2 Maccabees - Schwartz, Daniel R

Daniel R. Schwartz

2 Maccabees

Commentaries onEarly Jewish Literature

(CEJL)

Edited byLoren T. Stuckenbruck

andPieter 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

Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelinesof 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 2008229’.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; detailedbibliographic data is available in the Internet at <http://dnb.d-nb.de>

© Copyright 2008 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, 10785 Berlin, GermanyAll rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this bookmay 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 GermanyCover Design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin

Typesetting: Dörlemann Satz, LemfördePrinting and binding: Hubert & Co GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen

Ü

Preface V

Preface

In the 1980s my late teacher, Prof. Menahem Stern of the Hebrew Universityof 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 anno-tated 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 murdereda few months later (22 June 1989), at the age of sixty-four, in the context ofwhat came to be known as “the first Intifada.” This brutal act, which snatchedhim from his family, his friends, his colleagues and his students, denied theworld the opportunity of seeing both his History of the Second Temple Period,of which many incomplete drafts were found, and his analysis and interpre-tation of this central work of Hellenistic Judaism, of which only a short draftwas found (published below, in my translation, as Appendix 7). May he rest inpeace, and may the memory of him long continue to be a blessing.

Eventually, the publisher transferred the project to me, unpreparedthough 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 hadtested me in my M.A. examinations. Nevertheless, during the next decademy work had focused on later sources – Josephus, Philo, and the New Tes-tament. Stern’s death brought me back to the Hasmonean period – first toediting, from some of the drafts for his projected History of the SecondTemple Period, a volume entitled Hasmonaean Judaea in the HellenisticWorld: Chapters in Political History (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar, 1995 [inHebrew]), and then to work on Second Maccabees.

Numerous responsibilities at the Hebrew University ensured that the pro-ject would take much longer than ever expected. The fact that it was event-ually completed, with the publication of my Hebrew translation and com-mentary 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 researchand writing. A semester at Yale University’s Dept. of Religious Studies, to-ward 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 manu-script. 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 alsospent many hours going over the Hebrew translation – and all of that im-pacted, very directly, on this English version as well. Others who generouslyproffered advice, about one or another historical or literary problem orabout how to render this or that word, include Profs. Robert Doran, ErichGruen, Galit Hasan-Rokem, Jan Willem van Henten, Moshe David Herr,Avi Hurvitz, Lee Levine, Hermann Lichtenberger, Doron Mendels, JosephMélèze 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 referencesto his Judas Maccabaeus. And there were many others as well; above all –my students. The many years I spent on this project afforded several oppor-tunities to give seminars on Second Maccabees, and thereby to run up manyflags and see who salutes; ,lvkm rtvy ydymltmv ,ytlk>h ydmlm lkm. I hopeI have not stolen too many ideas without proper acknowledgement.

The present English volume is, to a large extent, the product of severalextended stays at the Department of New Testament Theology at the Uni-versity of Munich, courtesy of a prize from the Alexander von HumboldtFoundation and of the outstanding hospitality of the Department’s director,Prof. Jörg Frey, and his staff. These stays supplied ideal working conditionsthat allowed the project to move forward. In this connection, a special wordof thanks to two assistants, Tanja Schultheiß and Eva Preuß, who helpedwith the proofreading in Munich. Back in Jerusalem, grants from HebrewUniversity’s Charles Wolfson Fund and from Scholion (Hebrew University’sInterdisciplinary Research Center in Jewish Studies) allowed for proof-reading by Deenah Pinson, Yonatan Miller, Nadav Sharon and Maya Sher-man; Scholion also provided me with superb working conditions for thisproject. Professor Loren Stuckenbruck of Durham read through the entiremanuscript, and my friends Michael Blaustein and Judy Klitsner readthrough my translation of the Greek text and helped weed out translatio-nese and other problems. My sincere thanks to all of them – as well as to theeditors of CEJL for their invitation to me to participate in this series.

Although this volume is based, to a significant extent, on the Hebrewone, there are various differences. Apart from adding general Commentsbefore the verse-to-verse commentary on each chapter, from replacing ci-tations of Hebrew bibliography with references to works in western lan-guages, from eliminating various comments relevant only to the Hebrew

Preface VII

used in my translation (such as citations to demonstrate the existence ofsome odd word I felt compelled to use or to inform the reader that it wasfrom Menahem Begin’s memoirs that I picked up the phrase I used at 7:3 todescribe how a prisoner might infuriate his interrogator), from citing andusing some new publications (and especially – a newly-discovered and veryapposite Attalid inscription – see Appendix 2), and from integrating varioussecond thoughts, corrections, and revisions, including corrections and sug-gestions by some reviewers of the Hebrew version, the most importantchange relates to the fact that the English translation is not only new butalso 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 idiomaticallyEnglish. That is, if it is impossible to read even a few lines of my Hebrew trans-lation without realizing that it is a translation, this should not be the case withthe present English translation. The reason for this difference derives from thechasm between Hebrew vocabulary and syntax and their counterparts inGreek, which ensures that any idiomatic Hebrew translation would be veryfar-removed from the Greek original. Given the facts that the book’s authorinvested such an effort (with sweat and tears – 2:26) into his work, and thatthe 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 struc-ture of the Greek to my students; for it was my students I saw in my mind’s eyewhile I wrote, and most of them cannot read the Greek themselves. Accord-ingly, I rendered the text fairly literally, referring readers who want somethingmore readable to other Hebrew translations of the work. Thus, for Hebrewreaders I chose to do what Brock calls “bringing the readers to the book.”1

For the present English translation, however, I allowed myself more free-dom, for two reasons: (1) I contemplate more readers who know Greek (andassume that those who do not will, by and large, go on reading the standardtranslations in their Catholic Bibles or Protestant Apocryphas); (2) becauseEnglish is much closer to Greek than Hebrew is, with regard to vocabularyand syntax, so the moves that allow for more idiomatic English usually en-tail less deviation from the Greek. For an example of this, see p. 6, n. 9. Thatis, in comparison with the move from Greek into Hebrew, when translatingGreek into English one hardly has to choose between “bringing the readersto 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 in-fants as παρ�νομο«, lit. “law-violating,” a standard idiomatic Hebrewtranslation would use the root i>r, “wicked,” and indeed both Kahana andArtom 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 Englishtranslation, however, I used “lawless,” which does reflect the basic elementand 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 toolow-key). This seemed to be a small and reasonable price to pay for idio-matic English. Cases like this one abound.

As for the commentary, it is meant, primarily, to justify the translationand, as far as content and ideas are concerned, to elucidate the book as anexpression of diasporan Judaism of the Hellenistic age. I have not at-tempted to reconstruct the history of all the book narrates, although I haveattempted to do some of that and to supply assistance and bibliography tothose who would pursue it. To borrow a phrase from Ernst Haenchen (Actsof the Apostles, vii), I have instead attempted to be “a reader of SecondMaccabees,” and to share my understanding – of the book, and so of itsauthor’s world – with other such readers. Hopefully, it will be useful.

Second Maccabees is a book by a diasporan Jew about the life andstruggles of Jews living in and around Jerusalem. My work over the lastmany years on this ancient diasporan composition, while living in Jerusa-lem, has certainly seen some mutual influencing. On the one hand, it mustbe that living the life and struggles of modern Israel has impacted upon myunderstanding of this ancient book; readers will decide to what extent it hasskewed it and to what extent – enhanced it. On the other hand, it is also thecase that my work with this book has enriched my understanding of the lifeand 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 be-tween 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 tomy wife and my children, who share with me, each in her or his own way, aswith 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3II. Sources and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16III. Historical Worth and Leading Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38IV. Between the Bible and Greek Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57V. Language and Style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67VI. Reception and Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85VII. Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97VIII. Abbreviations and Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY

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

X Table of Contents

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: On the Letters in Chapters 1–2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 519Appendix 2: “to register the people of Jerusalem as

Antiochenes” (4:9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530Appendix 3: “his second invasion” (5:1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533Appendix 4: “as the residents of the place requested” (6:2) . . . . 537Appendix 5: A Ptolemaic Account of Antiochus’ Decrees?

(2 Macc 6:7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541Appendix 6: “the tribute (still owed) to the Romans”

(2 Macc 8:10, 36) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 544Appendix 7: M. Stern, “The Battle Against the Galatians” (8:20) . 546Appendix 8: “their own foods” (11:31) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549Appendix 9: “to be his successor” (14:26) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551Appendix 10: “the Syrian Language” (15:36) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553Appendix 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561Index of Names and Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 596Index 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 aboutwill help us determine why and when it was written.

The subject is very clear: the history of the city of Jerusalem from the be-ginning of institutionalized Hellenization under the high priest Jasonaround 175 BCE and until Judas Maccabaeus’ victory over the Seleucidgeneral 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 completepeace …”) and it ends with an unambiguous statement of cause and effectat 15:37: “Since the affairs concerning Nicanor turned out this way, andever 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 bookis about Jerusalem, and so the restoration of an idyllic situation there com-pletes the circle that began at 3:1 and thus completes the book.1

As for the upper chronological border being the beginning of institu-tionalized Hellenization under Jason ca. 175 BCE, here matters are a littlemore 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 Jewishhigh priest ruling the city under Seleucid kings while, by the end, Seleucid rule has forall intents and purposes ceased. That does not interest our author, either because heknew that the latter was soon to be restored (see 1 Macc 9) or because he simply didnot 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 objec-tive, 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 ofJudas Maccabaeus”) has suggested, in contrast, that 2 Maccabees should be viewedas 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 Booksof Judith and Ezra, where the heroes appear only at 8:1 and 7:1 respectively), it doessuggest that we should look elsewhere for characterizing the book as a whole – andthe brackets at 3:1 and 15:37 show us where.

4 Introduction

that introduces Antiochus IV Epiphanes (4:7), and some significant ma-terial 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’ brotherand predecessor, Seleucus IV Philopator, who is named at 3:3 and whosedeath 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 areclearly distinguished from it. But marginalizing 3:1–4:6, which features thelong and sensational story of Heliodorus’ failed attempt to enter theTemple, in the days of Seleucus IV, requires some justification. There aretwo main considerations.

First, it seems that the book itself characterizes its story as one that beginswith Jason: this is stated more or less explicitly in the first of the two lettersprefixed to the book, at 1:7;2 it seems that even the second letter, in its orig-inal 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 asthe book’s point of departure; and the summaries of Jerusalem’s tribulationsat 8:2–4 and 8:17 have, accordingly, nothing to say about the events ofChapter 3. Second, note that the story of Chapter 3 is indeed a unit closedwithin itself, having its own happy end with Heliodorus’ defeat and recog-nition of the power of the Jewish God; the story does not move the book for-ward at all. Note especially, in this connection, that apart from 4:1b, whichcould well be editorial, Heliodorus and his “conversion” serve no functionat 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 readershould wonder why Onias makes no attempt to enlist Heliodorus, whose lifehe 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 worseningof Simon’s complaints (4:1–4 [without v. 1b]) and Onias’ consequent deci-sion to go to the king in Antioch (4:5–6), the Heliodorus story would neverhave 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 ourbook, 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 appar-

ent in the fact that while 3:5 had Apollonius the son of Thraseas serving as governorof Coele Syria and Phoenicia, 4:4 has Apollonius son of Menestheus in the same posi-tion, 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 theelaborate treatment it receives … [i]t is, after all, an isolated incident which does not


Jason as its starting point, we conclude that we should, indeed, characterizethe story as one beginning with Jason.

On the other hand, however, it is clear from the authorial reflectionsat 5:18 that the Heliodorus story was part of the book that our author pre-pared. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the Heliodorus story is quite similarto the one in 3 Maccabees 1–2 about events under Ptolemy IV, who sharedthe same royal throne-name (Philopator) as Seleucus IV,6 and it is also strik-ing 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 highpriest” (vv. 4, 9, 10, 15, 16, 21, 32, 33).7 These two considerations make itlikely that our author inserted into his narrative a story that he foundwhich, although giving another name for the high priest (such as “Simon”

influence further historical developments.” I would add that the disproportionatelength of the account itself suggests the use of a special source, for it is unlikely that anauthor would invest so much effort into creating a narrative which prescinds from hisown 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), whichhardly has to do with “Jewish Antiquities;” on its source, see Feldman’s long note on19.1 in the LCL edition.

6 True, these two kings were not homonyms in the full sense of the word, for ourauthor was capable of referring to such kings as “Ptolemy” and “Seleucus” withouteven mentioning their throne-names; see 1:10, 3:3. But the opposite also occurs; see4:21, “King Philometor.” In any case, it is usual for names of kings to change asstories about them float around, and having the same throne-name would only en-courage this; see for example the way Jewish traditions mix up “Yannai” (AlexanderJannaeus) 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 ourbook, but this is hard to prove, especially given the widespread evidence for the float-ing motive of failed attempts to rob temples (see Stokholm, “Zur Überlieferung vonHeliodor”); 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” re-peatedly rather than the name of the high priest in whose context he told the story, seeAnt. 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 letterthe Bible reported was sent to Artaxerxes, brought the document in the contextof Cambyses but omitted his name, using instead only his title, “sovereign:” “Byomitting 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 similarlynon-commital when he is unsure about the chronology of the events he is relating, seemy “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’sprovidential protection of the Temple of Jerusalem. Accordingly, while it ispart of the book as our author produced it, the Heliodorus story should beunderstood 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 thesubject of the book: Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the Jews’ capital city and also, asan ancient polis, the capital of its territory, Judaea – the same conception in-dicated already in the first verse of the book (1:1: “the Jews in Jerusalem andin the country of Judaea”).8 Accordingly, when problems first occur theyconcern “market supervision in the city” (3:4); and when in the next chapterSimon informs against Onias, who was in fact the “benefactor (euergetes) ofthe 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 accusehis “fellow-citizens” (politai – 4:5).9 This focus on the city remains dominantthroughout, as some prominent examples indicate: Jason’s reform changedthe city’s status and politeias (4:9–11); the delegates who complained aboutthe theft of Temple vessels are first defined as defenders of the city and onlythereafter as those of the Temple vessels (4:48); Chapter 5 opens with anapparition in the sky above Jerusalem, then goes on to blame Jason for at-tacking 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 andeven 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 theHellenistic World,” in: R. M. Rosen & J. Farrell (ed.), Nomodeiktes: Greek Studiesin 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. Onthe 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 eleventimes 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 – asopposed to western languages (“fellow citizen, concitoyen, Mitbürger …”) – still hasno way of rendering this sense, turn instead to ethnic terminology (“brother,people”). Thus, Kahana rendered the complaint that Jason killed “his own fellow-citizens” (τ�ν πολιτ�ν τ�ν �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 thesons of his people;” and when in 15:30 he rendered πολ�ται “sons of his people” itforced him to use something else, “brothers,” to render �μοε�νε�« in the continuationof that verse (see, respectively, Kahana, HaSepharim, 194, 228, 230).


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” (πολιτε�εσ�αι) according to God’s laws (6:1);after the martyrdom accounts of Chapters 6–7, which are exceptional in thisregard,10 the city figures prominently alongside the Temple as what isthreatened 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 forgranted that the Jews begin all their campaigns from the city (v. 27), just asChapter 11 makes clear in vv. 2–3 that the new Seleucid invasion is primarilya threat to the city; in Chapter 12, which deals with events in distant regionsof Palestine, Jerusalem figures as the axis of events (vv. 31, 43), just as inChapter 13 the Jews march out to meet the royal army at Modein rather thanwait until “the king’s army invaded Judaea and took control of the city,” andJudas 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, ischaracterized as undertaking to fight “due to the danger facing the city, theholy things and the Temple” (15:17), although – as in the abovementionedinstance 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 character-ized as “he who with his whole body and soul had taken the lead in thestruggle on behalf of his fellow citizens” (15:33), and that, as we have seen, afew verses later the author explains that his book has come to an end becausethe city returned to Jewish hands (15:37), reestablishing the idyllic statuswith 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 thecomparison of two passages:

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

2 Maccabees 10:8 2 Maccabees 15:36And they resolved by anedict and decree made incommon that the entire(�δογμ�τισαν δ� μετ�κοινο� προστ�γματο« κα�χηφ σματο« παντ�) peopleof the Jews should celebratethese days annually.

And they all decided, in a decree madein common (�δογμ�τισαν δ� π�ντε«μετ� κοινο� χηφ σματο«), not at all toallow that day to remain unmarked, but,rather, to keep as special the thirteenthday of the twelfth month (which is called“Adar” in the Syrian language), the daybefore Mordechai’s Day.

8 Introduction

Given the demonstrative parallelism between these two passages, the bookobviously is meant to encourage the observance of these two holidays, Ha-nukkah and Nicanor’s Day, which celebrate two stages in the struggle thebook depicts: the purification of the Temple and the establishment of stableJewish rule in the city. As Niese put it, “the establishment of the two Mac-cabean memorial days constitutes the middle and conclusion of the entirework.”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 cameonly at a secondary stage. On the negative side, this emerges from twoconsiderations: (1) the only passage in the book itself that refers to Hanuk-kah, 10:1–8 (concluding with the proclamation cited just above), sticksout like a sore thumb as an insertion, and (2) it is almost as clear that thatpassage was inserted by those Jerusalemites who added the letters at thebeginning of the book. The first point, that 10:1–8 is a secondary inser-tion, results from the way it separates Antiochus IV’s death (at the end ofCh. 9) from the summary of that event (10:9); from the derogatory way itspeaks 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 fromwhat 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 agood 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 ofFasts Abrogated?,” Tarbiz 55 [1986] 263–264 [in Hebrew]), see J. Schwartz, “OnceMore,” 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 connec-tion, 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 thenames of the writers given in 1:1, 10, that these letters appear prior to the author’s pref-ace and that the first, and perhaps also the second, was written originally in Hebrew orAramaic. See Appendix I. For retroversions of the letters, into Aramaic and Hebrew,respectively, see Torrey, “The Letters” and Hack, “Two Hanukkah Letters.”


they needed such a passage, because otherwise the book did not justify, oreven explain, the call to celebrate Hanukkah; from the common emphasison all the people being called upon to celebrate (cf. esp. 2:17!); from thecommon interest in cultic details (note esp. the similarity of the list in 1:7with that in 10:3), which contrasts sharply with what is usual for the restof the book (see below, pp. 46–48); from the fact that only the story at1:31–32 can explain the obscure reference to “igniting rocks and extrac-ting fire from them” in 10:3; from the fact that of the whole book only10:6–7 explains the letters’ characterization of Hanukkah as a type of Tab-ernacles festival (1:9, 18); and from the desideratum that we be economicaland not hypothesize more editors and interpolators than the evidencerequires.

On the positive side, the fact that the book was meant, originally, tofoster 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 theauthor’s intended objective (see above, n. 1). Thus, in a manner reminiscentof the establishment of commemorative festivals in Esther 9:26–32 and3 Maccabees 7:18–19,16 2 Maccabees 15:36 represents not only the lastpiece of information in the book but also its purpose.

(2) The arrangement of the book as a whole points to Nicanor’s centralstatus: 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 moreclearly from the fact that comparison with 1 Maccabees leads historiansto 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 ourbook’s presumption that both narratives in our book refer to one and thesame Nicanor.19 For our author and (so he assumed) for his readers there isno 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 deliver-ance �π� τ"ν τ#« παροικ α« α$τ�ν ξρ�νον – throughout the time of their residencein Egypt (not merely “during the time of their stay” at Ptolemais, as the RSV mightimply). See Grimm, 2 Macc, 277.

17 For according to 1 Macc 3:38 Nicanor was one of three commanders and 4:1, 5, 18indicate that one of the other two, Gorgias, was in fact the main figure; Nicanor is no-where mentioned in 1 Maccabees’ long account of this campaign after its openingverse. Our book, in contrast, mentions Gorgias only once in Chapter 8, and there hecomes only “alongside” Nicanor and never functions in that story.

18 Concerning which events 1 Macc 7:8–10 has Bacchides instead of Nicanor. Our bookmentions 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 hisactivity 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 mustrecognize that in its present form it is meant to do something else: justify thecelebration of another holiday, Hanukkah.20 In fact, both letters attached atthe beginning of the book invite their addressees to celebrate this latter holi-day, making no mention of Nicanor or of the festival marking his defeat.

Thus, in discussing the book’s purpose we must make a clear distinctionbetween different layers of purpose. Looking at the book as it is, the ob-vious purpose is to encourage readers to celebrate the holiday of Hanuk-kah. However, this is only a formal statement, one that goes hand in handwith saying the book was “written” by the Jews of Jerusalem, since for-mally the book is an attachment to their two opening cover letters.21 His-torically speaking, however, we should conclude from the contrast betweenthe letters, which point to Hanukkah, and the body of the book, whichpoints to Nicanor’s Day, that the book was expanded, by Jerusalemites, inthe opening chapters and in Chapter 10, to make it serve a purpose forwhich 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 maketheir interpolation fit as best as possible into the book; the same is indicatedby their use of “reconciliation” language at 1:5, which points, as we shallsee (below, pp. 21–22), to a basic theme in our book.22

20 This discrepancy between form and current structure of our book was especiallyunderlined 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 withwhich Niese (Kritik, 12) moves, in referring to festivals, from singular to plural andthen back to singular from one sentence to the next: “Der Hauptgedanke [of theopening letter], der sich in Anfang, Mitte und Ende findet, ist die Mahnung, das Festder Tempelweihe mitzufeiern. Darin liegt zugleich der Zusammenhang mit der fol-genden Darstellung; denn die Stiftung der beiden makkabäischen Gedenktage bildetgleichsam den Mittelpunkt und Abschluss des Ganzen. Unterstutzt wird jeneMahnung weiter [in the opening letter] durch die Erzählung von der Einweihung desTempels und der Auffindung des heiligen Feuers durch Nehemias. Denn dieses Fest istein Vorläufer der makkabäischen Feier und der Schriftsteller denkt es sich vielleichtan demselben Tage, dem 25. Kislev, begangen.”

21 For that characterization of the book, see esp. van Henten, “2 Maccabees as a Historyof Liberation;” cf. below, n. 100.

22 For some emphasis on the similarity of the first letter to the body of the book, seeToki, “The Dates,” 72–74. But there is no reason to infer that it was part of the bookfrom the outset. As for the second letter, the differences between it and the rest of the


Dating the book: This discussion of the relationship of the letters to 10:1–8serves not only to defend our characterization of the book as one meant tojustify and explain Nicanor’s Day by showing that that which points insteadto Hanukkah is secondary. It also contributes to establishing the dating ofour book. For if it is the case that 10:1–8 was inserted into an extant con-text, and that the epistles in Chapters 1–2 were added at the same time, ascover letters accompanying an extant book,23 then the date of the letters is aterminus ad quem for the book as a whole. Given the fact that the first letterwas 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 expectfrom 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 Maccabeesit was precisely in that year, 170 SE according to the Macedonian system,that Demetrius II granted Judaea full exemption from taxes, a step quiteproperly 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 mainargument is only the reading “Year 188” (SE = 125/124 BCE) in 1:10a. Inour NOTE ad loc., and in Appendix 1, I explain why I prefer to followthose witnesses that read “148,” i.e., 165/4 BCE, and to take this not as thedate of the letter, but as the date of the original event that the Hanukkah fes-tival 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 tome 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 accord-ing to the Macedonian system is based on the fact that it appears in the verse rightafter Demetrius’ letter (1 Macc 13:36–40). That letter, as cited in 1 Macc, concludeswithout a date, but presumably had one at its end (as, for example, all the letters in2 Macc 11), so it is natural to assume that the author of 1 Maccabees simply chose toweave 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 beunderstood 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 ourbook solves a riddle which has at times exercised scholars. The book waswritten 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 some-time during the second century BCE (see below), competed with that of Je-rusalem and was (so we may assume) viewed as illegitimate, perhaps even asan abomination, by partisans of the latter – certainly in the early years of itsexistence, before it became a fixed part of the scenery.26 How could such abook 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 highpriest in Jerusalem, while it was his son, Onias IV, who founded the Templein Egypt.27 But even if we were to accept that – despite the facts that ourbook (4:30–34) has its Onias (who is apparently Onias III) being murderedin Antioch, and that Josephus’ later and more detailed work, Antiquities,holds clearly, as we shall see, that it was Onias IV who founded the Templein Egypt – it must be emphasized that our book does not distinguish be-tween its Onias and his son. As Stern noted, to praise “Onias” without mak-ing clear that the reference is not to the well-known villain is not the waypartisans write.28 Others would explain that we have here a subtle move onthe part of our author, who is telling his readers that the real and laudableOnias was in fact devoted to the Temple of Jerusalem.29 But that might betoo subtle and in any case there was no need for such a move, for all knewthat Onias III had been high priest in Jerusalem and it was indeed from thisfact 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 frombeliefs about the “holy land” and specifically from the Deuteronomistic insistencethat there be only one temple, see for example the satire at Ant. 13.65–71 and thelegal 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 withthe same title.)


imacy. Rather, it seems that the easiest explanation is that these chapterswere written before the Temple of Onias was in fact founded. Indeed, itseems they were written at a time when there was still a basic alliance be-tween the Hasmoneans and the Oniads, because Onias IV could expect theHasmoneans to restore him to the high priesthood in Jerusalem. After all, hewas the heir apparent to the position, which had been usurped by Seleucidprotégés (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 haveknown 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 hementions that he left behind an infant son named Onias (IV), promising totell his story “in the (proper) place.” Next, at §§387–388, Josephus reportsthat that son emigrated to Egypt because he had been passed over for thehigh priesthood. In this passage Josephus proleptically mentions that thisOnias built a temple in Egypt, but promises to give the details of that “in amore appropriate place.” Finally, at Antiquities 13.62, just after recordingthe death of Demetrius I, which occurred in 150 BCE, Josephus narrates indetail how Onias IV founded his temple in Egypt. Given such a carefullydistributed story, we have no reason to doubt Josephus’ chronology – whichis, in fact, quite reasonable from a political point of view. Namely, the samestruggle that resulted in the death of Demetrius I saw Alexander Balas,Demetrius’ competitor, appointing the Hasmonean Jonathan to the highpriesthood (1 Macc 10:15–21). Until then Onias could look forward toHasmonean victory, playing the role of the legitimate heir to the high priest-hood awaiting the opportunity to claim his birthright. Now, however, Jon-athan’s acceptance of the high priesthood meant a parting of ways betweenthe Hasmoneans and the Oniads; it was effectively a Hasmonean announce-ment that to the victors go the spoils and that they would not content them-selves with fighting and concede the high priesthood – which entailed a largemeasure of rule (see NOTE on 3:9, high priest of the city) – to someoneelse.30 It would be perfectly logical if, as emerges from Josephus’ location ofthe various segments of this story, Onias IV now set about building a templeof 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 wouldclaim they lacked the proper pedigree, see 1 Macc 5:62. Similarly, the use to which thedynasty’s house historian (1 Macc 2:24–26, 54; see also 1:15, �ζεψγ σ�ησαν, withNum 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 theOniads were partisans of the Temple of Jerusalem. That is, the status ofOnias in our book urges us to move the book’s terminus ad quem up to adate before the Temple of Onias was founded. This is an additional argu-ment 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 concern-ing friendship and alliance with the Romans)” not only implies that thelatter event (Judas Maccabaeus’ alliance with Rome in 161 BCE31) is freshin the readers’ memories; it also implies that they know of only one suchdelegation to Rome. But from 1 Maccabees and Josephus we know of sev-eral other delegations sent by later Hasmoneans, beginning with the onesent 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 under-stand 2 Maccabees 4:11 on the assumption that the author wrote beforesuch later delegations.

To summarize: our book was originally composed as a history of thetrials and tribulations of Jerusalem under Antiochus Epiphanes, includingthe 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 victorywas perceived to be the final salvation of Jerusalem, and, accordingly, thebook culminates in the holiday celebrating that victory – Nicanor’s Day. Intime, however, the victory over Nicanor turned out to be a transient one, forJudas 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, mattersof religion are another; despite the Seleucid revanche in Judaea, the decreesagainst Judaism were not renewed and the Temple remained in Jewishhands – 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 Judaeanindependence, Jerusalemite propagandists superficially adapted the book totheir 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 joinin 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.


Thus, it seems that our book was written somewhat before our othermain source for the period it describes, 1 Maccabees, since that work waswritten no earlier than John Hyrcanus’ succession of his father in 135/134BCE (the event with with which it ends), and perhaps even a few decadeslater.32 This conclusion deviates somewhat from the generally accepted hy-pothesis, which depends upon reading “Year 188” in 1:10,33 although it iswidely 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 chron-icles of John Hyrcanus’ high priesthood” that recounts “the rest of his works” as evi-dence that he was dead already, which results in a terminus post quem at the end ofhis tenure, with his death in 104 BCE; this is then bolstered by emphasizing hints inthe book to a long passage of time since events it mentions (such as 13:30). The othertakes 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 tobe a ruler like his biblical forebears; the result is a terminus post quem for the book atthe beginning of Hyrcanus’ reign (135/134), which may then be bolstered by the im-pression that the author witnessed some of the events he reports and that the authorwas not aware of later events. For the former approach, see e.g. Niese, Kritik, 9; forthe 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 as-sumption that it was written between then and the Roman conquest of Judaea, whichwould 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 JudasMaccabaeus, and the characterization of that view as one that can hardly be doubtedseriously, see Habicht, 2 Macc, 175–176, n. 45. Habicht bases his opinion especiallyon the reference to “Johanan, father of the Eupolemus …” in 4:11 – which we haveused the same way, but with reference to our book, not to Jason’s original opus. Asperusal of Habicht’s discussion shows, it is only the date “188” in 1:10 that forceshim 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 storyin 10:1–8 were added to an extant book. What of the rest of the book? Is itall of one piece?

Already the preface at 2:19–32 indicates that the volume is the productof a fairly complicated process: it reports that the present work is a con-densed version of a five-book history written by one Jason of Cyrene. In thepresent 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 canknow 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 itsuse as an historical source, whether as a witness to the events it describes oras witness to its own values and ideas.

As a point of departure we shall note the welcome fact that the receiveddivision of our book into chapters is indeed appropriate and meaningful,and that, with one exception (Ch. 14), the author indeed seems to have re-lated to the chapters, as we have them, as separate and complete units. Fourchapters (3, 7, 13, 15) end with formal transitional summaries; to them wemay add Chapter 9, on the basis of our argument (above, p. 8) that it orig-inally ended with a transitional summary such as the one now found at 10:9after the interpolation concerning Hanukkah. Another five chapters (4, 5,8, 10, 12) are defined by the fact that the chapters that follow them openwith new chronological markers.35 Chapter 11 too is easily defined by theend of the fourth document, although in this case the transitional summarycomes only in the first verse of Chapter 12.36 This leaves only Chapter 6 andChapter 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 open-ing with a new chronological marker. Or, for another type of closure, note that Ch. 4ends with two words (�π βοψλο« κα�εστ)«) that figure prominently in the chapter’sfirst two verses, thus neatly rounding out the chapter.

36 For a similar phenomenon, note that there is not infrequent disagreement amongBibles as to whether a given verse should be viewed as the final verse of a givenchapter 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 onEleazar, is followed by Chapter 7, which recounts the martyrdom of themother 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 entrailsof sacrifices [σπλαγξνισμο�«] and the tortures [α�κ α«] which exceeded allbounds”) alludes separately to the two chapters, since of the two Greekterms cited, the former appears only, but prominently (vv. 7, 8, 21), in theEleazar story and the latter appears only, but just as prominently, in that ofthe mother and her seven sons (vv. 1, 13, 15).37 Thus, the author treatsChapters 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 theNicanor story. Moreover, Chapters 14–15 are closely bound together by theway 15:34 fulfills 14:36 and 15:30, 32 respond tit for tat to 14:33. Thus, inthis case it seems the story was simply too long to fit into one chapter andwas therefore divided into two pieces. In analyzing the book below, how-ever, we will handle them together.38

Our conclusion is that of Chapters 3–15 we may treat each chapter (andChapters 6–7 and 14–15 together) as a discrete unit, so – all things beingequal – whatever we can show about a part of a chapter we may expect tobe true for the chapter as a whole. Now, as far as composition-criticism andsource-criticism are concerned, let us now ask whether they are all of akind. Are they all condensed from Jason’s work, so we should really call theman responsible for the final product39 only “epitomator,” as is usual, onthe 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 alreadynoted that Chapters 14 and 15 are a unit, as is shown by the way the victoryand Nicanor’s punishment in Chapter 15 correspond, even literally, to thethreats in Chapter 14.40 Now we may add that Chapter 15 is very similar toChapter 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 functionthe way our modern indenting and paragraphing do, and on the difficulty of decidingwhether 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 (τ�ν

��ν�ν *φοδον)//14:15 (το� Νικ�νορο« *φοδον κα� τ,ν �π �εσιν τ�ν ��ν�ν).

18 Introduction

both have him invading Judaea; both have Judas Maccabaeus encouraginghis soldiers with a speech that recounts biblical salvation stories includingthat in the days of Sennacherib; in both Nicanor is defeated; and there areseveral literal parallels between the two chapters (see NOTE on 15:7, thatassistance would be made available). It is very difficult to imagine that thetwo chapters were written by different authors, and there is no evident rea-son to consider such a possibility.

But Chapters 14–15 are also very similar to Chapters 3–4. Note the cen-tral role of Onias in Chapters 3–4 that recurs in 15:12–16; the great simi-larity, in reverse, of the good Onias’ appeal to the king in 4:1–6 and thewicked Alcimus’ at 14:3–10;41 and the way antagonists are dramaticallypoised against each other at 3:22–23;42 14:33–34; 15:5–6, 25–26. Soagain, and certainly when we acknowledge a methodological preferencefor the presumption that a book stems from a single writer, we see no rea-son to doubt that Chapters 3–4 come from the same hand as Chapters 8and 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 re-turning to Jerusalem but again fleeing to Ammonitis (5:7) after his unsuc-cessful attempt to take over the city. Accordingly, Chapter 5 thus comeseasily along with Chapter 4, just as easily as it links up in its own right withChapter 3, with which it shares the interest in gifts by foreign kings to theTemple of Jerusalem (3:2–3//5:16) and with Chapter 15, where too we readof 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, thatChapters 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 moredifficult. Concerning Chapter 6, first of all, it seems we must distinguish be-tween the first eleven verses, the next six, and the rest of the chapter. Thefirst eleven verses are much like the rest of the book: the notion that the ob-servance of Judaism is comparable to the observance of a municipal lawcode (πολιτε�εσ�αι – v. 1), the paralleling of Jerusalem and Gerizim inv. 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 diffi-

culty with such a parallel with Jerusalem’s cultic competitor sits well with his generallack of interest in temple cult per se; see below, pp. 46–48.


the prudish 1 Macc 1:61, which speaks here only of necks), and the sanctityof the Sabbath in vv. 6 and 11 (as at 5:25; 8:26–27; 12:38; 15:1–2)44 are allwell at home in our book. When one adds that Chapter 6 opens with theTemple’s being polluted (v. 2 – μολ�ναι) just as Chapter 5 had ended withJudas Maccabaeus and his men avoiding pollution (v. 27 – μολψσμο�),45

and that 6:3 (�π στασι« τ#« κακ α«) plays with 5:22 (�πιστ�τα« το� κα-κο�ν), it becomes even more certain that 6:1–11 are from the same hand asChapters 3–5, 8, and 14–15.

Skipping for the moment over the next six verses (12–17), in which thefirst-person singular is used to address readers and encourage them to drawthe proper theological conclusions from the story, we come now to the mar-tyrdom stories of 6:18–32 (Eleazar) and Chapter 7 (the mother and herseven sons). It appears that with respect to these it must be concluded thatalthough they do constitute part of the book, their origin is different fromthe rest; that is, they reflect the use of a source. That their origin is differentresults from several considerations:

– They are entirely devoid of all “political” terminology – no π�λι«,πολ τη«, ποολιτε�εσ�αι, or πολιτε α;46

– Assuming – as the reader must – that the persecutions described tookplace in Jerusalem or at least somewhere in Judaea,47 they contradict therest 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 5:24and 6:1);

– 8:2–4, a prayer which lists all the Jews’ sufferings in order to moveGod 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 π�λι« 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, butnot 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. Incontrast, Ch. 7 prefers another view of the law: π�τριοι ν�μοι (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 twicementions Moses (vv. 6, 30), who is never mentioned elsewhere apart from the open-ing epistles, and that it never mentions the Temple (a point noted by Bowersock, al-though 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 assumptionfor readers. For the possibility that, in fact, the persecutions were originally linked toAntioch, see below, n. 212 (on the cult that developed these).

20 Introduction

comes is a reference to “the destruction of innocent infants,” but that refersback to the episode recorded at 6:10 (for no one would claim that the sevenbrothers of Ch. 7 were infants).

– Finally, there are several strange phrases in the martyrologies ofChapters 6–7. Even if we stop short of Habicht’s suggestion that they reflecttranslation from the Hebrew,48 they may reflect an attempt to biblicize thestyle, something that is all but absent in the rest of the book.49

Thus, it seems that these narratives were not written by whoever wrotethe chapters discussed until now. This means either that they were added tothe book after it was composed or that they reflect the use of a source by itsauthor.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. 7and our NOTE on 6:30, fear. Habicht thought that the chapter was translated fromHebrew 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 martyrdomstories were widely diffused; that is, they had a life of their own. On the Jewish tradi-tions, 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. ForChristian 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 con-cludes that “it fits its present context in the epitome admirably, both through thesummary at 2 Macc 7:42 and through the theme of reconciliation through suffer-ing.” See also idem, “The Martyr,” 191; Kellermann, Auferstanden, 54–60; andS. 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” sugges-tion (ibid. 9–13) that Chs. 6–7 were added to our book only after the appearance ofChristianity, a suggestion required by his main thesis that Christian martyrdom de-rives from Roman precedents, not from Jewish ones. Indeed, most of Bowersock’sconsiderations pertain not to the date of these chapters, but, rather, to differences be-tween them and the rest of the book; as we have seen, such considerations can pointto the use of a source and not only to interpolation. His only consideration which, atfirst glance, might pertain to the dating of our book’s martyrologies is the fact thatthey do not at all mention the Temple, which suggests they were composed after itsdestruction in 70 CE. However, just as later authors could refer to the Temple as if itwere still standing (see e.g. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.193–198), so too could earlier auth-ors ignore it. Indeed, we shall suggest that the author of our book itself was not veryinterested in it; see below, pp. 46–48.


To understand this we shall have to realize that, for our book’s author, it isvery important to emphasize that troubles come upon Israel due to sins.This may be seen most clearly in three sections of authorial reflections thatprecede the martyrologies that begin in 6:18:

– 4:16–17: “For this reason they were overtaken by a difficult state ofaffairs, and those for whose ways they were enthusiastic, and whom theywanted fully to imitate, became their own enemies and nemeses. For it is notrivial matter to be impious vis à vis the divine laws. But this shall be shownby the next period.”

– 5:17–20: “And Antiochus’ mind went soaring, for he did not see that itwas due to the sins of the city’s residents that the Sovereign briefly distancedHimself from it in anger, and that was why the Place was unsupervised. Hadit not happened that they had been caught up in many sins, he too – just asHeliodorus, who had been sent by King Seleucus to audit the treasury – im-mediately upon moving forward (into the Temple) would have been floggedand overturned from his insolence. But God did not choose the people onaccount of the Place; rather, He chose the Place on account of the people.Therefore the Place itself, having shared in the disasters which befell thepeople, later shared also in the benefactions, and that which had been aban-doned in the anger of the All-Ruler was again reestablished with full honorwhen the great Sovereign was reconciled.”

– 6:12–16: “Now I call upon the readers of this book not be depresseddue to the sufferings, but rather to consider that the punishments were notto destroy our nation, but, rather, to edify it. For not to allow evildoers afree hand for a long time, but, rather, immediately to bring down punish-ments upon them, is a sign of great benefaction. For whereas concerningother peoples the Sovereign long-forbearingly awaits until they reach theplenitude of sins, whereupon He punishes them, He did not deem it appro-priate 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 fromus, and while edifying us with suffering He does not abandon His ownpeople.”

These statements, which definitely bespeak the position of the book as itis, 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. Thesetroubles are meant to “edify” (6:16) the Jews and return them to thestraight and narrow, after which God becomes “reconciled” (5:20) withthem and restores His providential care. This understanding of history iswithout 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 perse-cutes the Jews (v. 21) – a persecution which will afflict Jews of all ages andsexes, in their houses and outside (v. 25).52 The foreigners, in their ignor-ance, think that they are successful due to their own valor alone, not real-izing that God is allowing them their successes (vv. 27–31); eventually, how-ever, after atonement has been worked, God will be “reconciled” (v. 36)with “His servants” (ibid.), punish the Gentile persecutors and avenge theblood of His slain servants (vv. 35, 41–43). The “brief time” element is con-tributed by Isaiah 54:7, which links up with Deuteronomy 32 via the divineface-hiding mentioned in the next verse.53

But this understanding of history, which is just as basic to our book asthe “political” terminology which is missing from the martyrologies, is veryprominent 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 reconciledwith His servants.

– Indeed, 7:6 serves as an opening bracket for the chapter that isanswered in v. 33, where the seventh son tells Antiochus that “if for thesake of punishment and edification our living Lord briefly became angry,He will again be reconciled with His own servants.” Such a collection ofmotifs from the author’s reflections – “edification,” “brief,” “reconciled,”“servants” – cannot be by chance. Rather, someone very familiar with theauthor’s reflections is at work in Chapter 7. I see no reason not to assumethat that person was the author himself.

But this type of language also continues in Chapter 8, building on themartyrologies. True, we have noted that the sufferings enumerated invv. 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 thatHe become completely reconciled with His servants.” Here again we have“reconciled” and “servants” – the latter appearing elsewhere in our bookonly 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, seeour 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 Hissinning people (4:16–17) and turning His face aside from them, thus allowing Gentilesto hurt them (ibid. and 5: 16//Deut 32:20), to a God who faces His sinning people andpunishes them face-to-face as a father edifies his son (7:34//Deut 8:5). For the two con-cepts side-by-side and explicit preference for the latter, see 10:4.


pletely” (ε�« τωλο«) in 8:29 indicates a reference to a process that hasalready begun but has not yet been completed. Where did it begin? With thehope 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 loosedagainst our entire nation.” That prayer was answered at 8:5, where we readthat God’s 1ργ2 did indeed turn to mercy, and now, at 8:29, Judas and hismen pray that God will continue the process to completion.

Thus, our book needs Chapter 7: it explains Judas’ success in Chapter 8just as much as the Razis story, which concludes Chapter 14, explainsJudas’ success in Chapter 15; and the book’s language underlines this. Asfor the Eleazar story (6:18–31), it is firmly linked to Chapter 7, at least in itscurrent state:

– 6: 31 underlines that Eleazar’s death was an example “not only for theyouths” – an obvious lead-in to Chapter 7.

– 7:42 summarizes, as we have seen, not only the story of the motherand her seven sons but also that of Eleazar.

True, both of these points regard only the framework, and leave open thepossibility that the Eleazar story was tacked onto the book with a little bitof such splicing. However:

– The reference to serving as a model for youths occurs also in the bodyof the story, at 6:28.

– Eleazar is made to give a speech just before expiring, and in it he be-speaks the distinction between body and soul (6:30) – just as the seventhson 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 de-crees in order to save his life it will be thought that he has “gone over toforeignism;” “foreignism” (0λλοφψλισμ�«) is a very rare word but one thatis centerpieced by our book at 4:13.

– Such a mistaken impression, he fears, will lead others “to go astray”(πλανη��σι – 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”(0στε�ον), which is part and parcel of a complex of terms, widely in use inour 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 at14:46 is between “life” and “spirit.” It does not appear, however, that this differenceshould be pushed very far, since no attempt is made to use such terms with any preci-sion.

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 ofthe 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-per-son 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 theepitomator? It seems clear that we must assume, as is usual, that it is theepitomator, 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 itis used by the epitomator in 2:19–32 and 15:37–38. Having used the firstperson 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 per-son in Chapter 6. Moreover, our confidence that it is the epitomator whoauthored the reflections in Chapter 4, 5, and 6 is bolstered by three morepoints:

– 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 (παιδε�εσ�αι), thelatter of which is part of the Jerusalemite insertion to justify Hanukkah (seeabove, pp. 8–9), this language, which is so important to the author as shownby his reflections, appears nowhere else in the narrative. This leaves us withtwo options. Either we assume that one author, Jason, wrote the materialsfrom which the whole book was produced but ignored these fundamen-tal matters completely except for in his reflections and when working (inChapters 6–7) on the basis of a special source, or we assume that Jasonwrote 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. Itseems obvious the latter hypothesis is more likely. That is, it seems that theepitomator indeed confined himself to making Jason’s work better, as hesays at 2:23–31; but when he added in other material, to help the readerunderstand the story’s import, he allowed himself more freedom.

– At 6:17 the author of the third set of reflections distinguishes betweenthem and the real story, and at 2:32 the epitomator distinguishes betweenhis preface and the real story; in both cases, the latter is termed δι2γησι«. Itis easy to infer that he used this term to apply to the material he got fromothers, that he was editing.

– Phrases in common: κα��περ, although a common enough Greekterm, appears in our work only in passages that are, on our hypothesis, tobe attributed to the “epitomator” (2:27, 29; 6:14; 7:6, 37; 15:39), so too�ντψγξ�ν� (2:25; 6:12; 15:39) and ο$ 34διον (2:26//4:17).


Hence, we conclude not only that the martyrological stories of6:18–7:42, although of separate provenance, were integrated into the book,but also that this was done by the epitomator. But if so, we must further con-clude that the designation “epitomator” is too restricted; he did not onlymake Jason of Cyrene’s work more readable, but also undertook to add newmaterial, including guidance interpreting the story at the most fundamentallevel. Moreover, in any case Jason’s work is lost and we cannot uncover it inany detail by analysis of 2 Maccabees – a work which was produced by theepitomator. If that person allows himself to speak as author in his reflectionsin 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 andthe authorial reflections at 4:16–17, 5:17–20 and 6:12–17) along withChapters 8, 14–15 to the basic work (Jason), 6:18–7:42 to a separate sourceincorporated by the author, and 10:1–8 to the Jerusalemites who turned thebook to their own purposes (and added in the two opening epistles), wemust turn to Chapters 9–13. These chapters constitute, from the point ofview of the historical narrative, the roughest part of the book. True, there isno problem with Chapter 9 in and of itself; it is full of the gloating tit for tatand 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 thisking’s death, which was a popular theme in religious and other ancient his-toriography.57 Moreover, it is clear that the way Chapter 9 begins, with theking 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 asa 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 un-published stylometric study of 2 Macc by B. Meißner that concludes that the ob-viously editorial passages (such as 2:19–32; 5:17–20; 6:12–17) are of the same styleas 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 (�περηφ�ν«). As for the popularity ofrecounting his death, see: 1 Macc 6:1–16; 2 Macc 1:13–17 (with our NOTE on 1:12,For (γ�ρ) 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 that9:8–10 closes a circle that our author opened at 5:21. So we have no reasonfor 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 notbeen 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 yearthereafter” (14:1) – create serious difficulties, especially in light of their lo-cation after Antiochus IV’s death in Chapter 9, and even without compari-son to any other source. Here are the seven main problems:

1. In Chapter 11 we read of the lesson Lysias learned after his defeat atBeth-Zur: “Since he was not mindless, he mulled over the defeat that hadbefallen him. Realizing that the Hebrews are invincible due to the power-ful God who is their ally, he sent to them and urged them to settle with himaccording to all that is just …” (11:13–14).

This lesson was the basis of the peacemaking described in the rest ofChapter 11. Any reader must, accordingly, be startled and mystified whenhe or she reads, at the opening of Chapter 13, that Lysias and the king setout for a new and massive invasion of Judaea. Of course, it is possible thatLysias 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 thateffect. There is none.

2. Similarly, both of these chapters report campaigns focusing uponBeth-Zur, but there is no recognition, in Chapter 13, that the reader has al-ready 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 thefact that they had been introduced to Beth-Zur in Chapter 11, but also thatit identified it in another way: 11:5 describes it as “Beth-Zur, a strong placeabout five schoinoi from Jerusalem” but 13:19 has “Beth-Zur, a strong for-tress of the Jews.” By way of contrast, note that although 1 Maccabees toorecounts two such campaigns, there is no such problem, for there the readeris well-prepared: at 4:35 Lysias is said to have returned to Antioch after thefirst 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 at6:26 the latter fact is mentioned by those who encourage the Seleucids torenew 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 ofothers as well also emerges from the fact that the murder of a Jewish high priest en-tailed violating the sanctity of a pagan shrine; see our NOTE on 4:33, in Daphne …


ing about the new expedition reported in 6:28ff. In 2 Maccabees there isnothing of this sort. But it is not likely that this happened as a result of epit-omizing pure and simple, since our author loves to use such words as“aforementioned” when referring to characters known to the reader (seeNOTE on 2:32, aforementioned); note especially 10:24, “But Timothy,who had previously been defeated by the Jews.” Why is there nothing likethis in Chapter 13 with regard to Beth-Zur?59

3. At the end of Chapter 9 we read that Philip, one of Antiochus IV’scourtiers, went to Egypt out of fear of Antiochus Eupator. But at the end ofChapter 13 we read that Philip revolted in Antioch, so Antiochus Eupatorand Lysias hastened back to Antioch. The reader is left wondering whenand why Philip, despite his fear of Antiochus Eupator, returned from Egyptto Syria. But there is nothing offered to help the reader, nor any indicationof awareness that there is anything surprising or mysterious here.

4. Judas’ men kill Timothy in Chapter 10 (v. 37) but in Chapter 12, be-ginning with v. 10, they are still chasing after him. Of course, this could be adifferent Timothy, but authors, especially authors that pride themselves onthe attention they devote to reader ease (2:24–31), are supposed to indicatesuch things. Our author knows very well how to introduce a previously un-known 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 assumethat the opening words allude to the four documents that conclude Chapter11. 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, thesecovenants. 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, thestory as told in Chapter 11, which in v. 1 terms Lysias the king’s “guard-ian,” implies that they were together.60

59 And see our NOTE on 3:5, Apollonius son of Thraseas, on the way our author tookcare, in Ch. 4, to distinguish between Apollonius son of Menestheus and his prede-cessor. It is difficult to imagine how someone so concerned about such things could, ifhe authored both Chs. 11 and 13, be so unaware in the latter of what he had writtenin the former.

60 And although 11:18 may be taken today, by those in the know, to reflect the fact thatAntiochus IV was off campaigning in the East, it is clear that our author, and hencehis usual readers, thought that Antiochus IV was dead and that the king in questionwas Antiochus V.

28 Introduction

6. The telegraphic style of several verses in Chapter 13, beginning withthe battle at Modein, is puzzling; see esp. v. 14 and then from v. 19 until theend of the chapter. The style is extremely staccato and asyndetic – nounsand verbs are piled up without benefit of conjunctions, subordination, orparticiples (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 longeraccount, it was done with an eye to making the book more readable; theseverses in Chapter 13 serve anything but that purpose, and hence require anexplanation. There is no other instance in the book of such a sequence ofverses as here, and, indeed, only two other cases of such style in the wholebook (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.); theycontradict 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 ofall the troubles” and we therefore are entitled to assume that with that real-ization and the execution of Menelaus the invasion will be called off. In-stead, however, v. 9 reports, without any explanation, that “the king, be-coming barbaric in his intentions, began to display himself toward the Jewsin ways as bad as the worst which had happened in his father’s days …”One needs no exaggerated suspicion or hypercriticism to imagine that theverses on Menelaus’ death are a secondary insertion.

As a key to dealing with these seven difficulties, let us note that threewould be avoided if we were to move Chapter 13 up to earlier in the nar-rative. 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 beeliminated if Chapter 13, which ends with σψν�#και (v. 25) and with Lysiasgoing to Antioch, came before Chapter 12, which opens with a reference tothe just-concluded σψν�#και and to Lysias going to the king. Building onthis, we suggest, as a working hypothesis, that the original order of thesechapters was:

Chapter 13: Lysias and Antiochus Euptator invaded Judaea, reach Jeru-salem via Beth-Zur, but come to agreements with the Jews and return toAntioch due to Philip’s rebellion.61

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


Chapter 12: Those agreements are followed by local campaigns that in-clude 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 rebellionagainst Lysias and Eupator, that caused them to break off the Judaean cam-paign of Chapter 13.

Thus, according to this reconstruction, Chapter 13 will have reportedthe clash between Lysias and Euptator on the one hand and Judas on theother during Antiochus IV’s lifetime, continuing the story until Philip’s re-turn to Syria. That in fact occurred after Antiochus Epiphanes’ death, butthe 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 ex-pedition. He then turned to catch up with the story of Antiochus IV in theEast, his death there, and Philip’s return. The reader was supposed to under-stand what was perhaps clearer in the original: that the events of Chapter 9chronologically overlapped those recounted in Chapters 13 and 12; that itwas Philip’s return after Antiochus Epiphanes’ death, reported at the end ofChapter 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 rebellionin Antioch.

This hypothetical order of events, which we have suggested solely onthe basis of dead reckoning building upon some internal problems and in-dications 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, whereasaccording to our suggestion the latter (2 Macc 13) originally preceded theother two in our book (2 Macc 12 and 9). However, the order of things in1 Maccabees now seems to be wrong. Namely, it claims that the secondBeth-Zur campaign was a result of Judas’ siege of the Akra, which it datesto 150 SE (1 Macc 6:20), i.e., either autumn 163/2 or spring 162/1 (seeabove, p. 11, n. 24); it is this datum that led Bar-Kochva (JM, 543–551), asothers, 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, thatthe 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 ourbook.

30 Introduction

corpse back to Syria, just as 1 Maccabees 6:55–56 implies an immediacybetween Antiochus’ death and Philip’s arrival in Syria that forced Lysiasto give up his second campaign; and (3) new cuneiform evidence (whichbecame available after Bar-Kochva wrote), discussed by Gera and Horo-witz,62 shows that Antiochus’ corpse was passing through Babylon, on itsway back to Syria, already in January of 163 BCE. This forces us to movethe second Beth-Zur (Beth-Zechariah) campaign up to late 164 or veryearly 163; so (1) the battles with neighbors (1 Macc 5//2 Macc 12) musthave come later and (2) if, as 1 Maccabees 6:20 reports, Judas began tobesiege 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 nowturn to Chapters 10–11. These two chapters, even apart from 10:1–8(which we have attributed to post-authorial Jerusalemite editing), are quitedifferent from those around them. First of all, in contrast to what we havejust seen they assume that Antiochus Eupator reigned, with Lysias at hisside (or vice versa), only after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes. Thus, aswe 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 for-mal statement nothing is said of him being the king’s guardian,63 just asthere had been no mention of Lysias throughout Nicanor’s campaign ofChapter 8, although 1 Maccabees 3:38 has Lysias in fact mandating thatcampaign and appointing its generals. Our author’s position that Lysias is atotally new character who first appears after Antiochus Epiphanes’ death isplain in his introduction of him as “one Lysias” (Λψσ αν τιν�) at 10:11.Thus, the tradition that underlies 10:10ff. plainly assumed that AntiochusEupator’s reign and activities came after those of Antiochus IV, thus dia-metrically contradicting 1 Maccabees and our reconstruction of the originalorder of 2 Maccabees 13–12–9.

But there are also differences of another type between these two sets ofchapters. Even if we ignore the fact that Chapters 10 and 11 each havewords which appear nowhere else in the book, something which is not sosurprising for a book with so rich a vocabulary (see below, pp. 67–71), theuse 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 wordswhich appear in both Chapters 10–11 and nowhere else in the book:

62 See Gera & Horowitz, “Antiochus IV,” 249–252, also Kasher, “A Second CenturyBCE Greek Inscription,” 20, n. 98.

63 See n. 61.


1. Only in these chapters do angels participate in battles (10:29–30; 11:8).2. Only in these chapters does the enemy “gather” (σψνα�ρο ζ�) sol-

diers before attacking (10:24; 11:2 – the only occurrences of this verb in ourbook).

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 ap-pears only once more – Sir 35:17).

4. Only in these chapters do soldiers “take up” (0ναλαμβ�ν�) arms(10:27; 11:7; this verb appears another 3–4 times in our book but never inconnection with weapons).

5. Only in these chapters do we read of a “siege” (πολιορκ-), whetheras noun (10:18–19) or verb (11:6); in the entire book the root ap-pears only once more (12:21 – δψσπολι�ρκητον). It is especially tellingthat no such term appears in Chapter 13, where the siege of Beth-Zuris reported.

6. In these chapters all of the Jews are termed “brethren” (10:21; 11:7)but never – “fellow citizens” (πολ�ται). This, in stark contrast to the rest ofthe book, which (as noted above, p. 6, n. 9) habitually uses the latter termbut 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 ofthe book, where the latter name is regularly employed.64

Of course, no one could (or should) claim that it is impossible that there besuch commonalities between two successive chapters of a book, as opposedto 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 appearsonly another nine times; another four times it appears alongside of “Judas.” For allthe 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 “theMaccabee” appears only three times and “Judas” – twelve. Bunge suggested usingthis datum in order to argue that our author used a source which was also used by theauthor of 1 Maccabees, which too preferred “Judas;” in his opinion, Chs. 10–11 thusreflect much work by the epitomator. Doran responded that changing names are notenough to justify such separation of sources, and insisted that other criteria too mustbe adduced. Here we have adduced a whole list, but note that they point to a con-clusion that is the opposite of Bunge’s.

32 Introduction

Eupator and Lysias during Antiochus Epiphanes’ lifetime, lead us to suggestthat 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 prob-lems enumerated above, namely, the failure of the narrative of Chapter 13to recognize that it contradicts Chapter 11 concerning Lysias (Problem 1)and the failure of Chapter 13 to reflect the fact that the reader has alreadyheard of a siege of Beth-Zur (Problem 2);66 such inconcinnities are easier toimagine 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 orig-inal order of these chapters (as we have reconstructed it) was changed, thatitself will be an argument in favor of the suggestion.

In order to understand what seems to have happened, let us imaginewhat our author might have done if, as we suspect, he had indeed prepareda draft of Chapters 13–12–9 in that order and then happened to comeacross (or indeed searched for and found) a source that supplied the materi-als 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 toAntioch upon Philip’s return to Antioch after Antiochus IV’s death. That is,our author had believed that Antiochus Epiphanes died no earlier than149 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 docu-ments quoted at length in the latter half of Chapter 11, our author had torevise his notions.

As a point of departure we must realize that, as is obvious from the wayhe 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 alreadyBar-Kochva, JM, 276. His suggestion is based on the accuracy of the distance noted at11:5, 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 similarto those appearing elsewhere in our book; compare for example 13:25 (�δψσφ�ροψν …0�ετε�ν τ�« διαστ�λσει«) to 14:28 (δψσφ�ρ�« *φερεν, ε� τ� διεσταλμωνα 0�ετ2σει);places full of δωοψ« κα� ταραξ#« in 13:16 and 3:30; blaspheming peoples in 13:11 and10:4, 34–36; �π� π»σι το�« δικα οι« σψνελ��η (13:23)// σψλλ�εσ�αι �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 eightverses; see above, pp. 8–9.


prior to Richard Laqueur (“Griechische Urkunden,” 1927),68 our authorthought the only “king” reflected by these documents was Antiochus Eu-pator. Apparently he found the documents together, and in any case the sec-ond 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” wasEupator, our author assumed this throughout. But since three of the fourdocuments are dated to 148 SE, and one of them (the second) refers to Anti-ochus IV’s death, our author concluded that Antiochus Epiphanes musthave died by that year, in fact by Xanthicus (spring) of that year – and notby 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 beforeChapter 13, which opens with a dating in 149 SE. This, all by itself, wouldforce 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 thatorder, he would easily arrive at 9–10–11–13–12. Anyone would do thesame if, upon discovering 10:10–11:38, he inferred that Antiochus V is “theking” of all of the documents. And that inference, if false, would nonethe-less be a reasonable one if indeed, as we have supposed, all the documentswere found together. After all, the Seleucid monarchy in 165/164 BCE wassomewhat anomalous, with a king in the east and his successor alreadyfunctioning (under the tutelage of a guardian) in the west, and we canunderstand how an author, unaware of that, might arrange his materials onthe 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 Chapters9–13: Why did the author move Chapter 12 to its present location, preced-ing Chapter 13, instead of leaving it after Chapter 13? We may note twoconsiderations supplied by the new material (Chapters 10–11) that mayhave brought him to do so, although neither is quite satisfying. First, giventhe accession of such impressive documentary material in Chapter 11 wemight understand the author rushing to assume, as have most readers eversince, 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 im-portance of Laqueur’s observation that the only letter in Ch. 11 that was clearlywritten by Antiochus Eupator happens to be undated, see Tcherikover, HC, 214: “Allthese surmises [of scholars] were unsuccessful in solving the problem [of the referenceto Antiochus IV’s death in the second letter, thought to be, as the others, from thespring of 164 when he was still alive] till Laqueur showed that the chronological dif-ficulty 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, asthose documents are not “covenants,” we see that readers who are notsticklers about terminology have been willing to accept this transition fromChapter 11 to Chapter 12 without difficulty; perhaps our author too thoughtit appropriate. Second, the documents of Chapter 11 are dated to Xanthicus(Nisan, early spring) of 148 SE, and since Chapter 12 reports battles beforeand after Pentecost (12:31–32), a holiday which comes about two monthslater, it would have seemed reasonable, for this reason too, to have Chapter 12come after Chapter 11. Perhaps other factors figured as well.

We have, so far, offered explanations for the genesis of the first five ofthe problems listed above. As for the sixth, the telegraphic, staccato style of13:14 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 nowhave 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 theevents of this period – indeed reports two such campaigns, in Chapters 4and 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 weretwo separate campaigns;69 no attempt is made to coordinate the two nar-ratives in any way. Rather, it seems, having inserted Chapters 10–11 he nowfound the Beth-Zur campaign of Chapter 13 something of an embarrass-ment, or a puzzle, and it may be that the style in which he left it is that ofnotes – on Jason’s original narrative – that he never wrote up properly be-cause he did not quite know what to do with it.70 This, in any case, seems tome to be the most reasonable explanation for the style. The notion that ourauthor took notes on his source and later wrote them up (with “sweat andsleepless 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 expla-nation I know of was offered by Zeitlin, who supposed that the style ofthese 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 secondcampaign; see our opening COMMENT on Ch. 11.

71 For the preparation of a short and rough version as a preparatory step prior to thecomposition of the final version, see Lucian, How to Write History, 47; Avenarius,Lukians Schrift, 85–104.

72 Zeitlin, 2 Macc, 22–23.


ible to imagine any Greek author who could write this way; the notion thatthere is anything attractive about the style here (à la “veni vidi vici”) is, inmy opinion, farfetched.73 Rather, the story in Chapter 13 definitely gives theimpression that the author is embarrassed by the whole matter and is tryingto finish it up and move on as fast as possible. It seems that this was theprice he paid in return for the valuable material he picked up somewhereand turned into Chapters 10–11.

The seventh and final problem listed above was posed by the fact that13:10 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 in-troduction, in v. 9, of a sudden and unexplained turnabout in the king’s dis-position. This seems so artificial that it is hard to avoid the notion that thematerial 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 wasvery concerned with making sure that his villains got their just deserts (seeesp. NOTE on 4:16, those for whose ways …), so if Jason’s account did notdetail the end of Menelaus, or did not do so very colorfully, we can wellunderstand that our author would be happy to supplement Jason’s ma-terials at this point if he found something suitable for the purpose.

The conjecture that the narrative on Menelaus’ death at 13:3–8 is basedupon a separate source derives strong additional support from two types ofconsiderations:

(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 byRichnow, “Untersuchungen,” 101–107. Grimm (2 Macc, 7), in contrast, seems to meto be somewhat closer to the mark when he characterizes this style as cheap rhetoricaleffect which is out of place (“eiteles Haschen nach rhetorischem Effect, noch dazuganz an unrechter Stelle”), and Doran (Temple Propaganda, 44), seems to be evencloser, insofar as he gives up on seeing here any rhetoric at all and views it simply as away to “provide a rapid overview of what happened.” In my opinion, the style in thissection is ugly and nigh unbearable; and if it were thought to be beautiful or efficientwhy does it not appear elsewhere (apart from 14:21, 25 [of which the latter might beacceptable, stylistically])? At most, one might want to go Mugler’s way and view thepassage as an interpolation (“Remarques,” 420, n. 1); at least that recognizes howstrange the passage is. But it only moves the question elsewhere: Why would someoneelse write that way?

74 For the usual way the story resumes by having one side hear about the movements ofthe other, see below, p. 77.

36 Introduction

Esther,75 nowhere else does is there such a concentration, so it may be that itis evidence for the use of a separate source. Similarly, note that at 13:12 weread of fasting for three days as in Esther 4:16; it may be that this too re-flects some impact of the source used just a few verses before.

(b) external: Josephus has, at Antiquities 12.384–385, a passage on thedeath 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 τ�ν κακ�ν), Josephus has him 6ρ7αι τ�ν κακ�ν, and if our bookclaims that Menelaus’ had set his eyes upon rule (�π� τ#« 0ρξ#«), Josephussaid what he did was so that he himself could rule (8να α$τ"« 6ρξ9). Now itseems clear that Josephus did not use 2 Maccabees; see below, pp. 86–87. So ifit was not here that he found his Menelaus story, nor in his main source for theperiod, 1 Maccabees (which makes no mention of Menelaus), then he probablyfound 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 servedJosephus too, and we have already posited that 10:9-end of Chapter 11 isbased on a source different from our author’s usual source (Jason), theneconomy requires us at least to consider the possibility that both passagesare from the same additional source.77 I see no reason to be confident aboutthis. Nevertheless, it might be pointed out, in the present connection, thatapart from the story of Menelaus’ death the most striking agreement78 be-tween Josephus (although not in his Antiquities) and 2 Maccabees comesprecisely 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 sec-ond. The assumption that they found this outlandish number in the samesource 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 fivebooks. We can only guess about the length of these books.79

75 See NOTES on 8:34, thrice-accursed Nicanor (τρισαλιτ�ριο«), 14:6, to attain stabil-ity, 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 themartyrologies in Chs. 6–7.

78 For others, see below, p. 86, n. 200.79 See NOTE on 2:23, in one composition.


(b) An anonymous craftsman undertook to turn that work into a shorterand more readable one. But although Jason’s work indeed supplied mostof 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 threesections of reflections (4:16–17; 5:17–20; 6:12–17). Due to his use of ma-terials apart from Jason’s, and his extensive work on the book well beyondmere 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 sup-plied him the materials that lie behind 10:9-end of Chapter 11. Given hismistaken impression that the letters of Chapter 11 showed Antiochus IV haddied by 148, the introduction of these new materials led the author to rear-range 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 introducedat 13:3–8, but this required only some minor, if artificial, coordinationin 13:9.

(e) Finally, in 143 or 142 BCE the Hasmonean authorities in Jerusalem de-cided to send the book out to the Jews of Egypt (and possibly other diasporacommunities as well) in order to encourage them to celebrate the Hanukkahfestival. For this purpose they added a section on that festival’s origins intothe book at 10:1–8 and attached two accompanying letters at the book’soutset. This completed the formation of the book in its present form,80 andit was thus sent out. We do not know how successful it was in encouragingthe celebration of Hanukkah,81 but it is a fact that the book managed to be-come 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 atvarious times; see our NOTES on 1:12, for (γ�ρ) He Himself drove out; 7:18, amaz-ing things have happened; 11:1, the king’s guardian; 14:21, a litter came forward; andAppendix 4.

81 See below, p. 87.

38 Introduction

III. Historical Worth and Leading Ideas

Wir erfahren darüber näheres nur aus dem zweiten Makkabäerbuch, dassich vielfach als unzuverlässig zeigt wo man es kontrolliren kann, und alsoauch 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 longafter 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 theevents, we may now approach the question of the book’s historical valuewith some optimism. True, in the past the field was dominated by the axiomthat 1 Maccabees is the more accurate of the two books, and this presump-tion still prevails. To a large extent, this simply reflects recognition of thediasporan origin of our book, which means that its author was further –both geographically and culturally – from the Palestinian events it de-scribes. However, the presumption also derived from three apparent errors.One is the psychological fallacy that leads us to think that if one book is ac-curate, the other is not; this type of thinking has misled other aspects of thestudy of 1–2 Maccabees as well.84 Then there is the widespread opinion that2 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 mistrusteven 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 thesober and down-to-earth narrative of 1 Maccabees, our book reports manysupernatural 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 tellthe historical truth, even if he or she packages it in religious interpretationand decorates it with religious motifs, there is room to reopen the discussionof our book’s historical worth.

The fact is that the last century in general, and the past several decades inparticular, have seen a great improvement in the assessment of 2 Maccabees.This process began in 1900 when Benedictus Niese, a prominent student ofantiquity (best known for his edition of Josephus’ writings and for his three-volume history of the Greek and Macedonian states), published – first in arespected philological journal (Hermes), then as a separate volume – a de-tailed monograph, Kritik der beiden Makkabäerbücher, of which the bot-tom line was an improved appreciation of 2 Maccabees at the expense of itsPalestinian counterpart. As Paul Wendland immediately noted in the firstcolumn of his review of Niese’s study (see our bibliography), it “opened anew age in the literary-historical evaluation of the two works and in theiruse as sources.” True, in general Niese was more successful at undermining1 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 thelatter.

Indeed, Niese’s work was followed in short order by a whole spate ofstudies in which 2 Maccabees was accorded a status it had never hithertoenjoyed. E. Bevan’s The House of Seleucus (1902) emphasized the import-ance of Niese’s work and frequently depended on 2 Maccabees, and in thesame year an article by Emil Schürer, dean of historians of the Jews in theGreco-Roman period, was dedicated to demonstrating the reliability of2 Maccabees 6:7. In 1903 Otto Procksch opened his article on Lysias’ cam-paign(s) with explicit reference to Niese, in the course of his study comingto the conclusion that 1 Maccabees’ claim that there were two campaignsis to be rejected and that 2 Maccabees’ account – assuming (as we sug-gested above) that Chapters 11 and 13 both refer to the same campaign – isto be preferred.85 Hendrik Elhorst opened his article of 1905 with a com-plaint 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 bethat there were two campaigns (as is said in 1 Maccabees) and that our book happensto 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 mono-graph reviewing each episode of our book and evaluating its historicalworth. While his conclusions are mixed, they were so positive as to en-gender the striking difference between his formulations concerning ourwork in the 1904 and 1907 editions of his standard textbook on theperiod, quoted at the outset of this section, that moved the burden of prooffrom 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 wellreflected 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 mostscholars, even if with considerable reluctance (“wenn auch widerwilliggenug”!).86

In the meantime epigraphists and papyrologists were also becoming in-volved, demonstrating the reliability of 2 Maccabees time and again withregard to terminology, institutions, and even individuals of the Hellenisticworld. Three works compiled in the 1930s were particularly important inthis regard: C. B. Welles’ Royal Correspondence, E. Bickerman’s Institu-tions des Séleucides,87 and an article by A. Wilhelm (“Zu einigen Stellender 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 in-terpreting its text in light of other evidence in that corpus. Then, in the1950s, epigraphy made two further contributions to bolstering the statusof our book: Sachs and Wiseman showed cuneiform evidence supports ourbook’s claim (in Chapters 9–10, contrary to 1 Macc 4–6) that Antiochus IVdied 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 and298–299; Schürer, “Zu 2Mcc 6,7;” Procksch, “Der Friede des Lysias;” Elhorst, “Diebeiden 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, seeAbrahams, “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, seeEttelson, Integrity, 376–380.

87 The title page of this volume gives the author’s name as Bikerman, just as his publi-cations in German give it as Bickermann. For convenience I have used Bickermanthroughout the present volume.

88 Wilhelm made reference to our book in several other studies as well; see our bibli-ography.


Greek epigraphical evidence confirms our book’s allusion to Hegemonides(13:24).89 More recently, an Attalid inscription published in 1997, inwhich Eumenes II agrees to the petition of a Phrygian community to allowit to organize itself as a polis, shows at numerous points, with referenceboth to contents and to diction, that our book’s report of the founding of apolis 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 somethingabout the temples of Palestine. Although the contents of the order were notpreserved, this puts us at least into guessing range of the story told in2 Maccabees 3.91

Already the point, based upon cuneiform evidence, about the chrono-logy of Antiochus IV’s death, which relates to a cardinal element of thestory told by 1–2 Maccabees, was a major nail in the coffin of the presump-tion that 1 Maccabees should always be assumed the more accurate of thetwo.92 Indeed, since the 1950s it seems that although 1 Maccabees takesprecedence as far as details of the military campaigns and their geographyare concerned (matters about which 2 Maccabees offers next to nothing), itis widely recognized that with regard to much of the rest, and especially –with regard to the world at large, within which this Judaean story tran-spired, 2 Maccabees is a very important and reliable source.

This reliability is apparent with regard to various details. Our author isright 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 istermed 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 on13:24, 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 evi-

dence that dates Antiochus’ death to late 164 BCE and, apparently, Lysias’ secondcampaign 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, Heliodorusand head of state; 10:13, because he had abandoned Cyprus; and 13:24,Hegemonides).

Again, in Chapter 11 our author cites four important documents, gen-erally accepted today as authentic, that provide the foundation for all weknow about negotiations between the Jews and the Seleucids in 164–163BCE. More generally, we may note various minor indications that ourauthor was simply well at home in the basic facts of the period. Thus heknows, for example, of Cilician revolts against Seleucid rule (4:30), thatAntiochus 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 thatit is to be taken seriously, so that – to reverse Wellhausen’s original formu-lation – it is so often confirmable that we must follow it, all things beingequal, even when it cannot be confirmed. This is particularly the case for theperiod that preceded the Hasmonean revolt, a period that drew only mini-mal attention from the dynastic historian who produced 1 Maccabees: hehad no interest in dealing with high priests who had preceded the Hasmon-eans and whose heirs continued (in Egypt and perhaps elsewhere) to denythe legitimacy of the Hasmonean upstarts, nor with rebels who precededthe Hasmoneans and thereby might have stolen some of their luster (see ourNOTE 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 ingeneral also saw intense scholarly attention devoted to these chapters inparticular; such lively interest continues until today. It began in 1937 withBickerman’s Gott der Makkabäer,93 followed a few years later by anotherdetailed article of his on the Heliodorus story; Tcherikover responded toBickerman with a detailed study in the fifties.94 These studies focused onJewish Hellenizing in Jerusalem prior to the Hasmonean revolt and on thequestion 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 twoof 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 articlein 1953/54; see p. 255, n. 7).

95 Immediately upon publication of Bickerman’s Gott der Makkabäer I. Heinemannpicked out this issue as the heart of the matter; see his “Wer veranlaßte den Glau-


They deal primarily with 2 Maccabees 3–5, and stimulated very numerousresponses; note especially the books by M. Hengel, K. Bringmann andO. 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 theabovementioned 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 tothe improvement of 2 Maccabees’ reputation in recent decades. First, theSecond World War and the Cold War made scholars, as others, amply awareof the nature of government-sponsored propaganda and propagandistic his-tory, and this placed a major question mark next to the claim of the dynastichistory, 1 Maccabees, to be accepted at face value.97 More importantly, re-cent decades have seen a general flowering of scholarship – literary and ar-chaeological – concerning Jewish Hellenism, and with it came the collapse ofthe earlier notion that Hellenistic Judaism was an exclusively diasporan phe-

benszwang der Makkabäerzeit?” On this and other responses to Bickerman’s 1937book, 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, “KultischenMassnahmen;” 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 isin 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-Hasmoneanpropaganda aimed against internal opponents (Hyldahl, “The Maccabean Rebel-lion,” 193–194 in the wake of Bringmann, Reform, 146); the suggestions that storieshave been transferred from Judas Maccabaeus, or even from John Hyrcanus, back toMattathias, 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 thatit was repressed as part of an effort to let Simon’s line shine all the more; cf. ourNOTE 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, seeS. 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 FirstCentury” (1956), Hengel’s Judentum und Hellenismus (1969; English1974), and Stern’s “Judaism and Hellenism” (1989) it became a common-place that the Jews of Palestine too underwent a process of Hellenizationearly on; recent volumes by Levine and edited by Collins and Sterling onlyreinforce that conclusion, whatever the debates about dating, scope and in-tensity.99 But this recognition qualifies the a priori doubts about the greatcultural gap that separated the author of our book from the events he de-scribes, just as it encourages us to accept our book’s claim that HellenizingJews played a major role in the events that preceded Antiochus’ decrees andthe 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 theconstruction 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 mainsource not only for the Hellenistic world in which the story played itself out,but also for the Jewish world within which that happened – the worldwhich the author of 1 Maccabees, for readily understandable reasons, hadto portray in a way that was monochromic and only background for hisown heroes.

98 As a salient sign of the times, note that the division of ancient Jewish literature be-tween “Hellenistic” and “Palestinian” in the original German editions of Schürer’sGeschichte 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, inthis connection, the evidence for a good deal of Hellenization of the Hasmoneansthemselves; 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 AncientWorld,” ibid., 85–92 (both in Hebrew); Levine, Judaism and Hellenism, 39–46. Thistoo 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.


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 byJason of Cyrene, a Jew of the Hellenstic diaspora, and it is very similar tosome works which have clear roots in Alexandrian Judaism: first of all3 Maccabees, but also the Letter of Aristeas and Philo’s historical works –the Embassy to Gaius and Against Flaccus. Scores of entries in Hatch andRedpath’s A Concordance to the Septuagint have references to 2 Maccabeesand 3 Maccabees alone, and similarly impressive lists may be composed ofwords 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 Jewishdiasporan historiography in general and that which characterizes Jews ofthe Hellenistic diaspora in particular.102

100 Van Henten begins his two-sentence discussion of this issue just as roundly, saying theopposite: “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 theexamination of various texts, most notably from the content of the history of liber-ation 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 itis now: formally, it is two Judaean letters with an “attachment.” Our present dis-cussion applies to the latter, i.e., the body of the book – Chs. 3–15. As for where in theDiaspora 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 ofour book wrote it in Palestine; just as Paul, of Cilician Tarsus, could spend time inJerusalem, so could our writer. Maybe he even lived there. What matters in this con-text is not his location but, rather, his religious, political and cultural orientationwhich, 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 vo-cabulary our book shares with 3 Maccabees, see below, n. 201.

102 There seems to be surprisingly little scholarly discussion of the category “diasporan his-toriography” in connection with ancient Jewish historiography, although the observa-tions made by scholars on various diasporan books frequently point in the same direc-tion. For some comments on the category with regard to Jewish Hellenistic literature seeJossa, “La storiografia giudeo-ellenistica” and my “From the Maccabees.” In this fieldmuch comparative work would be useful, both concerning Jewish diasporan works fromother places and times and non-Jewish diasporas as well. As a start on the former, Iwould 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 kingsand neighbors, and God’s providence, a world very reminiscent of that of our book; seefor example p. 47 of Fraenkel-Goldschmidt’s introduction. See also below, n. 113.

46 Introduction

From all Jewish diasporan historiography we would expect a religiousand political orientation that is suitable for Jews who do not live in theirown land. To begin with religion, in our case we find, first of all, that ourauthor is pedantically emphatic about the people being more importantthan the Temple (5:19); this is precisely what we would expect from some-one 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 perse and in the sacrificial cult characteristic of it – a type of worship in whichdiasporan Jews can only rarely participate.104 This point is particularly ap-parent in the comparison between 2 Maccabees 5:16 (“holy vessels”) andthe detailed list in 1 Maccabees 1:21–23, as also in that between 8:14–20and the Temple-centered detail in 1 Maccabees 3:43–54.105 Similarly, notethat while both 1 Maccabees 5:54 and 2 Maccabees 12:31–32 report thatJudas’ troops take a break in Jerusalem in the midst of a campaign, only theformer has them visiting the Temple and bringing sacrifices. Again, notethat when our author does have his heroes offer sacrifices, he characterizesthem as a subset of the larger and more basic category of “prayer” (3:31and 12:44), which was available to him too, in the Diaspora, and that whenhis story leads him to focus on the Temple vessels he characterizes thoseconcerned about them as those “who had spoken for the city and the popu-lace 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 Heliodorusstory in Ch. 3, which plays up the importance of the Temple, God’s special protectionof it, and the efficacy of sacrifice (v. 32), joins other considerations arguing that ourauthor did not himself compose that story.

104 I realize that this is a surprising claim, given the story our book tells. It is more usualto characterize our book the way Doran did in the title of his wonderful monographabout 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. Ofcourse there is something to this, but I believe it reflects, to a large degree, too easy aslide from city to Temple. In the next few paragraphs I will indicate why I believe thatthe book shows a relative lack of interest in the Temple and its cult and a preferencefor types of worship available equally to diasporan Jews. Accordingly it seems thateven when the book does deal with the Temple, it treats it more as an element of theJewish 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 above-mentioned 5:19 would lead us to expect.


their proper context; for a similar case see 13:11, 14, where the Jews fearthat they would be deprived of “the Law, fatherland, and holy Temple” andtherefore Judas encourages his men to fight for “laws, temple, city, father-land, [and] constitution.” Accordingly, we are not surprised to find that thecompetition between the Temple of Jerusalem and that at Mt. Gerizim doesnot 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 ver-sion 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 inJohn 4:21–24, although without the polemics and without the eschatology.

Rather than being enthused about any terrestrial House of God, ourauthor prefers God to be the God of Heaven, hence equally accessible allover: 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 Himfar from His covenantal partners, the Jews, for His providence is empha-sized again and again – in virtually all of the just-mentioned passages, aswell as others (see NOTE on 3:39, watches over). His providence is also ex-pressed 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, asbelievers know, cannot be mere coincidence. This is particularly the caseconcerning the way villains get their just deserts, with the punishment fit-ting the crime tit for tat, most spectacularly at 5:9; 8:25; 9:5–6, 28; and at13:3–8 (see also NOTE on 4:16, those for whose ways they were enthusi-astic), but it is so in other ways as well; note, for example, 10:5, whichpoints out that the date of Hanukkah was no coincidence at all, and12:40–41, which points out that those individuals who died in battle had allbeen sinners, not just unlucky. The story, in short, is one of sin that leads toappropriate punishment and suffering – but the punishment and the suffer-ing come within the framework of a covenant and are meant to chasten andedify (παιδε��), not to destroy, as the author (6:12) and the seventh son(7:33) pedantically remind us.107 Thus, the suffering, which culminates inthe 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 thematter, the simple point that a glance in a concordance of the Hebrew Bible will showthat “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 at8:5, which reaps the fruits of Chapters 6–7. This is a message that workswonderfully for the Jews of the diaspora, and indeed the focus on martyr-dom is typically diasporan, as a comparative glance at 1 Maccabees, whichhas 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 andthe Jews in particular, then He may be worshipped from anywhere, viaprayers. 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 cat-egory: 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’spower is recognized not only by Jews, but also by Gentiles, especially theirnotables, who – after learning the lesson the hard way – time and again aremade 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, ofcourse, part and parcel of the diasporan disposition.

As for politics, our diasporan author insists repeatedly that Gentilesand their rulers respect the Jews and Judaism and are benevolent towardthem (3:1–3; 4:6, 35, 49; 12:30–31).111 Why not? After all, as Shylockwould say, we are all “men.”112 And as for the Jews, all they want to do iskeep the peace (4:6; 12:1–2). Indeed, with both sides so right-minded andthe system so perfect, any disruptions must be due either to misunder-standings or to the misdeeds of “bad apples” on one or both of the twosides – 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 vo-

tive 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 referencesto prayer. See below, pp. 63–64, n. 154. True, neither do we find many sacrificesthere; but see above on the contrasts between 2 Macc 5:16 and 1 Macc 1:21–23; be-tween 2 Macc 8:14–20 and 1 Macc 3:43–54; and between 2 Macc 12:31–32 and1 Macc 5:54.

111 On this theme, see also Weitzman, Surviving Sacrilege, 41–46.112 See NOTE on 4:35, of the man.


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 interest-ing stories, and sometimes – for tragedies, are not truly representative ofeither side; if the king hears that the Jews have rebelled, this is only a mis-taken “inference” (5:11) from infighting between two villains. Thus, forexample, when one of our villains suborned one of their villains to murderour hero in Antioch, this could only happen because the king was absentfrom the scene;113 the Gentiles and Greeks of the city are just as upsetabout 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 de-monstrative punishment of the murderer (4:32–38). All of this, of course,contrasts with 1 Maccabees, which begins with nine verses explaining thatall Gentile kings are arrogant and wicked (and summarizes the centuryand a half of Hellenistic kings between Alexander and Antiochus as having“multiplied wickedness in the world” – v. 9), which needs no explanationfor Gentiles hating and attacking Jews other than that they are Gentiles(who attack the Jews because they are successful [5:1], because they aredefenseless [12:53], or simply out of hatred [13:6]), and which assumesthat Gentiles’ promises are not meant to be kept (see esp. 7:10, 27, incontrast 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. If1 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 histori-ography, which asserts “the king of Portugal was a gracious king” so of course theLisbon massacre of 1506 could take place only in his absence; see Yerushalmi, LisbonMassacre, 61. For another example, note that Azariah de’ Rossi, a sixteenth-centuryItalian 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 TheirKings …,” 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 prayersfor the king; see ‘Azariah de’Rossi, Selected Chapters from Sefer Me’or ’Einayim andMatsref 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, “TheOther.”

50 Introduction

14:3, where Alcimus goes alone and out of his own self-interest. True, evenour book occasionally reveals that the Jewish villains were not just a fewisolated individuals; see 4:3 (“Simon’s men”), 40 (3000 supporting Lysim-achus) and 10:15. But these cases are exceptional. In general our authortries to hide the divisiveness within his own community; diasporan minor-ities are not fond of displaying their dirty laundry in public. The author of1 Maccabees, in contrast, has no problem with the notion of rifts and par-ties among the Jews, provided that his readers understand that the party herepresents is the best one. Anyone who is familiar with the differences be-tween Israeli newspapers, on the one hand, and diasporan Jewish news-papers in the vernacular, on the other, will recognize this contrast betweenthe two books.

Another expression of diaspora-ism in 2 Maccabees is the behavior ofthe 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, arethe 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 de-votes only a few verses to martyrs, at the end of Chapter 1, where theyare not part of the solution but only exemplify the problem; they serve asfoils 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 2:29–41immediately proceeds to depict the Hasmonean decision to fight in self-defense even on the Sabbath, for the alternative – taken by some other naïvefoils – 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 isworthy 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 ofthe story (3:1) to its end (15:37); this is the basic category it uses to tell itsstory. Accordingly, the usual term for a Jew, when mentioned in conjunctionwith 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 alsoSchwartz, “Temple or City?”


φιλοπολ τη« (“lover of his fellow-citizens”) to describe a particularly out-standing man (14:37). Such usage of πολ τη« was very usual among theJews of Egypt,116 just as one could speak of the ν�μο« πολιτικ�« τ�νB Ιοψδα �ν,117 which paralleled the πολιτικο� ν�μοι of Greek cities, inEgypt as elsewhere. Jewish law was, thus, conceived of as parallel to thelaws of a Greek city, just as a whole complex of terms contrasted the civi-lized life of the city with the barbarian and animal-like life of those whowould persecute the Jews.118 The book’s “urbanity” is also well-expressedin some of the restrained phrasing it employs, such as its assertion thatthe murder of Onias was “unreasonable” (4:36) and that the defenders ofKaspin behaved “quite uncouthly” toward Judas’ men (12:14).

Greek impact on 2 Maccabees is also readily apparent in its assessmentof individuals and their qualities; it is full of terms that are quite foreign tobiblical 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, wemust emphasize – despite what we said in the first half of this section aboutthe historical worth of 2 Maccabees – that it behooves us to take specialcare with regard to that part of the book where it serves as the main wit-ness. As we have emphasized, Chapters 4–5 are of great importance, andvirtually alone bear witness to institutionalized Hellenization in Jerusalemin the years preceding Antiochus’ decrees and the Hasmonean revolt. But itis striking that Hellenism in Jerusalem, “Antioch in Jerusalem,” as por-trayed in our book, is very similar to what we may imagine to have been theSitz im Leben of our book’s author himself: Jewish life in a Greek polisunder the rule of a Greek king. Indeed, as a Jew living in the Hellenisticworld the author should not have seen any problem, from a Jewish pointof view, in the notion of Jerusalem turning into a Greek polis. Rather, hewould 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., 238and 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 be-tween their being Jews and their being Hellenized, and could participate inthe life of the city despite their being Jews and within the limits that im-posed,121 so too the Jews of Antioch in Jerusalem (4:18–20); just as theJews of Alexandria preserved the sanctity of Jewish law and institutions, sotoo the Jews of Jerusalem (4:39–42); just as Alexandria sent “observers” tofestivals held by other cities,122 and delegates as needed to the kings, so toothe 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 Jewsof Antioch in Jerusalem are said to have lived comfortably and fully in bothworlds – the Greek world and the Jewish one – just as comfortably as theJews of Alexandria did, or would have liked to. It is difficult, therefore, toknow 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 literatureoriginated there, given the ease with which so much of our book’s usage is illustratedby Egyptian evidence (see esp. NOTES on 14:3, in the times of strife, on 15:7, that as-sistance would be made available; and on 3:3, Asia; also Appendix 5). But perhapsour author came from elsewhere, just as Jason himself came from Cyrene (anotherpart of the Ptolemaic kingdom). Zeitlin (2 Macc, 19) argued that the book originatedin 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 Antiochanorigin has been posited) proves nothing, his only argument is from the Antiochanconnections of the martyrdom story – which too proves nothing, given the fact thatCh. 7 had a life of its own (see above, n. 50). Moreover, there is little room for anyconfidence about 4 Maccabees being of Antiochan origin; see the discussions byH. Anderson, in OTP 2.534–537 (leaves issue open) and van Henten, MaccabeanMartyrs, 78–81 (argues for provenance in Asia Minor). Similarly, but in an evenweaker 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 theChristian community of Antioch, and that this would explain Heb 11:35–38’s refer-ence 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 thatidentification 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 poss-ible 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.


how the author thought things ought to be.124 Indeed, in the absence of ad-ditional source-material testifying directly to a Jerusalem polis, such as thecoins or inscriptions that are regularly available for other Hellenistic cities,we cannot even be sure that a polis was founded in Jerusalem.125 True, itdoes seem clear, today even more than earlier (see Appendix 2), that ourauthor was of the opinion that one had in fact been founded, but directconfirmation 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 whatits author thought should be the proper relationship between Judaism andHellenism and between Jews and their Gentile rulers, for that very reasonits status as historical witness to Jerusalem is somewhat suspect.127

The clarification of the diasporan nature of our book also allows us toevaluate 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 preferredto 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 recountstheir deaths at great length. All of this contrasts with 1 Maccabees, whichdid not need to offer any explanation for the decrees since Antiochus was a

124 Thus, for example, when Tcherikover (Hellenistic Civilization, 166–167) adduces2 Macc 4:18–20 as evidence that citizenship in Antioch-in-Jerusalem did not requireviolation of Jewish law (“Scholars see in this ‘strange’ behavior of the Antiochenes acontradiction to their new status as citizens of a Greek city; but there was here nosuch contradiction, for Jason’s reform was not a religious one, and no law bound thecitizens of Antioch-at-Jerusalem to make sacrifices to the gods”), we must wonderwhether that was the case in Jerusalem or, rather, in Alexandria – or what the authorwanted the case to be there.

125 For coins of Antiochus IV thought to have been minted in Jerusalem ca. 167–164BCE, 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 in-scription, 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 ofthat 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 inten-tion:” “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 king-dom would expect; see Appendix 5.

54 Introduction

Hellenistic king, all of whom were by definition wicked, and which ex-plained the victories as having come about by virtue of Hasmonean hero-ism. As we have noted, it is obvious that the brief references to martyrs, atthe end of 1 Maccabees 1, are meant only to highlight the differing programof the Hasmoneans, who are presented immediately thereafter (2:1ff.).

In addressing this contrast between the two books, it is easy to admitthat, on the one hand, 1 Maccabees is a court history and its narrative ofthese central events is meant to serve the Hasmonean dynasty, proving to alljust how bad the Seleucid rulers who preceded them had been and how themeans by which the Hasmoneans opposed the Seleucids were the only onesthat produced results; all other Jews were either wicked or naïve. But just asabove we warned against the false contrasting of these two books, so toohere must we stress that the fact that 1 Maccabees had such an axe to grinddoes not mean that 2 Maccabees is any more reliable. The fact is that theclaim that only mistakes and misunderstandings can explain how Jews getinto trouble with their rulers is a common and indeed almost a necessaryclaim for diasporan historiography, for the alternative – that there is some-thing real and fundamental that militates against peaceful co-existenceunder non-Jewish rule – is intolerable. Thus, for two examples, note that3 Maccabees 1 claims that Ptolemy IV became wrathful toward the Jewsonly because he failed to understand that their refusal to let him enter theHoly of Holies of the Temple of Jerusalem was not out of hostility towardhim, as they too were excluded from it; similarly, the Babylonian Talmudclaims that the war that brought about the destruction of the SecondTemple began because Nero was told that the Jews had refused to offer asacrifice that he had sent, but was not told that the refusal did not bespeakrebellion but was merely due to the fact that the animal had been mutilatedby a troublemaker.128 Here then as well we must ask: Must we really believethat no Judaeans rebelled against Antiochus IV Epiphanes upon hearing ofhis troubles in Egypt? Must we really believe that the rumors of Judaean re-bellion that reached Antiochus had been false but the Jews of Jerusalemwere for some reason incapable of making that clear to the king upon his ar-rival at the city? On the contrary, it seems – as Tcherikover argued (seeNOTE on 5:7, coming to a shameful end) – that in fact a rebellion wasunderway, 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, butthere the refusal of the sacrifice was a matter of principle. For Josephus writing theWar according to Judaean notions and learning to write diasporan history by the timehe produced the Antiquities, see my Studies, 29–34 and “From the Maccabees,”32–40.


our author’s attempt to cover it up. Similarly, we must ask if it is really clearthat the martyrdom stories of 2 Maccabees belong where they are found. Infact, it instead seems these are “floating” stories which can easily movefrom one context to another, and we have already seen (pp. 19–20) that theywere not originally part of Jason’s work. Were all of the material from 6:18to the end of Chapter 7 to be absent, no one would miss it, just as is the casewith the Razis story too (14:37–46); indeed, in both cases the story wouldhave been smoother. But the desire to laud Jews willing to suffer and even todie for their faith is just as much part of standard diasporan historiographyas 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 dedi-cated to describing affairs in Judaea, affairs which lay in the background ofthe formation of a sovereign Jewish state there. It certainly gives us a goodopportunity to look into the world of Hellenistic Jews, reflecting somethingof their diasporan experience and something of their Hellenistic experience.But as for the Palestinian events that it describes, respect and suspicion mustgo hand in hand. Respect, for the book preserves valuable material unpar-alleled elsewhere – material which at many points has been corroborated byother finds; suspicion, because most of those points are of secondary im-portance to the greater story – one that 2 Maccabees tells from the point ofview of diasporan Jews, who lived in circumstances very different fromthose who lived the story and played it out. That is, the diasporan nature ofour book may be seen not only in what it does not offer, such as detailsabout the geography and topography of Palestine, but also in what it doesoffer, and in each case we must consider whether its content reflects only itsown world or, rather, also the world it claims to describe. In the nature ofthings, it is not always possible to answer that question with any great se-curity.

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 whichhave their biases: one is dynastic and one is diasporan, one is well at homein the Land of Israel, its ways and its population, and one is well at home inthe surrounding Hellenistic world and its culture. We need not choose be-tween the two, nor give them marks, nor – even when recognizing theirbiases – must we despair. No historical source comes to us devoid of biases;with no interest, no one would write history. To have two such detailedsources about such a short period is not only exceptionally rich by the stan-dards of ancient history; it also allows us to use the one to correct the other.Compare, for example, the situation regarding the first Jewish revoltagainst 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 alland, apart from what archaeologists can supply, are dependent upon a fewlines here and there and a page of Cassius Dio.130 For the Hasmonean re-bellion 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 bythe distance of more than two millennia, careful evaluation of them canallow 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 centurieswould never have considered including anything obviously composed inGreek, not to mention the fact that – as opposed to Daniel – it was so evi-dently composed after the days of Alexander the Great, which they took asa cut-off for the creation of divinely inspired writing.132 But for Christians,who were for obvious reasons firm believers in the possibility that workslater than Alexander could be inspired, and for whom Greek was a naturallanguage, there were no such impediments.133 True, even among Christiansthe status of Old Testament works not part of the Hebrew Bible – es-pecially those composed in Greek – was somewhat problematic, and vari-ous 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 Alexandrinusafter the historical books and in the Venetus at the very end. It does not appear in theSinaiticus. For additional lists, see below, n. 134.

132 “ … that is Alexander the Macedonian, who reigned for twelve years; until this pointprophets prophesied in the holy spirit, but from now on: lend your ear and hearken tothe words of the Sages” (Seder Olam Rabba, 30 [ed. Ratner, 140]). This opinion is al-ready 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 theexact succession of the prophets in the Persian period. See E. E. Urbach, “When DidProphecy Cease?,” Tarbiz 17 (1945/46), esp. 2 (in Hebrew), and Milikovsky, “TheEnd of Prophecy.”

133 The Christian need to believe in the continuation of prophecy may, of course, haveplayed a role in Jewish denial thereof. See Urbach, loc. cit., 8–11, and, in general, onJewish 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 inHonor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday (WinonaLake, 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 ofsynods) 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 bookswere 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 thenadded that “apart from these there are τ� ΜακκαβαCκ�, which bear thetitle Σαρβη�σαβαναιελ.” It is not clear whether Origen is referring to1 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 meantto 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 andactual use. On the one hand, Jerome rules that the authority of the apocry-

R. B. Cox, Jr., “The Nineteenth Century British Apocrypha Controversy,” (unpub-lished PhD. dissertation, Baylor Univ., 1981) 503–530. For use of the apocryphalworks in the New Testament, see Bleek, “Stellung der Apokryphen.” For a partial listof 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 “thebooks” of the Maccabees. Since Origen’s term seems to reflect a Hebrew or Aramaicoriginal (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 pluralin fact means to refer to more than one book; for the assumption that 2 Maccabeestoo is meant, see Sundberg, Old Testament of the Early Church, 161–162. Note, inthis connection, that in the passage from his De principiis mentioned below Origenrefers to a passage from 2 Macc as being “in Machabaeorum libris.” This seems toindicate that he related to 1–2 Macc as parts of a larger work, comparable to Kgsor 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. Seetoo: 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 thoughtthat his reference to an unidentified “prophet” alludes to 2 Macc 7:28.


phal books is less than that of the books of the Hebrew canon; the formershould be read “ad aedificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem Ecclesiasti-corum dogmatum confirmandam” (for the edification of the people, butnot 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 didnot consider them as sacred as the others.138 Nevertheless, he uses our bookseveral times, quoting it as “scriptura” when it suits his needs (to provefrom 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 aformal position excluding 2 Maccabees from the canon; indeed, we even en-counter a polemic emphasis, as the context required, that Jesus made no ref-erence to it at all when he referred to all of Holy Scriptures as the Torah, theProphets and Psalms (Luke 24:44). But in the very same context Augustinealso emphasizes that the Church had accepted the book as “not withoutprofit, 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 otherapocryphal works) throughout the Middle Ages – formally excluding itwhile actually including it, as long as no one pressed the issue. Duringthe Reformation, however, the status of all the apocryphal books becamea major bone of contention as a corollary of the anti-Latin tendency togive 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 develop-ment over time, see Skehan, “St. Jerome and the Canon” and J. Braverman, Jerome’sCommentary on Daniel (CBQMS 7; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Associationof 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 theexample 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 themother and her seven sons (2 Macc 7) is cited alongside that of Job as the Bible’s tes-timony (“de veteri testamento … scripturae illae”) concerning courageous people offaith. On Augustine’s use of our work, esp. Ch. 7, see: J. W. Wiles, A Scripture Indexto the Works of St. Augustine in English Translation (Lanham, Md.: University Pressof America, 1995) 76–77.

60 Introduction

New.142 Beyond that, however, the status of our book in particular becamean issue because Luther, throughout his career, had severe complaintsabout 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 suspi-cious 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 thatproper interpretation of the end of Chapter 12 actually belies the belief inPurgatory, 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, Luthercomplained about Razis’ suicide (Ch. 14) and the differences between ourbook’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 beenjustified to include 1 Maccabees in the canon, it was justified to exclude2 Maccabees, although the book does have some redeeming features.143

Luther died the next year, about two months before the Catholic Churchpublished its formal response to all of this: in a reaction typical of suchpolemics, the Council of Trent decided to recognize all the books of theVulgate, 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 on2 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. OnLuther’s translations of the apocryphal works, which are in general freer than those ofthe canonical books, given their lesser authority, see: [C. L.] W. Grimm, “LuthersÜbersetzung der alttestamentlichen Apokryphen,” TSK 56 (1883) 375–400 (391–396on 2 Maccabees).

144 See see esp. P. G. Duncker, “The Canon of the Old Testament at the Council ofTrent,” CBQ 15 (1953) 277–299; H. J. Sieben, “Die Kontroverse zwischen Bossuetund Leibniz über den alttestamentlichen Kanon des Konzils von Trient,” JBT 3(1988) 201–214. For the council’s “Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures,” seeCanons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (trans. H. J. Schroeder; Rockford, Illi-nois: Tan, 1978) 17–20.


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

2 Maccabees and the Hebrew Bible

Canonical status does not, of course, dictate our assessment of ourbook’s biblical nature. Is it like Ben-Sira (Ecclesiasticus), which is so simi-lar to Proverbs and Ecclesiastes that it could have been part of the canonhad – 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 HebrewBible?

As with so many other topics, the assessment of our book’s biblical na-ture usually is made, in introductions and encyclopedia articles, in compari-son with that of 1 Maccabees. The result is nearly always the same: 1 Mac-cabees was composed in biblical (or pseudo-biblical) Hebrew, imitatesbiblical style, and generally has a biblical spirit, whereas 2 Maccabees wascomposed in Greek, does not imitate the Bible, and reads like a Greekwork.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 AltenTestaments,” in: Text – Wort – Glaube: Studien … Kurt Aland gewidmet (Arbeitenzur 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 con-troversy, emphasizing that the early Church did not accept the book fully into itscanon; but he also opposed it because of the support it lends (at 3:31, 33; 15:14) tothe 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 lessthan 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; seeibid., 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 imökumenischen Horizont: Die Stellung der Spätschriften des Alten Testaments im bib-lischen Schrifttum und ihre Bedeutung in den kirchlichen Traditionen des Ostens undWestens (ed. E. Jahr; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1989). As for disputes be-tween Catholics and Protestants concerning the historical worth of our book, whichwas 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 explicitlyalludes 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 at10:26 explains the appearance of the angels in 10:29 (see Exod 23:20, 23).

– Both of Judas Maccabaeus’ speeches prior to battle with Nicanor citethe 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 Assyrianking, 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 therise and fall of the king of Babylonia,149 while his “stench” (9:9) is doubtlessmeant to be that of “the northerner” according to Joel 2:20.

– The four preceding verses in Joel 2 (vv. 16–19), moreover, on otherpeoples who ask derisively “where is their God?,” on the Jews’ anxiety andprayers before the altar, and on God’s arousal to act on behalf of His landand 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 whocome with blasphemy against Your holy people be stricken down by Yourgreat arm” (15:24), seems clearly to reflect the Israelites’ prayer at theRed 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 alsobe 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 theformer may recall Ezekiel 28:18; Jason, who killed many of his countrymenand 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 GreekBible,” 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.


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 toIsaiah 40:26; etc.

Nevertheless, when all is said and done it remains the case that – apartfrom the pervasive and determinative use of Deuteronomy 32 – the biblicalallusions in our book are not very numerous, and even if suggestions may beadded to the list, it is not always clear – even with regard to some of thoselisted – that allusion to the Bible was in fact intended. In any case, these areexceptions to the rule that basically prove it. A writer who at 14:30 passesup the opportunity to mimic Genesis 31:2 cannot have been very concernedabout echoing the Bible.152 Thus, the second generalization comparing2 Maccabees to 1 Maccabees may basically be allowed to stand.

Not so, however, with regard to the third. In my opinion, the generaliz-ation that 1 Maccabees is written in the spirit of the Hebrew Bible,153 and2 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 itslanguage, simple and like those of the Hebrew Bible, the book is usuallycompared, in this respect, to the Books of Samuel and Kings. Only in one notinsignificant point (Nur in Einem nicht unwesentlichen Puncte) does it differfrom 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 oldtheological pragmatism – it no longer presents events in a supernatural lightand no longer allows God, following a specific plan and directing events inmiraculous 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 pre-

cisely in the style of the biblical books, for he was very well at home in them and fullof their spirit. As a result he was able to write a book which is something of anotherlink 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 wesee in God’s general non-involvement a sign that 1 Macc is a Sadducean work, givenJosephus’ 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 whenhe wrote that the notion of divine providence is, in assessing the biblical na-ture of an historical work, “not insignificant.” But this central element ofbiblical historiography,155 generally absent from 1 Maccabees (especiallyafter its first four chapters), is very prominent in 2 Maccabees. This is evi-dent first of all in the numerous and impressive apparitions,156 in numerousprayers (see above, p. 48), in speeches bespeaking trust in God and entrustingthe 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 readersabout 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 preciselyappropriate 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 toconclude 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 Gerapointed in the right direction; note that 1 Macc is clearly a court history, written in thelate 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, itseems difficult to justify Stern’s assessment (Studies, 350), that the author of 1 Macchad “a deep religious sense,” explaining the author’s avoidance of direct reference toGod as an expression of reverence. Rather, it seems to me that what isn’t mentionedisn’t there. Similarly, note that the entire book is devoid of the notion that sufferingcomes as a result of sin, that there are no “apparitions” and miracles, and that it isthrice 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 theirreappearance). Again, God (�ε�«) is not mentioned at all, and after the first fewchapters, which may reflect a generation that was still more biblically oriented, there ishardly any other reference to the Lord (Κ�ριο« appears for the last time in Ch. 5, andeven “Heaven” is mentioned only three times after that chapter), nor hardly any pray-ing (see only 7:41–42, 9:71, 9:46 and the diplomatic window-dressing in 12:11). Thisdevelopment 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 leavesroom for God’s real reasons alongside of human initiative, see Seeligmann, “Men-schliches Heldentum.” Seeligmann (73) discussed 1 Maccabees only briefly, focusingon its early chapters, and therefore did not address the absence of such a biblicalorientation 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 …


beginning to the end of our book the reader is encouraged to realize thatGod rules history and that He is the Jews’ covenantal partner – the main el-ements of biblical historiography.

Moreover, we should stress that the structure of our book is no less bib-lical than it is Greek. The basic structure is simple and transparent: it beginswith a rebellion against the ancestral regime in Jerusalem itself (Ch. 4) andthe author immediately promises that, as the sequel will show, this must en-tail punishment:

“For this reason they were overtaken by a difficult state of affairs, andthose for whose ways they were enthusiastic, and whom they wanted fullyto imitate, became their own enemies and nemeses. For it is no trivial matterto be impious vis à vis the divine laws. But this shall be shown by the nextperiod.” (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 aswell – problems that begin between Jew and fellow Jew and turn into royalpersecutions. But those latter lead to martyrdom, which makes for atone-ment, for the martyrs’ blood calls out of the ground to God, whose wraththerefore turns into mercy (8:4–5 – the book’s turning-point). From now onthe Jews win their battles, for now God no longer stands aside (“hides Hisface”) as the Gentiles attack the Jews; rather, He now stands firmly behindthem, and if any Jews fall in battle, it is because they, as individuals, havesinned and are therefore deserving of their fate (12:34, 39–41).

This is a classic Greek structure, but also a classic biblical structure. Onthe 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’ PhoenicianWomen is especially relevant; it opens with a struggle between two brothersand salvation comes when one of the city’s citizens commits suicide in cir-cumstances quite similar to those of Razis; both scenes are the penultimateones in their respective works, immediately preceding, and thus serving asthe premise for, the city’s salvation.158 Moreover, Greek topoi abound; note,for some examples, the way Antiochus’ arrogance is implicitly comparedwith that of Herodotus’ Xerxes (see NOTE on 5:21, land navigable) whileEleazar’s death is implicitly compared with that of Socrates159 and the youn-gest of the seven sons is implicitly compared to Antigone (our NOTE on7:30, 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) andthe way drinking unmixed wine is a prime characteristic thereof (see NOTEon 15:39, wine by itself), and the way the civilization of the city is comparedtime 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 wehave seen (pp. 21–23) – equally clear that our author saw his story as a ful-fillment of the script outlined in Deuteronomy 32: our sins bring God tohide His face, which allows for persecution (by unwitting foreign agents ofGod), which begets suffering and atonement and reconciliation and event-ual salvation, along with vengeance visited upon the persecutors.

There is no need to choose between these two models, just as there is noneed to choose, with regard to specific topoi, between Jewish antecedentsand Greek ones.160 True, our author was not a biblical author. But he was aJewish author. Moreover, he was one of those happy people who was ableto express a synthesis between two identities in a way that approached anintegrated whole.161 We term this synthesis “Jewish-Hellenistic,” but forour author it was simply “Judaism,” which was a legitimate and respectedway to be Greek.162

160 See, for example, our NOTES on 9:8, give orders to … waves, … weigh … moun-tains; 9:9, worms; 14:45, his blood flowing like a fountain.

161 Only “approached,” for in the nature of things double identity must impose somequalifications on each component, and there is also some basic tension between beingreligious 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 aJew?.”

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 theSeptuagint.164 Apart from the translationese and biblicizing language of theletters 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 ofanother historian of the second century BCE, Polybius, and indeed thiscomparison is frequently quite useful.166 But that is not to imply any specialrelationship between the two works.167 Rather, Polybius simply serves us asa good witness to the standard Greek of the period, well known – also quitehelpfully – from numerous inscriptions.168

The author of our work is well at home in Greek, his language is quiterich, and he uses the language with sovereignty. He plays with words(examples below), he uses rare words, and it may be that he also inventedsome; I noticed twenty-six words for which Liddell-Scott-Jones refers toour 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 othersthat appear elsewhere in the Septuagint only in 3 Macc; see above, p. 45, and belowp. 87.

165 The main studies of our book’s Greek are: Richnow, “Untersuchungen;” Gil, “Sobreel 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), 0πεψ�ανατ ζ� (6:28), 0ποστρεβλ�ομαι(9:7), 0ργψρολ�γητο« (11:3), 0ρρεν�δ�« (10:35), δειν�ζ� (4:35), δεψτερολογω�

68 Introduction

author was fastidious about varying his vocabulary. True, at times suchvarying appears to be forced or artificial, such as when he changes termi-nology from one verse to the next, for example:

– In two successive verses of his preface (2:26–27) he refers to his workas 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 (τ�ν Eξλ�ν)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” (�7αφε�ναι)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 suchproblem. Furthermore, in some cases the varying is positively enriching.Thus, for example, at 15:12, 14 we read that Judas Maccabaeus, in hisdream, saw Onias praying (κατε�ξεσ�αι) for the Jews and introducingJeremiah, who too is said always to pray (προσεψξ�μενο«) for them. Theuse of the unusual prefix for Onias’ prayer reflects the fact that he is (as inCh. 3) portrayed as a priest and therefore ascribed the stance of a priestwho prays blessings down upon the Jews (see NOTE on 15:12, havingstretched out his hands …), while Jeremiah is left with the usual verb; hebrings down to the earth not blessings but, rather, a sword. Similarly, theseemingly trivial difference between 0π)ργισται (5:17) and �π)ργισται(7:33) turns out, upon reflection, to be part and parcel of a larger progres-sion within the book, from a model which has God turning His face(παρ�ρασι« – 5:17) away from the Jews in anger, thus leaving the Jews tothe mercies of their enemies, to one in which He chastises them face-to-

(13:22), δι�σταλσι« (13:25), δψσπωτημα (5:20), �λεψστωον (6:17), ��ρακισμ�«(5:3), λεοντηδ�ν (11:11), μψσ�ρξη« (5:24), �μοι�χηφο« (14:20; but LSJ does list�μ�χηφο«), παρεισπορε�ομαι (8:1), πολεμοτροφω� (10:14; 14:6), προενωξεσ�αι(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 direc-tions. Of course, the fact that LSJ lists our book alone for a given word does not proveit doesn’t exist elsewhere, or that our author created it.


face, as a father chastises his children (τοG« ο$ραν οψ« πα�δα« – 7:34; cf.10:4 and Deut 8:5).170

The same awareness of language that leads our author to vary his termi-nology in adjacent verses also brings him time and again to repeat terms atstrategic places so as to close circles or make related points. Thus, forexample:

– When Heliodorus first came to the city he was “received” by the highpriest (0ποδεξ�ε «), but when he left, having been humiliated, it was hewho “received” (0ποδε7�μενο«) the high priest (3:9, 35).

– In the first verse of Chapter 4 Onias is accused as if he had been (“beenappointed” – κα�εστηκ)«) the troublemaker, and in its last verse Menelausgoes on being (κα�εστ)«) the real troublemaker.

– At the beginning of Chapter 5 the Jerusalemites had no idea whetherthe �7οπλισ α they saw boded good or bad (v. 2), but by the end of thechapter, going out to see the �7οπλισ α outside the city’s walls (v. 25), theylearned the bitter truth.

Moreover, the book displays a great variety of vocabulary, as we may il-lustrate 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 theyare characterized by “haughtiness” (0γερ�ξ α [9:7]) and “arrogance”(Fπερηφαν α [5:21; 7:36; 9:7]); they let their “hearts soar” (μετε�ρισμ�«τ#« καρδ α« [5:21]) and “stretch out their necks” (Fχαψξω� [15:6]), con-sidering 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” (μ�ξαιρα [5:3]), a“sword” (7 φο« [12:22]) or a “broadsword” (3ομφα α [15:15–16]), whichhe 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” (0γ�ν α[3:14, 16; 15:19], 0γ�νι�� [3:21]) but also to all sorts of “suffering” (τα-λαιπ�ρ α [6:9], σψμφορ� [6:12, 16], π�νο« [7:36; 9:18]), “anguish,”“torture” (α�κ α [7:42], α�κισμ�« [8:17]) or “torment” (β�σανο« [7:8;9:5]), and just plain “pain” (6λγο« [3:17], 0λγηδ)ν [6:30; 7:12], 1δ�νη

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” (0ποστρεβλο�μαι [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 theirspirits” (�πιρρ)ννψμι τα�« χψξα�« [11:9]), “arm them with security”(κα�οπλ ζ� 0σφ�λειαν [15:11]), “exhort” them (παραγγωλλ�) and thus“bring them to a better morale” (προ�ψμοτωροψ« κα� στημι [15:9]) so asto “propel” them forward (παρορμ�� [15:17]).

– For they must not succumb to “terror” (δωο« [3:17, 30; 12:22]),“fear” (φ�βο« [6:30; 12:22]), or “cowardice” (δειλ α [3:24]); the only fearthey 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 “highmorale” (ε$χψξ α [14:18]), “courageously” (ε$�αρσ�« [7:10]), and es-pecially: with “manly valor” (0νδραγα� α [14:18], ε$ανδρ α [8:7; 15:17]),“manfully” (0νδρε �« [6:27], 0ρρεν�δ)« [10:35 – our author’s inven-tion?], 0νδρ�δ�« [14:43]) – that is, “eagerly” (ε$ρ)στ�« [10:17]), “likelions” (λεοντηδ�ν [11:11 – invention?]).

– Which allowed them not only “to attack” their enemies (προσβ�λλ�[10:17; 13:23], σψμβ�λλ� [8:23], �πιβ�λλ� [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], �ντιν�σσ� [11:11]), “storming” whatever lay intheir way (�νσε � 3:25; 4:1; 12:15) and – rather than merely fighting fromafar – “interweaving themselves” (�μπλακωντε« [15:17]) among the veryranks of the enemy.

– True, wars have their casualties: some Jews “die” (0πο�ν2σκ� [7:2],τελεψτ�� [6:30; 7:5, 14, 41]), “pass out of life” (μεταλλ�σσ� τ"ν β ον[4:7; 5:5]; διαλλ�σσ� 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”(0πεψ�ανατ 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 Bruynecommented 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’sfootsteps; see Breitenstein, Beobachtungen, 185–186.


– Moreover, they should never despair of the help supplied by God –who is, inter alia, the “All-Ruler” (Παντοκρ�τ�ρ – 5:20; 6:26, etc.), “theall-powerful lord (� παγκρατ2« κ�ριο« – 3:22), “the ruler of the spiritsand of all authority” (� τ�ν πνεψμ�τ�ν κα� π�ση« �7οψσ α« δψν�στη« –3:24), “the most high” (� Iχιστο« – 3:31), “the creator of the universe” (�το� κ�σμοψ κτ στη« – 7:23), “the great Sovereign” (� μωγα« δεσπ�τη« –5:20), “the living Lord” (� ζ�ν κ�ριο« – 7:33, 15:4), and “the all-seeingLord” (� παντεπ�πτη« κ�ριο« – 9:5).174

– Indeed, with His help the Jews ultimately manage not only to “closein” upon their enemies (παρακλε � [4:34]), but also to “overcome” them(ξειρ�� [4:34, 42]), “knock them down” (καταβ�λλ� [4:42]), “smite”them (κ�πτ� [5:12; 10:35]) or even “cut them down” (κατακ�πτ� [1:13],κατασφ�ζ� [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(0π�λλψμι [8:20; 10:23; 12:19], προσαπ�λλψμι [13:4]) – “wiping themout” (�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 enrichingand at times contrived, means that there is a very large number of differentwords 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 formerfills 28 pages and the latter – 32, which means that each has around 55 words perpage. As for 2 Macc, in order to estimate the number of words I counted the numberof entries in which it is listed in about 40% of H&R (609 out its of 1497 pages) – notincluding entries for proper nouns, for variant readings, or for combinations of morethan one word. 2 Macc is listed in 903 entries; if this sample is representative, then2 Maccabees has altogether more than 2200 different words (apart from propernouns). Given the fact that it fills around 39 pages in Rahlfs’ edition, this averages to56.5 different words per page, very similar to the other two books. By way of com-parison, 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 twofacts: (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 in-tensity.

(a) Abbreviation: The book flows; at times, runs. The author, as he states inhis preface, was not interested in “the precise clarification of each and everydetail.” Rather, he strove “to follow the rules laid down for epitomizing”(2:28) and applied himself to “to arousing the imagination of those whowish to read (the story) [and] to making it easier for those who take pleasurein memorizing” (2:25); again at 10:10 he reminds us that he is out to “sum-marize,” just as at the end of his work he expresses the hope that readerswill have found it “to the point” (15:38). To achieve this, he took two majorsteps: he left material out, and he formulated his narrative in ways thatallowed him, as it were, to smuggle information in without actually havingto pause to supply it.

1. Material left out: In the nature of things it is difficult to know whatour author left out. Nevertheless, at times it is clear that he did exclude in-formation. First of all, this is the case in the few instances where the text as-sumes that the reader knows a character who has not, in fact, previouslybeen 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 docu-ment quoted promises an attachment that is not brought (9:25; 11:17), andit may well be that the original works included them.178

book of the New Testament. The book with the highest number of different words isActs, which – although significantly longer than 2 Macc (for it totals 18,374 wordswhereas 2 Macc, which fills 1186 lines in Rahlfs with an average of 8.85 words perline, has less than 10,500) – employs only 1,778 different words, apart from propernouns, 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 thispoint 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 inventedJason of Cyrene. For the assumption that when a book refers to characters as if theyare known, but they are not, it may indicate that the book is a secondary version of alonger original, see e.g. G. Hölscher’s comments on Josephus’ War 1 and its lostsource 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 shouldwork, see e.g. Welles, RC, nos. 10–13 (three letters by Antiochus I to a governor and


Much more frequent are the places where the author gives us the impres-sion that he knows more than he reports. Thus: Jason sent Menelaus toAntioch “to take care of memoranda concerning pressing governmentalmatters” (4:23), Judas betook himself “to more pressing places” (10:19),and later his forces encountered a unit that Timothy had left “in a certainplace” (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 oneside learning of the other’s moves, apart from the badmouthing by Simonand Alcimus in Chapters 3 and 14 (which are part and parcel of the story)we never hear how this happens. Rather, Antiochus “received notice” ofPtolemy’s hostility (4:21) and later “news reached Antiochus” of the pu-tative revolt in Jerusalem (5:11) and of the setbacks suffered by Nicanorand Timothy (9:3), just as Judas and his men somehow “received notice” ofLysias’ first invasion (11:6) and “news reached them” concerning Nicanor’sfirst and Lysias’ second (8:12; 13:1). How did they learn of each other’smovements? Spies? Informers? Deserters? We do not know, nor do we evenknow 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 theresult 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 de-tails.

2. As for brevity of phrasing – this too propels us along in ourreading. The main tools our author employs are participles and passiveverbs.

Participles: These are much more frequent in our book than in othercontemporary literature.179 This usage has two advantages. First, it allowsthe writer to smuggle into his narrative information about the back-ground and circumstances of events without having to devote separatesentences to them. Moreover, especially when such participial clausescome before the main sentence they push readers along, not allowing themto pause. Thus, for example, the whole story opens as follows: (1) “TheHoly City being inhabited in complete peace and the laws being observedoptimally due to the high priest Onias’ piety and hatred of evil, (2) it hap-pened that the kings themselves honored the Place and aggrandized theTemple 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 sacrifi-cial offices.”

There is only one finite verb in this whole long period – “it happened” atthe 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 outwhat happened, and that pushes him or her immediately into v. 3, which, inturn, is made to depend on v. 2 by the opening “just as.” Anyone who getsthrough these first three verses, perhaps breathless, will have received – hav-ing read only one “sentence” – a total picture of the background idyll, andis now fully poised to be upset by the opening “But” of v. 4.

Or take the following section from Chapter 15: (20) “And while theywere all expecting the coming decision, and the enemies had already cometogether, and the army had been arrayed and the beasts had been stationedin an opportune place and the cavalry had been posted in the wings,(21) Maccabaeus – seeing the arrival of the hordes, the diversity of weaponswith which they were equipped, and the wildness of the beasts – raised uphis hands toward heaven and called upon the miracle-working Lord, for heknew that it was not through weapons, but, rather, according to how Hedeems, that victory is secured for them who deserve it. (22) And callingupon Him he spoke in the following manner: […]”

Here too, all the scene-setting in v. 20 and well into v. 21 contains no fi-nite verb, and so – while giving us a good bit of information – propels usforward toward the final clash.

Passive verbs: The first verse of the story (3:1), quoted above, can also illus-trate the usefulness of these: by saying that the city “was inhabited” and thelaws “were observed” the author can avoid having to tell us who did thesethings, depending upon readers to figure it out for themselves, if they so de-sire. In this case it’s simple: both verbs obviously refer to the population ofJerusalem. Sometimes it is more difficult, for example at 6:11: “Others,who had come together in nearby caves in order to celebrate the seventh daysecretly, were – after having been informed upon to Philip – burned to-gether …”

How many actors and actions have been thrust together here! The mainactors are the “others,” and we hear of their previous action (“had come to-gether”) and its reason (“to celebrate”) and their present “action” (beingburned together). But we also hear of another actor, Philip, and we mustinfer that he acted (ordered the burning of “the others”) as well. Then thereare also hints of other actors, unidentified: whoever did the informing (un-known, but probably some Jew) and whoever did the burning (Philip’s sol-diers?). Thus, the full story was as follows:


By using two participles (σψνδραμ�ντε«, μηνψ�ωντε«) and two passiveverbs (the latter and σψνεφλογ σ�ησαν) the author allowed himself to skipthe details of the second and fourth items, details which were less important(perhaps also embarrassing – who informed?), and thus crowd the wholestory into one heavily-loaded but nonetheless acceptable sentence. In thiscase, as opposed to that of 3:1, it is in fact not simple for us to fill in all themissing information; we do not know who did the informing. Sometimes itis even harder, although the case of 13:21 (“he was sought out and arrestedand shut away”) is an extreme exception (see our NOTE ad loc. on one ofthe Jewish unit).180 But whatever they might lack in clarity, such sentencesdefinitely possess in abundance the power to impress upon us that theauthor wants us to plow forward without delay.

Two other standard Greek ways of pushing us along are the constantlinkage of sentences to their predecessors by the use of some sort of con-junction; you can never really stop for long because your eye sees the nextverse holding onto this one’s coattails, as it were, if only with a δω. More-over, the author frequently employs oppositional constructions, and oncewe’ve encountered the μων we of course have to push on until we get to theanswering δω. Thus, for example, readers who finally get to the end of thelong stories of Heliodorus (Ch. 3) and of the martyrs of Chapters 6–7 findin 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 thatwhatever plateau they had just reached, and might have thought about stay-ing 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 fre-quent promises about what the continuation of the story will show. Thesefunction for us as checks, and we run along to see if and how they will becovered. Of course the most blatant cases of this are the three main author-ial excurses (4:16–17; 5:17–20; 6:12–17), of which the first announces thetribulations to come and the other two promise relief. But there are also nu-merous 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.

Actor Action“others” gathered togetherunknown Jew(s) (?) informedPhilip orderedPhilip’s soldiers burned

76 Introduction

8:11: “not expecting the All-Ruler’s justice which was going to pursuehim.”

8:29: “they together petitioned the merciful Lord, asking that He be-come completely reconciled with His own servants.”

9:13: “And the abominable man made a vow to the Sovereign – whowould no longer be merciful to him – saying as follows …”

15:5: “Nevertheless, he did not successfully carry out his abominabledesign.”

All of these intimations about what is yet to come, even when it soundssurprising, urge us, as it were, to keep on reading.

(b) Struggles: The fact that the book is devoted to struggles is reflected intwo primary aspects of the narrative, both of which make it a fast one: thereare numerous scenes that portray confrontations, and lively language isused to involve the reader emotionally in the heat of the struggles.

The confrontations are, first of all, real: numerous violent conflicts areportrayed. But time and again the author also employs rhetoric in order tomake us feel the conflict. As is usual in antithetic Greek writing, he puts thecharacters 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 precedingthe climax: (22) “So they, on the one hand, were calling upon the all-rulingLord to preserve the trusts whole and in complete security for them whohad entrusted them, (23) while Heliodorus, on the other hand, was begin-ning 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) whilethey, on the other hand, were praising the Lord who had wonderfully glori-fied His own Place; and the Temple, which had just before been replete withterror and tumult, was filled with joy and mirth due to the apparition of theall-ruling Lord.”

These two scenes surround the story in an inclusio that contrasts thetwo camps before and after, and already at the first scene readers areprimed to wonder how it will turn out. Who could possibly stop readingin between? The same approach to antagonists appears throughout thebook:

8:18: “For they trust in arms and audacity,” he said, “but we trust in theall-ruling God, who can with a single nod of His head overthrow not onlythose who are coming upon us, but the whole cosmos.”

10:28: “ … but as soon as the rays of dawn spread out they attacked oneanother: these having – along with their own virtue – their dependence upon


the Lord as their guarantor of success and victory, while the others madetheir rage the guide of their struggles.”

12:14–15: “Those within, trusting in the strength of the walls and in thestockpiled food, behaved quite uncouthly toward Judas’ men – cursing andeven blaspheming and saying things that are not allowed. (15) But Judas’men, after calling upon the great Ruler of the world, who without batteringrams and war-machines flung Jericho down in the days of Joshua, stormedthe wall ferociously.”

15:6–7: “And so Nicanor, on the one hand, his neck outstretched incomplete imposture, set his mind upon erecting a common trophy (celebra-ting his victory over) Judas’ men. (7) But Maccabaeus, on the other hand,was without letup in his total faith, with complete hope that assistancewould 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, wentback to the king, and the Jews, for theirs, turned to their farming. (2) Butsome 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 Eupatorhad come with hordes against Judaea, (2) and with him Lysias his guardianand head of state, each having a Greek force of 110,000 foot-soldiers, 5300cavalrymen 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 Demetriusson of Seleucus, having sailed into the port of Tripoli with a strong forceand fleet, (2) had taken control of the country …”

As opposed to the other examples, in this case the fact is that what is re-ported does not directly resume the clash between the Seleucids and theJews, and the fact that Judas’ men heard what they did about the Seleucidsin fact elicits no response at all. If the author nevertheless chose to formu-late the resumption of his story this way, it is a particularly eloquent ex-pression of his basic position that his story is one about clashes, so anythingwhich happens in the Seleucid camp, if it is to be interesting, must be re-ported in terms of the Jews hearing about it. By doing so, he as it were begshis readers’ patience, promising them that this Thronwechsel will soon turnout, nevertheless, to prove relevant to his story. And we readers, in conse-quence, indeed go rushing on to see whether the credit we have afforded theauthor was well-placed.

78 Introduction

The intensity of the struggle is also reflected in the author’s willingness tohighlight and celebrate his enemies’ defeats. Despite all his urbanity, thesestruggles were so intense that he felt not at all bound by any expectation ofsine ire et studio; he wrote with no holds barred, was sure that his story wasa tale of the forces of good vs. the forces of evil, and when the latter gotwhat they deserved, gloating was the legitimate order of the day. Thus:

3:28: “And so he who just before had entered the aforementioned treas-ury with a large entourage and all his bodyguard was carried off, powerlessto aid himself with his weapons, having plainly recognized the power ofGod.”

5:9–10: “Thus he who had forced great numbers (of people) from thefatherland to go abroad himself perished abroad, having set sail to theSpartans hoping to find shelter by virtue of kinship. And thus he who hadcast 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 Jewshave Someone who fights for them, and that it is for this reason that theJews are invulnerable: because they follow the laws ordained by Him.”

9:10: “And he who just a bit earlier had thought he could touch thestars of heaven – no one could bear him due to the intolerable burden of hisstench.”

13:7–8: “Such a death happened to befall Menelaus, without his evenattaining (any burial place) in the ground, and very rightly so – for since hehad committed many sins against the altar, of which the fire and ashes arepure, death came to him in ashes.”

Some of these examples also testify to the “make the punishment fit thecrime” rule discussed above; it too makes sense only when our story isviewed 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 waythe author depicts them employing very lively language meant to spark anemotional response in the reader, who will thereby share something withthe actors themselves. Such style is usually termed “pathetic,” and sinceNiese and Bickerman our book has been considered one of the primeexamples 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


story we actually have nearly explicit invitations to share the feelings ofthe actors,182 as our italics in the following two passages indicate:

3:14–17: “And the anguish all over the city was quite considerable. Thepriests, throwing themselves before the altar in their priestly vestments,called to heaven, upon Him who legislated concerning deposits, to preservethem inviolate for their depositors. And it pierced the mind to see the highpriest’s face, for his appearance and the changes of coloration revealed theanguish of his soul. For the man was inundated by terror and bodily tremb-ling, through which the pain in his heart became apparent to his observers.”

3:21: “And anyone who saw the prostration of the entire community allmingled together, and the anxiety of the highly anguished high priest, had tobe moved to pity.”

But even without such invitations, the result is the same:7:20: “The mother was exceedingly amazing and worthy of being re-

membered well – she who, after watching the destruction of seven sons onone and the same day bore it in high morale due to her hopes upon theLord.”

15:19: “Among those who had been left behind in the city there was nomerely marginal anguish, for they were upset about the (upcoming) assaultin the open field.”

Most frequently, however, it is simply the lively diction that is meant toarouse us, e.g.:

5:11–13: “… his spirit maddened like a beast’s, after coming back fromEgypt he took the city at spear-point and ordered his soldiers mercilessly tosmite those who fell into their hands and to cut down those who had re-turned to their houses. And there was destruction of young and old, disap-pearance of women and children, slaughter of virgins and infants.”183

11:6: “When Maccabaeus’ men received notice that he (= Lysias) wasbesieging the strongholds, together with the populace they beseeched

Maccabaeus,” 2. Niese (Kritik, 33–34) meant the same thing when he used the adjec-tive “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 “rhetori-cal” is too general and “tragic” has been part of the problematic thesis that there wasa school of ancient historiography that actually advocated writing history like tra-gedies; see Doran, Temple Propaganda, 84–89, following Walbank, “History andTragedy.”

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 themore.

80 Introduction

the Lord, with wailing and tears, to send a good angel to the rescue ofIsrael.”

14:45–46: “Still breathing, and burning up in rage, he stood up – hisblood flowing like a fountain and his wounds quite severe – and after tra-versing the multitudes on the run he stood up on a precipitous rock. Totallyout of blood, he bared his innards and, taking them in both his hands, threwthem into the mob; and in this manner, after calling upon the ruler of lifeand spirit to return them to him again, he passed away.”

Another way of heightening the pathos, cheaply but effectively,184 is theuse 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 heroesand villains, such as:

4:6: “For he saw that without royal providence (πρ�νοια) it would beimpossible 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 (�κρ�τει), butas for the monetary payments he had promised the king – he did not at allkeep them up (ο$δ�ν ε$τ�κτει).” The use of the rhyming verbs (even at theexpense of using the proper tense)186 points up the fact that Menelaus, al-though the ruler, looked out for himself alone.187

5:9: “Thus he who had forced great numbers (of people) from the fa-therland to go abroad (τ#« πατρ δο« 0πο7εν)σα«) himself perishedabroad (�π� 7ωνη« 0π)λετο).” The prefix 0π� quite properly moves fromJason’s sin to his punishment, tit for tat.

8:36: “Thus he who had undertaken to take care of (κατορ�)σασ�αι)the tribute (owed) to the Romans by taking the Jerusalemites captive pro-claimed (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 ofthe 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 thatalthough they were few in number.

185 But the latter can’t be done after the battles because they all take place after God hasagain 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 re-

gion, collected mercenaries (�7ενοτρ�φει) and at every occasion waged war (�πολε-μοτρ�φει) against the Jews.” The rhyme points up the fact that whatever he did justcaused trouble.


and that it is for this reason that the Jews are invulnerable (δι� τ"ν τρ�ποντο�τον 0τρ)τοψ«): because they follow the laws ordained by Him.” In theGreek κατορ�)σασ�αι and κατ2γγελλεν are juxtaposed, highlighting thecontrast. As for the last phrase, it may well be that the tongue-twisting con-catenation of t…tr…t…tr…t (pointed out to me by Emmanuelle Main) iscalculated to make us laugh at Nicanor’s expense in this closing verse of thecentral chapter of our book.

9:17–18: Antiochus vows “that, moreover, he would become a Jew and,visiting (�πελε�σεσ�αι) all inhabited places, would proclaim the power ofGod. But since the suffering did not at all let up – for he had already beenvisited (�πεληλ��ει �π B α$τ�ν) by the just judgment of God – he gave uphope for himself and wrote the Jews the letter …”

11:2, 4: Lysias invades “thinking (λογιζ�μενο«) to make the city a resi-dence for Greeks” but “not at all giving more thought (ο$δαμ�« �πιλο-γιζ�μενο«) 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-stratagemizedhim with aplomb (γεννα �« … �στρατ2γεται) …”

Many of these cases have a satirical bite to them. In particular we maynote the way the author likes to play with prepositional prefixes, such aswith λογιζ�μενο« … �πιλογιζ�μενο« in 11:2, 4 (above). Or, for a case thatcontrasts not villains and heroes but, rather, the real Fighter to the apparentones, 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) movefrom 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 suf-fering that allowed God “to appear” (become phaneran – v. 8); the partingshot comes in Chapter 10 which, after referring to the death of AntiochusEpiphanes, introduces his son, Antiochus Eupator (= Good-father!), as “theson of that impious man.”

188 For other cases of apparent emphasis on the prepositional prefix, see NOTES on7:11, look beyond, and on 13:18, by devious routes. For a case in which the desire toplay such a game (Fποτ�σσ�ν Fπ" πωτασον) apparently overrode practical con-siderations, 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 de-scriptions of his characters; the similarity among them functions like uni-forms associating them with this or that side, and so the author needn’tpause to characterize them individually. Thus, for example, as Goldsteinnotes (2 Macc, 476), the big picture is that in Chapters 14–15 Alcimusplays the role Simon played in Chapters 3–4 and Nicanor plays that ofHeliodorus in Chapter 3 and that of Antiochus Epiphanes beginning inChapter 6. But at the level of details as well, anyone who reads the accountof 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 ofAlcimus’ mission, which is presented in 14:5 as an attempt to fulfill hismadness (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 clarifyjust how hypocritical Alcimus was:

Thus, just as the allusion at 14:3 to Alcimus’ willing self-defilement duringhard 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-

2 Maccabees 14:7–10 2 Maccabees 4:5–6I have now come hither, first outof genuine concern for the king’sinterests, and secondly havingregard also for my own fellow-citizens (τ�ν �δ �ν πολιτ�ν).For due to the thoughtlessness ofthe aforementioned people ourentire nation has in no smallmeasure become disinherited. Andyou, O King (βασιλε�), knowingall of this, give providential attention(προνο2�ητι) to the country andto our beleaguered nation, withthe same love of mankind withwhich you graciously receiveeveryone. For as long as Judasis around it will be impossiblefor the state to attain peace(0δ�νατον ε�ρ2νη« τψξε�ντ� πρ�γματα).

(Onias) betook himself to theking,

not as a plaintiff against hisfellow citizens (τ�ν πολιτ�ν),but, rather, with his eyes setupon the benefit of eachand every member of thecommunity. For he saw thatwithout royal providence(βασιλικ#« προνο α«) itwould be impossible

for the state to attain peaceagain, (0δ�νατον εJναι τψξε�νε�ρ2νη« *τι τ� πρ�γματα)nor would Simon’s folly(τ#« 0νο α«) ever cease.


tioned Razis (14:38) into the antithesis of Alcimus and into a new Judas-likehero, the passages compared in this table are meant to display Alcimus as apoor parody of Onias. Or, for another example, anyone who reads the longlist of promises in 9:16 is supposed to recall 3:3 and see the contrast be-tween the villain who belatedly promises everything and his predecessor, Se-leucus, who did what he undertook to do:

This type of repetition clarifies for the reader that the book deals with thesame conflict throughout, even when the actors change, thus allowing theauthor to save time introducing the new ones.189

In fact, moreover, at a basic level the main actors do remain the samethroughout. The first verse of the middle chapter (8:1), right before the turn-ing-point of the whole book (8:5), characterizes its heroes as “those who re-mained in Judaism;” and it is this pivotal point that accords unity to thebook. Looking back, the struggles depicted in the preceding chapters (andnow summarized in 8:2–4) may now be understood as having been betweenthose 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 foreignerswho wished to impose such upon the Jews, on the one hand, and, on theother, those Jews who “remained in Judaism.” Looking forward, the clashesfrom this point on may now be understood as one prolonged struggle wagedby those who remained in Judaism, to free Jerusalem – the book’s focus –from those who would sever it from Judaism.190 The difference between thetwo 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.

2 Maccabees 9:16 2 Maccabees 3:3… and that he would deck out theHoly Temple – which he hadpreviously pillaged – with themost beautiful votive offerings,and that he would restore manytimes over the sacred vessels andsupply from his own revenuesthe expenses incurred for thesacrifices (τ�« δ� �πιβαλλο�σα«πρ"« τ�« �ψσ α« … �κ τ�ν �δ �νπροσ�δ�ν ξορηγ2σειν).

King Seleucus of Asia supplied outof his own revenues all theexpenses incurred for thesacrificial offices (ξορηγε�ν �κτ�ν �δ �ν προσ�δ�ν … τ�ν�ψσι�ν �πιβ�λλοντα).

84 Introduction

in a state of sin, and hence deserving of suffering, in the first section, and theJews being in a state of atonement in the second section; but the nature ofthe struggle does not change at all. This unity is made all the clearer by thearch 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 roundof that of Judas and his men (5:27; 8:1), just as Razis’ martyrdom is anotherin the series narrated at length in Chapters 6–7, and this will lead readers toexpect 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. Thisnew victory, moreover, may justifiably be expected to fulfill not only theprayer of 14:35–36, which pertains to the current episode, but, in fact, giventhe way we have been reminded of Chapter 8, it should also fulfill the prayerfor “total reconciliation” which came at the end of that first victory overNicanor (8:29).192 Thus, the book’s story is not about a series of events overa given period of time, but about a single prolonged struggle. This unity,with its frequent presaging of the next step, denies readers convenient stop-ping points and urges them on to the end.

191 For the artificial nature of this unity, see NOTE on 14:12, Immediately selectingNicanor.

192 On the verbal similarities between Chs. 8 and 15, which contribute to the reader’sunderstanding 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 inmind, and although we may occasionally discern hints that the author – ifnot some copyist – took non-Jewish readers into account,193 it is not at allsurprising 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 inthe whole of Greek literature there is no indication that the Greeks read theBible 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, GLA1.361–362 and Rinaldi, Biblia Gentium. On the general ignorance of the Romanswith 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 firstor second century CE, P. Oxyrhynchus 2944, shows that Philiscus of Miletus, of thefourth century BCE, knew the story of Solomon’s judgment [1 Kgs 3:16–28], seeJ. Mélèze Modrzejewski, “Philiscos de Milet et le jugement de Salomon: La premièreréférence grecque à la Bible,” BIDR3 30 (1988) 571–597. But maybe the text wasauthored by a Jew, and in any case we should distinguish between knowing this fa-mous story and knowing it from the Bible; note [with Stern, GLA, 1.viii, n. 5] that itmentions neither Jews nor Solomon.) Rinaldi’s book, that deals with references to theHebrew Bible and the New Testament in pagan literature of the first few Christiancenturies, 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 isshown 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 al-lusions are hard to pin down and it is also not clear whether those explicit referencesto 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 weknow 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 alsoincludes a version of the Heliodorus story. Philological comparison leavesvirtually no room for doubt about its use of our book.198

As for other possible Jewish readers, there is not much to discuss. In allof Philo’s corpus there is, it seems, only one passage which might indicateknowledge of 2 Maccabees, and even that passage (That Every Good Manis Free, 89), which alludes to cruelty and torments, lacks any very specificpointers to our book.199 Josephus seems clearly – given both what his booksdo 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 commonerrors 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 introducedinto the text; see above, p. 37, n. 80. The fact that they are attested to by many or allof the witnesses points to their antiquity.

197 For this usual dating of 4 Maccabees see Breitenstein, Beobachtungen, 173–175; vanHenten, Maccabean Martyrs, 73–78; idem, “Datierung.” Recently van Henten hasraised 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 Maccthat 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 butin the end suffer the same terrible fate, and it has been thought that this alludes spe-cifically to 2 Macc 7:4–5 and 9:9. So Zambelli, “Composizione,” 197, n. 1, followedby 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 tosome earlier tyrant, there does not seem to be sufficient reason for confidence thatPhilo drew specifically upon our book and not on general knowledge or some othersource. For skepticism, see Momigliano, “Second Book of Maccabees,” 88 (“no evi-dence”) and Goodman in Schürer, History, 3.534.

200 See especially Goldstein, 2 Macc, 26–27, n. 80. For the main agreements, compare6:2, 11; 11:4; 13:3–5; and 14:1, respectively, to Ant. 12.257–264, 274 (burning is notmentioned in 1 Macc 2:29–38); War 1.41 (eighty elephants); Ant. 12.384–385 (seeabove, p. 36); and 389 (Tripoli is not mentioned in 1 Macc 7:1). For the usualassumption, that Josephus, nevertheless, did not use our book, see Grimm, 2 Macc,13, 20–21 and Stern, Studies, 44–45.


from our book in particular. Growing up in Jerusalem he could have learneddetails of the Jewish side of the story (such as the fact that those who fled tocaves were burned [6:11]) from any number of sources, and as for details ofSeleucid history (such as the fact that Demetrius arrived in Syria specificallyat Tripoli [14:1]), we know that he had access to detailed material on thatdynasty and its history. As for 3 Maccabees, here the picture is less clear, forit has much in common with 2 Maccabees, beginning with numerouswords201 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 ittells a different story even in this case it is difficult to infer dependence, andsince although 3 Maccabees is a later book203 its Temple-invasion story ap-pears to be simpler (= more original?) than that of 2 Maccabees, it seemswiser to ascribe the similarities to a common cultural background, and per-haps to common traditions, than to literary dependence.204

It is hard to guess why the cupboard is so bare. Arnaldo Momigliano sug-gested that 2 Maccabees was doomed because it was meant to be read in pub-lic; in his opinion it was too complicated for that, and was also hampered bythe 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 enjoyedmore use. However, the problem might be deeper, for there is in fact no Jew-ish-Hellenistic evidence of interest in Hanukkah, apart from Josephus – whogrew 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 introductionto 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 cen-tury, 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 tothe same school of thought, and probably to the same period.” Recently, however,Alexander, who is preparing a commentary on 3 Macc, has expressed the assumptionthat it used our book and even reacted to it; see his “3 Maccabees, Hanukkah andPurim,” 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 re-

flect 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 Hebrewcounterpart, 1 Maccabees) displayed by Hellenistic Jews may be only oneaspect of their more general lack of interest – due to their different cultural,religious and political situation – in the Temple, in holidays in its honor, andin 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 theEpistle to the Hebrews shows knowledge of it. For when we read at He-brews 11:35–36 that “Women received their dead by resurrection ( 5 Ελα-βον γψνα�κε« �7 0ναστ�σε�«), others were tortured on the torture-wheel(�τψμπαν σ�ησαν) … and yet others suffered mocking (�μπαιγμ�ν) …”it is all but impossible not to see here allusions to 2 Maccabees 6:19, 28(τ" τ�μπανον) and the story of Chapter 7, including the �μπαιγμ�« of7:7 and the mother’s prayer at 7:29 to receive her children back at the res-urrection (7:29); similarly, the reference in Hebrews 11:38, to thoseforced to take refuge in the deserts and mountains and caves, pointsstraight to our 10:6.208 As for post-canonical Christian literature, Abelcompiled an impressive list of allusions to our book, beginning with asingle and general reference in the Shepherd of Hermas in the mid-secondcentury and flowering into specific references and citations in ClemensAlexandrinus, Hippolytus, Origen and others.209 Lactantius’ De mortibuspersecutorum, written in the fourth century, describes those who perse-cuted Christians as latter-day Antiochuses à la 2 Maccabees; Rougé evendubbed Lactantius’ work “the Fifth Book of Maccabees.”210 Naturallythe martyrdom stories in our book were particularly popular amongChristians, 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 wel-comed 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-traditionsgeschichtlicheUntersuchung 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 ApostolicFathers see J. W. van Henten, “Zur Einfluß jüdischer Martyrien auf die Literatur desfrühen 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.


their own,211 especially given the development of a Christian cult in mem-ory of the Maccabean martyrs.212 Thus, for example, a recently-publishedpapyrus, apparently of the third century, includes a Coptic version of2 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 ofthe book in the Christian canon, however qualified (see above, pp. 57–59),guaranteed that it would be read and used more generally. Thus, forexample, it seems that Chrysostomus’ fifth sermon against the Jews uses ourbook (without direct citation) as part of an attack on Julian’s attempt torebuild the Temple of Jerusalem: depending on the story told by the secondintroductory epistle, the Antiochian father pointed out that even had Juliansucceeded, his temple, given the absence of fire from heaven, would havelacked all holiness.214 Another popular section was the end of Chapter 12,from which one could derive support for belief in resurrection, purgatoryand the efficacy of intercessional prayer; as we have seen (above, p. 60), thiswas, accordingly, a passage that would eventually elicit barbed criticismfrom Luther. But in other and less controversial fields as well, such as the be-lief in angels, miracles and creatio ex nihilo,215 our book served the Churchwell. And on a more popular level, it seems that medieval readers (andlisteners) simply found 2 Maccabees to be good reading, supplying, as itdoes, an ancient version of a tale of knights in shining armor (and even someheavenly steeds), miracles, and saints.216

211 As we have noted (p. 20, n. 50), this could reflect, in part, the fact that they beganwith a life of their own.

212 On this Christian cult, celebrated on August 1, see: Maas, “Die Maccabäer als christ-liche Heiligen;” Rampolla, “Martyre et sépultre;” and Vinson, “Gregory Nanzianzen’sHomily 15.” On the possibility of Jewish antecedents, see Bammel, Judaica, 79–85(= TLZ 78 [1953] 119–126); Downey, Antioch, 110–111; and Roth-Gerson, TheJews 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-SchøyenCodex Ms 193 in the Schøyen Collection (Lovanii: Peeters, 1990) 81–133.

214 Compare MPG 48, 900 on Julian’s “abominable hands” (μιαρ�« �κε νοψ ξε�ρα«) to2 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 (alongwith 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 nextto no interest in our book (as most of apocryphal literature). True, the storyof the mother and her seven sons may be found in several works, but – as wehave seen even with regard to 2 Maccabees itself (above, pp. 19–20) – it hada life of its own, so there is no need to trace Jewish retellings of the story toour 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 quiteobviously used some version of 2 Maccabees, is a striking exception.218

Text

Given 2 Maccabees’ inclusion in the Christian canon and popularity amongChristians, it is not surprising that, as Habicht notes (2 Macc, 191), there isa “relatively rich” textual tradition, both direct and indirect (translationsand 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 differencesbetween 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 theformer used 2 Macc 7, see: I. Lévi, “Le Martyre des sept Macchabées dans la PesiktaRabbati,” 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 pres-entation of Levi’s case is somewhat inaccurate). For a possible echo of our book in aJewish liturgical poem, see NOTE on 15:33, cutting the tongue … ; but the poet couldhave 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 de-picted 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 isno need to assume he saw our book too. For the Hasmoneans in Jewish medieval con-sciousness, 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 some-thing 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 ofexceptional 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.”


2 Maccabees’ editor in the Göttingen Septuagint, Robert Hanhart (Text,60), there is hardly a case in which textual problems impact upon the senseof our book’s historical content. The foundations for modern textual workon the text were laid by Hanhart’s predecessor, Werner Kappler, in his 1929Göttingen dissertation on the subject: De memoria alterius libri Macca-baeorum. Kappler’s work was first held up by officials who thought thatwork on the Old Testament was an occupation too narrow and marginalfor a classicist and did not fit the Nazis’ focus of classical philology uponthe classical period; later, in 1939, Kappler was drafted into the Germanarmy and died in service in 1944.219 His work was eventually inherited andcompleted by Hanhart, whose edition (“copiis usus quas reliquit WernerKappler”) was published in 1959; its corrected second edition, published in1976, 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 thegreat Septuagint uncial manuscripts: the Alexandrinus (fifth century) andVenetus (eighth), as well as in more than thirty miniscules, of which the ear-liest is from the ninth century.221 These Greek witnesses are divided into twomain 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, followingKappler, 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 fin-ished his dissertation, aroused great enthusiasm – especially in the work ofAbel, whose influential commentary was the next to appear; Abel fre-quently adopted its readings.222 Although as a translation one might expectthis version to enjoy only a secondary status, two main arguments havebeen 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’sedition, upon Katz’s review of it (“Text”), upon Hanhart’s response (Text), and uponKilpatrick’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 cen-tury, and thus bears witness to a pre-Lucianic text; and some of its readingsseem best to explain the varying and problematic readings of other wit-nesses. 2 Maccabees 9:9 is an excellent example: where most of the Latinwitnesses have worms coming out of Antiochus’ eyes (“de oculis”), whichrepresents the Greek �κ τ�ν 1φ�αλμ�ν, 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” (τ�ντο� σ)ματο« 1φ�αλμ�ν), which makes no sense. Here it seems likely, asDe Bruyne argued, that the Latin witnesses preserve the original text, whichwould have been �κ τ�ν 1μμ�τ�ν; that copyists who had trouble with thispoetic word for eyes either substituted (as in the Greek witnesses) the morenormal 1φ�αλμ�ν or else – consciously or unconsciously – “corrected” itinto το� σ)ματο« instead; but that “eyes” – although using the more com-mon 1φ�αλμ�ν – survived long enough to be incorported alongside of“body” in the Venetus.223 There are other cases like this, and especially thecases as this one, where the Greek is longer than the Latin and seems to be acombination of the original reading (preserved in the Latin) and a correctedone, are convincing.224 Another contribution of the Vetus Latina is the dis-covery that many cases thought to have been Lucianic corrections are ac-tually older readings.225

Nevertheless, a translation is still only a translation, and at times it is dif-ficult, or even impossible, to decide when a better reading is better becauseit’s more original and when it’s better because it solves a problem in theoriginal. And even when we try to work according to the usual guidelines,preferring the harder readings and the shorter readings (lectio difficilior, lec-tio brevior) on the presumption that copyists will tend to make hard textssimpler 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 philol-ogiques,”407–8. In this case De Bruyne is followed by Hanhart half-way: while heagrees to read only “eyes,” he uses 1φ�αλμ�ν although De Bruyne (“Notes philol-ogiques,” 409) had concluded that “On n’hésitera pas à accepter ομματ�ν comme lavraie leçon.” Typically (see below), Hanhart doesn’t even mention that possibility inhis 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 sec-ondary 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 theLatin translator.

225 For the higher assessment of Lucianic witnesses in the wake of study of the VetusLatina, see esp. Kilpatrick’s review of Hanhart, 19–21.


simple.226 Frequently, for example, we hesitate to prefer the harder readingprecisely because it is so difficult that although it is unlikely a scribe createdit deliberately, it seems just as unlikely that the author did. That is, difficultreadings may simply be errors.227 Moreover, arguments asserting that weshould prefer a putative lectio difficilior to the received text typically claimthat the correction will solve some problem with the received text – but thatclaim means, ipso facto, that the received text is “difficult” – so maybe itshould be preferred after all. As for the lectio brevior rule, what is the valid-ity of the presumption that the shorter reading is to be preferred when weare dealing with a book whose author clearly loved to play with words andpile them on, even to the point that a copyist might view some of them assuperfluous? Shall we, for example, eliminate 7:32 because it repeatesthings 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 them-selves before the altar in their priestly vestments, called to heaven, uponHim who legislated concerning deposits, to preserve them inviolate for theirdepositors.” One might well think the words “to heaven” (ε�« ο$ραν�ν)superfluous, and already Niese proposed they be excluded as an unnecess-ary gloss; subsequently it also became known that most Latin versions lackthese words, leading Katz to join the call to exclude them.228 However,Hanhart quite properly responded that the same duplication recurs at theend of the book, at 15:34 (“And turning toward heaven [ε�« τ"ν ο$ραν�ν]they all blessed the God who had become manifest”), according to the Latinevidence as well, and that the reference to “heaven” in Chapter 3 serves toprepare us for v. 34 (add: and v. 39), which underline that succor indeedcame from heaven.229 In this case, therefore, it seems quite easy to agreewith Hanhart that the Greek text, although longer, should be preferred overthat represented by the Latin which he views as Lucianic “ironing out” ofputative difficulties. In any case, the doubt hardly matters from most pointsof view.

Other cases are harder, sometimes more weighty too. Let us look, forexample, 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 de-nied, many scholars have recognized that the rule is nevertheless problematic and im-practical, since it fails to take into consideration simple scribal errors. After all, bydefinition, 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 beingforced by the king, tortured by whips and cords, to touch the forbidden fleshof swine.” The explanation that swine-flesh is “forbidden” is not found inthree 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 bycopyists of the Greek text: “Un juif aurait jugé superflu de noter que la chairde porc était une nourriture défendue.”230 Hanhart, however, thinks it like-lier that the Greek manuscripts lacking the word lost it via homoioteleuton:τ�ν 0�εμ τ�ν Fε �ν κρε�ν.231 Note, in this connection, that Jews knowthat the Sabbath is a holy day, and nevertheless our author notes that fact at5:25 – according to all witnesses. Is it so clear that a Jewish author wouldnot point out, perhaps for Gentile readers, perhaps simply for rhetorical ef-fect, that pork is forbidden to Jews? Indeed, may we not assume that mostGentiles – certainly most Bible copyists – know that? And couldn’t we im-agine that some who themselves eat pork might in fact prefer to leave theword 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 areequal, and that that condition is met, as Hanhart showed, much less fre-quently than one might think.232

As for lectio difficilior potior, it is not always simple to know what iseasy and what is hard, nor what is so difficult that it is not reasonable orpossible. After all, every mistake is difficult for someone who knows thetruth. Let us take two examples, one minor and one more central to ourbook’s story. At 10:26, Judas’ men are said to have thrown themselves, inprayer, upon the κρηπ « opposite the altar – so the Greek witnesses. Ac-cording to several Latin witnesses, however, they threw themselves oppositethe crepis of the altar. Given the fact that κρηπ « typically means “foun-dation,” 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 2:17where the priests lament “between the porch and the altar,” that is, acrossfrom 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 ofJudas’ 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 hiscommentary [Macc, 371], although he retains the word in the Greek text printed inhis edition).

231 Hanhart, Text, 25.232 See Kilpatrick, “Text,” 12; Hanhart, Text, 22.


of the priests (where the altar was), and that it was common to pray uponthem.233 So can we really be sure – sure enough to depart from all our Greekwitnesses – that the Latin witnesses are correct, and not just a learned at-tempt to bring our text into line with Joel?

Our more central example is one which – exceptionally – is of conse-quence for the historical content of our book: what shall we say of the pedi-gree of the book’s first villain, Simon (3:4)? The Greek evidence unani-mously identifies him as a Benjaminite. But if that is the case, then – giventhe fact that our author claims Menelaus was Simon’s brother (4:23) – theresult is that Menelaus, who was to become high priest, was not, accordingto our author, of priestly descent (for Jewish priests are Aaronites, of thetribe of Levi). That would be surprising, and many would also claim it is im-possible, especially in light of the fact that the book makes no commentabout this anomaly. Hence the enthusiasm with which the Vetus Latina’s detribu balgea was received and accepted, for it identifies Simon (and henceMenelaus) 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 imposs-ible 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 Templecult and its details of the greatest interest (see above, pp. 46–48) – could nothave 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 any-thing worthy of the high priesthood cannot imply knowledge of the prob-lem with his descent; and (d) that only modern scholars, but not ancientones (even those who were well at home in the Bible and knew that highpriests 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 beenwritten, in error, by someone unfamiliar with another name that began witha B – like “Bilgah.” None of these assumptions is a given. And there areother considerations as well, such as the presumption that φψλ2 refers toone of the twelve tribes of Israel (such as Benjamin) and not to a priestlyclan (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. Althoughidentification of Jews by reference to the Israelite tribes is rare in the Second Templeperiod, it is not unheard of, especially not with regard to the tribe of Benjamin, whichwas 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 be-cause 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, al-though no one can claim certainty.

In short, although each case has to be addressed separately, in general Iretain the Kappler-Hanhart preference for the Greek tradition, especially in-sofar as it is free of Lucian retouching. We should note, however, that along-side the general praise for Hanhart’s edition there was also not a little criti-cism concerning not these basic preferences but, rather, his aversion tomodern conjectures. Numerous conjectures have been offered over theyears, based on context and on parallels, but Hanhart by and large ignoredthem and even refused to register them in his critical apparatus if they arenot 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 – itseems to me that in most cases his defense of his text is to be accepted, orthat 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 second-ary witnesses, or upon conjectural emendation of the text, especially whenthe 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, AtPtolemy’s suggestion; 6:18, to open his mouth; 8:9, from various peoples; 8:23, andalso Eleazar; 10:11, governor-in-chief …; 10:30, Two of them; 12:28, who withpower; 12:42, that the sin that had occurred; 14:29, sought an appropriate opportun-ity; 14:40, for he thought to cause them suffering by arresting him; and 15:11, thananything else. See esp. Hanhart, Text, 31–32, where – as he exemplifies concerning14:29 – he states his basic position that readings which are possible in HellenisticGreek, 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 factthey found no fire; 1:35, drawn out; 4:48, who had spoken …; 9:12, “ … being mor-tal …”; 11:18, I approved them myself; 14:17, minor … appeared; and 15:33, of hishead.

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 fol-lows:

– Grimm’s 1857 commentary is still the most useful for all that regardsthe language itself and parallels in Greek literature;

– Abel’s 1949 edition is very good with regard to religious issues andbiblical parallels, although his translation is often free (and its frequentpreference for the Vetus Latina, noted above, is not always a blessing);

– Habicht’s 1976 translation and commentary, which is much shorterthan the others, is precise and particularly helpful with regard to the Hel-lenistic context;

– Goldstein’s 1983 commentary, almost six hundred pages long, is help-ful concerning just about every issue, large and small alike, that the bookraises or touches upon. It is somewhat difficult to use this commentary on ahit and run basis, however, because he has some overriding theories aboutthe book’s sources and about “what really happened,” and because theseare bound up with theories he began to build in his preceding volume on1 Maccabees.237

As for the translation, apart from Liddell-Scott-Jones’ Greek-EnglishLexicon, I found Mauersberger’s Polybios-Lexicon, Spicq’s Notes de lexi-cographie néo-testamentaire, Walbank’s Historical Commentary to Poly-bius, and Welles’ Royal Correspondence to be most helpful. For the com-mentary there is no end, of course, to potentially useful literature, some ofwhich I have listed in the bibliography. But I should note that Bar-Kochva’sJudas Maccabaeus, Van Henten’s Maccabean Martyrs, Gera’s Judaea andMediterranean Politics, and Stern’s The Documents on the History of theHasmonaean Revolt were especially important for my work.

237 Some reviewers took Goldstein to task for interpreting the book on the basis of suchtheories; 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 thatthere 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 BibleABD Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vols.; ed. D. N. Freedman; New York:

Doubleday, 1992)AC L’antiquité classiqueAfP Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte GebieteAGAJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des UrchristentumsAg. Ap. Josephus, Against ApionAIPHOS Annuaire de l’Institut de philologie et d’histoire orientales et slavesAJAH American Journal of Ancient HistoryAJP American Journal of PhilologyALGHJ Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen JudentumsANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen WeltAnt. Josephus, AntiquitiesAPOT R. H. Charles (ed.), Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testa-

ment, I–II (Oxford: Clarendon,1913)ARW Archiv für ReligionswissenschaftAS Ancient SocietyASE Annali di storia dell’esegesiASNSP Annali della scuola normale superiore di Pisa: Lettere, storia e filosofiaAWW Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-historische

KlasseBA Biblical ArchaeologistBAIAS Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological SocietyBAR Biblical Archaeology ReviewBASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental ResearchBBB Bonner biblische BeiträgeBCE Before the Common EraBCH Bulletin de correspondance helléniqueBDAG 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 inchecking bibliographical details.

VIII. Abbreviations and Bibliography 99

BeO Bibbia e OrienteBFC Bollettino di filologia classicaBib BiblicaBIDR Bullettino dell’istituto di diritto romano ‘Vittorio Scialoja’BIHBR Bulletin de l’Institut historique belge de RomeBJS Brown Judaic StudiesBM Beit MikraBN Biblische NotizenBSJS Brill’s Series in Jewish StudiesBZ Biblische ZeitschriftCA Classical AntiquityCBQ Catholic Biblical QuarterlyCBQMS CBQ Monograph SeriesCCSL Corpus Christianorum Series LatinaCE Common EraCEJL Commentaries on Early Jewish LiteratureCII J.-B. Frey (ed.), Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum, I–II (Città del Vati-

cano: Pont. Ist. di Archeologia Cristiana, 1936–1952; repr. of vol. Iwith Prolegomenon by B. Lifshitz: New York: Ktav, 1975)

CJ Classical JournalCP Classical PhilologyCPJ V. A. Tcherikover, A. Fuks and M. Stern (ed.), Corpus Papyrorum Ju-

daicarum, I–III (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard, 1957–1964)CQ Classical QuarterlyCSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum LatinorumDGE F. R. Adrados (ed.), Diccionario Griego-Español (Madrid: CSIJ, 1980–)DJD Discoveries in the Judaean DesertDMP Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum (ed. & trans. J. L. Creed; Ox-

ford: Clarendon, 1984)DPH Dissertationes philologicae halensesDSD Dead Sea DiscoveriesEA Epigraphica AnatolicaEB Études bibliquesEFN Estudios de filologia neotestamentariaEP Études de papyrologieFGrH 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 StudiesGCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei JahrhunderteGLA 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 CivilizationHCS Hellenistic Culture and SocietyHSAT Die Heilige Schrift des Alten TestamentesHSCP Harvard Studies in Classical PhilologyHTR Harvard Theological ReviewHTS Harvard Theological StudiesHUCA Hebrew Union College AnnualHZ Historische ZeitschriftIEJ Israel Exploration JournalIG Inscriptiones GraecaeIL Israelietische LetterbodeJAAR Journal of the American Academy of ReligionJAC Jahrbuch für Antike und ChristentumJANESCU Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia UniversityJAOS Journal of the American Oriental SocietyJBL Journal of Biblical LiteratureJBT Jahrbuch für biblische TheologieJH Jewish HistoryJHS Journal of Hellenic StudiesJJS Journal of Jewish StudiesJM Bar-Kochva, Judas MaccabaeusJQR Jewish Quarterly ReviewJRS Journal of Roman StudiesJSHRZ Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer ZeitJSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman

PeriodJSJSup Supplements to JSJJSOT Journal for the Study of the Old TestamentJSP Journal for the Study of the PseudepigraphaJTS Journal of Theological StudiesJWH Journal of World HistoryKEHA Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des Alten

TestamentesLAB Pseudo-Philo, Liber Antiquitatum BiblicarumLCL Loeb Classical LibraryLeg. Philo, Legatio ad GaiumLSJ 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 SeptuagintMAAR Memoirs of the American Academy in RomeMGWJ Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums


MH Museum HelveticumMPG J. P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus: series graecaMPL J. P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus: series latinaMUSJ Mélanges de l’Université Saint JosephNAW Nachrichten (von) der (königlichen) Gesellschaft/Akademie der Wis-

senschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-historische KlasseNovT Novum TestamentumNTS New Testament StudiesOBO Orbis Biblicus et OrientalisOGIS 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 StudiënPCPS Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological SocietyPhil PhilologusPL Mauersberger, Polybios-LexikonPW Philologische WochenschriftRA Revue archéologiqueRB Revue bibliqueRC Welles, Royal CorrespondenceRDGE Sherk, Roman DocumentsRE Paulys Realenencylopädie der classischen AltertumswissenschaftREA Revue des études anciennesREG Revue des études grecquesREJ Revue des études juivesRF Rivista de FilologiaRhM Rheinisches Museum für PhilologieRHPR Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieusesRHR Revue de l’histoire des religionsRP Revue de philologyRQ Revue de QumranRSR Recherches de science religieuseRSV Revised Standard VersionRTP Revue de théologie et de philosophieSBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph SeriesSBLTT Society of Biblical Literature Texts and TranslationsSCI Scripta Classica IsraelicaSCS Septuagint and Cognate StudiesSE Seleucid EraSEG Supplementum epigraphicum graecumSFSHJ South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism

102 Introduction

SHR Studies in the History of ReligionsSIFC Studi italiani di filologia classicaSIG G. [W.] Dittenberger (ed.), Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum, I–IV (Lip-

siae: Hirzel, 1915–19243)SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late AntiquitySNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph SeriesSP Studia PatristicaSPA Studia Philonica AnnualSPB Studia Post-BiblicaST Studia Theologica: Scandinavian Journal of TheologySTDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of JudahSVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti PseudepigraphaTAPA Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological AssociationTCAAS Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and SciencesTDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old TestamentTLZ Theologische LiteraturzeitungTSAJ Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism/Texte und Studien zum antiken

JudentumTSK Theologische Studien und KritikenTZ Theologische ZeitschriftUF Ugarit-ForschungenVC Vigiliae ChristianaeVT Vetus TestamentumVTSup Supplements to VTWUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen TestamentZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche WissenschaftZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen GesellschaftZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-VereinsZKT Zeitschrift für katholische TheologieZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche WissenschaftZPE 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 SocialContext in Luke 1.1–4 and Acts (SNTSMS 78; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.,1993).


Alexander, P. S., “3 Maccabees, Hanukkah and Purim,” Biblical Hebrews, BiblicalTexts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman (ed. A. Rapoport-Albert andG. 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 ofSolomon,” 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, SelectedEpisodes 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 BabylonianExile up to the Arab Conquest (Jerusalem: Bialik, 19844 [in Hebrew]).

Baer, Y. F., “The Problem of Religion in the Hasmonean Period,” in: Knowledge ofthe 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 orHistorical 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 TemplePeriod,” The Scrolls of the Judaean Desert: Forty Years of Research (ed. M. Broshiet al; Jerusalem: Bialik and Israel Exploration Society, 1992) 139–151 (in Hebrew).

Beckwith, R., The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and itsBackground in Early Judaism (London: SPCK, 1985).

Bell, H. I., “Philanthropia in the Papyri of the Roman Period,” Hommages à JosephBidez et à Franz Cumont (Collection Latomus 2; Bruxelles: Latomus, 1949)31–37.

Bengtson, H., Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit. Ein Beitrag zum antikenStaatsrecht, I–III (Münchner Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antikenRechtsgeschichte; 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 christlichenKanon,” 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 (Leuvenu.a.: Peeters, 1988).

Bons, E., “ΕΛΠΙΣ comme l’espérance de la vie dans l’au-delà dans la littératurejuive 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 includingThe God of the Maccabees (AJEC 68/1–2; ed. A. Tropper; Leiden: Brill, 2007).


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 ofNiese, 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 ViertenMakkabäerbuchs (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 inII 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. LiDonniciand 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: JewishPublication 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 SeventiethBirthday (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 deMaredsous, 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 andLiterature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman andA. Hurvitz; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 805–813.


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 onthe 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 andG. 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 etphilologiques 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 jüdischenFreiheitskrieges,” Vierteljahrsschrift für Bibelkunde, talmudische und patristischeStudien, 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, TheHasmonean Period, 303–310 (in Hebrew).

Enermalm-Ogawa, A., Un langage de prière juif en grec: Le témoignage des deuxpremiers 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 ConstitutionesApostolorum (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 andS. 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 Memoryof Menahem Stern (ed. I. M. Gafni, A. Oppenheimer and D. R. Schwartz;Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar and Historical Society of Israel, 1996) 55–82 (inHebrew).

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: ZalmanShazar 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,


A. Oppenheimer and D. R. Schwartz; Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar and HistoricalSociety 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, Antiquities12, 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 IsraelExploration Society, 1990) 21–38.

Gera, D. and W. Horowitz, “Antiochus IV in Life and Death: Evidence from theBabylonian 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,” HellenisticHistory 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., ΕΝΤΕ��ΕΙΣ: 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 Secondand Fourth Books of Maccabees,” in: Commentationes Iudaico-Hellenisticae inMemoriam 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 [inHebrew]).

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 andJewish 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).


Hanhart, R., “Die Heiligen des Höchsten,” in: Hebräische Wortforschung: Festsch-rift zum. 80. Geburtstag von Walter Baumgartner (VTSup 16; ed. B. Hartmannet 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 AncientJewish and Early Christian Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1996).

Heinemann, I., “The Relationship Between the Jewish People and their Land inHellenistic-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: SelectedTexts from Graeco-Roman, Jewish and Christian Antiquity (London and NewYork: 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, theMishnah 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: CambridgeUniv., 1987).

Hertz, J. H. (ed.), The Authorised Daily Prayer Book (3 vols.; London: NationalCouncil 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 derHorst 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 zum65. Geburtstag (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971).

Johnson, S. R., Historical Fictions and Hellenistic Jewish Identity: Third Maccabeesin Its Cultural Context (HCS 43; Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: Univ. ofCalifornia, 2004).


Jossa, G., “La storiografia giudeo-ellenistica: Il secondo libro dei Maccabei e laGuerra giudaica di Flavio Giuseppe,” La storiografia della Bibbia (Atti della28 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 undgesellschaftlicher Wandel 8; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2004).

Kahana, A. (ed.), HaSepharim HaHizonim, II/1 (Tel-Aviv: Meqorot, 1936/37 [inHebrew]).

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 (332BCE – 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 andRoman Era (332 BCE – 70 CE) (TSAJ 18; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1988).

Kasher, A., The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for EqualRights (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 TimesUp 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 ofthe 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 undzur 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 undFranke, 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 ofHanhart, 2 Macc and Hanhart, Text). Reprinted, with original pagination, andwith 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 inthe Vocabulary and Thematics of III Maccabees (Heracleon, Crete: VikelaiaVivliotheke, 1987 [in Greek]).

Kosters, W. H., “De polemiek van het tweede boek der Makkabeën,” TheologischTijdschrift 12 (1878) 491–558.

Kraft, R., “Christian Transmission of Greek Jewish Scriptures: A MethodologicalProbe,” Paganisme, Judaïsme, Christianisme: Influences et affrontements dansle 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 theAmerican Schools of Oriental Research 41; Cambridge: American Schools ofOriental Research, 1974).

Laqueur, R., “Griechische Urkunden in der jüdisch-hellenistischen Literatur,” HZ136 (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 InstitutumJudaicum 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.


Lenger, M.-Th., Corpus des ordonnances des Ptolémées (C. Ord. Ptol.) (Académieroyale 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 del’indemnité aux Romains,” Essays in Honour of Robert Carson and KennethJenkins (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-TübingenResarch 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,” HarryAustryn Wolfson Jubilee Volume, II (Jerusalem: American Academy for JewishResearch, 1965) 495–532.

Lieberman, S., Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Life and Manners of JewishPalestine 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 notreère),” 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 SecondTemple” (PhD. Diss., Hebrew University [Jerusalem] and École pratique deshautes 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 byH. 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 duvocabulaire 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 ofLate Antiquity,” Sidra 10 (1994) 83–94 (in Hebrew).

Millar, F., “The Background to the Maccabean Revolution: Reflections on MartinHengel’s ‘Judaism and Hellenism,’” JJS 29 (1978) 1–21.

Mitford, T. B., “Ptolemy Macron,” Studi in onore di Aristide Calderini e RobertoParibeni, II (Milano: Ceschina, 1957) 163–187.

Mölleken, W., “Geschichtsklitterung im I. Makkabäerbuch (Wann wurde AlkimusHoherpriester?),” 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).


Momigliano, A., “The Romans and the Maccabees,” Nono contributo alla storiadegli studi classici e del mondo antico (Storia e Letteratura 180; Roma: Ed. diStoria e Letteratura, 1992) 747–761 (originally in: A. Rapoport-Albert andS. 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. Württembergischenevangelisch-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 dermakkabäischen 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 twoinstallments in Hermes 35 (1900). To find pages in Hermes, add 267 to my referencesup 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-RomanPeriod: 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 lafondation 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 re-ligiosa 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 JewishPeople], 1986 [Hebrew and English]).

Porter, S. E., Καταλλ�σσ� 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’ellenismocome paganesimo,” Ricerche storico bibliche, I [Israele alla ricerca di identtà trail III sec. a.C. e il I sec. d. C.] (1989) 99–122.

Preisigke, F., Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden: mit Einschluß dergriechischen 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.,” TheologischesLiteraturblatt 24 (1903), cols. 457–464, 481–484.


Rahlfs, A., Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments (NAWBeiheft, 1914 = Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens der KöniglichenGesellschaft 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 theRoman 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 andSocial Interaction (AGAJU 48; Leiden: Brill, 2001).

Rampolla del Tindaro, M., “Martyre et sépultre des Macchabées,” Revue de l’artChrétien 48 (1899) 377–392.

Rappaport, U., “Akko-Ptolemais and the Jews in the Hellenistic Period,” Cathedra50 (December 1988) 31–48 (in Hebrew).

Rappaport, U., “The Extradition Clause in 1 Maccabees, XV, 21,” Immigrationand Emigration Within the Ancient Near East: Festschrift E. Lipinski (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 FutureProspects (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 mitÜbersetzung 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 HeathenWriters 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 desMaccabées,” 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 OrientaliaIoanni 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 HellenisticPeriod,” Iraq 16 (1954) 202–211.

Savigni, R., “Istanze ermeneutiche e ridefinizione del canone in Rabano Mauro: Ilcommentario 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-theol-

ogische 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. Avemarieand G. S. Oegema; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2003) 109–116.

Schwartz, D. R., “From the Maccabees to Masada: On Diasporan Historiographyof 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.


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 dergriechisch-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 ofJerusalem, and Heaven,” Zion 62 (1997/98) 5–22 (in Hebrew).

Schwartz, D. R., “ΚΑΤΑ ΤΟ<ΤΟΝ ΤΟΝ ΚΑΙΡΟΝ: Josephus’ Source on AgrippaII,” JQR 72 (1981/82) 241–268.

Schwartz, D. R., “Mizpeh, Alema, Mella, Pella (I Maccabees 5:35): Philology andHistorical Geography in Judas Maccabeus’ Campaign to the Gilead,” Studies inthe History of Eretz Israel Presented to Yehuda Ben Porat (ed. Y. Ben-Arieh andE. Reiner; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2003) 27–38 (in Hebrew).

Schwartz, D. R., “On Some Papyri and Josephus’ Sources and Chronology for thePersian 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 inEarly 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. Hilgertand 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 andC. 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: PolitischeTheologie in Judentum, Christentum und Islam (Linzer philosophisch-theo-logische 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 Simonsens70-aarige Fødselsdag (København: Hertz’s, 1923) 188–205.

Scullard, H. H., The Elephant in the Greek and Roman World (London: Thamesand 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 enverhandelingen 9; Leiden: Brill, 1948).

Seeligmann, J. A., “Jerusalem in Jewish-Hellenistic Thought,” Judah and Jerusa-lem: The Twelfth Archaeological Convention (Jerusalem: Israel ExplorationSociety, 1957) 192–208 (in Hebrew).

Shatzman, I., The Armies of the Hasmonaeans and Herod: From Hellenistic toRoman Frameworks (TSAJ 25; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1991).

Shatzman, I., “The Hasmonean Army,” in: Amit and Eshel (ed.), The HasmoneanPeriod, 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 ofJohn 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 Monumentto 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).


Spicq, C., Notes de lexicographie néo-testamentaire, I–II + Supplément (OBO22/1–3; 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 Abrahamto 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 midrasim connessi,”

in: G. Busi (ed.), We-zo’t le-Angelo: Raccolta di studi giudaici in memoria diAngelo 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 undEschatologie 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 ofMenelaus,” 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 (332–37B.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 CenturiesB.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: ZalmanShazar, 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 aufdem 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 theJapanese 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 KhirbetQumran 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,” TheHebrew 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 texteschrétiens,” BIHBR 20 (1939) 141–163.

Vinson, M., “Gregory Nanzianzen’s Homily 15 and the Genesis of the ChristianCult of the Maccabean Martyrs,” Byzantion 64 (1994) 166–192.

Volkmann, H., Die Massenversklavungen der Einwohner eroberter Städte in derhellenistisch-römischer Zeit (Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschaft-lichen Klasse der Akademie der Wissenschaften und Literatur, 1961, Nr. 3; Wies-baden: Steiner, 1961).


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 AncientWorld,” 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 diBretschneider, 1990) 175–191.

Weinreich, O., “Türöffnung im Wunder-, Prodigien- und Zauberglauben der Antike,des Judentums und Christentums,” Genethliakon Wilhelm Schmid (TübingerBeiträge 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 universi-taires 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 Beiträgezur 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 ShebetYehudah (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 theMother of the Maccabean Martyrs,” “Women Like This:” New Perspectives onJewish Women in the Greco-Roman World (Society of Biblical Literature: EarlyJudaism 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 neutestament-lichen 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 inthe country of Judaea: greetings (and) good peace. (2) And may God be be-neficent unto you and remember His covenant with Abraham and Isaac andJacob His faithful servants; (3) and may He give you, all of you, a heart torevere 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 reconciledwith 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 thecrisis which came upon us in these years, beginning when Jason and thosewho 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 prayedto the Lord and He hearkened unto us, and we brought sacrifices and fineflour. And we lit the lamps and presented the showbreads. (9) And now (wehave 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 andJudas to Aristobulus the teacher of King Ptolemy, who is of the line of theanointed priests, and to the Jews in Egypt: greetings and good health.(11) Having been saved by God from great dangers, we – who drew our-selves up for war against the king – give great thanks unto Him. (12) For HeHimself 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 beirresistible, they were cut down in the temple of Nanaia, the priests of Na-naia having employed a stratagem. (14) Namely, when Antiochus and hisFriends came to the place as if to cohabit with her, in order to take the greatsums 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, accom-panied by a few people, had come to the precinct of the sacred enclosure,then, after Antiochus entered, they locked the temple and, (16) havingopened the secret door of the compartment in the ceiling, they thundereddown upon the leader, throwing rocks (through it); after cutting them topieces and severing their heads they cast them out to those outside. (17) Forall 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 purifi-cation of the Temple, we thought it necessary to inform you so that you tooshall celebrate it as the holiday of Tabernacles and fire that Nehemiah (cel-ebrated) when, after constructing the Temple and the altar, he offered up sac-rifices. (19) For when our fathers came to the Persian country the piouspriests of the time, having taken fire from the altar, secretly hid it in the hol-low of an empty cistern, and they secured it there so that the place remainedunknown to all. (20) But after enough years had passed, as seemed appro-priate 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 vis-cous liquid, he ordered them to draw it up and bring it. And when the thingspertaining to the sacrifices had been offered up (on the altar) Nehemiah or-dered the priests to douse with the liquid the pieces of wood and that whichlay upon them. (22) When that was done and time passed, the sun lit up – hav-ing previously been clouded over – and a great fire broke out, so that every-one was amazed. (23) And the priests prayed while the sacrifice was con-sumed – 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 andjust 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 allevil, who chose the Patriarchs and sanctified them – (26) accept thissacrifice on behalf of all Your people Israel and protect Your portionand hallow it. (27) Gather in our diaspora, emancipate those who areenslaved among the Gentiles, look down upon those who are set atnaught and held to be abominable, and let the gentiles know that Youare 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 sacrificehad been consumed, Nehemiah ordered that the remaining liquid be


poured out upon large rocks. (32) When that was done, fire broke out, butit was consumed when the light was reflected back from the altar. (33)When what had happened became known, and the king of Persia was toldthat in the place, where the exiled priests had hidden the fire, this liquidhad appeared from which Nehemiah’s people had sanctified the parts ofthe sacrifice, (34) the king – after getting confirmation of the event – fencedoff (the place) roundabout and made it into a temple. (35) And the kingtook large sums of money and bestowed them upon the people who haddrawn out (the liquid). (36) Those who were with Nehemiah called itnephthar, which in translation means “purification,” but among mostpeople it is called nephthai.

(Chapter 2: Continuation of Second Epistle)

(1) And it is found in the writings that the prophet Jeremiah ordered the ex-iles 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 com-mandments and not to go astray in their minds when seeing golden andsilver idols and all their ornaments. (3) And saying other similar things heencouraged them not to let the Law depart from their hearts. (4) In that textit 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 (ofthe Covenant), when he went out to the mountain from which Moses, afterascending it, viewed the inheritance of God. (5) And Jeremiah, after goingthere, found a cave-like house and brought into it the Tabernacle and theark and the altar of incense, whereupon he blocked the way to the door.(6) When some of them who had together followed him approached inorder to mark the way, they could not find it. (7) When Jeremiah learned ofthis, he rebuked them saying:

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

(9) And we have also been informed that, being wise, (Solomon) offeredup a sacrifice for the rededication and completion of the Temple. (10) Andjust as Moses prayed before the Lord, and fire descended from heavenand consumed the parts of the sacrifice, so too did Solomon pray, and fire


descended and consumed the whole burnt offerings. (11) And Mosessaid: “Since the sin-offering was not to be eaten, it was consumed.” (12) Sotoo did Solomon celebrate the eight days. (13) And the same things arealso related in the records and in the memoirs of the days of Nehemiah, aswell as that he, having founded a library, collected the books concerningthe kings and the prophets, and also David’s books, and kings’ epistlesconcerning votive offerings. (14) So too did Judas gather all (the writings)which had been scattered by the war which transpired, and they are withus. (15) So if you ever have need of any of them, send people to bring themto you.

Conclusion of Second Epistle

(16) So, as we are about to celebrate the (holiday of) purification, we havewritten you; and you will indeed do well if you celebrate the days. (17) Forthe God who saved His entire people and returned to all (of us) the inherit-ance, including the kingdom and the priesthood and the sanctity, (18) as ispromised in the Law – in that God we place our hope, that He will speedilybe merciful to us and gather us from (all places) under heaven unto the HolyPlace; 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 anattachment to the letters. Indeed, the seventh verse of the first letter seemsexplicitly to refer to the book, summarizing it as the story of events whichbegan 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-fourtimes 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 festi-val commemorating the rededication of the Temple. It is very straightfor-ward: 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 aprologue, see above, pp. 4–6.


expressions of good will (vv. 2–5), whereupon the writers segue in v. 6 intothe matter at hand (vv. 7–10a): they summarize the story from the adventof Jason to the rededication of the Temple and then urge the recipients tojoin in the celebration of the holiday instituted to commemorate thatevent.

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 interpo-lation (vv. 13–16), and (b) the main body (1:18–2:15) tells its story in re-verse historical order. It begins somewhat like the first letter: a salutationfrom the Jews of Jerusalem to the Jews of Egypt (which adds some specificnames on both sides – v. 10b) is followed by a summary reporting that Godhad 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 cel-ebration of the holiday. In between, there are two main parts and each pres-ents some difficulties.

The first part, 1:11–17, follows its opening statements, about God hav-ing saved “us” (v. 11) by expelling those who had drawn up for waragainst the Holy City (v. 12), with a story (vv. 13–16) about Antiochus IV’stroubles and death in Persia, after having attacked a temple there. Whilethis contributes to the general case that God punishes evildoers in general –especially for attacks upon temples – and punished Antiochus IV in par-ticular, it focuses on the wrong temple. Moreover, there is some evidentclumsiness at its introduction, as is seen by the repetition of γ�ρ in bothv. 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), isthe 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 letterthat focused upon the salvation of Jerusalem and the expulsion of a Jewishvillain, a section which “enriched” the letter by telling a story about thedownfall of Antiochus Epiphanes, who is also a prominent villain in ourbook.

At this point, 1:18, the letter initiates its second main move, namely, thetracing of the history of the central functional element of the Temple of Je-rusalem: the fire on its altar. The story begins with Nehemiah, describinghow at his direction the priests, at the time of the building of the SecondTemple, found a viscous liquid in the cave in which the fire from the FirstTemple had been hidden at the time of its destruction. This liquid, whenpoured upon the altar, ignited in an amazing way; thus, more or less mir-aculously, the fire on the altar of the Second Temple may be seen to beidentical with, and hence just as legitimate as, the fire which was on thealtar of the First Temple.


Having shown that, and having noted that Nehemiah had instructedthe priests to pour the remaining oil onto rocks, which evidently absorbedit (the significance of which will be explained below), the epistle now goeson, in its continuation in Chapter 2,2 to trace the Temple’s fire backthrough 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 FirstTemple, arranged for the fire to be hidden (thus amplifying the brief ac-count 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, thetwo most important points for the author of the letter: that the fire in usein the First Temple descended from heaven when Solomon dedicated it (aclaim explicit already in 2 Chr 7:1) and that Solomon celebrated theTemple’s dedication for eight days (so 1 Kgs 8:66 and 2 Chr 7:9–10).These two points guarantee, respectively, the ultimately heavenly andhence 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 collectedfirst by Nehemiah and then again by Judas Maccabaeus, the epistle endswith a call upon its recipients to join in the celebration of the new festivalcelebrating the Temple’s rededication – Hanukkah (2:16). This invitationis bolstered by a heavy peroration (vv. 17–18) that underlines the unity ofthe Jewish people.

As for the question of why Nehemiah had the unused oil poured ontorocks, the answer is given in 10:3: when Judas Maccabaeus and his men re-dedicate the Temple, the fire for the altar was supplied by “igniting rocksand extracting fire from them.” That is, these rocks served the same func-tion as had the cave chosen by Jeremiah: to store and preserve the originalsacred 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 at-tached to a chain which links it back to Solomon, and so to heaven, assuringthe legitimacy of the restored Temple – and leaving no doubt about the pro-priety of celebrating its rededication. Q.E.D.

Questions concerning the dating and authenticity of these two letters aredealt 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 foreignrule, see Weitzman, Surviving Sacrilege, 25–28.


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 ep-istle” from Elephantine (A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth CenturyB.C. [Oxford: Clarendon, 1923], no. 21) and Rabban Gamaliel’s letterscited in t. Sanh 2:6 (ed. Zuckermandel, 416–417): “To our brethren theGalileans … and to our brethren the southerners … and to our brethren ofthe Babylonian diaspora …”4 Cf. NOTE on 10:21, brethren.

the Jews in Jerusalem and in the country of Judaea. This formulationimplies that the city of Jerusalem has its “country” (ξ)ρα), that is, Judaeais the territory that surrounds Jerusalem and is defined by it. The writer isusing standard Hellenistic terminology, just as, for example, 1 Macca-bees 14:36–37; Letter of Aristeas 83; Josephus, Antiquities 13.284 (�ν B Ιε-ροσολ�μοι« κα� τP ξ)ρQ); Acts 10:39 (*ν τε τP ξ)ρQ τ�ν B Ιοψδα �νκα� B Ιεροψσαλημ), etc.; see also above, p. 6, n. 8. Such usage is especiallyprevalent with regard to Alexandria and Egypt; so e.g. Letter of Aristeas107–111; 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 bemedina, which is frequently paired with ‘ir (“city”); so, for example, “it isallowed 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. MaaserSheni 3.4).

greetings (ξα�ρειν). This is a standard Hellenistic opening, which appearsin 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. AsExler 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 toportray himself as less important than the recipient – the same usage thatfigures as part of the joke at 9:19, below. But that does not seem to be thecase in the present epistle, and anyway the end of this verse will show that itis not to be judged by the standards of Greek letters.

4 On rabbinic reports concerning the emissaries who brought calendrical informationfrom 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.


good peace. A typically Aramaic formulation; the wish for “peace” appearsat 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, inlight of what is assembled in our next note.

2. be beneficent unto (!γα"οπο�ησαι). From here until v. 5 we have astring 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 seealso NOTE on 9:9, worms) and to the Babylonians’ introduction of theirabominations into the Temple (Jer 32:34; cf. below, 6:4–5 and 10:2–3), butalso has Jeremiah expressing his hope that God will “be beneficent” to theresidents 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 toMoses, 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 especiallyimportant to cite here Exodus 2:24 and Leviticus 26:42. In both of thesepassages, recalling the covenant with the fathers introduces the end ofexile – just as in Jeremiah 32 (v. 37), and as such is especially appropriate ina letter from Jerusalem to the Diaspora.

with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. For reference to them in a similar con-text, in a letter urging celebration of a holiday, and expressing the hope thatGod will become reconciled with the addressees, see 2 Chronicles 30:6.

His faithful (πιστ#ν). On πιστ�« and related terms in our book, seeNOTE on 3:22, to preserve the trusts … entrusted. For Abraham as “faith-ful,” 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 faith-ful” – ]mXn, πιστ�«).

servants (δο%λν … πιστ#ν). On δο�λο« in ancient religious terminologyand the depth of obligation which it expresses, see: Spicq, Notes,1.211–215 and Enermalm-Ogawa, Langage de prière, 135–136. See also7:6, 33; 8:29.


3. and may He give you, all of you. There is an apparent emphasis upon thefact that the letter is addressed to all the Jews of Egypt – a call for nationalunity 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 benefi-cent unto, that both elements of this seem to recall Jeremiah 32:39; now wemay add that Jeremiah’s reference there to one heart fits our verse’s impliedcall for unity.

wholeheartedly (καρδ�' μεγ�λ)). Lit.: “with a big heart.” But it is clearthat what is intended is the common biblical phrase, “with a completeheart” (,l> blb), for which see especially 1 Chronicles 28:9 where, ashere, it is joined by “and with a willing spirit.” The same phrases reappearin Rabbi Alexandri’s prayer quoted in b. Berakhot 17a preserved in thedaily Uva leZion prayer: “May He open our heart unto His Torah … thatwe may do His will and serve Him with a perfect heart” (Hertz, AuthorisedDaily Prayer Book, 1.204–5).

4. may He open your heart in His Torah. This phrase too reappears in theUva leZion prayer, on the basis of the prayer of Mar, son of Rabina, cited inthe Talmud (loc. cit.): “He will open our hearts in his Torah.” For a remark-able medieval understanding of the phrase that takes the implied physiologyquite seriously, see I. Ta-Shma, JQR 87 (1996/97) 237–238. Cf. ApostolicConstitutions 8.6.5 (ed. F. X. Funk, 478 = Fiensy, Prayers, 92–93: “open theears of their hearts”).

the commandments (προστ�γμασι). This term compares the commands ofthe Torah to those of Hellenistic kings, for whose decrees this was the stan-dard term (see Lenger, Corpus); see NOTE on 7:30, decree of the king …decree of the Law. (Elsewhere, we indeed translate “decrees,” even – as in7:30, 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” andthose of the king. But here, in light of this letter’s Semitic background, westuck to the Jewish term “commandments,” just as we used “Torah” in-stead of Law for ν�μο« 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


sinners who have not yet repented and have not yet been forgiven … onlyafter the mention of God’s forgiveness in vs. 5 is there room for a prayer forpeace in vss. 3–5.” Even if we subscribed to his reading of the implication ofvv. 3–4 we could still read the text as is with no difficulty: the peace-makingmentioned here would be the result of – or would allow for – God’s hearingof 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 asgeneral language always appropriate to prayer, which need not imply anyspecific statement about the Jews of Egypt.

5. and may He hear your requests. This is polite: to express the wish thatGod hear the recipients’ prayers eliminates the impression that the writersthink their own prayers for the Egyptian Jews are sufficient, the onlyprayers 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 variousforms (5:20; 7:33; 8:29). However, it is not only exceptional; it is also cen-tral 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,Καταλλ�σσ� in Ancient Greek Literature. The use of this verb here, in thisletter attached to the book, means that the Judaean readers of the book,who wrote this letter to accompany it, correctly recognized the notion’s cen-trality, and alluded to it here. For a similar move on their part, see NOTE on10:4, fall … edified. The assumption that these words reflect the Judaeans’reading of the book and not – pace Goldstein (see NOTE on v. 4, and makepeace) – any particular view on Egyptian Jewry, is important regarding thenext bit of text as well:

and not abandon you in an evil time. Just as we shied away, in v. 4, fromseeing any special reference to the sins of Egyptian Jewry, so too here wehesitate to follow those who, such as Bickerman (Studies, 2.155–156),would infer that Egyptian Jews were undergoing particular troubles at thetime of this letter; see Appendix 1, p. 524, n. 18. Rather, these are routine el-ements of prayer; see for example Psalms 37:18–19 (“The Lord knows thedays of the blameless, and their heritage will abide for ever; they are not putto shame in evil times, in the days of famine they have abundance”) andFlusser, “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 notabandon it in a time of trouble.” Had the writers of our letter seen their ad-


dressees as suffering some special troubles, it is doubtful that they couldhave ignored that in the continuation of the letter, when they get down tobrass tacks. Here, until the transition in vv. 6–7, we are still reading the gen-eral introduction.

6. And now. Transitional words, as in Ezra 4:17 and 5:17, and in almostevery Aramaic letter; see Fitzmyer, “Notes,” 216. Cf. Acts 5:5, 33. Here thetransition 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 thefinal urging in v. 9. For the same usage in prayers, see esp. our NOTE on14:36, And now.

praying for you. Mention of the prayer on behalf of the addressees is meantto encourage them to acquiesce to the writers’ request. Compare, forexample, Jonathan’s letter to his Spartan “brethren” (1 Macc 12:11) andPaul’s opening of his first letter to the Thessalonians.

7. In the reign of Demetrius, year 169. We may assume that a letter fromthe Jews of Jerusalem uses the Jewish (Babylonian) method of reckoning theSeleucid 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 inthe 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 aletter preserved at 1 Maccabees 13:36–40 this Demetrius freed Judaea of alltaxation, 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, butthe original must have had one, at its conclusion (see e.g. the letters inCh. 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 authorfound the date in the document itself and wove it into his narrative (for asimilar case, see 1 Macc 15:10). This means, however, that the date in1 Maccabees 13:41 should be understood according to the Seleucid’s own(Macedonian) system, counting from the autumn of 312 BCE, in which case170 SE was the year that began in the autumn of 143. That year overlappedwith the one specified here between the autumn of 143 and the spring of142 BCE, and we may assume, therefore, that this letter was written dur-ing that period, in anticipation of the celebration of Hanukkah 143 or142 BCE – the first celebration of the holiday in conditions of Jewish inde-pendence. For more detail, see Appendix 1.


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 suchissues, see my “Jew or Judaean?.”

have written (γεγρ�φαμεν). The use of the perfect here has engendereddifficulties because normally, in Greek, it would refer to somethingwritten prior to the present document. This led commentators, beginningwith Bickerman (see Appendix 1), to propose viewing the next few versesas a quotation from such an earlier letter. However, as Torrey noted(“Letters,” 123; so too Zeitlin, 2 Macc, 101), the verb refers to the presentletter itself. On such usage, which reflects the point of view of the recipi-ent (who is reading after – perhaps even long after – the letter waswritten), 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 Torahthat we thought appropriate for you and your people;” the reference is tothe 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 notperfect; that is of no significance here, for our letter was translated from alanguage – Hebrew or Aramaic – that does not distinguish between thetwo.

concerning the oppression and the crisis which came upon us (�ν τ* "λ�χεικα, �ν τ* !κμ* τ* �πελ"ο%σ) -μ.ν). We translated on the assumption thatthere is an allusion here to Proverbs 1:27: “when oppression and crisis comeupon you” (LXX: *ρξονται Fμ�ν �λ�χι« κα� πολιορκ α). For 0κμ2 as a cri-sis, a “pinnacle” of troubles, cf. 4:13 and 12:22, along with LSJ, 51, s.v. Asfor “concerning,” we translated on the assumption that the Jews of Judaeawere not, according to our author, suffering from oppression and crisis atthe time of writing, in 169 SE, since the rest of our verse makes it clear thatthe troubles belong to a past generation, the period between Jason and therededication 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 hisvv. 7–8 to summarize the main points of the book which the letter will ac-company, namely:

beginning when Jason and those who were with him. The episodes concern-ing 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


that the book, accompanied by this letter, was basically understood as onedealing with the period that opened with Jason; see above, pp. 4-6.

rebelled (!πωστη). The Hebrew sar, which apparently lies behind the Greekhere, is frequently used in the sense of rebellion; for examples from anotherwork of the second century BCE see Damascus Document 1:13–14 and7:11–13. Thus, the use of this word intimates an element of insolence, re-bellion, not just innocent “going astray.”

the Holy Land. This is the only time this term appears in our book, whichotherwise 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 bookitself. 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 ap-pearance altogether since Zechariah (2:16: >dqh tmdX//τ,ν γ#ν τ,ν4γ 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 landrather than the city.

and the kingdom. Which kingdom? The phrase is ambiguous: does it referto the Seleucid kingdom or to that of God? The former is perhaps simplerfrom the point of view of language and context (given the reference toDemetrius 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 byAntiochus III (4:11), he did it with the cooperation of Antiochus IV. And inany case it is difficult to think that a nationalist Judaean writer, such as theauthor of the present letter, would characterize Jason, whom he viewed as avillain, as having done something of which such a writer would approve –rebelling against the Seleucid government. Similarly, this passage should notbe 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 noreason at all to condemn it as such if that were, nevertheless, how he con-sidered it. Moreover, if the present reference were to events described inChapter 5, this summary of the book would be skipping not only the eventsof 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 characteriz-ation of Jason as having rebelled against the kingdom of God. Note that thesame verb is used at 5:8 to speak of Jason having rebelled against the laws


(τ�ν ν�μ�ν 0ποστ�τη«), where the reference is to Jewish law, whichamounts to rebelling against God. And the same interpretation is supportedby the details supplied in v. 8, which too point to sins against the Temple (orJerusalem) and the Jews, not against the Seleucid government. The term“kingdom” was probably selected in order to serve the same purpose as thatof προστ�γματα in v. 4: the writers wish to remind their brethren in Egyptof the kingdom of God, which is supposed to oblige them all. On this con-cept 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, holygates.

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 likewater around Jerusalem.” This psalm, which opens “Gentiles have comeinto Your inheritance and defiled Your holy sanctuary,” could – like Jere-miah 32 (see NOTE on v. 2, be beneficent unto) – easily be read in connec-tion with the events of this period. For a consideration of the pros and consof the once widely-held view, that Psalm 74 was in fact composed in thisperiod, see H. Donner, “Argumente.”

and we brought sacrifices and fine flour. For a similar account in the bookitself, see 10:3. It seems that whole-offerings and meal-offerings are meant;see Daniel, Recherches, 222, 257. Some witnesses read “sacrifice” in thesingular (�ψσ αν rather than �ψσ α«), thus pointing to the familiar phrasehxnmv xbz (e.g. Isa 19:21; Jer 17:26; Ps 40:7); so Kahana, HaSepharim, 178and Torrey, “Letters,” 142 (Xxnmv xbd).

the lamps (λ%ξνοψ«) and presented the showbreads. The former were on thearms of the candelabrum. For the lamps and the showbread, in that order ashere, see Leviticus 24:1–9. Note that, just as here, so too at 10:3 apart fromsacrifices the only appurtenances of the Temple that are mentioned are thecandelabrum and the showbread. As we have argued, it seems that the twopassages 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 apparentlyconsidered to be its prime symbols; see D. Barag, “The Menorah in theRoman and Byzantine Periods: A Messianic Symbol,” BAIAS 1985/86,44–47. However, note that the table (upon which the showbread was setout) 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


first. It may be that this reflects the context, given the fact that Hanukkah isknown as the festival of lights (so already Josephus, Ant. 12.325). On theTemple’s candelabrum during the Second Temple period see L. I. Levine,“The History and Significance of the Menorah in Antiquity,” in: FromDura 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 mainverb (“to inform”) is explicit; here the present phrase depends, implicitly,on “have written you” in v. 7, which we have parenthetically repeated forthe sake of clarity.

the days of (the festival of) Tabernacles (σκηνοπηγ�α«) of the month ofKislev. This name for Hanukkah recurs below, v. 18. In the Septuagint,σκηνοπηγ α is the usual term for the holiday of Tabernacles (so too1 Macc 10:21; John 7:2; etc.); the present designation of Hanukkah seems,accordingly, to reflect an early interpretation of Hanukkah that links it, andthe fact that it was eight days long (note “days” here), to Tabernacles. Thisis explained below, at 10:6–7 (yet another link between this letter and10:1–8).

10. Of the year 148. Of the Seleucid era; assuming again (as at v. 7), as isappropriate for a letter such as this, that the Jewish (Babylonian) reckoningis followed, this turns into the year beginning in the spring of 164 BCE, theyear which includes, in Kislev (ca. December), Judas Maccabaeus’ rededi-cation of the Temple – the first Hanukkah. In other words, this letter, whichis dated to 143/142 BCE (v. 7), is inviting the addressees to celebrate theholiday commemorating the famous event “of the year 148.” The reading“148,” which we have adopted, is found in two miniscules (nos. 55, 62), ofwhich 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 ithas 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.


written in that year and quoting one written in 169 SE. But that relies upona misunderstanding of the verb in v. 7 (see our NOTE ad loc. on havewritten). Moreover, there seems to have been no particular reason to sendsuch a letter as this in 124 BCE, nor, if they were sent annually, is there anyapparent 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”) istaken for granted.

the Council of Elders. On the gerousia see NOTE on 4:44, Council ofElders.

Judas. Apparently – Maccabaeus. That is, the letter purports to be writtenby him (and his colleagues) to the Jews of Egypt after having received newsof the death of Antiochus Epiphanes (vv. 13–17) and on the eve of celebra-ting the first Hanukkah (v. 18 and 2:16). The order of events is thus asbelow, Chapters 9–10, and the letter would seem to be a notification of theJews 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 ofevents conforms to that in the body of the book does not prove that thisletter is an integral part of the book, for it seems that 10:1–8 itself is a sec-ondary addition to the book; see above, pp. 8–9. It is difficult to guess whenthis letter was written, and – pace Goldstein, 2 Macc, 157–159 – it cannotbe excluded that it is based upon an original going back to Judas himself;see Wacholder, “Letter from Judah Maccabee” and Flusser, “Dedication ofthe Temple,” 55–78. However, if there was such an authentic kernel, itgrew; see NOTE on v. 12, For (γ�ρ) 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 fromQumran (DJD 5.38), and so frequently in Palestinian texts. In the body ofour 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 thesame name; see esp. Holladay, Fragments, 3, with pp. 45–46 on this verse.


who is of the line of the … priests. This notice that Aristobulus was a priestis not supported elsewhere, and it certainly does fit the interests of thewriter, who is clearly fascinated by the Temple. But neither consideration isreason enough to doubt the notice. The high status of priests in the Jewishcommunity 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 SecondTemple period since the anointment oil was one of the things lost at the timeof 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 col-lective implies that he held some administrative or representative positionwithin the community – similar to that of Judas Maccabaeus, who issingled out alongside the other authors of the letter. We know that Egyp-tian Jewry had “ethnarchs” (Strabo, apud Josephus, Ant. 14.117; ibid19.283) 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 versewe have no evidence for Aristobulus filling such a role. For an Alexan-drian Jewish philosopher, said (by Jerome) to have been a priest, whodid fulfill communal responsibilities, see Philo’s Legatio 178ff. and his

6 For the argument that the priests mentioned at Let. Arist. 310 are not Alexandrianbut rather, Judaean, such as those mentioned in §184, see C. Zuckerman, “Hellenisticpoliteumata 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 men-tioned in §53 only to demonstrate their ignorance of the Tora prescriptions” (so theauthor would not want to depend upon them in §310). In my opinion that is quite anarbitrary reading of §53(–56), for all that is said there is that when some priests andother Alexandrian Jews told the king he could build a larger table for the Temple ofJerusalem, if he so desired, he decided to preserve the current measurements; theTorah is not mentioned, and the story is meant to show not the priests’ ignorance of itbut, rather, the king’s respect for Jewish tradition. Lüderitz too has rejected Zucker-man’s interpretation: “Politeuma,” 206. (In general, Zuckerman’s case against theexistence of Hellenistic Jewish politeumata, of which the priests would be part of theleadership, has since been undermined by Cowey & Maresch, Urkunden; see esp.A. Kasher’s review of the latter: JQR 93 [2002/3] 257–268.)


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 privateletters; see Habicht, “Royal Documents,” 5 and the NOTE on 9:19, manygreetings … Bickerman (Studies, 2.136–137) depended on this formulationto date the present letter, since – apart from one instance in the fourth cen-tury BCE – it is not in evidence before the middle of the first century BCE; sotoo Goldstein, 2 Macc, 164–165. But such considerations are not very re-liable, for salutations are among those parts of documents that are mostvulnerable to editing in texts passed on from one generation to the next.

11. Having been saved. The genitive absolute indicates both the timing andthe causal relationship: we give thanks to God after He saved us because Hesaved us.

from great (μεγ�λν) dangers. These words can apply to the entire storytold by the book, through the dedication of the Temple in Chapter 10. For asummary, see 8:2–4.

we – who drew ourselves up for war against the king. That is: we, who drewourselves up for war against the Seleucid king, must thank God. The nextverse will explain why. Here there is a clear subscription to the notion ofdual causality (see Seeligmann, “Menschliches Heldentum,” and Amit,“Dual Causality Principle”): we drew ourselves up to fight, but it is Godwho achieved the results. Some scholars would emend the text here, so as tohave 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 nextverse would become somewhat redundant.

give great (μεγ�λ«) thanks. The use of the adverbial form of the adjectiveused earlier in the verse underlines that the thanksgiving is commensuratewith the dangers faced.

12. For (γ�ρ) He Himself drove out (� ωβρασε) those who drew them-selves up for war in the Holy City. This explains the declaration in v. 11, asif to say: “True, we drew ourselves up for war, but what was more crucial isthat He did.” As for what this verse refers to, however, there is room fordoubt. The next verses (introduced by another “for”) assert that the refer-


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 inthe Holy City (Jerusalem). Rather, it seems that the real reference is – i.e.,originally was – to Jason, who was “driven out” (�7εβρ�σ�η) of Jerusalemafter attacking it (5:8). In the entire Septuagint, there is only one other pas-sage where �κβρ�ζ� 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 themain villain. But this means that the next several verses, which tell a storyabout Antiochus Epiphanes in Persia, are a secondary addition, by someonewho had another story to tell about the death of the infamous king;cf. Enermalm-Ogawa, Langage de prière, 58–59. Note that by definingvv. 13–16 as an interpolation we remove the main objection to the assump-tion 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 π�λει). It has been thought that the contextrequires that the preposition be taken to mean “against the Holy City;” soAbel, 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 inthis connection (2 Macc, 169–170) – would be exceptional for this letter,despite some biblicizing style. In fact, however, there is no reason not totake the preposition �ν here in its usual sense, “in,” which contrasts neatlywith the opening �7- of the verb (“drove out”) and also fits the fightingwithin Jerusalem described in Chapter 5.

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

13. For (γ�ρ). The secondary nature of this passage is easily detected in theclumsy 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 desireto avoid using the latter title with regard to flesh and blood monarchs out ofdeference 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. Inthis connection, note too the use of Tγο�μενο« instead of “king” in 1 Mac-cabees (9:30, 13:42, 14:41 etc.; cf. NOTE on 14:16, the leader’s) and thetrouble 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”


but “the rulers of the Kittim” (Republican Rome); cf. D. R. Schwartz, “TheMessianic Departure from Judah (4Q Patriarchal Blessings),” TZ 37 (1981)259–261 and A. Rofé, “Qumranic Paraphrases, the Greek Deuteronomyand the Late History of the Biblical Xy>n,” Textus 14 (1988) 169–174. Butone shouldn’t expect consistency in such things; note “King Ptolemy” inv. 10 and “King of Persia” in vv. 20 and 33. Or was our writer especiallysensitive about Antiochus Epiphanes, that villain?

to Persia. This general toponym seems to be used without any particular in-tent; 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 alsoChapter 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 thesize of Antiochus’ army. But it was preceded by a military procession atDaphne, near Antioch, which included more than 40,000 infantry andthousands of cavalrymen; see Polybius 30.25 and our NOTE on 5:2, ac-cording to units. According to Diodorus 31.17a, following this procession –which just preceded the Persian campaign – Antiochus was considered themost powerful king of his day; see Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 166–167. Ofcourse, we should not forget that our writer’s purpose here is to contrast theforce 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 Greekswith 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 agreesthat Antiochus’ defeat came in the “Persian regions,” in “the city calledPersepolis.” However, Josephus (loc. cit.), 1 Maccabees (6:1, Josephus’source) and Appian (Syriakê, 66) all speak instead of Elymais (Elam), andStrabo (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, andPersepolis. Rather than viewing this as a serious disagreement, it seemsmore reasonable, given our writer’s limited knowledge and lack of interestabout such things, to see here only his inaccuracy concerning the details offar-off eastern regions. For discussion, see Le Rider, Suse, 323, n. 6 and Wal-bank, Polybius, 3.473–474.


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 (Hautesétudes 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 formarriage between a king and a goddess, and since it is known that AntiochusEpiphanes married Atergatis in Hieropolis (Bambyke) and so took treasuresfrom her temple as her dowry (see Granius Licinianus, ed. Flemisch, 5, re-printed by Flusser in “Dedication of the Temple,” 81), there is nothing sur-prising 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 god-dess was her money; for a Greek observer of the same opinion, see GraniusLicinianus, loc. cit. Indeed, according to Polybius 30.26.9 Antiochus lootedmost of the temples of Egypt, and there is papyrological evidence for the des-truction of a temple in the Fayyum by his soldiers; see Mørkholm, AntiochusIV, 93, also Broshi & Eshel, “The Greek King,” 127–128. And then, ofcourse, there is the raid on the Jerusalem temple too (5:15–16 and1 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, treas-ury in Jerusalem.

as a payment towards (ε2« … λ3γον). On the terminology, see NOTE on3:6, applied to the account …

15. the temple of Nanaia. For the names of temples such as Νανα ον, builton 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 men-tioned in v. 13: they let the king think that they were in fact prepared to turnover the treasures, and thus lured him into entering the temple with hisguard down.

16. the secret door (τ,ν … κρψπτ,ν ��ραν). The use of the definite articleseems to indicate that the reader takes for granted that eastern temples have


all sorts of secret passageways. Indeed, it is a common motif; see forexample 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 decapitationmentioned in the sequel; see Walbank, Polybius, 2.97. On decapitation seealso NOTE on 15:30, to cut off Nicanor’s head …

they cast them out to those outside. I.e., to the rest of Antiochus’ contin-gent, apart from the “few” who had gone in with him (v. 15).

17. handed … over (4δκε) … (to their condign fate). The parenthetical ex-pansion appears to be required by the context. Some witnesses indeed giveπαρωδ�κε (or Latin “tradidit”), which is frequently used in this fatal sensein 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, thisverse could have been in the original version too, prior to the interpolationof vv. 13–16 (see NOTE on v. 12, For (γ�ρ) 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 witnessesquite appropriately insert here an οUν, as at 2:16 – which repeats the lan-guage of this verse and thus indicates the end of the historical review thatbegins here. For such usage, cf. e.g. 2:32 and 3:22.

we thought it necessary to inform you (διασαφ5σαι). This “informing” isthe main content of the letter: the demonstration of the legitimacy of thesacrificial fire of the Temple of Jerusalem. The story is told as a three-linkedchain, moving backward from Nehemiah to Jeremiah to Solomon. The verbδιασαφω�, that here introduces the first link, will return to introduce thelast one as well (2:9), thereby signaling to the reader that the story is aboutto 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 tothat of the first letter too (v. 9), the present writer adds in the element of fire,


which will be his focus from now on. This may well reflect a development inthe history of Hanukkah, from the original analogy to Tabernacles to afocus upon lights (according to Josephus, Ant. 12.325, “lights” was indeedthe name of the holiday), in which case the present letter would play animportant role in explaining the transition. See too our NOTE on 1:8,the lamps …

Nehemiah … after constructing the Temple and the altar. Of course, theywere in fact built in the late sixth century BCE, more than half a century be-fore the earliest possible date of Nehemiah’s arrival in Judaea (it is usuallyassumed, for good reason, that the Artaxerxes under whom he served wasthe first – 464–425 BCE). But however erroneous, it was nonetheless com-mon to link Nehemiah to the reconstruction of the Temple (and the rabbisindeed 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 bytaking the chronological reference here more generally (see ibid., 122). Themistake derives not only from the fact that Nehemiah, as Zerubbabel, wastermed tirshata (Neh 7:65 and 8:9), but also from a general telescoping ofthe Persian period (the two centuries between Cyrus and Alexander) in Jew-ish historical memory, something in evidence in Qumran, in Josephus and inrabbinic literature (of which the latter claims the whole period was only34 years – b. Abodah Zarah 8b etc.); see Schwartz, “On Some Papyri,”esp. 184–185. This telescoping, in turn, seems to have derived from the pau-city of data about the period combined with the fact that too many Persiankings bore the same names (three each for “Artaxerxes” and “Darius”). Inany 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 contempor-ary, 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 uponNehemiah reflects an attempt by our writer, or more generally by pro-Has-monean propagandists, to compare Judas Maccabaeus to this great hero ofthe past.

offered up sacrifices. This is our author’s first claim: if Nehemiah, thatexemplary figure, offered up sacrifice in Jerusalem, it must have been legit-imate to do so. This means that, if the proper measures are taken, such asthose the author will now report, the cult can be resumed after destruction(and, by implication, after desecration).


19. our fathers. The writer emphasizes the commonality of the entirepeople, including the Jews of Egypt – a point to be emphasized again in hissummation; see NOTE on 2:17, His entire people …

to the Persian country. I.e., Babylonia, following the destruction of theFirst Temple – another case of our writer’s lack of concern for the detailsof eastern geography (see NOTE on v. 13, to Persia). But by referringto Persia our writer has the advantage of making the continuity betweenthe First and Second Temple periods, which is his major theme, all thesimpler.

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 somepriests 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 bepreserved if at all possible; the notion of igniting a new fire all by them-selves, 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 wasin a dry condition” (τ�7ιν *ξοντο« 6νψδρον). For the text (cf. 9:18) andtranslation, 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 thoroughsealing, something easily done in cisterns, as was emphasized by Wilhelm,“Zu einigen Stellen,” 17–18; for the verb, he compares 3 Maccabees 4:9and Matt 27:54.

20. enough years had passed, as seemed appropriate to God. It is not clearwhether the writer means that God had fixed in advance the length of theBabylonian Exile, a notion which corresponds to Jeremiah’s prophecy that itwould last seventy years; see Jeremiah 25:11–12; 29:10; Daniel 9:2. In anycase, he did not mention that number, if only because – despite his confusion(see NOTE on v. 18, Nehemiah … after constructing the Temple and thealtar) – 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” canbe the right translation for Vκαν�« (and so we translated at 8:25), its basic


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 basicmeaning is also indicated by the explanation “as seemed appropriate toGod,” 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 governorin Jerusalem; see Nehemiah 2.

21. When they informed him that in fact they found no fire. The translationassumes a minor and generally-accepted emendation: instead of Tμ�ν,which would have them informing “us,” Risberg suggested reading W μ2ν,“truly,” “in fact;” for this expression, used in oaths and emphatic state-ments, see LSJ, 1127, s.v. μ2ν, §II,1. See B. Risberg, “Konjekturer till någraställen i de apokryfiska böckerna,” Eranos 15 (1915) 33–35, followed byWilhelm, “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 nosense, as the writer is clearly writing long after Nehemiah’s day.

And when the things pertaining to the sacrifices. The animals along withtheir accompanying meal-offerings and libations. On the construction andpunctuation 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” (asKatz, “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 Iδ�ρ(lit. “water”), as already earlier in this verse (where, together with “vis-cous,” we had to use “liquid” and not “water”), is strange, and it may bemeant to hint at something which makes the story even better, by an allu-sion to the Elijah story at 1 Kings 18:33–35: not only had the original firedisappeared, but what was found should have, like water, made it evenharder to ignite a new fire. Note, however, that while Iδ�ρ is more or less(but only more or less) unambiguously “water” in ancient Greek (whichoffers Fγρ�« for “liquid,” e.g. in Aristotle, Meteorologica 4.6, 383b), thereis no ancient Hebrew word for “liquid” and so mayyim (“water”) servesalso for liquids in general; see e.g. Jeremiah 8:14; the qeri of 2 Kings 18:27and Isaiah 36:12; Ezekiel 7:17 and 21:12. The word used here may, accord-ingly, point us to a Semitic Vorlage – for this story, if not for the whole letter.


22. the sun. That is, not only was the fire of the Second Temple preservedfrom 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 priestmentioned at Nehemiah 12:11, also known as Johanan (ibid. v. 23). True, itseems – to us – that his floruit was a few decades after Nehemiah’s, butproblems 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, inNehemiah’s days, something like a prayer leader (Neh 11:17). That wouldfit his function here. However, apart from the fact that the witnesses hereunanimously read “Jonathan” it should also be noted that the meaning ofNehemiah 11:17, and what it says of Mataniah, is not very clear.

all the others … chiming in. This seems to mean that Jonathan began andthe others responded. Cf. Judith 16:1 (Rahlfs 15:14): “Then Judith beganthis thanksgiving before all Israel, and all the people loudly sang this songof praise.” Both accounts are similar to that envisioned by R. Nehemiahfor the recitation of the Song of the Sea (Exod 15): “Like people who saythe Shema in the synagogue: as it is written, ‘and they said, saying’(Exod 15:1) – this means that Moses would first open and then Israelanswered after him and completed it with him, viz.: Moses said ‘ThenMoses sang’ and Israel answered ‘I will sing unto the Lord etc.;’ Mosessaid ‘The Lord is my strength and my song’ and Israel said ‘this is my Godand I will praise Him;’ Moses said ‘The Lord is a man of war’ and Israelsaid ‘the Lord is His name’” (t. Sotah 6.3 – ed. Lieberman, 183–184). Onthe division of prayer between the cantor and the congregation, on thebasis of this and other texts, see E. Fleischer, “Towards a Clarification ofthe 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.


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 and13:14. For Hellenistic usage, of “foundation,” see NOTE on 6:23, divinely-established legislation. For God as creator, see Zimmermann, Namen desVaters, 345–383; in her discussion of 2 Maccabees (pp. 350–351) Zimmer-mann emphasizes the link our book establishes between God’s being thecreator and the expectation that He will intervene to save those in need ofHis assistance.

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

All-Ruler (Παντοκρ�τ�ρ). 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 usuallyaccompanies 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 frequentlybent on demonstrating God’s strength (κρ�το«) – 3:34; 7:17; 9:17; 11:4. SeeEnermalm-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 areothers close to it in older Greek literature, see Montevecchi, “Pantokrator,”403–406.

who chose the Patriarchs and sanctified them. This is not particularly rel-evant to the issue of restoring the Temple, but is eminently important for thewriter; 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 bethat the reference is instead to the Land of Israel, just as “inheritance,”which appears in the continuation of Deuteronomy 32:9 (“and Jacob is hisallotted 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 ourverse, as Sirach 36:11 (quoted below), “seem[s] to use Isa. 49:5–6, perhaps


intertextually with Isa. 11:12,” noting that “2 Macc 1:27’s connection withthis Isaiah passage is suggested by the additional motif of the despisednation, which it shares with Isa. 49:7 (Goldstein, II Maccabees, 179).” Forsome prime parallels, see Sirach 36:11, “Gather all the tribes of Jacob, andgive them their inheritance, as at the beginning,” and Psalms of Solomon8:28: “Gather together the dispersed of Israel, with mercy and goodness.” Itis 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 aprayer for its ingathering, appears; see Enermalm-Ogawa, Langage deprière, 75–76 and W. C. van Unnik, Das Selbstverständnis der jüdischenDiaspora (AGAJU 17; Leiden: Brill, 1993) 122–123. For a diasporanauthor 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 andheld to be abominable. Another expression of a Palestinian view of the na-ture 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 towhat 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 heaventhat He looks down upon (i.e., providentially supervises) us – a point whichis already emphasized in Deuteronomy (ibid.) and in Psalms 33:13–14 – thisPalestinian letter, even when, as here, it assumes God is in heaven, does notpoint 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, Youare not in need of anything).

that You are our God. Or, perhaps: “that You, our God, are,” i.e., reallyexist. 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 AntiochusEpiphanes, who is described as an arrogant braggart (see esp. 5:21 and9:8–12); on hybris see NOTE on 8:17, outrage. So much the less reason toimagine 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,


O Lord, which thou hast made for thy abode, the sanctuary, Lord, whichthy hands have established.” This allusion to the Song of the Sea, the firststep of the Israelites on their way from Egypt to the Promised Land, is a veryapt one in the present context, which has expressed the hope for the ingath-ering of the exiles – first and foremost, of the addressees, namely, the Jewsof Egypt. For the hope of the exiles being gathered to the Holy Place, seealso the last verse of this letter (2:18). The metaphor of planting for firm es-tablishment 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 (seeNOTE 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 oursources 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 theyare 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. “Templesingers” (Vεροχ�λται) are mentioned in Antiochus III’s decree cited in An-tiquities 12.142, but even there it is not said they were Levites. Note, how-ever, that it is difficult to render “Levites” in Greek; indeed, at Antiquities20.216 Josephus felt the need to gloss “the Levites” and explain to hisreaders that they are “a tribe.” Accordingly, it would be understandable ifsome 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 inv. 23.

the remaining liquid. Which, it should be recalled, was a metamorphosis ofthe 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 raisond’être of this whole story. For the text here, see Kappler, Memoria, 66, aswell 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 thetext – as in Hanhart’s edition: � Νεεμ α« �κωλεψσε λ �οψ« με ζονα« κατα-ξε�ν – sounds like Hebrew, not Greek; Katz backed Kappler up by showing


that the preposition could have been elided by homoioteleuton. Hanhart re-sponded that a Hebraism is not surprising in a text translated from Hebrewor Aramaic (see Introduction, p. 8, n. 15). However, it seems that Hebrewtoo would require a preposition here; note that Torrey (“Letters,” 145), Ka-hana (HaSepharim, 181), Artom (2 Macc, 11), and Hack (“Two HanukkahLetters,” 98) all felt the need to insert ‘al, and Torrey explicitly noted thatthe 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 (!ντιλ�μ-χαντο«) back from the altar. Apparently we are to understand that theflames of the fire that broke out on the rocks were reflected back from thealtar, and when that happened the fire went out – was “consumed” by therocks; no longer needed, for the present, the fire was stored in the rocksuntil needed again – at 10:3.

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

34. getting confirmation (δοκιμ�σα«). On the verb, see NOTE on 4: 3, oneof Simon’s partisans.

fenced off (the place) roundabout. This is a crucial step in the foundation ofany temple; note that the term τωμενο«, “sacred enclosure,” derives fromτωμν� – “to cut,” “to separate.” Our author imagines the Persian king builta temple to honor the site where the Jerusalem fire had so miraculously beenpreserved. 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 δι�φορα in the Hel-lenistic period; cf. NOTE on 3:6, discrepancies.

drawn out. Our translation assumes another of Risberg’s emendations(“Anmerkunken,” 17–18): �7ηρ�σαντο (“who had drawn out”) instead of�ξαρ ζετο, which is the reading in Hanhart’s and Abel’s editions, basedupon the Venetus and the Latin and Syriac versions. As for what the latter


might mean, Abel (Macc, 298) thought the implication is that the king tooklarge 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; forthe use of το�το (“it”) in the next verse shows that we are still talkingabout the remarkable liquid, but such an elliptic reference would be imposs-ible if the intervening verse had turned to another subject. To solve thisproblem, 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 trans-lation 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 newtemple; this restores the context wonderfully, but there is nothing to sup-port it in the Greek, just as there is nothing in the story to indicate that thistemple produced any revenue. Goldstein (2 Macc, 180–181) took anotherroute, based on the fact that the verb �ξαρ ζετο does not appear here in theAlexandrinus. He adopted this shorter reading (which may be read inSwete’s edition) and explained that the king took great sums of money andgave them to “them,” i.e., to Nehemiah’s people mentioned in v. 33. But thefact that a full verse (34) separates “them” from its suggested antecedentmakes it difficult to accept this reading – as is shown by the fact that, in histranslation (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 fromthe First Temple to the Second, and which was absorbed into rocks at thededication of the Second Temple, thereby allowing renewed continuity whenJudas Maccabaeus rededicated the Temple. On naphtha (ν�φ�α), i.e. crudeoil, see esp.: Strabo, Geog. 16.1.5, p. 743; Plutarch, Life of Alexander, 35 (in-cluding ibid., §§3–4, on its speedy combustibility, similar to what is reportedin our v. 32); R. J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology, I (Leiden: Brill,1955) 12–14. Forbes offers various suggestions about the etymology ofnaphta. But we do not know in what language the word nephthar (sic) is sup-posed to mean – as the writer claims – purification. Grimm (2 Macc, 48–50)and Goldstein (2 Macc, 181) suggest deriving the term from the Hebrew


niphtar, i.e. “released,” “freed from obligation,” as if it refers to becomingfree 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 writingsin 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 ap-purtenances 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 Templeperiod, see Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-Fshutah, VIII: Nashim (New York: JewishTheological 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 withtranslation and some relevant inscriptions from Beirut by J. T. Milik, “Notesd’épigraphie et de topographie palestiniennes,” RB 66 (1959) 567–575. OnJeremiah’s role in the present story, see esp. Wolff, Jeremia, 61–71.

the prophet Jeremiah. Around whom the second stage of our letter’s storyfocuses: 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 madepossible by Jeremiah, who had hidden the fire. Jeremiah, who went intoexile in Egypt at the time of the Temple’s destruction (Jer 43–44), was apopular figure among the Jews of that country; for traditions concerning hisburial there, and that Alexander the Great used his bones when foundingAlexandria, see Wolff, Jeremia, 39–42, 90. Hence, it was a wise move by theauthors of this letter to mobilize Jeremiah for their story; so too the authorof 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, buildingupon Jeremiah 10:2–11, the prophet repeatedly warns his people not tobe tempted into idolatry. Perhaps this was one of the “writings” cited byour author in v. 1; see Wolff, Jeremia, 23, n. 1, and D. Dimant inDJD 30.107–108.


not to go astray in their minds (8να μ, 0ποπλανη��σι τα�« διανο αι«).For the verb here, see NOTE on 6:25, go astray. This seems to allude toverses in Deuteronomy 29 where Moses warns the Israelites not to go astrayafter the idols of Egypt; see its v. 17 (“and you have seen their detestablethings, their idols of wood and stone, of silver and gold, which were amongthem” – our writer, who refers to “their ornaments,” apparently took“them” to refer to the idols) and v. 19 (“one who … blesses himself in hisheart, saying, ‘I shall be safe, though I walk in the stubbornness of myheart’” [LXX: τW 0ποπλαν2σει τ#« καρδ α« μοψ πορε�σομαι]). Thepresent passage bespeaks a tradition according to which Jeremiah repeatedsuch a warning to those who were exiled to Babylonia. Such a tradition liesbehind the Epistle of Jeremiah; see also 4Q385a, Frg. 18 I a-b (DJD30.159–163). 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, 0ποστ2τ�σαν 0π" τ#«καρδ α« σοψ) and such verses as Isaiah 59:21 (“they shall not depart fromyour mouth …”) and Joshua 1:8 (“this book of the Law shall not departfrom your mouth …”).

4. in that text. I.e., the one mentioned in v. 1. Or perhaps we should trans-late “In (that) Scripture”? For such usage, see BDAG, 206.

upon the occurrence of a divine oracle. On this sense of ξρηματισμ�« seeBDAG, 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 orderedthe Tabernacle and the ark to follow him, which would be a miracle thatshould have been made explicit. Since v. 6 makes it clear that people accom-panied Jeremiah on this expedition, it seems most reasonable to infer theyare assumed here too. See esp. Grimm, 2 Macc, 51. For the juxtaposition ofthe Tabernacle and the Ark, cf. t. Sotah 13 (ed. Lieberman, 229): “When theFirst Temple was built the Tabernacle was hidden (see 1 Kgs 8:4) … whenthe Ark was hidden …”


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 oneknows his burial site until this very day” (34:7), was apparently thought tobe an especially appropriate place to hide holy things. For other traditionslinking 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 hintby the Palestinian author: while others used “God’s inheritance” of thepeople (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 – reminis-cent of “the Holy Land” in the first letter (1:7) – he reinforces his appeal tothe 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 “inherit-ance,” 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 ownpeople … His own portion.

5. cave-like. According to 2 Baruch 6, the earth opened up and swallowedthe holy vessels.

altar of incense. Which was not mentioned above, nor in the other lists ofmissing vessels (see NOTE on v. 1, it is found in the writings). The fact thatthis altar was covered with gold (Exod 37:26), and nevertheless – despitethe 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 itwas among the things hidden.

6. who had together followed him. See NOTE on v. 4, ordered (somepeople …).

could not find it. Given the fact that they themselves had brought the vesselsto the cave, we are to understand the fact that they couldn’t find it as a re-sult 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 ex-pression here (lit.: “gather in the gathering of the people”) cf. such biblicalusage as at Isaiah 56:8 and Deuteronomy 30:3.


8. and the Glory of the Lord and the cloud will be seen. The definite articlefor the latter is intriguing, as if the reader is supposed to know what ismeant; in context, it probably indicates that “the cloud” bears or impliesthe presence of the Glory of the Lord. This, along with the coming referenceto Moses and Solomon, points us directly to Exodus 40:34–35 (“Then thecloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tab-ernacle; and Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting, because thecloud abode upon it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle”), in thecontext of Moses’ dedication of the Tabernacle, and 1 Kings 8:10 (“Andwhen the priests came out of the holy place, a cloud filled the house of theLord, 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 thecloud 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 thechain: from Nehemiah (1:18) to Jeremiah (2:1) and now to Solomon. Notethat while the comparison to the days of Moses further supports the legit-imacy of the Second Temple by underscoring its similarity to Moses’ Taber-nacle, there is no claim of continuity between the Tabernacle and the FirstTemple; the fire used in the latter, which is our writer’s focus, came downanew from heaven in Solomon’s day (2 Chr 7:1). Moreover, Solomon’sTemple 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, wethought it necessary to inform you; the repetition of the verb remindsreaders 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 precedentfor what was done by Judas and his men (1:8; 10:3). The term “rededi-cation” (�γκαινισμ�«), which recurs in v. 19, serves as one of the names ofthe holiday; see 1 Maccabees 4:26, 59; John 10:22. Note, however, that isthe context alone, not the term itself, that justifies the translation “redi-cation;” neither the Greek term, nor the Hebrew term that it represents, ha-nukkah, implies in and of itself the restoration of a previous state.


10. just as (κα"=«). This verse emphasizes the total parallelism betweenMoses 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; andwhen they came out they blessed the people, and the glory of the Lord ap-peared to all the people. And fire came forth from before the Lord and con-sumed the burnt offering and the fat upon the altar …” Although this doesnot really say that Moses “prayed,” blessing the people comes close enoughfor the purpose of constructing a parallel; cf. NOTE on 15:12, havingstretched out his hands …

so too did Solomon pray, and fire descended and consumed the whole burntofferings. See 2 Chronicles 6 and the next verse – 7:1. Note that the parallelin 1 Kings 8 has the prayer but no fire from heaven, just as there is no par-allel in 2 Samuel to 1 Chronicles 21:26’s claim that fire also came downfrom 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 legit-imacy of the Temple by making it as parallel as possible to its predecessors,and to coordinate between legitimizing the Temple and nonetheless believ-ing 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 BiblicalThought (BEATAJ 9; Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 19972) 83–85.

11. And Moses said: “Since the sin-offering (τ; περ, τ5« 4μαρτ�α«) wasnot to be eaten, it was consumed.” On the Greek terminology see NOTE on12:43, a sin-offering. This verse is one of the most enigmatic in our book. Itpurports to be quoting Moses, but there is no verse like this one in the Bibleor anywhere else. It seems, given the context and the repetition of the verbsat the end of v. 10 and here (0ν2λ�σε … 0νηλ)�η), that it is the writer’spurpose, in citing this statement by Moses, to show that what happened inSolomon’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 anddiscovered that it had been burnt, rather than eaten by the priests. So too itseems, given the present context, that the author understood that it had beenburnt by the fire which – as reported in the preceding chapter (9:24) – hadcome 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


fire). The problem with this is that according to the story in Leviticus, Mosesdid not explain this point. Rather, he was angered when he discovered thatthe goat had been burnt and it was Aaron who explained why this had beendone (Lev 10:19–20). Goldstein (2 Macc, 185) tried to deal with this diffi-culty by emending Moses’ statement here into the very same question askedby Moses. Another approach would be to imagine that the verse was madeup by someone who wanted the story to have a happy ending. For there isquite a difficult problem with the story as told in the Bible, and our versecould resolve it. Namely, as the story is told in Leviticus 10:16 Moses wasangry 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: be-cause two of his other sons had just died. How does this explanation, byAaron and about Aaron, answer Moses’ question, which was put to Eleazarand 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 atthe sons alone, as if he already understood why Aaron had abstained fromdoing so; so how does Aaron’s answer, in v. 19, change anything? Our versemight be meant to supply a response: the fact that the sin-offering wasburned by the fire which came down from heaven, before the sin and deathof Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10:1–2), means that to begin with it was notmeant 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 beeaten. Perhaps the lack of clarity results from the mistranslation of an unvo-calized Hebrew text, which, using a present participle, said that the sin of-fering was consumed because it was not lkaXn – “regularly eaten,” “to beeaten.” If this was mistakenly taken to be a verb in the perfect, lk+Xn, the re-sult would approximate our Greek text. It is worth noting that this is theway our verse was understood by three modern Hebrew translators, all ofwhom used a present participle, tlkXn (feminine because they use hatta’atfor the sin-offering); see Kahana, HaSepharim, 182; Artom, 2 Macc, 13; andHack, “Two Hanukkah Letters,” 98. This form can only serve to give therule, not to recount what in fact occurred. On this difficult verse see alsoE. 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 haseither letter noted that Hanukkah is an eight-day holiday (and it will besaid 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 anduseful precedent and it was natural to follow it, as already was done in thedays of Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:17).


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 backsthis up by explaining how it happens that the records exist. For the useof Fπομνηματισμο for historical records, cf. 2 Esdras 4:15 (�ν βιβλ 8Fπομνηματισμο� = 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 con-structing …), for one of the typical things a Hellenistic king would dowould be to establish an archives. See M. Haran, “Archives, Libraries, andthe 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 seemsclear that τ� το� Δαψιδ implies βιβλ α, hence “David’s books.” More-over, it seems quite likely, given Luke 24:44 (“everything written about mein the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled”) to-gether with ibid. v. 27, and given Philo’s Contemplative Life 25 (“laws …prophets … psalms and the other [books]”), that David’s books are thePsalms, mentioned pars pro toto to represent the whole of the third divi-sion 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, how-ever, 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 andin David,” and more recently doubt has been cast on the reconstruction ofthat MMT text; see E. Ulrich, “The Non-attestation of a Tripartite Canonin 4QMMT,” CBQ 65 (2003) 202–214. Be that as it may, it is clear, alsofrom 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 inthe second century BCE there was a notion of a third division but it wasstill less well defined than the first two – as was the case even a few cen-turies 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-


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 rel-evant 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 corre-spondence between Solomon and Hiram of Tyre concerning the construc-tion 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 Tyrianarchives, but other copies could have been kept in Jerusalem too (which isnot to say that their authenticity is guaranteed). For the preservation of listsof royal dedications to temples note esp. the chronicle of the temple ofAthena 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 docu-ments still exist. Josephus too claims that the Temple’s archives were recon-structed after catastrophes – Against Apion 1.34–35.

15. So if you ever have need of any of them. This is courteous, but is also achallenge directed to the addressees: either come and check yourselves, orbelieve us and draw the practical conclusions. Note, in this connection, thataccording to Josephus (Ant. 13.74–79) the Jews of Alexandria who – in adebate with Samaritans in the days of Ptolemy Philometor – defended thesanctity of Jerusalem and its Temple, did so on the basis of arguments“from the Torah and from the successions of high priests (διαδοξ�ν τ�ν0ρξιερω�ν), namely, that each one ruled the temple having received theposition from his father,” and on the basis of the fact that “all the kings ofAsia honored the Temple with votive offerings and magnificent gifts.” Thearguments from high-priestly succession and royal gifts would have had tobe based upon archives; indeed, Josephus too, in Against Apion 1.36, refersto the Temple archives specifically in connection with the succession of thehigh priests from father to son over two millennia.

16. So, as we are about to celebrate (Μωλλοντε« ο@ν 1γειν). The textechoes 1:18 and thus, as a Wiederaufnahme, reverts to the main theme afterall the historical material that intervened.


we have written (�γρ�χαμεν). Referring to the present letter; see NOTE on1:7, 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. Thewriter, 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 thisverse 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 that2 Maccabees is an anti-Sadducean tract (see below, NOTE on 12:43, resur-rection).

the inheritance. This again seems to mean the Land of Israel; see NOTE onv. 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, “asis 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 holypeople.” In Jewish sources this verse is usually taken to refer to three differ-ent “estates”: kings, priests, and lay Israelites. On the interpretation of thisverse in ancient Jewish literature, see Schwartz, Studies, 57–66. On the dif-ference between the wording here and that in the Septuagint (which refersnot to “kingdom and priesthood” but, rather, to a “royal priesthood”) seevan der Kooij, “Use,” 129–131, 136–137; he suggests that our book’s ver-sion reflects a preference for separating kingship from priesthood. Ofcourse, we should note that the kingship was not really returned to Israel inthe 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 suc-cessor Alexander Jannaeus (so Strabo, Geog. 16.2.40, p. 762, and see nowMain, “Les Sadducéens,” 375–389), did the Hasmoneans take the royaltitle. 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 and14:9; H. W. Hoehner, Herod Antipas (SNTSMS 17; Cambridge: CambridgeUniv., 1972) 149–150. Accordingly, and certainly in light of the verse fromExodus, we should not be surprised by the use of the term here, nor shouldwe build much upon it. All that is meant is independent rule, something


which Judas Maccabaeus definitely enjoyed at the time this letter claims tohave 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 inthe 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 on3:2, 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 alittle more is required for a complete redemption.” For such logic, see also8:29.

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.


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 thealtar,– (20) as well as the wars against Antiochus Epiphanes and his son Eupator,– (21) and the heavenly apparitions which occurred for those who noblyfought with manly valor for Judaism, so that although they were few innumber they plundered the entire country and chased away the barbarichordes (22) and retook the temple which was spoken of throughout the en-tire civilized world and liberated the city, and firmly reestablished the lawsthat were about to be abolished, the Lord having become merciful towardthem in total grace –

(23) (all this), which was recounted by Jason of Cyrene in five books, wehave attempted to epitomize in one composition. (24) For having seen theconfused 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) wehave given consideration to arousing the imagination of those who wish toread (the story), to making it easier for those who take pleasure in memoriz-ing, and to the profit of all readers. (26) Now the drudgery of epitomizationwhich we undertook was not light, but rather a matter of sweat and sleeplessnights, (27) just as it is not simple for him who prepares a symposium andseeks to further the interests of others; nevertheless, we willingly undertookthe drudgery in order to earn the gratitude of many. (28) Leaving to the authorthe precise clarification of each and every detail, we have striven to follow therules laid down for epitomizing. (29) For just as the architect of a new housemust consider the entire structure, while he who undertakes to paint it en-caustically or to paint animals upon it needs to scrutinize what is necessary forthe proper arrangement, so too, I believe, is it in our case. (30) Namely, to gointo (the topic), giving an expansive report and occupying oneself with eachand every detail are the province of a history’s originator, (31) while the pur-suit of brevity of diction, along with an exemption from diligent inquiry intowhat 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 priorto 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 hiswork to the readers. Employing some standard topoi about the pleasureand usefulness of historical literature, and about the efforts he himself in-vested in his work, he clearly distinguishes his own role from that of theoriginal author, Jason of Cyrene, comparing himself to a decorator whoadds beauty to the basic structure planned by another. We know nothingabout the identity of Jason or of the present writer (the “Epitomator,”whom we prefer simply to term “the author” [see above, p. 37]), but hisGreek 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 alsosee something of his theology; see above, pp. 21–25.

NOTES

2:19. The matters concerning. The author here begins a very long periodwhich lasts until the end of v. 23, artfully sustaining the reader’s interest bypostponing until its end, indeed until the very last word (�πιτεμε�ν – “toepitomize”), a statement of his own purpose. On this preface, see Alex-ander, Preface, 148–151 and G. Engel, De antiquorum epicorum didactico-rum historicorum prooemiis (Diss. Marburg 1910) 63–64. After studyingthe preface’s various motifs, Engel concludes that it is quite a typical one fora Greek work.

Judas Maccabaeus and his brothers. It sounds like the reference is to hisbrothers in the familial sense, not to his “brothers-in-arms” (see NOTE on10:21, brethren). If this passage indicates that Jason’s work showed a gen-eral interest in Judas’ brothers, then one of the things our author did, inepitomizing 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). Thisneed not be seen as polemics; see NOTE on 10:20, But Simon’s men … Itmight also be the case, however, that Jason’s work did not expand on theother brothers, and that the statement here bespeaks only our author’sawareness 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 Nicanorstory: 14:13, 31. Cf. the opening of v. 22, below.


the altar. The use of β�μ�« here departs from that which is usual not onlyfor the Septuagint in general but also for our author (10:2): usually theytook care to use β�μ�«, which is reminiscent of the Hebrew bamah, onlyfor 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, ismade to follow the same convention. But there is one other such exceptionin our book, at 13:8, and this fact led Daniel (Recherches, 24–25) to con-clude that our book reflects a stage in the process in which Jewish writersbegan finding their way back to the usual Greek terminology, which was infact common for both Philo and Josephus. It seems, in other words, that thematter became less sensitive as the fear of paganism diminished over time,and so the desire to use generally accepted terminology was able to over-come the original squeamishness.

20. the wars against Antiochus Epiphanes and his son Eupator. There issomething comically ironic here: failure to repeat the name “Antiochus”for the latter king links him up very tightly to the preceding one (à la “Johnand Sam Jones” instead of “John Jones and Sam Jones”), as does also thename “Eupator,” which means “who has a good father” – but our bookportrays Epiphanes as a villain. Similarly, summarizing all that happenedin their days as “wars” contributes to the same effect. For similar irony see10:10. On another front, note that Seleucus IV is not mentioned here – an-other reason to view Chapter 3 as only marginally part of the book; seeabove, pp. 4–6.

21. heavenly apparitions. The use of �πιφ�νειαι continues the jokingbegun with the name “Eupator” (see preceding NOTE), contrasting the vil-lain who claimed to be “Epiphanes” with the true “epiphanies” that ac-tually helped his enemies. These apparitions are of great importance in ourbook, their occurrence turning into something of an axiom (see NOTE on12:22, 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 thephenomenon, see Spicq, Notes, 1.284–287, and Pritchett, War, 3.11–46; seealso NOTE on 5:2, there appeared in the air. For emphasis upon the factthat the term refers not merely to an apparition but specifically to onewhich 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.


nobly (φιλοτ�μ«) fought with manly valor (!νδραγα"�σασιν). TheseHellenistic virtues are frequently predicated of Judas and his men in ourbook; see NOTE on 8:7, And the fame …

for Judaism. This is how the author summarizes the issue; so too 8:1 and14:38. The term “Judaism” ( B ΙοψδαCσμ�«), which recurs a few times in Jew-ish-Hellenistic literature (4 Macc 4:26; Gal 1:13–14), is not known fromany 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 LSJknows, for the first time in this general sense and the latter – for the firsttime at all. See Y. Amir, “Der Begriff BΙοψδαCσμ�« – zum Selbstverständnisdes 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 afew times in our book, is never juxtaposed with “Hellenism,” the facts thatall 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 thatthe author viewed each in the light of the other. The same would also seemto be indicated by the characterization of Antiochus’ decrees as the imposi-tion of “Greek ways” – 6:9 and 11:24, and by the statement that those whoresisted his decrees “remained in Judaism” (8:1). In general, on thiscontrast, see Prato, “Persecuzione religiosa,” 114–117, and Rajak, JewishDialogue, 61–63.

so that although they were few in number. A common motif, and quite a use-ful one, for if you win you’re a hero and if you lose it’s not your fault; seeNOTES on 8:20, 120,000, and on 11:4, myriads of foot-soldiers, along withNiese, 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 issurprising insofar as there is nothing apologetic about it; contrastEsther 9:15, “but they laid no hands on the plunder.” Accordingly, varioustranslators 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.


verb; see for example Polybius 5.96.1 and 33.6.6. It seems, rather, that ourauthor saw no reason for apologetics about such things; à la guerre, commela guerre. See NOTE on 8:20, and they took much booty and on 10:17, cut-ting down. Niese (Kritik, 59–60) commented on the “naïve joy” of ourauthor regarding such matters, here and below (8:5–7 and 12:16), as op-posed to the more restrained and – surprisingly – apologetic author of1 Maccabees.

chased away the barbaric hordes (τA β�ρβαρα πλ�"η). For this type oflanguage, cf. 12:27 and 14:23. “Barbaric” refers both to their ethnic originand to their wildness and cruelty; see 4:25; 5:22; 10:4; 15:2. By employingthis adjective, which was generally used of non-Greeks, to describe a Greekking and his army, the author is attempting to present himself as a goodGreek (of the Jewish type), hoping thereby to gain the sympathies of Greekreaders.

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 Jewishdefenders of the Temple of Jerusalem, arguing against defenders of the oneat Mt. Gerizim, call it “the most famous temple in the entire civilizedworld”). See also Polybius, apud Josephus, Antiquities 12.136 (along withStern, GLA, 1.115–116) and Philo, Legatio 191, 198.

and reestablished … in total (μετA π�ση«) grace. The verb �πανορ�� re-curs in the story itself (5:20), there too along with μετ� π�ση«, which is aturn of phrase our author loves to use (3:1, 22; 14:38; 15:1, 6–7, 17). Forthe 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 comparesJewish law to the law of a city – a part of his case for Jews and Judaismbeing 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 byunderlining what almost happened, what was about to happen had notsomething – 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 onthe laws, at 4:11.

the Lord having become merciful (0λε« γενομωνοψ) toward them in totalgrace (�πιεικε�α«). So too in the course of the story, this is what punctuates,


and accounts for, the changes in the Jews’ fortunes. See 7:37; 10:26; andesp. 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 notonly for the city, but also for the whole region (“Cyrenaica”). A good deal isknown about the Jews of the region in antiquity, but primarily during theRoman period; see S. Applebaum, Jews and Greeks in Ancient Cyrene(SJLA 28; Leiden: Brill, 1979); G. Lüderitz, Corpus jüdischer Zeunisse ausder Cyrenaika (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1983); Barclay, Jews, 232–242. Asnoted by Lüderitz (p. 31) and Habicht (2 Macc, 170, n. 12), “Jason” is acommon name, among Jews and non-Jews alike; we may assume that thisone was a Jew. It may be that the words “of Cyrene” indicate that he had leftthat place of origin; but, as “Philo of Alexandria,” it need not indicate any-thing more than that the person mentioning him, our “author,” was from adifferent place. And even that is not necessary. For the old-new suggestionthat he be identified with Judas Maccabaeus’ envoy to Rome, Jason son ofEleazar (1 Macc 8:17), see Hyldahl, “Maccabean Rebellion,” 201; Momi-gliano, “Romans and the Maccabees,” 752–753. If that were true, it wouldmean 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 aunit within a larger composition (σ�νταγμα), 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 dividedamong them, but we can show that our book, as it is, is indeed of normalsize; see immediately below, NOTE on in one composition.

to epitomize (�πιτεμε.ν). The verb recurs at the end of v. 32, thus quite ap-propriately rounding out this preface. Accordingly, in vv. 26 and 28 he usesthe term “epitome” of his work, which has led scholars to term him,usually, the Epitomator. As explained in the introduction (p. 37), I prefer toterm him “author.”

in one composition (σ%νταγμα). A. Schumrick points first and foremost tothis verse to illustrate that, despite its etymology, σ�νταγμα can denote notonly a composition built by collecting a few works but also a single work(Obervationes ad rem librariam pertinentes [Diss. Marburg, 1909] 39). Butepitomizing might be seen as “collecting” from various parts of the largeroriginal. See also ibid., 41–43, on another nuance of the term, that empha-sizes – as opposed to a Fπ�μνημα (see NOTE on 2:13, in the records and in


the memoirs), which could be rougher (ibid. 70–82) – the great effort thatwent into the preparation of a σ�νταγμα. See for example Cicero, To At-ticus 16.3.1, also J. Glucker in SCI 20 (2001) 306–307. That is, our authornot only shortened the work, he also put a lot of work into editing it, as heshall next explain with the help of some comparisons. As for the size of ourvolume, we can compare it to other ancient books with the help of thetables provided by Birt, Das antike Buchwesen, 310–314. As is usual (seee.g. Josephus, Ant. 20.267), Birt quantified the sizes of ancient books by thenumber of lines they would have had in a manuscript, assuming an averageof 35 letters per line (Birt, 194–202 and 310, n.1). For 2 Maccabees, fromChapter 3 to the end, I calculate 1,186 full lines in Rahlfs’ edition withabout 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 withCh. 3) comparable to those of medium length, according to Birt’s tables,such as – among the historians – the fourth book of Strabo’s Geographiaand various volumes of the fifth decade of Cassius Dio. That is, in this re-spect the final product of our author’s work justifies his claim.

24. For having seen (σψνορ#ντε«). The author loves to use the participle ofthis verb to reflect an actor’s – here: his own – considerations for doingsomething; see, for example, 4:4; 5:17; 8:8; 14:30. The verb implies notonly seeing but also understanding; see BDAG, 974.

confused mass of numbers. That is, the great quantity of numbers – dis-tances, sizes of armies, and the like. Doran (Temple Propaganda, 77–78),who cites several translations that assume (as we have) that 0ρι�μ�« heremeans “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 beyet another reference to the size of Jason’s work. However, although Doranassembles some evidence for such usage, it remains quite limited, and itseems out of place to refer to lines as an indication of size after alreadypointing to five books. Be that as it may, it is nevertheless true that a goodnumber 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 lassenwollen.” Thus, the author directs his attention to those who wish to learnall history, and not just the story told in this book, and announces his inten-tion to make life easier for them; cf. NOTE on in memorizing in the next


verse. In this way, the pose he takes is of one whose story is part of universalhistory – a pose appropriate for an educated participant in the Hellenisticworld.

25. arousing the imagination. That is, by making the book easier to read hehopes to encourage readers to continue. On χψξαγ�γ 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 fre-quently paired with “usefulness,” in which case it takes on something of thenuance of “entertainment;” see Alexander, Preface, 149–150.

to read … readers (!ναγιν=σκειν … �ντψγξ�νοψσιν). Two different verbsare 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 ofreading and the latter – more to checking and searching, see: Chantraine,“‘Lire,’” 115–123. The latter verb, accordingly, which recurs twice more inour 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 byour author in reference to his readers.

those who take pleasure. For the text (φιλοφρονο�σιν) and translation seeHanhart, Text, 38–39 and Goldstein, 2 Macc, 193. Risberg (“Anmer-kungen,” 18–19) suggested reading φιλοπονο�σιν, and his suggestion wasadopted 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, butour author loves rare words (see p. 67), and in any case it is difficult to acceptthe emendation. For “love of effort/suffering” is something which authorsare proud of concerning themselves, claiming that it has allowed them toserve their readers; note for example Thucydides 1.22.3 (�πιπ�ν�«); Josep-hus, War 1.15–16 (φιλ�πονο« … π�νοι«) and Life 338; Lucianus, How toWrite History, 34, 74. But here our author is speaking of his readers, and hispoint is that he put in a lot of effort so as to enable them to learn easily, thatis – without π�νο«. 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. Notethat here too, as with “history” in v. 24, the writer does not limit his scopeto those who wish to read or learn his book alone. See also NOTE on v. 28,the rules laid down.


and to the profit of all readers. On the emphasis of a work’s Yφωλεια in itspreface, alongside the pleasure of reading it, see Avenarius, Lukians Schrift,28–29; Alexander, Preface, 149–150. Note the fine balance within ourverse, 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 hisAgainst Apion (§3): the book was meant to refute those who calumniatethe Jews, on the one hand, to correct the ignorance of others, on the otherhand, and to teach all who wish to know what is true (μων … δω … δ�π�ντα«).

26. drudgery of epitomization … sweat and sleepless nights. Such com-plaints are standard in ancient prefaces. The term 0γρψπν α (“sleepless-ness”) was apparently invented by Callimachus (an Alexandrian poet of thethird century BCE) in order to describe the work of a diligent author; see hisEpigram 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 usestwo synonyms for “easy,” as usual with no special reason apart from the de-sire to vary his diction; see above, p. 68.

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

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

29. For just as the architect of a new house. To whom our author comparesthe work’s originator, Jason.

he who undertakes to paint it. To whom our author compares himself.


encaustically. On encaustic painting – painting by applying heat to coloredwax – 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 (ζγραφε.ν). True, ζ�γρ�φο« can regularly apply topainters in general; see LSJ, 758. But this verse seems to require a distinctionbetween two types of painting, a fact pointed up by the fact that those whochoose the general meaning for our verb are forced either into making thepreceding 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 ζ�γρ�φο« of someone who paints ani-mals in particular, see C. Wunderer, “Gleichnisse aus dem Gebiet der Malereibei Polybios,” Phil 66 (1907) 472, in connection with Polybius 12.25e.7 andPausanias 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 trueartist since both work directly with nature, to that of a pseudo-historian, whoworks on the basis of books alone. Our author, like Polybius, makes a similardistinction, but compares his own work, that of the non-historian, to the art-ist. In the Hellenistic world, it was apparently more prestigious to be an artistthan an historian. For a Jewish ζ�γρ�φο« in Rome, note CII, no. 109.

30. go into. On the nuances of �μβατε��, which include “entering” andalso “taking possession,” see Ettelson, “Integrity,” 318–319, 328; here hetranslates “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 andPolitical Values,” CP 71 (1976) 301–327. Thus, our author reveals that heis leaving out details not only because they are too numerous and would en-cumber readers, but also because they are not very important; althoughabove he seemed to be taking the role of second fiddle, here he takes up themore usual stance of editors with regard to authors. For the image of anauthor serving up his book as a banquet (cf. v. 27!), and therefore leavingout less important details, cf. Lucian, How to Write History, 56: 0μελ2σει«δ� τ�ν ε$τελεστωρ�ν – “ignore the cheaper things.” Compare Polybius’critique of Timaios: at 12.25e.1–2 Polybius admits that occupying oneselfwith documents (�ν το�« Fπομν2μασι πολψπραγμοσ�νη) is part of thehistorian’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


part. However, Polybius, an historian, contrasts this “occupying oneself”with real experience in life and personal examination of the scenes wherethings occurred – the first two obligations of the true historian, while ourauthor, who does not claim to be an historian, contrasts it with the art ofgood 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); seePolybius 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 transi-tion to the body of his work; cf. NOTE on 1:18, As we are about to cel-ebrate.

narrative. Thus, δι2γεσι« is our author’s term for the body of his work, asopposed to this preface, his excurses, and other additions; see too 6:17. Onthe 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 com-mon 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 pref-ace 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 ofRhodes 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 ob-served optimally due to the high priest Onias’ piety and hatred of evil, (2) ithappened that the kings themselves used to honor the Place and aggrandizethe Temple with the most outstanding gifts, (3) just as King Seleucus of Asiaused to supply out of his own revenues all the expenses incurred for the sac-rificial offices.

Simon vs. Onias, Round I

(4) But one Simon of the tribe of Benjamin, who had been appointed over-seer of the Temple, had his differences with the high priest concerning mar-ket 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 governorof Coele Syria and Phoenicia, (6) and informed him concerning the inde-scribable sums of money with which the treasury in Jerusalem was replete,to such an extent that it was impossible to calculate the massive discrep-ancies, and that since they had not been applied to the account of the sacri-fices 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 moneysconcerning which he had been informed, the king selected Heliodorus, thehead of state, and, giving him orders, sent him to take care of impoundingthe aforementioned funds. (8) Heliodorus immediately made the journey,ostensibly in order to make the rounds inspecting the cities of Coele Syriaand Phoenicia, but in fact in order to carry out the king’s assignment.(9) Upon arriving in Jerusalem and being received courteously by the highpriest of the city, he reported about the disclosure that had been made, ex-plained why he had come, and asked whether there happened to be any


truth in these matters. (10) Although the high priest pointed out to him thatthe moneys were deposits of widows and orphans, (11) some of them be-longing to Hyrcanus the son of Tobias, a man of very high preeminence, andthat matters were not as they had been misrepresented by the villainousSimon; that the silver totaled 400 talents and the gold 200; (12) and that itwould be totally impossible to treat unjustly those who had placed theirtrust in the sanctity of the Place and in the augustness and immunity of thetemple which is honored throughout the entire world – (13) the other, dueto the royal orders which he had, said that the moneys must in any case berecovered in full for the royal treasury. (14) Having fixed a day, he enteredto 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 toheaven, upon Him who legislated concerning deposits, to preserve them in-violate for their depositors. (16) And it pierced the mind to see the highpriest’s face, for his appearance and the changes of coloration revealed thedistress of his soul. (17) For the man was inundated by fear and bodilytrembling, through which the anguish present in his heart became apparentto his observers. (18) Many came flocking out of their houses for a suppli-cation by the entire population in light of the fact that the Place was goingto be disgraced. (19) Women, bound around with sackcloth under theirbreasts, congregated in the streets, and of the closed-in virgins – some rantogether to the gates and some to the walls, while yet others peeked outthrough the windows (20) all of them making their entreaty, their handsstretched out to heaven. (21) And anyone who saw the prostration of theentire community all mingled together, and the anxiety of the highly an-guished 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 pre-serve the trusts whole and in complete security for them who had entrustedthem, (23) while Heliodorus, on the other hand, was beginning to executethat which had been decided upon. (24) But just as he, together with hisbodyguards, was already at the treasury, the Ruler of the spirits and of allauthority brought about a great apparition, so that all those who had been

Chapter III 183

audacious enough to enter together were overwhelmed – stricken by thepower 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 ap-peared 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 theyflogged him incessantly and rained blows upon him. (27) After he fellsuddenly upon the ground and was enveloped by thick darkness, they ga-thered him up and put him into a litter. (28) And so he who just before hadentered the aforementioned treasury with a large entourage and all hisbodyguard was carried off, rendered powerless to aid himself with hisweapons, having plainly recognized the power of God.

(29) Thus he, on the one hand, was voiceless and totally lacking hopeand salvation, having been cast down by the divine intervention, (30) whilethey, on the other hand, were praising the Lord who had wonderfully glori-fied His own Place; and the Temple, which had just before been replete withfear and tumult, was filled with joy and mirth due to the apparition of theall-ruling Lord. (31) Immediately some of Heliodorus’ intimates askedOnias to call upon the Most High, so that He would bestow life upon himwho was prostrate and breathing his absolutely final breath. (32) The highpriest, 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 sal-vation.

Heliodorus’ New Mission

(33) As the high priest was performing the atonement, the same youthsagain appeared to Heliodorus, wearing the same garments, and whilestanding they said: “Be very grateful to Onias the high priest, for it is due tohim that the Lord has graced you with life. (34) You, who were floggedfrom heaven – recount to all the greatness of the power of God.” Upon say-ing that they disappeared. (35) As for Heliodorus – after bringing a sacrificeto the Lord, making great vows to Him who had preserved his life, and re-ceiving Onias, he returned with his soldiers to the king. (36) And he testifiedto all concerning the works of the most great God which he had observedwith his own eyes. (37) When the king asked Heliodorus, “Who would bethe most appropriate person to send some other time to Jerusalem?,” hesaid: (38) “If you have some enemy or conspirator against the state, sendhim thither, and you’ll get him back flogged, if he survives at all; for around


that place there is truly some power of God. (39) For He, though He has Hisresidence in heaven, watches over and aids that place and with blows de-stroys 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 beginsthe story of 2 Maccabees. Accordingly, the first verses of Chapter 3 pro-claim 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 thebook will focus upon Jerusalem and its ups and downs in the period coveredby the book. Thus, the opening verses of our chapter form a bracketanswered by another one at the book’s conclusion, when again things aresaid to be just fine in Jerusalem (15:37).

As noted in the Introduction (pp. 4–6), this chapter is self-contained; thecrisis 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 in-troduction, an opening idyll that shows that even when things do go wrong,these are only glitches which – with God’s help – may be overcome, thusallowing for reestablishment of the status quo ante.

As for what that status quo ante consists of, it is important to note that itmaintains an easy and mutually respectful co-existence of respectable Ju-daism and benevolent foreign rule. That is how the story begins – with a pioushigh priest, and with benevolent Gentile kings in general and Seleucus IV (thecontemporary 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 ofexistence of Diaspora Jewry: Jews who are scrupulous about their own re-ligion accept foreign rule of their terrestrial lives in return for the govern-ment’s acceptance of their right to worship their God who is in Heaven. Whatmakes our book interesting is that it shows, on the one hand, a diasporan per-spective on events that in fact transpired in Jerusalem itself, where, in theshadow of the Temple, it was not always so simple or natural to recall thatGod 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 theprogression “city”-“place”-“Temple” in vv. 1–3 and by the reference to “thehigh 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 el-ements 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 otherevidence both for Seleucid subventions for the sacrificial cult and for the useof the Temple as a bank. But a heavenly horseman and handsome floggersare another story. Moreover, three related points are obvious:

– The story is very similar to the one in 3 Maccabees 1–2, where theking is Ptolemy IV of Egypt and the high priest is Simon;

– The body of our story prefers to refer to the Jewish protagonist awk-wardly 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) al-though that name is given by the story’s framework (vv. 1, 5);

– Similarly, if somewhat less awkwardly, our story avoids the use of theking’s name (see vv. 8, 32, 35, 37) although the context (3:3 and 4:7) makesit clear that the author means Seleucus IV.

These points lead us to suspect that the story is a “floating” legend, ourauthor preferring, usually, to replace its proper names with titles rather thanuse other proper names and thus find himself required, time and again, tocontradict his source frontally.1 This argues against historicity, indicatinginstead that our author borrowed the story from elsewhere in his quest foran introduction that would flesh out the idyllic status quo ante againstwhich his real story should be read. Given its main ideas, it serves this pur-pose very well.

In this connection we should note, however, that a recently-published in-scription comes tantalizingly close to touching upon the story this chaptertells; see Cotton and Wörrle, “Seleucos IV to Heliodoros.” Namely, an in-scription of unknown provenance, but probably from somewhere in south-ern Israel, preserves – i.e., published for ancient readers – a dossier of lettersof the year 178 BCE that document Seleucus IV’s order to Heliodorus to dosomething about the temples of Coele Syria and Phoenicia (Palestine). Asthe 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 tothe publication of the documents. Unfortunately, while the chain of com-mand 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, thatwhat was involved was the appointment of one Olympiodorus to supervisethe province’s temples.

1 For Josephus’ similar practice, see above, p. 5, n. 7.


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, itwould have been Olympiodorus, not Heliodorus. Nevertheless, the textdoes 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 theking’s behalf by Heliodorus. It is not such a jump for that to turn into amemory of Heliodorus interfering with the Temple of Jerusalem – a mem-ory which could be fleshed out, as we have suggested, by a floating legendabout such an event.

NOTES

3:1. Holy City. So too 1:12, 9:14, 15:14. The city’s sanctity derives fromthat of the Temple; cf. “the city of the Temple” in CD 12:1,11QTemple 45:11–12, 16–17, and 4Q248 (Broshi & Eshel, “The GreekKing,” 121), also “have mercy upon Your holy city – Jerusalem, the foun-dation of your residence” (Sir 36:12). “Holy city” also appears inIsaiah 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 torecall here that Seleucus IV’s father, Antiochus III, contributed to the properinhabitation of Jerusalem by restoring to it those who had been dispersed inthe course of the Fifth Syrian War (σψνοικ σαι τ�ν διεσπαρμω�ν – Ant.12.139).

in complete peace. Our author likes combinations with μετ� π�ση« (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, buta city is settled by virtue of the intelligence of its officials.” On the notionthat the high priest ruled the city, see NOTE on v. 4, market supervision.

piety (ε<σωβεια). One of the most positive terms which Hellenistic Greekcan attach to a person’s name: “that which is more important than every-thing” (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 TitusII 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 ofSirach 50:1, which refers to Simon the son of Johanan, to Antiquities12.237, 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 tothe fourth and third centuries BCE – too early to be identified with ours. Asfor the later two Oniases, since our book says its hero was murdered inAntioch (4:4–6, 34) in the days of Antiochus IV, while Josephus reports thatan 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, andusual, to identify ours as Onias III and the other as his son. However, therehas been debate about this, particularly because Josephus, in his earlierwork (War 1.33, 7.423), indicates that it was Onias son of Simon whofounded the temple in Egypt; it is usually assumed that it was Onias IIIwhose 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 considerationsnevertheless 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 whathe is doing, we should take seriously the fact that he places the latter afterthe death of Demetrius I in 150 BCE. Moreover, in a world in which mostmen died by the age of 50, it is unlikely that someone who had been a highpriest in the days of Seleucus IV (d. 175) would have been doing anythingmore 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 (seee.g. Polybius 30.32.5; 32.6.6 and SIG 780 [= RDGE, no. 67], l. 31) empha-sized in our book, where it characterizes not only a Jewish hero (here) butalso good Gentiles (4:36, 49) and God Himself (8:4).

2. it happened (σψνωβαινε). As at the beginning of Chapter 5, this verballows for the transition from the general context to the specific detailswhich provide the background for our story: there are circumstances, some-thing interesting “happened” amidst them, and the story can unfold accord-ingly. However, for our author it is clear that things do not just happen to


“happen”; see esp. 12:34 and 13:7! In our case, the use of the imperfectallows for the painting of a static picture of what kings used to do in thegood old days before our story began.

the kings themselves. Royal respect for Jews and Judaism is very importantto our diasporan author, and their votive offerings are also mentioned at5:17, as already in the second epistle (2:13). There is in fact much evidencefor such royal gifts to the Temple in the Hellenistic-Roman period; seePhilo, 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, τ�πο« frequently denotes the Temple; cf.Joüon, “Mots employés,” 341–342. True, the term is absent from the LXXprior to 2 Maccabees but does appear in 3 Maccabees (1:9) and in the NewTestament (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 andcognate literature (see D. Vanderhooft, “Dwelling Beneath the Sacred Place:A Proposal For Reading 2 Samuel 7:10,” JBL 118 [1999] 628–630), and intheological contexts the term referred especially to the Temple (J. Gambe-roni, “maqôm,” TDOT 8 [1997] 544); note, especially, the comparison of1 Chronicles 16:27 with Psalms 96:6. It is, therefore, difficult to see heresuch 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 no-netheless 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 open-ing reference to the city in general to the present focus upon the Temple inparticular.

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

Asia. Here this refers to the Seleucid kingdom, a usage known elsewhere aswell, 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 13.78is 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-re-moved from the time 2 Maccabees was composed.

offices. The use of λειτοψργ α in connection with sacrifices, as at 4:14, isquite widespread in Hellenistic Greek; see Spicq, Notes. 1.475–481; Daniel,Recherches, 76–78. For the funding of sacrifices by a Hellenistic king, seealso 9:16 and Schürer, History, 2.311–312.

4. But. For such heavy adversative use of δω in order to contrast witha preceding idyll, even when there is no foregoing μων, see also 12:2 and14:5, 26.

one Simon (Σ μ�ν δω τι«). It seems that the author’s use of τι« here allowshim not only to indicate that this is a new character, but also to voice somedisparagement, as if to say, “Our problems began because some nincom-poop started a feud with such a wonderful high priest.” The situation issimilar with regard to Auranus (4:40) and Alcimus (14:3), but not necess-arily to Lysias (10:11).

of the tribe of Benjamin. As seen in the Introduction, many scholars, includ-ing Hanhart, have preferred “Balgea,” following the Vetus Latina (DeBruyne, Anciennes traductions, x and 118–119). They see here the name ofthe 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 ap-paratus here and, inter alia, Tcherikover, HC, 403–4. For our decision toprefer the Greek witnesses’ “Benjamin” see pp. 95–96. If this reading is in-deed accepted, the implication would be that our story’s first troublemakerand its worst villain both lacked priestly descent. Although it might seemstrange that our author did not harp upon this point, his general lack ofinterest in details of the Temple cult (see Introduction, pp. 46–48) and hisgeneral tendency to play down the importance of differential descent (seeNOTE on 4:35, of the man), make this less surprising.

appointed. For the use of κα� στημι for appointments, see also 5:22 and14:13 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 προστ�τη«in the Temple of Jerusalem, but later sources (Josephus, War 2.409 and6.294; Acts 4:1; 5:24) refer to a strategos of the Temple and it may be that


they are the same; see, in general, including for rabbinic material, Eliav,God’s Mountain, 216. For προστ�τη« 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 communalofficials, see Kasher, Jews in … Egypt, 111–114, also B. J. Brooten, “Iaelπροστ�τη« in the Jewish Donative Inscription from Aphrodisias,” in:Pearson, Future, 153–154.

market supervision. The position of agoranomos, who supervised measuresand prices in the market, is well known from the Hellenistic East; seeSchwartz, Agrippa, 48. For his significant impact upon a city’s economy, asreflected in an inscription (IG XII,5, no. 129) of the island Paros roughlycontemporary 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 theOffice of the Agoranomos in Roman Palestine,” ZDMG 127 (1977)227–243. Our story’s apparent assumption, that the high priest was in-volved in the affairs of this municipal officeholder, conforms well with itsopening assertion that the high priest’s merits impacted upon the city as awhole; see also below, v. 9, “high priest of the city.” In his commentary toPsalm 54, Theodorus of Mopsuestia (d. 428) paraphrased v. 1 as follows:“The high priest of the people was Onias, a man most righteous and mostgod-fearing – at that time rule of the people was deposited with the highpriests” (R. Devreesse [ed.], Le commentaire de Théodore de Mopsueste surles Psaumes [Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, 1939] 351).For a theory about a broader political background for Simon’s delation, seebelow, NOTE on v. 11, Hyrcanus the son of Tobias.

5. Apollonius son of Thraseas. This family is well-known among the offi-cials of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid dynasties. The best known represen-tative was Ptolemy son of Thraseas, who moved from service of the formerdynasty (Polybius 5.65.3–4) to that of the latter, becoming governor ofCoele Syria and Phoenicia under Antiochus III after the latter conquered Pa-lestine during the Fifth Syrian War; see, inter alia, Antiquities 12.138; OGIS230; and the Hefzibah inscription (Y. H. Landau, “A Greek InscriptionFound Near Hefzibah,” IEJ 16 (1966) 54–70 – SEG 41, no. 1574). See alsoD. Gera, “Ptolemy Son of Thraseas and the Fifth Syrian War,” AS 18 (1987)63–73; C. P. Jones & Ch. Habicht, “A Hellenistic Inscription from Arsinoein 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 ourauthor or text is in error and that we should see here an allusion to Ptolemyhimself. This is so both because of the unanimity of the textual witnesseshere and because it is difficult to imagine that a man who served Ptolemy IVduring the Fourth Syrian War (219–217) was up to serving the Seleucidsforty 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 inthis position, Apollonius son of Menestheus, it states that patronymic notonly the first time he is mentioned (4:4), but also the second (4:21). This in-dicates that our author was aware that his readers knew of two governorsnamed 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. Herewe overhear something of the revulsion of a minority, diasporan commu-nity 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 notonly 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 TempleBank,” JBL 83 (1964) 365–370. See also NOTE on v. 10, deposits.

discrepancies. I.e., budget surpluses. For this sense of δι�φορον (and notjust “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 Jewswere not spending on sacrifices all the royal budget supplied for that pur-pose (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 havemoved to arrest and prosecute Onias and the Temple officials. However,had Heliodorus indeed been able to corroborate the charges that mighthave in fact happened, and in any case our author preferred to describe asensational confrontation in the Temple and not go into legal details. As forGoldstein’s own suggestion (204–5), that Simon was referring to private de-posits, as is shown by vv. 10–12, 15, 22, that is to be rejected not only be-


cause it divorces the story from its introduction (v. 3), but also because itwould 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), butnot 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 factthe money accumulated was from private deposits, the troublemakingSimon alleged, maliciously and untruthfully, that it was from the royalbudget for sacrifices.

applied to the account of the sacrifices. For the technical terminology here,see Bickerman, Studies, 2.165. For λ�γο« in the sense of “account,” see also1:14 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 factthat his name will not reappear here until his death (4:7), which may indi-cate the story was originally told about another king, see our openingCOMMENT.

reported to him. According to Mayser (Grammatik 2/2, 267), the verb�μφαν ζ� is usually officialese. Hence, it is very appropriate here and in11:29.

Heliodorus. This senior official in Seleucid IV’s service is known from in-scriptions (IG XI/4, nos. 1112–1113, 1114 [OGIS, no. 247]; see now alsothe 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 πραγμ�τν). Literally: “He who is over the af-fairs.” For pragmata (“affairs”) in the sense of “state,” as also in v. 38, seeHolleaux, 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, includingthe inscriptions mentioning Heliodorus just cited in the preceding NOTE,see Bickerman, Institutions, 187–188, 197; Walbank, Polybius, 1.571. Bothof the latter translate “vizier” (Walbank adding in “grand”) and depend sig-nificantly upon Corradi, Studi, 256–267.

aforementioned. Our author loves this pedantic adjective; see NOTE on2:32, 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 onsentinels); a Macedonian papyrus of the third century BCE (P. Roussel, “Unreglement militaire de l’époque macédonienne,” RA, 6 sér. 3 [1934] 40);and P. Tebtunis 703 (SP 204, late third century BCE) – the responsibilitiesof an official �ν τZ �φοδε�ειν. All of these conform to Heliodorus’ obviousintention 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 ofdignitaries 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 Heliodorusbeing received (0ποδεξ�ε «) upon his arrival in the city, is the openingbracket of a story which will end when, the tables having been turned, he re-ceives (0ποδε7�μενο«) Onias before departing the city (v. 35). On the verb,which implies goodwill, and which is common in the world of Hellenisticdiplomacy, 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 anotherhigh priest. For the high priest as ruler of the city (and not only of theTemple, as would be said when things went badly – 14:13), see already vv. 1and 4, also 4:2, Sirach 50:1–4; Josephus, Antiquities 20.237, etc. Accord-ingly, although the Venetus and some other witnesses would read “highpriest and the city,” we may retain (with Rahlfs and Hanhart) the Alexan-drinus’ reading. The latter is also supported by the abovementioned paral-lelism between our verse and v. 35, which, using the same verb as here, hasHeliodorus “receive” Onias just prior to his departure: since it is obviousthat v. 35 is meant to be the closing bracket of the story beginning here, thefact that “the city” is not mentioned separately there supports the assump-tion that it was not mentioned separately here.

whether there happened to be any truth in these matters. Namely, in the ac-cusation that funds from the royal budget had been accumulated ratherthan spent on sacrifices. The phrasing of the question (“happened to be”)


seems to be especially polite, a hesitant opening for a matter unpleasant toboth sides, especially in light of the respectful reception which Heliodorushad just received.

10. deposits. The author shows off with a classical form, παρακατα�2κη,rather than the more usual Hellenistic form, παρα�2κη. On the use of theverb παρακατα� �ημι for depositing, in the Hellenistic period, see esp.W. Schubart, “Παρακατατ �εσ�αι in der hellenistischen Amtssprache,”PW 52 (1932), cols. 1077–1084 (col. 1080 on our verse). On deposits, theirsanctity, and their storage in temples, see e.g. Philo, De specialibus legibus4.30–32; Josephus, Antiquities 4.285; Spicq, Notes, 2.651–655; and the lit-erature cited in NOTE on v. 6, treasury in Jerusalem.

widows. For inheritance by widows, which was an innovation for Judaea inthe 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 fromEgypt, see G. Häge, Ehegüterrechtliche Verhältnisse in den griechischenPapyri 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 highpriest, and that Onias is said here to have pointed to Hyrcanus’ property inparticular, have been taken to indicate that Onias really shared Hyrcanus’pro-Ptolemaic tendency (see our next NOTE), something which could havebeen 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 seemsto be building quite a lot on very little.

a man of very high preeminence. For Hyrcanus’ prestige and links to thePtolemies (for whom his father had been a tax-farmer), and for his conse-quent wealth, see Antiquities 12.186ff. and Will & Larché, ‘Iraq al Amir,19–22. Our book’s assumption, here, that a high Seleucid official shouldrespect the rights and property of someone so close to the Ptolemies, fits inwell 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 Syriadespite the fact that it had just been conquered by Antiochus III. True, it isusual 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 theconviction that Ptolemaic taxation implies Ptolemaic rule, so the storymust pertain to the third century BCE, prior to the Seleucid conquest ofCoele Syria. But Josephus too knew that taxation normally implies rule,and if he was nevertheless willing to posit this anomaly, perhaps we shouldnot 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 StatedAnomaly 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 – includ-ing δψσσεβ2« – appear only in 2–3 Maccabees.

12. totally impossible (!μ�ξανον). That is, forbidden, but the impli-cation is also that it in any case cannot be done. By phrasing the matterthis way, Onias reinforces his refusal, but at the same time attempts topersuade Heliodorus that the matter is in fact out of his own hands, à lathe British “I’m sorry but it’s really quite impossible.” For a similarapology 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, butalso that Josephus “must have known it to be false.” But her only argument is thatPolybius 28.20.9 contradicts Josephus’ claim, taken together with Goldstein’s argu-ment (“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 assertthat Josephus knowingly erred, and at p. 121 he admits the possibility that Josephuswas 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 similarissue, this time regarding Polybius vs. 3 Macc, see my review of Johnson’s book inJQR 97 [2007] e25-e26, available only on Internet.)


explain to Ptolemy IV that even they, and even their priests, may not enterthe Holy of Holies; see also Philo, Legatio 306, also Antiquities 12.145(an edict by Antiochus III which forbids Gentiles to enter the Templeprecincts but points out that even Jews may not enter unless they purifythemselves; 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, seeH. 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 withreference to the Temple of Jerusalem – 9:14 and 1 Maccabees 10:43 (andnote 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 hisown interpretation and not on the basis of any other source – the technicalterm 6σψλο«). In his discussion of Jerusalem, Rigsby (pp. 527–531) empha-sized that what is meant here is a general immunity which derived from thesanctity of the place, not from any explicit grant of immunity by some par-ticular king – something which began to appear in this part of the worldonly in the latter half of the second century BCE.

honored throughout the entire world. See NOTE on 2:22, the temple whichwas spoken of …

13. the other. Heliodorus. The use of “the other” emphasizes the parallelbetween these two servants of their respective sovereigns: as Onias, so tooHeliodorus 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-technicalusage, see 11:36.

anguish. The author uses this loaded term, 0γ�ν α, which appears in theLXX only in our book (here, 3:16 and 15:19), to summarize the comingscene, 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 charactersinvolved.

all over the city. That is, not just in the Temple: the author reminds us of hisbasic 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 exampleActs 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 ourbook (including another in connection with distress – 15:19) and remarksthat there is not even one in 1 Maccabees.

15. The priests. The scene described here, and in the coming verses, is remi-niscent of Joel 2:16–17. This is very suggestive, given the fact that Joel goeson to refer (v. 20) to the “northerner” (easily equated with the king of theNorth, 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 thepriests in the Temple, which some might (with good biblical basis) considerGod’s “house,” recognize this. On the text, see p. 93.

Him who legislated. This emphasis upon law and legislating, as in the open-ing verse of this chapter, is one facet of our author’s attempt to portraythose 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 aslegislator; 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 indicationthat 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 theJewish-Hellenistic adoption of this Hellenistic category, a stage in which theTorah was still God’s but He had become one legislator among others; thenext stage would be to relativize it further, by making it the work of ahuman 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.


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 color-ation, and trembling, as visible signs of 0γ�ν α, see e.g. Antiquities 15.236and 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 theform of a supplication.

19. Women, bound around with sackcloth under their breasts. The empha-sis upon women’s suffering and the exposure of their bodies is among thestandard moves of “pathetic” Hellenistic historiography; compare, forexample, 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 ofbreasts), and, for another Jewish Hellenistic example, the way Ezekiel theTragedian (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 intendedto 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 beenwidespread among the Greeks; see LSJ, p. 1581 (s.v. σ�κκο« II,3), whichrefers 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 bykeeping 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 89and De specialibus legibus 3.169; 4 Maccabees 18:7 (“I was a virgin anddid not leave my father’s house”), etc. For similar Jewish and non-Jewishmaterial, see Heinemann, Philons … Bildung, 107–108, 232–234; andA. 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 thanfor Judaea, and even in the former it may well have been honored more inthe 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 also14:34, 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 inscriptionsfrom Delos showing prayers and hands extended toward heaven; on the ap-peal 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 JewishCustoms (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar, 1996) 78–88 (in Hebrew). For theancient Near Eastern background, see J. F. Ross, “Prophecy in Hamath, Is-rael and Mari,” HTR 63 (1970) 3.

21. prostration (πρ3πτσι«). This term appears in the LXX only in ourbook – here and at 13:12. Here Habicht translated “Auflauf” (tumult), butthat might be too chaotic for the pious, even if they do allow themselves tobe “all mingled together.” Moreover, it appears clear that at 13:12 it refersto prostration as an act of supplication (as Habicht agrees there: “Kniefall”)and that seems appropriate here too; so too 10:26: “threw themselves(προσπεσ�ντε«) upon the step opposite the altar.” However, since thepreceding verses did not mention prostration, it may be that the term isbeing 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 amore ethnic one, again identifies the author as a diasporan Jew.

all mingled together (παμμιγ5). This word, which appears in the LXX onlyhere and at 12:13 (“hodgepodge”), indicates just how bad things were: dueto the severity of the situation no attention was given to the usual distinc-tions 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 ofAristeas 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.


22. So (ο@ν). As usual, the author uses this to indicate that he has finishedsetting 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 mainscene, the apparition. As in a play, he first uses μων … δω to portray the com-petitors 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). Onthat epithet, frequently used in prayers for deliverance (such as 1:25, 8:18and 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’ de-pendence 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), andthat too was the word used in the legal formulation of v. 15, but when itcame 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 NewTestament (Leiden: Brill, 1993); and – on use of the term in legalese in thePtolemaic 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. Forthe same phrase, but as threat rather than hope, see 15:1.

23. beginning to execute. This would seem to be the sense of the imperfecthere.

that which had been decided upon. By the king; see NOTE on v. 13, theother.

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

Ruler (δψν�στη«). This epithet too (lit. “power-holder”), just as pantok-rator (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 Hispower the arrogant are stricken (in this verse), which leads to Heliodorusrecognizing His power (v. 28); he is then required to proclaim to all thegreatness of God’s power (v. 34), and indeed does so (vv. 38–39). For usageof δψν�στη« in Jewish Hellenistic literature, see Enermalm-Ogawa, Lan-gage de prière, 128–129 (where emphasis is also placed on the link betweenGod’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 Enochicliterature; see Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 114–116.

been audacious (κατατολμ�σαντα«). The formulation of their intention asaudacity, as arrogance, makes it crystal-clear that the intruders were eviland not simply victims of a misunderstanding. The same verb at 5:15 recursin connection with Antiochus’ entrance into the Temple. Such an under-standing 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 Greekliterature. Cf. NOTE on 8:18, audacity.

stricken. For such usage of καταπλ2σσ� with passive and accusative, seealso 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 earthat 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 itstextual variants, which indicate debate concerning this point). Such care hastwo advantages: it allows the author, who might worry about rationalisticcritics, to evade an unequivocal statement that a miracle occurred; and itallows for the continuation of the story, which depends upon Simon beingable to claim that the attack was staged (4:1).

outfitted with beautiful accoutrements. On such decorative equipment, see5:2, 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 toarmor, but also to all of the armored soldier’s equipment. See A. M. Snod-


grass, Arms and Armour of the Greeks (Ithaca: Cornell, 1967; ch. 5 on theHellenistic period).

26. another two youths. The phrasing sounds as if a youth or youths havealready been mentioned, which is not the case. True, it might be only an in-stance of careless formulation; for other cases of 6λλο« or [τερο« in thesense of “and also” or “apart from him,” see NOTE on 14:11, the otherFriends, also Luke 23:32, where the Christian writer reports that along withJesus there were executed “two other (!) criminals;” cf. J. M. MélèzeModrzejewski, Droit impériale et traditions locales dans l’Egypte romaine,(Hampshire: Variorum, 1990), IV, 106–8. That is, the text may indicate nomore than that apart from the horse and rider there also appeared twoyouths. But it may also be that this is a remnant of an earlier version of thisstory, 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 tobe “fear-inspiring” (φοβεροειδε�«) as is our horse’s heavenly rider (φοβερ"ν*ξ�ν τ"ν �πιβ�την – 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 tosomething else but not to the angels), it may be that they bear witness to anearlier stage of this “floating” story.

to him. To Heliodorus; although he was accompanied by others (v. 24), heretoo, 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 ofthe story, one might understand that the two floggers put Heliodorus intothe litter, but it is more reasonable to suppose that the reference is tomembers of his retinue. This inconcinnity, just as that examined in thepreceding verse (“another”), is another indication that this story has a his-tory; 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 justhow 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 in-clusio; see NOTE on v. 22, on the one hand.

29. cast down (4ρριπτο). Bickerman (Studies, 2.173–174) thought that theuse 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, itseems that having completed the details about Heliodorus the author is re-verting to a more general view of what happened.

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

31. call upon (�πικαλωσασ"αι). It should be noted that Heliodorus’ menare said to have asked Onias to call upon God, that is, to pray, not to sac-rifice; the sacrifice mentioned in the next verse is, accordingly, taken to be ameans of praying. That is, the main category is prayer, and one of the waysto pray is to bring a sacrifice. This reflects a Jewish-Hellenistic point ofview, one to be expected from people who usually cannot sacrifice and donot 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 ofthe story (Num 17:12–13) has incense alone. So too Philo, Life of Moses2.5, where the high priest’s responsibilities are mentioned, including the de-tails of his prayers but no sacrifices: and see also his De specialibus legibus1.97, where already when referring to the priests of other peoples Philo firstmentions 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 (δι�λημχιν … σξ*). Wrongly, as also at 5:11. For our diasporanauthor, any royal notion that the Jews had plotted against him had better bemistaken.


33. atonement (Vλασμ�ν). See Daniel, Recherches, 321, 325. Here a sac-rifice is meant, and it is characteristic of our author that he is no more spe-cific 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, theysaw a horse.

Be very grateful … graced. The Greek highlights the parallel: ξ�ριτα« …κεξ�ρισται …

35. after bringing a sacrifice. Apparently another one, not Onias’ (v. 33).Gentiles at times brought sacrifices at the Temple of Jerusalem (just as theyalso brought votive offerings – v. 2), although theologically it is not at allclear that they should have been allowed to do so: Should a jealous God, orHis servants, consent to accept sacrifices from someone who sacrifices toother gods too? For the most fateful expression of a negative response, seeJosephus, War 2.409; on the problem in general, see Schwartz, Studies,102–116. In this case, however, the problem is not so acute, for Heliodorusis said to have acknowledged the power of the Jewish God. Accordingly, heis somewhere in the vicinity of a proselyte or “God-fearer,” reminiscent ofanother 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 closesthe circle begun at v. 9. True, one would expect “receiving” to entailOnias coming to Heliodorus, whereas here it seems Heliodorus went toOnias. 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 raremeaning (“thank”) to 0ποδωξομαι here. Rather, the author’s desire tohave the end of the story echo its beginning led him to use the same wordalthough it does not precisely fit. Cf. NOTES on 6:3, onslaught of eviland 8:36, because they follow … (Alternatively, one cannot exclude thepossibility that the author meant that Onias did go to Heliodorus, takingthe opportunity to display respect to the royal official and so to demon-strate that now, the crisis behind them, normal relationships might be re-stored.)

36. And he testified to all. As the youths demanded of him (v. 34), and asAntiochus himself would later promise (9:17). The use of �κμαρτψρω� is in-teresting, 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 dealof space to martyrs. The technical usage of the word appears only in theChristian 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 clearlybetween God’s “residence” (κατοικ α) in heaven and the place over whichHe 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 (andthe Temple is regularly termed God’s “house”); for Jews of the Diaspora itwas 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 Hisσκ2ν�μα there but denying that God resides (κατοικε�) in the Temple(vv. 48–50), which was stationary. On the interpretation of that speech, seeSchwartz, Studies, 117–127. See also below, NOTE on 14:35, Your tenting.According to the end of Acts 7, Jerusalemites stoned Stephen to death, notsurprisingly; cf. above, NOTES on 1:7 (the Holy Land) and 1:27 (Gather inour diaspora).

watches over. The notion that the heavenly God watches over us is under-lined several times in our book (1:27; 7:6, 35; 8:2; 9:5; 12:22; 15:2), aselsewhere in Hellenistic Jewish literature: 3 Maccabees 2:21; Letter ofAristeas 16; LXX Esther 5:1a, 8:12d; Philo, Legatio 336 and Hypotheticaapud Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 8.7.9; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.294; Deissmann,Licht, 357 (on CII 725: Κ�ριε � π�ντα �φορ�ν); Jacobson, Exagoge,221, n. 53.

40. That … turned out. Such summary sentences appear at the end ofChapters 7, 9, and 13; see also 10:9 and 15:37; cf. above, pp. 16–17, n. 36.The same verb, ξ�ρω� (“turned out”) appears at the end of Chapter 13 andat 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 warnsus that the problem has not been put finally to rest. For a similar but oppo-site transition, from an open problem to its solution, see 7:42.


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 aninformer against the moneys and the fatherland, slandered Onias, as if itwere 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, thecaretaker of the members of his people, and zealot for the laws, was a con-spirator against the state! (3) When the hostility had gone so far that evenmurders were committed by one of Simon’s partisans, (4) Onias – seeing theintensity of the contentiousness, and that Apollonius son of Menestheus,the governor of Coele Syria and Phoenicia, was further inciting Simon in hiswickedness – (5) betook himself to the king, not as a plaintiff against his fel-low citizens, but, rather, with his eyes set upon the benefit of each and everymember of the community. (6) For he saw that without royal providence itwould be impossible for the state to attain peace again, nor would Simon’sfolly 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 thehigh-priesthood (8) by promising the king, in a petition, 360 talents as wellas another 80 talents of other revenue. (9) Additionally, he promised to signover another 150 talents, if he would be allowed to found, on his own auth-ority, a gymnasium and ephebeion and to register the people of Jerusalem asAntiochenes. (10) When he got royal approval and took control of the gov-ernment, he immediately brought his co-religionists over to the Greek style.(11) Indeed, abrogating the benevolent royal privileges which had beenfixed for the Jews through the agency of Johanan (father of the Eupolemuswho participated in the embassy concerning friendship and alliance withthe Romans), and abolishing the regular civic usages, he innovated lawlesspractices. (12) With relish he laid the foundations for a gymnasium directlybeneath the acropolis, making the strongest of the ephebes submit to (wear-


ing) sun-hats. (13) And there was such an apogee of Hellenism and inroadof foreignism due to the extreme impurity of that impious and unhigh-priestly Jason, (14) that the priests were no longer enthusiastic about thealtar ministries. Rather, in their disdain for the Temple, and in their lack ofconcern for sacrifices, they hurried to participate in the lawless distributionsin the palaestra which followed upon the call of the discus; (15) consideringthe ancestral values to be worthless, they considered the Greek honors to bethe best. (16) For this reason they were overtaken by a difficult state of af-fairs, and those for whose ways they were enthusiastic, and whom theywanted fully to imitate, became their own enemies and nemeses. (17) For itis no trivial matter to be impious vis à vis the divine laws. But this shall beshown 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 pres-ence of the king, (19) the abominable Jason sent some of the JerusalemAntiochenes as observers, conveying with them 300 silver drachmas for asacrifice for Heracles. But those who conveyed the gift asked that it not beused for a sacrifice, as that would not be appropriate, but, rather, that it beapplied to some other expense. (20) So these (drachmas), which he who hadsent them meant to be spent for a sacrifice to Heracles, were instead ap-plied, thanks to those who conveyed them, to the outfitting of triremes.

(21) When Apollonius son of Menestheus was sent to Egypt for theprôtoklêsia of King Philometor, Antiochus – having received notice that hehad become hostile toward his state – gave thought to his own security.Therefore, after coming to Joppe he went on down to Jerusalem. (22) Hewas received sumptuously by Jason and the city, and accompanied into itwith torches and loud cries. Thereupon he brought his men back to theirquarters in Phoenicia.

The Rise of Menelaus

(23) In the third year thereafter Jason sent Menelaus, the brother of theaforementioned Simon, to bring the money to the king and to take care ofmemoranda concerning pressing governmental matters. (24) But he, uponbeing presented to the king and evincing respect for him in the manner of aperson of authority, shifted the high priesthood to himself by outbiddingJason 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 corruptlyusurped 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 pay-ments he had promised the king – he did not at all keep them up, (28) des-pite the demand which was made by Sostratus, the commandant of theacropolis, who was charged with handling the discrepancies. For this rea-son both were summoned to the king. (29) Menelaus left his own brotherLysimachus as substitute in the high priesthood, while Sostratus left in hisstead Crates, the commander of the Cypriots.

The Murder of Onias

(30) At this juncture it happened that the Tarsians and Mallotians rebelledbecause they had been given as a gift to Antiochis, the king’s concubine.(31) Therefore the king hurried off to stabilize the government there, leav-ing as his substitute Andronicus, who was one of those held in great honor.(32) Menelaus, thinking to seize this as a natural opportunity, bestowedupon Andronicus some golden vessels that he had purloined from theTemple, just as it happened that he had sold some others to Tyre and thesurrounding cities. (33) Onias, after ascertaining what had happened, firsttook refuge in the asylum site in Daphne, outside of Antioch, and then ex-pressed his indictment (of Menelaus). (34) Therefore Menelaus took An-dronicus aside privately and urged him to overcome Onias. So he, aftercoming up to Onias and greeting him with oaths by giving him his righthand, 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 wereoutraged and vexed about the unjust murder of the man. (36) So when theking returned from the Cilician regions he was petitioned by the Jews of thecity – joined by the Greeks out of hatred for evil – concerning the unreas-onable murder of Onias. (37) Antiochus, who was aggrieved in his spiritand moved to pity and tears due to the moderation and total discipline ofthe deceased, (38) in a burning rage immediately stripped Andronicus’purple from him, tore his clothes away, and had him paraded around theentire city to the precise spot where he impiously attacked Onias. There heremoved the abominable murderer from the world, the Lord allocating himhis condign punishment.


Robbery and Violence in Jerusalem

(39) But since there were many cases of robbery from the Temple in the cityby Lysimachus, on behalf of Menelaus, and talk of it had spread abroad, thecommunity gathered up against Lysimachus; for many golden vessels hadalready been scattered about. (40) The populace being aroused and totallyenraged, Lysimachus armed about 3000 men and began (to act) with unjusthands; one Auranus was the leader, a man of advanced age and no less ad-vanced folly. (41) When (the protesters) saw Lysimachus’ onslaught, sometook stones, others – thick pieces of wood, while yet others scooped uphandfuls of the ashes which were lying thereabouts and began to throwthem in utter confusion at Lysimachus’ men. (42) As a result many of themwere wounded, others were knocked down, and all were driven to flee; theyovercame 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 Councilof Elders presented the case against him. (45) But when Menelaus was allbut lost, he promised a substantial amount of money to Ptolemy son ofDorymenes, so that he would sway the king. (46) Ptolemy therefore tookthe king aside to a peristyle, as if to get some fresh air, and there he broughthim over. (47) Accordingly, he acquitted Menelaus of all the accusations, al-though he was the cause of all the trouble, at the same time sentencing todeath the poor unfortunates (who had accused Menelaus), although theywould have been released as completely guiltless even if they had spoken be-fore Scythians. (48) Swiftly they paid the unjust penalty – they, who hadspoken for the city and the populace and the holy vessels. (49) For this rea-son the Tyrians, out of their hatred of evil, munificently supplied the funeralexpenses.

(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 featur-ing 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 reappearonly in heaven (15:12–14) and the latter will never appear again – two newand lasting villains appear, one after the other. First Jason supplants Oniasas high priest and introduces Hellenizing innovations into Jerusalem, whichour author roundly condemns, and then Menelaus supplants Jason andmoves on to blatant crime: temple-robbery, murder of Onias, and bribery.And this time there is no solution Deus ex machina, so the chapter con-cludes with the triumph of injustice.

Characteristically for our book, the only points of light in this chapterare supplied by Jews who participated fully in the Hellenistic world whileremaining faithful to Jewish law (vv. 18–22), and by righteous Gentiles, es-pecially Greeks (v. 36), who – beginning with Antiochus IV himself (who as-cends to the throne in v. 7) – properly take umbrage at the Jews’ subjectionto 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 blamefor the Jews’ troubles. Indeed, in an aside to his readers (vv. 16–17) theauthor assures us that the Jews’ suffering was deserved; although it came atthe hands of Greeks, that was so it could be appropriate tit for tat punish-ment for Jewish imitation of Greek ways.

As for historicity, 2 Maccabees is basically our only source for theevents reported in this chapter. 1 Maccabees, although it does brieflyrefer to Hellenization in Jerusalem (1:11–15), says nothing at all aboutOnias, Jason or Menelaus, if only because the very existence of pre-Hasmonean high priests raised questions about the legitimacy of thenew 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 ma-terial 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 inpolitics) fleeing Antiochus Epiphanes to Egypt and founding a temple there, while inAnt. 12, where he changes his story and has Onias IV go to Egypt and found thetemple there (see our Introduction, p. 12), he creates new problems: (a) he contradictsour book, insofar as he has (i) Onias III dying in office and being succeeded in a regu-lar 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 ratherthan Jason initiating the Hellenistic reforms in the city (§§239–241); and (b) he runsup 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


Accordingly, our book’s account is usually allowed to stand more or lessuncontested. The main debates have concerned two issues: one on whichour book’s account is less than clear, and one on which it is clear, butcontradicted by other sources. The former issue focuses on v. 9: what,exactly, is meant by registering Jerusalemites as Antiochenes? Does thispresume 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 activein Egypt at a much later date; Theodorus of Mopsuestia (see our NOTE on3:4, market supervision), who closely paraphrased a large part of ourchapter, nevertheless follows Josephus’ War story; and Diodorus (30.7.2)gives another reason for Antiochus’ execution of Andronicus, namely, thathe had killed a young son of Seleucus IV.3 All these points raise the possi-bility that Onias was not killed by Andronicus. However, none of them isvery impressive. Note that Josephus corrects himself in his Antiquities(12.237, 387–388; 13.62), that Theodorus is late and evidently dependenton 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 royalprince does not contradict our book, for perhaps Andronicus killed Oniastoo – and if he did, we would well understand the preference of a Jewishwriter, 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 des-pite some recent debate.4

Menelaus was a brother of Onias III and Jason, and how that might have forced himinto concluding that Menelaus was originally called “Onias,” see Schunck, DieQuellen, 123–124, n. 2, and Stern, Studies, 44–45. They suspect that Menelaus wasmarried 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 hewas 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 bysuch 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 π�λι«, ν�μοι and the like, theauthor – as is made clear in the next verse – prefers to portray attacks uponthe 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 inIn Flaccum 46); this reflects diasporan Jews’ problems with “doubleloyalty.” See Kasher, Jews in … Egypt, 236–238. But even a diasporan Jew,such as our author, would have no trouble with using patris of Jerusalemwhen speaking of Judaeans. Note that patris can be juxtaposed with polis,as at 13:14, thus indicating a somewhat wider connotation, hence I haveused the usual English “fatherland” rather than “father-city;” in general,however, there is no need to distinguish between the two and at times, as forexample 8:33, it is clear that Jerusalem itself is intended.

stormed Heliodorus. For the Greek verb here, �πισε �, LSJ (655) offersthree main meanings: shake, urge on, assault. The first would seem to be ex-cluded, here, by the fact that the attack on Heliodorus was much more thana mere shaking.5 Goldstein (2 Macc, 216) prefers the second meaning, ren-dering “This same Simon spread slanders about Onias, declaring that Oniasit was who had incited Heliodorus and had been the author of the evil af-fair.” But clearly our author did not mean to say that Simon accused Oniasof inciting Heliodorus to commit some crime against the king, and it is al-most as unlikely that he meant Simon accused Onias before the Jews, claim-ing that he had incited Heliodorus to invade the Temple and raid its treas-ury. The latter might be more probable than the former, but it fails to fit thetext, for the Jews aren’t mentioned and what is said is that Simon accusedOnias of plotting against the state (v. 2), which can only mean the Seleucidstate (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 theverb to mean “frightened.”


assume that the accusation in question was made to the king, which is whyOnias found it necessary to seek the king out. Accordingly, the third mean-ing, “assault,” is best here; Simon accused Onias of having engineered theattack upon him, “comme si ce dernier avait agi sur Héliodore et ourdi tousles maux” (Abel, Macc, 329). There is room to consider the possibility thatinstead 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 happenedto Heliodorus.

and had been (κα"εστηκ=«). Here intransitive κα� στημι amounts to averb of being; see Grimm, 2 Macc, 74 (on 3:28). Nevertheless, it seems thatit retains something of its sense of appointment to a position; see NOTE on3:4, appointed. That is, our author has Simon claiming that Onias, who hadbeen appointed to fill a sacred role in the Temple, instead acted as if he hada different, opposite, position to fill. The same usage reappears in the lastverse of this chapter, thus pointedly contrasting hero and villain.

troublemaker (τ#ν κακ#ν δημιοψργ3«). Simon claimed that Onias had infact staged the so-called “heavenly” attack upon Heliodorus. For suchtrickery see Xenophon, Hellenica 6.4.7 (“but some say all these things [mir-aculous portents which indicated the Lacedaemonians would be defeated]had been engineered [τηξν�σματα] 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 oneof the most respected and flattering titles one could give in the Hellenisticworld, 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, accordingto 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 veryoutset (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 priestswere 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 on7:24, his appeal). “Zeal” for the law was a popular category in PalestinianJudaism, as is demonstrated by 1 Maccabees (2:24, 26–27, 50, 54, 58) and byJosephus (see M. Hengel, The Zealots [Edinburgh: Clark, 1989] 146–228),but, understandably, seems not to have attracted much positive attention inthe 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 isolatedvillain, however much the author tried to portray his Jewish villains as iso-lated bad apples; see also v. 40, 10:15, and above, pp. 49–50. The wordsτο� Σ μ�νο« δεδοκιμασμων�ν 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 in4 Maccabees, but – just as hybris (see NOTE on 3:24, been audacious) andπλεονε7 α (4:50) – it is a common motif in the way Greek literature por-trays 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 saidto have been an expression of φιλονεικ α vis à vis the Jews of Jerusalem.

Apollonius son of Menestheus. On the orthography of the patronymic, hereand in v. 21, see Kappler, Memoria, 13. See also the end of our NOTE on5:24, 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 Apolloniusson of Thraseas, his apparent predecessor, see NOTE on 3:5, Apolloniusson of Thraseas.

5. betook himself. Here the passive of διακομ ζ� is only a fancy way ofsaying “went;” cf. 9:29, betook himself.


not as a plaintiff. This need not reflect our author’s knowledge that some-one claimed the opposite. Rather, within his own book it was important forthe author to distinguish between Onias’ appeal to the king and those ofsuch villains as Simon (3:5–6) and, especially, Alcimus (14:3–4; for thestudied contrast between him and Onias, see above, p. 82). Cf. Paul’s simi-lar 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 werethe 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),πρ�νοια 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 theAntiquitates 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 be-speaks confidence that the Jews may depend upon their Hellenistic rulers.On the use of πρ�νοια in the Jewish Hellenistic world, see: T. Rajak, “TheGifts of God at Sardis,” in: Goodman, Jews in a Greco-Roman World,232–236; Sowers, “Reinterpretation.” In this case, note that the contrastbetween Simon’s “folly” (6νοια) and the king’s “providence” (πρ�νοια) in-volves, as so often in this book, playing with the prepositional prefixes; seeabove, p. 81.

state. On τ� πρ�γματα, see NOTE on 3:7, head of state. Here the authorhas Onias including Judaea in the Seleucid state, as is proper for good sub-jects.

folly. Our author likes to portray crimes against the state as if they were theresult of faulty thought; for such 6νοια, see also v. 40 and 14:5; 15:33,along with 13:23 (0π�νοια) and 14:8 (0λογιστ α). As noted, the villain’s6νοια comes here in fine contrast to the good king’s πρ�νοια.

7. When Seleucus passed away (μεταλλ� αντο« δH τ;ν β�ον Σελε%κοψ).Lit. “passed out of life.” The phrasing μεταλλ�7αντο« Σελε�κοψ is alsofound 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"νβ 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) claimsthat Seleucus did not just die, but was murdered, by Heliodorus. But sincethat claim is not supported by any other source, and our author’s low-keyallusion to Seleucus’ death is echoed not only by the Athenian inscriptionbut also by a Babylonian chronicle, it may be that Appian merely reflectssome 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 andbibliography concerning Antiochus IV’s succession to the throne.

With Seeligmann and others, it should be noted that there is something ofa break in our narrative between v. 6 and v. 7; perhaps the original versionincluded more about Onias’ trip to Antioch (to which we shall return only inv. 33) and/or about Seleucus’ death. See Seeligmann, LXX Isaiah, 91–94. It isnot surprising that the author would skip details about Seleucus’ death,which is outside his major theme (and if indeed Heliodorus killed the kingour author would not want us to know it, given the fact that he had just be-come something of a Jew). But as for Onias, the author may well have writtenmore, and there has been speculation to the effect that another version of ourstory had the high priest go to Egypt and found a temple there (a suggestionwhich entails viewing vv. 30–38, below, as a secondary interpolation). Onsuch speculation, see our opening COMMENT. Beyond what is said there, itmay be added that the recognition that something was left out here does notat all imply that vv. 30–38 are not authentic; for a defense of their authen-ticity, as part of the general thesis that Onias III was killed in Antioch andOnias IV founded the temple in Egypt, see Stern, Studies, 40–42.

Antiochus surnamed Epiphanes. Seleucus’ brother, who was born ca. 215and 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 individualswith names and by-names, but only Antiochus Epiphanes has his name re-peatedly emphasized – both coming and going, here and at 10:9! – by theuse of προσαγορε��. Contrast the cases of Judas “Maccabaeus” (5:27),Ptolemy “Philometor” (9:29) and Antiochus “Eupator” (10:10), wherethere is no verb at all, and for Ptolemy Macron the author uses the morelow-key καλο�μενο« (10:12). It thus seems that the use of προσαγορε�� isan expression of reserve, similar to our “so-called,” with regard to the useof epiphan- in reference to a human, especially one who will turn out to be avillain. For our author’s sensitivity with regard to epiphan-, see NOTES on


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 oc-cupy center stage until v. 22 and then reappear at the beginning ofChapter 5.

corruptly usurped. This rare verb, Fπονο�ε�� (from ν��ο«, bastard), whichappears in the Septuagint in this chapter alone (here and twice in v. 26), andfor which LSJ (p. 1890) cites only one more instance (an astrological text),aptly indicates not only that Jason gained the high priesthood via illegit-imate means, but also that he degraded the office by entering into it.

8. in a petition (δ2 �ντε% ε«). On such, see Guéraud, ΕΝΤΕ��ΕΙΣ; 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 apparentlymeans an increase of the annual tribute (phoros) to 360 talents, along with apromise of another 80. But the amount of annual tribute prior to this time isunknown. True, according to a late source, followed by Bickerman andothers 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 – afifth. But we do not know what Severus’ source was, and it may well be thathe was only drawing a conclusion, a false one, from the Greek here, Ψ72κονταπρ"« το�« τριακοσ οι« (“sixty along with the three hundred”), which in factmeans “360;” the next verse expresses “150” the same way. By way of com-parison, note that Jonathan was to pay 300 talents for all of Judaea, includingthree districts of Samaria (1 Maccabees 11:28; see Stern, Hasmonaean Ju-daea, 51, n. 5), and that the annual Seleucid indemnities to Rome, accordingto 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 drach-mas, and on 8:11, ninety slaves per talent. As for the assumption that the highpriest was responsible for taxation, see also Josephus, Antiquities 12.158.

9. sign over (διαγρ�φειν). LSJ (392) distinguishes between “pay for,”“write an order for banker’s draft,” and plain “pay,” listing our verse in thelatter 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 isavailable.

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 author-ities.

gymnasium and ephebeion. Respectively: the central educational institutionof 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 summarizeshis findings, it appears that the one in Jerusalem was very isolated in itsday – 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 thefounding of a city, see the end of our Appendix 2.

and to register the people of Jerusalem as Antiochenes. It seems that thisverse, 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 0ναγρ�φειν with two direct ob-jects in the accusative, of which one is a person and one is somethingpredicated of the person (such as “‘writing up’ NN as a benefactor of thecity”), see Kennell, “New Light,” 15.

10. royal approval (�πινε%σαντο«). Lit. “royal nod” (cf. “with a single nodof His head” – 8:18). For the same verb in other diplomatic contexts, see also11:15 and 14:20. As is emphasized by both Ameling (“Jerusalem,” 107) andKennell (“New Light,” 17), the use of this verb is – as is now shown by an At-talid inscription, where it appears in line 14 (�πινε�σαι) in the context of aPhrygian community’s request that Eumenes II “agree” to their organizationas a new polis – good evidence for our author’s familiarity with Hellenisticchancellery usage. For more on the Attalid inscription, see Appendix 2.

control of the government. That is, the high priesthood; for this view of thatposition, 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,


see e.g. (Pseudo-?) Hecataeus apud Diodorus 40.3.5 (GLA I, no. 11) andSirach 50:1–4.

co-religionists (Iμοφ%λοψ«). Although φψλ2 and φ�λον can refer to groupsdefined 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 thesame usage, see Antiquities 12.23, where Josephus breaks Aristeas’ state-ment that “I am not a Jew” into the statements that he οϊτε γωνειπροσ2κ�ν α$το�« οϊτε �μ�φψλο« ]ν, i.e., that he is a Jew neither by birthnor 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 afew 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 wordwhich refers to descent would have been beside the point.

Greek style. See on v. 13, Hellenism.

11. benevolent royal privileges. For φιλ�ν�ρ�πα in the sense of privilegesbestowed by kings, see: Welles, RC, 373; Walbank, Polybius, 2.332; Schu-bart, “Königsideal,” 10–11. See also NOTE on 6:22, humane treatment. Itseems 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 accordingto their ancestral laws; see Josephus, Antiquities 12.138–146 (Stern, Docu-ments, nos. 1–2). For our author, the introduction of Greek institutions intoJerusalem constituted a violation of those privileges. However, as we arguein Appendix 2, it is doubtful that all Jerusalemites were forced to becomecitizens of the new city and to participate in its institutions; those whowanted to go on observing the ancestral ways were certainly allowed to doso. (This will change only in the course of the persecution, which camelater – Chs. 6–7). Accordingly, we should understand only that Antiochus’decision to allow the formation of “Antioch in Jerusalem” gave those whoassociated themselves with it a certain advantage in the eyes of the crown,somewhat marginalizing traditional Jewish life in Jerusalem. Such a devel-opment would encourage Jews to abandon traditional Jewish values (as isillustrated in the next few verses) and to that extent there is truth in the as-sessment that Antiochus IV, already at this stage and prior to his decrees ofpersecution, was tending in a direction contrary to the one his father hadunderwritten some thirty years earlier.

Johanan (father of the Eupolemus who participated in the embassy con-cerning 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 men-tion the involvement of any Jewish delegates or diplomats, but it is reason-able to assume that some did participate. We do have additional evidencefor Johanan’s son, Eupolemus, being sent to Rome in 161 BCE: the mainsource for that alliance with Rome identifies him as “Eupolemus son ofJohanan 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 fortwo generations, father and son, involved in international diplomacy onbehalf of the Jews. Individuals such as these, who could respectably takepart in negotiations with foreign powers, must have been at home inGreek culture to some significant degree – and so it is not surprising tosee that while Johanan’s father, sometime in the latter half of the third cen-tury BCE, gave his son that Jewish name, a generation later Johananwas already naming his own son Eupolemus; he probably gave him a cor-responding Greek education, as best he could. For other evidence ofHellenization in Jerusalem in the generation preceding the Hasmoneanrevolt, 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 hisson, Eupolemus, who is identified by participation in the embassy toRome, is unusual. For the suggestion that the problem be avoided, in part,by assuming that the verse refers to an otherwise unknown mission byJohanan to the Romans, see Zollschan, “Earliest Jewish Embassy.” How-ever, that interpretation would seem to give readers the confusing impres-sion that the royal rights had been obtained from the Romans, and it alsoleaves us wondering why Eupolemus is mentioned at all. Rather, it seems,we should stick by the standard interpretation that associates John with theroyal (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 awell-known personality. This lends support to the oft-suggested hypothesisthat he is to be identified with the pro-Jerusalem historian of the samename who wrote, it seems, in the fifties of the second century BCE, ofwhose 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 ina diplomatic mission (πρεσβε α) is a measure of Eupolemus’ importance,see D. J. Mosley, Envoys and Diplomacy in Ancient Greece (Wiesbaden:Steiner, 1973).


Finally, note that this verse contributes to our early terminus ad quemfor 2 Maccabees, given the fact that it seems to be unaware of later dele-gations to Rome; see above, p. 14.

regular civic usages (τ�«^νομ μοψ«^πολιτε α«). We must either live withthe 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’ν�μιμα«. More difficult is how to translate πολιτε α – normally “consti-tution,” as at 8:17 and 13:14. That hardly works in the plural, and theparallel with “practices” implies something less official. See esp. vanHenten, Maccabean Martyrs, 197–198; he offers “lawful Jewish ways oflife.” But “ways of life” omits the civic nuance of πολιτε α, which is so im-portant for our author, and “lawful” sounds too well defined, given the par-allel with “practices” and also the usual use of the substantive τ� ν�μιμα,for normative practices not necessary on a par with laws; at 11:24 weused “regulations.” Thus, Philo (Hypothetica 7.6) distinguishes among“unwritten practices, ν�μιμα, and the ν�μοι themselves” and Josephus(Ant. 13.296–297) reports that Hyrcanus abrogated (καταλ��, as here) theancestral ν�μιμα which are not in the Mosaic ν�μοι; perhaps he was think-ing of “halakhot.” Thus, our author avoids the unambiguous statementthat Jason abrogated the heart of Jewish law. Rather, he hit around it,abrogating “regular usages” and innovating “lawless practices.” Had ourauthor 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 generalone of introducing “Greek style” (v. 10), which competed with and margin-alized Jewish practice.

Note, however, that even when complaining about Hellenization, ourauthor persists in using Hellenistic terminology with regard to Judaism:Jason’s measures impacted upon the Jewish πολιτε α, and Jason built hisgymnasium right under Jerusalem’s “acropolis” (v. 12). This is all part of hisattempt to depict true and proper Judaism as analogous to the code of aGreek city, and thus to undercut the notion that Jason’s measures could beunderstood as an attempt to bring Hellenistic progress to a primitive orien-tal 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 inand of itself reprehensible, see e.g. Josephus, Antiquities 7.362; 15.178;18.9; 20.216–218; P. Pilhofer, Presbyteron Kreitton: Der Altersbeweis derjüdischen und christlichen Apologeten und seine Vorgeschichte (WUNTII/39; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck] 1990).

Chapter IV 223

practices. For Jewish Hellenistic usage of ��ισμ�« (as at 12:38) and similarterms, 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 orshocking about erecting a foreign institution alongside the city’s most de-monstrative expression of foreign rule? Therefore, it may be that the refer-ence is to the Temple Mount, something which would make the contrast inv. 14 all the more poignant. For “acropolis” in connection with the Temple ofJerusalem, see also Strabo, Geog. 16.2.37, p. 761. For the use of this Greekterm, see above, v. 11, end of NOTE on regular civic usages. On the TempleMount in the Second Temple period, see the first chapter of Eliav, God’sMountain. Eliav underlines the general lack of interest in the Mount per se inthe Second Temple period, but does not relate specifically to our verse.

making … submit (Fποτ�σσ�ν). I translated the verb as at 9:12; here itseems 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 toallow for word-play: Fποτ�σσ�ν Fπ" πωτασον (cf. NOTE on 5:20, dis-asters). On wordplay like this, see above, pp. 80–81. Recently, Kennell(“New Light,” 21–22) has argued that we should translate Fποτ�σσ�νwith military overtones, à la “drew up,” “station,” and understand that thereference 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 dis-cussion ignores the reference to sun-hats. As explained above, it seems tome that the choice of verb here probably resulted merely from the use ofthat noun, so it would not be well-advised to build much upon it.

the strongest (κρατ�στοψ«). For this literal translation, see Kennell, “NewLight,” 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 pro-tection against the sun; see E. Schuppe, “Πωτασο«,” RE I/37 (1937)


1119–1124. As has been noted (by H. A. Harris, Greek Athletics and theJews [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 andit was therefore highly impractical for most types of sports. Accordingly, itseems that it was mentioned as a metaphor for Hellenism in general, to whichwe may add that it was a particularly welcome one insofar as it allowed forthe wordplay mentioned just above (see NOTE on making … submit).

13. Hellenism. Equivalent here to the “Greek style” mentioned in v. 10 andthe “foreignism” mentioned later in this verse, as well as to the “Greekways” mentioned in 6:9 and 11:24. It is explicitly contrasted with “ancestralvalues” in v. 15, and implicitly with the “Judaism” mentioned in the intro-duction (2:21) and later on in the book (8:1; 14:38); see NOTE on 2:21, forJudaism. 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 ourbook 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 ofε$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 bea high priest. Indeed, it was common for Hellenistic Jews to assume thatpriests should be of special moral worth. This idea, although not withoutbiblical roots (e.g. Num 25:10–12 and 1 Sam 2:12–16, 27ff.), flourished es-pecially on the background of the Greek term for priest, Vερε�«, whichimplies that a priest should be “holy.” See Schwartz, Studies, 63–66.

14. no longer enthusiastic. A standard complaint of all traditionalists withregard 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 classesand run to anoint themselves the minute they hear the discus call.

ministries. It seems that the author uses λειτοψργ α here in order to inten-sify the contrast between the disdained sacrifices and the preferred

Chapter IV 225

ξορηγ α (mentioned just below), for the latter was considered a type ofpublic 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’sopening idyll was the statement (3:3) that the good Seleucid king supplied(ξορηγε�ν) the needs of the sacrificial offices (τ�« λειτοψργ α«), just aswhen 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 theSeptuagint in this book alone and is identical to what is usually termedVερ�ν, Temple, on the one hand, and the more specific να�«, “Sanctuary,”on the other, see: Joüon, “Mots employés,” 342–343, n. 32. See also ourNOTES 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 distribu-tion 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 inthe Hellenistic diaspora, not to use oil prepared by Gentiles, see Antiquities12.120, Marcus’ note ad loc. in the LCL edition, and Goodman, “KosherOlive Oil.” On the talmudic discussions of the issue, in connection withm. ‘Abodah Zarah 2:6, see Z. A. Steinfeld, “Concerning the ProhibitionAgainst Gentile Oil,” Tarbiz 49 (1979/80) 264–277 (in Hebrew).

in the palaestra. The gymnasium’s wrestling arena. On the palaestra and itsrelationship to the gymnasium, see Gardiner, Athletics, 72–92. On wrest-ling: ibid. 181–195 and Delorme, Gymnasion, 253–271.

call of the discus. A round piece of metal which was banged upon, as agong, to summon people to the gymnasium; see Wilhelm, “Neue Beiträge,V,” 46–47. If we were to pursue the contrast the author emphasized at thebeginning 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 serv-ing in the Temple vs. the honors to be attained by success in the Greek in-stitutions; see Kennell, “New Light,” 19.


considering … worthless (�ν ο<δεν� τι"ωμενοι). Cf. Claudius’ letter to theAlexandrians, which, according to Josephus (Ant. 19.290), forbade theJews of Alexandria to “consider worthless” (�7οψ�εν ζειν) the religious be-liefs of their Gentile neighbors.

16. those for whose ways (!γγ�«) they were enthusiastic (�ζ�λοψν).That is, the Greeks, whom Jason and his partisans wanted to imitate. On0γ�γ2 (“practice,” “policy,” “way”), which also appears at 6:8 and11:24, see Welles, RC, 309; Spicq, Notes, 1.38–40. As for ζηλ��, seeNOTE 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 ap-pear 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) inour book: the Jews’ sin was imitation of Greeks, and it was precisely theGreeks who punished them. Such making the punishment fit the crime,which demonstrates the working of divine providence and justice, recursoften: 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 thatby 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 de-veloped later on: the Gentiles are tools God uses to avenge Himself againstthose who violate His laws. See esp. 6:15 (another authorial comment) and7:9. 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 tocite its vv. 35 and 43.

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

18. quadrennial (πενταετηρικοD). Lit. “quinquennial,” but according toGreek “inclusive” counting, which counted the first and last year in a se-quence (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 byAlexander 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 nu-mismatic 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 viewthat Jason himself ruled the city and was, accordingly, responsible for allthat was wrong in it. See NOTE on 3:9, high priest of the city.

Jerusalem Antiochenes. That is, citizens of “Antioch in Jerusalem”; seeNOTE on v. 9, and to register … As Bringmann noted (Hellenistische Re-form, 90), their participation indicates that their city was officially recog-nized; compare 1 Maccabees 10:59–66, where Jonathan’s participation at aroyal wedding constitutes official recognition of him.

observers. On the institution of �ε�ρο , delegates who enjoyed sacred im-munity and who usually brought with them sacrifices as an indication oftheir city’s desire to participate in the festivals they visited, see P. Boesch,ΥΕ�ΡΟΣ: 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, seeGoldstein, 2 Macc, 233, who, terming the present figure “the right order ofmagnitude,” cites epigraphic evidence for sacrifices costing 100–500 drach-mas each (SIG 398, ll. 44–45; SIG 402, l. 30; OGIS 319, l. 20) and forcattle costing 70–120 drachmas per head.

a sacrifice. Here, as in v. 20, the Greek uses a definite object – “the sacri-fice,” i.e., the one normally to be expected.

Heracles. This Greek god was, early on, identified with Melqart, the chiefgod of Tyre. See Bonnet, Melqart; K. Preisendanz, “Melkart,” RE Supple-mentband VI (1935) 293–297; E. Lipinski, Dieux et déesses de l’universphénicien 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 orig-inal meaning – “thought right,” “considered proper,” as at 9:15, or even


“decided” (Goldstein, 2 Macc, 217). But given the fact that apart from 9:15all 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, κα�2κειν). For the use of this formulation in connec-tion 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, regularcivic usages. Whether the story is true, or rather only an expression of thetype of living in two worlds our Hellenistic Jewish author knew and tookfor 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 isusual at such a Tyrian festival. Triremes were the standard warships of theclassic and Hellenistic periods. For descriptions and illustrations, see J. S.Morrison & J. F. Coates, The Athenian Trireme (Cambridge: CambridgeUniv., 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 governorof Coele Syria and Phoenicia under Seleucus IV. As stated in our NOTE on3:5, Apollonius son of Thraseas, it seems that the repetition of the patro-nym here indicates our author’s awareness that this Apollonius is indeed tobe distinguished from the one mentioned there; plain “Apollonius” nolonger 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 itshould be noted that our verse does not say that Antiochus sent Apolloniusto Egypt, nor that the latter reported back to Antiochus about Ptolemy’shostility. 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 in-telligence was garnered (see e.g. 11:6; 12:5, 8, 21; 13:10, 23; 15:1, alongwith Introduction, p. 73). In fact, in most cases the impression is that thereference is to the discovery of the enemy’s intentions via some clandestinesource – 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 pic-ture. 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 AntiochusIV), we would suggest that Apollonius was sent to Egypt by Demetrius andthat Antiochus, quite reasonably, viewed this as evidence of Ptolemy’s hos-tility 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 ourpassage 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 lit-erally means “first reclining”): perhaps it refers to his first sitting at the headof a table, perhaps – to his coronation, or some similar ceremony. See Otto,6. Ptolemäers, 15–17; Walbank, Polybius, 3.323–324; Bunge, “‘TheosEpiphanes’,” 70–72. In any case, it does not seem to be possible to inferfrom this reference the exact date of Apollonius’ visit in Egypt. True, Wal-bank (as others, including Gruen, Hellenistic World, 2.649, n. 185) thoughtthat the present context in 2 Maccabees gives a terminus ad quem of late172, 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 thethrone in 175, mentioned in v. 7. But see our NOTE on v. 23, In the thirdyear thereafter. In general, we must content ourselves with dating this eventto 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 MacedonianWar and the Sixth Syrian War.

received notice. For this sense of μεταλαμβ�ν�, which recurs frequently(e.g. 11:6; 13:10), see J. Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihmerhaltenen Reste judäischer und samaritansicher Geschichtswerke (Breslau:Skutsch, 1875), 125, n. *.

that he. Ptolemy, not Apollonius, both because Ptolemy was the last-men-tioned and because Antiochus’ reaction shows that he feared a threat fromEgypt.

hostile toward his state (!λλ3τριον … πραγμ�τν). The identical phras-ing recurs at 14:26. On πρ�γματα, see NOTE on 3:7, head of state.

22. received sumptuously by Jason and by the city. On such receptions, seeNOTE on 3:9, received courteously. As for the separate mention of Jason,


see ibid., NOTE on high priest of the city. Note that our author, on the vergeof introducing the book’s worst villain, not only gives us a placid picture oflife in Jerusalem and relations with the Seleucid government, but also passesup, for once, the opportunity to juxtapose some nasty adjective to Jason’sname. For a similar procedure, see Josephus, War 2.277; 7.263.

Thereupon (εK" � ο8τ«). This phrase, which recurs at 15:13, implies bothtiming and cause. That is, his reception in Jerusalem convinced Antiochusthat he need not worry about pro-Ptolemaic sympathy there. True, there issome 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 musttherefore adopt one or more of the following alternatives: either we playdown the significance of those bits of evidence (so Gera, Judaea, 25–35,158–159), or we assume that Antiochus did not see everything he mighthave seen. In any case, whatever we imagine Antiochus saw or might haveseen, it is very clear that our diasporan author would not want his readersto 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 theverb appears frequently in Polybius in the sense of “to encamp” (seeMauersberger, PL, 3.1339–1341), it seems best to prefer such a translationhere. 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 hisforces (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 evidencefor the stretching of the toponym “Phoenicia” that far south, right down tothe Egyptian border. This is reasonable, for otherwise the implicationwould be that Antiochus’ visit in Jerusalem eliminated his fears concerningEgypt itself, and that makes no sense at all. According to the context, weshould understand that the king took his army back to the vicinity of Joppe.Probably, in fact, despite the attention our author naturally devotes to theJerusalem visit, we should assume that the bulk of his army had remained inJoppe the whole time, and that only relatively few forces accompanied himon this side trip.

23. In the third year thereafter. Lit. “after a three-year period.” But notethat the same phrasing, μετ� δ� τριετ# ξρ�νον, 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 alsothe use of such “inclusive” chronology just above (see NOTE on v. 18,quadrennial), to guide our translation. Nevertheless, the present datum isfar 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 ep-istles in Chs. 1 and 11 there are only two – 13:1 and 14:4), nor even relativechronology (apart from this instance, there are only 10:3 and 14:1), and inthe present case we cannot be sure where his count began: with Jason’s ap-pointment (which v. 7 associates with Antiochus’ accession to the throne –175 BCE), or, rather, with Antiochus’ visit in Jerusalem (which, in turn, wecouldn’t date precisely; see NOTE on v. 21, prôtoklêsia)? Accordingly, wewill leave the rise of Menelaus somewhere between 173/172 (the third yearafter Antiochus’ accession) and 168 (Antiochus’ second Egyptian cam-paign – 5:1).

brother of the aforementioned Simon. Who was last mentioned at the be-ginning of this chapter. On our author’s pedantic use of “aforementioned”(as there too), see NOTE on 2:32, aforementioned. If indeed, as we arguedin the Introduction (pp. 95–96), Simon was of the tribe of Benjamin, Mene-laus’ succession to the high priesthood constituted a radical departure fromtradition, which limited the priesthood, and certainly the high priesthood,to Aaronites, of the tribe of Levi. However, this type of detail might nothave interested our author very much; see our NOTE on 3:4, of the tribe ofBenjamin.

money. Promised by Jason, according to vv. 8–9.

take care of memoranda concerning pressing governmental matters. Thenature of which did not, evidently, interest our author, who likes to give usthe impression that he knows more than he tells and thus avoids wastingour time; see above, p. 73. For Fπομνηματισμο as memoranda (more of-ficialese, just as *ντεψ7ι« in v. 8), see Welles, RC, 372; Bickerman, Institu-tions, 194–195; Walbank, Polybius, 3.215–216. For another meaning ofthe 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 ofauthority. The expression is difficult, but it seems to mean that Menelaus, inexpressing his respect for the king, deliberately gave the impression that hehimself enjoyed authority among the Jews. This convinced the king to ap-point him to the high priesthood – although the author also adds, perhaps


ironically, that the hefty promise of money mentioned later in the verse alsoplayed a role. See esp. Abel, Macc, 338, and Bringmann, HellenistischeReform, 124. Goldstein (2 Macc, 236–237) would make Menelaus’ self-aggrandizement clearer by reading Ψαψτ�ν.

shifted … to himself. For this transitive sense of καταντ�� (as opposed toits usual intransitive usage for “come to,” “arrive” – as in 4:21, 44, and6:14), see LSJ, 903, s.v., §II. However, while with reference to the presentverse it translates “make to come back,” “bring back” (my emphasis), thereis in fact no suggestion, here, that Menelaus had already once been the highpriest.

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, seeIntroduction, pp. 95–96. As for the assumption that the high priest shouldbe “worthy” of his position, see the end of v. 13.

cruel tyrant. This combination – which recurs at 7:27 – was guaranteed tomake any Greek reader realize that Menelaus was a total villain. Forτ�ραννο« 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 hemay 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 NOTEon v. 16.

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

27. took over the government (�κρ�τει) … did not at all keep up (ο<δHνε<τ�κτει). For the inclusion of this in a list of Endreime in our book seeRichnow, “Untersuchungen,” 91; the paronomasia emphasizes the contrast

Chapter IV 233

between what Menelaus did do and what he should have been doing. Onthe 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 failedto keep up the tribute payments, see Antiquities 12.159. For the high priestas ruler, see NOTE on v. 10, control of the government.

28. Sostratus, the commandant of the acropolis. Which was mentioned inv. 12. This verse indicates that there was a Seleucid garrison in Jerusalemeven before the events described in the next chapter – probably ever sincethe 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 vi-cinity 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 theTemple Mount (see Ant. 14.5 vs. War 1.121), but that is only one consider-ation among many in scholarly debate concerning the precise location ofthe 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 notethat while this evidence for a Seleucid garrison is not supported by otherevidence, there is nothing unlikely about it, nor about the implication thatthe Akra’s commander was responsible not only for military matters, butalso 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 ofbudget surpluses.

summoned. This verb, προσκαλω�, has a legal or administrative resonanceto 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. Forthe 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-römischenZeit,” ZDPV 70 (1954) 147–153 (= idem, Judaica, 21–27). Note that δι�δ-οξο« here does not mean that Menelaus gave up his position and appointedLysimachus to succeed him, but only that Lysimachus was to stand in forMenelaus in his absence, just as Crates was only a temporary substitute forSostratus, according to the end of our verse, and Andronicus only filled infor the king, according to v. 31 (διαδεξ�μενον); see Deissmann, BibleStudies, 115; M. Trindl, “Ehrentitel,” 116, n. 131. Menelaus will return toJerusalem and the high priesthood in Chapter 5. On the meanings of δι�δ-οξο« see also Appendix 9. Accordingly, the use of 0πολε π� (here, 10:19


and 13:23) does not by itself indicate the temporary nature of the appoint-ment; rather, as also καταλε π� (4:31; 5:22; 9:24) it is used of appoint-ments in general. See Lifshitz, “Culte dynastique,” 78–80; Ma, AntiochosIII, 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 notthe most common in the Hellenistic world, are known from elsewhere aswell; 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, citiesin Cilicia ruled by the Seleucids. (As for the controversial question, whetherTarsus is to be identified with biblical Tarshish, see A. Lemaire, “Tarshish-Tarsisi.”) Rebellion by these cities will have reflected not only their um-brage at being presented to a concubine but also, and more basically, thegeneral weakening of the Seleucid hold on Asia Minor. For doubts as to theseriousness of these rebellions, see Mørkholm, Antiochus, 122. On Tarsusin 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 towhich 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 Syriaused to marry numerous wives and required the possession of various citiesto support them); and Josephus, Antiquities 12.154, which reports that therevenue of Coele Syria and Phoenicia was given as a dowry to CleopatraSyra upon her marriage to Ptolemy V (see NOTE on 3:11, a man of veryhigh preeminence).

Antiochis, the king’s concubine. Who is otherwise unknown, although afew Seleucid princesses of this name are known, including a daughter ofAntiochus III. Welles (loc. cit., 50–51) suggested that the reference might beto Antiochus IV’s sister or niece, who married him, and that our authorturned 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 (onthe 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. deVries, Pallake (Amsterdam: Paris, 1927).

31. Therefore the king hurried off. For a similar case a couple of decadeslater, 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 (τ�ν �ν 07ι)ματι). On honorific titlesin the Seleucid court, see Bickerman, Institutions, 40–50; Holleaux, Études3.220–225.

32. opportunity (καιρ�«). Lit. “time.” Our diasporan author expresses hisconfidence 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 diasporanhistoriography, see above, p. 49, n. 113. Note that in 2 Maccabees (as in theBabylonian Talmud [Berakhot 7b]) only the wicked have the advantage offavorable καιρο (here and 14:5, 29), while it is divine providence whichlooks out for the righteous. In 1 Maccabees, in contrast, where God hardlyplays a role (esp. after the first four chapters – see above, pp. 63–64), it is in-deed 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 equallyvague “holy vessels” of v. 48 and, especially, 5:16. Details about the Templecult and its appurtenances are not our author’s forte. For golden vessels intemples see, for example, Seleucus I’s letter in favor of the Temple of Apolloin 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 materialmakes it seem as if not only the soon-to-be-reported murder of Onias, butalso the robbery in Jerusalem, became possible only due to the king’s ab-sence.

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


phrasing here (�τ�γξανε πεπρακ)«) to 9:1 and translates “von anderentraf es sich, daß er sie verkauft hatte.” Indeed, it seems that one should notignore the first verb; on “happening” in 2 Maccabees, see NOTE on 3:2, ithappened.

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 wasepitomized or at some later point; see NOTE on v. 7, When Seleucus passedaway.

took refuge in the asylum. According to the context, he fled out of fear ofMenelaus. Readers should remember, as probably Onias did, that Menelauswas Simon’s brother, who had not balked even at committing murder; seev. 3. On sites of asylum in the Hellenistic world, see Rigsby, Asylia.

in Daphne, outside of Antioch. This probably means that Onias took refugein 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 apious 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 refer-ence must be to a synagogue; see Sluys, Quaestiones, 75, n. 1. But althougha Byzantine source does refer to a synagogue in Daphne, we have no evi-dence 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 en-joyed the right of asylia, we have no such evidence for Seleucid Syria; seeRigsby, Asylia, 571–573, and A. Kasher, “Synagogues as ‘Houses of Prayer’and ‘Holy Places’ in the Jewish Communities of Hellenistic and RomanEgypt,” 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 authormeant 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 pagantemple; for vagueness as a way of avoiding problems, cf. p. 5, n. 7. On theother hand, the author did not want to pass up using the story, because thejuicy 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 ρ�ν, “worse,” and someans “overcome,” “subdue” and the like; it appears in 2 Maccabees onlyhere 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 passiveusage of δε7ι�ζ�, saying it amounts to a form of δε7ι�ομαι. But given thecoming reference to the giving of the right hand, δοG« δε7ι�ν, this might beonly an aspect of the textual problem here; see our next NOTE.

giving him his right hand. There is some problem with the text here; seeHanhart’s apparatus and Habicht, 2 Macc, 221, n. 1. In any case, what ismeant 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 ex-pression 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, seeS. Lieberman, Studies, 472–475.

closed in on. This is the translation of παρακλε �, but it is clear – if not al-ready here, then from the next verse – that it means “killed”. Our authorhas a rich stock of verbs for killing; see De Bruyne, “Notes,” 408–409, andabove, p. 71.

justice (τ; δ�καιον). As with “unjust” and “man” in the next verse, this useof universal categories is quite deliberate, explaining the general outrageabout to be detailed. On δ κη and its identification, in Jewish Hellenisticthought, with providence (see e.g. Philo, In Flaccum, 104), see van derHorst, Philo’s Flaccus, 191–192; Sowers, “Reinterpretation.”

35. not only Jews. The fact that Gentiles (esp. Greeks; v. 36) joined the Jewsin their outrage and mourning, in connection with what had been done to aJew, 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 WorldCongress of Jewish Studies, vol. B/1 (Jerusalem: World Union of JewishStudies, 1986) 4.

outraged. LSJ (374) cites this verse alone for δειν�ζ�; it appears again at13:25, there too alongside δψσφορω�.


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, sotoo by emphasizing that a “man” had been killed, the author underlines theuniversal values which have been violated, thus explaining the involvementof 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 useof 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 ofAndronicus, 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 hehad 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 (seeMørkholm, Antiochus, 42–49) – we may conclude that our story has nowtaken 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 alonefor σψμμισοπονερω�. “Hatred of evil” is a very important trait in ourbook, 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� λ�γον 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 (λ�γο«). See Mauersberger, PL, 4.1490, andesp. Polybius 2.38.5, which contrasts acts which are κατ� λ�γον and thosewhich are παρ� λ�γον.

37. aggrieved in his spirit. Just as the other good Greeks of Antioch. Forgood kings upset by Jewish suffering, according to Jewish Hellenistic litera-ture, 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 onhis argument that the campaign mentioned in 5:1 is Antiochus’ first Egyptian cam-paign, 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 Hellenisticgentleman; so too 15:12. As Grimm notes here (2 Macc, 94), our author isattempting to reflect the king’s point of view, not his own Jewish one, whichinstead emphasized Onias’ religious virtue (3:1); Grimm compares Anti-ochus’ Onias to Polybius’ Scipio Aemilianus (Polybius 31.25.8). Onε$τα7 α, see P. Brown, The Body and Society (New York: Columbia, 1988)7. On σ�φροσ�νη, 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 bewarned; for similar cases, see 6:10 and Polybius 2.60.7; Josephus, War6.359 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 asign of humiliation, see e.g. Lactantius, DMP 28.3–4.

purple (garment). For the purple worn by royal “friends” (see NOTE on1:14, Friends) and other officials in the Hellenistic kingdoms, for which rea-son the Romans called them purpurati, see Corradi, Studi, 342; Bickerman,Institutions, 32, 42; and M. Reinhold, History of Purple as a Status Symbolin 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. Onthe moral, not ritual, sense of μια-, see NOTE on 5:16, abominable hands.

the Lord allocating (!ποδ3ντο«). For the assumption that the kings of thisworld 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 onv. 42, near the treasury.

39. robbery from the Temple. All Greeks abominated temple-robbery; seeT. Thalheim, “ ’ Ιεροσψλ α« γραφ2,” RE I/16 (1913) 1589–1590. See, forexample, Polybius 31.9.4 (on Antiochus Epiphanes), 32.15 (on Prusias II ofBythinia). Note that the terms Vεροσολ α, Vερ�σψλο«, Vεροσολ��, and theterm used here, Vεροσ�λημα, appear in the Septuagint only in 2 Maccabees:


here and below, v. 42; 9:2; 13:6. They refer in general to the violation oftemples, specifically to robbery. In this connection, note that among ancientJew-haters there were some who derived the name of Jerusalem from theseterms, 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 ofVεροσ�λημα of which the Jews, in Jerusalem (!), were the victims.

in the city. I.e., Jerusalem. The fact that “the city” means Jerusalem al-though the last episode occurred in Antioch, and the fact that the robbery issaid 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, ad-vanced a considerable distance outside of the city.

on behalf of Menelaus (μετ» τ5« τοD Μενελ�οψ γν=μη«). Lit. “withMenelaus’ 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 and14:20 also e.g. Josephus, Antiquities 2.309 (where Pharaoh disobeys God’sγν)μη).

the community (πλ5"ο«). See NOTE on 3:21, community. Here too it isclear that the reference is to positive characters, hence not to a “horde” orthe like.

for many golden vessels had already been scattered about. The author iscareful 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 them-selves. For the scattering of vessels, cf. v. 32.

40. the populace. Of Jerusalem. For Eξλοι as the population of a city, not amob, 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 theEξλοι became aroused, and had a mob been meant it would already havebeen aroused. Thus, the author has used two separate terms, πλ#�ο« andEξλοι, for the Jewish population of Jerusalem; for his delight in such vari-ation, 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 reasonto assume the number is reliable is the fact that our author made every ef-fort to keep us from learning about the degree of support which his villainsenjoyed; sometimes the truth was so much a part of the story that it couldnot be repressed (see NOTE on v. 3, one of Simon’s partisans).

one Auranus. For such an apparently disparaging introduction of a pre-viously unknown villain, see NOTE on 3:4, one Simon. The name Auranusis otherwise unknown, and some would prefer to read τ�ραννο«; see Han-hart, Text, 47–48, n. 1. Hanhart defends “Auranus,” noting that this is notthe only case in which our book has an unprecedented name7 and that thecontext would seem to demand a proper name. To his arguments we mayadd that “tyrant” is, in our book, reserved for rulers alone, and is not usedto 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 againstthe Jews, the diasporan author insists on claiming that Lysimachus’ menbegan the violence, despite the fact that v. 40 points in the opposite direc-tion. Similarly, he makes sure his reader knows that the Jews, far from hav-ing easy access to weapons (contrast the Gentiles of 9:2!) were armed onlywith …

wood … ashes (σποδοD). There is some ambiguity here: does σποδ�« meandust (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 onehand, σποδ�« is something typically thrown on the head as a sign of hu-miliation (see e.g. 1 Macc 3:47, 4:39; Jdt 4:11), but when our author speaksof such practice he uses γ# (10:26, 14:15), which clearly refers to dirt ordust; on the other, he clearly uses σποδ�« for ashes at 13:8. That is, ourauthor seems to have avoided the ambiguity. A more involved argumentleads to the same conclusion. Namely, it is obvious that both dust and ashesare 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 withHanhart’s other example.


σποδ�« here (just as earlier, in our NOTE on v. 12, sun-hats, we noted thatthe petasos is not an efficient hat for sports but was mentioned to make arhetorical point). That explanation would seem to be not only the author’sdiasporan desire to depict the Jews as unarmed, but also his desire to sug-gest to us that the wood and ashes were from the altar, it itself being mobi-lized, as it were, to defend its sanctity against the crimes of Menelaus andhis 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 isexplained, tit for tat, at 13:8 – and so supports the translation “ashes” here.

42. were wounded. Lit., “made into wounded.” The same phrasing recursat 8:24, there too alongside others who are made to flee. We translatedτρα�μα as usual, of wounds; although the word does appear very fre-quently in the Septuagint with regard to death, in original Greek such asthat of 2 Maccabees there is no need to consider such a translation; see also8:24; 11:12.

to flee. We are not told whither or until when, but the book does supplysome hints: (a) Chapter 5 will reveal (nolens volens) that Jerusalem was inthe hands of Jewish opponents of Menelaus (see NOTE on 5:7, coming to ashameful end); (b) 10:15 will refer, in passing, to Jews who fled from Jeru-salem and joined the Jews’ enemies. Understandably, our author tries tohide the former case (and portrays Antiochus’ attack on the city as a resultof misunderstanding – see NOTE on 5:11, he inferred) and gives no detailsat 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 assump-tion 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 ofburial, 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 truejustice, that punishment comes at the scene of the crime. For that motifin Greek literature, see e.g. Xenophon, Hellenica 6.4.7: the Thebans weredestined to defeat the Lacedaemonians at the very site where the latter haddefiled 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, accordingto 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 tradi-tional 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 sweepingstatement in v. 11 notwithstanding (see NOTE there on benevolent royalprivileges), and that the king was willing to hear its delegates, confirms thattraditional 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 theElders 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 oflast-minute reverses, see above, p. 174. For λελειμμωνο« in the sense of “tobe 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 buthe 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 resultof careless abridging. This Ptolemy is mentioned at 1 Maccabees 3:38 as aSeleucid officer. There are those who would identify him with “Ptolemy, thegovernor of Coele Syria and Phoenicia” mentioned at 8:8, but see ourNOTE ad loc. For more prosopographical detail and options in this connec-tion, see Cotton and Wörrle, “Seleukos IV to Heliodoros,” 200–201. Theauthor’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 thepoint of view of apologetic historiography, for accusing the king himselfthreatens the very basis of existence under foreign rule; “Where conflictdoes 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 inour book, and of Gaius Caligula, were too egregious to be avoided, and in those casesthe 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) – opposethe king as best they can. Cf. our NOTE on 14:33, this sacred enclosure of God.


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; Letterof Aristeas 23; Antiquities 20.182–183 (only the villains’ bribes preventedthe ratification of the Jews’ claim); Philo, Legatio 160, 172, 203–206. Seealso NOTE on 12:2, local governors.

46. get some fresh air. Lit. “refresh his spirit.” The use of the verb0ναχ�ξ� (on which see Spicq, Notes, 1.94–95), which recurs at 13:11, in-troduces an element of irony into the story: Ptolemy took the king aside as ifin 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 im-portant for the author to emphasize just where the guilt does and does notlie. 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 isthe opposite of a standard positive one; see NOTE on 11:19, a beneficialagent.

sentencing to death. In ancient literature it is common to read of the execu-tion of complainants if their serious accusations were rejected (“crimen ca-lumiae”). See, for example, Deuteronomy 19:16–21; Esther 7; Lucian, Dedea syra, end of ch. 28. Wellhausen once suggested (“Wert,” 125) that thoseexecuted were not, in fact, merely delegates sent by the Jerusalemites to ac-cuse Menelaus, for why – he argued – should the king care to hear com-plaints about theft from the Temple of Jerusalem (“als ob Epiphanes darn-ach viel gefragt hätte”)?! Rather, he theorized, they had been arrested inJerusalem, charged with responsibility for the violence in which Lysimachuswas 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 readersto believe that the good king Antiochus was interested – and that the goodJews of Jerusalem thought he was interested – in defending the sanctity ofthe Temple of Jerusalem.

poor unfortunates. A proleptic description; the author allows us no room tohope that they can defeat Menelaus.

Scythians. Who were known for their cruelty and barbarity; see NOTES on7:4, 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 hasbeen 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. Fora passage very similar to ours, see Cicero, In Verrem 2.5.58.150: Ciceromentions the Scythians as very barbaric people who nevertheless would beshocked 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 thistoo they are similar to Onias; see v. 2. As usual, note that while the problemconcerned 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 followsthe Alexandrinus and reads here the plural δ2μ�ν – “districts,” “villages”or the like; he is followed by Abel, Habicht and Goldstein ad loc. But it isdifficult to see how they might fit into the story, whereas δ2μοψ, as in theVenetus and other witnesses, gives a good parallel to 15:14: “for the peopleand 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 hedoes mention them, at 8:1, 6, he uses another term.

49. the Tyrians. As usual, it is important for our author to emphasize thatGentiles too are shocked at Jewish suffering; see NOTE on v. 35, not onlyJews.

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 severaltimes in this book; see 5:10; 9:15, 28–29; 12:39; 13:7. For the terrible anddangerous 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 outwhat a tragedy ensued because Ptolemy son of Dorymenes fell victim toπλεονε7 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


[1971] 52–53); M. Wolter, “Ethos und Identität in paulinischen Ge-meinden,” NTS 43 (1997) 436. Note that the author refers here to “thepowerful” in general, abstaining from specific reference to the king; seeNOTE on v. 45, Ptolemy son of Dorymenes.

being (κα"εστ=«). This word, in the Greek the last in the chapter, closes thecircle begun in its first two verses: that which Simon calumniously claimedabout Onias’s role is in fact true about Simon’s villainous brother.

conspirator against his fellow citizens. This too closes the circle opened atthe beginning of the chapter: Simon claimed that Onias was a wicked con-spirator (v. 2), but in fact it is Menelaus who fits that description. The factthat there the reference was to conspiracy against the state, and here it is toconspiracy against the Jews, only reinforces the diasporan author’s claimthat the two share a common interest, and that only trouble-makers andcorrupt people, on one side or the other, blur that fact; so too Philo, Legatio159–161.

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 ap-peared in the air running cavalry decked out with golden vestments, com-panies mustered according to units, (3) and deployed troops of horses. Andthere were attacks and charges of one against the other, and movements ofshields and a multitude of spear-shafts and the drawing of knives andthrowing of projectiles and the gleam of gilt equipment and of all sorts ofbreast-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 uponthe city. When those who were upon the wall were driven back and the cityalready being completely taken, Menelaus fled to the acropolis. (6) Jasonmercilessly perpetrated massacres of his fellow citizens, not realizing thatsuccess against one’s kinsmen is the greatest misfortune, and supposing thathe was erecting trophies over his enemies rather than over members of hisown people. (7) But he did not gain control of the government; his conspi-racy 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 beforeAretas, 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 father-land and fellow citizens, until he was driven out to Egypt. (9) Thus he whohad forced great numbers (of people) from the fatherland to go abroad him-self perished abroad, having set sail to the Spartans hoping to find shelter byvirtue of kinship. (10) And thus he who had cast forth a multitude of peoplewithout burial was himself unmourned, having neither a funeral nor burialin an ancestral grave.


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, aftercoming back from Egypt he took the city at spear-point (12) and ordered hissoldiers mercilessly to smite those who fell into their hands and to cut downthose 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 inbattle and no fewer were sold. (15) Not satisfied by that, he also dared toenter 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) tak-ing the holy vessels with his abominable hands and seizing with his profanehands the votive offerings which had been given by other kings for the ag-grandizement, honor and respect of the Place.

Some Authorial Reflections

(17) And Antiochus’ mind went soaring, for he did not see that it was due tothe sins of the city’s residents that the Sovereign briefly distanced Himselffrom it in anger, and that was why the Place was unsupervised. (18) Had itnot happened that they had been caught up in many sins, he too – just asHeliodorus, who had been sent by King Seleucus to audit the treasury – im-mediately upon moving forward (into the Temple) would have been floggedand overturned from his insolence. (19) But God did not choose the peopleon 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 befellthe people, later shared also in the benefactions, and that which had beenabandoned in the anger of the All-Ruler was again reestablished with fullhonor when the great Sovereign was reconciled.

More Suffering in Jerusalem

(21) Now Antiochus, having taken 1800 talents from the Temple, hurriedlydeparted 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 leftbehind officials to torment the people:

Chapter V 249

– in Jerusalem – Philip, who was of Phrygian descent and by nature evenmore 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 Jewishcitizens.

(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 backuntil the holy Sabbath day. Then, catching the Jews while they were abstain-ing from labor, he instructed the men under his command to muster forparade: (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 often or so had gathered, fled to the mountains and, along with his men, livedthere in animal-like fashion, for food limiting themselves to grass so as toavoid defilement.

COMMENT

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

In the event, things turn out badly. First, the wicked Jason, whom we per-haps thought we could forget, imagined Antiochus’ campaign to Egyptwould 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 suf-fering, but also (so our author claims) created in Antiochus’ mind the falseimpression that the Jews had rebelled against him. Thus, although Jason’sescapade did have the salutary result of bringing about his own final down-fall, 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.” Thewicked Menelaus is here to stay.


brought down Antiochus’ attack upon the city – which resulted in theslaughter of myriads of Jews and enslavement of myriads of others, robberyof the Temple, and the establishment of military rule in the city. Only themention of Judas Maccabaeus and his men, who are first and only brieflymentioned 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 theJews and their Gentile ruler, our author very explicitly propounds two mainthemes, which are tightly interlocked. The first is that God runs history. Theauthor makes this point very heavy-handedly by the opening apparition, byJason getting his just deserts, and then quite explicitly in the excursus invv. 17–20, which emphasizes (as already 4:16–17) that it is the sins of theJerusalemites that really explain their sufferings, Antiochus being only –and unwittingly – God’s agent to punish, most appropriately (as already ex-plained at 4:16–17), those sinful “Antiochenes of Jerusalem.” The secondtheme is that the Jews’ rulers can have no good reason of their own to at-tack or persecute the Jews,2 so if they do, it can be due only to a misunder-standing (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 isusing them to punish His people for their sins.

As for historicity: with this chapter we have come to the point where ourbook’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, thecomparison is not very difficult. True, we are immediately confronted by achronological discrepancy: we know that Antiochus twice invaded Egypt,once in 170/169 BCE and once in the spring/summer of 168; but while1 Maccabees 1:20, by dating Antiochus’ attack upon Jerusalem and rob-bery of the Temple to 143 SE, places the episode after the first campaign, thefirst 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 pre-ferable. Other than this point, both books basically tell the same story:Antiochus’ rampage in Jerusalem4 and robbery of the Temple were followedby the appointment of Apollonius the Mysarch (v. 24//1 Macc 1:29), whocontinues the persecutions.

Attention should be drawn, however, to a major contribution of thischapter 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 ofthe 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 re-bellion in Jerusalem against Seleucid rule during Antiochus’ Egyptian cam-paign, led not by Jason but, apparently, by Jewish traditionalists ornationalists, and that it was this – not some figment born out of misunder-standing – that Antiochus put down.5 See NOTE on v. 7, coming to ashameful end. Neither the author of 1 Maccabees (a Hasmonean mouth-piece who had no interest in reporting rebels who preceded his heroes) norour diasporan author (who abhors the ideas of Jewish rebels in the absenceof religious persecution) reported the rebellion – an event which, however,goes a long way toward explaining Antiochus’ attack upon the city reportedin 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 phrasessuch as this one allow authors to impart some appearance of continuity tonarratives which have in fact skipped to new places and themes; comparethe 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 clearthat 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 be-fore that – of Tyre. Cf. 4:39 and 10:27.

there appeared in the air. This is (after 3:24–26) the second apparition(�πιφ�νεια) of those promised in the introduction (2:21). On this appar-ition, see Adinolfi, Questioni, 126–134. Clearly it is heralding militaryactivity. Compare, for example, Diodorus 17.10. For other such appar-itions, see Pritchett, War, 3.11–46, along with Julius Obsequens’ Book ofProdigies (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 onDan 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).


gods, whereas this Jewish text, of necessity, speaks only of others. For otherapparitions above Jerusalem, which – as this one – were ambiguous butturned 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 opposedto Hanhart and Goldstein who read λ�γξα« – companies of soldiers armedwith lances. It seems that the present verse deals with units and only thenext with their weapons.

mustered (� πλισμωνοψ«). The word reappears in v. 25, which will alsoallow the chapter to end by clarifying, cruelly, what exactly the apparitionpresaged. Cf. the citations from Polybius in the next NOTE.

according to units (σπειρηδ3ν). This term is found in the Septuagint onlyhere and at 12:2. Polybius seems to have used σπε�ρα for units of 256 men;see Polybius 5.5.9 and Walbank, Polybius, 1.541. For parades by units, seee.g. Polybius 30.25, which describes Antiochus IV’s military processionat Daphne in 166 BCE, which was led by 5000 soldiers armed (*ξοντε«κα�οπλισμ�ν) “in Roman style,” followed by Mysians (see v. 24), by Cili-cians armed (κα��πλισμωνοι) as “light” infantry, etc. See also below,NOTE on 8:9, from various peoples. On the Daphne procession, seeF. 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 thecavalry; see Bar-Kochva, JM, 11.

drawing of knives. On the basis of some textual witnesses, and along withGrimm, Abel, Habicht and Goldstein, but contrary to Hanhart, we havemoved these words (μαξαιρ�ν σπασμο�«) to here from the opening of v. 3.This restores order: first the units, then their movements, then theirweapons. We translated μ�ξαιρα according to classical usage, “knife,” al-though it could mean sword; see LSJ, 1085; Mauersberger, PL, 4.1514. Ourauthor has other words for swords; see NOTE on 15:15, broadsword.

throwing of projectiles (βελ#ν βολ�«). Perhaps this refers to spears (al-though 15:11 uses λ�γξη); on them, see Walbank, Polybius, 1.704–705.For an illustration of a Thracian cavalryman preparing to throw a shortspear, 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 of07ι�� 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. Themotif of ambiguous oracles and apparitions was widespread in antiquity.See, for example, Herodotus 1.53, 74; Diodorus 17.41.5–6; Cicero, DeDivinatione 2.56.115–116; Josephus, War 6.312–313; Tacitus, Histories5.13.1–2 (GLA II, no. 281); Suetonius, Vespasian 4.5 (GLA II, no. 312);Lieberman, Hellenism, 198–199 (who cites, inter alia, Cicero op. cit. andEsther Rabba on Esther 3:14: “the Gentiles have ambiguous prophecies anddo not know whether they mean they will be killed or kill”).

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

Jason. Last mentioned in flight to Ammanitis (4:26). The present story willshow 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).


those who were upon the wall. We are not told for whom they were fight-ing, but the author’s wrath about their death, in the next verse, shows theywere not Menelaus’ men; see NOTE on v. 7, coming to a shameful end. Asfor 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 (�φψγ�δεψσεν). On the text and translation, see our NOTEon 14:14, who had fled before Judas.

to the acropolis. The Temple Mount? See NOTE on 4:12, directly beneaththe acropolis.

6. fellow citizens. The usual term; see above, p. 6, n. 9.

not realizing. See on 4:6, folly.

kinsmen … own people (σψγγενε�« … �μοε�ν�ν). As opposed to “fellowcitizens,” 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; sotoo 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 tobe more cosmopolitan than a later colleague from Jerusalem, who notedthat it is forbidden “to us” to take up arms against the members of our ownpeople; Josephus, Vita 26. See also Antiquities 6.82.

erecting trophies. On the Greek τρ�παιον, 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. Toour author’s words here compare esp. Jocasta’s in Euripides’ PhoenicianWomen, lines 568ff.: in attempting to dissuade her son from attacking hisnative city, she ironically asks him what type of trophy he would like toerect 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, con-trol of the government.

coming to a shameful end. We are not told who overcame Jason. But ifMenelaus 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 thatthe 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 thosekilled by Jason, then it seems clear, as Tcherikover saw (HC, 187–188),that there must have been – beside Jason’s and Menelaus’ contingents – athird Jewish force.7 Perhaps these Jews – traditionalists or nationalists –had ruled the city since the expulsion of Lysimachus’ men (4:42). In anycase, 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 againstJason (v. 5).

to Ammanitis. As before (4:26). Note that the Tobiads lived there; giventheir Ptolemaic ties, it is significant that Jason is said to have continued onto Egypt. Especially against the backdrop of the recently completed SixthSyrian War, it is not difficult to understand these moves on the part of arefugee from Antiochus. However, we should also note the remarkablesimilarity between Jason, as depicted here, and Ishmael son of Netania, theleader of those who assassinated Gedalia son of Ahiqam, the Babyloniangovernor of Jerusalem: after murdering eighty Israelite pilgrims he fled tothe Ammonites (Jer 41:1–15). Could our author have seen Menelaus assomething 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 inAmmanitis 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. Thisverse used to be the earliest evidence for a Nabataean king, but now there isearlier 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 possi-bility of a Jewish rebellion not in reaction to religious persecution. But it in no wayvitiates his observations – which, in retrospect, seem quite obvious.


tyrant. For the use of this title for local rulers in this region, possibly with-out the pejorative connotation it frequently has (as at 4:25 and 7:27), seee.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 storyis all about, compare v. 15 and 8:21; 13:11, 14.

executioner. The literal meaning of δ2μιο« is merely “[official] of thepeople,” but it came to apply particularly to executioners; so too 7:29.

driven out to Egypt. The verb �κβρ�ζ� (throw out) in the sense of “toexpel” (here in the passive) is quite rare, but appears in a similar context inthe second epistle opening our book; see NOTE on 1:12, For He Himselfdrove out.

9. Thus he … As usual, our author has no qualms about demonstrating anattitude contrary to the counsel of Proverbs 24:17//m. Avot 4:19: “Do notrejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when hestumbles;” see Introduction, pp. 77–78.

who had forced … abroad himself perished abroad. The Greek juxtaposesthe two and additionally uses paronomasia (0πο7εν)σα« �π� 7ωνη«) so asto underline the poetic justice. As a matter of fact, we hear nothing specificabout those Jason exiled or left unburied (see v. 10). While it is not unlikelythat there were some, we should not put it past our author, who was a firmbeliever in providential talio, to have inferred, from the way he heard Jasondied, that he must have committed such crimes.

to the Spartans … kinship. According to Genesis 10, the Jews and theGreeks descend from different sons of Noah – Shem and Japhet, respect-ively. That is, ten generations before the first Jew, Abraham, their lines ofdescent were separated one from another. Nevertheless, the notion that theJews were related to the Spartans is known from a few Jewish Hellenisticsources, esp. from Jonathan’s letter to them (1 Macc 12:5–23); see on thistheme Gruen, “Purported Jewish-Spartan Affiliation” and Stern, Hasmon-aean Judaea, 63–70 (with much bibliography). Probably the Jews likedcomparing 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, correspond-ingly, the present story too suggests that the Spartans did not take the no-tion seriously. In fact, this story serves mainly as gloating irony: after deal-ing so terribly with his true kinsmen (σψγγενε�« – v. 6) the wicked Jasonthought he could find refuge with the Spartans on the basis of some dubiousσψγγωνεια – and instead got what he well deserved. For Greek epigraphicevidence 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 PtolemaicGreek, 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 authornow enjoys turning it some more.

cast forth a multitude of people without burial. Something typical of theworst villains; see 9:15. For this theme, prominent in our book, see NOTEon 4:49, funeral expenses.

having neither a funeral nor burial in an ancestral grave. For similar gloat-ing, 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 under-stand that the king’s notion, although perhaps reasonable, was in fact a mis-taken inference. On the weakness of διαλαμβ�ν� in Koine in contrast to thestronger “to understand” in Attic Greek, see Welles, RC, 325, and LSJ, 400.(So too at 3:32: δι�λημχι« is a mistaken inference, just as Heliodorus’ at-tempt to take funds from the Temple, according to Ch. 3, was the result of anuntrue report about the funds accumulated in the Temple.) Thus, accordingto our author, the conflict between the Jews and their king resulted frommere misunderstanding: an incorrect rumor that the king had died was fol-lowed by an incorrect surmise that the Jews had rebelled. Even worse: theking infers, here, that the Jews had rebelled (0ποστατε�ν), not realizing thatthey had in fact expelled from their land the truly villainous 0ποστ�τη«,Jason (v. 8). For similar apologetic historiography, note that Josephus hasGaius Caligula falsely believing (καταδο7�σα«) that the Jews were about to


rebel against him (Ant. 18.302; see also ibid. §271: “We will in no wayfight …,” and Schwartz, Agrippa, 81, n. 56). So too, b. Gittin 56a claims thatthe war that culminated in the destruction of the Second Temple began due toa villain who misled Nero into thinking that the Jews were in rebellion. Ourauthor, Josephus and the rabbis of the Babylonian Talmud all bespeak thetypical attitude of diasporan Jews, who attempt to convince themselves andothers that true Jews would not think of rebelling against their rulers.

spirit maddened like a beast’s. As Menelaus – 4:25. Our author likes tocompare ardor to bestiality, especially of the wicked (see also 9:7) but alsoof the good (10:35; 12:15); in the Septuagint, �ηρι�� (here) and �ηρι�δ�«(12:15) appear only in 2 Maccabees, while �ηρι)δη« (10:35) is found ad-ditionally only in 4 Maccabees 12:13. See also NOTE on 9:15, bird-eaten towild animals (Υηρ�οι«).

at spear-point (δορι�λτον). 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 citiesin ancient “pathetic” literature, see G. M. Paul, “Urbs capta: Sketch of anAncient Literary Motif,” Phoenix 36 (1982) 144–155.

smite. For the different senses of κ�πτ� (smite, smite down, crush) seeMauersberger, PL, 3.1422. Cf. κατακ�πτ�, “cut down” (1:13).

returned to their houses. Lit. “gone up to their houses,” but 0να- here, as fre-quently, seems to refer instead to returning. On returning home from themarketplace 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 thebiblical background of the phrase, see NOTE on v. 13, young and old …

13. destruction … disappearance … slaughter. This is a good example ofour 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 mys-terious and tantalizing nature of the verb, used by authors to provoke theimagination of their readers).

young and old … women and children … virgins and infants. This verse hasa 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 shallbereave, and in the chambers shall be terror, destroying both young manand virgin, the sucking child with the man of gray hairs” (RSV). Otherwise,why should v. 24 distinguish between those killed outside or inside? For therole of Deuteronomy 32 (“Song of Moses”) as the foundation of our book’sunderstanding of the events it narrates, see above, pp. 21–23.

14. 80,000. This number is higher than most estimates of the total popu-lation 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, onexaggerated 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 ξειρ�ν νομα�« und �ν ξει-ρ�ν (ξειρ"«) νομZ,” Glotta 24 (1936) 133–144 (pp. 135–136 on ourverse, 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. Forsome 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 on2:22, the temple …

traitor (προδ3τη«). Even now, the author still finds it important to insistupon 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 (Vεροσ�λοι« κα�προδ�ται«); see also Josephus, Against Apion 2.263 (Socrates “neither be-trayed 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, with-out 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, rob-bery from the Temple. The present passage, that offers only two brief words


to describe that which Antiochus took – contrasting starkly both with thelong and detailed inventory in 1 Maccabees 1:21–238 and with the numberof words allotted later in our verse to the general goodwill of Hellenistickings – is an eloquent example of what does and does not interest our dias-poran 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 impurehands 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 ritualimpurity, 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 parallelismin 7:34: “impious and most impure.” For the Greek background, seeParker, 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 tohis being a non-Jew but, rather, to his being a non-priest; even a Jew who isnot a priest is “profane” (βωβηλο«). See also Spicq, Notes, 1.186–188.

votive offerings (!νατε"ωντα). The text is according to Abel and Habicht adloc., apparently supported by 2:13 and 9:16. Hanhart prefers 0νασ-τα�ωντα (“set up,” “erected”). However, see Josephus, War 2.413, wherededicated objects are said to have been “set up” in the Temple; hence, onboth readings the meaning remains more or less the same.

by other kings. In contrast to the “holy vessels,” these dedications inter-ested our diasporan author greatly, as evidence for the respect in whichothers 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 oneand the same – for which we argue in Appendix 3.

Chapter V 261

cultic appurtenances which were stolen. The author of 1 Maccabees, likethe nationalist hotheads who started off the Great Revolt against Rome (Jo-sephus, War 2.409–417; see Schwartz, Studies, 102–116), probably con-sidered such gifts abominable. The dedicatory offerings stolen by Antiochusare indeed mentioned by Josephus (Ant. 12.249); on the commonalities ofhis account with that of 2 Maccabees here, see Appendix 3.

17. mind went soaring. This – echoed in v. 21, which resumes the narrativeafter the present excursus – opens a circle which is closed only at 9:8, whenAntiochus is brought back to earth. For the notion that thought is at theroot 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 inter-pretation in the next verses, the reference to the Heliodorus episode, and thevery 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 dueto lack of ability that God failed to defend Jerusalem, but, rather, that He sodecided. The term recurs in v. 20, also at 6:14; 9:13; 15:22 (and as a verb at14:46), in each case with reference to God. As opposed to the English “des-pot,” 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 fre-quent use of the term with regard to God in Jewish Hellenistic literature, seeEnermalm-Ogawa, Langage de prière, 126–128.

briefly (βραξω«). So too the seventh martyred son (7:33). It seems that thecombination of “briefly,” “anger” and “looking away” (the latter two yetto 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 overflowingwrath for a moment I hid my face from you, but with everlasting love I willhave compassion on you, says the Lord, your Redeemer” (RSV). See also2 Maccabees 7:29, which refers to “ingathering” at the time of “mercy.”


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; notethe contrast with �π)ργισταi at 7:33. Here we are still in the time of God’sanger, and God turns away (thus allowing Antiochus free rein), but by 7:33we’ll already be moving toward reconciliation and even when angry He willdeal directly with the Jews; see above, p. 22, n. 53.

the Place was unsupervised. Lit. “there was a looking away (παρ�ρασι«)from the Place.” In the Septuagint, this term appears only here. It is to beunderstood, first of all, against the background of our book’s frequent em-phasis upon the fact that God always, providentially, looks after Hispeople; see NOTE on 3:39, watches over. Accordingly, we are now toldthat the current situation was an exception, which requires explanation.We may assume that here too, ultimately, the author has Deuteronomy 32in mind (see NOTE on v. 13, young and old); this time he is thinking of itsv. 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. OnGod’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: TheHiding 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 thecity’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 forthis verb.

he too. Antiochus. Some witnesses omit the “too” (κα�); they are followedby Abel and Hanhart ad loc. But as Habicht notes ad loc., the rhetoric of theargument here seems to require it.

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

19. But God did not choose the people on account of the Place. A state-ment of paramount importance for Jews of the Diaspora. See NOTE on6:16, His own people.

Chapter V 263

20. disasters (δψσπετημ�τν). Again our verse is the only evidence forthis 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 thisone because it reminded him of the πωτασο«, with which he already playedat 4:12 (see our NOTE there on making … submit)? In any case, it is clearhe liked it because of the contrast it affords with …

benefactions (ε<εργετημ�τν). The paronomasia sharpens the contrastwith the just-mentioned “disasters” and points us back to God’s most re-spectable role; see NOTE on 4:2, benefactor.

All-Ruler. See on 1:25, All-Ruler.

reestablished. On �παν�ρ��σι« see NOTE on 2:22, and reestablished …

with full. μετ� π�ση« is typical of our author; see NOTE on 3:1, in com-plete peace.

21. Now (γοDν). This alerts us to the fact that we are now reverting to thenarrative. For similar usage of plain οUν, see 2:16 and 7:42.

land navigable … sea walkable. Miracles. The description is meant toremind us of the classic arrogance of Xerxes, who wanted to dig a canalthrough Athos and build a bridge over the Hellespont (Herodotus7.22–24,33–36); for the popularity of this story, about which Isocrates ac-tually 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 re-called 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 re-treat.

22. officials to torment (�πιστ�τα« τοD κακοDν). Epistatai are wellknown as city governors in the Hellenistic world; see Holleaux, Études3.216–219, 253–254; Guéraud, ΕΝΤΕ��ΕΙΣ, xli–xlvii, lxvii–lxxii; Lifshitz,“Culte dynastique,” 79–80 (there too on the verb here, καταλε π� – seeNOTE on 4:29, left … as substitute in the high priesthood). But it is no-netheless the case that those who know their Septuagint will doubtless rec-ognize here an allusion to the wicked Pharaoh of Exodus 1:11, who ap-pointed “officials” “to torment” (LXX: �πιστ�τα« … 8να κακ)σ�σιν!)


the Hebrews. In this connection, see also NOTE on v. 24, the MysarchApollonius and on 6:3, onslaught of evil.

the people (γωνο«). The Jews; other peoples, such as the Phrygians men-tioned later in this verse, need be identified. Here the term applies equally tothe two components specified immediately hereinafter: Jerusalem and Mt.Gerizim, Jews and Samaritans. The same parallelism recurs at the outset ofChapter 6. This reflects, first of all, the king’s point of view: he saw Jewsand Samaritans as part of the same people. But it seems that it must alsohave been our author’s position, for he made no effort, in either instance, todistance 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, refersspecifically to common descent; cf. NOTES on v. 6, kinsmen … own peopleand 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 barbar-ity, see v. 11.

23. Argarizin. It was common, both in Greek and in Hebrew, to write thistoponym (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: IsraelExploration Society and the Hebrew University, 1999) 142–146. Talmontended to view the practice as typical of the Samaritans themselves; fordoubts about that, see R. Pummer, “ΑΡΓΑΡΙΖΙΝ: A Criterion for SamaritanProvenance?,” JSJ 18 (1987) 18–25.

Menelaus, who worse than the others. Menelaus hardly belongs here, sincethese 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 theroot of all troubles – just as in general he prefers to blame Jewish villains,such as Simon, Jason and Alcimus. Therefore he inserted Menelaus heretoo. See also NOTE on v. 24, and he sent.

being of hostile disposition. Several scholars link these words to the nextverse 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’ be-havior toward the Jews seems late and superfluous, and it appears that it israther Menelaus who is new here and the intended object of the author’sdenigration. Therefore we have translated according to the punctuation inHanhart’s edition; so too Bévenot and others. For δι��εσι«, “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 isindeed only a gloss. For use of plain πολ�ται in the sense of a Jew’s fellowJews, see pp. 50–51.

24. And he sent. In context, the subject of the verb is Menelaus, but itseems clear that the king is meant; Menelaus couldn’t dispatch Seleucidtroops, 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 onv. 23, Menelaus, who worse than the others.

the Mysarch Apollonius. That is, the commander of mercenaries from Mysiain 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 1:29calls this Apollonius a “tax official,” which in the original Hebrew presum-ably was sar missim; although some have supposed this reflected a misunder-standing (some translator mistaking missim for “taxes” instead of Mysians),it seems more likely that this was part of an attempt – reflected in our booktoo (see NOTE on v. 22, officials to torment) – to compare Antiochus toPharaoh, who sent sarei missim to torment the Hebrews (Exod 1:11). For asimilar move, see 1 Maccabees 3:32 (and see below, NOTE on 11:1, kins-man). Moreover, concerning 2 Maccabees we should note that for the Greekear, μψσ�ρξη« might well point to μ�σο«, “abomination” (as at 6:19, 25); seeLSJ, 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 ofthe Mysians.” We may suppose that just as much as Jews familiar with theHebrew 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 νεσ�αιwhen first introducing Apollonius son of Menestheus (4:4, 21), which led theVulgate to read “Apollonium insanire” (4:4), probably enjoyed doing so.


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 con-nected with the Sabbath. Mentioning the Sabbath here is part of a generaltendency 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 polemicagainst the Hasmoneans, who had decided to allow defensive war on theSabbath (1 Macc 2:39–41). But in the absence of any reason to think that theauthor knew of that decision or particularly wanted to polemicize againstthe Hasmoneans, it seems reasonable, and sufficient, to view this simply asan emphasis on one of the central institutions of Judaism, one which func-tioned 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 an-tiquity, see M. D. Herr, “The Problem of War on the Sabbath in the SecondTemple 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 doesnot assume that the Jews of Jerusalem would abstain even from defensivewarfare on the Sabbath (as did those the author of 1 Maccabees is happy topresent as pious fools, foils for the Hasmoneans, at 2:29–41). Had that beenthe case, there would have been no need to trick them. Our story does as-sume, 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, perhapsmeant to make sure that Gentile readers unfamiliar with the Sabbath wouldknow that it is holy; cf. NOTE on 7:1, forbidden flesh.

instructed. The verb παραγγωλλ� appears here in its usual meaning, inGreek 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 (�7�πλισμωνοψ«), the

Chapter V 267

author signals that we are about to learn the true interpretation of the ap-parition that opened the chapter: if at first the Jews prayed the heavenlysigns would be for the good, now they acted on the assumption that theyhad nothing to worry about – and their fateful error will immediately be-come 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 forterms 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 appear-ance), Judas’ byname is Maccabaeus, which apparently means “hammer”(Isa 44:12; m. Kelim 29:7), whether that refers to some physical quality (seem. 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; thereis no mention of his father or brothers, and no names are given for his com-rades. See NOTE on 2:19, Judas Maccabaeus and his brothers. Judas ismentioned here so as to sow in the reader’s heart a little hope, which willthen have time to grow before it flowers visibly in Chapter 8; compare, forexample, 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 evi-dence for a minyan, the quorum of ten men that defines a Jewish commu-nity; for another testimony, of more or less the same period, see the QumranManual of Discipline 6:6–7. That is, it may have been important for theauthor to emphasize that just as flight to the hills did not entail violatingJewish dietary laws (as the verse goes on to note), neither did it entail givingup on communal prayer.

fled to the mountains. Some witnesses read “fled to the desert … andlived in the mountains,” corresponding to the juxtaposition of mountainsand 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 readingis 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;


Bar-Kochva, JM, 198. Indeed, it may be that the tradition which adds in“desert” is merely a gloss explaining that Eρο« here, although usuallymeaning “mountain,” in fact has the rarer meaning, “desert;” see NOTEon 9:28, in the mountains. In any case, it is reasonable to suppose thatJudas and his men did in fact flee to the desert, just as those described at6:11 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 thestory of the Temple’s rededication (10:6). For our author, life in the moun-tains (or desert) is the radical opposite of civilized life, which is city life; seep. 23. For his interest in animals, see NOTE on v. 11, spirit maddened like abeast’s.

for food limiting themselves to grass. Lit.: “persevering in eating grassyfood.” Thus they avoided violating the Jewish dietary laws; the same sol-ution was found by Essenes expelled from the group but still bound by theiroaths (Josephus, War 2.143) and by Jewish prisoners in Rome (Josephus,Vita 14), as also by Isaiah himself, according to Martyrdom and Ascensionof Isaiah 2:11 (“wild herbs,” according to M. A. Knibb’s translation inOTP 2.158). Note also Mark 1:6, along with J. A. Kelhoffer, The Diet ofJohn the Baptist: “Locusts and Wild Honey”in Syntoptic and Patristic In-terpretation (WUNT 176; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). As for whatsuch refugees actually ate, see also M. E. Kislev, “Vegetal Food of BarKokhba Rebels at Abi’or Cave near Jericho,” Review of Palaeobotany andPalynology 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. Steckollet 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 prac-tical distinction between good Jews, such as those described here, and badones (14:3); see also 6:2. For self-preservation from defilement in times ofpersecution, 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.


Chapter VI

Antiochus’ Decrees against Judaism

(1) Not much time later the king dispatched Geron the Athenian to force theJews to depart from the ancestral laws and no longer conduct their civicbehavior according to the divine laws, (2) and both to defile the Temple inJerusalem and change its name to “of Zeus Olympios,” and (to change thename of) the one in Argarizin, as the residents of the place requested, to “ofZeus Xenios.” (3) And the onslaught of evil was harsh and totally vex-atious. (4) For the Temple was filled with licentiousness and reveling by theGentiles, who amused themselves with whores and were intimate withwomen in the sacred courts, also bringing in things which are not appropri-ate. (5) And the altar was filled with forbidden things that the laws pro-scribe. (6) Thus there was no way to keep the Sabbath or to observe the an-cestral festivals, nor even simply to admit to being a Jew. (7) Under bitterduress they were dragged off to eat the entrails of sacrifices on the king’smonthly birthdays, and when the festival of Dionysus came around theywere forced, crowned with ivy, to make processionals for Dionysus. (8) AtPtolemy’s suggestion a decree was issued, calling upon the neighboringGreek cities to adopt the same practice concerning the Jews and have themeat the entrails of sacrifices, (9) and to cut down those who did not prefer togo over to Greek ways.

The First Martyrs

And one could really see the suffering coming on. (10) For two women whohad circumcised their sons were hauled up (for punishment): they hungtheir babies from their breasts and then, after parading them publiclyaround the city, flung them down from the wall. (11) Others, who had cometogether in nearby caves in order to celebrate the seventh day secretly, were –after having been informed upon to Philip – burned together, in conse-quence of their scrupulous refusal to defend themselves due to their respectfor 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 thesufferings, but rather to consider that the punishments were not to destroyour nation, but, rather, to edify it. (13) For not to allow evildoers a freehand for a long time, but, rather, immediately to bring down punishmentsupon them, is a sign of great benefaction. (14) For whereas concerningother peoples the Sovereign long-forbearingly awaits until they reach theplenitude of sins, whereupon He punishes them, He did not deem it appro-priate 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 mercyfrom us, and while edifying us with suffering He does not abandon His ownpeople. (17) These things we had to say merely as a reminder. After a fewwords we should return to the narrative.

Torture and Death of Eleazar

(18) Eleazar, one of the prominent scribes, a man of advanced age andwhose face had a handsome appearance, was being forced to open hismouth and eat swine-flesh. (19) But preferring death in good repute to lifewith abomination, he went to the torture-drum of his own accord, (20) spit-ting (the meat) out – taking the path which behooves all who persevere inabstaining from those things which one is not allowed to taste due to love oflife. (21) Those who were assigned to the lawless entrails-eating took theman aside and encouraged him – since they knew him for a long time – tobring meat which it was appropriate for him to eat, which he himself hadprepared, and pretend that he was eating the portions of meat ordered bythe 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-stand-ing friendship with them. (23) He, however, adopting an honorable argu-ment, one which was worthy of his age, of his hoary preeminence, of themagnificent white hair which he had come to have and of his superior de-portment since childhood, but especially – of the holy and divinely-estab-lished legislation, immediately declared, accordingly, that they should sendhim on to Hades:

(24) “For it is not worthy of our age to dissimulate, of which the resultwould be that many of the youth, under the impression that the nonagenar-ian Eleazar had gone over to foreignism, (25) would themselves – due to mypretension and my short and merely momentary life – go astray because ofme, and I would (thus) cause abomination and blemish to sully my old age.


(26) After all, even if now I do escape punishment by humans, neither livingnor dead will I escape the hands of the All-Ruler. (27) Therefore, passing outof 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 enthusiasticallyand 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 fromthe blows – groaned aloud and said: “It is evident to the Lord of holyknowledge that, although I could escape death and although, being beaten,I am suffering severe bodily pains, in my soul I suffer them gladly, out offear of Him.”

(31) Then he passed away in this manner, leaving behind – not only tothe youth, but also to the multitude of his people – his own death as anexample 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 persecutionagainst the Jewish religion. And if Chapter 5 saw our author still making aneffort to hide Jewish rebelliousness, which at that point could only havebeen an expression of Jewish nationalism, now, with the onset of religiouspersecution, our author can be very open about Jewish opposition. But theopposition upon which it focuses is, as may be expected (and in completecontrast to 1 Macc), that of the only type which is available to Jews of thediaspora: martyrdom. Indeed, for our author it is martyrdom that worksatonement and therefore allows for reconciliation and salvation; martyr-dom 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; therethe author elaborates upon this extensively, even inserting a dirge to emphasize thehorror of it (1:36–40). Our author, in contrast, a good diasporan Jew, says nothingabout this assertion of foreign rule, but focuses only on the infringement of Jewish re-ligious 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 sectionof the book, are also the pivot upon which it turns; they provide the turningpoint which will allow (as the author assures his readers in the excursus invv. 12–17) for the move from the downhill begun in Chapter 4 to the uphillthat will begin in Chapter 8.

Along with continuing our book’s usual focus upon the city, which is ex-pressed pointedly by the infinitive πολιτε�εσ�αι that concludes the veryfirst 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 themeof this chapter is that suffering for one’s religion is a positive and usefulthing. 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 “notappropriate” and “forbidden” (vv. 4–5), the author proceeds to relate an at-tempt to force Jews to participate in the pagan cult (v. 7) and horror storiesabout those who refused to do so (mothers killed brutally along with theircircumcised babies and Sabbath-observers killed after villains “informed”upon them – vv. 10–11) – clearly expecting us to understand that those whodied were positive models.

– By explicit example: When it is Eleazar’s turn to suffer he gives aspeech (vv. 24–28) which not only explains why he chooses death asa martyr but also explicitly presents this as a noble example for othersto follow.

– By theological argument: in his excursus in vv. 12–17 the author ex-plains that it is actually a matter of divine grace for the Jews that Godallows 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 iscorroborated not only by our other main source, 1 Maccabees (1:41–67),but also by such Jewish sources as Daniel (11:31ff.), the Assumption ofMoses (Ch. 8), Josephus (War 1.34–35; Ant. 12.251–256), as well as paganwriters such as Diodorus 34–35.1.3–4 and Tacitus, Histories 5.8.2; amongthe Christians, Jerome’s commentary on Daniel, which drew upon theotherwise lost work of Porphyry, is especially important.3

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


Moving to the details, our book claims there were three main elementsto the persecution: defilement of the Temple (vv. 2–5), prohibition of thepractice of Jewish law (vv. 1, 6, illustrated in vv. 10–11), and enforcedworship of Dionysus (v. 7). The first is corroborated by several othersources and stands at the very foundation of the festival of Hanukkah(“rededication” of the Temple), and the second as well is corroboratedby a number of sources. Moreover, the persecutions are said to have ap-plied especially to circumcision and to Sabbath worship, and since theseare among the most salient aspects of Judaism in ancient pagan sources4 itindeed makes sense to think that they will have drawn Antiochus’ atten-tion. The third element, however, worship of Dionysus, seems out of placefor a Seleucid persecution, and might be no more than the contribution ofa 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 precisechronological or causal relationship between the doings of Philip and Apol-lonius, left ruling Jerusalem in Chapter 5, and the new events. It is usuallyassumed, on the basis of 1 Maccabees 1:20 (“143 SE”) + 29 (“two yearslater”) that the decrees (1 Macc 2:41ff.) were issued in 167 BCE; as weshow in our COMMENT on Chapter 10 (p. 373), while this view cannot bederived from our book, it does explain a peculiarity of our book’s chrono-logy. For the opinion that the decrees described here were in fact issued in168, “not much time later” than Antiochus’ second Egyptian campaign, seeBringmann, Hellenistische Reform, 25, followed by Hyldahl, “MaccabeanRebellion,” 199. But their view is based on another basic approach to thetranslation of years SE to years BCE; for the rejection of that approach, seeBar-Kochva, JM, 562–565.

dispatched. As with the sending of Nicanor to Judaea (14:12) with the de-mand that he “dispatch” Judas immediately to Antioch (14:27), we shouldunderstand the usage of the intensified ��αποστωλλ�, rather than the plainand 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 “anAthenian 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 re-lationship with Athens, which is reflected also at 9:15 (and in OGIS 248, onwhich 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 cityhad its own π�τριοι ν�μοι, and every reader of Greek knew how reprehen-sible 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 2:1–14but it refers to the Temple and makes no mention of laws or of willingnessto die for them; see Gafni, “Josephus and I Maccabees,” 124–125. See alsoNOTE on 7:2, ready to die.) Given our author’s desire to impress upon hisreaders, even non-Jews, that what happened to the Jews is comparable tosomething which could happen to them, it is understandable that it is onlyafter defining the Jews’ laws as ancestral – with which all readers couldidentify – that he also defines them as God’s. See above, pp. 50–51.

conduct their civic behavior (πολιτε�εσαι). On this verb, which recurswhen the decrees are rescinded (11:25), see: Spicq, Notes, 2.718–720;P. Hermann, “Epigraphische Notizen, 10: πολιτε�α – πολιτε�εσ�αι,”EA 21 (1993) 70–72. It serves to compare religious life to life according to amunicipal 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, alongwith 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 whatJudas and his men avoided (5:27 – το� μολψσμο�); for another apparentecho 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.


“of Zeus Olympios.” Who was revered in Athens (see NOTE on v. 1, Geronthe Athenian) but also in Seleucia, Antiochus’ birthplace, and in whosehonor Antiochus Epiphanes began a project – uncompleted until the time ofHadrian, 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 aswell. 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 forthe 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 andSamaria] & 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’ Templeas he was about that of the Temple in Jerusalem – just as we would expecton the basis of 5:22–23.

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

3. onslaught of evil (�π�στασι« τ�« κακ�α«). �π�στασι« means “to standon,” usually in the sense of stopping; for “onset” LSJ (659, §III) lists onlyour verse and Acts 24:12. So too BDAG, 381 (top): “onslaught.” It seemsthat our author wanted to echo 5:22, �πιστ�τα« το� κακο�ν, a point ap-parently missed by some copyists (and Glucker, “Herbal Nutrition,” 148),who for some reason read �π�τασι« (“stretching, spreading out”); for ourauthor’s willingness to make such connections even at the price of strangediction, 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 cultinvolved, 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 andHengel, emphasized the oriental nature of the cult, linking it to Syrian godsand 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. Fordoubts about sacred prostitution, see Scurlock, “167 BCE,” 150, n. 103;Scurlock’s doubts (viewing the reference to sexual intercourse in the sanc-tuary as an “obvious slander” and the notion that “sacral sex” was charac-teristic of Semitic civilizations as “an unfortunate survival of 19th centuryOrientalism”) may be well-founded even if one hesitates to follow her ownbroader theory: that Antiochus introduced Dionysiac practices into Jerusa-lem on the notion that it was appropriate for the Jews, whom he took to bea type of Egyptians. In any case, as Stern noted, even if this was a Syriancult, the Jews viewed it as “Greek.” Jewish sensitivity concerning this typeof activity was especially great given its introduction into the Temple; seeLeviticus 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. 10and 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 ap-propriate. As often (see above, p.73), here too the author lets us imagine heknows the details but spares us as part of his “epitomizing.”

5. forbidden things (�εμ�τοι«). Given the next clause (“that the laws pro-scribe”), this word sounds as if the author wants us to understand that thesethings are not only proscribed but, rather, the law proscribes them becausethey are bad; ��ωμιτο« “refers primarily not to what is forbidden by ordin-ance but to violation of tradition or common recognition of what is seemlyor proper” (BDAG, 24). That is, as opposed to idolatry, for example, whichthe law prohibits to Jews alone (12:40), here the author wants readers tosuppose that what Antiochus imposed upon Jerusalem no civilized personcould tolerate. This way he invites even the non-Jewish reader to share inthe 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 wickedking 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; notealso 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 NOTEon 13:25, to annul the instructions.


6. to admit (�μολογε�ν). Although the Septuagint usually uses this verbin the sense of giving thanks, here (as expected) it appears in its normalGreek sense; see Tov, “Greek Words,” 108. Compare As. Mos. 8:1–2,which refers – apparently with reference to Antiochus’ decrees – to Jewswho “admitted circumcision” (“confitentes circumcisionem”) and otherswho deny (“negare”) it; as Tromp notes (Assumption of Moses, 217),circumcision is not the type of thing one need confess or can deny, so thereference is probably more generally to confessing to be Jewish, as in ourverse (which, as he notes, the Vulgate renders with the same verb: “neque …se quisquam Judaeum esse confitebatur”). The confession “Christianussum” was of central importance in ancient Christian martyrdom stories;compare, for example, Justin’s Dialogue with Tryphon 96.2: �ναιρο�ντατο#« μ�νον $μολογο�ντα« 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 dif-ficult to find additional evidence for this in such an early period, or withregard to Jews (note Buschmann, 193, n. 113 – a long list of sourcesthat begins with our verse and then continues with Mark 14:61parr. andChristian martyrological texts!), one might suspect that we have here,in our book, a late motif which, given the book’s Christian readers andcopyists, 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, whenpersecuted by “Persian” rulers, preferred to suffer torture rather thanrepudiate (μ" �ρνο�μενοι) their patria; the verb refers clearly to verbalrepudiation and the report probably reflects the persecution by AntiochusEpiphanes (see Bar-Kochva, ibid., 91–97). Similarly, Josephus himself re-ports, with pride, that the historical record shows that Jewish prisoners“have frequently endured torture and every sort of death in the theatresas the price for their refusal to utter even a single word against the lawsand documents associated with them” (ibid. 1.43; cf. 2.219 and War2.152–153).

7. the king’s monthly birthdays. Monthly celebration of royal birth-days is known from Ptolemaic Egypt, but only rarely from elsewhere inthe Hellenistic world, and one may wonder whether our author, familiarwith Ptolemaic realia, “enriched” his story with this element; see Appen-dix 5.

festival of Dionysus. Here too there is reason to suspect that this reflectsmore 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 (seeGrimm, 2 Macc, 111, who cites the usage of κισσοστωφανο«). For ivy in thecult of Dionysus, see 3 Maccabees 2:29 and NOTE on 10:7, wands.

processionals. For a list of thirty processionals in honor of Dionysus, hereand 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 openswith examples from Alexandria (nos. 109–110) and Athens (112–117),mentions no site in the Seleucid world apart from Jerusalem (for which onlyour verse is cited – no. 125); see our Appendix 5.

8. At Ptolemy’s suggestion (Πτολεμα�οψ �ποεμωνοψ). This is the readingof the majority of the Greek witnesses, followed by Hanhart and Habichtad loc., Stern (Studies, 583), Bringmann (Hellenistische Reform, 102), andothers. 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 thepeople of Ptolemais (Akko) to the Jews is mentioned at 13:25, and there isother evidence for this as well (see esp. Rappaport, loc. cit.), so it wouldnot be surprising to hear of the city’s initiative here; add to this the factthat χ�φισμα 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 changedinto “Ptolemais” under the influence of the allusion, later in our verse, to“the neighboring cities.” So too, note that Ptolemais has not yet beenmentioned in our book, while Ptolemy son of Dorymenes was, and therehe was seen to be hostile to the Jews (4:45). Again, it is reasonable that anappeal to the cities of Coele Syria would issue from the capital, Antioch,and not from Ptolemais; why should Ptolemais be involved here in such acentral way?

However, if we would read “Ptolemy” we must ask who actually madethe decision. Perhaps what is meant is that Ptolemy himself issued the de-cree; so Stern, Studies, 583. But this fails to account for the use of “sugges-tion,” and to judge from 4:45–46 we are to conceive of Ptolemy not somuch as an office-holder who enjoys official authority as a courtier capable


of influencing the king.5 Accordingly, we would suggest that our authormeans 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 ofχ�φισμα, of royal decrees, Abel (Macc, 363) cites Josephus, Antiquities13.262 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 Jewsare of course good neighbors – their difficulties with their neighbors in Pa-lestine must have derived only from the hostility of wicked Seleucid offi-cials, see also 8:11, 10:14–15, and 12:2–3.

a decree (χ�φισμα). Literally this refers to a decision arrived at by vote,with the votes signified by small stones used as counters; cf. $μοιοχ�φοψ in14:20, 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 �κπ�πτ� in connection with the result of a vote, see Xeno-phon, Symposion 5.10; at Polybius 30.32.10 it seems that the verb refersboth to the arrival at the decision and to its publication. It preserves theoriginal image of voting stones being dropped out of a ballot box in order tobe counted.

the neighboring Greek cities. I.e., those near Jerusalem. For the decreesapplying 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 �γ�γ�, see NOTE on 4:16,those for whose ways …

eat the entrails of sacrifices (σπλαγξν�ζειν). 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 andPhoenicia, but we shall argue against that at 8:8, Ptolemy, the governor of Coele Syriaand 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, becausethe 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 alsoresults 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 themost general and polarized way, just as with “Greek style” at 4:10; see also11:24. “Judaism” will pointedly appear as the opposite pole at 8:1 (as at2:21 and 14:38), immediately after the martyrology which we are now be-ginning.

one could really see the suffering. As in the Heliodorus episode (3:16), theauthor is inviting us to imagine the scene and share the experience.

10. two women. Nothing can compare with the suffering of women tospice up a story and involve the reader; cf. 3:19.

who had circumcised their sons. This probably means only that they hadhad their sons circumcised. Note, similarly, that while also 1 Maccabees 1:60refers to these women as having circumcised their sons, the next verse no-netheless refers to the execution not only of the women and children butalso of “those who had circumcised them.” On the halakhic issue of womenactually 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 inHebrew). 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): awoman 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 knowthat 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 thebabies being hung from their mothers’ necks. On this difference between thebooks, 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.


flung them down (�κρ�μνισαν). On the walls of Jerusalem, see NOTE on5:5, 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). Asfor the flinging of young boys from the city walls, this may well have beencalculated 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 endof our book, a hero will throw himself down (κατεκρ�μνισεν Ψαψτ�ν) tohis death and will thus – so we are to understand – contribute to the sal-vation 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 theverse by their being burned together (σψνδραμ�ντε« … σψνεφλογ�σ�η-σαν), contrasts pointedly with the behavior of the unnamed informers.

to celebrate the seventh day. This story too, as that of the women and theircircumcised 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 JudaeanDesert is a well-known phenomenon; see NOTE on 5:27, fled to the moun-tains. Both books agree in reporting that those who fled were killed becausethey observed the Sabbath, but (a) our book makes them heroes while1 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 inorder to observe the Sabbath. Both points are part of the generally specialemphasis which our book places on Sabbath observance; see NOTE on5:25, 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 “in-forming,” which implies a treasonous element, seems to point to Jews. As at14:37, the use of the passive allows our author brevity and thus the avoid-ance of an unpleasant topic; see above, pp. 74–75. Apart from the few prin-cipal villains (Simon, Jason, Menelaus, Alcimus), our author does not liketo talk about Jewish miscreants; see above, p. 49.

burned together. This detail is not found in 1 Maccabees, but does reappearin Antiquities 12.274–275, which also mentions the caves. But this need notindicate 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 mayindicate that they circulated independently, in which case Josephus, whogrew up in Jerusalem, could have had access to this detail not only via ourbook. In any case, it is the kind of detail easily supplied by experience orcommon wisdom; for Josephus’ very personal experience with this, notehis 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 smokethem 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 militaryoperations in the Judaean Desert refuge caves, see G. D. Stiebel, “‘Dust todust, ashes to ashes …’: Military Equipment from Destruction Layers inRoman 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 firstperson singular, turns to his readers and explains the meaning of the eventshe is recounting.

to consider (λογ�ζεσαι). Our author compliments his readers, that theyare thinking people who want to have more than a superficial understand-ing of events as they seem to appear; cf. our NOTE on 2:25, to read …readers. For the verb, compare esp. v. 23 (λογισμ�ν) and 11:2–4; 3 Macca-bees 4:4.

the punishments were not to destroy (μ' πρ(« )λερον) our nation. As op-posed to what they do to such wicked people as Menelaus (ε+« ,λε�ρον –13:6). Compare esp. 4 Maccabees 8:19, where the tyrant who tries to cajoleprospective martyrs into surrender defines the tortures as �λε�ροφ�ρον,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 hidethe fact that he is Jewish; see NOTE on v. 14, concerning other peoples. Inthe book itself, in contrast, he was careful to avoid this, referring to the Jewsonly 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(« παιδε�αν). One of the most ponderous terms of the Greekworld; 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


man edifies his son, so does the Lord your God edify you” (Deut 8:5; seealso Prov 13:11–12 etc.). Note in particular that this motif is not foundin the preceding collection of authorial reflections (4:16–17), where theauthor speaks of vengeance; see p. 22, n. 53.

13. to bring down (περιπ�πτειν). This verb serves here, as at 10:4, andas 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.εργεσ�α see NOTE on 4:2, benefactor. For this type of theo-dicy, which insists that God is exacting with those He loves (punishing themfor every little thing – Wis 12:2) so as to allow atonement for their sins, seePsalms 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 punish-ments God imposes upon others with the edifying ones (παιδε��ν) He im-poses upon the Jews.

long-forbearingly (μακροψμ*ν). A frequent term in the Septuagint, buthere 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, seeNOTE on 4:16, nemeses.

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

He does not abandon. But in the author’s preceding reflections (5:17) hesaid that God does indeed, at times, due to sins, turn away from the Jews forbrief periods. As we have seen, as the book moves on it seems that theauthor subtly revises his message in this regard, moving, in his explanationof how the Jews can suffer, from God turning His face away in anger to Godchastising His people as a father chastises His sons; see NOTE on 5:17, dis-tanced Himself … in anger.

Chapter VI 285

His own people. Perhaps based upon Psalms 94:14, “For the Lord will notabandon His people, nor will He leave His inheritance,” of which the firsthalf recurs in 1 Samuel 12:22. See also below, 7:16. It may well be that thepreceding two verses of Psalm 94 were already underlying our author’sthoughts in the preceding verses; see Goldstein, 2 Macc, 280. Note thatwhile our verse links the verb καταλε�π�, “abandon,” to “people,” theLXX of Psalms links it to “inheritance.” This exchange underlines howclosely 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 ac-count of the Place.

17. the narrative. At 2:32 the author used this same term, δι�γησι«, torefer to the body of the book as opposed to its introduction. It is usual tointerpret the present verse as if the author means that now he is returningto the story after having given us, in vv. 12–16, a brief “reminder” con-cerning the theology of suffering; so, for example, Abel, Habicht andGoldstein ad loc. However, it seems that in fact we should distinguish be-tween 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+ρ�σ�� in our verse refers to the things alreadysaid (just as δεδηλ�σ�� at the end of Chapter 7 refers to that which pre-cedes it), and that all agree that �λεψστωον, in 17b7 refers to what is tocome; the question is, whether the words δ/ 0 �λ�γ�ν, “after a few words,”refer to the past or the future. To my mind it seems that their location in17b points in the latter direction, and that if they referred to the past, theywould 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 thetwo long martyrologies which take us to the end of Chapter 7. That is, heis now introducing an excursus, which stands outside of the narrative; as itwere, 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 pro-cedure, see Josephus, Antiquities 12.137, who promises to return to hisδι�γησι« after some extraneous material.) Our author concludes his ex-cursus very self-consciously in the last verse of Chapter 7, and then thestory resumes in 8:1.

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


18. Eleazar, one of the prominent scribes. Scribes are mentioned occasion-ally in literature of the Second Temple period, but it is difficult to definethem; see in general Schürer, History, 2.322–325 and, on some texts of thesecond 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 38:24and Antiquities 12.142. Note, on the one hand, that the latter, a proclama-tion by Antiochus III, refers to scribes of the Temple, to which we might addthat 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 typicalof priests during this period; see Stern, Studies, 97, n. 119. For allusions toexemplary priests named Eleazar in Jewish Hellenistic literature, see Letterof Aristeas 121ff.; 3 Maccabees 6:1–15; Antiquities 14.106–7. These datado 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 frequentlyrenders shoterim – minor officials) and to see them as Levites, not priests;see Schwartz, Studies, 89–101. But that does not take us very far, becauseour sources on Levites in the Second Temple period are not any better thanthose on scribes; see NOTE on 1:30, And the priests sang the hymns. In anycase, what was important for our author was that Eleazar – just as Razis(14:37–38) – was an exemplary Jewish individual who had served in somepublic Jewish role.

advanced age. According to v. 24, he was ninety. His age will functionthroughout 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 ofR. Ishmael, “of whom it was said … that he was among the seven mostbeautiful people who ever lived and his face was similar to that of an angelof the Lord of Hosts” (Reeg, Geschichte, 62*ff.).

was being forced. The use of the imperfect, which indicates continuity, cor-responds to the author’s notice in v. 17 that we are now turning to some-thing outside of time, a scene we can take time to observe without holdingup 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 ex-cursus 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 isannounced in §505 and completed in §522. Similarly, Josephus’ timelessaccount of the Jewish sects in Antiquities 18.11–25 allows us to feel, as itwere, the passage of time between the beginning of Quirinius’ census of Ju-daea (announced at the beginning of the book) and its conclusion, whichallowed for the resumption of the narrative, at 18.26.

to open his mouth. So Hanhart’s edition, which we have followed here andin v. 20, despite Katz, “Eleazar.” Katz correctly noted the lack of unanimityand weakness of the textual tradition here, but his point of departure was infact a problem with the human logic of the story: if Eleazar’s mouth hadbeen forced open and non-kosher food inserted, as we read here, but he hadspat it out (v. 20), then the friendly appeal in v. 21 would be totally out ofplace, much too late. Accordingly, Katz preferred the Latin and Lucianicevidence which instead of “open” (�ναξαν�ν) employs a verb of being,τψγξ�ν�ν, which relates to Eleazar’s qualities listed at the opening of v. 18(old and handsome), and instead of Eleazar “spitting” (προπτ�σα«), inv. 20, has him serve as a model for others, a “prototype” – προτψπ�σα«.Hanhart, in response (Text, 52–56), pointed out how weak the textual sup-port for these readings is and that they are “easy” readings, meant preciselyto solve the putative problems Katz noted. I would add that Katz’s point ofdeparture 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 ourauthor intensifies his story, by having Eleazar refuse not only to eat for-bidden 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 wor-ship idolatrously the king offers to allow him to save himself by pretendingto 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 sac-rificial, fits our author’s educational purposes, because it broadens ourstory into one that underlines just how important it is, for Jews, to abstainfrom eating non-kosher foods. Cf. NOTE on v. 20, taking the path whichbehooves all who persevere … It is interesting that our author has no prob-lem defending the Jewish dietary laws, although elsewhere – e.g. Letterof Aristeas 144, Philo, Legatio 361 – we see they were the object of scorn.Perhaps it was especially easy to defend the abstinence from swine, forpigs were considered abominable, or at least impure and so inappropri-ate for sacrifice, in many parts of the ancient Near East; see J. Milgrom,


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 worldattached to death with εϊκλεια, so as to leave a good example for youthsand for future generations, see Polybius 6.54.2–3; 23.14.12. For emphasisupon 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 andto the impurity of swine; cf. NOTE on v. 5, forbidden things. Notealso the parallelism in v. 25. On this term, see also 5:24, the MysarchApollonius.

torture-drum (τ�μπανον). This seems to have been a flogging block, towhich were bound those who were to be flogged, including those floggedto death. Cf. �ποτψμπαν�ζομαι – 3 Maccabees 3:27; Vergote, “Sup-plice,” 153–155; E. C. E. Owen, “�ποτψμπαν�ζ� …,” JTS 30 (1929)259–266.

20. spitting … out (προπτ�σα«). On the text, see NOTE on v. 18, to openhis 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 thetext 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 clearlysee our author’s educational agenda: Eleazar constitutes an example ofproper behavior, as is made even more explicit in the next verse. On mar-tyrdom stories as boundary-marking educational tools, see M. A. Tilley,“Scripture as an Element of Social Control: Two Martyr Stories of ChristianNorth Africa,” HTR 83 (1990) 383–397, and van Henten, “Martyrdomand 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 passagedoes indeed seem to praise Eleazar (just as Judas Maccabaeus too gives thought to hisown good name – 1 Macc 9:10), and is therefore among the ones that show just howfar removed 1 Maccabees is from biblical historiography; cf. above, pp. 63–64.

Chapter VI 289

due to love of life. On φιλοστοργ�α see NOTE on 9:21, I remember withsincere love. It seems that what is meant is that it is forbidden to taste suchthings 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 mo-tive 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 dasNeue Testament (WUNT 209; ed. C. Böttrich & J. Herzer; Tübingen: MohrSiebeck, 2007) 537.

21. since they knew him for a long time. As Rajak notes (Dialogue,122–123), “the whole scenario here … becomes blatantly Socratic,” recall-ing “Socrates’ friends in the Phaedo and the Crito, when they tell him hemust allow them to arrange for him to escape from prison.”

pretend (�ποκρι�ναι). They suggested to Eleazar that he do what thewicked Apollonius had done (5:25 – 3ποκρι�ε�«), but he of course rejectedthe offer out of hand (v. 24). There is a scene reminiscent of this one in thenext 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 gamewhich the “noble” Eleazar could not or would not.

22. humane treatment (φιλανρ,π�α). 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 sceneour author does not pass up the opportunity to point out that good Gentilesrespected this exemplary Jew and tried to help him; cf. Introduction, p. 48.

23. honorable argument. On λογισμ�«, a term which was has been the ob-ject of much scholarly attention and which – alongside the adjective“pious” – became the main topic of 4 Maccabees’ version of our story, seeDupont-Sommer, 4 Macc, 49–50. According to 4 Maccabees, he who ischaracterized 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 precisesense of ε.σεβ"« λογισμ�«, see also S. Lauer, “Eusebes Logismos inIV Maccabees,” JJS 6 (1955) 170–171, and R. Weber, “Eusebeia undLogismos: Zum philosophischen Hintergrund von 4. Makkabäer,” JSJ 22(1991) 212–234. As for “honorable,” �στε�ο«, we may assume that forour author, who put the city and its values at the center of his story, the


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, inGreek, 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�« iswild and barbaric, more appropriate for animals than people; see esp. 4:25.Accordingly, in the present confrontation Eleazar excels as the thinking andcultured man of the city. As for the king, in contrast, who already had a rec-ord of animal-like behavior in attacking a city (5:11): although he is not di-rectly contrasted with Eleazar, in the next story he is shown to be charac-terized by rage and raw instincts; faced with dignified people like Eleazar, hewill even become 6κ�ψμο« (7:3, 39; 9:4; cf. 14:27).

magnificent (�πιφανο�«). For magnificent white hair, see also 15:13; on theadjective, see also Tov, “Greek Words,” 110–118.

since childhood. Which again emphasizes that he is meant to serve as anexample for the youth; see NOTE on v. 20, taking the path which behoovesall who persevere …, and cf. NOTE on 15:12, a fine and good man.

divinely-established (εοκτιστο�) legislation. Cf. 3:15. The identificationof God as a κτ�στη« (“founder”) fits in well with our author’s general pres-entation of Judaism as if it were the constitution of a city (see v. 1!), forevery self-respecting city had its revered κτ�στη«. See W. Leschhorn,“Gründer der Stadt:” Studien zu einem politisch-religiösen Phänomen dergriechischen Geschichte (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1984) 334–344 (on the Hellen-istic period in general).

declared. This heavy verb (�π�φημι) occurs in our book only here and at15:4, in both cases introducing courageous responses of persecuted Jewswho thereby challenge those who torment them.

accordingly (�κολο�,«). That is, his declaration was consistent with thefactors 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 Hebrewsheol; see van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 172, and especially Fitzmyer,

Chapter VI 291

Tobit, 307, on Tobit 13:2 (where the Greek “Hades” indeed corresponds tosheol 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 de-veloped view of the afterlife; see NOTE on 12:45, in order that they be re-leased from the sin.

24. gone over to. For such use of μεταβα�ν�, 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 asworthless as that.

go astray (πλανη*σι). Frequent in the Septuagint, and see 2:2 (μ" �πο-πλανη�7σι) 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 thatHades is a place where sinners are punished, an idea especially developed at12:43–45; see NOTE on v. 23, send him on to Hades.

27. passing out of (διαλλ#-α«) life. The expression is somewhat dim, butfits the point of the preceding verse: death is not the last word. For the sameusage (and the same implication?), see OGIS 4, lines 3–4: 8λω�ανδρο«δι�λλα�εν τ9μ (sic) μετ 0 �ν�ρ�π�ν β�ον. Cf. 7:14, and the use of a cog-nate verb at 4:7.

manfully (�νδρε�,«). This again illustrates the book’s educational aim, forit is clear that a righteous man should not himself make such a self-servingstatement; see Proverbs 27:2! It is rather our author who wants to makesure his readers realize that such courage is praiseworthy; under the circum-stances, 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 theRoman governor is said to have asked R. Eliezer when he was charged with


being a min (Christian?): “Should an old man like you involve himselfin such nonsense?!” (t. Hullin 2:24 [ed. Zuckermandel, 503]; b. AvodahZarah 16b).

28. to the youth … example. And the next chapter will indeed focus onyouths who followed Eleazar’s example.

noble … nobly. In the Septuagint the various forms of γεννα�ο« appear onlyin 2 Maccabees and 4 Maccabees; see H&R, 1.237. The adverb appears, ashere, another seven times in our book, and the adjective another two orthree; note also the noun γενναι�τη« in v. 31. These lexical data well reflectJewish 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 forhaving 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, �πεψ�α-νατ�ζ� – another case of our author’s predilection for varying his vocabu-lary concerning killing and dying (see Introduction, pp, 70–71).

29. benevolence … malevolence (ε/μωνειαν ε0« δψσμωνειαν). The similarityand juxtaposition of the words intensifies the contrast between them; forour author’s predilection for such play with prefixes, see e.g. NOTES on4:6, providence, and on 8:36, to take care of … proclaimed.

of just a moment ago. For our author’s habit of pointing out how thingschanged within short periods of time, see Introduction, p. 78. For the pres-ent phrase, μικρ: πρ�τερον, see also 3:30.

those who were leading him. The opening of this verse is corrupt in themanuscript tradition; see Kappler, Memoria, 61–63, followed by Han-hart’s edition ad loc.; Risberg, “Anmerkungen,” 19–22. But the senseseems more or less assured. The only main question is whether we shouldbuild upon �γ�ντ7ν, which is found in the Alexandrinus and otherwitnesses and translate “those who were leading him,” or rather, build on�παγ�ντ�ν which appears in the Venetus (but in the wrong place, atthe end of the verse). The latter is a more intensive verb, “taking himaway,” with, as Habicht explains, the apparent implication being “to be

Chapter VI 293

executed.” Kappler and Hanhart take the first approach, Risberg andHabicht – the latter, Habicht translating “Die aber, die ihn zum Todeführten.” We have followed the former approach, for until this point wehave not been told that Eleazar was to be executed, only that he was to betortured.

which they thought were madness. On �π�νοια see NOTE on 13:23, hadtaken leave of his senses. The fact that the wicked thought the virtuous herowas 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; DiogenesLaertius 9.27 (Zeno) and 9.59 (Anaxarchus) – both of the latter in vanHenten and Avemarie, Martyrdom and Noble Death, 26–27; Acts 7:56, 59;Josephus, Ant. 19.347; etc. Especially the Socratic model should be recalledhere, although Socrates’ speeches were much longer – as Eleazar’s will be-come in 4 Maccabees. For the comparison with Socrates, see esp. vanHenten, 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 sig-nificance to the use of “gnosis” here. Rather, it is as if Eleazar is saying “asGod is my witness,” that is, the holy God knows that what Eleazar says istrue.

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 be-tween body and soul, see NOTE on 14:38, body and soul.

fear. The use of φ�βο«, rather than σωβεια, although the σεβ- root is socommon 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 nextverse, which sounds like the description of Mordechai in the last verse ofEsther; and “in my soul … gladly,” just above, might reflect the Hebrew“willing soul,” which – in another formulation – we posited for the Hebreworiginal of 1:3. These Hebraisms might be added to the ones Habicht notedfor Chapter 7; see Introduction, p. 20, n. 48. But they need not be taken asevidence for a Hebrew source; they are the type of biblicizing diction thatany Jewish writer might insert in a context like this.


31. passed away. But – in contrast to Seleucid kings (4:7; 5:5; 9:28) – notfinally, 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 con-texts, see NOTE on 4:29, left …

not only to the youth … example of nobility … memorial of virtue (το�«νωοι« … �π2δειγμα γενναι2τητο« κα3 μνημ2σψνον �ρετ�«). Comparean Athenian decision to honor the philosopher Zeno because “whenyouths came to seek contact with him he encouraged them to (seek) virtueand moderation … setting his own life as an example for all” (το#« ε+«σ�στασιν α.τ: τ7ν νω�ν πορεψομωνοψ« παρακαλ7ν �π 0 �ρετ"ν κα/σ�φροσ�νην … παρ�δειγμα τ <ον =διον β�ον �κ�ε/« >πασιν … – DiogenesLaertius 7.10). For this sort of material in Hellenistic inscriptions see Dan-ker, Benefactor, 437–440. For historiography as literature which suppliesexamples (παραδε�γματα) of the behavior of good people, so that it is pos-sible to view history as “philosophy via paradigms” (see Pseudo-Dionysus,Ars rhetorica 11.398 [ed. Usener & Radermacher, 376], quoting Plato andThucydides), see Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 24–25.

virtue. The basic meaning of �ρετ�, which “was the central ideal of all ofGreek culture” (Jaeger, Paideia, 1.15), began by referring to manliness andcourage, a sense preserved below at 10:28 and 15:17, but over time turnedmore 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 casewith regard to words that are of such fundamental significance in the cul-ture that produced them, translation is tricky; Danker in fact settled fortransliteration 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.”


Chapter VII

The Mother and Her Seven Sons

(1) It also happened that seven brothers had been arrested together withtheir mother and were being forced by the king, tortured by whips andcords, to touch the forbidden flesh of swine. (2) One of them becoming theirspokesman, he spoke as follows: “What do you want to ask us and learnfrom us?! After all, we are ready to die and not transgress the ancestrallaws!” (3) The king, losing his temper, ordered that skillets and pots beheated up. (4) As soon as they were heated up he ordered that they cut outthe tongue of the one who had become their spokesman and, after scalpinghim about in the Scythian fashion, cut off his limbs while his remainingbrothers and mother were watching. (5) Then, after he was totally helpless,he ordered that – still breathing – he be brought to the fire and fried. Whenthe vapor had spread out considerably from the pan, together with themother they encouraged one another to die nobly, saying: (6) “The LordGod watches over us and is in truth becoming reconciled with us, as Mosesstated 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 tomake sport of him. After they flayed the skin from his head, together withhis hair, they asked him: “Will you eat rather than have your body punishedbit by bit?” (8) But he, answering in the ancestral language, said forth-rightly: “No.” Therefore he too suffered the next torment, like the first (ofthe 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 raiseus 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 de-manded he immediately stuck it out, also courageously extending his hands,(11) and nobly said: “I acquired these from Heaven and on account of Hislaws I now look beyond them, hoping to receive them again from Him.”(12) Accordingly the king himself and those who were with him werestunned 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 ofagain being resurrected by Him; you, in contrast, will have no resurrectionunto life.”

(15) Thereupon they led the fifth one forward and tortured him. (16) Butlooking at him he said: “Since you have authority among men you do whatyou want to do, although you are bound to perish. But do not think that ournation has been abandoned by God. (17) Be patient and you will observeHis great strength, which shall torment you and your posterity.”

(18) After him they led up the sixth, and when he was about to die hesaid: “Do not go astray idly; for we are suffering these things on our ownaccount, having sinned against our own God. Amazing things have hap-pened. (19) But you, who have undertaken to fight God – do not thinkyou’ll get off scot-free.”

(20) The mother was exceedingly amazing and worthy of being remem-bered well – she who, after watching the destruction of seven sons on oneand 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 withnoble purpose. Awakening her womanly reasoning power with masculinefervor she said to them: (22) “I do not know how you appeared in mywomb, nor was it I who bestowed upon you spirit and life; it was not I whoarranged the various elements of each of you. (23) Therefore the Creator ofthe cosmos, He who designed the genesis of mankind and invented the gen-esis of everything, will in mercy return to you both spirit and life, just as younow look beyond yourselves due to His laws.”

(24) Since the youngest boy still remained, Antiochus – thinking that hewas being scoffed and suspecting the reproachful voice – made his appealnot only with mere words. Rather, he also promised, by oaths, that if theboy would turn away from the ancestral ways he would make him both richand enviable, making him a Friend and entrusting him with commissions.(25) But since the youth paid him no attention at all, the king summonedthe 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 mywomb for nine months and nursed you for three years and brought you upand 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 thatis in them, know that God did not make them out of existing things; and sotoo 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 Iwill receive you back together with your brothers.”


(30) As soon as she concluded that the youth said: “What are you wait-ing for? I will not obey the decree of the king, for I listen instead to the de-cree of the Law which was given to our fathers by Moses. (31) But you, hav-ing 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 punishmentand edification our living Lord briefly became angry, He will again be rec-onciled with His own servants. (34) But you, O impious and most impure ofall men, do not soar about prancing idly, trusting in some vague hopes, afteryou raised your hand against the children of Heaven. (35) For you have notyet escaped the judgment of the all-ruling overseeing God. (36) For ourbrothers, on the one hand, after undergoing brief suffering have come intoGod’s covenant of eternal life; you, on the other hand, shall in the divinejudgment incur the just punishments for arrogance. (37) As for me, just asmy brothers I give up both body and soul for the ancestral laws, callingupon 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 en-trails of sacrifices and the tortures which exceeded all bounds.

COMMENT

This is certainly the most famous chapter of our book, whether in the orig-inal, in translation, or in secondary versions, both Jewish and Christian, be-ginning with the Talmud and the midrash and through the Middle Ages. Ina ruthlessly relentless way it pits seven brothers, one after the other, againstthe king, who demands that they submit to his decrees; each refuses, is tor-tured 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 inthe presence and with the encouragement of their mother, who in the endfollows them to their fate.

Coming as it does after Chapter 6, which pictured the elderly Eleazar asan example to youth, this chapter – which focuses on youths and on awoman and thus allows Jews of all ages and both sexes to share in martyr-dom, 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 roundsout both chapters, and it is followed, immediately, and as a result, by Godrelenting and, hence, the beginning of redemption.

Basically this chapter complements the preceding one. It should benoted, however, that there are two new emphases here – one on the nationallevel and one on that of the individual.

Concerning the nation (regarding which the Eleazar narrative took nointerest), the present chapter emphasizes repeatedly that the death of mar-tyrs causes God to become reconciled with His servants – vv. 6, 16, 33,37–38. The language of “reconciliation” (καταλλ�σσ�), used in vv. 6 and33, shows – in consonance with the citation of Deuteronomy 32:36 in theformer verse – that this hope builds upon the historical analysis presented inDeuteronomy 32: sin leads to punishment, punishment leads to suffering atthe hands of a foreign oppressor (who, failing to realize that his license andsuccess is solely due to God, becomes arrogant – Deut 32:27//above 5:17),suffering atones and hence “reconciles” God with His servants, whereuponHe 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 itwas 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 forthis belief in ancient Jewish texts – a belief that again surfaces, with empha-sis, at the end of Chapter 12 and in the last verse of our book’s other mar-tyrology (14:46).

As for historicity: while there definitely were martyrs in the Antiochianpersecutions (see 1 Macc 1:56–64; Daniel 11:32–33; As. Mos. 8), no onewould claim that this story as such is anything more than a stylized didacticnarrative, perhaps deriving, ultimately, from a historicization of Jere-miah 15:9, which refers to the unfortunate mother of seven who died thesame 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 (andfrom 1 Macc 1) that in fact Antiochus was not in Judaea; having the kingrather 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.


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

NOTES

7:1. It also happened. The fact that the chapter neither links up to thepreceding one (contrast Chs. 4, 8) nor opens with a comment about the pas-sing of time (contrast Chs. 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14) reminds us that we are still ina timeless excursus, in which we are now, so to speak, about to view an-other tableau. Cf. NOTE on 6:17, the narrative.

seven brothers … together with (μετ#) their mother. This picks up on theemphasis, at the end of Chapter 6, that Eleazar’s death should serve as anexample for youth, the preposition setting off their mother as an addition.But see the beginning of NOTE on v. 21, awakening her womanly reasoningpower.

by the king. Here, and in the continuation of the chapter, the king is said to bepresent. 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 returnedto 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 composedby our author, but was, rather, taken from an extant source. For other argu-ments leading in the same direction, see Introduction, pp. 19–20. If so, how-ever, then it is characteristic of his interests that he took pains to make thechapter 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’sstory, for the same reason; see NOTE on 6:18, was being forced.

to touch (�φ#πτεσαι). 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 theLatin versions (“contingere”), followed (as usual) by Abel (“toucher”). Weshould assume that this is a bit of rhetorical intensification: the king wantedto force them (as Eleazar) to eat the forbidden meat, but they refused evento touch it.

forbidden flesh. On ��ωμιτο« see NOTE on 6:5, forbidden things … It maybe 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 prohibitionof idols (12:40) – meant for non-Jewish readers. See Introduction, p. 94.

of swine. As opposed to the preceding story, where the meat proffered toEleazar was sacrificial (6:21), here the reference seems to be a problem ofkashrut 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 tofight. Cf. Philo, Legatio 229–230; Josephus, Antiquities 18.271; Gafni, “Jo-sephus and I Maccabees,” 124–125; Jossa, “La storiografia giudeo-ellenis-tica,” 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 thatverse the present chapter (vv. 2, 24, 37) is the only part of our book whichuses this term. True, for a chapter about seven sons it might be especiallyappropriate to speak about “fathers,” but when taken together with thelack of all “political” terminology in this chapter, of the type which is socharacteristic of the book as a whole, and with other considerations, itseems likely that this use of different concepts also reflects the use of a dif-ferent source; see NOTE on v. 1, by the king.

3. losing his temper (6κ�ψμο« γεν�μενο«). This expression appears inthe 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 hisphilosophical victims, see also NOTE on 9:4, Borne on the wave of histemper.

skillets and pots. For a similar description in Jewish martyrological litera-ture (“they took hold of him and put him in a gridiron and roasted himalive”), see Pesiqta Rabbati (ed. Ish-Shalom, §43, 180b; English: PesiktaRabbati, 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’sspeech in Haim Hazaz’s “The Sermon” (in English in: J. Blocker [ed.], Israeli Stories[New York: Schocken, 1966] 66–86).


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 ismentioned explicitly very rarely in this chapter (vv. 1, 3, 12, 25, 30, 39),something which points up the fact that he is, throughout, the antagonistpar 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 similarreport about Antiochus’ father, see Polybius 8.21.3 (and Walbank, Polybius2.97). A Jew, of course, might do something terrible like this only to acorpse, and even then, of course, only to an arch-villain: 15:33.

scalping him about in the Scythian fashion. For the fabled cruelty and generallack of culture of the Scythians, see NOTE on 4:47, Scythians. On Scythianscalping of their victims, reflected both in literature and in archeologicalfinds, 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 on3:39, 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 onbehalf of God against the sinful Israelites – proof, if ever needed, that theyhad been warned about the consequences of sin; see also vv. 26, 28. For thecentral role of Deuteronomy 32 in our book, see NOTE on the end of thepresent verse.

face to face (κατ� πρ2σ,πον). For the immediacy indicated here, see alsoActs 25:16; BDAG, 888.

“And He will reconcile Himself with His servants.” This is the second lineof the LXX version of Deuteronomy 32:36; the first line (which also ap-pears 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 thenbecome 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 – andit also shows up again at 8:29; in both cases the fact of allusion to our verseis clinched by the fact that the reference to “reconciliation” comes together,as in Deuteronomy, with terming the Jews God’s “servants” (δο�λοι). Notethat while the present verse has παρακλη��σεται, as the LXX, the allu-sions in 7:33 and 8:29 instead use forms of καταλ�σσ�; apparently theauthor, 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 clearthat it is the latter verb which our author used for “reconciliation;” on it,see Porter, Καταλλ#σσ, in Ancient Greek Literature. On the fundamentalimportance of Deuteronomy 32 for our book, see above, pp. 21–23.

7. having passed away (μεταλλ��αντο«). But, as Eleazar (6:31), not “fromlife;” 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 andClouds 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 ap-propriately, what eventually happened to Antiochus himself, according to9:7 (τ? μωλη το� σ�ματο« �ποστρεβλο�σ�αι).

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

9. Avenger (�λ#στ,ρ). For this idea, see NOTE on 4:16, nemeses. For theterm, LSJ, 60–61, §I; Josephus, War 1.596; Antiquities 17.1. Gutman (“TheMother,”31) and van Henten (Maccabean Martyrs, 167), following the pass-ive meaning of the term (LSJ, 60–61 §II), take it to mean, instead, “a personwhose evil deeds merit vengeance.” However, that seems to conform less tothe general trend of this chapter, both implicit in its general dependence uponDeuteronomy 32 (see opening COMMENT) and explicit (vv. 18, 32–33), asthat of the book as a whole (see esp. 4:16–17; 5:17–20; 6:12–16), which em-


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 truesituation that allows for his success) into a good person, hence the ambiguityof the term here. Cf. Kellermann, Auferstanden, 23: somewhat appropriatelyhaving it both ways, he translates “Verbrecher” but in his note adds, in con-nection with War 1.596, the parenthetical explanation: “Rachegeist.”

free (�πολ�ει«). This is precisely the reverse of the situation in Chapter 6:there it was suggested to Eleazar that he be freed (�πολψ�@ – v. 22) fromdeath by pretending to give in, and he refused to be freed (�πολψ�Aναι –v. 30), while here, according to the second son, a courageous stance whichwill bring about his death will in fact free him from the present life – whichanyway, in comparison with eternal life, is only a pretence. For anothertwist of this motif, cf. below, NOTE on 12:45, in order that they be releasedfrom the sin. For the view of the body as an impediment to the soul, and itsPlatonic background, cf. esp. Wisdom 9:15: φ�αρτ9ν γ?ρ σ7μα βαρ�νειχψξ�ν (“for the perishable body weighs down the soul”), along with Win-ston, Wisdom, 207. Cf. the Greek expression which equates σAμα andσ7μα (grave and body) – Plato, Gorgias 493a, etc.; S. J. K. Pearce, TheLand 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 and1 Enoch 91:10; Nickelsburg, Resurrection; Stemberger, Leib (5–25 on2 Macc); Kellermann, Auferstanden (20–34: commentary on Ch. 7);Schwankl, Sadduzäerfrage, 173–292 (245–259 on 2 Macc). See also ourNOTE on v. 14, pass away from among men. As especially Kellermann em-phasizes, 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 fromtheir bodies (v. 9) – holds that only the righteous are to be resurrected (seeesp. v. 14).4 So too, perhaps, Psalms 1:5–6: “the wicked will not arise injudgment … for their way shall perish.”

4 Stemberger (Leib, 18) argues that 6:26, where Eleazar says that if he (sinfully) gives into the royal decrees he will escape God neither alive nor dead, shows that sinners toogo living after their death and thus excludes the plain meaning of 7:14. But there is noneed to expect totally consistent theology from our author, nor should Ch. 6 governthe interpretation of Ch. 7. Moreover, Eleazar was a Jew and a basically righteousman, and his confidence in his own life after death even if he sins here and there neednot 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 stickingout of the tongue was something of a martyrological topos; see, forexample, Eusebius, Martyrs of Palestine 2.3 (�σμων�« προψβ�λλετο τ"νγλBτταν).

11. nobly. As in v. 5.

said. Some manuscripts of the Latin version omit this verse, but that mayonly be because someone wondered how he could talk after his tongue wascut out. But either one assumes that he managed to get the sentence in be-fore it was cut out (after all, the cutting out is not actually mentioned inv. 10), or one concludes that questions like that are not appropriate to lit-erature like this. Cf. Haenchen, Acts, 172, n. 1.

from Heaven. That here this term (ο.ραν�«) alludes to God Himself (andnot 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 refer-ring 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 3πωρand understand that here, as in v. 23, the speaker is looking “above” hisown body, toward heaven. Cf. above, p. 81. For the comparison of martyrsto ascetics, another type of religious hero who “looks above” his or herbody, see M. A. Tilley, “The Ascetic Body and the (Un)Making of the Worldof the Martyr,” JAAR 59 (1991) 467–479.

hoping. The use of “hope” in connection with resurrection recurs at vv. 14and 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 thefortitude of those being tortured, see e.g. Diodorus 17.107.5; Josephus,Against Apion 2.233–234; Martyrium Polycarpi 3.2 (in which connectionBuschmann [Martyrium, 118] notes that this is a traditional motif and addsfurther references).


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 amongmen,” explains the plainer “pass away” used here in connection with mar-tyrs (vv. 7, 13, 40; see also 6:31 and 14:46), in contrast to others who “passout of life” (4:7; 5:5; cf. “ended his life” at 9:28 and “left life behind” at10:13). That is, the martyrs depart from among men alone, but they go onliving – as opposed to others, especially the wicked, for whom death is theend of life; cf. v. 9, raise us up. For the Hellenistic background of the use ofμεταλλ�σσ� 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;” seeStemberger, Leib, 10. The result is that when the author of a Seleucid docu-ment wants to claim immortality for someone the mere verb does not sufficeand 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 requireshim to view the two elements of �ν �ν�ρ�ποι« 6ξ�ν // φ�αρτ9« Hν as syn-onymous, and, furthermore, by leaving the object of power (the men Anti-ochus rules) unspecified Habicht’s reading fails to prepare us well for thenext verse, where we read of God’s power over the king and his seed: theking has power over men, but God has power over him.

although you are bound to perish (φαρτ2«). For the same adjective inthe same context, see Wisdom 9:15, cited above at v. 9, free. It is frequentin Philo; see, for example, On Dreams 2.253 (on the soul’s desire to passfrom the φ�ορ�ν world to that which is 5φ�αρτον); The Worse Attacksthe Better 49 (the wise man lives a life which is 5φ�αρτο« and seems todie to the life which is φ�αρτ�«). Cf. esp. 1 Cor 15:42–55.

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

17. Be patient. There is some irony here, in that he who is being torturedasks 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 willbe seen by Nicanor (8:36), Antiochus (9:11–12) and Lysias (11:13) – a veryimportant point for our writer (see Introduction, p. 48).

18. Do not go astray idly … on our own account, having sinned. Here thesixth son applies the notion posited by our author in his excursus at 5:17:Antiochus, fulfilling Deuteronomy 32:27ff., did not understand that he wassuccessful against the Jews only because their God was using him to punishthem for their sins. For another case of such rhetorical concern for the tor-mentor, see 15:2. On the verb πλαν�� see NOTE on 6:25, go astray.

suffering. For the nuances of π�σξ� see L. Boreham, “The SemanticDevelopment of π�σξ�,” Glotta 49 (1971) 231–244. In the Hellenisticperiod the negative sense, “suffer,” came to predominate; so too here (asalso in v. 32, which repeats our verse almost verbatim). For the tendency touse 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 withHanhart, Abel and Goldstein we retain this parenthetical comment, its pointis 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 suchan 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 shouldomit 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 (2 Macc, 235, n. 18a), it in fact seems likelier thatsuch a marginal note was meant to refer to the next verse, as an alternativereading for the comment on the mother there (in which case the accentingwould have been ��α [“worthy” in the feminine singular] rather than 5�ια[“amazing things”]).

19. undertaken. See NOTE on 9:2, set his hand.

to fight God. The motif of �εομαξ�α 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 theauthor has not clarified how, precisely, persecuting Jews constitutes “fight-


ing God.” Perhaps no explanation is needed, but in any case it will be indi-cated at v. 34 where – again, as here, with reference to Antiochus havingraised his hand – the Jews are characterized as the children of Heaven, thatis, as God’s protégés.

20. The mother. By turning to the mother, when we all expect to hear of theseventh son, the author announces that the last scene will be more extensivethan all the others. Indeed, more space will be devoted to it than to all theothers combined.

exceedingly amazing and worthy of being remembered well … high morale( ’8περαγ2ντ,« … αψμαστ' κα3 μν�μη« �γα�« �-�α … ε/χ�ξ,«). Foramazement at the martyr’s comportment, see NOTE on v. 12, stunned, andcf. esp. Polybius 16.30.2–4: the siege of Abydus was amazing (�αψμ�σιο«)not so much due to the efforts of the besiegers as due to the nobility and out-standing spirit (ε.χψξ�α – see 14:18) of the besieged, who were worthy ofmemory (μν�μη« ��α) and of being passed down from generation to gen-eration. For epitaphs on graves of Jewish women, see van der Horst, Epi-taphs, 102–113 (with p. 45 on μν�μη).

seven sons. The author hereby gives up any chance of sustaining the readers’suspense; throughout all the coming speeches, the reader knows that thelast son too will die.

on one and the same day. Lit. “in the time of one day”. The expression re-curs 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 thereonly one simple word (“no”) was said in the ancestral language, while herewe are given an entire speech and the king cannot understand it.

Awakening her womanly reasoning power … masculine fervor (τ(ν �λψνλογισμ(ν .ρσενι ψμ9 διεγε�ρασα). Cf. 15:10: “Awakening them in theirrage” (το�« �ψμο�« διεγε�ρα« α.το�«). On λογισμ�«, see NOTE on 6:23,honorable argument. By having the mother become masculine, the authorinducts her into the same group as her sons, all of whom followed the manlymodel of Eleazar (6:31); cf. Young, “‘Woman’,” 70. But this verse’s notionsconcerning women and their reasoning, and in what sense the mother be-came 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 theirthoughts into actions? Or does it mean, rather, that their reasoning is in factimpaired, sluggish and in need of being awakened, because of their lack offervor? The former notion would invite us to imagine this woman as anintelligent woman who was normally quiet and modest but departed fromher usual limitations due to the special situation – a latter-day Deborahor Judith. But the other notion seems preferable, that is, our text seemsto echo texts like Polybius 2.4.8, where the historian explained a queen’swrong-headed policies by saying that she was following womanly reason-ing (ξρ�μωνη δM λογισμο�« γψναικε�οι«). Such scorn for women is alsoapparent in Polybius’ statement about Prusias II of Bithynia: “He wasnot only a coward, but also unfit for all suffering, in short: womanly(�κτε�ηλψμμωνο«) 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 ofscenes that are ignoble and womanly (�γεννM« κα/ γψναικ7δε«), and forexample, Josephus, War 1.59, where John Hyrcanus, overcome by emotionand therefore unable to function, is said to have become a woman. See alsovan Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 234, who cites, inter alia, Philo, Legatio319–320: “women’s intellects are somewhat weak and cannot grasp anymental 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 matriarchSarah 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 theother hand, see NOTE on 6:31, virtue, and below, NOTE on 8:7, And thefame of his manly valor. Given all of this, it is difficult to imagine our authorthinking that the perfect combination is womanly reason and masculine fer-vor. It seems, rather, that he was of the opinion that thinking too is bestwhen done by men, and that what we have here is an exceptional case of awoman attaining that masculinity. For the frequent motif in early Christianliterature that a woman saint becomes – in some sense or other – a man (oreven that “Jesus said: … every woman who will make herself male will enterthe Kingdom of Heaven” [Gospel of Thomas §114, trans. Lambdin]), seeE. Castelli, “‘I Will Make Mary Male:’ Pieties of the Body and GenderTransformation 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.


22. you … you … each of you. The second person plural is used, in light ofthe 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 asevidence for διαρρψ�μ�ζ�, which literally means “arrange in rhythm orproportion.” The text is reminiscent of the line in the “Nishmat” prayersaid on Jewish sabbaths and holidays, which refers to “the bodily partswhich you distinguished within us and the spirit and the soul that youbreathed 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” (νε�τερο« – comparative, not super-lative). For Hellenistic use of the comparative in a superlative sense (as alsoat 12:14 and elsewhere), see Mayser, Grammatik II/1, 49 (and ibid. 47 onthe nuances of νε�τερο«).

reproachful (:νειδ�ζοψσαν) voice. The king suspected the voice because hecouldn’t understand the mother’s words, which were in the ancestral lan-guage (v. 21, as also v. 27): since the words were in a reproachful tone,5 hethought he himself was being mocked. In fact, however, this is just a re-flection of the king’s arrogance, his assumption that he must be in thecenter of things. In fact, as the readers know, the mother had ignored theking 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 wasrebuking; so for example Grimm, 2 Macc, 125–126; Abel, Macc, 377; and vanHenten & Avemarie, Martyrdom and Noble Death, 69. But the text says, as theRSV renders, that “he was suspicious of her reproachful tone” (τ"ν �νειδ�ζοψσαν3φορ�μενο« φ�ν�ν); so too Habicht, 2 Macc, 236 (“die schmähende Stimmebeargwöhnte”).

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 wasarguing against some tendency to give in to the king – an implication thatplays up the mother’s role, as does this entire section of the chapter.

his appeal. This translation of παρ�κλησι« is according to the context; sotoo at 13:23. But note that in this chapter the same root denotes the way thebrothers (v. 5) and their mother (v. 21) encouraged one another to resist theking. So the king turns out to be pleading a case opposite the mother: he andshe are competing with one another for the seventh son. That is, our authoris exploiting the broad semantic field of this term, which runs the gamutfrom encouragement and consolation all the way to legal pleading; see thedictionaries 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, thatGod will “become reconciled” – παρακαλε�ται. Thus the stage is set for aclear-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 alter-natives 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 kingmight bestow upon someone, see also 15:5; 1 Maccabees 13:37; Holleaux,Études 3.227–228.

25. youth … boy. On νεαν�α« and μειρ�κιον see LSJ, 1163 and 1093; be-tween the two, a teenager would seem to be indicated; cf. NOTE on v. 28,child.

summoned … counselor (προσκαλεσ#μενο« … σ�μβοψλον). These wordstoo, as “appeal” in the preceding verse, contribute to the quasi-legal atmos-phere of the confrontation. On “summoning” see NOTE on 4:28, sum-moned.

27. mocking. Cf. 6:21: there Eleazar refused to mislead the Jews, but herethe mother does indeed mislead the king, thus leaving the full-fledged opendefiance to the boy. Note the irony here: at v. 24 the king thought he wasbeing mocked, which was not really the case (see NOTE on v. 24, reproach-ful voice), and now, when he thought the mother was doing his bidding, shewas in fact mocking him. This king is always wrong!


cruel tyrant. Same combination – 4:25.

pity me. Here the author inserts an element of suspense, letting the readerthink, for a moment, that the mother is going to ask her son to avoid mar-tyrdom for her sake – which would not only be ignoble, but also contradictthe statement that she mocked the king.

nursed you for three years. For the rabbis’ assumption that nursing usuallylasted 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 (inHebrew). For biblical hints of long nursing, see: Gruber, “Women in theCult,” 48, n. 10.

raised you and sustained you (�κρωχασ#ν σε κα3 �γαγο�σαν). For thesame combination of verbs see 1 Maccabees 6:15. According to Grimm(1 Macc, 95), the former refers more to physical care, the latter – to edu-cation. On the text here, see Hanhart, Text, 24.

28. child (τωκνον). For emphasis upon the fact that this term need not in-dicate anything about the child’s age, and that elderly parents could addresseven 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 verbis 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, seep. 20.

God did not make (�πο�ησεν) them out of existing things. Rather, “exnihilo.” Goldstein (2 Macc, 307–315) correctly notes that this doctrine is notset out here in a very exact form. However, our book is not a philosophicaltract, and the lack of precision is not sufficient reason to reject the exegeticaltradition which, beginning with Origen (see Introduction, p. 58), indeed seeshere 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, sotoo is it demonstrated by the world which too did not participate in its owncreation; such demonstrations of God’s power are meant to arouse in the be-liever’s mind the conviction that God will be able to reward him for his de-votion. As Goldstein notes, there is a link between this belief and the belief inresurrection, for when the body is destroyed, for example via fire – as in thepresent chapter, as is explicit with regard to the first son – there is need for anew creation out of nothing in order to allow for resurrection; see, on thispoint, the exchange between J. A. Goldstein (“The Origins of the Doctrine ofCreation Ex Nihilo,” JJS 35 [1984] 127–135) and D. Winston (“Creation ExNihilo Revisited: A Reply to Jonathan Goldstein,” JJS 37 [1986] 88–91).

human race. The mother bespeaks, characteristically for our author, a uni-versal philosophy and not one that regards the Jews alone; see NOTE on4:35, 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 bemeant is the time of mercy, namely, the one promised at Isaiah 54:7; see ournext comment.

I will receive you back. Under the circumstances, this implies that themother too will be resurrected. For the mother receiving her childrenback at the time of Mercy, after they had been abandoned “for a shorttime” during which God had “hidden his face” in anger (see our 5:17), seeIsaiah 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? (Τ�να μωνετε). This youth’s words and comport-ment remind us of Antigone’s stance before the tyrant Creon (according toSophocles’ play): after she explained to him that she rejects his laws becausethey were given neither by Zeus nor by Justice (line 450ff.), but only by amortal (�νητ9ν �ν� 0 – cf. below, 9:12), whereupon he threatened her withtorture (line 473ff.), her response at l. 499 is merely τ� δAτα μωλλει«, “whydally then?” (trans. F. Storr, LCL). So too Martyrium Polycarpi 11.1: whenthreatened with being burned alive the hero responds �λλ� τ� βραδ�νει«,“But why delay?”


decree of the king … decree of the Law. On προστ�γματα as royal de-crees, see Hollleaux, Études 3.205–207 and Lenger, Corpus; as here, al-ready 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 be-tween the Seleucid king and the heavenly One. Thus, the seventh son de-clares his refusal to submit by contrasting the king’s demands frontally withthose of Judaism. The youth’s response is similar to Polycarp’s, when it wasdemanded that he swear by the genius (τ�ξη) of the emperor: “How can Iblaspheme my king who has saved me?” (Martyrium Polycarpi 9.3). Forprostagma as a loan-word in rabbinic Hebrew, used (as here) of God’s lawsin explicit contrast to those of earthly kings, see Leviticus Rabbah 27:6 (ed.Margaliot, 637); Sperber, Dictionary, 157–159. On the other hand, in moreirenic circumstances we also find Jews happy to make the apologetic claimthat those who observe God’s prostagmata will loyally observe the king’s aswell; 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, see4:47 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 ofthe Second Temple period. It has an archaic sound, hinting that the Jews sodescribed 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 ofv. 33 – so much so that De Bruyne (Anciennes traductions, xi) and Katz(“Text,” 20) would eliminate it as secondary. But as usual these consider-ations are a double-edged sword, for if the verse were so superfluous, whywould someone add it (see above, p. 93)? Moreover, the fact that it repeatssomething said fourteen verses earlier is hardly a problem, and in contrastto v. 33 this verse refers explicitly to the Jews’ sins.

33. punishment. The term �π�πλη�ι« is rare and in the Septuagint appearsonly here. It basically means “reproof,” “accusation,” but the meaning“punishment” is attested by papyri; see LSJ, 651 (which cites our verse insupport of “in a strong sense, punishment”).

Chapter VII 315

edification. Here the author picks up the heavy term paideia, which he usedprominently 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 apersecutor. For this emphasis upon God’s being alive, something whichgives 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. 389and 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 re-vive 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, dis-tanced Himself … in anger.

be reconciled with His own servants. See NOTE on v. 6, “And He will rec-oncile Himself with His servants.”

34. impious. The nasty adjective �ν�σιο« was associated with Jews byManetho (Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.248 = GLA I, no. 21), and over time it be-came 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 theadjective was never a standing designation of the Jews,” but the way ourauthor is happy, here and at 8:32, to use it of the Jews’ enemies, just as arethe other Jewish authors cited by Fuks (Let. Arist. 289; Philo, In Flaccum104), 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; seeNOTE 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-


ticularly useful in a chapter like this which is devoted to children and theirmother but ignores their father – appears in other, similar texts, such as3 Maccabees 6:28 (which also emphasizes that God is in heaven); Wis-dom 12:19; Psalms of Solomon 17:30. In connection with suffering, noteesp. Deuteronomy 8:5, which has God “edifying” (punishing) the Childrenof Israel as a father does his sons; see our NOTE on v. 33, became angry. Forthe conclusion that our verse refers to the holy martyrs on earth as God’schildren, see Hanhart, “Heiligen,” 94–95.

Note, however, that the Hebrew phrase “sons of Heaven” or “sons ofGod” 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, TheBook of Enoch or 1 Enoch (SVTP 7; Leiden: Brill, 1985) 106–107. This factis very interesting here, for the present chapter emphasizes the belief in res-urrection, and at least one variety of that belief seems to have held that deadpeople destined to be resurrected spent the intermediate period, betweendeath and resurrection, as angels or as similar beings: see Luke 20:36, alsoActs 23:8 (which seem to mean that the Sadducees did not believe in resur-rection at all, neither after an intermediary period as spirit nor after one asangel; 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’ futurestatus. 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 thecentral attributes of God according to our book: His power and His provi-dence. See NOTE on 1:25, All-Ruler, and on 3:39, watches over.

36. suffering. On π�νο«, 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 debatedwhether the use of “eternal life” in the genitive (�εν�οψ ζ�A«) dependsupon “covenant” (as we translated, following Kellermann, Auferstanden,79 and others) or, rather, upon “suffering” (so Bückers, “Das ‘ewigeLeben’,” followed by Stemberger, “Leib,” 21–22), as if the latter construc-tion – which would say only that the brothers, having suffered the sufferingrequisite for eternal life, now participate in God’s covenant – did not meanthat they had already inherited eternal life. Kellermann characterizes thelatter 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 brotherspaid the price for eternal life, a covenant-keeping God must bestow it uponthem. As for δια��κη, its usual translation in this context is “covenant” (sotoo 1:2; 8:15), but its basic meaning is “testament” and that indeed goeswell with the verb here, π�πτ� (“to fall,” i.e., come into one’s possession –see LSJ, 1407 s.v., §V3); the image is that God, as it were, bequeathed eter-nal life to the martyrs. (Against the suggestion [Abel, Macc, 380] that theverb should be emended here so as to allow the martyrs to “drink of” [πε-π�κασι] eternal life, see Stemberger, Leib, 21–22.) The present claim thatthe brothers have already received their portions in eternal life proves thatthis chapter assumes the continuity of post-mortem life even before resur-rection. 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 aresult of your afflictions and scourging. Here there is a clear tit for tat: youhave been afflicting us and scourging us and we have not changed our mindabout 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 putan 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. Nickelsburgnoted that this motif is not to be found in the words of the other six sons, whofocused 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 whichwill 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 onv. 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 revert-ing to its beginning – v. 3.

suffering bitterly (πικρ*« φωρ,ν). For similar expressions, see 11:1(βαρω�« φωρ�ν) and 4:35 (�δψσφ�ροψν). Here we have another ironic


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 makesno reference to swine’s flesh as something impure, but only as somethingforbidden. Rather, the reference to purity here is more reminiscent of Chap-ter 6, where forbidden food is also abominable; see NOTE on 6:5, for-bidden things. Thus, this reference to purity indicates that now, toward theend of his martyrology, the author is reminding us that his long excursushas included two episodes, which he now wants to draw together and con-clude. He will be more explicit about this in v. 42.

41. died. It is very difficult to imagine that this laconic verse was composedby our author, whose tastes concerning suffering women are clearly shownat 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 ofthe excursus announced at 6:17. At this point the author will return us tohis narrative, using “on the one hand,” as at the end of Chapter 3 and at12:1, 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 worditself 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 forthis term. Thus, given that it is such a distinctive word, the fact that apartfrom 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 profferedmeat was sacrificial) shows clearly that the present verse is meant to sum-marize both chapters; so already Doran, Temple Propaganda, 22 (where heproperly rejects Habicht’s argument [2 Macc 171, 174] that the contradic-tion between this verse and the rest of Chapter 7 indicates that the body ofthe chapter is a secondary addition, our verse originally having concludedCh. 6). For an earlier hint in the same direction, see NOTE on v. 40, hepassed 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’.”


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 goingin and out and around secretly to the villages, summoning their kinsmen andthose who remained in Judaism; growing in numbers, they gathered togetherabout 6000 men. (2) And they called upon the Lord: To look down upon thepeople oppressed by all, / and to have pity upon the Sanctuary, which hadbeen profaned by impious men, / (3) and to be merciful also to the city whichwas being destroyed and about to be leveled to the ground, / and to listen tothe blood which was calling out to Him, / (4) and also to remember the law-less destruction of innocent infants and the blasphemies which had beencommitted 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 with-stood by the Gentiles, the Lord’s anger having turned into mercy.(6) Coming upon cities and villages unexpectedly he set them aflame, andcapturing strategic places he caused not a few of the enemies to flee. (7) Heespecially chose the nighttime as his collaborator for such attacks. And thefame of his manly valor spread everywhere.

Nicanor’s Invasion

(8) But Philip, seeing that the man was making progress bit by bit and beingmore and more frequently successful, wrote Ptolemy, the governor of CoeleSyria 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 theFirst Friends, and sent him – with an army at his command of no fewer than20,000 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 inmilitary 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 Jewscaptives. (11) Immediately he wrote to the coastal cities, inviting them to thesale of the Jewish slaves, promising to supply them with ninety slaves per tal-ent – 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, andwhen he informed those with him of the approach of the army (13) thosewho were cowardly and did not have faith in God’s justice ran away andfled the scene. (14) But the others sold everything which was left, and to-gether 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 augustand magnificent Name which they bore.

Judas Maccabaeus’ Speech

(16) Maccabaeus, gathering the 6000 in number who were with him, calledupon them not to be panic-stricken by the enemies nor to be afraid of themultitude of Gentiles that was coming against them unjustly, but rather tostruggle nobly, (17) keeping before their eyes the outrage they had unlaw-fully perpetrated against the Holy Place and the torture of the humiliatedcity, along with the abrogation of the ancestral constitution. (18) “For theytrust 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 arecoming upon us, but the whole cosmos.” (19) He additionally recountedbefore them (His) acts of assistance that happened in the days of the ances-tors, including the one in the days of Sennacherib, when 185,000 were de-stroyed, (20) and the one in Babylonia, when there was a confrontationwith the Galatians, when only 8000 showed up for the task, together with4000 Macedonians: when the Macedonians were in confusion, the 6000 de-stroyed the 120,000 by virtue of assistance from heaven, and they tookmuch booty.

The Battle against Nicanor

(21) Having thereby rendered them courageous and ready to die for thelaws and the fatherland, he divided them into something of a four-partarmy. (22) After he appointed his brothers Simon, Joseph and Jonathan asleaders 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,” hehimself led the first unit and threw himself at Nicanor. (24) Since theAll-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


who had come to buy them, but after pursuing them for a considerabledistance 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 didnot long continue to run them down.

Prayers and the Division of the Spoils

(27) After collecting their weapons and stripping the enemy bare of spoilsthey went about (celebrating) the Sabbath, extraordinarily blessing andthanking the Lord who had preserved them until that day, having fixed itfor them as the beginning of Mercy.

(28) After the Sabbath, after distributing some of the spoils to those whohad been mistreated, to the widows and to orphans, they and their childrendivided the rest among themselves. (29) Having completed that they to-gether petitioned the merciful Lord, asking that He become completely rec-onciled with His own servants.

(A Similar Case)

(30) Clashing with Timothy’s and Bacchides’ men they killed more than20,000 of them, gained control of very high strongholds, and distributed agreat quantity of spoils, making equal portions for themselves and for thosewho 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’sphylarch, a most impious man who had greatly harassed the Jews. (33) Con-ducting victory celebrations in the fatherland they burned those who hadset fire to the holy gates and also Callisthenes, who had fled into a smallbuilding; thus he received fitting wages for his godlessness.

Nicanor’s Flight

(34) As for the thrice-accursed Nicanor, who had brought the thousandmerchants for the sale of the Jews: (35) humbled with the Lord’s help bythem whom he had thought were the lowest of all, he took off his gloriousgarment and, having made himself as destitute as a fugitive slave, he foundhis way through the hinterland back to Antioch, having succeeded es-pecially in accomplishing the destruction of his army.

Chapter VIII 323

(36) Thus he who had undertaken to take care of the tribute (owed) tothe Romans by taking the Jerusalemites captive proclaimed that the Jewshave Someone who fights for them, and that it is for this reason that theJews 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 (andlast) saw him at the end of Chapter 5, Judas gathers a force which – now thatGod has been moved by the martyr’s blood to relent – is “bit by bit” (v. 8) suc-cessful against the Jews’ enemies. When the local garrisons are unable to dealwith him, an expeditionary force commanded by Nicanor is sent from Syria,but Judas and his men – after properly preparing themselves via prayers andan 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 ismade not only to flee in humiliation but also to recognize, as the chapter’sfinal verse tells us, the great power of the Jews’ Champion.

Thus, this chapter begins to reap the benefit of the previous two: afterthe blood of martyrs caused God’s wrath to turn to mercy (8:5), it is clearthat the normal covenantal relationship is restored, according to which thedevout Jews are protected by their all-powerful ruler, no matter how badthe odds. The point is made both by Judas’ citation of examples from thepast (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 move-ment, 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 Seleucidofficials; when the local commanders could not overcome them, they calledin forces from Syria, but these too – after a speech by Judas in which hepointed out that the fact that the enemies were numerous did not pose anyproblem for God (3:18–22) – were defeated by Judas and his men. This isfollowed by yet another Seleucid campaign against Judas, this time led by atriad including Nicanor (3:38): this army, which came accompanied byprospective 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) thereference to the expectation that his campaign will make numerous slavesavailable at cheap rates.


Thus, on the one hand the main datum of our chapter is borne out by themuch more detailed account of 1 Maccabees 3–4: there was a Seleucid in-vasion, of which Nicanor was at the head (see below), and it did fail. On theother hand, however, there are major differences between the two accounts.Mostly they are simply a matter of greater detail of 1 Maccabees, for mostof our chapter’s account is taken up, typically, with religious matters(prayer, speech citing biblical precedent, reading the Torah prior to thebattle and distribution of charity after it); the fighting itself is summarizedin a few brief verses (23–26) that give us no inkling at all of the involvedmoves and topographical detail described in 1 Maccabees 3–4. Indeed, ourbook fails even to tell us where the fighting took place. This, of course, isconsistent with the fact that 1 Maccabees also describes in detail no smallmeasure of combat before this campaign as well – in Chapter 2, which dealswith 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 theSeleucids – events which our book covers only in the most general way invv. 5–8.

Differences such as those are not surprising, given our author’s usual re-ligious interests and his stated intention to summarize other matters; see2:23–24 and – especially with regard to warfare – 10:10. Four differences,however, should be pointed out in particular. The first two go to the heart ofwhat our book is, and is not, about, and the latter two illustrate importantvalues of its diasporan author:

1. 1 Maccabees 2 is devoted to Mattathias, the father of the Hasmoneandynasty, but 2 Maccabees makes no mention of him. In fact, vv. 1 + 5–7 ofour 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 ofMattathias. This difference between the two books is fundamental, insofaras 1 Maccabees is built as a dynastic history, following each of the Hasmon-ean leaders until finally the dynasty is established by John Hyrcanus’ suc-cession 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 allthe sons, allows for the establishment of the dynasty; indeed, 1 Maccabees2:65 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, in-dicates how important Mattathias was for the author of this book: although Simon’sinheritance of the leadership contradicted history, and the story as received, it couldbe justified if traced back to Mattathias.

Chapter VIII 325

For 2 Maccabees, which focuses on Judas alone (see esp. Geiger, “History ofJudas Maccabaeus”) and has no interest in (knowledge of?)2 the Hasmon-ean dynasty, Mattathias would have been useless, and indeed he is not men-tioned.

2. Whereas our book has Nicanor alone head the Seleucid expedition-ary force, 1 Maccabees 3:38 puts three officers at the head of it, and al-though Nicanor is listed among them, he is never mentioned again in thisconnection. Rather, it is another one of the three, Gorgias, who, accordingto 1 Maccabees, functions – consistently alone – as the chief of the Seleucidforce (4:1, 5, 18). This difference between the two books is almost certainlyto be traced to our author’s wish to build his book around struggles withNicanor. By concentrating on them in the book’s middle chapter (here) andits final one, the book fulfilled its original mission of explaining and justify-ing the “Nicanor’s Day” festival. See Introduction, p. 9.

3. Although both books have scenes of prayer and encouragement priorto the battle, the one appearing in 1 Maccabees 3:43–54 focuses on theTemple and the cult, while these are not mentioned at all in 8:14–20. This isas 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’ at-tacks were directed against Jews (“sinners,” “lawless” and “impious” col-laborators with the Seleucids); our book speaks of attacks upon villages andflight by enemies but offers nary a word about who exactly was attacked orfled. Thus, whether or not he was aware of it, our author has suppressedevidence both for Jewish traitors and for fighting among Jews – which fitsthe diasporan tendency we noted earlier (see Introduction, pp. 49–50) tolimit the number of Jewish villains as much as possible. In contrast, 1 Mac-cabees had no problem admitting that the Hasmoneans had many Jewishenemies; 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 wehave both “on the other hand,” which makes our chapter flow out of thepreceding one, and also a Wiederaufnahme which continues our story fromthe end of Chapter 5, where we last saw Judas. But the story line was in factinterrupted, as we saw, a little bit later, beginning with 6:12, which means

2 See above, p. 14.


that apart from 5:27 Judas appears in the story itself, now, right after thestory about the women who were killed along with their circumcised babiesand those who were killed for Sabbath observance (6:10–11) – which iswhere we find Mattathias appearing in 1 Maccabees; see 1 Maccabees1:60–61 and 2:29–38. So there may be some common tradition at workhere. 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 isthe only example given for this composite verb in LSJ, 1334, and so I haveallowed myself to follow the prefixed prepositions to give a fuller meaningthan the unimaginative “enter” offered there. The use of the participle in-dicates that the activities mentioned here had been going on for a while, as itwere during the time taken up by the two timeless tableaux; thus, the mereten of 5:27 have had time to grow considerably. See NOTE on 6:18, wasbeing forced.

secretly … growing … gathered (σψν�γαγον). This account of the begin-nings 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 com-munity (σψναγ�γ�) 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 theseparts 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, forJudaism, and on 6:9, Greek ways.

growing in numbers. On προσλαμβ�ν�, see Spicq, Notes, 3.583.

2. And they called upon. From here until v. 4 we are presented with a seriesof clauses linked by “and” (κα�) – an imitation of biblical style. See NOTEon 10:3, After purifying.

look down upon. A frequent motif in our book; see NOTE on 3:39, watchesover.

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 ofthis prayer preferred the fancier term, which also has the advantage ofrhyming with λα�ν (“people”), mentioned a few words earlier.

profaned by impious men. Not necessarily by non-Jews, nor by people de-filed 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 basi-cally a Hellenistic point of view, which equates wickedness and impurity.But is it not foreign to ancient Judaism; see NOTES on 5:16, abominablehands, and on 12:23, sinners.

3. about to be. As the author likes to point out; see NOTE on 2:22, thelaws that were about to be.

leveled to the ground (0σ2πεδον). I.e., destroyed. The same expression re-curs at 9:4 describing Antiochus’ plans for the Temple of Jerusalem, andalso at 3 Maccabees 5:43 – describing Ptolemy IV’s. Cf. 14:43 (ε+« πεδ�ον)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 andm. Sanh 4:5. However, given the importance of Deuteronomy 32 in ourbook, esp. in the preceding chapter (see NOTE on 7:6, “And He will recon-cile Himself …”), we should also think of Deuteronomy 32:43, “for He willavenge His servants’ blood and return vengeance upon His enemies.” Thebasic point was predicted by the seventh son: “with me and my brothersshall be stayed the anger of the All-Ruler which was justly loosed againstour entire nation.” For the special effectiveness of blood in this regard, seee.g. R. Eleazar ben Shammua’s dictum, that “there is no atonement withoutblood” (b. Yoma 5a); in the Midrash of the Ten Martyrs (Reeg, Geschichte,102*) the same sage explains, to his persecutor, that God is refraining fromsaving His servants precisely “so as to be able to demand their blood ofyou.” For the Greek background of the notion, see NOTE on 14:45, hisblood flowing …

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


Moreover, Abel’s suggestion, followed by Goldstein (who translates “to bemindful of the wicked massacre of innocent babes and also to avenge theblasphemies perpetrated against His name”) requires a transitive usage ofμισοπονηρω� (“to avenge”), and that is unlikely, for our author considersthat verb itself to specify its object; see 4:36, 49, also 3:1.

It should be noted, however, that blasphemies have not yet been men-tioned in this book. So either they were mentioned in the original and ourauthor omitted them, or else the persecutions and defilements are taken toconstitute blasphemies. In any case, the topic will occupy our author lateron (9:28; 10:34–35; 12:14; 15:24, 32), and so it is not surprising that hementions 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 com-pete with the suffering of innocent babies. For the killing of babies as atype 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 inour verse: Does it refer to the seven sons of Chapter 7, or to the babies of6:10? If the reference is to the former, then it is quite overstated, for thereeven 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 translatingνηπ��ν “children” instead of “infants,” but that is rather desperate. Sotoo must we note that Chapter 7 does not at all say the seven sons were sin-less. On the contrary, the sixth and seventh admit that they were beingpunished for their own sins; even if the nation as a whole is meant, thewords apply to them too. But not to babies. Accordingly, it seems bestto see the primary reference of our verse to the babies of 6:10; so tooGrimm and Abel ad loc. This supports the assumption that the martyro-logical excursus (6:18-end of Ch. 7) came from a separate source. Seeabove, 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 acentral virtue already in the first verse of our story (3:1), and then again at4:36, 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 ofthings to remember, is very sudden. This heralds, as it were, the turnaboutin 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 Jewishcorps.

he could not be withstood (�νψπ2στατο«) by the Gentiles. As opposed tothe Seleucid army, which was only thought irresistible (1:13). The rest ofour verse explains what made the difference. Note that the adjective appliesto Judas himself, not to his force; from this point on the story focuses uponhim. See esp. Geiger, “History of Judas Maccabaeus.”

the Lord’s anger having turned into mercy. This is the turning point of theentire 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 upbegins right here. Contrast 1 Maccabees 3:8, where it is the valor of JudasMaccabaeus that turns away the �ργ� – as at 1:64, not even said to beGod’s – from Israel.

6. Coming upon cities and villages. As 1 Maccabees 2:44–48 and 3:5–8, itseems that the text is actually referring to attacks upon Jews (who collab-orated with the Seleucids); but our diasporan author, even if he was awareof this, would not say so. See the end of our opening COMMENT.

strategic (�πικα�ροψ«) places. This adjective, which recurs another threetimes in our book (v. 31 and 10:15; 14:22), appears nowhere else in theSeptuagint. It is analogous to εϊκαιρο«, used frequently by Polybius forplaces with military or economic advantages; see Mauersberger, PL,2.1027–1028; Pédech, Polybe, 535. As for what places are meant, ourauthor gives no details at all, just as the rest of the chapter gives no geo-graphical details concerning Nicanor’s campaign or the battle with him. Itseems not only that the author wasn’t interested in such details, but that hewanted 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 ac-count 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 earlystages, see Bar-Kochva, JM, 138–141.


collaborator. In the Septuagint, σψνεργ�« appears only here and at 14:5; inboth cases it is a personification. For similar formulations, see Poly-bius 8.2.6 (τ� … κατ? τ�να« καιρο#« σψν�ργησε) 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 toexplain 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.ανδρ�α, 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 at15:17, which is the only other time this word appears in our book (and theentire Septuagint), it parallels “nobly” and must refer to manly valor, not tonumbers. 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 WereMen: 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 heardfrom at 6:11. Allusion to him here by name alone seems to indicate that heis more present in the reader’s mind than he actually is – another indicationthat 6:12–7:42 is secondary. For use of Philip’s name as a “handle” toswitch the reader’s attention to another front, compare vv. 12 and 34 and10:14.

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 thetext to mean that Philip saw that Judas was not progressing slowly, butrather (δω) faster and faster; accordingly, he suggested inserting a negation.However, the δω need not be adversative, and κατ? μικρ�ν 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 doneto them, whereas here he is sending an army against them. But this is not areal 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 forthe 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 Lysiassend Ptolemy son of Dorymenes. The parallelism between the two booksbrought various scholars to put them together: to learn from 1 Maccabeesthat our “Ptolemy” is the son of Dorymenes, and to learn from the presentverse that this Ptolemy was governor of Coele Syria and Phoenicia, hencethe 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 (alongwith two others), whereas here Ptolemy sends two and Lysias is not men-tioned at all – just as our author is altogether careful not to mention himprior to the death of Antiochus Epiphanes; Lysias first appears at 10:11 (seeNOTE on 10:11, one Lysias). Thus, we have two conflicting versions of thiscampaign. Moreover, given the fact that Ptolemy son of Dorymenes doesnot function at all in 1 Maccabees’ version of this campaign, we need notascribe 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 men-tioned here is the Ptolemy Macron of 10:12–13; this need not contradict thestatement of 1 Maccabees, that Ptolemy son of Dorymenes was among theSeleucid commanders during this campaign.

9. Nicanor the son of Patroclus. This is the first appearance of the Seleucidgeneral in our book, the only appearance of his patronymic. He is a centralfigure in our book, which ends with the establishment of a holiday in honorof Judas’ final victory over him; see 15:36. For the identity – at least in ourauthor’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, forexample, Abel (Macc, 387) and Marcus on Ant. 12.298 in the LCL edition. But this isa very difficult suggestion (and is properly rejected by Mitford, “Ptolemy Macron,”176–177), for why should our author skip between patronymic and byname? Andcan we really imagine the villain of 4:45–46, 50 getting such a nice sending-off at10:12–13?!


on v. 34, thrice-accursed Nicanor. Nicanor’s importance for our book ex-plains 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 honoredofficials,” but Josephus, as our verse, says that he was the most loyal andtrustworthy among the king’s Friends (τ7ν φ�λ�ν – Ant. 13.402).

no fewer than 20,000. For such double negations see NOTE on 3:14, quiteconsiderable. Our author apparently liked the number 20,000 (“two myr-iads”); it recurs in v. 30 and again in 10:17, 23. 1 Maccabees 3:39 refershere to 40,000 soldiers and another 7,000 cavalry, which is totally outland-ish, 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 incontrast to an exaggerating 1 Maccabees, Bar-Kochva [171–172] suggeststhat 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 (6�νη ο.κ�λ�ττοψ«) but as constructio ad sensum it is acceptable; see Hanhart,Text, 33 (vs. Niese, Kritik, 113 and Katz, “Text,” 14) and below, 12:27and 14:14. On the different national units in the Seleucid army, such asthe 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, SeleucidArmy, 48–53.

wipe out the entire nation of Judaea. A very exaggerated formulation, in-tended 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, se-cretly … growing. Note also, however, that in our book only the nation isthreatened; 1 Maccabees 3:58–59, characteristically, mentions the threat tothe Temple too. See above, p. 46.

Chapter VIII 333

Alongside him he also placed Gorgias. As a matter of fact, Gorgias seems tohave 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 empha-size Nicanor; see Introduction, p. 9.

a commander (.νδρα στρατηγ2ν). Here, as at 10:14, and as opposed to 3:5and 4:4 where we used “governor,” the context seems to require the originalmilitary nuance. For the construction here, cf. 12:35: 6φιππο« �ν�ρ.

10. undertook (διεστ�σατο). As Habicht comments (2 Macc, 239, 10a), itis 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: �ναδε��μενο«.

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 indem-nities and the likelihood that, as our book claims, money was still due morethan twenty years after the Treaty, see Appendix 6.

by making the Jews captives. Followed, of course, by their sale; see the nextverse 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 inTcherikover, HC, 91–96. At times they displayed hostility toward Jews: see12:3–9; 13:25; Kasher, Jews and Hellenistic Cities, 54–90 (on the period ofAntiochus IV and Judas Maccabaeus; 60–61 on the present episode). Here,however, after placing Nicanor at the head of the Seleucid campaign, ourauthor makes him all the worse by making him responsible for inviting theslave merchants of those cities to join him and do business at the expense ofthe Jews – a claim he repeats at v. 34. According to 1 Maccabees 3:41, therewas no need for a Seleucid official to invite such slave merchants; they cameon 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’sgoals: it both denigrates Nicanor and allows for a more optimistic portrayalof Jewish-Gentile relations in general: if things go badly, it must be the faultof some villainous troublemaker. See also 10:14 and 12:2.

ninety slaves per talent. Figuring six thousand drachmas per talent, as isusual, this works out to 67 drachmas per slave – a good deal less thanthe price of an animal (see NOTE on 4:19, 300 silver drachmas). By way


of comparison, see the table in R. Scholl, Corpus der ptolemäischen Skla-ventexte, I (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1990) 213, where data on the sale of twentyslaves, mostly from Syria, are assembled. Prices in drachmas for adults in-clude 300, 200, 150, and 112. Thus, Nicanor thought he would take somany captives that he would drive prices down to a half or less of theirusual level;5 for instances of such gluts on the slave market depressingprices, see Josephus, War 6.384, and Volkmann, Massenversklavungen,(117)-(118).

not expecting the All-Ruler’s justice which was going to pursue him. Havingarrived at the second half of his book, when things start improving for theJews, our author takes care to make sure his readers know that things willturn out just fine. As for the use of “pursue” here, παρακολοψ��σειν, inconnection with divine justice, it is interestingly reminiscent of the inscrip-tions which forbade Gentiles to enter the Temple, warning violators, some-what vaguely and mysteriously, that their death would come “pursuant”(��ακολοψ�ε�ν) thereto (OGIS, no. 598).

12. As for Judas. Our author likes to set his antagonists one against theother, as if on a stage, turning back and forth between the villain and thehero. 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 notexplain how this happened; see above, p. 73.

5 V. Tscherikower, “Palestine Under the Ptolemies (A Contribution to the Study of theZenon Papyri),” Mizraim 4–5 (1937) 75, n. 15, surveys some evidence for slaveprices, but focuses on the Roman period, when, as he notes, prices were “consider-ably higher.” Nevertheless, he concludes that “also in Hellenistic just as in Romantimes 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 andhad therefore suggested that they were copper – which at a rate of 60:1 would then beequal to 20 silver drachmas – Tcherikover finds the latter unacceptably low and,therefore, sticks with 1200 silver drachmas. Scholl (Corpus, 97–98), however, citingmore recent literature, reverts to Heichelheim’s assumption that copper drachmas aremeant but, using somewhat lower rates, translates them into either 60 or 30 silverdrachmas.

Chapter VIII 335

13. cowardly and did not have faith (δειλανδρο�ντε« κα3 �πιστο�ντε«).On δειλ�α see NOTE on 3:24, cowardice; on π�στι« see NOTE on 3:22, topreserve the trusts … entrusted. Here it seems the reference is to the cer-emony mandated at Deuteronomy 20:8 and actually narrated as such (“ac-cording to the Law”) in the present context, in 1 Maccabees 3:56 – yet an-other point of similarity between the narratives (see NOTE on v. 1,secretly … growing). But it must be noted that our author, who was out toglorify Judas and his men, chose to portray the matter not as a mandatedceremony (which legitimizes cowardice) but, rather, as one which shows thereader who is and is not worthy of admiration. For the same reason, he ig-nores the other categories of those exempted from service, according toboth Deuteronomy and 1 Maccabees: those who had built new houses orhad 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 termi-nology makes it clear, as best as our universalistic author can even in thecurrent combative context, that he is not describing a special relationshipbetween 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 theproperty left behind by the cowards, who departed helter-skelter. We arenot told why their property was sold – to purchase military equipment? Toturn it into cash, so as to allow for liquidity and flight? For the author, thesole item of importance here is the coming contrast between the valiantJews, who prayed after selling off the property of cowards and faithless, onthe one hand, and the impious Nicanor who sold the righteous before heeven met up with them, on the other.

15. due to the covenants. For dependence upon covenants when there is noother 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. Ithas been noted that Greek authors and translators preferred to use the plu-ral when the reference is to a covenant between God and more than onepartner; 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 ad-duced by sinners hoping to move God to be gracious toward them; as itwere, God’s own reputation is held hostage to their good fortunes. See, for


example: Psalms 115:1; Jeremiah 14:21; LXX Daniel 3:34, 43 (Prayer ofAzariah). As is frequently the case, this argument appears here alongside theone which refers to the covenant; the two are more or less one, for God’sgood name is also dependent upon His fulfillment of His promises. On thistype of argument, see: P. D. Miller, They Cried to the Lord: The Form andTheology of Biblical Prayer (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994) 120–126.

16. 6000 in number. As promised in v. 1. Bar-Kochva (JM, 47–48) thinksthe number reasonable.

called upon. On παρακαλω�, see NOTE on 7:24, his appeal. On pre-battlespeeches in Greek literature, see W. K. Pritchett, Ancient Greek BattleSpeeches and a Palfrey (Amsterdam: Gieben, 2002); pp. 28–29 on those inPolybius. 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 ofHonour and Shame in Ancient Greece (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1994).

unlawfully (�ν2μ,«). It is superfluous to say that an outrage was done un-lawfully, but our author is not the type to avoid rhetorical overkill; neitheris 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, theadjective is common.

the Holy Place. The Temple; see NOTE on 3:2, the Place. For the events towhich 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 fitsthis rubric.

abrogation of the ancestral (προγονικ�«) constitution. Thus, troublesbegan under Jason (4:11); so too 1:7, 12 (see Introduction, p. 4). On “an-cestral,” 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 (τ�λμαι«). That is, courage, but our author of course avoids theuse of a positive word, such as ε.ανδρ�α (ascribed to Judas in v. 7); so too at3:24 and 4:2.

with a single nod of His head (Ψν3 νε�ματι). 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�ντ�λημχι« see NOTE on 15:7, that assistance … Encouraging speechessuch as this one, which list past instances of salvation, are common in ourliterature: for some examples, see 12:15; 15:9, 22; 1 Maccabees 2:49–64and 4:8–11; 3 Maccabees 2:2–8; 6:2–15. The “ancestors” are termedπρογ�νοι, thus linking our verse up with the earlier reference to the “an-cestral constitution” (v. 17).

Sennacherib. See Isaiah 37:36; 2 Kings 19:35. This miracle is frequentlycited 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 on14:33, he extended his right hand …, and – on the importance of thisprecedent for salvation of Jerusalem – W. R. Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots,and Josephus: An Inquiry into Jewish Nationalism in the Greco-RomanPeriod (New York: Columbia, 1956) 97–111.

20. confrontation with the Galatians. For Galatians as terrifying warriorssee e.g. Livy 38.16; R. R. R. Smith, Hellenistic Sculpture: A Handbook (NewYork: Thames and Hudson, 1991) 99–104; and Strobel, Die Galater, 224(“their appearance and the terror they spread made the Galatian warriors, inthe 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 ofchaos” [my translation]). See also NOTE on 15:39, wine by itself. As for thebattle alluded to here, it is usual – due both to the mention of Galatians (whoinhabited 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 iscontroversy as to the precise identification of the battle. See Bar-Kochva, JM,500–507, and below, Appendix 7 (by the late Menahem Stern, who summar-izes at pp. 547–548 that “it is in the nature of things that no suggestion isvery convincing”). Thus, while we do know of a Galatian invasion of Asia


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) andJewish (Ant. 12.149; Launey, Recherches 1.541–554; Bar-Kochva, JM, 85,n. 47) mercenaries in Hellenistic armies, we nevertheless have no evidencefor 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 goeswithout saying, in fact it seems that we should not exclude the possibilitythat a diasporan author might allow God to help good and courageousGentiles – or, at least, that such an author would be happy not to limit sucha possibility to Jews.

Macedonians. A common term for the Seleucids. See, for example OGIS239; Strabo, Geog., end of Book 16; Josephus, Antiquities 12.434 and13.273, etc.; Bickerman, Institutions, 5; and esp. Edson, “Imperium Mace-donicum.”

were in confusion. As Edson notes (loc. cit, 163), given the equation ofMacedonians and Seleucids it is especially apposite, in the present context,for Judas to recall a time when they were confounded and God helpedothers 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, butalso 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 datumgiven earlier in the verse: 8000. Whether the latter is the number of Jewsalone, or rather includes the 4000 Macedonians mentioned there, thenumber of Jews is not 6000. Either the author was careless, or the text iscorrupt, or we adopt some desperate harmonization, such as Goldstein’ssuggestion (2 Macc, 333) that we are to assume that of an original 8000Jews 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 fewwho fought the many and prevailed; cf. NOTE on 2:21, so that althoughthey were few in number.

assistance. Concerning βο��εια, see NOTE on v. 24, ally.

Chapter VIII 339

and they took much booty. So too in the battle of Emmaus, where the topicwill receive much attention; see vv. 27–30. Our book’s attitude toward thetaking of booty is similar to its attitude toward slaughter (v. 24), devoid ofembarrassment. This is similar to Exodus 3:22: where the Hebrew usessomewhat vague formulations for how the Israelites’ shall acquire propertyfrom the Egyptians, the Septuagint has no problem with σκψλε��, “de-spoil.” Even Philo views the taking of booty as legitimate in war, “the law ofthe victors” (ν�μ8 τ7ν κεκρατηκ�τ�ν – Life of Moses 1.142). See alsoNOTES on 2:21, they plundered the entire country and 10:17, cuttingdown.

21. ready to die (Ψτο�μοψ« … �πο�νUσκειν). Our author thus comparesthese soldiers to martyrs (see 7:2 – Vτοιμοι … �πο�νUσκειν); so too 13:14.

divided them into something of a four-part army. A reasonable division andone without biblical precedent, as opposed to that of thousands, hundreds,fifties and tens mentioned in the parallel at 1 Maccabees 3:24 and recallingExodus 18:21, 24. See also below, 12:20.

22–23. his brothers Simon, Joseph and Jonathan … and also Eleazar. Onthe reading “Eleazar,” see the next NOTE. The present verse is one of thefew in our book which relate to Judas’ brothers; see NOTE on 2:19, JudasMaccabaeus and his brothers. According to 1 Maccabees 2:1 as well Judashad four brothers, and there is only one difference between the two lists ofnames: 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 addJoseph to the list; her main argument is that the name Joseph was popular inthe Second Temple period. However, the name does not reappear in theHasmonean family itself, although its onomasticon is well-documented.6

Moreover, in general it is preferable to assume that 1 Maccabees, the dyn-astic 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). Butneither is it reasonable to think that “brothers” here should be taken in ageneral 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’ exagger-ated formulations at Antiquities 16.187 and Vita 2, his was not an Hasmoneanfamily: 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.


brothers in the literal sense. It seems, rather, that our author has simplyerred, perhaps led astray by the combination of his knowledge that Josephwas 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 ofZechariah mentioned at 1 Maccabees 5:56.

23. and also Eleazar. Some witnesses read “Ezra,” apparently under the in-fluence of “Esdris” of 12:36; this reading also neatly fits this character’s rolehere, 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 shallargue that it is not this person, but rather Judas, who is said to have read theTorah. 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.” Althoughwe are not told from what part of the Bible Judas read, probably we aresupposed to infer that the lection suggested the motto. It seems, as is indi-cated by the parallel at 1 Maccabees 3:48, that the reference is to a type ofdivination: a chance opening of the Bible and selection of a text, on the as-sumption 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’sWar,” “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,” BCH100 (1976) 299–302.

he himself led the first unit (τ�« πρ1τη« σπε�ρη« α/τ(« προηγο�μενο«).This seems plainly to mean that Judas himself took command of the first ofthe four units mentioned in v. 22, although he had appointed a separatecommander for it. That is, Judas’ seniority and bravery are demonstratedby the fact that he himself, not another on his behalf, led the attack. So too11:7; 12:22; and note the significant contrast at 10:19–23, which showswhat can happen when someone else is in charge. Compare also Diodo-rus 17.57.6, which, describing Alexander the Great at Arbel, says he him-self led the right wing (α.τ9« δM το� δε�ιο� μωροψ« Yγο�μενο«).

Some copyists and interpreters were not happy with this plain meaningof our verse, and therefore tried to have vv. 22–23 name only three com-manders, apart from Judas. Building on the way Eleazar’s name comes be-latedly, 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 (soGoldstein), while others would erase his name altogether, assuming that itwas 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 ofJudas 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 expectsome explanation as to why this brother alone was defined as a religious fig-ure. But there is nothing surprising about our author endowing Judas with areligious 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 re-lationship with the Jews is similar to their σψμμαξ�α with Rome (4:11): theterminology of “help” and “assistance” – βο��εια (vv. 20, 23, 35; 12:11;13:13; 15:35), βοη��« (3:39) and βο��ημα (15:8) – are other items in thesame 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 re-bels of his own day, whom he wished to present as illegitimate, and who didnot enjoy such divine support (War 2.390; 5.377). This need to legitimizerebels by showing their religious justification is a diasporan one; it moti-vated our author just as much as it motivated Josephus. For God as theJews’ ally, see also Mariani, “L’alleanza e l’amicizia.”

cut down. With no apologetics; see NOTE on v. 20, and they took muchbooty.

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 thereis done unto evil others what they would have done unto us; compare esp.vv. 35–36; 3:28; 9:10.

a considerable distance (�φ 7 =καν2ν). For a similar phrase, see e.g. Poly-bius 11.25.1, πε�ραν … �φ 0 Zκαν�ν (“considerable experience” – Paton inLCL edition). Cf. NOTE on 1:20, enough years.


26. the (day) before the Sabbath (> πρ( το� σαββ#τοψ). Friday, as alsoat Antiquities 13.255, Judith 8:6 (where Judith is said to have fasted everyday ξ�ρ/« προσαββ�τ�ν κα/ σαββ�τ�ν), and Mark 15:42, where theπροσ�ββατον is glossed as “preparation.” But it is not always clearwhether 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 inthat instance (Apollonius’ entry into Jerusalem), where 1 Maccabees 1:30mentions 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 pursuitsimply 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 basicdifference between the two books, see Introduction, pp. 63–64.

did not long continue. LSJ, 1075, lists our verse alone for this meaning ofμακροτονω�.

27. After collecting their weapons. The same is the case for active usage ofthe verb $πλολογω�, which recurs in v. 31; see LSJ, 1240.

and stripping the enemy bare (�κδ�σαντε«) of spoils. The verb correspondsto similar usage at 11:12.

beginning of Mercy. See our NOTE on 7:29, in the Mercy. Here we see theauthor enumerating, as it were, the stations along the way to complete sal-vation. 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] beforethe Sabbath) makes no mention of charitable distribution – which our bookdetails 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 herehints 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 notbe 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 faceaway from any poor person. Then God’s face will not be turned away fromyou … So you will be storing up good treasure for yourself against a day ofneed. 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 “recon-ciliation” and “servants” ensures that – just as 7:33, where as here we havethe intensified possessive, His own servants – this is an allusion back to 7:6.Having seen the beginning (v. 27!) of “reconciliation,” the Jews express thehope that it will be completed.

30. Clashing (σψνερε�σαντε«). 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 ap-pears that this account was located here, out of historical context, becauseof the theme it shares with the present story: the charitable distribution ofbooty (see Momigliano, Prime linee, 79; Bar-Kochva, JM, 512). So despitethe allusions at 9:3 and 10:24, we should not understand that the battlementioned 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 geographi-cal details; see NOTE on v. 6, strategic places. “Very” (ε[ μ�λα – “rightwell”) 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 toJerusalem, apparently for the victory celebration; see v. 33.

equal portions for themselves and for … widows and orphans, as well as theold. The author wants to emphasize that Judas and his men did not take forthemselves more than they gave to the unfortunates listed here. But paceRisberg (“Anmerkungen,” 22, followed by Katz, “Text,” 15 and Habicht,2 Macc, 242, n. 30d) it is not at all clear that emendation is required tomake that point; cf. Hanhart, Text, 34.

those who had been mistreated (?κισμωνοι«). In the present context, appear-ing alongside widows and orphans and before the surviving and theirfamilies, 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-


rology in Chapter 7 (see above, p. 17), it may be that we are meant to under-stand 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 heretoo, 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 strong-holds. 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 theJews; nor have we even been told that the victory over Nicanor would allowfor that. Indeed, according to 1 Maccabees 4 it did not; yet another cam-paign (1 Macc 4:26–35) was still needed. This too indicates that the presentpericope should be read not as part of the sequential narrative, but, rather,as an excursus illustrating and reinforcing an element of it: the proper dis-tribution of spoils.

32. Timothy’s phylarch. According to the structure of this verse, “phy-larch” (φψλ�ρξη«) would seem to be a (military) rank or title; for dis-cussion, see esp. Bar-Kochva, JM, 511, who cites Grimm (2 Macc, 144) andesp. Richnow (“Untersuchungen,” 121) for the view that it is a propernoun. Grimm’s assertion that it is “sicher Nomen proprium” is based on theclaim that if it were a military rank or title it should be accompanied byτιν�, “a (hitherto unmentioned) phylarch;” but that seems to be based onthe unfounded assumption that Timothy’s force included more than onephylarch. As for Richnow, he in fact deliberates the issue without coming toa conclusion, even adding in the point that there is very little evidence forPhylarch as a proper noun – to which Habicht (2 Macc, 242, n. 32a) addsthat such evidence as there is points rather to Phylarchos, whereas the spell-ing 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 com-manders 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 fromthe former to the latter realm, and, indeed, it is difficult to find supportingevidence for “cavalry commander;” see LSJ, 1961. Bunge refers to Bengston(Strategie 2.305), who, along with additional bibliography, suggested thatin Dura Europus the φψλ�ρξη« was responsible for the Arab tribes in thevicinity 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” (�ραβ�ρξη«), known from the Roman period – the of-ficial in charge of customs-collection from the Arab tribes or regions; seeStern, GLA, 2.96–97.

a most impious man (�νοσι�τατον). On this adjective, see NOTE on 7:34,impious.

harassed. Apart from a variant reading in Herodotus 9.50, this is the onlycitation in LSJ, 644 for the active voice of �πιλψπω�.

33. victory celebrations (�πιν�κια). On “the customary epinikia” (Arrian5.20.1), 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. Seeour 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 ep-istle (1:8), which indicates that Jason’s or Menelaus’ supporters had donesuch a thing; also in 1 Maccabees 4:38. We cannot know which gates aremeant, and we in fact know very little about the Temple’s gates and those ofits courts in this early period; most of our evidence pertains to the Herodianperiod. 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’ Descriptionof the Jerusalem Temple,” in: Parente & Sievers, Josephus and the History,242.

Callisthenes. The fact that this character is unknown but not presented assuch is, apparently, more evidence for the assumption that this pericope isout of context; see NOTE on v. 30, Timothy’s and Bacchides’ men.

received fitting wages. As Andronicus (4:38). There are variant readingshere, 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.


34. As for … Nicanor. This leads us back into the main narrative, followingthe excursus in vv. 30–33. This is, then, another example of the author’s useof names as “handles” to move our attention in the direction he desires; seeNOTE on v. 8, But Philip.

thrice-accursed Nicanor (τρισαλιτ�ριο«). For this colorful word LSJ(1822) cites only our verse and LXX Esther 8:12p. Use of such a rare de-scription of Nicanor both here and at 15:3 shows clearly that our authorthought that they are one and the same; that is indeed the reason he focusesupon him here; see Introduction, pp. 9–10.

who had brought the thousand merchants. On Nicanor’s responsibility forthis, see NOTE on v. 11, he wrote to the coastal cities. The number of mer-chants was not mentioned there, nor in 1 Maccabees 3:41. But the use of thedefinite article here makes it sound as if the reader knew of it; perhaps thiswas 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); notethat the author is not bothered by the use of �ε�« there and κ�ριο« here, justas 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, 29alongside 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 Himin v. 38; etc.

made himself as destitute as a fugitive slave (δραπωτοψ τρ�πον). Tit fortat: he wanted to sell the Jews into captivity, but in the end only managed toescape by feigning the same plight. According to Josephus (War 2.358),Xerxes, the classic exemplar of royal arrogance (see NOTE on 5:21, landnavigable …), 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, togo back via the coastal cities to which he had turned so confidently at theoutset 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 3περ�γαν (“especially”) is relativelyrare but appears twice more in our book (10:34; 13:25) and is defended byKatz, “Text,” 15 and Kilpatrick, “Review of Hanhart,” 18, as opposed toHanhart who reads and defends (Text, 39) 3πMρ >παν (“above all”).

36. Thus he. The author likes these gloating ad hominem summaries; seeIntroduction, pp. 77–78.

to take care of … proclaimed. These two verbs are juxtaposed and verysimilar to one another (κατορ��σασ�αι κατ�γγελλεν), which highlightsthe contrast between his original plan and what he ended up doing; Cf.NOTE on 6:29, benevolence … malevolence. This seems to be the first oftwo cases of word-play, at Nicanor’s expense, in this final verse of thechapter; 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 also14:34; cf. above, NOTE on v. 24, ally.

and that it is for this reason … because. The translation is based on the par-allelism between the repeated use of δι?. Note that the concatenation ofconsonants makes τ9ν τρ�πον το�τον �τρ�τοψ« into something of atongue-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 thechapter: there the Jewish author says that Jewish attacks cannot be with-stood, and here the Gentile, having learned this lesson, preaches that thosewho would attack Jews come to a sorry end. That is just what is needed toprepare us for the next chapter.

because they follow (�κολοψε�ν) the laws ordained (προστεταγμωνοι«) byHim. For the implied comparison of God’s laws to royal prostagmata, seeNOTE on 7:30, decree of the king … As for “follow,” there are parallels forsuch usage of �κολοψ�ε�ν; see e.g. Judith 2:3 and Andocides, Against Alci-biades 4.19. Nevertheless, this meaning is rare enough to justify the suspi-


cion that it is used here to close a circle: God’s justice pursued Nicanor(παρακολοψ��σειν – v. 11), and the Jews followed His laws and therebymerited that He fight for them. For such usage of a somewhat inappropriateword 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 re-treat from the Persian regions. (2) For he had entered into the city calledPersepolis and set his hand to robbing the temple and securing the city – forwhich reason the masses, having rushed to arms for assistance, defeatedthem; and so it happened that Antiochus was put to flight by the natives andmade a humiliating retreat. (3) When he was near Ecbatana there reachedhim 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 theJews also the misfortune which had been imposed upon him by those whohad forced him to flee. He therefore ordered his wagon-driver to drive with-out letup so as to finish the trip – but the heavenly judgment kept up withhim. For he arrogantly said, “When I get to Jerusalem I will turn it into aJewish cemetery!,” (5) but the all-seeing Lord, the God of Israel, smote himwith an incurable and invisible blow: right after he ceased speaking he wasovercome by unrelenting pain in his entrails and bitter torments of his in-nards – (6) quite justly, for he had with numerous and exotic sufferings tor-mented 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 theJews and ordering (his driver) to make haste along the way. But it happenedthat, carried along by the rush, he fell from the chariot; in the severe fall itbefell 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 couldweigh on a scale the heights of mountains – came back to earth and, beingcarried in a litter, exhibited to all the revealed power of God, (9) in that alsoworms came bubbling up out of the villain’s eyes, and while he was stillalive his flesh disintegrated in pain and suffering, and the entire camp wasbelabored under the stench of his decaying. (10) And he who just a bit ear-lier had thought he could touch the stars of heaven – no one could bear himdue to the intolerable burden of his stench.


Antiochus Repents

(11) At this point, shattered, he began to give up something of his arro-gance and to come to his senses, for under the divine scourge his painswere continually becoming worse and worse. (12) No longer able even tostand his own stench, he said: “It is right to submit to God and, being mor-tal, not to think oneself equal to God.” (13) And the abominable manmade 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 hurry-ing 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 evenworthy 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 pre-viously pillaged – with the most beautiful votive offerings, and that hewould restore many times over the sacred vessels and supply from his ownrevenues the expenses incurred for the sacrifices;

(17) and that, moreover, he would become a Jew and, visiting all inhab-ited 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 beenvisited by the just judgment of God – he gave up hope for himself and wrotethe Jews the letter written below, in the form of a supplication, as follows:(19) To the respected Jews, fellow citizens, many greetings, health and suc-cess (from) the King and Governor Antiochus. (20) If you are well, and yourchildren and your affairs are satisfactory, I pray the greatest gratitude toGod, for my hope is in Heaven. (21) As for me, although I am in a weakcondition, I remember with sincere love your respect and goodwill. Sincewhile 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 theclutches of this disease, (23) nevertheless:

seeing that my father, whenever he campaigned to the highlands, ap-pointed him who would succeed him, (24) so that if anything surprisingshould develop or any difficulty be reported, all the inhabitants of thecountry would know to whom the state had been left and would not be evenmore upset;

Chapter IX 351

(25) and realizing, moreover, that the nearby and neighboring rulers arelooking for opportunities and building expectations about developments;I have appointed my son Antiochus king, just as frequently, when I has-tened up to the upper satrapies, I entrusted and recommended him to themajority 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 tothe commonalty and to each and every one of you – each of you maintainthe present goodwill toward me and my son. (27) For I am convinced thathe – graciously and humanely following my own policy – will be lenientwith 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 themountains – a most miserable death. (29) Philip, who had been reared withhim, bore the body back, and then, wary of Antiochus’ son, betook himselfto Egypt, to Ptolemy Philometor.

COMMENT

The death of Antiochus Epiphanes was a favorite theme in ancient de mor-tibus persecutorum literature (see Bibliography to this chapter), and ourchapter is the earliest of them all. All that happens in this chapter is that ourauthor – enjoying himself immensely – settles the Jews’ accounts with Anti-ochus IV Epiphanes. The king, whose very name bespeaks arrogance (seeNOTE 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 toGod’s desire to punish his sinful people (5:17), is brought back to earth in avery real and excruciating way, and so – to understanding God’s power. Thestory begins with a Persian mob defeating the king’s attempt to rob theirtemple, and proceeds to have him flee, hear bad news from Judaea, bestricken by a God-sent disease, and severely wounded by a fall from hischariot. Then, when he has begun to recognize that it is right to submit toGod, he first makes all sorts of wonderful promises concerning Jerusalem,the Jews and God Himself – but it turns out that these too are only ex-pressions of his arrogance, for he can in fact do nothing. So there is nothingleft for him but shameful death, although not before the author shows him-self to be a virtuoso in spoofing a royal deathbed epistle.


As for historicity, most of what we have in this chapter is not the type ofmaterial 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 arrogantkings and their spectacular downfalls; many of the building blocks may betraced back, directly or indirectly, to Aeschylus’ Persians (on Xerxes) andIsaiah 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 thatthe 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 outby other sources as well; see NOTES on 1:13, to Persia and in the temple ofNanaia.

NOTES

9:1. About that time. As at the opening of Chapter 5, which opens the sameway with reference to Antiochus’ campaign to Egypt, our author has no in-terest in giving a precise date. Antiochus’ departure for the East is dated at1 Maccabees 3:37 to 147 SE, that is – according to the Jewish system (seeIntroduction, 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 (�τ�γξανεν). This too parallels the opening of Chapter 5, al-though the verb there is different; for ours, see NOTE on 4:32, just as ithappened. In the present chapter also a few other things “happen”(σψνβα�ν� – vv. 2, 7), and it is clear that the author wants us to understandthat 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 toXerxes – 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 ourauthor did not know, nor could he care less, where exactly these eventstranspired; cf. 4:36; 8:6, 31; 10:19; etc. Other more specific sources indicatethat the event described in v. 2 happened in Elymais – which is, in a generalway, part of “Persia;” so too 1 Maccabees 6:1. Cf. NOTE on 1:13, templeof Nanaia.

Chapter IX 353

2. called. Such a formulation is usually used to apologize, as it were, beforereaders, upon introduction of foreign or strange-sounding words or names;thus, for example, 12:17, 21, 32; 14:6; 15:36. But Persepolis was certainlyquite well known; see our next NOTE. Rather, in this case it seems thatthere was another problem: the name was understood to mean “city of thePersians,” and according to a well-established rule such names were sup-posed to remain divided into two words, such as Σκψ�7ν π�λιν in 12:29, asopposed to one word for the residents, Σκψ�οπολ�ται, mentioned in thevery next verse. Persepolis was for some reason exceptional, but our author,who preened himself on his Greek style, felt the need to demonstrate someunease. 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. uponits destruction by Alexander the Great; see E. N. Borza, “Fire From Heaven:Alexander at Persepolis,” CP 67 (1972) 233–245; M. Wheeler, FlamesOver 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 thatthe events to which he alludes happened somewhere in “Persia;” so, forexample, Schunck, Quellen, 41.

set his hand. The verb is �πιξειρω�, as at 7:19, and there too there is astrong nasty nuance; see also 10:15, 3 Maccabees 6:24 and Acts 12:1 (al-though above 2:29 it has no such nuance).

the masses, having rushed to arms for assistance, defeated them. I translatedas if an active verb had been used instead of the passive �τρ�πησαν, so asto 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 ourNOTE on 12:27, defeated and destroyed. The scene is similar to the oneplayed out in Jerusalem at 4:39–42, but our diasporan author, who here hasPersians taking up weapons, limited his unarmed Jerusalemite heroes towhatever 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 ourauthor knew of the special relationship between Antiochus Epiphanes and


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, seeA. 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 stopto wonder how; see Introduction, p. 73.

what had happened to Nicanor and to those with Timothy. The reference toNicanor is fine, but as for “those with Timothy,” whose defeat at the handsof the Jews is reported in 8:30–33, it seems (see NOTE on 8:30, Timothy’sand Bacchides’ men) that the story there was out of place historically, meantonly to illustrate the topic of charitable distribution of booty. Here, how-ever, as also in a brief allusion at 10:24, it sounds as if the event has alreadytaken place. Although it is possible that these two references to Timothy’smen were added in after the book was completed, it seems more economicalto assume (with Bar-Kochva, JM, 512) that already Jason had the materialappearing in what is now 8:30–33 and that our author, in a mistaken at-tempt 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 inPersia, heard of his forces’ defeat in Judaea, and that the news led to hisdeath; but there the reference is especially to the defeat of Lysias in the firstBeth-Zur campaign (and Timothy is not mentioned). For our author, whobelieved 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 ourbook’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 fromJudaea is similar to the one recorded at 5:11. For Antiochus being takenover by his rage (�ψμ�«), also v. 7 and NOTE on 6:23, honorable argument;for him becoming 6κ�ψμο« see 7:3, 39 (and cf. 14:27).

also the misfortune. That is, he could avenge upon the Jews not only whatthey did to Nicanor and Timothy, but also – what the Persepolitans haddone 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, butthe city’s Champion accompanied him, not even having to “pursue” him(8:11). The author might have Aeschylus, Persians, 742 in mind: “whenman 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 him-self as destitute as a fugitive slave.

arrogantly (�περηφ#ν,«). Here, as in vv. 7, 11 (3περηφαν�α) and 8 (φα-νερ�ν) our author plays games at the expense of Antiochus’ illustrious by-name, Epiphanes; this becomes, via repetition, something of a leitmotif inthis 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 on3:24, been audacious. For another Jewish Hellenistic author who saw fit torepeatedly urge kings against it, see Letter of Aristeas 211, 262, 263, 269.

cemetery (πολψανδρε�ον). Lit., “place of many men;” may also be used of awhorehouse (so Philo, On Flight, 153), an overtone that makes the threatsound even worse (cf. 6:4!). For the calamity of a temple turning into aπολψανδρε�ον, see also Josephus, War 5.19.

5. all-seeing (παντεπ2πτη«) Lord. The adjective appears only here in theSeptuagint, 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 ex-pressions 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 thecomparison of Antiochus to the biblical Pharaoh, who was (along with theEgyptians) the most famous victim of divine πατ�σσ�; 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 similargame with another persecutor, whom God’s angel “strikes” at Acts 12:23,see Schwartz, Agrippa, 120, n. 51. Already Polybius knew that there werethose who thought that it was God who inflicted disease upon Antiochus, inHis wrath at him for attempting to violate a temple; but Polybius was refer-ring to the temple of Artemis in Elymais – see NOTE on 1:13, in the templeof 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, otherJews 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


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 realizethat this term points back to the martyrologies (6:8, 21; 7:42) and that, ac-cordingly, if the disease first manifested itself in the entrails this was:

6. quite justly. For similarly pedantic comments in similar contexts, see12:45 and 13:8.

for he had … tormented the entrails (σπλ#γξνα) of others. In context, thiscan only mean that he had forced Jews to eat – that is, he had imposed upontheir entrails – forbidden foods.

7. in no way gave up. Our author refuses to let his victim learn, thus settinghim up for the final fall.

haughtiness … arrogance. See NOTE on v. 4, arrogantly.

breathing fire (π�ρ πνω,ν). Cf. the “fire-breathing (πψρ�πνοψν) arro-gance” of the Jews’ enemies at 3 Maccabees 6:34. This especially graphicway of portraying anger may reflect folkloristic notions of dragons; seeS. 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 ofhis temper.

But it happened. Of course, such things do not just happen to happen; seeNOTE 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 bringAntiochus literally back to earth after his earlier “soaring” (5:17, 21); seeSchwartz, “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 re-call 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-ρεβλ�ομαι.

8. And so he – who until just now had thought. For such gloating knife-turn-ing, 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 syn-thesis of the two worlds, that it is impossible, and unnecessary, for us to de-cide 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 weighedthe mountains in scales …?” For στ�σειν 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;” seeNOTE on v. 4, arrogantly.

9. in that also (@στε κα3). This is an attempt to make the story flow, but infact 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. SeeNOTE 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 diedhow) and Africa, “Worms.” Note especially that Queen Pheretime of Cy-rene is said to have died this way as the gods’ punishment for having takenexaggerated 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 ap-plied to a Seleucid, is promised a wormy fate (although post-mortem) at


Isaiah 14:11, and that that chapter’s account of that arrogant man’s rise andfall seems to be echoed at a few points in the present account; see Nickels-burg, Resurrection, 79, and Schwartz, “Why did Antiochus?,” along withthe 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 herewith regard to this standard element in the “death of persecutors” dossier, itis difficult, but also unnecessary, to choose between Greek and Jewish.

flesh disintegrated. This seems to be the sense of διαπ�πτ� here; cf. 2:14.Compare Qohelet Rabbah on Qohelet 9:12, which, in the context of a dis-cussion of nations that besieged Jerusalem, reports that the limbs of thewicked spies of Numbers 14:37 sloughed off (whereas b. Sotah 35a hasthem being eaten by worms, which shows that this is all one complex). ForPhilo on tyrants who dismember their victims while still alive, but in the endsuffer 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 thestench 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 …; thistime he is said to have taken on not only the oceans and the mountains, butheaven itself.

touch the stars … no one could bear him. Some more ironic tit for tat; hethought to touch what mortals cannot, and mortals in fact couldn’t evenbear him. On touching the stars, see Isaiah 14:13, of the arrogant King ofBabylon: “And you said in your heart, ‘I will go up to the heaven, I will raiseup my chair above the stars …’”. As for the inability to “bear” him, see alsoNOTE on v. 29, bore the body back (παρεκομ�ζετο).

11. continually (κατ� στιγμ�ν). 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(0σ2εα).” The Venetus’ reading +σ��εα, attested already by Hippolytus

Chapter IX 359

and Cyprian, was adopted by Abel, Habicht and Goldstein. Hanhart (Text,42–43), after deliberation, adopted 3περ�φανα (“magnificent”), whichis attested by the Alexandrinus and other Greek witnesses. But “equalto God” creates a better contrast with “mortal” than does “magnificent,”and it is surprising that Hanhart ascribed any weight to the fact that+σ��εα appears nowhere else in the Septuagint; see above, p. 67. For Greekparallels for +σ��εα, see Goldstein, 2 Macc, 355. As for the backgroundhere, note that at Isaiah 14:14 (see NOTE on v. 9, worms) the “King ofBabylon” said he would “become like the Most High,” and that at Da-niel 11:36 we read that Antiochus Epiphanes will “elevate himself andmagnify himself above all gods and speak ‘wonderful’ things about theGod of gods.” Cf. Letter of Aristeas 263: the ruler must always remain aperson (cf. NOTE on v. 4, arrograntly). But it seems that, as at 5:21, it ismainly 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 ourNOTE 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 takescare not to let his readers worry.

saying as follows. Despite this opening, his words are brought in indirectspeech. The long list of extravagant promises demonstrates that althoughhe has decided to change his policy, he still thinks he can do anything hewants. Thus, he has moved only part of the way down. After pausing toenjoy 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 �ναδε�κνψμι in HellenisticGreek, see Bickerman, Studies, 3.2–5; Spicq, Notes, 3.38–39. The itemsproclaimed are each contrasted with what he had planned to do, thus show-ing 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.


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. �λεψ�ερ-); 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. Forthe horror implied, see NOTE on 4:49, funeral expenses.

bird-eaten to wild animals (ηρ�οι«). Here too, as with the mountains of v. 8and the worms of v. 9, it is impossible, but also unnecessary, to decidewhether this is a Greek motif or a Hebrew one. See, on the one hand, Iliad1.4–5; 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 theother: 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 ofproper burial, see NOTE on 4:49, funeral expenses. As for �ηρ�ον, theSeptuagint usually uses it for hayyah, not behemah, that is, it usually usesit 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&R1.650–651), this apparently indicates an awareness of the especially bestialnature of that which is alluded to.

equal to Athenians. With whom Antiochus had a special relationship; seeNOTE on 6:1, Geron the Athenian. Here too there is an ironic twist, be-cause when we last heard of Athenians (ibid.) Antiochus was using one topersecute 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 hisbrother had done in the idyllic good old days; with the exception of “ex-penses,” the Greek wording here is identical with that of 3:3.

17. become a Jew. Here our author has really outdone himself; hitherto hehas spoken only of Gentiles who recognized God’s power (see NOTE onv. 8, exhibited to all …). On “becoming a Jew,” see Cohen, Beginnings.With regard to our verse Cohen emphasizes (pp. 92–93, 129–130, 151) thatwhat 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 re-main 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�σεσ�αι) …

18. he had already been visited (�πεληλ�ει … �π 7 α/τ2ν) by the just judg-ment of God. For the subject becoming object, cf. 14:29, 31; the present in-stance is similar to that at 11:2, 4 (λογιζ�μενο« … �πιλογιζ�μενο«). Forsuch games, see Introduction, pp. 80–81. As the author has explained(v. 13), the gates of repentance were closed to Antiochus. For rabbinic no-tions 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 thesame thing) before arch-sinners, see Alon, Jews, 138–145.

in the form of a supplication (=κετηρ�α« τ#-ιν). Supplicating bespeaks ipsofacto a status inferior to that of the addressee; see, NOTE on 3:18, suppli-cation; 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 wehave is the work of a Jewish falsifier – who probably would have beenmiffed had anyone taken his work to be authentic. Rather, we are supposedto 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 literaturewhich 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 inliterarischer Tradition (Hamburg: Kovac, 2000) 310–311, n. 36 (“nicht zuretten”).

19. To the respected Jews … (from) the King. The formulation is consonantwith 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.


many greetings, health and success. In the epistles of Chapter 11, which areauthentic, the standard greeting is merely the first of these, “greetings”(ξα�ρειν). The addition of “health,” as in private letters and as in the Jewishletter at 1:10, is one of the prime indications that this letter is a spoof; theauthor is piling everything on. See Habicht, “Royal Documents,” 5–6.

King and Governor. No Seleucid king would stoop to adding “governor” tohis title, but compare the spoof on Artaxerxes at LXX Esther 3:13a-b; seealso 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 aJew. 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 NOTEon 7:11, hoping); for the notion that the righteous are resurrected directlyinto heaven see NOTE on 7:34, children of Heaven. That is, Antiochus issupposed to be understood either as articulating the hope that God will savehis life or – the hope that God will see to his resurrection into heaven just likeone 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 �σ�εν7«, intensifiesthe 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 goeson to talk about himself:

I remember with sincere love your respect and goodwill. Another standardline in royal epistles; see Welles, RC, 71, lines 3–4; Habicht, “Royal Docu-ments” 172, n. 12. For “sincere love” (φιλοστοργ-) in royal letters, seeWelles, RC, 374; Spicq, Notes, 944–948. As for “goodwill” (εϊνοια), it isyet 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 thestate. Note also 1 Maccabees 10:26, where Demetrius I makes a similarstatement; that long-winded epistle too is probably a Jewish forgery (oreven spoof, as in the present case), as scholars have argued (for various rea-sons); see Schürer, History, 1.178–179, n. 14; Rigsby, Asylia, 528–531; andMain, “Les Sadducéens,” 274–281.

Chapter IX 363

22. I do not despair of myself. Yet another joke, this time mocking theking’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. Thatis, to Mesopotamia and Iran – “the upper satrapies” of v. 25. For AntiochusIII’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 thecourse of which he died, see ibid. 238–239.

appointed him who would succeed him. It is known that Antiochus III firstappointed his eldest son, Antiochus, as his heir – but he died in 193 BCE,whereupon another son, Seleucus, was appointed in his stead. For this andsimilar cases in the Seleucid dynasty, see Goldstein, 2 Macc, 367–368, andBickerman, Institutions, 21–24.

24. if anything surprising should develop or any difficulty be reported. Forsuch royal euphemisms see, for example, the testament of Ptolemy VIII,which was composed in 155 BCE, not long before our book. Although writ-ing about what is to happen upon his death, he writes only �?ν δω τισψμβα�νηι τ7ν κατ 0 5ν�ρ�πον – “if any of the things that happen to menshould occur” (SEG 9 [1944] no. 7, lines 11–12). Similarly, when Herodwent off to a fateful meeting with Augustus he first arranged that hisbrother, 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 king-dom, that is, those who stayed at home when the king went off on his cam-paign; compare κατ? ξ�ραν 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 theirbeloved king.

25. nearby and neighboring rulers are looking for opportunities. We do notknow of any particular threat to which Antiochus might be supposed to bereferring, but such considerations are always appropriate, even in imagin-ary letters. In general, Ptolemaic Egypt was the main competition; cf. 4:21and Goldstein, 2 Macc, 368. There were also local potentates who could be


expected to dream of independence whenever the central Seleucid govern-ment seemed weak; see Habicht, 2 Macc, 248, n. 25a, and esp. Bickerman,Institutions, 166–169. Finally, although Antiochus, understandably, makesno mention of them, high officials of his own realm could never have beenvery far from suspicion; for the revolt of a provincial governor shortly afterAntiochus’ death, see NOTE 15:27, no fewer than 35,000.

my son Antiochus. Later known as Antiochus V Eupator; see 2:20 and10:10. 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 hashim 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 knowof no such campaign by Antiochus IV prior to the present one, and certainlynot of anything “frequent,” this is evidently part of the joke: our author hasAntiochus brag about his military exploits when it was widely known thatthey were purely fictional. The implied comparison to his father (cf. v. 23),who had indeed been victorious on many fronts and earned the title “theGreat,” makes Epiphanes seem all the more pathetic. Note that had ourauthor wanted to be fair he could instead have mentioned Egypt, whereAntiochus had indeed campaigned just a few years earlier, and had evenbeen 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 situ-ation 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; perhapsthe author spared himself the trouble of concocting it, and just inserted thepromise as part of the fun of imitating officialese.

26. my benefactions to the commonalty. Which of course have no basis inreality, according to our author.

present goodwill. The same word, and same irony, as above; see NOTE onv. 21, I remember with sincere love your respect and goodwill.

27. For I am convinced (πωπεισμαι γ#ρ). Note that in this final sentenceof 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 versethe author lays the officialese on thick:

graciously (�πιεικ7«). Just like God, of course; see NOTE on 2:22, the Lordhaving become merciful …

humanely (φιλανρ1π,«). See NOTE on 6:22, humane treatment.

following my own policy. The use of προα�ρεσι« 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 whohad committed the worst possible sins against man and God alike; the pe-dantic use of �νδροφ�νο« for the former is meant to clarify the duality. Forthe abrupt transition here, between nice letter and angry Jewish rejection ofthe 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 sincerelove your respect and goodwill). The term �νδροφ�νο« appears only here inthe 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 on7:14, pass away from among men.

in the way he had treated others. Here the author resumes the tit for tattheme of v. 6.

in a foreign land. Just like Jason; see 5:9 and NOTE on v. 15, not evenworthy of burial. True, we hear nothing specific about Antiochus exilingany Jews, but if he died abroad we are supposed to understand that it mustbe – 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-


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, fledto the mountains), and here the use of the plural points more readily tomountains than to deserts; Drew-Bear, who translates “dans le désert,” inthe singular, seems to ignore this. In any case, what we are supposed to noteis that Antiochus died precisely in the type of place to which his innocentvictims had been forced to flee: �ν το�« ,ρεσι (5:27 and 10:6), and themountains can be just as far from civilization as deserts can. Note that LXXIsaiah 14:19 adds �ν το�« ,ρεσιν to the description of the death of thewicked King of Babylon; see NOTE on v. 9, worms, along with Seeligmann,Septuagint Version, 83–84.

death. For this meaning of μ�ρο« (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 men-tioned 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 theidentity, 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 (σ�ντροφο«). On the practice of raising and educatingmembers 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 (παρεκομ�ζετο). To Syria, for burial. For cuneiform tes-timony to the passage of the body through Babylon in late 164 or early 163,see Gera & Horowitz, “Antiochus IV.” Goldstein (2 Macc, 372) emphasizesthe use of the imperfect here, which might indicate that Philip only tried tobring the body to burial; based on this interpretation, the reason Philip didnot complete his mission is supplied by the continuation of the verse. Thisanalysis might require us to read too much into the verse, for the verse doesnot actually say that Philip gave up his attempt to bring the body back forburial; had that been the case, we would expect our author to celebrate itmore explicitly. Be that as it may, it is clear that the formulation here takesanother potshot at Antiochus: while he was alive no one could “bear”(παρακομ�ζειν) him because of the intolerable stench (v. 10), but now, inhis death, he was more “bearable.”

Chapter IX 367

wary of Antiochus’ son. Antiochus Eupator. No explanation is given forPhilip’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 theironic fact that he who cared for his body had to flee from the king’s ownson. But it may be that our author was brief here because he knew, fromJason 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 east-ern campaign. Our author, who only introduced Lysias and Eupator into hisstory after the death of Antiochus IV (see esp. 10:10–11), and who put thedesignation of Antiochus Eupator as Epiphanes’ heir here at the end ofEpiphanes’ eastern campaign, not – as is posited by 1 Maccabees 3:32, andas our v. 23 should have led us to expect – at its beginning, would have beenhard 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 andour 13:23 (and for the misunderstanding of the letters in Chapter 11 thatapparently explains why our author placed the present account of Anti-ochus Epiphanes’ death before Chapter 13, see Introduction, pp. 30–34).

betook himself (διεκομ�ση) 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 itapplies to Philip going from one kingdom to another, it retains something ofits literal meaning of moving from one side to another; cf. Mauersberger,PL, 2.483. For Ptolemaic involvement in the Seleucid infighting, see NOTEon 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 hissister. At the time of Epiphanes’ death, late in 164 BCE (see above, NOTEon v. 29, bore the body back), Philometor was entangled in various difficul-ties, especially – a struggle with his brother, Ptolemy Euergetes. This ledPhilometor to flee Egypt for a time, to Rome, beginning in October 164; hereturned to Alexandria in the following spring (163). See Koenen, König-surkunde, 2; Will, Histoire politique, 2. 360–361. As such, our verse pres-ents a problem, but various solutions are available: perhaps some time wentby between Antiochus’ death and Philip’s move to Egypt (so Goldstein,2 Macc, 372), or perhaps our text originally said only “Ptolemy” and ourauthor added in “Philometor” on the assumption that the reference is to theking 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


a long time (180–145 BCE), including, apparently, while the book waswritten – 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 takethe 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 ignitedrocks 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 presenta-tion of the showbreads. (4) Having done those things, falling upon theirbellies 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, andnot 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 wasprofaned by the non-Jews, on that very date the Sanctuary was purified, onthe twenty-fifth day of the same month – Kislev. (6) And with mirth theycelebrated for eight days in the style of (the festival of) Tabernacles, recal-ling 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 tothe purification of His own Place. (8) And they resolved by an edict and de-cree made in common that the entire people of the Jews should celebratethese days annually.

Changes in the Seleucid Government

(9) Such, then, were the circumstances of the death of Antiochus surnamedEpiphanes. (10) Now we shall recount the events of (the reign of) AntiochusEupator, the son of that impious man, summarizing the main calamities ofthe wars. (11) When he took over the kingdom he proclaimed one Lysiashead of state and governor-in-chief of Coele Syria and Phoenicia. (12) ForPtolemy known as “Macron,” who had taken the lead in maintaining jus-tice toward the Jews on account of the injustice which had been perpetrated


against them, attempted to deal with them peacefully, (13) and for that rea-son had been denounced to Eupator by the Friends. Continually hearinghimself called a traitor – because he had abandoned Cyprus, which hadbeen entrusted to him by Philometor, and gone over to Antiochus Epiph-anes, instead of dignifying his post with noble behavior – he drugged him-self and left life behind.

Battles against the Idumaeans

(14) But Gorgias, upon becoming commander of the region, collected mer-cenaries and at every occasion waged war against the Jews. (15) Along withhim the Idumaeans too, who were in control of strategic strongholds, har-assed the Jews and, taking in those who had fled Jerusalem, set their handsto waging war. (16) Those who were with Maccabaeus first made an en-treaty and asked God to be their ally; then they stormed out against the Idu-maeans’ strongholds. (17) Attacking them eagerly they gained control of allthe sites, driving back all those who fought them from the walls and cuttingdown 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 towersthat were supplied with everything needed for a siege, (19) Maccabaeustook 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 someof the people in the towers; taking 70,000 drachmas they allowed some toslip away. (21) When Maccabaeus was informed about what had happenedhe convened the leaders of the people and accused them of having sold outtheir brethren for lucre by allowing their enemies to go free against them.(22) He killed them, for they had become traitors, and then immediatelytook the two towers. (23) With his weapons he was successful all along theway, in all that he undertook, destroying more than 20,000 in the twostrongholds.

Battles with Timothy

(24) But Timothy, who had previously been defeated by the Jews, havingassembled a great number of foreign forces and collected not a few horsesfrom Asia, came to Judaea to take it at spear-point. (25) When he ap-proached, those around Maccabaeus – strewing dirt upon their heads inpetition 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 becomemerciful to them, be an enemy to their enemies and adversary to their ad-versaries, just as the Law clearly states. (27) Upon completing their sup-plication and taking up their weapons they advanced a considerable dis-tance outside of the city. When they had neared the enemy they kept tothemselves, (28) but as soon as the rays of dawn spread out they attackedone another: these having – along with their own virtue – their depend-ence upon the Lord as their guarantor of success and victory, while theothers made their rage the guide of their struggles. (29) A mighty battlehaving developed, out of heaven there appeared to the enemy’s soldiersfive distinguished men on horses with gold-studded bridles, leading theJews. (30) Two of them also took Maccabaeus between them and pro-tected him unblemished, sheltering him with their own armor and throw-ing arrows and thunderbolts at the enemy. Accordingly, they were con-founded by blindness and, filled with tumult, they scattered about in alldirections; (31) 20,500 (soldiers) along with 600 cavalrymen were cutdown.

(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 extra-ordinarily blasphemous and spewed forth forbidden words. (35) But atdaybreak on the fifth day twenty of Maccabaeus’ youths, burning up withrage due to the blasphemies, manfully threw themselves upon the wallsand 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 fireto the towers and, setting other fires as well, burned the blasphemersalive; they also broke through the gates, and (thereby) letting in the rest ofthe (Jewish) force they took the city. (37) They cut down Timothy, whohad hidden in a cistern, and also his brother Chaereas and Apollophanes.(38) Having done all that, with hymns and prayers of gratitude theyblessed the Lord, who had been greatly beneficent to Israel and giventhem 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 anew 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


southern front, vis à vis Gorgias and the Idumaeans (vv. 14–23), then – ap-parently in the north – vis à vis Timothy (vv. 24–38). The fact that JudasMaccabaeus is victorious in both campaigns, against secondary figures, setsthe stage for the invasion by the king and his viceroy themselves in the nextchapter.

This chapter is very “Maccabean.” It begins with a focus on the Templeitself, 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 to1:8) and very uncharacteristic of our own diasporan author (cf. 5:16!); andit moves on to lengthy battle accounts in which it is Judas’ valor, and that ofhis soldiers, which carries the day. When one compares these accounts toour author’s two main battle scenes, in Chapter 8 and Chapter 15, one seesa striking contrast, for the latter are for the most part devoted to prayers,speeches dedicated to encouraging religious faith, and the like, while thebattles 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 be-tween Antiochus’ death at the end of Chapter 9 and the summary of it at10:9 – we suggested in the Introduction (pp. 8–9) that they were addedalong with the opening epistles by Judaean editors of our book, the battlescenes here are another story. Although for various reasons we have sug-gested in the Introduction (pp. 30–35) that our author got them from asource other than the one which supplied the body of his work (Jason), wedo assume that – as with the martyrologies in Chapters 6–7, but as opposedto 10:1–8 – it was our author himself, not later Judaean editors, who usedthe 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 thedocuments in Ch. 11) caused our author some confusion, but also by an-other factor, very apposite to the characterization of our book: these battlescenes are bracketed by prayers (vv. 16, 25–26, 38) and punctuated by di-vine 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 rededi-cation 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 bookdoes not give too many, but concerning those that it does give there aresome 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 com-bination 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 rejectthe 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 gen-esis 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 inKislev, 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 in10:9.2 Both assumptions are what we would expect from Jerusalemite edi-tors, as they are found in the Jerusalemite 1 Maccabees as well (which has therededication in Ch. 4 and Antiochus’ death in Ch. 6). Now, since the docu-ments of Chapter 11 seemed – misleadingly – all to apply to Antiochus Eu-pator and thus place the death of Antiochus Epiphanes prior to the spring of148 SE (see Introduction, p. 33), the result is, according to our book, that thededication of the Temple came in the Kislev that preceded that spring. At thispoint, all we need to assume is that someone – either the Jerusalemite editorsof 10:1–8 themselves or some later editor – read the dates in Chapter 11 ac-cording 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 inKislev of 147 and hence two years after it was polluted in Kislev of 145 (thedate given in 1 Macc 1:54). (True, the assumption that the Temple was re-dedicated 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 andours 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 hap-pened, that is also when the Temple was rededicated; the dates in Chapter 11are Seleucid, with the year beginning in autumn; and the king who figures inthose 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 stillprior 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 andparcel 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 Zahlenin 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 rededi-cation story. That is, readers should understand that the rededication happened moreor less parallel to the events of ch. 9.


2. The section on war against the Idumaeans opens at v. 14 with a ref-erence to Gorgias which seems to indicate that he incited them against theJews, something we would never have guessed from the parallel narrative in1 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/governorof Idumaea, it may well be that the reference to him here is only part of ourauthor’s general apologetic tendency to make the Jews’ problems with theirneighbors seem to be only the result of hostile machinations by maliciousofficials; 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 coastalplain, i.e., west of Jerusalem. However, 1 Maccabees 5:6–8 has Judas fight-ing the Ammonites, i.e., in Transjordan far to the east of Jerusalem, meetinga 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 onv. 32, “Gezer”). Given the similarity of the two toponyms and our author’stendency to focus on Jerusalem and Judaea, it seems that our author hasglorified the fighting with Timothy, in Transjordan, into the repulsion of amajor campaign into Judaea proper.

4. Timothy is killed in v. 37. However, this is an obvious error, for notonly does 1 Maccabees 5 have him alive for more fighting in the north; sodoes our book itself, in Chapter 12 (v. 10ff.). This is one of the major signsthat materials in Chapters 10–11 derive from a source other than Jason; seeIntroduction, pp. 30–35.

NOTES

10:1. took. The verb, κομ�ζομαι, is very low-key and seems to refer more toentrance 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, whichallows for the ascent to Jerusalem and takeover of the city basically withoutcombat, 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 confusionof 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 �κομ�σαντο,as opposed to the more ornate παρεκομ�ζετο and διεκομ�σ�η in the preced-ing 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 theTemple was, but the author of this section is reflecting their relative import-ance in his Jerusalemite eyes. This too reflects the secondary nature of theseeight verses, for in the rest of the book the relationship is reversed, as al-ready at the outset of the story – 3:1–2; see esp. NOTE on 4:48, who hadspoken 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 ter-minology here, which conforms to that usual in the Septuagint in connec-tion with non-Jewish altars, see NOTE on 2:19, the altar.

non-Jews. I have used this term, which defines by exclusion, to approximatethe Greek �λλ�φψλοι, which appears in our book only here and in v. 5 – an-other 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 termthan 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 impressionthat here, and in v. 5, the word has a pejorative flavor, à la “goyyim,” moreat home in 1 Maccabees than in our universalistic book or Josephus’ politi-cally 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; seeNOTE on 14:33, this sacred enclosure of God.

3. After purifying (κα3 … κααρ�σαντε«). At this point the text starts aseries of clauses linked in series by κα/ (“and”), a typical sign of translationfrom a Hebrew Vorlage which is found elsewhere in our book only in thefirst epistle (1:2–5), which was translated from Hebrew or Aramaic (see p. 8,


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 tocontinue 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 viscousliquid which had remained from the fire of the First Temple (1:31). If nowwe 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 wasnow available for use – thus guaranteeing that, notwithstanding all viciss-itudes, the fire now on the altar of the Temple of Jerusalem was the samefire 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 ep-istles and the present pericope. (Wacholder [“Letter,” 116] saw a contradic-tion between this verse and the second epistle, because he believed our versereferred to the need “to manufacture” new fire. However, that could havebeen said more simply, or, indeed, not at all; 1 Maccabees 4:41–58 says nota word about the origin of the fire in the rededicated Temple, nor does thefirst epistle above. Thus, introduction of something about fire and rocksseems to be an unambiguous pointer to the second epistle’s story about fireand rocks.) On the translation, cf. p. 528, n. 26.

after a two-year period. Here we must translate this way, given the state-ment in v. 5; cf. NOTE on 4:23, In the third year thereafter. This datumis difficult, for according to 1 Maccabees 1:54 + 4:52 the interruption ofsacrifices lasted three years, 148–145 SE; more or less the same emergesfrom Daniel 7:25 and 8:14. It seems clear that three years (167–164BCE//148–145 SE) is to be preferred. In our opening COMMENT on thischapter we have suggested, within the context of our assumption that10:1–8 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 promisedin the first epistle (1:8), although there for some reason a meal-offeringwas 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, holyvessels.

4. fall … edified. The verbs point to our author’s language at 6:12–16. Thatis, just as with the addition of the opening letters (see NOTE on 1:5, becomereconciled), here as well, whoever added in this section used some of thebook’s basic motifs. For the idea, cf. Psalms of Solomon 7:3.

not be given up. For the use of παραδ�δ�μι 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, ithappened), 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 theTemple was destroyed (y. Berakhot 2:3 [5a]), Ventidius defeated the Par-thians on the anniversary of their defeat of Crassus (Eutropius 7.5), theCaesareans murdered thousands of Jews in their city “on the same day andsame hour, as if out of divine providence” that the Jews perfidiously mur-dered Roman soldiers who had surrendered in Jerusalem (Josephus, War2.457); etc. This motif, as other types of poetic justice, functions as anotherindication 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 pericopeagrees 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 appropriatefor animals, as is said in the continuation and also in 5:27, compare forexample an inscription of Agrippa (II?) which condemns outlaws who�ηρι�δοψ« … �νφ�λε�σ[αντε« (“dwell in caves like animals” – OGIS 424).

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


��ρσο« at Judith 15:12 and Schalit – at Josephus, Ant. 13.372). For the useof this term for lulabim in a letter of the Bar-Kokhba period, P. Yadin 3, seeH. Lapin, “Palm Fronds and Citrons: Notes on Two Letters from Bar Kosi-ba’s Administration,” HUCA 64 (1993) 116–118. Note, however, that theGreek 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 liableto 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 duthyrse,” RHR 66 (1912) 1–48. Presumably any diasporan author would besensitive about that, and take pains to avoid it; for Jewish antipathy toDionysiac cult see p. 543, n. 77.3 The fact that the author of the present sec-tion used ��ρσο«, although clearly he did not want to arouse the impressionthat the Jewish cult was Dionysian, means that the matter did not troublehim 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 aPalestinian Jew who, as opposed to the diasporan author of 2 Maccabees,was not so sensitive about what non-Jews think about Judaism. Indeed, itmay 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« Aρα�οψ«). With reference to our text Grintz (SeferYehudith, 173) translated ‘asei hadar, thus echoing Leviticus 23:40 and in-dicating his confidence that the reference is to the etrog (citron), also char-acteristic of Tabernacles.

palm-fronds. They are listed in Leviticus 23:40 among the items for the cel-ebration of Tabernacles, but they also functioned more generally in cel-ebrations; see 14:4; 1 Maccabees 13:51; John 12:13. For the use of them asa symbol of Palestine, see S. Fine, “On the Development of a Symbol: TheDate 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, wassuccessful all along the way.

3 This might explain Philo’s strange failure to mention the four fruits of Lev 23:40 inhis 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 termi-nology, πρ�σταγμα and χ�φισμα, see, respectively, NOTES on 7:30, de-cree of the king, and on 6:8, a decree. A very similar formulation recurs at15:36 with regard to Nicanor’s Day; for the suggestion that the latter ismore 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 festivalwas 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 lastlines of Chapters 3, 13, 15 (v. 37), clearly concludes Chapter 9, and is theclearest sign that vv. 1–8 are a secondary intrusion. See Introduction, p. 8.

surnamed Epiphanes. For this pointed allusion to the byname see NOTE on4:7, 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 intro-ductory characterization of his work as a summary; see 2:23ff. For τ?σψνωξοντα as “the main points” see Risberg, “Anmerkungen,” 23–24, alsoLSJ, 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 thebasis 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 γ�ρ here seems to indicate that it was Lysias – whois introduced here and who replaced someone who had attempted tomaintain justice toward the Jews (v. 12) – who was responsible for therenewed troubles. This, however, will be supported only by the narrativein Chapter 11. This is additional support for the assumption that Chap-ters 10 (beginning here) and 11 are closely related one to another; seeabove, pp. 30–31.

proclaimed. He, not his father; see the next comment. For “proclaim,” seeNOTE on 9:14, proclaim.


one Lysias. This type of reference, with τιν�, indicates clearly that forour 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 afterthe death of Antiochus IV is a fundamental difference between our bookand 1 Maccabees and of basic importance for understanding the orderof Chapters 9–13; see Introduction, p. 30 (and NOTE on 9:29, wary ofAntiochus’ son).

head of state. On this title see NOTE on 3:7, head of state.

governor-in-chief of Coele Syria and Phoenicia (Κο�λη« δB Σψρ�α« κα3Φοιν�κη« στρατηγ(ν πρ1ταρξον). So Hanhart (edition, ad loc. andText, 48–49); Grimm, 2 Macc, 158–159; Abel, Macc, 409; Kahrstedt, Ter-ritorien, 57; Bickerman, Institutions, 204. Others took the last-quotedGreek word as the proper name, Protarchos, of the new governor of CoeleSyria 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 toadopt that reading, this verse would be similar to 13:24. However, al-though there is no room for certainty it seems that we should nonethelessprefer 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 wouldindicate that while Lysias, who is the more important of the two, is notknown 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 whatwe would expect; (3) according to Chapters 11 and 13 Lysias did indeedfunction as chief governor of our region, until his death; (4) the contrastat 12:1–2 between Lysias and local officials best makes sense on the as-sumption that Lysias is considered a governor-in-chief; (5) all the ancientLatin versions prefer this reading (see De Bruyne, Anciennes traductions,180–181); (6) a fragmentary inscription from Andros apparently testifies tothe use of the title: τ]ο� πρ�τ�ρξοντο« στ[ρατηγο� (IG 12/5, no. 724,line 3, cited in LSJ, 1544, s.v. πρ�τ�ρξ�ν; see also ibid., s.v. πρ�ταρξω�,“to be chief magistrate”).

12. Ptolemy … “Macron.” Who hitherto was governor of Coele Syria andPhoenicia; see NOTE on 8:8, Ptolemy … It seems that “Macron” was hisgrandfather’s name; see Mitford, “Ptolemy Macron,” 186.

Chapter X 381

had taken the lead in maintaining justice toward the Jews. We know of nodetails, nor can we guess why the author would have omitted them – unlessif 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 hischronological error: if he heard that Ptolemy Macron had played a role inthe abrogation of Antiochus IV’s decrees (as is suggested, for example, byMørkholm, Antiochus, 188), he would understandably have left out the de-tails here, given his own mistaken notion that the decrees were abrogatedonly 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 afriend 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, namedPtolemy (son of Ptolemy?, with “Macron” being a byname), going over toAntiochus 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, ourauthor is happy to use him as a foil for wicked Seleucids; the case may besimilar to that of the execution of Andronicus, whose execution our book ex-plains 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 recompensatingPetronius, who had at risk to his life protected the sanctity of the Temple ofJerusalem, 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/γεν�σαι). There arenumerous variant readings here, bringing Kappler (Memoria, 44–45) andHanhart (edition, 31) near to despair. Nevertheless, Kappler concluded thatwhat is needed here is an infinitive, parallel to the two earlier in the verse(�κλιπε�ν, �ναξ�ρAσαι), to which Risberg (“Anmerkungen,” 24) and Katz(“Text,” 15) added that only an infinitive would make it clear that it is thenasty Friends’ opinion which is being related, not that of our author. Ac-cordingly, we have accepted Risberg’s ε.γεν�σαι rather than the participle,ε.γεν�σα«, that Grimm (2 Macc, 159–160) had suggested and which stillappears in Hanhart’s edition, albeit surrounded by daggers that indicateprobable corruption.


left life behind (�-ωλιπε τ(ν β�ον). For Polybius’ use of this elegant ex-pression, 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 turnto a new front, compare v. 24 and, for example, 8:8, 12, 34. Gorgias’ par-ticipation in Nicanor’s campaign was briefly mentioned at 8:9, but he didnot 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 wedo hear that Gorgias was governor/commander of Idumaea, so it may bethat he really did play a role in stirring the Idumaeans up. Whether or not hedid so, it is important for our author to give us the impression that he did;see our opening COMMENT on this chapter.

every occasion (παρ 7 Eκαστα). So according to LSJ, 500, s.v. Vκαστο«, §III2and 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; itrecurs in the next verse and at 14:6.

15. the Idumaeans. About them see Kasher, Jews, Idumaeans, and AncientArabs, 1–6. For Mnasaes’ reference (early second century BCE?) to the“long war” between the Judaeans and the Idumaeans, see Josephus, AgainstApion 2.112–114 (GLA I, no. 28). On the present clashes with them, seealso 1 Maccabees 5:3, 65 and Kasher, op. cit., 24–27.

harassed (�γ�μναζον) the Jews. This verb, which in the Septuagint appearsonly here, literally refers to training, exercising; for numerous examples, seeMauersberger, PL, 1.404–405. For the present sense, see LSJ, 362, §II.

those who had fled (φψγαδε�σαντα«) Jerusalem. On the verb, see ourNOTE 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 toJews 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 expelledfrom the city after Judas and his followers took over, and just as under-standable that our author, for two reasons, suppressed any details he mighthave known: (1) he did not want to admit the extent of support for Jasonand 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. Onmassacres 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 forour 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 placeswhere 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 (fromJason) more than he says but does not want to waste our time with the de-tails; this heightens the importance of the next story, which he does chooseto tell us.

leaving behind (�πολιπ�ν). For the verb, see NOTE on 4:29, left … assubstitute. It hints that Judas is operating like a ruler, as if he were highpriest or king (cf. 4:29, 31).

Simon and Joseph, as well as Zachaeus. For our author’s identification ofthe 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 thatour Zachaeus has somehow grown out of that patronymic; for “Zakkai” asa short version of Zechariah, see F.-M. Abel, Grammaire du grec biblique(Paris: Gabalda, 1927) 43–44; D. Schwartz, “Was Rabban Johanan benZakkai a Priest?,” Sinai 88 (1980/81) 37–38, n. 35 (in Hebrew). For com-parable material, see Ilan, Lexicon, 23–24 (§§2.4.1.1–2).


20. But Simon’s men, who loved lucre. The claims that Simon’s men ac-cepted 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 con-cerning a setback Simon suffered. These verses were, accordingly, one of thepoints 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 establish-ment of the Hasmonean dynasty with the accession of Simon’s son, JohnHyrcanus); 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 thatour book takes a particular interest in Simon;5 our verse and 14:17 com-bined offer very little support for such an argument. Note, first of all, thatin the former case it is Simon’s men and not he himself who failed; asfor 14:17, note that the author seems himself to belittle the dimensions andimportance of the defeat, indeed excusing it by pointing to the suddennessof the enemy’s approach. Thus, rather than polemicizing against the Has-moneans or Simon, our author simply ignored them, focusing on Judashimself; see esp. J. Geiger, “History of Judas Maccabaeus,” 6, also Niese,Kritik, 38–39; Meyer, Ursprung, 457 (although Meyer goes too far when heargues [ibid. n. 1] that Simon, here, is not Judas’ brother but, rather, someunknown figure. Meyer derives this from the claim that v. 22 has Judas kill-ing 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 (φιλαργψρ�σαντε« … �ργψρ�8). An ironic for-mulation; cf. Antiquities 14.490; 18.29; 20.119, 163, 183.

70,000 drachmas. An astronomical sum; cf. NOTE on 8:11, ninety slavesper talent.

slip away (διαρρψ�ναι). 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 andNahal Mishmar,” IEJ 11 (1961) 60–61. For loose usage of “brethren” inJewish 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 ep-istle attached at its opening – 1:1), just as in general it was rare among theJews of Hellenistic Egypt (see V. Tscherikower, “Jewish Religious Influencein the Adler Papyri?,” HTR 35 [1942] 32–33); for both, the preference wasto 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 themin the future.

22. traitors. For the punishment of traitors, see NOTE on 13:7, withouthis …

23. was successful all along the way. This usage of ε.οδ��, a high-sound-ing 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 than20,000.

24. But Timothy. For such use of a name as a “handle” to switch our at-tention elsewhere, see NOTE on v. 14, But Gorgias. As our book, so too1 Maccabees 5:6–8 has fighting against Timothy follow upon fightingagainst the Idumaeans (vv. 3–5), and it relates (in v. 8) the conquest of Jazerwhich parallels that of “Gezer” here (v. 32). According to 12:2, it seems thatTimothy was a local governor, apparently in northern Transjordan – whichfits the reference in 1 Maccabees to Jazer. But it seems that our authorthought that the present campaign was in the Judaean heartland; see NOTEon 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 like9:3, so too this verse indicates the author’s belief that the events re-counted at 8:30–33 are, in fact, in the proper location from the point ofview of relative chronology. That, however, seems not to be the case; seeNOTE on 9:3, what had happened to Nicanor and to those with Tim-othy.


great number of foreign forces. I.e., mercenaries, such as those of the My-sians, Cypriots, and Thracians mentioned elsewhere in our book; seeNOTE on 8:9, from various peoples.

horses from Asia. Bar-Kochva (JM, 514) emphasizes that this refers tohorses and not to the cavalrymen themselves; it may well be that the horseswere 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 infact the coming story is one which deals with a Jewish initiative against alocal commander in Transjordan. Lévy (“Notes,” 695, n. 2) and Habicht(2 Macc, 253, n. 24a) view this whole invasion as a mere figment of imagin-ation. But it is not only imagination; rather, our diasporan author under-standably preferred to portray Jews who were on the offensive (so1 Macc 5:6–8) as if in fact they themselves were the victims. Moreover, asBar-Kochva notes (JM, 514), it could be that the original sin of turning Jazerinto Gezer led our author further to conclude that Timothy was active in theJudaean heartland (a conclusion which figures in 12:2 as well), far from hisbailiwick – so he must have invaded Judaea.

25. strewing dirt (γH) upon their heads. Similar: 14:15. For this gesture intimes 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 ambigu-ous; see our NOTE on 4:41, wood … ashes (σποδο�). On the practice seealso 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�ψσιαστηρ�οψ κρηπ�δα). For scenes like this, when faced with the threatof 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 clearwhat step the author means, but we know (from m. Sukkah 5:4 andm. Middot 2:5) that “steps” in the Temple, especially those leading up tothe main courtyard, where the altar was, were considered to be particu-larly appropriate places to pray. As noted in our Introduction, the text ofthis verse has been debated, for the usual meaning of κρηπ�« is “foun-dation,” and this, together with most of the Latin texts (contra altarismarginem, ad altaris crepidinem, ante crepedinem arae – De Bruyne, An-

Chapter X 387

ciennes traductions, 182–183), led Abel (Macc, 413) to consider a minoremendation, changing the case of κρηπ�« so as to have them fall “oppo-site the foundation of the altar” (�πωναντι τA« το� �ψσιαστηρ�οψκρηπ�δο«); Abel adduces LXX Joel 2:17, which has the priests wailingbetween the Porch and the altar (�ν? μωσον τA« κρηπ�δο« το� �ψσιασ-τηρ�οψ). For other use of Joel 2:16–20 in our book, see above, p. 62. Butwhat priests might do not all of Judas’ men could do. For the view thatκρηπ�« here and in Joel (ibid.) refers to a step of the altar, see the LSJSupplement (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 en-emies and an adversary to your adversaries.” This biblical phrase is alsowell known in Greek and Roman treaties. See M. Weinfeld, “CommonHeritage,” 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. Onsuch biblical promises, see Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 66–67.

27. advanced a considerable distance outside of the city. Jerusalem, whichhas 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 centerof attention even when unmentioned, or even when another city has beenmentioned, see 4:39; 5:2; 11:7–8.

they kept to themselves (�φ 7 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” (�φ 0 Ψαψτ7ν).

28. as soon as the rays of dawn spread. Which shows they marched atnight; see NOTE on 8:7, especially chose the nighttime.

these … the others. Such contrasts are frequent in our book, charactersbeing 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’sguide is the arch-characteristic of the wicked; see NOTE on 9:4, borne onthe wave of his temper. It may also induce a tit for tat reprisal; see v. 35.


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 on3:25, they saw a horse.

men. That is, angels, as requested; see NOTE on v. 26, as the Law clearlystates. For the frequent use of “men” to describe angels as they appear tohumans, see e.g. Genesis 18:2//19:1; Judges 13:6; Daniel 9:21; N. P. Brat-siotis, TDOT 1 (1974) 233.

gold-studded (ξρψσοξαλ�ν,ν) bridles. As one would expect of heavenlyhorses; see NOTE on 3:25, outfitted with beautiful accoutrements. For suchextravagant bridles LSJ (2011) cites Herodotus 9.20 and Xenophon, Cyro-paedia 1.3.3.

30. Two of them (ο= δ�ο). So according to Hanhart (edition ad loc. andText, 28), following the Alexandrinus and the Vulgate and followed byHabicht (2 Macc, 253). Several other witnesses, however, including theVenetus and the Vetus Latina, omit “two,” thus allowing all five of theangels to shelter Judas. The latter version (accenting οJ) is preferred byGrimm, Abel and Goldstein ad loc., who explain that “two” was added in bysome unimaginative copyist who did not understand how five angels couldtake Judas “between” (μωσον) them. Alternatively, Adinolfi (Questioni,135–136) suggested that “two” was added by someone who couldn’t im-agine 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 troubledby such geometric or operational problems but yet willing to ignore thequestion he himself created, namely: What did the other three angels do?(Contrast the parallel at Josippon, ch. 19 [ed. Flusser, 87], where in fact twoangels shelter and three fought, but there, indeed, the division of labor is ex-plicit.) Is it not simpler to imagine that the original text said “two” butsome copyists left that out because they knew there were five angels, and –since they did not know what the other three did (something perhaps clari-fied in the original source) – found it intolerable to ignore them? That dif-ficulty, 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 havingthe reference to the two reflect awareness of the other three, and that maybe accomplished either by translating οZ δ�ο “two of them” (so Hanhart,Text, 28) or by adding in ^ν, allowing for “five distinguished men … ofwhom, 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 (Τ�ΝΙΟ-WΔΑΙ�Ν�ΝΟΙΔWΟ). One way or another, as both Hanhart and Habichtnote, it is difficult to imagine anyone creating the reference to “two” if itwere not original.

sheltering him (σκεπ#ζοντε«). See NOTE on 5:9, find shelter.

throwing arrows and thunderbolts (κεραψνο�«) at the enemy. A hint atPsalms 144:6 (“make lightning flash and scatter them, shoot Your arrowsand rout them”)? Or a hint that our God is just as powerful as Zeus, thethunder God of whom κερα�νειο« was a characteristic epithet? As usual,our Jewish-Hellenistic author had no need to choose; compare, forexample, 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. Forthe comparison of the present story to the latter one, about Elisha, seeSchwartz, “Something Biblical,” 226, where it is shown that there are notnumerous points of comparison nor any attempt to portray Judas as alatter-day Elisha.

they scattered about in all directions (διε-�πταντο). The text is accordingto Hanhart, following Kappler, Memoria, 58; διε��πτασ�αι, which doesnot appear in LSJ, is an expansion of ��πτασ�αι, “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 hisnext appearance (12:24). Our author, who firmly subscribes to the “manly”virtues (see NOTE on 8:7, And the fame …) and amongst them – the “will-ingness 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) andAntiochus (9:1–2) before him and Lysias (11:12) and Gorgias (12:35) afterhim, Timothy too will flee (here) or even be captured, only to achieve his re-lease by guile (12:24). Moreover, if in the cases of Nicanor, Antiochus andLysias it is said they learned the proper lesson about God and His protectionof the Jews, in the case of Timothy the humiliation has no such redeemingfeature.

“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 onto take it at spear-point) and at 12:10. Nevertheless, the parallel at 1 Mac-


cabees 5:8 refers to Jazer, which is in Transjordan, and it is apparent notonly that both books are referring to the same place but also that “Jazer” isto be preferred; note that our book too, at 12:10ff., has Timothy active inTransjordan (see 12:17, along with Momigliano, Prime Linee, 69–70 andBar-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 newelement in our book apart from the general allusions in v. 4 and at 8:4. Thisverse 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, theplayers on both sides are equally inflamed – these for the good (just as Anti-ochus Epiphanes himself at 4:38) and those for evil.

manfully (�ρρεν�δ7«). For this adverb LSJ (247) lists our verse alone. Forthe theme, see NOTE on 8:7, And the fame …

animal-like rage. As at 12:15, but also as Antiochus himself when first at-tacking Jerusalem (5:11).

smote. On κ�πτ�, see NOTE on 5:12, smite.

36. by virtue of the diversion. The term περισπασμ�« usually refers to a180-degree about-face by a unit of soldiers (Walbank, Polybius, 2.226), butthat won’t fit here. For another meaning, “to be occupied with somethingelse,” 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 fitthe crime, here there is no such special explanation. The biblical and rab-binic 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 anddying! 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 thechapter.

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 ofreligious 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 intendedto hint at the language of the prayer which is reported here. Compareesp. 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.


Chapter XI

The Beth-Zur Campaign

(1) After an entirely brief interval Lysias, the king’s guardian and kinsmanand head of state, upon whom what had happened weighed quite heavily,(2) gathered about 80,000 men and all the (kingdom’s) horses and cameupon the Jews, thinking to make the city a residence for Greeks (3) and theTemple 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 caval-rymen and eighty elephants and not at all giving more thought to the powerof God. (5) Having entered Judaea and nearing Beth-Zur, a strong placeabout five schoinoi from Jerusalem, he pressed hard upon it. (6) When Mac-cabaeus’ men received notice that he was besieging the strongholds, to-gether with the populace they beseeched the Lord, with wailing and tears, tosend a good angel to the rescue of Israel. (7) And Maccabaeus, being himselfthe 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 outwith enthusiasm. (8) But right there, when they were still near Jerusalem,there appeared someone leading them on horseback, dressed in a white gar-ment and brandishing golden weaponry. (9) Together all blessed the merci-ful God and – buoyed up in their spirits – they were ready to pierce not onlymen, but even the wildest animals and iron walls. (10) They moved forwardin formation, having a heavenly ally – the Lord having become merciful to-ward them. (11) Like lions they threw themselves against the enemies andlaid low 11,000 of them, as well as 1600 cavalrymen; they forced all (theothers) 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 befallenhim. Realizing that the Hebrews are invincible due to the powerful Godwho 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 tobe an indispensable friend to them. (15) Maccabaeus, giving thought to thebenefit, approved everything which Lysias proposed; for the king agreed toeverything which Maccabaeus transmitted in writing to Lysias concerningthe Jews.

(16) The letters written to the Jews by Lysias were as follows: Lysias tothe community of Jews: greetings. (17) Johanan and Absalom, who weresent by you, having transmitted the document copied below, made requestsconcerning the things indicated in it. (18) I clarified, accordingly, whichthings it was necessary to bring before the king too; but those things whichwere possible – I approved them myself. (19) If now you will maintaingoodwill toward the state, I will attempt to be a beneficial agent in the fu-ture as well. (20) As for the details, I have ordered them and my people todiscuss 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 ourdesire that the people of the kingdom be untroubled and take care of theirown affairs, (24) and having heard that the Jews did not willingly concur intheir conversion to Greek ways by my father, but rather, preferring theirown 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 wehave decided to restore the Temple to them and that they should conducttheir civic behavior according to the customs of their ancestors. (26) So youwill 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 takingcare of their own affairs.

(27) The king’s letter to the people was as follows: King Antiochus to theJews’ 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 re-ported to us that you wish to return (home) and devote yourselves to yourown affairs. (30) Accordingly: to those Jews who return by the thirtieth ofXanthicus there shall be extended the promise that without fear (31) theymay use their own foods and laws as in the past, and no one of them shall inany 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 theyear 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


which he decided to bring before the king, send us someone immediatelyafter reviewing them, so that we shall be able to present (these matters) assuits you; for we are proceeding on to Antioch. (37) Therefore be quick andsend 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 com-bat against Idumaeans and secondary Seleucid officials in the south and thenorth, this chapter opens with a major campaign led by the viceroy himself.Lysias invades with a huge army and commensurate self-confidence, plan-ning to take Jerusalem and convert the city and the Temple into Greek in-stitutions, but is met by Judas’ forces who – their prayers for divine helpbeing answered – manage to defeat and rout the Seleucid army. This leadsLysias to realize the power of God, and therefore to advise the king to makepeace with the Jews – as is testified by the correspondence which fills thelast half of this chapter. Thus Lysias’ campaign ends up not only as didNicanor’s in Chapter 8, with Judas’ victory and the Syrian general’s recog-nition 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 whythe book cannot end with this one.

The chapter divides into two sections, namely the Beth-Zur campaignand the correspondence, and each generates a complex of historical issues:

(1) The Beth-Zur Campaign(s): 1 Maccabees recounts two Beth-Zurcampaigns, the first prior to Antiochus’ death and the second – which re-sulted logically and causally from the first – somewhat thereafter. The first,narrated in 1 Maccabees 4:28–35, has Lysias and a large army camping nearBeth-Zur, whereupon Judas and his men – after an appropriate prayer(vv. 30–33) – attack Lysias’ forces and force them to withdraw, not withoutpromising to return for a second round (v. 35). This victory allowed for theJewish takeover of Jerusalem and rededication of the Temple (1 Macc 4), aswell as for some further Jewish campaigning in the south and north(1 Macc 5) – both of which (generally) parallel our Chapter 10. The prom-ised 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 ofthe “men of the Akra,” “the king” – but Eupator was but a child, so Lysiaswas 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 anarmy 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 there-after Lysias preferred to withdraw to Antioch so as to deal with the threatposed by Philip, whom Antiochus Epiphanes had appointed to be regent.

Our book too seems to report two Beth-Zur campaigns: here and inChapter 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 thereader hadn’t read of a campaign there just two chapters earlier. Again, notonly the timing, but also the details of both narratives read as if they refer tothe second campaign as described by 1 Maccabees: both have the royalarmy besieging Beth-Zur (as 1 Macc 6:31 but not 1 Macc 4:28–35); bothhave the Seleucid force including elephants (as 1 Macc 6:30–46 but not1 Macc 4:28–35); and the number of elephants our book gives at 11:4,eighty, although ridiculously high, is strikingly identical to the numbergiven 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 thesecond of the two narrated by 1 Maccabees, namely, the one in the days ofAntiochus Eupator (which in fact corresponds to the fact that they are bothplaced, in our book, after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes in Chapter 9and the succession of Antiochus Eupator in Chapter 10).2 The fact thatthey 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 theletters (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 inv. 23, at the opening of Letter B, Antiochus Eupator explicitly refers to hisfather’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, andnot (as those of our Ch. 13 and 1 Macc 6) due to the threat posed by Philip, and thefact (as it seems) that it was found together with the letters of 148 SE. However, thefirst 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 thatthe second letter is from the period after Antiochus Epiphanes’ death. Upon addi-tional reflection, the circumstantial details mentioned above (siege, elephants, eighty)seem to be better guides.


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 themidst of this dossier, and since all the letters refer to Lysias who – accordingto 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 thereign of Antiochus Eupator, after his father’s death.

But although our author’s placement of these letters thus bolsters ourconclusion that both Beth-Zur reports pertain to the period after AntiochusIV died, it is clear that our author was wrong. This is shown sufficiently bycuneiform 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 Evenlong before this evidence became available, however, Richard Laqueur(“Griechische Urkunden”) noticed that Letter B is both the only letter as-cribed 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, andso 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 inLetter B. Hence, there is no particular reason not to interpret Lettters A, Cand 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 towhich Lysias was in fact appointed regent when Antiochus Epiphanes leftfor the East. That is, apart from our author’s placement of this dossier thereis every reason to assume that “the king” and “King Antiochus” of LettersA, C and D was Antiochus Epiphanes. This is, indeed, the prevailing as-sumption today, at least for Letter C, which is clearly dated. Letters A andD – which indeed display some verbal similarity (vv. 18//35–36), could goeither way. True, Letter D has the exact same date as Letter C, but this isitself suspect, as is the use of a Seleucid date in this Roman letter. As forLetter A, given the uncertainty about the month mentioned it too could goeither way, but since it seems to imply (in v. 18) that the king is at some dis-tance 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 leastone letter applying to Antiochus Epiphanes into a file of which one or moreof the others apply to the reign of his son, and apparently allowed this mis-take 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 ofthese four documents which he preserved. They indicate, first of all, that thespring of 164 saw Antiochus Epiphanes, in response to Jewish resistanceand 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 datumwhich neither our book, which hates Menelaus, nor 1 Maccabees, whichhates Antiochus Epiphanes, was interested in revealing. Second, theseletters flesh out the negotiations between the Seleucid government and therebels: Letter A, while referring to the Jews merely as a “multitude” andfailing to dignify their Jewish emissaries – who bear very Jewish names(v. 17) – by terming them “ambassadors” or the like (cf. v. 34), neverthelesshas 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 bookis concerned, whatever the Jews have achieved they owe to Hasmoneanvalor alone. Finally, Letter D is one of the earliest pieces of evidence forRoman interference in Seleucid affairs. Given Rome’s successes againstAntiochus III (see Appendix 6) and more recently against Antiochus IV (seeNOTE on 5:5, false rumor …), it fills in a bit of the picture of the inter-national scenario which facilitated the Hasmoneans’ success.

NOTES

11:1. After an entirely brief interval. Apart from our verse, LSJ (2008) listsno other evidence for ξρον�σκο«. The use – invention? – of such a diminu-tive seems to indicate that the author is somewhat puzzled and is attemptingto force all he has to recount into a very short period. Presumably this re-flects the need, created by the dates later in the chapter that showed (so hemistakenly 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 ofstate,” he is not even said to have been behind Gorgias’ or Timothy’s cam-paigns reported in Chapter 10. In fact, his story should have already begunin the days of Antiochus IV, as regent while the king was on his eastern cam-paign; so it is at 1 Maccabees 3:32. Our author seems to have been unawareof 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


and 6:17 but contradicts 10:11, according to which Lysias was appointedby Antiochus Eupator himself. As we have seen, that statement – which re-flects our author’s assumption that, as usual, but as incorrect in this case, aking takes office only after the end of his predecessor’s reign – was amongthe reasons for the assumption that the war materials in Chapters 10–11came to our book from a separate source; on that assumption, the presentidentification 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,” whichcould be taken to denote a real family tie. This need not mean that theauthor of 1 Maccabees did not understand the true situation; indeed, he wasfamiliar with the aulic titles (see 1 Macc 10:89; 11:31), so perhaps – asNiese suggested (Kritik, 51) – he only wanted to give his narrative a biblicalflavor. 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 on5:24, the Mysarch Apollonius.

what had happened. In context, this refers to the failure of Timothy’s at-tempt to conquer Judaea (10:24), which explains the renewed attempt de-scribed 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 authoris not certain, or bothered, about the precise context for the present story.

2. about 80,000 men. An entirely exaggerated figure, just like the 60,000and 100,000 which 1 Maccabees 4:28 and 6:30 cite for the Beth-Zur cam-paigns; see Bar-Kochva, JM, 42, and Shatzman, “Hasmonaean Army,” 32(“the data on the size of Lysias’ army are impossible”).

thinking (λογιζ�μενο«). This is the opening of an impressive bit of word-play, to be concluded in v. 4: ο.δαμ7« �πιλογιζ�μενο«.

3. a source of money. LSJ (236) cites our verse alone for �ργψρολ�γητο«.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 noinformation about any levying of tribute upon temples in the Hellenisticworld; 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 ofevidence 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 totranslate more literally, as Habicht (“zu machen … den Tempel zu einerGeldquelle”), 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 sacredenclosure of God.

something sold a year at a time. In the Hellenistic world it indeed seems tohave 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 vonPriestertümern 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 beonly for a year. Traditionally, in contrast, the position was held by inherit-ance and was lifelong. Together, these threatened innovations would haveundermined the high priesthood’s prestige and made it subject to the crown,just as our author has already condemned Jason and Menelaus for their re-spective usurpations of the position (4:7, 26). Indeed, in the days of Herod,the Roman procurators after him, and the last Herodians, high priests wereswitched frequently, so much so that occasionally we get the impressionthat it was an annual appointment (and perhaps it sometimes was); see An-tiquities 18.34–35 (along with Schwartz, Studies, 182–201); John 11:49and 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. Yoma8b and Alon, ibid., 65–69), destroyed the position’s prestige.

4. myriads of foot-soldiers and thousands of cavalrymen and eighty elep-hants. The elephants were not mentioned in v. 2, and their number is veryexaggerated (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 Macctoo), greatly exaggerated the enemy’s strength, so as to inflate the import-ance of the Jews’ victory; see NOTE on 2:21, so that although they werefew in number. Note that Josephus, at War 1.41, speaks of eighty Seleucidelephants at the battle of Beth Zechariah – more confirmation that the pres-ent 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;


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 onthe 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 aboutthe 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 addany words to identify Beth-Zur when he first mentioned it (4:29), as op-posed to our author, who goes on to characterize the place and to state itsdistance from Jerusalem.

about five schoinoi from Jerusalem. South of Jerusalem, near the road toHebron. The schoinos is a Persian measure used widely in Egpyt. If eachwas equal to thirty stadia, as Strabo assumes (Geog. 17.1.24, p. 804), thenthe 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 lesscorrect. See Bar-Kochva, JM, 276, also Abel and Goldstein ad loc. ButStrabo also notes that there was some lack of consistency concerning thelength 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 inour 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 theuse of separate sources; see above, p. 30. Cf. Nelis, “La distance;” he arguesthat an original reading of “about two hundred” could explain the vari-ous readings in manuscripts here, on which hypothesis the reference toschoinoi was not original but only the contribution of Egyptian scribeswho were familiar with that measure. But why should the original texthave omitted the unit? In any case, as Bar-Kochva remarks (ibid.), it is dif-ficult to accept a reading that is not testified by any of the numerous wit-nesses.

6. the strongholds. For the use of the plural �ξψρ�ματα although the ref-erence 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 anytears, 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 ourbook, it employs the term “angel” (5γγελο«) only here and at 15:23, inboth cases in a request that God send “a good angel;” the same specificationalso appears in the confidence expressed at Tobit 5:22. But while in thelatter passage the rhetorical requirements of the situation (Tobit’s need toallay 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 pre-sumed to have at His disposal angels of destruction, but why hint in prayerthat without our special pleading He might send one? And if this prayer iscontinuing the one begun at 10:26, which refers to Exodus 23:22 which isitself followed by God’s promise to send an angel, there too it is taken forgranted, but not stated, that it would be a good angel. Is not specifying therequest for a good angel comparable to asking a host, who has offered aglass of water, to use a clean glass? I have no solution for this puzzle. For theassumption that the angel meant here is Michael, who frequently figures inmilitary 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 ahorse.

on horseback (Kφιππο«). Probably the good angel requested in v. 6. Forhorseback angels see also 10:29; cf. 3:25.

brandishing golden weaponry. For πανοπλ�α see NOTE on 3:25, armor.

9. pierce. For this translation of τιτρ�σκ�, see NOTE on 3:16, pierced themind.

10. heavenly ally. See NOTE on 8:24, ally.

the Lord having become merciful toward them. For this turnabout, see 8:5,27, 29.


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 inδον 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 �ντιβ�λλ� in the Septuagintand the only reference LSJ (154) gives for this sense of the verb.

Realizing … the powerful God who is their ally. As his predecessors too hadrealized: 3:34–39; 8:36; 9:11–17.

Hebrews. For this formal name, which – as at 15:37 – seems to have beenthought appropriate for such a major statement, see NOTE on 7:31, He-brews.

14. according to all that is just (�π/ π»σι το�« δικα�οι«). The same phrasereappears 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 inthe infinitive: πε�σειν φ�λον α.το�« �ναγκ�ζειν γενωσ�αι, and this seemsto be impossible to render. Moreover, �ναγκ�ζειν is difficult becausewhatever the true facts of the matter, it is not likely that the king’s guardianwould be said to have told subjects that he would “force” the king to dosomething. Habicht (2 Macc, 256, n. 14b, followed by Goldstein, ibid.),emphasized this latter consideration, but saw it as proof that �ναγκ�ζεινis, accordingly, the more difficult reading and hence to be retained; he sug-gested that we view πε�σειν (“to convince”) as a gloss meant to avoid theproblem. Hanhart tended toward the same solution, and so although he re-tained πε�σειν in his edition he marked it as doubtful; see also his Text, 44.These scholars also thought that the repetition of πε�� at the beginningand end of this same verse was bad style, hence another reason to eliminateπε�σειν. 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. πεπο��ασιν … πεπο��αμεν in 8:18. It seems, therefore, that we shouldretain πε�σειν and resolve the problem another way, as Katz suggested(“Text,” 15, following others): by changing �ναγκ�ζειν into an adjective.Indeed, the Latin witnesses include one (P) that reads here “necessariusamicus;” see De Bruyne, Anciennes traductions, 189. For several illus-trations of �ναγκα�ο« in the sense of “vital,” “impossible without,” or –in connection with people – “very close,” “beloved,” and the like, seeMauersberger, PL, 1.92; Josephus, Antiquities 7.350; and esp. Acts 10:24:το#« σψγγενε�« α.το� κα/ το#« �ναγκα�οψ« φ�λοψ« (“his kinsmen andhis closest friends”).

15. Maccabaeus, giving thought to the benefit. This – as also 12:12 andperhaps 14:20 – sounds like an apology, as if there is some problem with thenotion of making agreements with foreign powers. Perhaps it was a theo-logical problem: Should those who have God as their ally seek out, or ac-cept, alliances with mortals, especially – with those who had persecuted theJews?! 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 thatsuch second thoughts brought our author to explain that the agreementswere 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 em-issaries named in v. 17.

16. letters. But in fact there is only one from Lysias. There is, of course, evi-dence 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 bookis 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 doesour author use the plural in reference to a single letter; see also 2:13 (pluralfor more than one letter) and 9:18 (singular for a single letter); indeed, ac-cording to BDAG 381, in “our literature” the plural almost always refers tomore than one letter. Thus it seems we should understand that Lysias, as isstated in v. 17, attached to his own letter that which Judas sent him (men-tioned in v. 15) – and it is unfortunate that it was not preserved. A similarsituation: 9:25.


to the community of Jews. Here, given the tone of the letter, πλA�ο« clearlyhas a respectful meaning, not “horde.” See NOTE on 3:21, community. Butit is not the name of a formal institution; contrast the gerousia, mentionedin v. 27. Thus, it is a peace-seeking letter from Lysias to the rebels. Notehow our author insists that Judas runs the negotiations while Lysias, ofcourse, ignores Judas; cf. the way Demetrius II writes “the nation of Jews”and ignores Jonathan at 1 Maccabees 10:26 after his competitor, AlexanderBalas, came to an agreement with him (ibid. 18–21).

17. Johanan and Absalom. Otherwise unknown. The former name was ex-tremely popular among Jews of the Second Temple period, the latter muchrarer; 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; andthe mystifying reference to “the House of Absalom” in 1QpHab 5:9. Thesedata 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 (�πιδ�δ�μι).

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, ashappens; see NOTE on v. 16, letters.

18. I clarified, accordingly, which things it was necessary to bring beforethe king too. That is, Lysias distinguishes between those more far-reachingrequests, 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 theking (presumably with his own recommendation). We do not know whatthe 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 leadsus – since we know the story as told in 1 Maccabees – to assume that the ref-erence is to Antiochus Epiphanes, not Eupator. But it is clear that ourauthor thought the opposite.

I approved them myself. Most witnesses read σψνεξ�ρησεν, “he agreed,”and this is followed by Hanhart. But other witnesses read σψνεξ�ρησα,“I agreed,” and this is followed by many. As Habicht notes (“RoyalDocuments,” 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”(σψνεξ�ρησεν) to requests put forward by the Jews. As for the other read-ing 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 thecommunity of Jews). Since this document deals with the future, not with thepast or present, this passage, which is probably authentic, lacks the satiricaleffect of the similar words in the deathbed letter ascribed to AntiochusEpiphanes (9:21, 26). References to subjects’ goodwill (εϊνοια) and theking’s matching “providence” (πρ�νοια – 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 ofAristeas 205, 225, 230, 264–265, 270. For εϊνοια toward the πρ�γματα(“state”), as here, see Holleaux, Études, 3.226.

a beneficial agent (παρα�τιο« �γα*ν γενωσαι). I.e., for you; some wit-nesses indeed insert 3μ�ν. Describing a person as α=τιο« �γα�7ν for a cityor other body was standard in Hellenistic Greek; see for example Poly-bius 7.11.7 (�γα�7ν … παρα�τιο« �γωνετο) and OGIS, no. 4, ll. 8–9(μεγ�λ�ν �γα�7ν α=τιο« γωγονε τ»ι π�λι). (For the equivalence ofα=τιο« and παρα�τιο« in Hellenistic Greek, see LSJ, 1311.) For numerousexamples, see Skard, Zwei Begriffe, 24–27. Cf. NOTE on 13:4, the cause ofall the troubles.

20. I have ordered them. I.e., the aforementioned Jewish emissaries.

21. Be well (Kρρ,σε). For this standard conclusion of formal letters (asalso at v. 33), see Welles, RC, 399, s.v. `�ννψμι. It should not be confusedwith a wish for good health expressed at the opening of a letter, which isstandard in private correspondence; see NOTE on 1:10, greetings and goodhealth.

In the year 148, the 24th of Dioscorinthios. 148 SE, in the Macedonianreckoning, 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 prob-ably corrupt; for the suggestions that have been offered, see Hanhart, Text,51–52 and Goldstein, 2 Macc, 411–414. Antiochus Epiphanes was alivethroughout the year, and it is therefore clear that he is the king mentionedhere (v. 18); the fact that he was away in the East readily explains why, asv. 18 implies, considerable time would go by before answers might be forth-


coming from the king concerning the matters referred to him. Nevertheless,the next two verses will immediately make it clear that – as the very place-ment of this chapter after Chapters 9–10 indicates – our author thinks “theking” is Antiochus Eupator. As explained above (pp. 32–33), this mistake isof cardinal importance for understanding the arrangement of Chapters9–13.

22. The king’s letter. This formulation makes it clear that the author as-sumes this king is the one mentioned in v. 18; the way it is cited without anyintroduction explaining its circumstances implies that it is, in fact, the king’sresponse to the questions Lysias forwarded to him, according to v. 18.

his brother Lysias. For such honorific use of “brother” (which goes togetherwith “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 ourNOTE 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. 2–4and 339, l. 16; cf. OGIS 56, l. 55 (ε+« �εο#« μετAλ�εν – “went over to thegods”). See the end of our NOTE on 7:14, pass away from among men. Aswe have noted, the present verse makes it crystal clear that the author of thisletter is Antiochus Eupator, and its seamless placement alongside the otherletters in this chapter shows that the author of our book (as most of hisreaders until Laqueur) thought, accordingly, that Antiochus Epiphanes wasdead 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 partof our book; see Introduction, p. 33.

that the people of the kingdom. The king first states the general principleand only later applies it to the Jews (which will engender a repetition of theterms of this verse in v. 25). For the insistence, typical in Hellenistic royalletters, on spelling out general “whereas” principles before ordaining a spe-cific 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, Antiquities14.157 (and for ταραξ�, in contrast, as a standard term for trouble, see3:30, 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 connectionwith a royal amnesty!) Koenen, ibid., 16–17, with many examples. See alsoSpicq, 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 referringto a mere report, not to anything that might have caused a war.

did not willingly concur in (μ" σψνεψδοκο�ντα«). The gap between thisdiplomatic understatement and the facts of the matter is reminiscent of v. 19(“maintain goodwill”) and of v. 31 (“things which were done out of ignor-ance”).

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 �γ�γ� see NOTE on 4:16, those for whose ways …

ask that their own regulations be allowed to them. This summarizes theJews’ request, and the king grants it. For our author, who thought that “theking” of all these letters is Antiochus Eupator, the implication was thatthe decrees of Chapter 6 were still in force and only now abolished. For thetruth, see below, NOTE on v. 25, the Temple …. For ν�μιμα, “regulations”or halakhot, see NOTE on 4:11, regular civic usages.

25. now then (οFν). For such transitions from the “whereas” part of adocument to its operative contents, see NOTES on v. 23, that the people ofthe kingdom, and on 14:36, And now (κα3 ν�ν).

our policy (α=ρο�μενοι). Lit. “since we prefer;” we use “our policy” in lightof the noun used in the next verse.

to restore (�ποκαταστα�ναι). On this verb, which has a broad sense ofrestoration and reconstruction, see: Welles, RC, 316–317; cf. the apocalyp-tic 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�εσ�αι). The two themesaddressed are precisely those addressed at the imposition of the decrees: lifeaccording to the “civic laws” of the Jews (6:1: μ" πολιτε�εσ�αι) and theTemple (6:2, 4–5). The truth is that by the time Antiochus Eupator took


over, Judas and his men had restored the Temple to Jewish hands and re-dedicated 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 tolive according to Jewish law. But our letter shows Antiochus Eupator insist-ing, understandably, on the fiction that what a king had forbidden only aking 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 in-deed do well.

if you send to them. Scil.: my decision. The way the chapter is organized itsounds as if he is referring to “the king’s letter to the people,” which comesnext (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 NOTEon 4:34, giving him his right hand.

our policy. On προα�ρεσι« (lit. “preference”) in royal letters, see NOTE on9:27, following my own policy.

in good spirits (εϊ�ψμοι). On this adjective in the Hellenistic period seeWelles, RC, 337; Spicq, Notes, 1.314–317. Compare, in a similar context:Josephus, Antiquities 18.284. For a similar text with slightly differentwording: P. Tebtunis 703 (Hunt and Edgar, Select Papyri, no. 204), ll.42–43 (late third century BCE): an official is called upon to encourage thepopulation and develop its confidence (παρακαλε�ν κα/ ε.�αρσεστωροψ«παρασκεψ�ζειν). On “encouragement,” see also below, NOTE on v. 32, toencourage (παρακαλωσοντα) you.

taking care. Here it seems that �ντ�λημχι« maintains its basic meaning,namely, “to take in hand.” For its technical meaning, which includes resol-ution of the problems in hand, see NOTE on 15:7, that assistance …

27. to the people. The heading distinguishes the letter from the precedingone, which was addressed to Lysias. However, the preceding one is so com-prehensive that it leaves little to be desired – the king made his decisionknown to Lysias and instructs him to make it known to the Jews. From thisdiscontinuity, just as from the date in the spring of 164 BCE, it becomesclear that this letter was – like the first one and unlike the second – writtenby 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; seeWelles, RC, nos. 56, 58, 59, 71. Cf. above, 9:20.

29. Menelaus has reported (�νεφ�νισεν) to us. For this verb, usual inbureaucratic parlance, see NOTE on 3:7, reported to him. According tov. 32, Menelaus traveled to the king in order to present the state of affairs tohim. This means that Menelaus, although not able to serve as high priest(see 13:3 and VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 225–226), was playingsome important role in the lobbying to abolish the decrees. Of course ourauthor offers no details about this, for he held Menelaus to be a completevillain; “particularly the mention in letter 3 of Menelaus, the arch-enemy ofthe 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. Forsimilar 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 royaldemand that exiles be returned) at Diodorus 18.56.3. It is a convenient dateinsofar as it is early enough in the campaigning season to allow for renewedwarfare 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 (ξρAσ�αι). This verb is frequently used to describe life accordingto 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 ithere.


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, thingswhich were done without rebellious or criminal intent; at LXX Gen-esis 43:12 �γν�ημα renders mishgeh (“mistake;” cf. Grintz, Sefer Yehu-dith, 114). This too, as vv. 19 (“maintaining goodwill”) and 24 (“did notwillingly concur in”), is a piece of diplomatic courtesy: far be it from theking to imply that Jews may have deliberately violated the royal decrees!For another conciliatory Seleucid king’s usage of the same language con-cerning the Jews see 1 Maccabees 13:39; for its usage in Ptolemaic am-nesties of the second century BCE, see Koenen, Königsurkunde, 5–6. Seealso 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 re-ported (�νεφ�νισεν) to us.

33. the 15th of Xanthicus. The authenticity of this date is doubtful, primarilybecause it allows only two weeks between the composition of the letter andthe deadline for compliance with the ultimatum; and here we should recallthat Antiochus was off in “Persia,” which would have significantly delayedthe letter’s arrival in Judaea. True, one could imagine that this date is auth-entic 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 ofXanthicus) and the fact that it comes in the course of the letter, which is lesssubject to tampering and corruption than is the final dateline. Since the samedate, 15 Xanthicus, recurs in v. 38, it seems likely that all we have here is anancient scribal error which repeated that date in our verse as well.

It is noteworthy that neither our document nor the historical narrativegives any attention at all to the fact that the 15th of Xanthicus was the firstday 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 phe-nomenon recurs at Josephus, War 7.401, where Masada is said to havefallen on the same date. Or did the ancient writers assume that readerswould make the connection and would – each according to his taste andleanings – interpret the coincidence? (On such interpretation, see NOTE on10:5, on the very date.)

Chapter XI 411

34. The Romans too. On various Roman delegations to the East in thisperiod, see T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic,I (New York: American Philological Association, 1951) 438–441 (on165–163 BCE). On the nature of Roman involvement in the East at thistime, see below, Appendix 6.

sent them a letter. Despite the way this letter is introduced, it is neverthelessclear that – as Gruen emphasized (Hellenistic World, 2.745–757) – the ref-erence here is not to a Roman initiative but, rather, to a restrained Romanresponse to a Jewish initiative. The Roman delegates were in the East any-way, for their own reasons, and the Jews hoped to reap some benefit. It isunderstandable that our author would rather give another impression,more flattering to the Jews; cf. NOTE on 10:13, because he had abandonedCyprus.

Quintus Memmius (and) Titus Manius. These Roman emissaries are un-known from elsewhere and there is in fact no great security about theirnames. 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 ac-cepted; 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, asdoes Walbank, that the fact that this letter comes after one that mentions thedeath of Antiochus IV (v. 23) means that this letter too was written after thatking’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 σψγξ�ρω�.

we too willingly concur (σψνεψδοκο�μεν). A nice piece of Roman arrogancetoward the Seleucid kingdom, as if Rome claimed the right to oversee notonly that kingdom’s foreign affairs (see NOTE on 5:5, false rumor …) butalso its decisions concerning its own subjects. Readers may note some ironyin 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) be-fore the king. The repetition of the same verb as the one appearing in v. 18


indicates that the present letter was written after Lysias’ (vv. 16–21). On theother hand, the present letter indicates that the king (Antiochus IV) has notyet responded – and the Romans here offer to help influence the king con-cerning the requests that had been forwarded to him. However, AntiochusIV 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 Antiochexplain anything? One way to deal with this problem would be to assumethat the date here is corrupt, a possibility bolstered by the fact that theidentical date appears in v. 33. However, in our NOTE on v. 33, the 15th ofXanthicus, 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 ontheir 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 indi-rect, to influence the king – e.g. by passing on messages to him or in dis-cussions with high officials.

after reviewing (�πισκεχ#μενοι) them. Here the verb retains its non-techni-cal meaning; contrast NOTE on 3:14, audit. The Venetus gives here �πισ-κεχ�μενον, in the singular, which thus has only the Jewish emissary review-ing the issues; that is preferred by Meyer (Ursprung 214, n. 1) but rejectedby Bickerman, Gott, 180, n. 3 and Habicht, 2 Macc, 260, n. 36a. Thisminor point might have something to do with the next one:

37. send us people (τινα«). So too acording to three of the six Latin ver-sions (BMP – “aliquos;” De Bruyne, Anciennes traductions, 193). But theother three Latin witnesses (LXV – De Bruyne, ibid., 192), make no refer-ence to any people here; they read “Ideoque festinate (re)scribere ut nosquoque sciamus cuius estis uolumtatis.” Moreover, in v. 36 the Romansasked that someone (τινα) be sent (and there all Latin versions indeed read“aliquem”). Thus, it could be that our τινα« represents a mistranslation ofthe 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 (�για�νετε). There is no concluding 6ρρ�σ�ε, the usual con-clusion 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 trans-lation of the Latin valete; so Habicht, who adds: “I do not hesitate to regardthis 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.


Chapter XII

Tribulations in Coastal Towns

(1) After these covenants had been concluded, Lysias, for his part, wentback to the king, and the Jews, for theirs, turned to their farming. (2) Butsome 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 whoresided with them to embark, together with their wives and children, uponboats which they had prepared for them, as if they harbored no hostility atall toward them; (4) and the Jews, upon the united resolution of the entirecity, agreed and set sail, for they were desirous of peace and did not suspectanything – they sank them, no less than 200 people.

(5) When Judas received notice of the atrocity which had been perpe-trated against the members of his people he gave his men instructions(6) and – after calling upon God, the righteous judge – he set out against thebrethren’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 closedoff 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 wantedto act in the same way against the Jews who lived among them, (9) he at-tacked the Jamniaites too by night and set fire to the port together with thefleet; 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, hewas attacked by no fewer than 5000 Arabs, together with 500 cavalrymen.(11) A mighty battle developed, and after Judas’ men had with God’s assist-ance been successful, the defeated nomads – promising to supply cattle andalso 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 keepthe 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 wallsand inhabited by a hodgepodge of peoples. (14) Those within, trusting inthe strength of the walls and in the stockpiled food, behaved quite un-couthly toward Judas’ men – cursing and even blaspheming and sayingthings that are not allowed. (15) But Judas’ men, after calling upon the greatRuler of the world, who without battering rams and war-machines flungJericho down in the days of Joshua, stormed the wall ferociously. (16) Aftertaking the city, in accordance with God’s will, they carried out an indescrib-able slaughter, such that the adjacent lake, which was two stadia wide, ap-peared to have been filled by the blood flowing down into it.

(17) Moving off from there 750 stadia, they covered the distance to thefortified 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 withoutdoing anything, leaving behind a very strong garrison in a certain place.(19) Dositheus and Sosipater, two of Maccabaeus’ officers, set out and de-stroyed those Timothy had left behind in the fortress – more than 10,000men. (20) And Maccabaeus, having divided his army into units, appointedthem over the units and stormed out after Timothy, who had with him120,000 soldiers and 2500 cavalrymen. (21) Timothy, having received no-tice of Judas’ invasion, sent ahead the women and children and other bag-gage to the place called Karnion; for the place was difficult to besiege anddifficult to approach, due to the narrowness (of passages) in the entire area.(22) When Judas’ first unit appeared and terror and fear descended uponthe enemy due to the apparition of Him who oversees all, they rushed toflee, each one turning hither and thither, so that many were wounded bytheir own forces and impaled on the points of their swords. (23) Judas con-ducted the pursuit energetically and, skewering the sinners, destroyed about30,000 men. (24) Timothy himself, having fallen into the hands of Dosi-theus’ and Sosipater’s men, asked with consummate guile that they set himfree, given the fact that (his men) held a great number of (the Jews’) parentsand brethren (as prisoners), for whom no one would show any consider-ation. (25) After he repeatedly committed himself to the stipulation to re-store 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 hecut down 25,000 corpses. (27) After they were defeated and destroyed healso campaigned against Ephron, a strong city, in which there was found amulti-ethnic multitude; strong youths posted before the walls rebuffed the


attack energetically, and within there were numerous reserves of war-ma-chines and projectiles. (28) After they called upon the Ruler, who withpower breaks the weight of (His) enemies, they took over the city and laidlow about 25,000 of those within it. (29) Departing from there they rushedtoward Scythopolis, which is 600 stadia from Jerusalem. (30) But when theJews residing there testified to the goodwill which the Scythopolitans hadfor them and to the gentleness with which they dealt with them in times ofmisfortune, (31) (Judas’ men), after thanking them and encouraging themto remain well-disposed toward the nation in the future as well, went on toJerusalem, the Festival of Weeks being imminent.

A Battle against Gorgias

(32) After the so-called Pentecost they stormed out against Gorgias, thecommander of Idumaea. (33) He came out (to meet them) with 3000 sol-diers and 400 cavalrymen. (34) And it happened, after they had drawnthemselves up opposite one another for battle, that a few of the Jews fell.(35) Dositheus, one of the Tobians, a strong cavalryman, grabbed Gorgiasand, taking hold of his mantle, dragged him forcefully, desiring to take theaccursed man while still alive; but one of the Thracian cavalrymen threwhimself 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 veryweary, Judas – after calling upon the Lord to appear as ally and guide inwar, (37) and after opening in the ancestral language the war-cry accompa-nied by hymns – fell unexpectedly upon Gorgias’ men and imposed defeatupon them.

Why There Were Jewish Casualties

(38) Judas assembled the army and proceeded to the city of Adullam. Dueto the onset of the seventh day they purified themselves according to thecustom and celebrated the Sabbath there. (39) The next day, when the timecame to do the task, Judas’ men went to collect the bodies of those who hadfallen and, together with their kinsmen, to inter them in their ancestralgraves. (40) And they found, under the tunic of each of the deceased, objectsdedicated to the idols of Jamnia, which the Law prohibits to Jews. Thus itbecame 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 makesthe 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 calledupon the multitude to preserve itself sinless, having seen with their own eyesthat which had occurred due to the sin of those who had fallen. (43) Aftermaking a collection for each man, totaling around 2000 silver drachmas, hesent it to Jerusalem for the bringing of a sin-offering – doing very properlyand honorably in taking account of resurrection, (44) for had he not ex-pected that the fallen would be resurrected, it would have been pointlessand silly to pray for the dead – (45) and having in view the most beautifulreward 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 fromthe sin.

COMMENT

After Chapter 11 put an end to the clash between the Jews and the Seleucidstate as such, this chapter is devoted to fighting between Judas’ men andtheir neighbors in Palestine. It begins with attacks upon Jews in coastalcities, 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 parallelsthe story of 1 Maccabees 5. Moreover, the story also parallels materialin Chapter 10 of our own book, even to the extent of making Timothythe main antagonist in the fighting in Transjordan – just as he was inChapter 10, which ended with his death. It is, accordingly, evident that ma-terial in this chapter is based upon a source different from that whichsupplied the war stories in Chapter 10. As we have seen, it seems that thepresent chapter reflects our author’s main source (Jason of Cyrene), whileChapters 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, perseveranceand military prowess of Judas’ forces. As usual in our book, God’s help ismentioned 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 ofcomparison, 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 episodeof the chapter (vv. 38–45), which explains that those Jews who had died inbattle had been sinners. It does not suffice, from our author’s point of view,

1 Cf. Introduction, p. 64.


to report that they had died in battle; even if only a few died (v. 34) he feelscompelled to state that each, individually, must have deserved his death.However, atonement for them was still possible, and desirable, for – as weknow from Chapter 7 – not all ends with death: as the author underlines inthe final verses of the chapter, the fact that Judas and his men donated sac-rifices to atone for the sins of the dead indicates their belief in resurrection.

Before addressing the historicity of the events, we must first point outone major correction in the order of events recorded in this chapter: it seemsthat vv. 17–19 should come before vv. 10–16. For after the opening fightingon the coast (vv. 1–9), there is no way nine stadia (v. 10) could be thought totake 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 Arabsafter a three-day march after crossing the Jordan; this, indeed, could bringthem 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 thecoastal cities to Transjordan. Accordingly, it appears that the order of twopericopae should be reversed: vv. 10–16 should come after 17–19; the twopericopae, which begin identically ( 0Εκε��εν δM �ποσπ�σαντε« σταδ�οψ«),seem somehow to have been exchanged.2

Once that operation is made, the chapter tells a story basically paral-leled, in the same order, by 1 Maccabees 5:

2 For more detail concerning this point and the places mentioned in 1 Macc 5, seeSchwartz, “Mizpeh.”

2 Maccabees 12 1 Maccabees 5vv. 1–9, fighting in coastal cities ––––vv. 17–19, fighting against Timothy vv. 6–8vv. 10–12, Judas makes peace with some Arabs v. 25vv. 13–16, Judas besieges and captures Kaspin vv. 26–36vv. 20–25 pursuit and capture of Timothy, includingcapture of Karnion

vv. 37–44

vv. 26–29 siege and capture of Ephron vv. 46–51vv. 30–31, interlude in Scythopolis and Pentecost visitin Jerusalem

vv. 52–54

vv. 32–37 fighting in Idumaea, against Gorgias;some Jews die

vv. 55–68

vv. 38–45 theological consideration of why someJewish soldiers died

(v. 62)

Chapter XII 419

There are, of course, numerous differences. Thus, for example, our book’sfocus on Kaspin is not echoed in 1 Maccabees 5, which in v. 26 lists pre-sumably 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 hasJudas lead the fighting against Gorgias, but 1 Maccabees 5 reports that thiswas first in the hands of others, just as 1 Maccabees 5 has a whole campaignto western Galilee, led by Simon, which our book omits. Similarly, our bookhas the Jewish soldiers dying because they took idolatrous images as bootyinstead 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 nu-merous 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 ofPentecost, while omitting all reference to sacrifices – in contrast to 1 Mac-cabees 5:54, that focuses on sacrifices. These differences in focus are typicalof 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 “afterthese covenants had been concluded, Lysias … went back to the king,” butalthough Chapter 11 ended with documents and with Lysias, (1) the docu-ments are not “covenants” and (2) Chapter 11, which knows of no kingother than Antiochus Eupator, gives no indication that Lysias was not withhim.3 In contrast, Chapter 13 does end with “covenants” between Lysiasand 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 therebefore 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 occurredaround the same time, in late 164), the result is that the events of ourchapter 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 Lysiashad to refer issues to Antiochus Epiphanes, who was campaigning in the East. Readersof our book alone would not imagine that, or that Epiphanes was still alive for theevents of Ch. 11. Contrast 13:26, which has Lysias appearing alone in Ptolemais andthen returning alone to Antioch; that would flow without difficulty into 12:1. Cf.above, p. 16, n. 36.


However, it is also the case that the campaign described in Chapter 13 isthe 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, accord-ingly, is that the original form of our book indicated that the second Beth-Zur campaign (Ch. 13//1 Macc 6) occurred before Judas’ northern cam-paign (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 secondBeth-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 notagreements and are not termed σψν�Aκαι; despite the fact that 11:15 refersto points which Lysias suggested and Judas agreed to accept, they are uni-lateral declarations. And certainly the Romans’ letter, which concludesChapter 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 termfor agreements between states in the Hellenistic period.

Lysias … went back to the king. But according to 11:1, which terms Lysias theking’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 ourpreceding 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). Thereference to agriculture creates an image of idyllic routine, here as in otherdocuments. See, for example, U. Wilcken, Grundzüge und Chresthomatie derPapyrusurkunden, I/2 (Leipzig & Berlin: Teubner, 1912), no. 19, col. 2, lines13–15; Josephus, War 4.84; Antiquities 16.271; 17.193; 18.284. Note thatour story has ended; according to the diasporan author, the abrogation of thedecrees against Judaism was followed by the establishment of peace betweenthe 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, seeNOTE on 3:4, But.

Chapter XII 421

local governors. For such usage of κατ? τ�πον cf. for example an inscriptionfrom Akko-Ptolemais in which a local governor (�πολελειμμωνο« … �π/τ7ν τ�π�ν) honors Antiochus VII Sidetes (Lifshitz, “Culte dynastique,”78–80). It is important for our author to stress that if there were Seleucidtroublemakers, 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, justas Josephus (War 2.350–354) has Agrippa II underline that Florus’ terriblebehavior was unknown to Nero; etc. This is a variation on the motif of thewicked 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), in-cluding at the end of Chapter 10 which culminates in his death. Of course,theoretically the present Timothy could be someone else, but that sugges-tion 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 ourauthor’s care to distinguish between two homonymous governors of CoeleSyria and Phoenicia (see NOTE on 3:5, Apollonius son of Thraseas), andnote the way Apollonius and Nicanor are identified in the continuation ofthis verse – which again seems to indicate that Timothy is known to thereader. But if this is so, then the report of his death in Chapter 10 must comefrom another source – as we have argued above, pp. 30–33.

Apollonius son of Gennaeus, and also Hieronymus and Demophon. All un-known.

Nicanor the Cypriarch. That is, commander of the Cypriot mercenaries (cf.NOTE on 5:24, the Mysarch Apollonius). For Cypriot soldiers, see NOTEon 4:29, Crates. Use of “the Cypriarch” is a good example of our author’sability 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, ingeneral: Kasher, Jews and Hellenistic Cities, 64–68.

wickedness. On δψσσωβημα see NOTE on v. 21, difficult to besiege and dif-ficult to approach. Note that while it is not actually said that the Joppitesdid what they did at the urging of the local officials, and while indeed it isnot likely that that was the case (given the fact that Joppa was an auton-


omous city), nevertheless our author prefers to hint, if only by juxtaposi-tion, that the anti-Jewish attacks in Joppa and Jabneh did not reflect bad re-lations between Jews and their neighbors, but, rather, were due only to thevile influence of relatively minor Seleucid officials. In fact, our author pre-ferred to claim that the Jews’ neighbors usually had good relations withthem; see v. 30, also 4:35–36, 49. For similar moves, aimed apologeticallyat presenting the Jews’ troubles with their neighbors as the result of incite-ment by Seleucid officials (since Jews are respectable and neighborly folkand 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 minorofficials will be resumed in v. 10.

the Jews who resided with them (σ#ν α.το�«). Emphasis upon living to-gether intensifies the horror of the crime. For similar formulations in otherJewish 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 thisearly period.

to embark … upon boats. It is difficult to understand how the Jews of Joppacould have seen this as a friendly “invitation,” especially in light of the factthat it followed upon an official decision; what would have been the reasonfor such a formal invitation? And were the Jews of Joppa really so naïveabout their neighbors’ intentions? Rather, it is preferable to assume that infact the Joppites had decided to expel the Jews – an assumption which cor-responds to that which is reported in 1 Maccabees 5 about the general hos-tility of the non-Jews of Palestine following Judas’ early victories – and thenperfidiously sank their boats (or some boats sank and the Jews chose toblame 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 χ�φισμα see NOTE on 6:8, a decree.

desirous of peace. The author already made this point in vv. 1–2 but wantsto be very sure we know who was at fault.

5. the members of his people ($μοε�νε�«). For this term, see also 4:2; 5:6;15:30–31; it is similar to “brothers,” which appears in the next verse, inthat both refer to the Jews with regard to their common descent and not asbelonging 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 verbπαραγγωλλ�; see NOTE on 5:25, instructed. But it may be that here, as intwo 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 ourbook (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 usualreiteration of our author’s conviction that history is not chaotic, it indicatesthat 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 (μιαιφ�νοψ«). This term too, as “the righteous judge,” re-calls the murder of Onias; see 4:38. Both cases combine murder and breachof 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 importantport between Joppa and Alexandria – which explains the importance theHasmoneans 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, seeJ. Kaplan, “The Archaeology and History of Tel Aviv-Jaffa,” BA 35 (1972)esp. 88–90; A. Raban, “The Ancient Harbors of Jaffa,” Israel – People andLand: 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 pathetichistoriography, 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 theentire nation of Judaea”).

the entire city of the Joppites. “The city of the X-ites” is simply a standardGreek way of referring to a city named X. Compare, for example, Josephus,


Vita 37, 241, 271, 280, etc. For the eventual Hasmonean conquest ofJoppa, see 1 Maccabees 10:75–76; 13:11; 14:5.

8. having received notice. As usual, the author omits all details about howthis 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 Jabnehand 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 as-sistance they had given to the Seleucid government and, apparently, ask itsassistance; 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 pre-ceded the Jewish attack, in which case it may be that their assistance to theSeleucids contributed to the Jews’ decision to attack them, or else it cameafter the Jewish attack, which would explain the request for aid. The in-scription is fragmentary and it is difficult to build upon it. For Jamnia’s con-tinued functioning as an outpost of support for the Seleucids in Judaea, seealso 1 Maccabees 10:69; 15:40.

the Jews who lived among them. Although the Greek phrasing in v. 3 is dif-ferent, 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 toaround 45 km., which is close to the true figure. On the length of the sta-dium, see F. Lehmann-Haupt, RE II/6 (1929) 1931–1963 and Walbank,Polybius, 3.623–624. True, Bar-Kochva (JM, 514, n. 14) criticizes ourbook’s accuracy here, for while he admits that the stated distance is not farfrom the distance as the crow flies (although 55 km. would be closer), thedistance along the roads would have been about twice as much. However, itis perfectly possible that our author, or his source, could figure the distanceas the crow flies. As for the possibility of seeing so far, note that it is possibleto see the coastal region from high spots in Jerusalem even without the aidof 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 northwesterncorner of Jerusalem, also Appian, Mithridatica 12.67, 278 – on seeing agreat fire at the distance of 1000 stadia (close to 200 km.). Nevertheless, itwould be foolish to insist on the accuracy of the present statement.

10. Moving off from there. The same phrasing recurs in v. 17, giving thechapter something of the nature of an itinerary. But as we have seen in ouropening COMMENT (above, p. 418), it seems that the order of these twoepisodes has been reversed, i.e., vv. 10–16 should come after vv. 17–19.

making their way against Timothy. Who was mentioned alongside others inv. 2, but no connection was made between him (or the others) and the in-tervening events in Joppa and Jabneh.

he. Judas Maccabaeus. The fact that his name is omitted, and is rather takenfor granted although within the immediate context the antecedent is in factTimothy, highlights the fact that Judas is in fact the star of the entirechapter. See also NOTES on v. 26, Departing … he and 13:17, which hadcome to his aid.

Arabs. We do not know exactly who is meant. The same term appeared in5:8, referring to Nabataeans, just as 1 Maccabees 5:25 reports that Judasencountered Nabataeans in the course of his expedition to the Gilead – butthere we read of initial friendship, whereas here we read of peace which wasreached only after a fight and then some real-political considerations. Thiscould indicate that the reference here is not to the same Arabs; so Kasher,Jews, Idumaeans, and Ancient Arabs, 30, who suggests that the ones men-tioned here had been incited by the Seleucids. However, it may also be thatthe difference between the two accounts derives only from our author’s de-sire both to give Judas an additional victory and to avoid a theological prob-lem; 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’slove 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 hisright hand.


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 thatwe should infer the need for apology for entering into an agreement withGentiles.

13. a strong city (�π� τινα π�λιν �ξψρ�ν). The Alexandrinus reads γεφψ-ροψν before �ξψρ�ν,4 as if that were the name of the city, but (a) no suchcity is known; (b) were this the name of a city we would expect that to besaid, e.g. by “called” (9:2) or “named” in our verse; and (c) our verse dealswith Kaspin. Hence, it seems preferable to view this word as the contribu-tion of some helpful scribe who wanted to identify the place and, noticingthat our v. 27 uses the same language (π�λιν �ξψρ�ν) of Ephron, which iscalled Γεφροψν by Polybius at 5.70, inserted the identification here – butthis is of course a Verschlimmbesserung, since Ephron is first mentioned,and introduced as someplace new (“a strong city”), in v. 27; our verse refersto Kaspin. If, therefore, we reject γεφψροψν, we should also reject, as a sec-ondary attempt to make sense of the latter, the reading γεφ�ραι« (“withbridges”) in Ms. 55. True, that reading would be nicely parallel to the“walls” and “peoples” also mentioned in dative plural in the continuationof our verse; but that reading shifts us from the frying pan into the fire, be-cause, 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 isindeed missing from numerous witnesses; Hanhart marked it as probablycorrupt 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 – TheHistory of the Settlement and Meaning of Its Name,” ‘Al ’Atar 4–5 (Nisan1998/99) 95–156 (in Hebrew), also D. Urman, “Public Structures and JewishCommunities 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 statedin v. 16. However, in antiquity this site was totally surrounded by the lake (seeG. Schumacher, Across the Jordan [London: Bentley, 1886] 164–165), andsuch 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 π�λιν γεφψρο�ν, �ξψρ?νκα/ τε�ξεσιν περιπεφραγμωνην …”

Chapter XII 427

preferable to assume that our text refers to Hispin, and resolve the problem ofthe “lake” another way; see NOTE on v. 16, the adjacent lake.

inhabited by a hodgepodge of peoples (παμμιγωσιν Kνεσι). This, as alsov. 27 – seems to imply an element of scorn, à la “mongrels.” Note that thereference is not to something as respectable as separate national units in theSeleucid army, as at 8:9, but, rather, to the inhabitants of one and the samecity. 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 blas-phemy is mentioned – another indication that Chapters 10 and 12 includetwo versions of the events, paralleling 1 Maccabees 5. Doran (TemplePropaganda, 42), following Gil (“Sobre el estilo,” 23), points to the presentverse (πεποι��τε« … �ρψμν�τητι … παρα�ωσει) as one of the goodexamples of alliteration in our book; cf. above, p. 80.

quite uncouthly (�ναγ�γ�τερον). The author sounds like a shockedschoolmaster; cf. NOTE on 14:30, coarser. For the use of the comparativeinstead of superlative, see NOTE on 7:24, youngest.

cursing (λοιδορο�ντε«). 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 thepresent verse.

things which are not allowed (μ' ωμι«). On this terminology, which too re-curs in the parallel at 10:34 (��εμ�τοψ«), see NOTE on 6:5, forbidden things.

15. battering rams and war-machines. On Hellenistic siege machines, seeBar-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 μηξανημ�τ�ν), see theJewish-Hellenistic prayer preserved in the Constitutiones apostolorum8.12.26 (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 herebecause it featured a siege and high walls.


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 aboutreporting warfare; see NOTE on 2:21, they plundered the entire country.

the adjacent lake, which was two stadia wide. I.e., somewhat less than400 meters. The identity of this lake is not clear. It is frequently assumedthat the Sea of Galilee is meant, and, indeed, there is evidence for it beingtermed a λ�μνη, 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 isaround 10 kilometers (“around forty stadia” – Josephus, War 3.506), not400 meters. Moreover, λ�μνη usually denotes a swamp or lagoon; see LSJ,1050; Mauersberger, PL, 4.1481. Accordingly, it seems best to think ofsome 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 stateddistance 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 thepresent verse.

they covered the distance. On διαν��, which combines completion and ar-rival, see Mauersberger, PL, 4.499.

fortified camp. Termed “fortress” in v. 19; for this sense of ξ�ρα�, 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 asthe “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: ItsExtent 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 foreignterm 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 tothe 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 ourNOTES on 3:11). Our story reports that Judas Maccabaeus’ men set out fortheir fortified camp in order to lend them assistance. That the Tobians wereno 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 refugein the “Dathema fortress;” there too, as here, we read that Judas and hismen, after hearing of the fate of the Tobians (ibid., v. 13), set out to assistthem. Thus, it seems that the refugees from the Tobiad colony took refuge ina 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 thecamp from the area in northern Transjordan where Judas was operating, ac-cording 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 Jewswho 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 inerror, while Gera holds that he was right; but both agree that the distance isabout right. It is, however, difficult to accept that our author would reportthe 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 referenceis 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 τ�π�ν (as in v. 2).However, in that case we should expect – as Goldstein notes – a definite ar-ticle ($). Moreover, given v. 10 we should not expect our author to add anywords identifying Timothy.

in a certain place. Of which, as usual, the identity did not interest our aut-hor; 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 thenext verse, perhaps the reference is to the place mentioned in 1 Maccabees5:35: after Timothy’s men fled (v. 34), Judas attacked this new place, killedall its men and plundered it, and burned it down. But there are serious prob-lems concerning the name of that town. Most of the manuscripts readΜααφα (Mizpeh) but that is impossible; at Antiquities 12.340 Josephusreads – according to some witnesses – Mella (or Malla) and no such place isknown. However, it should be noted that 1 Maccabees 5:26 lists the namesof places in which Jews were besieged, and all but one of these places are


scenes of action recounted later in the chapter. The exception is “Alema,”and some scholars have, accordingly, made v. 35 refer to Alema (so, forexample, Abel [Macc, 99] and the RSV), a suggestion that draws supportfrom the paleographic similarity between ΑΛΕΜΑ and Josephus’ ΜΕΛΛΑ,on the assumption that they refer to the same place; see R. Marcus ad loc. inthe LCL Josephus and A. Schalit, Namenwörterbuch zu Flavius Josephus(Leiden: Brill, 1968) 85. However, the paleographic similarity is not so im-pressive, and anyway this suggestion hardly helps us, as there is no certaintyabout the location of Alema. Moreover, as Goldstein notes (1 Macc, 301), itdoes not seem that 1 Maccabees 5:26 in fact mentions a separate placenamed Alema; rather, it refers to Βοσορ �ν 0 Αλωμοι« (“Bosor-in-Alema”) –the latter term defining the location of the former, so in fact there is no rea-son for it to reappear in the chapter. But if we reject “Alema” as our “cer-tain place,” and are left with Josephus’ “Mella,” perhaps we should con-sider this a corrupted version of “Pella;” the difference between ΜΕΛΛΑand ΠΕΛΛΑ is only in the angle of the top bar of the first letter; for a similarcase, see Appendix 1, p. 525. Pella, which was located a little southwest ofthe places mentioned in 1 Maccabees 5:26, was near whatever route Judaswould have taken from Jabneh to the Golan, and was fortified.5 For thesuggestion 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) – quitepopular among Jews of the Second Temple period; see Tcherikover, CPJ3.173–174, 176–177; Ilan, Lexicon, 273–276.

20. units. Cf. NOTE on 8:21, divided them into something of a four-partarmy.

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 thereference 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� refersto equipment, baggage; see Mauersberger, PL, 1.202. For its use of all thataccompanies an army, including service personnel and family members, seeBickerman, 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 ofWestern 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 inGenesis 14:5 and Amos 6:13, and usually identified with Seä Sa‘d, 4 km.northeast of Tell ‘Astara (some 35 km. east of the Sea of Galilee), see: D. Kel-lermann, “‘Astarot – ‘Ast$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 κα3δψσπρ2σιτον). Both adjectives are rare; in the Septuagint they appear herealone, and Polybius uses the former but once (5.3.4) and the latter not at all(preferring �πρ�σιτο«; Mauersberger, PL, 1.216). For our author’s love ofδψσ-words, see NOTE on 3:11, villainous.

22. first unit. Apparently this means that Judas himself took command ofthe 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 hewas the central character (see NOTE on v. 26, Departing … he).

appeared (�πιφανε�ση«). Where is not said; perhaps before the walls, wherethe 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 ofJudas’ forces and prepares us for:

the apparition (�πιφανε�α«) 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 theauthor is merely articulating the axiom that Judas’ victory must have beenthe result of divine aid; after all, is it not the case that God “by apparitionalways succors His own portion” (14:15)? On apparitions, see NOTE on2:21, heavenly apparitions, and on “who oversees all” – see NOTE on 3:39,watches over.


flee … hither and thither, so that many were wounded by their ownforces. Panic and death by “friendly fire” are routine features of ancientaccounts of battles and flight. See, for example, Aeneas Tacticus, OnWithstanding 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, Mithridatica85,386–387; Lucian, Zeuxis 10. See also NOTE on 13:2, along with 300scythed chariots.

23. sinners (�λιτηρ�οψ«). By such a description, similar to the one used todescribe Nicanor (τρισαλιτ�ριο« – 8:34; 15:3) our Diasporan author re-minds 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. NOTEon 6:5, forbidden things.

24. Timothy himself, having fallen into the hands. As usual, our authorprefers not to let the enemy commander die honorably with his soldiers; seeNOTE on 10:32, As for Timothy himself.

consummate guile. For the use of γοητε�α (“witchcraft,” “jugglery”) to in-dicate the ability to delude and mislead, see LSJ, s.v. 356 (“finesse”);Mauersberger, PL, 1.399 (“Verführungskunst” – Polybius 33.18.11); DeRomilly, Magic and Rhetoric, 30–33. It is not clear where our author sawthe “guile.” Perhaps what is meant is that in fact Timothy did not hold anyhostages, or that he in any case did not contemplate freeing them; soGrimm, 2 Macc, 179. But since that is not stated, and below it is not evensaid that he broke his promise, it seems rather that in fact our author meansto 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 notJudas himself – similar to 10:19–20 and 14:17. This fits his general brief oflionizing Judas; see Geiger, “History of Judas Maccabaeus.”

set him free (�-αφε�ναι). Only here in the Septuagint, an obvious product ofour author’s obsession about varying his diction, in contrast to �πολ�� inthe next verse; cf. NOTE on v. 11, nomads.

for whom no one would show any consideration. This seems to be the senseof �λογη�Aναι σψμβ�σεται: a politely formulated threat à la “too bad ifanything 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 soout of good intentions. Cf. 14:17, where he similarly takes care to excuseanother 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 haveheard of the fighting against Timothy’s forces after he sent his “baggage” toKarnion, now we turn from battle to “cutting down” (slaughter) in Karnionand, especially, in:

the temple of Atergatis. On the form 8τεργ�τιον see NOTE on 1:15, thetemple of Nanaia. In the parallel at 1 Maccabees 5:43–44 we read of atemple in Karnaim, that is, Ashterot Karnaim (see above on v. 21, placecalled Karnion). Atergatis, a latter-day version of Astarte, was a veneratedgoddess 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 σ�ματα (bodies) can apply to slavesor prisoners (see Pritchett, War, 5.182–185), but it is clear that that is not thecase here. Rather, it seems that the author chose this term in order to exhibitthe results of the slaughter in as graphic a way as possible. Precisely on thatbackground it is important to note that our diasporan author fails to tell usthat 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’ menslaughtered those who had taken refuge in it and then burned it. Our authorprefers 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 herewere 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 goeson to say that they were destroyed, just as the preceding verse says that theywere slaughtered. It is therefore preferable to translate “defeat,” here and inv. 37; for the widespread use of the term in this sense, see Pritchett, War,4.71. As for “destruction,” �π�λειαν, note that it is not reflected in theLatin witnesses; this led Katz (Text, 18–19) to suggest that it is in fact agloss on τροπ� meant to clarify the sense we have attributed to it.


he also campaigned against Ephron. Niese (Kritik 60, n. 5) quite properlynoted the contrast between this narrative and that of 1 Maccabees: here weread 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 inNumbers 21:21–24, relating that the inhabitants of the city refused the Jewspassage, thus leaving them no choice but warfare. This then, like “cuttingdown” in the preceding verse, is another case in which our author makes noattempt to make war seem any prettier than it is; see NOTE on 2:21, theyplundered 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 Latinand Armenian witnesses to this verse, it reported also that Lysias used tolive there (in Ephron) – “in qua Lysias habitabat;” this reading was adoptedby several scholars, including Abel (Macc, 440), Habicht (2 Macc, 264) andGoldstein (2 Macc, 443–444). But there is no good Greek support for thisreading, and it should be noted that some of the witnesses that support it infact 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 thinkthat Lysias, the right-hand man of Antiochus (father and son), resided inEphron, and the suggestions of those who would adopt the reading justpoint up this difficulty: Grimm (2 Macc, 180) and Goldstein suggest thatthe text means only that Lysias maintained a residence in Ephron, to whichGoldstein adds, alternatively, the possibility that it means that Lysias hadpreviously lived there, before the time discussed here – as if that were of in-terest to the reader. On the other hand, however, it is easy to imagine alearned Christian scribe viewing Ephron as the residence of Lysanias, whowas known to have lived somewhere in the north and who figures promi-nently 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 παρ��εσι« in Hellenistic Greek, see Welles, RC,352.

28. who with power breaks the weight of (His) enemies. Thus according toHanhart’s text: μετ? κρ�τοψ« σψντρ�βοντα τ?« τ7ν πολεμ��ν $λκ?«.Some witnesses and editors prefer �λκ�«, “strengths,” which is certainly ea-sier 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 κρ�τοψ«, “power.” However, as Habichtnotes (2 Macc, 264, n. 28a), the fact that $λκ�« is more difficult is actuallyan argument in its favor. Moreover, the verb too, “break,” fits better withan object which has weight, and we should recall here the allusion to thewalls of Jericho in v. 15. On God’s power (κρ�το«) see NOTE on 3:24,Ruler.

29. Scythopolis. Beth Shean. On the form of the Greek toponym, in twowords (Σκψ�7ν π�λι« – “city of Scythians”), see NOTE on 9:2, called. Thisverse 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, thegleam of the flames. 600 stadia are equivalent to approx. 115 km.; “accu-rate 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, de-scribed at the opening of this chapter. This adjective, used only here in2 Maccabees, usually applies to tame animals as opposed to wild ones; seee.g. Letter of Aristeas 145–146; Josephus, Against Apion 2.137. Here it ispart 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 describedhere occurred in the spring, “when the kings go out [to war]” (2 Sam 11:1//1Chr 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 andthat 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 300stadia, 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 dependedon that reading “300” as one of his few examples of our book’s lack of geographicalaccuracy. 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).


witnesses which refer here to Passover. However, the designation “Festivalof 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 wouldexpect from our author; see NOTE on v. 11, nomads. Finally, note that sub-stitution of Passover for Pentecost would also raise a real problem: whywould Judas interrupt his campaign with a seven-week long break early inthe season, after Passover? Or why would our author skip whatever Judaswas doing during that long period? For these reasons we have retained theusual reading.

32. so-called Pentecost. This is the usual Greek name for the holiday in thisperiod; 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 refer-ence 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 ofthe southern part of Palestine.

34. And it happened. But not by chance, of course, as vv. 40–41 will dem-onstrate. Cf. NOTE on 3:2, it happened.

had drawn themselves up … for battle. As usual, our author does not botherto say where this happened. But the next verse, and v. 38, point to the vi-cinity of Marissa. Similarly, 1 Maccabees 5:65–68 describes a campaign byJudas and his brothers in the south, and inter alia we read of some deathsin a battle near Marissa (v. 66). It is characteristic of the difference betweenthe two books that the dynastic historian explains the deaths as a result of afailure to obey Judas and his brothers (cf. vv. 19, 61), while our book – inwhat 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 anexplanation.

Chapter XII 437

35. Dositheus, one of … A Greek name common among Jews; see NOTEon v. 19, Dositheus and Sosipater … The use of τι« here indicates that thisDositheus is a new figure, to be distinguished from the officer of the samename 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 read-ing of the Lucianic witnesses, as opposed to Hanhart, who refused togive up on “Bakenor,” the lectio difficilior supplied by the uncial wit-nesses; see Hanhart, Text, 47, and our NOTE on 4:40, one Auranus.“Bakenor” makes no sense, whereas reading “of the Tobians” has aclear context: earlier, in v. 17, we read that Judas set out to save peoplefrom the land of the Tobiads, and here it seems that some of them joinedhis forces. Their military experience (see below) could certainly be of useto him.

a strong cavalryman. For a papyrus of 259 BCE mentioning a cavalrymanfrom the Tobiad territory, see CPJ I, no. 1 (as was noted by Gera, “Credi-bility,” 29); on continual warfare in their region, see Josephus, Antiquities12.229. On cavalrymen in Judas’ army see Bar-Kochva, JM, 69–70, wherethe 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 es-pecially cruel, see e.g. Valerius Maximus, Facta et dicta memorabilia 9.2.4and 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 Timothyhimself.

to Marissa. The main city of Idumaea, in which (according to v. 32) Gorgiaswas 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.


36. Esdris. He is otherwise unknown. Possibly he was introduced some-where in Jason’s original work, in which case we encounter a rare instanceof carelessness by our author; cf. Introduction, p. 72. See also the end ofour 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 ofprayer; 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 lan-guage 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(παι�ν), usual in Greek literature, see Gera, “Battle of Beth Zachariah,”and Pritchett, War, 1.105–108. However our author did not use παι�νhere; rather, he used dμνο« for Jewish songs, here as at 1:30 and 10:38, re-serving παι�ν for pagan songs (15:25). So too the Septuagint prefers to usedμνο«, and apart from our 15:25, where it is used of the war-song of Nica-nor’s forces, it never uses παι�ν. Philo too uses the “Jewish” term morethan fifty times and the other only twice, one of which referring to the wor-ship of Gaius Caligula as if he were a god (Leg. 96). For such distinctionssee 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 de-stroyed.

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 no-thing more than our own author’s usual orientation.

the seventh day. On the sanctity of the Sabbath in 2 Maccabees see NOTEon 5:25, pretended.

they purified themselves according to the custom. On ��ισμ�« see NOTE on4:11, 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 14:2for the latter, but as he notes, concerning the latter, if our reference were toimpurity 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 connectionwith the Temple). Moreover, as long as the returning soldiers were not plan-ning to come into contact with the Temple or with holy things there wouldbe no pressing need for them to purify themselves. So perhaps the referenceis to plain washing prior to the Sabbath. In any case, this does not seem tobe a reference to any Greek practice; as Pritchett emphasizes (War3.196–202) there was no widespread Greek custom of purifying an army,and the scattered references which do exist refer to events during war andnot 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�« ξρε�α«�γεγ2νει). The formulation is difficult, but one way or another it refers tothe fact that work resumed after the Sabbath. For ξρε�α in the sense of“task” see NOTE on 7:24, commissions.

collect … inter them in their ancestral graves. For the importance of properburial, in the eyes of our author and in general, see NOTE on 4:49, funeralexpenses. 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 hissoldiers’ morale that a commander demonstrate concern for the proper careof the corpses of those who fall in battle; see Onasander’s instructions tocommanders in Strategicus 36.1–2 and also, for example, Diodorus 13.61.6;13.75.4; 17.68.4.

40. objects dedicated. These Zερ�ματα were not necessarily amulets; at An-tiquities 1.322 the term refers to idols of gods (see ibid. §310). See Goldstein,2 Macc, 448–449. As he suggests, the reference may be to booty taken duringthe attack upon Jabneh (above, v. 9). Given that they were found “under thetunics” of the dead, they may have been pendants; for an example relating toan Egyptian god who was very popular in the Hellenistic period, see M.Fischer & R. E. Jackson-Tal, “A Glass Pendant in the Shape of Harpokratesfrom 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.


to the idols (ε0δ1λ,ν) of Jamnia. Despite our author’s differential and de-rogatory terminology (cf. NOTE on v. 37, the war-cry accompanied byhymns), he means the that the objects in question were dedicated to the godsof Jabneh, Heracles and Hauran, who are mentioned in two inscriptions ofthe late second or early first centuries BCE discovered in Delos (Inscriptionsde Délos, nos. 2308–2309); see P. Bruneau, Recherches sur les cultes deDélos à l’époque hellénistique impériale (Paris: de Boccard, 1970), 410, 475.

which the Law prohibits to Jews. As in the case of such comments concern-ing the Sabbath (5:25) and pigs (7:1), here too it is likely that this expla-nation was meant for non-Jewish ears (however difficult it might be to im-agine that even Gentiles would not know Jews were supposed to keep awayfrom 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(δικαιοκρ�τοψ); LSJ (p. 428) lists, apart from our verse, only a flatteringpetition 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 RylandsLibrary, Manchester, II [Manchester: Manchester Univ., & London: Long-mans Green, 1915] 96–97, no. 113, l. 35). Our verse, which links this epi-thet with a blessing, reminds us of the traditional blessing “Blessed is thetrue 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 upona threat of divine punishment of the Israelites for worshipping idols.

42. to petition (ε0« =κετε�αν). Or “supplication,” see NOTE on 9:18, in theform of a supplication. That verse too, as our v. 41, emphasizes that God isjust, so all that one can do, against His judgment, is beg.

that the sin that had occurred … having seen with their own eyes thatwhich had occurred due to the sin of those who had fallen (τ( γεγον(«4μ#ρτημα … τ� γεγον2τα … 4μαρτ�αν). The first phrasing politelyavoids saying that the dead people had sinned, but the second one makes itclear that their fate was deserved – and calls upon observers to learn the les-son 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 ofview of contents, Judas urges his soldiers to avoid sin “having seen with theirown eyes (3π 0 ,χιν)” what had happened, and Wilhelm insists that some ofthe soldiers did not see their fellows die. Second, there are witnesses whichread κατασκεψ�σματα (“tools,” “products” or the like) in v. 43, where it isdifficult 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 bittoo low), reading 3π 0 ,χιν Ψ�ρακ�τα« τ? γεγον�τα δι? τ"ν τ7ν προ-πεπτ�κ�τ�ν 4μαρτ�αν κατασκεψ�σματα. That is, Judas points to “themanufactured items that had been made and worn due to the sin of thosewho had fallen” as proof of their sin. However, this suggestion fails to con-vince 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 factof 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 soldiersaway 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 whowore them; (c) Wilhelm’s text assumes that the dedicated objects were madeon account of the sin of those who wore them, but we have no reason tothink that the Jewish soldiers who attacked Jabneh had had the time or in-terest to order idols from local craftsmen or to make them themselves. It ismuch simpler to assume that the reference is to booty – but then the idolswere not made due to any Jewish sin. See also Hanhart, Text, 32, who def-ends the text without κατασκεψ�σματα (explaining it away as a result of aLucianic reading in v. 43) and points out how usual it is for our author to useγεγον�τα to summarize previous events (9:3; 10:21; 11:1; 13:9).

completely. That is, that the death of the sinners shall be complete atone-ment for them; cf. 8:29.

noble Judas. See NOTE on 6:28, noble … nobly.

43. a collection. On λογε�α see esp. Deissmann, Licht, 83–85; Wilhelm,“Stellen,” 25. The meaning is close to one of λ�γο«; see NOTE on 3:6, ap-plied to the account of the sacrifices. On the offering of a tithe or the likefrom booty, see 8:28–30, also Numbers 31:25ff. on the biblical hand andPritchett, War, 1.93–100 on the Greek one.

for each man (κατ 7 .νδρα). Lit. “man by man.” It seems preferable toassume, as we have, that this means “for each of the fallen,” not (as e.g.


Habicht) “from each of the survivors,” for what was crucial was that atone-ment be worked for each of the dead. But our author would also want us toassume, of course, that all of Judas’ men participated in the collection. Forthe text here, see Hanhart’s apparatus and Wilhelm, “Stellen,” 25–26.

around 2000 silver drachmas. For their value, see NOTES on 4:19, 300silver drachmas, and on 8:11, ninety slaves per talent.

a sin-offering (περ3 4μαρτ�α«). This is the standard Septuagint term for thehatta’at, as also at 2:11; see Daniel, Recherches, 319–328.

doing. Here the author begins to analyze Judas’ underlying assumption: be-lief in resurrection.

very properly and honorably. For the latter adverb (�στε��«), which lit-erally means “urbane,” “city-like,” see NOTE on 6:23, honorable argu-ment. The combination with καλ7« (“properly”) is very Greek and recallsthe 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 indicatethat such a belief was a matter of controversy. Indeed, from Josephus (War2.165), the New Testament (Luke 20:27–40; Acts 23:8) and rabbinic litera-ture (m. Sanh 10.1 [on the text, see Urbach, Sages, 2.991–992, n. 11] andAvot de Rabbi Natan, ed. Schechter, p. 26) we learn that the Sadducees de-nied resurrection; see Schwankl, Sadduzäerfrage, 332–338. This couldeasily lead to the old suggestion that 2 Maccabees should be viewed as aPharisaic polemic; see esp. A. Geiger, Urschrift, 223–224. But only a fewpassages and aspects of our book could support this case (and see NOTE on2:17, His entire people), so although one can to some extent make the casethat 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 sym-metric by asserting our book is, therefore, specifically Pharisaic or anti-Sad-ducean. For general skepticism about the relevance of Pharisees andSadducees to our books, see Bar-Kochva, JM, 571–572. Rather, what wehave here is an aspect of the similarity of Pharisaic religion and diasporanreligion; see above, pp. 63–64, n. 154, and D. R. Schwartz, “Josephus onthe 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: “Hewho shouts (in prayer) about the past, lo – this is a pointless prayer.”

to pray (εϊξεσαι). 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 isusing “to pray” in the sense of “to worship,” something of which sacrificingis an example; this would be a diasporan usage, which allows what diaspo-ran Jews can do (pray) to be the major category and makes that which theycan’t do (sacrifice) into something secondary; for similar cases, see NOTEon 3:31, call upon. On prayers for the dead in antiquity, see Ogle, “Sleep ofDeath,” also (concerning Jews) S. Reinach, “L’origine des prières pour lesmorts,” REJ 41 (1900) 161–173. On the basis of our verse and other evi-dence, Reinach suggests that the Jewish practice originated in Egypt.

45. lie down. I.e., die. Such euphemistic usage of κοιμ7μαι is known fromthe Septuagint, Greek literature and epitaphs; see esp. Ogle, “Sleep ofDeath,” who holds that it has especially Oriental and Hebrew roots. On ourverse: ibid., 93. See also Van der Horst, Epitaphs, 115–118. For our book’sexceptionally 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 some-thing expressed by appropriate actions.

a holy and pious notion (�σ�α κα3 ε/σεβ'« > �π�νοια). These words con-stitute a note within a note and sound secondary (esp. in light of the similarcomment in v. 43); for the suggestion that they have been added from somemarginal note, see G. C. Cobet, Variae lectiones (Lugduni-Batavorum: Brill,18732) 480, who compares a similar comment frequently excised by editorsof 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 inthe end of our verse.

in order that they be released from the sin. The sacrifice was offered due tothe fear that, despite the prayer mentioned in v. 42, death was not enough toatone for the sins of the fallen and they were in need of yet more merit, sup-plied by the sacrifice. The assumption is that if their sin is not atoned they


will suffer even more, and might even be excluded from resurrection. Thisimplies that sinners are punished after their death, an implication that easilybegets the notion of a place where that happens – Gehenna/Purgatory, a no-tion 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 debateconcerning our book’s canonical or non-canonical status, see Introduction,pp. 60–61. It should be noted, however, that – although our author links thetwo – belief in post-mortem suffering (and so: Gehenna/Purgatory) need notimply belief in resurrection. One might believe, for example, that those whodied are bound to suffer for their sins, and that an appropriate sacrificemight help them out, without any expectation that eventually they will bereturned to life; their better future might be a spiritual one. Thus, it seemsthat 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 simi-larly general view of the matter, see Acts 23:8, where various options of lifeafter death are listed and it is said that the Sadducees denied them all. SeeNOTE on 7:34, children of Heaven, and the bibliography cited there.

released from the sin. The verb �πολψ�Aναι (“be released”) points us backto a leitmotif of chapters 6–7; see NOTE on 7:9, free (�πολ�ει«). There thetopic was freeing sinless live people from life in this world, whereas here it isthe freeing of dead sinners from sin so as to allow them sinless life in thenext; 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 Eupatorhad come with hordes against Judaea, (2) and with him Lysias his guardianand head of state, each having a Greek force of 110,000 foot-soldiers, 5300cavalrymen 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 instal-lation in office. (4) But the King of Kings awakened Antiochus’ wrathagainst the sinner, and after Lysias fingered him as the cause of all thetroubles, he ordered – as was customary in the region – that he be broughtto Beroia in order to be annihilated. (5) There is in that place a tower fiftycubits 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) Therehe who is liable to punishment for temple-robbery or all those who com-mitted any other preeminent act of wickedness were pushed forward to per-dition. (7) Such a death happened to befall the lawless Menelaus, withouthis 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 andashes are pure, death came to him in ashes.

The New Invasion

(9) But the king, becoming barbaric in his intentions, began to display him-self toward the Jews in ways as bad as the worst which had happened in hisfather’s days. (10) Judas, having received notice of this, exhorted the multi-tude to call upon the Lord day and night that – if ever (He did so) at sometime or other – so too now He should come to the aid of (11) those whowere on the verge of being deprived of the Law, fatherland, and holy


Temple, and not allow the people, which had only shortly before revived itsspirit, to be given up into the hands of maligning Gentiles.

(12) After they all did the same together, petitioning the merciful Lordwith wailing and fasts and prostration for three days without letup, Judas,after encouraging them, commanded them to stand by. (13) After privatelyconsulting with the elders he decided to sally out, before the king’s army in-vaded Judaea and took control of the city – and to settle the matter withGod’s help. (14) After entrusting the outcome to the Creator of the universeand 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 hemade a night-attack upon the royal courtyard, (that is) the encampment,and killed about 2000 men, also skewering the first of the elephants to-gether with him who was in the house. (16) In the end they filled the en-campment with fear and tumult and then, having been successful, theybroke away. (17) This happened as day was already breaking, by virtue ofthe 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 theplaces by devious routes. (19) Coming up against Beth-Zur, a strong for-tress of the Jews, he was rebuffed; blocked; defeated. (20) Judas sent thenecessities to those within. (21) But Rhodocus, one of the Jewish unit, re-vealed the secrets to the enemies; he was sought out and arrested and shutaway. (22) The king again addressed those in Beth-Zur; he gave the righthand; took it; departed; (23) attacked Judas’ men; had the worst of it; re-ceived notice that Philip, who had been left behind in Antioch as head ofstate, had taken leave of his senses; was disconcerted; called the Jews to-gether; conceded and swore according to all that is just; came to an agree-ment and offered a sacrifice; honored the Temple and displayed humanelove for the Place; (24) and he received Maccabaeus; left Hegemonides gov-ernor (of the region) from Ptolemais to Gerar. (25) He came to Ptolemais;the people of Ptolemais hardly tolerated the covenants – they were veryupset; wanted to annul the instructions. (26) Lysias went up onto the tri-bune; 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: AntiochusEupator and Lysias invade Judaea with huge armies; the Jews organize fordefense and indeed get the better of the royal army at a first engagementnear Modein; a renewed attempt by the Seleucids culminates in a siege ofBeth-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 agree-ment with the Jews and return to Syria. This simple story is interruptedabruptly by one extraneous episode: the colorful and well-deserved execu-tion 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 thethreat, victory). But the Menelaus pericope, in contrast, while whole in and ofitself, disrupts the first narrative and leaves its continuation illogical (for if theking recognized Menelaus was the source of the difficulties [v. 4] there was noreason for hostilities to resume after he executed Menelaus, and indeed noneis given), and the Beth-Zur narrative is full of staccato and asyndetic for-mulations 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 foundChapters 10–11, our author was at a loss concerning this chapter’s Beth-Zurnarrative, so he gave this part of his notes short shrift and moved on as quicklyas 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 thosegiven in the first letter in Chapter 1 and those in Chapter 11. Assuming thatthe 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 explanationas to why the author wanted to get it all over with is that the story did not portray theJews favorably (“Der Grund hierfür liegt schwerlich in schriftstellerischer Unzuläng-lichkeit, eher in dem Bestreben, über Dinge rasch hinwegzugehen, die für die Judenkeineswegs 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. Ittherefore seems preferable to assume that he was simply perplexed as to where thiswhole story belonged, and left this part of his work unfinished.


312 BCE, it is equivalent to 164/3 BCE. But 1 Maccabees 6:20 dates thiscampaign – 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 inChapter 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 anyallusion 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 predilec-tion for internal cross-referencing; see NOTE on 2:32, aforementioned. Andwhat of Lysias’ realization, at the end of his first campaign, that it is imposs-ible to defeat the Jews (11:13)?! These are some of the considerations under-lying our suggestion that whoever authored the present narrative was un-aware of the contents of Chapter 11, and that the campaign described in thischapter 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 mostof the textual witnesses, because he thought it unlikely that the nine year oldEupator (see NOTE on 9:25, my son Antiochus) would command an army orthat the invading forces would be divided into two. But reasonableness doesnot seem to be the best measure by which to judge the authenticity of battle de-scriptions in our book, a point that the numbers in the present verse also con-firm. 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 itemsmentioned at the end of the verse – elephants and scythed chariots.

110,000 foot-soldiers. This is an astronomic figure, even if we ignore thestatement that there were two such armies. By way of comparison, note that1 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 bothmust be “totally rejected” as exaggerated. See also Niese, Kritik, 33 andShatzman, “Hasmonean Army,” 32 (these numbers “are totally exagger-ated and impossible”).

22 elephants. This datum too is quite exaggerated, although it cannot com-pete with the thirty-two mentioned in 1 Maccabees 6:30 or the eighty men-tioned 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, ac-cording to units) were all the Seleucid army had, and that half of them accom-panied 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-wheeledchariots see e.g. Appian, Mithridatica 18 (cited by Bar-Kochva, JM, 19) andDiodorus 17.53.1. But their number here is fantastic, as usual; in theDaphne procession there were only 140 (Polybius 30.25.11). Indeed, Bar-Kochva doubts that such chariots remained in use after the Seleucid defeatat Magnesia in 190 BCE, where they inflicted great losses upon the Seleucidarmy itself (Livy 37.41.5–42.1); see Bar-Kochva, Seleucid Army, 83–84 andidem, JM, 19, 305.

3. Menelaus joined them. He was last mentioned at 11:29–32 as a partici-pant in the negotiations between the king and the Jews. The end of our verseindicates that, unsurprisingly, he had not been restored as high priest, andso it seems that he remained in Antioch, attempting both to influence theroyal policy concerning the Jews and to improve his own station.

great insincerity. That is, hypocrisy; on ε+ρ�νε�α, which appears in the Sep-tuagint only here, see Epistle to Diognetus 4:1 (on the Jews’ hypocrisy con-cerning fasting and new moons), also G. Markantonatos, “On the Originand Meaning of the Word ΕΙΡ�ΝΕΙΑ,” RF 103 (1975) 16–21; C. Forbes,“Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony: Paul’s Boasting and the Conventionsof Hellenistic Rhetoric,” NTS 32 (1986) 10–13.

having in mind not the welfare of the fatherland. Menelaus’ appeal to theking 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 hewas not able to maintain his position after Judas retook Jerusalem (see NOTEon 11:29, Menelaus has reported … ). Moreover, at some point the Seleucidsreplaced 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 see3 Maccabees 5:35 and Philo, De Decalogo 41. It seems to have originatedas an oriental and more particularly Persian royal epithet; see Ezekiel 26:7;Ezra 7:12; Daniel 2:37; J. G. Griffiths, “βασιλε#« βασιλω�ν: Remarks onthe History of a Title,” CP 48 (1953) 145–154.


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 NOTEthere on cause of all the trouble. Thus, according to our diasporan bookeven the Seleucid officials realized, eventually, that which the good subjectsof 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 6�ο« 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 byHaman, upon which he was himself hung (Esth 5:14; 7:10). Is it too wild tosee, 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 fastingmentioned in v. 12, as in Esther 4:16, and the fact that the elaborate modeof 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 memorabilia9.2.6; F. W. König, Persika des Ktesias, Graz 1972, 85–88. König conjec-tures that we should understand that the contraption did not really turnaround but, rather, that it was round and, like a funnel, made those throwninto it slip down into the ashes; for περιφερ�« in the sense of “round,” notonly “moving around,” see LSJ, 1392. König also emphasizes the religiousnature 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 wasMenelaus’, see NOTE on 4:39, robbery from the Temple.

to perdition. As Antiochus’ (Ch. 9 and 7:14), so too Menelaus’ sufferingswere final, and not merely educational “chastisement” as were those ofthe Jews; see NOTE on 6:12, the punishments were not to destroy.

7. Such a death. For this sense of μ�ρο« (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, toDiodorus’ statement (16.25.2) that according to the law common to allGreeks 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 oftreason 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 �πιτιμ�οι« 3παξ�ε/« 5τ�φο«�ρρ�φη [“after being punished with the traitors’ punishment he was castout 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, β�μ�«, see NOTE on2:19, 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 ourauthor must find the poetic justice, he must make the punishment fit thecrime even if it is somewhat artificial; cf. NOTE on 4:41, wood … ashes. Itmay be that some viewed Menelaus’ death as a fulfillment of Ezekiel 28:18:“By the multitude of your iniquities, in the unrighteousness of your tradeyou profaned your sanctuaries; so I brought forth fire from the midst ofyou; 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 badas the worst which had happened in his father’s days. Our translation fol-lows Grimm, 2 Macc., 188; Abel’s is similar (Macc, 453). What is meant isnot that Antiochus Eupator already did things worse than his father had,only that he contemplated doing them. Note that our author gives no rea-son at all for the king’s volte-face, from punishing Menelaus as the cause ofall the troubles to persecuting the Jews. According to 1 Maccabees, whichnever mentions Menelaus, Lysias’ second campaign was a natural resump-tion of the first; see esp. 1 Maccabees 4:35, which has Lysias returning toAntioch, after the failure of his first campaign, in order to restore his armyand 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 succeedagainst the Jews (11:13). Our author has worked himself into a corner, tornbetween his desire to claim that the kings were basically good to the Jews


and that any troubles were due only to isolated troublemakers such asMenelaus, on the one hand, and the need to report how events continued,on the other. In fact, the account which follows apparently concerns thesame campaign as the one in Chapter 11; see our opening COMMENT onthat 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 coursethe “if” here is rhetorical; our author knows very well that there were in-deed such precedents (see 8:19–20; 15:8–9, 22).

11. on the verge of being deprived. Our author loves to point out what direthings were on the brink of happening; see NOTE on 2:22, the laws thatwere about to be.

only shortly before revived its spirit. Which would make renewed troublesall 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 burnedand plundered.” For the verb �ναχ�ξ� see NOTE on 4:46, refresh hisspirit. Cf. Polybius 18.14.6, where we read that the Peloponnesians beganto breathe again and once again to think of freedom (�ναπνε�σαι κα/λαβε�ν �λεψ�ερ�α« 6ννοιαν).

maligning Gentiles. Cf. 10:4.

12. with wailing. Like 11:6, although a different term is used; cf. NOTE on11:6, 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 onlyan expression of the main activity: “petitioning” (contrast 1 Macc 3:47,where the fasting is more independent). This is reminiscent of the way ourauthor 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 cubitshigh, but also Assumption of Moses 9:6–7.

Chapter XIII 453

after encouraging them. On παρακαλω� and its nuances, see NOTE on7:24, his appeal.

13. the elders. It seems that these πρεσβ�τεροι are members of the ger-ousia; see NOTE on 14:37, one of the elders of Jerusalem. The present con-text seems to assume that this council sat in Jerusalem, which is entirelylikely.

Judaea. In its restricted sense, i.e., the territory around Jerusalem, as the restof 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 (κρ�ναι τ� πρ#γματα). This seems to be the appropriatetranslation of this phrase, which recurs at 15:17 and is used regularly byPolybius in connection with battles; so for example Polybius 1.15.4, 1.87.7and 5.82.1. But πρ�γματα can also designate “the state;” see NOTEon 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 – takingκρ�ναι 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 βο��εια see NOTE on 8:24, ally.

14. entrusting the outcome. That is, accepting in advance whatever Godwill decide. For the formulation here, δο#« … �πιτροπ�ν, compare, in asimilar context, Josephus, Vita 138: �γB δM τ: �ε: τ? κατ 0 �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 ofthe perplexing staccato which occurs frequently in this chapter (from v. 19to the end of the chapter); for a possible explanation (unreworked notes?),see Introduction, pp. 34–35.


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 12km. east of Lydda. Goldstein (2 Macc, 457) and Bar-Kochva (JM, 172 and197–198) doubt that there was in fact any clash here. Indeed, one couldeasily 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 refer-ence to “during the Hasmonean wars.” However, it is difficult to movebeyond suspicion here. Goldstein suggests that the story was created on thebasis of a tradition that Judas prevented the royal army from encamping inJudaea (see v. 13!) coupled with the fact that Modein was right on Judaea’sborder. However, despite Goldstein’s arguments (2 Macc, 464–465) it is notat all clear that there was such a tradition about Judas, and there is nothingspecific enough in Daniel 11:45 (“between the seas and the glorious holymountain”) 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 isbasically 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 fightingdescribed in this chapter took place in the vicinity of Beth-Zur, the allusionto Modein is another indication of our author’s unfamiliarity with Palesti-nian geography. However, we have already noted that although our authoris not interested in geography, his ignorance is not as great as some havethought; 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 theHasmoneans’ 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 andBar-Kochva’s response – “On Josephus …,” 128.

15. Assigning (�ναδο#« δω). This formulation echoes δο#« δω in thepreceding verse, thus indicating, artistically, that Judas has completed hispreparations: 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 ν�κη as a motto in war, see esp. D. Gera,“Tryphon’s Sling Bullet from Dor,” IEJ 35 (1985) 154–155. Note the mod-est abstention from tying God’s hands: in line with v. 14, the slogan does notactually 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/λ�ν) … (that is) the encampment.For the use of α.λ� of wherever the king was located, even of a tent in amilitary 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 theroyal palace in the capital, the author – or some glossator – appended an ex-planation.

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 ofEleazar at Beth Zechariah, according to 1 Maccabees 6:43–46, but that isnot enough to show that our story has been wrongly located in Modein, forkey elements of the Eleazar story are lacking here, such as Eleazar’s beliefthat the king was on the elephant, and Eleazar’s death underneath it. Ourstory 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+κ�α here does not refer to the“tower” (1 Macc 6:37) on top of the elephant (termed ο+κ�διον 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 oneand anyway no one would be in it at night. Rather, it appears that the ref-erence 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�« �πλ�ρ,σαν).We may assume that the author would be happy if attentive readers saw inthis episode the closing of a circle, in partial payment of the Seleucid debt tothe Jews: for the same pair, see 3:30.

they broke away. LSJ, 513, s.v. �κλ��, cites our verse as the only example ofsuch intransitive use of this verb.

17. the Lord’s sheltering. As anticipated in v. 14 and in the motto cited inv. 15. On “sheltering” (σκωπη) see NOTE on 5:9, find shelter.

which had come to his aid. That is, to Judas’ aid; the formulation indicateshis centrality. Cf. NOTE on 12:10, he.


18. the Jews’ daring (ε/τολμ�α«). The prefixed ε.- (good) assures us thatwhat characterizes the Jews was not just audacity, which could be reprehen-sible – as at 4:2 and 8:18; cf. the opposite usage, κατατολμ��, at 3:24 and5:15.

attempted to take (κατεπε�ρασε). A military verb, which appears only herein the Septuagint but is common in Polybius; see Mauersberger, PL,1.1320–1321.

by devious routes (με2δ,ν). This seems to mean that in the wake of thefailed attempt to invade Judaea directly from north to south, via Modein, theking (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 itis usually translated here; see also Spicq, Notes, 2.548, n. 2. However, thepresent context gives no support for that translation, and it would indeed bea rare usage, as is emphasized by Wheeler, Stratagem, 42; when our authorwants to refer to a stratagem, he indeed uses στρατ�γημα (14:29). Hence itseems best to retain, here, the etymological sense of the word.

19. Coming up … rebuffed; blocked; defeated. More staccato; see NOTEon v. 14, laws, temple. The result of all this is that the siege continued. Forintransitive 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 thissite as if for the first time, despite Chapter 11, see NOTE on v. 2, and withhim 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; seeGoldstein, 2 Macc, 466. Bar-Kochva (JM, 88, n. 54) guesses that Rhodocuswas a Jew from the Hellenistic diaspora, a volunteer in the forces of JudasMaccabaeus; his assumption is that a Palestinian Jew would not have hadsuch a name if he were not from among the Hellenists. However, as Bar-Kochva recognizes, it is well possible that Rhodocus was a Judaean whopreferred the rebel cause despite the name he received from his Hellenizingfather (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 fundamen-tal ambiguity: Was Rhodocus a soldier in Judas’ army or in the king’s? It isusual to assume the former, and to assume he was either among those be-sieged or among those trying to relieve them; that is, it is usually assumedthat “the Jewish unit” denotes the rebels. For τ��ι« of Judas’ forces, see10:36. According to that view, Rhodocus perfidiously revealed to the Seleu-cid besiegers the secrets that had allowed Judas to supply those in the for-tress, thus allowing the Seleucids to cut off the supplies. However, if thatwere the case, we would expect to read next that Beth-Zur indeed capitu-lated, or, alternatively, to receive some explanation as to how it avoideddoing so. Indeed, Bar-Kochva (JM, 309) seems to take the next verse (22) asif it referred to the cutoff of supplies and, hence, to surrender. However, thatverse refers – again, with extreme brevity – to an agreement between thesides, not to surrender (although surrender is indeed implied by the parallelat 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 ournarrative. Of course, this might be due only to the radical abbreviation here;perhaps the original version made things clearer; Stern (Studies, 356), forexample, noting that our book is “very inaccurate” here, suggests that inthe original version Jason of Cyrene reported Lysias’ victory and that ourauthor deliberately beclouded the matter. However, as we suggested above(pp. 34–35) it seems that these terse verses are themselves a remnant ofJason’s account via our author’s unreworked notes on it, so it is difficult toimagine that our account differs deliberately, in such a radical way, fromJason’s. Of course, this may have happened unintentionally, in the course ofabbreviating. 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 unitknown as “the Jewish unit” – as distinguished from other national units;his treason, then, was against the Seleucids, and consisted of passing onto Judas’ side the secret information which allowed them to smuggle insupplies. 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 forcedto negotiate. This interpretation’s strong points are the logical connection itestablishes 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 besiegedin Beth-Zur or those attempting to relieve them; for the use of τ��ι« for aunit 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 thisJewish book, to Judas Maccabaeus’ partisans; the contradiction which


would ensue between our book and 1 Maccabees concerning the fate ofBeth-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 hardlyhope for clarity and certainty about something which our author left somurky and telegraphic.

shut away (κατεκλε�ση). This may mean that he was put into chains, as at3 Maccabees 3:25. Frequently, however, it is assumed that this is a euphem-ism for execution; see for example Goldstein, 2 Macc, 466, who buildsupon the usage of παρακλε�� in 4:34; see our NOTE ad loc. on closed inon. See also De Bruyne, “Notes,” 408–409. However, the fact that we attimes know that a person who was “shut away” or “closed in upon” waskilled does not turn that into the meaning of the verb.

22. again addressed (�δεψτερολ2γησεν). This verse is the only referencefor the verb in LSJ, 381. It seems that the verb indicates that the king hadappealed to those besieged at the onset of the siege and now – recognizingthe futility of the siege – he addressed them again.

he gave the right hand; took it; departed. More staccato, which continuesinto the next verse as well. In 1 Maccabees 6:49–50 as well it is not ex-plicitly said that the defenders of Beth-Zur surrendered; rather, the authorsays the king “made peace” with them, a formulation which left both sidestheir 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 continu-ation of the story in 1 Maccabees 6:51–54, the Seleucid forces attackedJews 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 inplain contradiction to our account, according to 1 Maccabees the king wasnot at all defeated; rather, the Jews were in a very bad way and were savedonly 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(�ν 0 Αντιοξε�f 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, displayedhumane love.

Chapter XIII 459

NOTE on 4:29, left … Here, however, there is a problem, for according tothe 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 appointedPhilip regent in his absence. Accordingly, we should assume that Philip fledto Egypt only after the rebellion mentioned here, and that the rebellionbegan only because Philip had been appointed – or so he claimed – regentnot by Antiochus Eupator but, rather, by Antiochus Epiphanes – all as re-ported 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 hereis another result of our author’s assumption that all the events pertaining toAntiochus V and Lysias occurred only after the death of Antiochus IV; seeIntroduction, pp. 32–33.

had taken leave of his senses. The use of �πονοωομαι in connection with re-bellion indicates that the reference is to something which any sane person –for example, any respectable diasporan Jew – would never do. Cf. 14:8 andNOTE on 4:6, folly. Note also �π�νοια in the story of Eleazar (6:29) –there the observers thought that Eleazar must be out of his mind to allowhimself to be killed for his religion, and they were of course wrong; ourdiasporan 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; herethe 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 (�φιλανρ1πησε). For the formulation, see NOTEon 6:22, humane treatment. Our verse alludes to an agreement, as is madeexplicit in v. 25, but its terms are not stated. We may assume that it includedthe promises made in Antiochus Eupator’s letter preserved in 11:22–26, ofwhich the main point is “we have decided to restore the Temple to them andthat they should conduct their civic behavior according to the customs oftheir ancestors.” According to 1 Maccabees 6:62 and Josephus, Antiquities12.383, Antiochus Eupator violated the agreement and tore down a wall ofthe Temple; there is no reference to anything like this in our book, and noway of knowing if our author deliberately omitted it, out of diasporanapologetics or for other reasons. Cf. p. 467, on 1 Maccabees 7.


the Place. Here, alongside νε�« (see NOTE on 4:14, the Temple), “thePlace” clearly has the broad meaning which includes all that surrounds theTemple, 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, receivedcourteously and on 3:35, receiving Onias.

Hegemonides. Here there is a lucky collocation of epigraphic evidence: oftwo inscriptions from the Achaean city of Dyme, one (OGIS 252; cf. SEG14, no. 368) records a dedication to Antiochus Epiphanes and his family bya man called Hegemonides (son of Zephyros) and the other (SEG 14, no.369) documents the Syrian city of Laodicea’s honoring of Hegemonides ofDyme. We may assume that both inscriptions, and our verse, all refer to thesame individual; see Habicht, “Hegemonides.” Mørkholm (Antiochus IV,61–62) views this individual’s status as evidence for Antiochus’ efforts tomaintain good relations with Achaeans; see also Walbank, Polybius, 3.401.

from Ptolemais to Gerar. For this administrative unit, bounded here bypoints 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 orless 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 ofPalestine but, rather, to a place in the vicinity of Beirut, suggesting that theappointment was meant as a gesture toward the population of Ptolemais,assuring them that there would be Seleucid (and not Jewish) rule in the re-gion to their north. However, if that is how it was meant, it failed to achieveits 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 waspossible and common to read στρατηγ9ν … Yγεμον�δην as a title, and that occa-sioned one of the wilder items in the dossier assembled in support of the argumentthat our book should be read as a response to 1 Maccabees and as polemic against theHasmoneans. Namely, rather than using 1 Macc 11:59 to confirm the existence ofthis administrative unit, Kosters (“Polemiek,” 531–532) pointed to it as evidence thatin fact all our author knew was that Simon had been appointed (at some later point intime) 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’smen, who loved lucre.

Chapter XIII 461

erence to Γερρηνο� should refer to somewhere else, is a very weak reed; forthe irrelevance of the Septuagint’s usual practice for our book, which wascomposed in Greek, see Introduction, p. 67. Accordingly, it seems better todepend upon the aforementioned parallels in 1 Maccabees, that refer to thecoast 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; seeNOTE ad loc. on At Ptolemy’s suggestion.)

hardly tolerated … were very upset. For the same combination, see 4:35.

the covenants (τ*ν σψνηκ*ν). Mentioned in v. 23. On the term, seeNOTE on 12:1, these covenants.

to annul the instructions (διαστ#λσει«). LSJ (412) lists our verse alone forthis word and translates “arrangement,” “compact.” However, it seemsbetter to link it to the verb διαστωλλ� in the Hellenistic sense of “order,”“instruct,” in which case the reference here would be to the instructionsthat derived from the king’s agreement with the Jews; note esp. 14:28, διεσ-ταλμωνα, and cf. 6:5, �ποδιεσταλμωνοι«. On the Hellenistic usage ofδιαστωλλ�, see Lenger, Corpus, no. 30–31, l. 3, and no. 35, l. 6; she trans-lates “recommander.” See also H. Anz, “Subsidia ad cognoscendum grae-corum 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 acrowd see, for example, with regard to Alexander the Great: Curtius 9.3.18;10.2.30.

convinced; calmed down; engendered goodwill; returned to Antioch. Morestaccato.

turned out. For such usage of ξ�ρω� in a rounding-out summary, seeNOTE 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 lightof the extreme abbreviation of the story which hints that no details couldpossibly be of any interest or significance.


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 Demetriusson of Seleucus, having sailed into the port of Tripoli with a strong forceand fleet, (2) had taken control of the country and eliminated Antiochusand his guardian, Lysias. (3) But one Alcimus, a former high priest who hadwillingly defiled himself in the times of strife, realizing that he could in noway redeem himself nor ever again have access to the holy altar, (4) went toKing Demetrius in the 151st year, bringing with him a golden crown and apalm frond, along with a few of the customary fresh branches from theTemple. On that day he kept quiet, (5) but when he was summoned to thecouncil by Demetrius and asked how the Jews were disposed and what theirattitude was, he took this to be an opportunity that would further his ownmad purpose, and so responded as follows: (6) “The Jews called Asidaioi,who are led by Judas Maccabaeus, are carrying on war and being seditiousand do not permit the kingdom to attain stability. (7) Therefore, althoughdeprived of my ancestral honor – I speak of the high priesthood – I havenow 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 thethoughtlessness of the aforementioned people our entire nation has in nosmall measure become disinherited. (9) And you, O King, knowing all ofthis, give providential attention both to the country and to our beleaguerednation, with the same love of mankind with which you graciously receiveeveryone. (10) For as long as Judas is around it will be impossible for thestate to attain peace.”

(11) After things like this had been said by him, the other Friends, whowere hostile to Judas’ cause, quickly inflamed Demetrius’ anger even more.(12) Immediately selecting Nicanor, the former elephantarch, and appoint-ing him governor of Judaea, he dispatched him (thither), (13) giving himletters (ordering him) to eliminate Judas, scatter his men, and install Alci-mus as the high priest of the greatest Temple. (14) And those Gentiles nearJudaea who had fled before Judas joined Nicanor in droves, supposing theJews’ misfortune and suffering would be their own lucky day.


From Confrontation to Agreement

(15) Having heard of Nicanor’s invasion and the Gentiles’ onslaught theystrewed dirt (upon their heads) and entreated Him who had constituted Hisown people forever, who by apparition always succors His own portion.(16) Upon the leader’s order they moved out of there immediately andclashed with them near the village of Dessau. (17) Simon, Judas’ brother,had encountered Nicanor and suffered a minor setback due to the sudden-ness with which the antagonists appeared. (18) Nevertheless, when Nicanorheard of the manly valor of Judas’ men and of their high morale in strugglesfor the fatherland, he was somewhat afraid to bring the matter to trial bybloodshed. (19) Therefore he sent Posidonius, Theodotus and Mattathias togive and take the right hand. (20) After thorough inquiries were made, andthe leader had shared the matter with the multitudes and a unanimousopinion had become apparent, they approved the covenants. (21) Theyfixed a day, upon which they were to come together privately, and fromeach side a litter came forward; they arranged chairs; (22) Judas stationedarmed men ready in strategic places, lest the enemies suddenly do some-thing villainous; they held the appropriate discussion. (23) Nicanor re-mained in Jerusalem, did nothing out of place, and disbanded the herd-likemultitudes that had been gathered together. (24) And he kept Judas beforehim continually, for his soul was drawn to the man. (25) He called uponhim to marry and to father children; he married, settled down, partook oflife.

Renewed Informing and Hostilities

(26) But Alcimus, realizing their mutual goodwill and taking with him thecovenants which had been made went to Demetrius and said that Nicanorwas hostilely-minded toward the state, (saying) “For he has appointedJudas, who conspires against the kingdom, to be his successor.” (27) Theking lost his temper and – provoked by the arch-villain’s accusations –wrote Nicanor, saying that he found the covenants intolerable and orderinghim immediately to dispatch Maccabaeus in chains to Antioch. (28) Whenthese (orders) reached Nicanor he was disconcerted and could only withdifficulty tolerate the notion of annulling the instructions, given the factthat the man had done nothing unjust. (29) But since it was impossible tooppose the king, he sought an appropriate opportunity to fulfill (the king’sorder) 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 andtherefore, gathering not a few of his men, together with them he hid fromNicanor. (31) When the latter realized that the man had out-stratagemizedhim with aplomb, he came to the greatest and holy Temple and ordered thepriests, who were busy bringing the appropriate sacrifices, to hand the manover. (32) When they said, with oaths, that they did not know where thewanted man was, (33) he extended his right hand toward the Sanctuary andswore as follows: “If you do not give up Judas to me, in chains, I will levelthis sacred enclosure of God to the ground, and I will destroy the altar, and Iwill erect here a magnificent temple to Dionysus!”

(34) Having said that much he went away. But the priests, extendingtheir hands toward heaven, called upon Him who has always championedour people, saying as follows: (35) “You, Lord, although You are not inneed of anything, thought it right that there be in our midst a sanctuary forYour tenting. (36) And now, O holy Lord of all holiness, preserve foreverundefiled 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 repu-tation, who due to the goodwill toward him was called “Father of theJews.” (38) In the foregoing times of strife he had brought in a decisionfor Judaism and with complete intensity had risked body and soul for Ju-daism. (39) Nicanor, desiring to make his hostility to the Jews eminentlyclear, sent more than 500 soldiers to arrest him. (40) For he thought tocause them suffering by arresting him. (41) When the hordes were aboutto take the tower and were forcing the gate of the courtyard, ordering fireto be brought up so as to set fire to the gates, Razis, who was about to besurrounded and taken, thrust himself down upon his sword, (42) wantingto die nobly rather than fall into the sinners’ hands and have his own dig-nity outraged in unseemly fashion. (43) But since he did not manage toplace the sword-stroke well, due to the tumult of the struggle, and themob was already pouring in within the gateways, he ran valiantly upupon the wall and manfully flung himself down into the mob. (44) Sincethey quickly moved backwards a gap opened up, and he landed in themidst of the empty area. (45) Still breathing, and burning up in rage, hestood 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 precipi-tous rock. (46) 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.

COMMENT

Chapter 14 opens very similarly to Chapter 13: after two verses that give adate and report what news Judas and his men heard about Seleucid kingsand 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 agree-ment with Judas, a new beginning is required, and since (according to ourdiasporan author) that new beginning had better not come from trouble-making 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, hencethe similarity of our chapter with the preceding one: Alcimus picks up whereMenelaus 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 formerhigh 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 indeedbegin to campaign against Judas, soon – impressed by the personal qualitiesof 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 inAntioch until Demetrius orders Nicanor to arrest Judas. Judas escapes, andNicanor, angered, makes threats against the Temple if the priests fail to see tothe handing over of Judas. With that threat hanging in the air, the chapterconcludes with a long martyrdom scene, which reminds us how bad thingscould again be, and which contrasts Alcimus, who had willingly defiled him-self during the “times of strife” (v. 3), with a Jewish hero, Razis, who had re-mained steadfast during that same period (v. 38) and continues to do so inthe present. Thus, this chapter, having again poised models of faithless andfaithful 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 versesgive a firm chronological framework: Demetrius I’s takeover of the Seleucidthrone in 162/161 BCE, a framework that is supported by other sources aswell (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 broughtabout the renewed hostilities. The only major difference between the twobooks is in the fact that 1 Maccabees goes on to report Bacchides’ mission toJudaea, together with Alcimus (1 Macc 7:8–25), before it presents Nicanor’smission 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 servesits general focus on Nicanor; see our Introduction, pp. 9–10.

Another characteristic difference between the two books pertains to alesser issue: Did Nicanor mean to keep the peace with Judas, as our bookclaims, in which case it was (as our author reports) only Alcimus’ renewedappeal to the king that forced Nicanor, against his will, to move againstJudas? 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 thesame concerning Bacchides? We can never hope to know the true answer tothis (and probably most cases of broken agreements entail at least one sideclaiming 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-eyedJudas knew that – 1 Macc 7:11, 30), while 2 Maccabees is happy to portraythe Gentile official as full of sincere respect for Judas and to report the genu-ine friendship that ensued between the two.

NOTES

14:1. In the third year thereafter. For this translation see NOTE on 4:23, Inthe third year thereafter. 151 SE, specified also in 1 Maccabees 7:1 as thefirst year of Demetrius’ reign, ran from autumn 162 to late summer161 BCE. Demetrius escaped from Rome late in the summer of 162 andbegan to rule already in the autumn of that year; the story our book is aboutto recount will end by the spring of 161 (15:36 and 1 Macc 7:49; for theyear, see ibid. 7:1 and 9:3). This chronological framework is supported byother sources as well; see Walbank, Polybius, 3.478; Bar-Kochva, JM, 544.

the news reached Judas’ men. The reader should recall the identical openingof Chapter 13 and realize that a new round is about to begin between theSeleucids and the Jews; see our opening COMMENT.

1 Alcimus reappears in 1 Maccabees only in Ch. 9, again alongside Bacchides, in a cam-paign that occurred after the period covered by our book.


that Demetrius son of Seleucus. Demetrius I, son of Seleucus IV with whomour book opened (3:3), was born in 186 BCE and raised as a hostage inRome in accordance with terms imposed by the Treaty of Apamaea. Hemust have regarded his uncle, Antiochus IV, who took over after his father’sdeath in 175, as a stand-in for him due to his youth, and when Antiochusdied, in 164, Demetrius thought that the time had come for him to take overthe Seleucid throne. But the Roman Senate thought otherwise (Poly-bius 31.2), preferring a nine-year-old – Antiochus Eupator (see NOTE on9:25, my son Antiochus) – on the Syrian throne. Demetrius therefore fledfrom 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). Theparallel account at 1 Maccabees 7:1 contents itself by referring to “a coastalcity;” it is typical of that Palestinian book, which gives much detail aboutPalestinian geography (as ours does not), not to bother to name the foreigncity. Josephus does (Ant. 12.389), one of the few places where he agreeswith 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 “afew men,” and Josephus (Ant. 12.389) reports that Demetrius arrived inTripoli and only afterward mobilized a number of mercenaries. Their ac-counts conform better to what we would expect on the basis of Polybius’ re-port of Demetrius’ undercover escape from Rome, while our author, asusual, exaggerates; having given such an inflated picture of the forces con-trolled by Antiochus Eupator and Lysias (13:2) he was required to saysomething similar of him who would now so easily overcome them.

2. the country (ξ1ρα«). That is, the Seleucid state; so too 9:24. Cf. NOTEon 1:1, the Jews in Jerusalem and in the country of Judaea.

eliminated (�παναιρω,). This verb, which reappears in v. 13, is anotheritem in our author’s rich vocabulary concerning killing; see above, p. 71,also Mauersberger, PL, 1.861–862. For more explicit testimony to the sameevents, see 1 Maccabees 7:3–4; Josephus, Antiquities 12.390; Appian, Sy-riakê 47. As explained in our opening COMMENT, with both Menelausand Antiochus V out of the way, a new beginning – that is, a new villain – isnow needed.

3. But one Alcimus ( 5Αλκιμο« δω τι«). For such introductions of villains, seealso 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 ap-pointed after Menelaus’ death, but that might reflect only the usual assump-tion of a regular succession. As for the silence of 1 Maccabees 7:5, whichseems to indicate that Alcimus was never high priest prior to the reign ofDemetrius I – this seems to be no more than a pro-Hasmonean author’s wayof undermining Alcimus’ legitimacy, reminiscent of the way he simply ignoresOnias, Jason and Menelaus; so Mölleken, “Geschichtsklitterung,” 206.

had willingly defiled (μεμολψμμωνο«) himself. The attentive reader will no-tice that Alcimus is depicted as the opposite of Judas and his men, who tookcare to avoid “defilement” (5:27 – μολψσμ�«).

in the times of strife. The term �μι��α (lit.: “non-mixing”), which recurswith “times of” in v. 38, has been the subject of much discussion due to itsappearance in documents reflecting rebellion and civic strife in PtolemaicEgypt – which was the context in which our author wrote. Here, given thefact that it refers to the time when Alcimus obeyed Antiochus’ decrees whileothers 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 ptolémaïqueprovenant 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 toadvance his own personal interests by badmouthing his people – similar toSimon (3:5–6; 4:1–6) and Menelaus (13:3), not at all like Onias (4:4–6) andPaul (Acts 28:19). On the heinous nature of such delation, see NOTE on4:5, not as a plaintiff.

4. in the 151st year. SE, on the Seleucid system, i.e. autumn 162 – latesummer 161 BCE.

a golden crown. A customary and appropriate gift to kings, insofar as it isboth 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 thecrowns (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 trans-formation of such crowns, offered as gifts, into a monetary tax see immedi-ately below.


and a palm frond. So too Simon would send a palm frond together with agold crown to Demetrius II; see 1 Maccabees 13:37. Stern (Documents,125) thought that the two passages refer not to real palm fronds (and olivebranches – see below) but, rather, to a monetary substitution. This wouldmake it similar to the “Kranzsteuer” (aurum coronarium) known as pay-ment 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 forsimilar practice with regard to palm fronds. For palm fronds as symbolic ofthe Land of Israel, see NOTE on 10:7, palm-fronds.

the customary fresh branches (τ*ν νομιζομων,ν αλλ*ν τοL =ερο�). Forrefuge-seekers presenting green (olive?) branches, see Polybius 3.52.3(“most barbarians consider this [presenting olive-branches and wreaths] asign 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 supposedto contrast Alcimus with the loyal Jews who used branches like these inorder to celebrate the purification of the Temple (10:7); however, the for-mulation 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 (προσκληε�«). 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? TheJudgment 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; ourauthor prefers to depict kings as acting by themselves, for good or for bad.Here, however, he wants to depict a reasonably organized Seleucid govern-ment 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 toenlighten them about the Jews, Alcimus takes advantage of them.

attitude (δι#εσι«). For this translation, see NOTE on 5:23, being of hostiledisposition.

Chapter XIV 471

an opportunity that would further (καιρ(ν … σψνεργ2ν). The same type ofpersonification as above, 8:7.

his own mad purpose. That is, Alcimus is similar to Simon and Auranus notonly 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 useof 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 ofsources and richness of bibliography), see Kampen, The Hasideans. In1 Maccabees they appear at 7:13,2 there too in connection with Alcimus.Here, Alcimus claims that the Hasidim lie behind the Seleucids’ troubles inJudaea, and that Judas Maccabaeus is their leader, but there is no other evi-dence for either claim: while it is true that Judas has been leading thetroublemaking, there has been no connection between him and any namedgroup at all. On the contrary, in 1 Maccabees 7 it is clear that the Hasidimare not his followers; they are portrayed as welcoming, in their naiveté,Bacchides and Alcimus, and paying the price for it. Of course, it is possiblethat 1 Maccabees 7 reflects a split within the Hasidic movement, andthat 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 toexpect 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 withrebels 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 (Judasand the Hasidim) were responsible for anti-Seleucid trouble is found in themouth of a lying villain.

to attain stability (ε/σταε�α« τψξε�ν). Compare v. 10, ε+ρ�νη« τψξε�ν,which even more precisely echoes 4:6: τψξε�ν ε+ρ�νη«. Our author wantsus to compare these two high-priestly appellants to the king, and to notethat while both Onias and Alcimus pretended to be seeking both the goodof their own fellow Jews and that of the kingdom, Onias (vouched for bythe 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.”


self-serving liar. (For the diasporan claim that the good of the state andthat of the Jews stand and fall together, see e.g. Philo, Legatio 159–161,236, 305; Johnson, Historical Fictions, 156–157). Moreover, note (withAbel, Macc, 459) that Alcimus’ speech is very similar to that ascribed byJewish Hellenistic literature to another villain, Haman, who too is out forhis own ends but phrases his request in terms of the welfare of the king-dom in general (LXX Esth 3:13e – τ9 μ" τ"ν βασιλε�αν ε.στα�ε�α«τψγξ�νειν). For other echoes of Esther in our book, see 13:4–5, 12, andon 13:5, fifty cubits. Cf. 3 Maccabees 7:4, where it is reported thatPtolemy IV accused his wicked advisors of having incited him againstthe Jews by charging that if they were not repressed “our rule willnever become stable” (μηδωποτε ε.στα��σειν τ? πρ�γματα Yμ7ν).On ε.στ��εια (stability, quietude) as a basic aim of the state, see also12:2 and 14:25; Welles, RC, 338.

7. although … the high priesthood. Having allowed the hypocrite to pre-tend to have the commonweal at heart, our author now makes him exposehis real, personal, motive.

8. out of genuine concern (γνησ�,« φρον*ν). The use of such impressivephrasing only intensifies his hypocrisy.

the king’s interests (τ*ν �νηκ2ντ,ν τ9 βασιλε�). Lit.: “the things thatpertain 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 authoris really enjoying himself, letting Alcimus claim that the good of the Jewsrequires, of all things, the elimination of Judas Maccabaeus! For πολ�ται offellow Jews see Introduction, p. 6; for the good king’s concern for the wel-fare of his subjects, see 11:23 and NOTE on 4:6, providence.

the thoughtlessness. On �λογιστ�α, which appears in the Septuagint onlyhere 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 seeNOTE 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 inthis speech, contributes to the irony.

Chapter XIV 473

our entire nation … disinherited. More hypocrisy; Alcimus is in fact con-cerned about his own inheritance (v. 7) but phrases it as if it were a matterconcerning the entire nation.

9. give providential attention (προνο�ητι). As may be expected from theideal 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 beexpressed by helping the wicked against the good. For the term, see NOTEon 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 thecouncil mentioned in v. 5; see NOTE on 1:14, Friends. Although the phras-ing “other” (λοιπο�) here seems to indicate that Alcimus too was countedamong them, this should not be pressed; see NOTE on 3:26, another twoyouths.

who were hostile to Judas’ cause. There is some irony in the characteriz-ation of “Friends” by their “hostility;” for a similar trick, see Josephus, An-tiquities 14.8. For the diasporan motif of the wicked counselors who movethe otherwise good king against the Jews, see NOTE on 4:45, Ptolemy sonof Dorymenes.

inflamed Demetrius’ anger even more (προσεπ�ρ,σαν). LSJ, 1524 listsour verse alone for this verb. But the basic comparison of rage to fire is stan-dard (see also v. 45, also, inter alia, 4:38; 9:7; 10:35).

12. Immediately selecting Nicanor. According to the continuation, whichidentifies him as the former elephantarch, one might think that he is not thesame 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 hislesson about fighting with Jews (8:36). Stern (Documents, 65) speculatesthat this new Nicanor was the one Polybius mentions among Demetrius’friends who accompanied him from Rome; see Polybius 31.14.4–5 and onv. 1, In the third year thereafter. But the similarity between the phrasing of8:9 and that of our verse, and especially the characterization of Nicanor asτρισαλιτ�ριο« both at 8:34 and at 15:3, show that for our author, at least,the two Nicanors are one and the same. Habicht (2 Macc 239, n. 9a),


indeed, held not only (as Stern) that this Nicanor was the one mentioned byPolybius, but also that he was in fact identical with the one mentioned inChapter 8. In any case, whether true or only assumed by our author, theidentification of the two gives our book an obvious balance: Nicanor in-vades twice and fails twice, once at the middle of the book and once at itsend, and a holiday commemorating the latter ends the book. The import-ance of this balance, for our author, is underlined by a comparison with1 Maccabees, where Alcimus’ first appeal to the king results in an invasionnot by Nicanor but, rather, by Bacchides. Our author has Nicanor sent al-ready the first time, just as in Chapter 8 he gave Nicanor the central rolealthough judging by 1 Maccabees it was in fact quite secondary; see NOTEon 8:9, Nicanor the son of Patroclus. True, Mölleken (“Geschichtsklitte-rung”) tried to support 2 Maccabees’ version of the current story, claimingthat 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 othersource. It may have been created ad hoc for the very purpose of fighting theJudaean 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 distinctionbetween 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, themeaning is identical; if we do not introduce “orders” into the text, we haveto 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. Thephrasing here, which has the elimination of Judas parallel the installation ofAlcimus as high priest, with nothing said of the unseating of any incumbenthigh priest, seems to imply that Judas was serving as high priest. Nothinglike that is said in 1 Maccabees, but neither does it name any high priest atall for the period after Judas retook Jerusalem. It is obvious, however, thatsomeone 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 bythe behavior of his brothers – Judas would seem to be the likeliest candidate.Josephus says Judas was high priest from the conquest of Jerusalem until hisdeath (Ant. 12.414, 419, 434). True, it is usual to reject that statement, butmainly for the following reasons: (1) the assumption that were it so it wouldhave been reported in 1 Maccabees; (2) Josephus’ own failure to mentionJudas in his summary of the history of the high priesthood in Antiquities 20;and (3) the assumption that Josephus simply – but anachronistically – as-sumed that Judas served as high priest, as did his brothers after him. But thesilence of 1 Maccabees need not be very decisive, for the author of that workwas a partisan of Simon (see esp. 1 Macc 2:65 and Ch. 14, along with ourCOMMENT on Ch. 8, p. 324) and so had good reason to ignore any com-petition; cf. below, on v. 14, And those Gentiles near Judaea. The absence ofJudas’ name from the chronicle in Antiquities 20 is only one of several prob-lems raised by that list, and may reflect no more than legitimist oppositionto Judas’ high priesthood. As for the notion that Josephus was simply mak-ing an anachronistic assumption, that is of course possible, but the very factthat Josephus is willing to write openly about there not having been anyhigh priest at all for four years after Judas’ death (Ant. 13.46) shows that hewas perfectly capable of reporting anomalous situations.3 For detailed dis-cussion (con and pro respectively), see Wagenaar, “Juda Makkabi,” alsoVanderKam, “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 textinto the discussion but also underlines, at 357–358, that different observersmay have had different views on the question.

of the … Temple. This phrasing bespeaks the overlord’s attitude, accordingto which the high priest is only a cultic figure. As we have seen, Jewish ob-servers preferred to give the high priest a broader responsibility; see NOTEon 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 simi-lar 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 afterAlcimus’ death; Judas is not mentioned.


paign (8:11), although their flight is not mentioned there or anywhere elseuntil now. This similarity is part of the identity of the two Nicanors, in ourauthor’s eyes; see NOTE on v. 12, Immediately selecting Nicanor. Somescholars have tended to think that the present verse refers not to Gentilesbut, 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 timesalso bolstered by the lack of agreement here between the masculine articleοZ and the neutral noun 6�νη (“Gentiles”), which suggests that the lattermight be a gloss; see Habicht, 2 Macc, 272, n. 14a. Thus, according to thissuggestion the 6�νη 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 nounis acceptable in a construction ad sensum referring to people; for a similarcase, see NOTE on 8:9, from various peoples (there too with regard to6�νη), also Hanhart, Text, 33. Moreover, and decisively, the very next versemakes it clear that the reference is to Gentiles. Accordingly, we should leavein place the contradiction between our verse and 1 Maccabees 7:5 andadmit that our book was not interested in reporting about Jews who op-posed Judas Maccabaeus, apart from a few scattered arch-villains; seeNOTES on v. 19, Posidonius,Theodotus and Mattathias, and 6:11, havingbeen informed upon.

who had fled before Judas. The very φψγαδε�� is usually transitive, mean-ing “banish,” “force to flee,” as at 9:4; but it can also have the passivemeaning “live in banishment,” as in Polybius 10.22.1; see LSJ, 1959. AsKappler shows (Memoria, 55–56), the latter is close to what is required at10:15, while in the present verse and at 5:5 what seems to be required issimply “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 inbanishment” are forced to emend φψγαδε�� into φε�γ�.

in droves. Like �γελα�οψ« in v. 23; the word reflects not only the largenumber but also, by the implicit comparison with herds of animals, ourauthor’s scorn for them.

supposing. The formulation recalls that of 5:6, which similarly expresses ascheming 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, see10:25.

His own people … His own portion (λα�ν … μερ�δο«). Another allusion toDeuteronomy 32: “For God’s people is His portion” (Deut 32:9; LXX:μερ�« … λα�«); see Introduction, pp. 21–22. It should be noted that thethreat here is conceived as one against the people, not the Land or theTemple, just as the continuation of the biblical verse refers to “Jacob” beingGod’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 situ-ation of Jewish suffering in exile, nevertheless persists in using “God’s por-tion” of the “seed of Abraham” (i.e., the whole Jewish people, whereverthey may be), the descendants of “Jacob.” Cf. our NOTE on 2:4, viewed theinheritance 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 aruler 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 afterthe resumption of hostilities in Chapter 13 (vv. 10–14): the Jews sittingpeacefully in Jerusalem hear of an invasion and move north to meet it be-fore 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 tele-scoping 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 theopen field. But note that according to 1 Maccabees 7:31 Nicanor clashedwith Judas earlier at Kfar Shalem, which seems to have been somewhere notfar 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 thatearly encounter, thus indicating that while Nicanor had once overcomeSimon he was afraid to slug it out with Judas. This would be a fine occasionfor the author to use Simon as a foil for Judas, but he promptly rejects that:


a minor setback. Here, and in the rest of the verse, the author tries to excuseSimon: he minimizes the extent of the setback and also explains how it oc-curred, just as the next verse will show that no terrible consequences en-sued. For a similar move, see NOTE on 12:25, in order to rescue theirbrethren. In this light it is difficult to see here any special desire to denigrateSimon; see our NOTE on 10:20, But Simon’s men ….

minor … appeared (βραξω,« … φαντασ�αν). 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 asPolybius 1.37.5 and 3.53) for the use of φαντασ�α in the sense of frighten-ing appearance. Hanhart (Text, 40, 45–46) stuck to βραδω�« … �φασ�αν,on the basis of the main witnesses. However it is very difficult to renderthat text. Hanhart rendered the adverb as “saumselig” (“dilatory,” “negli-gent”) and viewed it as expressing criticism of Simon, but then why shouldthe author have exerted himself to belittle the defeat? Moreover, it is diffi-cult to agree with Hanhart that one may translate �ντιπ�λ�ν �φασ�αν as�φασ�α (aphasia, lack of ability to speak) “caused by those who struggledagainst them;” Hanhart himself recognizes that such a translation of thegenitive is unnatural. By the same token it is difficult to accept vanHenten’s translation; he adopted βραξω�«, retained �φασ�αν, and trans-lated “Simon, the brother of Judas, had encountered Nicanor, but hadbriefly stumbled because he was at once speechless about the enemy,” ex-plaining that “apparently, the enemy embarrassed Simon for a moment”(van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 54). True, �φασ�α may be used figu-ratively to represent an inability to react properly (so, in connection withthis verse: DGE 3.633), but, again, it does not seem reasonable to take thegenitive of �ντιπ�λ�ν to mean “about the enemy” rather than “of the en-emies.” Moreover, van Henten’s reading would not explain why Simonwas “speechless,” and it would seem that an author who meant that oweshis readers some explanation.

18. Nicanor … somewhat afraid. According to 1 Maccabees 7:33 Nicanorfollowed his first defeat at Judas’ hands at Kfar Shalem with his threat at theTemple recorded below, v. 31ff. That is, the events narrated from here untilv. 31 are without parallel in 1 Maccabees – quite naturally, for they focus onthe negotiations in good faith between Judas and Nicanor and the ensuingfriendship between the two (which meant that renewed hostility must be thedoing of the new villain, Alcimus). On this distinction between the twobooks, see Introduction, pp. 48–49.

Chapter XIV 479

manly valor. On �νδραγα��α see Dover, Morals, 165; Pritchett, War,2.280–283. For a similar term, ε.ανδρ�α, see NOTE on 8:7, And the fameof his manly valor …

high morale. On ε.χψξ�α, another one of those fine-sounding words whichin practice mean “courage” (see the list above, p. 70), see Mauersberger,PL, 1.1052. Cf. NOTE on 7:20, exceedingly amazing and worthy of beingremembered well.

19. Posidonius, Theodotus and Mattathias. Given their names, it is clearthat the third was Jewish and likely that the second was as well (see NOTEon 12:19, Dositheus and Sosipater …). But our author makes no commenton this; as noted above (v. 14, And those Gentiles near Judaea), he does notlike 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 himhis right hand.

20. After thorough inquiries were made. The rest of the verse seems to in-dicate that there was considerable deliberation as to whether or not to ac-cept the proffered agreement, a positive – and unanimous – decision beingreached only after Judas gave explanations. No detail is given concerningthe considerations, but we may assume that they pertained both to theterms of the agreement and to the more general question, both political andtheological (see NOTE on 11:15, Maccabaeus, giving thought to the bene-fit), 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 withthe elders, here with the entire army. For such deliberations in Hellenisticarmies, see Granier, Heeresversammlung.

the multitudes. For the senses of πλA�ο«, 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 (�μοιοχ�φοψ). The word does not appear in LSJ, but is similarto $μ�χηφο«. 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 theywere unanimous, see Granier, Heeresversammlung, 56, with references toCurtius 6.11.8, 7.2.7 and 9.3.16.


approved. See NOTE on 4:10, royal approval.

the covenants. As usual, our author gives no details; perhaps v. 26 impliesthat Judas received the high priesthood (see Appendix 9). In any case, theterm σψν�Aκαι implies a certain parity between the sides; see NOTE on12:1, 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 (προAλ�ε … δ�φρα� 6�εσανδ�φροψ«). Some staccato style runs from here until the end of v. 22. As op-posed to Chapter 13 (where there is much more of it), however, here no reasonis apparent. See Introduction, pp. 34–35. – Translation: δ�φρα� I rendered“litter,” as Abel and Zeitlin; others render “chariot” (so Bévenot, Habicht,Goldstein, RSV), which is possible, but note that our author prefers >ρμαfor “chariot” (9:7; 13:2). In any case, these translations distinguish betweenthis 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 whylitters (or chariots) should have been brought up from each side if also chairswere arranged. Abel (Macc, 462–463) supposes that what is meant is thatNicanor and Judas each arrived in litters, alighted from them and sat inchairs that had been brought for them. That is of course possible, but onewishes the book itself had offered this explanation; and if its failure to do sois because of the brevity of the narrative here, then we wonder why it shouldtell us all these logistical details altogether. Moreover, there is somethingsuspicious about the juxtaposition of such similar words. Accordingly, giventhe facts that δ�φρα� (a poetic form of δ�φρο«), which is a relatively rareterm, can mean not only “chariot” or “litter” but also “chair,” “couch” orthe like (see LSJ, 438; Mauersberger, PL, 2.558), it seems likely that 6�εσανδ�φροψ« is only a gloss explaining προAλ�ε … δ�φρα�. For a similar sug-gestion, note that instead of δ�φρα� 6�εσαν δ�φροψ« the Lucianic text4

4 On which see Kappler, Memoria, 43–44. Note that the Lucianic text prepares the wayfor eliminating the chariots and the chairs by taking προAλ�ε to mean Judas cameforward; indeed, the statement that the chariots “came forward,” rather than “were

Chapter XIV 481

reads διαφρ��ει« 6�εσαν διαφ�ροψ« (“they set us special enclosures”), re-placing the chariots and chairs with “enclosures,” meant to afford privacyand protection. Kappler (Memoria, 44) assumes this indicates Lucian didnot understand the term δ�φρα�, and therefore replaced it with somethingelse; this is similar to our suggestion, above, that others who did understandδ�φρα� meant “chair,” or thought that was so, chose to gloss it with a morecommon term for chairs.

22. something villainous. For an emphasis on the element of deception andtrickery indicated by κακοψργ�α, see Spicq, Notes, 1.398, n. 1.

they held the appropriate (4ρμ2ζοψσαν) discussion. That is, they discussedwhatever 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; seefor example Mauersberger, PL, 1.251. Nevertheless, it is especially appro-priate here, with regard to appropriate behavior in Jerusalem; for Jerusalemas the topos par excellence, see 3:2, 5:19 and 13:23. For the formulation, cf.Philo, Legatio 297.

and disbanded the herd-like (�γελα�οψ«). 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 tov. 14.

24. his soul was drawn to the man. According to 1 Maccabees 7:26–30, incontrast, Nicanor’s intentions were treacherous from the outset, and hisagreement with him – a mere ploy. Each author’s version suits his purposeswell: for 1 Maccabees Gentiles are always hostile, only naïve fools think

brought forward,” is somewhat strange (and Grimm, 2 Macc, 197, indeed insists thatJudas is the subject of the verb – which corresponds to the fact that he makes no ref-erence to the chariots). Given the failure of our verse to mention Judas’ name, thatunderstanding of προAλ�ε goes hand in hand with the Lucianic reading of 6τα�ε(ν),in the singular (instead of the better-testified �τ��αντο), at the outset of the verse.However, this reading has only Judas going forward to the meeting, whereas the par-ity implied by παρ 0 Ψκ�στοψ makes us expect to hear that both parties came for-ward.


otherwise (1 Macc 7:12–18), and only the Hasmoneans can save the Jews.Our author, in contrast, assumes that good subject-ruler relations betweenthe Jews and Gentiles are the rule and that only isolated villains, on one sideor 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 hisoptimistic 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 thecity …” – Jer 29:5–7); that is the foundation of diasporan life, and the re-sult, 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 any-where else. But in and of itself it is natural and reasonable, and just asunderstandable that, if true, the author of 1 Maccabees would pass over itin silence, for any children of Judas would be well-placed competitors ofSimon and his sons; see NOTE on v. 13, and install Alcimus … However,if Judas indeed married only at Nicanor’s suggestion, which came only inthe 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 textdoes not say he did). In any case, the main point of our text is to portraythe 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 mysteri-ous staccato in our book, and the only case, it seems, in which it might beacceptable as an emphatic phrasing à la “veni, vidi, vinci;” see p. 35, n. 73.For “partook of life” (�κοιν�νησε β�οψ) see Polybius 12.25h.5: just as onlyhe who has participated in wars should write about them, so too only hewho has fathered children and lived with a wife should write about “life.”See too 3 Maccabees 4:6: πρ9« β�οψ κοιν�ν�αν γαμικ�ν (“for maritalpartnership in life”).

26. But (δω). For such a heavy renewal of the story after an idyll, see also3:4, 12:2, and above, v. 3.

hostilely-minded toward the state (�λλ2τρια … τ*ν πραγμ#τ,ν). Samephrasing: 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, thismeans 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 theverb; 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 isnot willing to content himself with hearing a report from Nicanor; he wantsto see to the elimination of Judas himself.

28. he was disconcerted. This too might be an echo of Esther (3:15: whenthe 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 perse-cute the Jews, and Philo, Legatio 209, where Petronius is at a total loss (ε 0ν�μηξ�νοι« gν) when ordered by Gaius to defile the Temple of Jerusalem(which is of course natural, given the fact that Petronius was naturally kindand gentle – §243). Cf. below, NOTE on v. 33, this sacred enclosure ofGod.

annulling the instructions. I.e., those made in fulfillment of his agreementwith Judas; cf. NOTE on 13:25, to annul the instructions.

the man (τ�νδρ2«) had done nothing unjust. And therefore, as all men, wasentitled 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 todenigrate Alcimus.

sought an appropriate opportunity (εϊκαιρον �τ�ρει). In defense ofthis unusual formulation against suggestions to emend it (Wilhelm, “Zueinigen Stellen,” 28; Katz, “Text,” 16–17), Hanhart (Text, 32) citessuch similar expressions as �ζ�τει ε.καιρ�αν at Luke 22:6. See above,p. 96.


stratagem (στρατηγ�ματι). 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 consider-ations see NOTE on 2:24, For having seen. Note that the formulation heredoes not reflect that of Genesis 31:2 – a passage which would surely occurto any author who liked to imitate biblical style. Our author had no suchconcern; see Introduction, p. 63.

coarser (�γροικ2τερον). Literally: “more rustic, more boorish,” the oppo-site of “urbane;” see NOTE on 6:23, honorable argument. See also NOTESon 15:2, wildly and barbarically, and on 15:39, wine by itself; O. Ribbeck,Agroikos: Eine ethologische Studie (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1885).

than usual (ε0ισμωνην). See NOTE on 4:11, practices.

31. out-stratagemized (�στρατ�γηται). As usual, our author enjoys re-peating words for rhetorical effect: Nicanor came with stratagem and wasdefeated 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.” Onthis 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 moreabout them than about the specifics of the “holy vessels” stolen accordingto 5:16. According to 1 Maccabees 7:33 the priests were actually involvedin sacrificing on behalf of the king, and even explained that to Nicanor, butit did not help – a point which makes it all the more clear, as that authorwould have it, that there was no chance of conciliation between the twosides; the same point is made, in a bloodier way, ibid. vv. 12–18. None ofthat appears here, of course.

to hand the man over. Plain παραδ�δ�μι usually refers to turning one overto 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 echoof 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 hillof 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 presentcontext in 1 Maccabees 7:33. Note too that rabbinic references to Nicanor’sthreat to the Temple rely on the same verse from Isaiah (scholion to MegillatTa‘anit to 13 Adar [ed. Noam, 298] and b. Ta‘anit 18b; note their use ofvdy [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 an-tithesis of those of the priests (v. 34), and of God (15:24), and, eventually, asthe focus of the tit for tat response (15:30, 32).

this sacred enclosure of God. Nicanor is portrayed as recognizing the place’ssanctity but as nonetheless bound to fulfill the royal command. Note, in thisconnection, that when referring to the “enclosure” Nicanor is made to useσηκ�«, which appears only here in the Septuagint, and not the more usualτωμενο«, which our book uses three times (1:15, 10:2, 11:3) but only forpagan shrines. That is, even now our author has Nicanor as considerate aspossible of Jewish sensitivities; the same recurs later in this verse as well (seeNOTE 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( ψσιαστ�ριον κατασκ#χ,). Here, the noun Nicanoruses is not only not one typically used (as “enclosure” just above) for paganinstitutions; it is, in fact, used by Jews (and Christians) alone; cf. NOTE on2:19, the altar. The verb is the same as at Deuteronomy 12:3, but since theHebrew there uses bamot, and the Septuagint uses β�μο�, the differentiat-ing here is all the clearer.

a magnificent temple to Dionysus. On the cult of Dionysus, and doubtsabout its historicity in this context, see Appendix 5. “Magnificent” here is�πιφανω«; for the translation see NOTE on 6:23, magnificent. By ending histhreatening speech this way, Nicanor offers readers of the book, who are bynow entitled to expect both divine apparitions (�πιφ�νειαι) and tit for tatpoetic 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 arepoised directly opposite one another: here the villain, there the chorus of the


righteous. He stuck out his hand in arrogance and they – in petition; he – tothe Temple, but they – to heaven, knowing that the Temple enjoys heavenlyprotection (3:39). Note especially the neatly contrasted use of τα�τα invv. 33–34: both spoke “as follows,” but he, arrogantly, “swore,” in full de-pendence upon himself, while they, in humility, only “said” what they hadto say, to God. See Introduction, p. 76.

our people. Apart from the ruminations at 6:12–16, which are a well-de-fined aside, this seems to be the only place in which the author explicitlyidentifies himself as a Jew.

35. although. For the use of such a concessive phrase with 3παρξ�ν, com-pare Acts 16:20, 37 (“although we are Jews,” “although we are not Ro-mans”) along with D. R. Schwartz, “The Accusation and the Accusers atPhilippi (Acts 16,20–21),” Bib 65 (1984) 360–362.

You are not in need of anything. The words recall those of Solomon’s prayerat 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 Aristeas210; Josephus, Antiquities 8.111; Acts 17:25; etc.; Gärtner, AreopagusSpeech, 215–218. It is characteristic of the difference between the twobooks that the parallel at 1 Maccabees 7:37, which too has the priests pray-ing after Nicanor’s threat, has them neither raise their hands toward heavennor say anything qualifying the importance of the Temple.

Your tenting (σκ�ν,σι«). This term appears only here in the Septuagint. Itseems to have been created so as to emphasize that God does not reallyreside in the Temple, just as the Bible itself frequently takes care to say thatGod only “is present” in it or “causes His name to be present” in it; the ver-bal similarity of the Greek root to the Hebrew skn may have played a role.For our book’s diasporan emphasis on God’s residence being in heaven, andcomparison to Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 (which insists in vv. 44–50 thatGod’s σκ�ν�μα was once in the Tabernacle, but not in the Temple), seeNOTE on 3:39, residence in heaven, and above, p. 47.

36. And now (κα3 ν�ν). Here is the transition from the “whereas” clause tothe 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 �μ�αντο« implies something broaderthan the avoidance of merely ritual impurity; see NOTE on 5:16, abomin-able 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), anduse of the same word here therefore encourages the reader to believe that thepriests’ prayer will indeed be answered. So too, when this final round of ourbook’s story ends the author will demonstratively reuse the present phrasingso 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 defilementeven 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 thepassive (�μην��η), just as at 6:11; the informer’s identity is not important tothe story. Moreover, if – as is likely – he was a Jew, our author, who prefersto present the Jews as unified, apart from a few bad apples, would not liketo 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 (inEnglish); Ilan, Lexicon, 354. Goldstein and Zadok suggest an Iranian ori-gin. However, since there is no other evidence for the use of this name byJews, Goldstein went on to suggest that the name was chosen so as to alludeto Isaiah 24:16 (“ … I pine away, I pine away [razi li, razi li] …”); the textgoes on to speak of someone who flees from one source of danger only tofall into another, but also – perhaps – of resurrection. Both of the latterthemes would be appropriate to Razis’ story.

one of the elders of Jerusalem. This probably means not merely that he wasold, but, rather, that he was a member of Jerusalem’s gerousia, last heardfrom in 13:13; see also NOTE on v. 38, had brought in a decision. Forπρεσβ�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 forsuch a title in Jewish communities should now be corrected on the basis of afragmentary papyrus of the second century BCE that refers to “the Jewishelders” (as well as “the Jewish archons”) in one or two places in Egypt; seeGriechische Urkundenpapyri der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek, I (Stuttgart1986), no. 49, pp. 8–10 (D. Hagedorn); van der Horst, Philo’s Flaccus,168–169.


a man who loved his fellow-citizens (φιλοπολ�τη«). This term appears inthe Septuagint only here, and – surprisingly enough – LSJ (1938) offers noearlier evidence for it. As for the orientation around the polis that it be-speaks, see Introduction, pp. 6–7.

“Father of the Jews.” For this type of honorific title cf. parens plebisRomanae (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 thetimes of strife. Razis’ conduct is presented as the opposite of Alcimus’.

had brought in a decision (κρ�σιν ε0σενηνεγμωνο«) for Judaism. On “Ju-daism” see NOTE on 2:21, for Judaism. What these words mean is not atall clear. Risberg (“Anmerkungen,” 30–31) linked them to “elder,” whichhe took to mean member of the gerousia, and concluded that Razis hadpublished its decisions in support of Judaism; perhaps he was its scribe. ButRisberg read “decisions” in the plural; there is no support for that, and sohis interpretation is very difficult to maintain. Another path is taken byAbel and Goldstein ad loc., followed by van Henten (Martyrs, 93): buildingon the judicial sense of krisis, they translate as if Razis had been tried forhaving practiced Judaism. This is possible, but apart from being less thannatural it also leaves open (as Goldstein notes – 2 Macc, 492) the weightyquestion as to why, if tried, Razis did not meet the same fate as those ofChapters 6–7. It cannot be that our author would have wanted us to startsuspecting 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 allwe have here is a fancy way of saying that Razis had himself “decided” forJudaism.

and with complete intensity. The author loves “with complete” formu-lations; see NOTE on 3:1, in complete peace.

body and soul. A typically Greek and non-Hebraic dyad, that also appearshere at 6:30 and 15:30; see also NOTE on 7:9, raise us up and on 7:16, al-though you are bound to perish. Here the dual phrasing prepares the readerfor their separation in the immediate sequel. Compare, for example, thefirst section of Eleazar ben Yair’s second speech at Masada, which is de-voted 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 somany.

40. For he thought to cause them suffering by arresting him. Which is whysuch a large force was used. We have translated according to Hanhart’stext. Abel (Macc, 468) and Goldstein (2 Macc, 493–494) have suggested,on the basis of secondary witnesses, to read here, instead (Abel) or along-side (Goldstein) of “by arresting,” the verb �λογ�σh or the like (cf.NOTE on 12:24, for whom no one would show any consideration). Thiswould mean that Nicanor wanted to demonstrate his lack of considerationfor Razis (Goldstein) or his desire to make him disappear (Abel). One wayor another, and with or without such clarification, the verse explains thatsuch a large force was needed because it was expected that the arrest ofsuch an important Jew would arouse grief, and so perhaps unrest, amongthe Jews.

41. When the hordes. Nicanor’s 500 men.

42. wanting to die nobly (ε/γεν*«) … his own dignity (ε/γενε�α«) … out-raged (�βρισ�ναι). So too the next verse as well (γεννα��«). Razis, asEleazar before him (6:24–25), wants to be assured that his death will notfall short of his life nor leave any stain on his good name. But while Eleazarlet 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 formu-lation here, cf. the end of Eleazar ben Yair’s first speech at Masada, whichemphasizes that that which he proposes will allow the women to die “un-defiled” (�ν�βριστοι – War 7.334).

unseemly (�να-�,«). Razis, as Eleazar, chose to die in a “seemly” way; seeNOTE 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-


sions. Menoeceus, who died for the salvation of his city, first tried to killhimself 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 forours, see Introduction, p. 65.

manfully (�νδρ,δ*«). Same adverb: 1 Maccabees 6:31. But the notion iswell at home in our book; see NOTE on v. 18, manly valor.

flung himself down (κατεκρ�μνισεν). This too appears in the Menoeceusstory; see our NOTE on this verse, did not manage … For the motif else-where in classical stories of those who “killed themselves for” something,see Van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 145. See also NOTE on 6:10, flungthem 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 inthe gloating account of the well-deserved death of a villain, see Philo, InFlaccum 190. Van Henten (Martyrs, 149–150) noted the special emphasisupon blood in the story of Menoeceus too; it may have contributed to itsrole in our story too. For the Jewish background of this emphasis, seeNOTE on 8:3, blood which was calling out.

46. calling upon the ruler … to return them. For the belief in bodily resur-rection expressed here, see NOTES on 7:9, raise us up and on 12:43, resur-rection.

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 ex-pect 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.


Chapter XV

On the Way to the Final Showdown

(1) Nicanor, upon receiving notice that Judas’ men were in the vicinity ofSamaria, 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, givehonor to the day which has been most honored with sanctity by Him whooversees all,” (3) the thrice-accursed man inquired, “Is there a ruler inheaven who decreed the celebration of the Sabbath day?” (4) When they de-clared, “Yes – the living Lord, He, the ruler in heaven, is the one who com-manded the observance of the seventh day,” (5) he said: “And I, ruler on theearth, am he who decrees that you take up arms and carry out the royalcommissions.” Nevertheless, he did not successfully carry out his abomin-able design.

(6) And so Nicanor, on the one hand, his neck outstretched in completepretence, set his mind upon erecting a common trophy (celebrating his vic-tory over) Judas’ men. (7) But Maccabaeus, on the other hand, was with-out letup in his total faith, with complete hope that assistance would bemade available to them by the Lord, (8) and encouraged his men not to fearthe Gentiles’ invasion, keeping rather in their mind the saving acts fromheaven which had been done for them in the past and the present expec-tation of victory that the All-Ruler would supply them. (9) Reassuringthem out of the Law and the prophets, and also reminding them of thestruggles which they had accomplished, he brought them to a bettermorale. (10) Then, after awakening their fervor he exhorted them alsoby pointing to the Gentiles’ faithlessness and their violation of oaths.(11) Each one of them he armed not with the security that comes fromshields and spears, but with the encouragement of the good words, and bysetting out before them a dream (he had had) which was more trustworthythan anything else he gladdened them all.

Chapter XV 493

Judas Maccabaeus’ Dream

(12) Its appearance was as follows: Onias – the former high priest, a fineand good man who received others humbly, was mild-mannered and aproper conversationalist and since childhood had always devoted himselfto all that pertains to virtue – having stretched out his hands was prayingdown for the entire Jewish corps. (13) Thereupon appeared a man of dis-tinguished gray hair and grandeur, about whom there was a preeminencewhich was somehow amazing and most magnificent. (14) And after Oniasresponded, saying, “This lover of his brethren who offers many prayersfor the people and the Holy City is Jeremiah, the prophet of God,” (15)Jeremiah, stretching out his right hand to give Judas a golden broads-word, addressed him as follows while handing it over: (16) “Take thisholy broadsword as a gift from God, with which you shall shatter the en-emies.”

(17) Encouraged by Judas’ words, which were very fine and capable ofpropelling (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 battleand – with all manly valor interweaving themselves among (the enemy) –to settle the matter, due to the danger facing the city, the holy things andthe Temple. (18) For fear for their wives and children, also brothers andother kin, weighed upon them in smaller measure; greatest and first wastheir fear for the Sanctuary which had been made holy. (19) And amongthose who had been left behind in the city too there was no merely margi-nal distress, for they were upset about the (upcoming) assault in the openfield.

Judas Maccabaeus’ Prayer

(20) And while they were all expecting the coming decision, and the enemieshad already come together, and the army had been arrayed and the beastshad been stationed in an opportune place and the cavalry had been postedin the wings, (21) Maccabaeus – seeing the arrival of the hordes, the diver-sity of weapons with which they were equipped, and the wildness of thebeasts – raised up his hands toward heaven and called upon the miracle-working Lord, for he knew that it was not through weapons, but, rather, ac-cording 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 hekilled about 185,000 men in the camp of Sennacherib. (23) And now, Ruler


of the heavens, send a good angel before us (to inspire in our enemies) fearand trembling. (24) Let those who come with blasphemy against Your holypeople be terrified by Your great arm.” And he, on the one hand, finishedup with those words.

The Final Battle

(25) Then Nicanor’s men, on the other hand, moved forward accompaniedby trumpets and war-songs, (26) and Judas’ men, accompanied by in-vocations and prayers, clashed with the enemies. (27) And while fightingwith their hands, in their hearts they were praying to God, and they laid lowno fewer than 35,000 of them, having been gladdened greatly by the ap-pearance of God.

Nicanor’s Corpse and Nicanor’s Day

(28) Withdrawing in joy when the job was done, they identified the fallenNicanor together with his armor. (29) There ensued outcry and tumult, andthey blessed the Ruler in the ancestral language. (30) And he who with hiswhole body and soul had taken the lead in the struggle on behalf of his fel-low citizens, and who still maintained his youthful goodwill toward themembers 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 hearrived there he first called together the members of his people and had thepriests stand before the altar; then he sent for the people of the Akra.(32) After showing them the abominable Nicanor’s head and the blasphem-er’s hand, which he had stretched out when boasting against the holy houseof the All-Ruler, (33) cutting the tongue of the impious Nicanor out of hishead he said to give it piecemeal to the birds, and to hang up his arms offolly opposite the Sanctuary. (34) And turning toward heaven they allblessed the God who had become manifest, saying, “Blessed be He who pre-served His own Place undefiled!” (35) And he fastened Nicanor’s torso tothe Akra, as visible proof for all of the Lord’s assistance. (36) And they alldecided, in a decree made in common, not at all to allow that day to remainunmarked, but, rather, to keep as special the thirteenth day of the twelfthmonth (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 eversince 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 pointin its formulation, that is what I wanted; but if it is cheap and middling, thatis what I could attain. (39) For just as it is inimical to drink wine by itself, sotoo is it with water; but the same way that wine mixed with water makes forpleasure, delight and gratification, so too does something of the (proper)construction of an account bring delight to the ears of them who read thecomposition.

So let the end be here.

COMMENT

Having completed the Razis narrative the story reverts to Nicanor’s searchfor Judas. The Razis story not only illustrated how bad things might get, butalso, as it were, allowed Judas and his men time to relocate to Samaria andNicanor time to hear of that.1 Thus, the stage has been set for the finalshowdown, which is precisely what the present chapter describes.

The Razis story prepares our chapter in another more fundamental wayas well. Namely, just as readers know that the martyrdoms of Chapters 6–7prepared the way for the victory over Nicanor in Chapter 8, so too whenreading the story of Razis, which is introduced right after his threats toJudas and the Temple, they should realize that it will allow for a successfulresolution of that crisis. Such readers will come to Chapter 15 on the basisof expectations built on Chapter 8, and they will not be disappointed.

Indeed, the author gives us many signals that Chapter 15 should be readas a second, but more final, version of Chapter 8. Both describe head-onclashes between Judas’ forces and Nicanor’s; both portray the Jewishanxiety, prayers, and motivational speeches – even citing the same biblicalprecedent – prior to the actual fighting; both term Nicanor “thrice-ac-cursed;” and both end in his defeat. The major difference between the twochapters, 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 organizedbetween 5:27 and 8:1), see NOTE on 6:18, was being forced.


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 theevent – which is taken to mean the final salvation of Jerusalem, hence allow-ing the author to conclude his entire narrative.

Historically, it is enough to note that the chapter parallels the last twelveverses of 1 Maccabees 7, which too end up with Nicanor dead and decapi-tated and Judaea enjoying peace. Typically, that account gives us geographi-cal 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 basicfact that our book considers this victory final whereas 1 Maccabees, whichhas a much longer story to tell, concludes its account here by noting that thepeace 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 arefuge in 1 Maccabees 2:29 was in Samaria; see NOTE on 5:27, fled to themountains.

in complete security. The same phrase appears at 3:22, but there the hopewas in a good cause and was ultimately justified, whereas here the oppositeis 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 vari-ation, cf. p. 68. Here it is evident that Nicanor thought that the Jews wouldnot defend themselves, or at least would not be well-prepared for battle, ifattacked on the Sabbath. Its sanctity, and Jewish unwillingness to fight onit, 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 ref-erence is to Jews who had been conscripted into service. Some scholars pre-ferred 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 and14:14; see NOTE on 14:14, And those Gentiles near Judaea). Building onthat hypothesis and contributing his own additional assumption that Nica-nor had relatively few troops at his disposal (see NOTE on v. 27, no fewerthan 35,000), Meyer further supposed that Nicanor in fact relented and didnot attack Judas on the Sabbath. But all of this runs counter to the plainwording of the text, and also requires us to assume that loyalist Jews whowillingly supported the Seleucid cause nevertheless took the Sabbath so seri-ously that they would allow it to interfere with military operations. That as-sumption was impossible for our author, if not for us.

“You should not at all be … destructive. Some would translate as if theycalled upon Nicanor not to ruin the Jews; so Abel and Goldstein, who bothuse “massacre.” But it seems better to take it to mean that he should not de-stroy 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 �γρι�τη« in v. 21. For its use in regard to people, note bothits linkage here with “barbaric” and its verbal similarity to 5γροικο«,both of which lead us to a familiar characterization of villains; see NOTEon 14:30, coarser.

Him who oversees all (το� π#ντα �φορ*ντο«). A frequent motif in ourbook; 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 termwill signal to the attentive reader that this chapter should be read onthe background of Chapter 8 (see our opening COMMENT). It is alsoone of the main pillars of our assumption that the author took bothNicanors to be one and the same; see NOTE on 14:12, Immediatelyselecting Nicanor.

“Is there a ruler in heaven. (ε0 Kστιν �ν ο/ραν9 δψν#στη«). We read, des-pite 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 articlewould spoil the sense. For a question in direct speech beginning with ε+, seeNOTE on 7:7, Will you eat.

who decreed (προστεταξ1«). Just as “ruler,” so too the verb indicates thecomparison to a human king; cf. NOTE on 7:30, decree of the king …


4. declared (�ποφηναμων,ν). A very formal response, just as at the otheroccurrence of this verb: 6:23. The formality of the response is also reflectedin its length, in its repetition of the terms of the question (“ruler inheaven”), 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 (Κ�γ1 … δψν#στη« �π3 τ�« γ�«). Here, withno kid-gloves, is the villain’s hybris-full challenge. In this final chapter of thebook there will be no ambiguities, nor any authorial joking of the typefound in Chapter 9. For other Jewish portrayals of similar challenges, seeJudith 6:2, where Holofernes, the Assyrian commander, asks rhetorically“Who is God apart from Nebuchadnezzar?!,” and Psalms of Solomon2:29–30, where a Jewish writer gloatingly writes of Pompey: “He said, ‘Ishall be the lord of the earth and the sea!’ and did not recognize that God isthe great one, the powerful one in His great strength; He is king over theheavens and judges kings and rulers.”

royal commissions. On ξρε�α 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 toohere 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, Andhe, on the one hand. Cf. NOTE on 3:22, on the one hand, and on 14:34, ex-tending their hands toward heaven. But within the larger circle there is alsoan 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 seekHim.” Use of this term allows our author not only to flaunt a rich vocabu-lary in re arrogance (cf. p. 69) but also to prepare the ground for presentingNicanor’s decapitation (v. 30) as a case of making the punishment fit thecrime, 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 asAntiochus (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 allof 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 �ντ�λημχι« (“assistance”)see Welles, RC, 314; Deissmann, Bible Studies, 92. For its non-technicalsense, see NOTE on 11:26, taking care. However, the term appears fre-quently in Ptolemaic documents in the more or less technical sense of assist-ance from the king; at times it comes with the verb τψγξ�ν�, as here and in3 Maccabees 2:33. The term appears in the same sense and the same contextin the account of Nicanor’s first campaign (8:19), just as other formulationsfrom that chapter are echoed here (in vv. 8–9, 12, 22); we have alreadynoted the return of “thrice-accursed” (v. 3//8:34). These all contribute tothe unity of our book as one built around two clashes with Nicanor.

8. encouraged (παρεκ#λει). On the verb and its nuances, see NOTE on7:24, his appeal. The words of encouragement (παρ�κλησι« – v. 11) of-fered below are especially reminiscent of Judas’ speech prior to Nicanor’sfirst 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 toremind 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 (βοη��ματα) from heaven which had been done for them inthe 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 vic-tory – v. 32.

9. the Law and the prophets. Cf. 8:19. This formulation seems to indicatethat, at least for our author, the third division of the Bible was not yet rec-ognized as such; see NOTE on 2:13, concerning the kings …

10. awakening their fervor. For a similar formulation see 7:21, but therethe reference is to the “awakening” of an exceptional woman to manly fer-vor whereas here the reference is to run-of-the-mill men who have such fer-vor but it needs to be awakened.


exhorted (παρ�γγειλεν). See NOTE on 12:5, he gave his men instructions.

Gentiles’ faithlessness and their violation of oaths. In context, the referenceis 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 “com-plete security” upon which Nicanor depended (v. 1).

good words. Of his speech; on its success, see v. 17 (where his words aresaid to be “very fine”).

by setting out before them (προσε-ηγησ#μενο«). LSJ (1509) lists our versealone for this verb.

a dream which was more trustworthy. Our author apparently knows thatsome dreams are not trustworthy. See, for an example from another secondcentury BCE source, Agatharcides’ story (apud Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.206–7 =Stern, GLA I, no. 30a) of the foolish and fateful mistake made by Stratonicedue to her superstitious dependence upon a dream. See also Sirach 34:5–7(“Divinations and omens and dreams are folly … Unless they are sent fromthe Most High … For dreams have deceived many …”) and Cicero, De divi-natione 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 toknow which and declares his scorn concerning the whole topic. For similarthoughts, although with less scorn, see Aristotle’s work on divination basedon 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 scribesseem not to have recognized the expression in the sense of “more thaneverything” 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 adream (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 encouragementof 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 thatwe 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 Greekgentleman, see Dover, Morality, 41–45; Danker, Benefactor, 319–320 andesp. F. Bourriot, Kalos Kagathos – Kalokagathia (2 vols.; Spudasmata58.1–2; Hildesheim: Olms, 1995). On its usage here: Himmelfarb, “Ju-daism and Hellenism,” 35–36. The present verse piles up all the Hellenisticeducational 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«πρ�τη« Yλικ�α«) developed his σ�φροσ�νη and καλοκ�γα��α (his mod-eration 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 (κατε�ξεσαι). Ourauthor 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 presumablyabove, Onias – who is in heaven – spreads out his hands like a priest on araised platform blessing his congregation. For priests holding out theirhands 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 (σ�στημα). 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, Jewsin … Egypt, 229–230, also T. Drew-Bear, “An Act of Foundation at Hy-paipa,” Chiron 10 (1980) 521 (“guild,” “corpus”). Accordingly, some havepreferred that translation here too; so Habicht (“Gemeinde”) and Abel(“nation”). However, Abel’s position (Macc, 474) is perplexing, for he him-self 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 seemsthat 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 racinghorses” – still current, if already with humor, in the Maryland of my youth.


13. Thereupon (εS 7 οTτ,«). For this expression, which combines timingand 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 (�ποκριωντα … ε0πε�ν). Sincethere is no question which Onias needed to “answer,” it seems that weshould take this as a biblicizing phrase (see e.g. Deut 21:7; 25:9), which theauthor apparently thought fitting when referring to a biblical prophet. In1 Maccabees, by way of contrast, such usage is of course at home; see1 Maccabees 2:17, κα/ �πεκρ��ησαν … κα/ ε&παν, there too without anypreceding 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 meanhis 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. Seealso N. Johansson, Parakletoi (Lund: Gleerup, 1940) 16–18.

the Holy City. This term appeared alongside Onias in the very first verse ofthe story (3:1); its recurrence here, again with Onias, amounts to the closingof a circle – another indication that things are moving toward the finale.(Otherwise the term appears only in one of the opening epistles [1:12] andat 9:14.)

15. to give Judas. For similar scenes, in East and West, see Doran, TemplePropaganda, 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 crownfrom heaven. However, as van Henten (“Judas the Maccabee’s Dream”) hasshown, while there is no close biblical parallel there are very precise paral-lels in Egypt, both of the Pharaohs and of the Ptolemaic period, where nu-merous 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. Inthis connection we should recall that Jeremiah fled to Egypt and was es-pecially popular among the Jews of Egypt; see NOTE on 2:1, the prophetJeremiah. Thus, both the prophet’s identity and his symbolic gesture, here,bespoke the interests of Egyptian Jews in particular and were calculated toenlist their identification with Judas.

broadsword (U,μφα�αν). This seems to be what is meant, although there isroom 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 rea-son for using other terms elsewhere, such as ��φο« (12:22; 14:41) andμ�ξαιρα (5:3), or whether, as usual, he was just varying his vocabulary; seeIntroduction, p. 68.

16. shatter (ρα�σει«) the enemies. As God already shattered Antiochus IV(9:11: τε�ραψσμωνο«).

17. propelling (his men) to virtue. Like that of Onias himself, according tov. 12.

making men … manly valor (�πανδρVσαι … ε/ανδρ�α«). See NOTE on8:7, 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�εσ�αι, in ac-cordance with most witnesses, but the plain meaning of this would be “notto 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 verbrefers only to taking the field but not to actually beginning the fight, inwhich case our verse means that they decided not only to go out to war butalso to “throw themselves into battle.” But this seems to be too much to in-sert without more help from the author, who should have made the distinc-tion clearer. Moreover, if some ancient scribes missed the point (as Hanhartnotes), and therefore changed the verb to μ" στρατοπεδε�εσ�αι, “not toencamp,” 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 bestto take one of Vaccari’s two alternative suggestions that led him to “not totarry:” either translate μ" στρατε�εσ�αι that way or emend it to μ" στρα-γε�εσ�αι (or στραγγε�εσ�αι), a rarer verb with that meaning. For thelatter alternative, see LSJ, 1651, s.v. στραγγε�ομαι, which refers inter aliato LXX Judges 19:8; see also LXX II Regnorum 15:28.


interweaving themselves (�μπλακωντε«). This root usually denotes thebraiding 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 op-posed 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’sagenda, 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 ar-ticles or possessive adjectives is striking. Although it is clear that the refer-ence 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, seeNOTE on 4:14, the Temple. Having referred to the Temple in the precedingverse, the author is now both varying his language and also intensifying theissue, 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 thebattlefield. As if in a play, the author describes the fear of those awaiting theresults of the battle. Compare for example the opening of Aeschylus, ThePersians, also above, 3:14.

no merely marginal distress. I.e., a serious one. For such a double negativeto describe the Jerusalemites’ distress, see also 3:14 and our NOTE there onquite considerable.

in the open field. For the use of dπαι�ρο« in battle accounts see Poly-bius 1.12.4, 1.30.6 etc.; LSJ, p. 1851. As for the battle’s location, as usualthere 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 BethHoron, northwest of Jerusalem. On the battle, which took place in the earlyspring (v. 36) of 161 BCE, see Bar-Kochva, JM, 359–375 (363–365 on iden-tifying the site).

20. while they were all expecting the coming decision. The author surveysthe 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 andbelow 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 theyare 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 enemywere about to engage”); but this lacks textual support. Or perhaps weshould 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. Buteven 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 dif-ferent Seleucid units; note παροψσ�α (“arrival”) in v. 21. As for v. 26 and14:16, where the verb means “clash,” note that they refer to the “comingtogether” of soldiers from both sides, whereas our verse mentions only “theenemies,” i.e., the Seleucid forces.

the beasts (ηρ�,ν). Probably means elephants, as is usual in Polybius; seeMauersberger, PL, 1.1153–1154 and Bar-Kochva, JM, 317. But the parallelat 1 Maccabees 7:39–50 makes no mention of elephants, and it is indeedusual to think that the Seleucid elephants had been destroyed in 163 or 162BCE (well before our battle), in tardy fulfillment of one of the terms of theTreaty of Apamaea (for the date, see Bar-Kochva, JM, 547–548; on the leni-ent enforcement of that treaty, see also below, Appendix 6). True, there is nocertainty 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 tomention elephants (11:4; 13:2, 15; 14:12), which made the Seleucid armiesmore colorful and terror-inspiring, and he was certainly capable of exagger-ating 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 (�γρι�τητα). 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 itrecalls the beginning of the confrontation with Nicanor (14:33–34).

according to how He deems (καV« δB ��ν α/τ9 κριH). Translation ac-cording to Grimm, 2 Macc, 208 (“wie etwa von ihm geurtheilt wird”).


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 on8:19, Sennacherib. Since it worked then, the reader may hope it will workagain. As noted by van der Kooij (“Use,” 133), the story here is closer tothat 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 NOTEon 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 at11:6, see our NOTE there on a good angel.

24. come with blasphemy. For this important motif see NOTE on 8:4, andalso to remember …

be terrified (καταπλαγε�ησαν) by Your great arm (μεγωει βραξ�ον2«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 theSanctuary. The present verse clearly uses Exodus 15:16: “Let terror anddread fall upon them, because of the greatness of Thy arm …” On “God’sarm” 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 ofthe 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 openedin v. 6: vv. 6–7 presented “Nicanor on the one hand” vs. “Judas on the otherhand,” and now, to finish up the preparations for battle, we have “[Judas]on the one hand,” followed immediately by “Then Nicanor’s men, on theother 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 manyexamples ibid., n. 1. On classical usage, see P. Crantz, “The Salpinx inGreek 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 in1 Maccabees 7:39–50 is silent on this subject.

and war-songs (κα3 παι#ν,ν). Our author is careful to assign “paeans” toNicanor’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 theverb, see NOTE on v. 20, the enemies had already come together.

27. fighting with their hands, in their hearts they were praying. Cf. Psalms149:6: “Let the high praises of God be in their throats, and two-edgedswords 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 ofNicanor’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 havingtaken 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 beenforced …

having been gladdened (ε/φρανωντε«) 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.” Soit 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 tothe soldiers, somehow, during the course of this battle, as at 10:29–30. Fora comparable case, see NOTE on 12:22, the apparition …

28. job was done. On ξρε�α see NOTE on 7:24, commissions. Note that atthe outset of our chapter Nicanor was trying to force Jews to do the “royalcommissions” (v. 5 – βασιλικ?« ξρε�α«), so there is poetic justice in denot-ing the destruction of his army, and his execution, by the same term, as if tosay: “You wanted the Jews to do a ξρε�α for you, so they did for you the


ξρε�α you deserve.” On such tit for tat, more of which is coming, see NOTEon 4:16, those for whose ways …

together with his armor. This probably means that they identified him by hisarmor, which was of a special type or specially marked.

29. There ensued outcry and tumult (κραψγ�« κα3 ταραξ�«). Both wordshave negative connotations and usually imply people who feel threatenedand 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 and14.273. 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 isthat, for religious people, a demonstration of God’s active providence, evenon one’s own behalf, may first of all awaken fear, reverence, and only there-after 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 Israelitessang …”); 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 on12:37, 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 handand head had been held high arrogantly (14:33 and above, v. 6) and are nowthe focus of punishment, tit for tat, for which see NOTE on v. 28, job wasdone. That “hand together with the shoulder” means “arm” is made clearin vv. 32–33; 1 Maccabees 7:47 is somewhat less precise in that it refersto the cutting off of the head and τ"ν δε�ι�ν (right hand? right arm?).3 Forthe decapitation of enemies and taking of their armor, see e.g. 1 Samuel17:54, Judith 13:7–10, Polybius 11.18.4–8, 1 Maccabees 11:17, and Iliad17.39–40, along with C. Segal, The Theme of the Mutilation of the Corpsein 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 headand his “limbs,” and Josephus, understandably, keeps quiet about the mutilationof Nicanor’s corpse, and (as opposed to our author – see NOTE on 10:32, As forTimothy himself ) is such a gentleman that he even allows Nicanor to die after “fight-ing gloriously” (Ant. 12.409–411).

Chapter XV 509

31. people … priests. For such enumeration of the two separate groups inorder to mean “all Jews,” see also 1 Maccabees 14:28, 41; Josephus, An-tiquities 14.24; m.Yoma 6.2 and innumerable other passages, includingJewish Hellenistic literature, such as 3 Maccabees 7:13 (οZ το�τ�ν [= τ7ν0Ιοψδα��ν] Zερε�« κα/ π»ν τ9 πλA�ο«) and Letter of Aristeas 53 (τ7νZερω�ν κα/ τ7ν 5λλ�ν).

the people of the Akra. On the Akra, the Hellenistic citadel in Jerusalem, seeNOTE on 4:28, Sostratus, the commandant of the acropolis. Here, Judastaunts 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 sinssee 14:33 and above, vv. 5, 10, 24. For the excision of tongues, cf. NOTE on7:4, 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 dif-ferent genizah fragments, by Y. Yahalom (“Priestly Traditions Concerningthe Miracle of Hanukah,” Bulletin of the Cambridge Traditional JewishCongregation 53 [November 1994] 6) and S. Elizur (“Piyyutim of Hanuk-kah,” 306). Yahalom takes this passage to refer to the extermination ofspeakers of Greek (lashon in Hebrew means both language and tongue), butsince these speakers are not mentioned explicitly, and the verb seems moreappropriate 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 themout, but Kilpatrick (“Review of Hanhart,” 18) showed that its omissioncould simply be a matter of homoioteleuton: ΝΙΚΑΝΟΡΟΣΕΚΤΗΣΚΕ-ΦΑΛΗΣΕΚΤΕΜΝ�Ν.

give it piecemeal to the birds. See our NOTE on 9:15, bird-eaten to wildanimals.


arms (�π�ξειρα).This is a nice pun, for etymologically the term refers to thatwhich 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 tothe hanging of Nicanor’s arm opposite the Temple as his condign “wages”for having threatened it. Habicht (2 Macc, 279, n. 33a) thinks the verserefers 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 em-phasis 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 thehanging 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 alsoscholion 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 ofthe prayer at 14:36 the Jews demonstrate their recognition that it was com-pletely fulfilled.

35. fastened Nicanor’s torso to the Akra. I.e., the arm with shoulder men-tioned 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 weget no special information about what was done with Nicanor’s head, afterthe excision of the tongue (v. 33), so perhaps we should understand that ittoo 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 demonstrativedisplay 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 [SeferYehudith, 166] notes the great similarity between that episode and ours);Herodotus 5.114; Plutarch, Life of Cicero 49; etc.

Lord’s assistance. On βοη�ε�α see NOTE on 8:24, ally.

36. a decree made in common. On χ�φισμα see NOTE on 6:8, a decree.This verse is, along with 10:8, the second of the two pillars of our book inits current form: in each case a holiday is proclaimed “by decree made incommon.” See Introduction, pp. 7–8.

Chapter XV 511

not at all to allow that day to remain unmarked. For the various traditionson 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 dateof the battle; so too 1 Maccabees 7:43; Josephus, Antiquities 12.412 andscholion to Megillat Ta‘anit to 13th Adar (ed. Noam, 298). According to14:4 and 1 Maccabees 7:1 the year was 151 SE (which for 1 Macc is cor-roborated 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 correspondsto that of 161 BCE. (True, the Jewish [Babylonian] reckoning too, fromspring 311, is at times employed in 1 Maccabees, and its application at1 Maccabees 7:1 would lead us to the spring of 160. However, we may besure that that date is in fact according to the Macedonian reckoning, for itputs Demetrius’ arrival in Syria in the 151st year and we can independentlyshow, 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 thebeginning of the 151st year according to the Macedonian era but morethan 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 thatwhen 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 datebeing the fourteenth of Adar see Esther 9:19, 21; Josephus, Antiquities11.291–292. The name “Mordechai’s Day” is otherwise unknown; it mighthave developed, at least in our author’s imagination, simply as a reflectionof the fact that “Nicanor’s Day” was the name of the adjacent holiday, dis-cussed 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 theinstitution at which I teach was universally known by its official name, the HebrewUniversity of Jerusalem, the only difference between formal and informal usage beingthe 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 re-ferred to as “Jerusalem University.”


to Esther, in the Septuagint, tend to play up Mordechai’s role, perhaps re-flecting myths of male heroism from the Hasmonean period, so perhaps thisterm for the holiday is part of a larger trend; see Bardtke, “Mardochäus-tag.” Goldstein (2 Macc, 502) suggests, in particular, that the term may re-flect a desire to indicate a parallel between Mordechai and Judas, both ofwhom annihilated the Jews’ enemies and established holidays in commem-oration thereof. In any case, the holiday named “Nicanor’s Day,” caughton, 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 es-tablishment of the holiday to mark the victory, see J. Schwartz, “OnceMore,” 263–275. – This verse is among the oldest testimonies to the holi-day of Purim, just as several points in our book seem to echo Esther (seeNOTE on 13:5, fifty cubits high); on the history of Purim in the SecondTemple period, see B. Bar-Kochva, “On the Festival of Purim and Some ofthe Succot Practices in the Period of the Second Temple and Afterwards,”Zion 62 (1996/97) 387–395, and A. Oppenheimer, “‘Love of Mordechai orHatred 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, “theMordechaic day,” something which indicates that the writer was sure hisreaders knew whom he meant.

37. turned out. For such language summarizing the failures of other at-tacks, see 3:40 and 13:26.

and ever since the city was taken over by the Hebrews it has been in theirhands. For this translation, see Appendix 11. Here the author explains whyhe may end his book: the end of the last threat against Jerusalem restoresthe idyllic situation of the story’s outset (3:1). True, the political situation isnow different; then there was Seleucid rule and now there is “Hebrew” rule.But that seems hardly to have interested our author, for whom the import-ant point is that the threat against the Jewish city, the focus of his story, hasbeen removed. See Introduction, p. 3.

5 The practice of celebrating the 13th of Adar as “Esther’s Fast” is not known until thepost-talmudic period; see Schwarz, “Taanith Esther” and M. Margaliot, “Festivalsand 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 forthe 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 forhimself 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 hehad presented at 1.3 as a translation, he writes “how it has been renderedI 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 voteon whether it was good or bad.”

to the point (ε/�κτ,«). That is, properly focused (cf. 14:43, κα-τεψ�ικτ�σα«), not expansive and detailed; see his statements of purpose at2:24–32 and 10:10.

in its formulation. For this translation of σ�ντα�ι« see H. A. Rigg, “Papiason Mark,” NovT 1 (1956) 167–168.

cheap and middling (ε/τελ*« κα3 μετρ�,«). For a disorganized composi-tion being ε.τελ�« see Polybius 32.11.6 and Walbank, Polybius, 3.533,who translates “trivial;” Lucian, How to Write History, 22: ε.τελA�ν�ματα κα/ δημοτικ? κα/ πτ�ξικ� – “words which are cheap and vul-gar and poor.” Cf. ibid. 56, cited in our NOTE to 2:30, occupying oneselfwith each and every detail.

that is what I could attain. For �φικτ�ν (easy to obtain, accessible, possible)see Mauersberger, PL, 1.1058–1059.

39. inimical (πολωμιον). Lit.: “hostile.” For its use in such a sense, LSJ1432 cites Plato, Protagoras 334B (oil is πολεμι�τατον to all plants) andAristotle, Historia Animalium 612a (when weasels fight snakes they eatrue, for its smell is πολεμ�α to snakes).

wine by itself. I.e., unmixed, straight. For the point of this comparison, seethe next NOTE. In antiquity it was usual to mix wine with water prior todrinking; see esp. Athenaeus 10.426–427; he who does not do so is said tobe 5γροικο« (so Theophrastus, Characters 4; on this adjective see above,NOTE on 14:30, coarser) or “Scythian” (so Herodotus 6.84 – �πισκψ��ζ�,


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 suchdrinking figured as part of their terrifying image; see Diodorus 5.26.3 andNOTE 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 (un-mixed wine makes elephants wild), Psalms of Solomon 8:15 (“gave them acup of unmixed wine to drink, to make them drunk”), Philo, In Flaccum136, t. Ber. 4:3 (ed. Lieberman, 18) and parr. (only wine that has beenmixed with water deserves to be blessed as “wine”) and b. Pes. 104b (if onedrinks unmixed wine at the Passover meal he has fulfilled his obligation butnot in the respectable way of a free man). In this connection it is particularlyrelevant to recall the Greek belief that only Dionysus, who gave wine tomankind, was capable of drinking it unmixed without going crazy; meremortals could not. See Herodotus, loc. cit., and Lissarrague, “Around theKrater,” 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), thathis contribution to the book is comparable to that of someone who prepares(παρασκεψ�ζ�) a symposium. Just as there he claimed that his work wasmeant to give an attractive form and appearance to a book which is other-wise difficult to read and learn because of the mass of details (2:24), so toohere he claims that his purpose was to make the book “proper and to thepoint.” Thus, the contents of the story are like wine, while editing is like ad-ding water to make it more palatable.

ears. For this sense of �κο� see BDAG 36, §3. In antiquity it was usual toread aloud, even when alone; see for example Polybius 12.27.3 andActs 8:30; Chantraine, “Lire,” 116–121; Wifstrand, Epochs and Styles,94–100; and P. J. Achtemeier, “Omne verbum sonat: The New Testamentand the Oral Environment of Late Western Antiquity,” JBL 109 (1990)15–17. It is possible that our book was read aloud in public, on Hanukkahor on Nicanor’s Day, similar to Esther, which was read on Purim, and to3 Maccabees, which – to judge from the “Amen” which concludes thework – may have been read at celebrations of the holiday it describes; seeAlexander, “3 Maccabees, Hanukkah and Purim,” 337. But we have nosuch evidence concerning 2 Maccabees, and judging from its lack of echo inearly 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’ edi-tion, they take up, respectively, around 39, 23, and 18 pages); who could sitthrough 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.

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 ofCh. 2) are just as clearly the author’s (epitomator’s) preface: he employs thefirst person of himself, speaks of the book as a whole, and uses the sametype 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 dat-ing, authorship and relationship to the book are definitely warranted. Inthis appendix I shall say something both about the history of scholarshipconcerning these letters and about the facts of the matter, as far as I cangrasp them.

In 1868 a Benedictine monk by the name of Alois Cigoi published asmall study of the historical and chronological problems posed by 2 Macca-bees. Writing at a time when it was common in academic circles, whichwere mostly Protestant, to look down upon 2 Maccabees as an historicalwork, he did his Catholic best to defend the book which was, after all, apart of his canon.1 The third chapter of his work was devoted to the twoletters opening the book, and he opened his discussion as follows: “No sec-tion of 2 Maccabees has been so differently interpreted, and so negativelyassessed, as the two opening letters (Ch. 1 – 2:18), which are therefore inneed of more thorough study and vindication.”2

Indeed, the next few decades saw the publication of numerous studies ofthese letters; particularly at issue was the question as to whether 1:1–2:18should be divided into one, two, or three letters.3 In 1900, however, therecame an ironic twist. As we have seen (above, p. 39), Niese’s Kritik der bei-den Makkabäerbücher, published in that year, engendered a general revol-ution in the assessment of 2 Maccabees as an historical source, turning itinto 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 theearly twentieth century, see Herkenne, Briefe, 1–4 (with ibid. 19–20 on the number ofletters).

520 Appendices

to be taken seriously and gratefully as a basically sound source for the his-tory 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 Cigoistipulated right at the beginning of his study that there was no need to con-sider the theory that 1:1–2:18 comprises a single letter, as no one seriouslymaintained that theory, just as already in 1857 Grimm had written that thatposition remained only a “Curiosität,”4 Niese nevertheless took preciselythat position – and, indeed, made it the whole point of departure of hisstudy. 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, asemerges from a literal reading of 1 Maccabees 16:23–24 (which apparentlyrefers to all of Hyrcanus’ accomplishments), Niese (9–26) proceeds to arguenot only that 2 Maccabees 1:1 – 2:18 is a single letter of 125 BCE (based onreading “188” SE in 1:10)5 but that the letter is part and parcel of the bookas a whole, so that the whole book is a work of that year and thus a gener-ation or more older than 1 Maccabees. This serves as the basis of Niese’scall to upgrade the historical evaluation of our book. Thus, Cigoi’s call forsuch a reassessment had been answered by a highly respected scholar whobuilt on a view Cigoi had considered unworthy even of consideration. Thatis the first ironic point.

The other and more important ironic point is that although Niese’sgeneral stance regarding 2 Maccabees found general acceptance (seeabove, pp. 39–40), his position concerning the letters was rejected acrossthe board. Rightly so, for that position necessarily encounters numerousproblems: 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 toNicanor’s Day (and apparently did not deal, originally, with Hanukkah);the fact that Judas Maccabaeus, who is the putative author of the letter ac-cording to 1:10, died decades before 125 BCE; the fact that the account ofAntiochus’ 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 of312 BCE, 188 SE was 125/124 BCE, and Niese further assumed that the letter wassent 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 trans-lates into 124/123 and the same assumption about its timing leads us to the fall of124 – as for example in the title of Bickerman’s article upon which we shall focusbelow. This issue need not concern us here.


reasonably, not many scholars were willing to accept Niese’s explanations,such as that “Judas” of 1:10 was not Judas Maccabaeus but, rather, someunknown other,6 and that “Antiochus” of 1:13–16 was not Antiochus IVEpiphanes but, rather, Antiochus VII Sidetes.7 Thus, for example, Well-hausen opened his 1905 monograph with a three-page discussion of theletters, which completely rejected Niese’s position and noted that with therejection of that position his entire case collapsed.8 Nevertheless, scholars(including Wellhausen) found it warranted to accept the general thrust ofNiese’s rehabilitation of the book even as they rejected his point of depar-ture. Such are the dynamics of scholarly revolutions.

The next step, and the one which has fixed the foundations of commonwisdom concerning these letters until today, came thirty years later: in 1933Elias Bickerman published “Ein jüdischer Festbrief vom Jahre 124 v.Chr.,”a detailed study of 1:1–10a of which the two main points, clearly indicatedby his article’s title, were (1) that it is a letter (so independent of the bookand merely attached to it), and (2) the letter is from 188 SE, the date given inv. 10a.9 Below we shall return to the first point, but we must first deal withthe latter.

Bickerman’s contribution addressed the central issue that complicatesthe 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 beenanswered in one of two ways: either by inferring that in fact 1:1–10 wascomposed 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 whilethe date in v. 10 in fact belongs to, and opens, the second letter. Bickermanrejected the latter possibility out of hand, for it is “impossible” that a dateappear at the opening of an ancient letter.10 But he also recognized that it isquite 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 thedate) 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 salu-tations” (Abel, Macc, 299).

9 Bickerman’s study appeared originally in ZNW 32 (1933) 233–254 but is cited hereaccording to the reprint in his Studies, 2.136–158.

10 Bickerman, Studies, 2.138 (“Die Voranstellung der Datierung, die in einem antikenBrief unmöglich ist …”).

522 Appendices

In his study, which is based on his expertise in Hellenistic papyrology, hebrings evidence for such citation of an earlier letter in a later one; his viewsoon became the scholarly consensus, and remains so until today. Suffice itto note that it is repeated in the commentaries of Abel, Habicht and Gold-stein, all three of which translate the perfect γεγρ�φαμεν in v. 7a with thepast tense (“avons écrit,” “haben geschrieben,” “wrote”) and print vv. 7b-8within quotation marks.

However, with all due respect it seems to me that Bickerman’s expertisein Hellenistic papyrology may have led him astray. For the first epistle isplainly a Semitic document, and to interpret it according to the standards ofGreek letters, and to translate its verbs according to what is usual in Greekand 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 retro-versions of them into Aramaic (Torrey) and Hebrew (Hack), should havebeen better guides to their understanding.11 But they drew little notice. Inthe case of Hack, this is not surprising; he wrote in Hebrew. The fact thatTorrey’s piece was ignored is harder to explain. Perhaps it is due to the factthat it accompanied his much broader and more controversial work inwhich 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 as-sume that Torrey’s views on such ancillary topics as our letters were washedaway with the rest.

Be that as it may, we note that already Torrey translated the verb in v. 7in the present tense, “we the Jews write you” (“Letters,” 147). Indeed, morerecent work and new evidence confirm that it was usual to employ a for-mally past tense verb in referring to a current letter in order to reflect thefact that it was written prior to being read by its recipient.13 The implicationis that 169 is the date of the present letter. But a letter of 169 cannot cite aletter 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 wenoted) has remained the foundation for all subsequent scholars, rejected outof hand the reading of those manuscripts which instead have 148. He did sobecause 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. Andsee our NOTE on 1:7, have written.


scribe who thought the date belonged to the second letter but both (1) knewthat Judas – who is mentioned among its authors (1:10b) – could not havelived until 188 SE (125/124 BCE)14 and (2) took 1:18 and 2:16 to mean thatthe authors of the letter were about to celebrate the purification of theTemple, which (as our putative scribe knew from 1 Macc 4:52) occurred in148 SE.

However, if for the moment we accept, with Bickerman and his fol-lowers on this point, the reading “188,” we must ask how to translate thewords κα/ ν�ν jνα 5γητε τ?« Yμωρα« τA« σκηνοπηγ�α« το� Ξασελεψμην9« 6τοψ« Ψκατοστο� �γδοηκοστο� κα/ �γδ�οψ (1:9–10a). Here, itturns 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 Egyptare invited to celebrate “the days of (the festival of) Tabernacles of themonth of Kislev of the year 188.” But Goldstein quite properly noted thatthis 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 Anyonereceiving a letter urging him to celebrate an annual holiday knows that itrefers to the next occurrence of the holiday. Therefore, Goldstein translatedthe date as an independent sentence: “And now we ask you to celebrate theDays 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 thereis usually a date at the end of a letter, it is also true that the words “In theyear 188” are not a date. Dates of letters specify the day, with the monthand year to which they belong coming in the genitive; compare e.g. 11:21(6τοψ« Ψκατοστο� τεσσαρακοστο� �γδ�οψ, Δι9« Κοριν��οψ τετρ�δι κα/ε+κ�δι); so too 11:33, 38. The use of the genitive for the year 148 in 11:21does not mean that the letter is “of” that year but, rather, that the specifiedmonth 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 monthas 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, totake the genitive as qualifying the holiday to be celebrated. But since we – asopposed to Bickerman and Abel – have already decided that v. 7 dates ourletter, to 169 SE, it cannot be that v. 10 refers to 188 SE. But that latternumber should always have been suspect anyway. First of all, variant read-ings abound: Hanhart gives ε’ κατοστο� �γδοηκοστο� κα/ �γδ�οψ on thebasis of the Syriac (!), which is usually considered one of the least significantwitnesses to our book’s text; although that same number is supported bysome other witnesses more or less clumsily (such as the Venetus’ εκατ. καιογδοηκ. και ογδ.), there are also witnesses which read 108 and 180 andtwo that read 148. True, all things being equal we would indeed choose toread 188. But not all things are equal.

For it should, I believe, always have been strange to think that a letter of188 SE, or an invitation to celebrate the holiday in 188 SE, should appear atthe beginning of our book. Why should it? It does not seem, on the onehand, 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 theJerusalemites to send out such letters regularly, perhaps even annually, whyshould the one sent out in 124 BCE have been attached to the book? All inall, it seems that no one would have imagined the letter was from 188 SEwere it not for the manuscript support for that reading. But if, on the otherhand, what we have here is an invitation of the year 169 SE to celebrate theholiday of Hanukkah, and the year mentioned in v. 10a, in the genitive,somehow identifies that holiday, it would be totally significant, and henceattractive, 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 bothPtolemaic and Seleucid letters, if dated, had the date at the end of the letter and itspecified day, month, and year.

18 Prime linee, 77. For the prime attempt to find some special reason for a letter like thisone 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 betweenPtolemy VIII and Cleopatra II, in contrast to all other years between 145–118; seealso Stern, Hasmonaean Judaea, 128–135. However, Bickerman’s suggestion that thetruce of 124 may have somehow endangered the Jews of Egypt, or that that wasfeared, 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 withPtolemy 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 abasically negative attitude toward the Jews, and certainly none for any lasting or gen-eral persecutions of the Jews by him” (Stern, Hasmonaean Judaea, 127; see also idem,Studies, 112–113).


Egypt are being invited to celebrate, is being termed “the days of the festivalof Tabernacles of the month of Kislev of the year 148.” Just as we can wellimagine American posters, even today, inviting citizens to events celebrating“July 4, 1776,” so would we understand the first letter as one of 169 SE in-viting its recipients to celebrate the “Tabernacles of Kislev 148.”

To complete this part of our discussion, we would note, first of all, thatof the two witnesses that read 148, Mss. 55 and 62 of the tenth and eleventhcenturies respectively,19 Hanhart has characterized the former as an inde-pendent witness of a value comparable to that of the uncials.20 Moreover,Bruston already argued long ago, that the reading 188 (ΡΠΔ) could be nomore than a paleographic error for 148 (ΡΜΔ), the difference between thetwo being only the shape of the bar which connects the two uprights of themiddle letter.21 For another error of this type, see NOTE on 12:18, in a cer-tain place.

So much for the dating of the letter, which was Bickerman’s secondmajor point. We now turn to his first major point: his argument that1:1–10a is a Festbrief which happened to be attached to the book. If this istrue, 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, Goldsteinthought the book was a product of the seventies of the first century BCE, inwhich 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 factthere is good reason to believe that those who wrote the first epistle had thebook before them and both fit their letter to the book and fit the book totheir letter, so that the book could be sent out as an “attachment” justifyingthe letter’s invitation to the Jews of Egypt to celebrate Hanukkah. There arethree main points to note:

1. In v. 5 the letter expresses the hope that God will become “reconciled”with the recipients (κα/ καταλλαγε�η 3μ�ν). This verb is relatively rarein Greek religious parlance, but it is utterly basic to 2 Maccabees. InChapters 7–8 the martyrs pray that God will become reconciled (καταλ-λαγ�σεται) with the Jews (7:33), and when the Jews begin to win theirbattles 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 clearthat the usage of this word implies Deuteronomy 32:36, where it ispromised that God will be reconciled with His servants; “servants” re-appears alongside of this verb in 7:33 and 8:29, and Deuteronomy 32:36itself is formally cited in 7:6, just as there are other important allusionsto 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 thiscentral theme of our book.

2. The first letter is very interested in cultic details: “and we brought sacri-fices 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 descrip-tion of the event itself: “they offered up sacrifices after a two-yearperiod, and they also took care of incense and lamps and the presenta-tion of the showbreads.” Now it has often been noticed that 10:1–8 are asecondary addition to our book: they artificially separate the death ofAntiochus Epiphanes (end of Ch. 9) from the verse summarizing thatevent (10:9) and they direct interest to the Hanukkah holiday althoughthe bottom line of our book is Nicanor’s Day. However, it is also the casethat the way the Hanukkah holiday is announced at 10:8 parallels pre-cisely, 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 wehave it. Since the interests (Hanukkah) and emphases (cult, all of thepeople) of that passage conform to those of the first epistle, economy ofhypotheses urges us to assume that it was in fact added to the book bythe Jerusalemites who added the letter – who realized that without sucha supplement into Chapter 10 the book would not, in fact, buttress aninvitation 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 thecrisis which came upon us in these years, beginning when Jason andthose who were with him rebelled against the Holy Land and thekingdom …

apparently mean that the story that accompanies the letter begins withevents under Jason. That is not exactly true, for Jason’s story comes inChapter 4, whereas Chapter 3 deals with Heliodorus. However, as we

22 See above, pp. 21–22.23 �δογμ�τισαν … χηφ�σματο« παντ� τ: τ7ν 0Ιοψδα��ν 6�νει …//�δογμ�τισαν δM

π�ντε« … χηφ�σματο« period. See above, pp. 7–8.24 For this translation of �ν see our NOTE on 1:7, concerning the oppression …


have noted (p. 4) the Heliodorus story does not really move the bookforward; it has its own happy end at the end of Chapter 3, so the bookhas to begin again, somewhat artificially, at the outset of Chapter 4.Similarly, at 2:20 the author summarizes the book beginning with eventsunder Antiochus IV, thus ignoring everything prior to Jason (who, asAntiochus, makes his first appearance in 4:7), and at 8:2–4 the prayersummarizing the story until that point also has nothing to say aboutChapter 3; so too Judas’ speech at 8:17. Thus, the fact that 1:7 beginswith Jason in no way undermines the notion that it is basically summar-izing the book.

The main objection to the notion that those Jerusalemites who wrote theopening letters were familiar with the book is supplied by the differences be-tween 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 anattempt to rob an eastern temple, the details are all different. However, aswe have argued25 this part of the second letter should be seen as an interpo-lation; the repetition of γ�ρ in vv. 12–13 is intolerable and removal of thewhole 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 (�σεβ�σαντα«) point directly at Jason;see 4:13 (το� �σεβο�« κα/ ο.κ �ρξιερω�« 0Ι�σονο«) and 5:8 (��εβρ�σ�η).Thus, excision of vv. 13–16 (which were apparently added by someone whohad yet another tradition on how Antiochus died) not only removes thecontradiction between this letter and the body of the book but also bolstersour notion that the author of this letter, as that of the first letter (1:7) andthe author of the book himself (2:20), views the story as one that beginswith Jason.

Having thus passed from the first letter to the second one, let us continueand note a very serious link between the latter and the passage at 10:1–8which, 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 thatthe fire on the altar of the Second Temple of Jerusalem is the same fire thatcame 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 toJeremiah to Solomon. But the second letter does not say how to get fromNehemiah to the second century BCE. That is, it does not answer the ob-vious 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 thenaptha (the liquefied form of the ancient fire) left after Nehemiah used someof it to restart the fire in Second Temple was poured onto large rocks(λ��οψ« με�ζονα«; 1:31). What that means is not very clear, nor does it at allfunction in the remainder of the letter – but it evidently serves us very wellin explaining a mystifying detail in the course of the rededication narrativeadded in at 10:3:

after purifying the Temple they made a new altar and – having ignitedrocks and extracted fire from them (πψρ�σαντε« λ��οψ« κα/ π�ρ �κτο�τ�ν λαβ�ντε«) – they offered up sacrifices …

How can one ignite rocks and extract fire from them? The obvious answeris that the reference is to striking a spark from a flint. However, there is noreference here to “striking” or “sparks,” and striking sparks from stonesdoes not “ignite” the stones.26 So even if what really happened was thestriking of a spark, it seems clear that the author of this report wants us tounderstand that the restored fire was one which had been taken out of stor-age, so to speak, having been put there in the days of Nehemiah, and that itcontained the original heavenly fire of Solomon’s days. But it is obvious thatno one could expect readers to understand 10:3 that way if they had notread the story told by the second letter.

Now if it is the case that 10:1–8 was added in by the Jerusalemite authorof the first letter, but that also the second letter is bound up essentially with10:1–8, and that in fact the reference there to igniting rocks is unintelligibleuntil they are put together one with another, then the apparent conclusion isthat 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 thoughtthat the book opened with a single letter stretching from 1:1–2:18 and thatits 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 fireout of flint, they offered sacrifices …,” and Abel (Macc, 407) is only a little closer tothe 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 Greeksaid “étincelles” and “pierres à feu” his translation would be fine. For the waysGreeks and Romans referred to making fire by striking sparks from stones, much theway we describe it, see the collection of references in: M. H. Morgan, “De ignis eli-ciendi modis apud antiquos,” HSCP 1 (1890) 35–38.


large, that there are two separate letters and that neither is bound up withthe book; but we have suggested that although there are indeed two openingletters, the same author added (although not necessarily composed) bothand 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 givenin 1:7 – 169 SE = 143/142 BCE, the date of Hasmonean independence,27 awatershed date which justified an invitation to the Jews of the Diaspora tojoin in the celebrations. This date therefore serves as a terminus ad quem forour 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 andcontracts, ‘In the first year of Simon the great high priest and commander and leaderof 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 of134 BCE, constitutes evidence for the actual use of this Hasmonean era, for it is datedto “the ninth year.”

530 Appendices

Appendix 2: “to register the people of Jerusalemas Antiochenes” (4:9)

This verse has aroused much debate,28 but it may well be that a newly-pub-lished 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 Butwhat would be the point of making a registry of all citizens or inhabitants ofthat city who happened to be found in Jerusalem? And why would this belisted along with other boons granted Jason, and why would Jason pay forthe privilege to draw up such a list? Given these questions, it is generallyagreed that in fact what is meant is the granting of permission to register Je-rusalemites as (!) Antiochenes, that is, the granting of “Antiochene” statusto 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 havethought our verse means Antiochus allowed Jason to register Jerusalemitesas citizens of that city. However, since the next verses have to do withchanging 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, knownas “Antioch” or, more probably, “Antioch-in-Jerusalem” (so as to distin-guish 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, “‘Antiochenesin 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 thatcity being in Jerusalem, nor any reason for our author to use this rare name instead ofPtolemais – 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 wasit, rather, as argued especially by Tcherikover, itself a new city? The latterexplanation seems preferable, for the continuation says Jason (acting uponthe authority he obtained from the king) “abrogated royal privileges and …abolished regular civic usages” (4:10–11). This language is easily under-stood if it refers to setting up a new city. But if all Antiochus had allowedwas the foundation of a corporation, a glorified club, how would that haveimpacted upon privileges and laws?

To overcome this objection Bickerman and others suggested that Anti-ochus exempted these new “Antiochenes” from the obligation to live ac-cording to the ancestral laws, an obligation which – he claims – the Seleucidmonarchy 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 con-stituted 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 accord-ing to Jewish law to do so;33 for an explicit statement of this type of posi-tion, although in a later text, see Antiquities 14.258, where the people ofHalicarnassus allow those Jews who wish to (βοψλομωνοψ«) to observe theSabbath and observe the sacred Jewish laws.

Accordingly, if what the king authorized Jason to do involved the chang-ing 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 wasestablished at Jerusalem. The fact that we lack, for Jerusalem, evidence forsome of the characteristic institutions of Hellenistic cities need not contra-dict that conclusion, given the general paucity of sources available for theperiod. Similarly, the fact that the gerousia – a typical institution of pre-polis Jerusalem, went on existing and representing traditional interests (seeNOTE on 4:44, Council of Elders) does not mean no polis was founded;rather, it shows that traditionalist institutions went on existing and servingtheir constituencies despite the fact that they now had to compete withrulers and institutions who drew their authority directly from the king.

The recent publication of an inscription that published the text of twoletters 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 describinghere – he grants the Phrygian community of Tyriaion the right to organizeitself as a polis, should settle the issue.34 For its language and contents echothose 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. Noteespecially the comparison of their request that they be allowed “a constitu-tion, their own laws, and a gymnasium and all those entail” (so Letter 1, lines9–11), summarized in Letter 2 (lines 41–42) as “a constitution and a gym-nasium,” to our book’s report that Jason asked for permission “to found agymnasium and ephebeion and to register the people of Jerusalem as Anti-ochenes,” which seems to amount to another way to say the same – and inboth 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, inso 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 isaddressed to the “settlers” of the place, but after expressing his approval oftheir request that they organize themselves “in one politeuma and use theirown laws” (lines 27–28) the king goes on to note that he expressed recog-nition of their politeuma at the beginning of the other letter – which opensby addressing “the boulê and the dêmos of the Toriaitoi,” which is a stan-dard opening of letters to a polis.35 Thus, it is clear that the king viewed hisfirst letter as changing unorganized “settlers” into the citizens of a city.36 Bythe same token, we should not be surprised at the fact that our book too de-scribes the process without using the actual word polis.

Accordingly, it now seems clearer both that our book’s testimony is thatJason requested and received permission to organize a polis in Jerusalem,called Antioch-in-Jerusalem, and that that testimony corresponds to whatwould be expected in the contemporary Hellenistic world. Nevertheless,further evidence that this testimony corresponds to what really happenedwould 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 “ANew Royal Inscription from Phrygia Paroreios: Eumenes II Grants Tyriaion theStatus of a Polis,” EA 29 (1997) 1–30, and again by Jonnes, The Inscriptions of theSultan Dagi, 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 το�τον τ"ν δεψτωραν 6φοδον $ 8ντ�οξο« ε+« Α=γψπ-τον �στε�λατο.

Antiochus’ first Egyptian campaign, in 170/169 BCE, ended successfullybut with more work left for the next year: after conquering virtually all ofEgypt apart from Alexandria he left a garrison at Pelusium and returned toSyria. 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 ul-timatum.37 Our book has Antiochus attacking Jerusalem and robbing theTemple on the way back from his second campaign to Egypt, i.e., in thesummer of 168 BCE. This poses an oft-noted problem, because 1 Macca-bees 1:20–24 clearly has Antiochus visiting Jerusalem and robbing theTemple in 143 SE = 170/169 BCE, i.e., following Antiochus’ first campaignto Egypt.

True, Daniel (11:28–30) makes it clear that Antiochus visited Jerusalemafter each campaign, implying concerning the first and saying explicitlyconcerning the second that the king did something nasty during his visit.But it still seems impossible to accept the reports in 1 Maccabees 1 and2 Maccabees 5 at face value, as reporting two separate events, because theyare so very similar, both focusing on the robbery of the Temple. The veryfact that each source reports only one such event is itself a weighty argu-ment 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 hadalready been stolen in 169, there would hardly have been many “holyvessels” (2 Macc 5:16) left to be taken the following year. So there appearsto be a real contradiction between the two works.

One obvious way of dealing with it would be to identify our “second in-vasion” with the campaign of 143 SE, which would let both books refer tothe 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 belittle more than wishful thinking and in any case fails to do justice to themeaning of 6φοδο« (see below). Kolbe and Gera went another route, view-ing the king’s trip to Joppe (4:21–23) as his first “approach” to Egypt andso letting the invasion of 170/169 be the “second.”39 But this would requireus to take two difficult steps:

(1) Translating 6φοδο« as “approach.”40 Although this may find somesupport in 12:21,41 even that is not unambiguous, and apart from it theterm always means “invasion.” See, for example, 13:26: “That is how theking’s invasion (�φ�δοψ) and return turned out.” As Ettelson put the matter,“The word 6φοδο« is found elsewhere in the LXX only in II Macc., whereit 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, com-parable to his invasion of Egypt. The differences between what the king ac-tually did, and the distance between Joppe and Egypt, weigh heavily againstsuch 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 thesuggestion that Antiochus robbed the Temple after each of them, then wemust simply choose between the two books. It is usual to prefer the chro-nology of 1 Maccabees. As Habicht wrote already in 1976: “Today there isbroad agreement, that the king … was twice in Jerusalem, in 169 and 168,that during the first visit he entered the Temple (led by Menelaus) androbbed it, and during the second he treated the city according to the law ofwar, for – as 2 Maccabees 5:11 reports – he viewed the civil war connectedwith Jason’s attack to be a matter of rioting and rebellion. The presentchapter (= 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, thatone should take for granted that our verse refers, as does 1 Macc 1:21, to 170/169BCE, and therefore infer, from our verse’s use of “second,” that there had been apreceding campaign, in 171 BCE; see his Geschichte, 1.170. However, writing as hewas 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 toocan be added.44

It is, however, difficult to subscribe to this position. First of all, we notethat Josephus, despite his usual dependence upon 1 Maccabees, places therobbery of the Temple in 145 SE (168/167 BCE), which fits 2 Maccabees.While he does record that Antiochus visited Jerusalem twice, after eachEgyptian campaign, he has him robbing the city after the first and theTemple only after the second. And the same seems to result from a fragmen-tary Qumran text as well.45 Second, note that the pro-Hasmonean author of1 Maccabees had good reason to ignore any pre-Hasmonean rebellionagainst the Seleucids – but as Tcherikover has shown, our chapter indicates,however indirectly, that there was such a rebellion in 168 BCE (see ourNOTE on 5:7, coming to a shameful end). This means that the author of1 Maccabees had every reason to ignore the events of that year. So all weneed to imagine is that the author of 1 Maccabees knew that Antiochus didsomething nasty in Jerusalem when returning from Egypt in 143 SE, andalso knew that he robbed the Temple at some time; due either to his pro-Hasmonean tendency or to plain confusion and telescoping he predated thelatter by a year and thus elided the second visit.

Stern, arguing that the Temple was robbed during the first visit, adducedin this connection Polybius’ statement (apud Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.83–84)that Antiochus Epiphanes’ robbery of the Temple was unjustified and cameat a time when the Jews were his allies and friends; this could not be said if ithappened 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 simplydid 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’tbe 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, GLA1.116.

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 thatthe visit described there is the same one described in 2 Macc 5. The only potential evi-dence for that statement is the reference to φονοκτον�α 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 amassacre and decrees against Judaism and desecration of the Temple (inKislev of 145 BCE – v. 54). 2 Maccabees 5, in contrast, offers a more con-vincing and continuous story: pillage and massacre in 168 BCE, followed inclose order by the arrival of Philip and then, “not much time later” (6:1), byGeron and the decrees. Bringmann50 saw in this continuity a literary devicemeant to ensure dramatic unity, but unity and continuity can happen in his-tory as well. In this case, it is quite difficult to imagine that, as 1 Maccabeeswould have it, Antiochus made a severe attack upon Jerusalem and robbedthe 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 massacreafter Antiochus left Jerusalem. For my argument that, in line with Septuagintal usage(see LXX Num 35:33), φονοκτον�α here in fact refers to Antiochus’ general wicked-ness, and not to any bloodshed in Jerusalem, the author of 1 Maccabees representingAntiochus 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 thedates 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 theplace requested” (6:2)

μολ�ναι δM κα/ τ9ν �ν ’ Ιεροσολ�μοι« νεB κα/ προσονομ�σαι Δι9«0Ολψμπ�οψ κα/ τ9ν �ν Αργαριζιν, κα�B« �τ�γξανον οZ τ9ν τ�πονο+κο�ντε«, Δι9« kεν�οψ.

As S. Schwartz noted, this verse is “a notorious crux.”51 According to theusual reading, cited above from Hanhart’s edition, some translate theunderlined words “as (were) the residents of the place” or “as (was prac-ticed) by the residents of the place.”52 That is, the verse means the residentsof Mt. Gerizim were hospitable people, and that this explains the choice ofthe particular deity that their temple was converted to serve: Zeus Xenios,i.e., Zeus who was beneficent to guests and foreigners – a popular epithetgoing back at least to Homer.53 But what would such a remark mean? Is theauthor referring to a general characteristic of the residents of Mt. Ger-izim,54 or rather to something in particular? Does he expect us, forexample, to follow this comment to the hospitality extended to Abrahamby King Melchizedek of Salem, according to Genesis 14:18, on the basis ofthe assumption that “Salem” is Shechem (see Gen 33:18: “And Jacob camesafely 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 as-sumed that the “Eupolemus” who located Melchizedek in Shechem55 (andnot in Jerusalem) was a Samaritan Pseudo-Eupolemus, and our author wasnot 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 bibliographyand 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 grie-chischen Religion, I (München: Beck, 19552) 419–421.

54 On φιλο�εν�α, 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 anunderstanding of our verse be demanding too much from readers? Or, foranother possibility, is the reader supposed to realize that the residents ofMt. Gerizim were themselves foreigners, as results from 2 Kings 17? Whatthese two theories have in common is (1) they expect the readers to knowquite a lot about Mt. Gerizim and related traditions, which is unlikely,57

and (2) they suggest the author meant the renaming of the Mt. Gerizimtemple in honor of Zeus was appropriate and congenial to the residents ofthe place.

Apart from what they assume about readers’ knowledge, such interpre-tations run into two other types of difficulties. From the point of view oflanguage, note that LSJ (1832–1833) assigns the verb τψγξ�ν� two mainsenses: (1) “happen to be at a place,” or, when appearing alongside the par-ticiple of another verb – “happen to be;” (2) “gain one’s end or purpose,”“succeed,” “hit upon,” “light upon.” Indeed, the other eleven occurrencesof the verb in our book divide among the two meanings: “happen” (plusparticiple) 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 nosense at all, and the first, which would explain the name of the temple bysaying that the residents of the place “happened to be” hospitable, wouldrequire �τ�γξανον to be accompanied by a participle of a verb of being.Our verse has only one participle, ο+κο�ντε«, but if it were linked to �τψγ-ξανον no verb would be left to link to κα��«. This is what led translatorseither to insert a verb of being (“ … et pour appeler celui de Garizim templede Jupiter l’Hopitalier, comme l’étaient ceux qui habitaient en ce lieu”58) oreven to double the adjective (“Zeus Hospitable, just as the inhabitants werehospitable”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 itselfsupplies the verbal meaning of “as was.” To express such a meaning, a verbof 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 thatAntiochus’ 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 summarizinga longer Vorlage, would have alluded to this point with such ambiguous brevity (“indermaßen 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 at5:22–23, so too here the steps Antiochus took are portrayed by the authoras coercive measures imposed by a villainous king against the will of theJews in their two centers. It is not likely that this would be said to havesuited them.

Thus, it is difficult to translate the verse according to its normal text, ascited at the outset of this appendix from Hanhart’s edition. Moreover, ifleft as is the verse is also disappointing stylistically, for although ourauthor is usually well aware of balance and parallelism, here he has givensome explanation for one name-change but not for the other. This may in-dicate that the words in question were added secondarily. If such a hypoth-esis can move us forward in our search for the original wording, all thebetter.

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 andto rename their temple in honor of Zeus Hellenios; it is accompanied by theking’s decision to grant their request. It seems likely that this correspon-dence is not authentic,60 for it has the Samaritans: (1) stating that theyundertook the Jewish religion only due to plagues which once afflicted theland; (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 honorof 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 im-agine that anti-Samaritan Jewish polemicists – Josephus himself61 or an-other – would concoct it. But once it existed, it would have been natural forany 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 explain-ing 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 ad-dition 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 con-cluding it is a Jewish forgery, see U. Rappaport, “The Samaritans in the HellenisticPeriod,” 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 ren-dered “as the residents of the place requested.” As to how to get there fromthe Greek, if we hesitate to accept Hanhart’s view that �τ�γξανον may betranslated that way62 we may – with many, beginning with Niese – emendthe 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 contextof our author more than the realities of Seleucid Jerusalem.

Monthly celebration of the king’s birthday is known from PtolemaicEgypt.64 Schürer and VanderKam (n. 64) viewed such evidence as proof ofthe reliability of our book’s report; so too van Henten, who depended hereupon Habicht.65 However, apart from the Ptolemaic kingdom there ishardly any evidence for such celebrations elsewhere in the Hellenisticworld, 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 monthlycelebration; as for the second (ibid., no. 212),67 the matter depends on arestoration right at the crucial part of ll. 7–8: [… κα/ �ψσ�αν δM] σψντελε�ν[τ]7ι Βασιλε� [Σελε�κ�ι Ψκ�στοψ μην]�« … Habicht and Robert relatedto 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 thePtolemaic 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 givenSeleucid date entailed a more general change in the calendar used in the JerusalemTemple, and that Dan 7:25 (“And he [i.e., Antiochus] thought to change times andlaw”]) is a reflection of this reform – which could also explain Qumran complaintsabout the calendar in use in Jerusalem. However, it is quite usual for subject peoplesto follow a sovereign’s calendar for something relating to him and nevertheless tomaintain their own calendar for their own customary uses. Moreover, it is difficult toaccept 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 effectafter Judas Maccabaeus took it over and rededicated it a few years later. On this pointsee 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 wererequired to offer monthly sacrifices, it may be that it was our author (oreven Jason of Cyrene) who, familiar with the Ptolemaic world, supplied theexplanation.

As for Dionysus: there seems to be no evidence for any royal Dionysiancult in the Seleucid kingdom and, as Habicht noted, it is not likely that therewould be one, given that kingdom’s preference for Zeus as the dynasticdeity.69 As for Antiochus IV in particular, Mørkholm stressed his devotionto Apollo; while he noted that this allegiance did not bring him to ignore allother gods, nevertheless the only evidence he cites for Dionysus is ourverse.70 Bickerman too refers only once to Dionysus in the course of his longdiscussion of Seleucid cults,71 and even there the text in question only refersto 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 thetwo.

The situation is somewhat different with regard to an inscription fromTeos that was published after Bickerman wrote.72 As Herrmann shows(p. 55), this inscription refers to the acceptance of Antiochus III and hissister-wife Laodice as σ�νναοι �εο� (“temple-sharing gods”) in the Templeof Dionysus in Teos. Even here, however, the reference is to a local initi-ative, not to a royal measure, and so far it seems very isolated; Nock, whosurveyed the whole phenomenon of kings sharing temples with gods in theHellenistic and Roman world, mentions no Seleucid case at all.73

It is true that the cult of Dionysus was well-established in Athens,74 andso 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. andtrans.), 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 inPtolemaic Egypt75 contrasts so strikingly with the lack of evidence for any-thing parallel in the Seleucid kingdom76 that, as with monthly birthday cel-ebrations, we cannot avoid the suspicion that what we have is no more thana Jewish writer familiar with the Ptolemaic world imagining what a royalpersecution would include: if 3 Maccabees has Ptolemy IV imposing thecult of Dionysus,77 Antiochus IV simply must have done the same. The sameexplanation probably applies to the end of 2 Maccabees 14:33 as well; notethat the parallel at 1 Maccabees 7:35 makes no mention of Dionysus, in-stead having Nicanor simply threatening, unimaginatively, to burn theTemple 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 ina study of references to such a holiday in early Christian literature, which seem all tobe 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 theRomans” (2 Macc 8:10, 36)

The tribute referred to was imposed by Rome upon the Seleucids at theTreaty of Apamaea in 188 BCE in the wake of Rome’s defeat of Antiochus IIIat 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 immediatelyand another 1,000 annually for twelve years.78 Had they fulfilled the treatyto the letter they would have made the last payment by 175, but our verserefers 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 con-cluded, accordingly, that our author is in error; they surmise that he knewof the tribute and mentioned it, here and in v. 36, only in order to show offhis knowledge about the workings of the world at large and to put his ownstory into that context.79 For proof that the debt had indeed been paid offon time, they point to Livy 42.6.7, which they take to mean it was all paidoff by 173 BCE, i.e., a couple of years late but nevertheless well before the160s.80

However, while it would not at all surprise us to discover that our bookhad erred on this point, it should be noted that the issue may still be leftopen. For what Livy reports is a tardiness in the payment of a/the “stipen-dium,” and that it was then submitted to the quaestors in its entirety; theformulation 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 res-sources financières.”

79 For such a motivation, compare Luke’s reference to Quirinius’ census at Luke 2:2; it isusually thought that this is a chronological error and bespeaks Luke’s knowledge ofthe event and his desire to link Jesus’ birth to it. See R. Bultmann, Theologie desNeuen 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 NewTestament 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 canrefer to an entire indemnity; thus, for example, at Livy 36.4.7 we read of asuggestion that a stipendium be paid off all at once and not “in numerouspayments over many years” (“pluribus pensionibus in multos annos”). Butthe passage at 42.6.7 on 173 BCE has no such contrast and offers no addi-tional details, and stipendium usually refers to something annual (soldiers’annual wages and annual service); had it been the last payment we wouldhave expected some comment on that.82 In any event, it is clear from Livythat the Seleucids were behind in their payments, and so it is possible thatthe one executed in 173 BCE was not the last.83 As Le Rider explains, itcould 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 sameyear, Rome began to get tough with the Seleucids, paying off the tributewould 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 showsthat in fact it was long overdue.

84 Le Rider, ibid., 61. So too Gruen – although he accepted Livy 42.6.7 as proof that thetribute had been paid off in 173 – emphasized the Roman willingness not to insist ontimetables for such payments in general, nor to put pressure on the Seleucids in par-ticular, 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) thatAntiochus would have hastened to pay back the balance of the tribute in 168, at thesame time he vacated Egypt under Roman pressure. For just as it is seems overdone towrite that Antiochus “had shown himself so eager to comply with the Romans that hewithdrew from Egypt,” when really he just capitulated to an ultimatum, so too it ishardly warranted to assume, with Goldstein, that Antiochus had so much Egyptianbooty that he would have paid off the debt right away. Rather, just as we know thathe held onto his elephants, and that it was only in 163 that the Romans insisted onfulfilling the Treaty of Apamaea’s demand that they be hamstrung (see NOTE on15:20, the beasts), so too could the tribute issue have lasted years – our verse requiresabout three – after Antiochus gave in to Roman pressure about Egypt.

546 Appendices

Appendix 7: The Battle Against theGalatians (8:20)86

Menahem Stern

The first real notice we have of Jews in Babylonia in the Hellenistic periodcomes in a totally unexpected context: Judas Maccabaeus’ speech en-couraging his soldiers on the eve of their confrontation with the Seleucidarmy commanded by Nicanor and Gorgias (2 Macc 8:18–20). Macca-baeus adduces two examples of heavenly aid for the Jews. Of these, thefirst relates to Sennacherib’s campaign (Isa 37:36; 2 Kgs 19:35) andthe other to a military confrontation in Babylonia against the Galatians,in which Jewish soldiers87 participated in the battle alongside of 4000Macedonians 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 de-tailed enough to allow us to know to what event, or even to whatperiod, 2 Maccabees is referring. We may take it for granted that thestory 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 June1989. The draft was handwritten and incomplete. My additions are in brackets. Theoriginal was published as Appendix 7 (pp. 306–7) in my 2004 Hebrew volume on2 Maccabees. D.R.S.]

87 The text does not say, explicitly, that they were Jewish, but the context does not allowfor any other inference. After the reference to the defeat of Sennacherib there wouldhave been no point to putting into Judas Maccabaeus’ mouth anything about a vic-tory by non-Jews.

88 It seems that something is wrong with the text of 2 Macc 8:20, for after the verseopens with a reference to 8000 soldiers who fought alongside the Macedonians itgoes on to say that “the 6000” destroyed the Galatian force. Some of the later manu-scripts attempted to deal with this contradiction [as may be seen in the critical appar-atus ad loc. in Hanhart, 2 Macc, 81].

86

Appendix 7: The Battle Against the Galatians (8:20) 547

of the army that fought the Galatians.89 True, scholars have express-ed various opinions concerning the date and circumstances of theevent.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 couldmobilize only 12,000 men (4000 Macedonians and 8000 Jews) but, rather, that ourverse refers to some unit which ran into the entire Galatian force. But given the factthat 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 nomore than 10,000 were armed[, it seems unwise to build much upon the numbersgiven here].

90 Given the fact that 2 Maccabees locates the clash in Babylonia, Grimm inferred that ifthe story has any basis at all it is referring to the clash between Antiochus III and therebellious Molon, for during that clash [220 BCE] there were Galatian mercenariesfighting on both sides. On Antiochus’ victory, see Polybius 5.51–54. But no Jews arementioned 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 be-tween Antiochus III and Molon, Antiochus I Soter’s victory over Galatian invaders inthe 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, “ImperiumMacedonicum,” 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 ofAntiochus III, but not against Molon, see A. Momigliano, “Un’ignota irruzione deiGalati 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: Storiaet letteratura, 1975] 591–596); he builds on Suda’s Lexicon (ed. Adler, IV, 362, no.443, s.v. Σιμ�ν�δη«), 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, Momiglianopointed 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 andnotes on the text in Griechische Papyri der Hamburger Staats-und Universitätsbib-liothek [Hamburg: Augustin, 1954] 126–127). But it is doubtful that this fragmentrefers to any of the Seleucid kings, and it may well relate to a Ptolemaic king, PtolemyII 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 el-lenistica?,” SIFC 34 (1962) 25–30 [who relates to another papyrus fragment that, hesuggests, 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 timeof Antiochus I, but suggests that instead of “in Babylonia” we should read “in Baga-daonia” (�ν τ@ Βαγαδαον�f) – the great plain of southeastern Asia Minor, between

548 Appendices

convincing. Nor does any suggestion bear out the crucial role ascribed hereto the Jews; we may assume that the author of 2 Maccabees has exaggeratedin this regard. At most, we may infer that Galatian soldiers, on the onehand, participated in some clash in Seleucid Babylonia, perhaps in the ser-vice of some king who was hostile to the Seleucids, perhaps during one ofthe 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 Seleucidking who ruled Babylonia. Such a scenario would be very reasonable, giventhe continued existence of a large Jewish population in Babylonia, whichhad a significant military potential. The existence of such a military poten-tial is reflected in the fact that Antiochus III settled two thousand Jewishfamilies in Lydia and Phrygia (Ant. 12.147–153),91 in the establishment of aJewish state in Babylonia in the first century CE (ruled by Asineus and An-ileus [Ant. 18.310–370]), and in the tenacious resistance of BabylonianJews during the Roman invasion under Trajan.92

Mt. Argaeus and the Taurus range. But his suggestion that this was the site of thegreat 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’ssite is unknown], and in any case we have no knowledge of any participation by Jewsin that battle. Finally, we note Bar-Kochva’s suggestion that we link the events men-tioned 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; seeBar-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 andto locate this battle with the Galatians.

91 [On this text see Momigliano, loc. cit., 153–154 (= 593–594); Stern, Studies, 373 and638; and the first half of J. Gauger, Beiträge zur jüdischen Apologetik (Köln & Bonn:Hanstein, 1977). Gauger expressed doubts about the authenticity of the documentbut not necessarily about the historicity of the events to which it relates. On Jewishsoldiers 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 inTurmoil, 116/117 C.E.: Ancient Sources and Modern Insights (InterdisciplinaryStudies 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 δαπαν�μασι as in Hanhart’s edition, on the basis of thenearly unanimous testimony of the manuscripts. That is, I have not ac-cepted the emendation into διαιτ�μασι, proposed by Wilhelm and adoptedby many.93 The term δια�τημα 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 – whoadopted the emendation – took it to mean food or equipment; but it seemsthat Habicht and Goldstein (who also adopted the emendation) were prob-ably right to assume Wilhelm meant “way of life.”94 However, it is difficultto accept the emendation. True, Habicht correctly emphasizes, against Han-hart, that this issue – in the text of a royal letter preserved in a book orig-inally 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 tocomparable usage of the word in royal letters or anywhere else. Wilhelmcontented himself with proving that δαπ�νημα 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’sdefense of his reading, see below, n. 96. Among those who retain δαπαν�μασι, butwith 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 wit-

nesses 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, δαπ�νημα 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 havethe benefit of the services supplied to them and observe their laws”). However, the factthat he is forced to use two separate verbs where the Greek uses only one, ξρAσ�αι, ar-gues against this; so does the fact that on Hanhart’s interpretation the king is pretend-ing 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 δια�τημαcomes with no argument or example. My own search came up with no-thing: the term δια�τημα appears especially in medical literature, but in theliterature 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 inthe documents assembled in Welles’ RC, in Preisigke’s Wörterbuch, or in acomprehensive computerized corpus of Greek inscriptions and papyri.97

On the other hand, it has been argued that the term δαπ�νημα, “ex-pense,” could function with a broader sense of “equipment,” “supply,” andso 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. δαπ�νη,where the translation τροφ� may be found.99 Goldstein nevertheless re-jected that meaning here, arguing that since our verse gives the Jews per-mission to live according to their laws in general there is no point to specifi-cally singling out the dietary laws; so too Bunge.100 However, such anargument hardly seems weighty enough to overcome the near unanimity ofthe witnesses here, especially since the dietary laws (assuming that is whatthey are) are mentioned before the laws in general. If the Vulgate could livewith “cibis,” why should we refuse to do so? Given the heavy emphasis onthe observance of dietary laws in the martyrdom stories of Chapters 6–7, itdoes not seem unreasonable or superfluous to single out this particularsphere in the context of rescinding the decrees. It seems, in other words, weshould read our verse as if it means the Jews are allowed not only to eatwhat their laws allow (which had been a major issue) but also to live in allways 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 com-

pares the range of senses of our English “consumption”). See also: J. Lust, E. Eynikeland K. Hauspie (comp.), A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, I (Suttgart:Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992) 95, s.v. δαπ�νημα (“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 δι�δοξο« (“successor”)mean here?; (2) To whom does “his” allude?; and (3) Was Alcimus’ state-ment true? As we shall see, the first two questions are closely linked one toanother.

The lack of clarity is evident in the variant readings: as Hanhart’s appar-atus shows, there are those who place α.το� (“his”) after “Judas” ratherthan before that name, and those that read the intense Ψαψτο� (“of him-self”) instead of mere α.το�. But even these readings fail to clarify the textcompletely. In order to avoid the difficulty created by the possessive adjec-tive, Deissmann and Abel suggested that we view δι�δοξο« here as an ab-solute term, namely, a relatively low title known from the Ptolemaic court,where it designated a person who was allowed to be nominated for a posi-tion.101 However, as Bunge noted, this title is not known from the Seleucidkingdom.102 Moreover, the manuscripts do use the possessive adjective.And in any case, if those who made the suggestion hoped to avoid the no-tion that Nicanor was accused of appointing Judas to be high priest or dep-uty governor although both were the king’s prerogative, we should notethat appointment to such an aulic rank was too, so the suggestion hardlysolves the problem.

So we return to the basic reading, that has Nicanor appointing Judas tobe 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 thetranslation of δι�δοξο«: 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, TheAulic Titulature in Ptolemaic Egypt: Introduction and Prosopography (Verhandel-ingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en SchoneKunsten 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 tounderstand “deputy” if we were told Nicanor was going to be traveling – asat 4:28–29, 31 and Polybius 3.87.9 – or otherwise prevented from fulfillinghis responsibilities as governor; but there is nothing here to indicate or ex-plain such a need for a deputy. On the other hand, the assumption that thereference 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 highpriesthood (v. 3), complained to the king that he had been cast out of thatposition (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 theorder but, instead, had appointed Judas to the high priesthood.

Was the charge true? That is, had Nicanor really appointed Judas to thehigh priesthood? Bunge (n. 102) took Alcimus’ statement to be a villain’scalumny, as if the author wished to belie the notion that Judas wanted to behigh priest and did so by ascribing the complaint to a villain; seeking thehigh priesthood is something which characterizes villains, such as Jason,Menelaus, and Alcimus himself. But in order to make this argument Bungehad to change the verse’s emphasis; according to Bunge, “In 14,26 wirdnämlich ganz auffälllig vehement die Unterstellung des Alkimos, Judasstrebe 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 itseems better to take Alcimus’ statement as truth, and to understand that heis to be seen as a villain not because he lied about the fact of the appoint-ment but, rather, because he portrayed it as something bespeaking hostilityto the Seleucid crown. For more on the possibility that Judas indeed servedas high priest (as Josephus says), see NOTE on 14:13, and install Alcimus asthe 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@ φ�ν@.107 So tooRahlfs’ 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@ φ�ν@, a reading which found its way into Kahana’s and Artom’sHebrew translations, both of which quite naturally render it as “in theLord’s language.” This would, of course, be very interesting for the conceptof Hebrew and the Holy Language.109 Several considerations, however, leadme to adhere to the more widely testified reading:

1. The Alexandrinus is frequently an unreliable witness. Whether weprefer, as Grimm, to note that it frequently offers variants that seem to be ofthe nature of “overly clever corrections,”110 or simply adopt Kappler’s andBévenot’s assessment that it was very carelessly prepared,111 it is in generalrisky to build upon it when it is isolated.

2. The adjective κψριακ�« seems not to have been in use prior to theRoman period, and most of its usage seems, in fact, to be Christian, relatingto God or to Jesus; comparison of the short entry in LSJ to the very long onein 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 someof the matters addressed in this Appendix.

107 In this appendix, for a reason that will become obvious in §4, I have written the capi-tal 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 ex-plained – at p. 15, n. 1 of his edition – that he viewed it as a trivial paleographicalerror.

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 intro-duced, 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 ourauthor used another adjective here, he probably meant another language;this is especially so in Chapter 15, where the reference to prayer in “theancestral language” (15:29) precedes the one under discussion by onlyseven verses. Now, on the one hand, it seems that by “the ancestral lan-guage” our author meant Hebrew.113 This results both from the fact that itappears in especially religious contexts (martyrs’ speeches in Chapter 7,hymns and prayers in the other two cases) and from 4 Maccabees, whichhas τ@ ’Εβρα 1ιδι φ�ν@ 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 (seee.g. 4:38; 6:30; 7:6), “Kyrios’ language” too should mean Hebrew, for bothJews and Christians, at least those of the Greek-speaking West, held thatGod’s language was Hebrew.114 So if τ@ κψριακ@ φ�ν@ were the true read-ing, it would not provide any contrast to “the ancestral language,” al-though, as noted, it seems that it should.115 But there is an obvious distinc-tion between Hebrew and Aramaic – a point in favor of reading τ@Cψριακ@ φ�ν@. Compare, for example, Letter of Aristeas 11, which notesthat although some think the Jews use “the Syrian language (φ�ν"ν …Cψριακ@)” their language is really different, just as at §30 he notes that notonly 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 oneof two ways. First, of course, it may be simply a mistake, for the differencebetween τ@ Cψριακ@ φ�ν@ and τ@ Κψριακ@ φ�ν@ is, in uncial manu-scripts, 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 thosecases the terms are clearly synonymous and the text is secure. Our case is different inboth regards.

116 See B. Schaller, “ΗkΕΙ ΕΚ ΣΙ�Ν Ο ΡWΟΜΕΝΟΣ: Zur Textgestalt von Jes 59:20f. inRöm. 11:26f.,” De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on HisSixty-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, mis-takenly, to the C, especially given the ancient habit of not leaving spacesbetween 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 thecase117 – 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 ofCWΡΙΑΚΗ (just as there is none at the end of the word). Of course, the mis-take may have been born in a previous manuscript that did include suchiotas, or a new upright could have been suggested by the one on the right ofthe 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, Ihesitate to think that a religious scribe would create one out of plain negli-gence.

5. Hence my preference for another explanation, more in line withGrimm’s characterization of the Alexandrinus than with Kappler’s andBévenot’s. Above I noted that Kyrios, in our book, refers to God. But Ialso noted that κψριακ�« is almost exclusively a Christian word. Given thefact that Christian texts frequently use Kyrios not only of God but also ofJesus, it should come as no surprise that κψριακ�« too can refer to Jesus; in-deed, 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 asMark 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: “theLord’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 whowere brought up only in the language of the Syrians (τ@ Σ�ρ�ν φ�ν@)?”

119 On such phenomena in general see Kraft, “Christian Transmission.” For anotherpossible case in our book, see our NOTE on 12:27, a multi-ethnic multitude.

556 Appendices

Appendix 11: “and ever since the city wastaken over by the Hebrews

it has been in their hands” (15:37)

Τ7ν ο[ν κατ? Νικ�νορα ξ�ρησ�ντ�ν οdτ�« κα/ �π 0 �κε�ν�ν τ7νκαιρ7ν κρατη�ε�ση« τA« π�λε�« 3π9 τ7ν ’Εβρα��ν κα/ α.τ9« α.τ��ιτ9ν λ�γον καταπα�σ�.

The author’s evident purpose is to explain to his readers why he may end hisbook at this point. As such, he would not want to hint to them that the idealsituation achieved by the victory over Nicanor has since changed in any sig-nificant – perforce bad, from the Jewish point of view – way; that wouldundercut the importance of his story and also perplex his readers, ratherthan leaving them with the impression that they had received a completenarrative. That is, he should want to leave them with the impression thatthe ideal situation continues until his and their own day. This comesthrough quite clearly in such translations as Luther’s, the Revised StandardVersion, 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 fromthat 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, κρατη�ε�ση«, can beascribed, as in these translations, a continuous meaning taking us up to thepresent. 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 inthe 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 translationsapparently suggest that the situation has in fact changed significantly, andthat the author knew it, thus leaving his readers wondering why he con-cluded his book here. We doubt, however, that the author wanted to leaveus such a puzzle, which would undermine the importance of his work.

It seems that the dilemma may be resolved if we notice that the verbκρατω�, in our book, usually means not “to rule,” which is a continuousprocess, but, rather, “to take over.” The most relevant parallels are at 4:10and 5:7, where it appears, as here, in the aorist, and has “rule” (�ρξ�) as itsobject; “take over rule” is the plain translation. So too at 14:2, where theverb is in the perfect and “the country” (ξ�ρα) is the object. A fourth case,4:27, where the verb appears in the imperfect, is somewhat less clear; per-haps it refers to something continuous. However, given the fact that itcomes at the very beginning of Menelaus’ tenure as high priest, perhaps ittoo refers especially to the inception of rule; and had it referred to ruling thecity 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 thefifth case, at 4:50, but here the verb has no object at all, and so readily trans-lates into “those who hold power.” This cannot affect our assessment of15:37 where, judging by the other parallels, the verb refers to the conquestof the city by the Hebrews.

What then of �π 0 �κε�ν�ν τ7ν καιρ7ν (“from those times”)? If κρα-τη�ε�ση« refers to a one-time event in the past, what happened “since thosetimes?” Here, it seems, we must – as my teacher, Lisa Ullmann, suggested tome – assume two frequent phenomena:121 a verb of being (οϊση« – presentparticiple of ε&ναι) has been omitted and “the city,” although mentionedonly once in the verse, in fact is to be understood as functioning as the sub-ject of two verbs (the phenomenon known as �π9 κοινο�) – κρατη�ε�ση«and οϊση«. This allows for the translation we adopted: “Since the affairsconcerning Nicanor turned out this way, and ever since the city was takenover by the Hebrews it has been in their hands, here I too will conclude thisaccount.”

120 Moreover, see our NOTE on 4:27, took over the government. It may be that theauthor was so pleased by the paronomasia there that he chose the wrong verb in orderto create it; cf. our NOTE on 3:35, receiving Onias.

121 On these phenomena see, respectively, F. Blass & A. Debrunner, Grammatik des neu-testamentlichen Griechisch (ed. F. Rehkopf; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,198416) §§127–128 and 479.

559

INDICES

560 Indices

Index of References 561

Index of References1

I. Hebrew Bible2

Genesis4:10 3276:8 26710 25614:5 43114:18 53714:18–22 20315:5 13615:16 28418:2 38819:1 162, 38819:11 38931:2 63, 48433:18 53738:1 25141:1 53643:12 410

Exodus1:7 3301:11 62, 263, 2652:24 1363:22 3398:18 15614 19814:30–15:1 50815 154, 50615:1 15415:16 62, 50615:17 15618:21 33918:24 339

19:6 168, 16920:11 31223:20 6223:22 62, 387,

401, 40325:23 14225:31 14230:30 14532:13 136, 33534:6 15437:26 16240:34–35 163

Leviticus9:1 1659:22 50110:1–2 152, 16510:19–20 16523:40 378

Numbers14:17 48614:37 35817:12–13 20321:21–24 43425:3 1325:10–12 22425:11–13 1327:12–13 16227:8–11 19429:28–30:1 1631:19 439

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, 441LXX 35:33 536

Deuteronomy3:27 1624:9 1616:7 1407:2 4037:5 3757:25–26 4398:5 22, 69, 284, 3168:11 649:27 13612:3 375, 48513:11 44016:9–12 43519:16–21 24420:8 33520:14 43121:7 50225:9 50226:6 6228:15 15628:26 36029 16129:28 44030:3 16231:19 30232 21, 22, 62, 63, 66, 226, 259,

262, 299, 302, 303, 327, 477,526

32:9 155, 477LXX 32:9 47732:20 22, 26232:25 22, 259, 29832:27 261, 29932:27ff. 30732:35 22632:36 296, 299, 302, 52632:43 226, 32732:36 22, 6234:1 162

Joshua1:8 1616 427

7:6 386LXX 15:37 477

Judges13:6 38818:21 431LXX 19:8 503

1 Samuel2:12–16 2242:27ff. 22412:22 285LXX 14:19 33014:28–30 45217:26 31517:36 31517:44 36017:44–46 36017:54 508

2 Samuel5:21 4397:10 15711:1 435

1 Kings3:9–12 1633:16–28 858 1648:2 1638:4 1618:10 1638:27 4868:65 1638:66 134, 16514:29 1516:27 1518:33–35 153

2 Kings5:15–17 2046:15–18 636:18 38910:20 1517 53818:27 153


19:19 15619:35 62, 337, 54620:34 1525:15 16225:25 398

Isaiah10:32 62, 48411:12 15614 62, 35214:11 35814:12 35614:13 35814:14 35914:18–20 365LXX 14:19 36619:21 14224:16 487LXX 29:5 35832:6 53636:5–6 40336:12 15337:20 15637:36 62, 337, 546LXX 37:36 50640:12 35740:26 63, 31244:12 26745:3 15648:1 18649:5–6 15549:7 15654:7 22, 31354:7–8 261, 262, 31356:8 16259:21 16162:9 277

Jeremiah1:1 1522:1 1632:27–28 1383:16 1617:16 5027:33 3608:14 153

10:2–11 16011:12 13811:14 50214:11 50214:21 335, 33615:9 63, 299, 30817:26 14225:11–12 15229:5–7 48229:10 15232 136, 142LXX 32:1 51432:34 13632:37 13632:39 136, 13732:40 13632:41 136, 15733:9 13641:1 39841:1–15 62, 25543–44 16050:41–42 24452:19 162

Ezekiel7:17 15317:13 39821:12 15326:7 44928:18 62, 45139:4 36039:23 262

Joel2:16–17 1972:16–19 622:17 94LXX 2:17 3872:20 62, 197, 358

Amos6:13 431

Jonah3:8 198

564 Indices

Zechariah2:16 141

Psalms1:5–6 30410:4 39820:8 33633:13–14 15637:18–19 13840:7 14252:6 50874:9 51474:20 33574:79 14279:2 36094:12–13 28494:14 285LXX 94:14 28596:6 188104:4 201115:1 336135:14 302144:6 389149:6 507

Proverbs1:1 1631:27 14010:2 34211:4 34213:11–12 28424:17 25627:2 291

EstherLXX 3:7 280LXX 3:13a-b 362LXX 3:13e 4723:15 4834:1 198, 3864:16 36, 450, 452LXX 4:17a 154LXX 4:17c 312LXX 5:1a 2055:14 35, 62, 4506:1 450

7 2447:5–10 4507:10 62, 450LXX 8:12d 205LXX 8:12p 3469:15 1739:19 5119:21 511LXX 9:24 2809:26 5119:26–32 910:3 293LXX 10:3 162

Daniel2:37 449LXX 3:34 336LXX 3:34–36 335LXX 3:43 3367–8 3737:13 1637:25 372, 376, 5418:14 372, 3768:23 284LXX 8:23 2849:2 1529:3 3869:15 5069:21 3889:26 5911 197, 35811:14 23011:28–30 53311:30 25311:31ff. 27311:32–33 29911:36 35911:45 45412 37312:2 30412:7 372LXX 14 150

Ezra1:5 954:15 166


4:17 1395:17 1397:1 37:12 449

Nehemiah1:18 1632 1533–4 151, 2547:65 1518 3408:9 1519:6 3129:8 1369:32 48611:1 18611:17 15412:11 154

1 Chronicles10:10 51014:12 439

16:27 18817:23 48620:1 43521:26 16424:14 95, 18925 15728:9 13729:13 486

2 Chronicles2:5 4865:3 1636 1647:1 134, 163, 164, 5277:8–10 1637:9–10 134, 16513:11 14220:18 38624:9 22124:11 19029:17 16530:6 136

II. New Testament

Matthew2:22 1683:16–17 20114:9 16824:15 18825:46 30427:54 152

Mark1:6 2681:10–11 2014:41 5085:41 55514:61 27815:34 55515:42 342

Luke1:5 951:8 95

1:65 5082:2 5443:1 4344:37 3305:1 4285:26 50820:27–40 44220:36 31622:6 48323:32 20224:44 59, 166

John4:21–24 477:2 1438:20 19110:22 87, 16311:49 39912:13 37818:11 399

566 Indices

Acts1:3 3071:6 4071:9–11 1632:1 4362:47 4803:21 4074:1 1894:29 4865:5 1395:11 3305:13–14 4805:24 1895:33 1395:39 3075:40 2336:1 2056:13 1887 205, 4867:2 2057:9 2057:33 2057:44–46 2057:44–50 4867:48–50 2057:56 2937:58 2057:59 2938:30 51410:1 23810:24 40310:28 27710:39 13512:1 35312:23 355, 35715:5 19715:21 19716:20 48616:37 281, 48617:21 7117:24 31217:25 486

19:9 19921:28 18821:39 19723:1 27523:6 30523:8 316, 317, 442, 44424:12 27624:15 30525:16 30226:6 30528:19 216, 469

Romans11:1 9511:26ff. 554

1 Corinthians15:42–55 306

2 Corinthians11:27 178

Galatians1:13–14 173

Philippians1:27 2753:5 953:20 275

1 Thessalonians1:2 1392:13 5382:16 284

Hebrews11:35–36 8811:35–38 5211:38 88

1 John3:2 538


III. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

Assumption of Moses3:4 3864:8 958 2998:1–2 2789 2999:7 317

1 Baruch2:11 506

2 Baruch6 160, 162

Bel and the Dragon15 15021 150

1 Enoch6:2 31614:3 31691:10 304

Epistle of JeremiahPp. 160, 161

1 Esdras8:73 198

2 Esdras4:15 166

Judith2:3 3474:3 4524:10–15 1984:11 2414:11–12 3866:2 4988:1 38:6 3428:7 19410:13 26013:7–10 508

13:15 51014:1 51015:12 37816:1 15416:17 35716:18 439

Letter of Aristeas2 1863 51, 18011 180, 55416 20523 24431 18036 5144 5153 50963 18083 13592–96 19993 18099 180107–111 135121ff. 286126 51144 197, 287145–146 435205 405210 486211 355225 405230 405245 240, 253262 355263 355, 359264–265 405267 240269 355270 405271 240289 315310 145, 199

568 Indices

1 Maccabees1 299, 533, 5351:9 1921:11 49, 3251:11–15 43, 2111:14 2191:19 1921:20 250, 2741:20–24 149, 5331:21 5341:21–23 46, 48, 192, 260, 5331:24ff. 3001:29 41, 250, 265, 398, 5361:30 49, 266, 3421:33ff. 2721:36–40 2721:41–67 2731:43 491:47 3751:52 49, 3251:54 372, 373, 375, 3761:56–64 2991:58–59 5421:59 3771:60 2811:60–61 3261:60–63 50, 541:60–64 2721:61 19, 198, 2811:62–63 2681:64 317, 3292 3242–4:23 3232:1 267, 339, 4542:1–14 2752:7 1862:14 1982:15ff. 2802:16 492:17 5022:24 2152:24–26 132:25 3752:26–27 2152:28–29 267, 2682:29 496

2:29–38 86, 282, 3252:29–41 502:31 2822:32–38 2722:39–41 266, 2822:41ff. 2742:42 4712:42–43 3232:42–45 3262:42–48 3242:44 3822:44–48 325, 3292:45 323, 3752:49–64 3372:50 2152:54 13, 2152:58 2152:65 324, 4753 3313–4 324, 3333:1 3243:3–33 293:5–8 325, 3293:8 317, 3293:10–24 3293:17 4523:24 3393:27–33 1483:32 41, 265, 367, 397, 3983:32–33 30, 3673:37 352, 5443:38 9, 30, 243, 325, 3313:39 3323:41 333, 3463:43–54 46, 48, 3253:47 198, 241, 4523:48 3403:56 3353:58–59 46, 3324 34, 344, 394, 395, 4194–6 40, 4204:1 9, 3254:1–25 3294:5 9, 3254:8–11 3374:10 136, 335


4:15 342, 4364:18 9, 3254:23 3424:26 163, 3944:26–35 3444:28 398, 4484:28–35 394, 3954:29 4004:35 26, 4514:36 171, 3744:36–5:8 3724:38 3454:39 2414:41–58 3764:43–47 3764:46 574:52 372, 373, 376, 5234:52–54 3774:59 163, 1714:61 26, 394, 4005 29, 30, 374, 394, 417, 418,

419, 420, 422, 424, 4275:3 3825:3–5 3745:6–8 374, 385, 3865:9ff. 4295:10 1715:13 3855:16 3855:17 3855:25 418, 4255:26 419, 429, 4305:35 4295:43–44 4335:46–51 4345:54 46, 48, 4195:56 340, 3835:58ff. 4245:59 4085:61 1715:62 13, 4195:65 171, 382, 3845:65–68 4365:68 375, 4396 34, 36, 60, 355, 395,

396, 420, 454

6:1 148, 3526:1–16 25, 29, 1486:5ff. 3546:14 3666:15 3126:16 326:17 3986:18–63 3946:20 29, 30, 41, 4486:21 496:21–23 1926:22 3856:26 266:30 398, 4486:30–46 3956:31 395, 400, 456, 4906:33 5066:37 4556:39 2536:43–46 288, 4556:49–50 457, 4586:51–54 4586:55 4596:55ff. 296:55–56 306:55–63 3676:58 2376:60–61 4586:62 49, 4596:63 4597:1 86, 467, 468, 5117:3–4 4687:5 49, 325, 466, 469, 4767:6 171, 3827:8–10 97:8–25 4677:10 171, 4677:11 4677:12–18 4827:13 4717:14 967:17 1427:18 497:21 3327:22 497:26–30 481

570 Indices

7:27 467, 5077:30 4677:31 4777:33 478, 484, 4857:35 5437:36–38 1567:37 4867:39–50 496, 505, 5077:40 477, 5047:41 5067:41–42 3377:43 5117:45 5047:47 508, 5107:49 4678 14, 2218:6 1888:17 175, 221, 4309 39:3 482, 5239:10 235, 2889:12 5069:23 499:27 579:30 1479:33 149:54 5239:58 499:69 4910:8 50810:14 49, 38210:15–21 1310:18 135, 40610:21 14310:25 13510:26 362, 40410:31 19610:40 19210:43 19610:44 19210:46 36510:51–58 36710:59–66 22710:61 4910:69 42410:75–76 424

10:89 39811:1–18 36711:13 18811:14 23511:17 50811:25 4911:27 33211:28 21811:30 40611:30–37 7311:31 39811:53 3911:59 46011:60 19311:70 40411:71 38612:1 23512:1–4 1412:5–23 25612:7 7312:9 40312:11 13912:19–22 7312:22 16813:11 404, 42413:25 45413:36–40 11, 13913:37 311, 469, 47013:39 41013:41 11, 13913:41–42 52913:42 14713:51 37814 47514:1–3 13914:5 423, 42414:20–23 25714:28 50914:34 42314:36 23314:36–37 13514:41 57, 147, 47714:49 19115:10 11, 13915:21 255, 38215:27 49


15:33–34 23515:40 42416:14 19316:23–24 520

2 Maccabees1–2 11, 171:1 6, 8, 132, 137, 140, 144, 385, 5201:1–9 5211:1–1:10a 132, 521, 5251:1–2:18 4, 519, 520, 5281:2 3171:2–5 133, 136, 3751:3 1681:3–4 137, 1381:4 138, 142, 3141:5 10, 525, 5261:6 133, 4861:7 4, 9, 11, 143, 147, 162,

336, 522, 524, 526, 527, 5291:7–8 1401:7–9 5211:7–10a 1331:7a 5221:7b-8 5221:8 132, 163, 345, 372, 376, 5261:9 9, 139, 150, 163, 3771:9–10a 5231:9–10 111:10 5, 8, 15, 59, 135, 148,

243, 362, 373, 520, 521, 5231:10a 11, 521, 522, 5241:10b 133, 5231:10b-2:18 1321:11 133, 1461:11–17 1331:12 133, 186, 336, 502, 5271:12–13 5271:13 71, 133, 149, 258, 3291:13–16 133, 147, 150, 520, 521, 5271:13–17 25, 1441:14 1921:15 13, 150, 4851:17 5271:18 9, 133, 143, 144, 153,

159, 163, 167, 172, 523

1:18–19 1341:18–2:15 1331:19 134, 160, 168, 1721:20 1481:23 1571:25 2001:25–26 168, 3911:27 162, 169, 2051:29 169, 197, 5381:30 4381:31 376, 528, 5381:31–32 91:32 154, 1721:33 148, 1591:34 159, 2151:36 1592:1 152, 163, 1662:2 291, 3142:4 155, 166, 1972:6 1612:8–11 1972:8–12 1602:9 150, 153, 1642:10 134, 154, 164, 376, 5382:12 134, 1632:13 160, 260, 4032:14 3582:16 134, 140, 144, 150,

159, 263, 5232:16–18 1332:17 9, 137, 147, 155, 1622:17–18 1342:18 157, 5382:18–32 1322:19 31, 163, 174, 475, 4842:19–23 1712:19–32 4, 16, 24, 25, 37, 5192:20 4, 364, 5272:20–21 812:21 47, 80, 156, 199,

224, 251, 281, 4232:22 1862:23 362:23–24 3242:23–31 17, 242:23–32 513

572 Indices

2:23ff. 379, 4192:24 177, 231, 346, 5142:24–31 272:24–32 5132:25 24, 722:26 24, 34, 1752:26–27 682:27 24, 179, 5142:28 72, 1752:29 24, 3532:32 24, 150, 175, 2853 4, 16, 37, 41, 42, 75, 87, 1723–4 12, 183–5 19, 42, 433–7 3293–15 163:1 3, 7, 50, 70, 74, 75, 174,

185, 193, 195, 200, 214, 224,238, 239, 327, 328, 502, 512

3:1–2 3753:1–3 4, 6, 48, 184, 250, 4823:1–4:6 43:1–6:17 253:2 74, 204, 260, 4813:2–3 18, 48, 1673:3 4, 5, 74, 185, 191, 192,

225, 360, 468, 5493:4 5, 6, 27, 74, 95, 211,

243, 380, 468, 4823:4–5 493:5 4, 185, 193, 3333:5–6 216, 4693:6 2333:7 180, 215, 4743:8 1853:9 5, 69, 184, 185, 204, 250, 5383:10 5, 185, 2003:10–12 1913:11 2243:12 174, 4333:13 2323:14 69, 401, 5043:14b 1843:14–17 793:15 5, 47, 48, 93, 156, 172,

184, 191, 200, 205, 290

3:16 5, 69, 185, 196, 281, 4013:17 69, 703:18 48, 4023:19 18, 277, 281, 3183:20 47, 48, 156, 184, 205, 5013:20–21 3553:21 5, 79, 185, 386, 4833:22 48, 71, 174, 186, 191, 4963:22–23 18, 76, 200, 334, 498, 5063:24 40, 70, 71, 202, 259, 337, 4563:24–26 172, 251, 4313:25 70, 202, 214, 356, 4013:26 2013:28 78, 174, 180, 200,

201, 307, 3573:29 763:29–30 200, 5063:30 32, 48, 70, 200, 292,

391, 406, 455, 5083:31 46, 48, 61, 71, 185, 2283:32 5, 46, 48, 185, 238, 2573:33 5, 61, 185, 201, 2043:33–34 1723:34 47, 93, 155, 156, 201, 2043:34–39 347, 4023:35 69, 185, 1933:36 3613:36–39 483:37 1853:38 192, 215, 3313:38–39 2013:39 47, 64, 93, 156, 184,

197, 305, 341, 4863:40 379, 5124 16, 18, 3004–5 51, 1404–7 3364:1 69, 70, 180, 2014:1–4 44:1–6 4, 18, 4694:1b 44:2 6, 213, 219, 220, 245,

246, 337, 422, 456, 5044:3 50, 2364:4 4, 176, 191, 228, 265, 3334:4–6 187, 469


4:5 6, 199, 367, 4494:5–6 4, 824:6 48, 80, 82, 217, 236,

250, 273, 471, 5384:7 4, 6, 31, 49, 70, 185, 188,

192, 211, 217, 229, 231,294, 306, 399, 490, 527

4:7–9 824:7–15 414:8 231, 3994:8–9 2314:9 212, 273, 5304:9–11 64:10 83, 222, 224, 254, 281, 5574:10–11 5314:11 14, 15, 141, 174,

243, 289, 336, 4564:12 222, 233, 2634:13 23, 67, 70, 83, 140, 173,

195, 220, 232, 291, 327, 5274:14 172, 189, 2234:15 83, 2244:16 2154:16–17 21, 22, 24, 25, 37, 64, 65,

75, 211, 226, 250, 261, 283,284, 303

4:17 24, 197, 224, 3274:18 524:18–20 52, 534:18–22 2114:19 243, 260, 274, 487, 5304:19–20 2194:20 2274:21 5, 73, 144, 191, 215, 232,

265, 274, 363, 367, 4824:21–23 5344:22 193, 218, 2504:23 31, 73, 95, 229, 274, 367, 4564:23–24 824:24 3994:25 49, 95, 174, 241, 256,

258, 290, 312, 4744:26 18, 31, 218, 226, 253, 255, 3994:27 80, 219, 241, 5574:28 191, 223, 4484:28–29 552

4:29 31, 235, 3834:30 424:30–34 124:30–38 2174:31 234, 383, 5524:32 240, 243, 451, 5384:32–38 494:33 196, 5304:34 48, 71, 187, 4334:35 48, 67, 238, 245, 254,

317, 335, 365, 450, 4614:35–36 4224:35–38 2114:36 51, 68, 187, 211, 328, 3524:36–37 2374:37 5014:38 71, 226, 242, 345,

390, 423, 473, 5544:39 199, 235, 243, 251,

387, 4514:39–40 684:39–42 52, 3534:40 27, 50, 215, 216, 241,

243, 380, 468, 4714:41 244, 4024:42 35, 71, 191, 226, 237,

240, 255, 341, 3824:44 52, 2324:45 48, 72, 174, 2794:45–46 279, 3314:47 264, 314, 450, 5144:48 6, 7, 46, 235, 5044:49 48, 187, 211, 237,

238, 257, 328, 422, 4504:50 6, 215, 219, 331, 5575 16, 18, 54, 141,

300, 534, 535, 5365:1 42, 231, 238, 274, 5335:2 69, 201, 266, 3875:2–4 1725:3 68, 69, 2525:4 48, 228, 2495:5 70, 254, 255, 294, 306, 4765:6 6, 80, 142, 220, 238,

258, 422, 4765:7 18, 62, 219, 242, 557

574 Indices

5:7–10 35, 2025:8 6, 133, 141, 213, 232,

241, 257, 4255:8–9 5385:9 47, 80, 213, 365, 3835:9–10 78, 226, 2495:10 245, 256, 277, 3605:11 49, 53, 73, 203, 232,

264, 290, 354, 390, 5345:11–13 795:11–14 2555:12 71, 4235:12–13 2995:13 20, 298, 3765:14 805:15 174, 201, 213, 256, 4565:15–16 149, 336, 360, 4515:16 18, 22, 46, 48, 89,

167, 188, 204, 235, 264,372, 484, 487, 533

5:17 21, 22, 68, 176, 188, 284,299, 307, 313, 351, 356

5:17–20 21, 24, 25, 37, 64, 75,226, 250, 261, 283, 303

5:18 5, 68, 1915:19 46, 156, 4815:20 21, 68, 71, 138, 155, 174,

186, 261, 262, 5265:21 19, 26, 69, 156, 201, 261, 300,

351, 355, 356, 357, 359, 5305:22 19, 62, 174, 189, 234,

243, 276, 330, 3665:22–23 18, 47, 5395:23 6, 695:24 19, 41, 68, 250, 252,

259, 332, 5355:25 18, 19, 69, 94, 153, 252,

253, 289, 301, 440, 4965:26 68, 69, 70, 80, 423, 4555:27 3, 19, 82, 84, 217, 275,

326, 341, 366, 377, 469,495

5:27–7:41 896 16, 17, 18, 3006–7 7, 17, 20, 24, 48, 50, 75,

90, 220, 372, 444, 495, 550

6:1 7, 18, 19, 41, 174, 197, 251,274, 291, 300, 407, 536

6:1–11 196:2 18, 19, 47, 86, 264, 268, 407, 5376:2–5 2746:3 196:3–11 1966:4 228, 3556:4–5 136, 273, 336, 4076:5 172, 281, 4616:6 19, 199, 274, 4966:7 17, 18, 39, 273, 274, 318,

358, 378, 5416:8 17, 356, 4226:9 69, 83, 173, 224, 2916:10 18, 20, 198, 239, 318, 3286:10–11 273, 274, 3266:11 19, 74, 86, 87, 191, 268,

330, 366, 377, 487, 496, 4976:12 24, 47, 69, 70, 177, 284,

315, 325, 5136:12–16 21, 64, 285, 303, 377, 4866:12–17 19, 24, 25, 37, 75, 226,

273, 2836:14 24, 232, 2616:14–16 2616:15 2266:15–16 246:16 21, 69, 283, 306, 3156:17 68, 180, 286, 3186:17b 2856:18 281, 2876:18–32 19, 236:18–7:42 21, 22, 24, 25, 37,

55, 328, 3306:19 88, 2656:20 281, 2876:21 17, 228, 281, 287,

301, 311, 318, 3566:21–22 2376:22 293, 304, 5386:23 19, 23, 197, 283, 286, 498, 5016:24 23, 286, 2896:24–25 4896:24–28 50, 2736:25 23, 83, 265, 288


6:26 71, 155, 3046:27 706:28 23, 67, 70, 88, 3306:29 180, 4596:30 23, 69, 70, 304, 448, 488, 5546:31 23, 50, 291, 303, 306, 3087 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 31, 52, 59,

88, 90, 293, 318, 3287:1 17, 93, 277, 286, 302, 4407:2 19, 70, 301, 3397:3 290, 302, 317, 354, 4837:4 244, 303, 5147:4–5 86, 3587:5 70, 276, 305, 311, 4237:6 19, 22, 24, 62, 136, 197,

205, 299, 311, 315, 343, 526, 5547:7 88, 302, 306, 3567:8 19, 69, 438, 5547:9 226, 299, 305, 3067:10 70, 3057:11 2997:12 69, 3027:13 17, 3067:14 70, 299, 304, 305, 4507:15 177:16 285, 2997:17 155, 293, 3187:17–18 4977:18 23, 93, 291, 3147:19 3537:20 79, 3057:21 19, 310, 311, 438, 499, 5547:21–24 3107:22–23 4907:23 71, 155, 299, 3057:24 19, 149, 301, 311, 4597:25 233, 3027:25–29 2897:26 3027:27 19, 232, 241, 256,

310, 438, 5547:28 58, 63, 228, 238, 3027:29 88, 256, 261, 2997:30 19, 137, 197, 3027:31 527:32 93, 261, 307

7:33 22, 47, 68, 71, 93, 136,138, 261, 262, 283, 299, 303,

314, 343, 525, 5267:34 22, 69, 260, 305, 308, 4877:35 2057:36 69, 2997:37 19, 23, 24, 48, 175, 301, 3877:37–38 2997:38 23, 50, 155, 313, 3297:39 290, 293, 301, 302, 354, 4837:40 3067:41 707:42 17, 20, 23, 68, 69, 205,

263, 285, 299, 318, 3568 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 25, 300,

354, 372, 394, 495, 4978:1 68, 82, 84, 173, 224, 245, 267,

281, 285, 323, 324, 336, 4958:2 70, 205, 3468:2–3 78:2–4 4, 19, 22, 48, 83, 146,

326, 329, 376, 5278:2–5 2728:3 174, 3598:3–4 508:4 187, 2388:4–5 65, 3178:5 23, 48, 80, 83, 148, 175, 272, 313,

323, 346, 347, 387, 401, 5018:5–7 174, 3248:5–8 3248:6 245, 326, 3528:6–7 325, 4238:7 4718:8 176, 243, 323, 366, 3828:9 46, 71, 149, 341, 382, 423,

427, 473, 4748:9ff. 3238:10 42, 5448:11 76, 155, 280, 323, 335, 341,

346, 348, 355, 374, 476, 4988:11b 2268:12 73, 330, 3828:13 201, 3468:14 228, 253, 3468:14–15 48

576 Indices

8:14–20 46, 48, 3258:15 317, 3358:16 2018:16–20 64, 4998:17 4, 7, 69, 188, 222, 337, 5278:18 76, 200, 219, 346, 403,

456, 4998:18–19 3418:18–20 5468:19 62, 4998:19–20 323, 427, 452, 4998:20 47, 71, 156, 341, 5468:21 50, 70, 256, 301, 3448:22 31, 171, 3408:22–23 3408:23 32, 70, 341, 346, 401, 4318:23–26 3248:24 71, 155, 242, 3398:25 47, 152, 226, 2588:26–27 198:26–28 2668:27 313, 343, 346, 387,

391, 401, 4028:27–30 3398:29 22, 23, 24, 48, 76, 84, 136, 138,

169, 175, 198, 228, 253, 303,342, 346, 387, 401, 441, 496,

525, 5268:30 9, 71, 332, 342, 3838:30–32 4218:30–33 354, 3858:31 329, 342, 345, 3528:32 718:33 72, 213, 226, 343, 3908:34 9, 84, 330, 333, 382, 421, 432,

473, 497, 4998:34–35 3898:35 341, 5308:36 7, 42, 48, 64, 78, 80, 202,

307, 333, 357, 361, 402, 473, 5449 16, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 35,

148, 300, 354, 395, 450, 5279–10 40, 4069–13 25, 33, 380, 469:1 236, 251, 258, 5389:1–2 148, 236, 389

9:2 240, 241, 258, 352, 4269:3 73, 343, 385, 421, 4419:4 7, 47, 81, 156, 201,

290, 327, 359, 476, 4989:5 69, 71, 201, 205, 313, 3919:5–6 47, 2269:6 357, 365, 4519:7 67, 69, 70, 81, 258, 303, 352,

354, 355, 390, 423, 473, 4809:7–8 3579:8 25, 69, 174, 263, 355, 360, 4989:8–10 26, 2029:8–12 1569:9 62, 70, 86, 92, 3609:10 25, 78, 235, 341, 3669:10–12 2019:11 81, 355, 5039:11–12 3079:11–17 4029:12 223, 313, 3579:12–17 489:13 76, 260, 261, 361, 362, 4879:13b 2269:14 186, 196, 347, 5029:14–15 79:14–17 3599:15 41, 227, 228, 245, 257, 2759:16 48, 83, 167, 189, 225, 2609:16–17 2049:17 155, 204, 3629:17–18 81, 4849:18 69, 152, 362, 363, 403, 4989:18ff. 3599:19 6, 1359:20 47, 156, 4099:21 4059:23 359, 364, 3679:24 2349:25 72, 359, 363, 4039:26 362, 4059:27 2899:28 47, 226, 257, 294, 3289:28–29 2459:29 27, 29, 144, 205, 217, 38110 16, 30, 394, 397, 42710–11 31, 32, 34, 35, 374, 398, 419


10–13 2610:1 810:1–3 810:1–8 8, 11, 14, 16, 17, 25, 30, 37,

143, 144, 371, 372, 373, 376,378, 379, 526, 527, 528, 529

10:2 172, 372, 373, 48510:2–3 13610:3 8, 9, 134, 142, 153, 157, 158,

163, 231, 372, 526, 52810:4 22, 24, 32, 48, 69, 150, 174,

175, 253, 283, 284, 390, 45210:5 47, 163, 375, 37610:6 88, 165, 268, 36610:6–7 9, 14310:7 8, 48, 385, 47010:8 7, 10, 137, 144, 510, 52610:9 8, 16, 205, 217, 367,

372, 373, 52610:9–13 37110:9–11:38 32, 36, 3710:10 72, 172, 217, 324,

327, 355, 364, 419, 51310:10–11 36710:10–11:38 33, 3410:10ff. 3010:11 30, 189, 192, 243, 331,

354, 359, 396, 397, 42110:12 217, 237, 243,

313, 330, 37910:12–13 42, 244, 330, 33110:13 149, 49010:14 68, 80, 330, 333, 37410:14–15 280, 331, 422, 43610:14–23 37210:15 50, 215, 242, 329, 353, 47610:16 48, 198, 253, 341, 37210:17 70, 71, 33210:18 34310:18–19 3110:19 73, 233, 339, 35210:19–20 171, 43210:19–23 34010:21 31, 339, 44110:22 38410:23 71, 332

10:24 27, 31, 258, 343, 344, 354,374, 382, 389, 398, 448

10:24–38 37210:25 31, 198, 346, 361, 47710:25–26 48, 341, 37210:26 62, 94, 175, 199, 241,

253, 401, 53810:26–30 6310:27 7, 31, 25110:28 76, 294, 329, 336, 346, 39010:29 47, 62, 156, 201,

387, 388, 401, 42510:29–30 31, 172, 372, 431, 50710:30 201, 257, 406, 50810:31 38310:32 343, 374, 38310:34 277, 347, 42710:34–35 32810:34–36 3210:35 67, 70, 71, 258, 387, 390, 47310:36 45710:37 27, 71, 72, 37410:38 48, 346, 372, 43811 11, 16, 28, 30, 32, 42, 300,

372, 373, 395, 420, 44811:1 27, 29, 41, 68, 192,

251, 317, 420, 44111:2 31, 81, 361, 399, 48411:2–3 7, 39811:2–4 28311:3 67, 485, 53811:4 36, 81, 86, 155, 361, 395,

398, 448, 484, 498, 50511:4a 22611:5 26, 30, 31, 32, 45611:6 31, 48, 73, 79, 198, 228,

229, 341, 361, 391, 401, 45211:7 31, 70, 339, 340, 43111:7–8 38711:8 31, 172, 201, 38711:9 70, 197, 39111:10 47, 156, 34111:11 7011:12 242, 38911:13 48, 64, 307, 314, 347,

357, 448, 451

578 Indices

11:13–14 2611:14 32, 45911:15 219, 403, 404, 405, 42011:16 135, 19911:16–21 41211:17 72, 364, 397, 40311:18 27, 396, 405, 406, 41111:19 362, 407, 41011:21 412, 52311:22 135, 40311:22–26 45911:23 33, 395, 411, 420, 47211:24 173, 222, 224, 226,

281, 410, 41111:25 275, 406, 50811:26 168, 237, 365, 406, 42011:27 135, 243, 403, 40411:27–33 40811:28 36211:29 192, 406, 42011:29–32 44911:30 23711:31 407, 54911:32 40911:33 405, 412, 52311:34 135, 397, 40311:35–36 39611:36 196, 412, 53011:37 24011:38 410, 52312 16, 28, 29, 30, 32,

354, 374, 420, 42712–13 3112:1 16, 27, 33, 235, 318, 48212:1–2 48, 77, 380, 42212:1–9 41812:2 48, 189, 213, 234, 252, 265,

332, 333, 374, 385, 386, 425,472, 482

12:2–3 28012:3 42412:3–9 333, 42112:5 220, 22812:6 31, 48, 69, 155, 226, 238, 239,

267, 329, 341, 417, 436, 440, 45312:7 71, 258

12:8 22812:9 30, 70, 329, 400, 423, 43912:10 27, 30, 345, 389,

400, 418, 425, 428, 42912:10–11 6812:10–12 41812:10–16 41812:10ff. 374, 39012:11 341, 388, 41712:11–12 237, 41812:12 40312:13 199, 43412:13–16 41812:14 51, 277, 328, 39012:14–15 7712:15 48, 70, 214, 258,

337, 390, 417, 43512:16 30, 174, 400, 417, 42612:17 30, 353, 390, 400, 425, 43712:17–19 41812:18 7312:19 71, 428, 45612:20 70, 33912:20–25 41812:21 31, 195, 228, 353, 433, 53412:22 69, 70, 140, 172, 205,

340, 417, 433, 50312:23 69, 433, 45512:24 389, 43712:24–25 29, 31, 68, 42512:25 33912:26 149, 43112:26–29 41812:27 174, 332, 426, 42712:28 48, 200, 41712:29 30, 353, 400, 43412:30 42212:30–31 48, 41812:31 712:31–32 34, 46, 48, 68, 417, 42512:32 353, 374, 38212:32–37 41812:34 65, 188, 418, 44012:35 27, 70, 332, 380,

389, 421, 43012:36 48, 72, 341, 417, 436


12:37 214, 433, 508, 55412:38 19, 223, 224, 266, 425, 43612:38–45 417, 41812:39 24512:39–41 6512:40 80, 27712:40–41 47, 43612:41 391, 436, 45312:41–42 48, 15512:42 198, 253, 44312:42ff. 34112:43 7, 48, 192, 290, 45112:43–45 291, 29912:44 46, 4812:45 60, 70, 35613 16, 28, 29, 30, 32, 35,

300, 395, 42013:1 32, 41, 73, 23113:1–2 26, 28, 7713:2 35, 397, 399, 430,

461, 468, 480, 50513:3 213, 40913:3–5 8613:3–8 28, 35, 36, 37, 47, 226, 44713:4 28, 35, 70, 71, 244,

264, 314, 447, 450, 46613:4–5 47213:5 6213:6 24013:7 188, 245, 366, 53813:7–8 78, 25713:8 172, 224, 241, 242, 35613:9 28, 37, 213, 44113:9–17 44713:9–26 2813:10 228, 229, 42313:10–12 4813:10–14 47713:11 32, 47, 49, 174, 213, 244, 25613:12 36, 62, 198, 199,

386, 401, 450, 47213:13 243, 341, 448, 454,

469, 479, 48713:13–14 7, 6413:14 28, 34, 47, 50, 155, 213,

222, 256, 301, 339, 341, 455

13:14–15 8113:15 32, 329, 340, 455, 50513:16 32, 203, 406, 50813:17 25713:18 45413:19 2613:19–26 28, 34, 45313:20 7313:21 75, 191, 243, 45713:22 68, 237, 45713:23 27, 29, 70, 188, 216, 228,

234, 289, 311, 367, 402, 461,472, 481, 530

13:24 41, 42, 204, 38013:24–25 53013:25 28, 32, 68, 237, 279, 333,

347, 419, 459, 46013:26 205, 258, 379, 419,

448, 512, 53414 16, 17, 30014–15 17, 18, 19, 25, 49914:1 26, 86, 87, 199, 230, 23114:1–2 7714:2 71, 397, 55714:3 27, 49, 50, 82, 189, 243, 268,

380, 466, 471, 474, 482, 55214:3–4 21614:3–10 1814:4 231, 378, 51114:4ff. 19114:5 82, 189, 216, 233, 235, 264,

330, 47314:6 68, 353, 382, 53814:7 473, 55214:7–10 8214:8 6, 180, 216, 45914:9 28914:10 471, 53814:11 68, 149, 24414:12 274, 50514:12–25 914:13 71, 171, 174, 403, 468,

483, 484, 55214:14 332, 402, 476, 481, 49714:15 48, 172, 198, 241,

285, 386, 499

580 Indices

14:16 479, 50514:17 31, 171, 384, 432, 43314:18 68, 70, 308, 330, 48214:18–25 4914:19 43014:20 219, 240, 280, 40314:21 28, 3514:21–22 48014:22 73, 32914:23 174, 47614:25 28, 35, 47214:26 189, 229, 359, 480, 551, 55214:26–29 50014:26ff. 19114:27 274, 290, 301, 354,

423, 467, 474, 53014:28 32, 238, 46114:29 81, 199, 235, 361, 45614:29–31 31814:30 63, 17614:31 81, 150, 171, 174,

228, 361, 47514:31ff. 47814:33 7, 17, 18, 53, 62, 172, 375,

498, 504, 508, 509, 510, 54314:33–34 18, 486, 50514:34 47, 156, 283, 347,

485, 501, 510, 51314:34–35 19714:34–36 48, 15614:35 205, 34114:35–36 8414:36 17, 452, 51014:37 6, 7, 51, 191, 28214:37–38 243, 28614:37–46 23, 55, 59, 6014:38 83, 84, 173, 174, 186, 224,

268, 281, 466, 469, 50814:40 29014:41 479, 50314:42 29114:43 70, 327, 51314:45 402, 47314:45–46 8014:46 23, 48, 214, 293, 29915 9, 16, 372, 495

15:1 70, 174, 186, 200,228, 268, 500

15:1–2 18, 19, 26615:2 174, 205, 232, 30715:3 10, 84, 137, 303, 314,

346, 421, 432, 49915:3–4 47, 15615:4 71, 290, 315, 49615:5 76, 201, 311, 314, 507, 50915:5–6 1815:6 69, 186, 254, 50815:6–7 77, 174, 200, 334, 484, 50615:7 186, 53815:7–9 6415:8 17, 47, 156, 34115:8–9 452, 49915:9 70, 166, 33715:10 70, 308, 423, 50915:11 70, 252, 50715:12 68, 239, 442, 499, 50315:12–14 12, 21115:13 23015:14 20, 61, 68, 18615:14–16 16015:15–16 6915:17 7, 70, 174, 186, 294,

330, 453, 50015:18 31, 25415:18–19 19615:18ff. 34115:19 69, 79, 196, 197, 401, 47715:20–22 7415:21 47, 156, 232, 497, 501, 53815:21–24 4815:21–26 50515:22 62, 261, 337, 427, 452, 49915:23 47, 156, 401, 48615:24 20, 62, 328, 485, 509, 51015:24–26 20015:25 438, 50715:25–26 18, 33615:26 50515:26–27 4815:27 172, 431, 50015:28 201, 25815:28–35 35


15:29 48, 391, 406, 438, 55415:30 6, 17, 62, 485, 488, 498, 51015:30–31 220, 42215:32 17, 69, 201, 260,

328, 485, 499, 51015:32–33 50815:33 7, 62, 216, 226, 302, 51015:33–34 23515:34 17, 47, 48, 93, 156, 391, 48715:35 341, 51015:36 7, 9, 10, 303, 331, 353, 379,

438, 467, 526, 55315:37 3, 7, 15, 50, 52, 184, 205,

314, 379, 402, 556, 55715:37–38 2415:37–39 24, 3715:38 72, 46015:38–39 51915:39 24, 177, 244

3 Maccabees1 541–2 5, 6, 87, 1851:5 2591:9 1881:10 1991:11 1951:18 1981:19 4811:22 511:23 2751:26 1801:29 1992:1 1982:2 1542:2–8 3372:6 3912:9 4862:10 3912:16 3912:21 2052:27 2812:29 279, 5432:33 4993:1 1353:8 238, 483

3:8–10 2373:9 410, 5013:19 4983:23 3823:25 4583:27 2884:4 2834:6 4824:9 1524:14 3084:17 1805:2 5145:20 2775:35 4495:42 290, 4725:43 3275:51 2016:1 1456:1–15 286, 3376:3 4776:4 3916:5 3376:9 391, 4866:12 3366:15 2626:16 3136:16–21 2026:18 201, 2026:22–26 4506:23 2386:24 244, 3536:28 3166:34 3566:35–36 1806:39 2017:3 244, 5017:4 4727:5 2447:8 4077:10–15 4507:11 3147:12 4097:13 199, 5097:16 3917:18–19 97:23 391, 514

582 Indices

4 Maccabees4:11 1994:26 1735:4 2865:25 1978:19 28310:7 24412:7 55412:13 238, 25816:15 55418:7 198

Martyrdom and Ascensionof Isaiah2:11 268

Paraleipomena Ieremiou3:8–11 160

Pseudo-Philo,Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum21:10 16226:13 28444:9 35763:4 357

Sirach7:10 34210:2 18622:4 19429:13 43534:5–7 50035:17 31

36:11 155, 15636:12 18638:24 28642:11 19844:20 13647:12–17 16348:20 48548:21 33749:13 151, 25450:1 18750:1–4 193, 22050:4 21450:20 501

Tobit2:1 4363:6 2624:7–11 3424:19 2915:22 40113:2 291

Wisdom of Solomon7–9 1639:15 304, 30611:16 22612 28412:2 28412:19 31612:22 28418:21–22 20318:22 335

IV. Dead Sea Scrolls

1QH3:21–22 316

1QM3–4 34014:2 439

1QpHab5:9 404

1QS4:22 3166:6–7 26711:8 316

4QMMTC26 140, 166

4QpIsaa 485


4QpNah1 1441.3 147

4Q196 436

4Q2006:6 291

4Q242 356

4Q248 186, 535

4Q385afrg. 18, I, a–b 161

4Q525frgs. 2–3, col. ii, ll. 3–5 138

11QTemple45:11–12 18645:16–17 186

Damascus Document (CD)1:3 2621:13–14 1412:17–3:12 1615:6–7 2779:20 28412:1 186

V. Rabbinic Literature

V.1. Mishnah

’Abodah Zarah2:6 225

’Avot4:19 2565:17 615:18 361

Bekhorot7:1 267

Berakhot9:3 4439:12 440

Gittin7:6 312

Kelim29:7 267

Maaser Sheni3:4 135

Menahot13:10 12

Middot1:3–5 3452:5 386

Sanhedrin4:5 3277:4 3909:6 24210:1 442

Sotah7:6 5018:1 506

Sukkah5:4 386

Tamid3:8 2257:2 501

584 Indices

Yadayyim3:5 166

Yoma6:2 509

V.2. Tosephta

Berakhot4:3 514

Demai4:12 135

Hullin2:24 292

Niddah2:2–4 312

Sanhedrin2:6 135

Sotah6:3 15413 16113:1 145, 160

Ta‘aniyyot4:11 361

V.3. Palestinian Talmud

Berakhot2:3,5a 377

Hagigah2:1,77b 361

V.4. Babylonian Talmud

’Abodah Zarah8b 15116b 292

Berakhot17a 13729a 64

Gittin56a 25857b 287

Pesahim104b 514

Rosh Hashanah31a 506

Sanhedrin38a 151

Shabbat25b 439

Sotah35a 357, 358

Ta‘anit18b 485, 509

Qiddushin66a 64, 454

Yoma5a 3278b 3999a 399


V.5. Other

Avot de Rabbi Natan (ed. Schechter)A, 5 442B, 10 442

Deuteronomy Rabbah(Midrash Debarim Rabbah,ed. Lieberman)82 242

Ecclesiastes Rabbah(Qohelet Rabbah)9:12 358

Lamentations Rabbah84–85 90

Leviticus Rabbah27:6 314

Megillat Ta‘anit (with Scholion)(ed. Noam)47 512298 485, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512

Midrash of the Ten Martyrs (ed. Reeg)52*-54* 303102* 327

Pesiqta Rabbati (ed. Ish-Shalom)180b 90, 301

Seder Olam Rabbah30 57

Sifre Deuteronomy304 440

Sifre Numbers137 281

VI. Early Christian Literature(See also index of names)

Apostolic Constitutions8.6.5 137

Epistle to Diognetus4:1 449

EusebiusDemonstratio evangelica3.7.10 555De martyribus Palasestinae2.3 3059.7 239Hist. eccl.6.5 58Praep. Evang.8.7.9 2059.17.5–6 5379.29.14 1989.39.5 160

Hilary of Poitiers, De Trinitate4.16 58

Jerome, Commentary on Daniel11:14 23011:21–22 23011:36 2511:44–45 251

John ChrysostomosAdversus Judaeos1.6 236MPG 48, 900 89“On the Maccabean Martyrsand Their Mother”MPG 50, 617–628 89

Justin, Dialogue with Tryphon96.2 278

586 Indices

Lactantius,De Mortibus Persecutorum4.3 36023.8 42228.3–4 239

Malalas, Chronographia261 236

Martyrdom of Polycarp3.2 3059.3 31411.1 313

Photius, Biblioteca72 450

Sulpicius Severus, Chronicon2.17.5 21821.4 218

VII. Classical Literature(including Philo and Josephus)

Aeneas TacticusOn Withstanding Siege4.3 432

AeschylusPersiansOpening 504422 352470 352481 352734 346742 355744–748 263744–751 357, 359820 357, 359832–836 346

AndocidesAgainst Alcibiades4.19 347

AppianMithridatica12.67 42512.278 42518 44985.386–387 432Syriakê1–2 188

11.66 2532 33245 192, 21746 36447 46865.343 54766 148, 364

AristophanesClouds442 303Frogs619 303

AristotleHistoria Animalium612a 513Meteorologica4.6 1534.383b 153

Arrian2.24.6 2264.7.3–4 3025.20.1 345

Athenaeus10.426–427 51313.593 282


CallimachusEpigrams27, l. 4 178Hymns4, ll. 171–188 547

CiceroDe Divinatione2.56.115–116 2532.62.127 500De Oratore2.5.21 224In Verrem2.3.33.76 2342.5.58.150 245Orator37–42 71To Atticus16.3.1 176

Curtius4.6.29 2396.11.8 4797.2.7 4799.3.16 4799.3.18 46110.2.30 461

DemosthenesOn Syntaxis14 242

Diodorus Siculus1.31.2 4232.10.1 2355.26.3 51411.2.4 26311.19.6 34613.61.6 43913.75.4 43916.25.2 45116.80.2 43216.86.6 34517.10 25117.34.8 43217.35–36 198

17.36.1–2 7917.41.5–6 25317.53.1 44917.57.6 34017.68.4 43917.107.5 30518.18.6 40618.56.3 40930.7.2 212, 23831.17a 14831.18a 2534–35.1.3–4 27340.3.5 220

Diogenes Laertius7.10 2949.27 2939.59 29310.35 17810.84–85 178

(Ps.) Dionysius of HalicarnassusArs Rhetorica11.398 294

EuripidesOrestes1204–1205 309Phoenician WomenOpening 65568ff. 2541090–1092 4901630 451

Eutropius7.5 377

Herodotus1.53 2531.74 2532.100 4504.64 3024.202 3574.205 3575.69 3445.114 510

588 Indices

6.84 5137.22–24 2637.24 3577.26 3037.33–36 2637.36–37 3579.20 3889.50 345

Heron of AlexandriaPneumatica1.38–39 150

HomerIliad1.4–5 36011.162 36017.39–40 508

IsocratesAgainst Lochites6 242Panegyricus89 263To Nicoles22 222

JosephusAgainst Apion1.28–36 1671.32 5011.34–35 1671.36 1671.41 571.43 2781.46 561.191 2781.206–207 5001.248 3151.249 2401.311 2401.320 172.55 2352.83–84 5352.112–114 3822.137 435

2.157 4312.193–198 202.219 2782.225–231 2562.227 3872.233–234 3052.263 2592.269 2442.294 2053 178Antiquities1.81 4102.100 5082.309 2404.43 4864.285 1947.350 4037.362 2227.367 958.88 1678.111 4868.128 4529.291 53911.22 511.76 22211.114 53911.291–292 51111.295 51111.325–339 511.340–347 53912 21112.23 22012.136 17412.137 28512.138–146 22012.142 157, 47012.145 196, 37512.150 40912.154 194, 23412.158 21812.186ff. 19412.229 43712.234 19412.237 13, 187, 211, 21212.239 211, 21812.239–241 211


12.248 37312.249 26112.251–256 27312.257–264 86, 53913.262 28012.265 9512.265–266 33912.267 27512.272 28212.274 8612.274–275 28212.284 13512.285 34112.308 43612.319–322 37312.325 143, 15112.354 14812.358 14812.358–359 35512.381 41012.381–382 40812.383 45912.384–385 36, 8612.387 46912.387–388 13, 187, 21212.389 86, 46812.390 46812.408 50412.409–411 50812.411 50712.412 8, 511, 51212.414 47512.419 47512.434 338, 47513.46 47513.51 19613.62 13, 21213.62–73 18713.74–79 16713.77 17413.173 6413.235 25613.252 43613.260–265 1413.273 33813.296 64

13.296–297 22213.301 16813.314 24213.324 25613.354–359 2513.372 37813.380 23513.383 43713.402 33214.5 23314.8 47314.24 50914.40 25614.72 27714.117 14514.145–148 14, 52914.157 168, 40614.165 16814.172 16814.226 26614.228 28314.242 26614.245 26614.247–255 1414.258 26614.263 26614.273 50814.297 25615.178 22215.410–420 34516.187 33916.213 40916.227 41016.246 41016.260 41016.271 42017.1 30317.169 35717.193 42018.9 22218.11–25 28618.26 28618.69 28018.74 15018.93 16818.102 480

590 Indices

18.259 14618.271 256, 30118.279–288 24318.284 408, 42018.302 25718.306–309 38119.1–273 519.281 42219.283 14519.290 22619.347 29320 47520.136 23920.216 15720.216–218 157, 22220.235 46920.237 193, 47520.267 176War1 72, 197, 2111.1–8 561.15–16 1771.31–33 2111.32 230, 3721.32–33 2121.33 12, 1871.34–35 2731.41 36, 86, 395,

399, 4481.59 3091.121 2331.253 4361.311 2831.383 4321.596 3031.656 3572.143 2682.152–153 2782.164–165 632.165 4422.277 230, 3312.350–354 4212.358 263, 3462.390 3412.409 189, 2042.409–417 261

2.411–417 542.412–413 1882.413 2602.457 3773.296 4323.350 2833.374 3173.505 2863.506 4283.506–521 2863.506ff. 4283.522 2864.84 4205.19 3555.160 4245.194 3755.198–206 3455.377 3415.378 3075.388 3376.294 1896.298–299 2526.312–313 2536.359 2396.384 3347.263 230, 3317.341–357 4897.401 4107.423 12, 187, 2127.431 2157.455 513Vita2 95, 3394 3395 33912 27514 26826 254, 27737 424104 390138 453241 424271 424280 424290 452338 177


Livy6.14.5 48814.239–319 25132.2.1 25133.46.9 54536.4.7 54537.40 33237.41.5–42.1 44938.16 33738.16.9 54738.21.8 43242.6.7 544, 545

LucianDe dea syra28 244How to Write History22 51323 18034 17747 3455 18056 179, 51374 177Macrobioi19 382Pro lapsu9 547Zeuxis8–11 54710 432

OnasanderStrategicus36.1–2 439

OvidIbis315–316 450

Pausanias1.7.2 5471.29.5 1799.13.5 242

PhiloDe Decalogo41 44952 186Hypothetica7.6 222In Flaccum5 13546 21352 42274 52, 14589 198104 237, 315136 514190 490Legatioad Gaium96 438157 188159–161 246, 472160 244, 314172 244191 174198 174203–206 244209 483211 51228 361, 386229–230 301229–305 421243–253 243266–267 198281 213297 481303 375304 238306 196317–319 188319–320 309336 205361 287Life of Moses1.6 1971.36 2131.142 3392.5 203

592 Indices

On Dreams2.123 2662.253 306On Flight153 355Spec. Leg.3.169 1984.30–32 194That Every Good Man is Free89 358The Worse Attacks the Better49 306

PlatoGorgias493a 304Protagoras334B 513Republic504E 443550d 291569c 291

PlutarchLife of Alexander35 159Life of Cicero49 510Life of Marcus Cato22–23 71Questiones Convivales4.6 378637e 159Sulla36 357Ten Orators (Ps.-Plutarch)1 451

PolybiusFrag. 162b 4551.2.8 1801.12.4 5041.15.4 4531.30.6 5041.30.14 2301.37.5 478

1.62.6 2431.81.11 3291.87.7 4532.4.8 3092.35.3 2902.38.5 2382.56.7 1982.56.9 3092.56.10–11 792.59.6 2322.60.7 2392.69.9 4002.122.11 3843.18.9 4843.21.3 2433.21.6 2433.52.3 4703.53 4783.53.6 3293.57.4 3823.81.2 4023.87.9 5523.91.10 2304.72.4 3634.72.8 3745.3.4 4315.5.9 2525.11.6 2325.25.3 4555.26.9 4555.47.4 4845.51–54 5475.65.3–4 1905.70 4265.70.2 4345.70.4 4285.73.1 4005.79 3325.86.10 2305.96.1 1746.2.8 1776.20.9 2156.54.2–3 2887.11.7 4058.2.6 3308.8.1 290


8.21.3 3028.26.8 3298.30.3 3638.33.13 3639.42.4 55010.4.6 25810.11.5–8 50010.22.1 47611.9.4 26611.9.9 26611.18.4–8 50811.22.1 48411.25.1 34111.33.4 43212.25.2 30212.25e.1–2 17912.25e.7 17912.25h.2 17912.25h.5 48212.27.3 51412.28.4–7 17915.25.12 26515.28.4 38416.30.2–4 30818.14.6 45218.18.6 37421.34.4 46921.42.19–21 54422.12.1 24323.10.6 25823.14.12 28824.13.4 25826 53526.1.11 27627.13.1 38128.17.12 20528.20.9 19529.27 25329.27.6 23730.9.5 47030.25 148, 25230.25.11 44930.26.9 14930.32.5 18730.32.10 28031.1.6 411

31.2 46831.9 25, 148, 35331.9.1 14831.9.3 38231.9.4 23931.11–15 46831.13.2–3 21531.13.3 22831.14.4–5 47331.25.8 23932.6.6 18732.11.6 51333.6.6 17433.18.11 43235.25 33236.15 30938.20.10 470

SophoclesAntigone29 360205–206 360450ff. 313499 313698 3601017–1022 360

StatiusThebais10.774–776 49010.778–779 490

StraboGeographia7.3.6 24413.4.3 23516.1.5 15916.1.18 14816.2.6 23616.2.7 25616.2.8 25616.2.16 42816.2.28 42416.2.34 42416.2.37 22316.2.40 168

594 Indices

16 (end) 33817.1.24 400

SuetoniusVespasian4.5 253

TacitusHistoriae5.5 3785.8.2 2735.13.1 2525.13.1–2 253

TheophrastusCharacters4 513

Thucydides1.22.3 177

1.138.6 4513.79.3 508

Valerius Maximus9.2.4 4379.2.6 4509.13 289

XenophonAnabasis1.2.8 303Cyropaedia1.3.3 388Hellenica1.7.22 2596.4.7 214, 242Symposion5.10 280

VIII. Epigraphic Collections

CII109 179358, l. 2 486725 205, 497725a-b 199, 253

CPJI 1 437I 128, ll. 2–19 51I 128, ll. 43–44 51II 149, l. 1 380III 173–174 430III 176–177 430

IGXI 4, 1112–1113 191XI 4, 1114 191XII 5, 129 190XXII 5, 724, l. 3 380

Lenger, Corpus18, l. 4 265

30–31, l. 3 46135, l. 3 41035, l. 6 46153, l. 3 51054, l. 2 410

OGIS4, ll. 3–4 2914, ll. 8–9 40549, ll. 8–9 54154, l. 8 18856, ll. 33–34 54156, l. 55 40690, l. 47 541117 381139, l. 29 380194, l. 24 178214, l. 26 235222, l. 2 541225 234227, l. 11 469229, l. 84 542


230 190239 338245 542247 192248 216, 275252 460253, l. 7 366302–304 502308, ll. 2–4 406319, l. 20 227339, l. 16 406383, ll. 12–13 186424 377598 334, 375

P. Tebtunis703 193703, ll. 42–43 408

RCxliv 406lxx-lxxi 1402 5323, l. 42 2333, l. 50 4104 5325 5325, l. 17 2357 53210–13 7213, l. 13 16813–15 53215, l. 4 46918 234, 52319 52322 46937 52338 52344 52345 523

47 52355 52356 40957 36158 40959 40965–67 52371 409, 52371, ll. 3–4 36275 523217 257309 226310 365314 228, 499316 193316–317 407324–325 265325 257329 223335 196337 408338 472348 306352 434365 365372 231373 220374 362375 404384 472390–391 405399 405

RDGE67 187

SIG398, ll. 44–45 227402, l. 30 227780, l. 31 187

596 Indices

Index of Names and Subjects

1 Maccabees 38–42, 43, 44, 49, 53–54,61, 86, 250, 339–340Contrasting Order of Events 29–30,

373–374, 380, 394–395, 533Contrasting Presentation of Events

323–325, 396–397, 419, 467, 469,475, 481–482, 496, 535

Dating of 15, 520–521Martyrdom in 48, 50, 272, 326

3 Maccabees 87, 185Dating of 87Public Recitation of 514

4 Maccabees 70, 86Dating of 86

Aaron 165Sons of 165

Abraham 129, 256, 537Absalom 393Achaeans 460Acropolis 207, 247Adar 494Adasa 477, 504Adullam 416Aeschylus 352Afterlife; see Body and Soul, ResurrectionAgoranomos 190Akra 29, 223, 233, 374, 394, 494Alcimus 49, 189, 463, 464, 466–467

Successor of 551–552Alema 430Alexander Balas 13, 404Alexander Jannaeus 168, 437Alexander the Great 160, 226, 340, 353,

461Alexandrian Jewry 45, 52–53, 167,

226Alexandrinus; see Textual WitnessesAmmanitis 247

Andronicus 209, 212, 249, 281, 345,381

“Ancestral Language”; see also Hebrew19, 296, 297, 416–494, 554

Angels 31, 63, 89, 201, 202, 316, 392,493, 494

Antigone 65, 313, 360Antioch 19, 49, 52, 89, 248, 300, 322,

394, 412, 419, 446, 449, 464, 466,530

“Antioch(enes) in Jerusalem” 51–53, 207,208, 212, 220, 243, 250, 530–532Nature of 531–532

Antiochis 209Antiochus I Soter 547Antiochus II Theos 234Antiochus III the Great 141, 157, 190,

195, 234, 286, 350, 397, 542, 544,547, 548Privileges Granted by 220–221, 360,

531Antiochus IV Epiphanes 4, 14, 26, 27,

30, 53, 86, 129, 141, 156, 170, 207,208, 209, 225, 228–229, 234, 243,247, 248, 297, 300, 349, 350, 370,412, 468, 503, 530Attachment to Athens 41, 275, 360,

542Campaign(s) to Egypt 247, 248,

249–251, 274, 533–536, 545Death of 29, 32, 37, 40, 41, 60, 62,

90, 92, 130, 133, 303, 331,351–352, 369, 372, 373, 380, 382,389, 394–396, 405, 406, 411, 419,459, 520, 527

Death Compared to that of OtherTyrants 357

Devotion to Apollo 542

Index of Names and Subjects 597

Decrees Against Judaism 270, 541Epistles to the Jews 350–351,

396–397Repentance of 350Visits to Jerusalem 533–536

Antiochus V Eupator 27, 28–29, 30,32–33, 170, 351, 369, 370, 371, 393,395–396, 414, 419, 430, 445, 445,446, 447, 463, 468

Antiochus VII Sidetes 421, 521Antonia Fortress 233Apocryphal Books 57–61Apollo, Temple of 236Apollonius son of Gennaeus 414Apollonius son of Thraseas 4, 27, 181,

185Apollonius son of Menestheus 4, 27,

191, 207, 208, 265, 274, 289Apollonius, the Mysarch 41, 249, 250Apostolic Fathers 88Apollophanes 72, 371Apparitions 47, 64, 170, 182–183, 247,

249, 371, 392, 415, 464, 485, 493Arabs 414’Arak el-’Amir 428–429Aramaic 303, 438, 511, 553–555Aretas 247Argarizin; see Mount GerizimAristobulus 129

Identity of 144–145Aristobulus I 168Arrogance; see also under Motifs 62,

130, 201, 248, 298, 346, 349, 350Art 178–179Artemis, Temple of 148, 355“Asia,” Name for Seleucid Kingdom 181Asidaioi; see also Hasidim 463Astyanax 282Attalids 531Atergatis, Temple of 415Athens/Athenians 41, 275, 276, 279Augustine 59Auranus 49, 189, 210, 471Author 17, 24, 34–35, 37, 45, 170, 199

Confusion of 32–33, 396–397, 406,447, 457, 459

Educational Purpose 287, 288, 291,301, 501

Jewish Identity 283, 486Lack of Interest in Details of Temple

Cult 46–48, 189, 204, 235, 260,264, 484

Lack of Interest in Military Details 73,324, 329, 343, 419, 454, 456

Lack of Interest in Numbers 231Methodology 170Objective of 3, 10–14, 72Preface 16, 24, 170, 519Ptolemaic Influence 278–279,

541–543Reflections of 24, 208, 248, 271Sitz im Leben 51–55, 66Style; see StyleVersus Epitomator 171

Azariah de’ Rossi 49

Babylonians 136, 321Jewry 546–548

Bacchides 322, 467, 471, 474Bar-Kokhba 378, 385, 428Ben-Sira 61Beroia (Aleppo) 445Bestiality 258, 290, 360, 371Beth-Shean; see also Scythopolis 434, 435Beth Zechariah 30, 394, 399

Eleazar’s Death at 455Beth-Zur 29, 392

Accounts 34–35, 394–395, 420,457–458

Battle(s) of 26, 29–30, 32, 39, 354,374, 392, 394–395, 402, 446, 447

Biblical Nature; see also Deuteronomy 32and under Motifs 61–66Allusions 61–63, 137, 140, 153, 157,

168, 258–259, 263, 303, 312, 357,387, 477, 484, 502, 526

Historiography; see under Motifs64–66

Spirit of the Hebrew Bible 63Structure 65–66Style 326Quotations 61, 296

598 Indices

Bilgah 95Birthdays, Celebration of King’s 270,

541–543Blasphemy 320, 369, 371, 415, 494Blessings 164, 322, 440, 501Blood 50, 53, 65, 129, 320, 415, 465Body and Soul, Distinction Between 23,

293, 298, 304, 465, 494Booty; see Spoils of War“Brethren” 6, 31, 129, 370, 392, 414,

415, 493Burial; see Death

Calendrical Systems 11, 139, 143–144,274, 373, 396, 405, 447–448, 511,520, 541

Callimachus 178Callisthenes 72, 322Calvin, J. 61Canon, Tripartite 166Canonical Status 57–61Catholic Church 59–61Causality, Dual 146, 381Caves 131, 133, 270, 369Cendebeus 460Chapter Order; see also Sources of

2 Maccabees 9–10, 28–34, 36–37,354, 380, 406, 419

Chaereas 371Chariots 349, 445, 480–481Charity 322, 343, 417Children 198, 248, 298, 312, 322, 350,

414, 415, 464, 493Christians 52

Cult of Maccabean Martyrs 89Interest in 2 Macc 57–61, 85, 88–89,

278, 298Chrysostom, John 89Cilicians 252Circumcision 270, 274, 278City 46, 50, 65, 66, 375City States 6Claudius 226Clemens Alexandrinus 88Cleopatra II 524Cleopatra Syra 234

Coastal Cities, Battles in 424Conflicts; see StrugglesCorrespondence, Royal (Ch. 11) 373,

393–394, 395–397, 409, 459, 549Dating of 396, 410, 411, 412Historicity of 396, 409, 412Identity of “King” in Ch. 11 396–397,

406, 408Council of Elders 129, 210, 393, 453,

487, 531“Covenants” 27, 33–34, 419, 446, 464,

500Between God and the People 129,

298, 321Crates 209Creatio ex nihilo 89, 312–313Cuneiform; see InscriptionsCypriots 209, 332, 370

Daniel, Book of 372, 533Daphne 148, 209, 252, 332, 449Dathema 429Dates (in 2 Macc); see also Calendrical

Systems 11–12, 15, 29–30, 230–231,373, 447–448, 466

Dating 11–15David 315David, City of 233Day of Atonement 475Desert 267–268, 282, 365–366Death and Burial 245, 247, 350, 365,

416, 417–418, 439, 445Mourning 198, 247Terminology for 306, 406

Death, Noble 299Demetrius I 13, 26, 49, 187, 229, 362,

463, 464, 466–467Demetrius II 11, 129, 139, 404, 470Demophon 414Dessau 464Deuteronomy 32; see also under Mo-

tifs 21–23, 62, 66, 155, 226, 259,261, 262, 296, 298, 299, 302–303,307, 327, 477, 526

Diaspora 43, 85, 156, 213Jews of Hellenistic 45, 50


Origins of 2 Macc 38Religion of 442

Diasporan Historiography; see also underMotifs 45–55, 184, 203, 211, 216,235, 242, 257–258, 301, 325, 329,341, 382–383, 386, 421, 433, 482

Dietary Laws 267, 268, 287, 296–298,301, 549–550

Diodorus 410Dionysus, Dionysiac Cult 8, 18, 270,

274, 378, 465, 514, 541–543Dioscorinthios 393Diplomacy; see also under Rome 221Discus, Call of 208Distances 30, 400, 418, 428, 429, 435Divine Providence 47, 63–65, 205, 235,

262, 316, 508Dorymenes 185Dositheus 415, 416, 456Dura Europus 344Dreams; see also under Judas 500

Ecbatana 349Editors, Jerusalemite 8–9, 10–11, 14,

142, 144, 285, 373, 526–528Egypt

Jews in 129, 503, 523Priests in 145

Eleazar 321R. Eleazar b. Shammua 327Eleazar, Martyr 23, 271–272, 280, 298,

304, 459, 489, 501As Priest 286Similarities to Socrates 289, 293

Eleazar son of Yair 488, 489Elephantarch 463Elephants 36, 86, 392, 395, 445, 446,

505, 547R. Eliezer 291–292Elijah 153Elymais 352Emmaus Campaign 323, 332, 339Ephebeion 207Ephron 415, 426Epigraphy; see InscriptionsEpistles; see Correspondence and Letters

Epitomator; see also Author 17, 25, 37Epitomizing 170, 175–176, 179–180,

277, 379, 457Esdris 72, 416Essenes 268Esther, Book of 35–36, 362, 450, 452,

472, 483, 512, 514Eumenes II 41, 219, 531–532Eupolemus 167, 221, 430, 456, 537–538

Faith 77, 200, 298, 321, 365, 371, 492Faithlessness 335, 466, 492Farming 414Fatherland 207, 247, 248, 321, 322, 445,

446, 464Festival of Weeks; see also Pentecost 416Fire, Liquid from Altar 89, 130, 131,

133–134, 150, 527–528First-Person Singular 19, 24, 37, 171,

513Forbidden Foods 270, 271–272, 296,

298, 356“Foreignism” 23, 173, 208, 271Forgery 362“Friends” 129, 297, 320, 371, 463, 470

Gaius Caligula 5, 243, 257–258, 381,438

Galatians 321, 514, 546–548Galilee, Sea of 428R. Gamaliel 135Gentiles 48–49, 65, 130, 188, 196, 226,

237, 270, 369, 446, 463, 464, 492Geron the Athenian 270, 543Gerousia; see also Council of Elders 404R. Gerschom 90Gezer 371, 374Glosses 37, 93–94, 137, 265, 268, 398,

402, 433, 476God 48, 64, 130, 170, 182, 209, 248,

320, 321, 349, 350, 369, 371, 392,414, 415, 416, 445, 464, 492As Benevolent Hellenistic King 284As Legislator 197, 341Help of 417, 446, 494Hiding His Face 21–22, 262

600 Indices

Kingdom of 141–142, 147Language of 554Of Heaven 47–48, 93, 156, 184, 197,

205, 305, 486Titles of 155, 200, 203, 261, 346, 449

Gorgias 320, 325, 370, 372, 374, 389,397, 416, 419, 467, 544, 546

Greeks 85Common Roots with Jews 256–257

Greek (Language); see also under Motifsand Style 57, 67, 509Motifs 65–66, 76Versus Latin 59–60

Gymnasium 207

Hades 271Hadrian 276Halicarnassus 531Haman 450, 472Hanukkah, Holiday of 10, 14, 24, 37,

88, 134, 137, 139, 143, 163, 165, 274,369, 509, 514Festival of Lights 143, 150–151Name of 159–160Secondary Interest 8–10, 87, 520, 526

Hanukkah Narrative 369, 529Connection to Opening Letters 8,

143, 372, 526, 528Distinctiveness 8–9, 372, 375, 379,

526Historicity 372–374Purpose of 8–10Semitic Vorlage 375

Hasidim 326, 471, 507Hasmoneans 13, 42, 64, 419, 477

Polemics Against 266, 384, 460Hasmonean Revolt 55–56, 323Hebrew (Language) 59, 67, 296, 297,

375, 416, 438, 494, 511, 554“Hebrews” 52, 298, 392, 495Heliodorus 4, 41, 42, 181, 182, 183,

207, 248, 259, 361, 474Heliodorus, Story of 42, 76, 78–79, 86,

184–186, 257, 261, 281Externality 4–6, 37, 46, 140–141,

172, 211, 526–527

Hegemonides 41, 42, 380, 446Hellenistic Jews 43–44, 55, 88

Literature of 52, 71Hellenistic Kings 49, 54Hellenization, Institutionalized 3, 51–53Heracles 208Herod 86, 358, 363, 399Hezekiah 493Hieronymus 414High Priesthood 12, 42, 59, 95, 231,

392, 463As Kingship 168As Municipal Position 6–7, 184, 190,

193, 219–220, 254Sale of 398–399Succession of 469, 474–475, 483,

551–552Usurpation of 207, 208

Hippolytus 88Historicity 38–44, 45, 55–56Holidays; see Hanukkah, Nicanor’s

Day, Passover, Pentecost, Purim,Tabernacles

Holofernes 498Honor 23, 271Horses 183, 247, 370, 371, 392Humor; see also under Motifs 346–347,

361, 362, 364, 379Hybris; see ArroganceHyrcanus son of Tobias 182, 185, 429

Idolatry 130, 277, 301, 416Idumaeans 370, 372, 374Idyll 3, 7, 132, 181, 420, 482, 512Inheritance 131, 285, 477Inscriptions 30, 40–41, 53, 185,

190–191, 192, 216–217, 219, 366,380, 396, 420, 424, 460, 531–532,542; see also index of sources cited

Irony 147, 172, 215, 244, 257, 284, 293,306, 311, 317–318, 346–347, 355,358, 360, 367, 411, 472, 473

Isaac 129Isaiah 156, 268, 352, 356, 357, 484–485R. Ishmael 286Ishmael b. Netania 255


“Israel” 130, 349, 371Israel, Land of 162

Jacob 129Jamnia 414, 416, 439Jason (high priest) 3, 4, 49, 129, 133,

141–142, 147, 207, 208, 209, 211,247, 249, 258, 336, 345, 360, 365,399, 430, 526–527, 530, 531, 552

Jason of Cyrene 15, 16, 45, 72, 170, 171,457

Jason son of Eleazar 175Jazer 374Jeremiah 131, 134, 137, 160, 163, 482,

493Jericho 415, 435Jerome 58–59, 85Jerusalem 3, 7, 129, 133, 135, 181, 207,

209, 248, 249, 279, 299, 300, 322,349, 353, 370, 387, 414, 416, 464,493, 494, 496, 530Antiochenes in; see Antiochenes in

JerusalemAs polis 6, 51–53, 197, 531–532As Subject of 2 Macc 3, 6, 495Focus on 6–7, 50, 184, 453, 481Hellenism in 211History of 7–14Primacy vs. Temple 245, 375Vs. “Holy Land” 6–7, 141

Jesus 553Language of 555

Jewish Hellenism 42–44“Jewish Unit” 446, 546, 548Jews (and Judaism) 31, 47, 48, 50, 65,

66, 85, 220, 270, 392, 393, 414, 445,463, 492Common Roots with Greeks 256–257Pro-Ptolemaic 230Nationalists/Traditionalists 251, 255,

272Terminology for; see Brethren and

Politai 31Johanan 393Johanan (father of Eupolemus) 14,

207

John Hyrcanus 15, 43, 309, 324, 383Death of 520

Jonathan 13, 139, 218, 256, 321, 404Joppe 208, 534Joppites 414Joseph 321, 370Joseph son of Tobias 429Josephus 36, 86–87, 172, 187, 194–195,

257–258, 282–283, 339, 355, 375,381, 395, 399, 468, 539Divergences from 1 Maccabees 535

Joshua 415Josippon 90Judaea 248, 370, 374, 392, 445, 454,

463Country of 129, 320

“Judaism” 66, 170, 320, 465Judas Maccabaeus 3, 7, 23, 62, 63, 129,

132, 134, 157, 168, 170, 249, 250,274, 320, 321, 323–325, 369, 370,371, 372, 392, 393, 414, 415, 416,419, 445, 463, 464, 465, 466–467,492, 494, 495, 520Brothers of 170, 267, 321Dream of 493Focal Character 325God’s Agent 385High Priest43, 383, 474–475, 483, 551–552

Latter-Day Elisha 389Lifespan of 523“The Maccabee” 31, 249

Justice; see also Universalism 155, 209,320, 321, 369

Karnion 415Kaspin 51, 415, 418Kfar Shalem 477, 478Kislev 369, 373

Language; see also under Style 67–71Lactantius 88Lamps 129, 369, 526Latin; see under Greek and TranslationsLaws, Jewish 170, 222, 271, 416

Ancestral 19, 270, 296, 298, 531

602 Indices

Compared to Laws of Cities 6–7, 51,174, 216, 275, 290

Compared to Royal Decrees 137, 314,347

Letter, First 129, 132–133Connection to 2 Maccabees 525–529

Letter, Second 129–132, 133–134Letters (Chs. 1–2) 10, 37, 85, 132, 372,

519–529Author of 144Connection to 2 Maccabees; see under

Hanukkah NarrativeDating 11, 520–521, 522–525,

528–529Distinctiveness; see also Hanukkah

Narrative 4, 144Hasmonean Propaganda 151Number of 520–521, 528–529Purpose of 524–525Semitic Vorlage 8, 67, 132, 137, 140,

147, 153, 157–158, 522Levites 157, 286“Lights”; see Hanukkah, Holiday ofLivy 544–545Lucian of Samosata 91Luther, Martin 60–61Lysanias 434Lysias 26, 28–29, 30, 32, 41, 189, 331,

354, 369, 371, 389, 392, 393, 394,414, 419, 445, 446, 447Place of Residence 434

Lysimachus 49, 209, 210, 255

Maccabean Martyrs, Christian Cult of;see under Christians

Macedonians 321, 546Magnesia, Battle of 332, 333, 544Mallotians 209Manliness 51, 170, 294, 308–309, 320,

389, 464, 493Marissa 416Marriage 149, 234, 464Martyrdom 17, 47–48, 50, 65, 272–273,

298–300, 459In 1 Maccabees; see under 1 MaccabeesFunction of; see under Motifs

Recompense; see also Resurrection316

Terminology of 204–205Martyrologies 37, 52, 55, 270–272,

296–298, 356, 466, 495, 550As Secondary Source 19–25, 90, 300,

301, 326, 328, 330, 372Connection Between Episodes 318Hebraisms In 20, 293Historicity of 299–300Interest Among Christians 20, 88–89,

278Jewish Traditions 20, 90Relation to 4 Maccabees 86

Masada 410, 488, 489Mattathias 464Mattathias (Hasmonean) 40, 43, 324,

326Melchizedek 537Melqart; see also Heracles 227Menelaus 49, 141, 208, 209, 210, 211,

247, 248, 249, 258, 283, 314, 345,382, 393, 397, 469, 552, 557Death of 28, 35–36, 445, 447, 466Latter-Day Gedalia b. Ahiqam 255Priestly Descent of 95

Menorah; see LampsMercenaries 265, 338, 386Miracles; see Supernatural EventsMizpeh 429Mnasaes 382Modein 7, 280, 454, 456

Battle at 28, 446, 447Molon 547Mother and Her Seven Sons 23, 59, 63,

65, 90, 296–298, 298–300Mother as Latter-Day Deborah or

Judith 309Moses 19, 131, 132, 134, 160, 197, 296,

298, 502Motifs (Thematic)

Celebrating of Enemies’ Defeats 78,202, 322

Concealing Divisiveness 47, 50, 282,325, 487

Despised Nation 156


Diasporan; see DiasporanHistoriography

Exaggerating the Enemy’sStrength 399

Few Defeat the Many 173, 338Games with “Epiphanes” 25, 81, 172,

355, 357Gentile Kings Are Well-Meaning 192,

211, 243–244Gentiles are God’s Tools for Punishing

Sinners 226, 250, 307Gentiles Protest Persecution of

Jews 237, 245God Rules History 65, 250God Turns Away in Anger 68–69,

261–262Greek; see also under Greek 253Hatred of Evil 238Hellenistic Kings are All Evil 54Hellenistic Virtues Bestowed Upon

Jews 173Jerusalem as Greek Polis 51–53,

240Jewish Fatalities Require Expla-

nation 418, 436Jews are God’s Children 315–316Jews are Victims Even When on the

Offensive 386Martyrdom Catalyzes Reconciliation

(and Redemption) 48, 50, 53, 65,272, 317, 323

Martyrs as Heroes 50, 55, 282, 289,305

Pathetic; see Pathetic HistoriographyPersian 35, 47, 302Poetic Justice 239, 242, 256, 377,

451, 498, 507; see also Tit for TatProblems are Caused by Misunder-

standing 48, 53–55, 216, 242, 250,257–258

Problems are Caused by WickedOfficials 280, 333, 374, 421, 422,482

Prominence of the City 50–51Punishment as Pedagogy 47, 271,

298, 377

Recognition of God’s Powerby Gentiles 48, 64, 307

Reconciliation 10, 21, 23, 24, 62–63,66, 298, 302–303, 322, 525–526

Royal Respect for Jews and Judaism188

Sinning Causes Suffering 47–48, 226,250, 261

Struggle is Between Good and Evil;see also Universalism 432, 436

Tit for Tat 25, 35, 47, 64, 78, 211,226, 249, 317, 318, 345, 358, 365,423, 485, 508

Villains are Considerate of JewishSensitivities 485

Villains are Jewish 264Villains as Acting Alone 49, 65, 215Villains Do Not Die Nobly in

Battle 389, 432Willingness to Die 50, 301, 339

Mottos 32, 321, 446Mount Gerizim (Argarizin) 18, 47, 174,

249, 270, 276Residents of 537–538

Mount Nebo 162Mourning; see under DeathMordechai 293, 511–512Mordechai’s Day; see also Purim 494Mourning; see DeathMysians 252, 265, 332

Nabataeans 255, 425Names, Royal 217–218Nanaia, Temple of 129Nehemiah 130, 131, 132, 133–134, 163,

376, 527–528R. Nehemiah 154Nepthar; see also Fire, Liquid from Altar

131Nero 54, 258Nicanor 3, 17–18, 62, 171, 274, 320,

321, 323–325, 349, 361, 394, 464,465, 466–467, 495, 543, 544, 546,551–552, 556Character Unity 473–474Death of 494, 496

604 Indices

Focal Villain 325, 485Thrice-Accursed 9–10, 322, 492, 495

Nicanor’s Day 8, 14, 87, 325, 379, 494,514, 520, 526

Nicanor the Cypriarch 414Noah, Sons of 256Nobility 272, 417, 465Numbers, Accuracy of 80, 148, 259,

332, 338, 430

Oaths, Violation of 492Olympiodorus 185Oniads 13Onias III 4–6, 12, 18, 51, 181, 183, 185,

187, 193, 207, 209, 211, 212, 254,367, 423, 442, 449, 469, 473

Onias IV 12, 187, 212Onias, Temple of 12–14, 187, 215, 217Origen 58, 88, 312

Palaestra 208Palm-Fronds 369, 463Passover 410, 436, 514Pathetic Historiography 18, 78–80, 198,

277, 281, 318, 401, 423, 490Paul 469Pentecost 34, 416, 419, 436Persecutions 65, 170, 270, 272–274

Etiology of; see also under Rebellion53–54

Historicity of 273–274Source of 283

Persepolis 349Persia 129, 349Petasos 208, 223–224Petronius 381, 483Pharaoh 62, 263, 265, 355Pharisees 38, 168, 442Philip (Governor of Jerusalem) 7, 27,

28–29, 32, 249, 270, 274, 320Philip 351, 446, 472Philo 45, 86, 172Phrygians 219, 249, 532Phylarch 322Piety 181, 417Planting 130

Plundering; see Spoils of WarPolitai 6, 31, 50–51, 216, 265, 361, 423,

472, 488Polybius 67, 179–180, 228–229, 355,

468, 473–474, 535Pompey 498Popilius Laenas 253Porphyry of Tyre 85Posidonius 464Prayer 46, 48, 64, 89, 130, 131, 154,

182, 320, 321, 322, 325, 369, 370,371, 372, 392, 414, 445, 464, 493In 1 Maccabees 486Echoes of Liturgy 310Prayer for Dead 417Quorum for 267Shema 154

Preface; see under AuthorProphets 64Protarchos 380Protestant Reformation; see also Martin

Luther 59–60, 444Prôtoklêsia 208Psalms 142, 166, 285Ptolemais (Akko) 279, 446, 530Ptolemy Macron 42, 243, 320, 330–331,

369Ptolemy II Philadelphus 502, 547Ptolemy IV Philopator 5, 54, 191, 472,

543Ptolemy V Epiphanes 195, 234Ptolemy VI Philometor 144, 167, 229,

351, 370Ptolemy VIII Euergetes 363, 367, 524Ptolemy son of Dorymenes 72, 210, 270,

279, 331Ptolemy son of Thraseas 190Purgatory 60, 89, 444Purim 511–512, 514

Quintus Memmius 393

Rabbinic Literature 90, 135, 151, 160,166, 237, 286, 287, 361, 442, 485

Rare Words; see under StyleRazis 7, 17, 286, 291, 465


Literary Parallels 489–490Martyrdom of 55, 59, 60, 65, 465Turning Point 495

Readers of 2 Maccabees 85–90, 94, 174,177, 266, 283, 301, 440, 539Public Recitation 514Rationalists 201

RebellionEtiology 42–43, 250–251, 254–255,

272Reflections; see under AuthorResurrection 89, 291, 296, 297, 299,

304, 313, 316, 317, 362, 417, 418,444, 487Sectarian Debate 442

Rhodocus 446Ritual Purity 249, 260, 275, 318, 327,

416, 465Romans 207, 323, 393

Interference in Seleucid Affairs 397,411, 545

Rome 55, 544–545Delegations to 14, 221–222

Seleucia 276Seleucus II Callinicus 548Seleucus IV Philopator 4, 5, 41Sabbath 270, 301, 322, 416, 492, 531

Attitude Towards in 1 Maccabees 282Exploitation of 18, 249Self-Defense on 50, 266, 270, 496

Sacrifices 46–48, 54, 129, 130, 419, 465As a Form of Prayer 203, 443Sin-Offerings 132, 417Suspension of 372–373Votive Offerings; see under Temple

(Second)Sadducees 38, 63–64, 168, 316Samaritans (see also Mount Gerizim) 47,

167, 264, 539Schoinoi; see also Distances 30, 392Scribes 271, 488Scripture; see Biblical NatureScythians 65, 210, 296, 513–514Scythopolis 416Sectarianism; see Pharisees, Sadducees

Seleucid Kingdom 141, 188, 363, 411,541–543, 551

Seleucus IV Philopator 172, 181, 185,207, 218, 228–229, 468

Self-Defense; see under SabbathSennacherib 62, 321, 484–485, 493Septuagint 57, 91–96Servants, Jews as God’s 22, 136, 296,

298, 322Shechem 537Showbread 129, 369, 526Siege Warfare 370, 371Simon 6, 49, 181, 207, 469, 470, 471

Tribe of 95–96, 189Simon (Hasmonean) 321, 324, 370, 383,

423, 460, 482Sinning 24, 47, 161, 226, 260, 302, 369,

416Atonement for 417Sin-Offering; see under Sacrifices

Slaughter 248, 250, 339, 415, 433Socrates; see also under Eleazar 65, 259,

289, 299Solomon 131, 132, 134, 160, 376, 452,

486Song of the Sea 154, 157, 506Sosipater 415, 456Sostratus 209Soul; see Body and SoulSources of 2 Maccabees; see also under

Hanukkah Narrative and Martyrol-ogies 16–35, 36–37, 42, 395, 398,417Chapter Division; see Chapter OrderReconciling Disparate; see also

Author, Confusion of 32Spartans 247Spoils of War 173–174, 321, 322,

441Stadia 414, 415Stipendium 544Style, Linguistic and Literary 72–84

Abbreviation; see also Epitomiz-ing 72–76

Alliteration 80, 427Asyndetic 28, 75, 447

606 Indices

Change of Terminology in SuccessiveVerses 68

Conjugations 75Greek Terminology 172, 222Lively Diction 79–80Officialese 192, 231, 364, 365Oppositional Constructions 75Parataxis 8Participles 73–74Passive Verbs 74–75Pathetic 78–80Pedantic 180, 192, 231, 356, 365,

451, 472Personification 330, 471Prepositional Prefixes 81Rare Words 30–32, 51Repetition of Terms 69Sammelbericht 330Semitic; see under Letters, Hanukkah

Narrative, MartyrologiesStaccato 18, 34–35, 447, 453, 456,

458–459, 461, 480, 482Stereotypical Descriptions

of Characters 82–83Unity 83–84Variety of Vocabulary 67, 69–71, 425,

432Verb Tense 286–287Wiederaufnahme 167, 325, 505Word Play 80–81, 93, 347, 398, 427,

510Struggles 76–84Suicide; see also Razis 382, 465, 489Supernatural Events 39, 64, 89, 161,

201, 263, 337Synagogues 236“Syrian”; see AramaicSyrian Wars 548

Third 188Fifth 186, 190Fourth 191Sixth 229, 255

Tabernacle 131Tabernacles, Festival of 129, 130, 369

Impression of Dionysiac Festival 378

Tarsians 209Taxes 11, 195, 233, 265Temple (First) 133–134, 376Temple (Second) 7, 14, 18, 47, 174, 320,

322, 350, 372, 393, 463, 465, 466,493, 494Administrators of 189–190Altar 94–95, 130, 170, 270, 369, 445,

463, 494Archives 167Cult of 18, 46–48, 372, 474–475Defilement of 270, 536Destruction of 258Fire; see FireGates 129, 322, 361Legitimacy of 133, 150, 163, 164Mount 223, 254Offerings from Gentiles 181, 204,

248, 260–261, 350Purification and Rededication of;

see also Hanukkah Narrative130, 134, 170, 369, 394, 408, 470,523

Robbery of 5, 210, 248, 259–260,533

Status as City 6–7, 213Steps 94, 386Treasury 181–182, 191–192, 248

Temple Vessels 46, 134, 142–143, 160,209, 210, 248, 350, 369

Teos 542Textual Witnesses 90–96

Lectio brevior/difficilior 92–96Theodicy 21Theodorus of Mopsuestia 212Theodosius 430Theodotus 430, 464Thracians 332, 416Throne Names

Confusion of 5Timothy 27, 29, 322, 349, 370,

371, 372, 374, 397, 398, 414, 415,417

Titus Manius 393Tobiads 255, 415, 416Torah 129, 166, 340, 554


Torture 70, 271–272, 296, 297, 298,321, 343–344

Trajan 548Transjordan 232, 374, 390, 418Translations (of 2 Maccabees)

English VII-VIIILatin 91–96Modern 97

Treason 247, 248, 325, 370, 451Treaty of Apamaea 42, 218, 333, 468,

505, 544Tribute Payments 218, 233, 320, 323,

398, 544–545Tripoli 86–87, 463Tyre 208, 209, 210Tyriaion 532

Universalism 177, 187, 237, 238, 254,313, 335, 365, 423

Urbanity 51

Venetus; see Textual WitnessesVillains; see under MotifsVirgins 182, 248

Wine 495Women 270, 297, 298, 308–309, 431,

489

Xanthicus 33, 393, 394Equivalent of Nisan 410

Xerxes 263, 352, 357, 359

Zachaeus 370Zealotry 207, 214–215Zeno 294Zerubbabel 151Zeus 542Zeus Hellenios 539Zeus Olympios 270Zeus Xenios 270, 537

608 Indices

Index of Authors

Abel, F.-M., 88, 90, 91, 94, 97, 102, 146,147, 158, 159, 179, 214, 227, 232,245, 252, 260, 262, 264, 279, 280,285, 300, 306, 307, 310, 317, 327,328, 331, 340, 344, 357, 359, 380,383, 387, 388, 400, 426, 428, 429,430, 434, 451, 472, 474, 480, 488,489, 497, 500, 501, 503, 505, 508,521, 522, 523, 524, 528, 533, 540,550, 551, 556

Abrahams, I., 40, 102Achtemeier, P.J., 514Adinolfi, M., 78, 80, 102, 172, 251, 288,

388Adkins, A.W.H., 179Africa, T., 102, 288, 357, 368Albeck, H., 312Albrektson, B., 93, 102Alexander, L., 178, 180Alexander, P.S., 87, 88, 103, 514Alföldi, A., 488Alon, G., 103, 168, 196, 242, 361,

399Ameling, W., 41, 43, 103, 111, 219, 246,

532Amir, Y., 103, 126, 173, 194, 197, 206,

226, 428, 429Amit, D., 44Amit, Y., 64, 103, 146Anderson, J.K., 52, 201Anz, H., 461Applebaum, S., 175Arenhoevel, D., 103Artom, E.S., 103, 158, 165, 553Attridge, H.A., 107, 115, 216Avenarius, G., 34, 103, 178, 180,

294Avi-Yonah, M., 103, 434, 438

Baer, Y.F., 103, 309Baillet, M., 178Balentine, S.E., 262Bammel, E., 89, 103, 233Barag, D., 53, 103, 142, 251Barceló, P., 232Barclay, J.M.G., 103, 175Bardtke, H., 103, 512, 515Bar-Kochva, B., 11, 15, 29, 30, 32, 34,

36, 64, 72, 79, 97, 100, 103, 104, 120,173, 176, 233, 252, 266, 268, 274,278, 317, 329, 332, 336, 337, 338,340, 343, 344, 348, 354, 380, 384,386, 390, 391, 398, 399, 400, 413,424, 427, 428, 429, 431, 435, 437,442, 448, 449, 454, 455, 456, 457,462, 467, 477, 491, 496, 503, 504,505, 506, 507, 512, 515, 548

Bartoletti, V., 547Baumeister, T., 205Baumgarten, A.I., 44, 104Beckwith, R.T., 57, 104, 135Bell, H.I., 104, 289Bengston, H., 344, 380Bergmann, J., 373Bergren, T.A., 104, 151, 166, 169Berve, H., 104, 232, 256Bethge, H.-G., 89Bevan, E.R., 39, 40, 104Bévenot, H., 104, 265, 300, 480, 537,

553, 555Bickerman, E., 40, 42, 43, 61, 78, 91,

104, 117, 138, 140, 146, 149, 169,176, 186, 188, 190, 191, 192, 194,196, 202, 203, 204, 206, 213, 218,231, 235, 239, 246, 273, 276, 279,294, 338, 359, 363, 364, 366, 380,398, 406, 412, 413, 431, 455, 470,

Index of Authors 609

520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 530,531, 539, 540, 542, 550

Bilde, P., 104, 112, 433Birt, T., 175, 176, 180Black, M., 107, 316, 522Blass, F., 557Bleek, F., 58, 104Blinkenberg, C., 104, 167, 172Bömer, F., 279Boesch, P., 227Bohak, G., 12, 169, 515Bonnet, C., 104, 227Bons, E., 104, 305Boreham, L., 307Borza, E.N., 353Bosworth, A.B., 302, 354, 457Bourriot, F., 501Bousset, W., 105Bowersock, G.W., 19, 20, 105Box, H., 105Brändle, R., 89, 105Bratsiotis, N.P., 388Braverman, J., 59Breitenstein, U., 70, 71, 86, 105Bringmann, K., 43, 105, 227, 232,

246, 273, 274, 279, 280, 535,536

Brock, S., VIIBrooke, G.J., 166Brooten, B.J., 190Broshi, M., 104, 105, 149, 186, 259,

269, 535Broughton, T.R.S., 411Brown, P., 99, 105, 239, 309Brownlee, W.H., 404Brüll, N., 105, 169, 519Bruneau, P., 440Bruston, C., 105, 169, 519, 525Buckler, W.H., 105, 190Büchler, A., 105, 169, 519Bückers, H., 105, 316, 319Bultmann, R., 544Bunge, J.G., 31, 105, 229, 279, 294, 326,

344, 550, 551, 552Burstein, S.M., 542Buschmann, G., 105, 278, 305

Camponovo, O., 105, 142, 168Caquot, A., 106Carlton, W., 383Casson, L., 228Castelli, E., 309Chantraine, P., 106, 177, 218, 514Chazon, E.G., 106, 123, 155Cigoi, A., 106, 519, 520, 521Coates, J.F., 228Cobet, G.C., 443Cohen, G.D., 20, 90Cohen, G.M., 43Cohen, O., 426Cohen, S.J.D., 97, 188, 193Collart, P., 469Collins, J.J., 44, 106, 107, 373Corradi, G., 106, 149, 192, 239, 366,

398, 470Cotton, H.M., 41, 43, 106, 185, 189,

191, 192, 194, 206, 243Cowey, M.S., 51, 106, 145Cowley, A., 135Cox, R.B. Jr., 58, 61, 554Crantz, P., 506

Dancy, J.C., 106Daniel, S., 142, 189, 204Danker, F.W., 98, 106, 214, 294,

501Davies, J.G., 311Davies, P.R., 541De Bruyne, D., 59, 70, 92, 94, 106, 189,

237, 241, 264, 307, 314, 380, 386,403, 412, 458, 549

Debrunner, A., 557Deissmann, A., 106, 199, 205, 233, 237,

441, 499, 551Delling, G., 312Delorme, J., 106, 219, 225, 246Dempsey, D., 140, 522Dimant, D., 106, 160, 223Dodd, C.H., 87Doering, L., 266Dommershausen, W., 107Donner, H., 107, 142Döpler, J., 107, 301, 303

610 Indices

Doran, R., 4, 17, 20, 31, 35, 43, 46, 67,72, 79, 107, 172, 176, 177, 197, 206,219, 224, 225, 226, 246, 294, 318,319, 330, 346, 385, 427, 500, 502,537, 538, 540

Dover, K.J., 107, 215, 239, 290, 292,309, 315, 442, 479, 501

Downey, G., 89, 107, 236Drew-Bear, T., 107, 353, 366, 368, 501Dreyer, B., 225Dunbabin, J., 89, 107Duncker, P.G., 60Dupont-Sommer, A., 86, 107, 289, 290

Eckstein, A.M., 107, 309, 489Edgar, C.C., 112, 408Edson, C., 107, 338, 547Efron, J., 5, 107, 113Elbogen, I., 506Elhorst, H.J., 39, 40, 107, 246Eliav, Y., 107, 190, 223, 277Elizur, S., 90, 108, 509Enermalm-Ogawa, A., 108, 136, 147,

154, 155, 156, 169, 199, 201, 203,261, 506

Engel, G., 171, 180Eph’al, I., 328Eshel, E., 149, 186, 485, 535Eshel, H., 103, 105, 108, 122, 149, 186,

268, 269, 485, 535Ettelson, H.W., 40, 108, 179, 403, 534Exler, F.X.J., 108, 135, 169, 362, 524Eynikel, E., 550

Farber, J.J., 216Farmer, W.R., 337Faust, M., 360Fiensy, D.A., 108, 137, 427Fine, S., 378Fischer, J.B., 261Fischer, M., 424, 439Fischer, T., 108Fisher, N.R.E., 336Fitzmyer, J.A., 108, 136, 139, 169, 245,

290, 291, 342, 385, 436Fleischer, E., 154

Flusser, D., 49, 90, 108, 138, 144, 149,169, 267, 294, 388, 391, 502

Forbes, C., 449Forbes, C.A., 225Forbes, R.J., 159Forshey, H.O., 162Foucart, P., 227Foxhall, L., 330Fraser, P.M., 52, 108, 543Freudenthal, J., 229Fujita, S., 157Fuks, A., 99, 245, 266, 315Fuks, G., 109, 195, 435

Gafni, I.M., 108, 123, 275, 301, 341,377

Gamberoni, J., 188Gardiner, E.N., 108, 225Gardner, A.E., 237Garlan, Y., 340, 427Gärtner, B., 108, 312, 486Gauger, J.-D., 361, 548Geiger, A., 168, 266, 384, 442Geiger, J., 3, 67, 78, 325, 329, 341, 384,

400, 432Gera, D., 14, 30, 44, 63, 64, 97,

108, 109, 148, 190, 192, 229, 230,238, 252, 253, 269, 366, 368, 413,428, 429, 435, 437, 438, 442, 454,534

Gieschen, C.A., 109, 201, 387, 401Gil, L., 35, 67, 109, 402, 427Ginzberg, L., 151Giovannini, A., 109, 413Glucker, J., 109, 176, 276Goldenberg, R., 266Goldstein, J.A., 11, 15, 58, 62, 82, 86,

97, 109, 136, 137, 138, 144, 146, 147,152, 154, 156, 159, 160, 165, 177,191, 195, 213, 226, 227, 228, 232,245, 252, 255, 265, 279, 280, 282,285, 300, 307, 312, 313, 315, 328,338, 341, 358, 359, 363, 366, 367,380, 385, 388, 398, 400, 402, 405,426, 429, 430, 434, 438, 439, 448,454, 456, 458, 460, 480, 487, 488,


489, 497, 499, 500, 505, 512, 523,525, 529, 535, 544, 545, 549, 550,551, 556

Goodblatt, D., 109, 120, 348, 460Goodman, M., 86, 109, 121, 216, 225Gordon, C., 57Gould, J., 361Graetz, H., 109, 169, 519Graf, F., 282Grainger, J.D., 109, 450Granier, F., 109, 479Griffiths, J.G., 449Grimm, C.L.W., 9, 35, 60, 63, 64, 67, 86,

97, 109, 159, 161, 186, 199, 214, 235,239, 252, 264, 279, 300, 303, 310,312, 327, 328, 329, 344, 380, 381,388, 432, 434, 450, 451, 455, 481,500, 505, 510, 520, 547, 550, 553,555

Grintz, Y.M., 109, 194, 260, 377, 378,410, 510

Gruber, M.I., 109, 312Gruen, E.S., 6, 12, 14, 97, 110, 173, 187,

229, 253, 256, 411, 413, 533, 545Guéraud, O., 110, 218, 263Gutberlet, C., 110, 537Gutman, Y., 20, 110, 303, 319

Habicht, C., 15, 20, 40, 86, 90, 97, 110,146, 152, 153, 159, 175, 176, 177,179, 190, 199, 228, 237, 245, 252,255, 260, 262, 265, 267, 279, 280,285, 289, 292, 293, 306, 307, 310,318, 331, 333, 341, 343, 344, 359,362, 364, 379, 380, 386, 388, 389,399, 402, 404, 406, 412, 413, 426,434, 435, 442, 460, 462, 473, 474,476, 478, 480, 481, 500, 501, 503,510, 522, 534, 535, 540, 541, 542,549, 556

Hacham, N., 87, 110, 543Hack, M., 8, 110, 158, 165, 169, 522Hadot, I., 177Häge, G., 194Haenchen, E., 110, 305Hagedorn, D., 487

Hagenow, G., 514Hamel, G.H., 343Hamilton, N.Q., 191Hanhart, R., 67, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96,

97, 111, 114, 123, 143, 152, 153, 157,158, 177, 189, 193, 237, 241, 245,252, 260, 262, 265, 267, 275, 279,287, 293, 307, 310, 312, 313, 315,316, 332, 340, 343, 345, 347, 358,359, 366, 380, 381, 388, 389, 402,404, 405, 426, 433, 434, 437, 440,441, 442, 476, 478, 483, 487, 489,497, 500, 503, 509, 524, 525, 537,538, 539, 540, 546, 549, 551, 553

Hanson, R.P.C., 58Hanson, V.D., 111, 254, 439, 506Haran, M., 166Harris, H.A., 224Harris, W.V., 177Harvey, G., 111, 391Hauspie, K., 550Hayes, C.E., 260Heichelheim, F., 334Heinemann, I., 42, 111, 141, 198, 294,

378Hengel, M., 43, 44, 111, 116, 195, 215,

221, 273, 276Henten, J.W. van, 10, 25, 45, 52, 65, 86,

88, 97, 111, 112, 116, 155, 205, 222,288, 290, 293, 294, 303, 309, 310,319, 438, 478, 488, 489, 490, 491,502, 515, 541, 554

Herkenne, H., 112, 169, 519Herman, G., 112, 149, 237Hermann, P., 275Herr, M.D., 123, 266Herrmann, P., 108, 215, 542Hertz, J.H., 112, 122, 137, 175, 180,

310Herzog-Hauser, G., 198Himmelfarb, M., 51, 112, 286, 292, 303,

501Hirzel, R., 101, 102, 109, 277, 484Hoehner, H.W., 168Hölscher, G., 72, 112, 426Hoffman, C., 103

612 Indices

Holladay, C.R., 112, 144, 160, 167, 221,537

Holleaux, M., 25, 112, 192, 216, 235,263, 311, 368, 405, 431

Holzmeister, U., 399Hooff, A.J.L. van, 489Horst, P.W. van der, 112, 116, 198,

237, 291, 308, 368, 443, 486,487

Houghton, A., 112, 234Hunt, A.S., 440Hunt, S., 112, 408Hyldahl, N., 43, 112, 175, 274

Ilan, T., 112, 194, 198, 267, 339, 383,404, 430, 487

Isaac, B., 424

Jackson, A.H., 254Jackson-Tal, R.E., 439Jacobson, H., 112, 198, 203, 205, 259,

335, 502Jaeger, W., 112, 283, 294Janson, T., 180Japhet, S., 256Jeremias, G., 103, 112, 116Johansson, N., 502Johnson, J. de M., 440Johnson, S.R., 5, 87, 112, 195, 212, 244,

472Jones, A.H.M., 355Jones, C.P., 190Jonnes, L., 532Jossa, G., 45, 113, 301Jouguet, P., 469Joüon, P., 113, 188, 225, 240

Kah, D., 113, 219, 225Kahana, A., 6, 63, 113, 142, 165, 241,

435, 553Kahrstedt, U., 113, 191, 380, 436Kamerbeek, J.C., 307Kampen, J., 106, 112, 113, 121, 167,

471Kaplan, J., 123, 423Kappler, V., 91, 111, 113, 157, 215, 292,

293, 313, 345, 381, 389, 438, 476,480, 481, 553, 555

Kasher, A., 5, 30, 109, 113, 145, 190,213, 236, 275, 333, 382, 391, 421,424, 425, 430, 444, 487, 501, 548

Katz, P., 91, 92, 93, 94, 113, 152, 153,157, 177, 287, 288, 295, 307, 314,332, 340, 341, 343, 347, 381, 403,433, 437, 441, 443, 476, 478, 483,549

Kedar, B.Z., 422Keel, O., 43, 113, 295, 400, 543Keil, V., 187Kelhoffer, J.A., 268Kellermann, D., 431Kellermann, U., 20, 113, 151, 300, 304,

316Kennell, N.M., 41, 43, 53, 113, 219,

223, 225, 246, 532Kern, O., 543Kilpatrick, G.D., 91, 92, 94, 114, 347,

509Kippenberg, H.G., 114, 197, 301Kislev, M.E., 268Klawans, J., 260Kloner, A., 437Kochabi, S., 114, 474, 491Koenen, L., 114, 367, 406, 407, 409,

410, 413König, F.W., 168, 345, 367, 450, 470Kolbe, W., 114, 143, 534Kooij, A. van der, 62, 114, 168, 502, 506Kopidakes, M.Z., 114Kornbeutel, H., 551Kosters, W.H., 114, 384, 460Kraeling, C.H., 236Kraft, R., 114, 160, 266, 555Kreuzer, S., 315Kuhn, H.-W., 112Kußmaul, P., 420

Lachs, S.T., 316Laconi, M., 114Lampe, G.W.H., 553, 555Landau, Y.H., 190Lapin, H., 378


Lapp, N.L., 114, 268, 283Lapp, P.W., 114, 268, 283Laqueur, R., 33, 114, 396, 406, 413Lauer, S., 105, 289Launey, M., 114, 234, 264, 265, 338,

431, 437Lebram, J.C.H., 11, 111, 114Lehmann-Haupt, F., 424Leiman, S.Z., 166Lemaire, A., 114, 234Lenger, M.-Th., 115, 137, 265, 314, 410,

461Le Rider, G., 115, 148, 218, 530, 544,

545Leschhorn, W., 290Lévi, I., 90Levine, L.I., 44, 109, 115, 125, 126, 143,

221, 233, 253, 254, 345Lévy, I., 115, 331, 380, 386, 391, 547Levy, J.H., 115Lewis, N., 115, 161, 500Licht, J., 106, 199, 205, 317, 441Lichtenberger, H., 25, 46, 48, 115, 120Lieberman, S., 44, 115, 145, 154, 160,

161, 199, 237, 242, 245, 253, 281,340, 361, 514

Liebmann-Frankfort, T., 115, 413Lifshitz, B., 99, 115, 234, 263, 385, 421Lim, T.H., 166Lindsay, D.R., 200Lipinski, E., 227Lissarague, F., 115Liver, J., 157Loewenstamm, S.E., 145Lorein, G.W., 25, 115, 368Lüderitz, G., 51, 116, 145, 175Lührmann, D., 116, 172Lust, J., 550Luz, M., 489

Ma, J., 6, 116, 140, 166, 234, 360, 416Maas, M., 89, 116Magen, Y., 276Main, E., 168, 362Marcus, R., 5, 71, 111, 225, 331, 430Maresch, K., 51, 106, 145

Mariani, B., 116, 341, 403, 413Markantonatos, G., 449Martin, R., 542Martin, V., 440Martola, N., 43Mason, S., 116, 275Mauersberger, A., 67, 97, 101, 116, 153,

193, 196, 215, 230, 238, 240, 243,252, 258, 259, 265, 276, 329, 330,367, 374, 382, 384, 403, 428, 431,432, 456, 468, 472, 479, 480, 481,504, 505, 513

Mayser, E., 116, 192, 310, 555Mélèze Modrzejewski, J., 51, 52, 66, 85,

116, 202Meltzer, E.S., 89Mendels, D., 25, 44, 116, 356, 368Menxel, F. van, 116, 305, 319Merkelbach, R., 193Metzger, H., 542Meyer, A., 555Meyer, E., 40, 116, 384, 412, 496, 507Michel, O., 88Milgrom, J., 106, 223, 287Milik, J.T., 160Milikowsky, C., 116Millar, F., 43, 44, 116, 276, 295Miller, P.D., 336Milligan, G., 461Misgav, H., 276Mitford, T.B., 116, 331, 380, 381, 391Moehring, H.R., 42, 544Mölleken, W., 116, 469, 474, 491Moffatt, J., 116, 537, 547, 556Momigliano, A., 10, 86, 87, 116, 117,

143, 343, 390, 524, 547, 548Montevecchi, O., 117, 155Mooren, L., 551Mor, M., 112, 119, 428, 494Morgan, M.H., 253, 528Morgenthaler, R., 71Morin, J.-A., 215Mørkholm, O., 34, 116, 148, 149, 192,

217, 234, 238, 251, 273, 275, 276,354, 364, 366, 381, 409, 460, 530,533, 535, 542, 544, 549

614 Indices

Morrison, J.S., 228Mosley, D.J., 221Mott, S.C., 186Motzo, [R.]B., 117Moulton, J.H., 461Müller, H., 99, 109, 413Mugler, C., 35, 67, 73, 117, 180Murray, O., 115, 117, 178Musti, D., 257

Nagel, G., 117, 246Nelis, J.T., 117, 188, 400, 413Nestle, E., 117, 255Nestle, W., 117, 307, 357Neuser, W., 61Nickelsburg, G.W.E., 107, 117, 299,

304, 316, 317, 319Niehr, H., 203Niese, B., 8, 10, 15, 33, 39, 40, 43, 67,

78, 79, 93, 102, 105, 117, 125, 173,174, 330, 332, 384, 398, 411, 434,443, 448, 519, 520, 521, 528, 534,540, 544, 553

Nock, A.D., 117, 542Nodet, E., 117Norden, E., 67North, H., 239Nouhaud, M., 258, 263

O’Brien, E., 118, 444Ogle, M.B., 118, 443, 444Oppenheimer, A., 108, 109, 111, 113,

118, 120, 487, 512Orlinsky, H.M., 166Otto, W., 39, 118, 148, 229, 399, 524Owen, E.C.E., 288

Page, D.L., 547Parente, F., 43, 87, 118, 122, 187, 246,

345, 530, 531Parker, R., 118, 245, 260, 451Pasoni Dell’Acqua, A., 214Paul, G.M., 258Pearce, S.J.K., 304Pearson, B.A., 118, 190, 266Pédech, P., 118, 180, 216, 329

Pelikan, J., 60Pelletier, A., 436Penna, A., 118Peterson, J.L., 390Petrochilos, N., 71Piatkowska, M., 257Pilhofer, P., 222Porten, B., 118Porter, S.E., 118, 125, 138, 303Powell, I.U., 547Prato, G.L., 118, 173, 273, 295, 368Preisendanz, K., 227Preisigke, F., 118, 409, 550Price, J.J., 115, 259Pritchett, W.K., 118, 172, 201, 251, 259,

329, 336, 342, 428, 431, 433, 438,439, 441, 479

Procksch, O., 39, 40, 118, 413Pummer, R., 264

Quass, F., 280

Raban, A., 423Rabello, A.M., 470Radin, M., 85Rahlfs, A., 71, 72, 91, 119, 154, 176,

193, 515, 525, 553Rajak, T., 44, 119, 173, 214, 216, 289,

293, 295Ramage, E.S., 290Rampolla del Tindaro, M., 119, 319Rappaport, U., 44, 63, 109, 119, 255,

279, 461, 462, 539Reeg, G., 119, 286, 327Regev, E., 165Reinach, A., 378Reinach, S., 443Reinhold, M., 239Renaud, B., 50, 105, 119, 222, 275, 291,

410Ribbeck, O., 484Richnow, W., 35, 67, 72, 119, 232, 344Ricl, M., 532Rigg, H.A., 513Rigsby, K.J., 119, 196, 236, 276, 360,

362


Rinaldi, G., 85, 119, 214Risberg, B., 67, 119, 153, 158, 177, 292,

293, 343, 379, 381, 390, 469, 478,481, 488

Robert, L., 91, 115, 227, 541, 542Robertson, M., 179Rofé, A., 148Rokeah, D., 119Rolle, R., 302Romilly, J., 119, 177, 432Roscher, W.H., 537Rose, C., 88Ross, D., 500Ross, J.F., 199Rostovtzeff, M., 542Roth-Gerson, L., 89, 119, 236Rothschild, J.P., 90, 120Rougé, J., 88, 120Roussel, P., 193Rowley, H.H., 120, 295Rubin, M., 554Runia, D.T., 314

Sachs, A.J., 40, 41, 120Salmon, J., 330Savalli-Lestrade, I., 149Savigni, R., 89, 120Schalit, A., 345, 378, 430, 470Schaller, B., 553, 554Schatkin, M., 120, 319Schiffman, L.H., 120Schmitt, H.H., 420Schmitz, W., 200Scholl, R., 334Scholz, P., 113, 219Schröder, B., 275Schubart, W., 120, 194, 214, 216, 289Schürer, E., 39, 40, 44, 86, 118, 120,

188, 189, 267, 286, 295, 362, 487,534, 541

Schumacher, G., 426Schumrick, A., 175, 180Schunck, K.-D., 43, 97, 120, 212, 326,

353Schuppe, E., 223Schwabe, M., 105, 110, 199

Schwankl, O., 120, 304, 319, 442,444

Schwartz, D.R., 5, 22, 45, 54, 90, 108,109, 120, 121, 123, 140, 145, 148,195, 229, 274, 375, 442, 480, 486,535, 536

Schwartz, J., 8, 267, 511, 512Schwartz, S., 20, 43, 537, 539Schwarz, A., 122, 512Scullard, H.H., 122, 399, 455Scurlock, J., 122, 276, 277, 288, 295Seeligmann, I.L., 64, 146, 217, 366Seeligmann, J.A., 122Sefer, H., 49, 109, 194, 243, 260, 378,

410, 510Segal, C., 508Seyrig, H., 196Shatzman, I., 122, 173, 398, 448Sherk, R.K., 101, 122Sieben, H.J., 60Sievers, J., 118, 122, 222, 233, 250,

345Skard, E., 122, 214, 292, 405Skehan, P., 59, 122Sluys, D.M., 122, 236Sly, D., 309Smith, M., 431Smith, R.R.R., 337Snodgrass, A.M., 202Soloveitchik, H., 90Sowers, S., 122, 216, 226, 237Sperber, D., 122, 190, 200, 281, 314Spicq, C., 52, 97, 123, 136, 138, 149,

150, 153, 172, 174, 175, 180, 189,191, 194, 200, 214, 218, 222, 223,226, 239, 244, 245, 260, 266, 275,280, 284, 289, 290, 305, 306, 316,326, 332, 357, 359, 361, 362, 405,407, 408, 427, 456, 477, 481, 537

Spiegel, S., 20, 123Standhartinger, A., 198Starcky, J., 123Staub, U., 43, 113, 400Steckoll, S.H., 268Stegemann, H., 112Stein, M., 58

616 Indices

Steinfeld, Z.A., 225Stemberger, G., 88, 123, 295, 304, 306,

316, 317, 319Stern, M., 11, 12, 14, 25, 36, 43, 44, 56,

64, 73, 85, 86, 97, 99, 108, 123, 145,174, 187, 196, 212, 217, 218, 219,220, 223, 236, 246, 256, 273, 275,276, 277, 279, 280, 286, 337, 338,345, 378, 380, 398, 404, 413, 424,437, 454, 457, 460, 470, 473, 474,500, 524, 530, 535, 545, 546, 548,549

Stiebel, G.D., 283Stokholm, N., 5, 123, 206Stone, M.E., 119, 121, 123Strobel, K., 123, 337, 338, 548Sundberg, A.C., 57, 58, 61, 123Swete, H.B., 57, 159, 426, 553

Tal, A., 253Talmon, S., 264Talshir, D., 426Ta-Shma, I., 137Tcherikover, V.A., 33, 42, 51, 53, 54, 78,

85, 99, 100, 124, 189, 194, 195, 211,246, 250, 255, 269, 273, 276, 333,334, 385, 413, 424, 430, 530, 531,532, 535

Thalheim, T., 239Thompson, S., 356Tiller, P.A., 157Tilley, M.A., 288, 305Toki, K., 10, 11, 124Torrey, C.C., 8, 124, 140, 142, 158, 169,

519, 522Tov, E., 93, 124, 278, 290Trindl, M., 124, 233, 551Tromp, J., 5, 87, 124, 278, 386Tsfania, L., 276Tyson, J.B., 3, 124

Ulrich, E., 166Unnik, W.C. van, 156Urbach, E.E., 57, 124, 226, 284, 305,

361, 442Urman, D., 236, 426

Vaccari, A., 91, 503Vanderhooft, D., 188VanderKam, J.C., 43, 124, 211, 212,

295, 409, 469, 475, 541Vaughn, P., 439Vergote, J., 124, 288, 295Villalba i Varneda, P., 286Vinson, M., 89, 124Vogel, M., 289Volkmann, H., 124, 259, 334,

547Volz, H., 60Vries, M. de, 235

Wacholder, B.Z., 106, 125, 144, 169,376

Wackernagel, J., 353Wagenaar, L., 125, 475, 491Walbank, F.W., 79, 97, 125, 148, 150,

177, 180, 192, 217, 220, 229, 231,252, 253, 265, 276, 302, 353, 364,381, 390, 411, 424, 434, 460, 467,468, 470, 513, 533

Walters, P., 149Weber, R., 289Wegeler, C., 91Wegner, J.R., 125, 309Weinfeld, M., 114, 125, 237, 387Weinreich, O., 125, 150, 214Weitzman, S., 48, 103, 125, 134Welles, C.B., 40, 72, 97, 101, 125, 140,

168, 193, 196, 220, 223, 226, 228,231, 233, 234, 235, 257, 265, 306,361, 362, 365, 404, 405, 406, 407,408, 409, 410, 434, 469, 472, 499,523, 532, 550

Wellhausen, J., 38, 40, 42, 125, 244, 341,348, 391, 444, 462, 476, 491, 496,515, 521

Wendland, P., 39, 125Wenning, R., 255Western, A.C., 268Wheeler, E.L., 125, 456, 484Wheeler, M., 353Wifstrand, A., 125, 282, 362, 514Wilcken, U., 166, 420


Wilcox, M., 522Wiles, J.W., 59Wilhelm, A., 40, 125, 152, 153, 224,

225, 259, 265, 275, 410, 440, 441,442, 483, 549

Wilk, R., 281Wilken, R.L., 125, 141Will, E., 126, 148, 194, 338, 363, 367,

459, 507Williams, D.S., 126Winston, D., 126, 141, 226, 313Wise, M.O., 124, 475Wörrle, M., 41, 43, 106, 185, 191, 192,

206, 243Woess, F. von, 126, 196, 257Wolff, C., 126, 160, 162, 502Wolter, M., 246Wunderer, C., 179

Yahalom, Y., 509Yardeni, A., 118Yerushalmi, Y.H., 49, 126Young, R.D., 126, 308, 319

Zadok, R., 487Zambelli, M., 86, 126Zeitlin, S., 34, 52, 126, 140, 227, 435,

480, 547Ziegenaus, A., 60, 61, 126Ziehen, L., 226, 227Zimmer, E., 71, 155, 199, 315Zimmermann, C., 71, 126, 155, 203,

312, 315Zimmermann, H., 330Zollschan, L.T., 126, 221, 246Zuckerman, C., 145Zuntz, G., 180

2 Maccabees - Schwartz, Daniel R

Documents

Transcript of 2 Maccabees - Schwartz, Daniel R