiers away from sin, Judas needs to point not to the dedicated objects themselves, as in Wilhelm’s text, but, rather, and especially, to the death of those who wore them; (c) Wilhelm’s text assumes that the dedicated objects were made on account of the sin of those who wore them, but we have no reason to think that the Jewish soldiers who attacked Jabneh had had the time or interest to order idols from local craftsmen or to make them themselves. It is much simpler to assume that the reference is to booty – but then the idols were not made due to any Jewish sin. See also Hanhart, Text, 32, who defends the text without κατασκεψσματα (explaining it away as a result of a Lucianic reading in v. 43) and points out how usual it is for our author to use γεγοντα to summarize previous events (9:3; 10:21; 11:1; 13:9). completely. That is, that the death of the sinners shall be complete atonement for them; cf. 8:29. noble Judas. See NOTE on 6:28, noble … nobly.

43. a collection. On λογεα see esp. Deissmann, Licht, 83–85; Wilhelm, “Stellen,” 25. The meaning is close to one of λγο«; see NOTE on 3:6, applied to the account of the sacrifices. On the offering of a tithe or the like from booty, see 8:28–30, also Numbers 31:25ff. on the biblical hand and Pritchett, War, 1.93–100 on the Greek one. for each man (κατ7 .νδρα). Lit. “man by man.” It seems preferable to assume, as we have, that this means “for each of the fallen,” not (as e.g. 442 Translation and Commentary

Habicht) “from each of the survivors,” for what was crucial was that atonement be worked for each of the dead. But our author would also want us to assume, of course, that all of Judas’ men participated in the collection. For the text here, see Hanhart’s apparatus and Wilhelm, “Stellen,” 25–26. around 2000 silver drachmas. For their value, see NOTES on 4:19, 300 silver drachmas, and on 8:11, ninety slaves per talent. a sin-offering (περ3 4μαρτα«). This is the standard Septuagint term for the hatta’at, as also at 2:11; see Daniel, Recherches, 319–328. doing. Here the author begins to analyze Judas’ underlying assumption: belief in resurrection. very properly and honorably. For the latter adverb (στε«), which literally means “urbane,” “city-like,” see NOTE on 6:23, honorable argument. The combination with καλ7« (“properly”) is very Greek and recalls the characterization of another hero, Onias, at 15:12. On καλ7« see Dover, Morality, 69–73. resurrection. The fact that our author sees fit to emphasize this may indicate that such a belief was a matter of controversy. Indeed, from Josephus (War 2.165), the New Testament (Luke 20:27–40; Acts 23:8) and rabbinic literature (m. Sanh 10.1 [on the text, see Urbach, Sages, 2.991–992, n. 11] and Avot de Rabbi Natan, ed. Schechter, p. 26) we learn that the Sadducees denied resurrection; see Schwankl, Sadduzäerfrage, 332–338. This could easily lead to the old suggestion that 2 Maccabees should be viewed as a Pharisaic polemic; see esp. A. Geiger, Urschrift, 223–224. But only a few passages and aspects of our book could support this case (and see NOTE on 2:17, His entire people), so although one can to some extent make the case that 1 Maccabees is Sadducean (see most recently Gera, “Battle of Beth Za- chariah,” 49–51), it is better to resist the tendency to make everything symmetric by asserting our book is, therefore, specifically Pharisaic or anti-Sad- ducean. For general skepticism about the relevance of Pharisees and Sadducees to our books, see Bar-Kochva, JM, 571–572. Rather, what we have here is an aspect of the similarity of Pharisaic religion and diasporan religion; see above, pp. 63–64, n. 154, and D. R. Schwartz, “Josephus on the Pharisees as Diaspora Jews,” in: Josephus und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen (WUNT 209, ed. C. Böttrich & J. Herzer; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007) 137–146. Chapter XII 443

44. pointless and silly. On praying over spilt milk, cf. m. Berakhot 9.3: “He who shouts (in prayer) about the past, lo – this is a pointless prayer.” to pray (εϊξεσ αι). Or “to make vows.” But it seems preferable to translate “to pray,” for v. 43 has the vows already fulfilled. It seems that the author is using “to pray” in the sense of “to worship,” something of which sacrificing is an example; this would be a diasporan usage, which allows what diasporan Jews can do (pray) to be the major category and makes that which they can’t do (sacrifice) into something secondary; for similar cases, see NOTE on 3:31, call upon. On prayers for the dead in antiquity, see Ogle, “Sleep of Death,” also (concerning Jews) S. Reinach, “L’origine des prières pour les morts,” REJ 41 (1900) 161–173. On the basis of our verse and other evidence, Reinach suggests that the Jewish practice originated in Egypt.

45. lie down. I.e., die. Such euphemistic usage of κοιμ7μαι is known from the Septuagint, Greek literature and epitaphs; see esp. Ogle, “Sleep of Death,” who holds that it has especially Oriental and Hebrew roots. On our verse: ibid., 93. See also Van der Horst, Epitaphs, 115–118. For our book’s exceptionally rich vocabulary for dying, see above, p. 70. in piety. On ε.σωβεια, a central value in our book, see NOTE on 3:1, piety. Here it is considered as if it were a static state, similar to purity, not something expressed by appropriate actions. a holy and pious notion (σα κα3 ε/σεβ'« > πνοια). These words constitute a note within a note and sound secondary (esp. in light of the similar comment in v. 43); for the suggestion that they have been added from some marginal note, see G. C. Cobet, Variae lectiones (Lugduni-Batavorum: Brill, 18732) 480, who compares a similar comment frequently excised by editors of Plato’s Republic 504E. See also Niese, Kritik, 110, n. 3 and Katz, “Text,” 20–21. atonement. On ιλασμ«, which is used for kippurim in LXX Leviti- cus 23:27–28, see Daniel, Recherches, 326. Cf. NOTE on 3:33, atonement (=λασμ2ν); the prefix - here expresses the notion of “free from” explicit in the end of our verse. in order that they be released from the sin. The sacrifice was offered due to the fear that, despite the prayer mentioned in v. 42, death was not enough to atone for the sins of the fallen and they were in need of yet more merit, supplied by the sacrifice. The assumption is that if their sin is not atoned they 444 Translation and Commentary will suffer even more, and might even be excluded from resurrection. This implies that sinners are punished after their death, an implication that easily begets the notion of a place where that happens – Gehenna/Purgatory, a notion with a history of its own in both Judaism and Christianity. See Lieber- man, “Some Aspects,” 495–501 and, especially on the present passage, O’Brien, “Scriptural Proof.” For this belief’s role in Reformation debate concerning our book’s canonical or non-canonical status, see Introduction, pp. 60–61. It should be noted, however, that – although our author links the two – belief in post-mortem suffering (and so: Gehenna/Purgatory) need not imply belief in resurrection. One might believe, for example, that those who died are bound to suffer for their sins, and that an appropriate sacrifice might help them out, without any expectation that eventually they will be returned to life; their better future might be a spiritual one. Thus, it seems that for our author the main point here is not resurrection in particular but, rather, the more general thesis that there is some life after death. For a similarly general view of the matter, see Acts 23:8, where various options of life after death are listed and it is said that the Sadducees denied them all. See NOTE on 7:34, children of Heaven, and the bibliography cited there. released from the sin. The verb πολψAναι (“be released”) points us back to a leitmotif of chapters 6–7; see NOTE on 7:9, free (πολει«). There the topic was freeing sinless live people from life in this world, whereas here it is the freeing of dead sinners from sin so as to allow them sinless life in the next; the result is the same.

Bibliography

Kasher, Jews and Hellenistic Cities, 64–90. Kasher, Jews, Idumaeans, and Ancient Arabs, 25–33. O’Brien, “Scriptural Proof.” Ogle, “Sleep of Death.” Schwankl, Sadduzäerfrage, 245–259. Schwartz, “Mizpeh.” Wellhausen, “Wert,” 145–150. Chapter XIII 445

Chapter XIII

A New Invasion on the Way

(1) In the 149th year the news reached Judas’ men that Antiochus Eupator had come with hordes against Judaea, (2) and with him Lysias his guardian and head of state, each having a Greek force of 110,000 foot-soldiers, 5300 cavalrymen and 22 elephants, along with 300 scythed chariots.

Menelaus’ Fate

(3) Menelaus joined them, encouraging Antiochus with great insincerity, having in mind not the welfare of the fatherland but, rather, his own installation in office. (4) But the King of Kings awakened Antiochus’ wrath against the sinner, and after Lysias fingered him as the cause of all the troubles, he ordered – as was customary in the region – that he be brought to Beroia in order to be annihilated. (5) There is in that place a tower fifty cubits high, full of ashes, and it is fitted out with a contraption which – spin- ning all around – propels (whatever is in it) down into the ashes. (6) There he who is liable to punishment for temple-robbery or all those who committed any other preeminent act of wickedness were pushed forward to perdition. (7) Such a death happened to befall the lawless Menelaus, without his even attaining (any burial place) in the ground, (8) and very rightly so – for since he had committed many sins against the altar, of which the fire and ashes are pure, death came to him in ashes.

The New Invasion

(9) But the king, becoming barbaric in his intentions, began to display himself toward the Jews in ways as bad as the worst which had happened in his father’s days. (10) Judas, having received notice of this, exhorted the multitude to call upon the Lord day and night that – if ever (He did so) at some time or other – so too now He should come to the aid of (11) those who were on the verge of being deprived of the Law, fatherland, and holy 446 Translation and Commentary

Temple, and not allow the people, which had only shortly before revived its spirit, to be given up into the hands of maligning Gentiles. (12) After they all did the same together, petitioning the merciful Lord with wailing and fasts and prostration for three days without letup, Judas, after encouraging them, commanded them to stand by. (13) After privately consulting with the elders he decided to sally out, before the king’s army invaded Judaea and took control of the city – and to settle the matter with God’s help. (14) After entrusting the outcome to the Creator of the universe and calling upon all his men to struggle nobly until death for laws, temple, city, fatherland, constitution, he made his camp near Modein. (15) Assig- ning his men the motto “God’s victory,” with his best selected youths he made a night-attack upon the royal courtyard, (that is) the encampment, and killed about 2000 men, also skewering the first of the elephants together with him who was in the house. (16) In the end they filled the encampment with fear and tumult and then, having been successful, they broke away. (17) This happened as day was already breaking, by virtue of the Lord’s sheltering which had come to his aid.

The Beth-Zur Campaign and an Agreement

(18) The king, having had a taste of the Jews’ daring, attempted to take the places by devious routes. (19) Coming up against Beth-Zur, a strong fortress of the Jews, he was rebuffed; blocked; defeated. (20) Judas sent the necessities to those within. (21) But Rhodocus, one of the Jewish unit, revealed the secrets to the enemies; he was sought out and arrested and shut away. (22) The king again addressed those in Beth-Zur; he gave the right hand; took it; departed; (23) attacked Judas’ men; had the worst of it; received notice that Philip, who had been left behind in Antioch as head of state, had taken leave of his senses; was disconcerted; called the Jews together; conceded and swore according to all that is just; came to an agreement and offered a sacrifice; honored the Temple and displayed humane love for the Place; (24) and he received Maccabaeus; left Hegemonides governor (of the region) from Ptolemais to Gerar. (25) He came to Ptolemais; the people of Ptolemais hardly tolerated the covenants – they were very upset; wanted to annul the instructions. (26) Lysias went up onto the tribune; defended (the covenants) as far as possible; convinced; calmed down; engendered goodwill; returned to Antioch. That is how the king’s invasion and return turned out. Chapter XIII 447

COMMENT

The main chain of events in this chapter is quite straightforward: Antiochus Eupator and Lysias invade Judaea with huge armies; the Jews organize for defense and indeed get the better of the royal army at a first engagement near Modein; a renewed attempt by the Seleucids culminates in a siege of Beth-Zur, which is interrupted by the threat posed by Philip’s return to Anti- och. In order to meet that threat, Antiochus and Lysias come to an agreement with the Jews and return to Syria. This simple story is interrupted abruptly by one extraneous episode: the colorful and well-deserved execution of Menelaus (vv. 3–8). The chapter is, however, extremely half-baked. True, the middle episode (vv. 9–17) is well-built, and reads basically like the first half of Chapter 11 (news of invasion, prayer, encouragement by Judas, going out to meet the threat, victory). But the Menelaus pericope, in contrast, while whole in and of itself, disrupts the first narrative and leaves its continuation illogical (for if the king recognized Menelaus was the source of the difficulties [v. 4] there was no reason for hostilities to resume after he executed Menelaus, and indeed none is given), and the Beth-Zur narrative is full of staccato and asyndetic formulations that seem to be no more than remnants of the author’s notes. As suggested in our Introduction (p. 34), it may be that, once he had found Chapters 10–11, our author was at a loss concerning this chapter’s Beth-Zur narrative, so he gave this part of his notes short shrift and moved on as quickly as he could;1 for a similar procedure, see NOTE on 11:1, what had happened.

NOTES

13:1. In the 149th year. This is the first date in our book, apart from those given in the first letter in Chapter 1 and those in Chapter 11. Assuming that the era is the Seleucid Macedonian one, which began in the autumn of

1 Habicht had the same impression of the style of vv. 18–26, although his explanation as to why the author wanted to get it all over with is that the story did not portray the Jews favorably (“Der Grund hierfür liegt schwerlich in schriftstellerischer Unzuläng- lichkeit, eher in dem Bestreben, über Dinge rasch hinwegzugehen, die für die Juden keineswegs vorteilhaft oder schmeichelhaft waren” – 2 Macc, 269, n. 18a). However, our author had no problem in turning things around, whenever he put his mind to it; see, for example, our NOTE on v. 23, attacked Judas’ men; had the worst of it. It therefore seems preferable to assume that he was simply perplexed as to where this whole story belonged, and left this part of his work unfinished. 448 Translation and Commentary

312 BCE, it is equivalent to 164/3 BCE. But 1 Maccabees 6:20 dates this campaign – Lysias’ second – to 150 S.E.; for the debate among historians, see Bar-Kochva, JM, 543–551 (with bibliography on both sides listed ibid., 545, n. 7), and above, pp. 29–30.

2. and with him Lysias. An invasion by Lysias was already reported in Chapter 11. It is difficult to imagine that an author who was aware of this, and of the fact that it too came to a head at Beth-Zur, would fail to make any allusion to this, if only by adding “again” or “despite his earlier failure” (cf. 10:24) or the like. This is all the more surprising given our author’s predilection for internal cross-referencing; see NOTE on 2:32, aforementioned. And what of Lysias’ realization, at the end of his first campaign, that it is impossible to defeat the Jews (11:13)?! These are some of the considerations underlying our suggestion that whoever authored the present narrative was unaware of the contents of Chapter 11, and that the campaign described in this chapter was the same as the one described there; see Introduction, pp. 26–35. each. Goldstein (2 Macc, 459) rejected this, although it is supported by most of the textual witnesses, because he thought it unlikely that the nine year old Eupator (see NOTE on 9:25, my son Antiochus) would command an army or that the invading forces would be divided into two. But reasonableness does not seem to be the best measure by which to judge the authenticity of battle descriptions in our book, a point that the numbers in the present verse also confirm. In any case, the splitting of the army does not function in the chapter, which deals with only one army, termed “the king’s army” (vv. 13, 26). a Greek force. This seems to be a characterization of the two special items mentioned at the end of the verse – elephants and scythed chariots.

110,000 foot-soldiers. This is an astronomic figure, even if we ignore the statement that there were two such armies. By way of comparison, note that 1 Maccabees speaks of 60,000 soldiers in Lysias’ first invading force (4:28) and 100,000 in the second (6:30) and Bar-Kochva (JM, 42–43) says both must be “totally rejected” as exaggerated. See also Niese, Kritik, 33 and Shatzman, “Hasmonean Army,” 32 (these numbers “are totally exaggerated and impossible”).

22 elephants. This datum too is quite exaggerated, although it cannot compete with the thirty-two mentioned in 1 Maccabees 6:30 or the eighty mentioned above (11:4) and by Josephus at War 1.41; see Bar-Kochva, JM, 307. According to Bar-Kochva, it is likely that the forty elephants that marched in Chapter XIII 449 the procession at Daphne (in 166 BCE; see Polybius 30.25.11 and on 5:2, according to units) were all the Seleucid army had, and that half of them accompanied Antiochus in his eastern campaign; see Bar-Kochva, Seleucid Army, 80; see ibid., 75–83, for data on the numbers of elephants in other battles. along with 300 scythed chariots. For the terrifying effect of scythe-wheeled chariots see e.g. Appian, Mithridatica 18 (cited by Bar-Kochva, JM, 19) and Diodorus 17.53.1. But their number here is fantastic, as usual; in the Daphne procession there were only 140 (Polybius 30.25.11). Indeed, Bar- Kochva doubts that such chariots remained in use after the Seleucid defeat at Magnesia in 190 BCE, where they inflicted great losses upon the Seleucid army itself (Livy 37.41.5–42.1); see Bar-Kochva, Seleucid Army, 83–84 and idem, JM, 19, 305.

3. Menelaus joined them. He was last mentioned at 11:29–32 as a participant in the negotiations between the king and the Jews. The end of our verse indicates that, unsurprisingly, he had not been restored as high priest, and so it seems that he remained in Antioch, attempting both to influence the royal policy concerning the Jews and to improve his own station. great insincerity. That is, hypocrisy; on ε+ρνεα, which appears in the Sep- tuagint only here, see Epistle to Diognetus 4:1 (on the Jews’ hypocrisy concerning fasting and new moons), also G. Markantonatos, “On the Origin and Meaning of the Word ΕΙΡΝΕΙΑ,” RF 103 (1975) 16–21; C. Forbes, “Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony: Paul’s Boasting and the Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric,” NTS 32 (1986) 10–13. having in mind not the welfare of the fatherland. Menelaus’ appeal to the king is presented as the opposite of Onias’ (4:5), who had been the oppo- nent of Menelaus’ brother. his own installation in office. That is, his restoration to office; obviously he was not able to maintain his position after Judas retook Jerusalem (see NOTE on 11:29, Menelaus has reported … ). Moreover, at some point the Seleucids replaced him with Alcimus; see NOTE on 14:3, a former high priest.

4. the King of Kings. A rare epithet in Jewish-Hellenistic literature, but see 3 Maccabees 5:35 and Philo, De Decalogo 41. It seems to have originated as an oriental and more particularly Persian royal epithet; see Ezekiel 26:7; Ezra 7:12; Daniel 2:37; J. G. Griffiths, “βασιλε#« βασιλων: Remarks on the History of a Title,” CP 48 (1953) 145–154. 450 Translation and Commentary awakened Antiochus’ wrath. As usual, it is clear to our author that Anti- ochus was only doing God’s will. against the sinner. Menelaus. the cause of all the troubles. As we were already told at 4:47; see our NOTE there on cause of all the trouble. Thus, according to our diasporan book even the Seleucid officials realized, eventually, that which the good subjects of the kingdom (4:35, 49) and readers of the book already knew; cf. Esther 7:5–10, also 3 Maccabees 6:22–26 and 7:10–15. as was customary in the region. On 6ο« see NOTE on 4:11, practices.

Beroia. Aleppo, founded by Seleucus I. See: Grainger, Cities, 79–80, 132.

5. fifty cubits high. Which is also the height of the gallows prepared by Haman, upon which he was himself hung (Esth 5:14; 7:10). Is it too wild to see, accordingly, in God’s “awakening Antiochus’ wrath” (v. 4), a hint to “the king’s sleep being upset” (Esth 6:1), especially in light of the Persian “King of Kings” that begins that verse? And note the three days of fasting mentioned in v. 12, as in Esther 4:16, and the fact that the elaborate mode of execution described here seems too to point us toward Persia; see Hero- dotus 2.100; Ctesias apud Photius, Bibliotheca 72 (FGrH 688, §§48, 52, 58); Ovid, Ibis 315–316; Valerius Maximus, Facta et dicta memorabilia 9.2.6; F. W. König, Persika des Ktesias, Graz 1972, 85–88. König conjectures that we should understand that the contraption did not really turn around but, rather, that it was round and, like a funnel, made those thrown into it slip down into the ashes; for περιφερ« in the sense of “round,” not only “moving around,” see LSJ, 1392. König also emphasizes the religious nature of the crimes of those punished this way. ashes. Apparently hot ashes are meant, as Grimm notes – 2 Macc, 187.

6. temple-robbery. On this crime, which is singled out here because it was Menelaus’, see NOTE on 4:39, robbery from the Temple. to perdition. As Antiochus’ (Ch. 9 and 7:14), so too Menelaus’ sufferings were final, and not merely educational “chastisement” as were those of the Jews; see NOTE on 6:12, the punishments were not to destroy.

7. Such a death. For this sense of μρο« (lit. “fate”) see NOTE on 9:28, death. Chapter XIII 451 happened. See NOTE on 3:2, it happened. without his even attaining (any burial place) in the ground. A terrible fate; see NOTE on 4:49, funeral expenses. For the denial of burial to temple- robbers and the like, see Parker, Miasma, 45, with references, inter alia, to Diodorus’ statement (16.25.2) that according to the law common to all Greeks temple-robbers are to be cast out without burial and Thucydides’ explanation (1.138.6) that Themistocles could not be buried in Attica “because he had been expelled due to treason;” for the association of treason and temple-robbery, see NOTE on 5:15, traitor. See also Eur- ipides, Phoenician Women 1630; Pseudo-Plutarch, Ten Orators 1 (Anti- phon) 833a (το« περ/ τ7ν προδοτ7ν πιτιμοι« 3παξε/« 5τφο« ρρφη [“after being punished with the traitors’ punishment he was cast out without burial”]).

8. and very rightly so. For such pedantic comments, see also 9:6 and 12:43. many sins against the altar. For the term used here, βμ«, see NOTE on 2:19, the altar. Menelaus’ sins did not, in fact, affect the altar alone; rather, they affected the Temple as a whole; see 4:32, 39 and 5:15–16. But our author must find the poetic justice, he must make the punishment fit the crime even if it is somewhat artificial; cf. NOTE on 4:41, wood … ashes. It may be that some viewed Menelaus’ death as a fulfillment of Ezekiel 28:18: “By the multitude of your iniquities, in the unrighteousness of your trade you profaned your sanctuaries; so I brought forth fire from the midst of you; it consumed you, and I turned you to ashes upon the earth …”

9. But the king … began to display himself toward the Jews in ways as bad as the worst which had happened in his father’s days. Our translation follows Grimm, 2 Macc., 188; Abel’s is similar (Macc, 453). What is meant is not that Antiochus Eupator already did things worse than his father had, only that he contemplated doing them. Note that our author gives no reason at all for the king’s volte-face, from punishing Menelaus as the cause of all the troubles to persecuting the Jews. According to 1 Maccabees, which never mentions Menelaus, Lysias’ second campaign was a natural resumption of the first; see esp. 1 Maccabees 4:35, which has Lysias returning to Antioch, after the failure of his first campaign, in order to restore his army and return to Judaea. There is nothing parallel in our book; on the contrary, after his first campaign Lysias concludes that there is no chance to succeed against the Jews (11:13). Our author has worked himself into a corner, torn between his desire to claim that the kings were basically good to the Jews 452 Translation and Commentary and that any troubles were due only to isolated troublemakers such as Menelaus, on the one hand, and the need to report how events continued, on the other. In fact, the account which follows apparently concerns the same campaign as the one in Chapter 11; see our opening COMMENT on that chapter.

10. exhorted. See NOTE on 12:5, he gave his men instructions. if ever (He did so) at some time or other (εP ποτε κα3 .λλοτε). Of course the “if” here is rhetorical; our author knows very well that there were indeed such precedents (see 8:19–20; 15:8–9, 22).

11. on the verge of being deprived. Our author loves to point out what dire things were on the brink of happening; see NOTE on 2:22, the laws that were about to be. only shortly before revived its spirit. Which would make renewed troubles all the worse; for a similar idea, see 14:36, Judith 4:3, and Josephus, An- tiquities 8.128, where God warns Solomon that if he sins “the Temple, which only now had been built, will be given up to his enemies to be burned and plundered.” For the verb ναχ ξ see NOTE on 4:46, refresh his spirit. Cf. Polybius 18.14.6, where we read that the Peloponnesians began to breathe again and once again to think of freedom (ναπνεσαι κα/ λαβεν λεψερα« 6ννοιαν). maligning Gentiles. Cf. 10:4.

12. with wailing. Like 11:6, although a different term is used; cf. NOTE on 11:6, with wailing and tears. and fasts. On fasting in preparation for battle see also 1 Sa- muel 14:28–30//1 Maccabees 3:17; 1 Maccabees 3:47; Josephus, Vita 290; etc. The secondary status of the fasting here should be noted; it is only an expression of the main activity: “petitioning” (contrast 1 Macc 3:47, where the fasting is more independent). This is reminiscent of the way our author treats sacrifice too; see NOTE on 12:44, to pray. and prostration. See NOTE on 3:21, prostration. for three days. Another echo of Esther (4:16)? See NOTE on v. 5, fifty cubits high, but also Assumption of Moses 9:6–7. Chapter XIII 453 after encouraging them. On παρακαλω and its nuances, see NOTE on 7:24, his appeal.

13. the elders. It seems that these πρεσβ τεροι are members of the gerousia; see NOTE on 14:37, one of the elders of Jerusalem. The present context seems to assume that this council sat in Jerusalem, which is entirely likely.

Judaea. In its restricted sense, i.e., the territory around Jerusalem, as the rest of the verse hints; cf. NOTE on 1:1, the Jews in Jerusalem … the city. Jerusalem; for the centrality implied by the failure to name it, cf. NOTE on 4:39, in the city. settle the matter (κρναι τ πρ#γματα). This seems to be the appropriate translation of this phrase, which recurs at 15:17 and is used regularly by Polybius in connection with battles; so for example Polybius 1.15.4, 1.87.7 and 5.82.1. But πργματα can also designate “the state;” see NOTE on 3:7, head of state. Perhaps, accordingly, there is also a hint that God (whose aid is invoked here) will defeat the Seleucid state or even – taking κρναι in its literal sense – “judge” it; after all, He is a righteous judge (12:6, 41). with God’s help. On the hope for God’s βοεια see NOTE on 8:24, ally.

14. entrusting the outcome. That is, accepting in advance whatever God will decide. For the formulation here, δο#« … πιτροπν, compare, in a similar context, Josephus, Vita 138: γB δM τ: ε: τ? κατ0 μαψτ9ν πιτρωχα« (“as for me, having given over my fate to God …”). to the Creator of the universe. See NOTE on 1:24, creator. to struggle nobly (γεννα,«). See NOTE on 6:28, noble … nobly. until death. See NOTE on 7:2, ready to die. laws, temple, city, fatherland, constitution. This is the first appearance of the perplexing staccato which occurs frequently in this chapter (from v. 19 to the end of the chapter); for a possible explanation (unreworked notes?), see Introduction, pp. 34–35. 454 Translation and Commentary

Modein. This is the only reference in our book to the Hasmoneans’ home (see 1 Macc 2:1; 13:25), which is located northwest of Jerusalem, some 12 km. east of Lydda. Goldstein (2 Macc, 457) and Bar-Kochva (JM, 172 and 197–198) doubt that there was in fact any clash here. Indeed, one could easily imagine that the historical memory of the town as the Hasmoneans’ home would engender the creation of legends about a battle or battles there; cf. b. Kiddushin 66a, where “in Modein” seems to serve as a general reference to “during the Hasmonean wars.” However, it is difficult to move beyond suspicion here. Goldstein suggests that the story was created on the basis of a tradition that Judas prevented the royal army from encamping in Judaea (see v. 13!) coupled with the fact that Modein was right on Judaea’s border. However, despite Goldstein’s arguments (2 Macc, 464–465) it is not at all clear that there was such a tradition about Judas, and there is nothing specific enough in Daniel 11:45 (“between the seas and the glorious holy mountain”) to point to Judaea’s border. (Nor, indeed, is it certain that Mo- dein was on the border; perhaps it was outside of Judaea – see Goldstein, 1 Macc, 231, and Stern, Studies, 583.) As for Bar-Kochva, his argument is basically that all we have is (as above) the historical memory of the Has- moneans’ origin in Modein; since (according to 1 Macc 6) all of the fighting described in this chapter took place in the vicinity of Beth-Zur, the allusion to Modein is another indication of our author’s unfamiliarity with Palesti- nian geography. However, we have already noted that although our author is not interested in geography, his ignorance is not as great as some have thought; see NOTES on 12:9, the gleam …, on 12:17, Tobians, and p. 435, n. 6. Moreover, there is no other indication that our author knew of the Hasmoneans’ origin in Modein, and in light of v. 18 (“devious routes”) there is no special reason to assume that everything happened near Beth- Zur. On this point see Schwartz, “Battles of Judas Maccabaeus,” 445 and Bar-Kochva’s response – “On Josephus …,” 128.

15. Assigning (ναδο#« δω). This formulation echoes δο#« δω in the preceding verse, thus indicating, artistically, that Judas has completed his preparations: having first turned to the true Fighter and given Him His due, he now turns to his flesh and blood fighters and gives them theirs. the motto. See NOTE on 8:23, after reading …

“God’s victory.” For the use of νκη as a motto in war, see esp. D. Gera, “Tryphon’s Sling Bullet from Dor,” IEJ 35 (1985) 154–155. Note the modest abstention from tying God’s hands: in line with v. 14, the slogan does not actually say to which side He will give the victory. Chapter XIII 455 a night-attack. See NOTE on 8:7, especially chose the nighttime. the royal courtyard (τ'ν βασιλικ'ν α/λν) … (that is) the encampment. For the use of α.λ of wherever the king was located, even of a tent in a military camp (as in Polybius 5.25.3; 5.26.9), see Bickerman, Institutions, 33. However, since usually one would assume that the word refers to the royal palace in the capital, the author – or some glossator – appended an explanation. skewering (σψνεκωντησε). Reading according to Grimm (2 Macc, 189–190), as at 5:26; cf. 12:23. the first of the elephants. This episode is somewhat reminiscent of that of Eleazar at Beth Zechariah, according to 1 Maccabees 6:43–46, but that is not enough to show that our story has been wrongly located in Modein, for key elements of the Eleazar story are lacking here, such as Eleazar’s belief that the king was on the elephant, and Eleazar’s death underneath it. Our story refers to a nocturnal attack on elephants who were apparently rider- less at the time. him who was in the house. It seems that ο+κα here does not refer to the “tower” (1 Macc 6:37) on top of the elephant (termed ο+κδιον in Polybius, frag. 162b; see Bar-Kochva, JM, 317–318 and the illustrations ibid. 584–588), i.e., the howdah, for usually more than one person rode in one and anyway no one would be in it at night. Rather, it appears that the reference is to the elephant-pen’s guardhouse. Perhaps, as Scullard thought (Elephant, 187), the reference is specifically to the elephant’s mahout.

16. they filled … with fear and tumult (δωοψ« κα3 ταραξ« πλρ,σαν). We may assume that the author would be happy if attentive readers saw in this episode the closing of a circle, in partial payment of the Seleucid debt to the Jews: for the same pair, see 3:30. they broke away. LSJ, 513, s.v. κλ , cites our verse as the only example of such intransitive use of this verb.

17. the Lord’s sheltering. As anticipated in v. 14 and in the motto cited in v. 15. On “sheltering” (σκωπη) see NOTE on 5:9, find shelter. which had come to his aid. That is, to Judas’ aid; the formulation indicates his centrality. Cf. NOTE on 12:10, he. 456 Translation and Commentary

18. the Jews’ daring (ε/τολμα«). The prefixed ε.- (good) assures us that what characterizes the Jews was not just audacity, which could be reprehensible – as at 4:2 and 8:18; cf. the opposite usage, κατατολμ, at 3:24 and 5:15. attempted to take (κατεπερασε). A military verb, which appears only here in the Septuagint but is common in Polybius; see Mauersberger, PL, 1.1320–1321. by devious routes (με 2δ,ν). This seems to mean that in the wake of the failed attempt to invade Judaea directly from north to south, via Modein, the king (Lysias) now decided to come up and around from the south (“via Idu- maea” – 1 Macc 6:31) and attack Jerusalem via the region of Hebron. LSJ (1092) lists our verse alone for the meaning “stratagem,” and that is how it is usually translated here; see also Spicq, Notes, 2.548, n. 2. However, the present context gives no support for that translation, and it would indeed be a rare usage, as is emphasized by Wheeler, Stratagem, 42; when our author wants to refer to a stratagem, he indeed uses στρατγημα (14:29). Hence it seems best to retain, here, the etymological sense of the word.

19. Coming up … rebuffed; blocked; defeated. More staccato; see NOTE on v. 14, laws, temple. The result of all this is that the siege continued. For intransitive use of προσκρο (“strike against”) of military defeat, see LSJ, 1518, s.v.

Beth-Zur. On which see 11:5, Beth-Zur. As for the need to introduce this site as if for the first time, despite Chapter 11, see NOTE on v. 2, and with him Lysias.

20. the necessities. Our author had no interest in detailing these supplies, and wants us to know that; cf. 4:23 and above, p. 73.

21. Rhodocus. This seems to be a Hellenized form of an Iranian name; see Goldstein, 2 Macc, 466. Bar-Kochva (JM, 88, n. 54) guesses that Rhodocus was a Jew from the Hellenistic diaspora, a volunteer in the forces of Judas Maccabaeus; his assumption is that a Palestinian Jew would not have had such a name if he were not from among the Hellenists. However, as Bar- Kochva recognizes, it is well possible that Rhodocus was a Judaean who preferred the rebel cause despite the name he received from his Hellenizing father (cf. Eupolemus, Dositheus and Sosipater – 4:11 and 12:19). More- over, it is not clear which side Rhodocus was on; see immediately below. Chapter XIII 457 one of the Jewish unit. The extreme abbreviation here creates a fundamental ambiguity: Was Rhodocus a soldier in Judas’ army or in the king’s? It is usual to assume the former, and to assume he was either among those besieged or among those trying to relieve them; that is, it is usually assumed that “the Jewish unit” denotes the rebels. For τι« of Judas’ forces, see 10:36. According to that view, Rhodocus perfidiously revealed to the Seleu- cid besiegers the secrets that had allowed Judas to supply those in the fortress, thus allowing the Seleucids to cut off the supplies. However, if that were the case, we would expect to read next that Beth-Zur indeed capitulated, or, alternatively, to receive some explanation as to how it avoided doing so. Indeed, Bar-Kochva (JM, 309) seems to take the next verse (22) as if it referred to the cutoff of supplies and, hence, to surrender. However, that verse refers – again, with extreme brevity – to an agreement between the sides, not to surrender (although surrender is indeed implied by the parallel at 1 Macc 6:49–50). So if our verse means that Rhodocus betrayed the Jew- ish side, we would have to say that there is no logical sequel to this in our narrative. Of course, this might be due only to the radical abbreviation here; perhaps the original version made things clearer; Stern (Studies, 356), for example, noting that our book is “very inaccurate” here, suggests that in the original version Jason of Cyrene reported Lysias’ victory and that our author deliberately beclouded the matter. However, as we suggested above (pp. 34–35) it seems that these terse verses are themselves a remnant of Jason’s account via our author’s unreworked notes on it, so it is difficult to imagine that our account differs deliberately, in such a radical way, from Jason’s. Of course, this may have happened unintentionally, in the course of abbreviating. But we should at least consider the other alternative, namely, that Rhodocus is to be understood as a soldier in the Seleucid army, in a unit known as “the Jewish unit” – as distinguished from other national units; his treason, then, was against the Seleucids, and consisted of passing on to Judas’ side the secret information which allowed them to smuggle in supplies. On this interpretation, we can understand how it happened that – although eventually Rhodocus was caught and punished (by the Seleucids) – Beth-Zur was not forced to surrender and Antiochus was therefore forced to negotiate. This interpretation’s strong points are the logical connection it establishes between v. 21 and v. 22 and the proper sense it gives the term “the Jewish unit,” which sounds strange in reference to the Jews besieged in Beth-Zur or those attempting to relieve them; for the use of τι« for a unit among others, such as a national unit (on which see NOTE on 5:24, the Mysarch Apollonius), see A. B. Bosworth, “ΑΣΥΕΤΑΙΡΟΙ,” CQ n.s. 23 (1973) 252–253. Its weaknesses are its application of “enemies,” in this Jewish book, to Judas Maccabaeus’ partisans; the contradiction which 458 Translation and Commentary would ensue between our book and 1 Maccabees concerning the fate of Beth-Zur; and, in general, the fact that we have no evidence for such a Jew- ish unit in the Seleucid army (but cf. Appendix 7, n. 91). We can hardly hope for clarity and certainty about something which our author left so murky and telegraphic. shut away (κατεκλεσ η). This may mean that he was put into chains, as at 3 Maccabees 3:25. Frequently, however, it is assumed that this is a euphem- ism for execution; see for example Goldstein, 2 Macc, 466, who builds upon the usage of παρακλε in 4:34; see our NOTE ad loc. on closed in on. See also De Bruyne, “Notes,” 408–409. However, the fact that we at times know that a person who was “shut away” or “closed in upon” was killed does not turn that into the meaning of the verb.

22. again addressed (δεψτερολ2γησεν). This verse is the only reference for the verb in LSJ, 381. It seems that the verb indicates that the king had appealed to those besieged at the onset of the siege and now – recognizing the futility of the siege – he addressed them again. he gave the right hand; took it; departed. More staccato, which continues into the next verse as well. In 1 Maccabees 6:49–50 as well it is not explicitly said that the defenders of Beth-Zur surrendered; rather, the author says the king “made peace” with them, a formulation which left both sides their honor.2 On the giving and taking of the right hand, see NOTE on 4:34, giving him his right hand.

23. attacked Judas’ men; had the worst of it. According to the continuation of the story in 1 Maccabees 6:51–54, the Seleucid forces attacked Jews who had fortified themselves in the Temple, and this might, indeed, explain the reference to the Temple at the end of the present verse. But in plain contradiction to our account, according to 1 Maccabees the king was not at all defeated; rather, the Jews were in a very bad way and were saved only by the news of Philip’s revolt which caused the king to withdraw. that Philip, who had been left behind in Antioch. For the formulation (ν0 Αντιοξεf τ9ν πολελειμμωνον) as referring to an appointment see

2 But Antiochus can’t keep his for long: within a few verses after again swearing “peace” with the Jews (1 Macc 6:60–61), he of course reneges; see NOTE on v. 23, displayed humane love. Chapter XIII 459

NOTE on 4:29, left … Here, however, there is a problem, for according to the end of Chapter 9 Philip had fled to Egypt out of fear of Antiochus Eu- pator – so it is not reasonable to suppose that the latter had appointed Philip regent in his absence. Accordingly, we should assume that Philip fled to Egypt only after the rebellion mentioned here, and that the rebellion began only because Philip had been appointed – or so he claimed – regent not by Antiochus Eupator but, rather, by Antiochus Epiphanes – all as reported by 1 Maccabees 6:55, 63. Given the fact that Philip probably con- trolled the forces left from the eastern campaign (Will, Histoire politique, 2.342), we can understand the threat he posed to Lysias. The confusion here is another result of our author’s assumption that all the events pertaining to Antiochus V and Lysias occurred only after the death of Antiochus IV; see Introduction, pp. 32–33. had taken leave of his senses. The use of πονοωομαι in connection with rebellion indicates that the reference is to something which any sane person – for example, any respectable diasporan Jew – would never do. Cf. 14:8 and NOTE on 4:6, folly. Note also πνοια in the story of Eleazar (6:29) – there the observers thought that Eleazar must be out of his mind to allow himself to be killed for his religion, and they were of course wrong; our diasporan author justifies religious martyrdom but cannot justify rebellion. Cf. NOTE on 7:2, ready to die. called the Jews together. That is, he invited them to negotiate with him; here the sense of παρακαλω is like that at 7:24. all that is just. Just as in the first account of the post-Beth-Zur agreement (11:14). displayed humane love (φιλαν ρ1πησε). For the formulation, see NOTE on 6:22, humane treatment. Our verse alludes to an agreement, as is made explicit in v. 25, but its terms are not stated. We may assume that it included the promises made in Antiochus Eupator’s letter preserved in 11:22–26, of which the main point is “we have decided to restore the Temple to them and that they should conduct their civic behavior according to the customs of their ancestors.” According to 1 Maccabees 6:62 and Josephus, Antiquities 12.383, Antiochus Eupator violated the agreement and tore down a wall of the Temple; there is no reference to anything like this in our book, and no way of knowing if our author deliberately omitted it, out of diasporan apologetics or for other reasons. Cf. p. 467, on 1 Maccabees 7. 460 Translation and Commentary the Place. Here, alongside νε« (see NOTE on 4:14, the Temple), “the Place” clearly has the broad meaning which includes all that surrounds the Temple, that is, the city of Jerusalem; see NOTE on 3:2, the Place.

24. he received. I.e., with respect and courtesy; cf. NOTES on 3:9, received courteously and on 3:35, receiving Onias.

Hegemonides. Here there is a lucky collocation of epigraphic evidence: of two inscriptions from the Achaean city of Dyme, one (OGIS 252; cf. SEG 14, no. 368) records a dedication to Antiochus Epiphanes and his family by a man called Hegemonides (son of Zephyros) and the other (SEG 14, no. 369) documents the Syrian city of Laodicea’s honoring of Hegemonides of Dyme. We may assume that both inscriptions, and our verse, all refer to the same individual; see Habicht, “Hegemonides.” Mørkholm (Antiochus IV, 61–62) views this individual’s status as evidence for Antiochus’ efforts to maintain good relations with Achaeans; see also Walbank, Polybius, 3.401. from Ptolemais to Gerar. For this administrative unit, bounded here by points in the north and the south of the coast of Palestine, see: 1 Macca- bees 11:59, where the Hasmonean Simon is appointed governor of more or less the same region, and 15:38, where Cendebeus replaces him; Bengtson, Strategie, 2.176–181; Stern, Hasmonaean Judaea, 56; Goodblatt, “Medi- nat Hayam,”30.3 Goldstein (2 Macc, 468–469) preferred to understand “Gerar” here to refer not (as usual) to somewhere on the southern coast of Palestine but, rather, to a place in the vicinity of Beirut, suggesting that the appointment was meant as a gesture toward the population of Ptolemais, assuring them that there would be Seleucid (and not Jewish) rule in the region to their north. However, if that is how it was meant, it failed to achieve its aim; see v. 25. Moreover, Goldstein’s whole point of departure, namely, that Gerar normally appears in the Septuagint as Γωραρα so the present ref-

3 Before the discovery of the inscriptions mentioned in our preceding NOTE it was possible and common to read στρατηγ9ν … Yγεμονδην as a title, and that occa- sioned one of the wilder items in the dossier assembled in support of the argument that our book should be read as a response to 1 Maccabees and as polemic against the Hasmoneans. Namely, rather than using 1 Macc 11:59 to confirm the existence of this administrative unit, Kosters (“Polemiek,” 531–532) pointed to it as evidence that in fact all our author knew was that Simon had been appointed (at some later point in time) to the position and, not wanting to mention his name and report his accom- plishment, referred instead to “a ruling governor.” Cf. NOTE on 10:20, But Simon’s men, who loved lucre. Chapter XIII 461 erence to Γερρηνο should refer to somewhere else, is a very weak reed; for the irrelevance of the Septuagint’s usual practice for our book, which was composed in Greek, see Introduction, p. 67. Accordingly, it seems better to depend upon the aforementioned parallels in 1 Maccabees, that refer to the coast of Palestine.

25. the people of Ptolemais. Who were known for their hostility to Jews; see Rappaport, “Akko-Ptolemais.” (But it seems that 6:8 is not relevant; see NOTE ad loc. on At Ptolemy’s suggestion.) hardly tolerated … were very upset. For the same combination, see 4:35. the covenants (τ*ν σψν ηκ*ν). Mentioned in v. 23. On the term, see NOTE on 12:1, these covenants. to annul the instructions (διαστ#λσει«). LSJ (412) lists our verse alone for this word and translates “arrangement,” “compact.” However, it seems better to link it to the verb διαστωλλ in the Hellenistic sense of “order,” “instruct,” in which case the reference here would be to the instructions that derived from the king’s agreement with the Jews; note esp. 14:28, διεσ- ταλμωνα, and cf. 6:5, ποδιεσταλμωνοι«. On the Hellenistic usage of διαστωλλ, see Lenger, Corpus, no. 30–31, l. 3, and no. 35, l. 6; she translates “recommander.” See also H. Anz, “Subsidia ad cognoscendum graecorum sermonem vulgarem e Pentateuchi versione alexandrina repetita,” DPH 12 (1894) 326–327, and J. H. Moulton & G. Milligan, The Vocabu- lary of the Greek Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1929) 154.

26. the tribune. For the king’s ascent upon a βAμα in order to address a crowd see, for example, with regard to Alexander the Great: Curtius 9.3.18; 10.2.30. convinced; calmed down; engendered goodwill; returned to Antioch. More staccato. turned out. For such usage of ξρω in a rounding-out summary, see NOTE on 3:40, That … turned out. In this case it sounds mocking (à la “look what came of the whole massive invasion [v. 2!]”), especially in light of the extreme abbreviation of the story which hints that no details could possibly be of any interest or significance. 462 Translation and Commentary

Bibliography

Bar-Kochva, JM, 291–346. Habicht, “Hegemonides.” Rappaport, “Akko-Ptolemais.” Wellhausen, “Wert,” 150–152. Chapter XIV 463

Chapter XIV

A New Informer: Alcimus

(1) In the third year thereafter the news reached Judas’ men that Demetrius son of Seleucus, having sailed into the port of Tripoli with a strong force and fleet, (2) had taken control of the country and eliminated Antiochus and his guardian, Lysias. (3) But one Alcimus, a former high priest who had willingly defiled himself in the times of strife, realizing that he could in no way redeem himself nor ever again have access to the holy altar, (4) went to King Demetrius in the 151st year, bringing with him a golden crown and a palm frond, along with a few of the customary fresh branches from the Temple. On that day he kept quiet, (5) but when he was summoned to the council by Demetrius and asked how the Jews were disposed and what their attitude was, he took this to be an opportunity that would further his own mad purpose, and so responded as follows: (6) “The Jews called Asidaioi, who are led by Judas Maccabaeus, are carrying on war and being seditious and do not permit the kingdom to attain stability. (7) Therefore, although deprived of my ancestral honor – I speak of the high priesthood – I have now come hither, (8) first out of genuine concern for the king’s interests, and secondly having regard also for my own fellow-citizens. For due to the thoughtlessness of the aforementioned people our entire nation has in no small measure become disinherited. (9) And you, O King, knowing all of this, give providential attention both to the country and to our beleaguered nation, with the same love of mankind with which you graciously receive everyone. (10) For as long as Judas is around it will be impossible for the state to attain peace.” (11) After things like this had been said by him, the other Friends, who were hostile to Judas’ cause, quickly inflamed Demetrius’ anger even more. (12) Immediately selecting Nicanor, the former elephantarch, and appointing him governor of Judaea, he dispatched him (thither), (13) giving him letters (ordering him) to eliminate Judas, scatter his men, and install Alci- mus as the high priest of the greatest Temple. (14) And those Gentiles near Judaea who had fled before Judas joined Nicanor in droves, supposing the Jews’ misfortune and suffering would be their own lucky day. 464 Translation and Commentary

From Confrontation to Agreement

(15) Having heard of Nicanor’s invasion and the Gentiles’ onslaught they strewed dirt (upon their heads) and entreated Him who had constituted His own people forever, who by apparition always succors His own portion. (16) Upon the leader’s order they moved out of there immediately and clashed with them near the village of Dessau. (17) Simon, Judas’ brother, had encountered Nicanor and suffered a minor setback due to the suddenness with which the antagonists appeared. (18) Nevertheless, when Nicanor heard of the manly valor of Judas’ men and of their high morale in struggles for the fatherland, he was somewhat afraid to bring the matter to trial by bloodshed. (19) Therefore he sent Posidonius, Theodotus and Mattathias to give and take the right hand. (20) After thorough inquiries were made, and the leader had shared the matter with the multitudes and a unanimous opinion had become apparent, they approved the covenants. (21) They fixed a day, upon which they were to come together privately, and from each side a litter came forward; they arranged chairs; (22) Judas stationed armed men ready in strategic places, lest the enemies suddenly do something villainous; they held the appropriate discussion. (23) Nicanor remained in Jerusalem, did nothing out of place, and disbanded the herd-like multitudes that had been gathered together. (24) And he kept Judas before him continually, for his soul was drawn to the man. (25) He called upon him to marry and to father children; he married, settled down, partook of life.

Renewed Informing and Hostilities

(26) But Alcimus, realizing their mutual goodwill and taking with him the covenants which had been made went to Demetrius and said that Nicanor was hostilely-minded toward the state, (saying) “For he has appointed Judas, who conspires against the kingdom, to be his successor.” (27) The king lost his temper and – provoked by the arch-villain’s accusations – wrote Nicanor, saying that he found the covenants intolerable and ordering him immediately to dispatch Maccabaeus in chains to Antioch. (28) When these (orders) reached Nicanor he was disconcerted and could only with difficulty tolerate the notion of annulling the instructions, given the fact that the man had done nothing unjust. (29) But since it was impossible to oppose the king, he sought an appropriate opportunity to fulfill (the king’s order) by stratagem. (30) But Maccabaeus, seeing that Nicanor was treat- ing his affairs with him more abruptly, and that his manner with him was Chapter XIV 465 coarser than usual, concluded that this harshness was not for the better and therefore, gathering not a few of his men, together with them he hid from Nicanor. (31) When the latter realized that the man had out-stratagemized him with aplomb, he came to the greatest and holy Temple and ordered the priests, who were busy bringing the appropriate sacrifices, to hand the man over. (32) When they said, with oaths, that they did not know where the wanted man was, (33) he extended his right hand toward the Sanctuary and swore as follows: “If you do not give up Judas to me, in chains, I will level this sacred enclosure of God to the ground, and I will destroy the altar, and I will erect here a magnificent temple to Dionysus!” (34) Having said that much he went away. But the priests, extending their hands toward heaven, called upon Him who has always championed our people, saying as follows: (35) “You, Lord, although You are not in need of anything, thought it right that there be in our midst a sanctuary for Your tenting. (36) And now, O holy Lord of all holiness, preserve forever undefiled this house which only recently has been purified.”

The Martyrdom of Razis

(37) Someone informed to Nicanor about Razis, one of the elders of Jeru- salem – a man who loved his fellow-citizens and had a very good reputation, who due to the goodwill toward him was called “Father of the Jews.” (38) In the foregoing times of strife he had brought in a decision for Judaism and with complete intensity had risked body and soul for Ju- daism. (39) Nicanor, desiring to make his hostility to the Jews eminently clear, sent more than 500 soldiers to arrest him. (40) For he thought to cause them suffering by arresting him. (41) When the hordes were about to take the tower and were forcing the gate of the courtyard, ordering fire to be brought up so as to set fire to the gates, Razis, who was about to be surrounded and taken, thrust himself down upon his sword, (42) wanting to die nobly rather than fall into the sinners’ hands and have his own dignity outraged in unseemly fashion. (43) But since he did not manage to place the sword-stroke well, due to the tumult of the struggle, and the mob was already pouring in within the gateways, he ran valiantly up upon the wall and manfully flung himself down into the mob. (44) Since they quickly moved backwards a gap opened up, and he landed in the midst of the empty area. (45) Still breathing, and burning up in rage, he stood up – his blood flowing like a fountain and his wounds quite severe – and after traversing the multitudes on the run he stood up on a precipitous rock. (46) Totally out of blood, he bared his innards and, taking 466 Translation and Commentary them in both his hands, threw them into the mob; and in this manner, after calling upon the ruler of life and spirit to return them to him again, he passed away.

COMMENT

Chapter 14 opens very similarly to Chapter 13: after two verses that give a date and report what news Judas and his men heard about Seleucid kings and their doings there follows a longer narrative focusing on a Jewish villain, a former high priest. Since Chapter 13 had featured the elimination of Mene- laus (who had been “the cause of all the troubles” [13:4]) and a royal agreement with Judas, a new beginning is required, and since (according to our diasporan author) that new beginning had better not come from troublemaking by any legitimate and representative Jewish source or from the king, the only options are to introduce either a new Jewish villain or (as in Ch. 12) some secondary Seleucid ones. Our author takes the former option, hence the similarity of our chapter with the preceding one: Alcimus picks up where Menelaus had left off, inciting the new king, Demetrius I, against the Jews. Thus, our chapter focuses on Alcimus. It is he who – said to be a former high priest hoping for his own personal advancement – incites the new king, Demetrius I, against the Jews. Demetrius appoints a new governor, Nicanor, with the mission of bringing Judas to heel, but although Nicanor does indeed begin to campaign against Judas, soon – impressed by the personal qualities of Judas and his men – he breaks off fighting and makes peace with Judas. His first effort foiled, Alcimus again stirs the pot with new complaints in Antioch until Demetrius orders Nicanor to arrest Judas. Judas escapes, and Nicanor, angered, makes threats against the Temple if the priests fail to see to the handing over of Judas. With that threat hanging in the air, the chapter concludes with a long martyrdom scene, which reminds us how bad things could again be, and which contrasts Alcimus, who had willingly defiled himself during the “times of strife” (v. 3), with a Jewish hero, Razis, who had remained steadfast during that same period (v. 38) and continues to do so in the present. Thus, this chapter, having again poised models of faithless and faithful Jews one against the other, concludes with the new crisis at its height; the final resolution will come in the next chapter, concluding the book. Historically, this chapter returns us to firmer ground. The first two verses give a firm chronological framework: Demetrius I’s takeover of the Seleucid throne in 162/161 BCE, a framework that is supported by other sources as well (see our NOTE on v. 1, In the third year thereafter). Similarly, 1 Mac- cabees 7:5 agrees with our book that it was accusations against Judas that Chapter XIV 467

Alcimus presented to Demetrius, immediately upon his ascent, that brought about the renewed hostilities. The only major difference between the two books is in the fact that 1 Maccabees goes on to report Bacchides’ mission to Judaea, together with Alcimus (1 Macc 7:8–25), before it presents Nicanor’s mission to Judaea (v. 26ff.), without Alcimus,1 while our book has only Ni- canor sent, and then re-sent (v. 27), against Judas. By ignoring Bacchides, just as by ignoring Gorgias almost completely in Chapter 8, our book serves its general focus on Nicanor; see our Introduction, pp. 9–10. Another characteristic difference between the two books pertains to a lesser issue: Did Nicanor mean to keep the peace with Judas, as our book claims, in which case it was (as our author reports) only Alcimus’ renewed appeal to the king that forced Nicanor, against his will, to move against Judas? Or is it rather the case that – as 1 Maccabees 7:27 maintains – Ni- canor was perfidious from the outset, just as 1 Maccabees 7:10 claimed the same concerning Bacchides? We can never hope to know the true answer to this (and probably most cases of broken agreements entail at least one side claiming the other was never sincere), but it is characteristic that 1 Macca- bees assumes non-Jews are not to be trusted (and the smart and open-eyed Judas knew that – 1 Macc 7:11, 30), while 2 Maccabees is happy to portray the Gentile official as full of sincere respect for Judas and to report the genuine friendship that ensued between the two.

NOTES

14:1. In the third year thereafter. For this translation see NOTE on 4:23, In the third year thereafter. 151 SE, specified also in 1 Maccabees 7:1 as the first year of Demetrius’ reign, ran from autumn 162 to late summer 161 BCE. Demetrius escaped from Rome late in the summer of 162 and began to rule already in the autumn of that year; the story our book is about to recount will end by the spring of 161 (15:36 and 1 Macc 7:49; for the year, see ibid. 7:1 and 9:3). This chronological framework is supported by other sources as well; see Walbank, Polybius, 3.478; Bar-Kochva, JM, 544. the news reached Judas’ men. The reader should recall the identical opening of Chapter 13 and realize that a new round is about to begin between the Seleucids and the Jews; see our opening COMMENT.

1 Alcimus reappears in 1 Maccabees only in Ch. 9, again alongside Bacchides, in a campaign that occurred after the period covered by our book. 468 Translation and Commentary that Demetrius son of Seleucus. Demetrius I, son of Seleucus IV with whom our book opened (3:3), was born in 186 BCE and raised as a hostage in Rome in accordance with terms imposed by the Treaty of Apamaea. He must have regarded his uncle, Antiochus IV, who took over after his father’s death in 175, as a stand-in for him due to his youth, and when Antiochus died, in 164, Demetrius thought that the time had come for him to take over the Seleucid throne. But the Roman Senate thought otherwise (Poly- bius 31.2), preferring a nine-year-old – Antiochus Eupator (see NOTE on 9:25, my son Antiochus) – on the Syrian throne. Demetrius therefore fled from Rome – a story which Polybius tells in detail, apparently from first- hand knowledge, at 31.11–15; see Walbank, Polybius, 3.478–484. the port of Tripoli. On the Mediterranean coast of Syria (Lebanon). The parallel account at 1 Maccabees 7:1 contents itself by referring to “a coastal city;” it is typical of that Palestinian book, which gives much detail about Palestinian geography (as ours does not), not to bother to name the foreign city. Josephus does (Ant. 12.389), one of the few places where he agrees with our book as against 1 Maccabees; see above, p. 86. with a strong force and fleet. 1 Maccabees 7:1 speaks of him having only “a few men,” and Josephus (Ant. 12.389) reports that Demetrius arrived in Tripoli and only afterward mobilized a number of mercenaries. Their accounts conform better to what we would expect on the basis of Polybius’ report of Demetrius’ undercover escape from Rome, while our author, as usual, exaggerates; having given such an inflated picture of the forces con- trolled by Antiochus Eupator and Lysias (13:2) he was required to say something similar of him who would now so easily overcome them.

2. the country (ξ1ρα«). That is, the Seleucid state; so too 9:24. Cf. NOTE on 1:1, the Jews in Jerusalem and in the country of Judaea. eliminated (παναιρω,). This verb, which reappears in v. 13, is another item in our author’s rich vocabulary concerning killing; see above, p. 71, also Mauersberger, PL, 1.861–862. For more explicit testimony to the same events, see 1 Maccabees 7:3–4; Josephus, Antiquities 12.390; Appian, Sy- riakê 47. As explained in our opening COMMENT, with both Menelaus and Antiochus V out of the way, a new beginning – that is, a new villain – is now needed.

3. But one Alcimus ( Αλκιμο«5 δω τι«). For such introductions of villains, see also 3:4 and 4:40, together with NOTE on v. 5, his own mad purpose. Chapter XIV 469 a former high priest. After Menelaus; see VanderKam, From Joshua, 226–239. According to Josephus (Ant. 12.387; 20.235), Alcimus was appointed after Menelaus’ death, but that might reflect only the usual assumption of a regular succession. As for the silence of 1 Maccabees 7:5, which seems to indicate that Alcimus was never high priest prior to the reign of Demetrius I – this seems to be no more than a pro-Hasmonean author’s way of undermining Alcimus’ legitimacy, reminiscent of the way he simply ignores Onias, Jason and Menelaus; so Mölleken, “Geschichtsklitterung,” 206. had willingly defiled (μεμολψμμωνο«) himself. The attentive reader will notice that Alcimus is depicted as the opposite of Judas and his men, who took care to avoid “defilement” (5:27 – μολψσμ«). in the times of strife. The term μια (lit.: “non-mixing”), which recurs with “times of” in v. 38, has been the subject of much discussion due to its appearance in documents reflecting rebellion and civic strife in Ptolemaic Egypt – which was the context in which our author wrote. Here, given the fact that it refers to the time when Alcimus obeyed Antiochus’ decrees while others defied them, it seems that “strife” is the best translation. See Risberg, “Anmerkungen,” 29–30; Otto-Bengtson, Geschichte des Niederganges, 66 (ibid., n. 4, on our book); P. Collart & P. Jouguet, “Un papyrus ptolémaïque provenant de Deir el-Bahari,” EP 2 (1934) 33. in no way redeem himself nor ever again have access to the holy altar. I.e., without royal intervention. Alcimus is described as one who attempted to advance his own personal interests by badmouthing his people – similar to Simon (3:5–6; 4:1–6) and Menelaus (13:3), not at all like Onias (4:4–6) and Paul (Acts 28:19). On the heinous nature of such delation, see NOTE on 4:5, not as a plaintiff.

4. in the 151st year. SE, on the Seleucid system, i.e. autumn 162 – late summer 161 BCE. a golden crown. A customary and appropriate gift to kings, insofar as it is both valuable and bespeaks recognition of their sovereignty. See esp. Bick- erman, Institutions, 111–112, with references, inter alia, to Poly- bius 21.34.4; Welles, RC, no. 15, l. 4; 1 Maccabees 13:37. Sometimes the crowns (or wreaths) were thought to be holy; see OGIS, no. 227 (= Welles, RC, no. 22), l. 11 and Dittenberger’s note in OGIS ad loc. On the transformation of such crowns, offered as gifts, into a monetary tax see immediately below. 470 Translation and Commentary and a palm frond. So too Simon would send a palm frond together with a gold crown to Demetrius II; see 1 Maccabees 13:37. Stern (Documents, 125) thought that the two passages refer not to real palm fronds (and olive branches – see below) but, rather, to a monetary substitution. This would make it similar to the “Kranzsteuer” (aurum coronarium) known as payment in lieu of crowns; see e.g. Josephus, Antiquities 12.142; Stern, Docu- ments, 39; Bickerman, Institutions, 112; A. Schalit, König Herodes (Berlin & New York: De Gruyter, 20012) 283–286. But I know of no evidence for similar practice with regard to palm fronds. For palm fronds as symbolic of the Land of Israel, see NOTE on 10:7, palm-fronds. the customary fresh branches (τ*ν νομιζομων,ν αλλ*ν τοL =ερο ). For refuge-seekers presenting green (olive?) branches, see Polybius 3.52.3 (“most barbarians consider this [presenting olive-branches and wreaths] a sign of friendship”); 30.9.5; 38.20.10; Walbank, Polybius, 1.389–390. Given this custom, it is not surprising that the word came to mean simply “gift;” see LSJ 782, s.v., §3. from the Temple. The intention is unclear. It may be that our author is inti- mating theft from the Temple. Perhaps, additionally, the reader is supposed to contrast Alcimus with the loyal Jews who used branches like these in order to celebrate the purification of the Temple (10:7); however, the formulation there is different and we have suggested (Introduction, pp. 8–9) that that verse is part of a secondary addition to our book.

5. summoned (προσκλη ε«). For this formal verb, see NOTE on 4:28, summoned. council (σψνωδριον). The royal council; such bodies of the king’s “friends” are well known from Hellenistic courts; see Bickerman, Institutions, 189; Corradi, Studi, 231–258; A. M. Rabello, “Herod’s Domestic Court? The Judgment of Death for Herod’s Sons,” Jewish Law Annual 10 (1992) 39–56. But this is the only time such a council is mentioned in our book; our author prefers to depict kings as acting by themselves, for good or for bad. Here, however, he wants to depict a reasonably organized Seleucid government being led astray by a self-seeking Jewish villain: when the council ex- hibits its goodwill and serious nature by inviting the former high priest to enlighten them about the Jews, Alcimus takes advantage of them. attitude (δι# εσι«). For this translation, see NOTE on 5:23, being of hostile disposition. Chapter XIV 471 an opportunity that would further (καιρ(ν … σψνεργ2ν). The same type of personification as above, 8:7. his own mad purpose. That is, Alcimus is similar to Simon and Auranus not only in being a mere τι« (v. 3) but also in his madness (4:6, 40).

6. called (λεγ2μενοι). Here Alcimus apologizes to his audience for the use of a foreign term, just as our author does to his readers; see NOTE on 9:2, called.

Asidaioi. This is the only time they are mentioned in our book. On the Hasi- dim (concerning whom there is a striking disproportion between paucity of sources and richness of bibliography), see Kampen, The Hasideans. In 1 Maccabees they appear at 7:13,2 there too in connection with Alcimus. Here, Alcimus claims that the Hasidim lie behind the Seleucids’ troubles in Judaea, and that Judas Maccabaeus is their leader, but there is no other evidence for either claim: while it is true that Judas has been leading the troublemaking, there has been no connection between him and any named group at all. On the contrary, in 1 Maccabees 7 it is clear that the Hasidim are not his followers; they are portrayed as welcoming, in their naiveté, Bacchides and Alcimus, and paying the price for it. Of course, it is possible that 1 Maccabees 7 reflects a split within the Hasidic movement, and that hitherto Judas had indeed been their leader, as Alcimus says here. But (a) there is no evidence for that; (b) readers of our book have been led to expect that Alcimus is not truthful; and (c) anyway the name “Hasidim” sounds like it refers to a group of religious people, so linking them up with rebels is readily understood as a calumny by a wicked informer. In any case, the important point for our author is that the claim that good Jews (Judas and the Hasidim) were responsible for anti-Seleucid trouble is found in the mouth of a lying villain. to attain stability (ε/στα εα« τψξεν). Compare v. 10, ε+ρνη« τψξεν, which even more precisely echoes 4:6: τψξεν ε+ρνη«. Our author wants us to compare these two high-priestly appellants to the king, and to note that while both Onias and Alcimus pretended to be seeking both the good of their own fellow Jews and that of the kingdom, Onias (vouched for by the narrator) was honest while Alcimus (who speaks for himself) was a

2 They also appear in 1 Macc 2:42, but the text there is not secure; see Schwartz, “Hasidim.” 472 Translation and Commentary self-serving liar. (For the diasporan claim that the good of the state and that of the Jews stand and fall together, see e.g. Philo, Legatio 159–161, 236, 305; Johnson, Historical Fictions, 156–157). Moreover, note (with Abel, Macc, 459) that Alcimus’ speech is very similar to that ascribed by Jewish Hellenistic literature to another villain, Haman, who too is out for his own ends but phrases his request in terms of the welfare of the kingdom in general (LXX Esth 3:13e – τ9 μ" τ"ν βασιλεαν ε.σταεα« τψγξνειν). For other echoes of Esther in our book, see 13:4–5, 12, and on 13:5, fifty cubits. Cf. 3 Maccabees 7:4, where it is reported that Ptolemy IV accused his wicked advisors of having incited him against the Jews by charging that if they were not repressed “our rule will never become stable” (μηδωποτε ε.στασειν τ? πργματα Yμ7ν). On ε.στεια (stability, quietude) as a basic aim of the state, see also 12:2 and 14:25; Welles, RC, 338.

7. although … the high priesthood. Having allowed the hypocrite to pretend to have the commonweal at heart, our author now makes him expose his real, personal, motive.

8. out of genuine concern (γνησ,« φρον*ν). The use of such impressive phrasing only intensifies his hypocrisy. the king’s interests (τ*ν νηκ2ντ,ν τ9 βασιλε). Lit.: “the things that pertain to the king.” The verb is common in royal inscriptions; see Welles, RC, 384, also Mauersberger, PL, 1.122. having regard (στοξαζ2μενο«) also for my own fellow-citizens. Our author is really enjoying himself, letting Alcimus claim that the good of the Jews requires, of all things, the elimination of Judas Maccabaeus! For πολται of fellow Jews see Introduction, p. 6; for the good king’s concern for the welfare of his subjects, see 11:23 and NOTE on 4:6, providence. the thoughtlessness. On λογιστα, which appears in the Septuagint only here and in 3 Maccabees 5:42, see Mauersberger, PL, 1.68. Compare Phil- ip’s “going out of his mind” (13:23), which explains his rebelling, and see NOTE on 4:6, folly. aforementioned. Our author loves this pedantic usage; see NOTE on 2:32, aforementioned. Here the inflated style, as with some of the other diction in this speech, contributes to the irony. Chapter XIV 473 our entire nation … disinherited. More hypocrisy; Alcimus is in fact concerned about his own inheritance (v. 7) but phrases it as if it were a matter concerning the entire nation.

9. give providential attention (προνο ητι). As may be expected from the ideal king; here too there is an echo of Onias’ mission (see NOTE on 4:6, providence, and Introduction, p. 82). love of mankind. More irony; Alcimus asks that the king’s philanthropia be expressed by helping the wicked against the good. For the term, see NOTE on 6:22, humane treatment.

10. to attain peace. See NOTE on v. 6, to attain stability.

11. the other Friends. Of the king, that is, his courtiers, those present in the council mentioned in v. 5; see NOTE on 1:14, Friends. Although the phrasing “other” (λοιπο) here seems to indicate that Alcimus too was counted among them, this should not be pressed; see NOTE on 3:26, another two youths. who were hostile to Judas’ cause. There is some irony in the characterization of “Friends” by their “hostility;” for a similar trick, see Josephus, An- tiquities 14.8. For the diasporan motif of the wicked counselors who move the otherwise good king against the Jews, see NOTE on 4:45, Ptolemy son of Dorymenes. inflamed Demetrius’ anger even more (προσεπρ,σαν). LSJ, 1524 lists our verse alone for this verb. But the basic comparison of rage to fire is standard (see also v. 45, also, inter alia, 4:38; 9:7; 10:35).

12. Immediately selecting Nicanor. According to the continuation, which identifies him as the former elephantarch, one might think that he is not the same as Nicanor son of Patroclus (8:9) who played the central role in Chap- ter 8; all the more so, given the fact that the latter is said to have learned his lesson about fighting with Jews (8:36). Stern (Documents, 65) speculates that this new Nicanor was the one Polybius mentions among Demetrius’ friends who accompanied him from Rome; see Polybius 31.14.4–5 and on v. 1, In the third year thereafter. But the similarity between the phrasing of 8:9 and that of our verse, and especially the characterization of Nicanor as τρισαλιτριο« both at 8:34 and at 15:3, show that for our author, at least, the two Nicanors are one and the same. Habicht (2Macc 239, n. 9a), 474 Translation and Commentary indeed, held not only (as Stern) that this Nicanor was the one mentioned by Polybius, but also that he was in fact identical with the one mentioned in Chapter 8. In any case, whether true or only assumed by our author, the identification of the two gives our book an obvious balance: Nicanor invades twice and fails twice, once at the middle of the book and once at its end, and a holiday commemorating the latter ends the book. The importance of this balance, for our author, is underlined by a comparison with 1 Maccabees, where Alcimus’ first appeal to the king results in an invasion not by Nicanor but, rather, by Bacchides. Our author has Nicanor sent already the first time, just as in Chapter 8 he gave Nicanor the central role although judging by 1 Maccabees it was in fact quite secondary; see NOTE on 8:9, Nicanor the son of Patroclus. True, Mölleken (“Geschichtsklitte- rung”) tried to support 2 Maccabees’ version of the current story, claiming that the story about Bacchides in 1 Maccabees 7 was a mistaken and biased “import” from 1 Maccabees 9. But this is quite difficult to accept; see Bar- Kochva, JM, 345, n. 91, in the wake of Kochabi, “Sources,” 289–290. governor of Judaea. Such a Seleucid position is not known from any other source. It may have been created ad hoc for the very purpose of fighting the Judaean rebels. See Bengtson, Strategie, 2.184, n. 2. dispatched (-απωστειλε). This intensified (-) verb, which recurs in v. 27, indicates urgency; see NOTE on 6:1, dispatched. This is the sole distinction between this phrasing and the one employed in reference to Heliodorus (3:7) and Nicanor the first time around (8:9).

13. letters (πιστολ#«). Some witnesses, followed by Abel and Habicht, have ντολ«, “orders,” as in 3:7 and 4:25. But whatever the reading is, the meaning is identical; if we do not introduce “orders” into the text, we have to add the equivalent in parentheses. For the use of “letters” in the plural, see NOTE on 11:16, letters. to eliminate. See NOTE on v. 2, eliminated. and install Alcimus as the high priest. His main goal, according to v. 3. The phrasing here, which has the elimination of Judas parallel the installation of Alcimus as high priest, with nothing said of the unseating of any incumbent high priest, seems to imply that Judas was serving as high priest. Nothing like that is said in 1 Maccabees, but neither does it name any high priest at all for the period after Judas retook Jerusalem. It is obvious, however, that someone served as high priest, if only so as to allow for the Temple cult on Chapter XIV 475 the holiest day of the year, the Day of Atonement, and – certainly to judge by the behavior of his brothers – Judas would seem to be the likeliest candidate. Josephus says Judas was high priest from the conquest of Jerusalem until his death (Ant. 12.414, 419, 434). True, it is usual to reject that statement, but mainly for the following reasons: (1) the assumption that were it so it would have been reported in 1 Maccabees; (2) Josephus’ own failure to mention Judas in his summary of the history of the high priesthood in Antiquities 20; and (3) the assumption that Josephus simply – but anachronistically – assumed that Judas served as high priest, as did his brothers after him. But the silence of 1 Maccabees need not be very decisive, for the author of that work was a partisan of Simon (see esp. 1 Macc 2:65 and Ch. 14, along with our COMMENT on Ch. 8, p. 324) and so had good reason to ignore any competition; cf. below, on v. 14, And those Gentiles near Judaea. The absence of Judas’ name from the chronicle in Antiquities 20 is only one of several problems raised by that list, and may reflect no more than legitimist opposition to Judas’ high priesthood. As for the notion that Josephus was simply making an anachronistic assumption, that is of course possible, but the very fact that Josephus is willing to write openly about there not having been any high priest at all for four years after Judas’ death (Ant. 13.46) shows that he was perfectly capable of reporting anomalous situations.3 For detailed discussion (con and pro respectively), see Wagenaar, “Juda Makkabi,” also VanderKam, “People and High Priesthood,” 219–221 and idem, From Jos- hua to Caiaphas, 241–244. And note M. O. Wise, “4Q245 (PSDAN’ AR) and the High Priesthood of Judas Maccabaeus,” DSD 12 (2005) 313–362, which not only introduces a fascinating (but very fragmentary) Qumran text into the discussion but also underlines, at 357–358, that different observers may have had different views on the question. of the … Temple. This phrasing bespeaks the overlord’s attitude, according to which the high priest is only a cultic figure. As we have seen, Jewish observers preferred to give the high priest a broader responsibility; see NOTE on 3:9, high priest of the city. greatest Temple. As in v. 31 and the author’s preface (2:19).

14. And those Gentiles near Judaea. Their attitude toward the Jews is similar to that of those neighbors described at the time of “Nicanor’s” first cam-

3 Cf. Ant. 20.237, where Josephus says the city had no high priest for seven years after Alcimus’ death; Judas is not mentioned. 476 Translation and Commentary paign (8:11), although their flight is not mentioned there or anywhere else until now. This similarity is part of the identity of the two Nicanors, in our author’s eyes; see NOTE on v. 12, Immediately selecting Nicanor. Some scholars have tended to think that the present verse refers not to Gentiles but, rather – like 10:15 – to Jews, given the fact that the parallel at 1 Mac- cabees 7:5 refers, in general, to Jewish villains. This suggestion is at times also bolstered by the lack of agreement here between the masculine article οZ and the neutral noun 6νη (“Gentiles”), which suggests that the latter might be a gloss; see Habicht, 2 Macc, 272, n. 14a. Thus, according to this suggestion the 6νη should be excised, whether as a product of corruption (Wellhausen, “Wert,” 153, n. 2) or as a mistake by the author (Katz, “Text,” 17). However, such a linkage of masculine object and neutral noun is acceptable in a construction ad sensum referring to people; for a similar case, see NOTE on 8:9, from various peoples (there too with regard to 6νη), also Hanhart, Text, 33. Moreover, and decisively, the very next verse makes it clear that the reference is to Gentiles. Accordingly, we should leave in place the contradiction between our verse and 1 Maccabees 7:5 and admit that our book was not interested in reporting about Jews who opposed Judas Maccabaeus, apart from a few scattered arch-villains; see NOTES on v. 19, Posidonius,Theodotus and Mattathias, and 6:11, having been informed upon. who had fled before Judas. The very φψγαδε is usually transitive, meaning “banish,” “force to flee,” as at 9:4; but it can also have the passive meaning “live in banishment,” as in Polybius 10.22.1; see LSJ, 1959. As Kappler shows (Memoria, 55–56), the latter is close to what is required at 10:15, while in the present verse and at 5:5 what seems to be required is simply “flee.” Those – ancient (such as the Venetus) or modern (such as Ha- bicht, 2 Macc, 225, n. 5a) – who do not accept this as a nuance of “live in banishment” are forced to emend φψγαδε into φε γ. in droves. Like γελαοψ« in v. 23; the word reflects not only the large number but also, by the implicit comparison with herds of animals, our author’s scorn for them. supposing. The formulation recalls that of 5:6, which similarly expresses a scheming villain’s misplaced hopes.

15. the Gentiles’. Mentioned in v. 14. And see NOTE on 15:8, the Gentiles’ invasion. Chapter XIV 477 strewed dirt (upon their heads). For the parenthetical supplement, see 10:25.

His own people … His own portion (λαν … μερδο«). Another allusion to Deuteronomy 32: “For God’s people is His portion” (Deut 32:9; LXX: μερ« … λα«); see Introduction, pp. 21–22. It should be noted that the threat here is conceived as one against the people, not the Land or the Temple, just as the continuation of the biblical verse refers to “Jacob” being God’s “inheritance;” see also our NOTE on 6:16, His own people. Com- pare another diasporan text, 3 Macc 6:3, which, although describing a situation of Jewish suffering in exile, nevertheless persists in using “God’s portion” of the “seed of Abraham” (i.e., the whole Jewish people, wherever they may be), the descendants of “Jacob.” Cf. our NOTE on 2:4, viewed the inheritance of God. by apparition. See NOTE on 2:21, heavenly apparitions.

16. the leader’s. That is, Judas’. For the use of the participle Yγο μενο« of a ruler see Spicq, Notes, 1.348–352. In connection with the Hasmoneans, prior to their taking of the royal title, see esp. 1 Maccabees 14:41. Cf. NOTE on 1:13, when the leader came. they moved out of there … clashed. That is, Judas’ forces moved out of Je- rusalem. The scene is similar to those at the opening of Chapter 11 and after the resumption of hostilities in Chapter 13 (vv. 10–14): the Jews sitting peacefully in Jerusalem hear of an invasion and move north to meet it before it gets to the Holy City. village of Dessau. If this is the place called Adasa (Αδασα) in 1 Macca- bees 7:40 (and in LXX Josh 15:37), then it seems there is some more telescoping here, as in fact the battle at Adasa, at which Nicanor was killed, came only later and is narrated in Chapter 15; see NOTE on 15:19, in the open field. But note that according to 1 Maccabees 7:31 Nicanor clashed with Judas earlier at Kfar Shalem, which seems to have been somewhere not far north of Jerusalem; see Bar-Kochva, JM, 356–358.

17. had encountered. The use of the perfect here seems to mean that Nica- nor’s decision, described in the next verse, came despite his victory in that early encounter, thus indicating that while Nicanor had once overcome Simon he was afraid to slug it out with Judas. This would be a fine occasion for the author to use Simon as a foil for Judas, but he promptly rejects that: 478 Translation and Commentary a minor setback. Here, and in the rest of the verse, the author tries to excuse Simon: he minimizes the extent of the setback and also explains how it occurred, just as the next verse will show that no terrible consequences ensued. For a similar move, see NOTE on 12:25, in order to rescue their brethren. In this light it is difficult to see here any special desire to denigrate Simon; see our NOTE on 10:20, But Simon’s men …. minor … appeared (βραξω,« … φαντασαν). Text according to Risberg, “Anmerkungen,” 25–27, followed by Katz, “Text,” 17 and Habicht, 2 Macc, 273, n. 17a. For the first word they follow the Venetus and Lu- cianic witnesses that read βραξω«; for the second – evidence (such as Polybius 1.37.5 and 3.53) for the use of φαντασα in the sense of frighten- ing appearance. Hanhart (Text, 40, 45–46) stuck to βραδω« … φασαν, on the basis of the main witnesses. However it is very difficult to render that text. Hanhart rendered the adverb as “saumselig” (“dilatory,” “negli- gent”) and viewed it as expressing criticism of Simon, but then why should the author have exerted himself to belittle the defeat? Moreover, it is difficult to agree with Hanhart that one may translate ντιπλν φασαν as φασα (aphasia, lack of ability to speak) “caused by those who struggled against them;” Hanhart himself recognizes that such a translation of the genitive is unnatural. By the same token it is difficult to accept van Henten’s translation; he adopted βραξω«, retained φασαν, and translated “Simon, the brother of Judas, had encountered Nicanor, but had briefly stumbled because he was at once speechless about the enemy,” explaining that “apparently, the enemy embarrassed Simon for a moment” (van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 54). True, φασα may be used figu- ratively to represent an inability to react properly (so, in connection with this verse: DGE 3.633), but, again, it does not seem reasonable to take the genitive of ντιπλν to mean “about the enemy” rather than “of the enemies.” Moreover, van Henten’s reading would not explain why Simon was “speechless,” and it would seem that an author who meant that owes his readers some explanation.

18. Nicanor … somewhat afraid. According to 1 Maccabees 7:33 Nicanor followed his first defeat at Judas’ hands at Kfar Shalem with his threat at the Temple recorded below, v. 31ff. That is, the events narrated from here until v. 31 are without parallel in 1 Maccabees – quite naturally, for they focus on the negotiations in good faith between Judas and Nicanor and the ensuing friendship between the two (which meant that renewed hostility must be the doing of the new villain, Alcimus). On this distinction between the two books, see Introduction, pp. 48–49. Chapter XIV 479 manly valor. On νδραγαα see Dover, Morals, 165; Pritchett, War, 2.280–283. For a similar term, ε.ανδρα, see NOTE on 8:7, And the fame of his manly valor … high morale. On ε.χψξα, another one of those fine-sounding words which in practice mean “courage” (see the list above, p. 70), see Mauersberger, PL, 1.1052. Cf. NOTE on 7:20, exceedingly amazing and worthy of being remembered well.

19. Posidonius, Theodotus and Mattathias. Given their names, it is clear that the third was Jewish and likely that the second was as well (see NOTE on 12:19, Dositheus and Sosipater …). But our author makes no comment on this; as noted above (v. 14, And those Gentiles near Judaea), he does not like to discuss Jews who supported the Seleucids against their fellow Jews. to give and take the right hand. I.e., to agree; see NOTE on 4:34, giving him his right hand.

20. After thorough inquiries were made. The rest of the verse seems to indicate that there was considerable deliberation as to whether or not to accept the proffered agreement, a positive – and unanimous – decision being reached only after Judas gave explanations. No detail is given concerning the considerations, but we may assume that they pertained both to the terms of the agreement and to the more general question, both political and theological (see NOTE on 11:15, Maccabaeus, giving thought to the benefit), of the propriety of making any agreement at all with the foreign power. the leader. Judas, as in v. 16. had shared the matter. As above, 13:13. But there the consultation was with the elders, here with the entire army. For such deliberations in Hellenistic armies, see Granier, Heeresversammlung. the multitudes. For the senses of πλAο«, see NOTE on 3:21, community. The use of the plural, here, seems to reflect the size of the army; see too v. 41. unanimous (μοιοχφοψ). The word does not appear in LSJ, but is similar to $μχηφο«. It derives from χAφο«, the small stone used for voting; cf. NOTE on 6:8, a decree. On the praxis of such votes and the fiction that they were unanimous, see Granier, Heeresversammlung, 56, with references to Curtius 6.11.8, 7.2.7 and 9.3.16. 480 Translation and Commentary approved. See NOTE on 4:10, royal approval. the covenants. As usual, our author gives no details; perhaps v. 26 implies that Judas received the high priesthood (see Appendix 9). In any case, the term σψνAκαι implies a certain parity between the sides; see NOTE on 12:1, these covenants. This is reflected in the phrasing of the next verse too:

21. together (ε0« τ( α/τ2). The phrase recalls Acts 2:47 (π τ9 α.τ), which in turn may reflect the Qumran usage of yahad; see D. R. Schwartz, “Non-Joining Sympathizers (Acts 5,13–14),” Bib 64 (1983) 554. from each side. Emphasizing the diplomatic parity. For a similar case, cf. Jo- sephus, Antiquities 18.102. a litter came forward; they arranged chairs (προAλε … δφρα 6εσαν δφροψ«). Some staccato style runs from here until the end of v. 22. As opposed to Chapter 13 (where there is much more of it), however, here no reason is apparent. See Introduction, pp. 34–35. – Translation: δφρα I rendered “litter,” as Abel and Zeitlin; others render “chariot” (so Bévenot, Habicht, Goldstein, RSV), which is possible, but note that our author prefers >ρμα for “chariot” (9:7; 13:2). In any case, these translations distinguish between this and the chairs that were also arranged. However, given the fact that Ni- canor and Judas were to speak together “privately,” it is not at all clear why litters (or chariots) should have been brought up from each side if also chairs were arranged. Abel (Macc, 462–463) supposes that what is meant is that Nicanor and Judas each arrived in litters, alighted from them and sat in chairs that had been brought for them. That is of course possible, but one wishes the book itself had offered this explanation; and if its failure to do so is because of the brevity of the narrative here, then we wonder why it should tell us all these logistical details altogether. Moreover, there is something suspicious about the juxtaposition of such similar words. Accordingly, given the facts that δφρα (a poetic form of δφρο«), which is a relatively rare term, can mean not only “chariot” or “litter” but also “chair,” “couch” or the like (see LSJ, 438; Mauersberger, PL, 2.558), it seems likely that 6εσαν δφροψ« is only a gloss explaining προAλε … δφρα. For a similar suggestion, note that instead of δφρα 6εσαν δφροψ« the Lucianic text4

4 On which see Kappler, Memoria, 43–44. Note that the Lucianic text prepares the way for eliminating the chariots and the chairs by taking προAλε to mean Judas came forward; indeed, the statement that the chariots “came forward,” rather than “were Chapter XIV 481 reads διαφρει« 6εσαν διαφροψ« (“they set us special enclosures”), replacing the chariots and chairs with “enclosures,” meant to afford privacy and protection. Kappler (Memoria, 44) assumes this indicates Lucian did not understand the term δφρα, and therefore replaced it with something else; this is similar to our suggestion, above, that others who did understand δφρα meant “chair,” or thought that was so, chose to gloss it with a more common term for chairs.

22. something villainous. For an emphasis on the element of deception and trickery indicated by κακοψργα, see Spicq, Notes, 1.398, n. 1. they held the appropriate (4ρμ2ζοψσαν) discussion. That is, they discussed whatever was relevant to their circumstances; so Risberg, “Anmerkungen,” 27, following Polybian usage. See Mauerberger, PL 1.224–225 and 3 Mac- cabees 1:19.

23. did nothing out of place (.τοπον). The word is common enough; see for example Mauersberger, PL, 1.251. Nevertheless, it is especially appropriate here, with regard to appropriate behavior in Jerusalem; for Jerusalem as the topos par excellence, see 3:2, 5:19 and 13:23. For the formulation, cf. Philo, Legatio 297. and disbanded the herd-like (γελαοψ«). See NOTE on v. 14, in droves. For a defense of the text here, see Habicht, 2 Macc, 274, n. 23a. multitudes. I.e., the Palestinian Gentiles who had joined him, according to v. 14.

24. his soul was drawn to the man. According to 1 Maccabees 7:26–30, in contrast, Nicanor’s intentions were treacherous from the outset, and his agreement with him – a mere ploy. Each author’s version suits his purposes well: for 1 Maccabees Gentiles are always hostile, only naïve fools think

brought forward,” is somewhat strange (and Grimm, 2 Macc, 197, indeed insists that Judas is the subject of the verb – which corresponds to the fact that he makes no reference to the chariots). Given the failure of our verse to mention Judas’ name, that understanding of προAλε goes hand in hand with the Lucianic reading of 6ταε(ν), in the singular (instead of the better-testified ταντο), at the outset of the verse. However, this reading has only Judas going forward to the meeting, whereas the parity implied by παρ0 Ψκστοψ makes us expect to hear that both parties came forward. 482 Translation and Commentary otherwise (1 Macc 7:12–18), and only the Hasmoneans can save the Jews. Our author, in contrast, assumes that good subject-ruler relations between the Jews and Gentiles are the rule and that only isolated villains, on one side or the other, cause difficulties. See Introduction, pp. 48–49. Here, when Ni- canor has the opportunity not only to hear of Judas’ “manly valor” (v. 18) but also to get to know him personally, our author has a showpiece for his optimistic picture.

25. to marry and to father children. Nicanor sounds somewhat like Jere- miah (“take wives, father boys and girls … and seek the peace of the city …” – Jer 29:5–7); that is the foundation of diasporan life, and the result, for Judaea, is indeed an idyll of peace and quiet, until the next verse. That Judas married and had children is not said in 1 Maccabees or anywhere else. But in and of itself it is natural and reasonable, and just as understandable that, if true, the author of 1 Maccabees would pass over it in silence, for any children of Judas would be well-placed competitors of Simon and his sons; see NOTE on v. 13, and install Alcimus … However, if Judas indeed married only at Nicanor’s suggestion, which came only in the course of 162/161, then Judas – who was to die within a year (1 Macc 9:3) – could hardly have seen any children (and, indeed, our text does not say he did). In any case, the main point of our text is to portray the idyll between the two men, and thus to set us up for the next stage; cf. 3:1–3 and 12:1. he married, settled down, partook of life. The last instance of the mysterious staccato in our book, and the only case, it seems, in which it might be acceptable as an emphatic phrasing à la “veni, vidi, vinci;” see p. 35, n. 73. For “partook of life” (κοιννησε βοψ) see Polybius 12.25h.5: just as only he who has participated in wars should write about them, so too only he who has fathered children and lived with a wife should write about “life.” See too 3 Maccabees 4:6: πρ9« βοψ κοινναν γαμικν (“for marital partnership in life”).

26. But (δω). For such a heavy renewal of the story after an idyll, see also 3:4, 12:2, and above, v. 3. hostilely-minded toward the state (λλ2τρια … τ*ν πραγμ#τ,ν). Same phrasing: 4:21. appointed (νωδει-εν). For this verb, see NOTE on 9:14, proclaim. Chapter XIV 483 his successor (δι#δοξον). As we have noted it seems that, true or not, this means that Nicanor had appointed Judas to replace Alcimus as high priest; see Appendix 9.

27. The king lost his temper. As at 7:3, 39. immediately to dispatch. The adverb explains the intensive form of the verb; see NOTE on v. 12, dispatched. in chains. In the previous round Nicanor had been ordered to “eliminate” Judas (v. 13). Now, apparently, having seen what that came to, the king is not willing to content himself with hearing a report from Nicanor; he wants to see to the elimination of Judas himself.

28. he was disconcerted. This too might be an echo of Esther (3:15: when the good people of Susa heard of the decree to destroy the Jews, they were “disconcerted”); see NOTE on v. 6, to attain stability. See also 3 Macca- bees 3:8: there too good Gentiles are in dismay about the decision to persecute the Jews, and Philo, Legatio 209, where Petronius is at a total loss (ε 0ν μηξνοι« gν) when ordered by Gaius to defile the Temple of Jerusalem (which is of course natural, given the fact that Petronius was naturally kind and gentle – §243). Cf. below, NOTE on v. 33, this sacred enclosure of God. annulling the instructions. I.e., those made in fulfillment of his agreement with Judas; cf. NOTE on 13:25, to annul the instructions. the man (τνδρ2«) had done nothing unjust. And therefore, as all men, was entitled to fair treatment; cf. NOTE on 4:35, of the man.

29. it was impossible (ο/κ Iν). For this formulation, cf. 3:21. to oppose the king. The author continues to defend Nicanor, all the more to denigrate Alcimus. sought an appropriate opportunity (εϊκαιρον τρει). In defense of this unusual formulation against suggestions to emend it (Wilhelm, “Zu einigen Stellen,” 28; Katz, “Text,” 16–17), Hanhart (Text, 32) cites such similar expressions as ζτει ε.καιραν at Luke 22:6. See above, p. 96. 484 Translation and Commentary stratagem (στρατηγματι). This is one of the best-loved words in Hellen- istic military vocabulary. Note, for example, Frontinus’ work entitled Stra- tegmata, also Polybius 3.18.9; 5.47.4; 11.22.1; Wheeler, Stratagem.

30. But Maccabaeus, seeing. For such reflection of a character’s considerations see NOTE on 2:24, For having seen. Note that the formulation here does not reflect that of Genesis 31:2 – a passage which would surely occur to any author who liked to imitate biblical style. Our author had no such concern; see Introduction, p. 63. coarser (γροικ2τερον). Literally: “more rustic, more boorish,” the opposite of “urbane;” see NOTE on 6:23, honorable argument. See also NOTES on 15:2, wildly and barbarically, and on 15:39, wine by itself; O. Ribbeck, Agroikos: Eine ethologische Studie (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1885). than usual (ε0 ισμωνην). See NOTE on 4:11, practices.

31. out-stratagemized (στρατγηται). As usual, our author enjoys repeating words for rhetorical effect: Nicanor came with stratagem and was defeated by stratagem. Cf. NOTE on 7:39, suffering bitterly, also 9:17–18, 11:2/11:4, 15:6–7. with aplomb (γεννα,«). Lit. “nobly;” compare English “with class.” On this word-family in our book, see NOTE on 6:28, noble … nobly. the greatest and holy Temple. As in v. 13 and the introduction (2:19). the appropriate sacrifices. Whatever they may be; our author cares no more about them than about the specifics of the “holy vessels” stolen according to 5:16. According to 1 Maccabees 7:33 the priests were actually involved in sacrificing on behalf of the king, and even explained that to Nicanor, but it did not help – a point which makes it all the more clear, as that author would have it, that there was no chance of conciliation between the two sides; the same point is made, in a bloodier way, ibid. vv. 12–18. None of that appears here, of course. to hand the man over. Plain παραδδμι usually refers to turning one over to some bad fate, as here; see NOTE on 1:17, handed … over.

33. he extended his right hand toward the Sanctuary. This is likely an echo of Isaiah 10:32, which speaks of “the king of Assyria,” Sennacherib, who Chapter XIV 485

“shook his hand” at the “mountain of the house/daughter of Zion, the hill of Jerusalem.” For the Jewish understanding of invaders of Judaea as latter- day Sennacheribs, see NOTE on 8:19, Sennacherib, and H. & E. Eshel, “4Q448, Psalm 154 (Syriac), Sirach 48:20, and 4QpISAa,” JBL 119 (2000) 645–659. Note the specific reference to the Temple Mount in the present context in 1 Maccabees 7:33. Note too that rabbinic references to Nicanor’s threat to the Temple rely on the same verse from Isaiah (scholion to Megillat Ta‘anit to 13 Adar [ed. Noam, 298] and b. Ta‘anit 18b; note their use of vdy [ynm, which recalls Isaiah’s diction), as does also 4QpIsaa (see Eshel loc. cit., 652–653). – For our author, Nicanor’s hand functions both as the antithesis of those of the priests (v. 34), and of God (15:24), and, eventually, as the focus of the tit for tat response (15:30, 32). this sacred enclosure of God. Nicanor is portrayed as recognizing the place’s sanctity but as nonetheless bound to fulfill the royal command. Note, in this connection, that when referring to the “enclosure” Nicanor is made to use σηκ«, which appears only here in the Septuagint, and not the more usual τωμενο«, which our book uses three times (1:15, 10:2, 11:3) but only for pagan shrines. That is, even now our author has Nicanor as considerate as possible of Jewish sensitivities; the same recurs later in this verse as well (see NOTE on destroy the altar). Cf. above, NOTE on v. 28, he was disconcerted. to the ground. A standard threat; cf. NOTE on 8:3, leveled to the ground. destroy the altar (τ( ψσιαστριον κατασκ#χ,). Here, the noun Nicanor uses is not only not one typically used (as “enclosure” just above) for pagan institutions; it is, in fact, used by Jews (and Christians) alone; cf. NOTE on 2:19, the altar. The verb is the same as at Deuteronomy 12:3, but since the Hebrew there uses bamot, and the Septuagint uses βμο, the differentiat- ing here is all the clearer. a magnificent temple to Dionysus. On the cult of Dionysus, and doubts about its historicity in this context, see Appendix 5. “Magnificent” here is πιφανω«; for the translation see NOTE on 6:23, magnificent. By ending his threatening speech this way, Nicanor offers readers of the book, who are by now entitled to expect both divine apparitions (πιφνειαι) and tit for tat poetic justice, a hint about how to imagine this story coming to a happy end.

34. extending their hands toward heaven. For this typical gesture of prayer, see NOTE on 3:20, hands stretched out to heaven. The two camps are poised directly opposite one another: here the villain, there the chorus of the 486 Translation and Commentary righteous. He stuck out his hand in arrogance and they – in petition; he – to the Temple, but they – to heaven, knowing that the Temple enjoys heavenly protection (3:39). Note especially the neatly contrasted use of τατα in vv. 33–34: both spoke “as follows,” but he, arrogantly, “swore,” in full dependence upon himself, while they, in humility, only “said” what they had to say, to God. See Introduction, p. 76. our people. Apart from the ruminations at 6:12–16, which are a well-defined aside, this seems to be the only place in which the author explicitly identifies himself as a Jew.

35. although. For the use of such a concessive phrase with 3παρξν, compare Acts 16:20, 37 (“although we are Jews,” “although we are not Ro- mans”) along with D. R. Schwartz, “The Accusation and the Accusers at Philippi (Acts 16,20–21),” Bib 65 (1984) 360–362.

You are not in need of anything. The words recall those of Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the Temple (1 Kgs 8:27) and his letter to Hiram (2 Chr 2:5), but the term προσδε« seems to be typical specifically of Hel- lenistic Jews; see 3 Maccabees 2:9 (in a similar context), Letter of Aristeas 210; Josephus, Antiquities 8.111; Acts 17:25; etc.; Gärtner, Areopagus Speech, 215–218. It is characteristic of the difference between the two books that the parallel at 1 Maccabees 7:37, which too has the priests praying after Nicanor’s threat, has them neither raise their hands toward heaven nor say anything qualifying the importance of the Temple.

Your tenting (σκν,σι«). This term appears only here in the Septuagint. It seems to have been created so as to emphasize that God does not really reside in the Temple, just as the Bible itself frequently takes care to say that God only “is present” in it or “causes His name to be present” in it; the verbal similarity of the Greek root to the Hebrew sˇkn may have played a role. For our book’s diasporan emphasis on God’s residence being in heaven, and comparison to Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 (which insists in vv. 44–50 that God’s σκνμα was once in the Tabernacle, but not in the Temple), see NOTE on 3:39, residence in heaven, and above, p. 47.

36. And now (κα3 ν ν). Here is the transition from the “whereas” clause to the petition itself; so too at 1:6 (see NOTE ibid. on And now) and 15:23, also e.g. Numbers 14:17, Nehemiah 9:32, 1 Chronicles 17:23 and 29:13; 3 Maccabees 6:9; Josephus, Antiquities 4.43; Acts 4:29; CII, no. 358, l. 2, etc. See also Van der Horst, “Hellenistic Parallels,” 150. Chapter XIV 487 preserve forever undefiled. The use of μαντο« implies something broader than the avoidance of merely ritual impurity; see NOTE on 5:16, abominable hands. Our author has mentioned various villains who have already “defiled” the Temple, one way or another, and were punished (on Jason, Menelaus, and Antiochus Epiphanes see, 4:19, 5:16, 7:34, and 9:13), and use of the same word here therefore encourages the reader to believe that the priests’ prayer will indeed be answered. So too, when this final round of our book’s story ends the author will demonstratively reuse the present phrasing so as to highlight the fact that the prayer was in fact answered (15:34). only recently has been purified. A fact which would make its defilement even worse; see NOTE on 13:11, only shortly before revived its spirit.

37. Someone informed. The Greek avoids the name by using a verb in the passive (μην η), just as at 6:11; the informer’s identity is not important to the story. Moreover, if – as is likely – he was a Jew, our author, who prefers to present the Jews as unified, apart from a few bad apples, would not like to tell us. See Introduction, 49–50, 74–75.

Razis. The origin of this name is not clear. See Goldstein, 2 Macc, 491–492; Hanhart, Text, 47–48, n. 1; R. Zadok, “On the Post-Biblical Jewish Onom- asticon and Its Background,” in: Kasher & Oppenheimer, Dor Le-Dor, v (in English); Ilan, Lexicon, 354. Goldstein and Zadok suggest an Iranian origin. However, since there is no other evidence for the use of this name by Jews, Goldstein went on to suggest that the name was chosen so as to allude to Isaiah 24:16 (“ … I pine away, I pine away [razi li, razi li] …”); the text goes on to speak of someone who flees from one source of danger only to fall into another, but also – perhaps – of resurrection. Both of the latter themes would be appropriate to Razis’ story. one of the elders of Jerusalem. This probably means not merely that he was old, but, rather, that he was a member of Jerusalem’s gerousia, last heard from in 13:13; see also NOTE on v. 38, had brought in a decision. For πρεσβ τερο« in the sense of “member of city council” see Schürer, History, 3/1,102. However, the statement there about the lack of early evidence for such a title in Jewish communities should now be corrected on the basis of a fragmentary papyrus of the second century BCE that refers to “the Jewish elders” (as well as “the Jewish archons”) in one or two places in Egypt; see Griechische Urkundenpapyri der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek, I (Stuttgart 1986), no. 49, pp. 8–10 (D. Hagedorn); van der Horst, Philo’s Flaccus, 168–169. 488 Translation and Commentary a man who loved his fellow-citizens (φιλοπολτη«). This term appears in the Septuagint only here, and – surprisingly enough – LSJ (1938) offers no earlier evidence for it. As for the orientation around the polis that it bespeaks, see Introduction, pp. 6–7.

“Father of the Jews.” For this type of honorific title cf. parens plebis Romanae (Livy 6.14.5); van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 206–7; A. Al- földi, Der Vater des Vaterlandes im römischen Denken (Darmstadt: Wis- senschaftliche, 1971); for Greek notions of the ruler as father, see ibid. 118–121 (= MH 11 [1954] 139–142).

38. times of strife. That is, during the decrees; see NOTE on v. 3, in the times of strife. Razis’ conduct is presented as the opposite of Alcimus’. had brought in a decision (κρσιν ε0σενηνεγμωνο«) for Judaism. On “Ju- daism” see NOTE on 2:21, for Judaism. What these words mean is not at all clear. Risberg (“Anmerkungen,” 30–31) linked them to “elder,” which he took to mean member of the gerousia, and concluded that Razis had published its decisions in support of Judaism; perhaps he was its scribe. But Risberg read “decisions” in the plural; there is no support for that, and so his interpretation is very difficult to maintain. Another path is taken by Abel and Goldstein ad loc., followed by van Henten (Martyrs, 93): building on the judicial sense of krisis, they translate as if Razis had been tried for having practiced Judaism. This is possible, but apart from being less than natural it also leaves open (as Goldstein notes – 2 Macc, 492) the weighty question as to why, if tried, Razis did not meet the same fate as those of Chapters 6–7. It cannot be that our author would have wanted us to start suspecting some dishonorable story here, but that would seem to be inevi- table if we adopt that interpretation. In sum, it seems best to assume that all we have here is a fancy way of saying that Razis had himself “decided” for Judaism. and with complete intensity. The author loves “with complete” formulations; see NOTE on 3:1, in complete peace. body and soul. A typically Greek and non-Hebraic dyad, that also appears here at 6:30 and 15:30; see also NOTE on 7:9, raise us up and on 7:16, although you are bound to perish. Here the dual phrasing prepares the reader for their separation in the immediate sequel. Compare, for example, the first section of Eleazar ben Yair’s second speech at Masada, which is devoted to proving that it is good for the soul to separate itself from the body Chapter XIV 489

(Josephus, War 7.341–357); on the Greek background, see M. Luz, “Elea- zar’s Second Speech on Masada and Its Literary Precedents,” RhM n. F. 126 (1983) 25–43.

39. more than 500 soldiers. The next verse will explain why he needed so many.

40. For he thought to cause them suffering by arresting him. Which is why such a large force was used. We have translated according to Hanhart’s text. Abel (Macc, 468) and Goldstein (2 Macc, 493–494) have suggested, on the basis of secondary witnesses, to read here, instead (Abel) or alongside (Goldstein) of “by arresting,” the verb λογσh or the like (cf. NOTE on 12:24, for whom no one would show any consideration). This would mean that Nicanor wanted to demonstrate his lack of consideration for Razis (Goldstein) or his desire to make him disappear (Abel). One way or another, and with or without such clarification, the verse explains that such a large force was needed because it was expected that the arrest of such an important Jew would arouse grief, and so perhaps unrest, among the Jews.

41. When the hordes. Nicanor’s 500 men.

42. wanting to die nobly (ε/γεν*«) … his own dignity (ε/γενεα«) … outraged (βρισ ναι). So too the next verse as well (γεννα«). Razis, as Eleazar before him (6:24–25), wants to be assured that his death will not fall short of his life nor leave any stain on his good name. But while Eleazar let others kill him, here being killed by others is itself considered to be de- filing, so Razis must kill himself. On suicide as honorable see Eckstein, Moral Vision, 40–54, and A. J. L. van Hooff, From Autothanasia to Sui- cide: Self-Killing in Classical Antiquity (London & New York: Routledge, 1990), esp. 107–120 on suicide so as to avoid humiliation. For the formulation here, cf. the end of Eleazar ben Yair’s first speech at Masada, which emphasizes that that which he proposes will allow the women to die “undefiled” (ν βριστοι – War 7.334). unseemly (να-,«). Razis, as Eleazar, chose to die in a “seemly” way; see NOTE on 6:27, worthy (.-ιο«) of old age.

43. did not manage to place the sword-stroke well. Van Henten (Martyrs, 145–150) aptly compares to this account those of the suicide of Menoeceus, according to Euripides’ Phoenician Women, Statius’ Thebais, and other ver- 490 Translation and Commentary sions. Menoeceus, who died for the salvation of his city, first tried to kill himself by a sword-thrust (Euripides, ll. 1090–1092; Statius 10.774–776), and when that failed he hurled himself down amongst the enemy’s lines (Statius, ll. 778–779) and then indeed died. For the comparison of Eur- ipides’ and Statius’ versions, see D. W. T. C. Vessey, “Menoeceus in the The- baid of Statius,” CP 66 (1971) 236–243. On that story’s importance for ours, see Introduction, p. 65. manfully (νδρ,δ*«). Same adverb: 1 Maccabees 6:31. But the notion is well at home in our book; see NOTE on v. 18, manly valor. flung himself down (κατεκρμνισεν). This too appears in the Menoeceus story; see our NOTE on this verse, did not manage … For the motif elsewhere in classical stories of those who “killed themselves for” something, see Van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 145. See also NOTE on 6:10, flung them down.

44. he landed in the midst. Compare Statius, Thebais, ll. 778–779, on Me- noeceus: “super medias acies … iecit.”

45. burning up in rage. For this image, see NOTE on v. 11, inflamed Deme- trius’ anger. his blood flowing like a fountain (κροψνηδ2ν). An excellent example of “pathetic” historiography; see p. 79. For the same word and picture, but in the gloating account of the well-deserved death of a villain, see Philo, In Flaccum 190. Van Henten (Martyrs, 149–150) noted the special emphasis upon blood in the story of Menoeceus too; it may have contributed to its role in our story too. For the Jewish background of this emphasis, see NOTE on 8:3, blood which was calling out.

46. calling upon the ruler … to return them. For the belief in bodily resurrection expressed here, see NOTES on 7:9, raise us up and on 12:43, resurrection. life and spirit. The same duality as in 7:22–23, although there reversed. he passed away. But of course, as appropriate for someone who may expect resurrection, he did not “pass out of life” (4:7) or “leave life behind” (10:13); see NOTE on 7:14, pass away from among men. Chapter XIV 491

Bibliography

Bar-Kochva, JM, 349–351. van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 116–119. van Henten and Avemarie, Martyrdom and Noble Death, 70–72. Kochabi, “Sources.” Mölleken,“Geschichtsklitterung.” Wagenaar, “Juda Makkabi.” Wellhausen, “Wert,” 152–155. 492 Translation and Commentary

Chapter XV

On the Way to the Final Showdown

(1) Nicanor, upon receiving notice that Judas’ men were in the vicinity of Samaria, determined to attack them in complete security on the day of rest. (2) When those Jews who had been forced to come along with him said, “You should not at all be so wildly and barbarically destructive; rather, give honor to the day which has been most honored with sanctity by Him who oversees all,” (3) the thrice-accursed man inquired, “Is there a ruler in heaven who decreed the celebration of the Sabbath day?” (4) When they declared, “Yes – the living Lord, He, the ruler in heaven, is the one who commanded the observance of the seventh day,” (5) he said: “And I, ruler on the earth, am he who decrees that you take up arms and carry out the royal commissions.” Nevertheless, he did not successfully carry out his abominable design. (6) And so Nicanor, on the one hand, his neck outstretched in complete pretence, set his mind upon erecting a common trophy (celebrating his victory over) Judas’ men. (7) But Maccabaeus, on the other hand, was without letup in his total faith, with complete hope that assistance would be made available to them by the Lord, (8) and encouraged his men not to fear the Gentiles’ invasion, keeping rather in their mind the saving acts from heaven which had been done for them in the past and the present expectation of victory that the All-Ruler would supply them. (9) Reassuring them out of the Law and the prophets, and also reminding them of the struggles which they had accomplished, he brought them to a better morale. (10) Then, after awakening their fervor he exhorted them also by pointing to the Gentiles’ faithlessness and their violation of oaths. (11) Each one of them he armed not with the security that comes from shields and spears, but with the encouragement of the good words, and by setting out before them a dream (he had had) which was more trustworthy than anything else he gladdened them all. Chapter XV 493

Judas Maccabaeus’ Dream

(12) Its appearance was as follows: Onias – the former high priest, a fine and good man who received others humbly, was mild-mannered and a proper conversationalist and since childhood had always devoted himself to all that pertains to virtue – having stretched out his hands was praying down for the entire Jewish corps. (13) Thereupon appeared a man of distinguished gray hair and grandeur, about whom there was a preeminence which was somehow amazing and most magnificent. (14) And after Onias responded, saying, “This lover of his brethren who offers many prayers for the people and the Holy City is Jeremiah, the prophet of God,” (15) Jeremiah, stretching out his right hand to give Judas a golden broadsword, addressed him as follows while handing it over: (16) “Take this holy broadsword as a gift from God, with which you shall shatter the enemies.” (17) Encouraged by Judas’ words, which were very fine and capable of propelling (his men) to virtue and making men out of the souls of youths, they decided not to tarry but, rather, to throw themselves nobly into battle and – with all manly valor interweaving themselves among (the enemy) – to settle the matter, due to the danger facing the city, the holy things and the Temple. (18) For fear for their wives and children, also brothers and other kin, weighed upon them in smaller measure; greatest and first was their fear for the Sanctuary which had been made holy. (19) And among those who had been left behind in the city too there was no merely marginal distress, for they were upset about the (upcoming) assault in the open field.

Judas Maccabaeus’ Prayer

(20) And while they were all expecting the coming decision, and the enemies had already come together, and the army had been arrayed and the beasts had been stationed in an opportune place and the cavalry had been posted in the wings, (21) Maccabaeus – seeing the arrival of the hordes, the diversity of weapons with which they were equipped, and the wildness of the beasts – raised up his hands toward heaven and called upon the miracle- working Lord, for he knew that it was not through weapons, but, rather, according to how He deems, that victory is secured for them who deserve it. (22) And calling upon Him he spoke in the following manner: “You, O Sov- ereign, sent out Your angel in the days of King Hezekiah of Judah, and he killed about 185,000 men in the camp of Sennacherib. (23) And now, Ruler 494 Translation and Commentary of the heavens, send a good angel before us (to inspire in our enemies) fear and trembling. (24) Let those who come with blasphemy against Your holy people be terrified by Your great arm.” And he, on the one hand, finished up with those words.

The Final Battle

(25) Then Nicanor’s men, on the other hand, moved forward accompanied by trumpets and war-songs, (26) and Judas’ men, accompanied by in- vocations and prayers, clashed with the enemies. (27) And while fighting with their hands, in their hearts they were praying to God, and they laid low no fewer than 35,000 of them, having been gladdened greatly by the appearance of God.

Nicanor’s Corpse and Nicanor’s Day

(28) Withdrawing in joy when the job was done, they identified the fallen Nicanor together with his armor. (29) There ensued outcry and tumult, and they blessed the Ruler in the ancestral language. (30) And he who with his whole body and soul had taken the lead in the struggle on behalf of his fellow citizens, and who still maintained his youthful goodwill toward the members of his people, ordered them to cut off Nicanor’s head and hand, together with the shoulder, and to bring them to Jerusalem. (31) When he arrived there he first called together the members of his people and had the priests stand before the altar; then he sent for the people of the Akra. (32) After showing them the abominable Nicanor’s head and the blasphemer’s hand, which he had stretched out when boasting against the holy house of the All-Ruler, (33) cutting the tongue of the impious Nicanor out of his head he said to give it piecemeal to the birds, and to hang up his arms of folly opposite the Sanctuary. (34) And turning toward heaven they all blessed the God who had become manifest, saying, “Blessed be He who preserved His own Place undefiled!” (35) And he fastened Nicanor’s torso to the Akra, as visible proof for all of the Lord’s assistance. (36) And they all decided, in a decree made in common, not at all to allow that day to remain unmarked, but, rather, to keep as special the thirteenth day of the twelfth month (which is called “Adar” in the Syrian language), the day before Mor- dechai’s Day. Chapter XV 495

Author’s Conclusion

(37) Since the affairs concerning Nicanor turned out this way, and ever since the city was taken over by the Hebrews it has been in their hands, here I too will conclude this account. (38) And if it is proper and to the point in its formulation, that is what I wanted; but if it is cheap and middling, that is what I could attain. (39) For just as it is inimical to drink wine by itself, so too is it with water; but the same way that wine mixed with water makes for pleasure, delight and gratification, so too does something of the (proper) construction of an account bring delight to the ears of them who read the composition.

So let the end be here.

COMMENT

Having completed the Razis narrative the story reverts to Nicanor’s search for Judas. The Razis story not only illustrated how bad things might get, but also, as it were, allowed Judas and his men time to relocate to Samaria and Nicanor time to hear of that.1 Thus, the stage has been set for the final showdown, which is precisely what the present chapter describes. The Razis story prepares our chapter in another more fundamental way as well. Namely, just as readers know that the martyrdoms of Chapters 6–7 prepared the way for the victory over Nicanor in Chapter 8, so too when reading the story of Razis, which is introduced right after his threats to Judas and the Temple, they should realize that it will allow for a successful resolution of that crisis. Such readers will come to Chapter 15 on the basis of expectations built on Chapter 8, and they will not be disappointed. Indeed, the author gives us many signals that Chapter 15 should be read as a second, but more final, version of Chapter 8. Both describe head-on clashes between Judas’ forces and Nicanor’s; both portray the Jewish anxiety, prayers, and motivational speeches – even citing the same biblical precedent – prior to the actual fighting; both term Nicanor “thrice-accursed;” and both end in his defeat. The major difference between the two chapters, made all the more salient by their general similarity, is that Nica- nor himself escaped the first clash and so all the Jews could do was hope

1 For a similar move (the way the martyrdom stories allow Judas time to get organized between 5:27 and 8:1), see NOTE on 6:18, was being forced. 496 Translation and Commentary that this beginning of grace would come to complete fruition (8:29), whereas this time Nicanor is killed, his body is demonstratively dismem- bered and displayed, and a holiday is established to commemorate the event – which is taken to mean the final salvation of Jerusalem, hence allowing the author to conclude his entire narrative. Historically, it is enough to note that the chapter parallels the last twelve verses of 1 Maccabees 7, which too end up with Nicanor dead and decapi- tated and Judaea enjoying peace. Typically, that account gives us geographical details, about the location of the battle (v. 39) and the rout following it (v. 45), but there are no real contradictions – apart, of course, from the basic fact that our book considers this victory final whereas 1 Maccabees, which has a much longer story to tell, concludes its account here by noting that the peace and quiet achieved by the victory were to last only for “a few days” (7:50).

NOTES

15:1. Nicanor, upon receiving notice. A usual way to resume the narrative, as in Chapters 13 and 14.

Samaria. This verse supports the view that the “wilderness” mentioned as a refuge in 1 Maccabees 2:29 was in Samaria; see NOTE on 5:27, fled to the mountains. in complete security. The same phrase appears at 3:22, but there the hope was in a good cause and was ultimately justified, whereas here the opposite is the case. on the day of rest. Yet another way of referring to the Sabbath, alongside “Sabbath” (5:25, 6:6 etc.) and “seventh day” (v. 4 and 6:11); for such variation, cf. p. 68. Here it is evident that Nicanor thought that the Jews would not defend themselves, or at least would not be well-prepared for battle, if attacked on the Sabbath. Its sanctity, and Jewish unwillingness to fight on it, are underscored often in our book; see NOTE on 5:25, pretended.

2. Jews who had been forced to come along with him. At face value, the reference is to Jews who had been conscripted into service. Some scholars preferred to imagine that it refers to loyalist Jews who willingly joined Nica- nor’s force, and assume that our author is hiding the truth; so for example, Wellhausen, “Wert,” 153, n. 2; Bar-Kochva, JM, 489; Meyer, Ursprung, Chapter XV 497

245. (This is similar to what was suggested earlier concerning 6:11 and 14:14; see NOTE on 14:14, And those Gentiles near Judaea). Building on that hypothesis and contributing his own additional assumption that Nica- nor had relatively few troops at his disposal (see NOTE on v. 27, no fewer than 35,000), Meyer further supposed that Nicanor in fact relented and did not attack Judas on the Sabbath. But all of this runs counter to the plain wording of the text, and also requires us to assume that loyalist Jews who willingly supported the Seleucid cause nevertheless took the Sabbath so seriously that they would allow it to interfere with military operations. That assumption was impossible for our author, if not for us.

“You should not at all be … destructive. Some would translate as if they called upon Nicanor not to ruin the Jews; so Abel and Goldstein, who both use “massacre.” But it seems better to take it to mean that he should not destroy himself, as if they were looking out for his well-being; cf. 7:17–18. wildly and barbarically. The former, γρ«, implies something like “beastly,” like γριτη« in v. 21. For its use in regard to people, note both its linkage here with “barbaric” and its verbal similarity to 5γροικο«, both of which lead us to a familiar characterization of villains; see NOTE on 14:30, coarser.

Him who oversees all (το π#ντα φορ*ντο«). A frequent motif in our book; see NOTE on 3:39, watches over (with reference to CII, no. 725).

3. thrice-accursed man. Nicanor’s title in 8:34 too. This colorful term will signal to the attentive reader that this chapter should be read on the background of Chapter 8 (see our opening COMMENT). It is also one of the main pillars of our assumption that the author took both Nicanors to be one and the same; see NOTE on 14:12, Immediately selecting Nicanor.

“Is there a ruler in heaven. (ε0 Kστιν ν ο/ραν9 δψν#στη«). We read, despite Hanhart, according to those witnesses which leave “ruler” anarthrous, for Nicanor is denying the existence of any such ruler; as is noted by Ha- bicht (2 Macc, 277, n. 3b) and Goldstein (2 Macc, 495), a definite article would spoil the sense. For a question in direct speech beginning with ε+, see NOTE on 7:7, Will you eat. who decreed (προστεταξ1«). Just as “ruler,” so too the verb indicates the comparison to a human king; cf. NOTE on 7:30, decree of the king … 498 Translation and Commentary

4. declared (ποφηναμων,ν). A very formal response, just as at the other occurrence of this verb: 6:23. The formality of the response is also reflected in its length, in its repetition of the terms of the question (“ruler in heaven”), and in its abstention from the use of “and” between its clauses. the living Lord. For this standard epithet, see NOTE on 7:33, living Lord.

5. And I, ruler on the earth (Κγ1 … δψν#στη« π3 τ« γ«). Here, with no kid-gloves, is the villain’s hybris-full challenge. In this final chapter of the book there will be no ambiguities, nor any authorial joking of the type found in Chapter 9. For other Jewish portrayals of similar challenges, see Judith 6:2, where Holofernes, the Assyrian commander, asks rhetorically “Who is God apart from Nebuchadnezzar?!,” and Psalms of Solomon 2:29–30, where a Jewish writer gloatingly writes of Pompey: “He said, ‘I shall be the lord of the earth and the sea!’ and did not recognize that God is the great one, the powerful one in His great strength; He is king over the heavens and judges kings and rulers.” royal commissions. On ξρεα see NOTE on 7:24, commissions. he did not successfully carry out. As is usual in the second half of the book, the author allays our fears in advance; cf. 8:11; 9:4, 18; and 11:4.

6. And so Nicanor, on the one hand. As with Heliodorus (3:22–23), so too here the camps are set against each other, as if on a stage; see Introduc- tion, p. 76. This verse opens a circle; for its closing, see NOTE on v. 24, And he, on the one hand. Cf. NOTE on 3:22, on the one hand, and on 14:34, extending their hands toward heaven. But within the larger circle there is also an internal opposition, between Nicanor, who (as Antiochus – 9:8) came in “complete pretence,” and Judas, who came “in complete hope” (v. 7). his neck outstretched. This picturesque image, which recurs in the Septua- gint only at 3 Maccabees 3:19, amounts to our “with nose in the air;” cf. Psalms 10:4: “the wicked man, given the height of his nose, does not seek Him.” Use of this term allows our author not only to flaunt a rich vocabulary in re arrogance (cf. p. 69) but also to prepare the ground for presenting Nicanor’s decapitation (v. 30) as a case of making the punishment fit the crime, no less than the sawing off of his arm (15:30//14:33). in complete pretence. As if no human limitations could affect him, just as Antiochus (9:8) – and we all know what happened to him. Chapter XV 499 erecting a common trophy. That is, one to commemorate his victory over all of them together. On the translation and realia here, see esp. Goldstein, 2 Macc, 496. On trophies, see also our NOTE on 5:6, erecting trophies.

7. that assistance would be made available. For ντλημχι« (“assistance”) see Welles, RC, 314; Deissmann, Bible Studies, 92. For its non-technical sense, see NOTE on 11:26, taking care. However, the term appears frequently in Ptolemaic documents in the more or less technical sense of assistance from the king; at times it comes with the verb τψγξν, as here and in 3 Maccabees 2:33. The term appears in the same sense and the same context in the account of Nicanor’s first campaign (8:19), just as other formulations from that chapter are echoed here (in vv. 8–9, 12, 22); we have already noted the return of “thrice-accursed” (v. 3//8:34). These all contribute to the unity of our book as one built around two clashes with Nicanor.

8. encouraged (παρεκ#λει). On the verb and its nuances, see NOTE on 7:24, his appeal. The words of encouragement (παρκλησι« – v. 11) offered below are especially reminiscent of Judas’ speech prior to Nicanor’s first invasion (8:16–20). the Gentiles’ invasion (τ*ν ν*ν Kφοδον). Just as 14:15 juxtaposed Nica- nor, “Gentiles,” and “invasion,” this verse does the same, which serves to remind us that Chapters 14–15 tell one story; see NOTE on 14:18, Nica- nor … somewhat afraid. For the translation, see Appendix 3, p. 534. the saving acts (βοηματα) from heaven which had been done for them in the past. Cf. 8:19–20 and, for the terminology, see NOTE on 8:24, ally. the All-Ruler. For this epithet see NOTE on 1:25, All-Ruler, and especially, in the present context – 8:18. It will reappear, appropriately, after the victory – v. 32.

9. the Law and the prophets. Cf. 8:19. This formulation seems to indicate that, at least for our author, the third division of the Bible was not yet recognized as such; see NOTE on 2:13, concerning the kings …

10. awakening their fervor. For a similar formulation see 7:21, but there the reference is to the “awakening” of an exceptional woman to manly fervor whereas here the reference is to run-of-the-mill men who have such fervor but it needs to be awakened. 500 Translation and Commentary exhorted (παργγειλεν). See NOTE on 12:5, he gave his men instructions.

Gentiles’ faithlessness and their violation of oaths. In context, the reference is to the breach of covenant that Demetrius forced upon Nicanor – 14:26–29.

11. the security that comes from shields and spears. I.e., the type of “complete security” upon which Nicanor depended (v. 1). good words. Of his speech; on its success, see v. 17 (where his words are said to be “very fine”). by setting out before them (προσε-ηγησ#μενο«). LSJ (1509) lists our verse alone for this verb. a dream which was more trustworthy. Our author apparently knows that some dreams are not trustworthy. See, for an example from another second century BCE source, Agatharcides’ story (apud Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.206–7 = Stern, GLA I, no. 30a) of the foolish and fateful mistake made by Stratonice due to her superstitious dependence upon a dream. See also Sirach 34:5–7 (“Divinations and omens and dreams are folly … Unless they are sent from the Most High … For dreams have deceived many …”) and Cicero, De divinatione 2.62.127: he asks if anyone would dare to say that all dreams are true, and although he continues to say that some are, he emphasizes our inability to know which and declares his scorn concerning the whole topic. For similar thoughts, although with less scorn, see Aristotle’s work on divination based on dreams; for an annotated edition, see D. Ross, Aristotle: Parva naturalia (Oxford: Clarendon, 1955). In general, see Lewis, Interpretation of Dreams. than anything else. We translated Hanhart’s text (3πωρ τι); for its defense, see esp. Grimm, 2 Macc, 205 and Goldstein, 2 Macc, 498. Some scribes seem not to have recognized the expression in the sense of “more than everything” or “very much,” and therefore corrected to dπαρ, “vision;” that reading is defended by Abel, Macc, 473, who is followed by Habicht, 2 Macc, 277. It creates a nice intensification: what Judas saw was not only a dream (while asleep) but a vision as well (when awake, closer to prophecy). he gladdened them all. For this joy see also v. 27. For similar encouragement of soldiers on the basis of a dream of heavenly help, see Polybius 10.11.5–8 (cited by Doran, Temple Propaganda, 73). Chapter XV 501

12. Onias. The hero of Chapters 3–4. Reintroducing him now hints that we are now on the verge of bringing the story to its close. a fine and good man … On καλ9« κα/ γα« as the ideal of a Greek gentleman, see Dover, Morality, 41–45; Danker, Benefactor, 319–320 and esp. F. Bourriot, Kalos Kagathos – Kalokagathia (2 vols.; Spudasmata 58.1–2; Hildesheim: Olms, 1995). On its usage here: Himmelfarb, “Ju- daism and Hellenism,” 35–36. The present verse piles up all the Hellenistic educational ideals;2 on “a proper conversationalist” see Himmelfarb, ibid., 36–37. The fact that Onias had devoted himself to virtue “since childhood” (κ παιδ«) makes him like Eleazar (6:23) but is also reminiscent of Poly- bius’ praise for Scipio Aemilianus, who “from the earliest age” (κ τA« πρτη« Yλικα«) developed his σφροσ νη and καλοκγαα (his moderation and gentlemanliness – 31.28.10) – both like Onias (4:37 and here). virtue. Which is how our author summed up Eleazar’s characteristics too; see NOTE on 6:31, virtue. having stretched out his hands was praying down (κατεξεσ αι). Our author strives to be precise: as opposed to Judas (v. 21) and others (3:20, 14:34) who raise their hands to heaven and pray to it, which is presumably above, Onias – who is in heaven – spreads out his hands like a priest on a raised platform blessing his congregation. For priests holding out their hands toward the people in blessing them from above see m. Tamid 7:2//m. Sotah 7:6 (using Leviticus 9:22) and Sirach 50:20. entire Jewish corps (σστημα). For the military sense of this term see 8:5, got his corps together. True, sometimes it refers to the Jewish “community;” so, for example, in 3 Maccabees 3:9 and 7:3; Josephus, Against Apion 1.32, etc.; for use of it in Egypt and elsewhere for corporations see Kasher, Jews in … Egypt, 229–230, also T. Drew-Bear, “An Act of Foundation at Hy- paipa,” Chiron 10 (1980) 521 (“guild,” “corpus”). Accordingly, some have preferred that translation here too; so Habicht (“Gemeinde”) and Abel (“nation”). However, Abel’s position (Macc, 474) is perplexing, for he himself notes the “unité de vocabulaire” in the two verses – so if he translated “corps de troupe” at 8:5, why move to “nation” here? In any case, it seems that the military context here, as at 8:5, should govern the translation.

2 Cf. “he is a gentleman and a scholar, a fine judge of women, whiskey and racing horses” – still current, if already with humor, in the Maryland of my youth. 502 Translation and Commentary

13. Thereupon (εS 7 οTτ,«). For this expression, which combines timing and causality, see NOTE on 4:22, Thereupon. appeared. As at all critical moments in this book; see NOTE on 2:21, heavenly apparitions.

14. And after Onias responded, saying (ποκρι ωντα … ε0πεν). Since there is no question which Onias needed to “answer,” it seems that we should take this as a biblicizing phrase (see e.g. Deut 21:7; 25:9), which the author apparently thought fitting when referring to a biblical prophet. In 1 Maccabees, by way of contrast, such usage is of course at home; see 1 Maccabees 2:17, κα/ πεκρησαν … κα/ ε&παν, there too without any preceding question. lover of his brethren (φιλ#δελφο«). A common epithet for Hellenistic kings, such as Ptolemy II in the third century BCE and two Pergamene kings (Eu- menes III and Attalus II) in the second. See, for example, OGIS, nos. 302–304. offers many prayers. For Jeremiah as one who prays for his people see Jere- miah 7:16; 11:14; 14:11 (here God warns him not to, which seems to mean his prayers are effective), etc. For post-biblical literature, see Wolff, Jeremia, 83–89. At pp. 82–83 Wolff notes the similarity between Moses and Jere- miah in this regard; cf. NOTE on 2:4, the mountain from which Moses. See also N. Johansson, Parakletoi (Lund: Gleerup, 1940) 16–18. the Holy City. This term appeared alongside Onias in the very first verse of the story (3:1); its recurrence here, again with Onias, amounts to the closing of a circle – another indication that things are moving toward the finale. (Otherwise the term appears only in one of the opening epistles [1:12] and at 9:14.)

15. to give Judas. For similar scenes, in East and West, see Doran, Temple Propaganda, 72–75 and D. Flusser, “Hystaspes and John of Patmos,” in: S. Shaked (ed.), Irano-Judaica (Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1982) 52–53; van der Kooij, “Use,” 134–135. Note esp. Ezekiel, Exagoge, lines 68–82 (Jacobson, Exagoge, p. 54), where Moses receives a sceptre and a crown from heaven. However, as van Henten (“Judas the Maccabee’s Dream”) has shown, while there is no close biblical parallel there are very precise parallels in Egypt, both of the Pharaohs and of the Ptolemaic period, where numerous monuments and texts depict gods transferring swords to kings, who Chapter XV 503 are then victorious and humiliate their foes – all as in the present chapter. In this connection we should recall that Jeremiah fled to Egypt and was especially popular among the Jews of Egypt; see NOTE on 2:1, the prophet Jeremiah. Thus, both the prophet’s identity and his symbolic gesture, here, bespoke the interests of Egyptian Jews in particular and were calculated to enlist their identification with Judas. broadsword (U,μφααν). This seems to be what is meant, although there is room for doubt about its precise nature; see Bar-Kochva, JM, 16, n. 17. Similarly, it is difficult to know whether our author had any particular reason for using other terms elsewhere, such as φο« (12:22; 14:41) and μξαιρα (5:3), or whether, as usual, he was just varying his vocabulary; see Introduction, p. 68.

16. shatter ( ρασει«) the enemies. As God already shattered Antiochus IV (9:11: τεραψσμωνο«).

17. propelling (his men) to virtue. Like that of Onias himself, according to v. 12. making men … manly valor (πανδρVσαι … ε/ανδρα«). See NOTE on 8:7, And the fame of his manly valor … not to tarry. Translation according to A. Vaccari, “Note critiche ed eseg- etiche,” Bib 28 (1947), 404–406. Hanhart gives μ" στρατε εσαι, in accordance with most witnesses, but the plain meaning of this would be “not to go out to war,” which is the opposite of the decision taken here. Hanhart (Text, 41–42) attempted to resolve this problem by suggesting that the verb refers only to taking the field but not to actually beginning the fight, in which case our verse means that they decided not only to go out to war but also to “throw themselves into battle.” But this seems to be too much to insert without more help from the author, who should have made the distinction clearer. Moreover, if some ancient scribes missed the point (as Hanhart notes), and therefore changed the verb to μ" στρατοπεδε εσαι, “not to encamp,” and if Abel and Habicht felt the need to delete the negation (μ), we must admit that there is a real problem here. To resolve it, it seems best to take one of Vaccari’s two alternative suggestions that led him to “not to tarry:” either translate μ" στρατε εσαι that way or emend it to μ" στρα- γε εσαι (or στραγγε εσαι), a rarer verb with that meaning. For the latter alternative, see LSJ, 1651, s.v. στραγγε ομαι, which refers inter alia to LXX Judges 19:8; see also LXX II Regnorum 15:28. 504 Translation and Commentary interweaving themselves (μπλακωντε«). This root usually denotes the braiding of hair, wickets, ropes and the like; see Mauersberger, PL, 1.769–770. Here it refers to hand-to-hand combat with the enemy as opposed to the mere exchange of projectiles from a distance. to settle the matter. See NOTE on 13:13, settle the matter. the city, the holy things and the Temple. The order expresses our author’s agenda, not Nicanor’s – who had threatened the Temple and not the city (14:33). So too 4:2, 48; cf. above, pp. 6–7.

18. wives and children, also brothers and other kin. The lack of definite articles or possessive adjectives is striking. Although it is clear that the reference is to the soldiers’ families, the general phrasing underlines, as it were, the point that no one in the world was more important for them than: the Sanctuary (ναο ) which had been made holy. For the translation, see NOTE on 4:14, the Temple. Having referred to the Temple in the preceding verse, the author is now both varying his language and also intensifying the issue, by referring to the most sacred part of the Temple.

19. those who had been left behind in the city too. I.e., just as those at the battlefield. As if in a play, the author describes the fear of those awaiting the results of the battle. Compare for example the opening of Aeschylus, The Persians, also above, 3:14. no merely marginal distress. I.e., a serious one. For such a double negative to describe the Jerusalemites’ distress, see also 3:14 and our NOTE there on quite considerable. in the open field. For the use of dπαιρο« in battle accounts see Poly- bius 1.12.4, 1.30.6 etc.; LSJ, p. 1851. As for the battle’s location, as usual there is not a word in our book; 1 Maccabees 7:40, 45, places it at Adasa, which, according to Josephus (Ant. 12.408), was 30 stadia away from Beth Horon, northwest of Jerusalem. On the battle, which took place in the early spring (v. 36) of 161 BCE, see Bar-Kochva, JM, 359–375 (363–365 on identifying the site).

20. while they were all expecting the coming decision. The author surveys the stage one more time, drawing out the tension yet a bit more. Chapter XV 505 the enemies had already come together (σψμμει-#ντ,ν). At 14:16 and below in v. 26 the same verb refers to “clashing” between opposing armies. Accordingly, some scholars have taken it that way here as well; but if they are clashing already now, what is left to happen at v. 26? Goldstein (2 Macc, 500) solves the problem by turning the verb into future tense (“the enemy were about to engage”); but this lacks textual support. Or perhaps we should view the repetition of the verb at v. 26 as a Wiederaufnahme resum- ing the narrative after the interruption by prayer in vv. 21–26? Perhaps. But even if we do, it is still simplest to follow Grimm (2 Macc, 207) and Abel (Macc, 476) and take the verb here to refer to the drawing together of different Seleucid units; note παροψσα (“arrival”) in v. 21. As for v. 26 and 14:16, where the verb means “clash,” note that they refer to the “coming together” of soldiers from both sides, whereas our verse mentions only “the enemies,” i.e., the Seleucid forces. the beasts ( ηρ,ν). Probably means elephants, as is usual in Polybius; see Mauersberger, PL, 1.1153–1154 and Bar-Kochva, JM, 317. But the parallel at 1 Maccabees 7:39–50 makes no mention of elephants, and it is indeed usual to think that the Seleucid elephants had been destroyed in 163 or 162 BCE (well before our battle), in tardy fulfillment of one of the terms of the Treaty of Apamaea (for the date, see Bar-Kochva, JM, 547–548; on the lenient enforcement of that treaty, see also below, Appendix 6). True, there is no certainty that all the elephants were really destroyed; see Schwartz, “Battles,” 446, and Bar-Kochva’s detailed response in “On Josephus …,” 119–128. But be that as it may, it is in any case clear that our author likes to mention elephants (11:4; 13:2, 15; 14:12), which made the Seleucid armies more colorful and terror-inspiring, and he was certainly capable of exaggerating in this respect; see NOTE on 11:4, myriads of foot-soldiers … in the wings. On the κωρατα of Greek armies preparing for battle, see Prit- chett, War, 2.190–207.

21. wildness (γριτητα). Only here in the Septuagint; cf. NOTE on v. 2, wildly and barbarically. raised up his hands toward heaven. For this gesture see NOTE on 3:20, hands stretched out to heaven. Here it is especially meaningful, because it recalls the beginning of the confrontation with Nicanor (14:33–34). according to how He deems (κα V« δB ν α/τ9 κρι H). Translation according to Grimm, 2 Macc, 208 (“wie etwa von ihm geurtheilt wird”). 506 Translation and Commentary

22. sent out Your angel in the days of King Hezekiah. The same precedent, which Judas cited also in the parallel to our passage at 1 Maccabees 7:41, was adduced above as well, during Nicanor’s first campaign; see NOTE on 8:19, Sennacherib. Since it worked then, the reader may hope it will work again. As noted by van der Kooij (“Use,” 133), the story here is closer to that of LXX Isaiah 37:36 than that of LXX 4 Regnorum 19:35.

23. And now (κα3 ν ν). The transition to the body of the prayer; see NOTE on 14:36, and now. But here it also retains something of the original sense, as if to say: “Just as in the days of Hezekiah, so too now …” a good angel. The need to specify “good” is just as perplexing here as at 11:6, see our NOTE there on a good angel.

24. come with blasphemy. For this important motif see NOTE on 8:4, and also to remember … be terrified (καταπλαγεησαν) by Your great arm (μεγω ει βραξον2« σοψ). The allusion to God’s arm functions, of course, as an antithesis to Ni- canor’s; see our NOTE on 14:33, he extended his right hand toward the Sanctuary. The present verse clearly uses Exodus 15:16: “Let terror and dread fall upon them, because of the greatness of Thy arm …” On “God’s arm” in other Jewish texts and prayers (such as Dan 9:15 and Baruch 2:11), and on the use of Exodus 15 (the Song at the Sea) in Jewish liturgy, see: Enermalm-Ogawa, Langage de prière, 136–138. On the use of the Song of the Sea in the Temple, see b. Rosh Hashanah 31a and I. Elbogen, Jewish Lit- urgy: A Comprehensive History (Philadelphia & Jerusalem: Jewish Publi- cation Society, and New York & Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1993) 99. Cf. NOTE on 1:23, all the others.

And he, on the one hand (κα3 οWτο« μων). This completes the circle opened in v. 6: vv. 6–7 presented “Nicanor on the one hand” vs. “Judas on the other hand,” and now, to finish up the preparations for battle, we have “[Judas] on the one hand,” followed immediately by “Then Nicanor’s men, on the other hand.” The chiastic arrangement is just as neat as at 3:22–23 and ibid. vv. 29–30.

25. by trumpets. For use of trumpets in Hellenistic armies, see also 1 Mac- cabees 6:33 and 9:12; m. Sotah 8.1; Bar-Kochva, JM, 394, with many examples ibid., n. 1. On classical usage, see P. Crantz, “The Salpinx in Greek Warfare,” in: Hanson, Hoplites, 110–120. Bar-Kochva dismisses the Chapter XV 507 evidence of our verse, but only, it seems, because the parallel account in 1 Maccabees 7:39–50 is silent on this subject. and war-songs (κα3 παι#ν,ν). Our author is careful to assign “paeans” to Nicanor’s pagans but “hymns” to the Jews; see NOTE on 12:37, the war- cry accompanied by hymns.

26. clashed with (σψνωμει-αν). Finally, after all the preparations. On the verb, see NOTE on v. 20, the enemies had already come together.

27. fighting with their hands, in their hearts they were praying. Cf. Psalms 149:6: “Let the high praises of God be in their throats, and two-edged swords in their hands,” used to describe the Community of the Pious (Hasi- dim) – ibid., v. 1. Our author is happy to contrast the raucous enemy (v. 25) with the restrained Jews, so he made their prayers into quiet ones. no fewer than 35,000. 1 Maccabees 7 gives no indication of the size of Nicanor’s army, apart from the general “large force” (v. 27), but Josep- hus says it included 9,000 men (Ant. 12.411), a number which im- presses Bar-Kochva (JM, 362–363) as reasonable; he suggests that Josep- hus got the number from Nicolas of Damascus. Meyer (Ursprung, 245, n. 3) rejects the present number out of hand and supposes that Nica- nor had at most a few thousand men of his own (Demetrius having taken his army for his campaign against the rebel Timarchus; see Will, Histoire politique, 2.365–367), which is why he was forced to add Jew- ish loyalists to his ranks; but see our NOTE on v. 2, Jews who had been forced … having been gladdened (ε/φραν ωντε«) greatly by the appearance (πιφ- ανε%) of God. After v. 11 reported that Judas’ dream greatly gladdened (ηϊφρανεν) the soldiers, now we read the same of God’s “appearance.” So it may be that here we simply have another allusion to that dream. How- ever, it seems more natural to assume we are to infer that God appeared to the soldiers, somehow, during the course of this battle, as at 10:29–30. For a comparable case, see NOTE on 12:22, the apparition …

28. job was done. On ξρεα see NOTE on 7:24, commissions. Note that at the outset of our chapter Nicanor was trying to force Jews to do the “royal commissions” (v. 5 – βασιλικ?« ξρεα«), so there is poetic justice in denoting the destruction of his army, and his execution, by the same term, as if to say: “You wanted the Jews to do a ξρεα for you, so they did for you the 508 Translation and Commentary

ξρεα you deserve.” On such tit for tat, more of which is coming, see NOTE on 4:16, those for whose ways … together with his armor. This probably means that they identified him by his armor, which was of a special type or specially marked.

29. There ensued outcry and tumult (κραψγ« κα3 ταραξ«). Both words have negative connotations and usually imply people who feel threatened and frightened; for κραψγ see 12:37, for ταραξ – 3:30; 10:30; 11:25; and 13:16. And compare, for example, the usual combination of ταραξ and fear, such as at Thucydides 3.79.3 and Josephus, Antiquities 2.100 and 14.273. Why use such words of people who have discovered their archen- emy is dead and see his corpse before their eyes? It seems that the point is that, for religious people, a demonstration of God’s active providence, even on one’s own behalf, may first of all awaken fear, reverence, and only thereafter joy; see 12:40–41, also Exodus 14:30–15:1 (“And Israel saw the Egyp- tians dead … and the people feared God … then Moses and the Israelites sang …”); Psalms 52:6 (MT 52:8); Mark 4:41; Luke 1:65 and 5:26; 1 Macc 10:8 (perhaps; see Abel, Macc, 181). the ancestral language. Hebrew, the language of prayer; see NOTE on 12:37, ancestral language.

30. his whole body and soul. Cf. 14:38, body and soul. to cut off Nicanor’s head and hand, together with the shoulder. The hand and head had been held high arrogantly (14:33 and above, v. 6) and are now the focus of punishment, tit for tat, for which see NOTE on v. 28, job was done. That “hand together with the shoulder” means “arm” is made clear in vv. 32–33; 1 Maccabees 7:47 is somewhat less precise in that it refers to the cutting off of the head and τ"ν δειν (right hand? right arm?).3 For the decapitation of enemies and taking of their armor, see e.g. 1 Samuel 17:54, Judith 13:7–10, Polybius 11.18.4–8, 1 Maccabees 11:17, and Iliad 17.39–40, along with C. Segal, The Theme of the Mutilation of the Corpse in the Iliad (Mnemosyne Supplement 17; Leiden: Brill, 1971) 20–21.

3 The scholion to Megillat Ta‘anit (ed. Noam, 298) just speaks generally about his head and his “limbs,” and Josephus, understandably, keeps quiet about the mutilation of Nicanor’s corpse, and (as opposed to our author – see NOTE on 10:32, As for Timothy himself) is such a gentleman that he even allows Nicanor to die after “fighting gloriously” (Ant. 12.409–411). Chapter XV 509

31. people … priests. For such enumeration of the two separate groups in order to mean “all Jews,” see also 1 Maccabees 14:28, 41; Josephus, An- tiquities 14.24; m.Yoma 6.2 and innumerable other passages, including Jewish Hellenistic literature, such as 3 Maccabees 7:13 (οZ το τν [= τ7ν 0Ιοψδαν] Zερε« κα/ π»ν τ9 πλAο«) and Letter of Aristeas 53 (τ7ν Zερων κα/ τ7ν 5λλν). the people of the Akra. On the Akra, the Hellenistic citadel in Jerusalem, see NOTE on 4:28, Sostratus, the commandant of the acropolis. Here, Judas taunts its residents with Nicanor’s downfall.

32. abominable. On μιερ« see NOTE on 5:16, abominable hands.

All-Ruler. See NOTE on v. 8, the All-Ruler.

33. cutting the tongue of the impious Nicanor out. For that tongue’s sins see 14:33 and above, vv. 5, 10, 24. For the excision of tongues, cf. NOTE on 7:4, cut out the tongue …. Note a piyyut (liturgical poem) for Hanukkah, written perhaps by Eleazar HaQaliri (seventh century?), that expresses joy, inter alia, about the fact that “the sword has cut down every Greek tongue” (tynvvy ]v>l lk tynx hjjyq). The poem was published, on the basis of different genizah fragments, by Y. Yahalom (“Priestly Traditions Concerning the Miracle of Hanukah,” Bulletin of the Cambridge Traditional Jewish Congregation 53 [November 1994] 6) and S. Elizur (“Piyyutim of Hanuk- kah,” 306). Yahalom takes this passage to refer to the extermination of speakers of Greek (lashon in Hebrew means both language and tongue), but since these speakers are not mentioned explicitly, and the verb seems more appropriate for the excision of a tongue, perhaps the reference is to Nica- nor’s tongue. Indeed, the same Hebrew verb is used in other accounts of Ni- canor’s fate: “they cut off (vjjq) his thumbs and big toes” (b. Ta‘anit 18b); “they cut off (vjjqv) his limbs” (scholion to Megillat Ta‘anit on 13th Adar [Ms. Parma, ed. Noam, 298]). of his head. Some Lucianic witnesses read these words, Hanhart left them out, but Kilpatrick (“Review of Hanhart,” 18) showed that its omission could simply be a matter of homoioteleuton: ΝΙΚΑΝΟΡΟΣΕΚΤΗΣΚΕ- ΦΑΛΗΣΕΚΤΕΜΝΝ. give it piecemeal to the birds. See our NOTE on 9:15, bird-eaten to wild animals. 510 Translation and Commentary arms (πξειρα).This is a nice pun, for etymologically the term refers to that which is “over the hand,” i.e., the arms, but the word usually refers to “wages;” see Grimm, 2 Macc, 209, and LSJ, 673. That is, the text refers to the hanging of Nicanor’s arm opposite the Temple as his condign “wages” for having threatened it. Habicht (2 Macc, 279, n. 33a) thinks the verse refers to the hanging of the rest of the body (“Der Rumpf”) after the sun- dering of the arm and head, but the etymology, along with our story’s emphasis upon Nicanor’s arm (14:33), as well as those of the priests (14:34) and God (15:24), seems to point in the direction we have stated. For the hanging of the rest of the body, minus the head and arms, see v. 35. of folly. See NOTE on 4:6, folly. opposite the Sanctuary. Against which Nicanor had raised his arm. See also scholion on Megillat Ta‘anit to 13th Adar (ed. Noam, 298, Ms. Parma): “opposite the Temple.”

34. preserved His own Place undefiled. By repeating verbatim the terms of the prayer at 14:36 the Jews demonstrate their recognition that it was completely fulfilled.

35. fastened Nicanor’s torso to the Akra. I.e., the arm with shoulder mentioned in v. 30, termed “hand” in v. 32 and “arms of folly” in v. 33. Al- though some translators render προτομ here as “head,” the word means “bust,” i.e., the upper part of the body. It is, however, remarkable that we get no special information about what was done with Nicanor’s head, after the excision of the tongue (v. 33), so perhaps we should understand that it too was included – and indeed, 1 Maccabees 7:47 and the scholion to Me- gillat Ta‘anit (ed. Noam, 298, Ms. Parma) both report explicitly that Nica- nor’s right hand and head were hung up in Jerusalem. The demonstrative display of the head of a fallen enemy was well known in both of our auth- or’s worlds; see 1 Chronicles 10:10; Judith 13:15 and 14:1 (Grintz [Sefer Yehudith, 166] notes the great similarity between that episode and ours); Herodotus 5.114; Plutarch, Life of Cicero 49; etc.

Lord’s assistance. On βοηεα see NOTE on 8:24, ally.

36. a decree made in common. On χφισμα see NOTE on 6:8, a decree. This verse is, along with 10:8, the second of the two pillars of our book in its current form: in each case a holiday is proclaimed “by decree made in common.” See Introduction, pp. 7–8. Chapter XV 511 not at all to allow that day to remain unmarked. For the various traditions on Nicanor’s fate, and the establishment of the holiday to mark the victory, see J. Schwartz, “Once More,” 263–275. the thirteenth day of the twelfth month. Which was, so we infer, the date of the battle; so too 1 Maccabees 7:43; Josephus, Antiquities 12.412 and scholion to Megillat Ta‘anit to 13th Adar (ed. Noam, 298). According to 14:4 and 1 Maccabees 7:1 the year was 151 SE (which for 1 Macc is corroborated by the fact that the next date mentioned there, at 9:3, is 152 SE); on the Seleucid (Macedonian) reckoning, the spring of 151 SE corresponds to that of 161 BCE. (True, the Jewish [Babylonian] reckoning too, from spring 311, is at times employed in 1 Maccabees, and its application at 1 Maccabees 7:1 would lead us to the spring of 160. However, we may be sure that that date is in fact according to the Macedonian reckoning, for it puts Demetrius’ arrival in Syria in the 151st year and we can independently show, from Polybius, that Demetrius fled Rome in the late summer of 162 [see NOTE on 14:1, In the third year thereafter] – which is just around the beginning of the 151st year according to the Macedonian era but more than half a year before the beginning of that year according to the Baby- lonian reckoning.) in the Syrian language. I.e., Aramaic. On the text and its meaning, see Ap- pendix 10. Use of this adjective here contributes to our confidence that when our author refers to “the ancestral language” he means another – He- brew; see NOTE on 12:37, ancestral language. the day before Mordechai’s Day. I.e., Purim, as it is usually called (Esth 9:26 [Hebrew and Greek – Φροψραι]; Josephus, Ant. 11.295; etc.); for its date being the fourteenth of Adar see Esther 9:19, 21; Josephus, Antiquities 11.291–292. The name “Mordechai’s Day” is otherwise unknown; it might have developed, at least in our author’s imagination, simply as a reflection of the fact that “Nicanor’s Day” was the name of the adjacent holiday, discussed here.4 Note, however, that it has also been shown that the additions

4 I note, by way of comparison for this type of analogical creativity, that for decades the institution at which I teach was universally known by its official name, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the only difference between formal and informal usage being the omission of the latter two words. Lately however – since the establishment in Is- rael of “Tel-Aviv University” and “Haifa University” – one more and more hears it referred to as “Jerusalem University.” 512 Translation and Commentary to Esther, in the Septuagint, tend to play up Mordechai’s role, perhaps reflecting myths of male heroism from the Hasmonean period, so perhaps this term for the holiday is part of a larger trend; see Bardtke, “Mardochäus- tag.” Goldstein (2 Macc, 502) suggests, in particular, that the term may reflect a desire to indicate a parallel between Mordechai and Judas, both of whom annihilated the Jews’ enemies and established holidays in commem- oration thereof. In any case, the holiday named “Nicanor’s Day,” caught on, as we see from Megillat Ta‘anit (ed. Noam, 47, 298) and Josephus, An- tiquities 12.412.5 For the various traditions on Nicanor’s fate, and the establishment of the holiday to mark the victory, see J. Schwartz, “Once More,” 263–275. – This verse is among the oldest testimonies to the holiday of Purim, just as several points in our book seem to echo Esther (see NOTE on 13:5, fifty cubits high); on the history of Purim in the Second Temple period, see B. Bar-Kochva, “On the Festival of Purim and Some of the Succot Practices in the Period of the Second Temple and Afterwards,” Zion 62 (1996/97) 387–395, and A. Oppenheimer, “‘Love of Mordechai or Hatred of Haman’? Purim in the Days of the Second Temple and After- wards,” ibid. 408–418 (both in Hebrew). On our verse see, respectively, 388 and 410. Bar-Kochva emphasizes that our verse does not actually say “Mordechai’s day,” with the possessive; rather, it uses an adjective, “the Mordechaic day,” something which indicates that the writer was sure his readers knew whom he meant.

37. turned out. For such language summarizing the failures of other attacks, see 3:40 and 13:26. and ever since the city was taken over by the Hebrews it has been in their hands. For this translation, see Appendix 11. Here the author explains why he may end his book: the end of the last threat against Jerusalem restores the idyllic situation of the story’s outset (3:1). True, the political situation is now different; then there was Seleucid rule and now there is “Hebrew” rule. But that seems hardly to have interested our author, for whom the important point is that the threat against the Jewish city, the focus of his story, has been removed. See Introduction, p. 3.

5 The practice of celebrating the 13th of Adar as “Esther’s Fast” is not known until the post-talmudic period; see Schwarz, “Taanith Esther” and M. Margaliot, “Festivals and Fasts in Palestine and Babylonia in the Geonic Period,” Areshet 1 (1943/44) 214 (in Hebrew). Chapter XV 513 the Hebrews. On this appellation, of which the formality is appropriate for the conclusion of a book, see NOTE on 7:31, Hebrews.

I too. As in his preface (2:23–32) and in one of his addresses to his readers (6:12), but nowhere else with the exception of 14:34, the writer speaks for himself in the first person.

38. And if it is … For humble (or pseudo-humble) conclusions such as this, see for example Josephus’ at War 7.455 (in concluding his work, which he had presented at 1.3 as a translation, he writes “how it has been rendered I leave to the readers to decide”) and the end of Aelius Aristides’ To Rome (§109): “That which I have dared to do is complete; now is the time to vote on whether it was good or bad.” to the point (ε/ κτ,«). That is, properly focused (cf. 14:43, κα- τεψικτσα«), not expansive and detailed; see his statements of purpose at 2:24–32 and 10:10. in its formulation. For this translation of σ νται« see H. A. Rigg, “Papias on Mark,” NovT 1 (1956) 167–168. cheap and middling (ε/τελ*« κα3 μετρ,«). For a disorganized composition being ε.τελ« see Polybius 32.11.6 and Walbank, Polybius, 3.533, who translates “trivial;” Lucian, How to Write History, 22: ε.τελA νματα κα/ δημοτικ? κα/ πτξικ – “words which are cheap and vul- gar and poor.” Cf. ibid. 56, cited in our NOTE to 2:30, occupying oneself with each and every detail. that is what I could attain. For φικτν (easy to obtain, accessible, possible) see Mauersberger, PL, 1.1058–1059.

39. inimical (πολωμιον). Lit.: “hostile.” For its use in such a sense, LSJ 1432 cites Plato, Protagoras 334B (oil is πολεμιτατον to all plants) and Aristotle, Historia Animalium 612a (when weasels fight snakes they eat rue, for its smell is πολεμα to snakes). wine by itself. I.e., unmixed, straight. For the point of this comparison, see the next NOTE. In antiquity it was usual to mix wine with water prior to drinking; see esp. Athenaeus 10.426–427; he who does not do so is said to be 5γροικο« (so Theophrastus, Characters 4; on this adjective see above, NOTE on 14:30, coarser) or “Scythian” (so Herodotus 6.84 – πισκψζ, 514 Translation and Commentary cited by Athenaeus loc. cit.); for Scythians as the most barbaric of peoples, see 4:47 and 7:4. Galatians too were said to have been so uncouth, and such drinking figured as part of their terrifying image; see Diodorus 5.26.3 and NOTE on 8:20, confrontation with the Galatians. In general, see G. Hage- now, Aus dem Weingarten der Antike (Mainz: von Zabern, 1982), 111–122. Cf. LXX Jeremiah 32:1 and Psalms 74:9; 3 Maccabees 5:2 (unmixed wine makes elephants wild), Psalms of Solomon 8:15 (“gave them a cup of unmixed wine to drink, to make them drunk”), Philo, In Flaccum 136, t. Ber. 4:3 (ed. Lieberman, 18) and parr. (only wine that has been mixed with water deserves to be blessed as “wine”) and b. Pes. 104b (if one drinks unmixed wine at the Passover meal he has fulfilled his obligation but not in the respectable way of a free man). In this connection it is particularly relevant to recall the Greek belief that only Dionysus, who gave wine to mankind, was capable of drinking it unmixed without going crazy; mere mortals could not. See Herodotus, loc. cit., and Lissarrague, “Around the Krater,” 201–202. It is typical of the intermeshing of Judaism and Hellen- ism in our book that our author, in this prominent passage (his conclusion!), deploys a notion which is so easily associated with Dionysus. the (proper) construction of an account (τ« κατασκεψ« το λ2γοψ). Here the author repeats his assertion, presented in the preface (2:27), that his contribution to the book is comparable to that of someone who prepares (παρασκεψζ) a symposium. Just as there he claimed that his work was meant to give an attractive form and appearance to a book which is otherwise difficult to read and learn because of the mass of details (2:24), so too here he claims that his purpose was to make the book “proper and to the point.” Thus, the contents of the story are like wine, while editing is like adding water to make it more palatable. ears. For this sense of κο see BDAG 36, §3. In antiquity it was usual to read aloud, even when alone; see for example Polybius 12.27.3 and Acts 8:30; Chantraine, “Lire,” 116–121; Wifstrand, Epochs and Styles, 94–100; and P. J. Achtemeier, “Omne verbum sonat: The New Testament and the Oral Environment of Late Western Antiquity,” JBL 109 (1990) 15–17. It is possible that our book was read aloud in public, on Hanukkah or on Nicanor’s Day, similar to Esther, which was read on Purim, and to 3 Maccabees, which – to judge from the “Amen” which concludes the work – may have been read at celebrations of the holiday it describes; see Alexander, “3 Maccabees, Hanukkah and Purim,” 337. But we have no such evidence concerning 2 Maccabees, and judging from its lack of echo in early Jewish literature (see, Introduction, pp. 85–90) it is unlikely – if only Chapter XV 515 because it is about twice as long as Esther and 3 Maccabees (in Rahlfs’ edition, they take up, respectively, around 39, 23, and 18 pages); who could sit through it in a single holiday celebration? who read (τ*ν ντψγξαν2ντ,ν). See NOTE on 2:25, to read … readers.

Bibliography

Bardtke, “Mardochäustag.” Bar-Kochva, JM, 359–375. Bohak, G., “Joseph and Asenath and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis” (Diss. Princeton, 1994) 137–144. van Henten, “Judas the Maccabee’s Dream.” Schwartz, J., “Once More.” Wellhausen, “Wert,” 152–155. 516 Translation and Commentary APPENDICES

Appendix 1: On the Letters in Chapters 1–2 519

Appendix 1: On the Letters in Chapters 1–2

The story of 2 Maccabees opens at 3:1. Preceding that, 2:19–32 (end of Ch. 2) are just as clearly the author’s (epitomator’s) preface: he employs the first person of himself, speaks of the book as a whole, and uses the same type of imagery as he does in the final verses of the work (15:38–39). Re- garding the letters composing 1:1–2:18, however, questions concerning dating, authorship and relationship to the book are definitely warranted. In this appendix I shall say something both about the history of scholarship concerning these letters and about the facts of the matter, as far as I can grasp them. In 1868 a Benedictine monk by the name of Alois Cigoi published a small study of the historical and chronological problems posed by 2 Macca- bees. Writing at a time when it was common in academic circles, which were mostly Protestant, to look down upon 2 Maccabees as an historical work, he did his Catholic best to defend the book which was, after all, a part of his canon.1 The third chapter of his work was devoted to the two letters opening the book, and he opened his discussion as follows: “No section of 2 Maccabees has been so differently interpreted, and so negatively assessed, as the two opening letters (Ch. 1 – 2:18), which are therefore in need of more thorough study and vindication.”2 Indeed, the next few decades saw the publication of numerous studies of these letters; particularly at issue was the question as to whether 1:1–2:18 should be divided into one, two, or three letters.3 In 1900, however, there came an ironic twist. As we have seen (above, p. 39), Niese’s Kritik der beiden Makkabäerbücher, published in that year, engendered a general revolution in the assessment of 2 Maccabees as an historical source, turning it into a work which, if of course not to believed in every detail, is nevertheless

1 For the status of our book as a matter of dispute between Catholics and Protestants, see above, pp. 60–61. 2 Cigoi, Historisch-chronologische Schwierigkeiten, 46. 3 See Graetz, “Sendschreiben;” Brüll, “Sendschreiben;” Bruston, “Trois lettres;” Büchler; “Sendschreiben;” Torrey, “Briefe.” For a survey of scholarship until the early twentieth century, see Herkenne, Briefe, 1–4 (with ibid. 19–20 on the number of letters). 520 Appendices to be taken seriously and gratefully as a basically sound source for the history of the eventful period it addresses. From the point of view of the letters, however, there were two ironic points about Niese’s work. First, if Cigoi stipulated right at the beginning of his study that there was no need to consider the theory that 1:1–2:18 comprises a single letter, as no one seriously maintained that theory, just as already in 1857 Grimm had written that that position remained only a “Curiosität,”4 Niese nevertheless took precisely that position – and, indeed, made it the whole point of departure of his study. Namely, after opening his Kritik with a brief argument that 1 Macca- bees was written not before the death of John Hyrcanus in 105/104 BCE, as emerges from a literal reading of 1 Maccabees 16:23–24 (which apparently refers to all of Hyrcanus’ accomplishments), Niese (9–26) proceeds to argue not only that 2 Maccabees 1:1 – 2:18 is a single letter of 125 BCE (based on reading “188” SE in 1:10)5 but that the letter is part and parcel of the book as a whole, so that the whole book is a work of that year and thus a generation or more older than 1 Maccabees. This serves as the basis of Niese’s call to upgrade the historical evaluation of our book. Thus, Cigoi’s call for such a reassessment had been answered by a highly respected scholar who built on a view Cigoi had considered unworthy even of consideration. That is the first ironic point. The other and more important ironic point is that although Niese’s general stance regarding 2 Maccabees found general acceptance (see above, pp. 39–40), his position concerning the letters was rejected across the board. Rightly so, for that position necessarily encounters numerous problems: the fact that there is a salutation not only at 1:1 but also at 1:10; the fact that the letters are all about Hanukkah while the book leads up to Nicanor’s Day (and apparently did not deal, originally, with Hanukkah); the fact that Judas Maccabaeus, who is the putative author of the letter according to 1:10, died decades before 125 BCE; the fact that the account of Antiochus’ death in 1:13–16 differs radically from that in Chapter 9. Quite

4 Cigoi, Historisch-chronologische Schwierigkeiten, 46; Grimm, 2 Macc, 36. 5 Niese translated 188 SE into 125 BCE on the basis of the assumption that the official Seleucid (Macedonian) system was meant. Since that era began in the autumn of 312 BCE, 188 SE was 125/124 BCE, and Niese further assumed that the letter was sent out not long before Hanukkah, that is, in the autumn or very early winter, hence– 125 BCE. Today it is more common to assume that this Jewish letter used the Jewish (Babylonian) system, which began the era in the spring of 311, and so the year translates into 124/123 and the same assumption about its timing leads us to the fall of 124 – as for example in the title of Bickerman’s article upon which we shall focus below. This issue need not concern us here. Appendix 1: On the Letters in Chapters 1–2 521 reasonably, not many scholars were willing to accept Niese’s explanations, such as that “Judas” of 1:10 was not Judas Maccabaeus but, rather, some unknown other,6 and that “Antiochus” of 1:13–16 was not Antiochus IV Epiphanes but, rather, Antiochus VII Sidetes.7 Thus, for example, Well- hausen opened his 1905 monograph with a three-page discussion of the letters, which completely rejected Niese’s position and noted that with the rejection of that position his entire case collapsed.8 Nevertheless, scholars (including Wellhausen) found it warranted to accept the general thrust of Niese’s rehabilitation of the book even as they rejected his point of departure. Such are the dynamics of scholarly revolutions. The next step, and the one which has fixed the foundations of common wisdom concerning these letters until today, came thirty years later: in 1933 Elias Bickerman published “Ein jüdischer Festbrief vom Jahre 124 v.Chr.,” a detailed study of 1:1–10a of which the two main points, clearly indicated by his article’s title, were (1) that it is a letter (so independent of the book and merely attached to it), and (2) the letter is from 188 SE, the date given in v. 10a.9 Below we shall return to the first point, but we must first deal with the latter. Bickerman’s contribution addressed the central issue that complicates the understanding of the first letter: Why should one letter have two dates, 169 SE in v. 7 but 188 SE in v. 10? This question had previously been answered in one of two ways: either by inferring that in fact 1:1–10 was composed of two letters, each with its own date, or, rather, by maintaining – in line with the traditional verse-division – that vv. 1–9 are one letter while the date in v. 10 in fact belongs to, and opens, the second letter. Bickerman rejected the latter possibility out of hand, for it is “impossible” that a date appear at the opening of an ancient letter.10 But he also recognized that it is quite difficult to view vv. 7–9 as a separate letter, for there is no salutation. Accordingly, Bickerman proposed that in fact 1:1–10a (ending with the date) is a single letter of 188 SE that quotes from an earlier letter of 169 SE.

6 Niese, Kritik, 16. 7 Ibid., 19. 8 Wellhausen, “Wert,” 118–120. Similarly, by 1949 Abel was back to Cigoi’s position: “Il n’y a pas à s’arrêter à l’opinion de Niese qui voit une seule lettre de 1, 1 à 2, 18. Cela s’accorde difficilement avec la multiplicité des dates, des adresses et des salutations” (Abel, Macc, 299). 9 Bickerman’s study appeared originally in ZNW 32 (1933) 233–254 but is cited here according to the reprint in his Studies, 2.136–158. 10 Bickerman, Studies, 2.138 (“Die Voranstellung der Datierung, die in einem antiken Brief unmöglich ist …”). 522 Appendices

In his study, which is based on his expertise in Hellenistic papyrology, he brings evidence for such citation of an earlier letter in a later one; his view soon became the scholarly consensus, and remains so until today. Suffice it to note that it is repeated in the commentaries of Abel, Habicht and Gold- stein, all three of which translate the perfect γεγρφαμεν in v. 7a with the past tense (“avons écrit,” “haben geschrieben,” “wrote”) and print vv. 7b-8 within quotation marks. However, with all due respect it seems to me that Bickerman’s expertise in Hellenistic papyrology may have led him astray. For the first epistle is plainly a Semitic document, and to interpret it according to the standards of Greek letters, and to translate its verbs according to what is usual in Greek and without regard for the fact that they render a Hebrew or Aramaic text, would seem to be a mistake. Thus, Torrey and Hack, who published – within the decade after Bickerman’s article – studies of the letters and retroversions of them into Aramaic (Torrey) and Hebrew (Hack), should have been better guides to their understanding.11 But they drew little notice. In the case of Hack, this is not surprising; he wrote in Hebrew. The fact that Torrey’s piece was ignored is harder to explain. Perhaps it is due to the fact that it accompanied his much broader and more controversial work in which he argued for Aramaic origins or sources of the Gospels and Acts; that thesis was generally rejected,12 and it may be that scholars tended to assume that Torrey’s views on such ancillary topics as our letters were washed away with the rest. Be that as it may, we note that already Torrey translated the verb in v. 7 in the present tense, “we the Jews write you” (“Letters,” 147). Indeed, more recent work and new evidence confirm that it was usual to employ a formally past tense verb in referring to a current letter in order to reflect the fact that it was written prior to being read by its recipient.13 The implication is that 169 is the date of the present letter. But a letter of 169 cannot cite a letter of 188, which brings us to the question of the text of v. 10a. All modern editions give 188 SE. Bickerman too, whose work (as we noted) has remained the foundation for all subsequent scholars, rejected out of hand the reading of those manuscripts which instead have 148. He did so because he assumed that it was a correction – from 188 to 148 – by some

11 Torrey, “Letters;” Hack, “Two Hanukkah Letters.” 12 For surveys of scholarship of that generation, see M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: Clarendon, 19543) 4–14, and M. Wilcox, The Semit- isms of Acts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965) 4–12. 13 D. Dempsey, “The ‘Epistolary Perfect’ in Aramaic Letters,” BN 54 (1990) 7–11. And see our NOTE on 1:7, have written. Appendix 1: On the Letters in Chapters 1–2 523 scribe who thought the date belonged to the second letter but both (1) knew that Judas – who is mentioned among its authors (1:10b) – could not have lived until 188 SE (125/124 BCE)14 and (2) took 1:18 and 2:16 to mean that the authors of the letter were about to celebrate the purification of the Temple, which (as our putative scribe knew from 1 Macc 4:52) occurred in 148 SE. However, if for the moment we accept, with Bickerman and his followers on this point, the reading “188,” we must ask how to translate the words κα/ νν jνα 5γητε τ?« Yμωρα« τA« σκηνοπηγα« το Ξασελεψ μην9« 6τοψ« Ψκατοστο γδοηκοστο κα/ γδοψ (1:9–10a). Here, it turns out upon examination that there is no scholarly agreement: Bicker- man and Abel thought that the genitive should be taken seriously and thus “188” should be seen as the end of the preceding verse: the Jews of Egypt are invited to celebrate “the days of (the festival of) Tabernacles of the month of Kislev of the year 188.” But Goldstein quite properly noted that this is unreasonable: “The date is surely meant to be the date of the letter, not the date of the festival, which was obvious to the recipients.”15 Anyone receiving a letter urging him to celebrate an annual holiday knows that it refers to the next occurrence of the holiday. Therefore, Goldstein translated the date as an independent sentence: “And now we ask you to celebrate the Days of Tabernacles in the Month of Kislev. In the year 188.” So too Ha- bicht and the 1980 German Einheitsübersetzung.16 But this is, I believe, just as unacceptable. For if it is true that there is usually a date at the end of a letter, it is also true that the words “In the year 188” are not a date. Dates of letters specify the day, with the month and year to which they belong coming in the genitive; compare e.g. 11:21 (6τοψ« Ψκατοστο τεσσαρακοστο γδοψ, Δι9« Κορινοψ τετρδι κα/ ε+κδι); so too 11:33, 38. The use of the genitive for the year 148 in 11:21 does not mean that the letter is “of” that year but, rather, that the specified month and day are; but such an interpretation cannot be used for 1:10, where no month and day are specified.17

14 For his death in 152 SE see 1 Macc 9:3, 54. 15 Goldstein, 2 Macc, 153. 16 Habicht offers the sentence “Im Jahre 188” (2 Macc, 201) and the Einheitsüberset- zung (available on Internet) has: “Geschrieben im Jahr 188.” 17 See also 10:5 where, although no year is specified, the date is in the dative and the month to which the day belongs is in the genitive. For letters dated by date and month as well as year see also, for example, Welles, RC, nos. 18, 19, 37, 38, 44, 45, 47, 55, 65–67, 71, 75; this collection contains not a single example of a letter dated by year 524 Appendices

So we are forced back to the position of Bickerman and Abel, namely, to take the genitive as qualifying the holiday to be celebrated. But since we – as opposed to Bickerman and Abel – have already decided that v. 7 dates our letter, to 169 SE, it cannot be that v. 10 refers to 188 SE. But that latter number should always have been suspect anyway. First of all, variant readings abound: Hanhart gives ε’ κατοστο γδοηκοστο κα/ γδοψ on the basis of the Syriac (!), which is usually considered one of the least significant witnesses to our book’s text; although that same number is supported by some other witnesses more or less clumsily (such as the Venetus’ εκατ. και ογδοηκ. και ογδ.), there are also witnesses which read 108 and 180 and two that read 148. True, all things being equal we would indeed choose to read 188. But not all things are equal. For it should, I believe, always have been strange to think that a letter of 188 SE, or an invitation to celebrate the holiday in 188 SE, should appear at the beginning of our book. Why should it? It does not seem, on the one hand, that there was anything special about that year; as Momigliano put it, it seems to be “insignificante.”18 And if we suppose that it was usual for the Jerusalemites to send out such letters regularly, perhaps even annually, why should the one sent out in 124 BCE have been attached to the book? All in all, it seems that no one would have imagined the letter was from 188 SE were it not for the manuscript support for that reading. But if, on the other hand, what we have here is an invitation of the year 169 SE to celebrate the holiday of Hanukkah, and the year mentioned in v. 10a, in the genitive, somehow identifies that holiday, it would be totally significant, and hence attractive, to read “148” and assume that the holiday, which the Jews of

alone. See also Exler, Greek Letter, 78–100; from this study too it emerges that both Ptolemaic and Seleucid letters, if dated, had the date at the end of the letter and it specified day, month, and year. 18 Prime linee, 77. For the prime attempt to find some special reason for a letter like this one to have been sent from Jerusalem to Egypt in 124 BCE, see Bickerman, Studies, 155–156. Bickerman argues that 124 was unusual insofar as it saw a truce between Ptolemy VIII and Cleopatra II, in contrast to all other years between 145–118; see also Stern, Hasmonaean Judaea, 128–135. However, Bickerman’s suggestion that the truce of 124 may have somehow endangered the Jews of Egypt, or that that was feared, rings hollow. In a more general way, Otto and Bengtson suggested (Zur Ge- schichte des Niederganges, 66) that the letter is alluding to the Jews’ problems with Ptolemy VIII due to their support for Cleopatra II in the years preceding 124. In fact, however, it seems that “there is no basis for any talk about Ptolemy Physcon having a basically negative attitude toward the Jews, and certainly none for any lasting or general persecutions of the Jews by him” (Stern, Hasmonaean Judaea, 127; see also idem, Studies, 112–113). Appendix 1: On the Letters in Chapters 1–2 525

Egypt are being invited to celebrate, is being termed “the days of the festival of Tabernacles of the month of Kislev of the year 148.” Just as we can well imagine American posters, even today, inviting citizens to events celebrating “July 4, 1776,” so would we understand the first letter as one of 169 SE inviting its recipients to celebrate the “Tabernacles of Kislev 148.” To complete this part of our discussion, we would note, first of all, that of the two witnesses that read 148, Mss. 55 and 62 of the tenth and eleventh centuries respectively,19 Hanhart has characterized the former as an independent witness of a value comparable to that of the uncials.20 Moreover, Bruston already argued long ago, that the reading 188 (ΡΠΔ) could be no more than a paleographic error for 148 (ΡΜΔ), the difference between the two being only the shape of the bar which connects the two uprights of the middle letter.21 For another error of this type, see NOTE on 12:18, in a certain place. So much for the dating of the letter, which was Bickerman’s second major point. We now turn to his first major point: his argument that 1:1–10a is a Festbrief which happened to be attached to the book. If this is true, then the dates in the letter give no guidance as to the date of the book; it could be older or younger than the letter. Thus, for example, Goldstein thought the book was a product of the seventies of the first century BCE, in which case the letter must have been in some Alexandrian “Hanukkah file” until the book came along. That is possible, but it seems to me that in fact there is good reason to believe that those who wrote the first epistle had the book before them and both fit their letter to the book and fit the book to their letter, so that the book could be sent out as an “attachment” justifying the letter’s invitation to the Jews of Egypt to celebrate Hanukkah. There are three main points to note:

1. In v. 5 the letter expresses the hope that God will become “reconciled” with the recipients (κα/ καταλλαγεη 3μν). This verb is relatively rare in Greek religious parlance, but it is utterly basic to 2 Maccabees. In Chapters 7–8 the martyrs pray that God will become reconciled (καταλ- λαγσεται) with the Jews (7:33), and when the Jews begin to win their battles in the next chapter, they ask that God will not stop halfway but, rather, become completely reconciled with them (8:29 – ε+« τωλο« κατ- αλλαγAναι); accordingly, it is not surprising to find the term in the auth-

19 See Rahlfs, Verzeichnis, 177, 245–246. 20 Hanhart, 2 Macc, 37. 21 Bruston, “Trois lettres,” 114. 526 Appendices

or’s own reflections as well (5:20: καταλλαγ@). Moreover, it is clear that the usage of this word implies Deuteronomy 32:36, where it is promised that God will be reconciled with His servants; “servants” reappears alongside of this verb in 7:33 and 8:29, and Deuteronomy 32:36 itself is formally cited in 7:6, just as there are other important allusions to Deuteronomy 32 in our book.22 It is difficult to imagine that the use of “reconciliation” language in 1:5 does not reflect acquaintance with this central theme of our book. 2. The first letter is very interested in cultic details: “and we brought sacrifices and fine flour. And we lit the lamps and presented the showbreads” (1:8). This account is very similar to what we find at 10:3, in the description of the event itself: “they offered up sacrifices after a two-year period, and they also took care of incense and lamps and the presentation of the showbreads.” Now it has often been noticed that 10:1–8 are a secondary addition to our book: they artificially separate the death of Antiochus Epiphanes (end of Ch. 9) from the verse summarizing that event (10:9) and they direct interest to the Hanukkah holiday although the bottom line of our book is Nicanor’s Day. However, it is also the case that the way the Hanukkah holiday is announced at 10:8 parallels precisely, nearly verbatim, the way Nicanor’s Day is announced at 15:36.23 So it is clear that 10:1–8 was added into the book more or less as we have it. Since the interests (Hanukkah) and emphases (cult, all of the people) of that passage conform to those of the first epistle, economy of hypotheses urges us to assume that it was in fact added to the book by the Jerusalemites who added the letter – who realized that without such a supplement into Chapter 10 the book would not, in fact, buttress an invitation to celebrate Hanukkah. 3. The letter seems even to describe the book, for the words in 1:7, we Judaeans have written you concerning24 the oppression and the crisis which came upon us in these years, beginning when Jason and those who were with him rebelled against the Holy Land and the kingdom … apparently mean that the story that accompanies the letter begins with events under Jason. That is not exactly true, for Jason’s story comes in Chapter 4, whereas Chapter 3 deals with Heliodorus. However, as we

22 See above, pp. 21–22. 23 δογμτισαν … χηφσματο« παντ τ: τ7ν 0Ιοψδαν 6νει …//δογμτισαν δM πντε« … χηφσματο« period. See above, pp. 7–8. 24 For this translation of ν see our NOTE on 1:7, concerning the oppression … Appendix 1: On the Letters in Chapters 1–2 527

have noted (p. 4) the Heliodorus story does not really move the book forward; it has its own happy end at the end of Chapter 3, so the book has to begin again, somewhat artificially, at the outset of Chapter 4. Similarly, at 2:20 the author summarizes the book beginning with events under Antiochus IV, thus ignoring everything prior to Jason (who, as Antiochus, makes his first appearance in 4:7), and at 8:2–4 the prayer summarizing the story until that point also has nothing to say about Chapter 3; so too Judas’ speech at 8:17. Thus, the fact that 1:7 begins with Jason in no way undermines the notion that it is basically summarizing the book.

The main objection to the notion that those Jerusalemites who wrote the opening letters were familiar with the book is supplied by the differences between the account of Antiochus’ death in 1:13–16 and that in Chapter 9. Although the two stories agree in having his death come in the wake of an attempt to rob an eastern temple, the details are all different. However, as we have argued25 this part of the second letter should be seen as an interpolation; the repetition of γρ in vv. 12–13 is intolerable and removal of the whole section will allow for an easy transition from v. 12 to v. 17. As something of a bonus, note that both the predicate of v. 12 (ωβρασε) and the object of v. 17 (σεβσαντα«) point directly at Jason; see 4:13 (το σεβο« κα/ ο.κ ρξιερω« 0Ισονο«) and 5:8 (εβρση). Thus, excision of vv. 13–16 (which were apparently added by someone who had yet another tradition on how Antiochus died) not only removes the contradiction between this letter and the body of the book but also bolsters our notion that the author of this letter, as that of the first letter (1:7) and the author of the book himself (2:20), views the story as one that begins with Jason. Having thus passed from the first letter to the second one, let us continue and note a very serious link between the latter and the passage at 10:1–8 which, we have already posited, was added by the author of the first letter. Namely, it is clear that the main point of the second letter is to prove that the fire on the altar of the Second Temple of Jerusalem is the same fire that came down from heaven to the altar of the First Temple in the days of So- lomon (2 Chr 7:1); to prove this it traces the fire back from Nehemiah to Jeremiah to Solomon. But the second letter does not say how to get from Nehemiah to the second century BCE. That is, it does not answer the obvious question, which is the only one of contemporary significance, namely:

25 See NOTE on 1:12, For (γ#ρ) He Himself drove out. 528 Appendices

What about the fire in the Temple as restored by Judas Maccabaeus? However, the second letter does contain an interesting detail, that the naptha (the liquefied form of the ancient fire) left after Nehemiah used some of it to restart the fire in Second Temple was poured onto large rocks (λοψ« μεζονα«; 1:31). What that means is not very clear, nor does it at all function in the remainder of the letter – but it evidently serves us very well in explaining a mystifying detail in the course of the rededication narrative added in at 10:3:

after purifying the Temple they made a new altar and – having ignited rocks and extracted fire from them (πψρσαντε« λοψ« κα/ πρ κ το τν λαβντε«) – they offered up sacrifices …

How can one ignite rocks and extract fire from them? The obvious answer is that the reference is to striking a spark from a flint. However, there is no reference here to “striking” or “sparks,” and striking sparks from stones does not “ignite” the stones.26 So even if what really happened was the striking of a spark, it seems clear that the author of this report wants us to understand that the restored fire was one which had been taken out of storage, so to speak, having been put there in the days of Nehemiah, and that it contained the original heavenly fire of Solomon’s days. But it is obvious that no one could expect readers to understand 10:3 that way if they had not read the story told by the second letter. Now if it is the case that 10:1–8 was added in by the Jerusalemite author of the first letter, but that also the second letter is bound up essentially with 10:1–8, and that in fact the reference there to igniting rocks is unintelligible until they are put together one with another, then the apparent conclusion is that whoever added 10:1–8 and the first letter added the second letter too. This is, moreover, the most economical hypothesis. So our conclusion, in the end, is not very far from Niese’s. He thought that the book opened with a single letter stretching from 1:1–2:18 and that its author wrote the book as well; scholars have since come to hold, by and

26 The RSV avoids all problems, but also the Greek, by translating “then, striking fire out of flint, they offered sacrifices …,” and Abel (Macc, 407) is only a little closer to the Greek insofar as he maintains “stones” in the plural and both references to “fire:” “puis ayant tiré des étincelles des pierres à feu, ils prirent de ce feu …” Had the Greek said “étincelles” and “pierres à feu” his translation would be fine. For the ways Greeks and Romans referred to making fire by striking sparks from stones, much the way we describe it, see the collection of references in: M. H. Morgan, “De ignis eli- ciendi modis apud antiquos,” HSCP 1 (1890) 35–38. Appendix 1: On the Letters in Chapters 1–2 529 large, that there are two separate letters and that neither is bound up with the book; but we have suggested that although there are indeed two opening letters, the same author added (although not necessarily composed) both and was aware of the book and even edited it in a most central way, namely, by adding in the Hanukkah story (10:1–8). The year this was done is given in 1:7 – 169 SE = 143/142 BCE, the date of Hasmonean independence,27 a watershed date which justified an invitation to the Jews of the Diaspora to join in the celebrations. This date therefore serves as a terminus ad quem for our book; for more on this, see the Introduction, pp. 11–15.

27 See 1 Macc 13:41–42: “In the one hundred and seventieth year the yoke of the Gen- tiles was removed from Israel, and the people began to write in their documents and contracts, ‘In the first year of Simon the great high priest and commander and leader of the Jews’” (RSV). As Goldstein noted (1 Macc, 479–480), it seems that Ant. 14.145–148, which (despite Josephus’ confusion) appears to be a document of 134 BCE, constitutes evidence for the actual use of this Hasmonean era, for it is dated to “the ninth year.” 530 Appendices

Appendix 2: “to register the people of Jerusalem as Antiochenes” (4:9)

This verse has aroused much debate,28 but it may well be that a newly-published inscription can put an end to it. Taken at face value, this verse pre- scribes the registration of Antiochenes found in Jerusalem. Plain “Antioch,” certainly in our book, is Antioch on the Orontes, the Seleucid capital.29 But what would be the point of making a registry of all citizens or inhabitants of that city who happened to be found in Jerusalem? And why would this be listed along with other boons granted Jason, and why would Jason pay for the privilege to draw up such a list? Given these questions, it is generally agreed that in fact what is meant is the granting of permission to register Je- rusalemites as (!) Antiochenes, that is, the granting of “Antiochene” status to Jerusalemites. As for the identity of this Antioch, however, there are two main possibil- ities.30 Given the prominence of Antioch on the Orontes, some have thought our verse means Antiochus allowed Jason to register Jerusalemites as citizens of that city. However, since the next verses have to do with changing the nature of Jerusalem, it is likelier that our verse means that Je- rusalemites could be registered in a new entity to be founded there, known as “Antioch” or, more probably, “Antioch-in-Jerusalem” (so as to distinguish it from many other Antiochs, such as “Antioch on the Cydnus [Tar- sus],” “Antioch in Mygdonia” [Nisibis], etc.; see Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 116, and Le Rider, Suse, 41). For such usage, note esp. 4:19, where “Jeru- salem Antiochenes” are sent on a diplomatic mission.

28 Apart from the commentaries see esp. Bickerman, Gott, 59–65; Tcherikover, Hellen- istic Civilization, 131, 319–322; Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 138; Stern, “Foun- dation,” 239–243; Parente, “ΤΟWΣ ΕΝ ΙΕΡΟΣΟΛWΜΟΙΣ;” Cohen, “‘Antiochenes in Jerusalem.’” 29 See 4:33, 5:21, 8:35, 11:36, 13:23 and 14:27. 30 I see little to support Cohen’s suggestion (ibid.) that the reference is to Akko-Ptol- emais, which too was known as “Antioch.” There is no evidence for citizens of that city being in Jerusalem, nor any reason for our author to use this rare name instead of Ptolemais – which he does at 13:24–25. Appendix 2: “to register the people of Jerusalem as Antiochenes” (4:9) 531

At this point we get to the major controversy: was this Antioch-in-Jeru- salem a corporation, perhaps termed a politeuma, within the city of Jerusa- lem? This is the position defended by Bickerman and many others.31 Or was it, rather, as argued especially by Tcherikover, itself a new city? The latter explanation seems preferable, for the continuation says Jason (acting upon the authority he obtained from the king) “abrogated royal privileges and … abolished regular civic usages” (4:10–11). This language is easily understood if it refers to setting up a new city. But if all Antiochus had allowed was the foundation of a corporation, a glorified club, how would that have impacted upon privileges and laws? To overcome this objection Bickerman and others suggested that Anti- ochus exempted these new “Antiochenes” from the obligation to live according to the ancestral laws, an obligation which – he claims – the Seleucid monarchy had, beginning with its takeover of Judaea under Antiochus III, hitherto imposed upon the Jews. However, it is difficult to accept Bicker- man’s position that Seleucid permission to live according to Jewish law constituted a Seleucid demand that Jews live according to Jewish law.32 Rather, all that Antiochus III did was allow those Jews who wanted to live according to Jewish law to do so;33 for an explicit statement of this type of position, although in a later text, see Antiquities 14.258, where the people of Halicarnassus allow those Jews who wish to (βοψλομωνοψ«) to observe the Sabbath and observe the sacred Jewish laws. Accordingly, if what the king authorized Jason to do involved the changing of laws, it must have affected a city; given the fact that Antioch is a well- attested name for cities, it is most probable that a city named Antioch was established at Jerusalem. The fact that we lack, for Jerusalem, evidence for some of the characteristic institutions of Hellenistic cities need not contradict that conclusion, given the general paucity of sources available for the period. Similarly, the fact that the gerousia – a typical institution of pre- polis Jerusalem, went on existing and representing traditional interests (see NOTE on 4:44, Council of Elders) does not mean no polis was founded; rather, it shows that traditionalist institutions went on existing and serving their constituencies despite the fact that they now had to compete with rulers and institutions who drew their authority directly from the king. The recent publication of an inscription that published the text of two letters by the Attalid king Eumenes II (ruled ca. 197–160), in which – prob-

31 See Bickerman and Parente (above, n. 28). 32 Bickerman, Studies, 2.71–72. 33 See our NOTE on 4:11, benevolent royal privileges. 532 Appendices ably not much more than a decade prior to the time our book is describing here – he grants the Phrygian community of Tyriaion the right to organize itself as a polis, should settle the issue.34 For its language and contents echo those of our text closely but they leave (as we shall see in our next paragraph) no room for doubt that the matter at hand is the foundation of a polis. Note especially the comparison of their request that they be allowed “a constitution, their own laws, and a gymnasium and all those entail” (so Letter 1, lines 9–11), summarized in Letter 2 (lines 41–42) as “a constitution and a gymnasium,” to our book’s report that Jason asked for permission “to found a gymnasium and ephebeion and to register the people of Jerusalem as Anti- ochenes,” which seems to amount to another way to say the same – and in both cases the king gives the “nod” (see our NOTE on 4:10, royal approval). True, it should be noted that neither of the two Tyriaion letters says, in so many words, that Eumenes allowed the establishment of a polis. How- ever, it is very clear that this is the issue in both of them. For the first letter is addressed to the “settlers” of the place, but after expressing his approval of their request that they organize themselves “in one politeuma and use their own laws” (lines 27–28) the king goes on to note that he expressed recognition of their politeuma at the beginning of the other letter – which opens by addressing “the boulê and the dêmos of the Toriaitoi,” which is a standard opening of letters to a polis.35 Thus, it is clear that the king viewed his first letter as changing unorganized “settlers” into the citizens of a city.36 By the same token, we should not be surprised at the fact that our book too describes the process without using the actual word polis. Accordingly, it now seems clearer both that our book’s testimony is that Jason requested and received permission to organize a polis in Jerusalem, called Antioch-in-Jerusalem, and that that testimony corresponds to what would be expected in the contemporary Hellenistic world. Nevertheless, further evidence that this testimony corresponds to what really happened would be welcome; see our Introduction, pp. 52–53.

34 As has been noted, apparently independently, by Ameling, “Jerusalem” and Kennell, “New Light.” The inscription was first published by L. Jonnes and M. Ricl as “A New Royal Inscription from Phrygia Paroreios: Eumenes II Grants Tyriaion the Status of a Polis,” EA 29 (1997) 1–30, and again by Jonnes, The Inscriptions of the Sultan Da˘gi, I (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 62; Bonn: Habelt, 2002) 85–89, no. 393. 35 As for example in Welles, RC, nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 13–15. Cf. V. A. Tcherikover, “Was Je- rusalem a ‘Polis?’,” IEJ 14 (1964) 62–63. 36 For the obvious importance of the identification of the addressees in formal letters, compare for example our NOTE on 11:16, to the community of Jews. Appendix 3: “his second invasion” (5:1) 533

Appendix 3: “his second invasion” (5:1)

Περ/ δM τ9ν καιρ9ν τοτον τ"ν δεψτωραν 6φοδον $ 8ντοξο« ε+« Α=γψπ- τον στελατο.

Antiochus’ first Egyptian campaign, in 170/169 BCE, ended successfully but with more work left for the next year: after conquering virtually all of Egypt apart from Alexandria he left a garrison at Pelusium and returned to Syria. In the spring of 168 he returned to Egypt and successfully took Alex- andria as well – but shortly thereafter was expelled by a famous Roman ultimatum.37 Our book has Antiochus attacking Jerusalem and robbing the Temple on the way back from his second campaign to Egypt, i.e., in the summer of 168 BCE. This poses an oft-noted problem, because 1 Macca- bees 1:20–24 clearly has Antiochus visiting Jerusalem and robbing the Temple in 143 SE = 170/169 BCE, i.e., following Antiochus’ first campaign to Egypt. True, Daniel (11:28–30) makes it clear that Antiochus visited Jerusalem after each campaign, implying concerning the first and saying explicitly concerning the second that the king did something nasty during his visit. But it still seems impossible to accept the reports in 1 Maccabees 1 and 2 Maccabees 5 at face value, as reporting two separate events, because they are so very similar, both focusing on the robbery of the Temple. The very fact that each source reports only one such event is itself a weighty argument against the notion that there were two such robberies of the Temple. So is the consideration that if everything listed in 1 Maccabees 1:21–23 had already been stolen in 169, there would hardly have been many “holy vessels” (2 Macc 5:16) left to be taken the following year. So there appears to be a real contradiction between the two works. One obvious way of dealing with it would be to identify our “second invasion” with the campaign of 143 SE, which would let both books refer to the same event. Abel proposed to do so by positing that the first campaign

37 For these events, see our NOTE on 5:5, false rumor, also Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 64–101; Walbank, Polybius, 3.321–324, 403–404; Gruen, Hellenistic World, 2.651–660. 534 Appendices was understood to have been divided into two stages38 – but this seems to be little more than wishful thinking and in any case fails to do justice to the meaning of 6φοδο« (see below). Kolbe and Gera went another route, viewing the king’s trip to Joppe (4:21–23) as his first “approach” to Egypt and so letting the invasion of 170/169 be the “second.”39 But this would require us to take two difficult steps: (1) Translating 6φοδο« as “approach.”40 Although this may find some support in 12:21,41 even that is not unambiguous, and apart from it the term always means “invasion.” See, for example, 13:26: “That is how the king’s invasion (φδοψ) and return turned out.” As Ettelson put the matter, “The word 6φοδο« is found elsewhere in the LXX only in II Macc., where it occurs indeed six times, but always in the hostile sense of ‘inroad,’ ‘assault.’”42 (2) Assuming that the king’s trip to Joppe was, for our author, comparable to his invasion of Egypt. The differences between what the king actually did, and the distance between Joppe and Egypt, weigh heavily against such an assumption. If we admit, then, that the two books are indeed referring to different in- vasions of Egypt in different years, and we reject (as above) as unlikely the suggestion that Antiochus robbed the Temple after each of them, then we must simply choose between the two books. It is usual to prefer the chronology of 1 Maccabees. As Habicht wrote already in 1976: “Today there is broad agreement, that the king … was twice in Jerusalem, in 169 and 168, that during the first visit he entered the Temple (led by Menelaus) and robbed it, and during the second he treated the city according to the law of war, for – as 2 Maccabees 5:11 reports – he viewed the civil war connected with Jason’s attack to be a matter of rioting and rebellion. The present chapter (= 2 Macc 5) combines the two royal visits into one.”43

38 Abel, Macc, 348, followed by Schürer, History, 1.129, 153. 39 Kolbe, Beiträge, 99–100; Gera, Judaea, 155–156. In the last German version of his work, published in 1901, Schürer had considered a similar possibility, namely, that one should take for granted that our verse refers, as does 1 Macc 1:21, to 170/169 BCE, and therefore infer, from our verse’s use of “second,” that there had been a preceding campaign, in 171 BCE; see his Geschichte, 1.170. However, writing as he was before Niese’s Kritik (1900) had yet made any impact (see Introduction, p. 39), Schürer rejected this notion due to the general unreliability of our book. 40 Gera, ibid. 41 And see also our NOTE on 3:8, make the rounds. 42 Ettelson, “Integrity,” 319. 43 Habicht, 2 Macc, 224, n. 1a (my translation). Appendix 3: “his second invasion” (5:1) 535

For this consensus Habicht cites several modern authors, and others too can be added.44 It is, however, difficult to subscribe to this position. First of all, we note that Josephus, despite his usual dependence upon 1 Maccabees, places the robbery of the Temple in 145 SE (168/167 BCE), which fits 2 Maccabees. While he does record that Antiochus visited Jerusalem twice, after each Egyptian campaign, he has him robbing the city after the first and the Temple only after the second. And the same seems to result from a fragmentary Qumran text as well.45 Second, note that the pro-Hasmonean author of 1 Maccabees had good reason to ignore any pre-Hasmonean rebellion against the Seleucids – but as Tcherikover has shown, our chapter indicates, however indirectly, that there was such a rebellion in 168 BCE (see our NOTE on 5:7, coming to a shameful end). This means that the author of 1 Maccabees had every reason to ignore the events of that year. So all we need to imagine is that the author of 1 Maccabees knew that Antiochus did something nasty in Jerusalem when returning from Egypt in 143 SE, and also knew that he robbed the Temple at some time; due either to his pro- Hasmonean tendency or to plain confusion and telescoping he predated the latter by a year and thus elided the second visit. Stern, arguing that the Temple was robbed during the first visit, adduced in this connection Polybius’ statement (apud Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.83–84) that Antiochus Epiphanes’ robbery of the Temple was unjustified and came at a time when the Jews were his allies and friends; this could not be said if it happened in 168 BCE, at the time of Jason’s rebellion.46 However, if Poly- bius really wrote what Josephus attributed to him, it could be that he simply did not know of that rebellion, or didn’t credit the report; in general Poly- bius was hostile to Antiochus Epiphanes,47 so such criticism of him needn’t be taken all that seriously. All in all, we must choose between two reconstructions. The first, based on 1 Maccabees, has Antiochus robbing the Temple in 143 SE48

44 So, for example, Goldstein, 2 Macc, 246–247; Bringmann, Reform, 36; Stern, GLA 1.116. 45 On 4Q248 (DJD 36.192–200) see Broshi & Eshel, “The Greek King,” and my “Anti- ochus IV Epiphanes in Jerusalem,” 50–53. 46 See Stern, GLA 1.115–116. 47 See for example Polybius 26 and Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 181–184. 48 I ignore here the oft-repeated view that 1 Macc 1 refers to a massacre by Antiochus during his visit to Jerusalem, a point which contributes to the widespread view that the visit described there is the same one described in 2 Macc 5. The only potential evidence for that statement is the reference to φονοκτονα in v. 24. However, if taken to 536 Appendices and then two whole years49 passing with nothing interesting happening (v. 29); only thereafter is Apollonius sent to the city, which is followed by a massacre and decrees against Judaism and desecration of the Temple (in Kislev of 145 BCE – v. 54). 2 Maccabees 5, in contrast, offers a more convincing and continuous story: pillage and massacre in 168 BCE, followed in close order by the arrival of Philip and then, “not much time later” (6:1), by Geron and the decrees. Bringmann50 saw in this continuity a literary device meant to ensure dramatic unity, but unity and continuity can happen in history as well. In this case, it is quite difficult to imagine that, as 1 Maccabees would have it, Antiochus made a severe attack upon Jerusalem and robbed the Temple in 169 BCE and yet there were no interesting reactions or reper- cussions for two years.

be a reference to bloodshed that verse is quite problematic, for it places the massacre after Antiochus left Jerusalem. For my argument that, in line with Septuagintal usage (see LXX Num 35:33), φονοκτονα here in fact refers to Antiochus’ general wickedness, and not to any bloodshed in Jerusalem, the author of 1 Maccabees representing Antiochus as the wicked king of Isa 32:6, see my “Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Jerusa- lem,” 48. 49 The opening words of 1 Macc 1:29, Μετ? δ ο 6τη Yμερ7ν (= Gen 41:1), and the dates in vv. 20 and 54 (143 and 145 SE), leave no room for the weaker interpretation (“in the second year”); contrast our NOTE on 4:23, In the third year thereafter, where the formulation is different. 50 Reform, 36–37. Appendix 4: “as the residents of the place requested” (6:2) 537

Appendix 4: “as the residents of the place requested” (6:2)

μολναι δM κα/ τ9ν ν ’Ιεροσολ μοι« νεB κα/ προσονομσαι Δι9« 0Ολψμποψ κα/ τ9ν ν Αργαριζιν, καB« τ γξανον οZ τ9ν τπον ο+κοντε«, Δι9« kενοψ.

As S. Schwartz noted, this verse is “a notorious crux.”51 According to the usual reading, cited above from Hanhart’s edition, some translate the underlined words “as (were) the residents of the place” or “as (was practiced) by the residents of the place.”52 That is, the verse means the residents of Mt. Gerizim were hospitable people, and that this explains the choice of the particular deity that their temple was converted to serve: Zeus Xenios, i.e., Zeus who was beneficent to guests and foreigners – a popular epithet going back at least to Homer.53 But what would such a remark mean? Is the author referring to a general characteristic of the residents of Mt. Ger- izim,54 or rather to something in particular? Does he expect us, for example, to follow this comment to the hospitality extended to Abraham by King Melchizedek of Salem, according to Genesis 14:18, on the basis of the assumption that “Salem” is Shechem (see Gen 33:18: “And Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem,” of which the Hebrew could also be rendered “And Jacob came to Salem, the city of Shechem”)? True, it is usually assumed that the “Eupolemus” who located Melchizedek in Shechem55 (and not in Jerusalem) was a Samaritan Pseudo-Eupolemus, and our author was not a Samaritan; but it has also been argued that the author was in fact the

51 S. Schwartz, “John Hyrcanus,” 15. Schwartz sets out the options, some bibliography and some considerations, but does not argue any particular case. 52 So e.g. Moffatt, 2 Macc, 139; Bévenot, Macc, 198; Gutberlet, 2 Macc, 90–91; Doran, “2 Maccabees 6:2.” 53 W. H. Roscher, Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie, VI (Leipzig-Berlin: Teubner, 1924–1937) 522–525; M. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion, I (München: Beck, 19552) 419–421. 54 On φιλοενα, love for guests and foreigners, see Spicq, Notes, 2.932–935. 55 See Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica 9.17.5–6; Holladay, Fragments, 1.172–173. 538 Appendices famous Jewish Eupolemus.56 But however that may be, would not such an understanding of our verse be demanding too much from readers? Or, for another possibility, is the reader supposed to realize that the residents of Mt. Gerizim were themselves foreigners, as results from 2 Kings 17? What these two theories have in common is (1) they expect the readers to know quite a lot about Mt. Gerizim and related traditions, which is unlikely,57 and (2) they suggest the author meant the renaming of the Mt. Gerizim temple in honor of Zeus was appropriate and congenial to the residents of the place. Apart from what they assume about readers’ knowledge, such interpretations run into two other types of difficulties. From the point of view of language, note that LSJ (1832–1833) assigns the verb τψγξν two main senses: (1) “happen to be at a place,” or, when appearing alongside the participle of another verb – “happen to be;” (2) “gain one’s end or purpose,” “succeed,” “hit upon,” “light upon.” Indeed, the other eleven occurrences of the verb in our book divide among the two meanings: “happen” (plus participle) at 3:9; 4:32; 9:1; “gain” (or “find”) – 4:6; 5:8–9; 6:22; 13:7; 14:6, 10; 15:7. But neither sense fits our verse. The second would give no sense at all, and the first, which would explain the name of the temple by saying that the residents of the place “happened to be” hospitable, would require τ γξανον to be accompanied by a participle of a verb of being. Our verse has only one participle, ο+κοντε«, but if it were linked to τψγ- ξανον no verb would be left to link to κα«. This is what led translators either to insert a verb of being (“ … et pour appeler celui de Garizim temple de Jupiter l’Hopitalier, comme l’étaient ceux qui habitaient en ce lieu”58) or even to double the adjective (“Zeus Hospitable, just as the inhabitants were hospitable”59). But in all other occurrences of κα« in our book (1:29, 31; 2:10, 18; 10:26; 11:3; 15:21) it is accompanied by a verb, and never itself supplies the verbal meaning of “as was.” To express such a meaning, a verb of being is needed – as for example in 1 John 3:2 and 1 Thessalonians 2:13. Along with this linguistic objection we may add that the notion that Antiochus’ measure was congenial and corresponded to the character-

56 See Doran, “2 Maccabees 6:2,” 484. 57 As Hanhart wrote concerning the suggestion that our passage is referring to the Sa- maritans’ foreign origin, it seems unlikely that our author, even if he was summarizing a longer Vorlage, would have alluded to this point with such ambiguous brevity (“in dermaßen zweideutiger Kürze” – Text, 37). 58 So for example in P. Giguet’s translation of the Septuagint, now available on Internet (http://ba.21.free.fr). 59 So for example, Doran, “2 Maccabees 6:2,” 483. Appendix 4: “as the residents of the place requested” (6:2) 539 istics of the residents of Mt. Gerizim is itself hard to take. Just as at 5:22–23, so too here the steps Antiochus took are portrayed by the author as coercive measures imposed by a villainous king against the will of the Jews in their two centers. It is not likely that this would be said to have suited them. Thus, it is difficult to translate the verse according to its normal text, as cited at the outset of this appendix from Hanhart’s edition. Moreover, if left as is the verse is also disappointing stylistically, for although our author is usually well aware of balance and parallelism, here he has given some explanation for one name-change but not for the other. This may indicate that the words in question were added secondarily. If such a hypothesis can move us forward in our search for the original wording, all the better. A reason for such a secondary addition may be found in Josephus, An- tiquities 12.258–264. This text purports to be a document sent by the Sa- maritans (or residents of Samaria Josephus took to be Samaritans) to Anti- ochus IV, asking him to exempt them from his decrees against Judaism and to rename their temple in honor of Zeus Hellenios; it is accompanied by the king’s decision to grant their request. It seems likely that this correspondence is not authentic,60 for it has the Samaritans: (1) stating that they undertook the Jewish religion only due to plagues which once afflicted the land; (2) denying they are Jews and claiming, instead, that they are Sido- nians; and (3) asking that their ancestral temple be turned into one in honor of Zeus. It is just as difficult to imagine that any self-respecting Samaritan, or anyone else, would write such a spineless document as it is easy to imagine that anti-Samaritan Jewish polemicists – Josephus himself61 or another – would concoct it. But once it existed, it would have been natural for any later reader or copyist of our book, who was familiar with that Josep- han text and/or shared its anti-Samaritan attitude, to add in a note explaining that the name-change at Mt. Gerizim came at the request of the Samari- tans themselves. Accordingly, it seems that the words in question are to be seen as an addition to the basic text of our book, which itself is free of anti-Samaritan

60 Although Bickerman (Studies, 2.105–135) argued it is. For a detailed discussion concluding it is a Jewish forgery, see U. Rappaport, “The Samaritans in the Hellenistic Period,” in: Essays in Honour of G. D. Sixdenier (New Samaritan Studies 3–4; ed. A. D. Crown & L. Davey; Sydney: Mandelbaum [Univ. of Sydney], n. d. [1995?]) 283–287. For a partial response to the latter, see S. Schwartz, “John Hyrcanus I’s De- struction,” 23–24, n. 35. 61 Cf. Ant. 9.291; 11.114, 340–347, etc. 540 Appendices polemic (see our NOTE on 5:22, the people) and that they should be rendered “as the residents of the place requested.” As to how to get there from the Greek, if we hesitate to accept Hanhart’s view that τ γξανον may be translated that way62 we may – with many, beginning with Niese – emend the verb to νετ γξανον (“requested via petition”).63

62 See Hanhart, Text, 36–37, disputed by Doran, “2 Maccabees 6:2” 481, n. 2. 63 For this translation, see NOTE on 4:8, in a petition. For the emendation, see Niese, Kritik, 106, n. 2, followed by many, including Abel, Macc, 360–361; Bickerman, Studies, 2.131, n. 99; Habicht, 2 Macc, 229, n. 2b. Appendix 5: A Ptolemaic Account of Antiochus’ Decrees? (2 Macc 6:7) 541

Appendix 5: A Ptolemaic Account of Antiochus’ Decrees? (2 Macc 6:7)

This verse refers to two elements in Antiochus’ persecution in Jerusalem: monthly celebrations of the king’s birthday and the cult of Dionysus. Con- cerning both there is room to suspect that they reflect the Ptolemaic context of our author more than the realities of Seleucid Jerusalem. Monthly celebration of the king’s birthday is known from Ptolemaic Egypt.64 Schürer and VanderKam (n. 64) viewed such evidence as proof of the reliability of our book’s report; so too van Henten, who depended here upon Habicht.65 However, apart from the Ptolemaic kingdom there is hardly any evidence for such celebrations elsewhere in the Hellenistic world, and there seems to be none for the Seleucid kingdom. True, Bicker- man pointed in this connection to two inscriptions,66 but the first (OGIS, no. 222, l. 2) seems to refer to a regular annual birthday, not to a monthly celebration; as for the second (ibid., no. 212),67 the matter depends on a restoration right at the crucial part of ll. 7–8: [… κα/ ψσαν δM] σψντελεν [τ]7ι Βασιλε [Σελε κι Ψκστοψ μην]« … Habicht and Robert related to this restoration with caution (“vielleicht,” “il se peut”) and Robert even

64 See VanderKam, “2 Macc 6,7A,” 63–67, following Schürer, “Zu II Mcc 6,7.” For the Ptolemaic kingdom, see esp. OGIS, no. 49, ll. 8–9; no. 56, ll. 33–34; and no. 90, l. 47. VanderKam argued that the requirement to offer a sacrifice every month on a given Seleucid date entailed a more general change in the calendar used in the Jerusalem Temple, and that Dan 7:25 (“And he [i.e., Antiochus] thought to change times and law”]) is a reflection of this reform – which could also explain Qumran complaints about the calendar in use in Jerusalem. However, it is quite usual for subject peoples to follow a sovereign’s calendar for something relating to him and nevertheless to maintain their own calendar for their own customary uses. Moreover, it is difficult to accept VanderKam’s position (loc. cit., 70–71, also “Calendrical Texts,” 385–386) that, if such a reform had been forced upon the Temple, it would have stayed in effect after Judas Maccabaeus took it over and rededicated it a few years later. On this point see P. R. Davies, “Calendrical Changes and Qumran Origins: An Assessment of Van- derKam’s Theory,” CBQ 45 (1983) 86–88. 65 Van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 90; Habicht, Gottmenschentum, 139, 152, 156. 66 Bickerman, Institutions, 246. 67 Bickerman (ibid.) refers to no. 213, but apparently meant 212. 542 Appendices suggested another in its stead.68 It is not wise to build on such foundations. Accordingly, although 1 Maccabees 1:58–59 confirms that the Jews were required to offer monthly sacrifices, it may be that it was our author (or even Jason of Cyrene) who, familiar with the Ptolemaic world, supplied the explanation. As for Dionysus: there seems to be no evidence for any royal Dionysian cult in the Seleucid kingdom and, as Habicht noted, it is not likely that there would be one, given that kingdom’s preference for Zeus as the dynastic deity.69 As for Antiochus IV in particular, Mørkholm stressed his devotion to Apollo; while he noted that this allegiance did not bring him to ignore all other gods, nevertheless the only evidence he cites for Dionysus is our verse.70 Bickerman too refers only once to Dionysus in the course of his long discussion of Seleucid cults,71 and even there the text in question only refers to the publication of a treaty by exhibiting it “in the marketplace (of Mag- nesia) next to the altar of Dionysus and the images of the kings” (OGIS, no. 229, l. 84); there need not be any special significance to the proximity of the two. The situation is somewhat different with regard to an inscription from Teos that was published after Bickerman wrote.72 As Herrmann shows (p. 55), this inscription refers to the acceptance of Antiochus III and his sister-wife Laodice as σ νναοι εο (“temple-sharing gods”) in the Temple of Dionysus in Teos. Even here, however, the reference is to a local initiative, not to a royal measure, and so far it seems very isolated; Nock, who surveyed the whole phenomenon of kings sharing temples with gods in the Hellenistic and Roman world, mentions no Seleucid case at all.73 It is true that the cult of Dionysus was well-established in Athens,74 and so given Antiochus’ usual attachment to that city (see NOTE on 6:1, Geron

68 Habicht, Gottmenschentum, 139; L. Robert, Études anatoliennes (Paris: de Boccard, 1937) 173–175. 69 Habicht, ibid., 149, referring inter alia to OGIS, no. 245, to M. Rostovtzeff, “ΠΡΟ- ΓΟΝΟΙ,” JHS 55 (1935) 56–66, and to Bickerman, Institutions, 250–257. 70 Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 130–131. 71 Institutions, 236–257; see esp. 255. 72 P. Herrmann, “Antiochos der Grosse und Teos,” Anadolu (Anatolia) 9 (1965 [1967]) 29–159. For an English translation of the inscription see S. M. Burstein (ed. and trans.), The Hellenistic Age from the Battle of Ipsos to the Death of Kleopatra VII (Translated Documents of Greece and Rome 3; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1985) 43–45. 73 Nock, Essays, 1.202–251 (= HSCP 41 [1930] 1–62). 74 See NOTE on 6:7, processionals, also R. Martin and H. Metzger, La religion grecque (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1976) 122–133. Appendix 5: A Ptolemaic Account of Antiochus’ Decrees? (2 Macc 6:7) 543 the Athenian) he – or Geron – may have introduced such a cult into Jerusa- lem. But the fact that the cult of Dionysus is so well known as a royal cult in Ptolemaic Egypt75 contrasts so strikingly with the lack of evidence for anything parallel in the Seleucid kingdom76 that, as with monthly birthday celebrations, we cannot avoid the suspicion that what we have is no more than a Jewish writer familiar with the Ptolemaic world imagining what a royal persecution would include: if 3 Maccabees has Ptolemy IV imposing the cult of Dionysus,77 Antiochus IV simply must have done the same. The same explanation probably applies to the end of 2 Maccabees 14:33 as well; note that the parallel at 1 Maccabees 7:35 makes no mention of Dionysus, instead having Nicanor simply threatening, unimaginatively, to burn the Temple down.

75 See Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 1.201–207. 76 The isolation of our verse’s reference to such a holiday in Jerusalem led Keel to doubt it: see his “Die kultischen Massnahmen,” 116. The same isolation is also apparent in a study of references to such a holiday in early Christian literature, which seem all to be dependent upon our verse (or directly upon Jason of Cyrene): O. Kern, “Ein ver- gessenes Dionysosfest in Jerusalem,” ARW 22 (1923/24) 198–199. 77 3 Macc 2:29. On explicit and implicit anti-Dionysian polemics in 3 Maccabees see: Hacham, “3 Maccabees: An Anti-Dionysian Polemic.” 544 Appendices

Appendix 6: “the tribute (still owed) to the Romans” (2 Macc 8:10, 36)

The tribute referred to was imposed by Rome upon the Seleucids at the Treaty of Apamaea in 188 BCE in the wake of Rome’s defeat of Antiochus III at Magnesia, near Mt. Sipylus. According to the terms of the treaty, the Se- leucids were required to pay 15,000 talents of silver – 3,000 immediately and another 1,000 annually for twelve years.78 Had they fulfilled the treaty to the letter they would have made the last payment by 175, but our verse refers to such a debt at the time of Nicanor’s (and Gorgias’) first campaign – a decade later, ca. 165 BCE (see 1 Macc 3:37). Some scholars have concluded, accordingly, that our author is in error; they surmise that he knew of the tribute and mentioned it, here and in v. 36, only in order to show off his knowledge about the workings of the world at large and to put his own story into that context.79 For proof that the debt had indeed been paid off on time, they point to Livy 42.6.7, which they take to mean it was all paid off by 173 BCE, i.e., a couple of years late but nevertheless well before the 160s.80 However, while it would not at all surprise us to discover that our book had erred on this point, it should be noted that the issue may still be left open. For what Livy reports is a tardiness in the payment of a/the “stipendium,” and that it was then submitted to the quaestors in its entirety; the formulation seems to refer more naturally to the making of a single pay-

78 See esp. Polybius 21.42.19–21; Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 22–26; Le Rider, “Les ressources financières.” 79 For such a motivation, compare Luke’s reference to Quirinius’ census at Luke 2:2; it is usually thought that this is a chronological error and bespeaks Luke’s knowledge of the event and his desire to link Jesus’ birth to it. See R. Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 19655) 469, and H. R. Moehring, “The Census in Luke as an Apologetic Device,” in: D. E. Aune (ed.), Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Allen P. Wikgren (Supplements to NovT 33; Leiden: Brill, 1972), esp. 154–160. 80 So for example Mørkholm, ibid., 65, n. 4; Niese, Kritik, 93, n. 2; Goldstein, 2 Macc, 328–329. Appendix 6: “the tribute (still owed) to the Romans” (2 Macc 8:10, 36) 545 ment than to the completion of the entire tribute.81 True, stipendium can refer to an entire indemnity; thus, for example, at Livy 36.4.7 we read of a suggestion that a stipendium be paid off all at once and not “in numerous payments over many years” (“pluribus pensionibus in multos annos”). But the passage at 42.6.7 on 173 BCE has no such contrast and offers no additional details, and stipendium usually refers to something annual (soldiers’ annual wages and annual service); had it been the last payment we would have expected some comment on that.82 In any event, it is clear from Livy that the Seleucids were behind in their payments, and so it is possible that the one executed in 173 BCE was not the last.83 As Le Rider explains, it could well have been convenient for Rome not to press the Seleucids on this, at least not until the final defeat of Macedonia in 168 BCE.84 If after Pydna, and after the humiliation of Antiochus Epiphanes in Alexandria that same year, Rome began to get tough with the Seleucids, paying off the tribute would certainly have been a desideratum.85

81 Antiochus’ emissary “ … excusavit, quod stipendium serius quam ad diem praestaret; id se omne advexisse, ne cuius nisi temporis gratia regi fieret.” 82 See OLD 2.1821. Note, for example, Livy 33.46.9 (“pecunia, quae in stipendium Ro- manis suo quoque anno penderetur”) and 32.2.1 “eo anno argentum in stipendium.” 83 So too Le Rider, “Les ressources financières,” 60. As he puts it, the last stipendium (“le dernier stipendium”) was to have been paid in 177/176 BCE, but our verse shows that in fact it was long overdue. 84 Le Rider, ibid., 61. So too Gruen – although he accepted Livy 42.6.7 as proof that the tribute had been paid off in 173 – emphasized the Roman willingness not to insist on timetables for such payments in general, nor to put pressure on the Seleucids in particular, not even after 168; see his Hellenistic World, 1.293; 2.644, 648. 85 For growing Roman pressure on the Seleucids during the 160s see Stern, Studies, 54–55, n. 10. It is not easy to accept Goldstein’s assertion (2 Macc, 328–329) that Antiochus would have hastened to pay back the balance of the tribute in 168, at the same time he vacated Egypt under Roman pressure. For just as it is seems overdone to write that Antiochus “had shown himself so eager to comply with the Romans that he withdrew from Egypt,” when really he just capitulated to an ultimatum, so too it is hardly warranted to assume, with Goldstein, that Antiochus had so much Egyptian booty that he would have paid off the debt right away. Rather, just as we know that he held onto his elephants, and that it was only in 163 that the Romans insisted on fulfilling the Treaty of Apamaea’s demand that they be hamstrung (see NOTE on 15:20, the beasts), so too could the tribute issue have lasted years – our verse requires about three – after Antiochus gave in to Roman pressure about Egypt. 546 Appendices

Appendix 7: The Battle Against the Galatians (8:20)86

Menahem Stern

The first real notice we have of Jews in Babylonia in the Hellenistic period comes in a totally unexpected context: Judas Maccabaeus’ speech encouraging his soldiers on the eve of their confrontation with the Seleucid army commanded by Nicanor and Gorgias (2 Macc 8:18–20). Macca- baeus adduces two examples of heavenly aid for the Jews. Of these, the first relates to Sennacherib’s campaign (Isa 37:36; 2 Kgs 19:35) and the other to a military confrontation in Babylonia against the Galatians, in which Jewish soldiers87 participated in the battle alongside of 4000 Macedonians and it was the Jews who overcame the Galatians: 6000 (or 800088) Jews brought about the destruction of a huge Galatian force – 120,000 men (8:20). Unfortunately our knowledge of the Hellenistic period is not detailed enough to allow us to know to what event, or even to what period, 2 Maccabees is referring. We may take it for granted that the story cannot be accepted literally, as if the Jews comprised the majority

86 [My translation from a Hebrew draft found after Prof. Stern was murdered in June 1989. The draft was handwritten and incomplete. My additions are in brackets. The original was published as Appendix 7 (pp. 306–7) in my 2004 Hebrew volume on 2 Maccabees. D.R.S.] 87 The text does not say, explicitly, that they were Jewish, but the context does not allow for any other inference. After the reference to the defeat of Sennacherib there would have been no point to putting into Judas Maccabaeus’ mouth anything about a victory by non-Jews. 88 It seems that something is wrong with the text of 2 Macc 8:20, for after the verse opens with a reference to 8000 soldiers who fought alongside the Macedonians it goes on to say that “the 6000” destroyed the Galatian force. Some of the later manuscripts attempted to deal with this contradiction [as may be seen in the critical apparatus ad loc. in Hanhart, 2 Macc, 81]. Appendix 7: The Battle Against the Galatians (8:20) 547 of the army that fought the Galatians.89 True, scholars have expressed various opinions concerning the date and circumstances of the event.90 However, it is in the nature of things that no suggestion is very

89 Grimm (2 Macc, 139) suggested that we not infer that the Seleucid kingdom could mobilize only 12,000 men (4000 Macedonians and 8000 Jews) but, rather, that our verse refers to some unit which ran into the entire Galatian force. But given the fact that the stated size of the Galatian force is impossible, for – as Grimm noted (2 Macc, 140) – Livy 38.16.9 reports that of the 20,000 Galatians who invaded Asia Minor no more than 10,000 were armed[, it seems unwise to build much upon the numbers given here]. 90 Given the fact that 2 Maccabees locates the clash in Babylonia, Grimm inferred that if the story has any basis at all it is referring to the clash between Antiochus III and the rebellious Molon, for during that clash [220 BCE] there were Galatian mercenaries fighting on both sides. On Antiochus’ victory, see Polybius 5.51–54. But no Jews are mentioned in this context. Zeitlin too (2 Macc, 175) thought of Molon’s rebellion. Moffatt (“2 Macc,” 142) left open, as an equal possibility alongside the clash between Antiochus III and Molon, Antiochus I Soter’s victory over Galatian invaders in the 270s (Appian, Syriakê 65.343; Lucian, Zeuxis, 8–11 and idem, Pro lapsu, 9 [Stro- bel, Die Galater, 257–264]), and the latter was indeed favored by Edson, “Imperium Macedonicum,” 169, n. 58. But the battle in which Antiochus I defeated the Gala- tians did not take place in Babylonia. For an attempt to place the battle in the days of Antiochus III, but not against Molon, see A. Momigliano, “Un’ignota irruzione dei Galati in Siria al tempo di Antioco III?,” BFC 36/6 (1929–1930) 151–155 (= idem, Quinto contributo alla storia degli studie clasici e del mondo antico, I [Roma: Storia et letteratura, 1975] 591–596); he builds on Suda’s Lexicon (ed. Adler, IV, 362, no. 443, s.v. Σιμνδη«), of which the manuscripts have Antiochus III defeating the Ga- latians with the help of elephants; this contradicts Lucian, loc. cit, who has Anti- ochus I defeating the Galatians with the help of elephants. Similarly, Momigliano pointed to a papyrus fragment of a Greek elegy (I. U. Powell, Collectanea Alexan- drina [Oxford: Clarendon, 1925] 131–132 [= D. L. Page, Select Papyri, III (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ., 1941) 462–467, no. 110]; cf. bibliography and notes on the text in Griechische Papyri der Hamburger Staats-und Universitätsbib- liothek [Hamburg: Augustin, 1954] 126–127). But it is doubtful that this fragment refers to any of the Seleucid kings, and it may well relate to a Ptolemaic king, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, who put down a Galatian uprising [Pausanias 1.7.2; Callimachus, Hymns 4, ll. 171–188; A. J. Reinach, “Les Gaulois en Égypte,” REA 13 (1911) 33–74; H. Volkmann, “Ptolemaios II. Philadelphos,” RE 1/46 (1959) 1650], and the “Medes” mentioned in this text may well be the Seleucids, the enemies of the Pto- lemies. See V. Bartoletti, “Noterelle papirologiche, 2: Due frammenti di un’elegia ellenistica?,” SIFC 34 (1962) 25–30 [who relates to another papyrus fragment that, he suggests, is part of the same elegy]. Lévy (“Notes d’histoire hellénistique,” 681–688) goes another route: he too holds that 2 Maccabees is referring to an event in the time of Antiochus I, but suggests that instead of “in Babylonia” we should read “in Baga- daonia” (ν τ@ Βαγαδαονf) – the great plain of southeastern Asia Minor, between 548 Appendices convincing. Nor does any suggestion bear out the crucial role ascribed here to the Jews; we may assume that the author of 2 Maccabees has exaggerated in this regard. At most, we may infer that Galatian soldiers, on the one hand, participated in some clash in Seleucid Babylonia, perhaps in the service of some king who was hostile to the Seleucids, perhaps during one of the Syrian Wars (of whose course we have only a dim notion), and that Jew- ish soldiers, on the other hand, participated in the victory of the Seleucid king who ruled Babylonia. Such a scenario would be very reasonable, given the continued existence of a large Jewish population in Babylonia, which had a significant military potential. The existence of such a military potential is reflected in the fact that Antiochus III settled two thousand Jewish families in Lydia and Phrygia (Ant. 12.147–153),91 in the establishment of a Jewish state in Babylonia in the first century CE (ruled by Asineus and An- ileus [Ant. 18.310–370]), and in the tenacious resistance of Babylonian Jews during the Roman invasion under Trajan.92

Mt. Argaeus and the Taurus range. But his suggestion that this was the site of the great battle between Antiochus I and the Galatians is not more than a guess unsup- ported by anything in the sources [according to Strobel, Die Galater, 259, the battle’s site is unknown], and in any case we have no knowledge of any participation by Jews in that battle. Finally, we note Bar-Kochva’s suggestion that we link the events mentioned in our text to the struggle between Seleucus II and his brother Antiochus Hie- rax, a struggle [229/228 BCE] in which the latter was supported by Galatians; see Bar-Kochva, “On the Sources and Chronology of Antiochus I’s Battle Against the Ga- latians,” PCPS n.s. 19 (1973) esp. 5–8 [and idem, JM, 500–507]. As stated, however, given the state of our sources and our knowledge there is no way precisely to date and to locate this battle with the Galatians. 91 [On this text see Momigliano, loc. cit., 153–154 (= 593–594); Stern, Studies, 373 and 638; and the first half of J. Gauger, Beiträge zur jüdischen Apologetik (Köln & Bonn: Hanstein, 1977). Gauger expressed doubts about the authenticity of the document but not necessarily about the historicity of the events to which it relates. On Jewish soldiers in Hellenistic armies see also A. Kasher, “First Jewish Military Units in Ptol- emaic Egypt,” JSJ 19 (1978) 57–67.] 92 [On which see Stern, GLA 2.153–155 and M. Pucci Ben Zeev, Diaspora Judaism in Turmoil, 116/117 C.E.: Ancient Sources and Modern Insights (Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 6; Leuven: Peeters, 2005) 191–217.] Appendix 8: “their own foods” (11:31) 549

Appendix 8: “their own foods” (11:31)

I have maintained δαπανμασι as in Hanhart’s edition, on the basis of the nearly unanimous testimony of the manuscripts. That is, I have not accepted the emendation into διαιτμασι, proposed by Wilhelm and adopted by many.93 The term διατημα has two main senses (LSJ, 396): food/ equipment and way of life (especially with reference to eating; cf. our “diet”). Wilhelm did not say which meaning he intended; Katz – who adopted the emendation – took it to mean food or equipment; but it seems that Habicht and Goldstein (who also adopted the emendation) were probably right to assume Wilhelm meant “way of life.”94 However, it is difficult to accept the emendation. True, Habicht correctly emphasizes, against Han- hart, that this issue – in the text of a royal letter preserved in a book originally written in Greek! – should not be governed by Septuagintal usage.95 But the surprising truth is that, as far as I have seen, no one has pointed to comparable usage of the word in royal letters or anywhere else. Wilhelm contented himself with proving that δαπνημα means only a financial “expense” (as above, 3:3), a sense which does not fit the context here;96

93 Wilhelm, “Ein Brief Antiochos III.,” 43 (a brief suggestion) and “Zu einigen Stellen,” 22–25. Several followers of Wilhelm will be cited in the coming notes. For Hanhart’s defense of his reading, see below, n. 96. Among those who retain δαπανμασι, but with no discussion, see Stern, Documents, 70 and DGE 5.877. 94 Katz, “Text,” 16; Habicht, 2 Macc, 259, n. 31a; Goldstein, 2 Macc, 421–422. 95 Habicht, ibid., also “Royal Documents,” 11, n. 19. Habicht responds here to Han- hart’s argument; see the next note. 96 Although that was how it was translated here in the Vetus Latina (of which some witnesses use sumptus and some impendium – see De Bruyne, Anciennes traductions, 190–191), an understanding defended by Hanhart, Text, 45, and by Mørkholm, Anti- ochus IV, 156. According to Hanhart, δαπνημα does not mean precisely “expenses;” rather, it means “services supplied to the people by the king for its public expenses.” Accordingly, he translates our verse as follows: “Die Juden dürfen von den ihnen ge- währten Leistungen Nutzen haben und ihre Gesetze einhalten” (“The Jews may have the benefit of the services supplied to them and observe their laws”). However, the fact that he is forced to use two separate verbs where the Greek uses only one, ξρAσαι, argues against this; so does the fact that on Hanhart’s interpretation the king is pretending that the usual services (budgets) are still being supplied, and that is unlikely. 550 Appendices but the suggestion, at the end of his discussion, to read instead διατημα comes with no argument or example. My own search came up with nothing: the term διατημα appears especially in medical literature, but in the literature usually compared with our book – Septuagint, Polybius, Philo, Jo- sephus, New Testament – it is not to be found, just as it is not to be found in the documents assembled in Welles’ RC, in Preisigke’s Wörterbuch, or in a comprehensive computerized corpus of Greek inscriptions and papyri.97 On the other hand, it has been argued that the term δαπνημα, “expense,” could function with a broader sense of “equipment,” “supply,” and so also “food.”98 Even Goldstein admits that there was such a development, referring (as others) to Polybius 9.42.4 and to Hesychius, s.v. δαπνη, where the translation τροφ may be found.99 Goldstein nevertheless rejected that meaning here, arguing that since our verse gives the Jews permission to live according to their laws in general there is no point to specifically singling out the dietary laws; so too Bunge.100 However, such an argument hardly seems weighty enough to overcome the near unanimity of the witnesses here, especially since the dietary laws (assuming that is what they are) are mentioned before the laws in general. If the Vulgate could live with “cibis,” why should we refuse to do so? Given the heavy emphasis on the observance of dietary laws in the martyrdom stories of Chapters 6–7, it does not seem unreasonable or superfluous to single out this particular sphere in the context of rescinding the decrees. It seems, in other words, we should read our verse as if it means the Jews are allowed not only to eat what their laws allow (which had been a major issue) but also to live in all ways according to their own laws.

97 Packard Humanities Institute CD-Rom 7 (“Greek Documentary Texts”). 98 See Grimm, 2 Macc, 430; Bickerman, Gott, 180, n. 5; Abel, Macc, 430 (he aptly compares the range of senses of our English “consumption”). See also: J. Lust, E. Eynikel and K. Hauspie (comp.), A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, I (Suttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992) 95, s.v. δαπνημα (“necessaries, supplies, food” for our verse). 99 Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, I (ed. K. Latte; Hauniae: Munksgaard, 1953) 405. 100 Goldstein, 2 Macc, 421–422; Bunge, Untersuchungen, 397–398. Appendix 9: “to be his successor” (14:26) 551

Appendix 9: “to be his successor” (14:26)

These words raise three questions: (1) What does διδοξο« (“successor”) mean here?; (2) To whom does “his” allude?; and (3) Was Alcimus’ statement true? As we shall see, the first two questions are closely linked one to another. The lack of clarity is evident in the variant readings: as Hanhart’s apparatus shows, there are those who place α.το (“his”) after “Judas” rather than before that name, and those that read the intense Ψαψτο (“of himself”) instead of mere α.το. But even these readings fail to clarify the text completely. In order to avoid the difficulty created by the possessive adjective, Deissmann and Abel suggested that we view διδοξο« here as an absolute term, namely, a relatively low title known from the Ptolemaic court, where it designated a person who was allowed to be nominated for a position.101 However, as Bunge noted, this title is not known from the Seleucid kingdom.102 Moreover, the manuscripts do use the possessive adjective. And in any case, if those who made the suggestion hoped to avoid the notion that Nicanor was accused of appointing Judas to be high priest or deputy governor although both were the king’s prerogative, we should note that appointment to such an aulic rank was too, so the suggestion hardly solves the problem. So we return to the basic reading, that has Nicanor appointing Judas to be his own, or Alcimus’, successor; if that was beyond Nicanor’s compet- ence, Alcimus’ stance as complainant becomes more reasonable. The choice between the two, Nicanor and Alcimus, will impact upon the translation of διδοξο«: in the former case we would think of “deputy,”103 for it is clear that Nicanor remained in office, but in the latter case we

101 Deissmann, Bible Studies, 115; Abel, Macc, 464. See also Trindl, “Ehrentitel,” 115–123; H. Kornbeutel, RE Supplement VII (1940) 124–126; and L. Mooren, The Aulic Titulature in Ptolemaic Egypt: Introduction and Prosopography (Verhandel- ingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der Letteren, 78; Brussel: Paleis der Academiën, 1975) 216–219. 102 Bunge, Untersuchungen, 199–200. 103 So e.g. Goldstein, 2 Macc, 472, 490. 552 Appendices would think of “successor,”104 since Alcimus was no longer high priest. Now, on the one hand it seems that readers would more naturally tend to understand “deputy” if we were told Nicanor was going to be traveling – as at 4:28–29, 31 and Polybius 3.87.9 – or otherwise prevented from fulfilling his responsibilities as governor; but there is nothing here to indicate or explain such a need for a deputy. On the other hand, the assumption that the reference is to the high priesthood sits easily in the present context: after Al- cimus, who was once high priest and is interested in returning to the high priesthood (v. 3), complained to the king that he had been cast out of that position (v. 7) the king had indeed ordered Nicanor to restore Alcimus to it (v. 13). It would fit in well if we took the present passage to mean that Al- cimus has returned to the king to complain that Nicanor did not fulfill the order but, instead, had appointed Judas to the high priesthood. Was the charge true? That is, had Nicanor really appointed Judas to the high priesthood? Bunge (n. 102) took Alcimus’ statement to be a villain’s calumny, as if the author wished to belie the notion that Judas wanted to be high priest and did so by ascribing the complaint to a villain; seeking the high priesthood is something which characterizes villains, such as Jason, Menelaus, and Alcimus himself. But in order to make this argument Bunge had to change the verse’s emphasis; according to Bunge, “In 14,26 wird nämlich ganz auffälllig vehement die Unterstellung des Alkimos, Judas strebe nach dem Hohenpriesteramt, als Verleumdung zurückgewiesen.”105 In fact, however, Alcimus’ statement is phrased as an attack upon Nicanor, includes not a word against Judas, and is not at all rejected. Therefore it seems better to take Alcimus’ statement as truth, and to understand that he is to be seen as a villain not because he lied about the fact of the appointment but, rather, because he portrayed it as something bespeaking hostility to the Seleucid crown. For more on the possibility that Judas indeed served as high priest (as Josephus says), see NOTE on 14:13, and install Alcimus as the high priest.

104 So e.g. Keil, Macc, 417. 105 Bunge, Untersuchungen, 199 (“In 14:26, Alcimus’ implied accusation, that Judas was seeking the high-priestly office, is rejected with completely surprising vehemence.”) Appendix 10: “the Syrian Language” (15:36) 553

Appendix 10: “the Syrian Language” (15:36)106

I translated according to Hanhart’s text: τ@ Cψριακ@ φν@.107 So too Rahlfs’ edition, along with almost all the witnesses and all the translations. But as luck would have it, the oldest witness of them all, the Codex Alex- andrinus (fifth century CE), reads not CWΡΙΑΚΗ but, rather ΚWΡΙΑΚΗ.108 Accordingly, Swete’s 1912 edition, which follows the Alexandrinus, read τ@ κψριακ@ φν@, a reading which found its way into Kahana’s and Artom’s Hebrew translations, both of which quite naturally render it as “in the Lord’s language.” This would, of course, be very interesting for the concept of Hebrew and the Holy Language.109 Several considerations, however, lead me to adhere to the more widely testified reading: 1. The Alexandrinus is frequently an unreliable witness. Whether we prefer, as Grimm, to note that it frequently offers variants that seem to be of the nature of “overly clever corrections,”110 or simply adopt Kappler’s and Bévenot’s assessment that it was very carelessly prepared,111 it is in general risky to build upon it when it is isolated. 2. The adjective κψριακ« seems not to have been in use prior to the Roman period, and most of its usage seems, in fact, to be Christian, relating to God or to Jesus; comparison of the short entry in LSJ to the very long one in Lampe’s lexicon of patristic Greek tells the story quite well.112 It is, accord-

106 I would like to thank Prof. Berndt Schaller of Göttingen for his assistance with some of the matters addressed in this Appendix. 107 In this appendix, for a reason that will become obvious in §4, I have written the capital sigma as a C, as usual in ancient manuscripts, rather than as Σ. 108 Hanhart does not list the Alexandrinus’ reading in his apparatus ad loc., having explained – at p. 15, n. 1 of his edition – that he viewed it as a trivial paleographical error. 109 See below, n. 114. 110 Grimm, 1 Macc, xxxii (“Der Cod. Alex … bietet nicht selten Varianten, die den Char- akter vorwitziger Correctur tragen”). 111 Kappler, Memoria, 54 (“codex Alexandrinus summa incuria conscriptus sit”); Bévenot, 2 Macc, v (“sehr nachlässig”). Similar: Niese, Kritik, 109, and Hanhart, 2 Macc, 15. 112 See LSJ, 1013, and G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961) 785–786. 554 Appendices ingly, natural to imagine that κψριακ@ here is not original but was introduced, instead, in the course of the book’s transmission by Christian scribes. 3. There are five references in our book to “the ancestral language” – three in Chapter 7 (vv. 8, 21, 27) and one each at 12:37 and 15:29. If our author used another adjective here, he probably meant another language; this is especially so in Chapter 15, where the reference to prayer in “the ancestral language” (15:29) precedes the one under discussion by only seven verses. Now, on the one hand, it seems that by “the ancestral language” our author meant Hebrew.113 This results both from the fact that it appears in especially religious contexts (martyrs’ speeches in Chapter 7, hymns and prayers in the other two cases) and from 4 Maccabees, which has τ@ ’Εβραιδι1 φν@ at 12:7 and 16:15 – passages that parallel 7:21, 27. On the other hand, it is clear that since Kyrios in our book refers to God (see e.g. 4:38; 6:30; 7:6), “Kyrios’ language” too should mean Hebrew, for both Jews and Christians, at least those of the Greek-speaking West, held that God’s language was Hebrew.114 So if τ@ κψριακ@ φν@ were the true reading, it would not provide any contrast to “the ancestral language,” although, as noted, it seems that it should.115 But there is an obvious distinction between Hebrew and Aramaic – a point in favor of reading τ@ Cψριακ@ φν@. Compare, for example, Letter of Aristeas 11, which notes that although some think the Jews use “the Syrian language (φν"ν … Cψριακ@)” their language is really different, just as at §30 he notes that not only the letters of the Jews’ Torah scrolls, but also their language, is Hebrew (’Ηβραmκο«). 4. The reading of the Alexandrinus may be explained away easily in one of two ways. First, of course, it may be simply a mistake, for the difference between τ@ Cψριακ@ φν@ and τ@ Κψριακ@ φν@ is, in uncial manuscripts, only the upright attached to the left of the opening C of CWΡΙΑΚΗ. Such mistakes are known from elsewhere.116 Thus, for example, the con-

113 On this point see esp. van Henten, “Ancestral Language.” 114 See M. Rubin, “The Language of Creation or the Primordial Language: A Case of Cultural Polemics in Antiquity,” JJS 49 (1998) 306–333. 115 True, there are cases in our book where the author uses synonyms in adjacent verses simply in order to vary his diction; see NOTE on 12:11, nomads. However, in those cases the terms are clearly synonymous and the text is secure. Our case is different in both regards. 116 See B. Schaller, “ΗkΕΙ ΕΚ ΣΙΝ Ο ΡWΟΜΕΝΟΣ: Zur Textgestalt von Jes 59:20f. in Röm. 11:26f.,” De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on His Sixty-fifth Birthday (ed. A. Pietersma and C. Cox; Mississauga, Ontario: Benben, 1984) esp. 204 (on ΕΙC f ΕΚ). Appendix 10: “the Syrian Language” (15:36) 555 cluding iota (Ι) of the preceding word may have become attached, mistakenly, to the C, especially given the ancient habit of not leaving spaces between words. However, this explanation is not very convincing, for two reasons: (1)In- spection of the Alexandrinus for our book shows that – as was often the case117 – the scribe did not, in fact, add the iotas signifying the dative case, so there would not have been, in fact, an iota just prior to the opening C of CWΡΙΑΚΗ (just as there is none at the end of the word). Of course, the mistake may have been born in a previous manuscript that did include such iotas, or a new upright could have been suggested by the one on the right of the preceding eta (Η) or with no special reason at all; it happens. However, since (2) κψριακ is not just any old word, but, rather, refers to the Lord, I hesitate to think that a religious scribe would create one out of plain negli- gence. 5. Hence my preference for another explanation, more in line with Grimm’s characterization of the Alexandrinus than with Kappler’s and Bévenot’s. Above I noted that Kyrios, in our book, refers to God. But I also noted that κψριακ« is almost exclusively a Christian word. Given the fact that Christian texts frequently use Kyrios not only of God but also of Jesus, it should come as no surprise that κψριακ« too can refer to Jesus; indeed, the great majority of citations in Lampe’s entry for this word (n. 112) do refer to Jesus. But Jesus’ language was Aramaic, a fact that every Chris- tian, and certainly scribes, could know directly from such passages as Mark 5:41 and 15:34.118 Accordingly, it is likely that the Alexandrinus’ em- ployment of κψριακ here reflects only the work of a clever scribe who, knowing that Aramaic was Jesus’ language, chose to term it not simply as “the Syrian language” but, rather, in a manner closer to his heart: “the Lord’s language.”119

117 See Mayser, Grammatik, I/1, 99–108 (§20). 118 On ancient Christian knowledge of and interest in the fact that Jesus’ language was Aramaic, see A. Meyer, Jesu Muttersprache (Freiburg i. B.: Mohr, 1896) 7–8. Note, for example, Eusebius, Demonstratio evangelica 3.7.10 (ed. I. A. Heikel, [GCS], p. 142): the apostles ask “in what language shall we speak to the Greeks – we who were brought up only in the language of the Syrians (τ@ Σ ρν φν@)?” 119 On such phenomena in general see Kraft, “Christian Transmission.” For another possible case in our book, see our NOTE on 12:27, a multi-ethnic multitude. 556 Appendices

Appendix 11: “and ever since the city was taken over by the Hebrews it has been in their hands” (15:37)

Τ7ν ο[ν κατ? Νικνορα ξρησντν οdτ« κα/ π0 κενν τ7ν καιρ7ν κρατηεση« τA« πλε« 3π9 τ7ν ’Εβραν κα/ α.τ9« α.τι τ9ν λγον καταπα σ.

The author’s evident purpose is to explain to his readers why he may end his book at this point. As such, he would not want to hint to them that the ideal situation achieved by the victory over Nicanor has since changed in any significant – perforce bad, from the Jewish point of view – way; that would undercut the importance of his story and also perplex his readers, rather than leaving them with the impression that they had received a complete narrative. That is, he should want to leave them with the impression that the ideal situation continues until his and their own day. This comes through quite clearly in such translations as Luther’s, the Revised Standard Version, and Goldstein’s:

Luther: “die Hebräer die Stadt seit jener Zeit wieder in Besitz haben” RSV: “This, then, is how matters turned out with Nicanor. And from that time the city has been in the possession of the Hebrews.” Goldstein: “From that time the city has been held by the Hebrews …”

However, it is questionable that the aorist participle, κρατηεση«, can be ascribed, as in these translations, a continuous meaning taking us up to the present. Usually it refers plainly to the past – and so it is translated by Moff- att, Abel and Habicht:

Moffatt: “ … as the city was held from that period by the Hebrews” Abel: “ … la ville demeura en possession des Hébreux” Habicht: “seit dieser Zeit die Hebräer die Stadt beherrschten”

However, usually the aorist does not refer to something continuous, even in the past. Moreover, these translations fail to assure readers that the situ- Appendix 11: “and ever since the city was taken over by the …” (15:37) 557 ation is still the same – although, as noted at the outset of this discussion, that is evidently the author’s purpose. On the contrary: these translations apparently suggest that the situation has in fact changed significantly, and that the author knew it, thus leaving his readers wondering why he concluded his book here. We doubt, however, that the author wanted to leave us such a puzzle, which would undermine the importance of his work. It seems that the dilemma may be resolved if we notice that the verb κρατω, in our book, usually means not “to rule,” which is a continuous process, but, rather, “to take over.” The most relevant parallels are at 4:10 and 5:7, where it appears, as here, in the aorist, and has “rule” (ρξ) as its object; “take over rule” is the plain translation. So too at 14:2, where the verb is in the perfect and “the country” (ξρα) is the object. A fourth case, 4:27, where the verb appears in the imperfect, is somewhat less clear; perhaps it refers to something continuous. However, given the fact that it comes at the very beginning of Menelaus’ tenure as high priest, perhaps it too refers especially to the inception of rule; and had it referred to ruling the city we would have expected “city,” not “rule,” to be the object.120 Accord- ingly, here too we translate “took over rule.” Thus, the only exception is the fifth case, at 4:50, but here the verb has no object at all, and so readily translates into “those who hold power.” This cannot affect our assessment of 15:37 where, judging by the other parallels, the verb refers to the conquest of the city by the Hebrews. What then of π0 κενν τ7ν καιρ7ν (“from those times”)? If κρα- τηεση« refers to a one-time event in the past, what happened “since those times?” Here, it seems, we must – as my teacher, Lisa Ullmann, suggested to me – assume two frequent phenomena:121 a verb of being (οϊση« – present participle of ε&ναι) has been omitted and “the city,” although mentioned only once in the verse, in fact is to be understood as functioning as the subject of two verbs (the phenomenon known as π9 κοινο)–κρατηεση« and οϊση«. This allows for the translation we adopted: “Since the affairs concerning Nicanor turned out this way, and ever since the city was taken over by the Hebrews it has been in their hands, here I too will conclude this account.”

120 Moreover, see our NOTE on 4:27, took over the government. It may be that the author was so pleased by the paronomasia there that he chose the wrong verb in order to create it; cf. our NOTE on 3:35, receiving Onias. 121 On these phenomena see, respectively, F. Blass & A. Debrunner, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (ed. F. Rehkopf; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 198416) §§127–128 and 479. 558 559

INDICES 560 Indices Index of References 561

Index of References1

I. Hebrew Bible2

Genesis 19:6 168, 169 4:10 327 20:11 312 6:8 267 23:20 62 10 256 23:22 62, 387, 14:5 431 401, 403 14:18 537 25:23 142 14:18–22 203 25:31 142 15:5 136 30:30 145 15:16 284 32:13 136, 335 18:2 388 34:6 154 19:1 162, 388 37:26 162 19:11 389 40:34–35 163 31:2 63, 484 33:18 537 Leviticus 38:1 251 9:1 165 41:1 536 9:22 501 43:12 410 10:1–2 152, 165 10:19–20 165 Exodus 23:40 378 1:7 330 1:11 62, 263, 265 Numbers 2:24 136 14:17 486 3:22 339 14:37 358 8:18 156 17:12–13 203 14 198 21:21–24 434 14:30–15:1 508 25:3 13 15 154, 506 25:10–12 224 15:1 154 25:11–13 13 15:16 62, 506 27:12–13 162 15:17 156 27:8–11 194 18:21 339 29:28–30:1 16 18:24 339 31:19 439

1 My thanks to Yonatan Miller, who prepared these indices. D.R.S. 2 Includes references to Septuagint for these books. 562 Indices

31:25ff. 342, 441 7:6 386 LXX 35:33 536 LXX 15:37 477

Deuteronomy Judges 3:27 162 13:6 388 4:9 161 18:21 431 6:7 140 LXX 19:8 503 7:2 403 7:5 375 1 Samuel 7:25–26 439 2:12–16 224 8:5 22, 69, 284, 316 2:27ff. 224 8:11 64 12:22 285 9:27 136 LXX 14:19 330 12:3 375, 485 14:28–30 452 13:11 440 17:26 315 16:9–12 435 17:36 315 19:16–21 244 17:44 360 20:8 335 17:44–46 360 20:14 431 17:54 508 21:7 502 25:9 502 2 Samuel 26:6 62 5:21 439 28:15 156 7:10 157 28:26 360 11:1 435 29 161 29:28 440 1 Kings 30:3 162 3:9–12 163 31:19 302 3:16–28 85 32 21, 22, 62, 63, 66, 226, 259, 8 164 262, 299, 302, 303, 327, 477, 8:2 163 526 8:4 161 32:9 155, 477 8:10 163 LXX 32:9 477 8:27 486 32:20 22, 262 8:65 163 32:25 22, 259, 298 8:66 134, 165 32:27 261, 299 14:29 15 32:27ff. 307 16:27 15 32:35 226 18:33–35 153 32:36 296, 299, 302, 526 32:43 226, 327 2 Kings 32:36 22, 62 5:15–17 204 34:1 162 6:15–18 63 6:18 389 Joshua 10:20 15 1:8 161 17 538 6 427 18:27 153 Index of References 563

19:19 156 10:2–11 160 19:35 62, 337, 546 11:12 138 20:34 15 11:14 502 25:15 162 14:11 502 25:25 398 14:21 335, 336 15:9 63, 299, 308 Isaiah 17:26 142 10:32 62, 484 25:11–12 152 11:12 156 29:5–7 482 14 62, 352 29:10 152 14:11 358 32 136, 142 14:12 356 LXX 32:1 514 14:13 358 32:34 136 14:14 359 32:37 136 14:18–20 365 32:39 136, 137 LXX 14:19 366 32:40 136 19:21 142 32:41 136, 157 24:16 487 33:9 136 LXX 29:5 358 41:1 398 32:6 536 41:1–15 62, 255 36:5–6 403 43–44 160 36:12 153 50:41–42 244 37:20 156 52:19 162 37:36 62, 337, 546 LXX 37:36 506 Ezekiel 40:12 357 7:17 153 40:26 63, 312 17:13 398 44:12 267 21:12 153 45:3 156 26:7 449 48:1 186 28:18 62, 451 49:5–6 155 39:4 360 49:7 156 39:23 262 54:7 22, 313 54:7–8 261, 262, 313 Joel 56:8 162 2:16–17 197 59:21 161 2:16–19 62 62:9 277 2:17 94 LXX 2:17 387 Jeremiah 2:20 62, 197, 358 1:1 152 2:1 163 Amos 2:27–28 138 6:13 431 3:16 161 7:16 502 Jonah 7:33 360 3:8 198 8:14 153 564 Indices

Zechariah 7 244 2:16 141 7:5–10 450 7:10 62, 450 Psalms LXX 8:12d 205 1:5–6 304 LXX 8:12p 346 10:4 398 9:15 173 20:8 336 9:19 511 33:13–14 156 9:21 511 37:18–19 138 LXX 9:24 280 40:7 142 9:26 511 52:6 508 9:26–32 9 74:9 514 10:3 293 74:20 335 LXX 10:3 162 74:79 142 79:2 360 Daniel 94:12–13 284 2:37 449 94:14 285 LXX 3:34 336 LXX 94:14 285 LXX 3:34–36 335 96:6 188 LXX 3:43 336 104:4 201 7–8 373 115:1 336 7:13 163 135:14 302 7:25 372, 376, 541 144:6 389 8:14 372, 376 149:6 507 8:23 284 LXX 8:23 284 Proverbs 9:2 152 1:1 163 9:3 386 1:27 140 9:15 506 10:2 342 9:21 388 11:4 342 9:26 59 13:11–12 284 11 197, 358 24:17 256 11:14 230 27:2 291 11:28–30 533 11:30 253 Esther 11:31ff. 273 LXX 3:7 280 11:32–33 299 LXX 3:13a-b 362 11:36 359 LXX 3:13e 472 11:45 454 3:15 483 12 373 4:1 198, 386 12:2 304 4:16 36, 450, 452 12:7 372 LXX 4:17a 154 LXX 14 150 LXX 4:17c 312 LXX 5:1a 205 Ezra 5:14 35, 62, 450 1:5 95 6:1 450 4:15 166 Index of References 565

4:17 139 16:27 188 5:17 139 17:23 486 7:1 3 20:1 435 7:12 449 21:26 164 24:14 95, 189 Nehemiah 25 157 1:18 163 28:9 137 2 153 29:13 486 3–4 151, 254 7:65 151 2 Chronicles 8 340 2:5 486 8:9 151 5:3 163 9:6 312 6 164 9:8 136 7:1 134, 163, 164, 527 9:32 486 7:8–10 163 11:1 186 7:9–10 134, 165 11:17 154 13:11 142 12:11 154 20:18 386 24:9 221 1 Chronicles 24:11 190 10:10 510 29:17 165 14:12 439 30:6 136

II. New Testament

Matthew 1:65 508 2:22 168 2:2 544 3:16–17 201 3:1 434 14:9 168 4:37 330 24:15 188 5:1 428 25:46 304 5:26 508 27:54 152 20:27–40 442 20:36 316 Mark 22:6 483 1:6 268 23:32 202 1:10–11 201 24:44 59, 166 4:41 508 5:41 555 John 14:61 278 4:21–24 47 15:34 555 7:2 143 15:42 342 8:20 191 10:22 87, 163 Luke 11:49 399 1:5 95 12:13 378 1:8 95 18:11 399 566 Indices

Acts 19:9 199 1:3 307 21:28 188 1:6 407 21:39 197 1:9–11 163 23:1 275 2:1 436 23:6 305 2:47 480 23:8 316, 317, 442, 444 3:21 407 24:12 276 4:1 189 24:15 305 4:29 486 25:16 302 5:5 139 26:6 305 5:11 330 28:19 216, 469 5:13–14 480 5:24 189 Romans 5:33 139 11:1 95 5:39 307 11:26ff. 554 5:40 233 6:1 205 1 Corinthians 6:13 188 15:42–55 306 7 205, 486 7:2 205 2 Corinthians 7:9 205 11:27 178 7:33 205 7:44–46 205 Galatians 7:44–50 486 1:13–14 173 7:48–50 205 7:56 293 Philippians 7:58 205 1:27 275 7:59 293 3:5 95 8:30 514 3:20 275 10:1 238 10:24 403 1 Thessalonians 10:28 277 1:2 139 10:39 135 2:13 538 12:1 353 2:16 284 12:23 355, 357 15:5 197 Hebrews 15:21 197 11:35–36 88 16:20 486 11:35–38 52 16:37 281, 486 11:38 88 17:21 71 17:24 312 1 John 17:25 486 3:2 538 Index of References 567

III. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

Assumption of Moses 13:15 510 3:4 386 14:1 510 4:8 95 15:12 378 8 299 16:1 154 8:1–2 278 16:17 357 9 299 16:18 439 9:7 317 Letter of Aristeas 1 Baruch 2 186 2:11 506 3 51, 180 11 180, 554 2 Baruch 16 205 6 160, 162 23 244 31 180 Bel and the Dragon 36 51 15 150 44 51 21 150 53 509 63 180 1 Enoch 83 135 6:2 316 92–96 199 14:3 316 93 180 91:10 304 99 180 107–111 135 Epistle of Jeremiah 121ff. 286 Pp. 160, 161 126 51 144 197, 287 1 Esdras 145–146 435 8:73 198 205 405 210 486 2 Esdras 211 355 4:15 166 225 405 230 405 Judith 245 240, 253 2:3 347 262 355 4:3 452 263 355, 359 4:10–15 198 264–265 405 4:11 241 267 240 4:11–12 386 269 355 6:2 498 270 405 8:1 3 271 240 8:6 342 289 315 8:7 194 310 145, 199 10:13 260 13:7–10 508 568 Indices

1 Maccabees 2:29–38 86, 282, 325 1 299, 533, 535 2:29–41 50 1:9 192 2:31 282 1:11 49, 325 2:32–38 272 1:11–15 43, 211 2:39–41 266, 282 1:14 219 2:41ff. 274 1:19 192 2:42 471 1:20 250, 274 2:42–43 323 1:20–24 149, 533 2:42–45 326 1:21 534 2:42–48 324 1:21–23 46, 48, 192, 260, 533 2:44 382 1:24ff. 300 2:44–48 325, 329 1:29 41, 250, 265, 398, 536 2:45 323, 375 1:30 49, 266, 342 2:49–64 337 1:33ff. 272 2:50 215 1:36–40 272 2:54 13, 215 1:41–67 273 2:58 215 1:43 49 2:65 324, 475 1:47 375 3 331 1:52 49, 325 3–4 324, 333 1:54 372, 373, 375, 376 3:1 324 1:56–64 299 3:3–33 29 1:58–59 542 3:5–8 325, 329 1:59 377 3:8 317, 329 1:60 281 3:10–24 329 1:60–61 326 3:17 452 1:60–63 50, 54 3:24 339 1:60–64 272 3:27–33 148 1:61 19, 198, 281 3:32 41, 265, 367, 397, 398 1:62–63 268 3:32–33 30, 367 1:64 317, 329 3:37 352, 544 2 324 3:38 9, 30, 243, 325, 331 2–4:23 323 3:39 332 2:1 267, 339, 454 3:41 333, 346 2:1–14 275 3:43–54 46, 48, 325 2:7 186 3:47 198, 241, 452 2:14 198 3:48 340 2:15ff. 280 3:56 335 2:16 49 3:58–59 46, 332 2:17 502 4 34, 344, 394, 395, 419 2:24 215 4–6 40, 420 2:24–26 13 4:1 9, 325 2:25 375 4:1–25 329 2:26–27 215 4:5 9, 325 2:28–29 267, 268 4:8–11 337 2:29 496 4:10 136, 335 Index of References 569

4:15 342, 436 6:1 148, 352 4:18 9, 325 6:1–16 25, 29, 148 4:23 342 6:5ff. 354 4:26 163, 394 6:14 366 4:26–35 344 6:15 312 4:28 398, 448 6:16 32 4:28–35 394, 395 6:17 398 4:29 400 6:18–63 394 4:35 26, 451 6:20 29, 30, 41, 448 4:36 171, 374 6:21 49 4:36–5:8 372 6:21–23 192 4:38 345 6:22 385 4:39 241 6:26 26 4:41–58 376 6:30 398, 448 4:43–47 376 6:30–46 395 4:46 57 6:31 395, 400, 456, 490 4:52 372, 373, 376, 523 6:33 506 4:52–54 377 6:37 455 4:59 163, 171 6:39 253 4:61 26, 394, 400 6:43–46 288, 455 5 29, 30, 374, 394, 417, 418, 6:49–50 457, 458 419, 420, 422, 424, 427 6:51–54 458 5:3 382 6:55 459 5:3–5 374 6:55ff. 29 5:6–8 374, 385, 386 6:55–56 30 5:9ff. 429 6:55–63 367 5:10 171 6:58 237 5:13 385 6:60–61 458 5:16 385 6:62 49, 459 5:17 385 6:63 459 5:25 418, 425 7:1 86, 467, 468, 511 5:26 419, 429, 430 7:3–4 468 5:35 429 7:5 49, 325, 466, 469, 476 5:43–44 433 7:6 171, 382 5:46–51 434 7:8–10 9 5:54 46, 48, 419 7:8–25 467 5:56 340, 383 7:10 171, 467 5:58ff. 424 7:11 467 5:59 408 7:12–18 482 5:61 171 7:13 471 5:62 13, 419 7:14 96 5:65 171, 382, 384 7:17 142 5:65–68 436 7:18 49 5:68 375, 439 7:21 332 6 34, 36, 60, 355, 395, 7:22 49 396, 420, 454 7:26–30 481 570 Indices

7:27 467, 507 10:89 398 7:30 467 11:1–18 367 7:31 477 11:13 188 7:33 478, 484, 485 11:14 235 7:35 543 11:17 508 7:36–38 156 11:25 49 7:37 486 11:27 332 7:39–50 496, 505, 507 11:28 218 7:40 477, 504 11:30 406 7:41 506 11:30–37 73 7:41–42 337 11:31 398 7:43 511 11:53 39 7:45 504 11:59 460 7:47 508, 510 11:60 193 7:49 467 11:70 404 8 14, 221 11:71 386 8:6 188 12:1 235 8:17 175, 221, 430 12:1–4 14 9312:5–23 256 9:3 482, 523 12:7 73 9:10 235, 288 12:9 403 9:12 506 12:11 139 9:23 49 12:19–22 73 9:27 57 12:22 168 9:30 147 13:11 404, 424 9:33 14 13:25 454 9:54 523 13:36–40 11, 139 9:58 49 13:37 311, 469, 470 9:69 49 13:39 410 10:8 508 13:41 11, 139 10:14 49, 382 13:41–42 529 10:15–21 13 13:42 147 10:18 135, 406 13:51 378 10:21 143 14 475 10:25 135 14:1–3 139 10:26 362, 404 14:5 423, 424 10:31 196 14:20–23 257 10:40 192 14:28 509 10:43 196 14:34 423 10:44 192 14:36 233 10:46 365 14:36–37 135 10:51–58 367 14:41 57, 147, 477 10:59–66 227 14:49 191 10:61 49 15:10 11, 139 10:69 424 15:21 255, 382 10:75–76 424 15:27 49 Index of References 571

15:33–34 235 1:18–19 134 15:40 424 1:18–2:15 133 16:14 193 1:19 134, 160, 168, 172 16:23–24 520 1:20 148 1:23 157 2 Maccabees 1:25 200 1–2 11, 17 1:25–26 168, 391 1:1 6, 8, 132, 137, 140, 144, 385, 520 1:27 162, 169, 205 1:1–9 521 1:29 169, 197, 538 1:1–1:10a 132, 521, 525 1:30 438 1:1–2:18 4, 519, 520, 528 1:31 376, 528, 538 1:2 317 1:31–32 9 1:2–5 133, 136, 375 1:32 154, 172 1:3 168 1:33 148, 159 1:3–4 137, 138 1:34 159, 215 1:4 138, 142, 314 1:36 159 1:5 10, 525, 526 2:1 152, 163, 166 1:6 133, 486 2:2 291, 314 1:7 4, 9, 11, 143, 147, 162, 2:4 155, 166, 197 336, 522, 524, 526, 527, 529 2:6 161 1:7–8 140 2:8–11 197 1:7–9 521 2:8–12 160 1:7–10a 133 2:9 150, 153, 164 1:7a 522 2:10 134, 154, 164, 376, 538 1:7b-8 522 2:12 134, 163 1:8 132, 163, 345, 372, 376, 526 2:13 160, 260, 403 1:9 9, 139, 150, 163, 377 2:14 358 1:9–10a 523 2:16 134, 140, 144, 150, 1:9–10 11 159, 263, 523 1:10 5, 8, 15, 59, 135, 148, 2:16–18 133 243, 362, 373, 520, 521, 523 2:17 9, 137, 147, 155, 162 1:10a 11, 521, 522, 524 2:17–18 134 1:10b 133, 523 2:18 157, 538 1:10b-2:18 132 2:18–32 132 1:11 133, 146 2:19 31, 163, 174, 475, 484 1:11–17 133 2:19–23 171 1:12 133, 186, 336, 502, 527 2:19–32 4, 16, 24, 25, 37, 519 1:12–13 527 2:20 4, 364, 527 1:13 71, 133, 149, 258, 329 2:20–21 81 1:13–16 133, 147, 150, 520, 521, 527 2:21 47, 80, 156, 199, 1:13–17 25, 144 224, 251, 281, 423 1:14 192 2:22 186 1:15 13, 150, 485 2:23 36 1:17 527 2:23–24 324 1:18 9, 133, 143, 144, 153, 2:23–31 17, 24 159, 163, 167, 172, 523 2:23–32 513 572 Indices

2:23ff. 379, 419 3:16 5, 69, 185, 196, 281, 401 2:24 177, 231, 346, 514 3:17 69, 70 2:24–31 27 3:18 48, 402 2:24–32 513 3:19 18, 277, 281, 318 2:25 24, 72 3:20 47, 48, 156, 184, 205, 501 2:26 24, 34, 175 3:20–21 355 2:26–27 68 3:21 5, 79, 185, 386, 483 2:27 24, 179, 514 3:22 48, 71, 174, 186, 191, 496 2:28 72, 175 3:22–23 18, 76, 200, 334, 498, 506 2:29 24, 353 3:24 40, 70, 71, 202, 259, 337, 456 2:32 24, 150, 175, 285 3:24–26 172, 251, 431 3 4, 16, 37, 41, 42, 75, 87, 172 3:25 70, 202, 214, 356, 401 3–4 12, 18 3:26 201 3–5 19, 42, 43 3:28 78, 174, 180, 200, 3–7 329 201, 307, 357 3–15 16 3:29 76 3:1 3, 7, 50, 70, 74, 75, 174, 3:29–30 200, 506 185, 193, 195, 200, 214, 224, 3:30 32, 48, 70, 200, 292, 238, 239, 327, 328, 502, 512 391, 406, 455, 508 3:1–2 375 3:31 46, 48, 61, 71, 185, 228 3:1–3 4, 6, 48, 184, 250, 482 3:32 5, 46, 48, 185, 238, 257 3:1–4:6 4 3:33 5, 61, 185, 201, 204 3:1–6:17 25 3:33–34 172 3:2 74, 204, 260, 481 3:34 47, 93, 155, 156, 201, 204 3:2–3 18, 48, 167 3:34–39 347, 402 3:3 4, 5, 74, 185, 191, 192, 3:35 69, 185, 193 225, 360, 468, 549 3:36 361 3:4 5, 6, 27, 74, 95, 211, 3:36–39 48 243, 380, 468, 482 3:37 185 3:4–5 49 3:38 192, 215, 331 3:5 4, 185, 193, 333 3:38–39 201 3:5–6 216, 469 3:39 47, 64, 93, 156, 184, 3:6 233 197, 305, 341, 486 3:7 180, 215, 474 3:40 379, 512 3:8 185 4 16, 18, 300 3:9 5, 69, 184, 185, 204, 250, 538 4–5 51, 140 3:10 5, 185, 200 4–7 336 3:10–12 191 4:1 69, 70, 180, 201 3:11 224 4:1–4 4 3:12 174, 433 4:1–6 4, 18, 469 3:13 232 4:1b 4 3:14 69, 401, 504 4:2 6, 213, 219, 220, 245, 3:14b 184 246, 337, 422, 456, 504 3:14–17 79 4:3 50, 236 3:15 5, 47, 48, 93, 156, 172, 4:4 4, 176, 191, 228, 265, 333 184, 191, 200, 205, 290 4:4–6 187, 469 Index of References 573

4:5 6, 199, 367, 449 4:29 31, 235, 383 4:5–6 4, 82 4:30 42 4:6 48, 80, 82, 217, 236, 4:30–34 12 250, 273, 471, 538 4:30–38 217 4:7 4, 6, 31, 49, 70, 185, 188, 4:31 234, 383, 552 192, 211, 217, 229, 231, 4:32 240, 243, 451, 538 294, 306, 399, 490, 527 4:32–38 49 4:7–9 82 4:33 196, 530 4:7–15 41 4:34 48, 71, 187, 433 4:8 231, 399 4:35 48, 67, 238, 245, 254, 4:8–9 231 317, 335, 365, 450, 461 4:9 212, 273, 530 4:35–36 422 4:9–11 6 4:35–38 211 4:10 83, 222, 224, 254, 281, 557 4:36 51, 68, 187, 211, 328, 352 4:10–11 531 4:36–37 237 4:11 14, 15, 141, 174, 4:37 501 243, 289, 336, 456 4:38 71, 226, 242, 345, 4:12 222, 233, 263 390, 423, 473, 554 4:13 23, 67, 70, 83, 140, 173, 4:39 199, 235, 243, 251, 195, 220, 232, 291, 327, 527 387, 451 4:14 172, 189, 223 4:39–40 68 4:15 83, 224 4:39–42 52, 353 4:16 215 4:40 27, 50, 215, 216, 241, 4:16–17 21, 22, 24, 25, 37, 64, 65, 243, 380, 468, 471 75, 211, 226, 250, 261, 283, 4:41 244, 402 284, 303 4:42 35, 71, 191, 226, 237, 4:17 24, 197, 224, 327 240, 255, 341, 382 4:18 52 4:44 52, 232 4:18–20 52, 53 4:45 48, 72, 174, 279 4:18–22 211 4:45–46 279, 331 4:19 243, 260, 274, 487, 530 4:47 264, 314, 450, 514 4:19–20 219 4:48 6, 7, 46, 235, 504 4:20 227 4:49 48, 187, 211, 237, 4:21 5, 73, 144, 191, 215, 232, 238, 257, 328, 422, 450 265, 274, 363, 367, 482 4:50 6, 215, 219, 331, 557 4:21–23 534 5 16, 18, 54, 141, 4:22 193, 218, 250 300, 534, 535, 536 4:23 31, 73, 95, 229, 274, 367, 456 5:1 42, 231, 238, 274, 533 4:23–24 82 5:2 69, 201, 266, 387 4:24 399 5:2–4 172 4:25 49, 95, 174, 241, 256, 5:3 68, 69, 252 258, 290, 312, 474 5:4 48, 228, 249 4:26 18, 31, 218, 226, 253, 255, 399 5:5 70, 254, 255, 294, 306, 476 4:27 80, 219, 241, 557 5:6 6, 80, 142, 220, 238, 4:28 191, 223, 448 258, 422, 476 4:28–29 552 5:7 18, 62, 219, 242, 557 574 Indices

5:7–10 35, 202 6:1 7, 18, 19, 41, 174, 197, 251, 5:8 6, 133, 141, 213, 232, 274, 291, 300, 407, 536 241, 257, 425 6:1–11 19 5:8–9 538 6:2 18, 19, 47, 86, 264, 268, 407, 537 5:9 47, 80, 213, 365, 383 6:2–5 274 5:9–10 78, 226, 249 6:3 19 5:10 245, 256, 277, 360 6:3–11 196 5:11 49, 53, 73, 203, 232, 6:4 228, 355 264, 290, 354, 390, 534 6:4–5 136, 273, 336, 407 5:11–13 79 6:5 172, 281, 461 5:11–14 255 6:6 19, 199, 274, 496 5:12 71, 423 6:7 17, 18, 39, 273, 274, 318, 5:12–13 299 358, 378, 541 5:13 20, 298, 376 6:8 17, 356, 422 5:14 80 6:9 69, 83, 173, 224, 291 5:15 174, 201, 213, 256, 456 6:10 18, 20, 198, 239, 318, 328 5:15–16 149, 336, 360, 451 6:10–11 273, 274, 326 5:16 18, 22, 46, 48, 89, 6:11 19, 74, 86, 87, 191, 268, 167, 188, 204, 235, 264, 330, 366, 377, 487, 496, 497 372, 484, 487, 533 6:12 24, 47, 69, 70, 177, 284, 5:17 21, 22, 68, 176, 188, 284, 315, 325, 513 299, 307, 313, 351, 356 6:12–16 21, 64, 285, 303, 377, 486 5:17–20 21, 24, 25, 37, 64, 75, 6:12–17 19, 24, 25, 37, 75, 226, 226, 250, 261, 283, 303 273, 283 5:18 5, 68, 191 6:14 24, 232, 261 5:19 46, 156, 481 6:14–16 261 5:20 21, 68, 71, 138, 155, 174, 6:15 226 186, 261, 262, 526 6:15–16 24 5:21 19, 26, 69, 156, 201, 261, 300, 6:16 21, 69, 283, 306, 315 351, 355, 356, 357, 359, 530 6:17 68, 180, 286, 318 5:22 19, 62, 174, 189, 234, 6:17b 285 243, 276, 330, 366 6:18 281, 287 5:22–23 18, 47, 539 6:18–32 19, 23 5:23 6, 69 6:18–7:42 21, 22, 24, 25, 37, 5:24 19, 41, 68, 250, 252, 55, 328, 330 259, 332, 535 6:19 88, 265 5:25 18, 19, 69, 94, 153, 252, 6:20 281, 287 253, 289, 301, 440, 496 6:21 17, 228, 281, 287, 5:26 68, 69, 70, 80, 423, 455 301, 311, 318, 356 5:27 3, 19, 82, 84, 217, 275, 6:21–22 237 326, 341, 366, 377, 469, 6:22 293, 304, 538 495 6:23 19, 23, 197, 283, 286, 498, 501 5:27–7:41 89 6:24 23, 286, 289 6 16, 17, 18, 300 6:24–25 489 6–7 7, 17, 20, 24, 48, 50, 75, 6:24–28 50, 273 90, 220, 372, 444, 495, 550 6:25 23, 83, 265, 288 Index of References 575

6:26 71, 155, 304 7:33 22, 47, 68, 71, 93, 136, 6:27 70 138, 261, 262, 283, 299, 303, 6:28 23, 67, 70, 88, 330 314, 343, 525, 526 6:29 180, 459 7:34 22, 69, 260, 305, 308, 487 6:30 23, 69, 70, 304, 448, 488, 554 7:35 205 6:31 23, 50, 291, 303, 306, 308 7:36 69, 299 7 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 31, 52, 59, 7:37 19, 23, 24, 48, 175, 301, 387 88, 90, 293, 318, 328 7:37–38 299 7:1 17, 93, 277, 286, 302, 440 7:38 23, 50, 155, 313, 329 7:2 19, 70, 301, 339 7:39 290, 293, 301, 302, 354, 483 7:3 290, 302, 317, 354, 483 7:40 306 7:4 244, 303, 514 7:41 70 7:4–5 86, 358 7:42 17, 20, 23, 68, 69, 205, 7:5 70, 276, 305, 311, 423 263, 285, 299, 318, 356 7:6 19, 22, 24, 62, 136, 197, 8 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 25, 300, 205, 299, 311, 315, 343, 526, 554 354, 372, 394, 495, 497 7:7 88, 302, 306, 356 8:1 68, 82, 84, 173, 224, 245, 267, 7:8 19, 69, 438, 554 281, 285, 323, 324, 336, 495 7:9 226, 299, 305, 306 8:2 70, 205, 346 7:10 70, 305 8:2–3 7 7:11 299 8:2–4 4, 19, 22, 48, 83, 146, 7:12 69, 302 326, 329, 376, 527 7:13 17, 306 8:2–5 272 7:14 70, 299, 304, 305, 450 8:3 174, 359 7:15 17 8:3–4 50 7:16 285, 299 8:4 187, 238 7:17 155, 293, 318 8:4–5 65, 317 7:17–18 497 8:5 23, 48, 80, 83, 148, 175, 272, 313, 7:18 23, 93, 291, 314 323, 346, 347, 387, 401, 501 7:19 353 8:5–7 174, 324 7:20 79, 305 8:5–8 324 7:21 19, 310, 311, 438, 499, 554 8:6 245, 326, 352 7:21–24 310 8:6–7 325, 423 7:22–23 490 8:7 471 7:23 71, 155, 299, 305 8:8 176, 243, 323, 366, 382 7:24 19, 149, 301, 311, 459 8:9 46, 71, 149, 341, 382, 423, 7:25 233, 302 427, 473, 474 7:25–29 289 8:9ff. 323 7:26 302 8:10 42, 544 7:27 19, 232, 241, 256, 8:11 76, 155, 280, 323, 335, 341, 310, 438, 554 346, 348, 355, 374, 476, 498 7:28 58, 63, 228, 238, 302 8:11b 226 7:29 88, 256, 261, 299 8:12 73, 330, 382 7:30 19, 137, 197, 302 8:13 201, 346 7:31 52 8:14 228, 253, 346 7:32 93, 261, 307 8:14–15 48 576 Indices

8:14–20 46, 48, 325 9:2 240, 241, 258, 352, 426 8:15 317, 335 9:3 73, 343, 385, 421, 441 8:16 201 9:4 7, 47, 81, 156, 201, 8:16–20 64, 499 290, 327, 359, 476, 498 8:17 4, 7, 69, 188, 222, 337, 527 9:5 69, 71, 201, 205, 313, 391 8:18 76, 200, 219, 346, 403, 9:5–6 47, 226 456, 499 9:6 357, 365, 451 8:18–19 341 9:7 67, 69, 70, 81, 258, 303, 352, 8:18–20 546 354, 355, 390, 423, 473, 480 8:19 62, 499 9:7–8 357 8:19–20 323, 427, 452, 499 9:8 25, 69, 174, 263, 355, 360, 498 8:20 47, 71, 156, 341, 546 9:8–10 26, 202 8:21 50, 70, 256, 301, 344 9:8–12 156 8:22 31, 171, 340 9:9 62, 70, 86, 92, 360 8:22–23 340 9:10 25, 78, 235, 341, 366 8:23 32, 70, 341, 346, 401, 431 9:10–12 201 8:23–26 324 9:11 81, 355, 503 8:24 71, 155, 242, 339 9:11–12 307 8:25 47, 152, 226, 258 9:11–17 402 8:26–27 19 9:12 223, 313, 357 8:26–28 266 9:12–17 48 8:27 313, 343, 346, 387, 9:13 76, 260, 261, 361, 362, 487 391, 401, 402 9:13b 226 8:27–30 339 9:14 186, 196, 347, 502 8:29 22, 23, 24, 48, 76, 84, 136, 138, 9:14–15 7 169, 175, 198, 228, 253, 303, 9:14–17 359 342, 346, 387, 401, 441, 496, 9:15 41, 227, 228, 245, 257, 275 525, 526 9:16 48, 83, 167, 189, 225, 260 8:30 9, 71, 332, 342, 383 9:16–17 204 8:30–32 421 9:17 155, 204, 362 8:30–33 354, 385 9:17–18 81, 484 8:31 329, 342, 345, 352 9:18 69, 152, 362, 363, 403, 498 8:32 71 9:18ff. 359 8:33 72, 213, 226, 343, 390 9:19 6, 135 8:34 9, 84, 330, 333, 382, 421, 432, 9:20 47, 156, 409 473, 497, 499 9:21 405 8:34–35 389 9:23 359, 364, 367 8:35 341, 530 9:24 234 8:36 7, 42, 48, 64, 78, 80, 202, 9:25 72, 359, 363, 403 307, 333, 357, 361, 402, 473, 544 9:26 362, 405 9 16, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 35, 9:27 289 148, 300, 354, 395, 450, 527 9:28 47, 226, 257, 294, 328 9–10 40, 406 9:28–29 245 9–13 25, 33, 380, 46 9:29 27, 29, 144, 205, 217, 381 9:1 236, 251, 258, 538 10 16, 30, 394, 397, 427 9:1–2 148, 236, 389 10–11 31, 32, 34, 35, 374, 398, 419 Index of References 577

10–13 26 10:24 27, 31, 258, 343, 344, 354, 10:1 8 374, 382, 389, 398, 448 10:1–3 8 10:24–38 372 10:1–8 8, 11, 14, 16, 17, 25, 30, 37, 10:25 31, 198, 346, 361, 477 143, 144, 371, 372, 373, 376, 10:25–26 48, 341, 372 378, 379, 526, 527, 528, 529 10:26 62, 94, 175, 199, 241, 10:2 172, 372, 373, 485 253, 401, 538 10:2–3 136 10:26–30 63 10:3 8, 9, 134, 142, 153, 157, 158, 10:27 7, 31, 251 163, 231, 372, 526, 528 10:28 76, 294, 329, 336, 346, 390 10:4 22, 24, 32, 48, 69, 150, 174, 10:29 47, 62, 156, 201, 175, 253, 283, 284, 390, 452 387, 388, 401, 425 10:5 47, 163, 375, 376 10:29–30 31, 172, 372, 431, 507 10:6 88, 165, 268, 366 10:30 201, 257, 406, 508 10:6–7 9, 143 10:31 383 10:7 8, 48, 385, 470 10:32 343, 374, 383 10:8 7, 10, 137, 144, 510, 526 10:34 277, 347, 427 10:9 8, 16, 205, 217, 367, 10:34–35 328 372, 373, 526 10:34–36 32 10:9–13 371 10:35 67, 70, 71, 258, 387, 390, 473 10:9–11:38 32, 36, 37 10:36 457 10:10 72, 172, 217, 324, 10:37 27, 71, 72, 374 327, 355, 364, 419, 513 10:38 48, 346, 372, 438 10:10–11 367 11 11, 16, 28, 30, 32, 42, 300, 10:10–11:38 33, 34 372, 373, 395, 420, 448 10:10ff. 30 11:1 27, 29, 41, 68, 192, 10:11 30, 189, 192, 243, 331, 251, 317, 420, 441 354, 359, 396, 397, 421 11:2 31, 81, 361, 399, 484 10:12 217, 237, 243, 11:2–3 7, 398 313, 330, 379 11:2–4 283 10:12–13 42, 244, 330, 331 11:3 67, 485, 538 10:13 149, 490 11:4 36, 81, 86, 155, 361, 395, 10:14 68, 80, 330, 333, 374 398, 448, 484, 498, 505 10:14–15 280, 331, 422, 436 11:4a 226 10:14–23 372 11:5 26, 30, 31, 32, 456 10:15 50, 215, 242, 329, 353, 476 11:6 31, 48, 73, 79, 198, 228, 10:16 48, 198, 253, 341, 372 229, 341, 361, 391, 401, 452 10:17 70, 71, 332 11:7 31, 70, 339, 340, 431 10:18 343 11:7–8 387 10:18–19 31 11:8 31, 172, 201, 387 10:19 73, 233, 339, 352 11:9 70, 197, 391 10:19–20 171, 432 11:10 47, 156, 341 10:19–23 340 11:11 70 10:21 31, 339, 441 11:12 242, 389 10:22 384 11:13 48, 64, 307, 314, 347, 10:23 71, 332 357, 448, 451 578 Indices

11:13–14 26 12:8 228 11:14 32, 459 12:9 30, 70, 329, 400, 423, 439 11:15 219, 403, 404, 405, 420 12:10 27, 30, 345, 389, 11:16 135, 199 400, 418, 425, 428, 429 11:16–21 412 12:10–11 68 11:17 72, 364, 397, 403 12:10–12 418 11:18 27, 396, 405, 406, 411 12:10–16 418 11:19 362, 407, 410 12:10ff. 374, 390 11:21 412, 523 12:11 341, 388, 417 11:22 135, 403 12:11–12 237, 418 11:22–26 459 12:12 403 11:23 33, 395, 411, 420, 472 12:13 199, 434 11:24 173, 222, 224, 226, 12:13–16 418 281, 410, 411 12:14 51, 277, 328, 390 11:25 275, 406, 508 12:14–15 77 11:26 168, 237, 365, 406, 420 12:15 48, 70, 214, 258, 11:27 135, 243, 403, 404 337, 390, 417, 435 11:27–33 408 12:16 30, 174, 400, 417, 426 11:28 362 12:17 30, 353, 390, 400, 425, 437 11:29 192, 406, 420 12:17–19 418 11:29–32 449 12:18 73 11:30 237 12:19 71, 428, 456 11:31 407, 549 12:20 70, 339 11:32 409 12:20–25 418 11:33 405, 412, 523 12:21 31, 195, 228, 353, 433, 534 11:34 135, 397, 403 12:22 69, 70, 140, 172, 205, 11:35–36 396 340, 417, 433, 503 11:36 196, 412, 530 12:23 69, 433, 455 11:37 240 12:24 389, 437 11:38 410, 523 12:24–25 29, 31, 68, 425 12 16, 28, 29, 30, 32, 12:25 339 354, 374, 420, 427 12:26 149, 431 12–13 31 12:26–29 418 12:1 16, 27, 33, 235, 318, 482 12:27 174, 332, 426, 427 12:1–2 48, 77, 380, 422 12:28 48, 200, 417 12:1–9 418 12:29 30, 353, 400, 434 12:2 48, 189, 213, 234, 252, 265, 12:30 422 332, 333, 374, 385, 386, 425, 12:30–31 48, 418 472, 482 12:31 7 12:2–3 280 12:31–32 34, 46, 48, 68, 417, 425 12:3 424 12:32 353, 374, 382 12:3–9 333, 421 12:32–37 418 12:5 220, 228 12:34 65, 188, 418, 440 12:6 31, 48, 69, 155, 226, 238, 239, 12:35 27, 70, 332, 380, 267, 329, 341, 417, 436, 440, 453 389, 421, 430 12:7 71, 258 12:36 48, 72, 341, 417, 436 Index of References 579

12:37 214, 433, 508, 554 13:14–15 81 12:38 19, 223, 224, 266, 425, 436 13:15 32, 329, 340, 455, 505 12:38–45 417, 418 13:16 32, 203, 406, 508 12:39 245 13:17 257 12:39–41 65 13:18 454 12:40 80, 277 13:19 26 12:40–41 47, 436 13:19–26 28, 34, 453 12:41 391, 436, 453 13:20 73 12:41–42 48, 155 13:21 75, 191, 243, 457 12:42 198, 253, 443 13:22 68, 237, 457 12:42ff. 341 13:23 27, 29, 70, 188, 216, 228, 12:43 7, 48, 192, 290, 451 234, 289, 311, 367, 402, 461, 12:43–45 291, 299 472, 481, 530 12:44 46, 48 13:24 41, 42, 204, 380 12:45 60, 70, 356 13:24–25 530 13 16, 28, 29, 30, 32, 35, 13:25 28, 32, 68, 237, 279, 333, 300, 395, 420 347, 419, 459, 460 13:1 32, 41, 73, 231 13:26 205, 258, 379, 419, 13:1–2 26, 28, 77 448, 512, 534 13:2 35, 397, 399, 430, 14 16, 17, 300 461, 468, 480, 505 14–15 17, 18, 19, 25, 499 13:3 213, 409 14:1 26, 86, 87, 199, 230, 231 13:3–5 86 14:1–2 77 13:3–8 28, 35, 36, 37, 47, 226, 447 14:2 71, 397, 557 13:4 28, 35, 70, 71, 244, 14:3 27, 49, 50, 82, 189, 243, 268, 264, 314, 447, 450, 466 380, 466, 471, 474, 482, 552 13:4–5 472 14:3–4 216 13:5 62 14:3–10 18 13:6 240 14:4 231, 378, 511 13:7 188, 245, 366, 538 14:4ff. 191 13:7–8 78, 257 14:5 82, 189, 216, 233, 235, 264, 13:8 172, 224, 241, 242, 356 330, 473 13:9 28, 37, 213, 441 14:6 68, 353, 382, 538 13:9–17 447 14:7 473, 552 13:9–26 28 14:7–10 82 13:10 228, 229, 423 14:8 6, 180, 216, 459 13:10–12 48 14:9 289 13:10–14 477 14:10 471, 538 13:11 32, 47, 49, 174, 213, 244, 256 14:11 68, 149, 244 13:12 36, 62, 198, 199, 14:12 274, 505 386, 401, 450, 472 14:12–25 9 13:13 243, 341, 448, 454, 14:13 71, 171, 174, 403, 468, 469, 479, 487 483, 484, 552 13:13–14 7, 64 14:14 332, 402, 476, 481, 497 13:14 28, 34, 47, 50, 155, 213, 14:15 48, 172, 198, 241, 222, 256, 301, 339, 341, 455 285, 386, 499 580 Indices

14:16 479, 505 15:1 70, 174, 186, 200, 14:17 31, 171, 384, 432, 433 228, 268, 500 14:18 68, 70, 308, 330, 482 15:1–2 18, 19, 266 14:18–25 49 15:2 174, 205, 232, 307 14:19 430 15:3 10, 84, 137, 303, 314, 14:20 219, 240, 280, 403 346, 421, 432, 499 14:21 28, 35 15:3–4 47, 156 14:21–22 480 15:4 71, 290, 315, 496 14:22 73, 329 15:5 76, 201, 311, 314, 507, 509 14:23 174, 476 15:5–6 18 14:25 28, 35, 472 15:6 69, 186, 254, 508 14:26 189, 229, 359, 480, 551, 552 15:6–7 77, 174, 200, 334, 484, 506 14:26–29 500 15:7 186, 538 14:26ff. 191 15:7–9 64 14:27 274, 290, 301, 354, 15:8 17, 47, 156, 341 423, 467, 474, 530 15:8–9 452, 499 14:28 32, 238, 461 15:9 70, 166, 337 14:29 81, 199, 235, 361, 456 15:10 70, 308, 423, 509 14:29–31 318 15:11 70, 252, 507 14:30 63, 176 15:12 68, 239, 442, 499, 503 14:31 81, 150, 171, 174, 15:12–14 12, 211 228, 361, 475 15:13 230 14:31ff. 478 15:14 20, 61, 68, 186 14:33 7, 17, 18, 53, 62, 172, 375, 15:14–16 160 498, 504, 508, 509, 510, 543 15:15–16 69 14:33–34 18, 486, 505 15:17 7, 70, 174, 186, 294, 14:34 47, 156, 283, 347, 330, 453, 500 485, 501, 510, 513 15:18 31, 254 14:34–35 197 15:18–19 196 14:34–36 48, 156 15:18ff. 341 14:35 205, 341 15:19 69, 79, 196, 197, 401, 477 14:35–36 84 15:20–22 74 14:36 17, 452, 510 15:21 47, 156, 232, 497, 501, 538 14:37 6, 7, 51, 191, 282 15:21–24 48 14:37–38 243, 286 15:21–26 505 14:37–46 23, 55, 59, 60 15:22 62, 261, 337, 427, 452, 499 14:38 83, 84, 173, 174, 186, 224, 15:23 47, 156, 401, 486 268, 281, 466, 469, 508 15:24 20, 62, 328, 485, 509, 510 14:40 290 15:24–26 200 14:41 479, 503 15:25 438, 507 14:42 291 15:25–26 18, 336 14:43 70, 327, 513 15:26 505 14:45 402, 473 15:26–27 48 14:45–46 80 15:27 172, 431, 500 14:46 23, 48, 214, 293, 299 15:28 201, 258 15 9, 16, 372, 495 15:28–35 35 Index of References 581

15:29 48, 391, 406, 438, 554 3:8–10 237 15:30 6, 17, 62, 485, 488, 498, 510 3:9 410, 501 15:30–31 220, 422 3:19 498 15:32 17, 69, 201, 260, 3:23 382 328, 485, 499, 510 3:25 458 15:32–33 508 3:27 288 15:33 7, 62, 216, 226, 302, 510 4:4 283 15:33–34 235 4:6 482 15:34 17, 47, 48, 93, 156, 391, 487 4:9 152 15:35 341, 510 4:14 308 15:36 7, 9, 10, 303, 331, 353, 379, 4:17 180 438, 467, 526, 553 5:2 514 15:37 3, 7, 15, 50, 52, 184, 205, 5:20 277 314, 379, 402, 556, 557 5:35 449 15:37–38 24 5:42 290, 472 15:37–39 24, 37 5:43 327 15:38 72, 460 5:51 201 15:38–39 519 6:1 145 15:39 24, 177, 244 6:1–15 286, 337 6:3 477 3 Maccabees 6:4 391 1546:5 337 1–2 5, 6, 87, 185 6:9 391, 486 1:5 259 6:12 336 1:9 188 6:15 262 1:10 199 6:16 313 1:11 195 6:16–21 202 1:18 198 6:18 201, 202 1:19 481 6:22–26 450 1:22 51 6:23 238 1:23 275 6:24 244, 353 1:26 180 6:28 316 1:29 199 6:34 356 2:1 198 6:35–36 180 2:2 154 6:39 201 2:2–8 337 7:3 244, 501 2:6 391 7:4 472 2:9 486 7:5 244 2:10 391 7:8 407 2:16 391 7:10–15 450 2:21 205 7:11 314 2:27 281 7:12 409 2:29 279, 543 7:13 199, 509 2:33 499 7:16 391 3:1 135 7:18–19 9 3:8 238, 483 7:23 391, 514 582 Indices

4 Maccabees 36:11 155, 156 4:11 199 36:12 186 4:26 173 38:24 286 5:4 286 42:11 198 5:25 197 44:20 136 8:19 283 47:12–17 163 10:7 244 48:20 485 12:7 554 48:21 337 12:13 238, 258 49:13 151, 254 16:15 554 50:1 187 18:7 198 50:1–4 193, 220 50:4 214 Martyrdom and Ascension 50:20 501 of Isaiah 2:11 268 Tobit 2:1 436 Paraleipomena Ieremiou 3:6 262 3:8–11 160 4:7–11 342 4:19 291 Pseudo-Philo, 5:22 401 Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 13:2 291 21:10 162 26:13 284 Wisdom of Solomon 44:9 357 7–9 163 63:4 357 9:15 304, 306 11:16 226 Sirach 12 284 7:10 342 12:2 284 10:2 186 12:19 316 22:4 194 12:22 284 29:13 435 18:21–22 203 34:5–7 500 18:22 335 35:17 31

IV. Dead Sea Scrolls

1QH 1QS 3:21–22 316 4:22 316 6:6–7 267 1QM 11:8 316 3–4 340 14:2 439 4QMMT C26 140, 166 1QpHab 5:9 404 4QpIsaa 485 Index of References 583

4QpNah 4Q525 1 144 frgs. 2–3, col. ii, ll. 3–5 138 1.3 147 11QTemple 4Q196 436 45:11–12 186 45:16–17 186 4Q200 6:6 291 Damascus Document (CD) 1:3 262 4Q242 356 1:13–14 141 2:17–3:12 161 4Q248 186, 535 5:6–7 277 9:20 284 4Q385a 12:1 186 frg. 18, I, a–b 161

V. Rabbinic Literature

V.1. Mishnah

’Abodah Zarah Menahot 2:6 225 13:10 12

’Avot Middot 4:19 256 1:3–5 345 5:17 61 2:5 386 5:18 361 Sanhedrin Bekhorot 4:5 327 7:1 267 7:4 390 9:6 242 Berakhot 10:1 442 9:3 443 9:12 440 Sotah 7:6 501 Gittin 8:1 506 7:6 312 Sukkah Kelim 5:4 386 29:7 267 Tamid Maaser Sheni 3:8 225 3:4 135 7:2 501 584 Indices

Yadayyim Yoma 3:5 166 6:2 509

V.2. Tosephta

Berakhot Sanhedrin 4:3 514 2:6 135

Demai Sotah 4:12 135 6:3 154 13 161 Hullin 13:1 145, 160 2:24 292 Ta‘aniyyot Niddah 4:11 361 2:2–4 312

V.3. Palestinian Talmud

Berakhot Hagigah 2:3,5a 377 2:1,77b 361

V.4. Babylonian Talmud

’Abodah Zarah Sanhedrin 8b 151 38a 151 16b 292 Shabbat Berakhot 25b 439 17a 137 29a 64 Sotah 35a 357, 358 Gittin 56a 258 Ta‘anit 57b 287 18b 485, 509

Pesahim Qiddushin 104b 514 66a 64, 454

Rosh Hashanah Yoma 31a 506 5a 327 8b 399 9a 399 Index of References 585

V.5. Other

Avot de Rabbi Natan (ed. Schechter) Megillat Ta‘anit (with Scholion) A, 5 442 (ed. Noam) B, 10 442 47 512 298 485, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512 Deuteronomy Rabbah (Midrash Debarim Rabbah, Midrash of the Ten Martyrs (ed. Reeg) ed. Lieberman) 52*-54* 303 82 242 102* 327

Ecclesiastes Rabbah Pesiqta Rabbati (ed. Ish-Shalom) (Qohelet Rabbah) 180b 90, 301 9:12 358 Seder Olam Rabbah Lamentations Rabbah 30 57 84–85 90 Sifre Deuteronomy Leviticus Rabbah 304 440 27:6 314 Sifre Numbers 137 281

VI. Early Christian Literature (See also index of names)

Apostolic Constitutions Hilary of Poitiers, De Trinitate 8.6.5 137 4.16 58

Epistle to Diognetus Jerome, Commentary on Daniel 4:1 449 11:14 230 11:21–22 230 Eusebius 11:36 25 Demonstratio evangelica 11:44–45 251 3.7.10 555 De martyribus Palasestinae John Chrysostomos 2.3 305 Adversus Judaeos 9.7 239 1.6 236 Hist. eccl. MPG 48, 900 89 6.5 58 “On the Maccabean Martyrs Praep. Evang. and Their Mother” 8.7.9 205 MPG 50, 617–628 89 9.17.5–6 537 9.29.14 198 Justin, Dialogue with Tryphon 9.39.5 160 96.2 278 586 Indices

Lactantius, Martyrdom of Polycarp De Mortibus Persecutorum 3.2 305 4.3 360 9.3 314 23.8 422 11.1 313 28.3–4 239 Photius, Biblioteca Malalas, Chronographia 72 450 261 236 Sulpicius Severus, Chronicon 2.17.5 218 21.4 218

VII. Classical Literature (including Philo and Josephus)

Aeneas Tacticus 11.66 25 On Withstanding Siege 32 332 4.3 432 45 192, 217 46 364 Aeschylus 47 468 Persians 65.343 547 Opening 504 66 148, 364 422 352 470 352 Aristophanes 481 352 Clouds 734 346 442 303 742 355 Frogs 744–748 263 619 303 744–751 357, 359 820 357, 359 Aristotle 832–836 346 Historia Animalium 612a 513 Andocides Meteorologica Against Alcibiades 4.6 153 4.19 347 4.383b 153

Appian Arrian Mithridatica 2.24.6 226 12.67 425 4.7.3–4 302 12.278 425 5.20.1 345 18 449 85.386–387 432 Athenaeus Syriakê 10.426–427 513 1–2 188 13.593 282 Index of References 587

Callimachus 17.36.1–2 79 Epigrams 17.41.5–6 253 27, l. 4 178 17.53.1 449 Hymns 17.57.6 340 4, ll. 171–188 547 17.68.4 439 17.107.5 305 Cicero 18.18.6 406 De Divinatione 18.56.3 409 2.56.115–116 253 30.7.2 212, 238 2.62.127 500 31.17a 148 De Oratore 31.18a 25 2.5.21 224 34–35.1.3–4 273 In Verrem 40.3.5 220 2.3.33.76 234 2.5.58.150 245 Diogenes Laertius Orator 7.10 294 37–42 71 9.27 293 To Atticus 9.59 293 16.3.1 176 10.35 178 10.84–85 178 Curtius 4.6.29 239 (Ps.) Dionysius of Halicarnassus 6.11.8 479 Ars Rhetorica 7.2.7 479 11.398 294 9.3.16 479 9.3.18 461 Euripides 10.2.30 461 Orestes 1204–1205 309 Demosthenes Phoenician Women On Syntaxis Opening 65 14 242 568ff. 254 1090–1092 490 Diodorus Siculus 1630 451 1.31.2 423 2.10.1 235 Eutropius 5.26.3 514 7.5 377 11.2.4 263 11.19.6 346 Herodotus 13.61.6 439 1.53 253 13.75.4 439 1.74 253 16.25.2 451 2.100 450 16.80.2 432 4.64 302 16.86.6 345 4.202 357 17.10 251 4.205 357 17.34.8 432 5.69 344 17.35–36 198 5.114 510 588 Indices

6.84 513 2.157 431 7.22–24 263 2.193–198 20 7.24 357 2.219 278 7.26 303 2.225–231 256 7.33–36 263 2.227 387 7.36–37 357 2.233–234 305 9.20 388 2.263 259 9.50 345 2.269 244 2.294 205 Heron of Alexandria 3 178 Pneumatica Antiquities 1.38–39 150 1.81 410 2.100 508 Homer 2.309 240 Iliad 4.43 486 1.4–5 360 4.285 194 11.162 360 7.350 403 17.39–40 508 7.362 222 7.367 95 Isocrates 8.88 167 Against Lochites 8.111 486 6 242 8.128 452 Panegyricus 9.291 539 89 263 11.22 5 To Nicoles 11.76 222 22 222 11.114 539 11.291–292 511 Josephus 11.295 511 Against Apion 11.325–339 5 1.28–36 167 11.340–347 539 1.32 501 12 211 1.34–35 167 12.23 220 1.36 167 12.136 174 1.41 57 12.137 285 1.43 278 12.138–146 220 1.46 56 12.142 157, 470 1.191 278 12.145 196, 375 1.206–207 500 12.150 409 1.248 315 12.154 194, 234 1.249 240 12.158 218 1.311 240 12.186ff. 194 1.320 17 12.229 437 2.55 235 12.234 194 2.83–84 535 12.237 13, 187, 211, 212 2.112–114 382 12.239 211, 218 2.137 435 12.239–241 211 Index of References 589

12.248 373 13.296–297 222 12.249 261 13.301 168 12.251–256 273 13.314 242 12.257–264 86, 539 13.324 256 13.262 280 13.354–359 25 12.265 95 13.372 378 12.265–266 339 13.380 235 12.267 275 13.383 437 12.272 282 13.402 332 12.274 86 14.5 233 12.274–275 282 14.8 473 12.284 135 14.24 509 12.285 341 14.40 256 12.308 436 14.72 277 12.319–322 373 14.117 145 12.325 143, 151 14.145–148 14, 529 12.354 148 14.157 168, 406 12.358 148 14.165 168 12.358–359 355 14.172 168 12.381 410 14.226 266 12.381–382 408 14.228 283 12.383 459 14.242 266 12.384–385 36, 86 14.245 266 12.387 469 14.247–255 14 12.387–388 13, 187, 212 14.258 266 12.389 86, 468 14.263 266 12.390 468 14.273 508 12.408 504 14.297 256 12.409–411 508 15.178 222 12.411 507 15.410–420 345 12.412 8, 511, 512 16.187 339 12.414 475 16.213 409 12.419 475 16.227 410 12.434 338, 475 16.246 410 13.46 475 16.260 410 13.51 196 16.271 420 13.62 13, 212 17.1 303 13.62–73 187 17.169 357 13.74–79 167 17.193 420 13.77 174 18.9 222 13.173 64 18.11–25 286 13.235 256 18.26 286 13.252 436 18.69 280 13.260–265 14 18.74 150 13.273 338 18.93 168 13.296 64 18.102 480 590 Indices

18.259 146 2.411–417 54 18.271 256, 301 2.412–413 188 18.279–288 243 2.413 260 18.284 408, 420 2.457 377 18.302 257 3.296 432 18.306–309 381 3.350 283 19.1–273 5 3.374 317 19.281 422 3.505 286 19.283 145 3.506 428 19.290 226 3.506–521 286 19.347 293 3.506ff. 428 20 475 3.522 286 20.136 239 4.84 420 20.216 157 5.19 355 20.216–218 157, 222 5.160 424 20.235 469 5.194 375 20.237 193, 475 5.198–206 345 20.267 176 5.377 341 War 5.378 307 1 72, 197, 211 5.388 337 1.1–8 56 6.294 189 1.15–16 177 6.298–299 252 1.31–33 211 6.312–313 253 1.32 230, 372 6.359 239 1.32–33 212 6.384 334 1.33 12, 187 7.263 230, 331 1.34–35 273 7.341–357 489 1.41 36, 86, 395, 7.401 410 399, 448 7.423 12, 187, 212 1.59 309 7.431 215 1.121 233 7.455 513 1.253 436 Vita 1.311 283 2 95, 339 1.383 432 4 339 1.596 303 5 339 1.656 357 12 275 2.143 268 14 268 2.152–153 278 26 254, 277 2.164–165 63 37 424 2.165 442 104 390 2.277 230, 331 138 453 2.350–354 421 241 424 2.358 263, 346 271 424 2.390 341 280 424 2.409 189, 204 290 452 2.409–417 261 338 177 Index of References 591

Livy Philo 6.14.5 488 De Decalogo 14.239–319 251 41 449 32.2.1 251 52 186 33.46.9 545 Hypothetica 36.4.7 545 7.6 222 37.40 332 In Flaccum 37.41.5–42.1 449 5 135 38.16 337 46 213 38.16.9 547 52 422 38.21.8 432 74 52, 145 42.6.7 544, 545 89 198 104 237, 315 Lucian 136 514 De dea syra 190 490 28 244 Legatio How to Write History ad Gaium 22 513 96 438 23 180 157 188 34 177 159–161 246, 472 47 34 160 244, 314 55 180 172 244 56 179, 513 191 174 74 177 198 174 Macrobioi 203–206 244 19 382 209 483 Pro lapsu 211 51 9 547 228 361, 386 Zeuxis 229–230 301 8–11 547 229–305 421 10 432 243–253 243 266–267 198 Onasander 281 213 Strategicus 297 481 36.1–2 439 303 375 304 238 Ovid 306 196 Ibis 317–319 188 315–316 450 319–320 309 336 205 Pausanias 361 287 1.7.2 547 Life of Moses 1.29.5 179 1.6 197 9.13.5 242 1.36 213 1.142 339 2.5 203 592 Indices

On Dreams 1.62.6 243 2.123 266 1.81.11 329 2.253 306 1.87.7 453 On Flight 2.4.8 309 153 355 2.35.3 290 Spec. Leg. 2.38.5 238 3.169 198 2.56.7 198 4.30–32 194 2.56.9 309 That Every Good Man is Free 2.56.10–11 79 89 358 2.59.6 232 The Worse Attacks the Better 2.60.7 239 49 306 2.69.9 400 2.122.11 384 Plato 3.18.9 484 Gorgias 3.21.3 243 493a 304 3.21.6 243 Protagoras 3.52.3 470 334B 513 3.53 478 Republic 3.53.6 329 504E 443 3.57.4 382 550d 291 3.81.2 402 569c 291 3.87.9 552 3.91.10 230 Plutarch 4.72.4 363 Life of Alexander 4.72.8 374 35 159 5.3.4 431 Life of Cicero 5.5.9 252 49 510 5.11.6 232 Life of Marcus Cato 5.25.3 455 22–23 71 5.26.9 455 Questiones Convivales 5.47.4 484 4.6 378 5.51–54 547 637e 159 5.65.3–4 190 Sulla 5.70 426 36 357 5.70.2 434 Ten Orators (Ps.-Plutarch) 5.70.4 428 1 451 5.73.1 400 5.79 332 Polybius 5.86.10 230 Frag. 162b 455 5.96.1 174 1.2.8 180 6.2.8 177 1.12.4 504 6.20.9 215 1.15.4 453 6.54.2–3 288 1.30.6 504 7.11.7 405 1.30.14 230 8.2.6 330 1.37.5 478 8.8.1 290 Index of References 593

8.21.3 302 31.2 468 8.26.8 329 31.9 25, 148, 353 8.30.3 363 31.9.1 148 8.33.13 363 31.9.3 382 9.42.4 550 31.9.4 239 10.4.6 258 31.11–15 468 10.11.5–8 500 31.13.2–3 215 10.22.1 476 31.13.3 228 11.9.4 266 31.14.4–5 473 11.9.9 266 31.25.8 239 11.18.4–8 508 32.6.6 187 11.22.1 484 32.11.6 513 11.25.1 341 33.6.6 174 11.33.4 432 33.18.11 432 12.25.2 302 35.25 332 12.25e.1–2 179 36.15 309 12.25e.7 179 38.20.10 470 12.25h.2 179 12.25h.5 482 Sophocles 12.27.3 514 Antigone 12.28.4–7 179 29 360 15.25.12 265 205–206 360 15.28.4 384 450ff. 313 16.30.2–4 308 499 313 18.14.6 452 698 360 18.18.6 374 1017–1022 360 21.34.4 469 21.42.19–21 544 Statius 22.12.1 243 Thebais 23.10.6 258 10.774–776 490 23.14.12 288 10.778–779 490 24.13.4 258 26 535 Strabo 26.1.11 276 Geographia 27.13.1 381 7.3.6 244 28.17.12 205 13.4.3 235 28.20.9 195 16.1.5 159 29.27 253 16.1.18 148 29.27.6 237 16.2.6 236 30.9.5 470 16.2.7 256 30.25 148, 252 16.2.8 256 30.25.11 449 16.2.16 428 30.26.9 149 16.2.28 424 30.32.5 187 16.2.34 424 30.32.10 280 16.2.37 223 31.1.6 411 16.2.40 168 594 Indices

16 (end) 338 1.138.6 451 17.1.24 400 3.79.3 508

Suetonius Valerius Maximus Vespasian 9.2.4 437 4.5 253 9.2.6 450 9.13 289 Tacitus Historiae Xenophon 5.5 378 Anabasis 5.8.2 273 1.2.8 303 5.13.1 252 Cyropaedia 5.13.1–2 253 1.3.3 388 Hellenica Theophrastus 1.7.22 259 Characters 6.4.7 214, 242 4 513 Symposion 5.10 280 Thucydides 1.22.3 177

VIII. Epigraphic Collections

CII 30–31, l. 3 461 109 179 35, l. 3 410 358, l. 2 486 35, l. 6 461 725 205, 497 53, l. 3 510 725a-b 199, 253 54, l. 2 410

CPJ OGIS I 1 437 4, ll. 3–4 291 I 128, ll. 2–19 51 4, ll. 8–9 405 I 128, ll. 43–44 51 49, ll. 8–9 541 II 149, l. 1 380 54, l. 8 188 III 173–174 430 56, ll. 33–34 541 III 176–177 430 56, l. 55 406 90, l. 47 541 IG 117 381 XI 4, 1112–1113 191 139, l. 29 380 XI 4, 1114 191 194, l. 24 178 XII 5, 129 190 214, l. 26 235 XXII 5, 724, l. 3 380 222, l. 2 541 225 234 Lenger, Corpus 227, l. 11 469 18, l. 4 265 229, l. 84 542 Index of References 595

230 190 47 523 239 338 55 523 245 542 56 409 247 192 57 361 248 216, 275 58 409 252 460 59 409 253, l. 7 366 65–67 523 302–304 502 71 409, 523 308, ll. 2–4 406 71, ll. 3–4 362 319, l. 20 227 75 523 339, l. 16 406 217 257 383, ll. 12–13 186 309 226 424 377 310 365 598 334, 375 314 228, 499 316 193 P. Tebtunis 316–317 407 703 193 324–325 265 703, ll. 42–43 408 325 257 329 223 RC 335 196 xliv 406 337 408 lxx-lxxi 140 338 472 2 532 348 306 3, l. 42 233 352 434 3, l. 50 410 365 365 4 532 372 231 5 532 373 220 5, l. 17 235 374 362 7 532 375 404 10–13 72 384 472 13, l. 13 168 390–391 405 13–15 532 399 405 15, l. 4 469 18 234, 523 RDGE 19 523 67 187 22 469 37 523 SIG 38 523 398, ll. 44–45 227 44 523 402, l. 30 227 45 523 780, l. 31 187 596 Indices

Index of Names and Subjects

1 Maccabees 38–42, 43, 44, 49, 53–54, Andronicus 209, 212, 249, 281, 345, 61, 86, 250, 339–340 381 Contrasting Order of Events 29–30, “Ancestral Language”; see also Hebrew 373–374, 380, 394–395, 533 19, 296, 297, 416–494, 554 Contrasting Presentation of Events Angels 31, 63, 89, 201, 202, 316, 392, 323–325, 396–397, 419, 467, 469, 493, 494 475, 481–482, 496, 535 Antigone 65, 313, 360 Dating of 15, 520–521 Antioch 19, 49, 52, 89, 248, 300, 322, Martyrdom in 48, 50, 272, 326 394, 412, 419, 446, 449, 464, 466, 3 Maccabees 87, 185 530 Dating of 87 “Antioch(enes) in Jerusalem” 51–53, 207, Public Recitation of 514 208, 212, 220, 243, 250, 530–532 4 Maccabees 70, 86 Nature of 531–532 Dating of 86 Antiochis 209 Aaron 165 Antiochus I Soter 547 Sons of 165 Antiochus II Theos 234 Abraham 129, 256, 537 Antiochus III the Great 141, 157, 190, Absalom 393 195, 234, 286, 350, 397, 542, 544, Achaeans 460 547, 548 Acropolis 207, 247 Privileges Granted by 220–221, 360, Adar 494 531 Adasa 477, 504 Antiochus IV Epiphanes 4, 14, 26, 27, Adullam 416 30, 53, 86, 129, 141, 156, 170, 207, Aeschylus 352 208, 209, 225, 228–229, 234, 243, Afterlife; see Body and Soul, Resurrection 247, 248, 297, 300, 349, 350, 370, Agoranomos 190 412, 468, 503, 530 Akra 29, 223, 233, 374, 394, 494 Attachment to Athens 41, 275, 360, Alcimus 49, 189, 463, 464, 466–467 542 Successor of 551–552 Campaign(s) to Egypt 247, 248, Alema 430 249–251, 274, 533–536, 545 Alexander Balas 13, 404 Death of 29, 32, 37, 40, 41, 60, 62, Alexander Jannaeus 168, 437 90, 92, 130, 133, 303, 331, Alexander the Great 160, 226, 340, 353, 351–352, 369, 372, 373, 380, 382, 461 389, 394–396, 405, 406, 411, 419, Alexandrian Jewry 45, 52–53, 167, 459, 520, 527 226 Death Compared to that of Other Alexandrinus; see Textual Witnesses Tyrants 357 Ammanitis 247 Devotion to Apollo 542 Index of Names and Subjects 597

Decrees Against Judaism 270, 541 Educational Purpose 287, 288, 291, Epistles to the Jews 350–351, 301, 501 396–397 Jewish Identity 283, 486 Repentance of 350 Lack of Interest in Details of Temple Visits to Jerusalem 533–536 Cult 46–48, 189, 204, 235, 260, Antiochus V Eupator 27, 28–29, 30, 264, 484 32–33, 170, 351, 369, 370, 371, 393, Lack of Interest in Military Details 73, 395–396, 414, 419, 430, 445, 445, 324, 329, 343, 419, 454, 456 446, 447, 463, 468 Lack of Interest in Numbers 231 Antiochus VII Sidetes 421, 521 Methodology 170 Antonia Fortress 233 Objective of 3, 10–14, 72 Apocryphal Books 57–61 Preface 16, 24, 170, 519 Apollo, Temple of 236 Ptolemaic Influence 278–279, Apollonius son of Gennaeus 414 541–543 Apollonius son of Thraseas 4, 27, 181, Reflections of 24, 208, 248, 271 185 Sitz im Leben 51–55, 66 Apollonius son of Menestheus 4, 27, Style; see Style 191, 207, 208, 265, 274, 289 Versus Epitomator 171 Apollonius, the Mysarch 41, 249, 250 Azariah de’ Rossi 49 Apostolic Fathers 88 Apollophanes 72, 371 Babylonians 136, 321 Apparitions 47, 64, 170, 182–183, 247, Jewry 546–548 249, 371, 392, 415, 464, 485, 493 Bacchides 322, 467, 471, 474 Arabs 414 Bar-Kokhba 378, 385, 428 ’Arak el-’Amir 428–429 Ben-Sira 61 Aramaic 303, 438, 511, 553–555 Beroia (Aleppo) 445 Aretas 247 Bestiality 258, 290, 360, 371 Argarizin; see Mount Gerizim Beth-Shean; see also Scythopolis 434, 435 Aristobulus 129 Beth Zechariah 30, 394, 399 Identity of 144–145 Eleazar’s Death at 455 Aristobulus I 168 Beth-Zur 29, 392 Arrogance; see also under Motifs 62, Accounts 34–35, 394–395, 420, 130, 201, 248, 298, 346, 349, 350 457–458 Art 178–179 Battle(s) of 26, 29–30, 32, 39, 354, Artemis, Temple of 148, 355 374, 392, 394–395, 402, 446, 447 “Asia,” Name for Seleucid Kingdom 181 Biblical Nature; see also Deuteronomy 32 Asidaioi; see also Hasidim 463 and under Motifs 61–66 Astyanax 282 Allusions 61–63, 137, 140, 153, 157, Attalids 531 168, 258–259, 263, 303, 312, 357, Atergatis, Temple of 415 387, 477, 484, 502, 526 Athens/Athenians 41, 275, 276, 279 Historiography; see under Motifs Augustine 59 64–66 Auranus 49, 189, 210, 471 Spirit of the Hebrew Bible 63 Author 17, 24, 34–35, 37, 45, 170, 199 Structure 65–66 Confusion of 32–33, 396–397, 406, Style 326 447, 457, 459 Quotations 61, 296 598 Indices

Bilgah 95 Coastal Cities, Battles in 424 Birthdays, Celebration of King’s 270, Conflicts; see Struggles 541–543 Correspondence, Royal (Ch. 11) 373, Blasphemy 320, 369, 371, 415, 494 393–394, 395–397, 409, 459, 549 Blessings 164, 322, 440, 501 Dating of 396, 410, 411, 412 Blood 50, 53, 65, 129, 320, 415, 465 Historicity of 396, 409, 412 Body and Soul, Distinction Between 23, Identity of “King” in Ch. 11 396–397, 293, 298, 304, 465, 494 406, 408 Booty; see Spoils of War Council of Elders 129, 210, 393, 453, “Brethren” 6, 31, 129, 370, 392, 414, 487, 531 415, 493 “Covenants” 27, 33–34, 419, 446, 464, Burial; see Death 500 Between God and the People 129, Calendrical Systems 11, 139, 143–144, 298, 321 274, 373, 396, 405, 447–448, 511, Crates 209 520, 541 Creatio ex nihilo 89, 312–313 Callimachus 178 Cuneiform; see Inscriptions Callisthenes 72, 322 Cypriots 209, 332, 370 Calvin, J. 61 Canon, Tripartite 166 Daniel, Book of 372, 533 Canonical Status 57–61 Daphne 148, 209, 252, 332, 449 Catholic Church 59–61 Dathema 429 Causality, Dual 146, 381 Dates (in 2 Macc); see also Calendrical Caves 131, 133, 270, 369 Systems 11–12, 15, 29–30, 230–231, Cendebeus 460 373, 447–448, 466 Chapter Order; see also Sources of Dating 11–15 2 Maccabees 9–10, 28–34, 36–37, David 315 354, 380, 406, 419 David, City of 233 Chaereas 371 Day of Atonement 475 Chariots 349, 445, 480–481 Desert 267–268, 282, 365–366 Charity 322, 343, 417 Death and Burial 245, 247, 350, 365, Children 198, 248, 298, 312, 322, 350, 416, 417–418, 439, 445 414, 415, 464, 493 Mourning 198, 247 Christians 52 Terminology for 306, 406 Cult of Maccabean Martyrs 89 Death, Noble 299 Interest in 2 Macc 57–61, 85, 88–89, Demetrius I 13, 26, 49, 187, 229, 362, 278, 298 463, 464, 466–467 Chrysostom, John 89 Demetrius II 11, 129, 139, 404, 470 Cilicians 252 Demophon 414 Circumcision 270, 274, 278 Dessau 464 City 46, 50, 65, 66, 375 Deuteronomy 32; see also under Mo- City States 6 tifs 21–23, 62, 66, 155, 226, 259, Claudius 226 261, 262, 296, 298, 299, 302–303, Clemens Alexandrinus 88 307, 327, 477, 526 Cleopatra II 524 Diaspora 43, 85, 156, 213 Cleopatra Syra 234 Jews of Hellenistic 45, 50 Index of Names and Subjects 599

Origins of 2 Macc 38 Epitomator; see also Author 17, 25, 37 Religion of 442 Epitomizing 170, 175–176, 179–180, Diasporan Historiography; see also under 277, 379, 457 Motifs 45–55, 184, 203, 211, 216, Esdris 72, 416 235, 242, 257–258, 301, 325, 329, Essenes 268 341, 382–383, 386, 421, 433, 482 Esther, Book of 35–36, 362, 450, 452, Dietary Laws 267, 268, 287, 296–298, 472, 483, 512, 514 301, 549–550 Eumenes II 41, 219, 531–532 Diodorus 410 Eupolemus 167, 221, 430, 456, 537–538 Dionysus, Dionysiac Cult 8, 18, 270, 274, 378, 465, 514, 541–543 Faith 77, 200, 298, 321, 365, 371, 492 Dioscorinthios 393 Faithlessness 335, 466, 492 Diplomacy; see also under Rome 221 Farming 414 Discus, Call of 208 Fatherland 207, 247, 248, 321, 322, 445, Distances 30, 400, 418, 428, 429, 435 446, 464 Divine Providence 47, 63–65, 205, 235, Festival of Weeks; see also Pentecost 416 262, 316, 508 Fire, Liquid from Altar 89, 130, 131, Dorymenes 185 133–134, 150, 527–528 Dositheus 415, 416, 456 First-Person Singular 19, 24, 37, 171, Dura Europus 344 513 Dreams; see also under Judas 500 Forbidden Foods 270, 271–272, 296, 298, 356 Ecbatana 349 “Foreignism” 23, 173, 208, 271 Editors, Jerusalemite 8–9, 10–11, 14, Forgery 362 142, 144, 285, 373, 526–528 “Friends” 129, 297, 320, 371, 463, 470 Egypt Jews in 129, 503, 523 Gaius Caligula 5, 243, 257–258, 381, Priests in 145 438 Eleazar 321 Galatians 321, 514, 546–548 R. Eleazar b. Shammua 327 Galilee, Sea of 428 Eleazar, Martyr 23, 271–272, 280, 298, R. Gamaliel 135 304, 459, 489, 501 Gentiles 48–49, 65, 130, 188, 196, 226, As Priest 286 237, 270, 369, 446, 463, 464, 492 Similarities to Socrates 289, 293 Geron the Athenian 270, 543 Eleazar son of Yair 488, 489 Gerousia; see also Council of Elders 404 Elephantarch 463 R. Gerschom 90 Elephants 36, 86, 392, 395, 445, 446, Gezer 371, 374 505, 547 Glosses 37, 93–94, 137, 265, 268, 398, R. Eliezer 291–292 402, 433, 476 Elijah 153 God 48, 64, 130, 170, 182, 209, 248, Elymais 352 320, 321, 349, 350, 369, 371, 392, Emmaus Campaign 323, 332, 339 414, 415, 416, 445, 464, 492 Ephebeion 207 As Benevolent Hellenistic King 284 Ephron 415, 426 As Legislator 197, 341 Epigraphy; see Inscriptions Help of 417, 446, 494 Epistles; see Correspondence and Letters Hiding His Face 21–22, 262 600 Indices

Kingdom of 141–142, 147 Hegemonides 41, 42, 380, 446 Language of 554 Hellenistic Jews 43–44, 55, 88 Of Heaven 47–48, 93, 156, 184, 197, Literature of 52, 71 205, 305, 486 Hellenistic Kings 49, 54 Titles of 155, 200, 203, 261, 346, 449 Hellenization, Institutionalized 3, 51–53 Gorgias 320, 325, 370, 372, 374, 389, Heracles 208 397, 416, 419, 467, 544, 546 Herod 86, 358, 363, 399 Greeks 85 Hezekiah 493 Common Roots with Jews 256–257 Hieronymus 414 Greek (Language); see also under Motifs High Priesthood 12, 42, 59, 95, 231, and Style 57, 67, 509 392, 463 Motifs 65–66, 76 As Kingship 168 Versus Latin 59–60 As Municipal Position 6–7, 184, 190, Gymnasium 207 193, 219–220, 254 Sale of 398–399 Hades 271 Succession of 469, 474–475, 483, Hadrian 276 551–552 Halicarnassus 531 Usurpation of 207, 208 Haman 450, 472 Hippolytus 88 Hanukkah, Holiday of 10, 14, 24, 37, Historicity 38–44, 45, 55–56 88, 134, 137, 139, 143, 163, 165, 274, Holidays; see Hanukkah, Nicanor’s 369, 509, 514 Day, Passover, Pentecost, Purim, Festival of Lights 143, 150–151 Tabernacles Name of 159–160 Holofernes 498 Secondary Interest 8–10, 87, 520, 526 Honor 23, 271 Hanukkah Narrative 369, 529 Horses 183, 247, 370, 371, 392 Connection to Opening Letters 8, Humor; see also under Motifs 346–347, 143, 372, 526, 528 361, 362, 364, 379 Distinctiveness 8–9, 372, 375, 379, Hybris; see Arrogance 526 Hyrcanus son of Tobias 182, 185, 429 Historicity 372–374 Purpose of 8–10 Idolatry 130, 277, 301, 416 Semitic Vorlage 375 Idumaeans 370, 372, 374 Hasidim 326, 471, 507 Idyll 3, 7, 132, 181, 420, 482, 512 Hasmoneans 13, 42, 64, 419, 477 Inheritance 131, 285, 477 Polemics Against 266, 384, 460 Inscriptions 30, 40–41, 53, 185, Hasmonean Revolt 55–56, 323 190–191, 192, 216–217, 219, 366, Hebrew (Language) 59, 67, 296, 297, 380, 396, 420, 424, 460, 531–532, 375, 416, 438, 494, 511, 554 542; see also index of sources cited “Hebrews” 52, 298, 392, 495 Irony 147, 172, 215, 244, 257, 284, 293, Heliodorus 4, 41, 42, 181, 182, 183, 306, 311, 317–318, 346–347, 355, 207, 248, 259, 361, 474 358, 360, 367, 411, 472, 473 Heliodorus, Story of 42, 76, 78–79, 86, Isaac 129 184–186, 257, 261, 281 Isaiah 156, 268, 352, 356, 357, 484–485 Externality 4–6, 37, 46, 140–141, R. Ishmael 286 172, 211, 526–527 Ishmael b. Netania 255 Index of Names and Subjects 601

“Israel” 130, 349, 371 John Hyrcanus 15, 43, 309, 324, 383 Israel, Land of 162 Death of 520 Jonathan 13, 139, 218, 256, 321, 404 Jacob 129 Joppe 208, 534 Jamnia 414, 416, 439 Joppites 414 Jason (high priest) 3, 4, 49, 129, 133, Joseph 321, 370 141–142, 147, 207, 208, 209, 211, Joseph son of Tobias 429 247, 249, 258, 336, 345, 360, 365, Josephus 36, 86–87, 172, 187, 194–195, 399, 430, 526–527, 530, 531, 552 257–258, 282–283, 339, 355, 375, Jason of Cyrene 15, 16, 45, 72, 170, 171, 381, 395, 399, 468, 539 457 Divergences from 1 Maccabees 535 Jason son of Eleazar 175 Joshua 415 Jazer 374 Josippon 90 Jeremiah 131, 134, 137, 160, 163, 482, Judaea 248, 370, 374, 392, 445, 454, 493 463 Jericho 415, 435 Country of 129, 320 Jerome 58–59, 85 “Judaism” 66, 170, 320, 465 Jerusalem 3, 7, 129, 133, 135, 181, 207, Judas Maccabaeus 3, 7, 23, 62, 63, 129, 209, 248, 249, 279, 299, 300, 322, 132, 134, 157, 168, 170, 249, 250, 349, 353, 370, 387, 414, 416, 464, 274, 320, 321, 323–325, 369, 370, 493, 494, 496, 530 371, 372, 392, 393, 414, 415, 416, Antiochenes in; see Antiochenes in 419, 445, 463, 464, 465, 466–467, Jerusalem 492, 494, 495, 520 As polis 6, 51–53, 197, 531–532 Brothers of 170, 267, 321 As Subject of 2 Macc 3, 6, 495 Dream of 493 Focus on 6–7, 50, 184, 453, 481 Focal Character 325 Hellenism in 211 God’s Agent 385 History of 7–14 High Priest Primacy vs. Temple 245, 375 43, 383, 474–475, 483, 551–552 Vs. “Holy Land” 6–7, 141 Latter-Day Elisha 389 Jesus 553 Lifespan of 523 Language of 555 “The Maccabee” 31, 249 Jewish Hellenism 42–44 Justice; see also Universalism 155, 209, “Jewish Unit” 446, 546, 548 320, 321, 369 Jews (and Judaism) 31, 47, 48, 50, 65, 66, 85, 220, 270, 392, 393, 414, 445, Karnion 415 463, 492 Kaspin 51, 415, 418 Common Roots with Greeks 256–257 Kfar Shalem 477, 478 Pro-Ptolemaic 230 Kislev 369, 373 Nationalists/Traditionalists 251, 255, 272 Language; see also under Style 67–71 Terminology for; see Brethren and Lactantius 88 Politai 31 Lamps 129, 369, 526 Johanan 393 Latin; see under Greek and Translations Johanan (father of Eupolemus) 14, Laws, Jewish 170, 222, 271, 416 207 Ancestral 19, 270, 296, 298, 531 602 Indices

Compared to Laws of Cities 6–7, 51, Recompense; see also Resurrection 174, 216, 275, 290 316 Compared to Royal Decrees 137, 314, Terminology of 204–205 347 Martyrologies 37, 52, 55, 270–272, Letter, First 129, 132–133 296–298, 356, 466, 495, 550 Connection to 2 Maccabees 525–529 As Secondary Source 19–25, 90, 300, Letter, Second 129–132, 133–134 301, 326, 328, 330, 372 Letters (Chs. 1–2) 10, 37, 85, 132, 372, Connection Between Episodes 318 519–529 Hebraisms In 20, 293 Author of 144 Historicity of 299–300 Connection to 2 Maccabees; see under Interest Among Christians 20, 88–89, Hanukkah Narrative 278 Dating 11, 520–521, 522–525, Jewish Traditions 20, 90 528–529 Relation to 4 Maccabees 86 Distinctiveness; see also Hanukkah Masada 410, 488, 489 Narrative 4, 144 Mattathias 464 Hasmonean Propaganda 151 Mattathias (Hasmonean) 40, 43, 324, Number of 520–521, 528–529 326 Purpose of 524–525 Melchizedek 537 Semitic Vorlage 8, 67, 132, 137, 140, Melqart; see also Heracles 227 147, 153, 157–158, 522 Menelaus 49, 141, 208, 209, 210, 211, Levites 157, 286 247, 248, 249, 258, 283, 314, 345, “Lights”; see Hanukkah, Holiday of 382, 393, 397, 469, 552, 557 Livy 544–545 Death of 28, 35–36, 445, 447, 466 Lucian of Samosata 91 Latter-Day Gedalia b. Ahiqam 255 Luther, Martin 60–61 Priestly Descent of 95 Lysanias 434 Menorah; see Lamps Lysias 26, 28–29, 30, 32, 41, 189, 331, Mercenaries 265, 338, 386 354, 369, 371, 389, 392, 393, 394, Miracles; see Supernatural Events 414, 419, 445, 446, 447 Mizpeh 429 Place of Residence 434 Mnasaes 382 Lysimachus 49, 209, 210, 255 Modein 7, 280, 454, 456 Battle at 28, 446, 447 Maccabean Martyrs, Christian Cult of; Molon 547 see under Christians Mother and Her Seven Sons 23, 59, 63, Macedonians 321, 546 65, 90, 296–298, 298–300 Magnesia, Battle of 332, 333, 544 Mother as Latter-Day Deborah or Mallotians 209 Judith 309 Manliness 51, 170, 294, 308–309, 320, Moses 19, 131, 132, 134, 160, 197, 296, 389, 464, 493 298, 502 Marissa 416 Motifs (Thematic) Marriage 149, 234, 464 Celebrating of Enemies’ Defeats 78, Martyrdom 17, 47–48, 50, 65, 272–273, 202, 322 298–300, 459 Concealing Divisiveness 47, 50, 282, In 1 Maccabees; see under 1 Maccabees 325, 487 Function of; see under Motifs Despised Nation 156 Index of Names and Subjects 603

Diasporan; see Diasporan Recognition of God’s Power Historiography by Gentiles 48, 64, 307 Exaggerating the Enemy’s Reconciliation 10, 21, 23, 24, 62–63, Strength 399 66, 298, 302–303, 322, 525–526 Few Defeat the Many 173, 338 Royal Respect for Jews and Judaism Games with “Epiphanes” 25, 81, 172, 188 355, 357 Sinning Causes Suffering 47–48, 226, Gentile Kings Are Well-Meaning 192, 250, 261 211, 243–244 Struggle is Between Good and Evil; Gentiles are God’s Tools for Punishing see also Universalism 432, 436 Sinners 226, 250, 307 Tit for Tat 25, 35, 47, 64, 78, 211, Gentiles Protest Persecution of 226, 249, 317, 318, 345, 358, 365, Jews 237, 245 423, 485, 508 God Rules History 65, 250 Villains are Considerate of Jewish God Turns Away in Anger 68–69, Sensitivities 485 261–262 Villains are Jewish 264 Greek; see also under Greek 253 Villains as Acting Alone 49, 65, 215 Hatred of Evil 238 Villains Do Not Die Nobly in Hellenistic Kings are All Evil 54 Battle 389, 432 Hellenistic Virtues Bestowed Upon Willingness to Die 50, 301, 339 Jews 173 Mottos 32, 321, 446 Jerusalem as Greek Polis 51–53, Mount Gerizim (Argarizin) 18, 47, 174, 240 249, 270, 276 Jewish Fatalities Require Expla- Residents of 537–538 nation 418, 436 Mount Nebo 162 Jews are God’s Children 315–316 Mourning; see under Death Jews are Victims Even When on the Mordechai 293, 511–512 Offensive 386 Mordechai’s Day; see also Purim 494 Martyrdom Catalyzes Reconciliation Mourning; see Death (and Redemption) 48, 50, 53, 65, Mysians 252, 265, 332 272, 317, 323 Martyrs as Heroes 50, 55, 282, 289, Nabataeans 255, 425 305 Names, Royal 217–218 Pathetic; see Pathetic Historiography Nanaia, Temple of 129 Persian 35, 47, 302 Nehemiah 130, 131, 132, 133–134, 163, Poetic Justice 239, 242, 256, 377, 376, 527–528 451, 498, 507; see also Tit for Tat R. Nehemiah 154 Problems are Caused by Misunder- Nepthar; see also Fire, Liquid from Altar standing 48, 53–55, 216, 242, 250, 131 257–258 Nero 54, 258 Problems are Caused by Wicked Nicanor 3, 17–18, 62, 171, 274, 320, Officials 280, 333, 374, 421, 422, 321, 323–325, 349, 361, 394, 464, 482 465, 466–467, 495, 543, 544, 546, Prominence of the City 50–51 551–552, 556 Punishment as Pedagogy 47, 271, Character Unity 473–474 298, 377 Death of 494, 496 604 Indices

Focal Villain 325, 485 Plundering; see Spoils of War Thrice-Accursed 9–10, 322, 492, 495 Politai 6, 31, 50–51, 216, 265, 361, 423, Nicanor’s Day 8, 14, 87, 325, 379, 494, 472, 488 514, 520, 526 Polybius 67, 179–180, 228–229, 355, Nicanor the Cypriarch 414 468, 473–474, 535 Noah, Sons of 256 Pompey 498 Nobility 272, 417, 465 Popilius Laenas 253 Numbers, Accuracy of 80, 148, 259, Porphyry of Tyre 85 332, 338, 430 Posidonius 464 Prayer 46, 48, 64, 89, 130, 131, 154, Oaths, Violation of 492 182, 320, 321, 322, 325, 369, 370, Olympiodorus 185 371, 372, 392, 414, 445, 464, 493 Oniads 13 In 1 Maccabees 486 Onias III 4–6, 12, 18, 51, 181, 183, 185, Echoes of Liturgy 310 187, 193, 207, 209, 211, 212, 254, Prayer for Dead 417 367, 423, 442, 449, 469, 473 Quorum for 267 Onias IV 12, 187, 212 Shema 154 Onias, Temple of 12–14, 187, 215, 217 Preface; see under Author Origen 58, 88, 312 Prophets 64 Protarchos 380 Palaestra 208 Protestant Reformation; see also Martin Palm-Fronds 369, 463 Luther 59–60, 444 Passover 410, 436, 514 Prôtoklêsia 208 Pathetic Historiography 18, 78–80, 198, Psalms 142, 166, 285 277, 281, 318, 401, 423, 490 Ptolemais (Akko) 279, 446, 530 Paul 469 Ptolemy Macron 42, 243, 320, 330–331, Pentecost 34, 416, 419, 436 369 Persecutions 65, 170, 270, 272–274 Ptolemy II Philadelphus 502, 547 Etiology of; see also under Rebellion Ptolemy IV Philopator 5, 54, 191, 472, 53–54 543 Historicity of 273–274 Ptolemy V Epiphanes 195, 234 Source of 283 Ptolemy VI Philometor 144, 167, 229, Persepolis 349 351, 370 Persia 129, 349 Ptolemy VIII Euergetes 363, 367, 524 Petasos 208, 223–224 Ptolemy son of Dorymenes 72, 210, 270, Petronius 381, 483 279, 331 Pharaoh 62, 263, 265, 355 Ptolemy son of Thraseas 190 Pharisees 38, 168, 442 Purgatory 60, 89, 444 Philip (Governor of Jerusalem) 7, 27, Purim 511–512, 514 28–29, 32, 249, 270, 274, 320 Philip 351, 446, 472 Quintus Memmius 393 Philo 45, 86, 172 Phrygians 219, 249, 532 Rabbinic Literature 90, 135, 151, 160, Phylarch 322 166, 237, 286, 287, 361, 442, 485 Piety 181, 417 Rare Words; see under Style Planting 130 Razis 7, 17, 286, 291, 465 Index of Names and Subjects 605

Literary Parallels 489–490 Seleucid Kingdom 141, 188, 363, 411, Martyrdom of 55, 59, 60, 65, 465 541–543, 551 Turning Point 495 Seleucus IV Philopator 172, 181, 185, Readers of 2 Maccabees 85–90, 94, 174, 207, 218, 228–229, 468 177, 266, 283, 301, 440, 539 Self-Defense; see under Sabbath Public Recitation 514 Sennacherib 62, 321, 484–485, 493 Rationalists 201 Septuagint 57, 91–96 Rebellion Servants, Jews as God’s 22, 136, 296, Etiology 42–43, 250–251, 254–255, 298, 322 272 Shechem 537 Reflections; see under Author Showbread 129, 369, 526 Resurrection 89, 291, 296, 297, 299, Siege Warfare 370, 371 304, 313, 316, 317, 362, 417, 418, Simon 6, 49, 181, 207, 469, 470, 471 444, 487 Tribe of 95–96, 189 Sectarian Debate 442 Simon (Hasmonean) 321, 324, 370, 383, Rhodocus 446 423, 460, 482 Ritual Purity 249, 260, 275, 318, 327, Sinning 24, 47, 161, 226, 260, 302, 369, 416, 465 416 Romans 207, 323, 393 Atonement for 417 Interference in Seleucid Affairs 397, Sin-Offering; see under Sacrifices 411, 545 Slaughter 248, 250, 339, 415, 433 Rome 55, 544–545 Socrates; see also under Eleazar 65, 259, Delegations to 14, 221–222 289, 299 Solomon 131, 132, 134, 160, 376, 452, Seleucia 276 486 Seleucus II Callinicus 548 Song of the Sea 154, 157, 506 Seleucus IV Philopator 4, 5, 41 Sosipater 415, 456 Sabbath 270, 301, 322, 416, 492, 531 Sostratus 209 Attitude Towards in 1 Maccabees 282 Soul; see Body and Soul Exploitation of 18, 249 Sources of 2 Maccabees; see also under Self-Defense on 50, 266, 270, 496 Hanukkah Narrative and Martyrol- Sacrifices 46–48, 54, 129, 130, 419, 465 ogies 16–35, 36–37, 42, 395, 398, As a Form of Prayer 203, 443 417 Sin-Offerings 132, 417 Chapter Division; see Chapter Order Suspension of 372–373 Reconciling Disparate; see also Votive Offerings; see under Temple Author, Confusion of 32 (Second) Spartans 247 Sadducees 38, 63–64, 168, 316 Spoils of War 173–174, 321, 322, Samaritans (see also Mount Gerizim) 47, 441 167, 264, 539 Stadia 414, 415 Schoinoi; see also Distances 30, 392 Stipendium 544 Scribes 271, 488 Style, Linguistic and Literary 72–84 Scripture; see Biblical Nature Abbreviation; see also Epitomiz- Scythians 65, 210, 296, 513–514 ing 72–76 Scythopolis 416 Alliteration 80, 427 Sectarianism; see Pharisees, Sadducees Asyndetic 28, 75, 447 606 Indices

Change of Terminology in Successive Tarsians 209 Verses 68 Taxes 11, 195, 233, 265 Conjugations 75 Temple (First) 133–134, 376 Greek Terminology 172, 222 Temple (Second) 7, 14, 18, 47, 174, 320, Lively Diction 79–80 322, 350, 372, 393, 463, 465, 466, Officialese 192, 231, 364, 365 493, 494 Oppositional Constructions 75 Administrators of 189–190 Parataxis 8 Altar 94–95, 130, 170, 270, 369, 445, Participles 73–74 463, 494 Passive Verbs 74–75 Archives 167 Pathetic 78–80 Cult of 18, 46–48, 372, 474–475 Pedantic 180, 192, 231, 356, 365, Defilement of 270, 536 451, 472 Destruction of 258 Personification 330, 471 Fire; see Fire Prepositional Prefixes 81 Gates 129, 322, 361 Rare Words 30–32, 51 Legitimacy of 133, 150, 163, 164 Repetition of Terms 69 Mount 223, 254 Sammelbericht 330 Offerings from Gentiles 181, 204, Semitic; see under Letters, Hanukkah 248, 260–261, 350 Narrative, Martyrologies Purification and Rededication of; Staccato 18, 34–35, 447, 453, 456, see also Hanukkah Narrative 458–459, 461, 480, 482 130, 134, 170, 369, 394, 408, 470, Stereotypical Descriptions 523 of Characters 82–83 Robbery of 5, 210, 248, 259–260, Unity 83–84 533 Variety of Vocabulary 67, 69–71, 425, Status as City 6–7, 213 432 Steps 94, 386 Verb Tense 286–287 Treasury 181–182, 191–192, 248 Wiederaufnahme 167, 325, 505 Temple Vessels 46, 134, 142–143, 160, Word Play 80–81, 93, 347, 398, 427, 209, 210, 248, 350, 369 510 Teos 542 Struggles 76–84 Textual Witnesses 90–96 Suicide; see also Razis 382, 465, 489 Lectio brevior/difficilior 92–96 Supernatural Events 39, 64, 89, 161, Theodicy 21 201, 263, 337 Theodorus of Mopsuestia 212 Synagogues 236 Theodosius 430 “Syrian”; see Aramaic Theodotus 430, 464 Syrian Wars 548 Thracians 332, 416 Third 188 Throne Names Fifth 186, 190 Confusion of 5 Fourth 191 Timothy 27, 29, 322, 349, 370, Sixth 229, 255 371, 372, 374, 397, 398, 414, 415, 417 Tabernacle 131 Titus Manius 393 Tabernacles, Festival of 129, 130, 369 Tobiads 255, 415, 416 Impression of Dionysiac Festival 378 Torah 129, 166, 340, 554 Index of Names and Subjects 607

Torture 70, 271–272, 296, 297, 298, Venetus; see Textual Witnesses 321, 343–344 Villains; see under Motifs Trajan 548 Virgins 182, 248 Transjordan 232, 374, 390, 418 Translations (of 2 Maccabees) Wine 495 English VII-VIII Women 270, 297, 298, 308–309, 431, Latin 91–96 489 Modern 97 Treason 247, 248, 325, 370, 451 Xanthicus 33, 393, 394 Treaty of Apamaea 42, 218, 333, 468, Equivalent of Nisan 410 505, 544 Xerxes 263, 352, 357, 359 Tribute Payments 218, 233, 320, 323, 398, 544–545 Zachaeus 370 Tripoli 86–87, 463 Zealotry 207, 214–215 Tyre 208, 209, 210 Zeno 294 Tyriaion 532 Zerubbabel 151 Zeus 542 Universalism 177, 187, 237, 238, 254, Zeus Hellenios 539 313, 335, 365, 423 Zeus Olympios 270 Urbanity 51 Zeus Xenios 270, 537 608 Indices

Index of Authors

Abel, F.-M., 88, 90, 91, 94, 97, 102, 146, Baer, Y.F., 103, 309 147, 158, 159, 179, 214, 227, 232, Baillet, M., 178 245, 252, 260, 262, 264, 279, 280, Balentine, S.E., 262 285, 300, 306, 307, 310, 317, 327, Bammel, E., 89, 103, 233 328, 331, 340, 344, 357, 359, 380, Barag, D., 53, 103, 142, 251 383, 387, 388, 400, 426, 428, 429, Barceló, P., 232 430, 434, 451, 472, 474, 480, 488, Barclay, J.M.G., 103, 175 489, 497, 500, 501, 503, 505, 508, Bardtke, H., 103, 512, 515 521, 522, 523, 524, 528, 533, 540, Bar-Kochva, B., 11, 15, 29, 30, 32, 34, 550, 551, 556 36, 64, 72, 79, 97, 100, 103, 104, 120, Abrahams, I., 40, 102 173, 176, 233, 252, 266, 268, 274, Achtemeier, P.J., 514 278, 317, 329, 332, 336, 337, 338, Adinolfi, M., 78, 80, 102, 172, 251, 288, 340, 343, 344, 348, 354, 380, 384, 388 386, 390, 391, 398, 399, 400, 413, Adkins, A.W.H., 179 424, 427, 428, 429, 431, 435, 437, Africa, T., 102, 288, 357, 368 442, 448, 449, 454, 455, 456, 457, Albeck, H., 312 462, 467, 477, 491, 496, 503, 504, Albrektson, B., 93, 102 505, 506, 507, 512, 515, 548 Alexander, L., 178, 180 Bartoletti, V., 547 Alexander, P.S., 87, 88, 103, 514 Baumeister, T., 205 Alföldi, A., 488 Baumgarten, A.I., 44, 104 Alon, G., 103, 168, 196, 242, 361, Beckwith, R.T., 57, 104, 135 399 Bell, H.I., 104, 289 Ameling, W., 41, 43, 103, 111, 219, 246, Bengston, H., 344, 380 532 Bergmann, J., 373 Amir, Y., 103, 126, 173, 194, 197, 206, Bergren, T.A., 104, 151, 166, 169 226, 428, 429 Berve, H., 104, 232, 256 Amit, D., 44 Bethge, H.-G., 89 Amit, Y., 64, 103, 146 Bevan, E.R., 39, 40, 104 Anderson, J.K., 52, 201 Bévenot, H., 104, 265, 300, 480, 537, Anz, H., 461 553, 555 Applebaum, S., 175 Bickerman, E., 40, 42, 43, 61, 78, 91, Arenhoevel, D., 103 104, 117, 138, 140, 146, 149, 169, Artom, E.S., 103, 158, 165, 553 176, 186, 188, 190, 191, 192, 194, Attridge, H.A., 107, 115, 216 196, 202, 203, 204, 206, 213, 218, Avenarius, G., 34, 103, 178, 180, 231, 235, 239, 246, 273, 276, 279, 294 294, 338, 359, 363, 364, 366, 380, Avi-Yonah, M., 103, 434, 438 398, 406, 412, 413, 431, 455, 470, Index of Authors 609

520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 530, Camponovo, O., 105, 142, 168 531, 539, 540, 542, 550 Caquot, A., 106 Bilde, P., 104, 112, 433 Carlton, W., 383 Birt, T., 175, 176, 180 Casson, L., 228 Black, M., 107, 316, 522 Castelli, E., 309 Blass, F., 557 Chantraine, P., 106, 177, 218, 514 Bleek, F., 58, 104 Chazon, E.G., 106, 123, 155 Blinkenberg, C., 104, 167, 172 Cigoi, A., 106, 519, 520, 521 Bömer, F., 279 Coates, J.F., 228 Boesch, P., 227 Cobet, G.C., 443 Bohak, G., 12, 169, 515 Cohen, G.D., 20, 90 Bonnet, C., 104, 227 Cohen, G.M., 43 Bons, E., 104, 305 Cohen, O., 426 Boreham, L., 307 Cohen, S.J.D., 97, 188, 193 Borza, E.N., 353 Collart, P., 469 Bosworth, A.B., 302, 354, 457 Collins, J.J., 44, 106, 107, 373 Bourriot, F., 501 Corradi, G., 106, 149, 192, 239, 366, Bousset, W., 105 398, 470 Bowersock, G.W., 19, 20, 105 Cotton, H.M., 41, 43, 106, 185, 189, Box, H., 105 191, 192, 194, 206, 243 Brändle, R., 89, 105 Cowey, M.S., 51, 106, 145 Bratsiotis, N.P., 388 Cowley, A., 135 Braverman, J., 59 Cox, R.B. Jr., 58, 61, 554 Breitenstein, U., 70, 71, 86, 105 Crantz, P., 506 Bringmann, K., 43, 105, 227, 232, 246, 273, 274, 279, 280, 535, Dancy, J.C., 106 536 Daniel, S., 142, 189, 204 Brock, S., VII Danker, F.W., 98, 106, 214, 294, Brooke, G.J., 166 501 Brooten, B.J., 190 Davies, J.G., 311 Broshi, M., 104, 105, 149, 186, 259, Davies, P.R., 541 269, 535 De Bruyne, D., 59, 70, 92, 94, 106, 189, Broughton, T.R.S., 411 237, 241, 264, 307, 314, 380, 386, Brown, P., 99, 105, 239, 309 403, 412, 458, 549 Brownlee, W.H., 404 Debrunner, A., 557 Brüll, N., 105, 169, 519 Deissmann, A., 106, 199, 205, 233, 237, Bruneau, P., 440 441, 499, 551 Bruston, C., 105, 169, 519, 525 Delling, G., 312 Buckler, W.H., 105, 190 Delorme, J., 106, 219, 225, 246 Büchler, A., 105, 169, 519 Dempsey, D., 140, 522 Bückers, H., 105, 316, 319 Dimant, D., 106, 160, 223 Bultmann, R., 544 Dodd, C.H., 87 Bunge, J.G., 31, 105, 229, 279, 294, 326, Doering, L., 266 344, 550, 551, 552 Dommershausen, W., 107 Burstein, S.M., 542 Donner, H., 107, 142 Buschmann, G., 105, 278, 305 Döpler, J., 107, 301, 303 610 Indices

Doran, R., 4, 17, 20, 31, 35, 43, 46, 67, Flusser, D., 49, 90, 108, 138, 144, 149, 72, 79, 107, 172, 176, 177, 197, 206, 169, 267, 294, 388, 391, 502 219, 224, 225, 226, 246, 294, 318, Forbes, C., 449 319, 330, 346, 385, 427, 500, 502, Forbes, C.A., 225 537, 538, 540 Forbes, R.J., 159 Dover, K.J., 107, 215, 239, 290, 292, Forshey, H.O., 162 309, 315, 442, 479, 501 Foucart, P., 227 Downey, G., 89, 107, 236 Foxhall, L., 330 Drew-Bear, T., 107, 353, 366, 368, 501 Fraser, P.M., 52, 108, 543 Dreyer, B., 225 Freudenthal, J., 229 Dunbabin, J., 89, 107 Fujita, S., 157 Duncker, P.G., 60 Fuks, A., 99, 245, 266, 315 Dupont-Sommer, A., 86, 107, 289, 290 Fuks, G., 109, 195, 435

Eckstein, A.M., 107, 309, 489 Gafni, I.M., 108, 123, 275, 301, 341, Edgar, C.C., 112, 408 377 Edson, C., 107, 338, 547 Gamberoni, J., 188 Efron, J., 5, 107, 113 Gardiner, E.N., 108, 225 Elbogen, I., 506 Gardner, A.E., 237 Elhorst, H.J., 39, 40, 107, 246 Garlan, Y., 340, 427 Eliav, Y., 107, 190, 223, 277 Gärtner, B., 108, 312, 486 Elizur, S., 90, 108, 509 Gauger, J.-D., 361, 548 Enermalm-Ogawa, A., 108, 136, 147, Geiger, A., 168, 266, 384, 442 154, 155, 156, 169, 199, 201, 203, Geiger, J., 3, 67, 78, 325, 329, 341, 384, 261, 506 400, 432 Engel, G., 171, 180 Gera, D., 14, 30, 44, 63, 64, 97, Eph’al, I., 328 108, 109, 148, 190, 192, 229, 230, Eshel, E., 149, 186, 485, 535 238, 252, 253, 269, 366, 368, 413, Eshel, H., 103, 105, 108, 122, 149, 186, 428, 429, 435, 437, 438, 442, 454, 268, 269, 485, 535 534 Ettelson, H.W., 40, 108, 179, 403, 534 Gieschen, C.A., 109, 201, 387, 401 Exler, F.X.J., 108, 135, 169, 362, 524 Gil, L., 35, 67, 109, 402, 427 Eynikel, E., 550 Ginzberg, L., 151 Giovannini, A., 109, 413 Farber, J.J., 216 Glucker, J., 109, 176, 276 Farmer, W.R., 337 Goldenberg, R., 266 Faust, M., 360 Goldstein, J.A., 11, 15, 58, 62, 82, 86, Fiensy, D.A., 108, 137, 427 97, 109, 136, 137, 138, 144, 146, 147, Fine, S., 378 152, 154, 156, 159, 160, 165, 177, Fischer, J.B., 261 191, 195, 213, 226, 227, 228, 232, Fischer, M., 424, 439 245, 252, 255, 265, 279, 280, 282, Fischer, T., 108 285, 300, 307, 312, 313, 315, 328, Fisher, N.R.E., 336 338, 341, 358, 359, 363, 366, 367, Fitzmyer, J.A., 108, 136, 139, 169, 245, 380, 385, 388, 398, 400, 402, 405, 290, 291, 342, 385, 436 426, 429, 430, 434, 438, 439, 448, Fleischer, E., 154 454, 456, 458, 460, 480, 487, 488, Index of Authors 611

489, 497, 499, 500, 505, 512, 523, Hagenow, G., 514 525, 529, 535, 544, 545, 549, 550, Hamel, G.H., 343 551, 556 Hamilton, N.Q., 191 Goodblatt, D., 109, 120, 348, 460 Hanhart, R., 67, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, Goodman, M., 86, 109, 121, 216, 225 97, 111, 114, 123, 143, 152, 153, 157, Gordon, C., 57 158, 177, 189, 193, 237, 241, 245, Gould, J., 361 252, 260, 262, 265, 267, 275, 279, Graetz, H., 109, 169, 519 287, 293, 307, 310, 312, 313, 315, Graf, F., 282 316, 332, 340, 343, 345, 347, 358, Grainger, J.D., 109, 450 359, 366, 380, 381, 388, 389, 402, Granier, F., 109, 479 404, 405, 426, 433, 434, 437, 440, Griffiths, J.G., 449 441, 442, 476, 478, 483, 487, 489, Grimm, C.L.W., 9, 35, 60, 63, 64, 67, 86, 497, 500, 503, 509, 524, 525, 537, 97, 109, 159, 161, 186, 199, 214, 235, 538, 539, 540, 546, 549, 551, 553 239, 252, 264, 279, 300, 303, 310, Hanson, R.P.C., 58 312, 327, 328, 329, 344, 380, 381, Hanson, V.D., 111, 254, 439, 506 388, 432, 434, 450, 451, 455, 481, Haran, M., 166 500, 505, 510, 520, 547, 550, 553, Harris, H.A., 224 555 Harris, W.V., 177 Grintz, Y.M., 109, 194, 260, 377, 378, Harvey, G., 111, 391 410, 510 Hauspie, K., 550 Gruber, M.I., 109, 312 Hayes, C.E., 260 Gruen, E.S., 6, 12, 14, 97, 110, 173, 187, Heichelheim, F., 334 229, 253, 256, 411, 413, 533, 545 Heinemann, I., 42, 111, 141, 198, 294, Guéraud, O., 110, 218, 263 378 Gutberlet, C., 110, 537 Hengel, M., 43, 44, 111, 116, 195, 215, Gutman, Y., 20, 110, 303, 319 221, 273, 276 Henten, J.W. van, 10, 25, 45, 52, 65, 86, Habicht, C., 15, 20, 40, 86, 90, 97, 110, 88, 97, 111, 112, 116, 155, 205, 222, 146, 152, 153, 159, 175, 176, 177, 288, 290, 293, 294, 303, 309, 310, 179, 190, 199, 228, 237, 245, 252, 319, 438, 478, 488, 489, 490, 491, 255, 260, 262, 265, 267, 279, 280, 502, 515, 541, 554 285, 289, 292, 293, 306, 307, 310, Herkenne, H., 112, 169, 519 318, 331, 333, 341, 343, 344, 359, Herman, G., 112, 149, 237 362, 364, 379, 380, 386, 388, 389, Hermann, P., 275 399, 402, 404, 406, 412, 413, 426, Herr, M.D., 123, 266 434, 435, 442, 460, 462, 473, 474, Herrmann, P., 108, 215, 542 476, 478, 480, 481, 500, 501, 503, Hertz, J.H., 112, 122, 137, 175, 180, 510, 522, 534, 535, 540, 541, 542, 310 549, 556 Herzog-Hauser, G., 198 Hacham, N., 87, 110, 543 Himmelfarb, M., 51, 112, 286, 292, 303, Hack, M., 8, 110, 158, 165, 169, 522 501 Hadot, I., 177 Hirzel, R., 101, 102, 109, 277, 484 Häge, G., 194 Hoehner, H.W., 168 Haenchen, E., 110, 305 Hölscher, G., 72, 112, 426 Hagedorn, D., 487 Hoffman, C., 103 612 Indices

Holladay, C.R., 112, 144, 160, 167, 221, 293, 313, 345, 381, 389, 438, 476, 537 480, 481, 553, 555 Holleaux, M., 25, 112, 192, 216, 235, Kasher, A., 5, 30, 109, 113, 145, 190, 263, 311, 368, 405, 431 213, 236, 275, 333, 382, 391, 421, Holzmeister, U., 399 424, 425, 430, 444, 487, 501, 548 Hooff, A.J.L. van, 489 Katz, P., 91, 92, 93, 94, 113, 152, 153, Horst, P.W. van der, 112, 116, 198, 157, 177, 287, 288, 295, 307, 314, 237, 291, 308, 368, 443, 486, 332, 340, 341, 343, 347, 381, 403, 487 433, 437, 441, 443, 476, 478, 483, Houghton, A., 112, 234 549 Hunt, A.S., 440 Kedar, B.Z., 422 Hunt, S., 112, 408 Keel, O., 43, 113, 295, 400, 543 Hyldahl, N., 43, 112, 175, 274 Keil, V., 187 Kelhoffer, J.A., 268 Ilan, T., 112, 194, 198, 267, 339, 383, Kellermann, D., 431 404, 430, 487 Kellermann, U., 20, 113, 151, 300, 304, Isaac, B., 424 316 Kennell, N.M., 41, 43, 53, 113, 219, Jackson, A.H., 254 223, 225, 246, 532 Jackson-Tal, R.E., 439 Kern, O., 543 Jacobson, H., 112, 198, 203, 205, 259, Kilpatrick, G.D., 91, 92, 94, 114, 347, 335, 502 509 Jaeger, W., 112, 283, 294 Kippenberg, H.G., 114, 197, 301 Janson, T., 180 Kislev, M.E., 268 Japhet, S., 256 Klawans, J., 260 Jeremias, G., 103, 112, 116 Kloner, A., 437 Johansson, N., 502 Kochabi, S., 114, 474, 491 Johnson, J. de M., 440 Koenen, L., 114, 367, 406, 407, 409, Johnson, S.R., 5, 87, 112, 195, 212, 244, 410, 413 472 König, F.W., 168, 345, 367, 450, 470 Jones, A.H.M., 355 Kolbe, W., 114, 143, 534 Jones, C.P., 190 Kooij, A. van der, 62, 114, 168, 502, 506 Jonnes, L., 532 Kopidakes, M.Z., 114 Jossa, G., 45, 113, 301 Kornbeutel, H., 551 Jouguet, P., 469 Kosters, W.H., 114, 384, 460 Joüon, P., 113, 188, 225, 240 Kraeling, C.H., 236 Kraft, R., 114, 160, 266, 555 Kah, D., 113, 219, 225 Kreuzer, S., 315 Kahana, A., 6, 63, 113, 142, 165, 241, Kuhn, H.-W., 112 435, 553 Kußmaul, P., 420 Kahrstedt, U., 113, 191, 380, 436 Kamerbeek, J.C., 307 Lachs, S.T., 316 Kampen, J., 106, 112, 113, 121, 167, Laconi, M., 114 471 Lampe, G.W.H., 553, 555 Kaplan, J., 123, 423 Landau, Y.H., 190 Kappler, V., 91, 111, 113, 157, 215, 292, Lapin, H., 378 Index of Authors 613

Lapp, N.L., 114, 268, 283 Mariani, B., 116, 341, 403, 413 Lapp, P.W., 114, 268, 283 Markantonatos, G., 449 Laqueur, R., 33, 114, 396, 406, 413 Martin, R., 542 Lauer, S., 105, 289 Martin, V., 440 Launey, M., 114, 234, 264, 265, 338, Martola, N., 43 431, 437 Mason, S., 116, 275 Lebram, J.C.H., 11, 111, 114 Mauersberger, A., 67, 97, 101, 116, 153, Lehmann-Haupt, F., 424 193, 196, 215, 230, 238, 240, 243, Leiman, S.Z., 166 252, 258, 259, 265, 276, 329, 330, Lemaire, A., 114, 234 367, 374, 382, 384, 403, 428, 431, Lenger, M.-Th., 115, 137, 265, 314, 410, 432, 456, 468, 472, 479, 480, 481, 461 504, 505, 513 Le Rider, G., 115, 148, 218, 530, 544, Mayser, E., 116, 192, 310, 555 545 Mélèze Modrzejewski, J., 51, 52, 66, 85, Leschhorn, W., 290 116, 202 Lévi, I., 90 Meltzer, E.S., 89 Levine, L.I., 44, 109, 115, 125, 126, 143, Mendels, D., 25, 44, 116, 356, 368 221, 233, 253, 254, 345 Menxel, F. van, 116, 305, 319 Lévy, I., 115, 331, 380, 386, 391, 547 Merkelbach, R., 193 Levy, J.H., 115 Metzger, H., 542 Lewis, N., 115, 161, 500 Meyer, A., 555 Licht, J., 106, 199, 205, 317, 441 Meyer, E., 40, 116, 384, 412, 496, 507 Lichtenberger, H., 25, 46, 48, 115, 120 Michel, O., 88 Lieberman, S., 44, 115, 145, 154, 160, Milgrom, J., 106, 223, 287 161, 199, 237, 242, 245, 253, 281, Milik, J.T., 160 340, 361, 514 Milikowsky, C., 116 Liebmann-Frankfort, T., 115, 413 Millar, F., 43, 44, 116, 276, 295 Lifshitz, B., 99, 115, 234, 263, 385, 421 Miller, P.D., 336 Lim, T.H., 166 Milligan, G., 461 Lindsay, D.R., 200 Misgav, H., 276 Lipin´ski, E., 227 Mitford, T.B., 116, 331, 380, 381, 391 Lissarague, F., 115 Moehring, H.R., 42, 544 Liver, J., 157 Mölleken, W., 116, 469, 474, 491 Loewenstamm, S.E., 145 Moffatt, J., 116, 537, 547, 556 Lorein, G.W., 25, 115, 368 Momigliano, A., 10, 86, 87, 116, 117, Lüderitz, G., 51, 116, 145, 175 143, 343, 390, 524, 547, 548 Lührmann, D., 116, 172 Montevecchi, O., 117, 155 Lust, J., 550 Mooren, L., 551 Luz, M., 489 Mor, M., 112, 119, 428, 494 Morgan, M.H., 253, 528 Ma, J., 6, 116, 140, 166, 234, 360, 416 Morgenthaler, R., 71 Maas, M., 89, 116 Morin, J.-A., 215 Magen, Y., 276 Mørkholm, O., 34, 116, 148, 149, 192, Main, E., 168, 362 217, 234, 238, 251, 273, 275, 276, Marcus, R., 5, 71, 111, 225, 331, 430 354, 364, 366, 381, 409, 460, 530, Maresch, K., 51, 106, 145 533, 535, 542, 544, 549 614 Indices

Morrison, J.S., 228 Pelikan, J., 60 Mosley, D.J., 221 Pelletier, A., 436 Mott, S.C., 186 Penna, A., 118 Motzo, [R.]B., 117 Peterson, J.L., 390 Moulton, J.H., 461 Petrochilos, N., 71 Müller, H., 99, 109, 413 Piatkowska, M., 257 Mugler, C., 35, 67, 73, 117, 180 Pilhofer, P., 222 Murray, O., 115, 117, 178 Porten, B., 118 Musti, D., 257 Porter, S.E., 118, 125, 138, 303 Powell, I.U., 547 Nagel, G., 117, 246 Prato, G.L., 118, 173, 273, 295, 368 Nelis, J.T., 117, 188, 400, 413 Preisendanz, K., 227 Nestle, E., 117, 255 Preisigke, F., 118, 409, 550 Nestle, W., 117, 307, 357 Price, J.J., 115, 259 Neuser, W., 61 Pritchett, W.K., 118, 172, 201, 251, 259, Nickelsburg, G.W.E., 107, 117, 299, 329, 336, 342, 428, 431, 433, 438, 304, 316, 317, 319 439, 441, 479 Niehr, H., 203 Procksch, O., 39, 40, 118, 413 Niese, B., 8, 10, 15, 33, 39, 40, 43, 67, Pummer, R., 264 78, 79, 93, 102, 105, 117, 125, 173, 174, 330, 332, 384, 398, 411, 434, Quass, F., 280 443, 448, 519, 520, 521, 528, 534, 540, 544, 553 Raban, A., 423 Nock, A.D., 117, 542 Rabello, A.M., 470 Nodet, E., 117 Radin, M., 85 Norden, E., 67 Rahlfs, A., 71, 72, 91, 119, 154, 176, North, H., 239 193, 515, 525, 553 Nouhaud, M., 258, 263 Rajak, T., 44, 119, 173, 214, 216, 289, 293, 295 O’Brien, E., 118, 444 Ramage, E.S., 290 Ogle, M.B., 118, 443, 444 Rampolla del Tindaro, M., 119, 319 Oppenheimer, A., 108, 109, 111, 113, Rappaport, U., 44, 63, 109, 119, 255, 118, 120, 487, 512 279, 461, 462, 539 Orlinsky, H.M., 166 Reeg, G., 119, 286, 327 Otto, W., 39, 118, 148, 229, 399, 524 Regev, E., 165 Owen, E.C.E., 288 Reinach, A., 378 Reinach, S., 443 Page, D.L., 547 Reinhold, M., 239 Parente, F., 43, 87, 118, 122, 187, 246, Renaud, B., 50, 105, 119, 222, 275, 291, 345, 530, 531 410 Parker, R., 118, 245, 260, 451 Ribbeck, O., 484 Pasoni Dell’Acqua, A., 214 Richnow, W., 35, 67, 72, 119, 232, 344 Paul, G.M., 258 Ricl, M., 532 Pearce, S.J.K., 304 Rigg, H.A., 513 Pearson, B.A., 118, 190, 266 Rigsby, K.J., 119, 196, 236, 276, 360, Pédech, P., 118, 180, 216, 329 362 Index of Authors 615

Rinaldi, G., 85, 119, 214 Schwankl, O., 120, 304, 319, 442, Risberg, B., 67, 119, 153, 158, 177, 292, 444 293, 343, 379, 381, 390, 469, 478, Schwartz, D.R., 5, 22, 45, 54, 90, 108, 481, 488 109, 120, 121, 123, 140, 145, 148, Robert, L., 91, 115, 227, 541, 542 195, 229, 274, 375, 442, 480, 486, Robertson, M., 179 535, 536 Rofé, A., 148 Schwartz, J., 8, 267, 511, 512 Rokeah, D., 119 Schwartz, S., 20, 43, 537, 539 Rolle, R., 302 Schwarz, A., 122, 512 Romilly, J., 119, 177, 432 Scullard, H.H., 122, 399, 455 Roscher, W.H., 537 Scurlock, J., 122, 276, 277, 288, 295 Rose, C., 88 Seeligmann, I.L., 64, 146, 217, 366 Ross, D., 500 Seeligmann, J.A., 122 Ross, J.F., 199 Sefer, H., 49, 109, 194, 243, 260, 378, Rostovtzeff, M., 542 410, 510 Roth-Gerson, L., 89, 119, 236 Segal, C., 508 Rothschild, J.P., 90, 120 Seyrig, H., 196 Rougé, J., 88, 120 Shatzman, I., 122, 173, 398, 448 Roussel, P., 193 Sherk, R.K., 101, 122 Rowley, H.H., 120, 295 Sieben, H.J., 60 Rubin, M., 554 Sievers, J., 118, 122, 222, 233, 250, Runia, D.T., 314 345 Skard, E., 122, 214, 292, 405 Sachs, A.J., 40, 41, 120 Skehan, P., 59, 122 Salmon, J., 330 Sluys, D.M., 122, 236 Savalli-Lestrade, I., 149 Sly, D., 309 Savigni, R., 89, 120 Smith, M., 431 Schalit, A., 345, 378, 430, 470 Smith, R.R.R., 337 Schaller, B., 553, 554 Snodgrass, A.M., 202 Schatkin, M., 120, 319 Soloveitchik, H., 90 Schiffman, L.H., 120 Sowers, S., 122, 216, 226, 237 Schmitt, H.H., 420 Sperber, D., 122, 190, 200, 281, 314 Schmitz, W., 200 Spicq, C., 52, 97, 123, 136, 138, 149, Scholl, R., 334 150, 153, 172, 174, 175, 180, 189, Scholz, P., 113, 219 191, 194, 200, 214, 218, 222, 223, Schröder, B., 275 226, 239, 244, 245, 260, 266, 275, Schubart, W., 120, 194, 214, 216, 289 280, 284, 289, 290, 305, 306, 316, Schürer, E., 39, 40, 44, 86, 118, 120, 326, 332, 357, 359, 361, 362, 405, 188, 189, 267, 286, 295, 362, 487, 407, 408, 427, 456, 477, 481, 537 534, 541 Spiegel, S., 20, 123 Schumacher, G., 426 Standhartinger, A., 198 Schumrick, A., 175, 180 Starcky, J., 123 Schunck, K.-D., 43, 97, 120, 212, 326, Staub, U., 43, 113, 400 353 Steckoll, S.H., 268 Schuppe, E., 223 Stegemann, H., 112 Schwabe, M., 105, 110, 199 Stein, M., 58 616 Indices

Steinfeld, Z.A., 225 Vaccari, A., 91, 503 Stemberger, G., 88, 123, 295, 304, 306, Vanderhooft, D., 188 316, 317, 319 VanderKam, J.C., 43, 124, 211, 212, Stern, M., 11, 12, 14, 25, 36, 43, 44, 56, 295, 409, 469, 475, 541 64, 73, 85, 86, 97, 99, 108, 123, 145, Vaughn, P., 439 174, 187, 196, 212, 217, 218, 219, Vergote, J., 124, 288, 295 220, 223, 236, 246, 256, 273, 275, Villalba i Varneda, P., 286 276, 277, 279, 280, 286, 337, 338, Vinson, M., 89, 124 345, 378, 380, 398, 404, 413, 424, Vogel, M., 289 437, 454, 457, 460, 470, 473, 474, Volkmann, H., 124, 259, 334, 500, 524, 530, 535, 545, 546, 548, 547 549 Volz, H., 60 Stiebel, G.D., 283 Vries, M. de, 235 Stokholm, N., 5, 123, 206 Stone, M.E., 119, 121, 123 Wacholder, B.Z., 106, 125, 144, 169, Strobel, K., 123, 337, 338, 548 376 Sundberg, A.C., 57, 58, 61, 123 Wackernagel, J., 353 Swete, H.B., 57, 159, 426, 553 Wagenaar, L., 125, 475, 491 Walbank, F.W., 79, 97, 125, 148, 150, Tal, A., 253 177, 180, 192, 217, 220, 229, 231, Talmon, S., 264 252, 253, 265, 276, 302, 353, 364, Talshir, D., 426 381, 390, 411, 424, 434, 460, 467, Ta-Shma, I., 137 468, 470, 513, 533 Tcherikover, V.A., 33, 42, 51, 53, 54, 78, Walters, P., 149 85, 99, 100, 124, 189, 194, 195, 211, Weber, R., 289 246, 250, 255, 269, 273, 276, 333, Wegeler, C., 91 334, 385, 413, 424, 430, 530, 531, Wegner, J.R., 125, 309 532, 535 Weinfeld, M., 114, 125, 237, 387 Thalheim, T., 239 Weinreich, O., 125, 150, 214 Thompson, S., 356 Weitzman, S., 48, 103, 125, 134 Tiller, P.A., 157 Welles, C.B., 40, 72, 97, 101, 125, 140, Tilley, M.A., 288, 305 168, 193, 196, 220, 223, 226, 228, Toki, K., 10, 11, 124 231, 233, 234, 235, 257, 265, 306, Torrey, C.C., 8, 124, 140, 142, 158, 169, 361, 362, 365, 404, 405, 406, 407, 519, 522 408, 409, 410, 434, 469, 472, 499, Tov, E., 93, 124, 278, 290 523, 532, 550 Trindl, M., 124, 233, 551 Wellhausen, J., 38, 40, 42, 125, 244, 341, Tromp, J., 5, 87, 124, 278, 386 348, 391, 444, 462, 476, 491, 496, Tsfania, L., 276 515, 521 Tyson, J.B., 3, 124 Wendland, P., 39, 125 Wenning, R., 255 Ulrich, E., 166 Western, A.C., 268 Unnik, W.C. van, 156 Wheeler, E.L., 125, 456, 484 Urbach, E.E., 57, 124, 226, 284, 305, Wheeler, M., 353 361, 442 Wifstrand, A., 125, 282, 362, 514 Urman, D., 236, 426 Wilcken, U., 166, 420 Index of Authors 617

Wilcox, M., 522 Yahalom, Y., 509 Wiles, J.W., 59 Yardeni, A., 118 Wilhelm, A., 40, 125, 152, 153, 224, Yerushalmi, Y.H., 49, 126 225, 259, 265, 275, 410, 440, 441, Young, R.D., 126, 308, 319 442, 483, 549 Wilk, R., 281 Zadok, R., 487 Wilken, R.L., 125, 141 Zambelli, M., 86, 126 Will, E., 126, 148, 194, 338, 363, 367, Zeitlin, S., 34, 52, 126, 140, 227, 435, 459, 507 480, 547 Williams, D.S., 126 Ziegenaus, A., 60, 61, 126 Winston, D., 126, 141, 226, 313 Ziehen, L., 226, 227 Wise, M.O., 124, 475 Zimmer, E., 71, 155, 199, 315 Wörrle, M., 41, 43, 106, 185, 191, 192, Zimmermann, C., 71, 126, 155, 203, 206, 243 312, 315 Woess, F. von, 126, 196, 257 Zimmermann, H., 330 Wolff, C., 126, 160, 162, 502 Zollschan, L.T., 126, 221, 246 Wolter, M., 246 Zuckerman, C., 145 Wunderer, C., 179 Zuntz, G., 180