CHAPTER X

The Second Book of Maccabees

[LITERATURE.—Grimm, _Exegetisches Handbuch zu 2. Makk._ (1853); Rawlinson, in Wace, II, pp. 539-648; Schlatter, _Jason von Kyrene_ (1891); Willrich, _Juden und Griechen vor der makkabäischen Erhebung_, pp. 76 ff. (1895); Schürer, II, iii. pp. 211-216, German ed., III, pp. 482-489; Kamphausen, in Kautzsch, I, pp. 81-119; Büchler, _Die Tobiaden und die Oniaden im 2. Makkabäerbuche_, pp. 282-398 (1899); Niese, _Kritik der beiden Makkabäerbücher_ (1900); Moffatt, in Charles, I, pp. 125-154. See also the articles by Westcott in Smith’s _Dict. of the Bible_ (2nd ed.), and Torrey in the _Encycl. Bibl._]

I. THE ORIGIN OF THE BOOK

In chapter ii. 19-32 of our book the writer explains in a preface the origin, contents and purpose of his work. He tells us that an account of all the heroic doings of Judas Maccabæus and his brothers had been drawn up by Jason the Cyrenian in five books. He does not say anything further about this Jason, and seems to take for granted that his readers will know who is meant. Neither Jason nor his work are mentioned elsewhere. However, as the writer says, his book is an epitome of Jason’s larger work: “These things, then, which have been made known by Jason the Cyrenian, we will essay to epitomize in one volume” (ii. 23). The writer says further in his preface (verses 30, 31): “To enter into details, and to indulge in long discussions, and to be curious in particulars, is the part of the original author of the history; but to strive after brevity of expression, and to avoid a laboured fulness in the treatment, must be granted to him who puts the material into a new form.” These words plainly imply that the writer utilized Jason’s history as his sole source, and that he confined himself to an abridgement of what Jason had written. His choice of excerpts was made on the principle that they must be interesting; for, as he says a little earlier in his preface (verses 24, 25): “For having in view the confused mass of the numbers, and the weariness which awaiteth them that would enter into the narratives of the history, by reason of the abundance of the matter, we were careful that they who choose to read may be attracted....” He desires, therefore, to make his epitome popular by its attractiveness.

Judging from the book itself, it is evident that on the whole the writer adheres to his intention of being simply and solely an epitomist; that is to say, the words are as a rule, but not always, copied straight from Jason, though there are certainly cases where these are summarized. The want of unity, and the rather haphazard way in which events are jotted down, fully supports the writer in saying that he is merely an epitomist. At the same time, the writer had, as we shall see later, a special purpose of his own, owing to which there are some exceptions to this general rule.

But since our book relies for its main facts almost solely on Jason’s history, which is thus to a considerable extent reflected in this later work, it is pertinent to inquire whether any indications are to be discerned in it regarding the sources which Jason used in compiling his history. That he cannot have used the First Book of Maccabees will be seen when we discuss the relationship between 1 and 2 Maccabees in a later section. No indication of any other literary sources are given in the book; and since Jason’s history cannot have been written very long after the Maccabæan struggle (probably B.C. 120-100), he must in all likelihood have composed his history from oral sources. “The character of the history of which 2 Maccabees is the abridgement can best be explained by supposing that its author was a contemporary of men who had taken part in the Maccabæan struggle; that he was obliged to depend mainly on oral accounts; that he did not receive his information directly from those who had themselves taken part in these events, but only after it had passed through other hands; and that he was often unequal to the task of criticizing and arranging the material thus obtained.”[493]

It is well to mention here, however, that the epitomizer must in some instances have embellished and enlarged some of the material he used (see below, § III); so that the question has always to be kept in mind whether, and in how far, the epitomizer touched up for his own purposes any given passage.

II. THE CONTENTS OF THE BOOK

Prefixed to the book are two letters purporting to have been addressed by the Jews of Palestine to their brethren of the Dispersion; but as these have nothing to do with the book itself, and are evidently not part of the original work, they do not concern us at present, and will be dealt with separately (§ VI).

The period of history covered by the book begins shortly before the accession of Antiochus Epiphanes to the throne (B.C. 175), and goes down to the year B.C. 161.

The book opens, as pointed out in the previous section, with a preface by the epitomist in which he explains the method he has adopted in the abridged history that is to follow (ii. 19-32). In iii. 1-39 an account is given of how Heliodorus, the king’s chancellor, was sent to seize the treasure in the Temple, but failed owing to the miraculous appearance of a “terrible rider,” accompanied by two young men, “beautiful in their glory and splendid in their apparel,” by whom Heliodorus was scourged. He returns, discomfited, to the king; but testifies to all men “the works of the most supreme God which he had seen with his own eyes.” In the section which then follows (iii. 40-iv. 50) the writer describes the sordid intrigues on the part of aspirants to the high-priesthood at this time.[494] With chapter v. commences the history of the Maccabæan struggle which began with the profanation of the Temple and the attempt on the part of Antiochus Epiphanes to hellenize the Jews by force; this, together with some account of the persecution which followed, and especially the story of how seven brothers and their mother were martyred, is told in v. i-vii. 42. The rest of the book deals with the details of the Maccabæan struggle: the rising-up of Judas Maccabæus and his first successes (viii. 1-36); an account of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes (ix. 1-29); the recapture of Jerusalem and the dedication of the Temple (x. 1-8); further successes of Judas Maccabæus and especially the capture of Gazara, when the Jews were aided by five men from heaven, splendidly arrayed and sitting on horses with golden bridles (x. 9-38); the defeat of Lysias, and a patched-up peace (xi. 1-38); more fighting, after which Lysias is again forced to make terms of peace (xii. i-xiii. 26); three years’ peace, followed by an attack on the part of Nicanor which results in his defeat and death (xiv. i-xv. 36). The book then closes with a short and somewhat _naïve_ epilogue by the epitomist (xv. 37-39).

III. COMPARISON BETWEEN 1 AND 2 MACCABEES

That the writers of these two books cannot have used the same sources becomes very obvious when one compares together the large portions of each which run parallel.[495] In fact, the first thing that strikes one in comparing the two is the difference in aim of the compilers and the contrast there is in their manner of presentation. The writer of 1 Maccabees is, as we have seen,[496] a sober and reliable historian, mostly accurate, who presents his facts without bias in a businesslike, impartial way, and therefore inspires confidence. The epitomist of 2 Maccabees, on the other hand, has utilized his sources for a different purpose; his aim is not so much to write history as to glorify the Jews, so he chooses episodes which will serve this purpose. Martyrdoms are described, sometimes with painful realism, to show the constancy of the Jews in suffering when they are called upon to do this for their faith. The writer desires, moreover, to inculcate certain religious truths, chief among which is God’s solicitude for His people; so that he loves to dwell upon the marvellous appearances of heavenly messengers sent by God to succour His people at critical moments. How far these accounts are due to Jason and how far to the epitomist is a difficult question; but if, as there is reason to believe, Jason’s work was compiled not long after the events they record, there is little time for that growth of the miraculous which so often accompanies stories when they are repeated and handed down, and which is characteristic of much that is recorded in 2 Maccabees. In this case, a good deal of the embellishment with which our book abounds, in contrast with 1 Maccabees, would have to be put down to the imagination of the epitomist. And there are one or two facts which tend to support this supposition; he says in his prefatory remarks that his intention is only to give an outline of the events he is about to chronicle, “leaving to the historian the exact handling of every particular,” and that he has no intention of “filling in the outlines of our abridgement”; but, as a matter of fact, he does on certain occasions give minute details, and in most cases these are found in passages which illustrate the special aims which he has in view. Again, he confesses that he writes with a view to attracting; it will be no injustice to him to say that his idea of attractiveness consists in recording what is sensational. In both these cases it is, of course, quite possible that the material in all its details comes from Jason—for the epitomist is not afraid of contradicting himself—but when one remembers the aim of the latter the possibility of the other alternative must be conceded, the more so in that the epitomist does, on the face of it, give us his own ideas at times. Here is a good example:

I beseech, therefore, those that read this book, that they be not discouraged at such calamities [he has been describing a peculiarly cruel case of martyrdom], but to reflect that these punishments were not for the destruction but for the chastening of our race. For, indeed, that those who act impiously be not let alone for any length of time, but suffer retribution immediately, is a sign of great kindness. For in the case of the other nations the Sovereign Lord doth with long-suffering forbear, until that He punish them when they have attained to the full measure of their sins. But in our case He hath determined otherwise that His vengeance may not fall on us afterwards when our sins have reached their height. Wherefore He never withdraweth His mercy from us; yet though He chasteneth His own people with calamity, yet doth He not forsake them. Howbeit, let what hath been said be a reminder to ourselves. And after these few words we must come back to our narrative (vi. 12-17).

It should also be remarked that the doctrine of retribution here put forth, and the teaching on prayers for the dead (xii. 43, 45), and on the intercession of the departed saints (xv. 11-16), and the doctrine of the resurrection of the body (vii. 11, 22, 23, xiv. 46), are all doctrines which belong more specifically to a somewhat later time than Jason’s history. For these reasons we are justified in believing that a not inconsiderable amount of matter in our book must be assigned to the epitomist.

But the superiority of 1 Maccabees is equally evident on comparing with it those many passages of 2 Maccabees, forming of course the bulk of this book, in which the same events are recorded in each book. To go in to the details of these would be out of place here, recourse must be had to the commentaries for the study of the subject; but one good example may be referred to; if one compares 1 Maccabees v. 1-68 with the parallel account of the events given in 2 Maccabees x. 14-38, xii. 10-45, one is inevitably led to the conclusion that the orderly narrative of 1 Maccabees contrasted with the confused records of 2 Maccabees stamps the former as the more reliable; and the same applies to a number of other instances. This conviction is strengthened when one comes across obvious mistakes in 2 Maccabees; one example may be given: in 2 Maccabees x. 37 it is said that “they slew Timotheus who was hidden in a cistern,” yet later, in chapter xii., a good deal is recorded about Timotheus’ activity against the Jews. And lastly, the question of the inferiority of 2 Maccabees is placed beyond further doubt[497] by the historical errors of an obvious character found in it. Here again we must refer our readers to the commentaries for details, while merely pointing to a few instances, viz. ix. 5-29; compare v. 22, ix. 29 with what is said in xiii. 23; and cp. xiii. 22 with 1 Maccabees vi. 49, 50 and Josephus, _Antiq._, XII, ix. 5; xi. 1-15; cp. xiv. 1 ff. with 1 Maccabees vii. 1 ff.

IV. THE HISTORICAL VALUE OF 2 MACCABEES

But in spite of what has been said it is not to be supposed that 2 Maccabees is wholly without historical value. If, as is probably the case, the sources upon which it depends were themselves compiled, in the main, from the accounts of eye-witnesses of the events chronicled, this fact in itself counts for something; for example, the following description is not without interest and certainly reads as though told by one who was present: “But at dawn on the five and twentieth day some young men belonging to the Maccabæan army, burning with indignation because of these blasphemies, stormed the wall like men, and furious with passion hewed down everyone whom they met. Others in the meantime had followed them up by an encircling movement and had set fire to the towers, thus kindling fires and burning the blasphemers alive, while yet others burst open the gates and let in the rest of the band, and thus took possession of the city. And they slew Timotheus who was hidden in a cistern, and his brother Chæreas, and Apollophanes” (x. 35-37). Or, again, the graphic details given of the episode described in xii. 35 must evidently have come originally from one who had witnessed it: “But a certain Dositheus, belonging to the Tubieni,[498] a horseman and vigorous, took hold of Gorgias and, seizing his cloke, dragged him along by main force, intending to take the accursed man alive; but one of the Thracian horsemen bore down upon him and disabled his shoulder, so Gorgias escaped to Marisa.” These and other passages of a similar character containing vivid touches, such as are not likely to have been supplied excepting by eye-witnesses, have a distinct value of their own. A point of importance in this connection is the fact that for some five or six years preceding the accession to the throne of Antiochus Epiphanes 2 Maccabees is the only existing source, see iii. i-iv. 6; this passage contains a number of details, the historical reliability of which there is no reason to doubt. The book also gives a good deal of information supplementary to that of 1 Maccabees for the subsequent period of about ten years (B.C. 176-B.C. 166), cp. 2 Maccabees iv. 7-vii. 41 with 1 Maccabees i. 10-64.

The final period treated of (B.C. 166-161) also supplements 1 Maccabees in many particulars and is not without value.

While upon the whole, therefore, the historical worth of our book is not to be rated very highly, it can be of real use in supplementing what is recorded in 1 Maccabees, though it must be used with caution and discrimination.

V. THE PURPOSE OF THE BOOK

In reading our book it very soon becomes evident that it was written with the special purpose of emphasizing some religious truths, and this with the object of upholding orthodox Judaism and worship. The predominating religious bent comes out clearly on reading such a passage as vi. 12-17, already quoted (see also ii. 19, 20, xii. 43-45), and on noticing how everything that has to do with religion is extolled. Thus, the references to the Temple are numerous, as well as those to the altar, e.g., x. 1-3: “And Maccabæus and they that were with him, the Lord leading them on, recovered the temple and the city.... And having cleansed the sanctuary they made another altar of sacrifice ...”; cp. further, ii. 22, iii. 12, v. 15, etc.; again in xiii. 14 the people are exhorted “to contend nobly even unto death for laws, temple, city, country ...”; in like manner are mentioned the sabbaths (vi. 11, viii. 26, xii. 38), the feasts of Tabernacles (x. 6 f.), Pentecost (xii. 31), Dedication (i. 9, 18, ii. 16, x. 5-8), Purim (xv. 36), and the feast in celebration of the death of Nicanor (xv. 36). Regarding this latter feast and the feast of Dedication Torrey says: “Many scholars since Ewald have remarked the prominence given in the plan of the book not only to the feast celebrating the death of Nicanor, with the institution of which the whole history comes to an end, but also to the feast of the re-dedication of the temple, the description of which closes the first half of the book, the passage x. 1-8 apparently being removed for this purpose from its proper place. The account of the institution of the Nicanor feast would have been a most natural point for Jason to bring his book to a close, in any case. This would have been just the kind of ending best suited to his general purpose.... The author’s aim not being that of a historian, there was no need for him to go on and narrate the death of Judas; his purpose was fully accomplished without that. The transposition of x. 1-8, however, is probably to be attributed to the epitomist who saw how the plan of the book could thus be made subservient to his more definite aim, increased significance being thereby given both to the Nicanor feast and to the feast of the Dedication. These were _the two Maccabæan feasts_, by the observance of which the Jews of the Diaspora could share, as in no other outward way, in the national glory of that struggle.”[499]

This emphasizing of the national unity on the basis of religion and worship was, we may well believe, in the author’s mind as well as in that of the epitomist. His denunciation of those who are unfaithful to the national religion (cp. iv. 13-17, xii. 39-42) only emphasizes this still further.

Another feature in the religious attitude very prominent in this book is the stress laid upon divine interposition; and here it is noticeable that both the direct intervening of God is contemplated as well as the accomplishment of His purposes by intermediary agents. As illustrative of the former we may refer to ix. 5 where it is said in reference to Antiochus Epiphanes that “the All-seeing Lord, the God of Israel, smote him with a fatal and invisible stroke”; again in xii. 28: “But calling upon the Sovereign Who with might breaketh in pieces the strength of His enemies, they got the city into their hands ...”; cp. further x. 1, xi. 13, xii. 11, xiii. 15. On the other hand, there are some striking instances of a belief in intermediate agencies, the most noteworthy being that of the “terrible rider” accompanied by two young men who opposed Heliodorus and prevented him from despoiling the Temple treasury (iii. 22-30); but there are other examples in the book, see x. 29-31, xi. 6-11.

Lastly, brief mention must be made of the advanced teaching on the resurrection which was evidently one of the truths which was coming to be more and more definitely and emphatically taught as a tenet of orthodox Judaism in the second half of the second century B.C.; the important passages on this teaching are worth quoting, for there is no other pre-Christian Jewish book which puts forth the doctrine of the resurrection of the body more definitely. In vii. 9 one of the martyrs addresses his persecutor thus: “Thou miscreant, thou dost send us away out of this present life, but the King of the world shall raise us up, who have died for His laws, unto an eternal renewal of life.” Another martyr, after having had his limbs cut off, is made to say: “From heaven I possess these; but for His law’s sake I count them as nothing, and from Him I hope to receive them back again” (vii. 11). And yet a third martyr says: “It is good for them that die at the hands of men to look for the hopes of God that we shall be raised up again by Him. But thou,” he says to his tormentor, “thou shalt have no resurrection to life” (vii. 14). In xii. 43-45 not only is this doctrine taught, but its truth is substantiated by Judas’ action in offering sacrifices and prayers for the dead:

“And he made a collection, man by man, to the sum of two thousand drachmas of silver; and he sent this to Jerusalem for a sin-offering, acting therein well and honourably, for he was bearing in mind the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that the fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and senseless to pray for the dead. And if in doing this he was looking for the splendour of the gracious reward which is laid up for them that have fallen asleep in godliness, holy and pious was the thought. Wherefore he made a propitiation for them that had died that they might be released from their sin” (cp. xiv. 46).

VI. THE INTEGRITY OF THE BOOK

There is one portion of our book which neither belonged to Jason’s history nor yet to the epitomist, viz. i.-ii. 18. This comprises two letters which must be considered separately.

_The first letter_, i. 1-9. This purports to have been written by the Jews of Jerusalem to their brethren throughout Egypt exhorting them to observe the feast of the Dedication. It begins with a greeting and a prayer that God may incline the hearts of the readers to serve Him faithfully and keep His Law. Then follows the date at which the letter was written, i.e. B.C. 143, after which the real object of the letter finds expression; the readers are reminded of the original institution of the feast of Dedication, namely after the Temple had been polluted by Antiochus Epiphanes; “and we offered sacrifice and meal-offering, and we lighted the lamps [this was the central ceremony of the celebration], and we set forth the shewbread”; after which the letter closes with the words: “And now see that ye keep the days of the feast of tabernacles of the month Chislev.” To understand these final words one must read x. 5-8: “Now on the same day that the sanctuary had been profaned by aliens, upon that very day did the cleansing of the sanctuary take place, even on the twenty-fifth day of the same month, which is Chislev. And they kept eight days with gladness in the manner of the feast of tabernacles, remembering how that, not long before, during the feast of tabernacles they had been wandering like wild beasts in mountains and caves. Therefore bearing wands wreathed with leaves, and fair boughs and palms, they offered up hymns of thanksgiving to Him that had prosperously brought to pass the cleansing of His own place. They ordained also with a public order and decree, for all the nation of the Jews, that they should keep these ten[500] days every year.” So that this new feast was observed as something parallel, in its joyfulness, to the feast of Tabernacles (_Succôth_) which was also an eight-day feast, but observed in the month Tishri (= October).[501]

The interpretation of this letter given above regards the date mentioned in i. 10_a_ as belonging to the second letter[502]; there are objections to this, but it seems the best way of dealing with what is in any case a difficult point.

We see no reason why this letter should not be the fragment of a genuine record, added by the epitomist himself.

_The second letter_, i. 10-11. 18. The date prefixed to this letter is 188 of the Seleucid era, i.e. B.C. 124. Like the former letter this also purports to have been written by the Jews[503] of Jerusalem to their brethren in Egypt for the purpose of urging them to keep the feast of the Dedication; but it has the special object “of demonstrating at length its historical significance, indicating at the same time in other ways the analogy between the Maccabæan period and the other principal epochs of the nation’s life.”[504] The Antiochus whose death is described in i. 13-17 is not Epiphanes, concerning whose death an entirely different account is given in ix. 1-29,[505] but far more probably, as Torrey has shown, Antiochus VII Sidetes.[506] This, like the first letter, may be regarded as having been prefixed by the epitomist from some genuine record; at any rate, the arguments against this view are not strong enough to exclude the possibility of its being correct. The extraordinary stories which the letter contains undoubtedly constitute a difficulty in regarding it as genuine (i. 20-22, 31-34, ii. 1-12), but it is quite possible to regard these as Midrashic comments on Old Testament texts written for the purpose of showing that the institution of the feast of the Dedication was the logical outcome of Old Testament precedent and teaching. Torrey has rightly pointed out that “one feature of the writer’s demonstration deserves especial notice, namely the extent to which it is based on the conception of the Dedication as a _restoration of the sacred fire_ to the altar and the temple.[507] Evidently at that time this idea had a most prominent place (perhaps the central place) in current Jewish thought regarding the origin and meaning of this feast.”[507] It is perhaps this idea which is reflected in the name of the feast given by Josephus, “the feast of lights,”[508] and by its usual designation in the Talmud, “the Feast of Illumination,” though in the first instance no doubt these names had reference to the lamps lighted on each day of the feast, eight on the first day, and one less on each succeeding day. However this may be, if the stories referred to were originally Midrashic comments there is no reason why they should not have been incorporated in a letter from Jews to Jews.

Both these letters were originally written either in Hebrew or Aramaic; and if, as we do not see sufficient reason to doubt, the epitomist prefixed them to his book, his doing so, considering that they emphasize the need of carrying out a religious ceremony, would have been a natural proceeding on his part when one remembers the leading characteristic of his book as pointed out above.

Although, therefore, these two letters do not belong to the book they may reasonably be regarded as having been prefixed by the epitomist. Whether there are other portions, in the body of the book which the epitomist got from sources other than Jason’s history is a difficult question to which it does not seem possible to give a definite answer.

VII. THE DATE AND ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE BOOK

There is scarcely anything in the book itself which gives us any indication as to when it was written, the advanced doctrine of the future life (in a non-apocalyptic book) and the tendency to ascribe divine activity among men to intermediate agencies alone suggesting a comparatively late date. On the other hand, it is practically certain that Philo was acquainted with the book, for in his work _Quod omnis probus liber_ (Mangey, ii. 45_a_) a description is given of the way in which in time past the godly have suffered at the hands of persecutors, which forcibly recalls the words in 2 Maccabees concerning Antiochus Epiphanes.[509] Nothing more specific as to date can, therefore, be given beyond saying that it was probably written shortly before the beginning of the Christian era.

There is nothing in the book which points to its being a translation; it was manifestly written in Greek (with the exception, of course, of the two prefixed letters) as already Jerome saw.[510] “The style is extremely uneven; at times it is elaborately ornate (iii. 15-39, v. 20, vi. 12-16, 23-28, vii., etc.); and again, it is so rude and broken up as to seem more like notes for an epitome than a finished composition (viii. 19-26).”[511] In all probability the book was written in Alexandria.

VIII. THE INFLUENCE OF THE BOOK ON NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS

In only one instance can the influence of our book be seen directly in the New Testament, namely in Hebrews xi. 35 ff., where we read: “Women received their dead by a resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection; and others had trial of mockings and scourgings....” On comparing with this the whole of 2 Maccabees vi., vii. one cannot fail to see that the descriptions there given influenced the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews here; we may quote, for example, vi. 19 where, in speaking of the martyrdom of Eleazar, it is said: “But he, welcoming death with renown rather than life with pollution, advanced of his own accord to the instrument of torture ...” (cp. also verse 28). Again, in vii. 23 the mother of the seven martyred sons says: “Therefore the Creator of the World, Who fashioned the generation[512] of man and devised the generation[512] of all things, in mercy giveth back to you again your spirit and your life”; and in verse 29 she says: “Fear not this butcher, but, proving thyself worthy of thy brethren, accept thy death, that in the mercy of God I may receive thee again with thy brethren” (cp. vii. 1, 7, 9, 14). In Hebrews xi. 38, once more, the words “wandering in deserts and mountains and caves, and in the holes of the earth,” are in part repeated from 2 Maccabees x. 6: “They were wandering in mountains and in caves after the manner of wild beasts.” In all these passages the similarity of the Greek words is in each case very striking.