2 Maccabees - Schwartz, Daniel R

Daniel R. Schwartz 2 Maccabees

Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature (CEJL)

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

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

Daniel R. Schwartz

2 Maccabees

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

Ü Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability

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

ISBN 978-3-11-019118-9 Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at

© Copyright 2008 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, 10785 Berlin, Germany All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in Germany Cover Design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin Typesetting: Dörlemann Satz, Lemförde Printing and binding: Hubert & Co GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen

Preface

V

Preface In the 1980s my late teacher, Prof. Menahem Stern of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, best known for his Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, was among the main movers of a project to publish a series of annotated Hebrew translations of Jewish literature of the Second Temple period. Stern himself undertook to prepare the volume on the Second Book of Maccabees, one of the central works of Hellenistic Judaism – but he was murdered a few months later (22 June 1989), at the age of sixty-four, in the context of what came to be known as “the first Intifada.” This brutal act, which snatched him from his family, his friends, his colleagues and his students, denied the world the opportunity of seeing both his History of the Second Temple Period, of which many incomplete drafts were found, and his analysis and interpretation of this central work of Hellenistic Judaism, of which only a short draft was found (published below, in my translation, as Appendix 7). May he rest in peace, and may the memory of him long continue to be a blessing. Eventually, the publisher transferred the project to me, unprepared though I was. True, I was not unfamiliar with the book; already in the midseventies it had been one of the major texts upon which Prof. Stern had tested me in my M.A. examinations. Nevertheless, during the next decade my work had focused on later sources – Josephus, Philo, and the New Testament. Stern’s death brought me back to the Hasmonean period – first to editing, from some of the drafts for his projected History of the Second Temple Period, a volume entitled Hasmonaean Judaea in the Hellenistic World: Chapters in Political History (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar, 1995 [in Hebrew]), and then to work on Second Maccabees. Numerous responsibilities at the Hebrew University ensured that the project would take much longer than ever expected. The fact that it was eventually completed, with the publication of my Hebrew translation and commentary in 2004, is due to the support of many institutions and individuals. I am very grateful, first of all, to Hebrew University’s Institute of Advanced Studies, at which I was able to spend two fruitful years of research and writing. A semester at Yale University’s Dept. of Religious Studies, toward the end of the project, allowed me the leisure to bring it to completion. Besides such institutional help, there are many colleagues and friends. Here, pride of place goes to two: Dr. Emmanuelle Main, with whom I went

VI

Preface

over, in detail, my Hebrew translation of every verse of the book, and Prof. Joseph Geiger, who wrote a detailed critique of the original Hebrew manuscript. Although I did not always accept their advice, all of it was invaluable; it is a privilege to have such support and to receive such input. Dr. Noah Hacham, Dr. Daniel Stoekl-Ben Ezra, and Dr. Amram Tropper also spent many hours going over the Hebrew translation – and all of that impacted, very directly, on this English version as well. Others who generously proffered advice, about one or another historical or literary problem or about how to render this or that word, include Profs. Robert Doran, Erich Gruen, Galit Hasan-Rokem, Jan Willem van Henten, Moshe David Herr, Avi Hurvitz, Lee Levine, Hermann Lichtenberger, Doron Mendels, Joseph Mélèze Modrzejewski, Tessa Rajak, David Satran, Israel Shatzman, Avigdor Shinan, Adiel Shremer, and Uri Rappaport; and my special debt to Prof. Bezalel Bar-Kochva should be obvious from the multitude of my references to his Judas Maccabaeus. And there were many others as well; above all – my students. The many years I spent on this project afforded several opportunities to give seminars on Second Maccabees, and thereby to run up many flags and see who salutes; ,lvkm rtvy ydymltmv ,ytlk>h ydmlm lkm . I hope I have not stolen too many ideas without proper acknowledgement. The present English volume is, to a large extent, the product of several extended stays at the Department of New Testament Theology at the University of Munich, courtesy of a prize from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and of the outstanding hospitality of the Department’s director, Prof. Jörg Frey, and his staff. These stays supplied ideal working conditions that allowed the project to move forward. In this connection, a special word of thanks to two assistants, Tanja Schultheiß and Eva Preuß, who helped with the proofreading in Munich. Back in Jerusalem, grants from Hebrew University’s Charles Wolfson Fund and from Scholion (Hebrew University’s Interdisciplinary Research Center in Jewish Studies) allowed for proofreading by Deenah Pinson, Yonatan Miller, Nadav Sharon and Maya Sherman; Scholion also provided me with superb working conditions for this project. Professor Loren Stuckenbruck of Durham read through the entire manuscript, and my friends Michael Blaustein and Judy Klitsner read through my translation of the Greek text and helped weed out translationese and other problems. My sincere thanks to all of them – as well as to the editors of CEJL for their invitation to me to participate in this series. Although this volume is based, to a significant extent, on the Hebrew one, there are various differences. Apart from adding general Comments before the verse-to-verse commentary on each chapter, from replacing citations of Hebrew bibliography with references to works in western languages, from eliminating various comments relevant only to the Hebrew

Preface

VII

used in my translation (such as citations to demonstrate the existence of some odd word I felt compelled to use or to inform the reader that it was from Menahem Begin’s memoirs that I picked up the phrase I used at 7:3 to describe how a prisoner might infuriate his interrogator), from citing and using some new publications (and especially – a newly-discovered and very apposite Attalid inscription – see Appendix 2), and from integrating various second thoughts, corrections, and revisions, including corrections and suggestions by some reviewers of the Hebrew version, the most important change relates to the fact that the English translation is not only new but also qualitatively different from the Hebrew one. Namely, while my Hebrew translation strove to render Second Maccabees’ Greek diction as closely as possible, even at the expense of readability, my English translation of the Greek is freer and, consequently, more idiomatically English. That is, if it is impossible to read even a few lines of my Hebrew translation without realizing that it is a translation, this should not be the case with the present English translation. The reason for this difference derives from the chasm between Hebrew vocabulary and syntax and their counterparts in Greek, which ensures that any idiomatic Hebrew translation would be very far-removed from the Greek original. Given the facts that the book’s author invested such an effort (with sweat and tears – 2:26) into his work, and that the result is often quite impressive, I was loath to replace it with something farremoved. I wanted, rather, to reveal – as best I could – the beauty and the structure of the Greek to my students; for it was my students I saw in my mind’s eye while I wrote, and most of them cannot read the Greek themselves. Accordingly, I rendered the text fairly literally, referring readers who want something more readable to other Hebrew translations of the work. Thus, for Hebrew readers I chose to do what Brock calls “bringing the readers to the book.”1 For the present English translation, however, I allowed myself more freedom, for two reasons: (1) I contemplate more readers who know Greek (and assume that those who do not will, by and large, go on reading the standard translations in their Catholic Bibles or Protestant Apocryphas); (2) because English is much closer to Greek than Hebrew is, with regard to vocabulary and syntax, so the moves that allow for more idiomatic English usually entail less deviation from the Greek. For an example of this, see p. 6, n. 9. That is, in comparison with the move from Greek into Hebrew, when translating Greek into English one hardly has to choose between “bringing the readers to the book” and “bringing the book to the readers.”

1

See p. 68 of the Hebrew volume, which cites S. Brock, “Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity,” GRBS 20 (1979) 73.

VIII

Preface

Thus, for example, when at 8:4 our author condemns the murder of infants as παρνομο«, lit. “law-violating,” a standard idiomatic Hebrew translation would use the root i>r, “wicked,” and indeed both Kahana and Artom employ that root in their translations. However, such natural Hebrew usage does not at all reflect the Greek’s reference to nomos, “law,” and since I was loath to hide that element, which is so central to our author’s conception of Judaism (see below, p. 275), I chose to use a clumsy Hebrew formulation that does reflect it (qvx irvp ). In the present English translation, however, I used “lawless,” which does reflect the basic element and deviates from the Greek only insofar as it refers to the action as being “without” law rather than as being in violation of it (for “illegal” seems too low-key). This seemed to be a small and reasonable price to pay for idiomatic English. Cases like this one abound. As for the commentary, it is meant, primarily, to justify the translation and, as far as content and ideas are concerned, to elucidate the book as an expression of diasporan Judaism of the Hellenistic age. I have not attempted to reconstruct the history of all the book narrates, although I have attempted to do some of that and to supply assistance and bibliography to those who would pursue it. To borrow a phrase from Ernst Haenchen (Acts of the Apostles, vii), I have instead attempted to be “a reader of Second Maccabees,” and to share my understanding – of the book, and so of its author’s world – with other such readers. Hopefully, it will be useful. Second Maccabees is a book by a diasporan Jew about the life and struggles of Jews living in and around Jerusalem. My work over the last many years on this ancient diasporan composition, while living in Jerusalem, has certainly seen some mutual influencing. On the one hand, it must be that living the life and struggles of modern Israel has impacted upon my understanding of this ancient book; readers will decide to what extent it has skewed it and to what extent – enhanced it. On the other hand, it is also the case that my work with this book has enriched my understanding of the life and struggles of contemporary Israel, and especially of the options Jews and “Judaism” (this book’s invention?) have in defining their place in this world. In other words, it has contributed to my consideration of the differences between Jewish life in the Diaspora, where I grew up, and life “at home,” where I have spent the last three and a half decades. I dedicate this book to my wife and my children, who share with me, each in her or his own way, as with so many others, the challenges of confronting these complexities. Jerusalem, August 2007

Daniel R. Schwartz

IX

Preface

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII.

Subject, Purpose and Date . . . . . . . Sources and Development . . . . . . . Historical Worth and Leading Ideas . . Between the Bible and Greek Literature Language and Style . . . . . . . . . . . Reception and Text . . . . . . . . . . . Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abbreviations and Bibliography . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

3 16 38 57 67 85 97 98

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

129 170 181 207 247 270 296 320 349 369 392 414 445 463 492

TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY Introductory Letters (1:1–2:18) Author’s Preface (2:19–32) . . Chapter III . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter IV . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter V . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter VI . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter VII . . . . . . . . . . Chapter VIII . . . . . . . . . . Chapter IX . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter X . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter XI . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter XII . . . . . . . . . . Chapter XIII . . . . . . . . . . Chapter XIV . . . . . . . . . . Chapter XV . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

X

Table of Contents

APPENDICES Appendix 1: Appendix 2:

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

. 519 . 530 . 533 . 537 . 541 . . . . .

544 546 549 551 553

. 556

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

INTRODUCTION

I. Subject, Purpose and Date

3

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

Note that the author pays no attention to the fact that the original idyll had a Jewish high priest ruling the city under Seleucid kings while, by the end, Seleucid rule has for all intents and purposes ceased. That does not interest our author, either because he knew that the latter was soon to be restored (see 1 Macc 9) or because he simply did not care about foreign rule as long as Judaism and its institutions were unthreatened. For the basic principle, that a book’s end is the best indication of the author’s objective, see Tyson, “Jewish Public,” 582. In this case, the genitive absolute in 15:37 (“Since …”) makes this all the more clear; see Appendix 11. J. Geiger (“History of Judas Maccabaeus”) has suggested, in contrast, that 2 Maccabees should be viewed as a monograph about Judas Maccabaeus. Indeed, Judas is the main hero of the book. However, he appears for the first time only at 5:27 and then again only from Ch. 8. Athough this is not in and of itself a fatal objection (compare for example the Books of Judith and Ezra, where the heroes appear only at 8:1 and 7:1 respectively), it does suggest that we should look elsewhere for characterizing the book as a whole – and the brackets at 3:1 and 15:37 show us where.

4

Introduction

that introduces Antiochus IV Epiphanes (4:7), and some significant material precedes this: the letters in 1:1–2:18; the author’s preface in 2:19–32; and the narrative of 3:1–4:6, which reports events under Antiochus’ brother and predecessor, Seleucus IV Philopator, who is named at 3:3 and whose death is reported in 4:7. True, there is no problem with viewing Chapters 1–2 as separate from the book itself, as these letters and the preface are clearly distinguished from it. But marginalizing 3:1–4:6, which features the long and sensational story of Heliodorus’ failed attempt to enter the Temple, in the days of Seleucus IV, requires some justification. There are two main considerations. First, it seems that the book itself characterizes its story as one that begins with Jason: this is stated more or less explicitly in the first of the two letters prefixed to the book, at 1:7;2 it seems that even the second letter, in its original form, presumed the same;3 the author’s summary of the book’s contents, appearing in his preface (2:20), refers to the days of Antiochus Epiphanes as the book’s point of departure; and the summaries of Jerusalem’s tribulations at 8:2–4 and 8:17 have, accordingly, nothing to say about the events of Chapter 3. Second, note that the story of Chapter 3 is indeed a unit closed within itself, having its own happy end with Heliodorus’ defeat and recognition of the power of the Jewish God; the story does not move the book forward at all. Note especially, in this connection, that apart from 4:1b, which could well be editorial, Heliodorus and his “conversion” serve no function at all in 4:1–6, where we read of Simon’s complaints against Onias (vv. 1–4) and Onias’ decision to appeal directly to the king (vv. 5–6). Any reader should wonder why Onias makes no attempt to enlist Heliodorus, whose life he has just saved and who has recognized Onias’ sterling qualities.4 Thus, on the one hand, had the story proceeded from the opening idyll (3:1–3) and Simon’s squabbling with Onias (3:4) directly to the worsening of Simon’s complaints (4:1–4 [without v. 1b]) and Onias’ consequent decision to go to the king in Antioch (4:5–6), the Heliodorus story would never have been missed.5 Taken together with the book’s positive references to

2

3 4

5

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

I. Subject, Purpose and Date

5

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

6

7

influence further historical developments.” I would add that the disproportionate length of the account itself suggests the use of a special source, for it is unlikely that an author would invest so much effort into creating a narrative which prescinds from his own agenda or, if he did, that he would fail to exploit it. Cf. for example Josephus’ long account of the conspiracy to assassinate Gaius Caligula (Ant. 19.1–273), which hardly has to do with “Jewish Antiquities;” on its source, see Feldman’s long note on 19.1 in the LCL edition. True, these two kings were not homonyms in the full sense of the word, for our author was capable of referring to such kings as “Ptolemy” and “Seleucus” without even mentioning their throne-names; see 1:10, 3:3. But the opposite also occurs; see 4:21, “King Philometor.” In any case, it is usual for names of kings to change as stories about them float around, and having the same throne-name would only encourage this; see for example the way Jewish traditions mix up “Yannai” (Alexander Jannaeus) with Herod and others (Efron, Studies, 190–206). Tromp (“Formation,” 318–321) thinks that the story of 3 Maccabees was actually based on the one in our book, but this is hard to prove, especially given the widespread evidence for the floating motive of failed attempts to rob temples (see Stokholm, “Zur Überlieferung von Heliodor”); for the independence of the two stories, see Kasher, Jews in … Egypt, 212–213, n. 1, and Johnson, Historical Fictions, 136. For a case in which Josephus does the same, preferring to use “the high priest” repeatedly rather than the name of the high priest in whose context he told the story, see Ant. 11.325–339. For the argument that Josephus’ source used another name, see my “On Some Papyri,” esp. 186–189. Cf. R. Marcus’ comment on Ant. 11.22, where Josephus, whose chronological considerations led him to redirect to Cambyses a letter the Bible reported was sent to Artaxerxes, brought the document in the context of Cambyses but omitted his name, using instead only his title, “sovereign:” “By omitting the name Josephus avoids the awkwardness of openly correcting Scripture” (LCL Josephus, note c on Ant. 11.22). For other cases in which Josephus is similarly non-commital when he is unsure about the chronology of the events he is relating, see my “Cassius’ Chronology and Josephus’ Vagueness,” SCI 16 (1997) 109–112.

6

Introduction

as in 3 Macc 1–2), served his purpose in a general way by illustrating God’s providential protection of the Temple of Jerusalem. Accordingly, while it is part of the book as our author produced it, the Heliodorus story should be understood as a prologue; the real story begins at 4:7. In any case, it is clear that the first three verses of Chapter 3 announce the subject of the book: Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the Jews’ capital city and also, as an ancient polis, the capital of its territory, Judaea – the same conception indicated already in the first verse of the book (1:1: “the Jews in Jerusalem and in the country of Judaea”).8 Accordingly, when problems first occur they concern “market supervision in the city” (3:4); and when in the next chapter Simon informs against Onias, who was in fact the “benefactor (euergetes) of the city” (4:2), Onias appeals to the king in an attempt to restore peace (4:6) and not, of course – as opposed to that villainous Simon – in order to accuse his “fellow-citizens” (politai – 4:5).9 This focus on the city remains dominant throughout, as some prominent examples indicate: Jason’s reform changed the city’s status and politeias (4:9–11); the delegates who complained about the theft of Temple vessels are first defined as defenders of the city and only thereafter as those of the Temple vessels (4:48); Chapter 5 opens with an apparition in the sky above Jerusalem, then goes on to blame Jason for attacking the city and killing his fellow-citizens (5:6) and to report attacks on 8

9

On city-states in the Hellenistic period, and on their preservation of identity and even a measure of independence despite the overarching monarchies, see: Ph. Gauthier, “Les cités hellénistiques”, in: M. H. Hansen (ed.), The Ancient Greek CityState (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1993) 211–231; E. S. Gruen, “The Polis in the Hellenistic World,” in: R. M. Rosen & J. Farrell (ed.), Nomodeiktes: Greek Studies in Honor of Martin Ostwald (Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan, 1993) 339–354; Ma, Antiochos III. Our book’s standard term for “fellow Jews.” See 4:5, 50; 5:6, 8, 23; 9:19 (!); 14:8. On the term, see below, p. 51, n. 116. The Greek nature of such usage is easily evident in (a) the way it is absent from 1 Maccabees, which instead uses “brother” and “people” much more than our book does (on “brother” see our NOTE on 10:21, brethren, and as for “people” – note that λα« appears 68 times in 1 Maccabees but only eleven times in 2 Maccabees, of which four are in the opening Jerusalemite epistles), and (b) the way modern translators of our book into Hebrew, a language which – as opposed to western languages (“fellow citizen, concitoyen, Mitbürger …”) – still has no way of rendering this sense, turn instead to ethnic terminology (“brother, people”). Thus, Kahana rendered the complaint that Jason killed “his own fellowcitizens” (τν πολιτν τν δ ν – 5:6) as if it referred to “the sons of his people;” he rendered the characterization of Razis as φιλοπολ τη« (14:37) as “lover of the sons of his people;” and when in 15:30 he rendered πολται “sons of his people” it forced him to use something else, “brothers,” to render μοενε« in the continuation of that verse (see, respectively, Kahana, HaSepharim, 194, 228, 230).

I. Subject, Purpose and Date

7

the city by Antiochus and by Philip; Chapter 6 opens by formulating Antiochus’ decrees against the practice of Judaism as having prohibited Jews to “conduct their civic behavior” (πολιτεεσαι) according to God’s laws (6:1); after the martyrdom accounts of Chapters 6–7, which are exceptional in this regard,10 the city figures prominently alongside the Temple as what is threatened in Chapter 8 (vv. 2–3, 17, 36); in Chapter 9 Antiochus’ threats (v. 4) and his promises (vv. 14–15) focus upon the city; Chapter 10 takes for granted that the Jews begin all their campaigns from the city (v. 27), just as Chapter 11 makes clear in vv. 2–3 that the new Seleucid invasion is primarily a threat to the city; in Chapter 12, which deals with events in distant regions of Palestine, Jerusalem figures as the axis of events (vv. 31, 43), just as in Chapter 13 the Jews march out to meet the royal army at Modein rather than wait until “the king’s army invaded Judaea and took control of the city,” and Judas encourages his men “to struggle nobly until death for laws, temple, city, fatherland, constitution” (13:13–14); the last martyr of the book, Razis, is first of all characterized as “a man who loved his fellow-citizens” (φιλοπολ τη« – 14:37) and Judas Maccabaeus, on the eve of his final victory, is characterized as undertaking to fight “due to the danger facing the city, the holy things and the Temple” (15:17), although – as in the abovementioned instance at 4:48 – the threat was in fact directed against the Temple (14:33). Consequently, we are not surprised that, after his victory, Judas is characterized as “he who with his whole body and soul had taken the lead in the struggle on behalf of his fellow citizens” (15:33), and that, as we have seen, a few verses later the author explains that his book has come to an end because the city returned to Jewish hands (15:37), reestablishing the idyllic status with which it all began at 3:1. So much for our book’s subject. As for the purpose of the book, it might appear to emerge easily from the comparison of two passages: 2 Maccabees 10:8 And they resolved by an edict and decree made in common that the entire (δογμτισαν δ μετ

κοινο προστγματο« κα χηφ σματο« παντ) people of the Jews should celebrate these days annually. 10

2 Maccabees 15:36 And they all decided, in a decree made in common (δογμτισαν δ πντε« μετ κοινο χηφ σματο«), not at all to allow that day to remain unmarked, but, rather, to keep as special the thirteenth day of the twelfth month (which is called “Adar” in the Syrian language), the day before Mordechai’s Day.

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

8

Introduction

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

11 12

13 14

15

Niese, Kritik, 12; for the German original, and for the context, see below, n. 20. On Nicanor’s Day, which seems still to have been celebrated in the days of Josephus (Ant. 12.412) and the post-talmudic period (see J. Tabory, “When was the Scroll of Fasts Abrogated?,” Tarbiz 55 [1986] 263–264 [in Hebrew]), see J. Schwartz, “Once More,” 272–273. See below, pp. 46–48. Apart from the first letter, where this is common, there is nothing else like this in our book. Similarly, note that after vv. 1–3 are simply linked one to another with “ands,” vv. 4–8, which are not, are each a single sentence; no periods. See also, in this connection, the NOTES on 10:1, took (unusually low-key diction) and 10:3, after a twoyear period (unusual use of chronological terminology). In support of that assumption about the letters it is enough to note, apart from the names of the writers given in 1:1, 10, that these letters appear prior to the author’s preface and that the first, and perhaps also the second, was written originally in Hebrew or Aramaic. See Appendix I. For retroversions of the letters, into Aramaic and Hebrew, respectively, see Torrey, “The Letters” and Hack, “Two Hanukkah Letters.”

I. Subject, Purpose and Date

9

they needed such a passage, because otherwise the book did not justify, or even explain, the call to celebrate Hanukkah; from the common emphasis on all the people being called upon to celebrate (cf. esp. 2:17!); from the common interest in cultic details (note esp. the similarity of the list in 1:7 with that in 10:3), which contrasts sharply with what is usual for the rest of the book (see below, pp. 46–48); from the fact that only the story at 1:31–32 can explain the obscure reference to “igniting rocks and extracting fire from them” in 10:3; from the fact that of the whole book only 10:6–7 explains the letters’ characterization of Hanukkah as a type of Tabernacles festival (1:9, 18); and from the desideratum that we be economical and not hypothesize more editors and interpolators than the evidence requires. On the positive side, the fact that the book was meant, originally, to foster celebration of Nicanor’ Day results from two main considerations: (1) It comes at the end of the book, which prima facie means that it was the author’s intended objective (see above, n. 1). Thus, in a manner reminiscent of the establishment of commemorative festivals in Esther 9:26–32 and 3 Maccabees 7:18–19,16 2 Maccabees 15:36 represents not only the last piece of information in the book but also its purpose. (2) The arrangement of the book as a whole points to Nicanor’s central status: the first campaign (Ch. 8) and the final one (15) are both against Nicanor. That this is a matter of authorial intention emerges all the more clearly from the fact that comparison with 1 Maccabees leads historians to well-founded doubts about the centrality of Nicanor in the first campaign17 and in the events recorded at 14:12–25,18 and also to doubt our book’s presumption that both narratives in our book refer to one and the same Nicanor.19 For our author and (so he assumed) for his readers there is no doubt at all: there was one Nicanor, termed “thrice-accursed” at both

16

17

18

19

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

10

Introduction

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

20

21

22

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

I. Subject, Purpose and Date

11

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

23 24

25

book are clear; see Toki, loc. cit., 71–72 and Stern, Studies, 353–354. But it seems to me that whoever added the first letter added the second as well; see Appendix 1. See above, pp. 4, 8–9. As is usual (but see our NOTE on 6:1, Not much time later) we assume that there were two different ways of calculating years SE: the Babylonian system, used also by Jews, counted from the spring of 311 BCE, while the Macedonian system, used by the Seleucids, began in the autumn of 312 BCE. For the issues and defense of this consensus view, see Lebram, “Zur Chronologie;” Bar-Kochva, JM, 562–565; and Goldstein, 1 Macc, 22–25. For a convenient rule for calculating conversions, see ibid. 22–23, n. 47. The assumption that the reference to 170 SE in this verse is to be interpreted according to the Macedonian system is based on the fact that it appears in the verse right after Demetrius’ letter (1 Macc 13:36–40). That letter, as cited in 1 Macc, concludes without a date, but presumably had one at its end (as, for example, all the letters in 2 Macc 11), so it is natural to assume that the author of 1 Maccabees simply chose to weave it into his narrative. For another case of the same, see 1 Macc 15:10.

12

Introduction

have written you) so that you shall celebrate the days of (the festival of) Tabernacles of the month of Kislev of the year 148,” and suggest it is to be understood in the way we would understand posters calling upon Americans, today, to celebrate the great events “of July 4, 1776.” On the other hand, we may also note that such an early dating of our book solves a riddle which has at times exercised scholars. The book was written by a partisan of Jerusalem and its Temple but its beginning (Chapters 3–4) and end (15:12–14) portray the high priest Onias as a hero. That poses a problem because the Temple of Onias, founded in Egypt sometime during the second century BCE (see below), competed with that of Jerusalem and was (so we may assume) viewed as illegitimate, perhaps even as an abomination, by partisans of the latter – certainly in the early years of its existence, before it became a fixed part of the scenery.26 How could such a book portray Onias as a hero? Some, building especially on Josephus’ War (1.33, 7.423), explain that our book refers to Onias III, who was the high priest in Jerusalem, while it was his son, Onias IV, who founded the Temple in Egypt.27 But even if we were to accept that – despite the facts that our book (4:30–34) has its Onias (who is apparently Onias III) being murdered in Antioch, and that Josephus’ later and more detailed work, Antiquities, holds clearly, as we shall see, that it was Onias IV who founded the Temple in Egypt – it must be emphasized that our book does not distinguish between its Onias and his son. As Stern noted, to praise “Onias” without making clear that the reference is not to the well-known villain is not the way partisans write.28 Others would explain that we have here a subtle move on the part of our author, who is telling his readers that the real and laudable Onias was in fact devoted to the Temple of Jerusalem.29 But that might be too subtle and in any case there was no need for such a move, for all knew that Onias III had been high priest in Jerusalem and it was indeed from this fact that Onias IV, and the temple he founded, derived their claims to legit-

26

27 28

29

For expressions – even much later – of such criticism, which derives in general from beliefs about the “holy land” and specifically from the Deuteronomistic insistence that there be only one temple, see for example the satire at Ant. 13.65–71 and the legal rulings at m. Menahot 13.10; see also Schwartz, “Jews of Egypt,” 18 (and ibid. n. 24 – a response to Gruen, “Origins and Objectives,” 61–62). For this debate, see NOTE on 3:1, Onias. Stern, Studies, 41. For a similar case (rabbinic failure to differentiate between Agrippas indicating a lack of distinction between them) see Schwartz, Agrippa, 162. G. Bohak, “Joseph and Asenath and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis” (Diss. Princeton, 1994) 137–144. (This section did not appear in the 1996 published version with the same title.)

I. Subject, Purpose and Date

13

imacy. Rather, it seems that the easiest explanation is that these chapters were written before the Temple of Onias was in fact founded. Indeed, it seems they were written at a time when there was still a basic alliance between the Hasmoneans and the Oniads, because Onias IV could expect the Hasmoneans to restore him to the high priesthood in Jerusalem. After all, he was the heir apparent to the position, which had been usurped by Seleucid protégés (Jason, Menelaus, Alcimus), and he could hope that when the Hasmoneans defeated the Seleucids they would give him that which was his due. To bolster this suggestion we should note that Josephus seems to have known exactly where to place the foundation story of the Temple of Onias. First, at Antiquities 12.237, when Josephus records the death of Onias III he mentions that he left behind an infant son named Onias (IV), promising to tell his story “in the (proper) place.” Next, at §§387–388, Josephus reports that that son emigrated to Egypt because he had been passed over for the high priesthood. In this passage Josephus proleptically mentions that this Onias built a temple in Egypt, but promises to give the details of that “in a more appropriate place.” Finally, at Antiquities 13.62, just after recording the death of Demetrius I, which occurred in 150 BCE, Josephus narrates in detail how Onias IV founded his temple in Egypt. Given such a carefully distributed story, we have no reason to doubt Josephus’ chronology – which is, in fact, quite reasonable from a political point of view. Namely, the same struggle that resulted in the death of Demetrius I saw Alexander Balas, Demetrius’ competitor, appointing the Hasmonean Jonathan to the high priesthood (1 Macc 10:15–21). Until then Onias could look forward to Hasmonean victory, playing the role of the legitimate heir to the high priesthood awaiting the opportunity to claim his birthright. Now, however, Jonathan’s acceptance of the high priesthood meant a parting of ways between the Hasmoneans and the Oniads; it was effectively a Hasmonean announcement that to the victors go the spoils and that they would not content themselves with fighting and concede the high priesthood – which entailed a large measure of rule (see NOTE on 3:9, high priest of the city) – to someone else.30 It would be perfectly logical if, as emerges from Josephus’ location of the various segments of this story, Onias IV now set about building a temple of his own. This chronology conforms well with our suggestion above, that 30

For the Hasmonean statement on their own descent, in answer to those who would claim they lacked the proper pedigree, see 1 Macc 5:62. Similarly, the use to which the dynasty’s house historian (1 Macc 2:24–26, 54; see also 1:15, ζεψγ σησαν, with Num 25:3) put the Phineas story was obviously meant to justify the Hasmoneans’ claim to the high priesthood: as for Phineas (esp. Num 25:11–13), so too for the Hasmoneans, zealotry entitled them to the high priesthood.

14

Introduction

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

31

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

I. Subject, Purpose and Date

15

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

32

33

34

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

16

Introduction

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

35

36

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

II. Sources and Development

17

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

37 38

39 40

Num 30); some do it this way, some that. On the way transitional summaries function the way our modern indenting and paragraphing do, and on the difficulty of deciding whether to put them at the end of the last unit or at the outset of the new one, see Wifstrand, Epochs, 97–98. See Doran, Temple Propaganda, 22. The case is therefore similar to that of the second letter, which is broken into two at the end of Ch. 1. Cf. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.320. Apart, of course, from the Jerusalemite additions in Chs. 1–2 and 10:1–8. Apart from the parallels at 15:34//14:36 and 15:30, 32// 14:33, note also 15:8 (τν νν *φοδον)//14:15 (το Νικνορο« *φοδον κα τ,ν π εσιν τν νν).

18

Introduction

both have him invading Judaea; both have Judas Maccabaeus encouraging his soldiers with a speech that recounts biblical salvation stories including that in the days of Sennacherib; in both Nicanor is defeated; and there are several literal parallels between the two chapters (see NOTE on 15:7, that assistance would be made available). It is very difficult to imagine that the two chapters were written by different authors, and there is no evident reason to consider such a possibility. But Chapters 14–15 are also very similar to Chapters 3–4. Note the central role of Onias in Chapters 3–4 that recurs in 15:12–16; the great similarity, in reverse, of the good Onias’ appeal to the king in 4:1–6 and the wicked Alcimus’ at 14:3–10;41 and the way antagonists are dramatically poised against each other at 3:22–23;42 14:33–34; 15:5–6, 25–26. So again, and certainly when we acknowledge a methodological preference for the presumption that a book stems from a single writer, we see no reason to doubt that Chapters 3–4 come from the same hand as Chapters 8 and 14–15. Next, however, we may add that Chapter 5 is closely linked to Chapter 4, inasmuch as 4:26 has Jason fleeing to Ammonitis and Chapter 5 has him returning to Jerusalem but again fleeing to Ammonitis (5:7) after his unsuccessful attempt to take over the city. Accordingly, Chapter 5 thus comes easily along with Chapter 4, just as easily as it links up in its own right with Chapter 3, with which it shares the interest in gifts by foreign kings to the Temple of Jerusalem (3:2–3//5:16) and with Chapter 15, where too we read of the exploitation of the Sabbath by someone who would attack the Jews (5:25//15:1–2). But if it is thus fairly easy to confirm, via interlocking comparisons, that Chapters 3–5, 8, and 14–15 may safely be assumed to be (as we find them) of one and the same work, from this point things become somewhat more difficult. Concerning Chapter 6, first of all, it seems we must distinguish between the first eleven verses, the next six, and the rest of the chapter. The first eleven verses are much like the rest of the book: the notion that the observance of Judaism is comparable to the observance of a municipal law code (πολιτεεσαι – v. 1), the paralleling of Jerusalem and Gerizim in v. 2 (as at 5:22–23),43 the prominence of Dionysus in v. 7 (as at 14:33), the “pathetic” exploitation of women’s breasts in v. 10 (as at 3:19; contrast 41 42 43

See below, pp. 81–82. See our NOTE on 3:22, on the one hand. See Appendix 4. And note that the fact that our pro-Jerusalem author has no difficulty with such a parallel with Jerusalem’s cultic competitor sits well with his general lack of interest in temple cult per se; see below, pp. 46–48.

II. Sources and Development

19

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

44 45

46

47

See our NOTE on 5:25, pretended. Which in turn prepares us for the contrast at 14:32 with Alcimus, who had willingly polluted himself (Ψκοψσ « δ μεμολψμμωνο«). See H&R, 2.1180. The entry for πλι« is especially impressive: it appears 24 times in our book prior to 6:10 and another 24 times from 8:3 until the end of the book, but not once in between. In this whole family of words, the only exception is πολιτε α, which appears in a few witnesses to 6:23 – but no one would defend that reading. In contrast, Ch. 7 prefers another view of the law: πτριοι νμοι (ancestral laws [7:2, 24, 37]; note also “ancestral language” in vv. 8, 21, 27). This way of looking at Jewish law recurs only once elsewhere in our book (6:1). So too, note that Ch. 7 twice mentions Moses (vv. 6, 30), who is never mentioned elsewhere apart from the opening epistles, and that it never mentions the Temple (a point noted by Bowersock, although I would reject the conclusion he built on this; see below, n. 51). Although Jerusalem is not mentioned explicitly, this is the only natural assumption for readers. For the possibility that, in fact, the persecutions were originally linked to Antioch, see below, n. 212 (on the cult that developed these).

20

Introduction

comes is a reference to “the destruction of innocent infants,” but that refers back to the episode recorded at 6:10 (for no one would claim that the seven brothers of Ch. 7 were infants). – Finally, there are several strange phrases in the martyrologies of Chapters 6–7. Even if we stop short of Habicht’s suggestion that they reflect translation from the Hebrew,48 they may reflect an attempt to biblicize the style, something that is all but absent in the rest of the book.49 Thus, it seems that these narratives were not written by whoever wrote the chapters discussed until now. This means either that they were added to the book after it was composed or that they reflect the use of a source by its author.50 It seems that the latter is more probable. For the chapters are quite “at home” in the work and, indeed, constitute a very integral part of it.51 48

49 50

51

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

II. Sources and Development

21

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

22

Introduction

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

52

53

For the probability that our book specifically imitates Deut 32:25 in this context, see our NOTE on 5:13, young and old … See my “On Something Biblical,” 228–232 and my “Divine Punishment.” In the latter, building upon the contrast between 0π)ργισται (5:17) and π)ργισται (7:33), I detail the subtle progression from portraying God as taking vengeance upon His sinning people (4:16–17) and turning His face aside from them, thus allowing Gentiles to hurt them (ibid. and 5: 16//Deut 32:20), to a God who faces His sinning people and punishes them face-to-face as a father edifies his son (7:34//Deut 8:5). For the two concepts side-by-side and explicit preference for the latter, see 10:4.

II. Sources and Development

23

pletely” (ε« τωλο«) in 8:29 indicates a reference to a process that has already begun but has not yet been completed. Where did it begin? With the hope expressed by the seventh son, at 7:38, “that, with me and my brothers, shall be stayed the anger (1ργ2) of the All-Ruler which was justly loosed against our entire nation.” That prayer was answered at 8:5, where we read that God’s 1ργ2 did indeed turn to mercy, and now, at 8:29, Judas and his men pray that God will continue the process to completion. Thus, our book needs Chapter 7: it explains Judas’ success in Chapter 8 just as much as the Razis story, which concludes Chapter 14, explains Judas’ success in Chapter 15; and the book’s language underlines this. As for the Eleazar story (6:18–31), it is firmly linked to Chapter 7, at least in its current state: – 6: 31 underlines that Eleazar’s death was an example “not only for the youths” – an obvious lead-in to Chapter 7. – 7:42 summarizes, as we have seen, not only the story of the mother and her seven sons but also that of Eleazar. True, both of these points regard only the framework, and leave open the possibility that the Eleazar story was tacked onto the book with a little bit of such splicing. However: – The reference to serving as a model for youths occurs also in the body of the story, at 6:28. – Eleazar is made to give a speech just before expiring, and in it he bespeaks the distinction between body and soul (6:30) – just as the seventh son at 7:37 and similar to Razis at 14:46.54 – Eleazar’s fear, at 6:24, is that if he dissembles submission to the decrees in order to save his life it will be thought that he has “gone over to foreignism;” “foreignism” (0λλοφψλισμ«) is a very rare word but one that is centerpieced by our book at 4:13. – Such a mistaken impression, he fears, will lead others “to go astray” (πλανησι – v. 25), just as 7:18 has the sixth son warn Antiochus not to “go astray” (μ, πλαν) due to his own successes. – Eleazar’s thought is said, at 6:23, to be “honorable,” lit. “urbane” (0στεον), which is part and parcel of a complex of terms, widely in use in our book, that contrasts the civilized life of the city with wild and animallike rustic life.55 54

55

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

24

Introduction

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

II. Sources and Development

25

Hence, we conclude not only that the martyrological stories of 6:18–7:42, although of separate provenance, were integrated into the book, but also that this was done by the epitomator. But if so, we must further conclude that the designation “epitomator” is too restricted; he did not only make Jason of Cyrene’s work more readable, but also undertook to add new material, including guidance interpreting the story at the most fundamental level. Moreover, in any case Jason’s work is lost and we cannot uncover it in any detail by analysis of 2 Maccabees – a work which was produced by the epitomator. If that person allows himself to speak as author in his reflections in Chapters 4, 5 and 6, and to add much new material in Chapters 6–7 (and – as we shall see – in Chapters 10–11), giving the story its basic interpretive scaffolding, “author” would seem the more appropriate title.56 At this point, having traced 3:1–6:17 (apart from the Heliodorus story and the authorial reflections at 4:16–17, 5:17–20 and 6:12–17) along with Chapters 8, 14–15 to the basic work (Jason), 6:18–7:42 to a separate source incorporated by the author, and 10:1–8 to the Jerusalemites who turned the book to their own purposes (and added in the two opening epistles), we must turn to Chapters 9–13. These chapters constitute, from the point of view of the historical narrative, the roughest part of the book. True, there is no problem with Chapter 9 in and of itself; it is full of the gloating tit for tat and the games with the name “Epiphanes” found elsewhere in our book, and it is clear that a book such as ours had to have a chapter narrating this king’s death, which was a popular theme in religious and other ancient historiography.57 Moreover, it is clear that the way Chapter 9 begins, with the king who had defiled and robbed the Jews’ temple trying to do the same to 56

57

So too, for example, van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 20: “I consider 2 Macc. 2:19–15:39 a unity and the epitomist its ‘author’” (similar in idem, “2 Maccabees as a History of Liberation,” 65–66). See also the discussion in Lichtenberger, “HistoryWriting and History-Telling,” 106–109, which reports, inter alia, the results of an unpublished stylometric study of 2 Macc by B. Meißner that concludes that the obviously editorial passages (such as 2:19–32; 5:17–20; 6:12–17) are of the same style as the rest of the book. On tit for tat see 9:8, 10 and NOTE on 4:16, those for whose ways; on games with “Epiphanes” see NOTE on 9:4, arrogantly (περηφν «). As for the popularity of recounting his death, see: 1 Macc 6:1–16; 2 Macc 1:13–17 (with our NOTE on 1:12, For (γρ) He Himself drove out ( ωβρασε) …), Polybius 31.9, Josephus, Ant. 12.354–359 (based on 1 Maccabees but refers to Polybius), Diodorus 31.18a, Appian, Syriakê 11, §66, Porphyry (apud Jerome on Dan 11:36 = Stern, GLA II, no. 464a), etc. On these texts see Holleaux, Études, 255–279; Mendels, “Note;” Lorein, “Some Aspects,” 166–171.

26

Introduction

another people’s temple, conforms well to our author’s purpose,58 and that 9:8–10 closes a circle that our author opened at 5:21. So we have no reason for second thoughts about the contents of Chapter 9. Its location, however, is another matter, as we shall see when we turn to Chapters 10–13. These four chapters – which no one would have missed had they not been there, i.e., had the story proceeded from the death of Antiochus IV (Chapter 9) directly to Demetrius I’s ascent to the throne “in the third year thereafter” (14:1) – create serious difficulties, especially in light of their location after Antiochus IV’s death in Chapter 9, and even without comparison to any other source. Here are the seven main problems: 1. In Chapter 11 we read of the lesson Lysias learned after his defeat at Beth-Zur: “Since he was not mindless, he mulled over the defeat that had befallen him. Realizing that the Hebrews are invincible due to the powerful God who is their ally, he sent to them and urged them to settle with him according to all that is just …” (11:13–14). This lesson was the basis of the peacemaking described in the rest of Chapter 11. Any reader must, accordingly, be startled and mystified when he or she reads, at the opening of Chapter 13, that Lysias and the king set out for a new and massive invasion of Judaea. Of course, it is possible that Lysias forgot the lesson he had learned, or decided to ignore it, or whatever; but an author owes his readers some sort of explanation or comment to that effect. There is none. 2. Similarly, both of these chapters report campaigns focusing upon Beth-Zur, but there is no recognition, in Chapter 13, that the reader has already been introduced to the site, or to a military engagement there. Indeed, readers should be bothered by the fact that Chapter 13 not only ignores the fact that they had been introduced to Beth-Zur in Chapter 11, but also that it identified it in another way: 11:5 describes it as “Beth-Zur, a strong place about five schoinoi from Jerusalem” but 13:19 has “Beth-Zur, a strong fortress of the Jews.” By way of contrast, note that although 1 Maccabees too recounts two such campaigns, there is no such problem, for there the reader is well-prepared: at 4:35 Lysias is said to have returned to Antioch after the first campaign in order to prepare a new expedition; at 4:61 Judas Maccabaeus fortifies Beth-Zur in order to prepare for such an eventuality; and at 6:26 the latter fact is mentioned by those who encourage the Seleucids to renew their attempt to subdue Judas. Accordingly, there is nothing surpris-

58

Just as the fact that those who violate the Jews’ sancta might do the same to those of others as well also emerges from the fact that the murder of a Jewish high priest entailed violating the sanctity of a pagan shrine; see our NOTE on 4:33, in Daphne …

II. Sources and Development

27

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

59

60

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

28

Introduction

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

61

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

II. Sources and Development

29

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

guardian; contrast 11:1 (on which see below) and 1 Macc 3:3–33. As we shall see, this incorrect picture of their relationship had consequences for the history of our book.

30

Introduction

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

62

63

See Gera & Horowitz, “Antiochus IV,” 249–252, also Kasher, “A Second Century BCE Greek Inscription,” 20, n. 98. See n. 61.

II. Sources and Development

31

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

64

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

32

Introduction

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

65

66

67

For the suggestion that Ch. 11 derives from a separate, Seleucid, source, see already Bar-Kochva, JM, 276. His suggestion is based on the accuracy of the distance noted at 11:5, in contrast to what is usual for our book. But cf. below, p. 454. And note, in this connection, that Ch. 13 includes formulations that are very similar to those appearing elsewhere in our book; compare for example 13:25 (δψσφροψν … 0ετεν τ« διαστλσει«) to 14:28 (δψσφρ« *φερεν, ε τ διεσταλμωνα 0ετ2σει); places full of δωοψ« κα ταραξ#« in 13:16 and 3:30; blaspheming peoples in 13:11 and 10:4, 34–36; π π»σι το« δικα οι« σψνελη (13:23)// σψλλεσαι π π»σι το« δικα οι« (11:14); Judas assigns motto “God’s victory” (13:15)//Judas assigns motto “God’s help” (8:23). In this discussion, our references to Ch. 10 do not apply, of course, to its first eight verses; see above, pp. 8–9.

II. Sources and Development

33

prior to Richard Laqueur (“Griechische Urkunden,” 1927),68 our author thought the only “king” reflected by these documents was Antiochus Eupator. Apparently he found the documents together, and in any case the second is bound up (as he presents them, perhaps also as he received them) with the first; since the second makes it clear at 11:23 that its “king” was Eupator, our author assumed this throughout. But since three of the four documents are dated to 148 SE, and one of them (the second) refers to Antiochus IV’s death, our author concluded that Antiochus Epiphanes must have died by that year, in fact by Xanthicus (spring) of that year – and not by 149 SE. Thus, the new find, which enriched his narrative significantly, also caused him to rearrange his narrative, in consequence of his mistake: Chapter 9, which deals with Antiochus’ death, would have to come before Chapter 13, which opens with a dating in 149 SE. This, all by itself, would force the revision of the order of the chapters from 13–12–9 to 9–13–12, and assuming, as we do, that he found Chapters 10–11 together, in that order, he would easily arrive at 9–10–11–13–12. Anyone would do the same if, upon discovering 10:10–11:38, he inferred that Antiochus V is “the king” of all of the documents. And that inference, if false, would nonetheless be a reasonable one if indeed, as we have supposed, all the documents were found together. After all, the Seleucid monarchy in 165/164 BCE was somewhat anomalous, with a king in the east and his successor already functioning (under the tutelage of a guardian) in the west, and we can understand how an author, unaware of that, might arrange his materials on the usual assumption of only one king per kingdom at any given time, At this juncture, we are left to explain, in the context of our hypothesis, only one additional point with respect to the rearrangement of Chapters 9–13: Why did the author move Chapter 12 to its present location, preceding Chapter 13, instead of leaving it after Chapter 13? We may note two considerations supplied by the new material (Chapters 10–11) that may have brought him to do so, although neither is quite satisfying. First, given the accession of such impressive documentary material in Chapter 11 we might understand the author rushing to assume, as have most readers ever since, that they constitute the “covenants” (σψν#και) mentioned at 12:1. 68

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

34

Introduction

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

69

70

71

72

An opinion shared by a few modern scholars, such as Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 152–154. Against this view, see Bar-Kochva, JM, 275–276. Indeed, even if we hold there were two campaigns, as is usual on the basis of 1 Macc 4, 6, it still seems that we should resist the natural temptation to view 2 Macc 11 and 13, respectively, as accounts of each. Rather, it seems that both are accounts of the second campaign; see our opening COMMENT on Ch. 11. For the preparation of a short and rough version as a preparatory step prior to the composition of the final version, see Lucian, How to Write History, 47; Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 85–104. Zeitlin, 2 Macc, 22–23.

II. Sources and Development

35

ible to imagine any Greek author who could write this way; the notion that there is anything attractive about the style here (à la “veni vidi vici”) is, in my opinion, farfetched.73 Rather, the story in Chapter 13 definitely gives the impression that the author is embarrassed by the whole matter and is trying to finish it up and move on as fast as possible. It seems that this was the price he paid in return for the valuable material he picked up somewhere and turned into Chapters 10–11. The seventh and final problem listed above was posed by the fact that 13:10 picks up and flows easily from 13:2,74 but the material on Menelaus’ death, in 13:3–8, not only interrupts the narrative but also requires the introduction, in v. 9, of a sudden and unexplained turnabout in the king’s disposition. This seems so artificial that it is hard to avoid the notion that the material on Menelaus was introduced secondarily into an extant narrative. As we can see elsewhere (4:42; 5:7–10; Ch. 9; 15:28–35), our author was very concerned with making sure that his villains got their just deserts (see esp. NOTE on 4:16, those for whose ways …), so if Jason’s account did not detail the end of Menelaus, or did not do so very colorfully, we can well understand that our author would be happy to supplement Jason’s materials at this point if he found something suitable for the purpose. The conjecture that the narrative on Menelaus’ death at 13:3–8 is based upon a separate source derives strong additional support from two types of considerations: (a) internal: There is, in this passage, a concatenation of Persian motifs: “king of kings” (v. 4), an exotic method of execution known from Persia (see NOTE on 13:5, fifty cubits high), and an echo from the Book of Esther: “fifty cubits” (ibid.; cf. Esth 5:14). Although some words in our book recall 73

74

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

36

Introduction

Esther,75 nowhere else does is there such a concentration, so it may be that it is evidence for the use of a separate source. Similarly, note that at 13:12 we read of fasting for three days as in Esther 4:16; it may be that this too reflects some impact of the source used just a few verses before. (b) external: Josephus has, at Antiquities 12.384–385, a passage on the death of Menelaus that shows close verbal parallels to ours: if our book has Lysias convincing Antiochus V that Menelaus was the cause of the troubles (6ιτιον τν κακν), Josephus has him 6ρ7αι τν κακν, and if our book claims that Menelaus’ had set his eyes upon rule (π τ#« 0ρξ#«), Josephus said what he did was so that he himself could rule (8να α$τ"« 6ρξ9). Now it seems clear that Josephus did not use 2 Maccabees; see below, pp. 86–87. So if it was not here that he found his Menelaus story, nor in his main source for the period, 1 Maccabees (which makes no mention of Menelaus), then he probably found it in some other Jewish source.76 Perhaps our author too found it there. Now if we suppose that 13:3–8 is based on a Jewish source that served Josephus too, and we have already posited that 10:9-end of Chapter 11 is based on a source different from our author’s usual source (Jason), then economy requires us at least to consider the possibility that both passages are from the same additional source.77 I see no reason to be confident about this. Nevertheless, it might be pointed out, in the present connection, that apart from the story of Menelaus’ death the most striking agreement78 between Josephus (although not in his Antiquities) and 2 Maccabees comes precisely in Chapter 11: Josephus (War 1.41), just as 2 Maccabees 11:4, makes the extravagant claim that there were eighty elephants in Lysias’ army during the campaign that we know, from 1 Maccabees 6, to be the second. The assumption that they found this outlandish number in the same source cannot be proven, but is most economical. In summary, it seems that 2 Maccabees was formed as follows: (a) It all began with Jason’s work, which is said (2:23) to have filled five books. We can only guess about the length of these books.79

75

76 77

78 79

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

II. Sources and Development

37

(b) An anonymous craftsman undertook to turn that work into a shorter and more readable one. But although Jason’s work indeed supplied most of what went into his work, the craftsman used other materials as well: the Heliodorus story (Ch. 3) and the martyrologies (6:18-end of Ch. 7). He also added a preface (2:19–32), an afterword (15:37–39), and three sections of reflections (4:16–17; 5:17–20; 6:12–17). Due to his use of materials apart from Jason’s, and his extensive work on the book well beyond mere epitomizing, I prefer to term him “author” rather than the mere “epitomator.” (c) In the course of his work the author also came upon a source that supplied him the materials that lie behind 10:9-end of Chapter 11. Given his mistaken impression that the letters of Chapter 11 showed Antiochus IV had died by 148, the introduction of these new materials led the author to rearrange his materials at this point, changing 13, 12, 9 into 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. (d) Other new material, perhaps from the same source, was introduced at 13:3–8, but this required only some minor, if artificial, coordination in 13:9. (e) Finally, in 143 or 142 BCE the Hasmonean authorities in Jerusalem decided to send the book out to the Jews of Egypt (and possibly other diaspora communities as well) in order to encourage them to celebrate the Hanukkah festival. For this purpose they added a section on that festival’s origins into the book at 10:1–8 and attached two accompanying letters at the book’s outset. This completed the formation of the book in its present form,80 and it was thus sent out. We do not know how successful it was in encouraging the celebration of Hanukkah,81 but it is a fact that the book managed to become included in the collection of works which was to become the Septuagint – and so to survive.

80

81

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

38

Introduction

III. Historical Worth and Leading Ideas Wir erfahren darüber näheres nur aus dem zweiten Makkabäerbuch, das sich vielfach als unzuverlässig zeigt wo man es kontrolliren kann, und also auch da Mistrauen verdient wo man es nicht kontrolliren kann. Der Bericht lautet wie folgt. (J. Wellhausen, Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte [Berlin: Reimer, 19045] 248)82 Wir erfahren darüber näheres nur aus dem zweiten Makkabäerbuch. Dessen Bericht lautet wie folgt … (idem, Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte [Berlin: Reimer, 19076] 243)83

1. 2 Maccabees as a Witness to the Events It Describes Given our conclusion in Section I that 2 Maccabees was written not long after the events it recounts, and our conclusion in Section II that 2 Maccabees is based upon sources, which must have originated even closer to the events, we may now approach the question of the book’s historical value with some optimism. True, in the past the field was dominated by the axiom that 1 Maccabees is the more accurate of the two books, and this presumption still prevails. To a large extent, this simply reflects recognition of the diasporan origin of our book, which means that its author was further – both geographically and culturally – from the Palestinian events it describes. However, the presumption also derived from three apparent errors. One is the psychological fallacy that leads us to think that if one book is accurate, the other is not; this type of thinking has misled other aspects of the study of 1–2 Maccabees as well.84 Then there is the widespread opinion that 2 Maccabees was composed several decades later than we suggested; see 82

83 84

“We find details about this only in 2 Maccabees, a book that often turns out to be untrustworthy in those passages where we can check it and therefore deserves mistrust even where we can’t check it. Its report is as follows.” “We find details about this only in 2 Maccabees. Its report is as follows.” Compare the notion that if 1 Maccabees is Sadducean, 2 Maccabees must be Pharisaic; see our NOTE on 12:43, resurrection.

III. Historical Worth and Leading Ideas

39

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

85

Note that there is no necessary connection between these two claims, for it could be that there were two campaigns (as is said in 1 Maccabees) and that our book happens to have two accounts of one.

40

Introduction

frequently coupled with a naïve willingness to unswervingly follow 1 Maccabees, and that same year Julius Wellhausen published a detailed monograph reviewing each episode of our book and evaluating its historical worth. While his conclusions are mixed, they were so positive as to engender the striking difference between his formulations concerning our work in the 1904 and 1907 editions of his standard textbook on the period, quoted at the outset of this section, that moved the burden of proof from those who would believe 2 Maccabees to those who would doubt it. Just how standard this new appreciation of our book was to become is well reflected by Eduard Meyer’s comment, as early as 1921, that at least 2 Maccabees 3–6 and 11 are worthy of our trust and that this is admitted by most scholars, even if with considerable reluctance (“wenn auch widerwillig genug”!).86 In the meantime epigraphists and papyrologists were also becoming involved, demonstrating the reliability of 2 Maccabees time and again with regard to terminology, institutions, and even individuals of the Hellenistic world. Three works compiled in the 1930s were particularly important in this regard: C. B. Welles’ Royal Correspondence, E. Bickerman’s Institutions des Séleucides,87 and an article by A. Wilhelm (“Zu einigen Stellen der Bücher der Makkabäer”88). The first two made extensive use of 2 Maccabees and integrated it into the growing corpus of evidence for the period, while the third was devoted to resolving problems in 2 Maccabees by interpreting its text in light of other evidence in that corpus. Then, in the 1950s, epigraphy made two further contributions to bolstering the status of our book: Sachs and Wiseman showed cuneiform evidence supports our book’s claim (in Chapters 9–10, contrary to 1 Macc 4–6) that Antiochus IV died prior to the rededication of the Temple, and Habicht showed that

86

87

88

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

III. Historical Worth and Leading Ideas

41

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

89

90 91

92

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

42

Introduction

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

94

95

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

III. Historical Worth and Leading Ideas

43

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

96

97

benszwang der Makkabäerzeit?” On this and other responses to Bickerman’s 1937 book, which – given the focus on issues concerning persecution and martyrdom – often reflected the Holocaust in one way or another, see C. Hoffmann, Juden und Judentum im Werk deutscher Althistoriker des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts (Leiden: Brill, 1988) 241–244. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, esp. 267–309; Bringmann, Hellenistische Reform, 66–96; Millar, “Background;” Doran, “Jason’s Gymnasium” and “High Cost;” Hyldahl, “The Maccabean Rebellion;” Stern, “Antioch in Jerusalem;” Parente, “ΤΟl lk tynx hjjyq ). The poem was published, on the basis of different genizah fragments, by Y. Yahalom (“Priestly Traditions Concerning the Miracle of Hanukah,” Bulletin of the Cambridge Traditional Jewish Congregation 53 [November 1994] 6) and S. Elizur (“Piyyutim of Hanukkah,” 306). Yahalom takes this passage to refer to the extermination of speakers of Greek (lashon in Hebrew means both language and tongue), but since these speakers are not mentioned explicitly, and the verb seems more appropriate for the excision of a tongue, perhaps the reference is to Nicanor’s tongue. Indeed, the same Hebrew verb is used in other accounts of Nicanor’s fate: “they cut off (vjjq ) his thumbs and big toes” (b. Ta‘anit 18b); “they cut off (vjjqv ) his limbs” (scholion to Megillat Ta‘anit on 13th Adar [Ms. Parma, ed. Noam, 298]). of his head. Some Lucianic witnesses read these words, Hanhart left them out, but Kilpatrick (“Review of Hanhart,” 18) showed that its omission could simply be a matter of homoioteleuton: ΝΙΚΑΝΟΡΟΣΕΚΤΗΣΚΕΦΑΛΗΣΕΚΤΕΜΝΝ. give it piecemeal to the birds. See our NOTE on 9:15, bird-eaten to wild animals.

510

Translation and Commentary

arms (πξειρα).This is a nice pun, for etymologically the term refers to that which is “over the hand,” i.e., the arms, but the word usually refers to “wages;” see Grimm, 2 Macc, 209, and LSJ, 673. That is, the text refers to the hanging of Nicanor’s arm opposite the Temple as his condign “wages” for having threatened it. Habicht (2 Macc, 279, n. 33a) thinks the verse refers to the hanging of the rest of the body (“Der Rumpf”) after the sundering of the arm and head, but the etymology, along with our story’s emphasis upon Nicanor’s arm (14:33), as well as those of the priests (14:34) and God (15:24), seems to point in the direction we have stated. For the hanging of the rest of the body, minus the head and arms, see v. 35. of folly. See NOTE on 4:6, folly. opposite the Sanctuary. Against which Nicanor had raised his arm. See also scholion on Megillat Ta‘anit to 13th Adar (ed. Noam, 298, Ms. Parma): “opposite the Temple.” 34. preserved His own Place undefiled. By repeating verbatim the terms of the prayer at 14:36 the Jews demonstrate their recognition that it was completely fulfilled. 35. fastened Nicanor’s torso to the Akra. I.e., the arm with shoulder mentioned in v. 30, termed “hand” in v. 32 and “arms of folly” in v. 33. Although some translators render προτομ here as “head,” the word means “bust,” i.e., the upper part of the body. It is, however, remarkable that we get no special information about what was done with Nicanor’s head, after the excision of the tongue (v. 33), so perhaps we should understand that it too was included – and indeed, 1 Maccabees 7:47 and the scholion to Megillat Ta‘anit (ed. Noam, 298, Ms. Parma) both report explicitly that Nicanor’s right hand and head were hung up in Jerusalem. The demonstrative display of the head of a fallen enemy was well known in both of our author’s worlds; see 1 Chronicles 10:10; Judith 13:15 and 14:1 (Grintz [Sefer Yehudith, 166] notes the great similarity between that episode and ours); Herodotus 5.114; Plutarch, Life of Cicero 49; etc. Lord’s assistance. On βοηεα see NOTE on 8:24, ally. 36. a decree made in common. On χφισμα see NOTE on 6:8, a decree. This verse is, along with 10:8, the second of the two pillars of our book in its current form: in each case a holiday is proclaimed “by decree made in common.” See Introduction, pp. 7–8.

Chapter XV

511

not at all to allow that day to remain unmarked. For the various traditions on Nicanor’s fate, and the establishment of the holiday to mark the victory, see J. Schwartz, “Once More,” 263–275. the thirteenth day of the twelfth month. Which was, so we infer, the date of the battle; so too 1 Maccabees 7:43; Josephus, Antiquities 12.412 and scholion to Megillat Ta‘anit to 13th Adar (ed. Noam, 298). According to 14:4 and 1 Maccabees 7:1 the year was 151 SE (which for 1 Macc is corroborated by the fact that the next date mentioned there, at 9:3, is 152 SE); on the Seleucid (Macedonian) reckoning, the spring of 151 SE corresponds to that of 161 BCE. (True, the Jewish [Babylonian] reckoning too, from spring 311, is at times employed in 1 Maccabees, and its application at 1 Maccabees 7:1 would lead us to the spring of 160. However, we may be sure that that date is in fact according to the Macedonian reckoning, for it puts Demetrius’ arrival in Syria in the 151st year and we can independently show, from Polybius, that Demetrius fled Rome in the late summer of 162 [see NOTE on 14:1, In the third year thereafter] – which is just around the beginning of the 151st year according to the Macedonian era but more than half a year before the beginning of that year according to the Babylonian reckoning.) in the Syrian language. I.e., Aramaic. On the text and its meaning, see Appendix 10. Use of this adjective here contributes to our confidence that when our author refers to “the ancestral language” he means another – Hebrew; see NOTE on 12:37, ancestral language. the day before Mordechai’s Day. I.e., Purim, as it is usually called (Esth 9:26 [Hebrew and Greek – Φροψραι]; Josephus, Ant. 11.295; etc.); for its date being the fourteenth of Adar see Esther 9:19, 21; Josephus, Antiquities 11.291–292. The name “Mordechai’s Day” is otherwise unknown; it might have developed, at least in our author’s imagination, simply as a reflection of the fact that “Nicanor’s Day” was the name of the adjacent holiday, discussed here.4 Note, however, that it has also been shown that the additions

4

I note, by way of comparison for this type of analogical creativity, that for decades the institution at which I teach was universally known by its official name, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the only difference between formal and informal usage being the omission of the latter two words. Lately however – since the establishment in Israel of “Tel-Aviv University” and “Haifa University” – one more and more hears it referred to as “Jerusalem University.”

512

Translation and Commentary

to Esther, in the Septuagint, tend to play up Mordechai’s role, perhaps reflecting myths of male heroism from the Hasmonean period, so perhaps this term for the holiday is part of a larger trend; see Bardtke, “Mardochäustag.” Goldstein (2 Macc, 502) suggests, in particular, that the term may reflect a desire to indicate a parallel between Mordechai and Judas, both of whom annihilated the Jews’ enemies and established holidays in commemoration thereof. In any case, the holiday named “Nicanor’s Day,” caught on, as we see from Megillat Ta‘anit (ed. Noam, 47, 298) and Josephus, Antiquities 12.412.5 For the various traditions on Nicanor’s fate, and the establishment of the holiday to mark the victory, see J. Schwartz, “Once More,” 263–275. – This verse is among the oldest testimonies to the holiday of Purim, just as several points in our book seem to echo Esther (see NOTE on 13:5, fifty cubits high); on the history of Purim in the Second Temple period, see B. Bar-Kochva, “On the Festival of Purim and Some of the Succot Practices in the Period of the Second Temple and Afterwards,” Zion 62 (1996/97) 387–395, and A. Oppenheimer, “‘Love of Mordechai or Hatred of Haman’? Purim in the Days of the Second Temple and Afterwards,” ibid. 408–418 (both in Hebrew). On our verse see, respectively, 388 and 410. Bar-Kochva emphasizes that our verse does not actually say “Mordechai’s day,” with the possessive; rather, it uses an adjective, “the Mordechaic day,” something which indicates that the writer was sure his readers knew whom he meant. 37. turned out. For such language summarizing the failures of other attacks, see 3:40 and 13:26. and ever since the city was taken over by the Hebrews it has been in their hands. For this translation, see Appendix 11. Here the author explains why he may end his book: the end of the last threat against Jerusalem restores the idyllic situation of the story’s outset (3:1). True, the political situation is now different; then there was Seleucid rule and now there is “Hebrew” rule. But that seems hardly to have interested our author, for whom the important point is that the threat against the Jewish city, the focus of his story, has been removed. See Introduction, p. 3.

5

The practice of celebrating the 13th of Adar as “Esther’s Fast” is not known until the post-talmudic period; see Schwarz, “Taanith Esther” and M. Margaliot, “Festivals and Fasts in Palestine and Babylonia in the Geonic Period,” Areshet 1 (1943/44) 214 (in Hebrew).

Chapter XV

513

the Hebrews. On this appellation, of which the formality is appropriate for the conclusion of a book, see NOTE on 7:31, Hebrews. I too. As in his preface (2:23–32) and in one of his addresses to his readers (6:12), but nowhere else with the exception of 14:34, the writer speaks for himself in the first person. 38. And if it is … For humble (or pseudo-humble) conclusions such as this, see for example Josephus’ at War 7.455 (in concluding his work, which he had presented at 1.3 as a translation, he writes “how it has been rendered I leave to the readers to decide”) and the end of Aelius Aristides’ To Rome (§109): “That which I have dared to do is complete; now is the time to vote on whether it was good or bad.” to the point (ε/ κτ,«). That is, properly focused (cf. 14:43, κατεψικτσα«), not expansive and detailed; see his statements of purpose at 2:24–32 and 10:10. in its formulation. For this translation of σ νται« see H. A. Rigg, “Papias on Mark,” NovT 1 (1956) 167–168. cheap and middling (ε/τελ*« κα3 μετρ,«). For a disorganized composition being ε.τελ« see Polybius 32.11.6 and Walbank, Polybius, 3.533, who translates “trivial;” Lucian, How to Write History, 22: ε.τελA νματα κα/ δημοτικ? κα/ πτξικ – “words which are cheap and vulgar and poor.” Cf. ibid. 56, cited in our NOTE to 2:30, occupying oneself with each and every detail. that is what I could attain. For φικτν (easy to obtain, accessible, possible) see Mauersberger, PL, 1.1058–1059. 39. inimical (πολωμιον). Lit.: “hostile.” For its use in such a sense, LSJ 1432 cites Plato, Protagoras 334B (oil is πολεμιτατον to all plants) and Aristotle, Historia Animalium 612a (when weasels fight snakes they eat rue, for its smell is πολεμα to snakes). wine by itself. I.e., unmixed, straight. For the point of this comparison, see the next NOTE. In antiquity it was usual to mix wine with water prior to drinking; see esp. Athenaeus 10.426–427; he who does not do so is said to be 5γροικο« (so Theophrastus, Characters 4; on this adjective see above, NOTE on 14:30, coarser) or “Scythian” (so Herodotus 6.84 – πισκψζ,

514

Translation and Commentary

cited by Athenaeus loc. cit.); for Scythians as the most barbaric of peoples, see 4:47 and 7:4. Galatians too were said to have been so uncouth, and such drinking figured as part of their terrifying image; see Diodorus 5.26.3 and NOTE on 8:20, confrontation with the Galatians. In general, see G. Hagenow, Aus dem Weingarten der Antike (Mainz: von Zabern, 1982), 111–122. Cf. LXX Jeremiah 32:1 and Psalms 74:9; 3 Maccabees 5:2 (unmixed wine makes elephants wild), Psalms of Solomon 8:15 (“gave them a cup of unmixed wine to drink, to make them drunk”), Philo, In Flaccum 136, t. Ber. 4:3 (ed. Lieberman, 18) and parr. (only wine that has been mixed with water deserves to be blessed as “wine”) and b. Pes. 104b (if one drinks unmixed wine at the Passover meal he has fulfilled his obligation but not in the respectable way of a free man). In this connection it is particularly relevant to recall the Greek belief that only Dionysus, who gave wine to mankind, was capable of drinking it unmixed without going crazy; mere mortals could not. See Herodotus, loc. cit., and Lissarrague, “Around the Krater,” 201–202. It is typical of the intermeshing of Judaism and Hellenism in our book that our author, in this prominent passage (his conclusion!), deploys a notion which is so easily associated with Dionysus. the (proper) construction of an account (τ« κατασκεψ« το λ2γοψ). Here the author repeats his assertion, presented in the preface (2:27), that his contribution to the book is comparable to that of someone who prepares (παρασκεψζ) a symposium. Just as there he claimed that his work was meant to give an attractive form and appearance to a book which is otherwise difficult to read and learn because of the mass of details (2:24), so too here he claims that his purpose was to make the book “proper and to the point.” Thus, the contents of the story are like wine, while editing is like adding water to make it more palatable. ears. For this sense of κο see BDAG 36, §3. In antiquity it was usual to read aloud, even when alone; see for example Polybius 12.27.3 and Acts 8:30; Chantraine, “Lire,” 116–121; Wifstrand, Epochs and Styles, 94–100; and P. J. Achtemeier, “Omne verbum sonat: The New Testament and the Oral Environment of Late Western Antiquity,” JBL 109 (1990) 15–17. It is possible that our book was read aloud in public, on Hanukkah or on Nicanor’s Day, similar to Esther, which was read on Purim, and to 3 Maccabees, which – to judge from the “Amen” which concludes the work – may have been read at celebrations of the holiday it describes; see Alexander, “3 Maccabees, Hanukkah and Purim,” 337. But we have no such evidence concerning 2 Maccabees, and judging from its lack of echo in early Jewish literature (see, Introduction, pp. 85–90) it is unlikely – if only

Chapter XV

515

because it is about twice as long as Esther and 3 Maccabees (in Rahlfs’ edition, they take up, respectively, around 39, 23, and 18 pages); who could sit through it in a single holiday celebration? who read (τ*ν ντψγξαν2ντ,ν). See NOTE on 2:25, to read … readers.

Bibliography Bardtke, “Mardochäustag.” Bar-Kochva, JM, 359–375. Bohak, G., “Joseph and Asenath and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis” (Diss. Princeton, 1994) 137–144. van Henten, “Judas the Maccabee’s Dream.” Schwartz, J., “Once More.” Wellhausen, “Wert,” 152–155.

516

Translation and Commentary

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: On the Letters in Chapters 1–2

519

Appendix 1: On the Letters in Chapters 1–2 The story of 2 Maccabees opens at 3:1. Preceding that, 2:19–32 (end of Ch. 2) are just as clearly the author’s (epitomator’s) preface: he employs the first person of himself, speaks of the book as a whole, and uses the same type of imagery as he does in the final verses of the work (15:38–39). Regarding the letters composing 1:1–2:18, however, questions concerning dating, authorship and relationship to the book are definitely warranted. In this appendix I shall say something both about the history of scholarship concerning these letters and about the facts of the matter, as far as I can grasp them. In 1868 a Benedictine monk by the name of Alois Cigoi published a small study of the historical and chronological problems posed by 2 Maccabees. Writing at a time when it was common in academic circles, which were mostly Protestant, to look down upon 2 Maccabees as an historical work, he did his Catholic best to defend the book which was, after all, a part of his canon.1 The third chapter of his work was devoted to the two letters opening the book, and he opened his discussion as follows: “No section of 2 Maccabees has been so differently interpreted, and so negatively assessed, as the two opening letters (Ch. 1 – 2:18), which are therefore in need of more thorough study and vindication.”2 Indeed, the next few decades saw the publication of numerous studies of these letters; particularly at issue was the question as to whether 1:1–2:18 should be divided into one, two, or three letters.3 In 1900, however, there came an ironic twist. As we have seen (above, p. 39), Niese’s Kritik der beiden Makkabäerbücher, published in that year, engendered a general revolution in the assessment of 2 Maccabees as an historical source, turning it into a work which, if of course not to believed in every detail, is nevertheless 1

2 3

For the status of our book as a matter of dispute between Catholics and Protestants, see above, pp. 60–61. Cigoi, Historisch-chronologische Schwierigkeiten, 46. See Graetz, “Sendschreiben;” Brüll, “Sendschreiben;” Bruston, “Trois lettres;” Büchler; “Sendschreiben;” Torrey, “Briefe.” For a survey of scholarship until the early twentieth century, see Herkenne, Briefe, 1–4 (with ibid. 19–20 on the number of letters).

520

Appendices

to be taken seriously and gratefully as a basically sound source for the history of the eventful period it addresses. From the point of view of the letters, however, there were two ironic points about Niese’s work. First, if Cigoi stipulated right at the beginning of his study that there was no need to consider the theory that 1:1–2:18 comprises a single letter, as no one seriously maintained that theory, just as already in 1857 Grimm had written that that position remained only a “Curiosität,”4 Niese nevertheless took precisely that position – and, indeed, made it the whole point of departure of his study. Namely, after opening his Kritik with a brief argument that 1 Maccabees was written not before the death of John Hyrcanus in 105/104 BCE, as emerges from a literal reading of 1 Maccabees 16:23–24 (which apparently refers to all of Hyrcanus’ accomplishments), Niese (9–26) proceeds to argue not only that 2 Maccabees 1:1 – 2:18 is a single letter of 125 BCE (based on reading “188” SE in 1:10)5 but that the letter is part and parcel of the book as a whole, so that the whole book is a work of that year and thus a generation or more older than 1 Maccabees. This serves as the basis of Niese’s call to upgrade the historical evaluation of our book. Thus, Cigoi’s call for such a reassessment had been answered by a highly respected scholar who built on a view Cigoi had considered unworthy even of consideration. That is the first ironic point. The other and more important ironic point is that although Niese’s general stance regarding 2 Maccabees found general acceptance (see above, pp. 39–40), his position concerning the letters was rejected across the board. Rightly so, for that position necessarily encounters numerous problems: the fact that there is a salutation not only at 1:1 but also at 1:10; the fact that the letters are all about Hanukkah while the book leads up to Nicanor’s Day (and apparently did not deal, originally, with Hanukkah); the fact that Judas Maccabaeus, who is the putative author of the letter according to 1:10, died decades before 125 BCE; the fact that the account of Antiochus’ death in 1:13–16 differs radically from that in Chapter 9. Quite

4 5

Cigoi, Historisch-chronologische Schwierigkeiten, 46; Grimm, 2 Macc, 36. Niese translated 188 SE into 125 BCE on the basis of the assumption that the official Seleucid (Macedonian) system was meant. Since that era began in the autumn of 312 BCE, 188 SE was 125/124 BCE, and Niese further assumed that the letter was sent out not long before Hanukkah, that is, in the autumn or very early winter, hence – 125 BCE. Today it is more common to assume that this Jewish letter used the Jewish (Babylonian) system, which began the era in the spring of 311, and so the year translates into 124/123 and the same assumption about its timing leads us to the fall of 124 – as for example in the title of Bickerman’s article upon which we shall focus below. This issue need not concern us here.

Appendix 1: On the Letters in Chapters 1–2

521

reasonably, not many scholars were willing to accept Niese’s explanations, such as that “Judas” of 1:10 was not Judas Maccabaeus but, rather, some unknown other,6 and that “Antiochus” of 1:13–16 was not Antiochus IV Epiphanes but, rather, Antiochus VII Sidetes.7 Thus, for example, Wellhausen opened his 1905 monograph with a three-page discussion of the letters, which completely rejected Niese’s position and noted that with the rejection of that position his entire case collapsed.8 Nevertheless, scholars (including Wellhausen) found it warranted to accept the general thrust of Niese’s rehabilitation of the book even as they rejected his point of departure. Such are the dynamics of scholarly revolutions. The next step, and the one which has fixed the foundations of common wisdom concerning these letters until today, came thirty years later: in 1933 Elias Bickerman published “Ein jüdischer Festbrief vom Jahre 124 v. Chr.,” a detailed study of 1:1–10a of which the two main points, clearly indicated by his article’s title, were (1) that it is a letter (so independent of the book and merely attached to it), and (2) the letter is from 188 SE, the date given in v. 10a.9 Below we shall return to the first point, but we must first deal with the latter. Bickerman’s contribution addressed the central issue that complicates the understanding of the first letter: Why should one letter have two dates, 169 SE in v. 7 but 188 SE in v. 10? This question had previously been answered in one of two ways: either by inferring that in fact 1:1–10 was composed of two letters, each with its own date, or, rather, by maintaining – in line with the traditional verse-division – that vv. 1–9 are one letter while the date in v. 10 in fact belongs to, and opens, the second letter. Bickerman rejected the latter possibility out of hand, for it is “impossible” that a date appear at the opening of an ancient letter.10 But he also recognized that it is quite difficult to view vv. 7–9 as a separate letter, for there is no salutation. Accordingly, Bickerman proposed that in fact 1:1–10a (ending with the date) is a single letter of 188 SE that quotes from an earlier letter of 169 SE.

6 7 8

9

10

Niese, Kritik, 16. Ibid., 19. Wellhausen, “Wert,” 118–120. Similarly, by 1949 Abel was back to Cigoi’s position: “Il n’y a pas à s’arrêter à l’opinion de Niese qui voit une seule lettre de 1, 1 à 2, 18. Cela s’accorde difficilement avec la multiplicité des dates, des adresses et des salutations” (Abel, Macc, 299). Bickerman’s study appeared originally in ZNW 32 (1933) 233–254 but is cited here according to the reprint in his Studies, 2.136–158. Bickerman, Studies, 2.138 (“Die Voranstellung der Datierung, die in einem antiken Brief unmöglich ist …”).

522

Appendices

In his study, which is based on his expertise in Hellenistic papyrology, he brings evidence for such citation of an earlier letter in a later one; his view soon became the scholarly consensus, and remains so until today. Suffice it to note that it is repeated in the commentaries of Abel, Habicht and Goldstein, all three of which translate the perfect γεγρφαμεν in v. 7a with the past tense (“avons écrit,” “haben geschrieben,” “wrote”) and print vv. 7b-8 within quotation marks. However, with all due respect it seems to me that Bickerman’s expertise in Hellenistic papyrology may have led him astray. For the first epistle is plainly a Semitic document, and to interpret it according to the standards of Greek letters, and to translate its verbs according to what is usual in Greek and without regard for the fact that they render a Hebrew or Aramaic text, would seem to be a mistake. Thus, Torrey and Hack, who published – within the decade after Bickerman’s article – studies of the letters and retroversions of them into Aramaic (Torrey) and Hebrew (Hack), should have been better guides to their understanding.11 But they drew little notice. In the case of Hack, this is not surprising; he wrote in Hebrew. The fact that Torrey’s piece was ignored is harder to explain. Perhaps it is due to the fact that it accompanied his much broader and more controversial work in which he argued for Aramaic origins or sources of the Gospels and Acts; that thesis was generally rejected,12 and it may be that scholars tended to assume that Torrey’s views on such ancillary topics as our letters were washed away with the rest. Be that as it may, we note that already Torrey translated the verb in v. 7 in the present tense, “we the Jews write you” (“Letters,” 147). Indeed, more recent work and new evidence confirm that it was usual to employ a formally past tense verb in referring to a current letter in order to reflect the fact that it was written prior to being read by its recipient.13 The implication is that 169 is the date of the present letter. But a letter of 169 cannot cite a letter of 188, which brings us to the question of the text of v. 10a. All modern editions give 188 SE. Bickerman too, whose work (as we noted) has remained the foundation for all subsequent scholars, rejected out of hand the reading of those manuscripts which instead have 148. He did so because he assumed that it was a correction – from 188 to 148 – by some 11 12

13

Torrey, “Letters;” Hack, “Two Hanukkah Letters.” For surveys of scholarship of that generation, see M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: Clarendon, 19543) 4–14, and M. Wilcox, The Semitisms of Acts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965) 4–12. D. Dempsey, “The ‘Epistolary Perfect’ in Aramaic Letters,” BN 54 (1990) 7–11. And see our NOTE on 1:7, have written.

Appendix 1: On the Letters in Chapters 1–2

523

scribe who thought the date belonged to the second letter but both (1) knew that Judas – who is mentioned among its authors (1:10b) – could not have lived until 188 SE (125/124 BCE)14 and (2) took 1:18 and 2:16 to mean that the authors of the letter were about to celebrate the purification of the Temple, which (as our putative scribe knew from 1 Macc 4:52) occurred in 148 SE. However, if for the moment we accept, with Bickerman and his followers on this point, the reading “188,” we must ask how to translate the words κα/ νν jνα 5γητε τ?« Yμωρα« τA« σκηνοπηγα« το Ξασελεψ μην9« 6τοψ« Ψκατοστο γδοηκοστο κα/ γδοψ (1:9–10a). Here, it turns out upon examination that there is no scholarly agreement: Bickerman and Abel thought that the genitive should be taken seriously and thus “188” should be seen as the end of the preceding verse: the Jews of Egypt are invited to celebrate “the days of (the festival of) Tabernacles of the month of Kislev of the year 188.” But Goldstein quite properly noted that this is unreasonable: “The date is surely meant to be the date of the letter, not the date of the festival, which was obvious to the recipients.”15 Anyone receiving a letter urging him to celebrate an annual holiday knows that it refers to the next occurrence of the holiday. Therefore, Goldstein translated the date as an independent sentence: “And now we ask you to celebrate the Days of Tabernacles in the Month of Kislev. In the year 188.” So too Habicht and the 1980 German Einheitsübersetzung.16 But this is, I believe, just as unacceptable. For if it is true that there is usually a date at the end of a letter, it is also true that the words “In the year 188” are not a date. Dates of letters specify the day, with the month and year to which they belong coming in the genitive; compare e.g. 11:21 (6τοψ« Ψκατοστο τεσσαρακοστο γδοψ, Δι9« Κορινοψ τετρδι κα/ ε+κδι); so too 11:33, 38. The use of the genitive for the year 148 in 11:21 does not mean that the letter is “of” that year but, rather, that the specified month and day are; but such an interpretation cannot be used for 1:10, where no month and day are specified.17

14 15 16

17

For his death in 152 SE see 1 Macc 9:3, 54. Goldstein, 2 Macc, 153. Habicht offers the sentence “Im Jahre 188” (2 Macc, 201) and the Einheitsübersetzung (available on Internet) has: “Geschrieben im Jahr 188.” See also 10:5 where, although no year is specified, the date is in the dative and the month to which the day belongs is in the genitive. For letters dated by date and month as well as year see also, for example, Welles, RC, nos. 18, 19, 37, 38, 44, 45, 47, 55, 65–67, 71, 75; this collection contains not a single example of a letter dated by year

524

Appendices

So we are forced back to the position of Bickerman and Abel, namely, to take the genitive as qualifying the holiday to be celebrated. But since we – as opposed to Bickerman and Abel – have already decided that v. 7 dates our letter, to 169 SE, it cannot be that v. 10 refers to 188 SE. But that latter number should always have been suspect anyway. First of all, variant readings abound: Hanhart gives ε’ κατοστο γδοηκοστο κα/ γδοψ on the basis of the Syriac (!), which is usually considered one of the least significant witnesses to our book’s text; although that same number is supported by some other witnesses more or less clumsily (such as the Venetus’ εκατ. και ογδοηκ. και ογδ.), there are also witnesses which read 108 and 180 and two that read 148. True, all things being equal we would indeed choose to read 188. But not all things are equal. For it should, I believe, always have been strange to think that a letter of 188 SE, or an invitation to celebrate the holiday in 188 SE, should appear at the beginning of our book. Why should it? It does not seem, on the one hand, that there was anything special about that year; as Momigliano put it, it seems to be “insignificante.”18 And if we suppose that it was usual for the Jerusalemites to send out such letters regularly, perhaps even annually, why should the one sent out in 124 BCE have been attached to the book? All in all, it seems that no one would have imagined the letter was from 188 SE were it not for the manuscript support for that reading. But if, on the other hand, what we have here is an invitation of the year 169 SE to celebrate the holiday of Hanukkah, and the year mentioned in v. 10a, in the genitive, somehow identifies that holiday, it would be totally significant, and hence attractive, to read “148” and assume that the holiday, which the Jews of

18

alone. See also Exler, Greek Letter, 78–100; from this study too it emerges that both Ptolemaic and Seleucid letters, if dated, had the date at the end of the letter and it specified day, month, and year. Prime linee, 77. For the prime attempt to find some special reason for a letter like this one to have been sent from Jerusalem to Egypt in 124 BCE, see Bickerman, Studies, 155–156. Bickerman argues that 124 was unusual insofar as it saw a truce between Ptolemy VIII and Cleopatra II, in contrast to all other years between 145–118; see also Stern, Hasmonaean Judaea, 128–135. However, Bickerman’s suggestion that the truce of 124 may have somehow endangered the Jews of Egypt, or that that was feared, rings hollow. In a more general way, Otto and Bengtson suggested (Zur Geschichte des Niederganges, 66) that the letter is alluding to the Jews’ problems with Ptolemy VIII due to their support for Cleopatra II in the years preceding 124. In fact, however, it seems that “there is no basis for any talk about Ptolemy Physcon having a basically negative attitude toward the Jews, and certainly none for any lasting or general persecutions of the Jews by him” (Stern, Hasmonaean Judaea, 127; see also idem, Studies, 112–113).

Appendix 1: On the Letters in Chapters 1–2

525

Egypt are being invited to celebrate, is being termed “the days of the festival of Tabernacles of the month of Kislev of the year 148.” Just as we can well imagine American posters, even today, inviting citizens to events celebrating “July 4, 1776,” so would we understand the first letter as one of 169 SE inviting its recipients to celebrate the “Tabernacles of Kislev 148.” To complete this part of our discussion, we would note, first of all, that of the two witnesses that read 148, Mss. 55 and 62 of the tenth and eleventh centuries respectively,19 Hanhart has characterized the former as an independent witness of a value comparable to that of the uncials.20 Moreover, Bruston already argued long ago, that the reading 188 (ΡΠΔ) could be no more than a paleographic error for 148 (ΡΜΔ), the difference between the two being only the shape of the bar which connects the two uprights of the middle letter.21 For another error of this type, see NOTE on 12:18, in a certain place. So much for the dating of the letter, which was Bickerman’s second major point. We now turn to his first major point: his argument that 1:1–10a is a Festbrief which happened to be attached to the book. If this is true, then the dates in the letter give no guidance as to the date of the book; it could be older or younger than the letter. Thus, for example, Goldstein thought the book was a product of the seventies of the first century BCE, in which case the letter must have been in some Alexandrian “Hanukkah file” until the book came along. That is possible, but it seems to me that in fact there is good reason to believe that those who wrote the first epistle had the book before them and both fit their letter to the book and fit the book to their letter, so that the book could be sent out as an “attachment” justifying the letter’s invitation to the Jews of Egypt to celebrate Hanukkah. There are three main points to note: 1. In v. 5 the letter expresses the hope that God will become “reconciled” with the recipients (κα/ καταλλαγεη 3μν). This verb is relatively rare in Greek religious parlance, but it is utterly basic to 2 Maccabees. In Chapters 7–8 the martyrs pray that God will become reconciled (καταλλαγσεται) with the Jews (7:33), and when the Jews begin to win their battles in the next chapter, they ask that God will not stop halfway but, rather, become completely reconciled with them (8:29 – ε+« τωλο« καταλλαγAναι); accordingly, it is not surprising to find the term in the auth-

19 20 21

See Rahlfs, Verzeichnis, 177, 245–246. Hanhart, 2 Macc, 37. Bruston, “Trois lettres,” 114.

526

Appendices

or’s own reflections as well (5:20: καταλλαγ@). Moreover, it is clear that the usage of this word implies Deuteronomy 32:36, where it is promised that God will be reconciled with His servants; “servants” reappears alongside of this verb in 7:33 and 8:29, and Deuteronomy 32:36 itself is formally cited in 7:6, just as there are other important allusions to Deuteronomy 32 in our book.22 It is difficult to imagine that the use of “reconciliation” language in 1:5 does not reflect acquaintance with this central theme of our book. 2. The first letter is very interested in cultic details: “and we brought sacrifices and fine flour. And we lit the lamps and presented the showbreads” (1:8). This account is very similar to what we find at 10:3, in the description of the event itself: “they offered up sacrifices after a two-year period, and they also took care of incense and lamps and the presentation of the showbreads.” Now it has often been noticed that 10:1–8 are a secondary addition to our book: they artificially separate the death of Antiochus Epiphanes (end of Ch. 9) from the verse summarizing that event (10:9) and they direct interest to the Hanukkah holiday although the bottom line of our book is Nicanor’s Day. However, it is also the case that the way the Hanukkah holiday is announced at 10:8 parallels precisely, nearly verbatim, the way Nicanor’s Day is announced at 15:36.23 So it is clear that 10:1–8 was added into the book more or less as we have it. Since the interests (Hanukkah) and emphases (cult, all of the people) of that passage conform to those of the first epistle, economy of hypotheses urges us to assume that it was in fact added to the book by the Jerusalemites who added the letter – who realized that without such a supplement into Chapter 10 the book would not, in fact, buttress an invitation to celebrate Hanukkah. 3. The letter seems even to describe the book, for the words in 1:7, we Judaeans have written you concerning24 the oppression and the crisis which came upon us in these years, beginning when Jason and those who were with him rebelled against the Holy Land and the kingdom … apparently mean that the story that accompanies the letter begins with events under Jason. That is not exactly true, for Jason’s story comes in Chapter 4, whereas Chapter 3 deals with Heliodorus. However, as we

22 23

24

See above, pp. 21–22. δογμτισαν … χηφσματο« παντ τ: τ7ν 0Ιοψδαν 6νει …//δογμτισαν δM πντε« … χηφσματο« period. See above, pp. 7–8. For this translation of ν see our NOTE on 1:7, concerning the oppression …

Appendix 1: On the Letters in Chapters 1–2

527

have noted (p. 4) the Heliodorus story does not really move the book forward; it has its own happy end at the end of Chapter 3, so the book has to begin again, somewhat artificially, at the outset of Chapter 4. Similarly, at 2:20 the author summarizes the book beginning with events under Antiochus IV, thus ignoring everything prior to Jason (who, as Antiochus, makes his first appearance in 4:7), and at 8:2–4 the prayer summarizing the story until that point also has nothing to say about Chapter 3; so too Judas’ speech at 8:17. Thus, the fact that 1:7 begins with Jason in no way undermines the notion that it is basically summarizing the book. The main objection to the notion that those Jerusalemites who wrote the opening letters were familiar with the book is supplied by the differences between the account of Antiochus’ death in 1:13–16 and that in Chapter 9. Although the two stories agree in having his death come in the wake of an attempt to rob an eastern temple, the details are all different. However, as we have argued25 this part of the second letter should be seen as an interpolation; the repetition of γρ in vv. 12–13 is intolerable and removal of the whole section will allow for an easy transition from v. 12 to v. 17. As something of a bonus, note that both the predicate of v. 12 (ωβρασε) and the object of v. 17 (σεβσαντα«) point directly at Jason; see 4:13 (το σεβο« κα/ ο.κ ρξιερω« 0Ισονο«) and 5:8 (εβρση). Thus, excision of vv. 13–16 (which were apparently added by someone who had yet another tradition on how Antiochus died) not only removes the contradiction between this letter and the body of the book but also bolsters our notion that the author of this letter, as that of the first letter (1:7) and the author of the book himself (2:20), views the story as one that begins with Jason. Having thus passed from the first letter to the second one, let us continue and note a very serious link between the latter and the passage at 10:1–8 which, we have already posited, was added by the author of the first letter. Namely, it is clear that the main point of the second letter is to prove that the fire on the altar of the Second Temple of Jerusalem is the same fire that came down from heaven to the altar of the First Temple in the days of Solomon (2 Chr 7:1); to prove this it traces the fire back from Nehemiah to Jeremiah to Solomon. But the second letter does not say how to get from Nehemiah to the second century BCE. That is, it does not answer the obvious question, which is the only one of contemporary significance, namely:

25

See NOTE on 1:12, For (γ#ρ) He Himself drove out.

528

Appendices

What about the fire in the Temple as restored by Judas Maccabaeus? However, the second letter does contain an interesting detail, that the naptha (the liquefied form of the ancient fire) left after Nehemiah used some of it to restart the fire in Second Temple was poured onto large rocks (λοψ« μεζονα«; 1:31). What that means is not very clear, nor does it at all function in the remainder of the letter – but it evidently serves us very well in explaining a mystifying detail in the course of the rededication narrative added in at 10:3: after purifying the Temple they made a new altar and – having ignited rocks and extracted fire from them (πψρσαντε« λοψ« κα/ πρ κ το τν λαβντε«) – they offered up sacrifices … How can one ignite rocks and extract fire from them? The obvious answer is that the reference is to striking a spark from a flint. However, there is no reference here to “striking” or “sparks,” and striking sparks from stones does not “ignite” the stones.26 So even if what really happened was the striking of a spark, it seems clear that the author of this report wants us to understand that the restored fire was one which had been taken out of storage, so to speak, having been put there in the days of Nehemiah, and that it contained the original heavenly fire of Solomon’s days. But it is obvious that no one could expect readers to understand 10:3 that way if they had not read the story told by the second letter. Now if it is the case that 10:1–8 was added in by the Jerusalemite author of the first letter, but that also the second letter is bound up essentially with 10:1–8, and that in fact the reference there to igniting rocks is unintelligible until they are put together one with another, then the apparent conclusion is that whoever added 10:1–8 and the first letter added the second letter too. This is, moreover, the most economical hypothesis. So our conclusion, in the end, is not very far from Niese’s. He thought that the book opened with a single letter stretching from 1:1–2:18 and that its author wrote the book as well; scholars have since come to hold, by and

26

The RSV avoids all problems, but also the Greek, by translating “then, striking fire out of flint, they offered sacrifices …,” and Abel (Macc, 407) is only a little closer to the Greek insofar as he maintains “stones” in the plural and both references to “fire:” “puis ayant tiré des étincelles des pierres à feu, ils prirent de ce feu …” Had the Greek said “étincelles” and “pierres à feu” his translation would be fine. For the ways Greeks and Romans referred to making fire by striking sparks from stones, much the way we describe it, see the collection of references in: M. H. Morgan, “De ignis eliciendi modis apud antiquos,” HSCP 1 (1890) 35–38.

Appendix 1: On the Letters in Chapters 1–2

529

large, that there are two separate letters and that neither is bound up with the book; but we have suggested that although there are indeed two opening letters, the same author added (although not necessarily composed) both and was aware of the book and even edited it in a most central way, namely, by adding in the Hanukkah story (10:1–8). The year this was done is given in 1:7 – 169 SE = 143/142 BCE, the date of Hasmonean independence,27 a watershed date which justified an invitation to the Jews of the Diaspora to join in the celebrations. This date therefore serves as a terminus ad quem for our book; for more on this, see the Introduction, pp. 11–15.

27

See 1 Macc 13:41–42: “In the one hundred and seventieth year the yoke of the Gentiles was removed from Israel, and the people began to write in their documents and contracts, ‘In the first year of Simon the great high priest and commander and leader of the Jews’” (RSV). As Goldstein noted (1 Macc, 479–480), it seems that Ant. 14.145–148, which (despite Josephus’ confusion) appears to be a document of 134 BCE, constitutes evidence for the actual use of this Hasmonean era, for it is dated to “the ninth year.”

530

Appendices

Appendix 2: “to register the people of Jerusalem as Antiochenes” (4:9) This verse has aroused much debate,28 but it may well be that a newly-published inscription can put an end to it. Taken at face value, this verse prescribes the registration of Antiochenes found in Jerusalem. Plain “Antioch,” certainly in our book, is Antioch on the Orontes, the Seleucid capital.29 But what would be the point of making a registry of all citizens or inhabitants of that city who happened to be found in Jerusalem? And why would this be listed along with other boons granted Jason, and why would Jason pay for the privilege to draw up such a list? Given these questions, it is generally agreed that in fact what is meant is the granting of permission to register Jerusalemites as (!) Antiochenes, that is, the granting of “Antiochene” status to Jerusalemites. As for the identity of this Antioch, however, there are two main possibilities.30 Given the prominence of Antioch on the Orontes, some have thought our verse means Antiochus allowed Jason to register Jerusalemites as citizens of that city. However, since the next verses have to do with changing the nature of Jerusalem, it is likelier that our verse means that Jerusalemites could be registered in a new entity to be founded there, known as “Antioch” or, more probably, “Antioch-in-Jerusalem” (so as to distinguish it from many other Antiochs, such as “Antioch on the Cydnus [Tarsus],” “Antioch in Mygdonia” [Nisibis], etc.; see Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 116, and Le Rider, Suse, 41). For such usage, note esp. 4:19, where “Jerusalem Antiochenes” are sent on a diplomatic mission.

28

29 30

Apart from the commentaries see esp. Bickerman, Gott, 59–65; Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 131, 319–322; Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 138; Stern, “Foundation,” 239–243; Parente, “ΤΟWΣ ΕΝ ΙΕΡΟΣΟΛWΜΟΙΣ;” Cohen, “‘Antiochenes in Jerusalem.’” See 4:33, 5:21, 8:35, 11:36, 13:23 and 14:27. I see little to support Cohen’s suggestion (ibid.) that the reference is to Akko-Ptolemais, which too was known as “Antioch.” There is no evidence for citizens of that city being in Jerusalem, nor any reason for our author to use this rare name instead of Ptolemais – which he does at 13:24–25.

Appendix 2: “to register the people of Jerusalem as Antiochenes” (4:9)

531

At this point we get to the major controversy: was this Antioch-in-Jerusalem a corporation, perhaps termed a politeuma, within the city of Jerusalem? This is the position defended by Bickerman and many others.31 Or was it, rather, as argued especially by Tcherikover, itself a new city? The latter explanation seems preferable, for the continuation says Jason (acting upon the authority he obtained from the king) “abrogated royal privileges and … abolished regular civic usages” (4:10–11). This language is easily understood if it refers to setting up a new city. But if all Antiochus had allowed was the foundation of a corporation, a glorified club, how would that have impacted upon privileges and laws? To overcome this objection Bickerman and others suggested that Antiochus exempted these new “Antiochenes” from the obligation to live according to the ancestral laws, an obligation which – he claims – the Seleucid monarchy had, beginning with its takeover of Judaea under Antiochus III, hitherto imposed upon the Jews. However, it is difficult to accept Bickerman’s position that Seleucid permission to live according to Jewish law constituted a Seleucid demand that Jews live according to Jewish law.32 Rather, all that Antiochus III did was allow those Jews who wanted to live according to Jewish law to do so;33 for an explicit statement of this type of position, although in a later text, see Antiquities 14.258, where the people of Halicarnassus allow those Jews who wish to (βοψλομωνοψ«) to observe the Sabbath and observe the sacred Jewish laws. Accordingly, if what the king authorized Jason to do involved the changing of laws, it must have affected a city; given the fact that Antioch is a wellattested name for cities, it is most probable that a city named Antioch was established at Jerusalem. The fact that we lack, for Jerusalem, evidence for some of the characteristic institutions of Hellenistic cities need not contradict that conclusion, given the general paucity of sources available for the period. Similarly, the fact that the gerousia – a typical institution of prepolis Jerusalem, went on existing and representing traditional interests (see NOTE on 4:44, Council of Elders) does not mean no polis was founded; rather, it shows that traditionalist institutions went on existing and serving their constituencies despite the fact that they now had to compete with rulers and institutions who drew their authority directly from the king. The recent publication of an inscription that published the text of two letters by the Attalid king Eumenes II (ruled ca. 197–160), in which – prob-

31 32 33

See Bickerman and Parente (above, n. 28). Bickerman, Studies, 2.71–72. See our NOTE on 4:11, benevolent royal privileges.

532

Appendices

ably not much more than a decade prior to the time our book is describing here – he grants the Phrygian community of Tyriaion the right to organize itself as a polis, should settle the issue.34 For its language and contents echo those of our text closely but they leave (as we shall see in our next paragraph) no room for doubt that the matter at hand is the foundation of a polis. Note especially the comparison of their request that they be allowed “a constitution, their own laws, and a gymnasium and all those entail” (so Letter 1, lines 9–11), summarized in Letter 2 (lines 41–42) as “a constitution and a gymnasium,” to our book’s report that Jason asked for permission “to found a gymnasium and ephebeion and to register the people of Jerusalem as Antiochenes,” which seems to amount to another way to say the same – and in both cases the king gives the “nod” (see our NOTE on 4:10, royal approval). True, it should be noted that neither of the two Tyriaion letters says, in so many words, that Eumenes allowed the establishment of a polis. However, it is very clear that this is the issue in both of them. For the first letter is addressed to the “settlers” of the place, but after expressing his approval of their request that they organize themselves “in one politeuma and use their own laws” (lines 27–28) the king goes on to note that he expressed recognition of their politeuma at the beginning of the other letter – which opens by addressing “the boulê and the dêmos of the Toriaitoi,” which is a standard opening of letters to a polis.35 Thus, it is clear that the king viewed his first letter as changing unorganized “settlers” into the citizens of a city.36 By the same token, we should not be surprised at the fact that our book too describes the process without using the actual word polis. Accordingly, it now seems clearer both that our book’s testimony is that Jason requested and received permission to organize a polis in Jerusalem, called Antioch-in-Jerusalem, and that that testimony corresponds to what would be expected in the contemporary Hellenistic world. Nevertheless, further evidence that this testimony corresponds to what really happened would be welcome; see our Introduction, pp. 52–53.

34

35

36

As has been noted, apparently independently, by Ameling, “Jerusalem” and Kennell, “New Light.” The inscription was first published by L. Jonnes and M. Ricl as “A New Royal Inscription from Phrygia Paroreios: Eumenes II Grants Tyriaion the Status of a Polis,” EA 29 (1997) 1–30, and again by Jonnes, The Inscriptions of the Sultan Dagi, ˘ I (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 62; Bonn: Habelt, 2002) 85–89, no. 393. As for example in Welles, RC, nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 13–15. Cf. V. A. Tcherikover, “Was Jerusalem a ‘Polis?’,” IEJ 14 (1964) 62–63. For the obvious importance of the identification of the addressees in formal letters, compare for example our NOTE on 11:16, to the community of Jews.

Appendix 3: “his second invasion” (5:1)

533

Appendix 3: “his second invasion” (5:1) Περ/ δM τ9ν καιρ9ν τοτον τ"ν δεψτωραν 6φοδον $ 8ντοξο« ε+« Α=γψπτον στελατο. Antiochus’ first Egyptian campaign, in 170/169 BCE, ended successfully but with more work left for the next year: after conquering virtually all of Egypt apart from Alexandria he left a garrison at Pelusium and returned to Syria. In the spring of 168 he returned to Egypt and successfully took Alexandria as well – but shortly thereafter was expelled by a famous Roman ultimatum.37 Our book has Antiochus attacking Jerusalem and robbing the Temple on the way back from his second campaign to Egypt, i.e., in the summer of 168 BCE. This poses an oft-noted problem, because 1 Maccabees 1:20–24 clearly has Antiochus visiting Jerusalem and robbing the Temple in 143 SE = 170/169 BCE, i.e., following Antiochus’ first campaign to Egypt. True, Daniel (11:28–30) makes it clear that Antiochus visited Jerusalem after each campaign, implying concerning the first and saying explicitly concerning the second that the king did something nasty during his visit. But it still seems impossible to accept the reports in 1 Maccabees 1 and 2 Maccabees 5 at face value, as reporting two separate events, because they are so very similar, both focusing on the robbery of the Temple. The very fact that each source reports only one such event is itself a weighty argument against the notion that there were two such robberies of the Temple. So is the consideration that if everything listed in 1 Maccabees 1:21–23 had already been stolen in 169, there would hardly have been many “holy vessels” (2 Macc 5:16) left to be taken the following year. So there appears to be a real contradiction between the two works. One obvious way of dealing with it would be to identify our “second invasion” with the campaign of 143 SE, which would let both books refer to the same event. Abel proposed to do so by positing that the first campaign

37

For these events, see our NOTE on 5:5, false rumor, also Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 64–101; Walbank, Polybius, 3.321–324, 403–404; Gruen, Hellenistic World, 2.651–660.

534

Appendices

was understood to have been divided into two stages38 – but this seems to be little more than wishful thinking and in any case fails to do justice to the meaning of 6φοδο« (see below). Kolbe and Gera went another route, viewing the king’s trip to Joppe (4:21–23) as his first “approach” to Egypt and so letting the invasion of 170/169 be the “second.”39 But this would require us to take two difficult steps: (1) Translating 6φοδο« as “approach.”40 Although this may find some support in 12:21,41 even that is not unambiguous, and apart from it the term always means “invasion.” See, for example, 13:26: “That is how the king’s invasion (φδοψ) and return turned out.” As Ettelson put the matter, “The word 6φοδο« is found elsewhere in the LXX only in II Macc., where it occurs indeed six times, but always in the hostile sense of ‘inroad,’ ‘assault.’”42 (2) Assuming that the king’s trip to Joppe was, for our author, comparable to his invasion of Egypt. The differences between what the king actually did, and the distance between Joppe and Egypt, weigh heavily against such an assumption. If we admit, then, that the two books are indeed referring to different invasions of Egypt in different years, and we reject (as above) as unlikely the suggestion that Antiochus robbed the Temple after each of them, then we must simply choose between the two books. It is usual to prefer the chronology of 1 Maccabees. As Habicht wrote already in 1976: “Today there is broad agreement, that the king … was twice in Jerusalem, in 169 and 168, that during the first visit he entered the Temple (led by Menelaus) and robbed it, and during the second he treated the city according to the law of war, for – as 2 Maccabees 5:11 reports – he viewed the civil war connected with Jason’s attack to be a matter of rioting and rebellion. The present chapter (= 2 Macc 5) combines the two royal visits into one.”43

38 39

40 41 42 43

Abel, Macc, 348, followed by Schürer, History, 1.129, 153. Kolbe, Beiträge, 99–100; Gera, Judaea, 155–156. In the last German version of his work, published in 1901, Schürer had considered a similar possibility, namely, that one should take for granted that our verse refers, as does 1 Macc 1:21, to 170/169 BCE, and therefore infer, from our verse’s use of “second,” that there had been a preceding campaign, in 171 BCE; see his Geschichte, 1.170. However, writing as he was before Niese’s Kritik (1900) had yet made any impact (see Introduction, p. 39), Schürer rejected this notion due to the general unreliability of our book. Gera, ibid. And see also our NOTE on 3:8, make the rounds. Ettelson, “Integrity,” 319. Habicht, 2 Macc, 224, n. 1a (my translation).

Appendix 3: “his second invasion” (5:1)

535

For this consensus Habicht cites several modern authors, and others too can be added.44 It is, however, difficult to subscribe to this position. First of all, we note that Josephus, despite his usual dependence upon 1 Maccabees, places the robbery of the Temple in 145 SE (168/167 BCE), which fits 2 Maccabees. While he does record that Antiochus visited Jerusalem twice, after each Egyptian campaign, he has him robbing the city after the first and the Temple only after the second. And the same seems to result from a fragmentary Qumran text as well.45 Second, note that the pro-Hasmonean author of 1 Maccabees had good reason to ignore any pre-Hasmonean rebellion against the Seleucids – but as Tcherikover has shown, our chapter indicates, however indirectly, that there was such a rebellion in 168 BCE (see our NOTE on 5:7, coming to a shameful end). This means that the author of 1 Maccabees had every reason to ignore the events of that year. So all we need to imagine is that the author of 1 Maccabees knew that Antiochus did something nasty in Jerusalem when returning from Egypt in 143 SE, and also knew that he robbed the Temple at some time; due either to his proHasmonean tendency or to plain confusion and telescoping he predated the latter by a year and thus elided the second visit. Stern, arguing that the Temple was robbed during the first visit, adduced in this connection Polybius’ statement (apud Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.83–84) that Antiochus Epiphanes’ robbery of the Temple was unjustified and came at a time when the Jews were his allies and friends; this could not be said if it happened in 168 BCE, at the time of Jason’s rebellion.46 However, if Polybius really wrote what Josephus attributed to him, it could be that he simply did not know of that rebellion, or didn’t credit the report; in general Polybius was hostile to Antiochus Epiphanes,47 so such criticism of him needn’t be taken all that seriously. All in all, we must choose between two reconstructions. The first, based on 1 Maccabees, has Antiochus robbing the Temple in 143 SE48

44

45

46 47 48

So, for example, Goldstein, 2 Macc, 246–247; Bringmann, Reform, 36; Stern, GLA 1.116. On 4Q248 (DJD 36.192–200) see Broshi & Eshel, “The Greek King,” and my “Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Jerusalem,” 50–53. See Stern, GLA 1.115–116. See for example Polybius 26 and Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 181–184. I ignore here the oft-repeated view that 1 Macc 1 refers to a massacre by Antiochus during his visit to Jerusalem, a point which contributes to the widespread view that the visit described there is the same one described in 2 Macc 5. The only potential evidence for that statement is the reference to φονοκτονα in v. 24. However, if taken to

536

Appendices

and then two whole years49 passing with nothing interesting happening (v. 29); only thereafter is Apollonius sent to the city, which is followed by a massacre and decrees against Judaism and desecration of the Temple (in Kislev of 145 BCE – v. 54). 2 Maccabees 5, in contrast, offers a more convincing and continuous story: pillage and massacre in 168 BCE, followed in close order by the arrival of Philip and then, “not much time later” (6:1), by Geron and the decrees. Bringmann50 saw in this continuity a literary device meant to ensure dramatic unity, but unity and continuity can happen in history as well. In this case, it is quite difficult to imagine that, as 1 Maccabees would have it, Antiochus made a severe attack upon Jerusalem and robbed the Temple in 169 BCE and yet there were no interesting reactions or repercussions for two years.

49

50

be a reference to bloodshed that verse is quite problematic, for it places the massacre after Antiochus left Jerusalem. For my argument that, in line with Septuagintal usage (see LXX Num 35:33), φονοκτονα here in fact refers to Antiochus’ general wickedness, and not to any bloodshed in Jerusalem, the author of 1 Maccabees representing Antiochus as the wicked king of Isa 32:6, see my “Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Jerusalem,” 48. The opening words of 1 Macc 1:29, Μετ? δ ο 6τη Yμερ7ν (= Gen 41:1), and the dates in vv. 20 and 54 (143 and 145 SE), leave no room for the weaker interpretation (“in the second year”); contrast our NOTE on 4:23, In the third year thereafter, where the formulation is different. Reform, 36–37.

Appendix 4: “as the residents of the place requested” (6:2)

537

Appendix 4: “as the residents of the place requested” (6:2) μολναι δM κα/ τ9ν ν ’ Ιεροσολ μοι« νεB κα/ προσονομσαι Δι9« 0Ολψμποψ κα/ τ9ν ν Αργαριζιν, καB« τ γξανον οZ τ9ν τπον ο+κοντε«, Δι9« kενοψ. As S. Schwartz noted, this verse is “a notorious crux.”51 According to the usual reading, cited above from Hanhart’s edition, some translate the underlined words “as (were) the residents of the place” or “as (was practiced) by the residents of the place.”52 That is, the verse means the residents of Mt. Gerizim were hospitable people, and that this explains the choice of the particular deity that their temple was converted to serve: Zeus Xenios, i.e., Zeus who was beneficent to guests and foreigners – a popular epithet going back at least to Homer.53 But what would such a remark mean? Is the author referring to a general characteristic of the residents of Mt. Gerizim,54 or rather to something in particular? Does he expect us, for example, to follow this comment to the hospitality extended to Abraham by King Melchizedek of Salem, according to Genesis 14:18, on the basis of the assumption that “Salem” is Shechem (see Gen 33:18: “And Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem,” of which the Hebrew could also be rendered “And Jacob came to Salem, the city of Shechem”)? True, it is usually assumed that the “Eupolemus” who located Melchizedek in Shechem55 (and not in Jerusalem) was a Samaritan Pseudo-Eupolemus, and our author was not a Samaritan; but it has also been argued that the author was in fact the

51

52

53

54 55

S. Schwartz, “John Hyrcanus,” 15. Schwartz sets out the options, some bibliography and some considerations, but does not argue any particular case. So e.g. Moffatt, 2 Macc, 139; Bévenot, Macc, 198; Gutberlet, 2 Macc, 90–91; Doran, “2 Maccabees 6:2.” W. H. Roscher, Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie, VI (Leipzig-Berlin: Teubner, 1924–1937) 522–525; M. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion, I (München: Beck, 19552) 419–421. On φιλοενα, love for guests and foreigners, see Spicq, Notes, 2.932–935. See Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica 9.17.5–6; Holladay, Fragments, 1.172–173.

538

Appendices

famous Jewish Eupolemus.56 But however that may be, would not such an understanding of our verse be demanding too much from readers? Or, for another possibility, is the reader supposed to realize that the residents of Mt. Gerizim were themselves foreigners, as results from 2 Kings 17? What these two theories have in common is (1) they expect the readers to know quite a lot about Mt. Gerizim and related traditions, which is unlikely,57 and (2) they suggest the author meant the renaming of the Mt. Gerizim temple in honor of Zeus was appropriate and congenial to the residents of the place. Apart from what they assume about readers’ knowledge, such interpretations run into two other types of difficulties. From the point of view of language, note that LSJ (1832–1833) assigns the verb τψγξν two main senses: (1) “happen to be at a place,” or, when appearing alongside the participle of another verb – “happen to be;” (2) “gain one’s end or purpose,” “succeed,” “hit upon,” “light upon.” Indeed, the other eleven occurrences of the verb in our book divide among the two meanings: “happen” (plus participle) at 3:9; 4:32; 9:1; “gain” (or “find”) – 4:6; 5:8–9; 6:22; 13:7; 14:6, 10; 15:7. But neither sense fits our verse. The second would give no sense at all, and the first, which would explain the name of the temple by saying that the residents of the place “happened to be” hospitable, would require τ γξανον to be accompanied by a participle of a verb of being. Our verse has only one participle, ο+κοντε«, but if it were linked to τψγξανον no verb would be left to link to κα«. This is what led translators either to insert a verb of being (“ … et pour appeler celui de Garizim temple de Jupiter l’Hopitalier, comme l’étaient ceux qui habitaient en ce lieu”58) or even to double the adjective (“Zeus Hospitable, just as the inhabitants were hospitable”59). But in all other occurrences of κα« in our book (1:29, 31; 2:10, 18; 10:26; 11:3; 15:21) it is accompanied by a verb, and never itself supplies the verbal meaning of “as was.” To express such a meaning, a verb of being is needed – as for example in 1 John 3:2 and 1 Thessalonians 2:13. Along with this linguistic objection we may add that the notion that Antiochus’ measure was congenial and corresponded to the character-

56 57

58

59

See Doran, “2 Maccabees 6:2,” 484. As Hanhart wrote concerning the suggestion that our passage is referring to the Samaritans’ foreign origin, it seems unlikely that our author, even if he was summarizing a longer Vorlage, would have alluded to this point with such ambiguous brevity (“in dermaßen zweideutiger Kürze” – Text, 37). So for example in P. Giguet’s translation of the Septuagint, now available on Internet (http://ba.21.free.fr). So for example, Doran, “2 Maccabees 6:2,” 483.

Appendix 4: “as the residents of the place requested” (6:2)

539

istics of the residents of Mt. Gerizim is itself hard to take. Just as at 5:22–23, so too here the steps Antiochus took are portrayed by the author as coercive measures imposed by a villainous king against the will of the Jews in their two centers. It is not likely that this would be said to have suited them. Thus, it is difficult to translate the verse according to its normal text, as cited at the outset of this appendix from Hanhart’s edition. Moreover, if left as is the verse is also disappointing stylistically, for although our author is usually well aware of balance and parallelism, here he has given some explanation for one name-change but not for the other. This may indicate that the words in question were added secondarily. If such a hypothesis can move us forward in our search for the original wording, all the better. A reason for such a secondary addition may be found in Josephus, Antiquities 12.258–264. This text purports to be a document sent by the Samaritans (or residents of Samaria Josephus took to be Samaritans) to Antiochus IV, asking him to exempt them from his decrees against Judaism and to rename their temple in honor of Zeus Hellenios; it is accompanied by the king’s decision to grant their request. It seems likely that this correspondence is not authentic,60 for it has the Samaritans: (1) stating that they undertook the Jewish religion only due to plagues which once afflicted the land; (2) denying they are Jews and claiming, instead, that they are Sidonians; and (3) asking that their ancestral temple be turned into one in honor of Zeus. It is just as difficult to imagine that any self-respecting Samaritan, or anyone else, would write such a spineless document as it is easy to imagine that anti-Samaritan Jewish polemicists – Josephus himself61 or another – would concoct it. But once it existed, it would have been natural for any later reader or copyist of our book, who was familiar with that Josephan text and/or shared its anti-Samaritan attitude, to add in a note explaining that the name-change at Mt. Gerizim came at the request of the Samaritans themselves. Accordingly, it seems that the words in question are to be seen as an addition to the basic text of our book, which itself is free of anti-Samaritan 60

61

Although Bickerman (Studies, 2.105–135) argued it is. For a detailed discussion concluding it is a Jewish forgery, see U. Rappaport, “The Samaritans in the Hellenistic Period,” in: Essays in Honour of G. D. Sixdenier (New Samaritan Studies 3–4; ed. A. D. Crown & L. Davey; Sydney: Mandelbaum [Univ. of Sydney], n. d. [1995?]) 283–287. For a partial response to the latter, see S. Schwartz, “John Hyrcanus I’s Destruction,” 23–24, n. 35. Cf. Ant. 9.291; 11.114, 340–347, etc.

540

Appendices

polemic (see our NOTE on 5:22, the people) and that they should be rendered “as the residents of the place requested.” As to how to get there from the Greek, if we hesitate to accept Hanhart’s view that τ γξανον may be translated that way62 we may – with many, beginning with Niese – emend the verb to νετ γξανον (“requested via petition”).63

62 63

See Hanhart, Text, 36–37, disputed by Doran, “2 Maccabees 6:2” 481, n. 2. For this translation, see NOTE on 4:8, in a petition. For the emendation, see Niese, Kritik, 106, n. 2, followed by many, including Abel, Macc, 360–361; Bickerman, Studies, 2.131, n. 99; Habicht, 2 Macc, 229, n. 2b.

Appendix 5: A Ptolemaic Account of Antiochus’ Decrees? (2 Macc 6:7)

541

Appendix 5: A Ptolemaic Account of Antiochus’ Decrees? (2 Macc 6:7) This verse refers to two elements in Antiochus’ persecution in Jerusalem: monthly celebrations of the king’s birthday and the cult of Dionysus. Concerning both there is room to suspect that they reflect the Ptolemaic context of our author more than the realities of Seleucid Jerusalem. Monthly celebration of the king’s birthday is known from Ptolemaic Egypt.64 Schürer and VanderKam (n. 64) viewed such evidence as proof of the reliability of our book’s report; so too van Henten, who depended here upon Habicht.65 However, apart from the Ptolemaic kingdom there is hardly any evidence for such celebrations elsewhere in the Hellenistic world, and there seems to be none for the Seleucid kingdom. True, Bickerman pointed in this connection to two inscriptions,66 but the first (OGIS, no. 222, l. 2) seems to refer to a regular annual birthday, not to a monthly celebration; as for the second (ibid., no. 212),67 the matter depends on a restoration right at the crucial part of ll. 7–8: [… κα/ ψσαν δM] σψντελεν [τ]7ι Βασιλε [Σελε κι Ψκστοψ μην]« … Habicht and Robert related to this restoration with caution (“vielleicht,” “il se peut”) and Robert even 64

65 66 67

See VanderKam, “2 Macc 6,7A,” 63–67, following Schürer, “Zu II Mcc 6,7.” For the Ptolemaic kingdom, see esp. OGIS, no. 49, ll. 8–9; no. 56, ll. 33–34; and no. 90, l. 47. VanderKam argued that the requirement to offer a sacrifice every month on a given Seleucid date entailed a more general change in the calendar used in the Jerusalem Temple, and that Dan 7:25 (“And he [i.e., Antiochus] thought to change times and law”]) is a reflection of this reform – which could also explain Qumran complaints about the calendar in use in Jerusalem. However, it is quite usual for subject peoples to follow a sovereign’s calendar for something relating to him and nevertheless to maintain their own calendar for their own customary uses. Moreover, it is difficult to accept VanderKam’s position (loc. cit., 70–71, also “Calendrical Texts,” 385–386) that, if such a reform had been forced upon the Temple, it would have stayed in effect after Judas Maccabaeus took it over and rededicated it a few years later. On this point see P. R. Davies, “Calendrical Changes and Qumran Origins: An Assessment of VanderKam’s Theory,” CBQ 45 (1983) 86–88. Van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 90; Habicht, Gottmenschentum, 139, 152, 156. Bickerman, Institutions, 246. Bickerman (ibid.) refers to no. 213, but apparently meant 212.

542

Appendices

suggested another in its stead.68 It is not wise to build on such foundations. Accordingly, although 1 Maccabees 1:58–59 confirms that the Jews were required to offer monthly sacrifices, it may be that it was our author (or even Jason of Cyrene) who, familiar with the Ptolemaic world, supplied the explanation. As for Dionysus: there seems to be no evidence for any royal Dionysian cult in the Seleucid kingdom and, as Habicht noted, it is not likely that there would be one, given that kingdom’s preference for Zeus as the dynastic deity.69 As for Antiochus IV in particular, Mørkholm stressed his devotion to Apollo; while he noted that this allegiance did not bring him to ignore all other gods, nevertheless the only evidence he cites for Dionysus is our verse.70 Bickerman too refers only once to Dionysus in the course of his long discussion of Seleucid cults,71 and even there the text in question only refers to the publication of a treaty by exhibiting it “in the marketplace (of Magnesia) next to the altar of Dionysus and the images of the kings” (OGIS, no. 229, l. 84); there need not be any special significance to the proximity of the two. The situation is somewhat different with regard to an inscription from Teos that was published after Bickerman wrote.72 As Herrmann shows (p. 55), this inscription refers to the acceptance of Antiochus III and his sister-wife Laodice as σ νναοι εο (“temple-sharing gods”) in the Temple of Dionysus in Teos. Even here, however, the reference is to a local initiative, not to a royal measure, and so far it seems very isolated; Nock, who surveyed the whole phenomenon of kings sharing temples with gods in the Hellenistic and Roman world, mentions no Seleucid case at all.73 It is true that the cult of Dionysus was well-established in Athens,74 and so given Antiochus’ usual attachment to that city (see NOTE on 6:1, Geron 68

69

70 71 72

73 74

Habicht, Gottmenschentum, 139; L. Robert, Études anatoliennes (Paris: de Boccard, 1937) 173–175. Habicht, ibid., 149, referring inter alia to OGIS, no. 245, to M. Rostovtzeff, “ΠΡΟΓΟΝΟΙ,” JHS 55 (1935) 56–66, and to Bickerman, Institutions, 250–257. Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 130–131. Institutions, 236–257; see esp. 255. P. Herrmann, “Antiochos der Grosse und Teos,” Anadolu (Anatolia) 9 (1965 [1967]) 29–159. For an English translation of the inscription see S. M. Burstein (ed. and trans.), The Hellenistic Age from the Battle of Ipsos to the Death of Kleopatra VII (Translated Documents of Greece and Rome 3; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1985) 43–45. Nock, Essays, 1.202–251 (= HSCP 41 [1930] 1–62). See NOTE on 6:7, processionals, also R. Martin and H. Metzger, La religion grecque (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1976) 122–133.

Appendix 5: A Ptolemaic Account of Antiochus’ Decrees? (2 Macc 6:7)

543

the Athenian) he – or Geron – may have introduced such a cult into Jerusalem. But the fact that the cult of Dionysus is so well known as a royal cult in Ptolemaic Egypt75 contrasts so strikingly with the lack of evidence for anything parallel in the Seleucid kingdom76 that, as with monthly birthday celebrations, we cannot avoid the suspicion that what we have is no more than a Jewish writer familiar with the Ptolemaic world imagining what a royal persecution would include: if 3 Maccabees has Ptolemy IV imposing the cult of Dionysus,77 Antiochus IV simply must have done the same. The same explanation probably applies to the end of 2 Maccabees 14:33 as well; note that the parallel at 1 Maccabees 7:35 makes no mention of Dionysus, instead having Nicanor simply threatening, unimaginatively, to burn the Temple down.

75 76

77

See Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 1.201–207. The isolation of our verse’s reference to such a holiday in Jerusalem led Keel to doubt it: see his “Die kultischen Massnahmen,” 116. The same isolation is also apparent in a study of references to such a holiday in early Christian literature, which seem all to be dependent upon our verse (or directly upon Jason of Cyrene): O. Kern, “Ein vergessenes Dionysosfest in Jerusalem,” ARW 22 (1923/24) 198–199. 3 Macc 2:29. On explicit and implicit anti-Dionysian polemics in 3 Maccabees see: Hacham, “3 Maccabees: An Anti-Dionysian Polemic.”

544

Appendices

Appendix 6: “the tribute (still owed) to the Romans” (2 Macc 8:10, 36) The tribute referred to was imposed by Rome upon the Seleucids at the Treaty of Apamaea in 188 BCE in the wake of Rome’s defeat of Antiochus III at Magnesia, near Mt. Sipylus. According to the terms of the treaty, the Seleucids were required to pay 15,000 talents of silver – 3,000 immediately and another 1,000 annually for twelve years.78 Had they fulfilled the treaty to the letter they would have made the last payment by 175, but our verse refers to such a debt at the time of Nicanor’s (and Gorgias’) first campaign – a decade later, ca. 165 BCE (see 1 Macc 3:37). Some scholars have concluded, accordingly, that our author is in error; they surmise that he knew of the tribute and mentioned it, here and in v. 36, only in order to show off his knowledge about the workings of the world at large and to put his own story into that context.79 For proof that the debt had indeed been paid off on time, they point to Livy 42.6.7, which they take to mean it was all paid off by 173 BCE, i.e., a couple of years late but nevertheless well before the 160s.80 However, while it would not at all surprise us to discover that our book had erred on this point, it should be noted that the issue may still be left open. For what Livy reports is a tardiness in the payment of a/the “stipendium,” and that it was then submitted to the quaestors in its entirety; the formulation seems to refer more naturally to the making of a single pay-

78

79

80

See esp. Polybius 21.42.19–21; Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 22–26; Le Rider, “Les ressources financières.” For such a motivation, compare Luke’s reference to Quirinius’ census at Luke 2:2; it is usually thought that this is a chronological error and bespeaks Luke’s knowledge of the event and his desire to link Jesus’ birth to it. See R. Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 19655) 469, and H. R. Moehring, “The Census in Luke as an Apologetic Device,” in: D. E. Aune (ed.), Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Allen P. Wikgren (Supplements to NovT 33; Leiden: Brill, 1972), esp. 154–160. So for example Mørkholm, ibid., 65, n. 4; Niese, Kritik, 93, n. 2; Goldstein, 2 Macc, 328–329.

Appendix 6: “the tribute (still owed) to the Romans” (2 Macc 8:10, 36)

545

ment than to the completion of the entire tribute.81 True, stipendium can refer to an entire indemnity; thus, for example, at Livy 36.4.7 we read of a suggestion that a stipendium be paid off all at once and not “in numerous payments over many years” (“pluribus pensionibus in multos annos”). But the passage at 42.6.7 on 173 BCE has no such contrast and offers no additional details, and stipendium usually refers to something annual (soldiers’ annual wages and annual service); had it been the last payment we would have expected some comment on that.82 In any event, it is clear from Livy that the Seleucids were behind in their payments, and so it is possible that the one executed in 173 BCE was not the last.83 As Le Rider explains, it could well have been convenient for Rome not to press the Seleucids on this, at least not until the final defeat of Macedonia in 168 BCE.84 If after Pydna, and after the humiliation of Antiochus Epiphanes in Alexandria that same year, Rome began to get tough with the Seleucids, paying off the tribute would certainly have been a desideratum.85

81

82

83

84

85

Antiochus’ emissary “ … excusavit, quod stipendium serius quam ad diem praestaret; id se omne advexisse, ne cuius nisi temporis gratia regi fieret.” See OLD 2.1821. Note, for example, Livy 33.46.9 (“pecunia, quae in stipendium Romanis suo quoque anno penderetur”) and 32.2.1 “eo anno argentum in stipendium.” So too Le Rider, “Les ressources financières,” 60. As he puts it, the last stipendium (“le dernier stipendium”) was to have been paid in 177/176 BCE, but our verse shows that in fact it was long overdue. Le Rider, ibid., 61. So too Gruen – although he accepted Livy 42.6.7 as proof that the tribute had been paid off in 173 – emphasized the Roman willingness not to insist on timetables for such payments in general, nor to put pressure on the Seleucids in particular, not even after 168; see his Hellenistic World, 1.293; 2.644, 648. For growing Roman pressure on the Seleucids during the 160s see Stern, Studies, 54–55, n. 10. It is not easy to accept Goldstein’s assertion (2 Macc, 328–329) that Antiochus would have hastened to pay back the balance of the tribute in 168, at the same time he vacated Egypt under Roman pressure. For just as it is seems overdone to write that Antiochus “had shown himself so eager to comply with the Romans that he withdrew from Egypt,” when really he just capitulated to an ultimatum, so too it is hardly warranted to assume, with Goldstein, that Antiochus had so much Egyptian booty that he would have paid off the debt right away. Rather, just as we know that he held onto his elephants, and that it was only in 163 that the Romans insisted on fulfilling the Treaty of Apamaea’s demand that they be hamstrung (see NOTE on 15:20, the beasts), so too could the tribute issue have lasted years – our verse requires about three – after Antiochus gave in to Roman pressure about Egypt.

546

Appendices

Appendix 7: The Battle Against the 86 Galatians (8:20)86 Menahem Stern The first real notice we have of Jews in Babylonia in the Hellenistic period comes in a totally unexpected context: Judas Maccabaeus’ speech encouraging his soldiers on the eve of their confrontation with the Seleucid army commanded by Nicanor and Gorgias (2 Macc 8:18–20). Maccabaeus adduces two examples of heavenly aid for the Jews. Of these, the first relates to Sennacherib’s campaign (Isa 37:36; 2 Kgs 19:35) and the other to a military confrontation in Babylonia against the Galatians, in which Jewish soldiers87 participated in the battle alongside of 4000 Macedonians and it was the Jews who overcame the Galatians: 6000 (or 800088) Jews brought about the destruction of a huge Galatian force – 120,000 men (8:20). Unfortunately our knowledge of the Hellenistic period is not detailed enough to allow us to know to what event, or even to what period, 2 Maccabees is referring. We may take it for granted that the story cannot be accepted literally, as if the Jews comprised the majority

86

87

88

[My translation from a Hebrew draft found after Prof. Stern was murdered in June 1989. The draft was handwritten and incomplete. My additions are in brackets. The original was published as Appendix 7 (pp. 306–7) in my 2004 Hebrew volume on 2 Maccabees. D.R.S.] The text does not say, explicitly, that they were Jewish, but the context does not allow for any other inference. After the reference to the defeat of Sennacherib there would have been no point to putting into Judas Maccabaeus’ mouth anything about a victory by non-Jews. It seems that something is wrong with the text of 2 Macc 8:20, for after the verse opens with a reference to 8000 soldiers who fought alongside the Macedonians it goes on to say that “the 6000” destroyed the Galatian force. Some of the later manuscripts attempted to deal with this contradiction [as may be seen in the critical apparatus ad loc. in Hanhart, 2 Macc, 81].

Appendix 7: The Battle Against the Galatians (8:20)

547

of the army that fought the Galatians.89 True, scholars have expressed various opinions concerning the date and circumstances of the event.90 However, it is in the nature of things that no suggestion is very 89

90

Grimm (2 Macc, 139) suggested that we not infer that the Seleucid kingdom could mobilize only 12,000 men (4000 Macedonians and 8000 Jews) but, rather, that our verse refers to some unit which ran into the entire Galatian force. But given the fact that the stated size of the Galatian force is impossible, for – as Grimm noted (2 Macc, 140) – Livy 38.16.9 reports that of the 20,000 Galatians who invaded Asia Minor no more than 10,000 were armed[, it seems unwise to build much upon the numbers given here]. Given the fact that 2 Maccabees locates the clash in Babylonia, Grimm inferred that if the story has any basis at all it is referring to the clash between Antiochus III and the rebellious Molon, for during that clash [220 BCE] there were Galatian mercenaries fighting on both sides. On Antiochus’ victory, see Polybius 5.51–54. But no Jews are mentioned in this context. Zeitlin too (2 Macc, 175) thought of Molon’s rebellion. Moffatt (“2 Macc,” 142) left open, as an equal possibility alongside the clash between Antiochus III and Molon, Antiochus I Soter’s victory over Galatian invaders in the 270s (Appian, Syriakê 65.343; Lucian, Zeuxis, 8–11 and idem, Pro lapsu, 9 [Strobel, Die Galater, 257–264]), and the latter was indeed favored by Edson, “Imperium Macedonicum,” 169, n. 58. But the battle in which Antiochus I defeated the Galatians did not take place in Babylonia. For an attempt to place the battle in the days of Antiochus III, but not against Molon, see A. Momigliano, “Un’ignota irruzione dei Galati in Siria al tempo di Antioco III?,” BFC 36/6 (1929–1930) 151–155 (= idem, Quinto contributo alla storia degli studie clasici e del mondo antico, I [Roma: Storia et letteratura, 1975] 591–596); he builds on Suda’s Lexicon (ed. Adler, IV, 362, no. 443, s.v. Σιμνδη«), of which the manuscripts have Antiochus III defeating the Galatians with the help of elephants; this contradicts Lucian, loc. cit, who has Antiochus I defeating the Galatians with the help of elephants. Similarly, Momigliano pointed to a papyrus fragment of a Greek elegy (I. U. Powell, Collectanea Alexandrina [Oxford: Clarendon, 1925] 131–132 [= D. L. Page, Select Papyri, III (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ., 1941) 462–467, no. 110]; cf. bibliography and notes on the text in Griechische Papyri der Hamburger Staats-und Universitätsbibliothek [Hamburg: Augustin, 1954] 126–127). But it is doubtful that this fragment refers to any of the Seleucid kings, and it may well relate to a Ptolemaic king, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, who put down a Galatian uprising [Pausanias 1.7.2; Callimachus, Hymns 4, ll. 171–188; A. J. Reinach, “Les Gaulois en Égypte,” REA 13 (1911) 33–74; H. Volkmann, “Ptolemaios II. Philadelphos,” RE 1/46 (1959) 1650], and the “Medes” mentioned in this text may well be the Seleucids, the enemies of the Ptolemies. See V. Bartoletti, “Noterelle papirologiche, 2: Due frammenti di un’elegia ellenistica?,” SIFC 34 (1962) 25–30 [who relates to another papyrus fragment that, he suggests, is part of the same elegy]. Lévy (“Notes d’histoire hellénistique,” 681–688) goes another route: he too holds that 2 Maccabees is referring to an event in the time of Antiochus I, but suggests that instead of “in Babylonia” we should read “in Bagadaonia” (ν τ@ Βαγαδαονf) – the great plain of southeastern Asia Minor, between

548

Appendices

convincing. Nor does any suggestion bear out the crucial role ascribed here to the Jews; we may assume that the author of 2 Maccabees has exaggerated in this regard. At most, we may infer that Galatian soldiers, on the one hand, participated in some clash in Seleucid Babylonia, perhaps in the service of some king who was hostile to the Seleucids, perhaps during one of the Syrian Wars (of whose course we have only a dim notion), and that Jewish soldiers, on the other hand, participated in the victory of the Seleucid king who ruled Babylonia. Such a scenario would be very reasonable, given the continued existence of a large Jewish population in Babylonia, which had a significant military potential. The existence of such a military potential is reflected in the fact that Antiochus III settled two thousand Jewish families in Lydia and Phrygia (Ant. 12.147–153),91 in the establishment of a Jewish state in Babylonia in the first century CE (ruled by Asineus and Anileus [Ant. 18.310–370]), and in the tenacious resistance of Babylonian Jews during the Roman invasion under Trajan.92

91

92

Mt. Argaeus and the Taurus range. But his suggestion that this was the site of the great battle between Antiochus I and the Galatians is not more than a guess unsupported by anything in the sources [according to Strobel, Die Galater, 259, the battle’s site is unknown], and in any case we have no knowledge of any participation by Jews in that battle. Finally, we note Bar-Kochva’s suggestion that we link the events mentioned in our text to the struggle between Seleucus II and his brother Antiochus Hierax, a struggle [229/228 BCE] in which the latter was supported by Galatians; see Bar-Kochva, “On the Sources and Chronology of Antiochus I’s Battle Against the Galatians,” PCPS n.s. 19 (1973) esp. 5–8 [and idem, JM, 500–507]. As stated, however, given the state of our sources and our knowledge there is no way precisely to date and to locate this battle with the Galatians. [On this text see Momigliano, loc. cit., 153–154 (= 593–594); Stern, Studies, 373 and 638; and the first half of J. Gauger, Beiträge zur jüdischen Apologetik (Köln & Bonn: Hanstein, 1977). Gauger expressed doubts about the authenticity of the document but not necessarily about the historicity of the events to which it relates. On Jewish soldiers in Hellenistic armies see also A. Kasher, “First Jewish Military Units in Ptolemaic Egypt,” JSJ 19 (1978) 57–67.] [On which see Stern, GLA 2.153–155 and M. Pucci Ben Zeev, Diaspora Judaism in Turmoil, 116/117 C.E.: Ancient Sources and Modern Insights (Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 6; Leuven: Peeters, 2005) 191–217.]

Appendix 8: “their own foods” (11:31)

549

Appendix 8: “their own foods” (11:31) I have maintained δαπανμασι as in Hanhart’s edition, on the basis of the nearly unanimous testimony of the manuscripts. That is, I have not accepted the emendation into διαιτμασι, proposed by Wilhelm and adopted by many.93 The term διατημα has two main senses (LSJ, 396): food/ equipment and way of life (especially with reference to eating; cf. our “diet”). Wilhelm did not say which meaning he intended; Katz – who adopted the emendation – took it to mean food or equipment; but it seems that Habicht and Goldstein (who also adopted the emendation) were probably right to assume Wilhelm meant “way of life.”94 However, it is difficult to accept the emendation. True, Habicht correctly emphasizes, against Hanhart, that this issue – in the text of a royal letter preserved in a book originally written in Greek! – should not be governed by Septuagintal usage.95 But the surprising truth is that, as far as I have seen, no one has pointed to comparable usage of the word in royal letters or anywhere else. Wilhelm contented himself with proving that δαπνημα means only a financial “expense” (as above, 3:3), a sense which does not fit the context here;96

93

94 95

96

Wilhelm, “Ein Brief Antiochos III.,” 43 (a brief suggestion) and “Zu einigen Stellen,” 22–25. Several followers of Wilhelm will be cited in the coming notes. For Hanhart’s defense of his reading, see below, n. 96. Among those who retain δαπανμασι, but with no discussion, see Stern, Documents, 70 and DGE 5.877. Katz, “Text,” 16; Habicht, 2 Macc, 259, n. 31a; Goldstein, 2 Macc, 421–422. Habicht, ibid., also “Royal Documents,” 11, n. 19. Habicht responds here to Hanhart’s argument; see the next note. Although that was how it was translated here in the Vetus Latina (of which some witnesses use sumptus and some impendium – see De Bruyne, Anciennes traductions, 190–191), an understanding defended by Hanhart, Text, 45, and by Mørkholm, Antiochus IV, 156. According to Hanhart, δαπνημα does not mean precisely “expenses;” rather, it means “services supplied to the people by the king for its public expenses.” Accordingly, he translates our verse as follows: “Die Juden dürfen von den ihnen gewährten Leistungen Nutzen haben und ihre Gesetze einhalten” (“The Jews may have the benefit of the services supplied to them and observe their laws”). However, the fact that he is forced to use two separate verbs where the Greek uses only one, ξρAσαι, argues against this; so does the fact that on Hanhart’s interpretation the king is pretending that the usual services (budgets) are still being supplied, and that is unlikely.

550

Appendices

but the suggestion, at the end of his discussion, to read instead διατημα comes with no argument or example. My own search came up with nothing: the term διατημα appears especially in medical literature, but in the literature usually compared with our book – Septuagint, Polybius, Philo, Josephus, New Testament – it is not to be found, just as it is not to be found in the documents assembled in Welles’ RC, in Preisigke’s Wörterbuch, or in a comprehensive computerized corpus of Greek inscriptions and papyri.97 On the other hand, it has been argued that the term δαπνημα, “expense,” could function with a broader sense of “equipment,” “supply,” and so also “food.”98 Even Goldstein admits that there was such a development, referring (as others) to Polybius 9.42.4 and to Hesychius, s.v. δαπνη, where the translation τροφ may be found.99 Goldstein nevertheless rejected that meaning here, arguing that since our verse gives the Jews permission to live according to their laws in general there is no point to specifically singling out the dietary laws; so too Bunge.100 However, such an argument hardly seems weighty enough to overcome the near unanimity of the witnesses here, especially since the dietary laws (assuming that is what they are) are mentioned before the laws in general. If the Vulgate could live with “cibis,” why should we refuse to do so? Given the heavy emphasis on the observance of dietary laws in the martyrdom stories of Chapters 6–7, it does not seem unreasonable or superfluous to single out this particular sphere in the context of rescinding the decrees. It seems, in other words, we should read our verse as if it means the Jews are allowed not only to eat what their laws allow (which had been a major issue) but also to live in all ways according to their own laws.

97 98

99 100

Packard Humanities Institute CD-Rom 7 (“Greek Documentary Texts”). See Grimm, 2 Macc, 430; Bickerman, Gott, 180, n. 5; Abel, Macc, 430 (he aptly compares the range of senses of our English “consumption”). See also: J. Lust, E. Eynikel and K. Hauspie (comp.), A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, I (Suttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992) 95, s.v. δαπνημα (“necessaries, supplies, food” for our verse). Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, I (ed. K. Latte; Hauniae: Munksgaard, 1953) 405. Goldstein, 2 Macc, 421–422; Bunge, Untersuchungen, 397–398.

Appendix 9: “to be his successor” (14:26)

551

Appendix 9: “to be his successor” (14:26) These words raise three questions: (1) What does διδοξο« (“successor”) mean here?; (2) To whom does “his” allude?; and (3) Was Alcimus’ statement true? As we shall see, the first two questions are closely linked one to another. The lack of clarity is evident in the variant readings: as Hanhart’s apparatus shows, there are those who place α.το (“his”) after “Judas” rather than before that name, and those that read the intense Ψαψτο (“of himself”) instead of mere α.το. But even these readings fail to clarify the text completely. In order to avoid the difficulty created by the possessive adjective, Deissmann and Abel suggested that we view διδοξο« here as an absolute term, namely, a relatively low title known from the Ptolemaic court, where it designated a person who was allowed to be nominated for a position.101 However, as Bunge noted, this title is not known from the Seleucid kingdom.102 Moreover, the manuscripts do use the possessive adjective. And in any case, if those who made the suggestion hoped to avoid the notion that Nicanor was accused of appointing Judas to be high priest or deputy governor although both were the king’s prerogative, we should note that appointment to such an aulic rank was too, so the suggestion hardly solves the problem. So we return to the basic reading, that has Nicanor appointing Judas to be his own, or Alcimus’, successor; if that was beyond Nicanor’s competence, Alcimus’ stance as complainant becomes more reasonable. The choice between the two, Nicanor and Alcimus, will impact upon the translation of διδοξο«: in the former case we would think of “deputy,”103 for it is clear that Nicanor remained in office, but in the latter case we

101

102 103

Deissmann, Bible Studies, 115; Abel, Macc, 464. See also Trindl, “Ehrentitel,” 115–123; H. Kornbeutel, RE Supplement VII (1940) 124–126; and L. Mooren, The Aulic Titulature in Ptolemaic Egypt: Introduction and Prosopography (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der Letteren, 78; Brussel: Paleis der Academiën, 1975) 216–219. Bunge, Untersuchungen, 199–200. So e.g. Goldstein, 2 Macc, 472, 490.

552

Appendices

would think of “successor,”104 since Alcimus was no longer high priest. Now, on the one hand it seems that readers would more naturally tend to understand “deputy” if we were told Nicanor was going to be traveling – as at 4:28–29, 31 and Polybius 3.87.9 – or otherwise prevented from fulfilling his responsibilities as governor; but there is nothing here to indicate or explain such a need for a deputy. On the other hand, the assumption that the reference is to the high priesthood sits easily in the present context: after Alcimus, who was once high priest and is interested in returning to the high priesthood (v. 3), complained to the king that he had been cast out of that position (v. 7) the king had indeed ordered Nicanor to restore Alcimus to it (v. 13). It would fit in well if we took the present passage to mean that Alcimus has returned to the king to complain that Nicanor did not fulfill the order but, instead, had appointed Judas to the high priesthood. Was the charge true? That is, had Nicanor really appointed Judas to the high priesthood? Bunge (n. 102) took Alcimus’ statement to be a villain’s calumny, as if the author wished to belie the notion that Judas wanted to be high priest and did so by ascribing the complaint to a villain; seeking the high priesthood is something which characterizes villains, such as Jason, Menelaus, and Alcimus himself. But in order to make this argument Bunge had to change the verse’s emphasis; according to Bunge, “In 14,26 wird nämlich ganz auffälllig vehement die Unterstellung des Alkimos, Judas strebe nach dem Hohenpriesteramt, als Verleumdung zurückgewiesen.”105 In fact, however, Alcimus’ statement is phrased as an attack upon Nicanor, includes not a word against Judas, and is not at all rejected. Therefore it seems better to take Alcimus’ statement as truth, and to understand that he is to be seen as a villain not because he lied about the fact of the appointment but, rather, because he portrayed it as something bespeaking hostility to the Seleucid crown. For more on the possibility that Judas indeed served as high priest (as Josephus says), see NOTE on 14:13, and install Alcimus as the high priest.

104 105

So e.g. Keil, Macc, 417. Bunge, Untersuchungen, 199 (“In 14:26, Alcimus’ implied accusation, that Judas was seeking the high-priestly office, is rejected with completely surprising vehemence.”)

Appendix 10: “the Syrian Language” (15:36)

553

Appendix 10: “the Syrian Language” (15:36)106 I translated according to Hanhart’s text: τ@ Cψριακ@ φν@.107 So too Rahlfs’ edition, along with almost all the witnesses and all the translations. But as luck would have it, the oldest witness of them all, the Codex Alexandrinus (fifth century CE), reads not CWΡΙΑΚΗ but, rather ΚWΡΙΑΚΗ.108 Accordingly, Swete’s 1912 edition, which follows the Alexandrinus, read τ@ κψριακ@ φν@, a reading which found its way into Kahana’s and Artom’s Hebrew translations, both of which quite naturally render it as “in the Lord’s language.” This would, of course, be very interesting for the concept of Hebrew and the Holy Language.109 Several considerations, however, lead me to adhere to the more widely testified reading: 1. The Alexandrinus is frequently an unreliable witness. Whether we prefer, as Grimm, to note that it frequently offers variants that seem to be of the nature of “overly clever corrections,”110 or simply adopt Kappler’s and Bévenot’s assessment that it was very carelessly prepared,111 it is in general risky to build upon it when it is isolated. 2. The adjective κψριακ« seems not to have been in use prior to the Roman period, and most of its usage seems, in fact, to be Christian, relating to God or to Jesus; comparison of the short entry in LSJ to the very long one in Lampe’s lexicon of patristic Greek tells the story quite well.112 It is, accord106

107

108

109 110

111

112

I would like to thank Prof. Berndt Schaller of Göttingen for his assistance with some of the matters addressed in this Appendix. In this appendix, for a reason that will become obvious in §4, I have written the capital sigma as a C, as usual in ancient manuscripts, rather than as Σ. Hanhart does not list the Alexandrinus’ reading in his apparatus ad loc., having explained – at p. 15, n. 1 of his edition – that he viewed it as a trivial paleographical error. See below, n. 114. Grimm, 1 Macc, xxxii (“Der Cod. Alex … bietet nicht selten Varianten, die den Charakter vorwitziger Correctur tragen”). Kappler, Memoria, 54 (“codex Alexandrinus summa incuria conscriptus sit”); Bévenot, 2 Macc, v (“sehr nachlässig”). Similar: Niese, Kritik, 109, and Hanhart, 2 Macc, 15. See LSJ, 1013, and G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961) 785–786.

554

Appendices

ingly, natural to imagine that κψριακ@ here is not original but was introduced, instead, in the course of the book’s transmission by Christian scribes. 3. There are five references in our book to “the ancestral language” – three in Chapter 7 (vv. 8, 21, 27) and one each at 12:37 and 15:29. If our author used another adjective here, he probably meant another language; this is especially so in Chapter 15, where the reference to prayer in “the ancestral language” (15:29) precedes the one under discussion by only seven verses. Now, on the one hand, it seems that by “the ancestral language” our author meant Hebrew.113 This results both from the fact that it appears in especially religious contexts (martyrs’ speeches in Chapter 7, hymns and prayers in the other two cases) and from 4 Maccabees, which has τ@ ’ Εβρα 1ιδι φν@ at 12:7 and 16:15 – passages that parallel 7:21, 27. On the other hand, it is clear that since Kyrios in our book refers to God (see e.g. 4:38; 6:30; 7:6), “Kyrios’ language” too should mean Hebrew, for both Jews and Christians, at least those of the Greek-speaking West, held that God’s language was Hebrew.114 So if τ@ κψριακ@ φν@ were the true reading, it would not provide any contrast to “the ancestral language,” although, as noted, it seems that it should.115 But there is an obvious distinction between Hebrew and Aramaic – a point in favor of reading τ@ Cψριακ@ φν@. Compare, for example, Letter of Aristeas 11, which notes that although some think the Jews use “the Syrian language (φν"ν … Cψριακ@)” their language is really different, just as at §30 he notes that not only the letters of the Jews’ Torah scrolls, but also their language, is Hebrew ( ’ Ηβραmκο«). 4. The reading of the Alexandrinus may be explained away easily in one of two ways. First, of course, it may be simply a mistake, for the difference between τ@ Cψριακ@ φν@ and τ@ Κψριακ@ φν@ is, in uncial manuscripts, only the upright attached to the left of the opening C of CWΡΙΑΚΗ. Such mistakes are known from elsewhere.116 Thus, for example, the con-

113 114

115

116

On this point see esp. van Henten, “Ancestral Language.” See M. Rubin, “The Language of Creation or the Primordial Language: A Case of Cultural Polemics in Antiquity,” JJS 49 (1998) 306–333. True, there are cases in our book where the author uses synonyms in adjacent verses simply in order to vary his diction; see NOTE on 12:11, nomads. However, in those cases the terms are clearly synonymous and the text is secure. Our case is different in both regards. See B. Schaller, “ΗkΕΙ ΕΚ ΣΙΝ Ο ΡWΟΜΕΝΟΣ: Zur Textgestalt von Jes 59:20f. in Röm. 11:26f.,” De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on His Sixty-fifth Birthday (ed. A. Pietersma and C. Cox; Mississauga, Ontario: Benben, 1984) esp. 204 (on ΕΙC f ΕΚ).

Appendix 10: “the Syrian Language” (15:36)

555

cluding iota (Ι) of the preceding word may have become attached, mistakenly, to the C, especially given the ancient habit of not leaving spaces between words. However, this explanation is not very convincing, for two reasons: (1) Inspection of the Alexandrinus for our book shows that – as was often the case117 – the scribe did not, in fact, add the iotas signifying the dative case, so there would not have been, in fact, an iota just prior to the opening C of CWΡΙΑΚΗ (just as there is none at the end of the word). Of course, the mistake may have been born in a previous manuscript that did include such iotas, or a new upright could have been suggested by the one on the right of the preceding eta (Η) or with no special reason at all; it happens. However, since (2) κψριακ is not just any old word, but, rather, refers to the Lord, I hesitate to think that a religious scribe would create one out of plain negligence. 5. Hence my preference for another explanation, more in line with Grimm’s characterization of the Alexandrinus than with Kappler’s and Bévenot’s. Above I noted that Kyrios, in our book, refers to God. But I also noted that κψριακ« is almost exclusively a Christian word. Given the fact that Christian texts frequently use Kyrios not only of God but also of Jesus, it should come as no surprise that κψριακ« too can refer to Jesus; indeed, the great majority of citations in Lampe’s entry for this word (n. 112) do refer to Jesus. But Jesus’ language was Aramaic, a fact that every Christian, and certainly scribes, could know directly from such passages as Mark 5:41 and 15:34.118 Accordingly, it is likely that the Alexandrinus’ employment of κψριακ here reflects only the work of a clever scribe who, knowing that Aramaic was Jesus’ language, chose to term it not simply as “the Syrian language” but, rather, in a manner closer to his heart: “the Lord’s language.”119

117 118

119

See Mayser, Grammatik, I/1, 99–108 (§20). On ancient Christian knowledge of and interest in the fact that Jesus’ language was Aramaic, see A. Meyer, Jesu Muttersprache (Freiburg i. B.: Mohr, 1896) 7–8. Note, for example, Eusebius, Demonstratio evangelica 3.7.10 (ed. I. A. Heikel, [GCS], p. 142): the apostles ask “in what language shall we speak to the Greeks – we who were brought up only in the language of the Syrians (τ@ Σ ρν φν@)?” On such phenomena in general see Kraft, “Christian Transmission.” For another possible case in our book, see our NOTE on 12:27, a multi-ethnic multitude.

556

Appendices

Appendix 11: “and ever since the city was taken over by the Hebrews it has been in their hands” (15:37) Τ7ν ο[ν κατ? Νικνορα ξρησντν οdτ« κα/ π0 κενν τ7ν καιρ7ν κρατηεση« τA« πλε« 3π9 τ7ν ’ Εβραν κα/ α.τ9« α.τι τ9ν λγον καταπα σ. The author’s evident purpose is to explain to his readers why he may end his book at this point. As such, he would not want to hint to them that the ideal situation achieved by the victory over Nicanor has since changed in any significant – perforce bad, from the Jewish point of view – way; that would undercut the importance of his story and also perplex his readers, rather than leaving them with the impression that they had received a complete narrative. That is, he should want to leave them with the impression that the ideal situation continues until his and their own day. This comes through quite clearly in such translations as Luther’s, the Revised Standard Version, and Goldstein’s: Luther: “die Hebräer die Stadt seit jener Zeit wieder in Besitz haben” RSV: “This, then, is how matters turned out with Nicanor. And from that time the city has been in the possession of the Hebrews.” Goldstein: “From that time the city has been held by the Hebrews …” However, it is questionable that the aorist participle, κρατηεση«, can be ascribed, as in these translations, a continuous meaning taking us up to the present. Usually it refers plainly to the past – and so it is translated by Moffatt, Abel and Habicht: Moffatt: “ … as the city was held from that period by the Hebrews” Abel: “ … la ville demeura en possession des Hébreux” Habicht: “seit dieser Zeit die Hebräer die Stadt beherrschten” However, usually the aorist does not refer to something continuous, even in the past. Moreover, these translations fail to assure readers that the situ-

Appendix 11: “and ever since the city was taken over by the …” (15:37)

557

ation is still the same – although, as noted at the outset of this discussion, that is evidently the author’s purpose. On the contrary: these translations apparently suggest that the situation has in fact changed significantly, and that the author knew it, thus leaving his readers wondering why he concluded his book here. We doubt, however, that the author wanted to leave us such a puzzle, which would undermine the importance of his work. It seems that the dilemma may be resolved if we notice that the verb κρατω, in our book, usually means not “to rule,” which is a continuous process, but, rather, “to take over.” The most relevant parallels are at 4:10 and 5:7, where it appears, as here, in the aorist, and has “rule” (ρξ) as its object; “take over rule” is the plain translation. So too at 14:2, where the verb is in the perfect and “the country” (ξρα) is the object. A fourth case, 4:27, where the verb appears in the imperfect, is somewhat less clear; perhaps it refers to something continuous. However, given the fact that it comes at the very beginning of Menelaus’ tenure as high priest, perhaps it too refers especially to the inception of rule; and had it referred to ruling the city we would have expected “city,” not “rule,” to be the object.120 Accordingly, here too we translate “took over rule.” Thus, the only exception is the fifth case, at 4:50, but here the verb has no object at all, and so readily translates into “those who hold power.” This cannot affect our assessment of 15:37 where, judging by the other parallels, the verb refers to the conquest of the city by the Hebrews. What then of π 0 κενν τ7ν καιρ7ν (“from those times”)? If κρατηεση« refers to a one-time event in the past, what happened “since those times?” Here, it seems, we must – as my teacher, Lisa Ullmann, suggested to me – assume two frequent phenomena:121 a verb of being (οϊση« – present participle of ε&ναι) has been omitted and “the city,” although mentioned only once in the verse, in fact is to be understood as functioning as the subject of two verbs (the phenomenon known as π9 κοινο) – κρατηεση« and οϊση«. This allows for the translation we adopted: “Since the affairs concerning Nicanor turned out this way, and ever since the city was taken over by the Hebrews it has been in their hands, here I too will conclude this account.”

120

121

Moreover, see our NOTE on 4:27, took over the government. It may be that the author was so pleased by the paronomasia there that he chose the wrong verb in order to create it; cf. our NOTE on 3:35, receiving Onias. On these phenomena see, respectively, F. Blass & A. Debrunner, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (ed. F. Rehkopf; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 198416) §§127–128 and 479.

558

559

INDICES

560

Indices

Index of References

561

Index of References1 I. Hebrew Bible 2 Genesis 4:10 6:8 10 14:5 14:18 14:18–22 15:5 15:16 18:2 19:1 19:11 31:2 33:18 38:1 41:1 43:12 Exodus 1:7 1:11 2:24 3:22 8:18 14 14:30–15:1 15 15:1 15:16 15:17 18:21 18:24

327 267 256 431 537 203 136 284 388 162, 388 389 63, 484 537 251 536 410

330 62, 263, 265 136 339 156 198 508 154, 506 154 62, 506 156 339 339

19:6 20:11 23:20 23:22 25:23 25:31 30:30 32:13 34:6 37:26 40:34–35

168, 169 312 62 62, 387, 401, 403 142 142 145 136, 335 154 162 163

Leviticus 9:1 9:22 10:1–2 10:19–20 23:40

165 501 152, 165 165 378

Numbers 14:17 14:37 17:12–13 21:21–24 25:3 25:10–12 25:11–13 27:12–13 27:8–11 29:28–30:1 31:19

1 My thanks to Yonatan Miller, who prepared these indices. D.R.S. 2 Includes references to Septuagint for these books.

486 358 203 434 13 224 13 162 194 16 439

562 31:25ff. LXX 35:33

Indices 342, 441 536

Deuteronomy 3:27 162 4:9 161 6:7 140 7:2 403 7:5 375 7:25–26 439 8:5 22, 69, 284, 316 8:11 64 9:27 136 12:3 375, 485 13:11 440 16:9–12 435 19:16–21 244 20:8 335 20:14 431 21:7 502 25:9 502 26:6 62 28:15 156 28:26 360 29 161 29:28 440 30:3 162 31:19 302 32 21, 22, 62, 63, 66, 226, 259, 262, 299, 302, 303, 327, 477, 526 32:9 155, 477 LXX 32:9 477 32:20 22, 262 32:25 22, 259, 298 32:27 261, 299 32:27ff. 307 32:35 226 32:36 296, 299, 302, 526 32:43 226, 327 32:36 22, 62 34:1 162 Joshua 1:8 6

161 427

7:6 LXX 15:37

386 477

Judges 13:6 18:21 LXX 19:8

388 431 503

1 Samuel 2:12–16 2:27ff. 12:22 LXX 14:19 14:28–30 17:26 17:36 17:44 17:44–46 17:54

224 224 285 330 452 315 315 360 360 508

2 Samuel 5:21 7:10 11:1

439 157 435

1 Kings 3:9–12 3:16–28 8 8:2 8:4 8:10 8:27 8:65 8:66 14:29 16:27 18:33–35

163 85 164 163 161 163 486 163 134, 165 15 15 153

2 Kings 5:15–17 6:15–18 6:18 10:20 17 18:27

204 63 389 15 538 153

Index of References 19:19 19:35 20:34 25:15 25:25 Isaiah 10:32 11:12 14 14:11 14:12 14:13 14:14 14:18–20 LXX 14:19 19:21 24:16 LXX 29:5 32:6 36:5–6 36:12 37:20 37:36 LXX 37:36 40:12 40:26 44:12 45:3 48:1 49:5–6 49:7 54:7 54:7–8 56:8 59:21 62:9 Jeremiah 1:1 2:1 2:27–28 3:16 7:16 7:33 8:14

156 62, 337, 546 15 162 398

62, 484 156 62, 352 358 356 358 359 365 366 142 487 358 536 403 153 156 62, 337, 546 506 357 63, 312 267 156 186 155 156 22, 313 261, 262, 313 162 161 277

152 163 138 161 502 360 153

10:2–11 11:12 11:14 14:11 14:21 15:9 17:26 25:11–12 29:5–7 29:10 32 LXX 32:1 32:34 32:37 32:39 32:40 32:41 33:9 41:1 41:1–15 43–44 50:41–42 52:19 Ezekiel 7:17 17:13 21:12 26:7 28:18 39:4 39:23 Joel 2:16–17 2:16–19 2:17 LXX 2:17 2:20

563 160 138 502 502 335, 336 63, 299, 308 142 152 482 152 136, 142 514 136 136 136, 137 136 136, 157 136 398 62, 255 160 244 162

153 398 153 449 62, 451 360 262

197 62 94 387 62, 197, 358

Amos 6:13

431

Jonah 3:8

198

564

Indices

Zechariah 2:16

141

Psalms 1:5–6 10:4 20:8 33:13–14 37:18–19 40:7 52:6 74:9 74:20 74:79 79:2 94:12–13 94:14 LXX 94:14 96:6 104:4 115:1 135:14 144:6 149:6

304 398 336 156 138 142 508 514 335 142 360 284 285 285 188 201 336 302 389 507

Proverbs 1:1 1:27 10:2 11:4 13:11–12 24:17 27:2

163 140 342 342 284 256 291

Esther LXX 3:7 LXX 3:13a-b LXX 3:13e 3:15 4:1 4:16 LXX 4:17a LXX 4:17c LXX 5:1a 5:14 6:1

280 362 472 483 198, 386 36, 450, 452 154 312 205 35, 62, 450 450

7 7:5–10 7:10 LXX 8:12d LXX 8:12p 9:15 9:19 9:21 LXX 9:24 9:26 9:26–32 10:3 LXX 10:3 Daniel 2:37 LXX 3:34 LXX 3:34–36 LXX 3:43 7–8 7:13 7:25 8:14 8:23 LXX 8:23 9:2 9:3 9:15 9:21 9:26 11 11:14 11:28–30 11:30 11:31ff. 11:32–33 11:36 11:45 12 12:2 12:7 LXX 14 Ezra 1:5 4:15

244 450 62, 450 205 346 173 511 511 280 511 9 293 162

449 336 335 336 373 163 372, 376, 541 372, 376 284 284 152 386 506 388 59 197, 358 230 533 253 273 299 359 454 373 304 372 150

95 166

Index of References 4:17 5:17 7:1 7:12 Nehemiah 1:18 2 3–4 7:65 8 8:9 9:6 9:8 9:32 11:1 11:17 12:11 1 Chronicles 10:10 14:12

139 139 3 449

163 153 151, 254 151 340 151 312 136 486 186 154 154

510 439

16:27 17:23 20:1 21:26 24:14 25 28:9 29:13 2 Chronicles 2:5 5:3 6 7:1 7:8–10 7:9–10 13:11 20:18 24:9 24:11 29:17 30:6

565 188 486 435 164 95, 189 157 137 486

486 163 164 134, 163, 164, 527 163 134, 165 142 386 221 190 165 136

II. New Testament Matthew 2:22 3:16–17 14:9 24:15 25:46 27:54

168 201 168 188 304 152

Mark 1:6 1:10–11 4:41 5:41 14:61 15:34 15:42

268 201 508 555 278 555 342

Luke 1:5 1:8

95 95

1:65 2:2 3:1 4:37 5:1 5:26 20:27–40 20:36 22:6 23:32 24:44

508 544 434 330 428 508 442 316 483 202 59, 166

John 4:21–24 7:2 8:20 10:22 11:49 12:13 18:11

47 143 191 87, 163 399 378 399

566 Acts 1:3 1:6 1:9–11 2:1 2:47 3:21 4:1 4:29 5:5 5:11 5:13–14 5:24 5:33 5:39 5:40 6:1 6:13 7 7:2 7:9 7:33 7:44–46 7:44–50 7:48–50 7:56 7:58 7:59 8:30 10:1 10:24 10:28 10:39 12:1 12:23 15:5 15:21 16:20 16:37 17:21 17:24 17:25

Indices

307 407 163 436 480 407 189 486 139 330 480 189 139 307 233 205 188 205, 486 205 205 205 205 486 205 293 205 293 514 238 403 277 135 353 355, 357 197 197 486 281, 486 71 312 486

19:9 21:28 21:39 23:1 23:6 23:8 24:12 24:15 25:16 26:6 28:19

199 188 197 275 305 316, 317, 442, 444 276 305 302 305 216, 469

Romans 11:1 11:26ff.

95 554

1 Corinthians 15:42–55

306

2 Corinthians 11:27

178

Galatians 1:13–14

173

Philippians 1:27 3:5 3:20

275 95 275

1 Thessalonians 1:2 2:13 2:16

139 538 284

Hebrews 11:35–36 11:35–38 11:38 1 John 3:2

88 52 88

538

Index of References

567

III. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Assumption of Moses 3:4 4:8 8 8:1–2 9 9:7

386 95 299 278 299 317

1 Baruch 2:11

506

2 Baruch 6

160, 162

Bel and the Dragon 15 21

150 150

1 Enoch 6:2 14:3 91:10

316 316 304

Epistle of Jeremiah Pp. 160, 161 1 Esdras 8:73

198

2 Esdras 4:15

166

Judith 2:3 4:3 4:10–15 4:11 4:11–12 6:2 8:1 8:6 8:7 10:13 13:7–10

347 452 198 241 386 498 3 342 194 260 508

13:15 14:1 15:12 16:1 16:17 16:18 Letter of Aristeas 2 3 11 16 23 31 36 44 53 63 83 92–96 93 99 107–111 121ff. 126 144 145–146 205 210 211 225 230 245 262 263 264–265 267 269 270 271 289 310

510 510 378 154 357 439

186 51, 180 180, 554 205 244 180 51 51 509 180 135 199 180 180 135 286 51 197, 287 435 405 486 355 405 405 240, 253 355 355, 359 405 240 355 405 240 315 145, 199

568 1 Maccabees 1 1:9 1:11 1:11–15 1:14 1:19 1:20 1:20–24 1:21 1:21–23 1:24ff. 1:29 1:30 1:33ff. 1:36–40 1:41–67 1:43 1:47 1:52 1:54 1:56–64 1:58–59 1:59 1:60 1:60–61 1:60–63 1:60–64 1:61 1:62–63 1:64 2 2–4:23 2:1 2:1–14 2:7 2:14 2:15ff. 2:16 2:17 2:24 2:24–26 2:25 2:26–27 2:28–29 2:29

Indices

299, 533, 535 192 49, 325 43, 211 219 192 250, 274 149, 533 534 46, 48, 192, 260, 533 300 41, 250, 265, 398, 536 49, 266, 342 272 272 273 49 375 49, 325 372, 373, 375, 376 299 542 377 281 326 50, 54 272 19, 198, 281 268 317, 329 324 323 267, 339, 454 275 186 198 280 49 502 215 13 375 215 267, 268 496

2:29–38 2:29–41 2:31 2:32–38 2:39–41 2:41ff. 2:42 2:42–43 2:42–45 2:42–48 2:44 2:44–48 2:45 2:49–64 2:50 2:54 2:58 2:65 3 3–4 3:1 3:3–33 3:5–8 3:8 3:10–24 3:17 3:24 3:27–33 3:32 3:32–33 3:37 3:38 3:39 3:41 3:43–54 3:47 3:48 3:56 3:58–59 4 4–6 4:1 4:1–25 4:5 4:8–11 4:10

86, 282, 325 50 282 272 266, 282 274 471 323 326 324 382 325, 329 323, 375 337 215 13, 215 215 324, 475 331 324, 333 324 29 325, 329 317, 329 329 452 339 148 41, 265, 367, 397, 398 30, 367 352, 544 9, 30, 243, 325, 331 332 333, 346 46, 48, 325 198, 241, 452 340 335 46, 332 34, 344, 394, 395, 419 40, 420 9, 325 329 9, 325 337 136, 335

Index of References 4:15 4:18 4:23 4:26 4:26–35 4:28 4:28–35 4:29 4:35 4:36 4:36–5:8 4:38 4:39 4:41–58 4:43–47 4:46 4:52 4:52–54 4:59 4:61 5 5:3 5:3–5 5:6–8 5:9ff. 5:10 5:13 5:16 5:17 5:25 5:26 5:35 5:43–44 5:46–51 5:54 5:56 5:58ff. 5:59 5:61 5:62 5:65 5:65–68 5:68 6

342, 436 9, 325 342 163, 394 344 398, 448 394, 395 400 26, 451 171, 374 372 345 241 376 376 57 372, 373, 376, 523 377 163, 171 26, 394, 400 29, 30, 374, 394, 417, 418, 419, 420, 422, 424, 427 382 374 374, 385, 386 429 171 385 385 385 418, 425 419, 429, 430 429 433 434 46, 48, 419 340, 383 424 408 171 13, 419 171, 382, 384 436 375, 439 34, 36, 60, 355, 395, 396, 420, 454

6:1 6:1–16 6:5ff. 6:14 6:15 6:16 6:17 6:18–63 6:20 6:21 6:21–23 6:22 6:26 6:30 6:30–46 6:31 6:33 6:37 6:39 6:43–46 6:49–50 6:51–54 6:55 6:55ff. 6:55–56 6:55–63 6:58 6:60–61 6:62 6:63 7:1 7:3–4 7:5 7:6 7:8–10 7:8–25 7:10 7:11 7:12–18 7:13 7:14 7:17 7:18 7:21 7:22 7:26–30

569 148, 352 25, 29, 148 354 366 312 32 398 394 29, 30, 41, 448 49 192 385 26 398, 448 395 395, 400, 456, 490 506 455 253 288, 455 457, 458 458 459 29 30 367 237 458 49, 459 459 86, 467, 468, 511 468 49, 325, 466, 469, 476 171, 382 9 467 171, 467 467 482 471 96 142 49 332 49 481

570 7:27 7:30 7:31 7:33 7:35 7:36–38 7:37 7:39–50 7:40 7:41 7:41–42 7:43 7:45 7:47 7:49 8 8:6 8:17 9 9:3 9:10 9:12 9:23 9:27 9:30 9:33 9:54 9:58 9:69 10:8 10:14 10:15–21 10:18 10:21 10:25 10:26 10:31 10:40 10:43 10:44 10:46 10:51–58 10:59–66 10:61 10:69 10:75–76

Indices 467, 507 467 477 478, 484, 485 543 156 486 496, 505, 507 477, 504 506 337 511 504 508, 510 467 14, 221 188 175, 221, 430 3 482, 523 235, 288 506 49 57 147 14 523 49 49 508 49, 382 13 135, 406 143 135 362, 404 196 192 196 192 365 367 227 49 424 424

10:89 11:1–18 11:13 11:14 11:17 11:25 11:27 11:28 11:30 11:30–37 11:31 11:53 11:59 11:60 11:70 11:71 12:1 12:1–4 12:5–23 12:7 12:9 12:11 12:19–22 12:22 13:11 13:25 13:36–40 13:37 13:39 13:41 13:41–42 13:42 13:51 14 14:1–3 14:5 14:20–23 14:28 14:34 14:36 14:36–37 14:41 14:49 15:10 15:21 15:27

398 367 188 235 508 49 332 218 406 73 398 39 460 193 404 386 235 14 256 73 403 139 73 168 404, 424 454 11, 139 311, 469, 470 410 11, 139 529 147 378 475 139 423, 424 257 509 423 233 135 57, 147, 477 191 11, 139 255, 382 49

Index of References 15:33–34 15:40 16:14 16:23–24

235 424 193 520

2 Maccabees 1–2 11, 17 1:1 6, 8, 132, 137, 140, 144, 385, 520 1:1–9 521 1:1–1:10a 132, 521, 525 1:1–2:18 4, 519, 520, 528 1:2 317 1:2–5 133, 136, 375 1:3 168 1:3–4 137, 138 1:4 138, 142, 314 1:5 10, 525, 526 1:6 133, 486 1:7 4, 9, 11, 143, 147, 162, 336, 522, 524, 526, 527, 529 1:7–8 140 1:7–9 521 1:7–10a 133 1:7a 522 1:7b-8 522 1:8 132, 163, 345, 372, 376, 526 1:9 9, 139, 150, 163, 377 1:9–10a 523 1:9–10 11 1:10 5, 8, 15, 59, 135, 148, 243, 362, 373, 520, 521, 523 1:10a 11, 521, 522, 524 1:10b 133, 523 1:10b-2:18 132 1:11 133, 146 1:11–17 133 1:12 133, 186, 336, 502, 527 1:12–13 527 1:13 71, 133, 149, 258, 329 1:13–16 133, 147, 150, 520, 521, 527 1:13–17 25, 144 1:14 192 1:15 13, 150, 485 1:17 527 1:18 9, 133, 143, 144, 153, 159, 163, 167, 172, 523

1:18–19 1:18–2:15 1:19 1:20 1:23 1:25 1:25–26 1:27 1:29 1:30 1:31 1:31–32 1:32 1:33 1:34 1:36 2:1 2:2 2:4 2:6 2:8–11 2:8–12 2:9 2:10 2:12 2:13 2:14 2:16 2:16–18 2:17 2:17–18 2:18 2:18–32 2:19 2:19–23 2:19–32 2:20 2:20–21 2:21 2:22 2:23 2:23–24 2:23–31 2:23–32

571 134 133 134, 160, 168, 172 148 157 200 168, 391 162, 169, 205 169, 197, 538 438 376, 528, 538 9 154, 172 148, 159 159, 215 159 152, 163, 166 291, 314 155, 166, 197 161 197 160 150, 153, 164 134, 154, 164, 376, 538 134, 163 160, 260, 403 358 134, 140, 144, 150, 159, 263, 523 133 9, 137, 147, 155, 162 134 157, 538 132 31, 163, 174, 475, 484 171 4, 16, 24, 25, 37, 519 4, 364, 527 81 47, 80, 156, 199, 224, 251, 281, 423 186 36 324 17, 24 513

572 2:23ff. 2:24 2:24–31 2:24–32 2:25 2:26 2:26–27 2:27 2:28 2:29 2:32 3 3–4 3–5 3–7 3–15 3:1

Indices

379, 419 177, 231, 346, 514 27 513 24, 72 24, 34, 175 68 24, 179, 514 72, 175 24, 353 24, 150, 175, 285 4, 16, 37, 41, 42, 75, 87, 172 12, 18 19, 42, 43 329 16 3, 7, 50, 70, 74, 75, 174, 185, 193, 195, 200, 214, 224, 238, 239, 327, 328, 502, 512 3:1–2 375 3:1–3 4, 6, 48, 184, 250, 482 3:1–4:6 4 3:1–6:17 25 3:2 74, 204, 260, 481 3:2–3 18, 48, 167 3:3 4, 5, 74, 185, 191, 192, 225, 360, 468, 549 3:4 5, 6, 27, 74, 95, 211, 243, 380, 468, 482 3:4–5 49 3:5 4, 185, 193, 333 3:5–6 216, 469 3:6 233 3:7 180, 215, 474 3:8 185 3:9 5, 69, 184, 185, 204, 250, 538 3:10 5, 185, 200 3:10–12 191 3:11 224 3:12 174, 433 3:13 232 3:14 69, 401, 504 3:14b 184 3:14–17 79 3:15 5, 47, 48, 93, 156, 172, 184, 191, 200, 205, 290

3:16 3:17 3:18 3:19 3:20 3:20–21 3:21 3:22 3:22–23 3:24 3:24–26 3:25 3:26 3:28 3:29 3:29–30 3:30 3:31 3:32 3:33 3:33–34 3:34 3:34–39 3:35 3:36 3:36–39 3:37 3:38 3:38–39 3:39 3:40 4 4–5 4–7 4:1 4:1–4 4:1–6 4:1b 4:2 4:3 4:4 4:4–6

5, 69, 185, 196, 281, 401 69, 70 48, 402 18, 277, 281, 318 47, 48, 156, 184, 205, 501 355 5, 79, 185, 386, 483 48, 71, 174, 186, 191, 496 18, 76, 200, 334, 498, 506 40, 70, 71, 202, 259, 337, 456 172, 251, 431 70, 202, 214, 356, 401 201 78, 174, 180, 200, 201, 307, 357 76 200, 506 32, 48, 70, 200, 292, 391, 406, 455, 508 46, 48, 61, 71, 185, 228 5, 46, 48, 185, 238, 257 5, 61, 185, 201, 204 172 47, 93, 155, 156, 201, 204 347, 402 69, 185, 193 361 48 185 192, 215, 331 201 47, 64, 93, 156, 184, 197, 305, 341, 486 379, 512 16, 18, 300 51, 140 336 69, 70, 180, 201 4 4, 18, 469 4 6, 213, 219, 220, 245, 246, 337, 422, 456, 504 50, 236 4, 176, 191, 228, 265, 333 187, 469

Index of References 4:5 4:5–6 4:6 4:7

4:7–9 4:7–15 4:8 4:8–9 4:9 4:9–11 4:10 4:10–11 4:11 4:12 4:13 4:14 4:15 4:16 4:16–17

4:17 4:18 4:18–20 4:18–22 4:19 4:19–20 4:20 4:21 4:21–23 4:22 4:23 4:23–24 4:24 4:25 4:26 4:27 4:28 4:28–29

6, 199, 367, 449 4, 82 48, 80, 82, 217, 236, 250, 273, 471, 538 4, 6, 31, 49, 70, 185, 188, 192, 211, 217, 229, 231, 294, 306, 399, 490, 527 82 41 231, 399 231 212, 273, 530 6 83, 222, 224, 254, 281, 557 531 14, 15, 141, 174, 243, 289, 336, 456 222, 233, 263 23, 67, 70, 83, 140, 173, 195, 220, 232, 291, 327, 527 172, 189, 223 83, 224 215 21, 22, 24, 25, 37, 64, 65, 75, 211, 226, 250, 261, 283, 284, 303 24, 197, 224, 327 52 52, 53 211 243, 260, 274, 487, 530 219 227 5, 73, 144, 191, 215, 232, 265, 274, 363, 367, 482 534 193, 218, 250 31, 73, 95, 229, 274, 367, 456 82 399 49, 95, 174, 241, 256, 258, 290, 312, 474 18, 31, 218, 226, 253, 255, 399 80, 219, 241, 557 191, 223, 448 552

4:29 4:30 4:30–34 4:30–38 4:31 4:32 4:32–38 4:33 4:34 4:35 4:35–36 4:35–38 4:36 4:36–37 4:37 4:38 4:39 4:39–40 4:39–42 4:40 4:41 4:42 4:44 4:45 4:45–46 4:47 4:48 4:49 4:50 5 5:1 5:2 5:2–4 5:3 5:4 5:5 5:6 5:7

573 31, 235, 383 42 12 217 234, 383, 552 240, 243, 451, 538 49 196, 530 48, 71, 187, 433 48, 67, 238, 245, 254, 317, 335, 365, 450, 461 422 211 51, 68, 187, 211, 328, 352 237 501 71, 226, 242, 345, 390, 423, 473, 554 199, 235, 243, 251, 387, 451 68 52, 353 27, 50, 215, 216, 241, 243, 380, 468, 471 244, 402 35, 71, 191, 226, 237, 240, 255, 341, 382 52, 232 48, 72, 174, 279 279, 331 264, 314, 450, 514 6, 7, 46, 235, 504 48, 187, 211, 237, 238, 257, 328, 422, 450 6, 215, 219, 331, 557 16, 18, 54, 141, 300, 534, 535, 536 42, 231, 238, 274, 533 69, 201, 266, 387 172 68, 69, 252 48, 228, 249 70, 254, 255, 294, 306, 476 6, 80, 142, 220, 238, 258, 422, 476 18, 62, 219, 242, 557

574 5:7–10 5:8

Indices

35, 202 6, 133, 141, 213, 232, 241, 257, 425 5:8–9 538 5:9 47, 80, 213, 365, 383 5:9–10 78, 226, 249 5:10 245, 256, 277, 360 5:11 49, 53, 73, 203, 232, 264, 290, 354, 390, 534 5:11–13 79 5:11–14 255 5:12 71, 423 5:12–13 299 5:13 20, 298, 376 5:14 80 5:15 174, 201, 213, 256, 456 5:15–16 149, 336, 360, 451 5:16 18, 22, 46, 48, 89, 167, 188, 204, 235, 264, 372, 484, 487, 533 5:17 21, 22, 68, 176, 188, 284, 299, 307, 313, 351, 356 5:17–20 21, 24, 25, 37, 64, 75, 226, 250, 261, 283, 303 5:18 5, 68, 191 5:19 46, 156, 481 5:20 21, 68, 71, 138, 155, 174, 186, 261, 262, 526 5:21 19, 26, 69, 156, 201, 261, 300, 351, 355, 356, 357, 359, 530 5:22 19, 62, 174, 189, 234, 243, 276, 330, 366 5:22–23 18, 47, 539 5:23 6, 69 5:24 19, 41, 68, 250, 252, 259, 332, 535 5:25 18, 19, 69, 94, 153, 252, 253, 289, 301, 440, 496 5:26 68, 69, 70, 80, 423, 455 5:27 3, 19, 82, 84, 217, 275, 326, 341, 366, 377, 469, 495 5:27–7:41 89 6 16, 17, 18, 300 6–7 7, 17, 20, 24, 48, 50, 75, 90, 220, 372, 444, 495, 550

6:1

7, 18, 19, 41, 174, 197, 251, 274, 291, 300, 407, 536 6:1–11 19 6:2 18, 19, 47, 86, 264, 268, 407, 537 6:2–5 274 6:3 19 6:3–11 196 6:4 228, 355 6:4–5 136, 273, 336, 407 6:5 172, 281, 461 6:6 19, 199, 274, 496 6:7 17, 18, 39, 273, 274, 318, 358, 378, 541 6:8 17, 356, 422 6:9 69, 83, 173, 224, 291 6:10 18, 20, 198, 239, 318, 328 6:10–11 273, 274, 326 6:11 19, 74, 86, 87, 191, 268, 330, 366, 377, 487, 496, 497 6:12 24, 47, 69, 70, 177, 284, 315, 325, 513 6:12–16 21, 64, 285, 303, 377, 486 6:12–17 19, 24, 25, 37, 75, 226, 273, 283 6:14 24, 232, 261 6:14–16 261 6:15 226 6:15–16 24 6:16 21, 69, 283, 306, 315 6:17 68, 180, 286, 318 6:17b 285 6:18 281, 287 6:18–32 19, 23 6:18–7:42 21, 22, 24, 25, 37, 55, 328, 330 6:19 88, 265 6:20 281, 287 6:21 17, 228, 281, 287, 301, 311, 318, 356 6:21–22 237 6:22 293, 304, 538 6:23 19, 23, 197, 283, 286, 498, 501 6:24 23, 286, 289 6:24–25 489 6:24–28 50, 273 6:25 23, 83, 265, 288

Index of References 6:26 6:27 6:28 6:29 6:30 6:31 7

71, 155, 304 70 23, 67, 70, 88, 330 180, 459 23, 69, 70, 304, 448, 488, 554 23, 50, 291, 303, 306, 308 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 31, 52, 59, 88, 90, 293, 318, 328 7:1 17, 93, 277, 286, 302, 440 7:2 19, 70, 301, 339 7:3 290, 302, 317, 354, 483 7:4 244, 303, 514 7:4–5 86, 358 7:5 70, 276, 305, 311, 423 7:6 19, 22, 24, 62, 136, 197, 205, 299, 311, 315, 343, 526, 554 7:7 88, 302, 306, 356 7:8 19, 69, 438, 554 7:9 226, 299, 305, 306 7:10 70, 305 7:11 299 7:12 69, 302 7:13 17, 306 7:14 70, 299, 304, 305, 450 7:15 17 7:16 285, 299 7:17 155, 293, 318 7:17–18 497 7:18 23, 93, 291, 314 7:19 353 7:20 79, 305 7:21 19, 310, 311, 438, 499, 554 7:21–24 310 7:22–23 490 7:23 71, 155, 299, 305 7:24 19, 149, 301, 311, 459 7:25 233, 302 7:25–29 289 7:26 302 7:27 19, 232, 241, 256, 310, 438, 554 7:28 58, 63, 228, 238, 302 7:29 88, 256, 261, 299 7:30 19, 137, 197, 302 7:31 52 7:32 93, 261, 307

7:33

575

22, 47, 68, 71, 93, 136, 138, 261, 262, 283, 299, 303, 314, 343, 525, 526 7:34 22, 69, 260, 305, 308, 487 7:35 205 7:36 69, 299 7:37 19, 23, 24, 48, 175, 301, 387 7:37–38 299 7:38 23, 50, 155, 313, 329 7:39 290, 293, 301, 302, 354, 483 7:40 306 7:41 70 7:42 17, 20, 23, 68, 69, 205, 263, 285, 299, 318, 356 8 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 25, 300, 354, 372, 394, 495, 497 8:1 68, 82, 84, 173, 224, 245, 267, 281, 285, 323, 324, 336, 495 8:2 70, 205, 346 8:2–3 7 8:2–4 4, 19, 22, 48, 83, 146, 326, 329, 376, 527 8:2–5 272 8:3 174, 359 8:3–4 50 8:4 187, 238 8:4–5 65, 317 8:5 23, 48, 80, 83, 148, 175, 272, 313, 323, 346, 347, 387, 401, 501 8:5–7 174, 324 8:5–8 324 8:6 245, 326, 352 8:6–7 325, 423 8:7 471 8:8 176, 243, 323, 366, 382 8:9 46, 71, 149, 341, 382, 423, 427, 473, 474 8:9ff. 323 8:10 42, 544 8:11 76, 155, 280, 323, 335, 341, 346, 348, 355, 374, 476, 498 8:11b 226 8:12 73, 330, 382 8:13 201, 346 8:14 228, 253, 346 8:14–15 48

576 8:14–20 8:15 8:16 8:16–20 8:17 8:18

Indices

46, 48, 325 317, 335 201 64, 499 4, 7, 69, 188, 222, 337, 527 76, 200, 219, 346, 403, 456, 499 8:18–19 341 8:18–20 546 8:19 62, 499 8:19–20 323, 427, 452, 499 8:20 47, 71, 156, 341, 546 8:21 50, 70, 256, 301, 344 8:22 31, 171, 340 8:22–23 340 8:23 32, 70, 341, 346, 401, 431 8:23–26 324 8:24 71, 155, 242, 339 8:25 47, 152, 226, 258 8:26–27 19 8:26–28 266 8:27 313, 343, 346, 387, 391, 401, 402 8:27–30 339 8:29 22, 23, 24, 48, 76, 84, 136, 138, 169, 175, 198, 228, 253, 303, 342, 346, 387, 401, 441, 496, 525, 526 8:30 9, 71, 332, 342, 383 8:30–32 421 8:30–33 354, 385 8:31 329, 342, 345, 352 8:32 71 8:33 72, 213, 226, 343, 390 8:34 9, 84, 330, 333, 382, 421, 432, 473, 497, 499 8:34–35 389 8:35 341, 530 8:36 7, 42, 48, 64, 78, 80, 202, 307, 333, 357, 361, 402, 473, 544 9 16, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 35, 148, 300, 354, 395, 450, 527 9–10 40, 406 9–13 25, 33, 380, 46 9:1 236, 251, 258, 538 9:1–2 148, 236, 389

9:2 9:3 9:4 9:5 9:5–6 9:6 9:7 9:7–8 9:8 9:8–10 9:8–12 9:9 9:10 9:10–12 9:11 9:11–12 9:11–17 9:12 9:12–17 9:13 9:13b 9:14 9:14–15 9:14–17 9:15 9:16 9:16–17 9:17 9:17–18 9:18 9:18ff. 9:19 9:20 9:21 9:23 9:24 9:25 9:26 9:27 9:28 9:28–29 9:29 10 10–11

240, 241, 258, 352, 426 73, 343, 385, 421, 441 7, 47, 81, 156, 201, 290, 327, 359, 476, 498 69, 71, 201, 205, 313, 391 47, 226 357, 365, 451 67, 69, 70, 81, 258, 303, 352, 354, 355, 390, 423, 473, 480 357 25, 69, 174, 263, 355, 360, 498 26, 202 156 62, 70, 86, 92, 360 25, 78, 235, 341, 366 201 81, 355, 503 307 402 223, 313, 357 48 76, 260, 261, 361, 362, 487 226 186, 196, 347, 502 7 359 41, 227, 228, 245, 257, 275 48, 83, 167, 189, 225, 260 204 155, 204, 362 81, 484 69, 152, 362, 363, 403, 498 359 6, 135 47, 156, 409 405 359, 364, 367 234 72, 359, 363, 403 362, 405 289 47, 226, 257, 294, 328 245 27, 29, 144, 205, 217, 381 16, 30, 394, 397, 427 31, 32, 34, 35, 374, 398, 419

Index of References 10–13 10:1 10:1–3 10:1–8

26 8 8 8, 11, 14, 16, 17, 25, 30, 37, 143, 144, 371, 372, 373, 376, 378, 379, 526, 527, 528, 529 10:2 172, 372, 373, 485 10:2–3 136 10:3 8, 9, 134, 142, 153, 157, 158, 163, 231, 372, 526, 528 10:4 22, 24, 32, 48, 69, 150, 174, 175, 253, 283, 284, 390, 452 10:5 47, 163, 375, 376 10:6 88, 165, 268, 366 10:6–7 9, 143 10:7 8, 48, 385, 470 10:8 7, 10, 137, 144, 510, 526 10:9 8, 16, 205, 217, 367, 372, 373, 526 10:9–13 371 10:9–11:38 32, 36, 37 10:10 72, 172, 217, 324, 327, 355, 364, 419, 513 10:10–11 367 10:10–11:38 33, 34 10:10ff. 30 10:11 30, 189, 192, 243, 331, 354, 359, 396, 397, 421 10:12 217, 237, 243, 313, 330, 379 10:12–13 42, 244, 330, 331 10:13 149, 490 10:14 68, 80, 330, 333, 374 10:14–15 280, 331, 422, 436 10:14–23 372 10:15 50, 215, 242, 329, 353, 476 10:16 48, 198, 253, 341, 372 10:17 70, 71, 332 10:18 343 10:18–19 31 10:19 73, 233, 339, 352 10:19–20 171, 432 10:19–23 340 10:21 31, 339, 441 10:22 384 10:23 71, 332

10:24 10:24–38 10:25 10:25–26 10:26 10:26–30 10:27 10:28 10:29 10:29–30 10:30 10:31 10:32 10:34 10:34–35 10:34–36 10:35 10:36 10:37 10:38 11 11:1 11:2 11:2–3 11:2–4 11:3 11:4 11:4a 11:5 11:6 11:7 11:7–8 11:8 11:9 11:10 11:11 11:12 11:13

577 27, 31, 258, 343, 344, 354, 374, 382, 389, 398, 448 372 31, 198, 346, 361, 477 48, 341, 372 62, 94, 175, 199, 241, 253, 401, 538 63 7, 31, 251 76, 294, 329, 336, 346, 390 47, 62, 156, 201, 387, 388, 401, 425 31, 172, 372, 431, 507 201, 257, 406, 508 383 343, 374, 383 277, 347, 427 328 32 67, 70, 71, 258, 387, 390, 473 457 27, 71, 72, 374 48, 346, 372, 438 11, 16, 28, 30, 32, 42, 300, 372, 373, 395, 420, 448 27, 29, 41, 68, 192, 251, 317, 420, 441 31, 81, 361, 399, 484 7, 398 283 67, 485, 538 36, 81, 86, 155, 361, 395, 398, 448, 484, 498, 505 226 26, 30, 31, 32, 456 31, 48, 73, 79, 198, 228, 229, 341, 361, 391, 401, 452 31, 70, 339, 340, 431 387 31, 172, 201, 387 70, 197, 391 47, 156, 341 70 242, 389 48, 64, 307, 314, 347, 357, 448, 451

578 11:13–14 11:14 11:15 11:16 11:16–21 11:17 11:18 11:19 11:21 11:22 11:22–26 11:23 11:24

Indices

26 32, 459 219, 403, 404, 405, 420 135, 199 412 72, 364, 397, 403 27, 396, 405, 406, 411 362, 407, 410 412, 523 135, 403 459 33, 395, 411, 420, 472 173, 222, 224, 226, 281, 410, 411 11:25 275, 406, 508 11:26 168, 237, 365, 406, 420 11:27 135, 243, 403, 404 11:27–33 408 11:28 362 11:29 192, 406, 420 11:29–32 449 11:30 237 11:31 407, 549 11:32 409 11:33 405, 412, 523 11:34 135, 397, 403 11:35–36 396 11:36 196, 412, 530 11:37 240 11:38 410, 523 12 16, 28, 29, 30, 32, 354, 374, 420, 427 12–13 31 12:1 16, 27, 33, 235, 318, 482 12:1–2 48, 77, 380, 422 12:1–9 418 12:2 48, 189, 213, 234, 252, 265, 332, 333, 374, 385, 386, 425, 472, 482 12:2–3 280 12:3 424 12:3–9 333, 421 12:5 220, 228 12:6 31, 48, 69, 155, 226, 238, 239, 267, 329, 341, 417, 436, 440, 453 12:7 71, 258

12:8 12:9 12:10 12:10–11 12:10–12 12:10–16 12:10ff. 12:11 12:11–12 12:12 12:13 12:13–16 12:14 12:14–15 12:15 12:16 12:17 12:17–19 12:18 12:19 12:20 12:20–25 12:21 12:22 12:23 12:24 12:24–25 12:25 12:26 12:26–29 12:27 12:28 12:29 12:30 12:30–31 12:31 12:31–32 12:32 12:32–37 12:34 12:35 12:36

228 30, 70, 329, 400, 423, 439 27, 30, 345, 389, 400, 418, 425, 428, 429 68 418 418 374, 390 341, 388, 417 237, 418 403 199, 434 418 51, 277, 328, 390 77 48, 70, 214, 258, 337, 390, 417, 435 30, 174, 400, 417, 426 30, 353, 390, 400, 425, 437 418 73 71, 428, 456 70, 339 418 31, 195, 228, 353, 433, 534 69, 70, 140, 172, 205, 340, 417, 433, 503 69, 433, 455 389, 437 29, 31, 68, 425 339 149, 431 418 174, 332, 426, 427 48, 200, 417 30, 353, 400, 434 422 48, 418 7 34, 46, 48, 68, 417, 425 353, 374, 382 418 65, 188, 418, 440 27, 70, 332, 380, 389, 421, 430 48, 72, 341, 417, 436

Index of References 12:37 12:38 12:38–45 12:39 12:39–41 12:40 12:40–41 12:41 12:41–42 12:42 12:42ff. 12:43 12:43–45 12:44 12:45 13

214, 433, 508, 554 19, 223, 224, 266, 425, 436 417, 418 245 65 80, 277 47, 436 391, 436, 453 48, 155 198, 253, 443 341 7, 48, 192, 290, 451 291, 299 46, 48 60, 70, 356 16, 28, 29, 30, 32, 35, 300, 395, 420 13:1 32, 41, 73, 231 13:1–2 26, 28, 77 13:2 35, 397, 399, 430, 461, 468, 480, 505 13:3 213, 409 13:3–5 86 13:3–8 28, 35, 36, 37, 47, 226, 447 13:4 28, 35, 70, 71, 244, 264, 314, 447, 450, 466 13:4–5 472 13:5 62 13:6 240 13:7 188, 245, 366, 538 13:7–8 78, 257 13:8 172, 224, 241, 242, 356 13:9 28, 37, 213, 441 13:9–17 447 13:9–26 28 13:10 228, 229, 423 13:10–12 48 13:10–14 477 13:11 32, 47, 49, 174, 213, 244, 256 13:12 36, 62, 198, 199, 386, 401, 450, 472 13:13 243, 341, 448, 454, 469, 479, 487 13:13–14 7, 64 13:14 28, 34, 47, 50, 155, 213, 222, 256, 301, 339, 341, 455

13:14–15 13:15 13:16 13:17 13:18 13:19 13:19–26 13:20 13:21 13:22 13:23

579

81 32, 329, 340, 455, 505 32, 203, 406, 508 257 454 26 28, 34, 453 73 75, 191, 243, 457 68, 237, 457 27, 29, 70, 188, 216, 228, 234, 289, 311, 367, 402, 461, 472, 481, 530 13:24 41, 42, 204, 380 13:24–25 530 13:25 28, 32, 68, 237, 279, 333, 347, 419, 459, 460 13:26 205, 258, 379, 419, 448, 512, 534 14 16, 17, 300 14–15 17, 18, 19, 25, 499 14:1 26, 86, 87, 199, 230, 231 14:1–2 77 14:2 71, 397, 557 14:3 27, 49, 50, 82, 189, 243, 268, 380, 466, 471, 474, 482, 552 14:3–4 216 14:3–10 18 14:4 231, 378, 511 14:4ff. 191 14:5 82, 189, 216, 233, 235, 264, 330, 473 14:6 68, 353, 382, 538 14:7 473, 552 14:7–10 82 14:8 6, 180, 216, 459 14:9 289 14:10 471, 538 14:11 68, 149, 244 14:12 274, 505 14:12–25 9 14:13 71, 171, 174, 403, 468, 483, 484, 552 14:14 332, 402, 476, 481, 497 14:15 48, 172, 198, 241, 285, 386, 499

580 14:16 14:17 14:18 14:18–25 14:19 14:20 14:21 14:21–22 14:22 14:23 14:25 14:26 14:26–29 14:26ff. 14:27 14:28 14:29 14:29–31 14:30 14:31 14:31ff. 14:33 14:33–34 14:34 14:34–35 14:34–36 14:35 14:35–36 14:36 14:37 14:37–38 14:37–46 14:38 14:40 14:41 14:42 14:43 14:45 14:45–46 14:46 15

Indices 479, 505 31, 171, 384, 432, 433 68, 70, 308, 330, 482 49 430 219, 240, 280, 403 28, 35 480 73, 329 174, 476 28, 35, 472 189, 229, 359, 480, 551, 552 500 191 274, 290, 301, 354, 423, 467, 474, 530 32, 238, 461 81, 199, 235, 361, 456 318 63, 176 81, 150, 171, 174, 228, 361, 475 478 7, 17, 18, 53, 62, 172, 375, 498, 504, 508, 509, 510, 543 18, 486, 505 47, 156, 283, 347, 485, 501, 510, 513 197 48, 156 205, 341 84 17, 452, 510 6, 7, 51, 191, 282 243, 286 23, 55, 59, 60 83, 84, 173, 174, 186, 224, 268, 281, 466, 469, 508 290 479, 503 291 70, 327, 513 402, 473 80 23, 48, 214, 293, 299 9, 16, 372, 495

15:1 15:1–2 15:2 15:3 15:3–4 15:4 15:5 15:5–6 15:6 15:6–7 15:7 15:7–9 15:8 15:8–9 15:9 15:10 15:11 15:12 15:12–14 15:13 15:14 15:14–16 15:15–16 15:17 15:18 15:18–19 15:18ff. 15:19 15:20–22 15:21 15:21–24 15:21–26 15:22 15:23 15:24 15:24–26 15:25 15:25–26 15:26 15:26–27 15:27 15:28 15:28–35

70, 174, 186, 200, 228, 268, 500 18, 19, 266 174, 205, 232, 307 10, 84, 137, 303, 314, 346, 421, 432, 499 47, 156 71, 290, 315, 496 76, 201, 311, 314, 507, 509 18 69, 186, 254, 508 77, 174, 200, 334, 484, 506 186, 538 64 17, 47, 156, 341 452, 499 70, 166, 337 70, 308, 423, 509 70, 252, 507 68, 239, 442, 499, 503 12, 211 230 20, 61, 68, 186 160 69 7, 70, 174, 186, 294, 330, 453, 500 31, 254 196 341 69, 79, 196, 197, 401, 477 74 47, 156, 232, 497, 501, 538 48 505 62, 261, 337, 427, 452, 499 47, 156, 401, 486 20, 62, 328, 485, 509, 510 200 438, 507 18, 336 505 48 172, 431, 500 201, 258 35

Index of References 15:29 15:30 15:30–31 15:32 15:32–33 15:33 15:33–34 15:34 15:35 15:36 15:37 15:37–38 15:37–39 15:38 15:38–39 15:39

48, 391, 406, 438, 554 6, 17, 62, 485, 488, 498, 510 220, 422 17, 69, 201, 260, 328, 485, 499, 510 508 7, 62, 216, 226, 302, 510 235 17, 47, 48, 93, 156, 391, 487 341, 510 7, 9, 10, 303, 331, 353, 379, 438, 467, 526, 553 3, 7, 15, 50, 52, 184, 205, 314, 379, 402, 556, 557 24 24, 37 72, 460 519 24, 177, 244

3 Maccabees 1 1–2 1:5 1:9 1:10 1:11 1:18 1:19 1:22 1:23 1:26 1:29 2:1 2:2 2:2–8 2:6 2:9 2:10 2:16 2:21 2:27 2:29 2:33 3:1 3:8

54 5, 6, 87, 185 259 188 199 195 198 481 51 275 180 199 198 154 337 391 486 391 391 205 281 279, 543 499 135 238, 483

3:8–10 3:9 3:19 3:23 3:25 3:27 4:4 4:6 4:9 4:14 4:17 5:2 5:20 5:35 5:42 5:43 5:51 6:1 6:1–15 6:3 6:4 6:5 6:9 6:12 6:15 6:16 6:16–21 6:18 6:22–26 6:23 6:24 6:28 6:34 6:35–36 6:39 7:3 7:4 7:5 7:8 7:10–15 7:11 7:12 7:13 7:16 7:18–19 7:23

581 237 410, 501 498 382 458 288 283 482 152 308 180 514 277 449 290, 472 327 201 145 286, 337 477 391 337 391, 486 336 262 313 202 201, 202 450 238 244, 353 316 356 180 201 244, 501 472 244 407 450 314 409 199, 509 391 9 391, 514

582 4 Maccabees 4:11 4:26 5:4 5:25 8:19 10:7 12:7 12:13 16:15 18:7 Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah 2:11

Indices

199 173 286 197 283 244 554 238, 258 554 198

268

Paraleipomena Ieremiou 3:8–11

160

Pseudo-Philo, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 21:10 26:13 44:9 63:4

162 284 357 357

Sirach 7:10 10:2 22:4 29:13 34:5–7 35:17

342 186 194 435 500 31

36:11 36:12 38:24 42:11 44:20 47:12–17 48:20 48:21 49:13 50:1 50:1–4 50:4 50:20 Tobit 2:1 3:6 4:7–11 4:19 5:22 13:2 Wisdom of Solomon 7–9 9:15 11:16 12 12:2 12:19 12:22 18:21–22 18:22

155, 156 186 286 198 136 163 485 337 151, 254 187 193, 220 214 501

436 262 342 291 401 291

163 304, 306 226 284 284 316 284 203 335

IV. Dead Sea Scrolls 1QH 3:21–22

316

1QM 3–4 14:2

340 439

1QpHab 5:9

404

1QS 4:22 6:6–7 11:8 4QMMT C26 4QpIsaa

316 267 316

140, 166 485

Index of References 4QpNah 1 1.3

144 147

4Q196

436

4Q200 6:6

291

4Q242

356

4Q248

186, 535

4Q385a frg. 18, I, a–b

583

4Q525 frgs. 2–3, col. ii, ll. 3–5

138

11QTemple 45:11–12 45:16–17

186 186

Damascus Document (CD) 1:3 1:13–14 2:17–3:12 5:6–7 9:20 12:1

262 141 161 277 284 186

161

V. Rabbinic Literature V.1. Mishnah ’Abodah Zarah 2:6

225

’Avot 4:19 5:17 5:18

256 61 361

Bekhorot 7:1

267

Berakhot 9:3 9:12

443 440

Gittin 7:6 Kelim 29:7 Maaser Sheni 3:4

Menahot 13:10

12

Middot 1:3–5 2:5

345 386

Sanhedrin 4:5 7:4 9:6 10:1

327 390 242 442

Sotah 7:6 8:1

501 506

Sukkah 5:4

386

Tamid 3:8 7:2

225 501

312

267

135

584 Yadayyim 3:5

Indices

166

Yoma 6:2

509

V.2. Tosephta Berakhot 4:3

514

Demai 4:12

135

Hullin 2:24

292

Niddah 2:2–4

Sanhedrin 2:6 Sotah 6:3 13 13:1 Ta‘aniyyot 4:11

135

154 161 145, 160

361

312

V.3. Palestinian Talmud Berakhot 2:3,5a

377

Hagigah 2:1,77b

361

V.4. Babylonian Talmud ’Abodah Zarah 8b 16b Berakhot 17a 29a

151 292

137 64

Sanhedrin 38a

151

Shabbat 25b

439

Sotah 35a

357, 358

485, 509

Gittin 56a 57b

258 287

Ta‘anit 18b

Pesahim 104b

514

Qiddushin 66a

Rosh Hashanah 31a

506

Yoma 5a 8b 9a

64, 454

327 399 399

Index of References

585

V.5. Other Avot de Rabbi Natan (ed. Schechter) A, 5 442 B, 10 442 Deuteronomy Rabbah (Midrash Debarim Rabbah, ed. Lieberman) 82 Ecclesiastes Rabbah (Qohelet Rabbah) 9:12

242

Megillat Ta‘anit (with Scholion) (ed. Noam) 47 512 298 485, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512 Midrash of the Ten Martyrs (ed. Reeg) 52*-54* 303 102* 327 Pesiqta Rabbati (ed. Ish-Shalom) 180b 90, 301

358

Lamentations Rabbah 84–85

Seder Olam Rabbah 30

57

Sifre Deuteronomy 304

440

Sifre Numbers 137

281

90

Leviticus Rabbah 27:6

314

VI. Early Christian Literature (See also index of names) Apostolic Constitutions 8.6.5

137

Epistle to Diognetus 4:1

449

Eusebius Demonstratio evangelica 3.7.10 De martyribus Palasestinae 2.3 9.7 Hist. eccl. 6.5 Praep. Evang. 8.7.9 9.17.5–6 9.29.14 9.39.5

Hilary of Poitiers, De Trinitate 4.16

58

Jerome, Commentary on Daniel 11:14 11:21–22 11:36 11:44–45

230 230 25 251

555 305 239 58 205 537 198 160

John Chrysostomos Adversus Judaeos 1.6 MPG 48, 900 “On the Maccabean Martyrs and Their Mother” MPG 50, 617–628 Justin, Dialogue with Tryphon 96.2

236 89

89

278

586

Indices

Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum 4.3 23.8 28.3–4 Malalas, Chronographia 261

360 422 239

Martyrdom of Polycarp 3.2 9.3 11.1

305 314 313

Photius, Biblioteca 72

450

Sulpicius Severus, Chronicon 2.17.5 21.4

218 218

236

VII. Classical Literature (including Philo and Josephus) Aeneas Tacticus On Withstanding Siege 4.3 Aeschylus Persians Opening 422 470 481 734 742 744–748 744–751 820 832–836 Andocides Against Alcibiades 4.19 Appian Mithridatica 12.67 12.278 18 85.386–387 Syriakê 1–2

432

504 352 352 352 346 355 263 357, 359 357, 359 346

347

425 425 449 432 188

11.66 32 45 46 47 65.343 66 Aristophanes Clouds 442 Frogs 619 Aristotle Historia Animalium 612a Meteorologica 4.6 4.383b

25 332 192, 217 364 468 547 148, 364

303 303

513 153 153

Arrian 2.24.6 4.7.3–4 5.20.1

226 302 345

Athenaeus 10.426–427 13.593

513 282

Index of References Callimachus Epigrams 27, l. 4 Hymns 4, ll. 171–188 Cicero De Divinatione 2.56.115–116 2.62.127 De Oratore 2.5.21 In Verrem 2.3.33.76 2.5.58.150 Orator 37–42 To Atticus 16.3.1 Curtius 4.6.29 6.11.8 7.2.7 9.3.16 9.3.18 10.2.30

178 547

253 500 224 234 245 71 176

239 479 479 479 461 461

Demosthenes On Syntaxis 14

242

Diodorus Siculus 1.31.2 2.10.1 5.26.3 11.2.4 11.19.6 13.61.6 13.75.4 16.25.2 16.80.2 16.86.6 17.10 17.34.8 17.35–36

423 235 514 263 346 439 439 451 432 345 251 432 198

17.36.1–2 17.41.5–6 17.53.1 17.57.6 17.68.4 17.107.5 18.18.6 18.56.3 30.7.2 31.17a 31.18a 34–35.1.3–4 40.3.5

587 79 253 449 340 439 305 406 409 212, 238 148 25 273 220

Diogenes Laertius 7.10 9.27 9.59 10.35 10.84–85

294 293 293 178 178

(Ps.) Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ars Rhetorica 11.398

294

Euripides Orestes 1204–1205 Phoenician Women Opening 568ff. 1090–1092 1630

309 65 254 490 451

Eutropius 7.5

377

Herodotus 1.53 1.74 2.100 4.64 4.202 4.205 5.69 5.114

253 253 450 302 357 357 344 510

588

Indices

6.84 7.22–24 7.24 7.26 7.33–36 7.36–37 9.20 9.50

513 263 357 303 263 357 388 345

Heron of Alexandria Pneumatica 1.38–39

150

Homer Iliad 1.4–5 11.162 17.39–40

360 360 508

Isocrates Against Lochites 6 Panegyricus 89 To Nicoles 22 Josephus Against Apion 1.28–36 1.32 1.34–35 1.36 1.41 1.43 1.46 1.191 1.206–207 1.248 1.249 1.311 1.320 2.55 2.83–84 2.112–114 2.137

242 263 222

167 501 167 167 57 278 56 278 500 315 240 240 17 235 535 382 435

2.157 2.193–198 2.219 2.225–231 2.227 2.233–234 2.263 2.269 2.294 3 Antiquities 1.81 2.100 2.309 4.43 4.285 7.350 7.362 7.367 8.88 8.111 8.128 9.291 11.22 11.76 11.114 11.291–292 11.295 11.325–339 11.340–347 12 12.23 12.136 12.137 12.138–146 12.142 12.145 12.150 12.154 12.158 12.186ff. 12.229 12.234 12.237 12.239 12.239–241

431 20 278 256 387 305 259 244 205 178 410 508 240 486 194 403 222 95 167 486 452 539 5 222 539 511 511 5 539 211 220 174 285 220 157, 470 196, 375 409 194, 234 218 194 437 194 13, 187, 211, 212 211, 218 211

Index of References 12.248 12.249 12.251–256 12.257–264 13.262 12.265 12.265–266 12.267 12.272 12.274 12.274–275 12.284 12.285 12.308 12.319–322 12.325 12.354 12.358 12.358–359 12.381 12.381–382 12.383 12.384–385 12.387 12.387–388 12.389 12.390 12.408 12.409–411 12.411 12.412 12.414 12.419 12.434 13.46 13.51 13.62 13.62–73 13.74–79 13.77 13.173 13.235 13.252 13.260–265 13.273 13.296

373 261 273 86, 539 280 95 339 275 282 86 282 135 341 436 373 143, 151 148 148 355 410 408 459 36, 86 469 13, 187, 212 86, 468 468 504 508 507 8, 511, 512 475 475 338, 475 475 196 13, 212 187 167 174 64 256 436 14 338 64

13.296–297 13.301 13.314 13.324 13.354–359 13.372 13.380 13.383 13.402 14.5 14.8 14.24 14.40 14.72 14.117 14.145–148 14.157 14.165 14.172 14.226 14.228 14.242 14.245 14.247–255 14.258 14.263 14.273 14.297 15.178 15.410–420 16.187 16.213 16.227 16.246 16.260 16.271 17.1 17.169 17.193 18.9 18.11–25 18.26 18.69 18.74 18.93 18.102

589 222 168 242 256 25 378 235 437 332 233 473 509 256 277 145 14, 529 168, 406 168 168 266 283 266 266 14 266 266 508 256 222 345 339 409 410 410 410 420 303 357 420 222 286 286 280 150 168 480

590 18.259 18.271 18.279–288 18.284 18.302 18.306–309 19.1–273 19.281 19.283 19.290 19.347 20 20.136 20.216 20.216–218 20.235 20.237 20.267 War 1 1.1–8 1.15–16 1.31–33 1.32 1.32–33 1.33 1.34–35 1.41 1.59 1.121 1.253 1.311 1.383 1.596 1.656 2.143 2.152–153 2.164–165 2.165 2.277 2.350–354 2.358 2.390 2.409 2.409–417

Indices 146 256, 301 243 408, 420 257 381 5 422 145 226 293 475 239 157 157, 222 469 193, 475 176 72, 197, 211 56 177 211 230, 372 212 12, 187 273 36, 86, 395, 399, 448 309 233 436 283 432 303 357 268 278 63 442 230, 331 421 263, 346 341 189, 204 261

2.411–417 2.412–413 2.413 2.457 3.296 3.350 3.374 3.505 3.506 3.506–521 3.506ff. 3.522 4.84 5.19 5.160 5.194 5.198–206 5.377 5.378 5.388 6.294 6.298–299 6.312–313 6.359 6.384 7.263 7.341–357 7.401 7.423 7.431 7.455 Vita 2 4 5 12 14 26 37 104 138 241 271 280 290 338

54 188 260 377 432 283 317 286 428 286 428 286 420 355 424 375 345 341 307 337 189 252 253 239 334 230, 331 489 410 12, 187, 212 215 513 95, 339 339 339 275 268 254, 277 424 390 453 424 424 424 452 177

Index of References Livy 6.14.5 14.239–319 32.2.1 33.46.9 36.4.7 37.40 37.41.5–42.1 38.16 38.16.9 38.21.8 42.6.7 Lucian De dea syra 28 How to Write History 22 23 34 47 55 56 74 Macrobioi 19 Pro lapsu 9 Zeuxis 8–11 10

488 251 251 545 545 332 449 337 547 432 544, 545

244 513 180 177 34 180 179, 513 177 382 547 547 432

Onasander Strategicus 36.1–2

439

Ovid Ibis 315–316

450

Pausanias 1.7.2 1.29.5 9.13.5

547 179 242

Philo De Decalogo 41 52 Hypothetica 7.6 In Flaccum 5 46 52 74 89 104 136 190 Legatio ad Gaium 96 157 159–161 160 172 191 198 203–206 209 211 228 229–230 229–305 243–253 266–267 281 297 303 304 306 317–319 319–320 336 361 Life of Moses 1.6 1.36 1.142 2.5

591

449 186 222 135 213 422 52, 145 198 237, 315 514 490

438 188 246, 472 244, 314 244 174 174 244 483 51 361, 386 301 421 243 198 213 481 375 238 196 188 309 205 287 197 213 339 203

592 On Dreams 2.123 2.253 On Flight 153 Spec. Leg. 3.169 4.30–32 That Every Good Man is Free 89 The Worse Attacks the Better 49 Plato Gorgias 493a Protagoras 334B Republic 504E 550d 569c Plutarch Life of Alexander 35 Life of Cicero 49 Life of Marcus Cato 22–23 Questiones Convivales 4.6 637e Sulla 36 Ten Orators (Ps.-Plutarch) 1 Polybius Frag. 162b 1.2.8 1.12.4 1.15.4 1.30.6 1.30.14 1.37.5

Indices

266 306 355 198 194 358 306

304 513 443 291 291

159 510 71 378 159 357 451

455 180 504 453 504 230 478

1.62.6 1.81.11 1.87.7 2.4.8 2.35.3 2.38.5 2.56.7 2.56.9 2.56.10–11 2.59.6 2.60.7 2.69.9 2.122.11 3.18.9 3.21.3 3.21.6 3.52.3 3.53 3.53.6 3.57.4 3.81.2 3.87.9 3.91.10 4.72.4 4.72.8 5.3.4 5.5.9 5.11.6 5.25.3 5.26.9 5.47.4 5.51–54 5.65.3–4 5.70 5.70.2 5.70.4 5.73.1 5.79 5.86.10 5.96.1 6.2.8 6.20.9 6.54.2–3 7.11.7 8.2.6 8.8.1

243 329 453 309 290 238 198 309 79 232 239 400 384 484 243 243 470 478 329 382 402 552 230 363 374 431 252 232 455 455 484 547 190 426 434 428 400 332 230 174 177 215 288 405 330 290

Index of References 8.21.3 8.26.8 8.30.3 8.33.13 9.42.4 10.4.6 10.11.5–8 10.22.1 11.9.4 11.9.9 11.18.4–8 11.22.1 11.25.1 11.33.4 12.25.2 12.25e.1–2 12.25e.7 12.25h.2 12.25h.5 12.27.3 12.28.4–7 15.25.12 15.28.4 16.30.2–4 18.14.6 18.18.6 21.34.4 21.42.19–21 22.12.1 23.10.6 23.14.12 24.13.4 26 26.1.11 27.13.1 28.17.12 28.20.9 29.27 29.27.6 30.9.5 30.25 30.25.11 30.26.9 30.32.5 30.32.10 31.1.6

302 329 363 363 550 258 500 476 266 266 508 484 341 432 302 179 179 179 482 514 179 265 384 308 452 374 469 544 243 258 288 258 535 276 381 205 195 253 237 470 148, 252 449 149 187 280 411

31.2 31.9 31.9.1 31.9.3 31.9.4 31.11–15 31.13.2–3 31.13.3 31.14.4–5 31.25.8 32.6.6 32.11.6 33.6.6 33.18.11 35.25 36.15 38.20.10

593 468 25, 148, 353 148 382 239 468 215 228 473 239 187 513 174 432 332 309 470

Sophocles Antigone 29 205–206 450ff. 499 698 1017–1022

360 360 313 313 360 360

Statius Thebais 10.774–776 10.778–779

490 490

Strabo Geographia 7.3.6 13.4.3 16.1.5 16.1.18 16.2.6 16.2.7 16.2.8 16.2.16 16.2.28 16.2.34 16.2.37 16.2.40

244 235 159 148 236 256 256 428 424 424 223 168

594 16 (end) 17.1.24

Indices 338 400

Suetonius Vespasian 4.5

253

Tacitus Historiae 5.5 5.8.2 5.13.1 5.13.1–2

378 273 252 253

Theophrastus Characters 4 Thucydides 1.22.3

513

1.138.6 3.79.3

451 508

Valerius Maximus 9.2.4 9.2.6 9.13

437 450 289

Xenophon Anabasis 1.2.8 Cyropaedia 1.3.3 Hellenica 1.7.22 6.4.7 Symposion 5.10

303 388 259 214, 242 280

177

VIII. Epigraphic Collections CII 109 358, l. 2 725 725a-b

179 486 205, 497 199, 253

CPJ I1 I 128, ll. 2–19 I 128, ll. 43–44 II 149, l. 1 III 173–174 III 176–177

437 51 51 380 430 430

IG XI 4, 1112–1113 XI 4, 1114 XII 5, 129 XXII 5, 724, l. 3

191 191 190 380

Lenger, Corpus 18, l. 4

265

30–31, l. 3 35, l. 3 35, l. 6 53, l. 3 54, l. 2

461 410 461 510 410

OGIS 4, ll. 3–4 4, ll. 8–9 49, ll. 8–9 54, l. 8 56, ll. 33–34 56, l. 55 90, l. 47 117 139, l. 29 194, l. 24 214, l. 26 222, l. 2 225 227, l. 11 229, l. 84

291 405 541 188 541 406 541 381 380 178 235 541 234 469 542

Index of References 230 239 245 247 248 252 253, l. 7 302–304 308, ll. 2–4 319, l. 20 339, l. 16 383, ll. 12–13 424 598

190 338 542 192 216, 275 460 366 502 406 227 406 186 377 334, 375

P. Tebtunis 703 703, ll. 42–43

193 408

RC xliv lxx-lxxi 2 3, l. 42 3, l. 50 4 5 5, l. 17 7 10–13 13, l. 13 13–15 15, l. 4 18 19 22 37 38 44 45

406 140 532 233 410 532 532 235 532 72 168 532 469 234, 523 523 469 523 523 523 523

47 55 56 57 58 59 65–67 71 71, ll. 3–4 75 217 309 310 314 316 316–317 324–325 325 329 335 337 338 348 352 365 372 373 374 375 384 390–391 399

595 523 523 409 361 409 409 523 409, 523 362 523 257 226 365 228, 499 193 407 265 257 223 196 408 472 306 434 365 231 220 362 404 472 405 405

RDGE 67

187

SIG 398, ll. 44–45 402, l. 30 780, l. 31

227 227 187

596

Indices

Index of Names and Subjects 1 Maccabees 38–42, 43, 44, 49, 53–54, 61, 86, 250, 339–340 Contrasting Order of Events 29–30, 373–374, 380, 394–395, 533 Contrasting Presentation of Events 323–325, 396–397, 419, 467, 469, 475, 481–482, 496, 535 Dating of 15, 520–521 Martyrdom in 48, 50, 272, 326 3 Maccabees 87, 185 Dating of 87 Public Recitation of 514 4 Maccabees 70, 86 Dating of 86 Aaron 165 Sons of 165 Abraham 129, 256, 537 Absalom 393 Achaeans 460 Acropolis 207, 247 Adar 494 Adasa 477, 504 Adullam 416 Aeschylus 352 Afterlife; see Body and Soul, Resurrection Agoranomos 190 Akra 29, 223, 233, 374, 394, 494 Alcimus 49, 189, 463, 464, 466–467 Successor of 551–552 Alema 430 Alexander Balas 13, 404 Alexander Jannaeus 168, 437 Alexander the Great 160, 226, 340, 353, 461 Alexandrian Jewry 45, 52–53, 167, 226 Alexandrinus; see Textual Witnesses Ammanitis 247

Andronicus 209, 212, 249, 281, 345, 381 “Ancestral Language”; see also Hebrew 19, 296, 297, 416–494, 554 Angels 31, 63, 89, 201, 202, 316, 392, 493, 494 Antigone 65, 313, 360 Antioch 19, 49, 52, 89, 248, 300, 322, 394, 412, 419, 446, 449, 464, 466, 530 “Antioch(enes) in Jerusalem” 51–53, 207, 208, 212, 220, 243, 250, 530–532 Nature of 531–532 Antiochis 209 Antiochus I Soter 547 Antiochus II Theos 234 Antiochus III the Great 141, 157, 190, 195, 234, 286, 350, 397, 542, 544, 547, 548 Privileges Granted by 220–221, 360, 531 Antiochus IV Epiphanes 4, 14, 26, 27, 30, 53, 86, 129, 141, 156, 170, 207, 208, 209, 225, 228–229, 234, 243, 247, 248, 297, 300, 349, 350, 370, 412, 468, 503, 530 Attachment to Athens 41, 275, 360, 542 Campaign(s) to Egypt 247, 248, 249–251, 274, 533–536, 545 Death of 29, 32, 37, 40, 41, 60, 62, 90, 92, 130, 133, 303, 331, 351–352, 369, 372, 373, 380, 382, 389, 394–396, 405, 406, 411, 419, 459, 520, 527 Death Compared to that of Other Tyrants 357 Devotion to Apollo 542

Index of Names and Subjects Decrees Against Judaism 270, 541 Epistles to the Jews 350–351, 396–397 Repentance of 350 Visits to Jerusalem 533–536 Antiochus V Eupator 27, 28–29, 30, 32–33, 170, 351, 369, 370, 371, 393, 395–396, 414, 419, 430, 445, 445, 446, 447, 463, 468 Antiochus VII Sidetes 421, 521 Antonia Fortress 233 Apocryphal Books 57–61 Apollo, Temple of 236 Apollonius son of Gennaeus 414 Apollonius son of Thraseas 4, 27, 181, 185 Apollonius son of Menestheus 4, 27, 191, 207, 208, 265, 274, 289 Apollonius, the Mysarch 41, 249, 250 Apostolic Fathers 88 Apollophanes 72, 371 Apparitions 47, 64, 170, 182–183, 247, 249, 371, 392, 415, 464, 485, 493 Arabs 414 ’Arak el-’Amir 428–429 Aramaic 303, 438, 511, 553–555 Aretas 247 Argarizin; see Mount Gerizim Aristobulus 129 Identity of 144–145 Aristobulus I 168 Arrogance; see also under Motifs 62, 130, 201, 248, 298, 346, 349, 350 Art 178–179 Artemis, Temple of 148, 355 “Asia,” Name for Seleucid Kingdom 181 Asidaioi; see also Hasidim 463 Astyanax 282 Attalids 531 Atergatis, Temple of 415 Athens/Athenians 41, 275, 276, 279 Augustine 59 Auranus 49, 189, 210, 471 Author 17, 24, 34–35, 37, 45, 170, 199 Confusion of 32–33, 396–397, 406, 447, 457, 459

597

Educational Purpose 287, 288, 291, 301, 501 Jewish Identity 283, 486 Lack of Interest in Details of Temple Cult 46–48, 189, 204, 235, 260, 264, 484 Lack of Interest in Military Details 73, 324, 329, 343, 419, 454, 456 Lack of Interest in Numbers 231 Methodology 170 Objective of 3, 10–14, 72 Preface 16, 24, 170, 519 Ptolemaic Influence 278–279, 541–543 Reflections of 24, 208, 248, 271 Sitz im Leben 51–55, 66 Style; see Style Versus Epitomator 171 Azariah de’ Rossi 49 Babylonians 136, 321 Jewry 546–548 Bacchides 322, 467, 471, 474 Bar-Kokhba 378, 385, 428 Ben-Sira 61 Beroia (Aleppo) 445 Bestiality 258, 290, 360, 371 Beth-Shean; see also Scythopolis 434, 435 Beth Zechariah 30, 394, 399 Eleazar’s Death at 455 Beth-Zur 29, 392 Accounts 34–35, 394–395, 420, 457–458 Battle(s) of 26, 29–30, 32, 39, 354, 374, 392, 394–395, 402, 446, 447 Biblical Nature; see also Deuteronomy 32 and under Motifs 61–66 Allusions 61–63, 137, 140, 153, 157, 168, 258–259, 263, 303, 312, 357, 387, 477, 484, 502, 526 Historiography; see under Motifs 64–66 Spirit of the Hebrew Bible 63 Structure 65–66 Style 326 Quotations 61, 296

598

Indices

Bilgah 95 Birthdays, Celebration of King’s 270, 541–543 Blasphemy 320, 369, 371, 415, 494 Blessings 164, 322, 440, 501 Blood 50, 53, 65, 129, 320, 415, 465 Body and Soul, Distinction Between 23, 293, 298, 304, 465, 494 Booty; see Spoils of War “Brethren” 6, 31, 129, 370, 392, 414, 415, 493 Burial; see Death Calendrical Systems 11, 139, 143–144, 274, 373, 396, 405, 447–448, 511, 520, 541 Callimachus 178 Callisthenes 72, 322 Calvin, J. 61 Canon, Tripartite 166 Canonical Status 57–61 Catholic Church 59–61 Causality, Dual 146, 381 Caves 131, 133, 270, 369 Cendebeus 460 Chapter Order; see also Sources of 2 Maccabees 9–10, 28–34, 36–37, 354, 380, 406, 419 Chaereas 371 Chariots 349, 445, 480–481 Charity 322, 343, 417 Children 198, 248, 298, 312, 322, 350, 414, 415, 464, 493 Christians 52 Cult of Maccabean Martyrs 89 Interest in 2 Macc 57–61, 85, 88–89, 278, 298 Chrysostom, John 89 Cilicians 252 Circumcision 270, 274, 278 City 46, 50, 65, 66, 375 City States 6 Claudius 226 Clemens Alexandrinus 88 Cleopatra II 524 Cleopatra Syra 234

Coastal Cities, Battles in 424 Conflicts; see Struggles Correspondence, Royal (Ch. 11) 373, 393–394, 395–397, 409, 459, 549 Dating of 396, 410, 411, 412 Historicity of 396, 409, 412 Identity of “King” in Ch. 11 396–397, 406, 408 Council of Elders 129, 210, 393, 453, 487, 531 “Covenants” 27, 33–34, 419, 446, 464, 500 Between God and the People 129, 298, 321 Crates 209 Creatio ex nihilo 89, 312–313 Cuneiform; see Inscriptions Cypriots 209, 332, 370 Daniel, Book of 372, 533 Daphne 148, 209, 252, 332, 449 Dathema 429 Dates (in 2 Macc); see also Calendrical Systems 11–12, 15, 29–30, 230–231, 373, 447–448, 466 Dating 11–15 David 315 David, City of 233 Day of Atonement 475 Desert 267–268, 282, 365–366 Death and Burial 245, 247, 350, 365, 416, 417–418, 439, 445 Mourning 198, 247 Terminology for 306, 406 Death, Noble 299 Demetrius I 13, 26, 49, 187, 229, 362, 463, 464, 466–467 Demetrius II 11, 129, 139, 404, 470 Demophon 414 Dessau 464 Deuteronomy 32; see also under Motifs 21–23, 62, 66, 155, 226, 259, 261, 262, 296, 298, 299, 302–303, 307, 327, 477, 526 Diaspora 43, 85, 156, 213 Jews of Hellenistic 45, 50

Index of Names and Subjects Origins of 2 Macc 38 Religion of 442 Diasporan Historiography; see also under Motifs 45–55, 184, 203, 211, 216, 235, 242, 257–258, 301, 325, 329, 341, 382–383, 386, 421, 433, 482 Dietary Laws 267, 268, 287, 296–298, 301, 549–550 Diodorus 410 Dionysus, Dionysiac Cult 8, 18, 270, 274, 378, 465, 514, 541–543 Dioscorinthios 393 Diplomacy; see also under Rome 221 Discus, Call of 208 Distances 30, 400, 418, 428, 429, 435 Divine Providence 47, 63–65, 205, 235, 262, 316, 508 Dorymenes 185 Dositheus 415, 416, 456 Dura Europus 344 Dreams; see also under Judas 500 Ecbatana 349 Editors, Jerusalemite 8–9, 10–11, 14, 142, 144, 285, 373, 526–528 Egypt Jews in 129, 503, 523 Priests in 145 Eleazar 321 R. Eleazar b. Shammua 327 Eleazar, Martyr 23, 271–272, 280, 298, 304, 459, 489, 501 As Priest 286 Similarities to Socrates 289, 293 Eleazar son of Yair 488, 489 Elephantarch 463 Elephants 36, 86, 392, 395, 445, 446, 505, 547 R. Eliezer 291–292 Elijah 153 Elymais 352 Emmaus Campaign 323, 332, 339 Ephebeion 207 Ephron 415, 426 Epigraphy; see Inscriptions Epistles; see Correspondence and Letters

599

Epitomator; see also Author 17, 25, 37 Epitomizing 170, 175–176, 179–180, 277, 379, 457 Esdris 72, 416 Essenes 268 Esther, Book of 35–36, 362, 450, 452, 472, 483, 512, 514 Eumenes II 41, 219, 531–532 Eupolemus 167, 221, 430, 456, 537–538 Faith 77, 200, 298, 321, 365, 371, 492 Faithlessness 335, 466, 492 Farming 414 Fatherland 207, 247, 248, 321, 322, 445, 446, 464 Festival of Weeks; see also Pentecost 416 Fire, Liquid from Altar 89, 130, 131, 133–134, 150, 527–528 First-Person Singular 19, 24, 37, 171, 513 Forbidden Foods 270, 271–272, 296, 298, 356 “Foreignism” 23, 173, 208, 271 Forgery 362 “Friends” 129, 297, 320, 371, 463, 470 Gaius Caligula 5, 243, 257–258, 381, 438 Galatians 321, 514, 546–548 Galilee, Sea of 428 R. Gamaliel 135 Gentiles 48–49, 65, 130, 188, 196, 226, 237, 270, 369, 446, 463, 464, 492 Geron the Athenian 270, 543 Gerousia; see also Council of Elders 404 R. Gerschom 90 Gezer 371, 374 Glosses 37, 93–94, 137, 265, 268, 398, 402, 433, 476 God 48, 64, 130, 170, 182, 209, 248, 320, 321, 349, 350, 369, 371, 392, 414, 415, 416, 445, 464, 492 As Benevolent Hellenistic King 284 As Legislator 197, 341 Help of 417, 446, 494 Hiding His Face 21–22, 262

600

Indices

Kingdom of 141–142, 147 Language of 554 Of Heaven 47–48, 93, 156, 184, 197, 205, 305, 486 Titles of 155, 200, 203, 261, 346, 449 Gorgias 320, 325, 370, 372, 374, 389, 397, 416, 419, 467, 544, 546 Greeks 85 Common Roots with Jews 256–257 Greek (Language); see also under Motifs and Style 57, 67, 509 Motifs 65–66, 76 Versus Latin 59–60 Gymnasium 207 Hades 271 Hadrian 276 Halicarnassus 531 Haman 450, 472 Hanukkah, Holiday of 10, 14, 24, 37, 88, 134, 137, 139, 143, 163, 165, 274, 369, 509, 514 Festival of Lights 143, 150–151 Name of 159–160 Secondary Interest 8–10, 87, 520, 526 Hanukkah Narrative 369, 529 Connection to Opening Letters 8, 143, 372, 526, 528 Distinctiveness 8–9, 372, 375, 379, 526 Historicity 372–374 Purpose of 8–10 Semitic Vorlage 375 Hasidim 326, 471, 507 Hasmoneans 13, 42, 64, 419, 477 Polemics Against 266, 384, 460 Hasmonean Revolt 55–56, 323 Hebrew (Language) 59, 67, 296, 297, 375, 416, 438, 494, 511, 554 “Hebrews” 52, 298, 392, 495 Heliodorus 4, 41, 42, 181, 182, 183, 207, 248, 259, 361, 474 Heliodorus, Story of 42, 76, 78–79, 86, 184–186, 257, 261, 281 Externality 4–6, 37, 46, 140–141, 172, 211, 526–527

Hegemonides 41, 42, 380, 446 Hellenistic Jews 43–44, 55, 88 Literature of 52, 71 Hellenistic Kings 49, 54 Hellenization, Institutionalized 3, 51–53 Heracles 208 Herod 86, 358, 363, 399 Hezekiah 493 Hieronymus 414 High Priesthood 12, 42, 59, 95, 231, 392, 463 As Kingship 168 As Municipal Position 6–7, 184, 190, 193, 219–220, 254 Sale of 398–399 Succession of 469, 474–475, 483, 551–552 Usurpation of 207, 208 Hippolytus 88 Historicity 38–44, 45, 55–56 Holidays; see Hanukkah, Nicanor’s Day, Passover, Pentecost, Purim, Tabernacles Holofernes 498 Honor 23, 271 Horses 183, 247, 370, 371, 392 Humor; see also under Motifs 346–347, 361, 362, 364, 379 Hybris; see Arrogance Hyrcanus son of Tobias 182, 185, 429 Idolatry 130, 277, 301, 416 Idumaeans 370, 372, 374 Idyll 3, 7, 132, 181, 420, 482, 512 Inheritance 131, 285, 477 Inscriptions 30, 40–41, 53, 185, 190–191, 192, 216–217, 219, 366, 380, 396, 420, 424, 460, 531–532, 542; see also index of sources cited Irony 147, 172, 215, 244, 257, 284, 293, 306, 311, 317–318, 346–347, 355, 358, 360, 367, 411, 472, 473 Isaac 129 Isaiah 156, 268, 352, 356, 357, 484–485 R. Ishmael 286 Ishmael b. Netania 255

Index of Names and Subjects “Israel” 130, 349, 371 Israel, Land of 162 Jacob 129 Jamnia 414, 416, 439 Jason (high priest) 3, 4, 49, 129, 133, 141–142, 147, 207, 208, 209, 211, 247, 249, 258, 336, 345, 360, 365, 399, 430, 526–527, 530, 531, 552 Jason of Cyrene 15, 16, 45, 72, 170, 171, 457 Jason son of Eleazar 175 Jazer 374 Jeremiah 131, 134, 137, 160, 163, 482, 493 Jericho 415, 435 Jerome 58–59, 85 Jerusalem 3, 7, 129, 133, 135, 181, 207, 209, 248, 249, 279, 299, 300, 322, 349, 353, 370, 387, 414, 416, 464, 493, 494, 496, 530 Antiochenes in; see Antiochenes in Jerusalem As polis 6, 51–53, 197, 531–532 As Subject of 2 Macc 3, 6, 495 Focus on 6–7, 50, 184, 453, 481 Hellenism in 211 History of 7–14 Primacy vs. Temple 245, 375 Vs. “Holy Land” 6–7, 141 Jesus 553 Language of 555 Jewish Hellenism 42–44 “Jewish Unit” 446, 546, 548 Jews (and Judaism) 31, 47, 48, 50, 65, 66, 85, 220, 270, 392, 393, 414, 445, 463, 492 Common Roots with Greeks 256–257 Pro-Ptolemaic 230 Nationalists/Traditionalists 251, 255, 272 Terminology for; see Brethren and Politai 31 Johanan 393 Johanan (father of Eupolemus) 14, 207

601

John Hyrcanus 15, 43, 309, 324, 383 Death of 520 Jonathan 13, 139, 218, 256, 321, 404 Joppe 208, 534 Joppites 414 Joseph 321, 370 Joseph son of Tobias 429 Josephus 36, 86–87, 172, 187, 194–195, 257–258, 282–283, 339, 355, 375, 381, 395, 399, 468, 539 Divergences from 1 Maccabees 535 Joshua 415 Josippon 90 Judaea 248, 370, 374, 392, 445, 454, 463 Country of 129, 320 “Judaism” 66, 170, 320, 465 Judas Maccabaeus 3, 7, 23, 62, 63, 129, 132, 134, 157, 168, 170, 249, 250, 274, 320, 321, 323–325, 369, 370, 371, 372, 392, 393, 414, 415, 416, 419, 445, 463, 464, 465, 466–467, 492, 494, 495, 520 Brothers of 170, 267, 321 Dream of 493 Focal Character 325 God’s Agent 385 High Priest 43, 383, 474–475, 483, 551–552 Latter-Day Elisha 389 Lifespan of 523 “The Maccabee” 31, 249 Justice; see also Universalism 155, 209, 320, 321, 369 Karnion 415 Kaspin 51, 415, 418 Kfar Shalem 477, 478 Kislev 369, 373 Language; see also under Style 67–71 Lactantius 88 Lamps 129, 369, 526 Latin; see under Greek and Translations Laws, Jewish 170, 222, 271, 416 Ancestral 19, 270, 296, 298, 531

602

Indices

Compared to Laws of Cities 6–7, 51, 174, 216, 275, 290 Compared to Royal Decrees 137, 314, 347 Letter, First 129, 132–133 Connection to 2 Maccabees 525–529 Letter, Second 129–132, 133–134 Letters (Chs. 1–2) 10, 37, 85, 132, 372, 519–529 Author of 144 Connection to 2 Maccabees; see under Hanukkah Narrative Dating 11, 520–521, 522–525, 528–529 Distinctiveness; see also Hanukkah Narrative 4, 144 Hasmonean Propaganda 151 Number of 520–521, 528–529 Purpose of 524–525 Semitic Vorlage 8, 67, 132, 137, 140, 147, 153, 157–158, 522 Levites 157, 286 “Lights”; see Hanukkah, Holiday of Livy 544–545 Lucian of Samosata 91 Luther, Martin 60–61 Lysanias 434 Lysias 26, 28–29, 30, 32, 41, 189, 331, 354, 369, 371, 389, 392, 393, 394, 414, 419, 445, 446, 447 Place of Residence 434 Lysimachus 49, 209, 210, 255 Maccabean Martyrs, Christian Cult of; see under Christians Macedonians 321, 546 Magnesia, Battle of 332, 333, 544 Mallotians 209 Manliness 51, 170, 294, 308–309, 320, 389, 464, 493 Marissa 416 Marriage 149, 234, 464 Martyrdom 17, 47–48, 50, 65, 272–273, 298–300, 459 In 1 Maccabees; see under 1 Maccabees Function of; see under Motifs

Recompense; see also Resurrection 316 Terminology of 204–205 Martyrologies 37, 52, 55, 270–272, 296–298, 356, 466, 495, 550 As Secondary Source 19–25, 90, 300, 301, 326, 328, 330, 372 Connection Between Episodes 318 Hebraisms In 20, 293 Historicity of 299–300 Interest Among Christians 20, 88–89, 278 Jewish Traditions 20, 90 Relation to 4 Maccabees 86 Masada 410, 488, 489 Mattathias 464 Mattathias (Hasmonean) 40, 43, 324, 326 Melchizedek 537 Melqart; see also Heracles 227 Menelaus 49, 141, 208, 209, 210, 211, 247, 248, 249, 258, 283, 314, 345, 382, 393, 397, 469, 552, 557 Death of 28, 35–36, 445, 447, 466 Latter-Day Gedalia b. Ahiqam 255 Priestly Descent of 95 Menorah; see Lamps Mercenaries 265, 338, 386 Miracles; see Supernatural Events Mizpeh 429 Mnasaes 382 Modein 7, 280, 454, 456 Battle at 28, 446, 447 Molon 547 Mother and Her Seven Sons 23, 59, 63, 65, 90, 296–298, 298–300 Mother as Latter-Day Deborah or Judith 309 Moses 19, 131, 132, 134, 160, 197, 296, 298, 502 Motifs (Thematic) Celebrating of Enemies’ Defeats 78, 202, 322 Concealing Divisiveness 47, 50, 282, 325, 487 Despised Nation 156

Index of Names and Subjects Diasporan; see Diasporan Historiography Exaggerating the Enemy’s Strength 399 Few Defeat the Many 173, 338 Games with “Epiphanes” 25, 81, 172, 355, 357 Gentile Kings Are Well-Meaning 192, 211, 243–244 Gentiles are God’s Tools for Punishing Sinners 226, 250, 307 Gentiles Protest Persecution of Jews 237, 245 God Rules History 65, 250 God Turns Away in Anger 68–69, 261–262 Greek; see also under Greek 253 Hatred of Evil 238 Hellenistic Kings are All Evil 54 Hellenistic Virtues Bestowed Upon Jews 173 Jerusalem as Greek Polis 51–53, 240 Jewish Fatalities Require Explanation 418, 436 Jews are God’s Children 315–316 Jews are Victims Even When on the Offensive 386 Martyrdom Catalyzes Reconciliation (and Redemption) 48, 50, 53, 65, 272, 317, 323 Martyrs as Heroes 50, 55, 282, 289, 305 Pathetic; see Pathetic Historiography Persian 35, 47, 302 Poetic Justice 239, 242, 256, 377, 451, 498, 507; see also Tit for Tat Problems are Caused by Misunderstanding 48, 53–55, 216, 242, 250, 257–258 Problems are Caused by Wicked Officials 280, 333, 374, 421, 422, 482 Prominence of the City 50–51 Punishment as Pedagogy 47, 271, 298, 377

603

Recognition of God’s Power by Gentiles 48, 64, 307 Reconciliation 10, 21, 23, 24, 62–63, 66, 298, 302–303, 322, 525–526 Royal Respect for Jews and Judaism 188 Sinning Causes Suffering 47–48, 226, 250, 261 Struggle is Between Good and Evil; see also Universalism 432, 436 Tit for Tat 25, 35, 47, 64, 78, 211, 226, 249, 317, 318, 345, 358, 365, 423, 485, 508 Villains are Considerate of Jewish Sensitivities 485 Villains are Jewish 264 Villains as Acting Alone 49, 65, 215 Villains Do Not Die Nobly in Battle 389, 432 Willingness to Die 50, 301, 339 Mottos 32, 321, 446 Mount Gerizim (Argarizin) 18, 47, 174, 249, 270, 276 Residents of 537–538 Mount Nebo 162 Mourning; see under Death Mordechai 293, 511–512 Mordechai’s Day; see also Purim 494 Mourning; see Death Mysians 252, 265, 332 Nabataeans 255, 425 Names, Royal 217–218 Nanaia, Temple of 129 Nehemiah 130, 131, 132, 133–134, 163, 376, 527–528 R. Nehemiah 154 Nepthar; see also Fire, Liquid from Altar 131 Nero 54, 258 Nicanor 3, 17–18, 62, 171, 274, 320, 321, 323–325, 349, 361, 394, 464, 465, 466–467, 495, 543, 544, 546, 551–552, 556 Character Unity 473–474 Death of 494, 496

604

Indices

Focal Villain 325, 485 Thrice-Accursed 9–10, 322, 492, 495 Nicanor’s Day 8, 14, 87, 325, 379, 494, 514, 520, 526 Nicanor the Cypriarch 414 Noah, Sons of 256 Nobility 272, 417, 465 Numbers, Accuracy of 80, 148, 259, 332, 338, 430 Oaths, Violation of 492 Olympiodorus 185 Oniads 13 Onias III 4–6, 12, 18, 51, 181, 183, 185, 187, 193, 207, 209, 211, 212, 254, 367, 423, 442, 449, 469, 473 Onias IV 12, 187, 212 Onias, Temple of 12–14, 187, 215, 217 Origen 58, 88, 312 Palaestra 208 Palm-Fronds 369, 463 Passover 410, 436, 514 Pathetic Historiography 18, 78–80, 198, 277, 281, 318, 401, 423, 490 Paul 469 Pentecost 34, 416, 419, 436 Persecutions 65, 170, 270, 272–274 Etiology of; see also under Rebellion 53–54 Historicity of 273–274 Source of 283 Persepolis 349 Persia 129, 349 Petasos 208, 223–224 Petronius 381, 483 Pharaoh 62, 263, 265, 355 Pharisees 38, 168, 442 Philip (Governor of Jerusalem) 7, 27, 28–29, 32, 249, 270, 274, 320 Philip 351, 446, 472 Philo 45, 86, 172 Phrygians 219, 249, 532 Phylarch 322 Piety 181, 417 Planting 130

Plundering; see Spoils of War Politai 6, 31, 50–51, 216, 265, 361, 423, 472, 488 Polybius 67, 179–180, 228–229, 355, 468, 473–474, 535 Pompey 498 Popilius Laenas 253 Porphyry of Tyre 85 Posidonius 464 Prayer 46, 48, 64, 89, 130, 131, 154, 182, 320, 321, 322, 325, 369, 370, 371, 372, 392, 414, 445, 464, 493 In 1 Maccabees 486 Echoes of Liturgy 310 Prayer for Dead 417 Quorum for 267 Shema 154 Preface; see under Author Prophets 64 Protarchos 380 Protestant Reformation; see also Martin Luther 59–60, 444 Prôtoklêsia 208 Psalms 142, 166, 285 Ptolemais (Akko) 279, 446, 530 Ptolemy Macron 42, 243, 320, 330–331, 369 Ptolemy II Philadelphus 502, 547 Ptolemy IV Philopator 5, 54, 191, 472, 543 Ptolemy V Epiphanes 195, 234 Ptolemy VI Philometor 144, 167, 229, 351, 370 Ptolemy VIII Euergetes 363, 367, 524 Ptolemy son of Dorymenes 72, 210, 270, 279, 331 Ptolemy son of Thraseas 190 Purgatory 60, 89, 444 Purim 511–512, 514 Quintus Memmius 393 Rabbinic Literature 90, 135, 151, 160, 166, 237, 286, 287, 361, 442, 485 Rare Words; see under Style Razis 7, 17, 286, 291, 465

Index of Names and Subjects Literary Parallels 489–490 Martyrdom of 55, 59, 60, 65, 465 Turning Point 495 Readers of 2 Maccabees 85–90, 94, 174, 177, 266, 283, 301, 440, 539 Public Recitation 514 Rationalists 201 Rebellion Etiology 42–43, 250–251, 254–255, 272 Reflections; see under Author Resurrection 89, 291, 296, 297, 299, 304, 313, 316, 317, 362, 417, 418, 444, 487 Sectarian Debate 442 Rhodocus 446 Ritual Purity 249, 260, 275, 318, 327, 416, 465 Romans 207, 323, 393 Interference in Seleucid Affairs 397, 411, 545 Rome 55, 544–545 Delegations to 14, 221–222 Seleucia 276 Seleucus II Callinicus 548 Seleucus IV Philopator 4, 5, 41 Sabbath 270, 301, 322, 416, 492, 531 Attitude Towards in 1 Maccabees 282 Exploitation of 18, 249 Self-Defense on 50, 266, 270, 496 Sacrifices 46–48, 54, 129, 130, 419, 465 As a Form of Prayer 203, 443 Sin-Offerings 132, 417 Suspension of 372–373 Votive Offerings; see under Temple (Second) Sadducees 38, 63–64, 168, 316 Samaritans (see also Mount Gerizim) 47, 167, 264, 539 Schoinoi; see also Distances 30, 392 Scribes 271, 488 Scripture; see Biblical Nature Scythians 65, 210, 296, 513–514 Scythopolis 416 Sectarianism; see Pharisees, Sadducees

605

Seleucid Kingdom 141, 188, 363, 411, 541–543, 551 Seleucus IV Philopator 172, 181, 185, 207, 218, 228–229, 468 Self-Defense; see under Sabbath Sennacherib 62, 321, 484–485, 493 Septuagint 57, 91–96 Servants, Jews as God’s 22, 136, 296, 298, 322 Shechem 537 Showbread 129, 369, 526 Siege Warfare 370, 371 Simon 6, 49, 181, 207, 469, 470, 471 Tribe of 95–96, 189 Simon (Hasmonean) 321, 324, 370, 383, 423, 460, 482 Sinning 24, 47, 161, 226, 260, 302, 369, 416 Atonement for 417 Sin-Offering; see under Sacrifices Slaughter 248, 250, 339, 415, 433 Socrates; see also under Eleazar 65, 259, 289, 299 Solomon 131, 132, 134, 160, 376, 452, 486 Song of the Sea 154, 157, 506 Sosipater 415, 456 Sostratus 209 Soul; see Body and Soul Sources of 2 Maccabees; see also under Hanukkah Narrative and Martyrologies 16–35, 36–37, 42, 395, 398, 417 Chapter Division; see Chapter Order Reconciling Disparate; see also Author, Confusion of 32 Spartans 247 Spoils of War 173–174, 321, 322, 441 Stadia 414, 415 Stipendium 544 Style, Linguistic and Literary 72–84 Abbreviation; see also Epitomizing 72–76 Alliteration 80, 427 Asyndetic 28, 75, 447

606

Indices

Change of Terminology in Successive Verses 68 Conjugations 75 Greek Terminology 172, 222 Lively Diction 79–80 Officialese 192, 231, 364, 365 Oppositional Constructions 75 Parataxis 8 Participles 73–74 Passive Verbs 74–75 Pathetic 78–80 Pedantic 180, 192, 231, 356, 365, 451, 472 Personification 330, 471 Prepositional Prefixes 81 Rare Words 30–32, 51 Repetition of Terms 69 Sammelbericht 330 Semitic; see under Letters, Hanukkah Narrative, Martyrologies Staccato 18, 34–35, 447, 453, 456, 458–459, 461, 480, 482 Stereotypical Descriptions of Characters 82–83 Unity 83–84 Variety of Vocabulary 67, 69–71, 425, 432 Verb Tense 286–287 Wiederaufnahme 167, 325, 505 Word Play 80–81, 93, 347, 398, 427, 510 Struggles 76–84 Suicide; see also Razis 382, 465, 489 Supernatural Events 39, 64, 89, 161, 201, 263, 337 Synagogues 236 “Syrian”; see Aramaic Syrian Wars 548 Third 188 Fifth 186, 190 Fourth 191 Sixth 229, 255 Tabernacle 131 Tabernacles, Festival of 129, 130, 369 Impression of Dionysiac Festival 378

Tarsians 209 Taxes 11, 195, 233, 265 Temple (First) 133–134, 376 Temple (Second) 7, 14, 18, 47, 174, 320, 322, 350, 372, 393, 463, 465, 466, 493, 494 Administrators of 189–190 Altar 94–95, 130, 170, 270, 369, 445, 463, 494 Archives 167 Cult of 18, 46–48, 372, 474–475 Defilement of 270, 536 Destruction of 258 Fire; see Fire Gates 129, 322, 361 Legitimacy of 133, 150, 163, 164 Mount 223, 254 Offerings from Gentiles 181, 204, 248, 260–261, 350 Purification and Rededication of; see also Hanukkah Narrative 130, 134, 170, 369, 394, 408, 470, 523 Robbery of 5, 210, 248, 259–260, 533 Status as City 6–7, 213 Steps 94, 386 Treasury 181–182, 191–192, 248 Temple Vessels 46, 134, 142–143, 160, 209, 210, 248, 350, 369 Teos 542 Textual Witnesses 90–96 Lectio brevior/difficilior 92–96 Theodicy 21 Theodorus of Mopsuestia 212 Theodosius 430 Theodotus 430, 464 Thracians 332, 416 Throne Names Confusion of 5 Timothy 27, 29, 322, 349, 370, 371, 372, 374, 397, 398, 414, 415, 417 Titus Manius 393 Tobiads 255, 415, 416 Torah 129, 166, 340, 554

Index of Names and Subjects Torture 70, 271–272, 296, 297, 298, 321, 343–344 Trajan 548 Transjordan 232, 374, 390, 418 Translations (of 2 Maccabees) English VII-VIII Latin 91–96 Modern 97 Treason 247, 248, 325, 370, 451 Treaty of Apamaea 42, 218, 333, 468, 505, 544 Tribute Payments 218, 233, 320, 323, 398, 544–545 Tripoli 86–87, 463 Tyre 208, 209, 210 Tyriaion 532 Universalism 177, 187, 237, 238, 254, 313, 335, 365, 423 Urbanity 51

607

Venetus; see Textual Witnesses Villains; see under Motifs Virgins 182, 248 Wine 495 Women 270, 297, 298, 308–309, 431, 489 Xanthicus 33, 393, 394 Equivalent of Nisan 410 Xerxes 263, 352, 357, 359 Zachaeus 370 Zealotry 207, 214–215 Zeno 294 Zerubbabel 151 Zeus 542 Zeus Hellenios 539 Zeus Olympios 270 Zeus Xenios 270, 537

608

Indices

Index of Authors Abel, F.-M., 88, 90, 91, 94, 97, 102, 146, 147, 158, 159, 179, 214, 227, 232, 245, 252, 260, 262, 264, 279, 280, 285, 300, 306, 307, 310, 317, 327, 328, 331, 340, 344, 357, 359, 380, 383, 387, 388, 400, 426, 428, 429, 430, 434, 451, 472, 474, 480, 488, 489, 497, 500, 501, 503, 505, 508, 521, 522, 523, 524, 528, 533, 540, 550, 551, 556 Abrahams, I., 40, 102 Achtemeier, P.J., 514 Adinolfi, M., 78, 80, 102, 172, 251, 288, 388 Adkins, A.W.H., 179 Africa, T., 102, 288, 357, 368 Albeck, H., 312 Albrektson, B., 93, 102 Alexander, L., 178, 180 Alexander, P.S., 87, 88, 103, 514 Alföldi, A., 488 Alon, G., 103, 168, 196, 242, 361, 399 Ameling, W., 41, 43, 103, 111, 219, 246, 532 Amir, Y., 103, 126, 173, 194, 197, 206, 226, 428, 429 Amit, D., 44 Amit, Y., 64, 103, 146 Anderson, J.K., 52, 201 Anz, H., 461 Applebaum, S., 175 Arenhoevel, D., 103 Artom, E.S., 103, 158, 165, 553 Attridge, H.A., 107, 115, 216 Avenarius, G., 34, 103, 178, 180, 294 Avi-Yonah, M., 103, 434, 438

Baer, Y.F., 103, 309 Baillet, M., 178 Balentine, S.E., 262 Bammel, E., 89, 103, 233 Barag, D., 53, 103, 142, 251 Barceló, P., 232 Barclay, J.M.G., 103, 175 Bardtke, H., 103, 512, 515 Bar-Kochva, B., 11, 15, 29, 30, 32, 34, 36, 64, 72, 79, 97, 100, 103, 104, 120, 173, 176, 233, 252, 266, 268, 274, 278, 317, 329, 332, 336, 337, 338, 340, 343, 344, 348, 354, 380, 384, 386, 390, 391, 398, 399, 400, 413, 424, 427, 428, 429, 431, 435, 437, 442, 448, 449, 454, 455, 456, 457, 462, 467, 477, 491, 496, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 512, 515, 548 Bartoletti, V., 547 Baumeister, T., 205 Baumgarten, A.I., 44, 104 Beckwith, R.T., 57, 104, 135 Bell, H.I., 104, 289 Bengston, H., 344, 380 Bergmann, J., 373 Bergren, T.A., 104, 151, 166, 169 Berve, H., 104, 232, 256 Bethge, H.-G., 89 Bevan, E.R., 39, 40, 104 Bévenot, H., 104, 265, 300, 480, 537, 553, 555 Bickerman, E., 40, 42, 43, 61, 78, 91, 104, 117, 138, 140, 146, 149, 169, 176, 186, 188, 190, 191, 192, 194, 196, 202, 203, 204, 206, 213, 218, 231, 235, 239, 246, 273, 276, 279, 294, 338, 359, 363, 364, 366, 380, 398, 406, 412, 413, 431, 455, 470,

Index of Authors 520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 530, 531, 539, 540, 542, 550 Bilde, P., 104, 112, 433 Birt, T., 175, 176, 180 Black, M., 107, 316, 522 Blass, F., 557 Bleek, F., 58, 104 Blinkenberg, C., 104, 167, 172 Bömer, F., 279 Boesch, P., 227 Bohak, G., 12, 169, 515 Bonnet, C., 104, 227 Bons, E., 104, 305 Boreham, L., 307 Borza, E.N., 353 Bosworth, A.B., 302, 354, 457 Bourriot, F., 501 Bousset, W., 105 Bowersock, G.W., 19, 20, 105 Box, H., 105 Brändle, R., 89, 105 Bratsiotis, N.P., 388 Braverman, J., 59 Breitenstein, U., 70, 71, 86, 105 Bringmann, K., 43, 105, 227, 232, 246, 273, 274, 279, 280, 535, 536 Brock, S., VII Brooke, G.J., 166 Brooten, B.J., 190 Broshi, M., 104, 105, 149, 186, 259, 269, 535 Broughton, T.R.S., 411 Brown, P., 99, 105, 239, 309 Brownlee, W.H., 404 Brüll, N., 105, 169, 519 Bruneau, P., 440 Bruston, C., 105, 169, 519, 525 Buckler, W.H., 105, 190 Büchler, A., 105, 169, 519 Bückers, H., 105, 316, 319 Bultmann, R., 544 Bunge, J.G., 31, 105, 229, 279, 294, 326, 344, 550, 551, 552 Burstein, S.M., 542 Buschmann, G., 105, 278, 305

609

Camponovo, O., 105, 142, 168 Caquot, A., 106 Carlton, W., 383 Casson, L., 228 Castelli, E., 309 Chantraine, P., 106, 177, 218, 514 Chazon, E.G., 106, 123, 155 Cigoi, A., 106, 519, 520, 521 Coates, J.F., 228 Cobet, G.C., 443 Cohen, G.D., 20, 90 Cohen, G.M., 43 Cohen, O., 426 Cohen, S.J.D., 97, 188, 193 Collart, P., 469 Collins, J.J., 44, 106, 107, 373 Corradi, G., 106, 149, 192, 239, 366, 398, 470 Cotton, H.M., 41, 43, 106, 185, 189, 191, 192, 194, 206, 243 Cowey, M.S., 51, 106, 145 Cowley, A., 135 Cox, R.B. Jr., 58, 61, 554 Crantz, P., 506 Dancy, J.C., 106 Daniel, S., 142, 189, 204 Danker, F.W., 98, 106, 214, 294, 501 Davies, J.G., 311 Davies, P.R., 541 De Bruyne, D., 59, 70, 92, 94, 106, 189, 237, 241, 264, 307, 314, 380, 386, 403, 412, 458, 549 Debrunner, A., 557 Deissmann, A., 106, 199, 205, 233, 237, 441, 499, 551 Delling, G., 312 Delorme, J., 106, 219, 225, 246 Dempsey, D., 140, 522 Dimant, D., 106, 160, 223 Dodd, C.H., 87 Doering, L., 266 Dommershausen, W., 107 Donner, H., 107, 142 Döpler, J., 107, 301, 303

610

Indices

Doran, R., 4, 17, 20, 31, 35, 43, 46, 67, 72, 79, 107, 172, 176, 177, 197, 206, 219, 224, 225, 226, 246, 294, 318, 319, 330, 346, 385, 427, 500, 502, 537, 538, 540 Dover, K.J., 107, 215, 239, 290, 292, 309, 315, 442, 479, 501 Downey, G., 89, 107, 236 Drew-Bear, T., 107, 353, 366, 368, 501 Dreyer, B., 225 Dunbabin, J., 89, 107 Duncker, P.G., 60 Dupont-Sommer, A., 86, 107, 289, 290

Flusser, D., 49, 90, 108, 138, 144, 149, 169, 267, 294, 388, 391, 502 Forbes, C., 449 Forbes, C.A., 225 Forbes, R.J., 159 Forshey, H.O., 162 Foucart, P., 227 Foxhall, L., 330 Fraser, P.M., 52, 108, 543 Freudenthal, J., 229 Fujita, S., 157 Fuks, A., 99, 245, 266, 315 Fuks, G., 109, 195, 435

Eckstein, A.M., 107, 309, 489 Edgar, C.C., 112, 408 Edson, C., 107, 338, 547 Efron, J., 5, 107, 113 Elbogen, I., 506 Elhorst, H.J., 39, 40, 107, 246 Eliav, Y., 107, 190, 223, 277 Elizur, S., 90, 108, 509 Enermalm-Ogawa, A., 108, 136, 147, 154, 155, 156, 169, 199, 201, 203, 261, 506 Engel, G., 171, 180 Eph’al, I., 328 Eshel, E., 149, 186, 485, 535 Eshel, H., 103, 105, 108, 122, 149, 186, 268, 269, 485, 535 Ettelson, H.W., 40, 108, 179, 403, 534 Exler, F.X.J., 108, 135, 169, 362, 524 Eynikel, E., 550

Gafni, I.M., 108, 123, 275, 301, 341, 377 Gamberoni, J., 188 Gardiner, E.N., 108, 225 Gardner, A.E., 237 Garlan, Y., 340, 427 Gärtner, B., 108, 312, 486 Gauger, J.-D., 361, 548 Geiger, A., 168, 266, 384, 442 Geiger, J., 3, 67, 78, 325, 329, 341, 384, 400, 432 Gera, D., 14, 30, 44, 63, 64, 97, 108, 109, 148, 190, 192, 229, 230, 238, 252, 253, 269, 366, 368, 413, 428, 429, 435, 437, 438, 442, 454, 534 Gieschen, C.A., 109, 201, 387, 401 Gil, L., 35, 67, 109, 402, 427 Ginzberg, L., 151 Giovannini, A., 109, 413 Glucker, J., 109, 176, 276 Goldenberg, R., 266 Goldstein, J.A., 11, 15, 58, 62, 82, 86, 97, 109, 136, 137, 138, 144, 146, 147, 152, 154, 156, 159, 160, 165, 177, 191, 195, 213, 226, 227, 228, 232, 245, 252, 255, 265, 279, 280, 282, 285, 300, 307, 312, 313, 315, 328, 338, 341, 358, 359, 363, 366, 367, 380, 385, 388, 398, 400, 402, 405, 426, 429, 430, 434, 438, 439, 448, 454, 456, 458, 460, 480, 487, 488,

Farber, J.J., 216 Farmer, W.R., 337 Faust, M., 360 Fiensy, D.A., 108, 137, 427 Fine, S., 378 Fischer, J.B., 261 Fischer, M., 424, 439 Fischer, T., 108 Fisher, N.R.E., 336 Fitzmyer, J.A., 108, 136, 139, 169, 245, 290, 291, 342, 385, 436 Fleischer, E., 154

Index of Authors 489, 497, 499, 500, 505, 512, 523, 525, 529, 535, 544, 545, 549, 550, 551, 556 Goodblatt, D., 109, 120, 348, 460 Goodman, M., 86, 109, 121, 216, 225 Gordon, C., 57 Gould, J., 361 Graetz, H., 109, 169, 519 Graf, F., 282 Grainger, J.D., 109, 450 Granier, F., 109, 479 Griffiths, J.G., 449 Grimm, C.L.W., 9, 35, 60, 63, 64, 67, 86, 97, 109, 159, 161, 186, 199, 214, 235, 239, 252, 264, 279, 300, 303, 310, 312, 327, 328, 329, 344, 380, 381, 388, 432, 434, 450, 451, 455, 481, 500, 505, 510, 520, 547, 550, 553, 555 Grintz, Y.M., 109, 194, 260, 377, 378, 410, 510 Gruber, M.I., 109, 312 Gruen, E.S., 6, 12, 14, 97, 110, 173, 187, 229, 253, 256, 411, 413, 533, 545 Guéraud, O., 110, 218, 263 Gutberlet, C., 110, 537 Gutman, Y., 20, 110, 303, 319 Habicht, C., 15, 20, 40, 86, 90, 97, 110, 146, 152, 153, 159, 175, 176, 177, 179, 190, 199, 228, 237, 245, 252, 255, 260, 262, 265, 267, 279, 280, 285, 289, 292, 293, 306, 307, 310, 318, 331, 333, 341, 343, 344, 359, 362, 364, 379, 380, 386, 388, 389, 399, 402, 404, 406, 412, 413, 426, 434, 435, 442, 460, 462, 473, 474, 476, 478, 480, 481, 500, 501, 503, 510, 522, 534, 535, 540, 541, 542, 549, 556 Hacham, N., 87, 110, 543 Hack, M., 8, 110, 158, 165, 169, 522 Hadot, I., 177 Häge, G., 194 Haenchen, E., 110, 305 Hagedorn, D., 487

611

Hagenow, G., 514 Hamel, G.H., 343 Hamilton, N.Q., 191 Hanhart, R., 67, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 111, 114, 123, 143, 152, 153, 157, 158, 177, 189, 193, 237, 241, 245, 252, 260, 262, 265, 267, 275, 279, 287, 293, 307, 310, 312, 313, 315, 316, 332, 340, 343, 345, 347, 358, 359, 366, 380, 381, 388, 389, 402, 404, 405, 426, 433, 434, 437, 440, 441, 442, 476, 478, 483, 487, 489, 497, 500, 503, 509, 524, 525, 537, 538, 539, 540, 546, 549, 551, 553 Hanson, R.P.C., 58 Hanson, V.D., 111, 254, 439, 506 Haran, M., 166 Harris, H.A., 224 Harris, W.V., 177 Harvey, G., 111, 391 Hauspie, K., 550 Hayes, C.E., 260 Heichelheim, F., 334 Heinemann, I., 42, 111, 141, 198, 294, 378 Hengel, M., 43, 44, 111, 116, 195, 215, 221, 273, 276 Henten, J.W. van, 10, 25, 45, 52, 65, 86, 88, 97, 111, 112, 116, 155, 205, 222, 288, 290, 293, 294, 303, 309, 310, 319, 438, 478, 488, 489, 490, 491, 502, 515, 541, 554 Herkenne, H., 112, 169, 519 Herman, G., 112, 149, 237 Hermann, P., 275 Herr, M.D., 123, 266 Herrmann, P., 108, 215, 542 Hertz, J.H., 112, 122, 137, 175, 180, 310 Herzog-Hauser, G., 198 Himmelfarb, M., 51, 112, 286, 292, 303, 501 Hirzel, R., 101, 102, 109, 277, 484 Hoehner, H.W., 168 Hölscher, G., 72, 112, 426 Hoffman, C., 103

612

Indices

Holladay, C.R., 112, 144, 160, 167, 221, 537 Holleaux, M., 25, 112, 192, 216, 235, 263, 311, 368, 405, 431 Holzmeister, U., 399 Hooff, A.J.L. van, 489 Horst, P.W. van der, 112, 116, 198, 237, 291, 308, 368, 443, 486, 487 Houghton, A., 112, 234 Hunt, A.S., 440 Hunt, S., 112, 408 Hyldahl, N., 43, 112, 175, 274 Ilan, T., 112, 194, 198, 267, 339, 383, 404, 430, 487 Isaac, B., 424 Jackson, A.H., 254 Jackson-Tal, R.E., 439 Jacobson, H., 112, 198, 203, 205, 259, 335, 502 Jaeger, W., 112, 283, 294 Janson, T., 180 Japhet, S., 256 Jeremias, G., 103, 112, 116 Johansson, N., 502 Johnson, J. de M., 440 Johnson, S.R., 5, 87, 112, 195, 212, 244, 472 Jones, A.H.M., 355 Jones, C.P., 190 Jonnes, L., 532 Jossa, G., 45, 113, 301 Jouguet, P., 469 Joüon, P., 113, 188, 225, 240 Kah, D., 113, 219, 225 Kahana, A., 6, 63, 113, 142, 165, 241, 435, 553 Kahrstedt, U., 113, 191, 380, 436 Kamerbeek, J.C., 307 Kampen, J., 106, 112, 113, 121, 167, 471 Kaplan, J., 123, 423 Kappler, V., 91, 111, 113, 157, 215, 292,

293, 313, 345, 381, 389, 438, 476, 480, 481, 553, 555 Kasher, A., 5, 30, 109, 113, 145, 190, 213, 236, 275, 333, 382, 391, 421, 424, 425, 430, 444, 487, 501, 548 Katz, P., 91, 92, 93, 94, 113, 152, 153, 157, 177, 287, 288, 295, 307, 314, 332, 340, 341, 343, 347, 381, 403, 433, 437, 441, 443, 476, 478, 483, 549 Kedar, B.Z., 422 Keel, O., 43, 113, 295, 400, 543 Keil, V., 187 Kelhoffer, J.A., 268 Kellermann, D., 431 Kellermann, U., 20, 113, 151, 300, 304, 316 Kennell, N.M., 41, 43, 53, 113, 219, 223, 225, 246, 532 Kern, O., 543 Kilpatrick, G.D., 91, 92, 94, 114, 347, 509 Kippenberg, H.G., 114, 197, 301 Kislev, M.E., 268 Klawans, J., 260 Kloner, A., 437 Kochabi, S., 114, 474, 491 Koenen, L., 114, 367, 406, 407, 409, 410, 413 König, F.W., 168, 345, 367, 450, 470 Kolbe, W., 114, 143, 534 Kooij, A. van der, 62, 114, 168, 502, 506 Kopidakes, M.Z., 114 Kornbeutel, H., 551 Kosters, W.H., 114, 384, 460 Kraeling, C.H., 236 Kraft, R., 114, 160, 266, 555 Kreuzer, S., 315 Kuhn, H.-W., 112 Kußmaul, P., 420 Lachs, S.T., 316 Laconi, M., 114 Lampe, G.W.H., 553, 555 Landau, Y.H., 190 Lapin, H., 378

Index of Authors Lapp, N.L., 114, 268, 283 Lapp, P.W., 114, 268, 283 Laqueur, R., 33, 114, 396, 406, 413 Lauer, S., 105, 289 Launey, M., 114, 234, 264, 265, 338, 431, 437 Lebram, J.C.H., 11, 111, 114 Lehmann-Haupt, F., 424 Leiman, S.Z., 166 Lemaire, A., 114, 234 Lenger, M.-Th., 115, 137, 265, 314, 410, 461 Le Rider, G., 115, 148, 218, 530, 544, 545 Leschhorn, W., 290 Lévi, I., 90 Levine, L.I., 44, 109, 115, 125, 126, 143, 221, 233, 253, 254, 345 Lévy, I., 115, 331, 380, 386, 391, 547 Levy, J.H., 115 Lewis, N., 115, 161, 500 Licht, J., 106, 199, 205, 317, 441 Lichtenberger, H., 25, 46, 48, 115, 120 Lieberman, S., 44, 115, 145, 154, 160, 161, 199, 237, 242, 245, 253, 281, 340, 361, 514 Liebmann-Frankfort, T., 115, 413 Lifshitz, B., 99, 115, 234, 263, 385, 421 Lim, T.H., 166 Lindsay, D.R., 200 Lipin´ski, E., 227 Lissarague, F., 115 Liver, J., 157 Loewenstamm, S.E., 145 Lorein, G.W., 25, 115, 368 Lüderitz, G., 51, 116, 145, 175 Lührmann, D., 116, 172 Lust, J., 550 Luz, M., 489 Ma, J., 6, 116, 140, 166, 234, 360, 416 Maas, M., 89, 116 Magen, Y., 276 Main, E., 168, 362 Marcus, R., 5, 71, 111, 225, 331, 430 Maresch, K., 51, 106, 145

613

Mariani, B., 116, 341, 403, 413 Markantonatos, G., 449 Martin, R., 542 Martin, V., 440 Martola, N., 43 Mason, S., 116, 275 Mauersberger, A., 67, 97, 101, 116, 153, 193, 196, 215, 230, 238, 240, 243, 252, 258, 259, 265, 276, 329, 330, 367, 374, 382, 384, 403, 428, 431, 432, 456, 468, 472, 479, 480, 481, 504, 505, 513 Mayser, E., 116, 192, 310, 555 Mélèze Modrzejewski, J., 51, 52, 66, 85, 116, 202 Meltzer, E.S., 89 Mendels, D., 25, 44, 116, 356, 368 Menxel, F. van, 116, 305, 319 Merkelbach, R., 193 Metzger, H., 542 Meyer, A., 555 Meyer, E., 40, 116, 384, 412, 496, 507 Michel, O., 88 Milgrom, J., 106, 223, 287 Milik, J.T., 160 Milikowsky, C., 116 Millar, F., 43, 44, 116, 276, 295 Miller, P.D., 336 Milligan, G., 461 Misgav, H., 276 Mitford, T.B., 116, 331, 380, 381, 391 Moehring, H.R., 42, 544 Mölleken, W., 116, 469, 474, 491 Moffatt, J., 116, 537, 547, 556 Momigliano, A., 10, 86, 87, 116, 117, 143, 343, 390, 524, 547, 548 Montevecchi, O., 117, 155 Mooren, L., 551 Mor, M., 112, 119, 428, 494 Morgan, M.H., 253, 528 Morgenthaler, R., 71 Morin, J.-A., 215 Mørkholm, O., 34, 116, 148, 149, 192, 217, 234, 238, 251, 273, 275, 276, 354, 364, 366, 381, 409, 460, 530, 533, 535, 542, 544, 549

614 Morrison, J.S., 228 Mosley, D.J., 221 Mott, S.C., 186 Motzo, [R.]B., 117 Moulton, J.H., 461 Müller, H., 99, 109, 413 Mugler, C., 35, 67, 73, 117, 180 Murray, O., 115, 117, 178 Musti, D., 257 Nagel, G., 117, 246 Nelis, J.T., 117, 188, 400, 413 Nestle, E., 117, 255 Nestle, W., 117, 307, 357 Neuser, W., 61 Nickelsburg, G.W.E., 107, 117, 299, 304, 316, 317, 319 Niehr, H., 203 Niese, B., 8, 10, 15, 33, 39, 40, 43, 67, 78, 79, 93, 102, 105, 117, 125, 173, 174, 330, 332, 384, 398, 411, 434, 443, 448, 519, 520, 521, 528, 534, 540, 544, 553 Nock, A.D., 117, 542 Nodet, E., 117 Norden, E., 67 North, H., 239 Nouhaud, M., 258, 263 O’Brien, E., 118, 444 Ogle, M.B., 118, 443, 444 Oppenheimer, A., 108, 109, 111, 113, 118, 120, 487, 512 Orlinsky, H.M., 166 Otto, W., 39, 118, 148, 229, 399, 524 Owen, E.C.E., 288 Page, D.L., 547 Parente, F., 43, 87, 118, 122, 187, 246, 345, 530, 531 Parker, R., 118, 245, 260, 451 Pasoni Dell’Acqua, A., 214 Paul, G.M., 258 Pearce, S.J.K., 304 Pearson, B.A., 118, 190, 266 Pédech, P., 118, 180, 216, 329

Indices Pelikan, J., 60 Pelletier, A., 436 Penna, A., 118 Peterson, J.L., 390 Petrochilos, N., 71 Piatkowska, M., 257 Pilhofer, P., 222 Porten, B., 118 Porter, S.E., 118, 125, 138, 303 Powell, I.U., 547 Prato, G.L., 118, 173, 273, 295, 368 Preisendanz, K., 227 Preisigke, F., 118, 409, 550 Price, J.J., 115, 259 Pritchett, W.K., 118, 172, 201, 251, 259, 329, 336, 342, 428, 431, 433, 438, 439, 441, 479 Procksch, O., 39, 40, 118, 413 Pummer, R., 264 Quass, F., 280 Raban, A., 423 Rabello, A.M., 470 Radin, M., 85 Rahlfs, A., 71, 72, 91, 119, 154, 176, 193, 515, 525, 553 Rajak, T., 44, 119, 173, 214, 216, 289, 293, 295 Ramage, E.S., 290 Rampolla del Tindaro, M., 119, 319 Rappaport, U., 44, 63, 109, 119, 255, 279, 461, 462, 539 Reeg, G., 119, 286, 327 Regev, E., 165 Reinach, A., 378 Reinach, S., 443 Reinhold, M., 239 Renaud, B., 50, 105, 119, 222, 275, 291, 410 Ribbeck, O., 484 Richnow, W., 35, 67, 72, 119, 232, 344 Ricl, M., 532 Rigg, H.A., 513 Rigsby, K.J., 119, 196, 236, 276, 360, 362

Index of Authors Rinaldi, G., 85, 119, 214 Risberg, B., 67, 119, 153, 158, 177, 292, 293, 343, 379, 381, 390, 469, 478, 481, 488 Robert, L., 91, 115, 227, 541, 542 Robertson, M., 179 Rofé, A., 148 Rokeah, D., 119 Rolle, R., 302 Romilly, J., 119, 177, 432 Roscher, W.H., 537 Rose, C., 88 Ross, D., 500 Ross, J.F., 199 Rostovtzeff, M., 542 Roth-Gerson, L., 89, 119, 236 Rothschild, J.P., 90, 120 Rougé, J., 88, 120 Roussel, P., 193 Rowley, H.H., 120, 295 Rubin, M., 554 Runia, D.T., 314 Sachs, A.J., 40, 41, 120 Salmon, J., 330 Savalli-Lestrade, I., 149 Savigni, R., 89, 120 Schalit, A., 345, 378, 430, 470 Schaller, B., 553, 554 Schatkin, M., 120, 319 Schiffman, L.H., 120 Schmitt, H.H., 420 Schmitz, W., 200 Scholl, R., 334 Scholz, P., 113, 219 Schröder, B., 275 Schubart, W., 120, 194, 214, 216, 289 Schürer, E., 39, 40, 44, 86, 118, 120, 188, 189, 267, 286, 295, 362, 487, 534, 541 Schumacher, G., 426 Schumrick, A., 175, 180 Schunck, K.-D., 43, 97, 120, 212, 326, 353 Schuppe, E., 223 Schwabe, M., 105, 110, 199

615

Schwankl, O., 120, 304, 319, 442, 444 Schwartz, D.R., 5, 22, 45, 54, 90, 108, 109, 120, 121, 123, 140, 145, 148, 195, 229, 274, 375, 442, 480, 486, 535, 536 Schwartz, J., 8, 267, 511, 512 Schwartz, S., 20, 43, 537, 539 Schwarz, A., 122, 512 Scullard, H.H., 122, 399, 455 Scurlock, J., 122, 276, 277, 288, 295 Seeligmann, I.L., 64, 146, 217, 366 Seeligmann, J.A., 122 Sefer, H., 49, 109, 194, 243, 260, 378, 410, 510 Segal, C., 508 Seyrig, H., 196 Shatzman, I., 122, 173, 398, 448 Sherk, R.K., 101, 122 Sieben, H.J., 60 Sievers, J., 118, 122, 222, 233, 250, 345 Skard, E., 122, 214, 292, 405 Skehan, P., 59, 122 Sluys, D.M., 122, 236 Sly, D., 309 Smith, M., 431 Smith, R.R.R., 337 Snodgrass, A.M., 202 Soloveitchik, H., 90 Sowers, S., 122, 216, 226, 237 Sperber, D., 122, 190, 200, 281, 314 Spicq, C., 52, 97, 123, 136, 138, 149, 150, 153, 172, 174, 175, 180, 189, 191, 194, 200, 214, 218, 222, 223, 226, 239, 244, 245, 260, 266, 275, 280, 284, 289, 290, 305, 306, 316, 326, 332, 357, 359, 361, 362, 405, 407, 408, 427, 456, 477, 481, 537 Spiegel, S., 20, 123 Standhartinger, A., 198 Starcky, J., 123 Staub, U., 43, 113, 400 Steckoll, S.H., 268 Stegemann, H., 112 Stein, M., 58

616

Indices

Steinfeld, Z.A., 225 Stemberger, G., 88, 123, 295, 304, 306, 316, 317, 319 Stern, M., 11, 12, 14, 25, 36, 43, 44, 56, 64, 73, 85, 86, 97, 99, 108, 123, 145, 174, 187, 196, 212, 217, 218, 219, 220, 223, 236, 246, 256, 273, 275, 276, 277, 279, 280, 286, 337, 338, 345, 378, 380, 398, 404, 413, 424, 437, 454, 457, 460, 470, 473, 474, 500, 524, 530, 535, 545, 546, 548, 549 Stiebel, G.D., 283 Stokholm, N., 5, 123, 206 Stone, M.E., 119, 121, 123 Strobel, K., 123, 337, 338, 548 Sundberg, A.C., 57, 58, 61, 123 Swete, H.B., 57, 159, 426, 553 Tal, A., 253 Talmon, S., 264 Talshir, D., 426 Ta-Shma, I., 137 Tcherikover, V.A., 33, 42, 51, 53, 54, 78, 85, 99, 100, 124, 189, 194, 195, 211, 246, 250, 255, 269, 273, 276, 333, 334, 385, 413, 424, 430, 530, 531, 532, 535 Thalheim, T., 239 Thompson, S., 356 Tiller, P.A., 157 Tilley, M.A., 288, 305 Toki, K., 10, 11, 124 Torrey, C.C., 8, 124, 140, 142, 158, 169, 519, 522 Tov, E., 93, 124, 278, 290 Trindl, M., 124, 233, 551 Tromp, J., 5, 87, 124, 278, 386 Tsfania, L., 276 Tyson, J.B., 3, 124 Ulrich, E., 166 Unnik, W.C. van, 156 Urbach, E.E., 57, 124, 226, 284, 305, 361, 442 Urman, D., 236, 426

Vaccari, A., 91, 503 Vanderhooft, D., 188 VanderKam, J.C., 43, 124, 211, 212, 295, 409, 469, 475, 541 Vaughn, P., 439 Vergote, J., 124, 288, 295 Villalba i Varneda, P., 286 Vinson, M., 89, 124 Vogel, M., 289 Volkmann, H., 124, 259, 334, 547 Volz, H., 60 Vries, M. de, 235 Wacholder, B.Z., 106, 125, 144, 169, 376 Wackernagel, J., 353 Wagenaar, L., 125, 475, 491 Walbank, F.W., 79, 97, 125, 148, 150, 177, 180, 192, 217, 220, 229, 231, 252, 253, 265, 276, 302, 353, 364, 381, 390, 411, 424, 434, 460, 467, 468, 470, 513, 533 Walters, P., 149 Weber, R., 289 Wegeler, C., 91 Wegner, J.R., 125, 309 Weinfeld, M., 114, 125, 237, 387 Weinreich, O., 125, 150, 214 Weitzman, S., 48, 103, 125, 134 Welles, C.B., 40, 72, 97, 101, 125, 140, 168, 193, 196, 220, 223, 226, 228, 231, 233, 234, 235, 257, 265, 306, 361, 362, 365, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 434, 469, 472, 499, 523, 532, 550 Wellhausen, J., 38, 40, 42, 125, 244, 341, 348, 391, 444, 462, 476, 491, 496, 515, 521 Wendland, P., 39, 125 Wenning, R., 255 Western, A.C., 268 Wheeler, E.L., 125, 456, 484 Wheeler, M., 353 Wifstrand, A., 125, 282, 362, 514 Wilcken, U., 166, 420

Index of Authors Wilcox, M., 522 Wiles, J.W., 59 Wilhelm, A., 40, 125, 152, 153, 224, 225, 259, 265, 275, 410, 440, 441, 442, 483, 549 Wilk, R., 281 Wilken, R.L., 125, 141 Will, E., 126, 148, 194, 338, 363, 367, 459, 507 Williams, D.S., 126 Winston, D., 126, 141, 226, 313 Wise, M.O., 124, 475 Wörrle, M., 41, 43, 106, 185, 191, 192, 206, 243 Woess, F. von, 126, 196, 257 Wolff, C., 126, 160, 162, 502 Wolter, M., 246 Wunderer, C., 179

617

Yahalom, Y., 509 Yardeni, A., 118 Yerushalmi, Y.H., 49, 126 Young, R.D., 126, 308, 319 Zadok, R., 487 Zambelli, M., 86, 126 Zeitlin, S., 34, 52, 126, 140, 227, 435, 480, 547 Ziegenaus, A., 60, 61, 126 Ziehen, L., 226, 227 Zimmer, E., 71, 155, 199, 315 Zimmermann, C., 71, 126, 155, 203, 312, 315 Zimmermann, H., 330 Zollschan, L.T., 126, 221, 246 Zuckerman, C., 145 Zuntz, G., 180