Part 72
(11:1—38) The Campaign of Lysias As mentioned above, the author of 2 Maccabees, to intensify the dramatic quality of the narrative, recorded only one major battle before the death of the arch-enemy, Antiochus IV, and so places the campaign of Lysias after Antiochus' death. The events as recounted in i Maccabees show much more action as the first campaign of Lysias occurs during the time of Antiochus IV The displacement of the campaign of Lysias by the epitomist has made him place all the correspondence of peace negotiations out of order as well.
(11:1—12) The Campaign Lysias is given his full title here, rather than at 10:10, which may suggest some misplacement. He is guardian and in charge of the government, positions to which Antiochus IV had appointed him (i Mace 3:32-3). 'Kinsman' was a high title in the Seleucid hierarchy (cf. i Mace 10:89). The number of his forces exceeds that given in i Mace 4:28, and is exaggerated. The description of Lysias's intentions at w. 2-3 is fascinating given what happened under the high priest Jason (4:7—15). v. 4 shows how the author enjoys contrasts, particularly those between the might of men and the power of God. By the Treaty of Apamea, the Seleucids had been forbidden to use elephants. Lysias approaches from the south, as in i Mace 4:29. At v. 5, Beth-zur is located five schoinoi, not stadia, from Jerusalem by the author. A schoinos, a Persian measure, could equal anywhere from 30 to 60 stadia (Strabo, 17.1.24, 41). Five schoinoi of 30 stadia would locate Beth-zur about 30 kms. south of Jerusalem, which is almost right. The prayer is for God to send an angel as he had before the Israelites in the Exodus from Egypt (Ex 23:20; 33:2). The commander of the Lord's army had appeared to Joshua before
2 MACCABEES 746
Antiochus III (Jos. Ant. 12.142) allowing the Jews to live by their ancestral religion. If this letter is dated to the beginning of Antiochus V's reign with Habicht (1976), the temple was already in Judas's hands and the letter simply recognizes the status quo. If with Bar-Kochva (1988) it is dated to the end of Lysias's second expedition (i Mace 6:55—62), it contains a real concession as Lysias had retaken Jerusalem.
Jericho (Josh 5:13-15), and Sennacherib's army had been struck down by an angel (2 Kings 19:35). Within the Greek tradition, Theseus is said to have rushed before the Greeks against the Persians at Marathon (Plut. Thes. 35), Athena had helped the citizens of Cyzicus (Plut. Luc. 10.3), and the twin gods, the Dioscuri, had led the Roman force against the Latins (Dion. Hal. 6.13). The author has taken over Greek descriptions. Here Lysias makes a disgraceful flight, while in i Maccabees he makes an orderly retreat in order to collect an even larger force.
(11:27-33) Third Letter The glrousia is the official municipal body in Jerusalem (4:44). Is the letter addressed only to supporters of Menelaus, as some have suggested? The phrase, 'to the other Jews', seems to make it quite general. The fifteenth and thirtieth Xanthicus refer to the middle and end of March respectively. As Antiochus IV left on his eastern campaign in 165 BCE, the concession must have been granted while he was away from Antioch in March 164 BCE, but the allowance of only 15 days to accomplish the conditions seems to cut things a bit close. At v. 31, one should read 'customs' (diaitemata) rather than 'food' (dapanemata), as the kosher laws would be included in the reference to the Torah. The offer is conditional on the cessation of hostilities and the return home of the rebels; if these conditions are not met, hostilities will break out again. The reference to Menelaus is intriguing: elsewhere in 2 Maccabees he is portrayed as a traitor to Judaism, but here he seems to come across as an advocate for allowing the Jews to return to their ancestral customs.
(11:13—38) Peace Negotiations Further, 2 Maccabees has Lysias recognize, as Heliodorus had done (3:38—9) that the Hebrews are invincible while God is their ally, and to start peace negotiations. At this point the author brings in four documents which talk of peace. These letters have been much debated. The same year is given for the first, third, and fourth letters although it seems inconsistent with their contents. The second letter has no date. The month in the first letter, Dioscorinthius (11:21), is not known in the Macedonian calendar. Scholars have set out to find what is the correct setting and date for each letter. Habicht (1976) suggested that the third letter reflects peace efforts by Menelaus before Antiochus IV began his eastern mission. When this fell through, Lysias set out on his invasion and then negotiated with the rebels (first letter). The second letter would come at the accession of Antiochus V and be an amnesty to the rebels on that occasion. Bar-Kochva (1988) suggested that negotiations began after Nicanor and Gorgias were defeated, and the first letter represents an interim report and the fourth a sign of Roman willingness to help. Antiochus IV refused to negotiate with the rebels, but acceded to Menelaus' request for a conditional amnesty (third letter). The second letter would be the official reprieve of the persecution by Antiochus V I would concede a larger role to Menelaus, and place the third letter after the local initiatives had failed. The amnesty offer was rejected, Lysias invaded and then sought peace (first letter) and the fourth letter is the request of the Roman emissaries for a report on the progress of the negotiations. The second letter would be placed either atthe accession of Antiochus V, or after Lysias' second expedition.
(11:34-8) Fourth Letter After forcing Antiochus IV from Egypt in 168 BCE, the Romans had kept an eye on him. An embassy had been sent to Antioch in 166 BCE, and another would come in 163/162 BCE. This embassy probably took place in autumn 164. The date in the text should probably be disregarded and seen as copying the date on the third letter. The tacit recognition of the rebels as a demos, a 'people', is a sign of how Rome liked to cause discomfort to other sovereigns: in 164 BCE, the Roman commissioner C. Sulpicius Callus publicly invited accusations against Eumenes II of Pergamum in his own city of Sardis.
(12:1—45) Further Local Hostilities The author insists that the Jews are peaceful (10:14—15; 14:25), only wanting to follow their own ancestral customs, but they would not be let alone. Various hostile leaders are mentioned, about whom we know nothing more. This author must see the Timothy here as distinct from the earlier Timothy; Nicanor is not, as NRSV translates, governor of Cyprus as Cyprus was at this time in Ptolemaic hands, but rather the commander of Cypriot mercenaries and of a lower rank that the Nicanor of ch. 8 and chs. 14-15.
(11:16—21) First Letter Lysias uses a neutral term plethos, multitude, mass, sometimes people, to refer to the addressees, not the formal ethnos, nation, or glrousia, senate (11:27), or demos, people (11:34). Such an address may be a hint that the letter is not written to a formally recognized group. The envoys, John and Absalom, are otherwise unknown but carry Hebrew, not Greek, names. Two sons of an Absalom, Mattathias (i Mace 11:70) and Jonathan (i Mace 13:11), fight with Judas's successors, v. 18 should not read with the NRSV 'agreed to what was possible', but rather 'what lies within my competence, I have agreed to'. The year 148 of the Macedonian Seleucid calendar is from Oct. 165 BCE to Sept. 164 BCE. Dioscorinthius has been interpreted as the first month in the Macedonian calendar, Dios, or the fifth, Dystros, or the eighth, Daisies. (11:22-6) Second Letter v. 23 is phraseology usual atthe death of a king, and suggests a time near the accession of Antiochus V The change to Greek customs most probably refers to the decrees of Antiochus IV: the same verb politeuesthai is found at 6:1 and 11:25. Th£ language of v. 25 is similar to that used by
(w. 3—9) Deceit in Joppa and Jamnia This incident is not found in i Maccabees. Both these events take place at coastal areas, and are linked through the burning of ships in the respective harbours. As non-citizens, the Jews would not take part in a public assembly, but would they have no inkling of the matter? The author wishes to insist on the peaceful character of the Jews, and stress the hatred of the citizen body of these towns. They stand in marked contrast to the citizens of Scythopolis (12:30).
(w. 12—16) The Campaign in Gilead The scene shifts quickly from the west coast in a march towards Transjordan. The campaign in Gilead is also told in i Mace 5:9-36. Arabs are
747 2 MACCABEES
(Num 19:10—22; 31:24; iQM 14:1—2). The sacred objects may have been taken on the raid on Jamnia (12:8—9). Greek inscriptions from Delos set up by the people of Jamnia honour two Phoenician deities, Herakles and Horon. Such idolatrous objects were forbidden at Deut 7:25—6, and the transgression of such a command was embodied in the story of Achan (Josh 7). Most likely the soldiers wore amulets which were thought would protect them.
mercenaries in Timothy's forces at i Mace 5:39, but the first encounter between Judas's forces and the Nabateans is a peaceful one at i Mace 5:24—5. Judas is shown in this incident in 2 Maccabees to be a pragmatist, not someone completely antagonistic to non-Jews. A town named Chaspo is simply mentioned at i Mace 5:36, but here it is given a more prominent role. Here the result is much different from that with the Arabs, as the author stresses the blasphemous insults of the enemy. The image of the blood-filled lake is starkly emotional, and reminiscent of the way enemies are put under the ban in the book of Joshua as, for example, at Jericho (Josh 6:21). (w. 17—26) The Pursuit of Timothy The author of 2 Maccabees now has Judas and his men travel south, i Mace 5:13 states that all male Jews in the land of the Toubiani had been killed, whereas our author insists that Timothy accomplished nothing. At this point in the narrative of i Maccabees, the Jewish forces are divided into three, one for Gilead, one for Judaea, and one for Galilee (i Mace 5:17—18), whereas Judas in 2 Maccabees keeps his forces together. Most likely this reflects the author's intentions to show that, now that God is on the
w. 42—5 are difficult textually and also to translate. The language of v. 45 is similar to that of Lev 4:26, 35 and suggests that the sacrifice is similar to the reparation offering described at Lev 4:13-35 to make atonement for the sin committed. Each man contributes to the sacrifice, and thus the whole community is involved in reparation. As seen in 2 Mace 7, the author believes in resurrection, whereby the martyred brothers hope to live in a new created world, w. 44-5 offer alternatives: either Judas does not think that the dead rise, that it is foolish to pray for the dead, or he considers that a reward awaits those who die piously, 'a holy and a pious thought'. In the light of recent research on rituals for the dead in Israel, e.g. those underlying Isa 57, 'to pray for the dead' may reflect a custom of which only traces can be discerned. The dead clearly had an existence in Israel, albeit a shadowy one (i Sam 28:14—19; Deut 18:11—12; Isa 65:4). What the author seems to suggest is that there is a community which stretches beyond death and that atonement can be made for those who have died so that they gain a more splendid reward. Many of the burial practices among the Greeks and Romans were to help the deceased be properly integrated into the realm of the dead, and suggest that the dead could benefit from actions performed on their behalf by the living. In speaking of a splendid reward, one is reminded of the different regions of the underworld signalling different rewards found in Book 6 of Virgil's Aeneid. A similarly obscure ritual is mentioned by Paul at i Cor 15:29, where some Christians are baptized on behalf of the dead.
side of the Jews, nothing untoward can happen to them, and that the Jews are unified. The size of Timothy's forces is exaggerated, but only emphasizes the more the epiphany that takes place, w. 24—6 stress the deceit of Timothy rather than the gullibility of the Jewish commanders, who are shown as deeply concerned about Jewish lives. Carnaim was where Timothy had sent the women and children for refuge, and one wonders if the slaughter encompassed them as well, i.e. was all that lived put under the ban? (12:26-31) The Road Back to Judea The parallel story is in i Mace 5:45-7. As told here, the narrative has a formulaic quality like that at Caspin (w. 13—16). v. 27 suggests that Lysias, the chancellor of Syria, had a residence in this Transjordanian town. The incident at Scythopolis shows that the Jews do not hate Gentiles but only wish to live peaceably among them. The piety of the Jewish forces is shown in their desire to be at Jerusalem to celebrate a major feast. (12:32-42) The Battle against Gorgias Judas now turns south of Jerusalem to Idumea. After stories which show the piety of the Jewish forces comes a story which tells what happens to those who are not pious. The few details provided by the author all dramatize the event: the courage and near success of Dositheus, the weariness of the troops, the rallying prayer and the shouts and hymns in Hebrew, the sudden unexpected success. In the encounter at i Mace 5:55—61, Gorgias is victorious against the foolhardy commanders Judas had left behind in Judaea, Joseph and Azariah. In the account of 2 Maccabees, a commander called Esdris is mentioned without any explanation of who he is. Some scholars wish to identify him with the Eleazar of 8:23, but more likely one should recognize that we are dealing with a shortened account. While i Maccabees explains the defeat at the hands of Gorgias by the jealous behaviour of the two leaders, Joseph and Azariah (i Mace 5:55—62), the epitomist sees the deaths as caused by lack of Torah piety. Judas is shown as ever observant, as he and his soldiers purify themselves. So far from the temple, why did they need to become ritually clean so that they could participate in temple service? The purification seems to refer to purifying oneself after coming into contact with a dead body
(13:1-26) The Second Invasion of Lysias The author gives no reason for the breaking of the agreements reached in ch. n, except that the young king wished to do worse than his father (v. 9). Perhaps the author sees the successes of ch. 12 as sufficient reason for this attack. Except for the dates given in the letters in ch. n, only here and at 14:4 are dates given. They appear to follow the Seleucid Macedonian calendar which would place this event between Sept. 164 and Oct. 163 BCE. i Mace 6:20 dates the second invasion to 150 of the Seleucid Babylonian calendar, i.e. to 162 BCE. The force assembled is enormous, and no doubt exaggerated. One wonders in particular what use scythed chariots would be in the hilly terrain of Judea. Instead of both Antiochus Vand Lysias each having a separate force, as the NRSV translation suggests, Antiochus came with Lysias as well as a huge force.
(w. 3-8) The Death of Menelaus Menelaus resumes his role in the narrative as the opposite of the good high priest Onias, as a plotter against his own people. Perhaps the failure of Menelaus' peace overtures or simply the fact that he was a left-over from Antiochus IV's regime caused his death. Josephus (Ant. 12.383—5) states that Menelaus died after the expedition. Death by ashes was a Persian punishment (Ctesias, Persia, FGrH 688): cold ashes suffocated the criminal, hot burnt him to death. The holiness of the altar fire had caused
2 MACCABEES 748
Antiochus as a hostage in Rome in 178 BCE. Demetrius had tried to leave Rome at the death of Antiochus IV but had been refused permission. After the murder of a Roman envoy in Laodicea in 162 BCE, Demetrius had again asked permission to leave, was again refused, but then slipped out of Rome anyway. 2 Maccabees states that he landed in Tripolis with a large force, whereas Polybius (31.12.11—13; 31.14.8—13) and i Mace 7:1 state that he arrived with only a handful of supporters. He was quickly successful in overthrowing Antiochus V and Lysias. Given the date at 2 Mace 13:1, the three years at 14:1 must refer to the beginning of the year 151 of the Seleucid Macedonian calendar, i.e. Sept. 162 to Oct. 161 BCE. Demetrius would have landed in 162 BCE, and so the three years must be interpreted as within the third year.
the death of Aaron's two sons (Lev 10:1-5). Menelaus is appropriately punished. (w. 9—17) The Battle at Modein The Greek king is said to be barbarous (2:21; 4:25). The Jewish response to the invasion is for the whole community to pray, as at 3:14-22. The elders with whom Judas consults may be members of the council/ senate as at 4:44; 11:27. Judas is portrayed as not acting arrogantly. In the Temple Scroll from Qumran, the king is supposed to have twelve princes of his people, twelve priests, and twelve Levites with him at all times and he should not do anything without consulting them; before going to war he should have the high priest consult the Urim and Thummim (nQTemple 57-8).
The account of this battle is the opposite of that of i Mace 6:32—47 where the Jewish forces are defeated at Bethzechariah. The author of 2 Maccabees is adamant that the loyal Jews cannot be defeated, and so the defeat is turned into a victorious assault at Modein, the home-town of the Maccabees
(14:3-25) The Expedition of Nicanor Just as the peace gained at the end of 2 Mace n was broken, so now the peace at the end of 2 Mace 13. Josephus states that Alcimus, also called Yakim, had been appointed high priest after Menelaus (Ant. 12.3857). When the new king came to the throne, he had come with the requisite gifts for confirmation of his office (i Mace 10:60— 4; 11:23—7; cfJ Mace 13:36—7). 'Olive branches' might be translated by the more general 'gifts'. Scholars have puzzled over what Alcimus had done in the times of separation (v. 3: amixia). At i Mace 7:12—18, Alcimus is said to have been acceptable to the Hasideans, and so scholars have argued that this 'defilement' of Alcimus could not refer to participation in actions like those of Menelaus. Some have suggested that the defilement refers to the incident in i Mace 7:12—18 where sixty Hasideans are executed, others that it refers to the division between the Hasideans and Judas over receiving Alcimus or not (i Mace 7:10-11). However, the incident in i Maccabees takes place after Alcimus has been reappointed high priest by Demetrius, and so this interpretation seems unlikely. Other scholars have accepted another MS reading and translate 'in times of peace (epimixia)'. However, the use of amixia in the same chapter of 2 Maccabees to describe the loyal Razis (14:38) argues for retaining its use here. The term translated 'defile' can have the general meaning of 'disgrace' as at Sir 21:28; Tob 3:15, and so may not refer to some particular incident. Rather, it contrasts Alcimus with Razis and with Judas who left Jerusalem so as not to share in the 'defilement' (5:27). Alcimus must have been forced out of Jerusalem (i Mace 7:6). Alcimus acts shrewdly in waiting until the king has a meeting about Judaea, for it would be appropriate for the king to ask someone with local knowledge. The author provides Alcimus with the right speech for the circumstances: he first answers the king by throwing the blame on others while maintaining that he has only the king's and the country's best interests at heart in requesting help. He describes Judas as leader of the Hasideans, a group clearly demarcated from Judas in i Mace 2:42; 7:13. Here Alcimus lumps them all together under the term hasidim (pious, faithful ones), using it in a derogatory fashion much as people today talk of'fundamentalists'. These Hasideans are distinguished from the nation (v. 8). The accusation against Judas is the opposite ofwhat the reader knows from the earlier narrative: it is always the non-Jews who start trouble (10:14—15; 12:2). The charge that the state will never know peace while they are around (14:10) parallels the charge made by Onias against Simon (4:6). It is
(i Mace 2:1), an account filled with heroic tales as Judas with twenty men kills over 2,000, creates havoc in the enemy camp, and yet retires unharmed. (w. 18-26) Treaty of Antiochus V The contrast with i Maccabees is again striking: there the forces at Beth-zur fight courageously but eventually are forced to capitulate (6:31, 49—50). The forces at Jerusalem hold out but survive only because the king withdraws at the news of Philip's return (i Mace 6:516 2). It looks as if the author of 2 Maccabees has transferred the events at Jerusalem to Beth-zur as he did not want any hint of danger to the temple. The only setback to the Jews comes through a traitor, but even he does not succeed. All in all, the invasion of Antiochus V and Lysias is shown to be completely unsuccessful and the Jews remain undefeated. Both i and 2 Maccabees mention the approach of a Philip: in i Maccabees, he is the same as the one given charge of affairs at Antiochus IV's death (i Mace 6:55); in 2 Maccabees, it appears to be a different Philip from that of 9:29.
In 2 Maccabees, the king behaves honourably, and honours the temple (cf 3:2-3). Antiochus and Judas seem to be on good terms—another sign that the author stresses that Jews and Gentiles can get along. The installation of a new governor perhaps signals the new friendly policy of the Seleucids as the removal of Ptolemy Macron at 10:12 had been a sign of increased hostility. Some scholars place the land of the Gerrenians south of Gaza and west of Beersheba, others as far south as near Lake Pelusium, then under Ptolemaic control, others that it be placed north of Ptolemais at Gerrha, which lies south-east of Beirut. If the area covered by the new governor lay south of Ptolemais, he would have been in charge of Joppa and Jamnia and possibly Idumea, overseeing Gorgias (12:32-7). If north of Ptolemais, he would have overseen Tyre and Sidon. The citizens of Ptolemais, previously shown to hate the Jews (6:8; i Mace 5:15), have to be appeased in order to secure the king's rear. In glaring contrast to this rosy account, the author of i Maccabees has the king break his oath and tear down the walls of Jerusalem (i Mace 6:61-2).
(14:1—15:39) The Attacks under Demetrius I The transition to the new ruler, Demetrius I, is made quickly. Demetrius, son of Seleucus IV and nephew of Antiochus IV had replaced
749 2 MACCABEES
defeating Nicanor (15:27). The prayer of the priests at v. 36 refers back to the purification at 10:4 and is fulfilled in the blessing at 15:34. It is interesting that the term used in v. 35 for 'habitation' is literally 'tenting' (sklnosis), a term which reflects God's tent of meeting in the wilderness (Ex 25:8—9; cf i Kings 8:4).
an accusation found also in the Greek Esther (3:13) and in 3 Mace 3:26; 7:4; 6:28.
v. 7 is sometimes interpreted to mean that Alcimus has had the high-priesthood taken away from him, but in this context it probably means no more than that he has left behind his high-priestly duties to come to the king, as Onias did earlier
(4:4—6). The glory here would then refer to the glorious robe of the high-priesthood (Sir 45:8; 50:5-11): the verb translated laid aside' can mean 'take off a garment' as at Esth 4:4; LXX Esth 4'.ijk. As at 10:13, me king's counsellors instigate action against the Jews.
(14:37—46) The Death of Razis The episode of Razis lies between the threat of Nicanor and his final defeat. Just as the martyrdom accounts in 6:17-7:42 were placed after the desecration of the temple and brought about God's mercy, so now the death of Razis precedes the removal of Nicanor.
No mention is made in 2 Maccabees of the expedition of Bacchides and Alcimus' tenure as high priest told in i Mace 7:8—25, as such a defeat would have spoiled his thesis of the invincibility of the Jews. The Jews' response is to pray to God, who is said to uphold his heritage 'with an epiphany' (v. 15). The slight set-back at Dessau is not mentioned in i Maccabees. Some scholars have seen in this 'defeat' of Simon an anti-Hasmonean stance, but I see it as in line with the feints and probes that take place before a major engagement. At v. 16 the armies were drawn up in battle array, rather than engaged in battle as NRSV. As in the dealings with Antiochus V, a very different picture emerges in the dealings of Judas and Nicanor from that in i Maccabees. Here Nicanor acts honourably, although Judas acts with commendable caution after again consulting with the people. The ambassadors are otherwise unknown, and the scene of the meeting is vividly drawn. In i Mace 7:27, Nicanor is pictured as planning treachery, a motif common in i Maccabees (1:30; 7:10-18). The author of 2 Maccabees insists on the warm attachment that Nicanor had for Judas, although one might suspect that the Seleucid commander kept Judas close to him for more strategic reasons. The genuineness of the peace is underscored with the image of the battle-hardened Judas married with children and taking part in normal community life.
w. 37-40, Razis is an unusual name. He is a lover of his compatriots in contrast to Alcimus who claims to be one. No reason is given why Razis was denounced. Nicanor is now simply said to hate the Jews. Five hundred soldiers to arrest one man emphasizes the importance of Razis. w. 41-6, the scene takes place in a private house with a tower overlooking a courtyard, in which Razis is surprised. With no escape he kills himself, preferring to die nobly like Eleazar (6:23) rather than be insulted. A code of honour and disgrace is clearly at play here. Plato in Book 9 of his Laws had said that suicide was allowable: (i) under judicial constraint; (2) under the constraint of unavoidable misfortune; (3) in order not to participate in a dishonourable deed. Razis chooses not to be humiliated, w. 43-6, the suicide is drawn out to the last grisly detail. He throws his entrails on the troops so that his blood is literally upon them. His last prayer is similar to that of the martyrs at 7:11, 22-3. (15:1-5) The Defeat of Nicanor The confrontation between Judas and Nicanor continues. Bordering Samaria lie the Gophna Hills, just north-east of Modein, a favourite hidingplace of the Maccabeans (i Mace 2:28). The treachery of Nicanor is further emphasized by his desire to attack on the sabbath (cf. i Mace 2:29-38). Non-Jews knew how the Jews kept the sabbath and characterized it as a superstition which allowed them to be taken unawares (Jos. Ant. 12.4—6; Ag. Ap. 1.209-12). The Hasmoneans in i Mace 2:40-1 resolved to defend themselves even if attacked on the sabbath. Here Nicanor's wish shows him to be barbarous (cf. 2:21; 4:25; 10:4; 11:9). Nicanor taunts God as Goliath taunted the army of the living God (i Sam 17:2-10, 26). His foolishness is shown in the fact that the sabbath observance is grounded in God's creating heaven and earth (Ex 20:8—11).
(14:26—46) The Change in Nicanor Alcimus intervenes to ruin the peace. The account assumes that Alcimus is in Jerusalem, presumably functioning as high priest. Alcimus charges that Judas has been appointed Nicanor's deputy as the word is used at 4:29, not 'successor' as NRSV. If Alcimus is not lying, Judas had become part of the normal bureaucracy of Jerusalem. The slander works. The author notes the distress of Nicanor, an honourable man, at breaking the covenant, but he obeys orders. The scene of Judas carefully observing the change in Nicanor reads like a movie script. No mention is made in 2 Maccabees of the battle at Caphar-salama in i Mace 7:31-2, the narrative moves straight to the confrontation of Nicanor with the temple. Why would the priests know where Judas was hiding? Does Nicanor think they will follow the principle that it is better for one man to die than for the nation to be destroyed (2 Sam 20:14-22; John 11:50)? In any event, Nicanor's character changes: from being honourable, he turns into someone who fights against God. The contrast between Nicanor stretching out his hand against the temple
(15:6—19) The Battle Preparations As usual, the author contrasts the arrogance of the Seleucids with the trust in God of Judas and his forces. Following the injunctions for a speech before battle at Deut 20:1-4, Judas cites victories from the law and the prophets, where prophets here would include the books of the HB from Joshua to 2 Kings (Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.39— 40). The perfidy of the Gentiles refers to Nicanor's breaking of the covenant he had made (14:20-2, 28). Judas then relates a dream. Dreams in antiquity were one means by which humans kept company with the gods. People were aware that not all dreams were heaven-sent, but they were one way by which the gods communicated with humans. The author of 2 Maccabees describes the dream as 'a certain waking reality', reading hypar ti instead of hyper ti at v. n. The detail of the description suggests that the elements of the dream were so clear that Judas thought he was awake. The characters in the
(v. 33) and the priests stretching out their hands to God (v. 34) underscores the point. Nicanor, in his threat to level the temple to the ground, is likened to Antiochus (9:13; 8:3). Nicanor threatens to build a splendid (epiphanes) temple to Dionysos, foreshadowing God's manifestation (epiphanda) in
2 MACCABEES 750
could be brought into the view of the priests around the altar. The skins of unclean animals were forbidden in Jerusalem
dream are significant. Onias takes us back to the beginning of the epitome; he is called a perfect Greek gentleman, one trained in arete, excellence, as Eleazar (6:18.23) an(^ Razis
(Jos. Ant. 12:145—6; see also nQTemple 48:11—14), and how much more so a dead Gentile? There is debate among scholars as to whether some later rabbinic texts would allow a corpse into the court of women, although m. Kelim 1.7 explicitly forbids burial within towns.
(14:37-8, 42) were. As the priests stretched out their hands (14:34), so does Onias. The continuity between the dead and the living is shown by the dead praying for the living, as the living had prayed for the dead at 12:42—5. The second person in the dream is the prophet Jeremiah. Often his message is one of doom, but he is also sent to build and to plant (Jer 1:10). Although before the destruction of the temple Jeremiah had been instructed not to pray for the people (Jer 7:16; 11:14; 14:11), after the destruction he is told to pray for the people (Jer 42). Jeremiah in the dream gives Judas a golden sword. Heavenly weapons are of gold (3:25; 5:2). The giving of special weapons to a hero is a motif found widely in traditional literature. In Egyptian accounts, a god often gives a sword to Pharaoh to defeat his enemy. The giving of the sword thus provides divine assurance of victory. Polybius relates how the Roman general Scipio cynically used the motif of a dream to urge his soldiers on (10.11.5-8). v. 19 suggests thatthose inside the city could almost see what was happening out in the open, impossible if the location of the battle given in i Mace 7:40, Adasa, is correct.
The wording of v. 36 is very close to that of 10:8, and shows how the book was structured. Interestingly, the author identifies the feast by reference to Mordecai's day known from the book of Esther (3:7; 9:20-3). Since the author knows about otherwise unknown events in Babylonia (8:20), he also must know about this popular celebration.
(15:37-9) The Epilogue Even though the author seems to know of later events—e.g. perhaps the embassy of Eupolemus to Rome (4:11; cf. i Mace 8:17), although 4:11 may refer to earlier contacts with Rome—he closes at this point. His statement that the city was in the possession of the Hebrews from this time on hardly agrees with what happened: a year after Nicanor's defeat, Bacchides returned and conquered Judea, killing Judas and reinstalling Alcimus (i Mace 9:1-57). Just as the epitomist suppressed any mention of Bacchides' first expedition, so he ends here with a great victory of the Jews to promote his programme of how the God of Israel defended his temple. 2 Maccabees is propaganda history, and should not be judged by other criteria.
(15:20—7) The Battle The armies are again contrasted. The presence of war elephants is unlikely: the Roman envoy Octavius had had them hamstrung in 162 BCE, just before Demetrius became king. Judas refers, as he had at 8:19 in the battle against the first Nicanor, to the defeat of Sennacherib (2 Kings 18:13-19:35). He asks for an angel as he had at 11:6, as happened against Sennacherib and as promised at Ex 23:20. At v. 25, the battle songs are perhaps those often addressed by soldiers to Apollo, and contrast with the prayers of Judas's forces. The battle is portrayed as a fight between gods. The God of Israel manifests himself (cf. 2:21). The numbers are exaggerated.
The last verse recall the images the epitomist used in his prologue (2:29—31) as well as his posture of humility (2:26—7). Wines in the ancient world were so strong they were usually mixed with water.
Bar-Kochva, B. (1988), Judas Maccabeus (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press). Bickerman, E. (1979), ET The God of the Maccabees: Studies on
(15:28—36) The Feast of Nicanor The use of the ancestral language, as by the martyrs (7:8, 12, 27), signals the victory of the God of the Jews. Judas is described in terms reminiscent of Onias (4:2, 5). Decapitation and cutting off the sword hand, the right hand, is found among the Persians (e.g. Xen. An. i.io.i; 3.1.17; Plut. Art. 13.2); dismemberment is also found among the Greeks (e.g. Cleom. 38) and Romans (e.g. Plut. Cic. 48-9). David had Goliath's head brought into Jerusalem (i Sam 17:54), the Philistines cut off Saul's head and fastened his body to the wall of Beth-shan (i Sam 31:9—10), and Judith had the head of Holofernes displayed on the walls of Bethulia (Jdt 14:1, n). The details of the narrative may have been influenced by such heroic tales as these. Certainly the punishment fits the crime: 15:32 responds to 14:33, 15:34 to 14:36. The author distinguishes those in the citadel from Judas's compatriots. However, the fact that all bless the Lord (v. 34) and that Judas can hang Nicanor's head from the citadel suggests that the citadel is in Judas's control. This is rhetorically powerful but probably incorrect. The citadel remained under the control of the enemies of the Hasmoneans (i Mace 9:53; 10:9) and was not captured until 141 BCE under Simon (i Mace 13:49—52). According to i Mace 7:47, Nicanor's head and right hand were displayed just outside Jerusalem. It seems unlikely that the dead corpse of an unclean Gentile
the Meaning and Origin of the Maccabean Revolt, SJLA 32 (Leiden: Brill). German original, Der Gott des Makkabaer (Berlin: Schocken, J937)- Bringmann, K. (1983), Hellenistische Reform und Religionsverfolgung in
Judda: Eine Untersuchungzurjudisch-hellenistischen Geschichte (175—
16} v. Chr) (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Cowley, A. (1923), Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford,
Clarendon). Doran, R. (1981), Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character of 2
Maccabees (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association). Faure, P. (1941), 'La Conduite des armees perses a Rhodes pendant la
premiere guerre medique', Revue historique, 192: 236—41. Goldstein, J. A. (1976), i Maccabees, AB 41 (Garden City, NY: Double-
day).
(1983), 2 Maccabees; AB 4iA (Garden City, NY: Doubleday). Habicht, C. (1976), 'Royal Documents in Maccabees II', HSCP 80:
1-18. Momigliano, A. (1975), 'The Second Book of Maccabees', CP 70: 81—8. M0rkholm, O. (1966), Antiochus IV of Syria (Copenhagen: Gylden-
dalske). Sachs, A. J., and Wiseman, D. J. (1954), 'A Babylonian King List of the
Hellenistic Period', Iraq 16: 202-12. Tcherikover, V. (1961), Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (Philadel-
phia: Jewish Publication Society).
49Esdras SARA JAPHET
A. Title and Place in Canon. 1. Biblical and apocryphal 'Ezra literature' consists of three works: the Hebrew EzraNehemiah, regarded by early Jewish tradition as one book; the Greek apocryphal book of the Septuagint; and the Ezra Apocalypse, found first in Latin in the Vulgate. The book discussed here is the apocryphal book found in the LXX. There it is called Esdras A (or i Esdras). The Latin translation of the book, found in the Vulgate, is there designated 3 Ezra, i Esdras has a complex relation to the Hebrew Ezra-Nehemiah and its Greek translation (known in the LXX as Esdras B).
Torrey 1945; 1970; Myers 1974; Coggins and Knibb 1979); and the less common view that the work is complete as it is, both at the beginning and end (e.g. Bayer 1911; Rudolph 1949; Williamson 1977; Eskenazi 1986). Within each of these general lines many varieties of opinion were expressed. Most conspicuous is the hot debate, among those who hold that i Esdras is a fragment of the Chronistic work, regarding the question of originality: where is the supposed original Chronistic history represented in a superior way, in the canonical Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, or in i Esdras? This question was examined mainly in regard to three issues: the story of the three guards, found in i Esdras but not in Ezra-Nehemiah; the story of Nehemiah, found in the canonical Ezra-Nehemiah but not in i Esdras; and the order of the events at the beginning of the Persian period, where i Esdras places Ezra 4:6-24 after Ezra i. Here too, opinions differ greatly, but it is interesting that within this line of research, although the originality of every other aspect of i Esdras was questioned, the originality of the continuity between Chronicles and EzraNehemiah was taken for granted.
2. i Esdras holds a peculiar position in the canon. Common to other works of the Apocrypha, its existence is not attested to by early Jewish sources, but its extensive use by Josephus, next to Ezra-Nehemiah (Ant. 11.3), suggests that it was known and appreciated, i Esdras was quoted and referred to by early Greek and Latin Christian fathers (Myers 1974: 17—18). However, its position in the Western church was greatly affected by Jerome's harsh criticism (with the Ezra Apocalypse). Itscanonicity was rejected by the Council of Trent (1546 CE), although it was printed, in small type, as an appendix to the Tridentine Vulgate (Cook 1913: 3). It thus remained in a unique marginal position within large parts of the Christian world.
3. The consequences of this debate exceed the bounds of literary composition and have great significance for the understanding and evaluation of i E sdras. For if it is a fragment, them E sdras may have no identity of its own, no purpose or theology. Consequently, there should be no sense in studying it, except forthose aspects judgedtobe 'more original', or as 'aversion' for matters of textual criticism or translation techniques. This attitude is reflected in the book's history of research.
B. Nature, Scope, and Relationship to Chronicles and EzraNehemiah. 1. i Esdras is a description of the history of Israel from the eighteenth year of King Josiah to the time of Ezra, and forms a parallel history to sections of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. Broadly ch. i is parallel to the two concluding chs. of 2 Chronicles (35—6), and chs. 2 and 5:7—9:55 are parallel to Ezra i—10 and Neh 7:72—8:130 (with some differences in order and detail). Only chs. 3:1-5:6 are unique to this book. When compared with Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, i Esdras seems to open at a peculiar point, in the last stages of Josiah's reign, and end abruptly with the first word of Neh 8:13: 'They came together'. These facts determined the literary context in which the book's nature was discussed (cf inter alia Bayer 1911; Pohlmann 1970; Williamson 1977; Torrey 1970; Eskenazi 1986; Schenker 1991): does the present scope of i Esdras represent the original format of the work, or is it a fragment of a longer work? If a fragment, what were the boundaries of the original work? And, in any case, how is the book related to the canonical books of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah?
4. In recent years, the existence of a 'Chronistic history', encompassing both Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, has been questioned (Japhet 1968; Williamson 1977; Japhet 1991) and denied by a growing number of scholars. A closer study of both Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah has shown that while they certainly belong to what may be termed post-exilic historiography, they are two independent works, written in different periods, with differentpresuppositions, theology, and purpose. This conclusion, reached independently, also has a bearing on i Esdras, for if there is no Chronistic history, i Esdras cannot represent a fragment thereof. If this is correct, i Esdras maybe recognized as a work in itself, with its own purpose, method, and ideology, composed as one more description of the restoration period, the author choosing to gather existing literary excerpts and stitch them together rather than use his own words. The excerpts were taken from three sources: the biblical books of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, and another, no longer extant, source. The nature of the final work may be compared to Chronicles and best defined as 'corrective history' (Japhet 1996: 140, 148-9): a reformulation of history from a new, 'modern' perspective, responsive to its time. Such a history would provide a new interpretation of the past, be valid for the present, and lay the foundations for the future. For the specific theological features of this formulation, see below.
2. It is beyond the scope of this introduction to survey the history of research, in which every conceivable possibility was suggested (see, among others, Pohlmann 1970: 14—31). I will restrict myself to major views and a proposition of my own. Regarding the book's original format, two extreme views have been offered: the prevalent view, that the book is a fragment of a much larger work which originally included the entire socalled 'Chronistic history', from the beginning of Chronicles to the end of Ezra-Nehemiah (e.g. Cook 1913; Pohlmann 1970;
I E S D R A S 752
5. The success of the i Esdras effort may be judged by two criteria: his work was translated into Greek and eventually included in the Septuagint, and it was extensively used by Josephus, who followed it faithfully and in great detail, as he did with other biblical works. There still remains the matter of the book's scope. We find no difficulty in its beginning; this is where the author chose to begin his story. As for the end, it is possible that a few words or a short paragraph had accidentally been dropped at this point (see Commentary).
and when it was included in the present context. I will refrain from presenting all the divergent views and propose my own conclusion. An analysis of the story reveals clear signs of literary development: (a) The core of the story is a conventional wisdom story, in the form of a riddle: 'Who, or what, is the strongest?' Three candidates compete for the status of'the strongest': wine, king, and women, in this order or in a different one. In all the answers the concept 'strongest' is viewed from a human perspective: who (or what) in the mundane world has the greatest control over the life of the individual man? (h) This original wisdom-riddle was then put in the framework of another wisdom-riddle, revolving around the question: 'Who is the smartest?' and formulated as a court-story: a competition between three of the great king's courtiers for the title 'the smartest'. The long speeches, which are examples of the genre, probably belong to this stage, (c) This court-story, formulated around the conventional pattern of 2 +1, was again reformulated by the introduction of a fourth element, illustrating the pattern 3 + 1. The decision is now to be made between wine, king, and women on the one hand, truth on the other. The three are indeed strong, but they are all limited, because they belong to the petty and evil world of human beings. The 'strongest' is what transcends this world, is spiritual and abstract rather than material and concrete, namely, truth.
C. Basic Structure and Contents, i Esdras can be rightly called 'The Book of Destruction and Restoration'. It describes the history of Israel from the last period of the monarchy, at the eve of its downfall, until the reading of the law and the celebration of the festivals in the time of Ezra, the ultimate expression of restoration. This long period encompasses three historical foci: the last kings of Judah and the fall of Judah and Jerusalem (ch. i); the material restoration of Jerusalem during the reigns of Cyrus and Darius (chs. 2-7); the spiritual restoration under the leadership of Ezra (chs. 8—9). The details of this structure are:
The Last Kings of Judah and the Destruction of Jerusalem (1:1—58)
Josiah (1:1—33) The Last Kings of Judah (1:34-58) The Material Restoration (chs. 2-j)
First Beginnings (2:1—30) New Beginnings (3:1—4:63) The Return (5:1-46) Laying the Foundations (5:47-73) New Start and Final Realization (6:1—7:15) Spiritual Restoration (chs. 8—g)
3. This courtly wisdom story, which seems to be drawn from the universal wisdom lore in its specific Hellenistic garb, also underwent a development of historicization and nationalization. The 'great king' was identified with Darius; the third, winning, guard, with Zerubbabel; and his reward was conceived in national rather than personal terms. This is the final, Jewish form of the wisdom-story, which then continued to describe the historical consequences of the competition (4:49—5:3) and was integrated into the history of the restoration by a new introduction to the list of returnees. Three different literary activities are evident in this final stage: editing an existing wisdom story, composing its sequel, and integrating it into the present context. Although different solutions are possible, we prefer to refrain from speculation and ascribe them all to the author of i Esdras.
Ezra's Return to Jerusalem (8:1-67) Dissolving the Mixed Marriages (8:68-9:36) Reading the Law (9:37—55)
D. Sources and Composition. 1. The material of i Esdras can also be outlined from the perspective of its sources, with the division of paragraphs intending to clarify the different structure and order of the parallel works.
Parallel: Parallel: 1:1-22 2 Chr 35:1-19 6:23-34 Ezra 6:1-12 1:25-33 2 Chr 35:20-7 7:1-15 Ezra 6:13-22 1:34-58 2 Chr 36:1-21 8:1-27 Ezra 7:1-28 2:1-15 Ezra EI-II 8:28-67 Ezra 8:1-36 2:16-30 Ezra 4:6-24 8:68-90 Ezra 9:1-15 5:7—46 Ezra 2:1—70 8:91—6 Ezra 10:1—5 5:47—66 Ezra 3:1—13 9:1—36 Ezra 10:6—44 5:67-73 Ezra 4:1-5 9:37~55 Neh 7:73-8:12 6:1-22 Ezra 5:1-17 The remainder, peculiar to i Esdras (1:23-4; 3:l~5:6)» is composed of two elements: material taken from other sources no longer extant, and editorial notes written by the author. In the absence of comparative material, and with the original language of the work having been disguised by the Greek translation, a precise division between the two elements cannot be made, but some observations may be offered.
4. (1:23-4) As will become clear in the commentary, the author of i Esdras did not add much to what he took from Chronicles, and intervened in the text only at the level of details. Only this short paragraph can be ascribed to his editorial efforts, in the attempt to express his own view on the changing fortunes in the history of Israel (see the Commentary).
5. Another aspect of the literary composition is the peculiar contents and structure of ch. 2. As illustrated by the comparative table of sources, i Esdras presents a different order from that of the canonical Ezra, with Ezra 4:6—24 following Ezra i. What is the origin of this order? Is it the original order, later changed in Ezra-Nehemiah, or is it secondary? If the latter, who was responsible for it, the author of i Esdras or a later 'interpolator'? Although some scholars have argued that the order of i Esdras was original and superior (e.g. Schenker 1991; Dequeker 1993), a close scrutiny of the comparable texts makes it clear that the original order—although in itself problematical—is represented by Ezra-Nehemiah, and the general view in this regard should be upheld (e.g. Rudolph 1949:
2. The Story of the Three Guards (3:1-5:6). The general scholarly consensus that this story was drawn from some Hellenistic source is followed by disagreement on the details: the scope and form of the original story, its original language,
753 I ESDRAS
xii-xiii). The new order of i Esdras is not a result of misunderstanding, or a later mishandling of it, but an intentional act of structuring by the author himself. The inclusion of the story of the three guards and the identification of the winner with Zerubbabel, intended to anchor Darius's favourable measures in the cultural milieu of the time and glorify Zerubbabel, demanded a clear distinction between the time prior to 'the second year of Darius' and the time following it. The hostile intervention in the building, which is explicitly circumscribed in Ezra 4:6—23 to 'until the second year of the reign of King Darius' (Ezra 4:24), had to be put before the story of the competition, while the founding of the temple by Zerubbabel (Ezra 3) had to be placed after Zerubbabel's appearance in the time of Darius. The present structure is thus a logical result of these considerations and should be ascribed to the author of i Esdras himself. While the general perspective of these changes is easily demonstrated, their practical results for historical cohesion were negative. As will become clear in the commentary, the reorganization was applied only to the major blocks of material and neglected the adaptation of the details, thus demonstrating the secondary character of the work.
ness for the MT of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, with no further qualification. Its position in this regard may be compared to that of Chronicles vis-a-vis the MT of Samuel and Kings. While in many cases the source-text was followed literally, and the Greek translation may bear witness to a divergent Hebrew or Aramaic Vorlage, in other cases the change was the work of the author and cannot be considered within the framework of scribal transmission, or translation technique.
4. In dealing with the text of i Esdras one should try to distinguish between the work of the author at the level of composition, the work of the Greek translator at the level of translation techniques, and the process of transmission, which affected both the MT and the Greek of i Esdras at all stages.
F. Provenance and Date. 1. A general consensus sets the provenance of i Esdras in Egypt in the second century BCE (e.g. Eissfeldt 1966: 576). The basis for this conclusion is the nature of the Greek idiom in which the book is written, which has clear affinities with the language of the Papyri of the second century and some of the Apocrypha, particularly the books of Maccabees (see Myers 1974:12-13; Talshir 1984), and the assumed literary affinities of the book to the canonical books of Esther and Daniel.
E. Language, Translation, and Transmission. 1. What was the original language of i Esdras? The prevailing answer, although by no means the only one, is that it was Greek. This view conformed with the other prevalent view that i Esdras was a fragment of the Chronistic history, and probably its more original form. The fine Greek idiom in which the book is written led scholars to conclude that it was, from the outset, a Greek work. Another possibility, that it was a reworking of Ezra B, was soon disproved, and it was regarded as an independent and much better translation. Torrey's early observation, that the original language of the story of the three guards was Semitic, probably Aramaic (Torrey 1970), did not change his position that i Esdras was 'merely a piece of the oldest Greek version of the Chronicler's work' (Torrey 1945: 395), but led him to see in the story a later interpolation into i Esdras. This view determined to a great degree the development of research—the scholarly concentration on the study of i Esdras as a 'version', a textual evidence for Ezra-Nehemiah (see e.g. Walde 1913; Bewer 1922; Klein 1966).
2. Again, the two aspects of the work should be distinguished. It seems very plausible that the Greek translation was done in the second century BCE in Egypt; there is nothing to contradict this view and many reasons to support it. The original work should be dated earlier, but its date and provenance cannot be suggested with precision. The influence of the book of Esther on the story of the three guards (see i BSD 3:1—4:41) sets an upper date for its composition, whereas the affinity with the book of Daniel is of a general nature and rather doubtful. The historical reality and general cultural milieu of i Esdras seems to be that of the Hellenistic period, with no trace of the Hasmonean period. We would place the composition of i Esdras in the third century BCE, and its Greek translation in the second century, probably in Egypt.
G. Purpose and Theology. 1. The most important feature of i Esdras is the concept of historical continuity, i Esdras bridges the gap between the periods of the First Temple and the
Second by the flow of the story, with destruction, exile, and restoration fully integrated into the historical sequence. As a result, the fall of Jerusalem loses the severe meaning it had in Kings, and Cyrus's decree becomes one in a series of events rather than a decisive turning-point. It no longer marks, as in Ezra-Nehemiah, the beginning of the new period nor, as in Chronicles, is it the springboard toward a new future. The realization of the concept of continuity can be seen as the motive for the book's structure. The author does not show any interest in the history of the interim period, as he does not 'fill in' the bridged gap with any additional data—not even ready materials that he may have found in 2 Kings 25 or Jer 39-45, 52. Nor are theological explanations given for the transition from destruction to restoration. A direct and uneventful path leads from the one to the other, through the decree of Cyrus and beyond it.
2. This view can no longer be maintained. As demonstrated by Torrey (1970), followed by Zimmermann (1963—4) and further by Talshir and Talshir (1995), the peculiar linguistic character of the story of the three guards cannot be explained as a 'Judeo-Greek'. Although the Greek in which it was written seems free-flowing, it is nevertheless a translation Greek, the
Vorlage of which was certainly Semitic. The scholars mentioned above suggest Aramaic, but it cannot be excluded that this pericope, like the books of Ezra and Daniel, was itself bilingual, containing both Hebrew and Aramaic sections.
3. Combined with the view that i Esdras is not a fragment but a literary work of its own, and that the integration of the story of the three guards and the reorganization of the material are the work of its author, the consequences of this observation are self-evident: the original languages of i Esdras as a whole were Semitic—Hebrew and Aramaic—and as was the practice at the time, the work was then translated into Greek, i Esdras cannot be considered merely a version, a textual wit-
2. A different historical perspective is seen also in the understanding of the restoration itself. According to
I E S D R A S 754
Ezra-Nehemiah the restoration was achieved in two distinct phases, the building of the temple during the reigns of Cyrus and Darius, in which Zerubbabel was the most prominent figure, and the building of the city, initiated and carried out by Nehemiah in the time of Artaxerxes. i Esdras 'condensed' this history so that the restoration applied from the outset to both the temple and the city of Jerusalem. Both were undertaken under the same orders of the Persian kings (see e.g. 2:18-20; 4:43-5), and completed together. Therefore, after having transferred Nehemiah's main undertaking, the building of Jerusalem, to the time of Zerubbabel, i Esdras had no need for the story of Nehemiah and omitted it—but not before he had moved Nehemiah himself to the time of Zerubbabel (e.g. 5:40), and borrowed motifs from his story for the history of Zerubbabel (e.g. 4:47—8). The result is a different periodization, which is also expressed in the view of the political order in Judah during the restoration period.
The Last Kings of Judah and the Destruction of Jerusalem (1:1-58) i Esdras begins his story with the last period of the kingdom of Judah, from the eighteenth year of the reign of Josiah (622 BCE) to the destruction of Jerusalem in the time of Zedekiah (586 BCE). Except for a short section in w. 23-4, it faithfully follows 2 Chr 35-6.
(1:1-33) Josiah (2 Chr 35:1-27) The story of Josiah comprises two major parts, the celebration of Passover (w. 1-22) and the story of Josiah' s end (w. 25—33), connected by the author's note in w. 23—4.
(1:1—22) Celebrating Passover (2 Chr 35:1—19) After a brief introduction of the historic event in v. i — a Passover held by Josiah in Jerusalem at the appropriate date (echoed and elaborated in the conclusion of the story, w. 19—22), w. 2—9 begin the detailed description of Josiah' s preparations, referring to two matters: the summoning of the cultic personnel for the performance of the ritual (w. 2-6), and the grant of sacrificial animals (w. 7—9). Only one verse deals with the priests (v. 2), with special attention to their garments — the external representation of their special status and privileges (see also 7:9 in comparison to Ezra 6:18) — a matter which seems to have been of great import at the time. It is followed by Josiah's long address to the Levites (w. 3—6), which seeks to legitimize their 'trespass' into the performance of the ritual: the change in circumstances, which freed the Levites from the task of carrying the ark, made them available for other roles, to 'worship the Lord' and 'serve his people'. They are now asked to take upon themselves the main burden of the festival: to prepare the Passover sacrifices for all the people of Israel, according to their organization into divisions.
3. According to Ezra-Nehemiah, during the two generations of the restoration Judah was ruled by pairs, a secular and a clerical ruler working together (Zerubbabel and Joshua for the first period, Nehemiah and Ezra for the second). This is changed in i Esdras in three ways: For the first period of the restoration i Esdras augments the role of Zerubbabel without doing the same for the priest Joshua; Joshua is no longer Zerubbabel's equal but acts very much in his shadow. The omission of the story of Nehemiah leaves Ezra as the sole protagonist of his time, following immediately after Zerubbabel. Finally, by beginning the story with Josiah, the entire periodization of Ezra-Nehemiah has been changed.
4. Perhaps the best-known feature of i Esdras is his presentation of Zerubbabel, who becomes the major protagonist of the restoration. Although we find in Ezra-Nehemiah a tendency to extend the span of Zerubbabel's office from the time of Darius back to that of Cyrus, we do not find therein any form of glorification of his figure (Japhet 1982-3). This is modified in i Esdras in several ways. The Davidic descent of Zerubbabel, which is totally absent in Ezra-Nehemiah, is reaffirmed in i Esdras by an explicit genealogy tracing his descent to the tribe of Judah and the house of David (5:5). He is also explicitly referred to as the governor of Judah, a fact that is suppressed in Ezra-Nehemiah, and he is connected with the completion of the temple (6:27). With the introduction of the story of the three guards, Zerubbabel is presented as full of wisdom and piety, devoted to the welfare of his people. He is unquestionably the central figure, 'the governor', perhaps the symbol, of the restoration.
w. 7—9 enumerate the sacrificial animals: lambs and kids for the Passover sacrifice, and cattle for the peace-offerings of the festival (Japhet 1993: 1050). The four groups of donors in
Chronicles (35:7—9) — the king, his officials, the priestly and levitical heads — here become three, with the omission of the king's officers (see also v. 54 versus 2 Chr 36:18). The levitical heads are unexpectedly changed (a textual corruption?) into 'captains over thousands'. The complex ritual, regarding both the Passover sacrifice and the peace-offering of the festival, is described in 2 Chr 35:10—16 in great detail, relating to the various stages of the sacrifice and the division of work between the Levites, priests, singers, and doorkeepers, from the perspective of the levitical service. This precision is not preserved in ch. i (w. 10-18). With the omission of 2 Chr 35:1112 a and the rephrasing of v. 12 b, the details concerning the slaughtering of the Passover sacrifice, the sprinkling of the blood, the flaying of the animals, the removal of the fat parts, and their delivery to the representatives of the people, are not recorded. Due to these changes, the description of the ritual begins with the roasting of the Passover sacrifice (v. 12), the cooking of the other sacrifices, and their distribution. In addition, a completely unknown feature is introduced, namely, the priests and Levites standing 'with the unleavened bread' (v. 10), most probably a result of a textual corruption
5. On the other hand, while i Esdras follows Haggai in calling Zerubbabel 'my servant' (6:27; Hag 2:23), he does not adopt the eschatological perspectives of the restoration prophets. Zerubbabel is not the bearer of any eschatological expectations, not even the hope of political renewal and independence. In this respect, i Esdras follows Ezra-Nehemiah, seeing in the Persian rule the 'good hand' of the Lord towards his people. Thus, Zerubbabel's office is subordinate to the foreign rulers and there is no political independence. Nevertheless, he is presented as the legitimate heir of the earlier monarchy and in some way the continuation of the Davidic kings.
(bemiswat, 'according to the king's command', to bemasot 'with the unleavened bread'). Each sector ofthe clergy performed its
755 I ESDRAS
1 Esdras and a reference to it became irrelevant. In the story itself, the proper name of the king of Egypt is omitted, and more significantly, the theological part of the story—the address of the king of Egypt and the explanation of Josiah's sin— is rephrased. In 2 Chr 35:21 Pharaoh speaks and threatens Josiah in the name of his god, '[g]od who is with me', and Josiah is blamed for not listening 'to the words of Neco from the mouth of [g]od'. In i Esdras, Pharaoh speaks in the name of 'the Lord God' (kuriou tou theou) or 'the Lord' alone (mentioned altogether four times), which may refer only to the God of Israel. Josiah is blamed outright for not listening to the 'words of the prophet Jeremiah from the mouth of the Lord' (v. 28). These changes overcome the pressing theological difficulty, implied in the Chronicler's phrasing, that Josiah was punished for not obeying Pharaoh's god, and express the belief that the foreign rulers serve as instruments of God's works in history. This universal biblical concept is reformulated here (also elsewhere, e.g. the decree of Cyrus in Ezra 1:1) to say that it was not only the Jews who saw world history in this way but the foreign rulers themselves adopted this view and conceived their task in history similarly.
task with great precision and dedication: the priests offered the fats 'until nightfall', the singers were 'in their place', the gatekeepers were at 'each gate', and the Levites made it all possible, for they prepared the Passover sacrifices for everyone: the people, the priests, the singers, the gatekeepers, and themselves. Even more than Chronicles, i Esdras emphasizes the brotherhood (NRSV: kindred) of the Levites, not only to the singers and gatekeepers (v. 16 1 1 2 Chr 35:15) but also to the priests (w. 13,14).
w. 19—22 (2 Chr 35:17—19) are a detailed conclusion of the story, summing up the general facts and the significance of the event: the celebration of the Passover and the feast of unleavened bread for seven days, the uniqueness of the festival and, again, the precise date, the eighteenth year of king Josiah.
In all, i Esdras retains the emphases of 2 Chr 35: the innovative character of the Passover, its having been celebrated in Jerusalem as a national festival; the magnitude of the festival, demonstrated by the number of sacrifices; the conformity of the ritual with the prescribed rules, the emphasis on matters of authority: the command of the king, of the Lord, as prescribed, etc.; and the diligence and sense of responsibility displayed by all, particularly the Levites.
In Chronicles (in contrast to 2 Kings), the text followed by i Esdras, the devastating significance of Josiah's death was recognized by his own generation as well as by later ones, and was acknowledged in the unprecedented scope and depth of mourning: the people of Judah, the prophet Jeremiah, the princes and their wives (a misreading of hassarim wehassarot for the original hassarim wehassarot 'singing-men and singing-women'), all mourn upon his death 'to this day'. In v. 33 the conclusion to Josiah's reign is recorded in great detail, as appropriate for the last great king of Judah. His fortunes and achievements were recorded in two books rather than one: the mourning over him was written in the 'book of the histories of the kings of Judea', while every one of his deeds and his great virtues were put down 'in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah'. (1:34-58) The Last Kings of Judah (2 Chr 36:1-21) The story of the last kings of Judah faithfully follows the source in Chronicles and presents a similar historical picture. There are, however, several differences in the names of the kings and their relationship to each other, which do not seem to result from mere textual corruption (an attempt at harmonization is seen in the various MSS). A comparison of the three sources, with the order of reign in parentheses may clarify the picture.
(1:23—4) The Author's Comment The author's only explicit theological reflection points to the purpose of the chapter: the transition—in the very glorious days of Josiah—from glory to doom. According to the author's view, the end of Josiah marks the turning-point in the history of Israel and demands an explanation. In 2 Chr 35, the story moves from the Passover to Necho's campaign, with a broadened conventional formula: 'after all this, when Josiah had prepared the house, Necho king of Egypt went up to fight' (v. 20). Although Pharaoh's war is not waged against Judah, its end with the death of Josiah poses a grave theological problem: rather than being rewarded for his zealous dedication to the Lord, Josiah is confronted with a test that he does not pass.
The book of Kings provides the necessary explanation in the form of a special paragraph; it juxtaposes Josiah's unprecedented merits with Israel's accumulated sins, and concludes that God did not repent his decision to destroy Judah (2 Kings 23:25—7). This theological explanation was rejected by the Chronicler, who omitted the passage altogether (for his own theological solution see Japhet 1997: 156-65), but its absence was felt by i Esdras, who supplemented it in the present passage in his own words. The juxtaposition of w. 23 and 24 draws a contrast between Josiah, whose heart was 'full of godliness', and the 'former times' (NRSV: ancient times), when the people of Israel sinned against God and made him angry. The last statement, 'the words of the Lord fell against [NRSV: upon] Israel' are the necessary introduction to the next paragraph: Josiah's merits could not change the Lord's decision to destroy Israel, which now begins to be carried out with the untimely death of Josiah.
2 Kings 23-5:
(i) Josiah
(3) Jehoiakim (2) Jehoahaz (5) Zedekiah
I (4) Jehoiachin
(1:25—33) Josiah's End (2 Chr 35:20—7) Several changes have been introduced in i Esdras to the passage that describes the defeat of Josiah, his death and burial, and the conclusion of his reign. In the phrasing ofv. 25: 'After all these acts of Josiah' the reference to the preparation of the temple (2 Chr 35:20) has been omitted, an obvious adaptation to the new literary context, since the 'preparing of the house' has not been told in
2 Chr 35-6: (i) Josiah
(3) Jehoiakim (2) Jehoahaz
(4) Jehoiachin (5) Zedekiah
I E S D R A S
i Esd i:
change, the history ofthe king is described along the lines of 2 Chronicles: the king reigned just over three months and was exiled to Babylon, together with the holy vessels. The history of Zedekiah is the story of the destruction, following the Chronicler and adopting his theological presuppositions. According to the Chronicler's philosophy of history, the destruction was God's reaction to the transgressions ofthe generation in which it happened—that of Zedekiah and his people. Thus the measure of their sins has been augmented in the necessary proportion. Moreover, since God does not exert punishment without first warning the sinner and trying to make him repent his sin, God's warning through the prophets is described in great detail and the people's rejection of the prophets' rebuke is added to their sins. The destruction relates to Jerusalem and its people: many were killed; all the great buildings were burnt to ashes; the treasures were spoiled and brought to Babylon; and those who survived were exiled. All those who sinned received their due, and the place of their transgression became desolate.
(i) Josiah
(2) Jeconiah (3) Joiakim
(4) Joiakim II (NRSV: Jehoiachin)
The relationship of (5) Zedekiah is not recorded.
In i Esdras, Joahaz/Jehoahaz disappears (as in i Chr 3:15); Jeconiah, who is elsewhere presented as another name for Jehoiachin (e.g. i Chr 3:16-17), the son of Jehoiakim and Josiah's grandson, is placed as Josiah's son and successor; Joiakim/Jehoiakim's son carries the same name as his father, and the relationship of Zedekiah—the son of Josiah in 2 Kings, of Jehoiakim in 2 Chronicles—is not given. Although no precedence should be given to the historical picture created by i Esdras, it reveals some independent traditions and an effort at reconciliatory interpretation.
(1:34—8) Jeconiah (2 Chr 36:1—4: Jehoahaz) The clear historical picture drawn in 2 Kings 24:31-4, blurred somewhat in Chronicles by the omission ofthe death of Jehoahaz, is further obscured here. After having reigned for three months, Jeconiah was removed by the king of Egypt and replaced by his brother, Joiakim. Beyond that, the details are impenetrable: why did Joiakim 'put the nobles in prison'? Who was 'Zarius', whose brother was he, and how did he get to Egypt? Why and how was he taken out of Egypt? It is not clear what part ofthe picture is a result of textual corruption, and what echoes conflicting traditions, like those of 2 Kings, which were not repeated in Chronicles. In any event, the historical picture of 2 Kings should clearly be preferred.