Part 71
The Prefixed Letters (1:1-2:18)
(1:1—100) The First Letter The first letter follows the normal format of letters in the Hellenistic period as it first indicates who the recipients and senders ofthe letter are (v. i), then follows this with good wishes for the recipients (w. 2—6), the body ofthe letter (w. 7—9), and closes with the date (v. ioa). The letter was written in 124 BCE, a year in which a bitter civil war in Egypt had ended. The letter makes no reference to these events, however, nor does it refer to any specific individuals. Rather, it emphasizes that both recipients and senders are all brothers. A somewhat similar greeting is found in the letter of 419 BCE found in the Elephantine papyri (Cowley 1923: 60—5). One wonders who were the senders—John Hyrcanus the high priest and his council?—and who were the recipients—the Jewish community in Alexandria, or the military colony at Leontopolis? The greeting combines a Jewish formula—'true peace'—and a Greek formula—'greetings'.
D. Date and Place of Composition. In discussing date and place, one has to ask about both the date of Jason of Gyrene and the date ofthe epitome. The only secure date for Jason's work is that it was written before the epitome. If one assumes that Jason was an eyewitness to the events or that he drew on oral reports from contemporaries, he might have written not long after 161 BCE, the date ofthe battle against Nicanor. In attempting to date the epitome, one has to decide whether the prefixed letters, particularly the first, were originally joined to the epitome or not. If one does assume this, then one has to decide whether the epitome was written along with the letter or previously. Since the first letter is dated to 124 BCE, then the epitome would have been written on or before that date. If the epitome and the letters were written separately and then joined later, then one has to rely on other clues in the epitome itself. In a work which emphasizes God's defence ofthe temple, one might suggest that it was written before Pompey the Great entered Jerusalem and the temple in 63 BCE. The chronological differences between i and 2 Maccabees have also been used as a clue to argue that Jason/the epitomist wrote to refute i Maccabees with its pro-Hasmonean bias, and thus after i Maccabees (Goldstein 1976; 1983), but this is unlikely. So no one knows either when Jason of Gyrene wrote his fivevolume work or when the epitomist did his shortening, with dates for the latter ranging from around 124 to 63 BCE. Nor can one be sure where the works were written. The epitomist has clearly learnt Greek well, and is aware of Greek historigraphical conventions, so he could have written anywhere in the Greek-speaking world. The opposition he shows towards the gymnasium suggests a city where some Jews were beginning to attend the gymnasium, but that again could be anywhere.
The initial greetings are followed by a long prayer of blessing which emphasizes the common covenant with the patriarchs, and the role the Torah should play in their lives. Particularly interesting is the stress on God's active role in the following ofthe Torah. The Greek verb for 'be reconciled' at v. 5 (katallagde) is unusual in the rest ofthe LXX. It is found with this meaning at 2 Mace 7:33; 8:29, and this may constitute one piece of evidence for seeing a connection between the letter and the epitome. The same notion is found in the prayer of Solomon at the dedication ofthe first temple (2 Chr 6:19). Some scholars have found in v. 5 an allusion either to the civil war in Egypt or to the need for reconciliation because ofthe sin of Onias IV in building a temple at Leontopolis (Jos. Ant. 13.62—73). The terms are those used for general good wishes, however, and so such specificity need not be present.
The body of the letter contains a quotation of a previous letter. Since there are no quotation marks in Greek, where does the quotation begin? Does the 'critical distress' of v. 7 refer to the time of Demetrius II in 169 ofthe Seleucid Era, i.e. spring 143 to spring 142 BCE, the time when Jonathan was captured (i Mace 12:48)? If that were the case, why is Jonathan's capture not mentioned whereas an event over 20 years previously, the withdrawal of Jason, is? Would the body ofthe letter begin with a quotation of a letter with no indication ofthe fact? We should probably begin the letter at Tn the critical distress...' It is not exactly sure what event is being described as the time of distress. It is not Jason who is said to have burned the gates, but others (2 Mace 8:33; iMacc 1:31; 4:38). I suggest that the withdrawal, not revolt, of Jason is being referred to (2 Mace 5:1-9) and the subsequent
E. Outline. The Prefixed Letters (1:1—2:18)
The First Letter (1:1—ioa)
2 MACCABEES 736
'inventors' of benefits to mankind, as Dionysos of wine and Demeter of grain. Among Jewish Hellenistic authors, Abraham was said to be the inventor of astrology and mathematics
destruction of the city by the Seleucids is described using the traditional figures of burnt gates and the shedding of innocent blood.
(Eus. Praep. Evang. 9.17.3) and Moses the discoverer of ships, weapons of war, and Egyptian religion (ibid. 9.27.4—6).
The end of the quotation is marked by the formula, 'And now'. Only here and at 2 Mace 1:18 and 10:6 is the festival of Chislev connected with the Feast of Booths. The date is given at the end of the letter, as is usual. (i:iofc-2:i8) The Second Letter The second letter bristles with problems. The first section (i:iofc-i8) speaks of the death of Antiochus IV and seems about to stop at 1:18 with an invitation to celebrate the festival of the purification of the temple, but then the letter continues on with a digression on the holiness of the second temple until the exhortation to celebrate the festival of Chislev is repeated at 2:16. No date is given. While the first letter had as recipients and senders only the brothers in Judaea, Jerusalem, and Egypt, this letter provides a range of people with Judas and Aristobulus being specifically named. The reference would seem to be to Judas Maccabeus, the leader of the revolt in Judea, and possibly to the Aristobulus whose fragments are preserved by the later Christian bishop, Eusebius of Caesarea (Praep. Evang. 7.32. 16-18; 8.9.38-8.10.17; 13.12.1-16). Aristobulus is said to have presented a work to Ptolemy VI Philometor (180—145 BCE), whereas in this letter he is called the teacher of Ptolemy. Most scholars do not regard this letter as genuine. Rather it is creative historiography, wherein an author writes what should have been written. What is in evidence is the attempt to show a close connection between Jews in Egypt and in Judea.
(2:1—15) The Temple and Earlier Traditions The narrative now answers the question of who had ordered the sacred fire to be taken to Babylonia, and the answer is Jeremiah. While that story shows the continuity between the first temple and the second, the hiding of the sacred vessels on Mt. Nebo shows the discontinuity. The sacred vessels are returned to God's mountain until the ingathering of the people when, as during the Exodus (Ex 40:34-8) and at the dedication of the first temple by Solomon (i Kings 8:10), God's glory will appear again.
v. 4, many traditions clustered around the figure of Jeremiah. He will appear again as an intercessor for his people at 2 Mace 15:14—16. Eupolemus, perhaps the ambassador of Judas Maccabeus, stated that Jeremiah preserved the ark and the tablets from the Babylonians (Eus. Praep. Evang. 9.39.5) and the Letter of Jeremiah similarly exhorts the exiles to refrain from idolatry.
w. 9—12, the reference to Moses and Solomon in v. 8 is further developed. There is no mention of Moses' praying at Lev 9:23-4 when fire consumes the burnt offering, although at Solomon's prayer fire came down (2 Chr 7:1). The saying of Moses in v. n is not found in the HB although the event referred to derives from Lev 10:16—20. The command to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles for eight days given at Lev 23:33—6 seems to be missing before v. 12. These stories all testify to the lively narrative world of Second-Temple Judaism as the traditional stories were told and retold with creative nuances.
The account of the death of Antiochus IV differs from that in Polybius, 31, and Appian, Syriaca, 66, and, more interestingly, from that in i Mace 6:16 and 2 Mace 9. All these other sources agree that Antiochus IV did not die at the temple of Nanea. One cannot reconcile the death accounts in this letter and in the epitome, and one must conclude that they were written by different people.
w. 13—15, after discussing the divine fire atthe time of Moses and Solomon, the author returns to Nehemiah and his fire exploits. Interesting is the reference to Nehemiah's founding a library and collecting books. After Ptolemy I founded the great library at Alexandria, others imitated him as did the Attalid kings of Pergamum in Asia Minor. Nehemiah is being put in good company! Scholars have puzzled over exactly what is referred to in the list of books. Rather than attempting to align this list neatly with specific books of the canonical HB, one should recognize that, as the finds at Qumran are showing us, Judean society was filled with many more stories, hymns, and retellings of traditional narratives than are extant today, i Mace 1:56-7 relates how the books of the law were ripped apart and burnt if found. Judas is said to act similarly to Nehemiah, and so another element of the comparison made at 2 Mace 1:18 is introduced. Does v. 15 suggest a superiority of the library at Jerusalem as regards Jewish books to the one in Alexandria?
(1:19—36) The Miraculous Fire At 1:18, the text unexpectedly speaks of a festival of fire at the time of Nehemiah. The author has this Nehemiah commissioned by the Persian king (1:20), and seems to refer to the Nehemiah who is the central figure of the book of Nehemiah. However, he sets the scene at the end of the Babylonian exile, when another Nehemiah accompanied Zerubbabel back to Judea (Ezra 2:2; Neh 7:7; i Esd 5:8), and so has conflated the two figures. Here Nehemiah, not Jeshua and Zerubbabel (Ezra 3—6), is credited with the restoration of temple worship. Nehemiah is also important at 2 Mace 2:13-14; perhaps his role as governor and temple restorer provided a model for the activity of Judas. The fire on the altar was never to go out (Lev 6:12—13) an(^ so its miraculous preservation emphasizes the continuity between the first and second temple, which some had questioned (Ezra 3:12; i Enoch 89:73; 2 Apoc. Bar. 68:5-6). The prayer of the priests stresses God's election of Israel, and his role as the Divine Warrior who fights for his people and leads them to their home, as in the hymn in Ex 15. The miracle of the fire is verified and acknowledged by the Persian king, and Nehemiah is recognized as the discoverer of naphtha, a kind of petroleum well known to Hellenistic scientists and geographers (Dioscorides, DC materia medica, 1.73;
(2:16—18) Conclusion The request of 1:18 is repeated here, and interwoven with the themes of God as Divine Warrior (1:25), of the people as God's inheritance (1:26-7), and of the ingathering of the people (1:27—9; 2:3)- The reference in v. 18 to God's rescue of his people and his purification of the place provides the appropriate introduction to the epitome. As mentioned in the introduction, we do not know what exactly the relationship is between the two prefixed letters and the
Strabo, Geog. 15.3.15; 16.1.15). He is thus ranked with other
737 2 MACCABEES
similar to what is found elsewhere as the Persian kings had provided for the sacrificial cult (Ezra 6:9—10; 7:20—3), and Josephus states that the Ptolemies and Antiochus III had bestowed privileges on Jerusalem (Ant. 12.50, 58, 138-44; Ag. Ap. 2.48).
epitome. One can suggest corresponding themes, but there is no intrinsic connection.
The Epitome (2:ig-iy.^g)
(2:19-32) Prologue The author writes an elegant preface to his work, outlining his source, the contents of the work, his aims, and his methods. He shows his control of the current historiographical methods and style, and his command of Greek. The source of his work is Jason of Gyrene, of whom we know nothing. Ptolemy I Lagus is said to have settled a group of Jews in Cyrenaica (Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.44) and Jewish inscriptions have been located there. At the time of Sulla (around 85 BCE), Strabo stated that the city of Gyrene was composed of four elements, citizens, farmers, resident aliens, and Jews (Jos. Ant. 14.115). Jason would therefore have been a Greek-speaking Jew from Cyrenaica which was under the control of the Ptolemies.
w. 4—8, this Utopian scene is disrupted. One should follow the Latin and Armenian translations which show that Simon belonged, not to the tribe of Benjamin, but to the priestly clan of Bilgah (Neh 12:5,18; i Chr 24:14). Simon's exact position is not known, as the term for 'captain' could cover civil and military as well as religious functions, nor do we know if he had been appointed by the high priest or by Seleucid authorities. Precisely what the conflict was over is not known either: was the disagreement over what the duties of the supervisor of the market were, or who would supervise all aspects of buying and selling? According to the Temple Scroll (nQT 47:7-18), only hides from clean animals sacrificed in Jerusalem could be brought into Jerusalem, whereas the decree of Antiochus III on the temple only forbade the hides of unclean animals and did not require that the hides be from animals sacrificed in Jerusalem (Jos. Ant. 12.146). This purity debate obviously has economic implications. Is this the basis for the conflict, or is it more likely a power-play between two factions in the small city-state of Judea? Such power-plays were earlier evident in Jerusalem in the historical romance of the Tobiads (Ant. 12.154—222). Simon was the brother of Menelaus, the future high priest, and one should see here a struggle between important families for control of the city. Simon makes his move by appealing to the governor, who, not willing to interfere in temple affairs, sends the question to the Seleucid ruler. The Peace of Apamea in 188 BCE had imposed a large indemnity on the Seleucids and so they were looking for funds. Seleucus reasoned that Simon's suggestion did not involve any sacrilege as it was not a question of funds for the actual temple cult, and so sent Heliodorus, chancellor of the realm, who had been brought up with him.
As for the content of the book, the author says nothing about the events under Seleucus IV which open the book (ch. 3) nor those under Demetrius I which close the book (chs. 14-15). The operative word for the author appears to be the term 'epiphany'/'appearance', a word which the author uses throughout the work, and which appears also in these chapters (3:24; 14:15; 15:27). In this prologue, the author, who loves to play on words, contrasts Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the 'epiphanies' which God gave his people. A further contrast is between Judaism and the barbarian hordes. This is the first known use of the term 'Judaism', seemingly coined to contrast with 'Hellenism' (2 Mace 4:13) and 'allophylism/foreign ways'
(2 Mace 4:13; 6:25). The Greeks called those who did not speak their language 'barbarians'. Here the author is calling the Greek-speaking Seleucids the barbarians.
The aims and methods that the author espouses are those standard for Hellenistic historians, as is the motif of hard work undertaken willingly for the benefit of the reader. At v. 24, the author does not really claim to get rid of'the flood of statistics'; the terms rather mean that the author is concerned to shorten the number of lines, of which there would have been quite a few in a five-volume work.
(3:9-140) The Attack on the Temple The author stresses the friendly reception of the Seleucid minister to underline the unexpectedness of the attack. The high priest cleverly responds, basing his argument on the idea that deposits in temples should not be violated, particularly those of widows and orphans who are particularly protected by God (Ps 146:9; Deut 27:19; Isa 1:23). The mention by the high priest of deposits in the temple by a Hyrcanus, son of Tobias, has led some scholars to suggest that Onias was pro-Ptolemaic and the leader of an anti-Seleucid faction. Within the Tobiad romance preserved in Josephus' Antiquities (12.154—222), the Tobiads and the youngest son Hyrcanus are depicted as closely allied with the Ptolemies. However, such a suggestion seems totally out of place in a context in which the high priest is trying to win over the Seleucid minister. Would he bring his anti-Seleucid leaning to the attention of Heliodorus? More likely, Hyrcanus is simply mentioned as an important personage.
(3:1—39) The First Attack on the Temple The first attack and the first epiphany are set during the reign of Seleucus IV Philopator (187-175 BCE). The story is similar to other accounts written in praise of a deity who defends his/her temple: the attack, the plea for help, the response of the deity, the rout of the enemy, and the rejoicing of the defenders. One finds such a scheme, for example, in the repulse of Sennacherib from Jerusalem (2 Chr 32:1-22; 2 Kings 18:17-19:36), and in the defence of Delphi by Apollo against the Persians under Xerxes in 480 BCE (Hdt. 8.37—9) and against the Gauls in 179 BCE (Paus. 10.23.2). (3:1-8) The Problem The city is described as idyllically at peace. The author stresses that peace depends on the piety of the leader, the high priest, a theme found in the books of Kings (i Kings 9:1—9; 2 Kings 17:7—8; 21:11—15). Th£ behaviour of Onias will stand in sharp opposition to that of his successors in the office. This Utopian picture contrasts with the conflict and division described in the history of the Qumran Covenanters (CD i) and in the narrative of i Enoch i—u. The benign relationship of the ruling powers depicted here is
(3:146-21) The Plea for Divine Help The description of the distress of the citizens is highly emotional. The author stresses the involvement of the whole populace, as married women, usually excluded from public business, and unmarried women, normally hidden out of sight, are included.
2 MACCABEES 738
Onias will constrast sharply with the self-seeking motives of his successors.
(3:22-30) The Response of the Deity The author highlights the sovereignty of God through the title given to him at v. 24 and the reference to God's sovereign power at v. 28. This first epiphany has first a horseman and then two young men and so Bickerman (1979) suggested that there were two intertwined accounts, one with the horseman (w. 24—5, 27—8, 30) and another with the two young men (w. 26,29, 3I—4)- However, one could also argue that the author is displaying God's power through several agents. The description of the avenging figures as dressed in golden armour and extremely handsome is how divine interveners are usually portrayed in Hellenistic literature. (3:31-9) The Effect of the Miracle Heliodorus later appeared in history in a plot to assassinate Seleucus IV, and so this story sees his recuperation. His recognition of the power of the God of Israel does not mean that Heliodorus converted, only that he acknowledges the power of the deity who resides there. A similar story is told of Ptolemy IV Philopator in 3 Mace 1—2, but Ptolemy does not repent on his recovery. Recognition of the power of the resident deity is a theme in the story of how the Persian commander Datis was forced to proclaim the power of the goddess Athene who sent a miraculous thirst on the Persian forces when they besieged the isle of Lindos (Faure 1941). The healing of Heliodorus through a sacrifice, possibly a reparation offering about deposits (Lev 6:1-7; Num 5:5-10), and the prayer of the high priest, highlight that Heliodorus was defeated by divine aid, not by some human ambush. Heliodorus in turn offered sacrifice, perhaps a sacrifice of well-being (Lev 7:11-18), as Alexander is reported by Josephus to have done (Ant. 11.336). Both sacrifices emphasize the power of the God of Israel and suggest that Jews and Gentiles can live on good terms, as long as the rights of the Jews are respected. (3:39-10:8) The Second Attack on the Temple The second attack encompasses the time of Antiochus IV The section has the same structure as in the earlier part of ch. 3: attack against the temple and the traditional way of life (4:1—6:17); the cry for help (6:18-7:42); God's answer (chs. 8-9); the reversal of the effects of the attack (10:1-8).
(4:7-22) The High-Priesthood of Jason The author omits the details of Seleucus IV's assassination, the installation of his young son, and the usurpation of the throne by Seleucus' brother, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who returned from Rome where he had been a hostage (App. Syr. 45; cf. Dan 11:20-1). A new monarch would appoint or confirm rulers in their position, and Jason, Onias' brother, seized the opportunity to grasp for the position of high priest. The annual indemnity imposed by the Romans on the Seleucids at the Treaty of Apamea was 1,000 talents of silver, and so Jason's offer of 590 talents, quite a hefty sum for a small country like Judea, would have been welcomed towards paying the few last instalments.
Exactly what Jason wanted in exchange has long been debated. The gymnasium was the sign par excellence of Greek life. Originally designed for physical and military training, the gymnasium normally had a running-track and a wrestling area, and sometimes areas for jumping and javelinand discus-throwing. There were buildings for changing and bathing, and for storing oil. Later, gymnasia became centres for intellectual training with halls for lectures on various topics, but exactly when this changeover took place is unclear. One does not know how much intellectual training would have been carried on in a city like Jerusalem in the early second century BCE. The group called 'ephebes', translated 'body of youth' in NRSV, were boys who had reached the age of puberty. At Athens for a short period of time in the late fourth century BCE, all young men aged 18-20, the ephebes, had to do compulsory military training for two years before being enrolled as citizens of Athens. In the late second century, ephebes were still doing such military exercises as archery and the use of siege-engines. Few families could afford not to let their sons work for two years, and this period of training, as with education in general, became primarily for the sons of rich families. The ephebate involved the young men in the public life of a city, and they would participate in its religious festivals and processions. It is important to note that education in the Hellenistic world was to fit a student to be a citizen of that particular city with its peculiar civic and religious responsibilities. The physical exercises would remain the same, as would the study of mathematics and the ability to read and write Greek, but such lessons would take place within the context of the city's traditional culture. Even the physical exercises, however, evidenced a desire to be part of the larger world, as athletes from different cities would compete against each other (4:18-20). Construction and maintenance of such a facility would have been costly and one gains a sense of the wealth of these aristocratic families. According to 4:12, the gymnasium lay right under the citadel. If one locates the citadel on the south-eastern hill of Jerusalem, the gymnasium would lie either between the city of David and the temple or in the broad ravine which separated the Lower from the Upper City (Jos. JW 5.140).
(3:39—6:17) The Attack on the Traditional Way of Life The traditional way of life is disturbed when the pious high priest Onias is removed from Jerusalem and replaced by an innovative high priest, Jason, and his usurper, Menelaus (4:1-5:10). This internal disruption is then followed by the attack of the outsider, Antiochus IV (5:11—6:10). The author has interspersed his narrative with reflections on the significance of events (4:16-17; 5:17-20; 6:12-17), which evidence the author's belief in the election of Israel by God and the requirement that Jews live according to the laws of the covenant.
(3:39—4:6) The Removal of Onias 3:39 sums up the events in the previous chapter, but 4:1 shows that the underlying problem, the rivalry between families of the ruling elite, still exists. The increase in violence is an index of the breakdown of the polity, but now the new Seleucid governor takes an active role in the political in-fighting by supporting Simon against Onias. We do not know why he would encourage such unrest. Onias' response is to go over his head to the king. The author insists that this is not Onias playing politics, but altruistic concern for the welfare of Jerusalem. This selflessness of
Jason's further request in 4:9/7 has been much disputed: should one translate 'to enrol the people of Jerusalem as Antiochenes, i.e. as citizens of Antioch', or 'to enrol the Antiochenes in Jerusalem'? Who were these Antiochenes? Four
739 2 MACCABEES
gods of other nations could be honoured as subordinate to the supreme God of Israel? The author clearly sees Jason as an apostate. Jason's welcome to Antiochus on his visit to Jerusalem is similar to the ceremonial reception of Hellenistic kings and again emphasizes the friendly relations between Jews and their Greek rulers.
suggestions have been made: (i) the Hellenized Jews would be made citizens of Antioch of Syria; (2) that Antiochus IV had set up a new republic on the pattern of the Roman one and its citizens were to be called Antiochenes (Goldstein 1983); (3) that a Hellenistic corporation was to be set up in Jerusalem whose members would be called Antiochenes (Bickerman 1979); (4) that Jerusalem itself would now become a Greek polls, called Antioch-in-Jerusalem, and its citizens called Antiochenes (Tcherikover 1961). The first three seem unlikely: even a king could not force a city to bestow en bloc citizenship on those of another city; Antiochus IV seems to have supported local traditions rather than instituted a new republic; the word for Antiochene always refers, not to members of a corporation, but to citizens. The last suggestion seems the best, although it is intriguing that the author of 2 Maccabees does not complain about such a name change, and i Maccabees does not mention it. Many ancient cities received new Greek names, and this seems the best explanation for this verse. What did such a name change involve? Tcherikover
(4:23—5:10) The Rule of Menelaus The Bilgah clan gained control of the city as Simon's brother, Menelaus, successfully outmanoeuvred Jason, who fled across the Jordan. The reader is now informed that there was a Seleucid garrison in the city, perhaps stationed in response to the Ptolemaic threat, and manned by mercenaries from Cyprus. Since Sostratus' duties involved collecting the revenue, there was probably a division of authority within Jerusalem, with a regular royal functionary operating within and above the city's political structure.
Menelaus' tenure is marked by murder and intrigue. Short of cash, he had sold temple treasure perhaps to pay his taxes, as had Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:13—16). Using temple vessels to pay taxes is one thing, using them to connive at murder is quite another matter. Clearly Onias III, as well as the epitomist, thought it wrong to sell temple vessels. Onias is depicted as upholding tradition, but yet appears to take sanctuary in the famous temple of Apollo and Artemis in Daphne. The murder of Onias by the utterly treacherous Andronicus, perhaps the same Andronicus who is said by Hellenistic historians to have murdered the son of Seleucus IV (Diod. Sic. 30.7.2), has the author emphasize the motif of just deserts, and also the fact that non-Jews can have a sympathetic attitude towards Jews unjustly punished.
(1961) argued that the change had constitutional implications: theoretically the Mosaic law could be overthrown as the law of the city, and Jason would control who became citizens of the city—only those who underwent ephebic training could become citizens of Antioch-in-Jerusalem. However, there is no evidence that a name change meant a change in constitution, nor that ephebic training was the only way to become a citizen. All we can say is thatthe name was changed, but even that implies that Jason wanted to connect Judea more closely with the Seleucid empire. Jason's position depended on royal favour, and Antiochus not only gained more money but a secure ally on his southern border.
(4:39-50) Further Charges against Menelaus Whereas Onias had protected the temple, Menelaus and Lysimachus despoil it, and launch an armed attack against the unarmed citizens who protest their actions. Divine help is intimated in the fact that unarmed citizens put to flight the armed followers of Lysimachus, who dies. Where Onias had been slandered by Simon (4:1), the true charges against Menelaus are dismissed and justice is perverted through bribery. Ptolemy son of Dorymenes may already have been governor of Coelesyria and Phoenicia as at 8:8. He certainly continues the favourable attitude to the Bilgah faction that Apollonius is said to have shown (4:4). He acts against the three members of the Jewish council, a body known from a letter of Antiochus III (Jos. Ant. 12.142), but whose exact function is unknown. As at the murder of Onias, non-Jews are shown as sympathetic to the unfairly condemned councillors.
The author of 2 Maccabees uses all his rhetorical skill to condemn what Jason did. As noted above, education was intimately tied to preparation for public life in a city. The author depicts Jason's educational reforms as a denial of traditional Jewish culture. Hellenization, which formerly meant the use of a pure style of the Greek language, is now labelled as foreign, and Jason is said to be a wicked priest. The author mocks concern for physical pursuits rather than spiritual. At v. 13, the Greek hat is the broad-brimmed hat worn by athletes to protect them against the sun, and said to be that of Hermes, the god of athletics. At v. 14, the signal was that given to start activity, not specifically discus-throwing. The reflection of the author at w. 16-17 shows the author's notion of just deserts, whereby the punishment meted is appropriate to the crime committed (4:26, 38; 5:9—10; 13:8; 15:32).
(5:1—10) Jason's Uprising The author of 2 Maccabees locates the events after the second invasion of Antiochus IV in Egypt in 168 BCE, while i Maccabees places them after his first invasion (170/169 BCE). According to Dan 11:28—30, there were two invasions of Egypt and two attacks against the temple, but Daniel does not explicitly state that Antiochus IV came in person against Jerusalem the second time. The chronology of i Maccabees is to be preferred, and the epitomisthas perhaps run the two attacks on the temple together, i Maccabees gives a precise date for the second attack by the captain of the Mysians (i Mace 1:29), whereas 2 Maccabees does not (5:24).
w. 18—22 show further how Jason was concerned to integrate Judea into the Seleucid empire. Every four years games were held at Tyre in honour of the god Melqart/Heracles, perhaps in imitation of Alexander the Great's celebration of games to Heracles after capturing Tyre in 331 BCE (Arr. Anab. 3.6.1). Jason sends official representatives of Antioch-in-Jerusalem. The author contrasts the action of Jason with that of the envoys who use the 300 silver drachmas, the customary price for a sacrificial ox, to fit out triremes, Greek ships with three rows of oars. Such a fitting-out would seem to go against the stipulations of the Treaty of Apamea. Did Jason reason that such a sacrifice was not against the Torah, in line with the Greek translator of Ex 22:28 who translated 'You shall not revile the gods', a translation which seems to imply that the
Portents are frequently described in non-Jewish literature as occurring before a momentous event (Tacitus, Histories,
2 MACCABEES 74°
who dared to bridge the Hellespont and cut a canal through Mt. Athos (Hdt. 7:22-4, 34-7; Aesch. Pers. 69-72, 744-51). Philip appears again at 6:11; 8:8 and was perhaps the commander of the Seleucid garrison in Jerusalem. The enemy of the Jews is called a barbarian, as at 2:21. It is fascinating to note how the author of 2 Maccabees binds the Jews and the Samaritans as one people in v. 22 and 6:2, whereas Josephus reports a letter from same Samaritans which forcefully argues that the Samaritans are not like the Jews (Ant. 12.257—61).
2.50.2; 78.2). The closest parallel to this passage is found in the narrative of Josephus about events before the destruction of Jerusalem (JW 6.298—9). Such portents could be interpreted in different ways: Jason must have hoped that Antiochus' successor would accept the fait accompli of his defeat of Menelaus, but he failed. Tcherikover suggested that he did so because a third force of pious crowds as at 4:40 rose up to repel him, but it is more likely that the citadel, wellstocked and defended by the Seleucid garrison, could hold out until reinforcements came. Jason's death is depicted in terms of just deserts, i Mace 12:6—18, 20—3 also speaks of a fictive relationship between the Jews and the Spartans. Many Hellenistic cities sought to connect themselves to famous events and cities, as the Romans traced their origins to Aeneas the Trojan.
The account parallels that of i Mace 1:29—40. There a purpose for the attack is given—to install and fortify a strong Seleucid garrison in the city. In 2 Maccabees, however, the attack seems unprovoked and senseless, duplicating the action of Antiochus at 5:13—14. The author also dates it to the sabbath, thereby heightening the offence (cf. Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.209-12). The author of i Maccabees dates the event two years after Antiochus' first invastion of Egypt, i.e. to 167 BCE, and so not long after Antiochus' humiliation by the Romans in Egypt. These further fortifications might be part of an attempt to strengthen Antiochus' southern border.
(5:11—6:17) The Attack on the Temple This section contains Antiochus' own attack on Jerusalem (5:11-20); the repressive measures he imposed on Jerusalem (5:21—7); the new cult imposed (6:1—n). The author includes two reflections on what was happening (5:17—20; 6:12—17).
In the midst of this tragedy the author strikes a hopeful note with the mention of Judas Maccabeus. The author has Judas living in Jerusalem until this. He makes no mention of Mattathias, the father of Judas, who is such an important personage in i Maccabees. The author of i Maccabees, concerned to highlight the Hasmonean family (i Mace 5:62), focuses on the reaction of Mattathias to the persecutions but gives little attention to the martyrdoms. The author of 2 Maccabees, on the other hand, views the martyrdoms as the appropriate reaction to persecution and God's mercy comes through the martyrdoms (7:38; 8:5). Judas's story is placed before the persecution to provide hope for the reader. The wilderness was the traditional place of refuge (i Sam 23:14; i Kings 19:19). Here Judas escapes from the pollution in the city into the natural world of the mountains (cf. Hos 2:14—15; Mk 1:12).
(5:11—20) Antiochus' Attack The parallel account is found at i Mace 1:20-4, but mere no reason is given for Antiochus' assault after his first invasion of Egypt. At that time, Antiochus had not captured Alexandria, but had installed his nephew Ptolemy VI Philometor, with himself as Ptolemy's guardian. It is not known why Antiochus withdrew from Egypt, but perhaps he was satisfied with a weakened Ptolemaic empire. A Babylonian text records that Antiochus celebrated his victory with a great festival in August/September 169 BCE, and such a festival suggests that Antiochus was satisfied with his incursion. If Jason's coup attempt occurred after the second invasion, the author of 2 Maccabees makes no mention of the rebuff of Antiochus by the Romans and writes as if the only reason Antiochus left Egypt was to put down the revolt in Jerusalem. He dehumanizes Antiochus with animallike descriptions—'inwardly raging' is literally 'wild-beast-like in soul'. The author is not concerned with exact chronology or exact numbers so much as with rhetorical polemic. At about the same time, Antiochus was forcibly extracting treasures from a temple in Babylon, so Jerusalem must not be seen as a special act of temple despoliation on the part of Antiochus. His liberal gifts to Greek cities, particularly to Athens where he wanted to complete the magnificent temple of Zeus, made him always on the look-out for more revenue. The contrast between Onias and Menelaus is shown as Onias had defended the deposits in the temple while Menelaus now guides Antiochus in his plunder of the temple.
(6:1—n) The Imposed Cult Further measures are now taken by the king, measures directed against the Jews in Judea, not all Jews in the empire. We do not know why Antiochus took this extremely unusual step of outlawing Jewish religion in Judea. i Maccabees blames the megalomania of the emperor who is said to have wanted all nations to be the same and to give up their particular customs (i Mace 1:41-2). Antiochus is thus portrayed as zealous in the spread of Hellenization. However, all the evidence we possess points in the direction of Antiochus encouraging local customs, rather than attempting to suppress them (M0rkholm 1966). Rather, Antiochus must have considered the cult in Judaea to be the focal point of resistance to his administration, even though the high priest Menelaus was his friend, and its suppression a final step in trying to stabilize conditions in this restless southern border region. The king's agent is Geron the Athenian (NRSV marg.). Jews are no longer to follow the civic institutions of their ancestors, not even privately, as the stories at 6:10—n show. The first change is to the name. Olympios and Xenios ('the Friend-of-Strangers') are both common epithets for Zeus. The author gives a reason for the name Xenios, but the translation is uncertain. The NRSV accepts an emendation of the text to bring it into line with the petition, known from Josephus (Ant. 12.261), of some Samaritans to Antiochus IV requesting that
At 5:17—20, the author reflects on the discrepancy between Antiochus' purpose and that of God: Antiochus is uplifted, thinking himself special, but God is simply using him as the instrument ofhis anger. This motif is found earlier at Isa 10:515 concerning the role of the king of Assyria. The theology is that of Deuteronomy where, if the people disobey God's laws, they will be punished (Deut 11:13-17; 28; cf Jer 18-19). The hope of restoration expressed in v. 20 looks forward to the events of ch. 8, and reflects the prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the first temple (i Kings 8:46—53).
(5:21—7) Antiochus' Measures in Jerusalem The arrogance of Antiochus is described as was that of the Persian king Xerxes
741 2 MACCABEES
of initiation into Judaism, circumcision (Gen 17:9—14), and the sabbath, the sign of God's delivering his people from Egypt (Deut 5:12-15), are outlawed. (6:12-17) Reflections of the Author The persecution is interpreted as God's discipline of his people, pre-empting a harsher judgement. As at Deut 8:5, God is seen as a parent who trains and educates his child. In some ways this differs from Wis 11:10-12:27 where God's forbearance towards other nations is to give them time to repent (cf. Sir 5:4-8). (6:18-7:42) The Cry for Help After providing a reflection on the events, the author focuses on the martyrdoms of Eleazar and the mother and her seven sons. That the two narratives are tied together is shown by the concluding note at 7:42: 'the eating of sacrifices' is a term found in the story of Eleazar (6:18), the term for 'tortures' is found at 7:1,13,15. The author sees these events as the pivotal point in turning God's anger into mercy (7:38; 8:5). (6:18-31) Eleazar The story of Eleazar is retold in greater detail in 4 Mace 5-7. There he is a priest (4 Mace 5:4), here he is a scribe. The exact social meaning of this term is not certain, but it means more than someone who copies or writes documents. He is a leading official, well known to those in charge of the sacrifices. We do not know if they are Jews or non-Jews. As all heroes, Eleazar is handsome, of noble birth, and dignified. Pork was prohibited by the Torah (Lev 11:7—8; Deut 14:8). The method of torture is unclear: tympanon is a drum, stick, or wagon-wheel and so the sense is of something turning around, perhaps a rack. The narrative is full of rhetorical flourishes and contrasts, as the last words are designed to arouse emotion in the reader. Eleazar refuses any contradiction betwen his private and public behaviour; consistency, not hypocrisy, is his watchword. He is a model of arete (Simonides, Lyra Graeca, LCL ii 359, no. 127), just as Achilles chose death with honour rather than long life without glory (Homer, Iliad, 9.410-16). Here a Jew rather than the Seleucid officials symbolizes this classical Greek virtue. What is interesting is that there is no mention of restoration to life in this story. Eleazar asks that he be sent down to the bleak world of Hades. Eleazar is not seeking a reward, only to live nobly. (7:1-42) The Mother and her Seven Sons After the martyrdom of an important male comes the story of the deaths of a mother and her sons. Stories of whole families perishing under attack are found in Jewish literature, for example in the story of Taxo and his seven sons (As. Mos. 9) and in that of the Galilean martyrs (Jos. JWi.^12—13; Ant. 14.429—30) and in Greek literature, as in the deaths of Theoxena and her sister's children (Polyb. 23.10-11). The particular story of a mother with her seven sons, so laden with emotion, was a favourite one in later rabbinic literature, either before a Roman emperor (b.Git. 57b; Midr. Lam. 1:16) or more generally in the days of persecution (Pesiq. R. 43). The folklore motif of the importance of the youngest son is also found in this traditional tale. The story is loosely connected with the preceding account, and scholars have wondered where it took place. Later tradition, both Jewish and Christian, located it at Antioch. However, there is no indication of a change of scene from the preceding account, and the folk-tale type where a ruler is bested by a wiser underling argues against any search for a specific locale. The wicked character of the emperor is
their temple be renamed Zeus Hellenics. However, the author seems to hold no antipathy to the Samaritans but rather links the two together in undergoing oppression from Antiochus
(5:22-3), and so one could maintain the present text and translate 'as those who live there are hospitable'.
What exactly was the cult imposed? In posing the question in this fashion, scholars have undertaken to find one particular cult substituted for the cult in Jerusalem. Noticing how the Hebrew expression for 'abomination of desolation', which is used in Dan 9:27; 11:31 and is reflected in the corresponding Greek terms at i Mace 1:54, is a play on the name Baal Shamem, i.e. Lord of heaven, scholars such as Bickerman (1979) argued that the cult imposed was a Syro-Canaanite cult. Tcherikover (1961) followed him in this, adding that the cult was that of the Syrian garrison stationed in the citadel, while Goldstein (1983) suggested it was the cult of a heterodox Jewish garrison in the citadel. Bringmann (1983) noted that the sacrifice of pigs and the prohibition of circumcision would be against Syrian religion and so suggested that the cult was created by Menelaus. Rather than looking for one cult to substitute for another, however, perhaps simply the worship of many gods was introduced, i Mace 1:47 speaks of many altars, sacred precincts, and shrines for idols, and 2 Mace 10:2 mentions that altars had been built in the public square of Jerusalem and that there were sacred precincts. Besides Zeus Olympios and Dionysos, other gods would have been worshipped.
The description at 6:3-6 differs from the accounts in i Maccabees and Dan 7-12. Cult prostitution is prohibited at Deut 23:17; getting rid of cult prostitutes is praised (i Kings 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7), while their presence is a sign of evil (i Kings 14:24). The author of 2 Maccabees seems to be using stereotypical accusations to point out the barbarism of the actions. Antiochus III had proclamed that only the sacrificial animals known to their ancestors were to be introduced into Jerusalem (Jos. Ant. 12.145-6), and this is now done away with. It is noteworthy that the author does not mention the desolating sacrilege of Dan 11:31; i Mace 1:54. Also, one wonders what precisely is meant by 'confess themselves to be Jews'. Does Jew mean more than a geographical designation, i.e. someone who follows the Torah, or does the phrase mean that one had to call oneself an Antiochene? The author insists that the Jews were forced to take part in the pagan festivals, in contrast to i Mace 1:52 which states that many were eager to follow the new practices. The attempt to force Jews to follow Greek ways is extended to neighbouring cities, probably those which bordered on Judea so that the Judeans could not slip across the border to practise their religion, v. 8 is difficult: the verb can mean either the less forceful 'suggest' or the stronger 'enjoin'; and the MSS read either 'Ptolemais', i.e. the coastal city, or 'of Ptolemy', i.e. Ptolemy the governor of Coelesyria and Phoenicia (4:45). Ptolemais was later hostile to the Jews (i Mace 5:14; 2 Mace 13:25), but so was Ptolemy.
Two examples of the persecution are then adduced (cf i Mace 1:60-1; 2:31-8). Women with babies at their breasts, who would normally enjoy privacy at home are paraded publicly through the streets as opponents of Antiochus' ideals for the city. Men who meet outside the city and away from sight are still burnt, their rituals seen as a threat to the state. The ritual
2 MACCABEES 742
stressed, as the martyrs respond calmly while the emperor loses control of himself.
should not be arrogant (4:17, 21; 7:15) as God will punish him (7:14—19). The text of v. 36 is difficult to translate: 'endured a brief suffering in exchange for everlasting life and have fallen under God's covenant' or 'endured a brief suffering and have fallen to everlasting life under God's covenant'. The meaning reflects that of earlier statements that God will renew their life for they have followed his laws (7:9, 23). w. 37—8 foretell what the following narrative will show: the deaths of the martyrs have turned God's wrath to mercy, and Antiochus learns through sickness to confess the power of God. w. 39—42, as at the beginning of the chapter, the king loses control of himself. 'In his integrity' is literally 'pure', suggesting not only the separation from unclean actions, but also the purification of the temple which will soon occur. We are not told how the mother died, a classic example of patriarchal neglect. Nothing is mentioned of her husband either, as the author focuses on the maternal role of the woman. (Chs. 8—9) God's Response The response of God to the cry for help comes quickly as Judas wins the first victory (8), and afflicts Antiochus (9). (8: 1-36) The First Victory The parallel narrative in i Mace 3:10-4:25 describes a series of events and tactical manoeuvres with various commanders, whereas the author of 2 Maccabees concentrates on one single battle against one commander. Such a focus heightens the dramatic effect. The main villain in i Maccabees is Gorgias, whereas in 2 Maccabees it is Nicanor, no doubt to balance the villain in the final battle in 2 Maccabees 14—15. Both are called thrice-wretched (8:34; 15:3). (8:1^7) The Rise of Judas Last mentioned before the martyrdoms (5:27), Judas and his companions now gather a force of like-minded followers. They have persisted in following 'Judaism' (2:21; 14:38), not the 'Jewish faith' as NRSV translates. The number 6,000 is repeated at 8:16, although some are reported to have left at 8:13. The group prayer employs traditional language, with the motif of blood crying out from the ground recalling the blood of the innocent Abel (Gen 4:10; cf. Heb 12:24, and Deut 32:43). The mention of the levelling of the city looks forward to Antiochus' vow (9:13). God's aid renders Judas unbeatable, although he first used the tactic of suprise raids and ambushes.
w. 3—5, the brothers are all dehumanized, as first the tongue, the instrument of human communication, is cut out and then, with legs and arms lopped off, the first brother is fried like an animal, w. 6—7, the quotation from Deut 32:36 is apt, as the purpose of the song of Deut 32 is to confront the people as a witness. The quotation is from that section of the song where God, after chastising his faithless people, begins to take vengeance on his instruments of anger who think they have conquered God's people by their own power.
w. 7-9, the boy uses his last breath to contrast Antiochus' limited power with that of the King of the universe. The mention of a renewal of life evidences the growing belief in a resurrection and judgement after death. As noted, the story of Eleazar only speaks of the traditional shade-like existence in Sheol/Hades. In the psalms, however, there are passages which speak of a longing for a continued enjoyment of God
(Ps 73:23—6; 16:9—10; 84:10), and also passages which speak of resurrection in the context of national restoration (Ezek 37; Hos 6:2; the fascinating Isa 26:19).] Enoch speaks of an afterdeath judgement (i Enoch 22—7; 91:10; 93:2; 104:1—16) and Dan 12:2—3 clearly expresses a belief in resurrection (cf also i Enoch 90:33). The Greek translators of passages such as Isa 26:19; J°b 19:24"^; 14:14 seem to speak of individual renewal. The threefold repetition of the first person plural in v. 9 shows that the author of 2 Maccabees is speaking of individual resurrection. There probably was a rich tradition about the shades in Sheol (cf. Isa 14:9-22); they can be brought back, but do not like to be disturbed (i Sam 28:18—19), an(^ J°b I4'-7~ 22 asserts that the shades do not come back to this present existence. The boy about to be martyred, however, is made to proclaim that the dead will be given life again, presumably life on this earth as the description at 7:23 resonates with the description of the first human at Gen 2:7.
w. 13-19, Antiochus is threatened with punishment. Since kings were granted divine honours, this is a radical statement. Hope for the people as a whole is now expressed: the suffering is attributed to their sins, not to the power of Antiochus. Antiochus is now listed among those who fight against God and therefore sure to lose (Isa 14; cf. Eur. Bacch.).
(8:8—n) The Reaction of the Seleucids While the account in i Maccabees has the matter dealt with at the highest level (i Mace 3:27), 2 Maccabees has the governor of Coelesyria and Phoenicia deal with the nuisance and is the more likely account. Many Nicanors are mentioned at this time: one is a royal agent of the middle rank mentioned in the letter of the Sidonians in Shechem to Antiochus IV (Jos. Ant. 12.257-64); one is mentioned as being one of the closest friends of Demetrius, son of Seleucus IV (Polyb. 31.14.4; Jos. Ant. 12. 402); and there is Nicanor the Cypriarch (2 Mace 12:2). It is unlikely that all these references are to the same person. Gorgias was later governor of Idumea (2 Mace 10:14; I2:32)» presumably someone with local experience. The author's estimate of a mixed army of 20,000 is half that of i Mace 3:38, but still high. Ninety slaves per talent was cheap, perhaps showing contempt for the Jews. At that rate, Nicanor would need to sell 180,000 slaves, many more than those already taken from Jerusalem (5:41). Nicanor is stated to be the author of the plan to enslave, thereby heightening his evil and preparing for the
w. 20—9, the mother's attachment to her ancestral customs is shown, as earlier by the second son (7:8), in her use of Hebrew. In a patriarchal culture, her nobility is shown by her possessing a man's courage. The origin of human life is unknown (Ps 139:13—16; Eccles 11:5), but the author uses language which resonates with the creation of humans at Gen 2:7 when God breathed life into the human's nostrils. Her wisdom is further shown as she tricks the emperor and tells her last son to recall God's creating power when he shaped the unformed world (Gen 1:2, particularly in the LXX). Later Christian writers, such as Origen (On First Principles, 2.1.5) and the Latin translator of 2 Maccabees, interpreted the phrase at v. 28 to mean that God created out of nothing, but the text states that God did not make them from what already existed as properly formed, w. 30-8, the last and most impressive speech is given to the youngest brother, as appropriate to traditional literature. Themes already met in 2 Maccabees are spoken again: the Hebrews suffer because of their sins as God disciplines them (5:17-20; 6:12-17); me king
743 2 MACCABEES
control of Jerusalem, which otherwise does not occur until 10:1—8. The author of 2 Maccabees tightly connects w. 30—3 with the rest ofthe Nicanor story, however. The complex of widows, orphans, and tortured is used, the same word for collecting arms is found at w. 27, 31, and the appropriate retribution motif appears in both. Perhaps the author wants to show how Judas's men behave after victory and also to heighten interest as to what happened to Nicanor. As for Bacchides, in i Maccabees he is a high-ranking Seleucid official (i Mace 7:8—20) and it is unlikely that he would be listed after such a low-level commander as Timothy. Perhaps another Bacchides is meant than the one in i Maccabees. The spoil taken to Jerusalem is probably God's portion as in Num 31:28. At v. 32, patris should probably not be translated with NRSV as 'city of their ancestors', but as 'fatherland'. Nothing else is known about Callisthenes except that he is appropriately punished. At i Mace 1:31, the city is said to have been burnt by the Mysarch commander.
theme of appropriate retribution at the end of the story where Nicanor has to run away like a fleeing slave (8:35).
(8:12—20) Judas's Preparation While others fear, Judas is unafraid. The Gentiles act arrogantly, like Antiochus at 5:1721. The 'torture of the derided city' echoes the language used of the martyrs (tortures: 7:1,13,15,42; derided: 7:7,10). Judas, as every good general would do, exhorts his troops. The unconquerable power of God is captured in the phrase 'with a single nod'. Two examples are adduced. The first is known from the HB, the defeat of Sennacherib in 701 BCE (2 Kings 19:35—6; Isa 37:36), the same as used at i Mace 7:41 and again at 2 Mace 15:22. The precise reference ofthe second example is unclear. The Galatians are the Celts who were forced to travel from western and central Europe towards the east and southeast. In 280/279 BCE some Celts invaded Greece, while others went towards Asia Minor in 278/277 BCE and overran many Greek cities. After a long process they were confined to an area north of Phyrgia later called Galatia. Scholars have suggested three possibilities for the example Judas mentions: (i) a battle of Antiochus I against the Celts in the 2703 BCE, although this took place in Asia Minor and the text would have to be emended from Babylonia to Bagadonia, near the Tauros mountains in Cilicia; (2) an incident during the rebellion of Molon, governor-general ofthe eastern satrapies, in 220 BCE; (3) an incident in the rebellion of Antiochus Hierax in 227/ 226 BCE in the east against his brother Seleucus III—Antiochus used Galatian mercenaries. The last-mentioned seems the best candidate. This passage shows that there were Jewish soldiers serving under the Seleucids, and supports Josephus who said that Antiochus III transferred Jewish soldiers from Babylonia to Phyrgia and Lydia to maintain the loyalty ofthe local population (Ant. 12:147—53). (8:21-9) The Battle The actual order ofthe Jewish army is not certain: some MSS read as if Judas appointed his four brothers, Simon, Joseph, Jonathan, and Eleazar, to be in charge of 1,500 men each while Judas read the Scriptures and led another division, the first, the word for which normally means a phalanx unit of 256 men; others suggest that Eleazar read aloud from the Scriptures. 2 Maccabees has one ofthe brothers named Joseph, while i Maccabees calls him John (i Mace 2:3—5). Whatever the proper understanding, the author of 2 Maccabees wants to stress that the whole family is involved, and therefore divides the forces in a way that is not paralleled elsewhere. The focus is on the Jews following correct covenantal procedure, and so the Scriptures are read (Deut 20:2), and the sabbath observed. Note how the spoils are given not only to the fighters but to the widows and orphans (Deut 14:29; 26:12—15), and to the tortured, which brings back the role ofthe martyrs in obtaining God's mercy.
(8:34—6) The Fate of Nicanor Nicanor's plan to enslave the Jews went awry and he himself had to flee like a runaway slave. The help ofthe Lord (v. 35) was the watchword of Judas's forces (v. 23); the word for defender at v. 36 (hypermachon) resonates with the word for ally (symmachon) at v. 24. The author returns to themes found in his opening chapter: the Jews are invincible when they follow God's law (3:1), and Nicanor, as Heliodorus before him (3:35-9), proclaims God's power.
(9:1—29) The Death of Antiochus Antiochus IV set out in midto late 165 BCE to consolidate his rule in the eastern satrapies. Early in his reign, a local dynasty of priests and princes had risen to power around Persepolis and won their independence. This account appears confused as to the geography, as Persepolis, the old capital ofthe Persian empire, lay hundreds of miles south-east of Ecbatana in Media. This account of Antiochus' death is one of many versions (2 Mace 1:13-14; i Mace 6:i—16; Polyb. 31.9). According to Polybius, Antiochus died after attempting to rob the temple of Nanaia in Elymais, south of Ecbatana. Antiochus, a well-known plunderer of temples and someone always in need of ready cash, took the opportunity to help finance his eastern campaign.
According to a Babylonian chronicle, news of Antiochus' death reached Babylonia in the month Chislev of 148 according to the Babylonian calendar, i.e. between 20 Nov. and 18 Dec. i64BCE (Sachs and Wiseman 1954). The order of 2 Maccabees, where Antiochus dies before the purification of the temple thus seems confirmed over against the order of i Maccabees, where Antiochus dies after the purification, although some scholars still dispute this point. However, the narrative of 2 Maccabees has significantly dramatized history. The author concentrates on the death ofthe arch-enemy ofthe Jews and places it as part ofthe victory of God over Israel's attackers, and ignores the more complex details, i Maccabees tells of an invasion by the regent Lysias (i Mace 5:26—35) and there were negotiations to settle the rebellion as evidenced by the letters in 2 Mace n which have been put out of order. These negotiations may have included the replacement ofthe inimical Ptolemy son of Dorymenes by the more friendly Ptolemy Macron as governor of Coelesyria and Phoenicia (2 Mace 10:12-13). The death of Antiochus is told in gruesome detail
(8:30—3) The Defeat of Timothy and Bacchides The shortened character ofthe work is evident in this section as names and events are introduced without any preparation, and disrupt the flow ofthe Nicanor story. In 2 Maccabees, there seem to be two Timothys: one who appears at 9:3 and 10:24—38, where he is killed, and another at 12:10-25, where he escapes. In i Maccabees there is only one Timothy, who engages Judas's forces three times (i Mace 5:6—8, 28—34, 37~44)- J Maccabees appears to relate the events in the proper sequence, and so the author of 2 Maccabees has misplaced events, v. 31 has Judas in
2 MACCABEES 744
greeting formula is quite extravagant, and then the king is said to remember with affection the Jews' esteem and goodwill. After the description of Antiochus' condition in 9:5-12, to describe himself as suffering an annoying illness is a marvellous understatement to say the least, and it suggests that the letter does not belong in its current context. Antiochus trusts the Jews to help in the successful transfer of power, and Antiochus describes his policy towards the Jews as moderate and kind! The thrust ofthis letter is clearly to putthe Jews in as good a light as possible and as good citizens of the empire, contrary to what was suggested by many anti-Jewish stories which circulated in the Hellenistic world. (9:28) The Death of Antiochus Antiochus is said to die in a strange land, like Jason (5:9—10), although Antiochus died in his own empire. In i Mace 6:55—63, Philip was appointed guardian of Antiochus V but was forced out of Antioch by Lysias, who had been left in charge of Antiochus' son. A revolt led by a Philip is mentioned at 2 Mace 13:23, but the narrative in its extreme brevity seems to distinguish between this Philip and the guardian appointed by Antiochus IV. Ptolemy VI Philometor had been driven out of Alexandria in October 164, just before Antiochus' death, and did not return until mid-i63, and so the conflict between Lysias and Philip must have occurred around that time. Lysias is said by Josephus
to highlight God's power. The threat of 2 Mace 8:3 is repeated by Antiochus at 9:14, and 9:3 ties the narrative to the preceding one so that the two chapters work together to show God's vindication of his people.
(9:1-12) The Punishment of Antiochus The last time the king was mentioned he was in a rage (7:39), so now too he rages like a bully against those weaker than him. The seventh brother had prayed that Antiochus' arrogance be punished
(7:36; cf 5:21), and now it begins to be. The punishment is said to fit the crime. The deeds impossible for a human reflect Isa 40:12 and 2 Mace 5:12, and v. 10 compares with the hymns of the prophets Isaiah (14:4—21) and Ezekiel (28:12—19) against proud kings. The cruel punishment of death by worms is found both in Greek (Hdt. 3.66; Diod. Sic. 21.16.4-5) and Jewish writers (Isa 66:24; Jdt 16:17). As Heliodorus came to confess the power of God when flogged (3:33—9), so Antiochus, 'under the scourge of God', came to understand that one must not fight against God.
(9:13-27) The Repentance of Antiochus Antiochus vows, but he will not be heard. One does not know exactly what freedom Antiochus was going to give to Jerusalem. Freedom in the meaning of autonomy was always a slogan that competing parties would use to gain allegiance as, for example, the counter claims of Antiochus Gonatas and Ptolemy I to set all Greek cities free, as well as the Roman Senate declaring in 196 BCE that all Greeks were to be free. Freedom here did not mean independence from the superior party. Each 'free' city would have been allowed to keep its own traditions and system of government, but the relationship between the monarch and each such city was a special one. Nor is one sure what is meant by making the Jews equal to the Athenians. Athens was relatively prosperous in the second century BCE; the Parthenon was restored and the Agora reconstructed. Antiochus IV promised in 174 BCE to complete the unfinished temple of Olympian Zeus. He certainly promises to restore the status quo as at the time of Onias (3:1), but in what way will he become a Jew? Clearly the meaning here is not geographical, i.e. become a Judean, but religious. Would it mean more than the worship of Naaman (2 Kings 5:1-18), or Nebuchadnezzar's confession (Dan 4:34-6)? Does the author envisage Antiochus being circumcised and following the laws of Torah, or being a 'god-fearer'? Compare the debate in Josephus (Ant. 20.34-48) as to whether Izates, king of Adiabene, should be circumcised.
(Ant. 12.386) to have had Philip murdered before he reached Egypt.
(10:1—8) The Result of the Lord's Intervention With the death of the contender against God, Antiochus, the people now regain control of the temple and purify it. As the author has emphasized how the temple was overthrown because of the sins of the people (5:17—20; 6:12—17), h£ stresses the sin of the people and the cleansing of the temple. In contrast, at i Mace 4:36-59 not only the purification is stressed but also the dedication of the temple as at i Kings 8:63; 2 Chr 7:5; Ezra 6:16—17. J Maccabees also underlines the need to defend the temple from those in the citadel (4:41, 60), whereas the epitomist does not mention it here. Setting altars around the agora reflects Greek custom. The restoration of temple worship shows Judas as following the Torah. I Mace 4:52 states it was an interval of three years, Dan 12:7 three and a half years, i Maccabees is the more likely: the providential care of God is shown by the renewal falling on the anniversary of the defilement. Judas's flightto the mountains is recalled (5:27) and the connection to the Feast ofTabernacles, as in the prefixed letters, is made. The carrying of branches was commanded at Lev 23:40, but the word used here—thyrsoi, ivy-wreathed wands—signified what was carried in processions to the god Dionysos and may have been chosen to show again the reversal of the persecution when Jews were forced to process in honour of Dionysos (6:7). The language at v. 8 is repeated almost verbatim at 15:36 to bind the two festivals together.
Even in such pain, the king pens a letter, a deathbed testament. The authenticity of the letter has been questioned: either an original letter has been added to, or this letter has been modelled on the form of a genuine letter, possibly a letter to the army for support in any change in leadership. The present letter, whether authentic or not, has been used by the author to further his own rhetorical plan. The addressees, the Jews, are placed before the king, and are said to be 'worthy', 'esteemed', and even 'citizens', although one does not know what the Jews are being said to be citizens of. The Jews as a whole were not usually given citizen rights in any community where they lived: note e.g. 2 Mace 12:3, where the citizens of Joppa are distinct from the Jews living among them. The phrasing, however, suits the author in his desire to show that the Jews are good citizens, i.e. not antisocial. The
(10:9—15:36) Further Defence of the Temple Further attacks against the temple by the successors of Antiochus IV are described in this third section. The first section shows marked signs of condensation, whereas the account of Nicanor's expedition is treated more extensively. The author dramatizes his account by focusing on the attacks of the two Nicanors.
(10:9—13:26) The Attacks under Antiochus V The events in this section seem to be structured in such a way that attacks by
745 2 MACCABEES
and the town of Gazara (Gezer) in the Shephelah just outside the border of Judea appears to be captured, whereas it is not so until much later by Simon at i Mace 13:43—8.
local leaders (10:14-38; 12:3-45) alternate with major expeditions (chs. n, 13). First, however, come changes brought about by the new dynasty. Antiochus V was 9 years old and under the guardianship of Lysias (i Macc3:33). Lysias kept the position given him by Antiochus IV (i Mace 3:32), and appointed Protarchos as governor of Coelesyria and Phoenicia. The NRSV at v. n is wrong, as the offices of chief minister and governor of Coelesyria did not overlap. A new governor is appointed at 13:24. Ptolemy Macron, former governor of Cyprus, had been loyal to Ptolemy VI Philometor, but the intrigues at the Ptolemaic court and the victory of Antiochus IV in 170/169 BCE led him to go over to Antiochus IV's side, possibly when Antiochus' fleet besieged Cyprus in 168 BCE. Ptolemy's friendly attitude towards the Jews should not be seen as something personal, but as part of Seleucid policy. The previous governors of Coelesyria and Phoenicia, Apollonius (4:4) and Ptolemy son of Dorymenes (4:45; 8:8), had been hostile to the Jews, and they probably reflected court policy. The appointment of Ptolemy Macron and his friendly attitude would then reflect the changed Seleucid policy after peace negotiations had begun under Antiochus IV (11:27-33) and after the first expedition of Lysias in 164 BCE (i Mace 4:28—9; 2 Mace 11:14,16—21). These events have been rearranged by the author of 2 Maccabees as he wished to portray Antiochus, not as someone who negotiated peace with the Jews, but as their arch-enemy till overthrown by God. The restoration of the temple called for a rethinking of this friendly policy before the second expedition of Lysias (i Mace 6:21-8). (10:14-38) Attacks by Local Leaders Campaigns in Idumea (10:14-23): the author provides sparse details, both as regards geographical location and exact naming of opponents. His main concern is to emphasize that it was not the Jews who initiated the attacks, but the Seleucid forces, and that the Jews pray to God as their ally (see 8:24). The figures in w. 17,18, 23 for those killed are high. The parallel account is found in i Mace 5:3—5. The names of the three commanders in charge of the siege are most likely two brothers of Judas (8:22) and an otherwise unknown Zacchaeus. Scholars have suggested that this episode is a doublet of i Mace 5:18, 55—61 where two commanders, jealous of Judas, attempt to win glory for themselves and are defeated. Moreover, Simon is glorified in i Maccabees, but not here in 2 Maccabees (see also 14:17): is this subtle anti-Hasmonean polemic on the part of the epitomist? Rather, the epitomist alludes to many stories of compromise (12:24-5), backsliding (12:39-40), and deception (13:21), so this story here should be taken, not as anti-Hasmonean, but as evidencing as do the others the faithfulness and incorruptibility of Judas. The accusation lovers of money' was a regular accusation against opponents (see Lk 16:14). The story here should be compared to the story of Achan in Josh 7. (10:24-38) The Defeat of Timothy This campaign is also told with sparse chronological and geographical detail. It is often compared with the campaign of Judas into Ammonite territory reported in i Mace 5:6-8, but there are considerable differences. Whereas Judas attacks the Ammonites in their territory (i Mace 5:6), here Timothy invades Judea (10:24—5) and the battle seems to take place in Judea, if at a considerable distance from Jerusalem (10:27). Timothy is killed in this campaign in 2 Maccabees, but not in the one in i Maccabees,
Given that the author has Timothy die here and another Timothy emerge at 12:17—25, he must suppose there were two Timothys. The author emphasizes the size of the threat by speaking of mercenaries, i.e. trained soldiers, and excellent cavalry. The Jewish forces are pictured around the altar in Jerusalem, supplicating God in the traditional signs of mourning as if buried and wearing sackcloth from which shrouds were made. They refer to Ex 23:22, where God promises to be an enemy to their enemies if they listen to his words. After so praying, the Jews await in calm confidence in contrast to the animal rage of their opponents. The epiphany has many Greek touches. In the Iliad, a hero is often protected by a god (e.g. 5.436-7). Gigantic figures pursued the fleeing Persians and later the Gauls who had dared to attack Delphi while thunderbolts crashed about them (Hdt. 8.36—9; Paus. 1.4.4; 10.23.1-6). Zeus was pre-eminently Zeus Keraunos who hurls thunderbolts at his enemies (Homer Od. 23.330; Hes. Theog. 854). There is no satisfactory explanation of why five figures are involved. The motif of taunting defenders occurs again at 12:14—16, and is reminiscent of what happened at David's siege of Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:6-9). Timothy found a perfect hiding-place in a cistern, a large pit with plastered walls for storing water, but to no avail. The victory hymn, as the army marched back to Jerusalem, may be compared to the song of Miriam at the defeat of Pharaoh (Ex 15:20-1), or that after David's defeat of Goliath (i Sam 18:6-7).