Part 68
(6:3—4) 'f°r a l°ng time, up to seven generations', in conflict with Jer 25:12; 29:10, in which the Exile is prophesied as lasting seventy years. The implication is that the writer is addressing a Diaspora of long standing. Some commentators have taken the expression literally, and dated the work 7 x 40 years after the exiles of 597 and 586, to 317—306 BCE. But it is most likely that 'seven generations' is to be understood figuratively, as a long period of time. v. 4, 'which people carry on their shoulders', a possible reference to the Babylonian akitu festival at the New Year, which involved solemn processions, though it is more likely to have been influenced by Isa 46:1-2.
2. The work is addressed to the Jewish exiles in Babylon, and this has led some scholars to suggest an eastern provenance such as Mesopotamia. But this is merely a literary device, and it could be aimed at any Jewish community in the Diaspora. Another argument for an origin in the east is the writer's apparent familiarity with Babylonian customs, though this need not have been acquired at first hand. However, if the original language was Hebrew, it would tend to support a Palestinian provenance, and an Aramaic Vorlage would indicate a Palestinian, Mesopotamian, or Babylonian origin.
See also LET JER 6:26.
(6:7) 'My angel is with you', for the concept and expression, see Gen 24:7; 48:16; Ex 23:20, 23; 32:34.
E. Canonicity. 1. Like Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah was associated by the church with the book of Jeremiah from the second century or earlier, and considered part of that prophetic work. However, with the exception of Aristides, Tertullian, and Cyprian, Christian writers rarely allude to it. This may be in part because the worship of idols became less and less of a threat to the church as time went on, and also because similar ideas are expressed more succinctly in Deut 4:28; Ps 115:4-7;
(6:11—12) 'the prostitutes on the terrace', literally, 'on the roof, Greek stegos or tegos. This is explained in a number of ways. It may refer, as NRSV suggests, to part of the pagan temple where the cult prostitutes operated (Hdt. 1.181). Alternatively, the Greek word is being used in the sense of'brothel'. Another suggestion is that the Greek translator misread the unvowelled Aramaic 'al 'agra (for payment, hire), as 'al 'iggar a
ADDITIONS TO DANIEL 704
(6:60) For the theme of the obedience of the heavenly bodies, see BAR 3:33—4.
(on the roof), v. 12, 'from rust and corrosion', the NRSV has attempted to make sense of the Greek apo iou kai bromaton (lit. from rust and food), in the light of Mt 6:19, ses kai brosis ('moth and eating'), rendered as 'moth and rust' in NRSV. Otherwise, there may be a mistranslation behind the Greek: the Hebrew word for 'food' is 'okel or ma'dkal, whereas the Hebrew for 'from a moth' is me'dkel (lit. from a devourer). (6:22) 'bats ... alight ... and so do cats', Strabo (Gcog. 16.7) says that bats were a particular nuisance in temples. The verb rendered 'alight' by NRSV has the literal meaning in Greek, 'to fly over, flit', which is hardly appropriate to cats. This has led to many emendations in order to provide another type of bird at the end of the list, but none so far has proved convincing. See Lee (1971). (6:29) 'touched by women in their periods or at childbirth', in Judaism women were regarded as ceremonially unclean at these times (Lev 12:4,15:19-20). (6:31-2) In contrast to the cults of the Babylonian gods, women played very little part in the cult of YHWH. Torn clothes, shaved and uncovered heads were regarded as signs of mourning and unfitting for a supposedly holy place. Israelite priests were forbidden to mourn in the customary way, in order to remain ceremonially clean for the service of God (Lev 21:1—5, IO)- The pagan priests described here may be participating in the cult of dying and rising gods such as Tammuz.
(6:67—70) These verses mirror the thought of Jer 10:2—5, with some reordering. '[A] scarecrow in a cucumber bed' is a vivid image, probably influenced by the similar expressions in Isa 1:8 and especially Jer 10:5, which occurs in a passage on the futility of idols. Since the clause does not appear in LXX Jer 10:5, the writer must have had direct knowledge of the Hebrew. The Greek probaskanion, rendered 'scarecrow' here, generally means something that averts witchcraft.
(6:71—3) Gardens were cultivated for food, not for leisure or decorative purposes, so a thornbush in a garden, attracting birds that would feed on the produce, would be a metaphor for uselessness (cf. Judg 9:14, 15). '[ajcorpse thrown out in the darkness': corpses were ceremonially unclean, and for a body to be thrown out unburied was a sign of enormous disrespect. For similar expressions, see Am 8:3, Jer 14:16, 22:19, Isa 34:3> Bar 2:25. v. 72, for 'linen' the Greek reads 'marble', apparently having mistaken the Hebrew ses (fine linen) for its homonym. For the combination with purple, describing luxurious attire, see Ex 26:1, Prov 31:22, Lk 16:19. Th£ letter concludes at v. 73 with a recommendation to keep away from idolatry.
Avigad, N. (1986), Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Jeremiah. Remnants
(6:36—8) The impotence of the idols is implicitly compared with the compassion of Israel's God (cf. Ps 68:5-6,146:8; Isa
of a Burnt Archive (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society). Baillet, M., Milik, J. T., Vaux, R. de (1962), Les Petites Grottes de
35:5)- (6:40) The 'Chaldeans' here are not Babylonians; the word is used in the sense of 'astrologers, magicians'. 'Bel' means 'lord', an epithet for the patron deity of a city, in this case Marduk (Merodach), god of the Babylonians. Cf. the apocryphal book Bel and the Dragon. (6:42-3) Herodotos (1.199) giyes a similar account of this practice. He says that once in her life, every Babylonian woman has to sit in the precinct of Aphrodite (Ishtar), and have intercourse with the first stranger who throws a silver coin into her lap. The cords here may refer either to the string that Herodotos says the women wear on their heads, or to the roped-off areas in which they sit. The accounts here and in Herodotos appear to be independent. Burning bran for incense is a strange custom, but perhaps some sort of grain offering or aphrodisiac is meant. (6:55) 'like crows', this is a strange simile, and it has been plausibly suggested that the Greek translator read the unvocalized Hebrew 'abim (clouds) as 'orebim (crows).
Qumrdn, DJD 3 (Oxford: Clarendon). Burke, D. G. (1982), The Poetry ofBaruch: A Reconstruction and Analysis
of the Original Hebrew Text of Baruch 3:9—5:9, Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series 10 (Scholars Press: Chico, Calif.). Lee, G. M. (1971), 'Apocryphal Cats: Baruch 6:21', VT2i: 111-12. Nickelsburg, G. W. D. (1984), 'Baruch and Epistle of Jeremiah', in M.
E. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (Assen: Van Gorcum), 140-8. Steck, O. H. (1993), Das apokryphe Baruchbuch: Studien zu Rezeption
und Konzentration 'kanonischer' Uberlieferung (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Thackeray, H. St J. (1923), The Septuagint and Jewish Worship,
Schweich Lectures, 1920; 2nd edn. (London: Oxford University Press), 80-111. Tov, E. (1975), The Book of Baruch, Also Called I Baruch (Greek and
Hebrew), SBLTT 8 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press).
(1976), The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29-52 and Baruch 1:1—3:8, HSM 8 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press). Whitehouse, O. C. (1913), 'i Baruch', APOTi. 569-95.
46. Additions to Daniel GEORGE J. BROOKE
period which are most suitably associated with Daniel (4(3242—6; 4(3551—3); notably 4(^242 seems to be an alternative form of Dan 4. It is not altogether surprising that the Greek versions of Daniel contain additions. All three additions are set in Babylon and concern in some way the deliverance of the faithful. For further detail on matters of background see the survey by C. A. Moore (1992).
A. Background. The book of Daniel in the HB is composite; not only is it written in two languages (Hebrew and Aramaic), but its contents fall into two parts, one containing stories about Daniel as the wise man in the court of the foreign king, the other his visions. The scrolls from Qumran have shown that there were other traditions in the Second Temple
7°5 ADDITIONS TO DANIEL
the appointment of a judge but there are no clear overlaps and the proper names found in the Aramaic fragment nowhere occur in the story of Susanna.
B. Text and Language. 1. The Greek versions of Daniel are usually divided into two groups. On the one hand the OG is attested in the late second-century CE Papyrus 967 (which places Bel and the Dragon before Susanna), in Origen's Hexapla (which survives in a very literal Syriac translation made in the early yth cent. CE, known as Syh), and in the nintheleventh century MS 88 (Codex Chisianus). On the other hand there is the text linked with the name of Theodotion (2nd cent. CE) which very early became dominant in the churches. It is widely agreed that this text predates Theodotion himself (Schmitt 1966). Both Greek versions contain three passages not found in the Hebrew and Aramaic Daniel. Whether the Theodotion text of these additions is a revision of the OG, perhaps in the light of a Semitic text (Moore 1977), or a fresh translation from a Semitic original (Schmitt 1966) is still unclear. There is nothing in the two traditions that distinguishes the Greek of the additions from that of the rest of Daniel.
5. For Bel and the Dragon OG and Theodotion are close, though some argue that Bel is told more effectively in the OG, whilst the Dragon is stylistically better in Theodotion (Moore 1977: 119). The greater number of Hebraisms in Theodotion suggests that the OG may have been based on an Aramaic original, which Theodotion reworked on the basis of a Hebrew text. The Theodotion version seems to be somewhat assimilated to Dan 6 while its OG counterpart may be older than Dan 6 (Wills 1990). The story of the Dragon is known in Aramaic in the Chronicles ofjerahmeel, which possibly reflects an early version independent from both Greek and Syriac versions.
C. Subject Matter and Literary Genre. 1. The Prayer of Azariah, though in its present context said by an individual, is a communal confession of sin and plea for mercy similar to Dan 9:4-19 (cf. Ps 44; 74; 79; 106; Ezra 9:6-15; Neh 1:5-11; Bar 1:15-3:8; 4QjO4). It is full ofthe theology of Deuteronomy. The Song ofthe Three Jews is a hymn of praise; there is no need to suppose that its two parts ever existed separately. It is closely related to Ps 148 and the list science of nature wisdom' (Koch 1987: 1.205; Collins 1993: 207; cf. Job 38-41; Sir 43). These additions shift the emphasis in Dan 3 away from the king towards the faithfulness of the martyrs, who thus acknowledge and bless God before Nebuchadnezzar does (Hammer 1972: 213). 2. Susanna is the story of the eventual vindication of an innocent woman who thwarted an attempted rape by two of the elders of her community. Since the refutation of its historicity, the story has been variously categorized: as a moral fable (see Baumgartner 1926: 259—67), as a midrash (on Jer 29:21—32) which either critiques perverted Jewish authorities (OG: Engel 1985: 177-81) or is designed to be an attack on Sadducean court practice (Briill 1877), as a folktale (Baumgartner 1929; Schilrer 1987; LaCoque 1990), as a wisdom instruction (Theodotion: Engel 1985: 181—3), as a parable on Jewish relations with Hellenism (Hartman and Di Leila 1989: 420), as a court legend adapted for the Jewish community (Wills 1990), perhaps with a particular 'democratized' stress on the persecution and vindication ofthe righteous (Nickelsburg 1984: 38), as a novella (Collins 1993: 437). For all its folkloristic feel, the story is replete with religious terminology and themes. Because Susanna is a woman, there has been some recent interest in the tale from that perspective. Through the contrast ofthe virtuous woman with the lecherous elders Susanna is subversive ofthe Jewish establishment (LaCoque 1990); she is also the story's object whose feminine passivity allows God to be the avenger (Pervo 1991). Motifs in the story suggest that Susanna is a new Eve, the one who knows the law and is obedient in the garden (cf. T. Levi 18: 10-11; Pss. Sol. 14:1-5; Brooke 1992; Pearce 1996). The story is told from a male angle which encourages the (male) reader to be voyeuristic like the elders and Susanna's choice of death rather than rape makes her subscribe to the idea that her purity, the hallmark of her husband's esteem, is more important than her life (Glancy 1995; cf. Steussy 1993: 118). What happens to Susanna challenges through stereotyped
2. In both Greek traditions the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews occurs between Dan 3:23 and 3:24 (not extant in Papyrus 967). This addition has three parts: the Prayer of Azariah, a narrative link, and the Song of the Three Jews. In Theodotion (and Papyrus 967) Bel and the Dragon form Dan 13 and Susanna comes before Dan i. In Papyrus 967 Susanna follows Bel and the Dragon but in MS 88, Syh, and Vg Susanna is Dan 13, and Bel and the Dragon Dan 14. The NRSV gives a translation of Theodotion's version of the additions, but they are printed in the order of the OG. The standard edition of the Greek texts is that of Ziegler (1954) which must be supplemented by the work of Geissen (1968).
3. Most scholars suppose that the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews were originally composed in Hebrew (cf Kuhl 1940: 111—59). If me narrative interlude was original to the text of Daniel it would have been in Aramaic, but if it was composed to introduce the Song of the Three, then it would have been originally in Hebrew. Nothing can be deduced from the Aramaic forms of these additions in the eleventh-century Chronicles ofjerahmeel (Gaster 1895; 1896), which are versions produced independently from the Greek versions, probably to make a Hebrew original fit its Aramaic context. The two Greek versions are in close agreement with one another.
4. The differences between the OG and Theodotion are most significant in Susanna. They can be seen in English in some parallel presentations (Kay 1913; Collins 1993) and have been discussed extensively (Moore 1977: 78—80; Steussy 1993). Most scholars suppose that Theodotion supplements the OG either on the basis of oral tradition (Delcor 1971: 260), through redactional activity (Engel 1985: 56—7), or through using a Semitic source (Moore 1977: 83). For the story as a whole a Hebrew original is likely (kai egeneto = wayyehi: w. 7,
15, 19, 28, 64), though the extant medieval Hebrew forms of the story are probably secondary. Since Julius Africanus in the third century CE (Letter to Origen, PG 11.41—8) some have argued for a Greek original because of the puns in w. 54-5 and 58-9, but the Syh represents the puns easily enough so a Semitic original remains quite possible. Milik (1981: 355-7) has tentatively proposed that a three-part Aramaic fragment from Qumran (4Qjji) reflects the story of Susanna. It talks of
ADDITIONS TO DANIEL 706
feminine instability the notions of righteousness and true ethnic identity (Levine 1995).
the story was probably translated at about 100 BCE, see the original Hebrew as belonging to any time in the Second Temple period, probably in Palestine (Collins 1993: 438).
3. Bel and the Dragon are two interwoven court tales about the falsehood of idolatry. They are typologically very similar to the stories of Dan 1-6. Some have supposed them to be historicizations of part of the Babylonian creation myth
3. There is a historical notice at the start of Bel and the Dragon (see BEL 1-2) but it does not help in dating the story. According to Herodotus the temple of Bel was plundered by Xerxes I (485—465 BCE). The phrase 'become a Jew' (v. 28) reflects an attitude first prevalent in the second century BCE (Collins 1993: 415-16). The tales were part of an extensive Daniel literature.
Enuma Elish or to be interpretations of scriptural passages: Jer 51:34-5,44 (Moore 1977:122); 13345-6 (NickelsburgigSi: 27). But both tales are principally polemical parodies of idolatry. In both the friendship between the king and Daniel is challenged, in Bel by Daniel mocking his friend's worship of the clay and bronze, in the Dragon by indignant Babylonians casting aspersions on the king's nationalism. In both stories there is a subtle interweaving of themes concerning life, food, and deity. In the story of Bel Daniel shows that the idol does not and cannot eat, and therefore cannot be said to be alive; his God, by contrast, is the living God. In the test it is the priests and their families who take the food offered to Bel. In the story of the Dragon Daniel shows that eating is not a sufficient criterion of divinity; the Dragon eats and dies and as a result Daniel is given to the lions for food, is himself miraculously fed while the lions fast, and those who have been his detractors are in the end themselves turned into the lion's dinner. Though provided with some characteristics of historical verisimilitude, the two tales are polemics not against the Gentile world as such but against idolatry and all the religious attitudes that go with it (Collins 1993: 419). Not only is idolatry attacked (cf. Isa 44:9-20; Jer 10:1-6; Hab 2:18-19; PS n5)> but also the actual destruction of the idols is depicted (cf. Jub 12:12—13). ^s similarity to Dan 6 suggests that the den episode may have originated as an independent tradition.
E. Canonicity. All three additions are clearly secondary, in their earliest form surviving only in Greek. In the early church Justin (d. 165) is the earliest to refer to the additions to Dan 3, Irenaeus (140-^200) the earliest to refer to Susanna and Bel and the Dragon (Schilrer 1987: 726—9). Julius Africanus (d. £.240) was the first to question the canonicity ofthe additions, as did Jerome, but they remained part ofthe Greek Bible and the Vg. They are unattested amongst the Jews of antiquity, first appearing fully in the medieval versions of Josippon and in the Chronicles ofjerahmeel. Perhaps Susanna was never accepted by Jews either because it appears to contravene certain legal practices concerning witnesses (cf m. Sank. 5:1) or because it undermines the authority of elders, or because it was seen as an inept introduction to Daniel.
F. Outline. The Prayer of Azariah and the Song ofthe Three jews The Prayer of Azariah
Introduction (1-2) Azariah's Prayer (3—22) Narrative (23—7) The Song ofthe Three Jews
D. Date and Place of Composition. 1. About 100 BCE, the terminus ante quern, all three additions were incorporated into the Greek text of Daniel; determining actual dates of composition is much more difficult. Most scholars suppose that the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews are so typical in form and content that they are virtually impossible to date (Eissfeldt 1965: 590), but internal clues show that these psalms are post-exilic (as is the very similar Dan 9). It should be noted, however, that while the Prayer of Azariah supposes the destruction of the temple (v. 15), the Song ofthe Three may presuppose its existence (v. 31). If the description ofthe king in Prayer of Azariah gb refers to Antiochus Epiphanes, then the Prayer may have been written during his persecution
Introduction (28) Blessings (29-68)
Susanna Introduction (1—4) The Plot (5-62)
The opportune day in the garden (5-27) The next day: in the house (OG synagogue) (28-64) Epilogue (63-4)
Eel and the Dragon Introduction (1—2) Two Idol Tales (3-42)
Bel (3-22) The Dragon (23—42)
(167-164 BCE), when effectively there was no temple (v. 15) but a real need to pray for the destruction of one's enemies
(v. 21). If Tob 8:5 is dependent on the Song ofthe Three Jews (Moore 1977: 47), then the Song cannot be later than the third century BCE; at least it was composed before being translated into Greek at the end ofthe second century BCE.
The Prayer of Azariah and the Song ofthe Three Jews
2. Scholars are divided about the date and origin of Susanna. Those who see it as a Judaized folk-tale suggest that its outline is of Gentile origin and undatable (Eissfeldt 1965: 590). Many of those who see it as a Jewish composition have followed Brull in locating the tale as a Pharisaic illustration of the dispute between Pharisees and Sadducees at the time of Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 BCE) concerning the application of Deut 19:16—19 (cf. m. Mak. 1:6; e.g. Kay 1913: 644). More recently a majority of scholars, while acknowledging that
The Prayer of Azariah (1-22; Gfc 3:24-45 J
(1-2) Introduction A narrative link explains that Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah are in the fire, singing to God; this would seem to be the introduction to the Song of the Three Jews. Theodotion has Azariah pray alone; the OG has his two companions join him. The names are Hebrew; in Dan 3 only the Babylonian Aramaic forms of their names occur: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.
7°7 ADDITIONS TO DANIEL
(3-22) Azariah's Prayer Like many of the biblical psalms the prayer of Azariah is composite, containing the blessing of God, a confession, and an intercession. Since the three are in the furnace because of their obedience to God in refusing to worship the gold idol, they pray on behalf of fellow Israelites rather than for themselves, w. 3—5, the blessing of God: the blessing extols God for his righteousness (cf Deut 32:4), i.e. his justice in judging the people and letting Jerusalem be destroyed. The opening 'Blessed are you, Lord' is common in contemporary prayers (iQH 13:20; 18:14; cf4Q4]4 27 H 2; 4(350.4 6 H 20; 3:11). The address to God as 'God of our ancestors' places the prayer in the tradition of Deut (1:11, 21; 4:1, etc.) and Tob 8:5. Mention of'the name' links this opening with the chiastic intercession (n, 20). The entire blame for what has happened rests with the sinful people, a recognition which leads naturally into confession.
sacrifices (cf. Ps 40:6 (cited in Heb 10:5-6); 51:17; 141:2; nQPsa 18:7—10 (Syr Ps 154:17—21)). In place of the institutional leaders, God himself will be followed directly. The Greek is difficult to understand here. Theodotion reads 'to complete after you', usually taken as a literal rendering of the Hebrew phrase 'to follow you completely' (mP 'hrhk, Num 14:24; Deut 1:36; Josh 14:8; Bennett 1913: 634). OG has literally 'to atone after you', perhaps a rendering of the Hebrew 'to atone for you' (cf. kprb'dw. Lev 16:11). With reference to the Aramaic (lrfw' mn qdmk 'to please you'), the OG might be seen as an attempt to render this, and Theodotion as a further inner-Greek corruption (Koch 1987: 2.55-9; Collins 1993: 202). (2') Call for mercy (18-19). Th£ fifth element concludes as the second had begun with a plea for mercy, (i') God's servants and God's name (20—2). The sixth element rounds out the confession. It is a request that God glorify his name by putting to shame all who harm his servants.
w. 6-9, the confession neatly declares how those who have broken the law have been justly handed over to the lawless rebels and an unjust king for punishment: the administrators of the punishment fit the crime, v. gfc, the descriptions may have been thought to have suited Nebuchadnezzar well, even though the prayer was not originally composed for its present context; perhaps it originally referred to Antiochus Epiphanes ('a sinful root', i Mace 1:10; Hartman and Di Leila 1989: 4i2b). For this confession cf. Dan 9:5, Ezra 9:6, Neh 9:26. w. 10—22, the chiastic intercession has six elements to it. These are arranged chiastically so that the poetry of the prayer has a balance which itself expresses the calm self-realization of the person praying it, whether Azariah in the fire or any other dispersion Jew. (The chiasmas is here indicated as follows: i, 2, 3, 3', 2', i'.) (i) God's servants and God's name (10n). The first element in the chiasm concerns the shame the servants who worship God have become; but the poet requests God, for his name's sake, not to annul his covenant. (2) Call for mercy (12—13). Th£ second and fifth elements in the confession are pleas for mercy, v. 12, Abraham is described as God's friend (egapemenon; cf. Isa 41:8; 2 Chr 20:7; 4(^252 2:8; Jas 2:23; Apoc. Abr. 9:6; 10:5; T. Abr. A 1:6; 2:3 etc.; Philo, de Sobr. 55—6). Isaac, rather than Jacob (Isa 44:1—2; Jer 30:10), is described as the servant (cf. Gen 24:14). The epithet 'holy one' is usually reserved for supernatural creatures, though Israel is called holy (Deut 7:6). v. 13, the promise of descendants derives from Gen 13:16, though the phraseology here is closer to Gen 22:17 (Delcor 1971: 101); the promise of the land is omitted here. (3) No leaders or temple (14-15). The third and fourth elements in the intercession deal with leadership and the temple. This may suggest a likely origin for the prayer: perhaps it was compiled in the post-exilic period by a priestly group in the dispersion who felt the lack of a temple. The lack of prophets would also suggest post-exilic times. Some have suggested that these lines reflect the Maccabean situation (Bennett 1913: 629; Collins 1993: 201). v. 14, Israel is diminished as of old (cf. Deut 7:7), hardly the fulfilment of the promise to Abraham. Similar pleas are made in Jer 42:2, Bar 2:13. (3') Substitute for the temple, and God as leader (16—17). v. 16, in the literary setting in which it now stands Azariah in effect prays that he and his friends may be acceptable to God as martyrs (Koch 1987: 2.54—5). This is a development of the tradition that a contrite heart is acceptable to God in place of
Narrative (23-7; OG 46-50)
The narrative link, perhaps part of a Semitic original, serves to heighten the drama in the incident. To avoid contradicting Dan 3:22, the OG distinguishes between those who stoked the fire and those who threw the three Jews in. Though some consider the angel to be present to preserve the transcendence of God, it is just as possible to argue that the angel represents the saving presence of God himself. The angel of Dan 3:25 is identified as Gabriel in later Jewish tradition (b. Pesah. n8a-b). The narrative is reflected in 3 Mace 6:6.
The Song of the Three Jews (28-68; OG Ji-goj
(28) Introduction The three praise, glorify, and bless (OG: also exalt) God.
(29—68) Blessings The body of this lengthy and elaborate hymn is in two parts, which may have existed separately
(Moore 1977: 75—6), the first (29—34) a blessing addressed to God himself, the second (35-68) a call to the whole of creation to bless the Lord. It is unsuitable to let neatness of strophic division control the understanding of the blessings (Christie 1928). The refrains may suggest that the hymn had an independent life as a responsorial psalm (cf. Ps 136; also each verse of Ps 145 in nQPsa 16:7-17:22 is given the refrain 'Blessed is the Lord and blessed is his name for ever and ever').
w. 29—34, God is addressed as 'God of our ancestors' as in v. 3 (cf. Tob 8:5). God's name is blessed; he is blessed in the temple; as he sits on his throne on the cherubim (cf. i Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 2 Kings 19:15 (Isa 37:16); Ps 80:1; 99:1); as he sits on the throne of his kingdom; in the firmament (cf. Gen 1:6-8; Dan 12:3) of the heaven. Each of the six ascriptions of blessing has a refrain. These give structure to the blessing. The first and the fourth are the same: in these two blessings God is described in relation to things outside heaven: the ancestors and the depths. The second and fifth both conclude with the same verb (huperupsoun): God's holy name and his kingdom are linked (cf. Mt 6:9—10 || Lk 11:2). The third
(huperumnetos and huperendoxos) and sixth (humnetos and dedoxasmenos) are similar: the temple on earth (Delcor 1971: 104; Collins 1993: 205; rather than the heavenly temple: Bennett 1913: 635; Moore 1977: 69) is a veritable microcosm, v. 33: cf. Ps. 29:10; i Clem. 59.3.
ADDITIONS TO DANIEL 708
w. 35-68, the call to blessing, commonly known as the Benedicite from the opening word of the Latin translation, is in two parts, the first addressed to the heavens, the second to the earth. Though encompassing the whole of creation, these two spheres often occur together as witnesses to divine activity
he does not sleep with her. This identification may account for the association of the story with Daniel, who does not appear until v. 44. v. 2, Susanna (meaning 'lily') is introduced after her husband. Nobody else in the HB is named Susanna but the name occurs in Lk 8:3 and in some Jewish inscriptions
(CII i. 627, 637). She is described first as the daughter of Hilkiah (meaning 'the Lord is my portion'; cf. Jer 29:3), and is thus narratively protected between husband and father, secondly as very beautiful (like Jdt 8:7-8; cf. the tree of knowledge, the object of desire, in Gen 3:6), thirdly as fearing the Lord, the sapiential expression for religious piety (cf. Prov 1:7; 10:27). m one Jewish tradition she is the wife of King Joachim and the daughter not of Hilkiah but of Shealtiel (Chronicles of Jerahmeel). v. 3, Susanna's parents are righteous and have
(cf Deut 4:26; 30:19). v. 35, all the works of the Lord are addressed as a whole (Hammer 1972: 221); cf. Ps 103:20—2. w. 36-51, blessing of heavens: there are sixteen verses in this section, v. 36, it is likely that this is to be considered as the overall address in this section as also v. 52 in the next. w. 37—51, fifteen verses remain; it is difficult to discern their structure, but five sets of three are possible: 37-9,40-2,43-5,46-8,4951. If so, then the following patterns emerge. A half-verse involving water features four times; as the central element in the first and last trio, and chiastically as the last element of the second trio and the first element of the fourth; in the second and fourth trios the sun and moon and stars are balanced by the nights and days and light and darkness (cf. the similar balance in Gen 1:5 and 1:14). The refrain is the same in every verse, v. 37, the angels are called to praise God (cf. 4(3400 i i 1-2). v. 38, for the waters above the heaven cf. Gen 1:7; Ps 148:4. w. 39—41, the powers may be the heavenly armies (Delcor 1971:105) (cf. Ps 103 (Gk. 102): 21; 148:2). The sun, moon, and stars also praise God in Ps 148:3. v. 43, the Vg understands the winds as the spirits of God (omnes spiritus
taught their daughter in the law of Moses; mention of the law (not in OG) raises the expectation that some commandment may be challenged in what follows, v. 4, like the leading figures of many other Jewish stories (Job, Tobit, Judith), Joachim is very wealthy; wealth is a sign of divine favour, but in itself is no protection from the execution of the law. Perhaps alluding to Jeremiah's letter to the exiles (Jer 29:5), Joachim has a fine garden (paradeisos); though often referring to an ordinary garden, the juxtaposition with the keeping of the law suggests that Paradise itself (Gen 2:9) is also at stake. Joachim is also the most esteemed of all Jews.
Dei). v. 47, night may be mentioned before day because for the psalmist the day began at sunset (cf. Gen 1:5, 8, etc.). v. 50, for snow and frost cf. Ps 148:8. w. 52-68: blessing of earth, v. 52, the earth is addressed as a whole, w. 52-9, four verses cover the earth's habitats (mountains (cf. Ps 148:9) and plants; seas and rivers and springs) and three their inhabitants (whales and other swimmers (cf. Ps 148:7; Gen 1:21; Ps 104:26); birds (cf. Ps 148:10); wild animals and cattle (cf. Ps 148:10)). Though echoing Ps 148, the overall order reflects Gen 1:21— 6. w. 60—8: the people of the earth are called upon to bless the Lord. w. 60-5, first there are three couplets: all people and Israel; priests and servants of the Lord (cf. Ps 134:1); the spirits and souls of the righteous, and the holy and humble in heart. The priestly character of the list is all the more striking when comparison is made with Ps 148 in which it is kings, princes, and rulers who are addressed; there no priests are mentioned. The refrain in all these verses as in the next is the same. v. 66, second comes a verse which Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael address to themselves. This is extended with the reason why they should praise God: he has rescued them from Hades, saved them from death, and delivered them from the fiery furnace. This verse is commonly regarded as a later interpolation into the hymn. v. 67, this general exhortation is the same as Ps 106 (Gk. 105): i; 107 (Gk. io6):i; 136 (Gk. 135): i; Sir 51:12. v. 68, all those who worship the Lord are called upon to bless the God of gods (cf. Ps 136:2).
(5—62) The Plot The plot of Susanna is in two parts (Brooke 1992; Steussy 1993): the first (5-27) takes place in the garden, the second (28-64) in Joachim's house (OG: the synagogue) which acts as a courtroom. The close narrative proximity of garden and court strongly implies that motifs from Gen 3 are being replayed.
w. 5-27, the opportune day. The scene in the garden has two elements, the prelude (5—14) and the attempted rape (15—27), v. 5, 'That year' may indicate the year of Joachim's marriage. The elders (presbuteroi) are introduced as recently appointed judges; the exilic communities seem to have had some considerable autonomy. The quotation is an unknown saying, perhaps based on Jer 29:21—3 (cf. b. Sank. 933) or Zech 5:5— ii. The term used for 'Lord' is despoils (as in OG Dan 9:8, 15, 16,17,19). v. 6, because Joachim's house acts as a court, these elders have reason to be hanging around his property (OG: even hearing cases from other cities), v. 7, after court business, Susanna is accustomed to walk in the garden (OG: 'in the evening'; cf. God in Gen 3:8). w. 8-12, the elders' covetous lust (in breach of Ex 20:17) increases and they turn away their eyes from heaven, a surrogate for God (cf. Dan 4:31, 34). The OG notes that Susanna was unaware of their lewd passions, w. 1314, catching each other out, they conspire together to rape Susanna, w. 15—27, the attempted rape. There are three moments in this scene; the bath, the dilemma, and the false accusation, w. 15-18, the bath (cf. 2 Sam n; Jub. 33:1-9; T. Reub. 3:11); the opportune moment comes for the rape when Susanna sends her maids to fetch oil and ointments (cf. Esth 2:3,9; Jdt IO:3) f°r when she has finished bathing. When they leave they unwittingly shut the elders in the garden with
Susanna
(1-4) Introduction v. i, the scene is set in Babylon (as in OG 5) in the household of Joachim (meaning 'the Lord will establish'). His name is the same as that of the king mentioned in Jer 29:2 and Dan 1:1. In Jewish tradition the two are identified: when Nebuchadnezzar gives King Joachim's wife permission to visit him for intercourse, she says T have seen something like a red lily' (swsnfi; menstrual blood; Lev. Rab. 19:6) and so
Susanna. This scene is not in the OG. w. 19-23, the dilemma; the elders threaten Susanna, putting her in a dilemma, which she instantly recognizes: to give in is to be liable for capital punishment for infidelity (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22), not to give
7°9 ADDITIONS TO DANIEL
advice on careful cross-examination (m. 'Ahot 1:9; Briill 1877: 64). v. 50, Daniel's authority is recognized and he is invited to join the elders, w. 51-9, Daniel undertakes the separate crossexamination of the two witnesses. With little impartiality Daniel lays into the first elder as a 'relic of wicked days', accusing him through Ex 23:7. When asked under which tree he had seen Susanna and her supposed lover he answers 'a mastic tree' (schinos). Daniel declares the sentence: he will be cut in two (schizo). The second elder is addressed equally brusquely, this time as an offspring of Canaan (cf. Gen 9:20— 5; Ezek 16:3; 4Q2J2 2:6-8). A cheap jibe is levelled against the daughters of Israel (perhaps the Samaritans for the author; Engel 1985:126) who have given in when a daughter of Judah would not; Susanna is also called a daughter of Israel in v. 48. The second elder declares that Susanna and her supposed lover were under an oak (prinos). Daniel declares the sentence: he will be split in two (prio). Two trees also feature in the Garden of Eden story (Gen 2:17; 3:22) as does the sword (Gen 3:24; cf. Num 22:31).
in is to be liable for the same punishment but on the basis of the elders' false witness. She determines not to sin before the Lord (cf Gen 39:9; 2 Sam 24:14). This complex psychological (and for some, erotic) moment has often been depicted by artists, notably by Rembrandt in 1647 (Gemaldegalerie, Berlin), to suggest even that Susanna is the cause of the elders' lust. w. 24—7, the false accusation (not in the OG); a shouting battle ensues. The young woman who is sexually assaulted must cry out to attest her unwillingness (Deut 22:24, 27)> the elders also shout and are listened to. When they tell their false story, Susanna's servants are ashamed.
w. 28-64, me next day: in the house. The second part of the overall plot consists of the trial scenes either side of a dramatic interlude. The postlude sees the judgement carried out. w. 28—41, the first trial is a perversion of justice from which there seems no escape, v. 29, the elders call for Susanna; she is mentioned first, no longer narratively protected by father and husband, v. 30, in the OG Susanna's servants are numbered at 500, and she has four children. Susanna's husband is absent from the trial: her supposed disgrace is his shame (Levine 1995: 312). w. 31-3, Susanna is made to unveil (cf. m. Sola 1:5: accused beautiful women should appear veiled) so that the elders can once again feast their eyes on her great beauty; OG may imply that she was stripped (cf. Ezek 16:37-9; Hos 2:3), the elders pre-empting the judgement. None present discern their self-condemnatory leering gazes, v. 34, as witnesses the elders lay their hands on her head
w. 60-2, postlude. v. 60, the assembly (sunagoge) blesses God for saving those who hope in him. v. 61, the two elders receive the punishment they had intended for Susanna (cf. Deut 19:16-19). That this law was a matter of dispute between Pharisees and Sadducees in the first century BCE (m. Mak. 1:6; y. Sank. 6:3:236) has been used to suggest a likely setting for the story (Briill 1877) which agrees with the Pharisee position, v. 62, the law of Moses which Susanna had been taught (3) is thus upheld and innocent blood spared.
(Lev 24:14), thus finally managing to touch her. v. 35, Susanna looks up to heaven, which the elders had cast aside (v. 9); her appeal to a higher court has already begun, w. 36—41, the elders give their fabricated testimony, two witnesses being sufficient (Deut 17:6); in the OG the elders refer to a stadium, a symbol of Greek perversity (i Mace 1:15). There is no crossexamination, nor is Susanna allowed to testify, v. 41, as witnesses the elders cannot themselves pass sentence; the assembly does (cf. Jer 26:9-10; iQS 6:8-13; I Cor 5:4). Adultery was a capital offence (cf. Lev 20:10), stoning the likely means of execution (cf. Deut 22:21; Jn 8:5).
(63-4) Epilogue The conclusion is a neat indusio. As at the opening so at the close of the story Susanna is listed between her two male protectors; this time Hilkiah is mentioned first. Though exposed when initially brought to trial (29), she is now protected and redomesticated. Though she has in fact threateningly exposed the weakness of the community's judiciary and shown the community's patriarchal institutions to be flawed, nothing shameful was found in her (cf. Deut 24:1) and she is now neatly put back in her place and the reader is reminded that there are some righteous, law-abiding men around. Whereas w. 1—4 have described Joachim's reputation, the story closes with a description of Daniel's. In the OG none of the story's participants are mentioned in the conclusion; rather all pious young men are declared 'beloved of Jacob' because of their knowledge and understanding (cf. Isa 11:2—4).
w. 42—6, before the sentence can be carried out there are two exclamations, w. 42-4, the first cry is Susanna's prayer (in the OG Susanna's prayer precedes her sentence). She does not intercede for divine intervention on her behalf; she simply declares outloudtothe eternal God (cf. Gen 21:33), who knows what is secret (cf. Deut 29:29; Sir 1:30) and what will happen
(cf. i Enoch 9:11), that she is innocent. The story's audience is put in the privileged position of being able to assess the situation like God himself. The Lord hears the cry of the innocent and righteous one. w. 45-6, as a result the young man Daniel is stirred into action by God himself (OG: by an angel). Mention of Daniel's youthfulness is often thought to account for why the story is put before Dan i in Theodotion and the OL. Daniel makes the second outburst and shouts out his refusal to participate in the execution of the assembly's sentence (cf. Mt 27:24). m. Sank. 6:1—2 permits people to appeal against a verdict before sentence is carried out (Delcor 1971: 270). Similar sudden interventions by a youth are a common folklore motif.
Bel and the Dragon
(1—2) Introduction v. i, only the OG carries the title: 'From the prophecy of Habakkuk, son of Joshua, of the tribe of Levi'. This identification seems to depend on 33-9. No mention is made in Habakkuk of his tribe; in Lives of the Prophets 12:1 he is of the tribe of Simeon. The historical scene is set by mentioning the death of Astyarges, king of Media (585-550 BCE) and the succession of Cyrus the Persian (cf. Dan 6:28; 10:1), who conquered Babylon in 539 BCE; neither king is named in the OG. v. 2, Daniel is the companion (sumhiotes) of the king and the most honoured of all his friends (cf. Dan 2:48); in the OG he is also described as a priest and son of Abal (Sabaan was father of Daniel according to Epiphanius, Adv. Haer. 55.3). The full introduction of Daniel suggests that the reader has not
w. 47-59, the second trial takes place, w. 47-9, it is initiated by Daniel railing against the people and urging them to return to court to consider things clearly; cf. Simeon ben Shetach's
ADDITIONS TO DANIEL 710
enraged and taunt the king with becoming a Jew (cf. 2 Mace 9:17). They demand Daniel. The king weakly yields to their demands, w. 31-9, the test. w. 31-2, with mob rule Daniel is thrown into the lions' den. This is the second time such a fate has befallen him (cf. Dan 6:16—24), where seven lions, fed on a daily ration of two humans and two sheep, are now given nothing so that they might devour Daniel. The punishment, being destroyed by an animal, fits the crime (Koch 1987: 2.195). OG n°tes that this means that Daniel would not even have a burial place (cf. Tob 1:17). w. 33—9, Habakkuk is transported by his hair (cf. Ezek 8:3) from Judea with a stew he had just made (cf. Gen 25:29). It has been suggested that Habakkuk is linked to the meal through the Akkadian hambakuku, a plant used in soups (Delcor 1971: 288). The Lives of the Prophets 12:5-8 knows of his story. The angel transports Habakkuk 'with the swiftness of the wind' which Gen. Rab. represents as 'power of his holy spirit' (cf. i Kings 18:12; 2 Kings 2:16). Daniel thanks God for remembering him and eats the meal. Habakkuk is returned to Judea. The whole incident is possibly a narrative interpretation of Ps 91:11-13 (Nickelsburg 1984: 40). w. 40-2, the final outcome, v. 40, on the seventh day the king comes to mourn Daniel but finds him alive, v. 41, the king confesses Daniel's God: 'You are great' (cf. Ps 86:10; Jdt 16:13; 4Q3^5 6 ii 3), 'there is no other besides you' (cf. Isa 45:18; 46:9). v. 42, those who had thought themselves far from mealy-mouthed are thrown into the den and instantly eaten by seven very hungry lions.
met him before and therefore that Bel and the Dragon were originally independent Daniel tales.
(3-42) Two Idol Tales Both stories have a similar structure of three parts in which a friendship is put to the test but emerges strengthened. The two tales are interwoven in as much as the second test (Daniel in the lions' den) relates to both idols (28) and only at the end of the chapter does the king confess Daniel's God.
w. 3—22, Bel. w. 3—7, friendship challenged, v. 3, the Babylonian god is introduced as an idol. Bel ('Lord'; short form of Baal) is Bel-Marduk, head of the Babylonian pantheon (cf Isa 46:1; Jer 50:2; Let Jer 41). Enormous quantities are offered to Bel: twelve bushels (65.5 litres) of flour, forty (OG: 4) sheep, six measures of wine (OG: oil), w. 4—5, the king worships Bel, but Daniel does not worship handmade idols (cf. Isa 46:6; Sib.
Or. 3:606, 618) because he worships the living God (cf. Josh 3:10; Dan 6:26; OG: Lord God), the creator and ruler (cf. Gen 1:26) of heaven and earth (cf. Gen 1:1; Jer 10:11). w. 6—7, the king claims rhetorically that Bel is a living god because he eats and drinks, but Daniel laughs impertinently (also 19) and states simply that the idol is a mere moulded statue (cf. Isa 44:14—17; Let Jer 4; Wis 13:10). w. 8—18, the test. w. 8—9, the test is set up and the sentence on those in the wrong agreed. For phrasing similar to Daniel's agreement cf. Luke 1:38. w. 10—n, the enormous amount of food is consumed by seventy priests and their families, w. 12—13, OG does not mention the pact again nor the hidden entrance, w. 14-15, the king alone witnesses the laying of ashes by Daniel's servants. The temple doors are closed and sealed, w. 16—18, in the morning, the king is assured that the seals are unbroken. When the temple doors are open he sees the empty table and exclaims that Bel is great (cf. 41). w. 19-22, the temporary outcome, w. 19—20, Daniel dares to laugh at the king's credulity and points out the footprints in the ashes, w. 21—2, enraged, the king arrests the priests and their families for eating the food and executes them (OG: hands them over to Daniel). The king does not himself declare Bel a fraud or make a confession of the greatness of Daniel's God, but hands Bel over to Daniel who according to the story destroys the idol and its temple (OG: the king destroys Bel). Herodotus (1:183) has Xerxes I (486—465 BCE) destroy the temple and statue.
Baumgartner, W. (1926), 'Susanna—Die Geschichte einer Legende',
ARW24: 259-80.
(1929) 'Der Wiese Knabe und die des Ehebruchs beschuldigte Frau',ABW 27:187-8. Bennett, W. H. (1913), 'The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the
Three Children', APOTi. 625-46. Brooke, G. J. (1992), 'Susanna and Paradise Regained', in G.J. Brooke
(ed.),Women in the Biblical Tradition, Studies in Women and Religion, 31 (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen), 92-111. Briill, N. (1877), 'Das apokryphische Susanna Buch', JJGL 3: 1-69. Christie, E. B. (1928), 'The Strophic Arrangement of the Benedicite',
75147:188-93. Collins, J. J. (1993), Daniel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress). Delcor, M. (1971), Le Livre de Daniel, SB (Paris: J. Gabalda). Eissfeldt, O. (1965), The Old Testament: An Introduction (Oxford: Black-
w. 23—42, the dragon. The Greek drakon most probably refers to a serpent. The story of the dragon repeats the motifs of its previous companion tale. w. 23-30, friendship challenged, w. 23—4, the king challenges Daniel to recognize the dragon as a living god, for surely it is alive. No Babylonian cult of a live serpent is known from written sources, though there is some iconographic evidence; serpents play various cultic roles elsewhere (cf. Num 21:9; 2 Kings 18:4; cf. Kneph in Egypt; Asclepius in Greece), w. 25—6, Daniel responds with a confession that the Lord his God is the living God, and with a request that he may be permitted to kill the dragon. The king grants the request, v. 27, Daniel bakes a cake of pitch, fat, and hair to feed to the dragon and explodes the idea of the dragon's divinity. The similarity to the opening up of Tiamat by Marduk is often noted, but no other motifs of that myth have influenced the story (Collins 1993: 414). Gen. Rab. 68 has the cake made realistically lethal by lacing it full of nails which perforate the dragon's intestines, w. 28-30, the Babylonians are
well). Engel, H. (1985), Die Susanna-Erzdhlung: Einleitung, Ubersetzung und
Kommentar zum Septuaginta-Text und zur Theodotion-Bearbeitung, OBO 61 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Gaster, M. (1895; 1896), "The Unknown Aramaic Original of Theodo-
tion's Additions to the Book of Daniel', PSBA 16: 280-90, 312-17; J7: 75-94Geissen, A. (1968), Der Septuaginta-Text des Buches Daniel: Kap. 5—12,
Zusammen mit Susanna, Bel et Draco, sowie Esther Kap. i, ia—2, 15, nach dem Kolner Teil des Papyrus 967, Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen, 5 (Bonn: Habelt). Glancy, J. A. (1995), 'The Accused: Susanna and her Readers', in A.
Brenner (ed.), A Feminist Companion to Esther, Judith and Susanna, FCB 7 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press), 288-302. Hammer, R. J. (1972), 'The Apocryphal Additions to Daniel', The
Shorter Books of the Apocrypha, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 210—41. Hartman, L. F., and Di Leila, A. A. (1989), 'Daniel', NJBC, 406-20.
711 I MACCABEES
Kay, D. M., (1913), 'Susanna', APOTi. 647-51. Koch, K. (1987), Deuterokanonische Zusdtze zum Danielbuch: Entste-
Writings of the Second Temple Period, CRINT 2/2 (Assen: van Gorcum), 33-87, 89-156. Pearce, S. J. K. (1996), 'Echoes of Eden in the Old Greek of Susanna',
hung und Textgeschichte, AOAT 38/1-2 (Neuldrchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag). Kuhl, C. (1940), Die drei Manner im Feuer, BZAW 55 (Giessen: Topel-
Feminist Theology, n: 11-31. Pervo, R. I. (1991), Aseneth and Her Sisters: Women in Jewish Narra-
mann). LaCoque, A. (1990), The Feminine Unconventional: Four Subversive
tive and in the Greek Novels', in A.-J. Levine (ed.), 'Women Like This': New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World, SBLEJL, i (Atlanta: Scholars Press), 145-60. Schmitt, A. (1966), Stammt der sogenannte "8"-Text \>d Daniel
Figures in Israel's Tradition, OBT (Minneapolis: Fortress). Levine, A.-J. (1995), ' "Hemmed in on Every Side": Jews and Women
in the Book of Susanna', in A. Brenner (ed.), A Feminist Companion to Esther, Judith and Susanna, FCB 7 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press), 303-23. Milik, J. T. (1981), 'Daniel et Susanne a Qumran', in J. Dore, P. Grelot,
wirklich von Theodotion?, MSU 9 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Schiirer, E. (1987), The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ, iii. pt. 2, rev. and ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman (Edinburgh: T. &T. Clark), 722-30. Steussy, M. J. (1993), Gardens in Babylon: Narrative and Faith
and M. Carrez (eds.), De la Torah au Messie: Melanges Henri Gazelles (Paris: Desclee), 337-59. Moore, C. A. (1977), Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions, AB 44
in the Greek Legends of Daniel, SBLDS 141 (Atlanta: Scholars Press). Wills, L. M. (1990), The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King: Ancient
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday).
(1992), 'Daniel, Additions to', ABD ii. 18-28. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. (1981), Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the
Jewish Court Legends, HDR 26 (Minneapolis: Fortress). Ziegler, J. (1954), Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco, Septuaginta Vetus
Mishnah (Philadelphia: Fortress).
(1984), 'Stories of Biblical and Early Post-Biblical Times', and The Bible Rewritten and Expanded', in M. E. Stone (ed.), Jewish
Testamentum Graecum, 16/2 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
47. i Maccabees U. RAPPAPORT
C. The Author's Views. 1. Jews and non-Jews: the author takes for granted a sharp dichotomy between Jew and Gentile. This may be rooted in a traditional view, similar to the ideology expressed in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah (5th cent. BCE), but strengthened by the religious persecution under Antiochus IV and the Maccabean revolt. However, though stressing repeatedly the hatred of the nations round about, he is proud of the success of the Jews in forging friendly relations and alliances and in being honoured by various nations and rulers. The incongruency in this attitude towards the non-Jewish world is typical of Hasmonean politics in general—a mixture of national separation (related to religious abhorrence of paganism) with a pragmatic approach to politics.
A. Text and Language. The textual tradition of i Maccabees is in general similar to that of the other books included in the Septuagint. i Maccabees is also known in other versions of the Holy Scriptures, such as the Syriac and Latin, which derive from the Greek version, which itself is a translation of a lost Hebrew original. This is evident from its style, which reveals Hebrew idiom (cf. ABD iv. 439—40). The original was probably known up to the 3rd and 4th centuries CE, but has not survived even in fragmentary form.
B. Author, Date, and Title. 1. The author of i Maccabees is anonymous, and whatever may be surmised about him comes from the book itself. He seems to be attached to the Hasmonean dynasty, both ideologically and personally, and to have some connection with the ruling circles.
2. God and the Jews: as in biblical historiography, the author postulates that God directs history according to his will. Yet, though history is directed by God, he does not intervene directly in human affairs, in contrast to some instances in the Bible (cf. e.g. Josh 10:11—14; 2 Kings 19:35) and 2 Maccabees, where miracles abound.
2. Most scholars date i Maccabees to around 100 BCE. The principal disagreement is whether it was written in the last years of John Hyrcanus or in the days of Alexander Jannaeus. According to Momigliano (1976) and S. Schwartz (1991), i Maccabees was written in the beginning of Hyrcanus' rule, before 129 BCE, but it seems to me that the evidence is somewhat too narrow and that the last years of Hyrcanus' rule fit better (and see 16:23-4).
God's intervention is through human beings, in whom he instils courage or cowardice, wisdom or arrogance and stupidity. Success and failure are manifestations of God's will and plan, but this does not efface the human values of courage, devotion, wisdom, cunning, etc. It is similar to some elements of the 'fourth philosophy' described by Josephus, which postulated that God helps those who take action themselves (Ant. 18 f 5). Some scholars see these and other views, such as the absence of reference to an afterlife (cf. 9:7-10), as Sadducean. The present writer refrains from such a label, on the grounds that our knowledge of Sadduceanism is extremely poor and because it is not necessary to assume that the expression of every idea should be defined on sectarian lines.
3. i Maccabees is named thus according to the Septuagint's textual tradition; obviously it has nothing to do with the original title, which some scholars think can be reconstructed from a reference in Eusebius, Hist. Ecd. 6. 25.1-2, which goes back to Origen (first half of the 3rd cent. CE). There it is cited under the Hebrew name of the book as Sarbethsabanaiel. Among the acute proposals to decipher it we will cite the following: 'Book (scpcr) of the house of the ruler (sar) of the sons of God'; 'Book of the dynasty (bet) of God's resisters', where God's resisters should mean 'resisters on behalf of God's cause' (Goldstein, 1975; 1976: 15—17).
3. The role of Mattathias's family: the author's political views may justify his description as a court historian. His book serves Hasmonean propaganda well, especially for
I MACCABEES 712
(3) Written sources: from where the author got his knowledge, especially about Seleucid history, is hard to tell. Was it oral information from informants at home in Hellenistic history (such as the Hasmonean diplomats)? Or had he at his disposal a written survey, in either Hebrew or Greek? We cannot tell. Yet, like his contemporaries the author(s) of Dan 7—12, he was interested enough in non-Jewish history to obtain the information he shared with his readers. Some of it is almost common knowledge (1:1-9), and some more specific (Trypho's rise to power; Demetrius II's fall into captivity, etc.).
John Hyrcanus. He attributes to Mattathias's family a divine role to deliver Israel (5:62), thus giving legitimacy to the Hasmonean dynasty in face of the traditional right both of the house of David to kingship and of the house of Zadok to the high-priesthood. In addition to this general message in favour of the house of Mattathias, there is a clear preference for Simon, the father of Hyrcanus and founder of the dynasty, among the sons of Mattathias. To him the author allocates the first and major role in Mattathias's testament. (2:49—64), where it is said that 'he [Simeon] shall be your father' (v. 65).
(4) Parallel sources: for most of the period this book covers, it is the sole extant source. Josephus (Ant. 12 § 241-13 § 214) depends almost solely on it, up to i Mace 13:42. The main source to corroborate that part of the narrative covering Judas's revolt from its beginning to his last victory over Nicanor (approx. 165 to Adar 162 BCE) is 2 Maccabees. Apart from this we have only a little information about Judea at this time from pagan sources (see Stern, 1974—1984; Diodorus, no. 63 (34—35.1.3—4); Timagenes, no. 80; Pompeius Trogus, via Justinus, no. 137 (Justinus, 36. 3.8); Tacitus, no. 281 (Historiae, 5.8. 2-3), and scanty Talmudic references (see i MACC 7:5). (5) Chronology: the dates given in i Maccabees, mostly according to the Seleucid era, raise certain problems because of the difficulty of fitting them all into one system, since the Seleucid calendar did not begin on the same date throughout the Empire (Bickerman, 1968: 71). There is no consensus about the system(s) used in i Maccabees, or about the use of any system in a consistent way. For a review of the problem and earlier literature on it, see Grabbe (1991).
D. Historiography. 1. Style and Composition: i Maccabees is composed in a style and with a vocabulary similar to biblical historiography. It has compositional biblical elements such as poetic passages (including some prayers) interwoven with the narrative, a testament (2:49—70), documents (more than are usually found in the Bible, but see the documents in Ezra and the unhistorical correspondence of Hiram and Solomon, in i Kings 5:17—23), and speeches. The Bible is behind many passages in i Maccabees, either as explicit citations (e.g. 7:16—17), or implicitly (e.g. 5:48), or as historical exemplary precedents (e.g. 2:49-64). See Dimant (1988). In addition i Maccabees adopts biblical geographic and ethnic vocabulary, though most of it is anachronistic. The adoption of names such as Moab, Ammon, Philistines, Canaan, or sentences reminiscent of Joshua's conquest of Canaan, are used not only as literary conventions, but also serve an ideology that compares or assimilates Judas's wars to those of yore. The attachment of i Maccabees to the biblical heritage is expressed also by the citation of biblical exempla and precedents, which abound (e.g. 2:51-60). The author's views about God's interventions with humans is also similar to that of biblical historiography
(6) Creative writing: current and earlier Quellenforschung, though vital for any historiographical enquiry, can divert attention from the writers and historians themselves, i Maccabees is a work by a talented historian who composed a historical narrative out of various ingredients, not all of which we can identify. His narrative is coherent, sometimes chronological, sometimes thematic (cf ch. 5, on wars with the neighbouring peoples). It is supported by documents (most of them authentic) and highlighted by the author's interventions or passages woven into his narrative. Some of them are poetic passages, either written by him or based on suitable sources. His history is human, in the sense that it is activated by human actions, virtues or vices, wise or unwise, and God's share in it is either a post factum conclusion of what has already happened, or is shown by the motivation of the actors on the scene.
(see i MACC c.2). Though rooted in this tradition, i Maccabees is also a creation of its author's time. His treatment of nonJewish history is much more ample than in the Bible, although he is Judeocentric as well. In this respect he resembles more the apocalyptic attitude of Daniel than that of the rest of biblical historiography, though the two books belong to completely different genres.
2. The author of i Maccabees utilized various sources in his book.
(i) Documents: the documentation in i Maccabees begins with the treaty between Rome and Judea, and goes on well into Simon's days. The documents from an earlier period cited in 2 Mace n apparently came from another source, probably unknown to the author of i Maccabees. It is probable that i Maccabees' documentary source was a Hasmonean archive in which the earliest document was the Roman—Judean treaty. This archive may be identical to that of the temple, which from the time of Jonathan's appointment as high priest was under Hasmonean administration, and may have been kept in the temple's treasury (14:4—9).
The author's talents served a political cause, as explained above (i MACC c.3). Needless to say it diminishes the veracity of his narrative, along with his other apologetic aims and his Judeocentric attitude. Nevertheless he succeeded in producing a historical narrative of high quality, although because the original language was lost, it can only partially be appreciated by us.
E. Outline, i Maccabees opens with Alexander the Great (356— 323 BCE) and concludes with the murder of Simon (134 BCE). The first £.150 years are dealt with in only nine verses (1:1-9), so that the major parts are: Introduction: From Alexander to the Revolt (1:1—64)
(2) Oral information: living close to Hasmonean circles— probably a member of court—a generation or less after the most recent events reported in his book, the author of i Maccabees was able to collect information from participants or eyewitnesses of various events, and to integrate it into his composition. Some of the oral testimonies could be also hearsay about previous events kept by leading families.
Acts of Antiochus IV (1:10—64) The Revolt Under Mattathias (2:1-70)
713 I MACCABEES
'manifesto' and certain acts ascribed to them. He also avoids mentioning any of their leaders by name. Almost all we know about the Hellenizers and their leaders comes from 2 Mace 3-5. v. n, 'renegades', Greek paranomoi, lit. 'those who do not abide by thelaw (Torah)', a common designationin i Maccabees for the Hellenizers. It may also reflect such nouns as parizim, which Dan 11:14 uses to describe them. 'Many' (Heb. rabbim) does not signify the majority but an undefined big number.
The Exploits of Judas Maccabaeus (j:i-g:22)
The First Battles of Judas Maccabaeus (3:1—4:35) The Rededication of the Temple (4:36—61) The Wars with the Surrounding Peoples (ch. 5) More Wars of Judas (ch. 6-7) Rome and the Treaty between Rome and the Jews (ch. 8) The Last Stand of Judas (9:1—22) Jonathan's exploits ('9:23-12:53^
The First Years of Jonathan (9:23-10:17) Jonathan High Priest and Ruler of Judea (10:18—12:53) Simon's Rule (13:1—16:24)
'Let us go... upon us' sounds like their manifesto, strictly opposed to common Jewish self-perception, v. 13, 'went to the king', this was not a single act by the Hellenizers, but a repetitive one. We are told in 2 Mace 4:7 that Jason met with Antiochus IV soon after his accession and obtained from him the high priesthood and permission to establish a gymnasium and an ephebeion and to enrol the men of Jerusalem as Antiocheans (2 MACC 4:9). This permission is understood by many scholars as sanction for a Greek polis, called Antioch-inJerusalem (to distinguish it from other Antiochs). See Bickerman (1937), developed by Tcherikover (1959: 161), and accepted by others (Hengel 1974; le Rider 1965: 409-11). v. 13, the concise narrative does not define in clear terms the constitutional changes that took place in Judea, but observation of the ordinances of the Gentiles gives an indication, v. 14, 'gymnasium', there is no doubt that the foundation of the polis Antioch-in-Jerusalem caused a most shocking intrusion into the traditional Jewish lifestyle. Especially abhorrent to Jewish sensitivities the performance naked of sporting activities that took place there, v. 15, as a result of exercising in the nude there came about the phenomenon of uncircumcision, which necessitates surgical intervention. This was an extreme act of repudiation of allegiance to Judaism, circumcision being considered the primary sign of being a Jew (Gen 17:11).
On the various proposed divisions of i Mace see Martola (1984) and Williams (1999).
Introduction: From Alexander to the Revolt (1:1-64)
(1:1-10) i Maccabees opens with a short introductory passage about Alexander the Great, whose exploits are concisely and negatively described (w. 1—4). The author's conception of history is very similar here to Dan 11:2—4. Both saw Alexander's conquest of the East as the inception of a new destructive era in the history of mankind, which culminates in the religious persecution of the Jewish cult. This approach depicts the Hellenistic regime in general as an ungodly phenomenon, and is in line with, and probably influenced by, the general Eastern (Egyptian, Babylonian, Iranian, and Indian) antiHellenic world-view (Rappaport 1993). v. i, 'Kittim,' a generic word for peoples who arrived from the west. It derived from the name of the city Kition in Cyprus. Here it designates Greece. 'Darius' is Darius III, the last Achaemenid king of Persia (336—331 BCE) who was defeated by Alexander, w. 2—3, on Alexander's conquests there is ample literature (See ABD i. 146-50). In general terms Alexander is the prototype of Antiochus IV (Dan 11:36-7 and see on v. 10). w. 5-6, generally speaking this description is correct, though Alexander's empire was neither divided by him nor according to his will. Alexander did reign for about twelve years (336-323 BCE). w. 8-9, the author is mainly interested in Antiochus IV, and refers to the intermediate period (323-175 BCE) in an extremely concise way. Nevertheless, he stresses that Alexander's successors 'caused many evils on the earth'. That is, the chain of wickedness is continuous from Alexander to Antiochus IV v. 10, Antiochus IV is linked here directly with Alexander, though there was no blood relationship between them. This linkage is expressed also in Daniel's visions of the horns (esp. 7:7-8; but also 8:8-9). This conception of Hellenistic history is eastern and based on anti-Hellenic, moralistic, religious, social, and cultural views of the changes that occurred in the Near East with the fall of the Persian empire. 'Hostage in Rome', Antiochus IV was sent by his father Antiochus III as a hostage to Rome after the Roman victory in the battle of Magnesia (190 BCE). He was replaced in 176 BCE by his nephew, Demetrius, and gained the kingship in 175 after his brother, Seleucus IV, was murdered.
(1:16-19) Antiochus IV's invasion of Egypt is a famous event in Hellenistic history. Here it is merely a hinge on which the author suspends Antiochus' invasion and plunder of the Jerusalem temple (w. 20—8). For Antiochus' expeditions to Egypt see Rappaport (1980: 66-8 (Heb.)).
(1:20—8) It seems that Antiochus entered Jerusalem three times: the first time on an inspection tour, when he was received favourably by the populace and Jason (in 172 BCE, 2 Mace 4:22); the second time after his first invasion of Egypt (in 169 BCE); and the third time after his second invasion of Egypt, from where he was repulsed by a Roman delegation (in 168 BCE, see 2 Mace 5). The second visit to Jerusalem (169 BCE) after the first invasion of Egypt is the one described here; see Rappaport (1980). The absence of any mention of the Hellenized high priests Jason and Menelaus, who play a prominent role throughout the account in 2 Maccabees, should be noticed. This is intentional, as a kind of damnatio memoriae, to erase the names of the wicked from Jewish memory, v. 21, the entrance of Antiochus IV into the temple was a breach of Jewish law, since Gentiles were not allowed inside. Cf 3 Mace 1:10—2:24, an(^ 2 Mace 3. w. 21—3, Antiochus stripped the temple of its more sacred and valuable objects, mainly those of gold and silver. It was known, as were many other temples, for its riches gathered from obligatory taxes, donations, official contributions, and private deposits. 'Hidden treasures', in addition to the various expensive vessels, there were in the temple other deposits kept in secret places
The year 137, according to the Seleucid era, is approximately 175 BCE.
(1:11—15) Th£ author does not tell us how the Hellenistic party in Judea came into being. He condenses it all around a
I MACCABEES 714
ter in Judea is not only the prohibition of a certain cult, but a violent compulsion to transgress its religious laws. There is no consensus at present on an explanation of this problem, yet two suggestions which may contribute to our understanding of it have been proposed. One is that the initiative for the persecution came from Menelaus' circle, either as an ideologicalrepressiveact(Bickerman, 1937; 1979) or otherwise. The second is that a revolt in Judea, led presumably by religious leaders, preceded the persecution, which was aimed to subdue it (Tcherikover 1959:197). For more expanded discussion and bibliography see ABD iv. 437-9. w. 41-3, no such ordinance by Antiochus IV is preserved, and no evidence of interference in religious matters is known elsewhere in the Seleucid empire. 'All the Gentiles' is didactic, and in line with the message of the book, see i MACC 2:19-22. According to Hellenistic royal procedures an order by Antiochus IV must have been issued, though it is not preserved. Otherwise Antiochus Ill's letter (Ant. 12 ff 138—44), which confirmed the ancestral laws of Judea, would be binding. To invalidate it, there must have been some enactment by Antiochus IV, the contents of which may be reflected in the following verses, w. 44—50, the compulsion that the Jews must transgress their customs, not merely refrain from the observance of them, has no precedents, w. 51-3, cf. Esth 1:22; 3:13; 8:11; 9:21, 31. (1:54-61) The 'fifteenth day of Chislev*, that is ten days before the profanation ofthe altar (v. 59). 'A desolating sacrilege' (Gk. bddygma hermoseos), evidently represents siqqus mesomem in the lost Hebrew original version (cf. Dan 11:31) but what it was materially is unclear: a pagan altar placed on the temple's altar (cf. v. 59); an effigy of Zeus or ofthe king; or a sacred stone (bet-'el; Phoenician, bettilu). See Bickerman (1979: ch. 4); Rowley (1953); Hengel (1974: 294-5); Millar, (1993: 12-15) (who doubts Bickerman's supposition), w. 56-7, books of the law, i.e. Torah scrolls. It seems to be the first known historical occurrence ofthe burning of books. It also shows the centrality ofthe Torah in Jewish religion, which was well understood by the persecutors, v. 59, 'twenty-fifth day', ofthe month of Chislev. Some commentators suggest that it was a special day (Abel 1949; Dancy 1954 suggest the birthday of Antiochus), but this view has no basis here or in 2 Mace 6:7, nor elsewhere, w. 60-1, this horrible event was chosen by the author as an example of the cruelty of the persecutors. It is mentioned also in 2 Mace 6:10, where other events, probably not all of them historical, are told (cf. 2 Mace 6-7). (1:62-4) v62, as many were misled by the Hellenizers (i MACC 1:10), so many stood firm in Jewish tradition (cf. Dan 11:33-4). A decisive question in the confrontation within Jewish society was which side would be more persuasive and turn the many into a majority, v. 63, this is the first time that a case of martyrdom is mentioned in i Maccabees but see another at 2:29-38. Dan 11:33-4; I2:2~3 and 2 Mace (esp. ch. 7) are even more concerned with this theme. The Jewish martyrs, especially the 'Maccabean' martyrs of 2 Mace 7 became models of martyrdom for Christianity (Doran 1980; Bickerman 1951: 63-84).