2 Maccabees - Schwartz, Daniel R PDF

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

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
229.73077dc22
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 <http://dnb.d-nb.de>
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: Drlemann Satz, Lemfrde
Printing and binding: Hubert & Co GmbH & Co. KG, Gttingen
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 Ju-
daism, was among the main movers of a project to publish a series of anno-
tated Hebrew translations of Jewish literature of the Second Temple period.
Stern himself undertook to prepare the volume on the Second Book of Mac-
cabees, 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 interpre-
tation 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 mid-
seventies 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 Tes-
tament. Sterns 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 pro-
ject would take much longer than ever expected. The fact that it was event-
ually completed, with the publication of my Hebrew translation and com-
mentary in 2004, is due to the support of many institutions and individuals.
I am very grateful, first of all, to Hebrew Universitys Institute of Ad-
vanced Studies, at which I was able to spend two fruitful years of research
and writing. A semester at Yale Universitys Dept. of Religious Studies, to-
ward 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 manu-
script. Although I did not always accept their advice, all of it was invalu-
able; 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 im-
pacted, 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
Mlze Modrzejewski, Tessa Rajak, David Satran, Israel Shatzman, Avig-
dor 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 oppor-
tunities 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 Uni-
versity of Munich, courtesy of a prize from the Alexander von Humboldt
Foundation and of the outstanding hospitality of the Departments director,
Prof. Jrg 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 Schulthei and Eva Preu, who helped
with the proofreading in Munich. Back in Jerusalem, grants from Hebrew
Universitys Charles Wolfson Fund and from Scholion (Hebrew Universitys
Interdisciplinary Research Center in Jewish Studies) allowed for proof-
reading by Deenah Pinson, Yonatan Miller, Nadav Sharon and Maya Sher-
man; 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 translatio-
nese 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 ci-
tations of Hebrew bibliography with references to works in western lan-
guages, 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 Begins 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 sug-
gestions 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 Eng-
lish 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 trans-
lation 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 books 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 far-
removed. I wanted, rather, to reveal as best I could the beauty and the struc-
ture of the Greek to my students; for it was my students I saw in my minds eye
while I wrote, and most of them cannot read the Greek themselves. Accord-
ingly, 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 free-
dom, 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 en-
tail 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 Tech-
nique in Antiquity, GRBS 20 (1979) 73.
VIII Preface
Thus, for example, when at 8:4 our author condemns the murder of in-
fants as , 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 He-
brew usage does not at all reflect the Greeks reference to nomos, law,
and since I was loath to hide that element, which is so central to our auth-
ors conception of Judaism (see below, p. 275), I chose to use a clumsy He-
brew 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 idio-
matic 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 at-
tempted 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
authors 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 Jerusa-
lem, 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 books invention?) have in defining their place in this world.
In other words, it has contributed to my consideration of the differences be-
tween 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

Preface IX
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
I. Subject, Purpose and Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

II. Sources and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
III. Historical Worth and Leading Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
IV. Between the Bible and Greek Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
V. Language and Style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
VI. Reception and Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
VII. Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
VIII. Abbreviations and Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY
Introductory Letters (1:12:18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Authors Preface (2:1932) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Chapter III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Chapter IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Chapter V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
Chapter VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
Chapter VII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
Chapter VIII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
Chapter IX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
Chapter X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
Chapter XI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392
Chapter XII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414
Chapter XIII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445
Chapter XIV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463
Chapter XV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492
X Table of Contents
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: On the Letters in Chapters 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . 519

Appendix 2: to register the people of Jerusalem as
Antiochenes (4:9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530
Appendix 3: his second invasion (5:1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533
Appendix 4: as the residents of the place requested (6:2) . . . . 537
Appendix 5: A Ptolemaic Account of Antiochus Decrees?
(2 Macc 6:7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541
Appendix 6: the tribute (still owed) to the Romans
(2 Macc 8:10, 36) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 544
Appendix 7: M. Stern, The Battle Against the Galatians (8:20) . 546
Appendix 8: their own foods (11:31) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549
Appendix 9: to be his successor (14:26) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551
Appendix 10: the Syrian Language (15:36) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553
Appendix 11: and ever since the city was taken over by the
Hebrews it has been in their hands (15:37) . . . . . 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 be-
ginning 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 Jeru-
salem is clearly indicated by the brackets that surround the story: it begins
(after the letters and preface that fill Chapters 12) 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 works subject: the book
is about Jerusalem, and so the restoration of an idyllic situation there com-
pletes the circle that began at 3:1 and thus completes the book.1
As for the upper chronological border being the beginning of institu-
tionalized 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 books end is the best indication of the authors objec-
tive, 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 ma-

terial precedes this: the letters in 1:12:18; the authors preface in 2:1932;
and the narrative of 3:14:6, 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 Chap-
ters 12 as separate from the book itself, as these letters and the preface are
clearly distinguished from it. But marginalizing 3:14:6, 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 orig-
inal form, presumed the same;3 the authors summary of the books contents,
appearing in his preface (2:20), refers to the days of Antiochus Epiphanes as
the books point of departure; and the summaries of Jerusalems tribulations
at 8:24 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 recog-
nition of the power of the Jewish God; the story does not move the book for-
ward 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 4:16, where we read of Simons complaints against Onias (vv. 14)
and Onias decision to appeal directly to the king (vv. 56). 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
(3:13) and Simons squabbling with Onias (3:4) directly to the worsening
of Simons complaints (4:14 [without v. 1b]) and Onias consequent deci-
sion to go to the king in Antioch (4:56), the Heliodorus story would never
have been missed.5 Taken together with the books positive references to
2 For the assumption that the first letter was composed in order to accompany our
book, see below, pp. 525527.
3 See NOTE on 1:12, For He Himself drove out
4 The fact that 4:16 functions without reference to the Heliodorus story is also appar-
ent 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 posi-
tion, without any hint of a need to explain what happened to his predecessor.
5 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
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 pre-
pared. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the Heliodorus story is quite similar
to the one in 3 Maccabees 12 about events under Ptolemy IV, who shared
the same royal throne-name (Philopator) as Seleucus IV,6 and it is also strik-
ing 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
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. 19.1273), which
hardly has to do with Jewish Antiquities; on its source, see Feldmans long note on
19.1 in the LCL edition.
6 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 en-
courage this; see for example the way Jewish traditions mix up Yannai (Alexander
Jannaeus) with Herod and others (Efron, Studies, 190206). Tromp (Formation,
318321) 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 float-
ing motive of failed attempts to rob temples (see Stokholm, Zur berlieferung von
Heliodor); for the independence of the two stories, see Kasher, Jews in Egypt,
212213, n. 1, and Johnson, Historical Fictions, 136.
7 For a case in which Josephus does the same, preferring to use the high priest re-
peatedly rather than the name of the high priest in whose context he told the story, see
Ant. 11.325339. For the argument that Josephus source used another name, see my
On Some Papyri, esp. 186189. Cf. R. Marcus comment on Ant. 11.22, where Jo-
sephus, 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) 109112.
6 Introduction
as in 3 Macc 12), served his purpose in a general way by illustrating Gods

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 in-
dicated 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: Jasons reform changed
the citys status and politeias (4:911); 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 at-
tacking the city and killing his fellow-citizens (5:6) and to report attacks on
8 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. Gau-
thier, Les cits hellnistiques, in: M. H. Hansen (ed.), The Ancient Greek City-
State (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1993) 211231; 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) 339354; Ma,
Antiochos III.
9 Our books 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 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, Mitbrger ) 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 fellow-
citizens ( 5:6) as if it referred to the sons of his people;
he rendered the characterization of Razis as (14:37) as lover of the
sons of his people; and when in 15:30 he rendered sons of his people it
forced him to use something else, brothers, to render in the continuation
of that verse (see, respectively, Kahana, HaSepharim, 194, 228, 230).
the city by Antiochus and by Philip; Chapter 6 opens by formulating Anti-

ochus decrees against the practice of Judaism as having prohibited Jews to
conduct their civic behavior () according to Gods laws (6:1);
after the martyrdom accounts of Chapters 67, which are exceptional in this
regard,10 the city figures prominently alongside the Temple as what is
threatened in Chapter 8 (vv. 23, 17, 36); in Chapter 9 Antiochus threats (v.
4) and his promises (vv. 1415) 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. 23 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 kings 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 (13:1314); the last martyr of the book, Razis,
is first of all characterized as a man who loved his fellow-citizens (-
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 character-
ized 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 books subject.
As for the purpose of the book, it might appear to emerge easily from the
comparison of two passages:
2 Maccabees 10:8 2 Maccabees 15:36

And they resolved by an And they all decided, in a decree made
edict and decree made in in common (
common that the entire ), not at all to
( allow that day to remain unmarked, but,
rather, to keep as special the thirteenth
) people day of the twelfth month (which is called
of the Jews should celebrate Adar in the Syrian language), the day
these days annually. before Mordechais Day.
10 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, Ha-
nukkah and Nicanors 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 Mac-
cabean 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 Hanuk-
kah, 10:18 (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 10:18 is a secondary inser-
tion, results from the way it separates Antiochus IVs 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 associ-
ations (v. 7); and from its relatively simple Greek style, including even a
good bit of parataxis (six occurrences of !) in v. 3.14
As for the second point, that the insertion is to be attributed to the Je-
rusalemites who added the letters:15 this conclusion results from the fact
11 Niese, Kritik, 12; for the German original, and for the context, see below, n. 20.
12 On Nicanors 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] 263264 [in Hebrew]), see J. Schwartz, Once
More, 272273.
13 See below, pp. 4648.
14 Apart from the first letter, where this is common, there is nothing else like this in our
book. Similarly, note that after vv. 13 are simply linked one to another with ands,
vv. 48, which are not, are each a single sentence; no periods. See also, in this connec-
tion, the NOTES on 10:1, took (unusually low-key diction) and 10:3, after a two-
year period (unusual use of chronological terminology).
15 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 authors pref-
ace 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.
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. 4648); from the fact that only the story at
1:3132 can explain the obscure reference to igniting rocks and extrac-
ting fire from them in 10:3; from the fact that of the whole book only
10:67 explains the letters characterization of Hanukkah as a type of Tab-
ernacles 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
authors intended objective (see above, n. 1). Thus, in a manner reminiscent
of the establishment of commemorative festivals in Esther 9:2632 and
3 Maccabees 7:1819,16 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 Nicanors central
status: the first campaign (Ch. 8) and the final one (15) are both against Ni-
canor. 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 cam-
paign17 and in the events recorded at 14:1225,18 and also to doubt our
books 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 Which says that the Jews decided to celebrate a holiday in memory of their deliver-
ance " # $ 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.
17 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 no-
where 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.
18 Concerning which events 1 Macc 7:810 has Bacchides instead of Nicanor. Our book
mentions Bacchides only once, in a marginal role (8:30).
19 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 Nicanors 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 holi-
day, making no mention of Nicanor or of the festival marking his defeat.
Thus, in discussing the books purpose we must make a clear distinction
between different layers of purpose. Looking at the book as it is, the ob-
vious purpose is to encourage readers to celebrate the holiday of Hanuk-
kah. 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 for-
mally the book is an attachment to their two opening cover letters.21 His-
torically speaking, however, we should conclude from the contrast between
the letters, which point to Hanukkah, and the body of the book, which
points to Nicanors 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. 2122), to a basic theme in our book.22
20 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 fol-
genden Darstellung; denn die Stiftung der beiden makkabischen Gedenktage bildet
gleichsam den Mittelpunkt und Abschluss des Ganzen. Unterstutzt wird jene
Mahnung weiter [in the opening letter] durch die Erzhlung von der Einweihung des
Tempels und der Auffindung des heiligen Feuers durch Nehemias. Denn dieses Fest ist
ein Vorlufer der makkabischen Feier und der Schriftsteller denkt es sich vielleicht
an demselben Tage, dem 25. Kislev, begangen.
21 For that characterization of the book, see esp. van Henten, 2 Maccabees as a History
of Liberation; cf. below, n. 100.
22 For some emphasis on the similarity of the first letter to the body of the book, see
Toki, The Dates, 7274. 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
Dating the book: This discussion of the relationship of the letters to 10:18
serves not only to defend our characterization of the book as one meant to
justify and explain Nicanors 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 10:18 was inserted into an extant con-
text, and that the epistles in Chapters 12 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 (Mace-
donian) 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 fes-
tival commemorates. Accordingly, I have translated 1:910, And now (we
book are clear; see Toki, loc. cit., 7172 and Stern, Studies, 353354. But it seems to
me that whoever added the first letter added the second as well; see Appendix 1.
23 See above, pp. 4, 89.
24 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 Seleu-
cids, began in the autumn of 312 BCE. For the issues and defense of this consensus view,
see Lebram, Zur Chronologie; Bar-Kochva, JM, 562565; and Goldstein, 1 Macc,
2225. For a convenient rule for calculating conversions, see ibid. 2223, n. 47.
25 The assumption that the reference to 170 SE in this verse is to be interpreted accord-
ing to the Macedonian system is based on the fact that it appears in the verse right
after Demetrius letter (1 Macc 13:3640). 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 Ameri-
cans, 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 34) and end (15:1214) portray the high priest Onias as a hero.
That poses a problem because the Temple of Onias, founded in Egypt some-
time during the second century BCE (see below), competed with that of Je-
rusalem 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 (4:3034) 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 be-
tween its Onias and his son. As Stern noted, to praise Onias without mak-
ing 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 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. 13.6571 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, 6162).
27 For this debate, see NOTE on 3:1, Onias.
28 Stern, Studies, 41. For a similar case (rabbinic failure to differentiate between Agrip-
pas indicating a lack of distinction between them) see Schwartz, Agrippa, 162.
29 G. Bohak, Joseph and Asenath and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis (Diss. Prince-
ton, 1994) 137144. (This section did not appear in the 1996 published version with
the same title.)
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 be-
tween 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
protgs (Jason, Menelaus, Alcimus), and he could hope that when the Has-
moneans 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 387388, 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 10:1521). Until then Onias could look forward to
Hasmonean victory, playing the role of the legitimate heir to the high priest-
hood awaiting the opportunity to claim his birthright. Now, however, Jon-
athans acceptance of the high priesthood meant a parting of ways between
the Hasmoneans and the Oniads; it was effectively a Hasmonean announce-
ment that to the victors go the spoils and that they would not content them-
selves 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
dynastys house historian (1 Macc 2:2426, 54; see also 1:15, , 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 25:1113), so too for the Has-
moneans, 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 books terminus ad quem up to a
date before the Temple of Onias was founded. This is an additional argu-
ment 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 Jo-
hanan (father of the Eupolemus who participated in the embassy concern-
ing 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 sev-
eral other delegations sent by later Hasmoneans, beginning with the one
sent by Jonathan in the mid- or late 140s; see 1 Maccabees 12:14; Josep-
hus, Antiquities 13.260265; 14.145148, 247255. It is easiest to under-
stand 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 Anti-
ochus reign, that kings 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 Nicanors 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 Hasmon-
eans 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 (10:18) and append-
ing two letters, one of their own and one purporting to be from Judas Mac-
cabaeus 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, 5176;
Gruen, Hellenistic World, 1.4345; Gera, Judaea, 303312.
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 hy-
pothesis, 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 Concerning the date of 1 Maccabees composition, there have been two main ap-
proaches. One takes the reference in the works last two verses to the book of chron-
icles of John Hyrcanus high priesthood that recounts the rest of his works as evi-
dence 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 books 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 im-
pression 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, 152168.
33 Given this usual terminus post quem for the book, usual datings proceed on the as-
sumption 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.
34 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, 175176, 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 Jasons original opus. As
perusal of Habichts 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 1:12:18 and the story
in 10:18 were added to an extant book. What of the rest of the book? Is it
all of one piece?
Already the preface at 2:1932 indicates that the volume is the product
of a fairly complicated process: it reports that the present work is a con-
densed 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 10:18, 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 re-
lated 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 orig-
inally 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 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 open-
ing with a new chronological marker. Or, for another type of closure, note that Ch. 4
ends with two words ( )) that figure prominently in the chapters
first two verses, thus neatly rounding out the chapter.
36 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 [] and the tortures [ ] 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 67 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 1415 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, how-
ever, we will handle them together.38
Our conclusion is that of Chapters 315 we may treat each chapter (and
Chapters 67 and 1415 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 Jasons 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 2:2331? Or did he do more, sufficient to war-
rant 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 Nicanors 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;
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 Wif-
strand, Epochs, 9798.
37 See Doran, Temple Propaganda, 22.
38 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.
39 Apart, of course, from the Jerusalemite additions in Chs. 12 and 10:18.
40 Apart from the parallels at 15:34//14:36 and 15:30, 32// 14:33, note also 15:8 (
*)//14:15 ( * , ).
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 rea-
son to consider such a possibility.
But Chapters 1415 are also very similar to Chapters 34. Note the cen-
tral role of Onias in Chapters 34 that recurs in 15:1216; the great simi-
larity, in reverse, of the good Onias appeal to the king in 4:16 and the
wicked Alcimus at 14:310;41 and the way antagonists are dramatically
poised against each other at 3:2223;42 14:3334; 15:56, 2526. So
again, and certainly when we acknowledge a methodological preference
for the presumption that a book stems from a single writer, we see no rea-
son to doubt that Chapters 34 come from the same hand as Chapters 8
and 1415.
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 re-
turning to Jerusalem but again fleeing to Ammonitis (5:7) after his unsuc-
cessful 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 (3:23//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//15:12).
But if it is thus fairly easy to confirm, via interlocking comparisons, that
Chapters 35, 8, and 1415 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 be-
tween 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 ob-
servance of Judaism is comparable to the observance of a municipal law
code ( v. 1), the paralleling of Jerusalem and Gerizim in
v. 2 (as at 5:2223),43 the prominence of Dionysus in v. 7 (as at 14:33), the
pathetic exploitation of womens breasts in v. 10 (as at 3:19; contrast
41 See below, pp. 8182.

42 See our NOTE on 3:22, on the one hand.
43 See Appendix 4. And note that the fact that our pro-Jerusalem author has no diffi-
culty with such a parallel with Jerusalems cultic competitor sits well with his general
lack of interest in temple cult per se; see below, pp. 4648.
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; 8:2627; 12:38; 15:12)44 are all
well at home in our book. When one adds that Chapter 6 opens with the
Temples being polluted (v. 2 ) just as Chapter 5 had ended with
Judas Maccabaeus and his men avoiding pollution (v. 27 ),45
and that 6:3 ( # ) plays with 5:22 ( -
), it becomes even more certain that 6:111 are from the same hand as
Chapters 35, 8, and 1415.
Skipping for the moment over the next six verses (1217), 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 mar-
tyrdom stories of 6:1832 (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 ,
, , or ;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);
8:24, 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 See our NOTE on 5:25, pretended.

45 Which in turn prepares us for the contrast at 14:32 with Alcimus, who had willingly
polluted himself ( ).
46 See H&R, 2.1180. The entry for 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 ,
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: (ancestral laws [7:2,
24, 37]; note also ancestral language in vv. 8, 21, 27). This way of looking at Jew-
ish 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 open-
ing epistles, and that it never mentions the Temple (a point noted by Bowersock, al-
though I would reject the conclusion he built on this; see below, n. 51).
47 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 67. Even if we stop short of Habichts 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 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.
49 Other exceptions: 5:13; 15:14, 24.
50 One way or another, our conclusion goes hand in hand with the fact that despite our
books general lack of popularity among Jews (see below, pp. 8588) the martyrdom
stories were widely diffused; that is, they had a life of their own. On the Jewish tradi-
tions, see Doran, The Martyr; Spiegel, Last Trial, 1316; Gutman, The Mother;
G. D. Cohen, Hannah. As to whether one or two sources underlie the story of Elea-
zar 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. 8889.
51 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 con-
cludes 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 suffer-
ing. See also idem, The Martyr, 191; Kellermann, Auferstanden, 5460; and
S. Schwartz, SCI 15 (1996) 308. Schwartzs remarks there, in a review of Bower-
socks Martyrdom and Rome, are directed against Bowersocks arbitrary sugges-
tion (ibid. 913) that Chs. 67 were added to our book only after the appearance of
Christianity, a suggestion required by his main thesis that Christian martyrdom de-
rives from Roman precedents, not from Jewish ones. Indeed, most of Bowersocks
considerations pertain not to the date of these chapters, but, rather, to differences be-
tween 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 books 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. 2.193198), so too could earlier auth-
ors ignore it. Indeed, we shall suggest that the author of our book itself was not very
interested in it; see below, pp. 4648.
To understand this we shall have to realize that, for our books 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:
4:1617: 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 vis the divine laws. But this shall be shown
by the next period.
5:1720: And Antiochus mind went soaring, for he did not see that it
was due to the sins of the citys 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 im-
mediately 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 aban-
doned in the anger of the All-Ruler was again reestablished with full honor
when the great Sovereign was reconciled.
6:1216: 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 punish-
ments 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 appro-
priate 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 Gods 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 perse-
cutes 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 ignor-
ance, think that they are successful due to their own valor alone, not real-
izing that God is allowing them their successes (vv. 2731); eventually, how-
ever, 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, 4143). The brief time element is con-
tributed 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, Deuteron-
omy 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 authors reflections edification, brief, reconciled,
servants cannot be by chance. Rather, someone very familiar with the
authors 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. 24, that caused Gods anger to turn to mercy, ignore 6:187:42.
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 For the probability that our book specifically imitates Deut 32:25 in this context, see
our NOTE on 5:13, young and old
53 See my On Something Biblical, 228232 and my Divine Punishment. In the latter,
building upon the contrast between 0) (5:17) and ) (7:33),
I detail the subtle progression from portraying God as taking vengeance upon His
sinning people (4:1617) 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 con-
cepts side-by-side and explicit preference for the latter, see 10:4.
pletely ( ) 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 (12) of the All-Ruler which was justly loosed
against our entire nation. That prayer was answered at 8:5, where we read
that Gods 12 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 books language underlines this. As
for the Eleazar story (6:1831), it is firmly linked to Chapter 7, at least in its
current state:
6: 31 underlines that Eleazars 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 be-
speaks the distinction between body and soul (6:30) just as the seventh
son at 7:37 and similar to Razis at 14:46.54
Eleazars fear, at 6:24, is that if he dissembles submission to the de-
crees in order to save his life it will be thought that he has gone over to
foreignism; foreignism (0) 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
( v. 25), just as 7:18 has the sixth son warn Antiochus not to
go astray (, ) due to his own successes.
Eleazars thought is said, at 6:23, to be honorable, lit. urbane
(0), 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 animal-
like rustic life.55
54 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 preci-
sion.
55 See NOTE on 14:30, coarser.
24 Introduction
Our conclusion is that the two martyrologies of 6:187:42, although orig-

inating 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-per-
son voice in the three sets of reflections at 4:1617, 5:1720 and 6:1217.
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 2:1932 and 15:3739. This results,
first and foremost, from the use of the first person in 6:12, 1516 just as it
is used by the epitomator in 2:1932 and 15:3738. Having used the first
person to introduce himself as an epitomator in Chapter 2, it would be dis-
honest, if not impossible, for that writer to pass on someone elses first per-
son 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 (), the
latter of which is part of the Jerusalemite insertion to justify Hanukkah (see
above, pp. 89), 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 fundamen-
tal matters completely except for in his reflections and when working (in
Chapters 67) 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 67 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 Jasons work better, as he
says at 2:2331; but when he added in other material, to help the reader
understand the storys 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 2. 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: , 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
(2:25; 6:12; 15:39) and $ 34 (2:26//4:17).
Hence, we conclude not only that the martyrological stories of

6:187:42, although of separate provenance, were integrated into the book,
but also that this was done by the epitomator. But if so, we must further con-
clude that the designation epitomator is too restricted; he did not only
make Jason of Cyrenes work more readable, but also undertook to add new
material, including guidance interpreting the story at the most fundamental
level. Moreover, in any case Jasons 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 67
(and as we shall see in Chapters 1011), giving the story its basic inter-
pretive scaffolding, author would seem the more appropriate title.56
At this point, having traced 3:16:17 (apart from the Heliodorus story and
the authorial reflections at 4:1617, 5:1720 and 6:1217) along with
Chapters 8, 1415 to the basic work (Jason), 6:187:42 to a separate source
incorporated by the author, and 10:18 to the Jerusalemites who turned the
book to their own purposes (and added in the two opening epistles), we
must turn to Chapters 913. 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
kings death, which was a popular theme in religious and other ancient his-
toriography.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 So too, for example, van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 20: I consider 2 Macc.
2:1915:39 a unity and the epitomist its author (similar in idem, 2 Maccabees as
a History of Liberation, 6566). See also the discussion in Lichtenberger, History-
Writing and History-Telling, 106109, which reports, inter alia, the results of an un-
published stylometric study of 2 Macc by B. Meiner that concludes that the ob-
viously editorial passages (such as 2:1932; 5:1720; 6:1217) are of the same style
as the rest of the book.
57 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 (
). As for the popularity of
recounting his death, see: 1 Macc 6:116; 2 Macc 1:1317 (with our NOTE on 1:12,
For () He Himself drove out ( ) ), Polybius 31.9, Josephus, Ant.
12.354359 (based on 1 Maccabees but refers to Polybius), Diodorus 31.18a, Ap-
pian, Syriak 11, 66, Porphyry (apud Jerome on Dan 11:36 = Stern, GLA II, no.
464a), etc. On these texts see Holleaux, tudes, 255279; Mendels, Note; Lorein,
Some Aspects, 166171.
26 Introduction
another peoples temple, conforms well to our authors purpose,58 and that
9:810 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 1013.
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 Is ascent to the throne in the third year
thereafter (14:1) create serious difficulties, especially in light of their lo-
cation after Antiochus IVs death in Chapter 9, and even without compari-
son 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 power-
ful God who is their ally, he sent to them and urged them to settle with him
according to all that is just (11:1314).
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 al-
ready 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 for-
tress 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 Macca-
baeus 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 en-
tailed violating the sanctity of a pagan shrine; see our NOTE on 4:33, in Daphne
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 epit-
omizing 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 IVs
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, be-
ginning 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 (2:2431), are supposed to indicate
such things. Our author knows very well how to introduce a previously un-
known character by adding 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
(#) 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 uni-
lateral 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 Anti-
ochus 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 kings guard-
ian, implies that they were together.60
59 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 prede-
cessor. 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.
60 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 books 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. 38, on the death of Menelaus,
not only interrupt the main story of the new invasion (vv. 12, 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 real-
ization and the execution of Menelaus the invasion will be called off. In-
stead, however, v. 9 reports, without any explanation, that the king, be-
coming barbaric in his intentions, began to display himself toward the Jews
in ways as bad as the worst which had happened in his fathers 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 nar-
rative. Problem 1 would be eliminated if Chapter 13 came before Chap-
ter 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 # (v. 25) and with Lysias
going to Antioch, came before Chapter 12, which opens with a reference to
the just-concluded # 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 Jeru-
salem via Beth-Zur, but come to agreements with the Jews and return to
Antioch due to Philips 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 ident-
ifies Lysias as guardian (epitropos) and head of state, he is not said to be Eupators
Chapter 12: Those agreements are followed by local campaigns that in-
clude the capture of Timothy and his release in return for hostages
(vv. 2425).
Chapter 9: Death of Antiochus Epiphanes and Philips 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 cam-
paign 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 IVs lifetime, continuing the story until Philips re-
turn 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 ex-
pedition. He then turned to catch up with the story of Antiochus IV in the
East, his death there, and Philips return. The reader was supposed to under-
stand 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 Philips 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 Philips 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 in-
dications 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 6:116) 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, 543551), as
others, to date the second campaign to 162 BCE. However, (1) 1 Macca-
bees 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 Philips 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 3:333. 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 6:5556 implies an immediacy

between Antiochus death and Philips 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 Horo-
witz,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 1011. These two chapters, even apart from 10:18
(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 3:3233)
who appoints Lysias, and he appoints him to be head of state; in this for-
mal statement nothing is said of him being the kings guardian,63 just as
there had been no mention of Lysias throughout Nicanors campaign of
Chapter 8, although 1 Maccabees 3:38 has Lysias in fact mandating that
campaign and appointing its generals. Our authors 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 ( ) at 10:11.
Thus, the tradition that underlies 10:10ff. plainly assumed that Antiochus
Eupators reign and activities came after those of Antiochus IV, thus dia-
metrically contradicting 1 Maccabees and our reconstruction of the original
order of 2 Maccabees 13129.
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. 6771), 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 1011 and nowhere else in the book:
62 See Gera & Horowitz, Antiochus IV, 249252, also Kasher, A Second Century
BCE Greek Inscription, 20, n. 98.
63 See n. 61.
1. Only in these chapters do angels participate in battles (10:2930; 11:8).

2. Only in these chapters does the enemy gather ( ) sol-
diers 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 (-
) one another (10:25, 27; 11:5; in the entire Septuagint the verb ap-
pears only once more Sir 35:17).
4. Only in these chapters do soldiers take up (0) arms
(10:27; 11:7; this verb appears another 34 times in our book but never in
connection with weapons).
5. Only in these chapters do we read of a siege (-), whether
as noun (10:1819) or verb (11:6); in the entire book the root ap-
pears only once more (12:21 ). 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 (). 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; 12:2425; 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. 1011, 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,
264265. In Chs. 1213, 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. 1011 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 con-
clusion that is the opposite of Bunges.
32 Introduction
Eupator and Lysias during Antiochus Epiphanes lifetime, lead us to suggest

that 10:911:38 (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 prob-
lems 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 wit-
less first-hand composition by one and the same hand. And if, moreover,
this suggestion will also generate a simple explanation as to why the orig-
inal 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 13129 in that order and then happened to come
across (or indeed searched for and found) a source that supplied the materi-
als in Chapters 1011.67 As we have seen, at first he had thought that Anti-
ochus 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 Philips return to Antioch after Antiochus IVs 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 Macca-
bees 6:16. However, with the acquisition of the new material, now compris-
ing or underlying 10:1011:38, which includes the valuable and dated docu-
ments 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 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.
66 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 (
0 ) to 14:28 ( *, 02);
places full of # in 13:16 and 3:30; blaspheming peoples in 13:11 and
10:4, 3436; (13:23)//
(11:14); Judas assigns motto Gods victory (13:15)//Judas assigns motto
Gods help (8:23).
67 In this discussion, our references to Ch. 10 do not apply, of course, to its first eight
verses; see above, pp. 89.
prior to Richard Laqueur (Griechische Urkunden, 1927),68 our author

thought the only king reflected by these documents was Antiochus Eu-
pator. Apparently he found the documents together, and in any case the sec-
ond 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 Anti-
ochus IVs 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 13129 to 91312,
and assuming, as we do, that he found Chapters 1011 together, in that
order, he would easily arrive at 910111312. Anyone would do the
same if, upon discovering 10:1011:38, he inferred that Antiochus V is the
king of all of the documents. And that inference, if false, would nonethe-
less 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
913: Why did the author move Chapter 12 to its present location, preced-
ing Chapter 13, instead of leaving it after Chapter 13? We may note two
considerations supplied by the new material (Chapters 1011) 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 (#) mentioned at 12:1.
68 See for example Niese, Kritik, 74 and Laqueur, Untersuchungen, 3, 32. For the im-
portance of Laqueurs 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 IVs 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 dif-
ficulty 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 (12:3132), 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 13:1926, we may now observe that the authors decision to en-
rich his narrative by adding 10:1011:38 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 nar-
ratives in any way. Rather, it seems, having inserted Chapters 1011 he now
found the Beth-Zur campaign of Chapter 13 something of an embarrass-
ment, or a puzzle, and it may be that the style in which he left it is that of
notes on Jasons original narrative that he never wrote up properly be-
cause 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 Lu-
cians handbook for historians leads us to expect.71 The only other expla-
nation 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 An opinion shared by a few modern scholars, such as Mrkholm, Antiochus IV,

152154. Against this view, see Bar-Kochva, JM, 275276.
70 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.
71 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, 85104.
72 Zeitlin, 2 Macc, 2223.
ible to imagine any Greek author who could write this way; the notion that
there is anything attractive about the style here ( 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 1011.
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 13:38, not only interrupts the narrative but also requires the in-
troduction, in v. 9, of a sudden and unexplained turnabout in the kings dis-
position. 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; 5:710; Ch. 9; 15:2835), 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 Jasons 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 Jasons ma-
terials at this point if he found something suitable for the purpose.
The conjecture that the narrative on Menelaus death at 13:38 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 For such a positive evaluation of this style see Gil, Sobre el estilo, 21, followed by
Richnow, Untersuchungen, 101107. 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 Muglers 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?
74 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 re-
flects some impact of the source used just a few verses before.
(b) external: Josephus has, at Antiquities 12.384385, a passage on the
death of Menelaus that shows close verbal parallels to ours: if our book has Ly-
sias convincing Antiochus V that Menelaus was the cause of the troubles
(6 ), Josephus has him 67 , and if our book
claims that Menelaus had set his eyes upon rule ( # 0#), Josephus
said what he did was so that he himself could rule (8 $" 69). Now it
seems clear that Josephus did not use 2 Maccabees; see below, pp. 8687. 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 13:38 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 authors 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 be-
tween 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 sec-
ond. 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 Jasons work, which is said (2:23) to have filled five
books. We can only guess about the length of these books.79
75 See NOTES on 8:34, thrice-accursed Nicanor (), 14:6, to attain stabil-

ity, and 14:28, he was disconcerted.
76 So too Stern, Studies, 4445; Bar-Kochva, JM, 541, n. 80.
77 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. 67.
78 For others, see below, p. 86, n. 200.
79 See NOTE on 2:23, in one composition.
(b) An anonymous craftsman undertook to turn that work into a shorter

and more readable one. But although Jasons 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 (2:1932), an afterword (15:3739), and three
sections of reflections (4:1617; 5:1720; 6:1217). Due to his use of ma-
terials apart from Jasons, 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 sup-
plied 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 rear-
range 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 13:38, but this required only some minor, if artificial, coordination
in 13:9.
(e) Finally, in 143 or 142 BCE the Hasmonean authorities in Jerusalem de-
cided 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 festivals origins into
the book at 10:18 and attached two accompanying letters at the books
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 be-
come included in the collection of works which was to become the Septua-
gint and so to survive.
80 Although there were probably some additional interpolations or glosses added at

various times; see our NOTES on 1:12, for () He Himself drove out; 7:18, amaz-
ing things have happened; 11:1, the kings guardian; 14:21, a litter came forward; and
Appendix 4.
81 See below, p. 87.
38 Introduction
III. Historical Worth and Leading Ideas
Wir erfahren darber nheres nur aus dem zweiten Makkaberbuch, das
sich vielfach als unzuverlssig zeigt wo man es kontrolliren kann, und also
auch da Mistrauen verdient wo man es nicht kontrolliren kann. Der Be-
richt lautet wie folgt. (J. Wellhausen, Israelitische und jdische Geschichte
[Berlin: Reimer, 19045] 248)82
Wir erfahren darber nheres nur aus dem zweiten Makkaberbuch. Des-
sen Bericht lautet wie folgt (idem, Israelitische und jdische 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 Macca-
bees is based upon sources, which must have originated even closer to the
events, we may now approach the question of the books 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 presump-
tion 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 de-
scribes. However, the presumption also derived from three apparent errors.
One is the psychological fallacy that leads us to think that if one book is ac-
curate, the other is not; this type of thinking has misled other aspects of the
study of 12 Maccabees as well.84 Then there is the widespread opinion that
2 Maccabees was composed several decades later than we suggested; see
82 We find details about this only in 2 Maccabees, a book that often turns out to be un-
trustworthy in those passages where we can check it and therefore deserves mistrust
even where we cant check it. Its report is as follows.
83 We find details about this only in 2 Maccabees. Its report is as follows.
84 Compare the notion that if 1 Maccabees is Sadducean, 2 Maccabees must be Phari-
saic; see our NOTE on 12:43, resurrection.
III. Historical Worth and Leading Ideas 39
above, pp. 1115. 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 be-
holden 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 books 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 three-
volume history of the Greek and Macedonian states), published first in a
respected philological journal (Hermes), then as a separate volume a de-
tailed monograph, Kritik der beiden Makkaberbcher, of which the bot-
tom 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 Nieses 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, Nieses 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. Bevans The House of Seleucus (1902) emphasized the import-
ance of Nieses work and frequently depended on 2 Maccabees, and in the
same year an article by Emil Schrer, 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 cam-
paign(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 sug-
gested 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 com-
plaint 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 nave willingness to unswervingly follow 1 Mac-

cabees, and that same year Julius Wellhausen published a detailed mono-
graph reviewing each episode of our book and evaluating its historical
worth. While his conclusions are mixed, they were so positive as to en-
gender 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 Meyers comment, as early as 1921, that at least 2 Mac-
cabees 36 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 in-
volved, 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. Bickermans Institu-
tions des Sleucides,87 and an article by A. Wilhelm (Zu einigen Stellen
der Bcher der Makkaber88). The first two made extensive use of 2 Mac-
cabees and integrated it into the growing corpus of evidence for the period,
while the third was devoted to resolving problems in 2 Maccabees by in-
terpreting 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
books claim (in Chapters 910, contrary to 1 Macc 46) that Antiochus IV
died prior to the rededication of the Temple, and Habicht showed that
86 Works quoted in this paragraph: Bevan, House of Seleucus, esp. 2.168, n. 2 and
298299; Schrer, Zu 2Mcc 6,7; Procksch, Der Friede des Lysias; Elhorst, Die
beiden Makkaberbcher, 367368; Wellhausen, Wert; Meyer, Ursprung, 2.144,
n. 2. For some Jewish opposition to the new trend, due in part to the fact that 2 Mac-
cabees ignores Mattathias, who is the main figure of the story in Jewish liturgy, see
Abrahams, Niese, esp. 515519, also his article on the Books of Maccabees in Jew-
ish Encyclopedia 8 (1905) 243. For a review of opinion a generation after Niese, see
Ettelson, Integrity, 376380.
87 The title page of this volume gives the authors name as Bikerman, just as his publi-
cations in German give it as Bickermann. For convenience I have used Bickerman
throughout the present volume.
88 Wilhelm made reference to our book in several other studies as well; see our bibli-
ography.
Greek epigraphical evidence confirms our books 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 books report of the founding of a
polis in Jerusalem (4:715) is just what would have been expected.90 Fin-
ally, 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 chrono-
logy of Antiochus IVs death, which relates to a cardinal element of the
story told by 12 Maccabees, was a major nail in the coffin of the presump-
tion 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 tran-
spired, 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 kings syngenes, was the holder of an aulic title
(2 Macc 11:1), not a member of the kings family as he is termed in 1 Mac-
cabees 3:32; see NOTE on 11:1, kinsman.
89 See, respectively, Sachs & Wiseman, A Babylonian King-List and our NOTE on
13:24, Hegemonides.
90 See Ameling, Jerusalem; Kennell, New Light; and our Appendix 2.
91 See Cotton and Wrrle, Seleukos IV to Heliodoros and the end of our opening
COMMENT on Chapter 3.
92 And the point more recently received further confirmation from other cuneiform evi-
dence 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 (10:1213) and Hegemonides

(13:24) none of whom is mentioned in 1 Maccabees were all high Seleu-
cid 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, gen-
erally accepted today as authentic, that provide the foundation for all we
know about negotiations between the Jews and the Seleucids in 164163
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 Se-
leucids 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 Wellhausens original formu-
lation 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 mini-
mal attention from the dynastic historian who produced 1 Maccabees: he
had no interest in dealing with high priests who had preceded the Hasmon-
eans 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 (35) to the pre-Has-
monean period, and the years that saw the rise of the books 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
Bickermans Gott der Makkaber,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 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).
94 See Bickerman, Gott and Studies, 2.159191 (appeared originally in AIPHOS 7
[19391944] 540); and Tcherikover, HC, 175203 (ch. 5; began as a Hebrew article
in 1953/54; see p. 255, n. 7).
95 Immediately upon publication of Bickermans Gott der Makkaber I. Heinemann
picked out this issue as the heart of the matter; see his Wer veranlate den Glau-
They deal primarily with 2 Maccabees 35, 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. Ken-
nell on the one hand and H. M. Cotton and M. Wrrle 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 his-
tory, 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, re-
cent decades have seen a general flowering of scholarship literary and ar-
chaeological concerning Jewish Hellenism, and with it came the collapse of
the earlier notion that Hellenistic Judaism was an exclusively diasporan phe-
benszwang der Makkaberzeit? On this and other responses to Bickermans 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 Ju-
dentum im Werk deutscher Althistoriker des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts (Leiden: Brill,
1988) 241244.
96 Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, esp. 267309; Bringmann, Hellenistische Reform,
6696; Millar, Background; Doran, Jasons Gymnasium and High Cost;
Hyldahl, The Maccabean Rebellion; Stern, Antioch in Jerusalem; Parente,
< <; Cohen, The Antiochenes; Keel, Kultischen
Massnahmen; Ameling, Jerusalem and Kennell, New Light; and Cotton &
Wrrle, Seleukos IV to Heliodoros.
97 It is of course usual since Geiger (Urschrift, 206219) to view 1 Maccabees as pro-
Hasmonean propaganda. Nevertheless, this really took hold only with Niese, and it is
in fact only recently that far-reaching conclusions have been drawn from this, such as:
a willingness to view its claim that Jews themselves initiated radical Hellenization,
even to the point of abrogating circumcision (1 Macc 1:1115), as pro-Hasmonean
propaganda aimed against internal opponents (Hyldahl, The Maccabean Rebel-
lion, 193194 in the wake of Bringmann, Reform, 146); the suggestions that stories
have been transferred from Judas Maccabaeus, or even from John Hyrcanus, back to
Mattathias, in order to lend legitimacy to the entire line via its founder (Schunck,
Quellen, 62); and the suggestion that Judas served as high priest (VanderKam,
People and High Priesthood, 219221 although he doesnt specifically claim that
it was repressed as part of an effort to let Simons line shine all the more; cf. our
NOTE on 14:13, and install Alcimus as the high priest). On 1 Maccabees as pro-Has-
monean propaganda and not especially reliable insofar as that affected its story, see
S. Schwartz, Israel, and N. Martola, Capture and Liberation (bo: bo Akademi,
1984).
44 Introduction
nomenon.98 With the publication of such seminal works as Liebermans Hel-

lenism in Jewish Palestine (1950), Smiths Palestinian Judaism in the First
Century (1956), Hengels Judentum und Hellenismus (1969; English
1974), and Sterns Judaism and Hellenism (1989) it became a common-
place that the Jews of Palestine too underwent a process of Hellenization
early on; recent volumes by Levine and edited by Collins and Sterling only
reinforce that conclusion, whatever the debates about dating, scope and in-
tensity.99 But this recognition qualifies the a priori doubts about the great
cultural gap that separated the author of our book from the events he de-
scribes, just as it encourages us to accept our books claim that Hellenizing
Jews played a major role in the events that preceded Antiochus decrees and
the Hasmonean revolt.
In short, it is not at all surprising, but rather quite natural, that 2 Mac-
cabees stands today, alongside 1 Maccabees, as a firm foundation for the
construction of the history of the period with which it deals. While 1 Mac-
cabees remains the primary source for the battles, 2 Maccabees is the main
source not only for the Hellenistic world in which the story played itself out,
but also for the Jewish world within which that happened the world
which the author of 1 Maccabees, for readily understandable reasons, had
to portray in a way that was monochromic and only background for his
own heroes.
98 As a salient sign of the times, note that the division of ancient Jewish literature be-
tween Hellenistic and Palestinian in the original German editions of Schrers
Geschichte was replaced by one based on language of composition in the new History
(vol. 3/12, 19861987); see Schwartz, From the Maccabees, 3031. Note also, in
this connection, the evidence for a good deal of Hellenization of the Hasmoneans
themselves; see inter alia Rappaport, Hellenization of the Hasmoneans; Rajak,
The Hasmoneans and the Uses of Hellenism in eadem, Jewish Dialogue, 6180;
Baumgarten, The Hellenization of the Hasmonean State, in: Amit & Eshel, Has-
monean Period, 7784 and D. Mendels, The Hasmonean State in the Ancient
World, ibid., 8592 (both in Hebrew); Levine, Judaism and Hellenism, 3946. This
too tends to close the gap between their world and that of 2 Maccabees. On Hellen-
ization in 1 Maccabees, see Gera, Battle of Beth Zachariah.
99 Levine, Judaism and Hellenism; Collins & Sterling, Hellenism in the Land of Israel.
As for the debates, see inter alia Millar, Background; Rajak, Jewish Dialogue,
310; L. H. Feldman, Hengels Judaism and Hellenism in Retrospect, JBL 96
(1977) 371382; idem, How Much Hellenism in Jewish Palestine?, HUCA 57
(1986) 83111.
2. 2 Maccabees as a Witness to Its Authors World
2 Maccabees is a diasporan book.100 It is based upon a work written by

Jason of Cyrene, a Jew of the Hellenstic diaspora, and it is very similar to
some works which have clear roots in Alexandrian Judaism: first of all
3 Maccabees, but also the Letter of Aristeas and Philos historical works
the Embassy to Gaius and Against Flaccus. Scores of entries in Hatch and
Redpaths A Concordance to the Septuagint have references to 2 Maccabees
and 3 Maccabees alone, and similarly impressive lists may be composed of
words in common with Pseudo-Aristeas and Philos works too.101
The fact that a book is diasporan can express itself in a number of ways.
Ideally, we should distinguish between that which is characteristic of Jewish
diasporan historiography in general and that which characterizes Jews of
the Hellenistic diaspora in particular.102
100 Van Henten begins his two-sentence discussion of this issue just as roundly, saying the
opposite: It is obvious that 2 Maccabees is of Judaean origin (Maccabean Martyrs,
50). But as is evident from the second sentence (This becomes apparent through the
examination of various texts, most notably from the content of the history of liber-
ation and the headings of the festal letters [1:10, 10]), this (repeated in his 2 Mac-
cabees as a History of Liberation, 83) is only a formal statement about the book as it
is now: formally, it is two Judaean letters with an attachment. Our present dis-
cussion applies to the latter, i.e., the body of the book Chs. 315. As for where in the
Diaspora it originated, I would guess Alexandria, but no more than that; see below,
p. 52, n. 120. I should of course note that it is possible that the diasporan writer of
our book wrote it in Palestine; just as Paul, of Cilician Tarsus, could spend time in
Jerusalem, so could our writer. Maybe he even lived there. What matters in this con-
text is not his location but, rather, his religious, political and cultural orientation
which, as I will argue, are those typical of Jews of the Hellenistic diaspora.
101 For such lists, see Koppidakes, Third Maccabees and Aeschylus, 2434. As for the vo-
cabulary our book shares with 3 Maccabees, see below, n. 201.
102 There seems to be surprisingly little scholarly discussion of the category diasporan his-
toriography in connection with ancient Jewish historiography, although the observa-
tions made by scholars on various diasporan books frequently point in the same direc-
tion. For some comments on the category with regard to Jewish Hellenistic literature see
Jossa, La storiografia giudeo-ellenistica and my From the Maccabees. In this field
much comparative work would be useful, both concerning Jewish diasporan works from
other places and times and non-Jewish diasporas as well. As a start on the former, I
would note that anyone who reads Joseph of Rosheim, Historical Writings (ed. H. Fraen-
kel-Goldschmidt; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1996 [in Hebrew]), will find, in these sixteenth-
century Jewish writings full of narratives about Jewish informers, martyrs, Gentile kings
and neighbors, and Gods providence, a world very reminiscent of that of our book; see
for example p. 47 of Fraenkel-Goldschmidts introduction. See also below, n. 113.
46 Introduction
From all Jewish diasporan historiography we would expect a religious

and political orientation that is suitable for Jews who do not live in their
own land. To begin with religion, in our case we find, first of all, that our
author is pedantically emphatic about the people being more important
than the Temple (5:19); this is precisely what we would expect from some-
one who is very aware of the fact that the Temple exists only in one land,
while the Jews are all over.103 Indeed, he has little interest in the Temple per
se and in the sacrificial cult characteristic of it a type of worship in which
diasporan Jews can only rarely participate.104 This point is particularly ap-
parent in the comparison between 2 Maccabees 5:16 (holy vessels) and
the detailed list in 1 Maccabees 1:2123, as also in that between 8:1420
and the Temple-centered detail in 1 Maccabees 3:4354.105 Similarly, note
that while both 1 Maccabees 5:54 and 2 Maccabees 12:3132 report that
Judas troops take a break in Jerusalem in the midst of a campaign, only the
former has them visiting the Temple and bringing sacrifices. Again, note
that when our author does have his heroes offer sacrifices, he characterizes
them as a subset of the larger and more basic category of prayer (3:31
and 12:44), which was available to him too, in the Diaspora, and that when
his story leads him to focus on the Temple vessels he characterizes those
concerned about them as those who had spoken for the city and the popu-
lace and the holy vessels (4:48), thus putting them into what he considers
103 The tension between this authorial statement, on the one hand, and the Heliodorus
story in Ch. 3, which plays up the importance of the Temple, Gods special protection
of it, and the efficacy of sacrifice (v. 32), joins other considerations arguing that our
author did not himself compose that story.
104 I realize that this is a surprising claim, given the story our book tells. It is more usual
to characterize our book the way Doran did in the title of his wonderful monograph
about it: Temple Propaganda; Lichtenbergers statement that Der Tempel von Jeru-
salem, seine Bedrohung, Entweihung und die festliche Begehung seiner Wiedereinwei-
hung sind das zentrale Thema von der ersten bis zur letzten Seite des Buches
(Gottes Nhe, 136) is another quite representative of literature on our book. Of
course there is something to this, but I believe it reflects, to a large degree, too easy a
slide from city to Temple. In the next few paragraphs I will indicate why I believe that
the book shows a relative lack of interest in the Temple and its cult and a preference
for types of worship available equally to diasporan Jews. Accordingly it seems that
even when the book does deal with the Temple, it treats it more as an element of the
Jewish polis, Jerusalem, than as the Jews cultic center.
105 And note that while 1 Macc 3:5859 characterizes the enemy as coming to wipe out
(7) us and our Temple, our book summarizes their goal as to wipe out
(7) the entire nation of Judaea (8:9) just the shift in emphasis that the above-
mentioned 5:19 would lead us to expect.
their proper context; for a similar case see 13:11, 14, where the Jews fear
that they would be deprived of the Law, fatherland, and holy Temple and
therefore Judas encourages his men to fight for laws, temple, city, father-
land, [and] constitution. Accordingly, we are not surprised to find that the
competition between the Temple of Jerusalem and that at Mt. Gerizim does
not exercise our author: he views the Samaritans as part of the same Jewish
people (5:2223) and according to what seems to be the original ver-
sion of his text (see Appendix 4) mourns the attack on their temple on Mt.
Gerizim in parallel to his mourning over similar events in Jerusalem (6:2).
His attitude probably was similar to the indifference expressed in
John 4:2124, although without the polemics and without the eschatology.
Rather than being enthused about any terrestrial House of God, our
author prefers God to be the God of Heaven, hence equally accessible all
over: 2:21; 3:15, 20, 34, 39; 8:20; 9:4, 20; 10:29; 11:10; 14:34; 15:34, 8,
21, 23, 34.106 But his insistence that God is in heaven does not make Him
far from His covenantal partners, the Jews, for His providence is empha-
sized again and again in virtually all of the just-mentioned passages, as
well as others (see NOTE on 3:39, watches over). His providence is also ex-
pressed in the way He presides over history, a point that is documented
both by impressive apparitions (see NOTE on 2:21, heavenly apparitions)
and more subtly by the way things happen in symmetric ways that, as
believers know, cannot be mere coincidence. This is particularly the case
concerning the way villains get their just deserts, with the punishment fit-
ting the crime tit for tat, most spectacularly at 5:9; 8:25; 9:56, 28; and at
13:38 (see also NOTE on 4:16, those for whose ways they were enthusi-
astic), but it is so in other ways as well; note, for example, 10:5, which
points out that the date of Hanukkah was no coincidence at all, and
12:4041, which points out that those individuals who died in battle had all
been sinners, not just unlucky. The story, in short, is one of sin that leads to
appropriate punishment and suffering but the punishment and the suffer-
ing come within the framework of a covenant and are meant to chasten and
edify (), not to destroy, as the author (6:12) and the seventh son
(7:33) pedantically remind us.107 Thus, the suffering, which culminates in
the martyrdom of the faithful, ultimately arouses Gods mercy and thus
106 For the diasporan nature of this preference it is enough to cite, beyond the logic of the
matter, the simple point that a glance in a concordance of the Hebrew Bible will show
that God of Heaven is found almost exclusively in literature of the Persian period
Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Aramaic part of Daniel (as also in Judith and in the Elephan-
tine papyri). See Schwartz, Studies, 7 and Wo wohnt Gott?.
107 On this complex of ideas, see above, pp. 2122.
48 Introduction
catalyzes redemption; see especially the whole turning point of the book at
8:5, which reaps the fruits of Chapters 67. This is a message that works
wonderfully for the Jews of the diaspora, and indeed the focus on martyr-
dom is typically diasporan, as a comparative glance at 1 Maccabees, which
has no patience for them since its context has room for Jewish soldiers,
makes abundantly clear (see below, p. 50).
But if God is in heaven, and providentially rules the world in general and
the Jews in particular, then He may be worshipped from anywhere, via
prayers. Indeed, there are numerous prayers in our book (3:15, 18, 20, 22,
30, 31; 5:4; 7:37; 8:24, 1415, 29; 10:4, 7, 16, 2526, 38; 11:6; 12:6, 15,
28, 36, 4142, 44; 13:1012; 14:15, 3436, 46; 15:2124, 2627, 29,
34)108 and only two Jewish sacrifices (3:32; 12:43), and, as we have noted,
both of the latter are even made to seem as if they are types of the main cat-
egory: prayer.109 This too is especially conspicuous in comparison to 1 Mac-
cabees.110
Finally, it is important for our diasporan author to emphasize that Gods
power is recognized not only by Jews, but also by Gentiles, especially their
notables, who after learning the lesson the hard way time and again are
made to go and proclaim the Jewish God (3:3639; 8:36; 9:1217; 11:13).
This concern that Gentiles too evince respect for the Jewish God is, of
course, part and parcel of the diasporan disposition.
As for politics, our diasporan author insists repeatedly that Gentiles
and their rulers respect the Jews and Judaism and are benevolent toward
them (3:13; 4:6, 35, 49; 12:3031).111 Why not? After all, as Shylock
would say, we are all men.112 And as for the Jews, all they want to do is
keep the peace (4:6; 12:12). Indeed, with both sides so right-minded and
the system so perfect, any disruptions must be due either to misunder-
standings or to the misdeeds of bad apples on one or both of the two
sides minor officials or advisors on the Seleucid side (4:34, 45; 12:2;
108 On prayer in our book see esp. Lichtenberger, Gottes Nhe, 139149.
109 See NOTE on 3:31, call upon. An exception in this regard is our books interest in vo-
tive offerings to the Temple by non-Jewish kings (3:23; 5:16; 9:16; and 13:23)
which interest him as expressions of non-Jewish respect for Jews, our next topic.
110 Where, after Ch. 5, we find only a very few brief, and pale, prayers or references
to prayer. See below, pp. 6364, n. 154. True, neither do we find many sacrifices
there; but see above on the contrasts between 2 Macc 5:16 and 1 Macc 1:2123; be-
tween 2 Macc 8:1420 and 1 Macc 3:4354; and between 2 Macc 12:3132 and
1 Macc 5:54.
111 On this theme, see also Weitzman, Surviving Sacrilege, 4146.
112 See NOTE on 4:35, of the man.
13:11) or self-seeking apostates and troublemakers on the Jewish side

(3:45; 4:7, 25; 14:3). These glitches, although they do make for interest-
ing stories, and sometimes for tragedies, are not truly representative of
either side; if the king hears that the Jews have rebelled, this is only a mis-
taken inference (5:11) from infighting between two villains. Thus, for
example, when one of our villains suborned one of their villains to murder
our hero in Antioch, this could only happen because the king was absent
from the scene;113 the Gentiles and Greeks of the city are just as upset
about it as the Jews; and the king when he returns to the city and dis-
covers what had happened is enraged and immediately sees to the de-
monstrative punishment of the murderer (4:3238). All of this, of course,
contrasts with 1 Maccabees, which begins with nine verses explaining that
all Gentile kings are arrogant and wicked (and summarizes the century
and a half of Hellenistic kings between Alexander and Antiochus as having
multiplied wickedness in the world v. 9), which needs no explanation
for Gentiles hating and attacking Jews other than that they are Gentiles
(who attack the Jews because they are successful [5:1], because they are
defenseless [12:53], or simply out of hatred [13:6]), and which assumes
that Gentiles promises are not meant to be kept (see esp. 7:10, 27, in
contrast to 2 Macc 14:1825).114
In this connection, it is important to emphasize that, correspondingly,
our author speaks, for the most part, only of individual Jewish villains. If
1 Maccabees speaks of Jewish parties, of many on the other side (1:11,
43, 52; 2:16; 9:23, 69; see also 6:21; 7:5, 22; 9:58; 10:14, 61; 11:25),
2 Maccabees speaks of Simon, Jason, Menelaus, Lysimachus, Auranus,
and Alcimus. The contrast is especially salient between 1 Maccabees 7:5,
where Alcimus leads a delegation of all the lawless and impious men of Is-
rael to complain to Demetrius I about Judas and his brothers, and our
113 Compare Shevet Yehudah, Ch. 60, a sixteenth-century work of diasporan histori-
ography, which asserts the king of Portugal was a gracious king so of course the
Lisbon massacre of 1506 could take place only in his absence; see Yerushalmi, Lisbon
Massacre, 61. For another example, note that Azariah de Rossi, a sixteenth-century
Italian Jewish writer, has a section (Imrei Binah, Ch. 55) entitled That the Jews, Ac-
cording to the Prophets and Ancestral Custom, Always Pray for the Peace of Their
Kings , and that in this context he cites our Heliodorus story, from Josippon (ed.
Flusser, 6162; see below, p. 90) a version which has Onias refer to Jewish prayers
for the king; see Azariah deRossi, Selected Chapters from Sefer Meor Einayim and
Matsref la-Kessef (ed. R. Bonfil; Jerusalem: Bialik, 1991) 365373, esp. 367 (in He-
brew).
114 See also 1 Macc 1:30, 6:62, 7:18 (!), 11:53, and 15:27, along with Schwartz, The
Other.
50 Introduction
14:3, where Alcimus goes alone and out of his own self-interest. True, even
our book occasionally reveals that the Jewish villains were not just a few
isolated individuals; see 4:3 (Simons men), 40 (3000 supporting Lysim-
achus) and 10:15. But these cases are exceptional. In general our author
tries to hide the divisiveness within his own community; diasporan minor-
ities are not fond of displaying their dirty laundry in public. The author of
1 Maccabees, in contrast, has no problem with the notion of rifts and par-
ties among the Jews, provided that his readers understand that the party he
represents is the best one. Anyone who is familiar with the differences be-
tween Israeli newspapers, on the one hand, and diasporan Jewish news-
papers in the vernacular, on the other, will recognize this contrast between
the two books.
Another expression of diaspora-ism in 2 Maccabees is the behavior of
the main heroes of the book: they are willing to die, not necessarily to fight
(and even when they do fight, they are of course willing to die 8:21;
13:14); see NOTE on 7:2, ready to die. Martyrs, rather than soldiers, are
the real heroes of the book, and the long central section of the book, Chap-
ters 67, dedicated to martyrs, provides the turning point; after those scenes,
and because of the blood of those martyrs (7:38; 8:34), everything changes.
These stories, moreover, are said to be paradigmatic for the youth (6:2428,
31), a point demonstrated by Chapter 7. Contrast 1 Maccabees, which de-
votes only a few verses to martyrs, at the end of Chapter 1, where they
are not part of the solution but only exemplify the problem; they serve as
foils for those who bring the real solution, beginning at the outset of Chap-
ter 2 the Hasmonean rebels. As if to underline that point, 1 Macc 2:2941
immediately proceeds to depict the Hasmonean decision to fight in self-
defense even on the Sabbath, for the alternative taken by some other nave
foils would be simply to die. For 2 Maccabees, martyrs do not simply die;
they die effectively. That is the best Jews of the Diaspora can do, and it is
worthy of respect.
The author of 2 Maccabees was not, however, a generic diasporan Jew.
He was specifically from a Hellenistic diaspora, and this too had its impli-
cations. First, we note the prominence of the city.115 As we noted above
(pp. 67), the book focuses upon the city of Jerusalem, from the opening of
the story (3:1) to its end (15:37); this is the basic category it uses to tell its
story. Accordingly, the usual term for a Jew, when mentioned in conjunction
with other Jews, is , just as our author uses invents? the term
115 This topic was especially developed by Renaud, Loi et lois, 5864. See also
Schwartz, Temple or City?
(lover of his fellow-citizens) to describe a particularly out-

standing man (14:37). Such usage of was very usual among the
Jews of Egypt,116 just as one could speak of the
B ,117 which paralleled the of Greek cities, in
Egypt as elsewhere. Jewish law was, thus, conceived of as parallel to the
laws of a Greek city, just as a whole complex of terms contrasted the civi-
lized life of the city with the barbarian and animal-like life of those who
would persecute the Jews.118 The books urbanity is also well-expressed
in some of the restrained phrasing it employs, such as its assertion that
the murder of Onias was unreasonable (4:36) and that the defenders of
Kaspin behaved quite uncouthly toward Judas men (12:14).
Greek impact on 2 Maccabees is also readily apparent in its assessment
of individuals and their qualities; it is full of terms that are quite foreign to
biblical usage and, indeed, frequently quite difficult to render into Hebrew.
Its heroes are noble and display their manly virtue; their behavior is
worthy of their virtues and even of their beauty and their age; martyrs are
paradigms for youth, etc.119 As for literary motifs, see below, pp. 6566.
At this point, having recognized the diasporan nature of 2 Maccabees, we

must emphasize despite what we said in the first half of this section about
the historical worth of 2 Maccabees that it behooves us to take special
care with regard to that part of the book where it serves as the main wit-
ness. As we have emphasized, Chapters 45 are of great importance, and
virtually alone bear witness to institutionalized Hellenization in Jerusalem
in the years preceding Antiochus decrees and the Hasmonean revolt. But it
is striking that Hellenism in Jerusalem, Antioch in Jerusalem, as por-
trayed in our book, is very similar to what we may imagine to have been the
Sitz im Leben of our books author himself: Jewish life in a Greek polis
under the rule of a Greek king. Indeed, as a Jew living in the Hellenistic
world the author should not have seen any problem, from a Jewish point
of view, in the notion of Jerusalem turning into a Greek polis. Rather, he
would have portrayed such a situation in the image of his own: just as the
116 See Let. Arist. 3, 36, 44, 126; 3 Macc 1:22; Philo, Leg. 211, etc.; Lderitz, Polite-
uma, 194195; Cowey & Maresch, Urkunden, 2223.
117 Compare CPJ 1, no. 128, l. 2 to no. 19, lines 4344, and see Tcherikover, ibid., 238
and Mlze, Jews of Egypt, 107112.
118 See NOTE on 14:30, coarser and, for example, on 14:14, in droves.
119 See NOTES on 6:28, noble nobly; on 8:7, And the fame of his manly valor spread
everywhere; and the last few NOTES on Ch. 6 In general, see esp. Himmelfarb,
Judaism and Hellenism.
52 Introduction
Jews of Alexandria,120 for example, could prefer to see no contradiction be-

tween their being Jews and their being Hellenized, and could participate in
the life of the city despite their being Jews and within the limits that im-
posed,121 so too the Jews of Antioch in Jerusalem (4:1820); just as the
Jews of Alexandria preserved the sanctity of Jewish law and institutions, so
too the Jews of Jerusalem (4:3942); just as Alexandria sent observers to
festivals held by other cities,122 and delegates as needed to the kings, so too
the Jews of Antioch in Jerusalem (4:18); just as the Jews of Alexandria had,
alongside the citys institutions, their own council of elders (Philo, In Flac-
cum 74123), so too the Jews of Jerusalem (4:44); and so on. Thus, the Jews
of Antioch in Jerusalem are said to have lived comfortably and fully in both
worlds the Greek world and the Jewish one just as comfortably as the
Jews of Alexandria did, or would have liked to. It is difficult, therefore, to
know how much of this picture is true and how much of it is a projection of
120 For a reasonable example, given the fact that much of Jewish Hellenistic literature
originated there, given the ease with which so much of our books usage is illustrated
by Egyptian evidence (see esp. NOTES on 14:3, in the times of strife, on 15:7, that as-
sistance would be made available; and on 3:3, Asia; also Appendix 5). But perhaps
our author came from elsewhere, just as Jason himself came from Cyrene (another
part of the Ptolemaic kingdom). Zeitlin (2 Macc, 19) argued that the book originated
in Antioch, but apart from the appearance of Hebrews at 7:31 and 15:37, which
(despite the fact that it appears more often in 4 Maccabees, for which an Antiochan
origin has been posited) proves nothing, his only argument is from the Antiochan
connections of the martyrdom story which too proves nothing, given the fact that
Ch. 7 had a life of its own (see above, n. 50). Moreover, there is little room for any
confidence about 4 Maccabees being of Antiochan origin; see the discussions by
H. Anderson, in OTP 2.534537 (leaves issue open) and van Henten, Maccabean
Martyrs, 7881 (argues for provenance in Asia Minor). Similarly, but in an even
weaker chain of arguments, Spicq although convinced that the Epistle to the He-
brews was written by an Alexandrian Jew suggested that it was addressed to the
Christian community of Antioch, and that this would explain Heb 11:3538s refer-
ence to the Maccabean martyrs and other similarities between Hebrews and 12 Mac-
cabees (cf. below, p. 88); see C. Spicq, Lptre aux Hbreux, I (Paris: Gabalda, 1952)
209210, 250252. But in fact there is little room for any confidence about that
identification and location of the letters addressees; see E. Grer, Aufbruch und Ver-
heiung: Gesammelte Aufstze zum Hebrerbrief (Beihefte zur ZNW 65; Berlin &
New York: De Gruyter, 1992) 1014 (on p. 14 this survey mentions a number of poss-
ible locations and Antioch isnt even mentioned). On the diasporan origin of 2 Mac-
cabees, see also above, p. 45, n. 100.
121 See Mlze, How to be a Jew?, esp. 7785.
122 See Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 1.170.
123 See NOTE on 14:37, one of the elders of Jerusalem.
how the author thought things ought to be.124 Indeed, in the absence of ad-
ditional source-material testifying directly to a Jerusalem polis, such as the
coins or inscriptions that are regularly available for other Hellenistic cities,
we cannot even be sure that a polis was founded in Jerusalem.125 True, it
does seem clear, today even more than earlier (see Appendix 2), that our
author was of the opinion that one had in fact been founded, but direct
confirmation that he was right about this would still be very welcome.126
So, while as a narrative our books account may stand as testimony to what
its author thought should be the proper relationship between Judaism and
Hellenism and between Jews and their Gentile rulers, for that very reason
its status as historical witness to Jerusalem is somewhat suspect.127
The clarification of the diasporan nature of our book also allows us to
evaluate better one of the more prominent differences between it and its Ju-
daean parallel 1 Maccabees: its version of the etiology of Antiochus
persecution of Judaism. As we have noted, our diasporan author preferred
to present the decrees against Judaism as the result of a misunderstanding:
Antiochus inferred, mistakenly, that the Jews had revolted against him
(5:11). Similarly, our diasporan author preferred to make the turnabout,
and the Jewish victories, depend upon the blood of martyrs; he recounts
their deaths at great length. All of this contrasts with 1 Maccabees, which
did not need to offer any explanation for the decrees since Antiochus was a
124 Thus, for example, when Tcherikover (Hellenistic Civilization, 166167) adduces
2 Macc 4:1820 as evidence that citizenship in Antioch-in-Jerusalem did not require
violation of Jewish law (Scholars see in this strange behavior of the Antiochenes a
contradiction to their new status as citizens of a Greek city; but there was here no
such contradiction, for Jasons reform was not a religious one, and no law bound the
citizens of Antioch-at-Jerusalem to make sacrifices to the gods), we must wonder
whether that was the case in Jerusalem or, rather, in Alexandria or what the author
wanted the case to be there.
125 For coins of Antiochus IV thought to have been minted in Jerusalem ca. 167164
BCE, see Barag, Mint of Antiochus IV. But they do not name the minting authority,
and seem to be a royal initiative.
126 Here I would take issue with Kennell, who wrote that Thanks to the Tyriaion in-
scription, no reasonable doubt remains that Jasons intention was to transform Jeru-
salem into a polis along Greek lines (New Light, 23); a more accurate summary of
that inscriptions important contribution (shown so ably by Kennell, as also by Amel-
ing [Jerusalem]) would be achieved by adding three words before Jasons inten-
tion: 2 Maccabees means.
127 Just as we suspect that our authors account of Antiochus persecution of the Jews,
and of Nicanors threat at 14:33, is colored by what a resident of the Ptolemaic king-
dom would expect; see Appendix 5.
54 Introduction
Hellenistic king, all of whom were by definition wicked, and which ex-
plained the victories as having come about by virtue of Hasmonean hero-
ism. As we have noted, it is obvious that the brief references to martyrs, at
the end of 1 Maccabees 1, are meant only to highlight the differing program
of the Hasmoneans, who are presented immediately thereafter (2:1ff.).
In addressing this contrast between the two books, it is easy to admit
that, on the one hand, 1 Maccabees is a court history and its narrative of
these central events is meant to serve the Hasmonean dynasty, proving to all
just how bad the Seleucid rulers who preceded them had been and how the
means by which the Hasmoneans opposed the Seleucids were the only ones
that produced results; all other Jews were either wicked or nave. But just as
above we warned against the false contrasting of these two books, so too
here must we stress that the fact that 1 Maccabees had such an axe to grind
does not mean that 2 Maccabees is any more reliable. The fact is that the
claim that only mistakes and misunderstandings can explain how Jews get
into trouble with their rulers is a common and indeed almost a necessary
claim for diasporan historiography, for the alternative that there is some-
thing real and fundamental that militates against peaceful co-existence
under non-Jewish rule is intolerable. Thus, for two examples, note that
3 Maccabees 1 claims that Ptolemy IV became wrathful toward the Jews
only because he failed to understand that their refusal to let him enter the
Holy of Holies of the Temple of Jerusalem was not out of hostility toward
him, as they too were excluded from it; similarly, the Babylonian Talmud
claims that the war that brought about the destruction of the Second
Temple began because Nero was told that the Jews had refused to offer a
sacrifice that he had sent, but was not told that the refusal did not bespeak
rebellion but was merely due to the fact that the animal had been mutilated
by a troublemaker.128 Here then as well we must ask: Must we really believe
that no Judaeans rebelled against Antiochus IV Epiphanes upon hearing of
his troubles in Egypt? Must we really believe that the rumors of Judaean re-
bellion that reached Antiochus had been false but the Jews of Jerusalem
were for some reason incapable of making that clear to the king upon his ar-
rival at the city? On the contrary, it seems as Tcherikover argued (see
NOTE on 5:7, coming to a shameful end) that in fact a rebellion was
underway, and that hints of this may be discovered in 2 Maccabees 5 despite
128 BT Gittin 55b-56a. Josephus, of course, tells a similar story in War 2.411417, but
there the refusal of the sacrifice was a matter of principle. For Josephus writing the
War according to Judaean notions and learning to write diasporan history by the time
he produced the Antiquities, see my Studies, 2934 and From the Maccabees,
3240.
our authors attempt to cover it up. Similarly, we must ask if it is really clear
that the martyrdom stories of 2 Maccabees belong where they are found. In
fact, it instead seems these are floating stories which can easily move
from one context to another, and we have already seen (pp. 1920) that they
were not originally part of Jasons work. Were all of the material from 6:18
to the end of Chapter 7 to be absent, no one would miss it, just as is the case
with the Razis story too (14:3746); indeed, in both cases the story would
have been smoother. But the desire to laud Jews willing to suffer and even to
die for their faith is just as much part of standard diasporan historiography
as is the motif of the pious king (see above, n. 113 and p. 50).
To put matters more broadly: 2 Maccabees is a diasporan work dedi-
cated to describing affairs in Judaea, affairs which lay in the background of
the formation of a sovereign Jewish state there. It certainly gives us a good
opportunity to look into the world of Hellenistic Jews, reflecting something
of their diasporan experience and something of their Hellenistic experience.
But as for the Palestinian events that it describes, respect and suspicion must
go hand in hand. Respect, for the book preserves valuable material unpar-
alleled elsewhere material which at many points has been corroborated by
other finds; suspicion, because most of those points are of secondary im-
portance to the greater story one that 2 Maccabees tells from the point of
view of diasporan Jews, who lived in circumstances very different from
those who lived the story and played it out. That is, the diasporan nature of
our book may be seen not only in what it does not offer, such as details
about the geography and topography of Palestine, but also in what it does
offer, and in each case we must consider whether its content reflects only its
own world or, rather, also the world it claims to describe. In the nature of
things, it is not always possible to answer that question with any great se-
curity.
To summarize this chapter, we may note simply that the Hasmonean revolt,
and its antecedents, are known to us via two main sources, both of which
have their biases: one is dynastic and one is diasporan, one is well at home
in the Land of Israel, its ways and its population, and one is well at home in
the surrounding Hellenistic world and its culture. We need not choose be-
tween the two, nor give them marks, nor even when recognizing their
biases must we despair. No historical source comes to us devoid of biases;
with no interest, no one would write history. To have two such detailed
sources about such a short period is not only exceptionally rich by the stan-
dards of ancient history; it also allows us to use the one to correct the other.
Compare, for example, the situation regarding the first Jewish revolt
against Rome, where we have Josephus Judaean War and very little more;
56 Introduction
although we know there were other histories,129 they did not survive. Con-
cerning the second revolt, under Hadrian, we know of no whole work at all
and, apart from what archaeologists can supply, are dependent upon a few
lines here and there and a page of Cassius Dio.130 For the Hasmonean re-
bellion we have two whole books, written within a few decades of the event,
and there is every reason for confidence that, within the limits imposed by
the distance of more than two millennia, careful evaluation of them can
allow for a responsible reconstruction of what really happened.
129 See Josephus, War 1.18 and Ag. Ap. 1.46; Stern, GLA 1.455457.
130 See Stern, GLA 2.393395.
IV. Between the Bible and Greek Literature 57
IV. Between the Bible and Greek Literature
Canonical Status: 2 Maccabees was transmitted as part of the Septua-

gint.131 It is, of course, no surprise that it is not part of the Jewish canon,
for the rabbis who defined that canon in the first and second centuries
would never have considered including anything obviously composed in
Greek, not to mention the fact that as opposed to Daniel it was so evi-
dently composed after the days of Alexander the Great, which they took as
a cut-off for the creation of divinely inspired writing.132 But for Christians,
who were for obvious reasons firm believers in the possibility that works
later than Alexander could be inspired, and for whom Greek was a natural
language, there were no such impediments.133 True, even among Christians
the status of Old Testament works not part of the Hebrew Bible es-
pecially those composed in Greek was somewhat problematic, and vari-
ous canon-lists leave them out or group them at the end, as an appendix.134
131 Among the uncial codices, it appears, together with 1 Maccabees, in the Alexandrinus
after the historical books and in the Venetus at the very end. It does not appear in the
Sinaiticus. For additional lists, see below, n. 134.
132 that is Alexander the Macedonian, who reigned for twelve years; until this point
prophets prophesied in the holy spirit, but from now on: lend your ear and hearken to
the words of the Sages (Seder Olam Rabba, 30 [ed. Ratner, 140]). This opinion is al-
ready reflected in 1 Macc 9:27, which alludes to the end of the era of prophets; cf.
ibid. 4:46 and 14:41, also Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.41, who alludes to the cessation of the
exact succession of the prophets in the Persian period. See E. E. Urbach, When Did
Prophecy Cease?, Tarbiz 17 (1945/46), esp. 2 (in Hebrew), and Milikovsky, The
End of Prophecy.
133 The Christian need to believe in the continuation of prophecy may, of course, have
played a role in Jewish denial thereof. See Urbach, loc. cit., 811, and, in general, on
Jewish contrariness, C. Gordon, Jewish Reaction to Christian Borrowings, in: C. L.
Meyers & M. OConnor (ed.), The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in
Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday (Winona
Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1983) 685690.
134 On the status of the apocryphal books in the early church see, in general: Beckwith,
Old Testament Canon, 386395, and Sundberg, Old Testament of the Early Church.
For Christian canon lists (from biblical manuscripts, patristic writings and records of
synods) see Sundberg, ibid., 5859; H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testa-
ment in Greek (rev. by R. R. Ottley; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 19142) 201214;
58 Introduction
Nevertheless, despite the recognition of their secondary status these books

were in practice accepted as full members of the canon. To cite some third-
fifth century evidence of this ambiguous situation:
Origen: In a formal list of Holy Scriptures (cited by Eusebius, Hist.
eccl. 6.25 [GCS 9/2, 576]) he included only twenty-two books, but then
added that apart from these there are C, which bear the
title . It is not clear whether Origen is referring to
1 Maccabees alone,135 but in any case it is said, here, that C
are outside the canon. However, one should note that Origens list is meant
to reflect the Hebrew Bible, not to claim that only those books are holy
(something which, of course, no Christian would suggest).136 Accordingly,
we should not be surprised to find that elsewhere he cites 2 Maccabees
(7:28) as proof for the belief in creatio ex nihilo and had no problem com-
menting that the belief was thus documented on the authority of the Scrip-
tures (ex scripturarum auctoritate).137
Jerome: Here too, we find a discrepancy between formal status and
actual use. On the one hand, Jerome rules that the authority of the apocry-
R. B. Cox, Jr., The Nineteenth Century British Apocrypha Controversy, (unpub-

lished PhD. dissertation, Baylor Univ., 1981) 503530. For use of the apocryphal
works in the New Testament, see Bleek, Stellung der Apokryphen. For a partial list
of citations from such works in other early Christian writings, see Cox, ibid.,
553565.
135 In which case the plural, , would be referring to the events rather than the
books of the Maccabees. Since Origens term seems to reflect a Hebrew or Aramaic
original (perhaps: sepher beit sarbanei el = book of those who rebelled [on behalf of?
against?] God), indeed it is usually assumed that it refers to 1 Maccabees alone; see,
for example, Menahem (Edmund) Stein, Dat veDaat (Cracow: Miflat, 1937/38)
116117 (in Hebrew); Goldstein, 1 Macc, 1521. However, it could be that the plural
in fact means to refer to more than one book; for the assumption that 2 Maccabees
too is meant, see Sundberg, Old Testament of the Early Church, 161162. Note, in
this connection, that in the passage from his De principiis mentioned below Origen
refers to a passage from 2 Macc as being in Machabaeorum libris. This seems to
indicate that he related to 12 Macc as parts of a larger work, comparable to Kgs
or Chr.
136 A point emphasized by Sundberg, Old Testament of the Early Church, 135138.
Sundberg shows that Origen distinguished between the Jewish corpus and the Chris-
tian Old Testament canon, the latter including some books not part of the former. See
too: R. P. C. Hanson, Origens Doctrine of Tradition (London: S.P.C.K., 1954)
133137; Hanson emphasizes Origens willingness to use such apocryphal works.
137 De principiis 2.1.5 (GCS 22, 111). Cf. Hilary of Poitiers, De Trinitate 4.16 (CCSL 62,
117): Omnia enim secundum profetam facta ex nihilo sunt. It is sometimes thought
that his reference to an unidentified prophet alludes to 2 Macc 7:28.
phal books is less than that of the books of the Hebrew canon; the former
should be read ad aedificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem Ecclesiasti-
corum dogmatum confirmandam (for the edification of the people, but
not to serve as the basis for church dogmas MPL 28, 1243). Correspond-
ingly, when preparing his Latin translations for what was to be the Vulgate,
he left out 2 Maccabees and some other apocryphal books because he did
not consider them as sacred as the others.138 Nevertheless, he uses our book
several times, quoting it as scriptura when it suits his needs (to prove
from 2 Macc 1:10 that anointed in Daniel 9:26 refers to a high priest).139
Augustine: As with his predecessors, so too with Augustine we find a
formal position excluding 2 Maccabees from the canon; indeed, we even en-
counter a polemic emphasis, as the context required, that Jesus made no ref-
erence to it at all when he referred to all of Holy Scriptures as the Torah, the
Prophets and Psalms (Luke 24:44). But in the very same context Augustine
also emphasizes that the Church had accepted the book as not without
profit, if it is read or heard soberly (si sobrie legatur vel audiatur).140
Elsewhere, moreover, he cites our book just as if it were part of the Bible.141
In this manner the Church continued handling 2 Maccabees (as other
apocryphal works) throughout the Middle Ages formally excluding it
while actually including it, as long as no one pressed the issue. During
the Reformation, however, the status of all the apocryphal books became
a major bone of contention as a corollary of the anti-Latin tendency to
give preference to Hebrew for the Old Testament and Greek for the
138 On the Latin translation of our book included in the Vulgate see De Bruyne, An-
ciennes traductions, xxxiixxxiii.
139 CCSL 75a, 870. For the contrast between strict principle and lenient praxis in Je-
romes definition of the canon and use of apocryphal books, and for their develop-
ment over time, see Skehan, St. Jerome and the Canon and J. Braverman, Jeromes
Commentary on Daniel (CBQMS 7; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association
of America, 1978) 3552.
140 CSEL 53, 237. This comes in the course of Augustines argument with Gaudentius,
who was planning suicide in demonstration of his faith and depended inter alia on the
example of Razis (2 Macc 14:3746); Augustine, here as in his Epistle 204 (CSEL 57,
320322), rejects such dependence upon our book.
141 See for example CSEL 80, 4041, where 2 Maccabees is listed, without qualification,
among the works of Holy Scripture. So too in CSEL 90, 4749, the exemplum of the
mother and her seven sons (2 Macc 7) is cited alongside that of Job as the Bibles tes-
timony (de veteri testamento scripturae illae) concerning courageous people of
faith. On Augustines use of our work, esp. Ch. 7, see: J. W. Wiles, A Scripture Index
to the Works of St. Augustine in English Translation (Lanham, Md.: University Press
of America, 1995) 7677.
60 Introduction
New.142 Beyond that, however, the status of our book in particular became
an issue because Luther, throughout his career, had severe complaints
about it:
Already in the Leipzig dispute of 1519 he rejected the belief in Purga-
tory and the proof of it from the end of 2 Maccabees 12;
Defending that position in 1521 Luther emphasized that it is suspi-
cious that in all of Holy Scriptures that belief appears only inn dem ger-
ingsten, vorachtisten (sic) buch (in that most valueless and despicable [?]
book);
In 1530, in a special pamphlet about Purgatory, Luther argued that
proper interpretation of the end of Chapter 12 actually belies the belief in
Purgatory, but just to make sure added some more words about that unge-
wissen verworffen (uncertain [and] rejected) text.
In 1545, in the introduction to his translation of 2 Maccabees, Luther
complained about Razis suicide (Ch. 14) and the differences between our
books depiction of Antiochus IVs death and the one appearing in 1 Macca-
bees 6. According to his summary of the matter, although it could have been
justified to include 1 Maccabees in the canon, it was justified to exclude
2 Maccabees, although the book does have some redeeming features.143
Luther died the next year, about two months before the Catholic Church
published its formal response to all of this: in a reaction typical of such
polemics, the Council of Trent decided to recognize all the books of the
Vulgate, including 2 Maccabees, as having equal sanctity and authority.144
142 On sacred philology and its impact upon the canon, see J. Pelikan, The Reforma-
tion of the Bible, The Bible of the Reformation (New Haven: Yale, 1996) 321.
143 M. Luther, Die gantze Heilige Schrifft Deudsch (1545, reprinted Mnchen: Rogner &
Bernhard, 1972), 2.19001901 (on 1 Maccabees see ibid., 1841). On Luther on
2 Maccabees see Grimm, 2 Macc, 2728; Ziegenaus, Kanon, 210213; H. Volz,
Luthers Stellung zu den Apokryphen des Alten Testaments, Luther-Jahrbuch 26
(1959) 9697. For the above citations from 1519, 1521, and 1530, see, respectively,
D. Martin Luthers Werke (Weimarer Ausgabe), 2.324325; 7.453; and 30/2, 369. On
Luthers translations of the apocryphal works, which are in general freer than those of
the canonical books, given their lesser authority, see: [C. L.] W. Grimm, Luthers
bersetzung der alttestamentlichen Apokryphen, TSK 56 (1883) 375400 (391396
on 2 Maccabees).
144 See see esp. P. G. Duncker, The Canon of the Old Testament at the Council of
Trent, CBQ 15 (1953) 277299; H. J. Sieben, Die Kontroverse zwischen Bossuet
und Leibniz ber den alttestamentlichen Kanon des Konzils von Trient, JBT 3
(1988) 201214. For the councils Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures, see
Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (trans. H. J. Schroeder; Rockford, Illi-
nois: Tan, 1978) 1720.
The Reformers, now led by Calvin, responded of course with more of the
same,145 and as the rabbis would put it (m. Avot 5:17) an argument for
the sake of heaven goes on forever.146
2 Maccabees and the Hebrew Bible
Canonical status does not, of course, dictate our assessment of our

books biblical nature. Is it like Ben-Sira (Ecclesiasticus), which is so simi-
lar to Proverbs and Ecclesiastes that it could have been part of the canon
had as was the case for Daniel its post-Persian date not been known?
Or is there a real divide between our book and those of the Hebrew
Bible?
As with so many other topics, the assessment of our books biblical na-
ture usually is made, in introductions and encyclopedia articles, in compari-
son with that of 1 Maccabees. The result is nearly always the same: 1 Mac-
cabees was composed in biblical (or pseudo-biblical) Hebrew, imitates
biblical style, and generally has a biblical spirit, whereas 2 Maccabees was
composed in Greek, does not imitate the Bible, and reads like a Greek
work.147 Of course, there is a great bit of truth to these three generaliz-
ations: the first (languages) is a given and the second, concerning imitation
145 On Calvins position see: W. Neuser, Calvins Stellung zu den Apokryphen des Alten
Testaments, in: Text Wort Glaube: Studien Kurt Aland gewidmet (Arbeiten
zur Kirchengeschichte 50; ed. M. Brecht; Berlin & New York: de Gruyter, 1980)
esp. 302303, 316. Calvin, as Luther, opposed our book as part of the Purgatory con-
troversy, emphasizing that the early Church did not accept the book fully into its
canon; but he also opposed it because of the support it lends (at 3:31, 33; 15:14) to
the belief that saints might intercede on behalf of others. As part of his argument Cal-
vin is happy to pounce on our authors admission (15:38) that his book might be less
than perfect as proof that he did not even claim divine inspiration. See Calvins Insti-
tutio 3.5.8 as well as his reaction to the Trent decision cited in our preceding note; see
ibid., 411, 413.
146 See Coxs dissertation (above, n. 134); Sundberg, Old Testament of the Early Church,
724; Ziegenaus, Kanon, 213233; and the collection: Die Apokryphenfrage im
kumenischen Horizont: Die Stellung der Sptschriften des Alten Testaments im bib-
lischen Schrifttum und ihre Bedeutung in den kirchlichen Traditionen des Ostens und
Westens (ed. E. Jahr; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1989). As for disputes be-
tween Catholics and Protestants concerning the historical worth of our book, which
was a pendant of the main dispute about canonical status, see Bickerman, Studies,
2.2426.
147 We refer, of course, to the body of the work, not to the opening epistles.
62 Introduction
of the Bible, is more or less true, although there are some cases in 2 Macca-
bees as well:148
It quotes one biblical verse (7:6 Deuteronomy 32:36) and explicitly
alludes to another (10:26 Exod 23:22). And these are not isolated; rather,
the use of Deuteronomy 32 at 7:6 is part of a much larger reconciliation
complex, as we have seen (above, p. 22), and the allusion to Exodus 23:22 at
10:26 explains the appearance of the angels in 10:29 (see Exod 23:20, 23).
Both of Judas Maccabaeus speeches prior to battle with Nicanor cite
the biblical precedent of the destruction of Sennacheribs army (2 Macc 8:19;
15:22 Isa 37:36//2 Kgs 19:35).
Nicanors arrogant threats, with outstretched arm (2 Macc 14:33; cf.
15:30, 33), seem likewise to be built upon Isaiahs portrayal of the Assyrian
king, who stretched out his hand against the mountain of the house/
daughter of Zion (Isa 10:32).
Similarly, the arrogance of Antiochus IV, and his worm-eaten end
(9:9) seem to be meant to remind the reader of Isaiah 14s portrayal of the
rise and fall of the king of Babylonia,149 while his stench (9:9) is doubtless
meant to be that of the northerner according to Joel 2:20.
The four preceding verses in Joel 2 (vv. 1619), moreover, on other
peoples who ask derisively where is their God?, on the Jews anxiety and
prayers before the altar, and on Gods arousal to act on behalf of His land
and His people, are echoed at 3:15 and 10:26.
The officials to torment the people (5:22) that Antiochus sent to Je-
rusalem and Gerizim recall150 the tax officials (Exod 1:11) Pharaoh sent
to torment (Deut 26:6) the Israelites, just as the prayer, Let those who
come with blasphemy against Your holy people be stricken down by Your
great arm (15:24), seems clearly to reflect the Israelites prayer at the
Red Sea, Let terror and fear fall upon them through Your great arm
(Exod 15:16).
Various other allusions, with this or that degree of certainty, may also
be cited, including: the fifty-cubit high contraption of 13:5 and the three-
day fast of 13:12 may recall Esther 5:14 (with 7:10!) and 4:16, just as the
former may recall Ezekiel 28:18; Jason, who killed many of his countrymen
and then fled to Ammanitis (5:7), is curiously similar to Ishmael ben Net-
ania, who did the same and fled to the Ammonites (Jer 41:115); invisible
148 On the use of the Bible in 2 Macc see esp. van der Kooij, The Use of the Greek
Bible, along with the index to Goldstein, 2 Macc, 573595.
149 See NOTE on 9:9, worms.
150 Esp. in the Greek; see our NOTE on 5:22, officials to torment.
angels surround and defend Judas Maccabaeus (10:2630) as if he were El-

isha (2 Kgs 6:1518);151 the mother of the seven sons seems to reflect a his-
torization of Jeremiah 15:9 and at 7:28 she herself seems to allude to
Isaiah 40:26; etc.
Nevertheless, when all is said and done it remains the case that apart
from the pervasive and determinative use of Deuteronomy 32 the biblical
allusions in our book are not very numerous, and even if suggestions may be
added to the list, it is not always clear even with regard to some of those
listed that allusion to the Bible was in fact intended. In any case, these are
exceptions to the rule that basically prove it. A writer who at 14:30 passes
up the opportunity to mimic Genesis 31:2 cannot have been very concerned
about echoing the Bible.152 Thus, the second generalization comparing
2 Maccabees to 1 Maccabees may basically be allowed to stand.
Not so, however, with regard to the third. In my opinion, the generaliz-
ation that 1 Maccabees is written in the spirit of the Hebrew Bible,153 and
2 Maccabees is not, is in need of serious revision. True, characterizing 1 Mac-
cabees is not our concern here, but in order to set up our analysis of 2 Mac-
cabees it is appropriate to focus on it briefly, citing the verdict on 1 Macca-
bees authored by one of the most thorough students of both books, C. L. W.
Grimm: Since the books character and the tone of its story are, like its
language, simple and like those of the Hebrew Bible, the book is usually
compared, in this respect, to the Books of Samuel and Kings. Only in one not
insignificant point (Nur in Einem nicht unwesentlichen Puncte) does it differ
from the old Israelite historiography and align itself rather with the post-ex-
ilic Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, namely, in that in contrast with the old
theological pragmatism it no longer presents events in a supernatural light
and no longer allows God, following a specific plan and directing events in
miraculous ways, to move in and out through the webs of natural cau-
sation.154
151 See NOTE on 10:30, blindness.

152 See our NOTE on 14:30, But Maccabaeus, seeing.
153 See, for example, Kahana, HaSepharim, 84: Its author wrote it in Hebrew and pre-
cisely in the style of the biblical books, for he was very well at home in them and full
of their spirit. As a result he was able to write a book which is something of another
link in the chain of the Holy book itself (my translation; emphasis in the original).
154 Grimm, 1 Macc, xviixviii (my translation). For similar observations, see Rappaport,
A Note on the Use of the Bible, 175178, and Schwartz, Something Biblical,
223225. See also Gera, Battle of Beth Zachariah, 4951. Gera suggested that we
see in Gods general non-involvement a sign that 1 Macc is a Sadducean work, given
Josephus statements about their denial of Providence (War 2.164165 and Ant.
64 Introduction
One may well wonder how far Grimms tongue was into his cheek when
he wrote that the notion of divine providence is, in assessing the biblical na-
ture of an historical work, not insignificant. But this central element of
biblical historiography,155 generally absent from 1 Maccabees (especially
after its first four chapters), is very prominent in 2 Maccabees. This is evi-
dent first of all in the numerous and impressive apparitions,156 in numerous
prayers (see above, p. 48), in speeches bespeaking trust in God and entrusting
the outcome of events to Him (Ch. 7 passim; 8:1620; 13:1314; 15:79),
in the enemies recognition, one after the other, of Gods superior power
(3:39; 8:36; 11:13), in the authors pedantic excurses to edify his readers
about their own sins and Gods guiding hand (4:1617; 5:1720; 6:1216),
and in the frequency with which the villains are punished in ways precisely
appropriate to their sins which cannot, of course, be a matter of chance.157
If from the beginning to the end of 1 Maccabees the reader is encouraged to
conclude that it is appropriate that the Hasmoneans rule Judaea, from the
13.173). Even if it is difficult to prove such a specific assessment (see Bar-Kochva,

The Description of the Battle of Beth Zacharia, 1720), it seems to me that Gera
pointed in the right direction; note that 1 Macc is clearly a court history, written in the
late second century BCE, and that around then the Hasmoneans were turning to Sad-
duceeism (Josephus, Ant. 13.296; b. Qiddushin 66a; b. Berakhot 29a). In any case, it
seems difficult to justify Sterns assessment (Studies, 350), that the author of 1 Macc
had a deep religious sense, explaining the authors avoidance of direct reference to
God as an expression of reverence. Rather, it seems to me that what isnt mentioned
isnt there. Similarly, note that the entire book is devoid of the notion that suffering
comes as a result of sin, that there are no apparitions and miracles, and that it is
thrice noted that there are no longer any prophets (see 4:46; 9:27; and esp. 14:41,
where it is difficult to imagine that the pro-Hasmonean author was interested in their
reappearance). Again, God () is not mentioned at all, and after the first few
chapters, which may reflect a generation that was still more biblically oriented, there is
hardly any other reference to the Lord ( appears for the last time in Ch. 5, and
even Heaven is mentioned only three times after that chapter), nor hardly any pray-
ing (see only 7:4142, 9:71, 9:46 and the diplomatic window-dressing in 12:11). This
development seems to reflect the success of the Hasmonean dynasty, which is quintes-
sentially the opposite of the diaspora experience reflected by our book; cf. Deut 8:11.
155 On the double causality characteristic of biblical historiography, which leaves
room for Gods real reasons alongside of human initiative, see Seeligmann, Men-
schliches Heldentum. Seeligmann (73) discussed 1 Maccabees only briefly, focusing
on its early chapters, and therefore did not address the absence of such a biblical
orientation as the book progresses. See also Amit, Dual Causality Principle (who,
however, does not discuss 1 or 2 Maccabees).
156 See NOTE on 2:21, heavenly apparitions.
157 See NOTE on 4:16, those for whose ways
beginning to the end of our book the reader is encouraged to realize that
God rules history and that He is the Jews covenantal partner the main el-
ements of biblical historiography.
Moreover, we should stress that the structure of our book is no less bib-
lical than it is Greek. The basic structure is simple and transparent: it begins
with a rebellion against the ancestral regime in Jerusalem itself (Ch. 4) and
the author immediately promises that, as the sequel will show, this must en-
tail punishment:
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 vis the divine laws. But this shall be shown by the next
period. (4:1617)
Indeed, difficulties begin to present themselves in the very same chapter,
and they continue and intensify in the next, and in the next two after that as
well problems that begin between Jew and fellow Jew and turn into royal
persecutions. But those latter lead to martyrdom, which makes for atone-
ment, for the martyrs blood calls out of the ground to God, whose wrath
therefore turns into mercy (8:45 the books turning-point). From now on
the Jews win their battles, for now God no longer stands aside (hides His
face) as the Gentiles attack the Jews; rather, He now stands firmly behind
them, and if any Jews fall in battle, it is because they, as individuals, have
sinned and are therefore deserving of their fate (12:34, 3941).
This is a classic Greek structure, but also a classic biblical structure. On
the one hand, it is the story of a city thrust into troubles and civil strife,
saved by virtue of the death of a hero a frequent topic in Greek literature.
As van Henten has shown, the comparison to Euripides Phoenician
Women is especially relevant; it opens with a struggle between two brothers
and salvation comes when one of the citys citizens commits suicide in cir-
cumstances quite similar to those of Razis; both scenes are the penultimate
ones in their respective works, immediately preceding, and thus serving as
the premise for, the citys salvation.158 Moreover, Greek topoi abound; note,
for some examples, the way Antiochus arrogance is implicitly compared
with that of Herodotus Xerxes (see NOTE on 5:21, land navigable) while
Eleazars death is implicitly compared with that of Socrates159 and the youn-
gest of the seven sons is implicitly compared to Antigone (our NOTE on
7:30, What are you waiting for?), the way the Scythians are taken for
158 See NOTE on 14:43, did not manage to place the sword-stroke well.
159 See NOTE on 6:30, on the verge of dying said.
66 Introduction
granted as the barbarians par excellence (see NOTE on 4:47, Scythians) and
the way drinking unmixed wine is a prime characteristic thereof (see NOTE
on 15:39, wine by itself), and the way the civilization of the city is compared
time and again to the animal-like life of the boor (see NOTE on 14:30,
coarser). But whatever the language and whatever the topoi, it is as we
have seen (pp. 2123) equally clear that our author saw his story as a ful-
fillment of the script outlined in Deuteronomy 32: our sins bring God to
hide His face, which allows for persecution (by unwitting foreign agents of
God), which begets suffering and atonement and reconciliation and event-
ual salvation, along with vengeance visited upon the persecutors.
There is no need to choose between these two models, just as there is no
need to choose, with regard to specific topoi, between Jewish antecedents
and Greek ones.160 True, our author was not a biblical author. But he was a
Jewish author. Moreover, he was one of those happy people who was able
to express a synthesis between two identities in a way that approached an
integrated whole.161 We term this synthesis Jewish-Hellenistic, but for
our author it was simply Judaism, which was a legitimate and respected
way to be Greek.162
160 See, for example, our NOTES on 9:8, give orders to waves, weigh moun-
tains; 9:9, worms; 14:45, his blood flowing like a fountain.
161 Only approached, for in the nature of things double identity must impose some
qualifications on each component, and there is also some basic tension between being
religious and being part of this world. See, in general, Schwartz, How at Home,
352357.
162 On the Jews of Egypt as a type of Greeks, see Mlze Modrzejewski, How to Be a
Jew?.
V. Language and Style 67
V. Language and Style
Wir mssen den geschwtzigen Schriftsteller nehmen so wie er ist.163
The language and style of 2 Maccabees depart greatly from that usual in the
Septuagint.164 Apart from the translationese and biblicizing language of the
letters in Chapters 12, the book is, rather, a good example of the Hellen-
istic koine of its day.165 In particular, its vocabulary is quite similar to that of
another historian of the second century BCE, Polybius, and indeed this
comparison is frequently quite useful.166 But that is not to imply any special
relationship between the two works.167 Rather, Polybius simply serves us as
a good witness to the standard Greek of the period, well known also quite
helpfully from numerous inscriptions.168
The author of our work is well at home in Greek, his language is quite
rich, and he uses the language with sovereignty. He plays with words
(examples below), he uses rare words, and it may be that he also invented
some; I noticed twenty-six words for which Liddell-Scott-Jones refers to
our book alone, and perhaps there are more.169 In general, at any rate, the
163 Niese, Kritik, 14 (We must take the blathering author the way he is).
164 To illustrate this point I checked about 40 % of H&R and found 116 words in our
book that do not appear elsewhere in the Septuagint, not to mention many others
that appear elsewhere in the Septuagint only in 3 Macc; see above, p. 45, and below
p. 87.
165 The main studies of our books Greek are: Richnow, Untersuchungen; Gil, Sobre
el estilo; Hanhart, Text; and Doran, Temple Propaganda, 2446. See also Mugler,
Remarques.
166 As is, therefore, Mauersbergers Polybios-Lexikon. For this similarity see Grimm,
2 Macc, 7; Niese, Kritik, 31; Richnow, Untersuchungen, 6371; and Risberg, An-
merkungen.
167 One must remember that the sample is not huge; our book and Polybius are the long-
est works of Greek historiography that survive from the Hellenistic period (Geiger,
History of Judas Maccabaeus, 2).
168 For the similarity between Polybius Greek and that of the inscriptions, see E. Norden,
Die antike Kunstprosa (Leipzig: Teubner, 1923) 152154.
169 0 (4:13), 0 (4:13), 0 (6:28), 0
(9:7), 0 (11:3), 0 (10:35), (4:35),
68 Introduction
author was fastidious about varying his vocabulary. True, at times such
varying appears to be forced or artificial, such as when he changes termi-
nology from one verse to the next, for example:
In two successive verses of his preface (2:2627) he refers to his work
as not having been easy, but he uses two separate words to do so (34,
$2 rendered light, simple).
At 4:3940 he uses two different terms for the populace of Jerusalem:
the multitude (" #) gathered up the populace ( E)
being aroused
At 12:1011 the same people are termed Arabs in one verse but
nomads in the next.
At 12:2425 Timothy presses his captors to be set free (7)
and they indeed release (0) him.
At 12:3132 Judas and his men go to Jerusalem to celebrate the Fes-
tival of Weeks but leave it after Pentecost.
In such cases the reader must at times pause to check whether both loc-
utions are indeed referring to the same thing. But usually there is no such
problem. Furthermore, in some cases the varying is positively enriching.
Thus, for example, at 15:12, 14 we read that Judas Maccabaeus, in his
dream, saw Onias praying () for the Jews and introducing
Jeremiah, who too is said always to pray () for them. The
use of the unusual prefix for Onias prayer reflects the fact that he is (as in
Ch. 3) portrayed as a priest and therefore ascribed the stance of a priest
who prays blessings down upon the Jews (see NOTE on 15:12, having
stretched out his hands ), while Jeremiah is left with the usual verb; he
brings down to the earth not blessings but, rather, a sword. Similarly, the
seemingly trivial difference between 0) (5:17) and )
(7:33) turns out, upon reflection, to be part and parcel of a larger progres-
sion within the book, from a model which has God turning His face
( 5:17) away from the Jews in anger, thus leaving the Jews to
the mercies of their enemies, to one in which He chastises them face-to-
(13:22), (13:25), (5:20), (6:17),

(5:3), (11:11), (5:24), (14:20; but LSJ does list
), (8:1), (10:14; 14:6),
(5:18), (6:20), 7 (15:11), (14:11), -
(7:42), (4:36), (5:26), F (14:18),
and (11:1). See also NOTE on 10:30, they scattered about in all direc-
tions. Of course, the fact that LSJ lists our book alone for a given word does not prove
it doesnt exist elsewhere, or that our author created it.
face, as a father chastises his children (G $ 7:34; cf.

10:4 and Deut 8:5).170
The same awareness of language that leads our author to vary his termi-
nology in adjacent verses also brings him time and again to repeat terms at
strategic places so as to close circles or make related points. Thus, for
example:
When Heliodorus first came to the city he was received by the high
priest (0 ), but when he left, having been humiliated, it was he
who received (07) the high priest (3:9, 35).
In the first verse of Chapter 4 Onias is accused as if he had been (been
appointed )) the troublemaker, and in its last verse Menelaus
goes on being ()) the real troublemaker.
At the beginning of Chapter 5 the Jerusalemites had no idea whether
the 7 they saw boded good or bad (v. 2), but by the end of the
chapter, going out to see the 7 outside the citys walls (v. 25), they
learned the bitter truth.
Moreover, the book displays a great variety of vocabulary, as we may il-
lustrate by reviewing its story in outline form:171
The Jews enemies boast ( [15:32]) and lord over
(F [5:23]) them, which is not surprising given the fact that they
are characterized by haughtiness (0 [9:7]) and arrogance
(F [5:21; 7:36; 9:7]); they let their hearts soar (
# [5:21]) and stretch out their necks (F [15:6]), con-
sidering themselves in their hybris, their complete and superhuman
imposture (0 [9:8; 15:6]) to be above the bounds of man.
An enemy soldier might be armed with a knife ( [5:3]), a
sword (7 [12:22]) or a broadsword (3 [15:1516]), which
he might use to skewer the Jews ( [12:6]; [5:26,
13:15 our authors invention?]; [12:23]) or even to impale
them (0 [12:22]).
Such attacks could, of course, lead not only to anguish (0
[3:14, 16; 15:19], 0 [3:21]) but also to all sorts of suffering (-
[6:9], [6:12, 16], [7:36; 9:18]), anguish,
torture ( [7:42], [8:17]) or torment ( [7:8;
9:5]), and just plain pain (6 [3:17], 0) [6:30; 7:12], 1
170 See Schwartz, Divine Punishment.

171 The following list does not attempt to exhaust the evidence for the words cited, but
only to illustrate.
70 Introduction
[9:9]), not to mention intense racking (0 [9:7 our auth-

ors invention?]).172
Faced with such threats, leaders must awaken the Jews (7
[13:4], [15:10]), encourage them ( [6:12; 7:5]),
render them courageous ($ [8:21]), buoy up their
spirits () [11:9]), arm them with security
( 0 [15:11]), exhort them () and thus
bring them to a better morale ( [15:9]) so as
to propel them forward ( [15:17]).
For they must not succumb to terror ( [3:17, 30; 12:22]),
fear ( [6:30; 12:22]), or cowardice ( [3:24]); the only fear
they should allow themselves is the fear of God (piety $ [3:1;
12:45]), which is what distinguishes them from their impious (0
[4:13; 8:2]) enemies.
The result, accordingly, is that the Jews indeed fought with high
morale ($ [14:18]), courageously ($ [7:10]), and es-
pecially: with manly valor (0 [14:18], $ [8:7; 15:17]),
manfully (0 [6:27], 0) [10:35 our authors inven-
tion?], 0 [14:43]) that is, eagerly ($) [10:17]), like
lions ( [11:11 invention?]).
Which allowed them not only to attack their enemies (
[10:17; 13:23], [8:23], [12:9; 15:1]) but also to
rush out against them (7 [11:7], [12:20]) or run in
among them ( [5:26]), to throw themselves into battle (
[15:17], [12:35], [11:11]), storming whatever lay in
their way ( 3:25; 4:1; 12:15) and rather than merely fighting from
afar interweaving themselves ( [15:17]) among the very
ranks of the enemy.
True, wars have their casualties: some Jews die (02 [7:2],
[6:30; 7:5, 14, 41]), pass out of life ( "
[4:7; 5:5]; " [6:27]), or leave life behind (
" [10:13]) but it is in a good cause, dying the good death
(0 [6:28 an invention?]).173
172 Note that 4 Macc followed our author in this regard, and in building upon 2 Macc
(see below, p. 86) he developed an almost inexhaustible torture-vocabulary (Brei-
tenstein, Beobachtungen, 181183).
173 Not to mention passing over to the gods ( G [11:23]). De Bruyne
commented on the richness of our books vocabulary on dying; see his Notes,
4089. With regard to death too, as torture (see n. 172), 4 Macc follows in our books
footsteps; see Breitenstein, Beobachtungen, 185186.
Moreover, they should never despair of the help supplied by God

who is, inter alia, the All-Ruler ( 5:20; 6:26, etc.), the
all-powerful lord ( 2 3:22), the ruler of the spirits
and of all authority ( 7
3:24), the most high ( I 3:31), the creator of the universe (
7:23), the great Sovereign (
5:20), the living Lord ( 7:33, 15:4), and the all-seeing
Lord ( 9:5).174
Indeed, with His help the Jews ultimately manage not only to close
in upon their enemies ( [4:34]), but also to overcome them
( [4:34, 42]), knock them down ( [4:42]), smite
them ( [5:12; 10:35]) or even cut them down ( [1:13],
[8:24; 10:37]), lay them low () [5:26]) and
kill them (0 [8:30, 32; 10:17]), thus uprooting them (
[12:7]), eliminating them ( [14:2, 13]), destroying them
(0 [8:20; 10:23; 12:19], [13:4]) wiping them
out (7 [8:9]) and utterly removing them from the world (0-
[4:38])!
This great variety of vocabulary, which as noted is at times enriching
and at times contrived, means that there is a very large number of different
words in our book. In this respect it is similar to other Hellenistic works,175
including other Jewish-Hellenistic ones.176
174 That 2 Macc is an Gottesbezeichnungen sehr reich was recently noted by Zimmer-
mann, Namen des Vaters, 393.
175 See Cicero, Orator 3742. On Greek wordiness see Acts 17:21; Plutarch, Life of Mar-
cus Cato, 2223; and N. Petrochilos, Roman Attitudes to the Greeks (S. Saripolos Li-
brary 25; Athens: Faculty of Arts of the National and Capodistrian Univ. of Athens,
1974) 3537.
176 As the following comparison will indicate. According to Breitenstein (Beobach-
tungen, 1517) there are 1582 different words in 4 Macc and 1734 in Wis. In Rahlfs
edition of the Septuagint, where both books appear in the same format, the former
fills 28 pages and the latter 32, which means that each has around 55 words per
page. As for 2 Macc, in order to estimate the number of words I counted the number
of entries in which it is listed in about 40 % of H&R (609 out its of 1497 pages) not
including entries for proper nouns, for variant readings, or for combinations of more
than one word. 2 Macc is listed in 903 entries; if this sample is representative, then
2 Maccabees has altogether more than 2200 different words (apart from proper
nouns). Given the fact that it fills around 39 pages in Rahlfs edition, this averages to
56.5 different words per page, very similar to the other two books. By way of com-
parison, see R. Morgenthaler, Statistik des neutestamentlichen Wortschatzes (Zrich:
Gotthelf, 1958) 164: a table showing how many different words are used in each
72 Introduction
Style
Apart from its verbal richness the books style is also conditioned by two
facts: (a) it is an abbreviation of a longer work; (b) it deals with struggles,
both internal and external. The former makes for brevity, the latter for in-
tensity.
(a) Abbreviation: The book flows; at times, runs. The author, as he states in
his preface, was not interested in the precise clarification of each and every
detail. Rather, he strove to follow the rules laid down for epitomizing
(2:28) and applied himself to to arousing the imagination of those who
wish to read (the story) [and] to making it easier for those who take pleasure
in memorizing (2:25); again at 10:10 he reminds us that he is out to sum-
marize, just as at the end of his work he expresses the hope that readers
will have found it to the point (15:38). To achieve this, he took two major
steps: he left material out, and he formulated his narrative in ways that
allowed him, as it were, to smuggle information in without actually having
to pause to supply it.
1. Material left out: In the nature of things it is difficult to know what
our author left out. Nevertheless, at times it is clear that he did exclude in-
formation. First of all, this is the case in the few instances where the text as-
sumes that the reader knows a character who has not, in fact, previously
been mentioned; thus Ptolemy son of Dorymenes (4:45), Callisthenes
(8:33), Apollophanes (10:37) and Esdris (12:36).177 Altogether, however,
there are not many slips like these. Similarly, it twice happens that a docu-
ment quoted promises an attachment that is not brought (9:25; 11:17), and
it may well be that the original works included them.178
book of the New Testament. The book with the highest number of different words is
Acts, which although significantly longer than 2 Macc (for it totals 18,374 words
whereas 2 Macc, which fills 1186 lines in Rahlfs with an average of 8.85 words per
line, has less than 10,500) employs only 1,778 different words, apart from proper
nouns, as opposed to the 2,200 we estimated for 2 Macc.
177 See Doran, Temple Propaganda, 81 and Bar-Kochva, JM, 170, n. 53; both apply this
point as part of their rejection of Richnows suggestion (in his Untersuchungen)
that our book is not, in fact, an epitome of a longer work, our author having invented
Jason of Cyrene. For the assumption that when a book refers to characters as if they
are known, but they are not, it may indicate that the book is a secondary version of a
longer original, see e.g. G. Hlschers comments on Josephus War 1 and its lost
source by Nicolas of Damascus RE 1/18 (1916) 19441945.
178 See, however, our NOTE on 9:25, the things written below. For the way things should
work, see e.g. Welles, RC, nos. 1013 (three letters by Antiochus I to a governor and
Much more frequent are the places where the author gives us the impres-
sion that he knows more than he reports. Thus: Jason sent Menelaus to
Antioch to take care of memoranda concerning pressing governmental
matters (4:23), Judas betook himself to more pressing places (10:19),
and later his forces encountered a unit that Timothy had left in a certain
place (12:18); Judas sent the necessities to those in Beth-Zur (13:20);
eventually Judas and Nicanor held the appropriate discussion (14:22);
etc. Moreover, although the entire procession of events is punctuated by one
side learning of the others moves, apart from the badmouthing by Simon
and Alcimus in Chapters 3 and 14 (which are part and parcel of the story)
we never hear how this happens. Rather, Antiochus received notice of
Ptolemys hostility (4:21) and later news reached Antiochus of the pu-
tative revolt in Jerusalem (5:11) and of the setbacks suffered by Nicanor
and Timothy (9:3), just as Judas and his men somehow received notice of
Lysias first invasion (11:6) and news reached them concerning Nicanors
first and Lysias second (8:12; 13:1). How did they learn of each others
movements? Spies? Informers? Deserters? We do not know, nor do we even
know if our author knew that is, if the original work gave these details.
What is important, from the point of view of style, is that by alluding to the
result and omitting the details the author gives us readers the impression,
time and again, that he wants to rush on and not waste our time on such de-
tails.
2. As for brevity of phrasing this too propels us along in our
reading. The main tools our author employs are participles and passive
verbs.
Participles: These are much more frequent in our book than in other
contemporary literature.179 This usage has two advantages. First, it allows
the writer to smuggle into his narrative information about the back-
ground and circumstances of events without having to devote separate
sentences to them. Moreover, especially when such participial clauses
come before the main sentence they push readers along, not allowing them
to pause. Thus, for example, the whole story opens as follows: (1) The
Holy City being inhabited in complete peace and the laws being observed
optimally due to the high priest Onias piety and hatred of evil, (2) it hap-
pened that the kings themselves honored the Place and aggrandized the
Temple with the most outstanding gifts, (3) just as King Seleucus of Asia
the latters cover-letter forwarding them to the city of Ilium); 1 Macc 11:3037; 12:7,
1922.
179 See Mugler, Remarques, 419423, followed by Stern, Studies, 4142.
74 Introduction
supplied out of his own revenues all the expenses incurred for the sacrifi-
cial offices.
There is only one finite verb in this whole long period it happened at
the beginning of v. 2. Accordingly, the reader cannot stop after v. 1. But even
it happened says very little, so the reader has to keep going to find out
what happened, and that pushes him or her immediately into v. 3, which, in
turn, is made to depend on v. 2 by the opening just as. Anyone who gets
through these first three verses, perhaps breathless, will have received hav-
ing read only one sentence a total picture of the background idyll, and
is now fully poised to be upset by the opening But of v. 4.
Or take the following section from Chapter 15: (20) And while they
were all expecting the coming decision, and the enemies had already come
together, and the army had been arrayed and the beasts had been stationed
in an opportune place and the cavalry had been posted in the wings,
(21) Maccabaeus seeing the arrival of the hordes, the diversity of weapons
with which they were equipped, and the wildness of the beasts raised up
his hands toward heaven and called upon the miracle-working Lord, for he
knew that it was not through weapons, but, rather, according to how He
deems, that victory is secured for them who deserve it. (22) And calling
upon Him he spoke in the following manner: []
Here too, all the scene-setting in v. 20 and well into v. 21 contains no fi-
nite verb, and so while giving us a good bit of information propels us
forward toward the final clash.
Passive verbs: The first verse of the story (3:1), quoted above, can also illus-
trate the usefulness of these: by saying that the city was inhabited and the
laws were observed the author can avoid having to tell us who did these
things, depending upon readers to figure it out for themselves, if they so de-
sire. In this case its simple: both verbs obviously refer to the population of
Jerusalem. Sometimes it is more difficult, for example at 6:11: Others,
who had come together in nearby caves in order to celebrate the seventh day
secretly, were after having been informed upon to Philip burned to-
gether
How many actors and actions have been thrust together here! The main
actors are the others, and we hear of their previous action (had come to-
gether) and its reason (to celebrate) and their present action (being
burned together). But we also hear of another actor, Philip, and we must
infer that he acted (ordered the burning of the others) as well. Then there
are also hints of other actors, unidentified: whoever did the informing (un-
known, but probably some Jew) and whoever did the burning (Philips sol-
diers?). Thus, the full story was as follows:
Actor Action
others gathered together
unknown Jew(s) (?) informed
Philip ordered
Philips soldiers burned
By using two participles (, ) and two passive

verbs (the latter and ) the author allowed himself to skip
the details of the second and fourth items, details which were less important
(perhaps also embarrassing who informed?), and thus crowd the whole
story into one heavily-loaded but nonetheless acceptable sentence. In this
case, as opposed to that of 3:1, it is in fact not simple for us to fill in all the
missing information; we do not know who did the informing. Sometimes it
is even harder, although the case of 13:21 (he was sought out and arrested
and shut away) is an extreme exception (see our NOTE ad loc. on one of
the Jewish unit).180 But whatever they might lack in clarity, such sentences
definitely possess in abundance the power to impress upon us that the
author wants us to plow forward without delay.
Two other standard Greek ways of pushing us along are the constant
linkage of sentences to their predecessors by the use of some sort of con-
junction; you can never really stop for long because your eye sees the next
verse holding onto this ones coattails, as it were, if only with a . More-
over, the author frequently employs oppositional constructions, and once
weve encountered the we of course have to push on until we get to the
answering . Thus, for example, readers who finally get to the end of the
long stories of Heliodorus (Ch. 3) and of the martyrs of Chapters 67 find
in each case that the last verse includes a loud that pushes them on,
willy-nilly, into the next chapter, with something of the knowledge that
whatever plateau they had just reached, and might have thought about stay-
ing at for a while, will soon be upset by something on the other hand.
Again, the author pushes us along by yet another method: by making fre-
quent promises about what the continuation of the story will show. These
function for us as checks, and we run along to see if and how they will be
covered. Of course the most blatant cases of this are the three main author-
ial excurses (4:1617; 5:1720; 6:1217), of which the first announces the
tribulations to come and the other two promise relief. But there are also nu-
merous shorter remarks that function the same way, such as:
180 In general, on the asyndetic formulations in the latter half of Ch. 13, see above,
p. 34.
76 Introduction
8:11: not expecting the All-Rulers justice which was going to pursue
him.
8:29: they together petitioned the merciful Lord, asking that He be-
come completely reconciled with His own servants.
9:13: And the abominable man made a vow to the Sovereign who
would no longer be merciful to him saying as follows
15:5: Nevertheless, he did not successfully carry out his abominable
design.
All of these intimations about what is yet to come, even when it sounds
surprising, urge us, as it were, to keep on reading.
(b) Struggles: The fact that the book is devoted to struggles is reflected in
two primary aspects of the narrative, both of which make it a fast one: there
are numerous scenes that portray confrontations, and lively language is
used to involve the reader emotionally in the heat of the struggles.
The confrontations are, first of all, real: numerous violent conflicts are
portrayed. But time and again the author also employs rhetoric in order to
make us feel the conflict. As is usual in antithetic Greek writing, he puts the
characters on a stage, as it were, facing each other off before our very eyes.
So, for example, in the Heliodorus story in Chapter 3, the scene preceding
the climax: (22) So they, on the one hand, were calling upon the all-ruling
Lord to preserve the trusts whole and in complete security for them who
had entrusted them, (23) while Heliodorus, on the other hand, was begin-
ning to do that which had been decided upon,
is matched by one after it:
(29) Thus he, on the one hand, was voiceless and totally lacking hope
and salvation, having been cast down by the divine intervention, (30) while
they, on the other hand, were praising the Lord who had wonderfully glori-
fied His own Place; and the Temple, which had just before been replete with
terror and tumult, was filled with joy and mirth due to the apparition of the
all-ruling Lord.
These two scenes surround the story in an inclusio that contrasts the
two camps before and after, and already at the first scene readers are
primed to wonder how it will turn out. Who could possibly stop reading
in between? The same approach to antagonists appears throughout the
book:
8:18: For they trust in arms and audacity, he said, but we trust in the
all-ruling God, who can with a single nod of His head overthrow not only
those who are coming upon us, but the whole cosmos.
10:28: but as soon as the rays of dawn spread out they attacked one
another: these having along with their own virtue their dependence upon
the Lord as their guarantor of success and victory, while the others made
their rage the guide of their struggles.
12:1415: Those within, trusting in the strength of the walls and in the
stockpiled food, behaved quite uncouthly toward Judas men cursing and
even blaspheming and saying things that are not allowed. (15) But Judas
men, after calling upon the great Ruler of the world, who without battering
rams and war-machines flung Jericho down in the days of Joshua, stormed
the wall ferociously.
15:67: And so Nicanor, on the one hand, his neck outstretched in
complete imposture, set his mind upon erecting a common trophy (celebra-
ting his victory over) Judas men. (7) But Maccabaeus, on the other hand,
was without letup in his total faith, with complete hope that assistance
would be made available to them by the Lord
Again, whenever the narrative resumes after some apparent resting-
point, this occurs by a renewal of conflict. So, for example, at 12:12:
(1) After these covenants had been concluded, Lysias, for his part, went
back to the king, and the Jews, for theirs, turned to their farming. (2) But
some of the local governors Timothy, and Apollonius son of Gennaeus,
and also Hieronymus and Demophon and, additionally, Nicanor the Cy-
priarch, did not allow them to settle down and keep still.
And so too the resumption of activity at the beginning of Chapter 13:
(1) In the 149th year the news reached Judas men that Antiochus Eupator
had come with hordes against Judaea, (2) and with him Lysias his guardian
and head of state, each having a Greek force of 110,000 foot-soldiers, 5300
cavalrymen and 22 elephants, along with 300 scythed chariots.
The beginning of Chapter 14 is especially instructive in this connection:
(1) In the third year thereafter the news reached Judas men that Demetrius
son of Seleucus, having sailed into the port of Tripoli with a strong force
and fleet, (2) had taken control of the country
As opposed to the other examples, in this case the fact is that what is re-
ported does not directly resume the clash between the Seleucids and the
Jews, and the fact that Judas men heard what they did about the Seleucids
in fact elicits no response at all. If the author nevertheless chose to formu-
late the resumption of his story this way, it is a particularly eloquent ex-
pression of his basic position that his story is one about clashes, so anything
which happens in the Seleucid camp, if it is to be interesting, must be re-
ported in terms of the Jews hearing about it. By doing so, he as it were begs
his readers patience, promising them that this Thronwechsel will soon turn
out, nevertheless, to prove relevant to his story. And we readers, in conse-
quence, indeed go rushing on to see whether the credit we have afforded the
author was well-placed.
78 Introduction
The intensity of the struggle is also reflected in the authors willingness to

highlight and celebrate his enemies defeats. Despite all his urbanity, these
struggles were so intense that he felt not at all bound by any expectation of
sine ire et studio; he wrote with no holds barred, was sure that his story was
a tale of the forces of good vs. the forces of evil, and when the latter got
what they deserved, gloating was the legitimate order of the day. Thus:
3:28: And so he who just before had entered the aforementioned treas-
ury with a large entourage and all his bodyguard was carried off, powerless
to aid himself with his weapons, having plainly recognized the power of
God.
5:910: Thus he who had forced great numbers (of people) from the
fatherland to go abroad himself perished abroad, having set sail to the
Spartans hoping to find shelter by virtue of kinship. And thus he who had
cast forth a multitude of people without burial was himself unmourned,
having neither a funeral nor burial in an ancestral grave.
8:36: Thus he who had undertaken to take care of the tribute (owed)
to the Romans by taking the Jerusalemites captive proclaimed that the Jews
have Someone who fights for them, and that it is for this reason that the
Jews are invulnerable: because they follow the laws ordained by Him.
9:10: And he who just a bit earlier had thought he could touch the
stars of heaven no one could bear him due to the intolerable burden of his
stench.
13:78: Such a death happened to befall Menelaus, without his even
attaining (any burial place) in the ground, and very rightly so for since he
had committed many sins against the altar, of which the fire and ashes are
pure, death came to him in ashes.
Some of these examples also testify to the make the punishment fit the
crime rule discussed above; it too makes sense only when our story is
viewed as one ridden with conflict, in which one side persecutes the other.
The reader who reads of the tit is already on the lookout for the tat
that, in this world governed by Providence, simply must come.
The other way the struggles impact upon the books style is in the way
the author depicts them employing very lively language meant to spark an
emotional response in the reader, who will thereby share something with
the actors themselves. Such style is usually termed pathetic, and since
Niese and Bickerman our book has been considered one of the prime
examples of this style of Hellenistic historiography.181 In the Heliodorus
181 For the characterization of our books style as pathetic, see Bickerman, Gott, 147;
Tcherikover, HC, 387; Adinolfi, Questioni bibliche, 5974; Geiger, History of Judas
story we actually have nearly explicit invitations to share the feelings of

the actors,182 as our italics in the following two passages indicate:
3:1417: And the anguish all over the city was quite considerable. The
priests, throwing themselves before the altar in their priestly vestments,
called to heaven, upon Him who legislated concerning deposits, to preserve
them inviolate for their depositors. And it pierced the mind to see the high
priests face, for his appearance and the changes of coloration revealed the
anguish of his soul. For the man was inundated by terror and bodily tremb-
ling, through which the pain in his heart became apparent to his observers.
3:21: And anyone who saw the prostration of the entire community all
mingled together, and the anxiety of the highly anguished high priest, had to
be moved to pity.
But even without such invitations, the result is the same:
7:20: The mother was exceedingly amazing and worthy of being re-
membered well she who, after watching the destruction of seven sons on
one and the same day bore it in high morale due to her hopes upon the
Lord.
15:19: Among those who had been left behind in the city there was no
merely marginal anguish, for they were upset about the (upcoming) assault
in the open field.
Most frequently, however, it is simply the lively diction that is meant to
arouse us, e.g.:
5:1113: his spirit maddened like a beasts, after coming back from
Egypt he took the city at spear-point and ordered his soldiers mercilessly to
smite those who fell into their hands and to cut down those who had re-
turned to their houses. And there was destruction of young and old, disap-
pearance of women and children, slaughter of virgins and infants.183
11:6: When Maccabaeus men received notice that he (= Lysias) was
besieging the strongholds, together with the populace they beseeched
Maccabaeus, 2. Niese (Kritik, 3334) meant the same thing when he used the adjec-
tive rhetorical, as do others who in the wake of Polybius 2.56.1011 use
tragic; so for example Bar-Kochva, JM, 172178. I prefer pathetic, for rhetori-
cal is too general and tragic has been part of the problematic thesis that there was
a school of ancient historiography that actually advocated writing history like tra-
gedies; see Doran, Temple Propaganda, 8489, following Walbank, History and
Tragedy.
182 This too is characteristic of pathetic historiography; see for example Diodo-
rus 17.36.12.
183 See our NOTE ad loc.; the poetic nature of v. 13 heightens the pathos all the
more.
80 Introduction
the Lord, with wailing and tears, to send a good angel to the rescue of
Israel.
14:4546: Still breathing, and burning up in rage, he stood up his
blood flowing like a fountain and his wounds quite severe and after tra-
versing the multitudes on the run he stood up on a precipitous rock. Totally
out of blood, he bared his innards and, taking them in both his hands, threw
them into the mob; and in this manner, after calling upon the ruler of life
and spirit to return them to him again, he passed away.
Another way of heightening the pathos, cheaply but effectively,184 is the
use of exaggerated numbers when describing the size of enemy armies
(2:21; 8:9, 20; 11:2, 4; 12:20; 13:2) and Jewish casualties (5:6, 14, 26).185
The author also uses word-play to underline contrasts between heroes
and villains, such as:
4:6: For he saw that without royal providence () it would be
impossible for the state to attain peace again, nor would Simons folly
(6) ever cease.
4:27: Menelaus, for his part, took over the government (), but
as for the monetary payments he had promised the king he did not at all
keep them up ($ $). The use of the rhyming verbs (even at the
expense of using the proper tense)186 points up the fact that Menelaus, al-
though the ruler, looked out for himself alone.187
5:9: Thus he who had forced great numbers (of people) from the fa-
therland to go abroad (# 07)) himself perished
abroad ( 7 0)). The prefix 0 quite properly moves from
Jasons sin to his punishment, tit for tat.
8:36: Thus he who had undertaken to take care of ())
the tribute (owed) to the Romans by taking the Jerusalemites captive pro-
claimed (2) that the Jews have Someone who fights for them,
184 In this case, the ploy is not limited to pathetic historiography. Although it is typical of
the latter (see for example Adinolfi, Questioni bibliche, 3031, 7273, and Bar-
Kochva, JM, 6465), it characterizes 1 Macc as well; see our NOTE on 2:21, so that
although they were few in number.
185 But the latter cant be done after the battles because they all take place after God has
again become merciful (8:5), so even a few Jewish deaths require special explanation
(as at 12:40).
186 See below, p. 557, n. 120.
187 For a similar case, note 10:14: But Gorgias, upon becoming commander of the re-
gion, collected mercenaries (7) and at every occasion waged war (-
) against the Jews. The rhyme points up the fact that whatever he did just
caused trouble.
and that it is for this reason that the Jews are invulnerable ( "
0)): because they follow the laws ordained by Him. In the
Greek ) and 2 are juxtaposed, highlighting the
contrast. As for the last phrase, it may well be that the tongue-twisting con-
catenation of ttrttrt (pointed out to me by Emmanuelle Main) is
calculated to make us laugh at Nicanors expense in this closing verse of the
central chapter of our book.
9:1718: Antiochus vows that, moreover, he would become a Jew and,
visiting () all inhabited places, would proclaim the power of
God. But since the suffering did not at all let up for he had already been
visited ( B $) by the just judgment of God he gave up
hope for himself and wrote the Jews the letter
11:2, 4: Lysias invades thinking () to make the city a resi-
dence for Greeks but not at all giving more thought ($ -
) to the power of God.
14:29, 31, the hero beats the villain at his own game: (Nicanor)
awaited an opportunity to fulfill (the kings order) by stratagem
(2) When he realized that the man had out-stratagemized
him with aplomb ( 2)
Many of these cases have a satirical bite to them. In particular we may
note the way the author likes to play with prepositional prefixes, such as
with in 11:2, 4 (above). Or, for a case that
contrasts not villains and heroes but, rather, the real Fighter to the apparent
ones, see 13:1415: in two successive verses Judas first entrusts (G )
the outcome of the battle to the Creator and only thereafter assigns
(0G ) a motto to his men.188
For a special case of this, note the frequent jokes at the expense of Anti-
ochus Epiphanes: already two verses in the authors preface (2:2021) move
from Antiochus Epiphanes to the heavenly epiphaneiai (apparitions),
Chapter 9 includes several plays on Antiochus hyperephania (arrogance
vv. 4, 7, 11) and it is emphasized that it was precisely Antiochus own suf-
fering that allowed God to appear (become phaneran v. 8); the parting
shot comes in Chapter 10 which, after referring to the death of Antiochus
Epiphanes, introduces his son, Antiochus Eupator (= Good-father!), as the
son of that impious man.
188 For other cases of apparent emphasis on the prepositional prefix, see NOTES on
7:11, look beyond, and on 13:18, by devious routes. For a case in which the desire to
play such a game (F F" ) apparently overrode practical con-
siderations, see NOTE on 4:12, sun-hats.
82 Introduction
In order to remind readers that the story is one of righteous vs. wicked,
and also so as to move it along briskly, the author uses stereotypical de-
scriptions of his characters; the similarity among them functions like uni-
forms associating them with this or that side, and so the author neednt
pause to characterize them individually. Thus, for example, as Goldstein
notes (2 Macc, 476), the big picture is that in Chapters 1415 Alcimus
plays the role Simon played in Chapters 34 and Nicanor plays that of
Heliodorus in Chapter 3 and that of Antiochus Epiphanes beginning in
Chapter 6. But at the level of details as well, anyone who reads the account
of Menelaus mission to the king (4:2324) will recall Jasons mission
(4:79) and realize that they are similar villains, and anyone who reads of
Alcimus mission, which is presented in 14:5 as an attempt to fulfill his
madness (# 0 ), should recall Simons madness (6 ) of 4:6,
which will in turn remind him or her of the good Onias mission and clarify
just how hypocritical Alcimus was:

I have now come hither, first out (Onias) betook himself to the
of genuine concern for the kings king,
interests, and secondly having
regard also for my own fellow- not as a plaintiff against his
citizens ( ). fellow citizens ( ),
For due to the thoughtlessness of but, rather, with his eyes set
the aforementioned people our upon the benefit of each
entire nation has in no small and every member of the
measure become disinherited. And community. For he saw that
you, O King (), knowing without royal providence
all of this, give providential attention (# ) it
(2) to the country and would be impossible
to our beleaguered nation, with
the same love of mankind with
which you graciously receive
everyone. For as long as Judas for the state to attain peace
is around it will be impossible again, (0 J
for the state to attain peace 2 * )
(0 2 nor would Simons folly
). (# 0 ) ever cease.
Thus, just as the allusion at 14:3 to Alcimus willing self-defilement during

hard times casts him as the opposite of Judas Maccabaeus and his men
(5:27) and concomitantly prepares the way to make the soon-to-be-men-
tioned Razis (14:38) into the antithesis of Alcimus and into a new Judas-like
hero, the passages compared in this table are meant to display Alcimus as a
poor parody of Onias. Or, for another example, anyone who reads the long
list of promises in 9:16 is supposed to recall 3:3 and see the contrast be-
tween the villain who belatedly promises everything and his predecessor, Se-
leucus, who did what he undertook to do:

and that he would deck out the
Holy Temple which he had
previously pillaged with the
most beautiful votive offerings,
and that he would restore many
times over the sacred vessels and King Seleucus of Asia supplied out
supply from his own revenues of his own revenues all the
the expenses incurred for the expenses incurred for the
sacrifices ( sacrificial offices (
"
2). ).
This type of repetition clarifies for the reader that the book deals with the
same conflict throughout, even when the actors change, thus allowing the
author to save time introducing the new ones.189
In fact, moreover, at a basic level the main actors do remain the same
throughout. The first verse of the middle chapter (8:1), right before the turn-
ing-point of the whole book (8:5), characterizes its heroes as those who re-
mained in Judaism; and it is this pivotal point that accords unity to the
book. Looking back, the struggles depicted in the preceding chapters (and
now summarized in 8:24) may now be understood as having been between
those Jews who wished to adopt Hellenism (4:13)/Greek ways (4:10, 15;
6:9; 11:24)/foreignism (0 [4:13; 6:25]) and those foreigners
who wished to impose such upon the Jews, on the one hand, and, on the
other, those Jews who remained in Judaism. Looking forward, the clashes
from this point on may now be understood as one prolonged struggle waged
by those who remained in Judaism, to free Jerusalem the books focus
from those who would sever it from Judaism.190 The difference between the
two sections of the book derives from the difference between the Jews being
189 For more play with the same terminology, see NOTE on 4:14, ministries.
190 See NOTE on 2:21, for Judaism.
84 Introduction
in a state of sin, and hence deserving of suffering, in the first section, and the
Jews being in a state of atonement in the second section; but the nature of
the struggle does not change at all. This unity is made all the clearer by the
arch that now begins to stretch from this middle chapter to the final chapter,
both of which are devoted to clashes with thrice-accursed Nicanor (8:34;
15:3).191 Accordingly, readers of Chapter 14 will recognize that Razis
loyalty to Judaism during the time of persecution (14:38) is another round
of that of Judas and his men (5:27; 8:1), just as Razis martyrdom is another
in the series narrated at length in Chapters 67, and this will lead readers to
expect that just as those events were followed by the first victory over Ni-
canor, so too the events in their image presage a new victory over him. This
new victory, moreover, may justifiably be expected to fulfill not only the
prayer of 14:3536, which pertains to the current episode, but, in fact, given
the way we have been reminded of Chapter 8, it should also fulfill the prayer
for total reconciliation which came at the end of that first victory over
Nicanor (8:29).192 Thus, the books story is not about a series of events over
a given period of time, but about a single prolonged struggle. This unity,
with its frequent presaging of the next step, denies readers convenient stop-
ping points and urges them on to the end.
191 For the artificial nature of this unity, see NOTE on 14:12, Immediately selecting
Nicanor.
192 On the verbal similarities between Chs. 8 and 15, which contribute to the readers
understanding that it is all one story, see above, pp. 1718.
VI. Reception and Text 85
VI. Reception and Text
1. Who Read 2 Maccabees? 2 Maccabees was written with Jewish readers in

mind, and although we may occasionally discern hints that the author if
not some copyist took non-Jewish readers into account,193 it is not at all
surprising that prior to the rise of Christianity there is no evidence for non-
Jewish readers. After all, the fact is that the translation of the Holy Scrip-
tures into Greek made no impression whatever in the Greek world, since in
the whole of Greek literature there is no indication that the Greeks read the
Bible before the Christian period.194 But there is not much evidence for Jew-
ish readers either. True, the book was transmitted as part of the Septua-
gint,195 and the letters appended to its beginning indicate that official Jeru-
salem, of the Hasmonean period, encouraged the Jews of the Diaspora to
193 See NOTE on 7:1, forbidden flesh.

194 See V. Tcherikover, Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered, in: Eos 48/3 (1957
= Symbolae Raphaeli Taubenschlag dedicatae, III) 177. See also Stern, GLA
1.361362 and Rinaldi, Biblia Gentium. On the general ignorance of the Romans
with regard to Jewish literature see also M. Radin, Roman Knowledge of Jewish Lit-
erature, CJ 13 (19171918) 149176. (For the suggestion that a papyrus of the first
or second century CE, P. Oxyrhynchus 2944, shows that Philiscus of Miletus, of the
fourth century BCE, knew the story of Solomons judgment [1 Kgs 3:1628], see
J. Mlze Modrzejewski, Philiscos de Milet et le jugement de Salomon: La premire
rfrence grecque la Bible, BIDR3 30 (1988) 571597. But maybe the text was
authored by a Jew, and in any case we should distinguish between knowing this fa-
mous story and knowing it from the Bible; note [with Stern, GLA, 1.viii, n. 5] that it
mentions neither Jews nor Solomon.) Rinaldis book, that deals with references to the
Hebrew Bible and the New Testament in pagan literature of the first few Christian
centuries, cites no evidence for anyone reading 2 Macc, apart from Porphyry of Tyre,
of the third century CE. Fragments of his Adversus Christianos as preserved in Je-
romes commentary on Dan 11 (CCSL 75a, esp. 919932; see also Stern, GLA II, nos.
464q-464s) clearly reflect knowledge of the first two Books of Maccabees, as is
shown by their contents and by occasional references to that which we read in Mac-
cabees (in Machabaeis legimus) and to the Maccabaeorum libri, although some al-
lusions are hard to pin down and it is also not clear whether those explicit references
to the books are Porphyrys or Jeromes.
195 See above, p. 57.
86 Introduction
read it.196 Nevertheless, until the late first century C.E. (at the earliest)197 we
know for sure of only one Jewish reader of our book: the author of 4 Mac-
cabees, who retells at length the martyrdom stories of 2 Maccabees and also
includes a version of the Heliodorus story. Philological comparison leaves
virtually no room for doubt about its use of our book.198
As for other possible Jewish readers, there is not much to discuss. In all
of Philos corpus there is, it seems, only one passage which might indicate
knowledge of 2 Maccabees, and even that passage (That Every Good Man
is Free, 89), which alludes to cruelty and torments, lacks any very specific
pointers to our book.199 Josephus seems clearly given both what his books
do include and what they do not include not to have known 2 Maccabees.
True, there are a few tantalizing points at which he agrees with its story,200
even against his major source (1 Maccabees), but in the absence of common
errors or the like there is little reason to suppose that he got his material
196 So too, we may note that here and there it seems that glosses have been introduced
into the text; see above, p. 37, n. 80. The fact that they are attested to by many or all
of the witnesses points to their antiquity.
197 For this usual dating of 4 Maccabees see Breitenstein, Beobachtungen, 173175; van
Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 7378; idem, Datierung. Recently van Henten has
raised the possibility of redating the work to the third or fourth century CE; see idem,
Martyrdom and Persecution Revisited, 6263.
198 See van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 7073; Dupont-Sommer, Le quatrime livre,
2632. For a list of numerous words that appear in both parallel narratives see Brei-
tenstein, Beobachtungen, 1819 (who doesnt even bother proving that it is 4 Macc
that depends on 2 Macc and not the other way around, for at least since Dupont-
Sommer that is more or less universally accepted).
199 The passage relates to cruel tyrants who dismember their subjects while still alive but
in the end suffer the same terrible fate, and it has been thought that this alludes spe-
cifically to 2 Macc 7:45 and 9:9. So Zambelli, Composizione, 197, n. 1, followed
by Habicht, 2 Macc, 177. But although it is indeed likely that the reference is to Anti-
ochus IV, given the facts that the event is said to have occurred in the (Jewish) land
and is followed by something that seems to refer to Herod and so probably alludes to
some earlier tyrant, there does not seem to be sufficient reason for confidence that
Philo drew specifically upon our book and not on general knowledge or some other
source. For skepticism, see Momigliano, Second Book of Maccabees, 88 (no evi-
dence) and Goodman in Schrer, History, 3.534.
200 See especially Goldstein, 2 Macc, 2627, n. 80. For the main agreements, compare
6:2, 11; 11:4; 13:35; and 14:1, respectively, to Ant. 12.257264, 274 (burning is not
mentioned in 1 Macc 2:2938); War 1.41 (eighty elephants); Ant. 12.384385 (see
above, p. 36); and 389 (Tripoli is not mentioned in 1 Macc 7:1). For the usual
assumption, that Josephus, nevertheless, did not use our book, see Grimm, 2 Macc,
13, 2021 and Stern, Studies, 4445.
from our book in particular. Growing up in Jerusalem he could have learned

details of the Jewish side of the story (such as the fact that those who fled to
caves were burned [6:11]) from any number of sources, and as for details of
Seleucid history (such as the fact that Demetrius arrived in Syria specifically
at Tripoli [14:1]), we know that he had access to detailed material on that
dynasty and its history. As for 3 Maccabees, here the picture is less clear, for
it has much in common with 2 Maccabees, beginning with numerous
words201 and including Temple-invasion stories (2 Macc 3//3 Macc 12)
that are quite similar one to another.202 Nevertheless, given the fact that it
tells a different story even in this case it is difficult to infer dependence, and
since although 3 Maccabees is a later book203 its Temple-invasion story ap-
pears to be simpler (= more original?) than that of 2 Maccabees, it seems
wiser to ascribe the similarities to a common cultural background, and per-
haps to common traditions, than to literary dependence.204
It is hard to guess why the cupboard is so bare. Arnaldo Momigliano sug-
gested that 2 Maccabees was doomed because it was meant to be read in pub-
lic; in his opinion it was too complicated for that, and was also hampered by
the fact that it is built to lead up to Nicanors Day, rather than to Hanuk-
kah.205 That suggests that had it been fit for Hanukkah it would have enjoyed
more use. However, the problem might be deeper, for there is in fact no Jew-
ish-Hellenistic evidence of interest in Hanukkah, apart from Josephus who
grew up as a priest in Jerusalem and proud descendant of the Hasmoneans,
and so can hardly represent all of Hellenistic Jewry concerning this topic.206
201 For a list of twenty-five common words or combinations see Emmets introduction
to 3 Maccabees in APOT 1.156. A check of about 40 % of H&R (see above, n. 164)
uncovered another fifteen.
202 See above, p. 5.
203 It is usually dated to sometime in the first century BCE; see Tromp, Formation and
Parente, Third Book of Maccabees. The former tends toward the end of that cen-
tury, while the latter as also Alexander (3 Maccabees, Hanukkah and Purim),
Johnson, Historical Fictions, 129141, and Hacham, Third Book of Maccabees,
221243 tends rather towards its beginning.
204 So too Emmet (above, n. 201) 157: The impression left is that both books belong to
the same school of thought, and probably to the same period. Recently, however,
Alexander, who is preparing a commentary on 3 Macc, has expressed the assumption
that it used our book and even reacted to it; see his 3 Maccabees, Hanukkah and
Purim, 332339.
205 See Momigliano, Second Book of Maccabees, 88.
206 The same goes for the reference to Hanukkah in John 10:22, which too seems to re-
flect Palestinian tradition; see C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel
(Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1963) 210211, 426427.
88 Introduction
That is, the lack of interest in 2 Maccabees (and a fortiori in its Hebrew
counterpart, 1 Maccabees) displayed by Hellenistic Jews may be only one
aspect of their more general lack of interest due to their different cultural,
religious and political situation in the Temple, in holidays in its honor, and
in the history of a sovereign Jewish state that did not last very long.207
In contrast, there is much evidence for Christian interest in our book.
Within the New Testament canon it is generally recognized that the
Epistle to the Hebrews shows knowledge of it. For when we read at He-
brews 11:3536 that Women received their dead by resurrection ( 5 -
7 0), others were tortured on the torture-wheel
( ) and yet others suffered mocking ()
it is all but impossible not to see here allusions to 2 Maccabees 6:19, 28
(" ) and the story of Chapter 7, including the of
7:7 and the mothers prayer at 7:29 to receive her children back at the res-
urrection (7:29); similarly, the reference in Hebrews 11:38, to those
forced to take refuge in the deserts and mountains and caves, points
straight to our 10:6.208 As for post-canonical Christian literature, Abel
compiled an impressive list of allusions to our book, beginning with a
single and general reference in the Shepherd of Hermas in the mid-second
century and flowering into specific references and citations in Clemens
Alexandrinus, Hippolytus, Origen and others.209 Lactantius De mortibus
persecutorum, written in the fourth century, describes those who perse-
cuted Christians as latter-day Antiochuses la 2 Maccabees; Roug even
dubbed Lactantius work the Fifth Book of Maccabees.210 Naturally
the martyrdom stories in our book were particularly popular among
Christians, and they were cited repeatedly, eventually taking on a life of
207 For the general lack of Jewish-Hellenistic interest in the Temple per se, see above,
pp. 4648. For Hanukkah as a part of Hasmonean propaganda which was not wel-
comed enthusiastically by all Diasporan Jews, see Stemberger, La festa di Hanuk-
kah, 528 and Alexander, 3 Maccabees, Hanukkah and Purim, 332339.
208 See e.g. O. Michel, Der Brief an die Hebrer (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
196612) 418, n. 3 (Der Sprachgebrauch des Hebr ist offenbar durch 2Makk ge-
formt); C. Rose, Die Wolke der Zeugen: Eine exegetisch-traditionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung zu Hebrer 10,32 12,3 (Tbingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1994) 312315.
Cf. above, p. 52, n. 120.
209 See Abel, Macc, viiixi. On the impact of our books martyrologies on the Apostolic
Fathers see J. W. van Henten, Zur Einflu jdischer Martyrien auf die Literatur des
frhen Christentums, II: Die Apostolischen Vter, ANRW II 27.1 (1993) 700723.
210 See Roug, Le de mortibus, and Creeds introduction to his edition of DMP,
xxxviixxxix.
their own,211 especially given the development of a Christian cult in mem-

ory of the Maccabean martyrs.212 Thus, for example, a recently-published
papyrus, apparently of the third century, includes a Coptic version of
2 Maccabees 5:277:41,213 and in the fourth century we find John Chry-
sostomus three sermons On the Maccabean Martyrs and Their Mother
(MPG 50, 617628).
But not only the martyrdoms attracted such attention. Inclusion of
the book in the Christian canon, however qualified (see above, pp. 5759),
guaranteed that it would be read and used more generally. Thus, for
example, it seems that Chrysostomus fifth sermon against the Jews uses our
book (without direct citation) as part of an attack on Julians attempt to
rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem: depending on the story told by the second
introductory epistle, the Antiochian father pointed out that even had Julian
succeeded, his temple, given the absence of fire from heaven, would have
lacked all holiness.214 Another popular section was the end of Chapter 12,
from which one could derive support for belief in resurrection, purgatory
and the efficacy of intercessional prayer; as we have seen (above, p. 60), this
was, accordingly, a passage that would eventually elicit barbed criticism
from Luther. But in other and less controversial fields as well, such as the be-
lief in angels, miracles and creatio ex nihilo,215 our book served the Church
well. And on a more popular level, it seems that medieval readers (and
listeners) simply found 2 Maccabees to be good reading, supplying, as it
does, an ancient version of a tale of knights in shining armor (and even some
heavenly steeds), miracles, and saints.216
211 As we have noted (p. 20, n. 50), this could reflect, in part, the fact that they began
with a life of their own.
212 On this Christian cult, celebrated on August 1, see: Maas, Die Maccaber als christ-
liche Heiligen; Rampolla, Martyre et spultre; and Vinson, Gregory Nanzianzens
Homily 15. On the possibility of Jewish antecedents, see Bammel, Judaica, 7985
(= TLZ 78 [1953] 119126); Downey, Antioch, 110111; and Roth-Gerson, The
Jews of Syria as Reflected in the Greek Inscriptions (Jerusalem: Shazar, 2001 [in He-
brew]) 241250. Everything points to Antioch as the place where the cult originated.
213 See E. S. Meltzer & H.-G. Bethge, in: J. E. Goehring (ed.), The Crosby-Schyen
Codex Ms 193 in the Schyen Collection (Lovanii: Peeters, 1990) 81133.
214 Compare MPG 48, 900 on Julians abominable hands ( ) to
2 Macc 5:16, and see Brndle, Auswirkungen, 238.
215 See NOTE on 7:28, God did not make them out of existing things.
216 On the popularity of the book in the Middle Ages, see Dunbabin, The Maccabees
as Exemplars. It seems that the first commentary on our book was written (along
with one on 1 Maccabees) in the ninth century (MPL 109, 12231256); see Savigni,
Istanze ermeneutiche.
90 Introduction
Rabbinic literature and medieval Jewish literature, in contrast, show next

to no interest in our book (as most of apocryphal literature). True, the story
of the mother and her seven sons may be found in several works, but as we
have seen even with regard to 2 Maccabees itself (above, pp. 1920) it had
a life of its own, so there is no need to trace Jewish retellings of the story to
our book, especially given the fact that it was in Greek and they were in He-
brew.217 Josippon, a tenth-century Jewish version of Josephus which quite
obviously used some version of 2 Maccabees, is a striking exception.218
Text
Given 2 Maccabees inclusion in the Christian canon and popularity among

Christians, it is not surprising that, as Habicht notes (2 Macc, 191), there is
a relatively rich textual tradition, both direct and indirect (translations
and citations). But the tradition is nevertheless quite secure; according to
217 On the original independence of the martyrologies of Chs. 67, see above, pp. 1920.
On their history in Jewish literature, see n. 50. For the suggestion that the differences
between the story of the mother and her seven sons in Pesiqta Rabbati (ed. Ish-Sha-
lom, 180b) and that in Lamentations Rabbah (ed. Buber, 8485) indicate that the
former used 2 Macc 7, see: I. Lvi, Le Martyre des sept Macchabes dans la Pesikta
Rabbati, REJ 54 (1907) 138141. But this is not much more than speculation.
Against Levi, see G. D. Cohen, Hannah, 5859, n. 62 (where, however, the pres-
entation of Levis case is somewhat inaccurate). For a possible echo of our book in a
Jewish liturgical poem, see NOTE on 15:33, cutting the tongue ; but the poet could
have gotten this detail from another tradition, or perhaps he made it up. Similarly,
there is a striking similarity between our Ch. 9 and the death of Antiochus IV as de-
picted in a liturgical poem by Rabbenu Gerschom Meor HaGolah (eleventh century):
see Rabbenu Gerschom Meor HaGolah, Selihot uPhizmonim (ed. A. M. Haberman;
Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1953/54) 21 (in Hebrew) and my Why Did Anti-
ochus?, 259260. But given the fact that there is a similar account in Josippon (ed.
Flusser, 1.8485), and it seems that R. Gerschom copied Josippon (see Flusser, ibid.,
36, but also the doubts expressed recently by H. Soloveitchik, Halakhah, Herme-
neutics and Martyrdom in Medieval Ashkenaz, JQR 94 [2004] 280281), there is
no need to assume he saw our book too. For the Hasmoneans in Jewish medieval con-
sciousness, see Flusser, Memory of the Maccabees; see also Elizur, Piyyutim.
218 For Josippons use of 2 Macc see ed. Flusser, 1.61106 and 2.397 (index). In some-
thing of a Jewish version of Abels love for the Vetus Latina (see below, n. 222), Zeit-
lin used Josippon very frequently in his commentary to 2 Macc. For another case of
exceptional interest in our book among pre-modern Jews, a manuscript of 1442 con-
taining a Hebrew translation (from the Latin) of about 9 chapters, see Rothschild,
Une pice tardive.
2 Maccabees editor in the Gttingen Septuagint, Robert Hanhart (Text,

60), there is hardly a case in which textual problems impact upon the sense
of our books historical content. The foundations for modern textual work
on the text were laid by Hanharts predecessor, Werner Kappler, in his 1929
Gttingen dissertation on the subject: De memoria alterius libri Macca-
baeorum. Kapplers work was first held up by officials who thought that
work on the Old Testament was an occupation too narrow and marginal
for a classicist and did not fit the Nazis focus of classical philology upon
the classical period; later, in 1939, Kappler was drafted into the German
army and died in service in 1944.219 His work was eventually inherited and
completed by Hanhart, whose edition (copiis usus quas reliquit Werner
Kappler) was published in 1959; its corrected second edition, published in
1976, is the basis for the present translation.
In brief, the textual testimony may be summarized as follows.220 Al-
though not in the Sinaiticus, our book is included in the other two of the
great Septuagint uncial manuscripts: the Alexandrinus (fifth century) and
Venetus (eighth), as well as in more than thirty miniscules, of which the ear-
liest is from the ninth century.221 These Greek witnesses are divided into two
main groups: those that reflect the editorial work of Lucian of Samosata (d.
ca. 312), who strove to improve and regularize the received Greek texts,
and those including the Alexandrinus that do not. Hanhart, following
Kappler, naturally built especially on the latter.
This fairly simple picture is complicated by the Vetus Latina. This text,
which became available in the twentieth century due to the efforts of Dona-
tien de Bruyne, who (together with B. Sodar) published it in full in 1932
(Les anciennes traductions latines des Machabes), just after Kappler fin-
ished his dissertation, aroused great enthusiasm especially in the work of
Abel, whose influential commentary was the next to appear; Abel fre-
quently adopted its readings.222 Although as a translation one might expect
this version to enjoy only a secondary status, two main arguments have
been urged as reason to give its testimony special status: it is quite similar to
219 See C. Wegeler, Wir sagen ab der internationalen Gelehrtenrepublik: Altertums-

wissenschaft und Nationalsozialismus Das Gttinger Institut fr Altertumskunde,
19211962 (Wien, Kln & Weimar: Bhlau, 1996) 236237.
220 The following summary is based for the most part upon the introduction to Hanharts
edition, upon Katzs review of it (Text), upon Hanharts response (Text), and upon
Kilpatricks 1963 review of both of Hanharts works (see bibliography).
221 For an annotated list of the manuscripts see Rahlfs, Verzeichnis, 387390.
222 For Abel on the Vetus Latina see his Macc, lv-lvii. Among the enthusiastic reviews, see
E. Bickerman, TLZ 58 (1933) 340341 and A. Vaccari, Bib 14 (1933) 477481.
92 Introduction
the version of 2 Maccabees evidently used by Cyprian in the mid-third cen-

tury, and thus bears witness to a pre-Lucianic text; and some of its readings
seem best to explain the varying and problematic readings of other wit-
nesses. 2 Maccabees 9:9 is an excellent example: where most of the Latin
witnesses have worms coming out of Antiochus eyes (de oculis), which
represents the Greek 1, and most of the other witnesses
(including the Greek ones) have them coming from his body ( )-
), the Venetus has them coming out of the eyes of his body (
) 1), which makes no sense. Here it seems likely, as
De Bruyne argued, that the Latin witnesses preserve the original text, which
would have been 1; that copyists who had trouble with this
poetic word for eyes either substituted (as in the Greek witnesses) the more
normal 1 or else consciously or unconsciously corrected it
into ) instead; but that eyes although using the more com-
mon 1 survived long enough to be incorported alongside of
body in the Venetus.223 There are other cases like this, and especially the
cases as this one, where the Greek is longer than the Latin and seems to be a
combination of the original reading (preserved in the Latin) and a corrected
one, are convincing.224 Another contribution of the Vetus Latina is the dis-
covery that many cases thought to have been Lucianic corrections are ac-
tually older readings.225
Nevertheless, a translation is still only a translation, and at times it is dif-
ficult, or even impossible, to decide when a better reading is better because
its more original and when its better because it solves a problem in the
original. And even when we try to work according to the usual guidelines,
preferring the harder readings and the shorter readings (lectio difficilior, lec-
tio brevior) on the presumption that copyists will tend to make hard texts
simpler and to add rather than omit, in practice their application is far from
223 See De Bruyne, Anciennes traductions, viii (note on 9:9), also idem, Notes philol-
ogiques,4078. In this case De Bruyne is followed by Hanhart half-way: while he
agrees to read only eyes, he uses 1 although De Bruyne (Notes philol-
ogiques, 409) had concluded that On nhsitera pas accepter comme la
vraie leon. Typically (see below), Hanhart doesnt even mention that possibility in
his apparatus ad loc.
224 For a list of such passages, see De Bruyne, Anciennes traductions, vii-ix. See also ibid.
xxi, on minuses in the Latin as compared to the Greek, which might indicate sec-
ondary expansion of the Greek; in support of this see esp. Katz, Text, 1821. Han-
hart (Text, 2128), in contrast, tends to view them as evidence for shortening by the
Latin translator.
225 For the higher assessment of Lucianic witnesses in the wake of study of the Vetus
Latina, see esp. Kilpatricks review of Hanhart, 1921.
simple.226 Frequently, for example, we hesitate to prefer the harder reading

precisely because it is so difficult that although it is unlikely a scribe created
it deliberately, it seems just as unlikely that the author did. That is, difficult
readings may simply be errors.227 Moreover, arguments asserting that we
should prefer a putative lectio difficilior to the received text typically claim
that the correction will solve some problem with the received text but that
claim means, ipso facto, that the received text is difficult so maybe it
should be preferred after all. As for the lectio brevior rule, what is the valid-
ity of the presumption that the shorter reading is to be preferred when we
are dealing with a book whose author clearly loved to play with words and
pile them on, even to the point that a copyist might view some of them as
superfluous? Shall we, for example, eliminate 7:32 because it repeates
things said in 7:18 and 7:33 (see NOTE on 7:32, suffer sins)?
Or, for a case within a single verse (3:15): The priests, throwing them-
selves before the altar in their priestly vestments, called to heaven, upon
Him who legislated concerning deposits, to preserve them inviolate for their
depositors. One might well think the words to heaven ( $)
superfluous, and already Niese proposed they be excluded as an unnecess-
ary gloss; subsequently it also became known that most Latin versions lack
these words, leading Katz to join the call to exclude them.228 However,
Hanhart quite properly responded that the same duplication recurs at the
end of the book, at 15:34 (And turning toward heaven [ " $]
they all blessed the God who had become manifest), according to the Latin
evidence as well, and that the reference to heaven in Chapter 3 serves to
prepare us for v. 34 (add: and v. 39), which underline that succor indeed
came from heaven.229 In this case, therefore, it seems quite easy to agree
with Hanhart that the Greek text, although longer, should be preferred over
that represented by the Latin which he views as Lucianic ironing out of
putative difficulties. In any case, the doubt hardly matters from most points
of view.
Other cases are harder, sometimes more weighty too. Let us look, for
example, at the first verse of Chapter 7: It also happened that seven
226 On both rules, see Tov, Textual Criticism, 3027; on lectio difficilior, see also Al-
brektson, Difficilior lectio probabilior.
227 See Tov, ibid., 303: However, although the basic validity of this rule cannot be de-
nied, many scholars have recognized that the rule is nevertheless problematic and im-
practical, since it fails to take into consideration simple scribal errors. After all, by
definition, often a scribal error creates a lectio difficilior.
228 See Niese, Kritik, 111; Katz, Text, 13.
229 See Hanhart, Text, 18.
94 Introduction
brothers had been arrested together with their mother and were being
forced by the king, tortured by whips and cords, to touch the forbidden flesh
of swine. The explanation that swine-flesh is forbidden is not found in
three Greek miniscules, nor in the Vetus Latina, and so the latters editors,
again followed by Katz, surmised that it is an explanatory gloss added by
copyists of the Greek text: Un juif aurait jug superflu de noter que la chair
de porc tait une nourriture dfendue.230 Hanhart, however, thinks it like-
lier that the Greek manuscripts lacking the word lost it via homoioteleuton:
0 F .231 Note, in this connection, that Jews know
that the Sabbath is a holy day, and nevertheless our author notes that fact at
5:25 according to all witnesses. Is it so clear that a Jewish author would
not point out, perhaps for Gentile readers, perhaps simply for rhetorical ef-
fect, that pork is forbidden to Jews? Indeed, may we not assume that most
Gentiles certainly most Bible copyists know that? And couldnt we im-
agine that some who themselves eat pork might in fact prefer to leave the
word out? Conjectures like these can go back and forth endlessly.
Regarding lectio brevior potior we may summarize, then, by noting,
with Kilpatrick, that the rule is applicable only insofar as all other things are
equal, and that that condition is met, as Hanhart showed, much less fre-
quently than one might think.232
As for lectio difficilior potior, it is not always simple to know what is
easy and what is hard, nor what is so difficult that it is not reasonable or
possible. After all, every mistake is difficult for someone who knows the
truth. Let us take two examples, one minor and one more central to our
books story. At 10:26, Judas men are said to have thrown themselves, in
prayer, upon the opposite the altar so the Greek witnesses. Ac-
cording to several Latin witnesses, however, they threw themselves opposite
the crepis of the altar. Given the fact that typically means foun-
dation, there is some room to prefer the Latin witnesses: as Abel points out
(Macc, 413), the Latin text makes our passage parallel the scene at Joel 2:17
where the priests lament between the porch and the altar, that is, across
from the altar. (For use of Joel 2:1620 in our book, see also above, p. 62.)
However, Joel speaks of what the priests did, while our text speaks of all of
Judas men and non-priests were not allowed to approach the altar. More-
over, we know that there were steps leading from the Court of Israel to that
230 So De Bruyne, Anciennes traductions, x; so too Katz, Text, 19 and Abel (in his
commentary [Macc, 371], although he retains the word in the Greek text printed in
his edition).
231 Hanhart, Text, 25.
232 See Kilpatrick, Text, 12; Hanhart, Text, 22.
of the priests (where the altar was), and that it was common to pray upon
them.233 So can we really be sure sure enough to depart from all our Greek
witnesses that the Latin witnesses are correct, and not just a learned at-
tempt to bring our text into line with Joel?
Our more central example is one which exceptionally is of conse-
quence for the historical content of our book: what shall we say of the pedi-
gree of the books first villain, Simon (3:4)? The Greek evidence unani-
mously identifies him as a Benjaminite. But if that is the case, then given
the fact that our author claims Menelaus was Simons brother (4:23) the
result is that Menelaus, who was to become high priest, was not, according
to our author, of priestly descent (for Jewish priests are Aaronites, of the
tribe of Levi). That would be surprising, and many would also claim it is im-
possible, especially in light of the fact that the book makes no comment
about this anomaly. Hence the enthusiasm with which the Vetus Latinas de
tribu balgea was received and accepted, for it identifies Simon (and hence
Menelaus) as a member of one of the priestly families, Bilgah (1 Chr 24:14);
even Hanhart adopted this reading into his edition.
However, accepting that reading assumes not only (a) that it was imposs-
ible or very improbable that Menelaus could have been high priest if of Ben-
jaminite descent, but also (b) that our author who did not find the Temple
cult and its details of the greatest interest (see above, pp. 4648) could not
have written that, at least not without adding words taking umbrage at it,
or (c) that the statement at 4:25 that Menelaus was not equipped with any-
thing worthy of the high priesthood cannot imply knowledge of the prob-
lem with his descent; and (d) that only modern scholars, but not ancient
ones (even those who were well at home in the Bible and knew that high
priests ought not be of Benjaminite descent), could be so bothered by Ben-
jamin that they would be happy to change it by assuming that it had been
written, in error, by someone unfamiliar with another name that began with
a B like Bilgah. None of these assumptions is a given. And there are
other considerations as well, such as the presumption that 2 refers to
one of the twelve tribes of Israel (such as Benjamin) and not to a priestly
clan (for which the normal Greek term is / ),234 and that 1 Macca-
233 For more on this, see our NOTE on 10:26, threw themselves
234 For the standard use of 2 for tribes and / for priestly courses (as in Jo-
sephus, Ant. 7.367; 12.265; Vita 2; Luke 1:5, 8), see BDAG, 1069 and 418. Although
identification of Jews by reference to the Israelite tribes is rare in the Second Temple
period, it is not unheard of, especially not with regard to the tribe of Benjamin, which
was thought to be among those that returned from the Babylonian Exile; see Ezra 1:5,
4:1 etc.; As. Mos. 4:8; Rom 11:1; Phil 3:5.
96 Introduction
bees 7:14, where the pious greet Menelaus successor with enthusiasm be-
cause he is an Aaronite, seems to imply that Menelaus was not an Aaronite.
Given these doubts, I prefer to adhere to the Greek text in this case, al-
though no one can claim certainty.
In short, although each case has to be addressed separately, in general I
retain the Kappler-Hanhart preference for the Greek tradition, especially in-
sofar as it is free of Lucian retouching. We should note, however, that along-
side the general praise for Hanharts edition there was also not a little criti-
cism concerning not these basic preferences but, rather, his aversion to
modern conjectures. Numerous conjectures have been offered over the
years, based on context and on parallels, but Hanhart by and large ignored
them and even refused to register them in his critical apparatus if they are
not found in extant witnesses. Hanharts critics, on this point as others, eli-
cited a detailed response from him, and as I note at various passages it
seems to me that in most cases his defense of his text is to be accepted, or
that his text is to be defended in some other way; for an example, see Ap-
pendix 8.235 Nevertheless, at times I have preferred to depend upon second-
ary witnesses, or upon conjectural emendation of the text, especially when
the presumed error may readily be explained palaeographically.236
235 For some other examples, see our NOTES on 2:25, those who take pleasure; 6:8, At
Ptolemys suggestion; 6:18, to open his mouth; 8:9, from various peoples; 8:23, and
also Eleazar; 10:11, governor-in-chief ; 10:30, Two of them; 12:28, who with
power; 12:42, that the sin that had occurred; 14:29, sought an appropriate opportun-
ity; 14:40, for he thought to cause them suffering by arresting him; and 15:11, than
anything else. See esp. Hanhart, Text, 3132, where as he exemplifies concerning
14:29 he states his basic position that readings which are possible in Hellenistic
Greek, and well-testified, should not be emended away; if they are unusual readings,
that is not very surprising for such a flashy author as ours (see above, p. 67).
236 For some examples, see our NOTES on 1:21, When they informed him that in fact
they found no fire; 1:35, drawn out; 4:48, who had spoken ; 9:12, being mor-
tal ; 11:18, I approved them myself; 14:17, minor appeared; and 15:33, of his
head.
VII. Literature 97
VII. Literature
Hanharts edition is the major resource for any study of 2 Maccabees.

Among the commentaries, I have found four to be the most useful, as fol-
lows:
Grimms 1857 commentary is still the most useful for all that regards
the language itself and parallels in Greek literature;
Abels 1949 edition is very good with regard to religious issues and
biblical parallels, although his translation is often free (and its frequent
preference for the Vetus Latina, noted above, is not always a blessing);
Habichts 1976 translation and commentary, which is much shorter
than the others, is precise and particularly helpful with regard to the Hel-
lenistic context;
Goldsteins 1983 commentary, almost six hundred pages long, is help-
ful concerning just about every issue, large and small alike, that the book
raises or touches upon. It is somewhat difficult to use this commentary on a
hit and run basis, however, because he has some overriding theories about
the books sources and about what really happened, and because these
are bound up with theories he began to build in his preceding volume on
1 Maccabees.237
As for the translation, apart from Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English
Lexicon, I found Mauersbergers Polybios-Lexicon, Spicqs Notes de lexi-
cographie no-testamentaire, Walbanks Historical Commentary to Poly-
bius, and Welles Royal Correspondence to be most helpful. For the com-
mentary there is no end, of course, to potentially useful literature, some of
which I have listed in the bibliography. But I should note that Bar-Kochvas
Judas Maccabaeus, Van Hentens Maccabean Martyrs, Geras Judaea and
Mediterranean Politics, and Sterns The Documents on the History of the
Hasmonaean Revolt were especially important for my work.
237 Some reviewers took Goldstein to task for interpreting the book on the basis of such
theories; see, among others, E. S. Gruen, CBQ 47 (1985) 520521 and S. J. D. Cohen,
JAOS 105 (1985) 799800. However, it is clear that things really happened and that
there were sources, so one cannot condemn attempts to find them. Cf. K.-D. Schunck,
TLZ 112 (1987) 263265.
98 Introduction
VIII. Abbreviations and Bibliography1
AB Anchor Bible
ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vols.; ed. D. N. Freedman; New York:
Doubleday, 1992)
AC Lantiquit classique
AfP Archiv fr Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete
AGAJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums
Ag. Ap. Josephus, Against Apion
AIPHOS Annuaire de lInstitut de philologie et dhistoire orientales et slaves
AJAH American Journal of Ancient History
AJP American Journal of Philology
ALGHJ Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums
ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der rmischen Welt
Ant. Josephus, Antiquities
APOT R. H. Charles (ed.), Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testa-
ment, III (Oxford: Clarendon,1913)
ARW Archiv fr Religionswissenschaft
AS Ancient Society
ASE Annali di storia dellesegesi
ASNSP Annali della scuola normale superiore di Pisa: Lettere, storia e filosofia
AWW Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-historische
Klasse
BA Biblical Archaeologist
BAIAS Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society
BAR Biblical Archaeology Review
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BBB Bonner biblische Beitrge
BCE Before the Common Era
BCH Bulletin de correspondance hellnique
BDAG F. W. Danker (ed.), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature (based on W. Bauers Griechisch-deut-
sches Wrterbuch ; Chicago: Chicago Univ., 20003)
BEATAJ Beitrge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Juden-
tums
1 My thanks to Ms. Tanja Schulthei and Mr. Nadav Sharon for their assistance in
checking bibliographical details.
VIII. Abbreviations and Bibliography 99
BeO Bibbia e Oriente

BFC Bollettino di filologia classica
Bib Biblica
BIDR Bullettino dellistituto di diritto romano Vittorio Scialoja
BIHBR Bulletin de lInstitut historique belge de Rome
BJS Brown Judaic Studies
BM Beit Mikra
BN Biblische Notizen
BSJS Brills Series in Jewish Studies
BZ Biblische Zeitschrift
CA Classical Antiquity
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CBQMS CBQ Monograph Series
CCSL Corpus Christianorum Series Latina
CE Common Era
CEJL Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature
CII J.-B. Frey (ed.), Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum, III (Citt del Vati-
cano: Pont. Ist. di Archeologia Cristiana, 19361952; repr. of vol. I
with Prolegomenon by B. Lifshitz: New York: Ktav, 1975)
CJ Classical Journal
CP Classical Philology
CPJ V. A. Tcherikover, A. Fuks and M. Stern (ed.), Corpus Papyrorum Ju-
daicarum, IIII (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard, 19571964)
CQ Classical Quarterly
CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum
DGE F. R. Adrados (ed.), Diccionario Griego-Espaol (Madrid: CSIJ, 1980)
DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
DMP Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum (ed. & trans. J. L. Creed; Ox-
ford: Clarendon, 1984)
DPH Dissertationes philologicae halenses
DSD Dead Sea Discoveries
EA Epigraphica Anatolica
EB tudes bibliques
EFN Estudios de filologia neotestamentaria
EP tudes de papyrologie
FGrH F. Jacoby (ed.), Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin:
Weidmann, 1923)
FHG C. Mller (ed.), Fragmenta historicorum graecorum (4 vols.; Paris:
Didot, 18411868)
GCAJS Gratz College Annual of Jewish Studies
GCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte
GLA M. Stern (ed.), Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, IIII
(Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 19741984)
GRBS Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies
100 Introduction
H&R E. Hatch & H. A. Redpath (ed.), A Concordance to the Septuagint, IIII

(Oxford: Clarendon, 18971906)
HC Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization
HCS Hellenistic Culture and Society
HSAT Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testamentes
HSCP Harvard Studies in Classical Philology
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HTS Harvard Theological Studies
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
HZ Historische Zeitschrift
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
IG Inscriptiones Graecae
IL Israelietische Letterbode
JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion
JAC Jahrbuch fr Antike und Christentum
JANESCU Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JBT Jahrbuch fr biblische Theologie
JH Jewish History
JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
JM Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus
JQR Jewish Quarterly Review
JRS Journal of Roman Studies
JSHRZ Jdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-rmischer Zeit
JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman
Period
JSJSup Supplements to JSJ
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSP Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
JWH Journal of World History
KEHA Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des Alten
Testamentes
LAB Pseudo-Philo, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum
LCL Loeb Classical Library
Leg. Philo, Legatio ad Gaium
LSJ H. G. Liddell and R. Scott (compilers), A Greek-English Lexicon
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1992; repr. of rev. 9th ed. by H. S. Jones et al.,
1940; includes 1968 Supplement)
LXX Septuagint
MAAR Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome
MGWJ Monatsschrift fr Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums
MH Museum Helveticum
MPG J. P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus: series graeca
MPL J. P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus: series latina
MUSJ Mlanges de lUniversit Saint Joseph
NAW Nachrichten (von) der (kniglichen) Gesellschaft/Akademie der Wis-
senschaften in Gttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse
NovT Novum Testamentum
NTS New Testament Studies
OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis
OGIS W. Dittenberger (ed.), Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae, III (Lipsiae:
Hirzel, 19031905)
OLD P. G. W. Glare (ed.), Oxford Latin Dictionary, III (corrected edition;
Oxford: Clarendon, 1996)
OTP J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.;
Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 19831985)
OTS Oudtestamentische Studin
PCPS Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society
Phil Philologus
PL Mauersberger, Polybios-Lexikon
PW Philologische Wochenschrift
RA Revue archologique
RB Revue biblique
RC Welles, Royal Correspondence
RDGE Sherk, Roman Documents
RE Paulys Realenencylopdie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft
REA Revue des tudes anciennes
REG Revue des tudes grecques
REJ Revue des tudes juives
RF Rivista de Filologia
RhM Rheinisches Museum fr Philologie
RHPR Revue dhistoire et de philosophie religieuses
RHR Revue de lhistoire des religions
RP Revue de philology
RQ Revue de Qumran
RSR Recherches de science religieuse
RSV Revised Standard Version
RTP Revue de thologie et de philosophie
SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series
SBLTT Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations
SCI Scripta Classica Israelica
SCS Septuagint and Cognate Studies
SE Seleucid Era
SEG Supplementum epigraphicum graecum
SFSHJ South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism
102 Introduction
SHR Studies in the History of Religions

SIFC Studi italiani di filologia classica
SIG G. [W.] Dittenberger (ed.), Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum, IIV (Lip-
siae: Hirzel, 191519243)
SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity
SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series
SP Studia Patristica
SPA Studia Philonica Annual
SPB Studia Post-Biblica
ST Studia Theologica: Scandinavian Journal of Theology
STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah
SVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha
TAPA Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association
TCAAS Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences
TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament
TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung
TSAJ Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism/Texte und Studien zum antiken
Judentum
TSK Theologische Studien und Kritiken
TZ Theologische Zeitschrift
UF Ugarit-Forschungen
VC Vigiliae Christianae
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTSup Supplements to VT
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
ZAW Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft
ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palstina-Vereins
ZKT Zeitschrift fr katholische Theologie
ZNW Zeitschrift fr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZPE Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik
Abel, F.-M., Les livres des Maccabes (EB; Paris: Gabalda, 1949).
Abrahams, I., Niese on the Two Books of the Maccabees, JQR o.s. 13 (1901)
508519 (review of Niese, Kritik).
Adinolfi, M., Questioni bibliche di storia e storiografia (Brescia: Paideia, 1969).
Africa, T., Worms and the Death of Kings: A Cautionary Note on Disease and His-
tory, CA 1 (1982) 117.
Albrektson, B., Difficilior lectio probabilior: A Rule of Textual Criticism and Its
Use in Old Testament Studies, Remembering All the Way (OTS 21; Leiden:
Brill, 1981) 518.
Alexander, L., The Preface to Lukes Gospel: Literary Convention and Social
Context in Luke 1.14 and Acts (SNTSMS 78; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.,
1993).
Alexander, P. S., 3 Maccabees, Hanukkah and Purim, Biblical Hebrews, Biblical

Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman (ed. A. Rapoport-Albert and
G. Greenberg; JSOT Supplement Series, 333/The Hebrew Bible and Its Ver-
sions 2; London and New York: Sheffield, 2001) 321339.
Alon, G., Jews, Judaism and the Classical World (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977).
Ameling, W., Jerusalem als hellenistische Polis: 2 Makk 4,912 und eine neue
Inschrift, BZ n. F. 47 (2003) 105111.
Amir, Y., Die hellenistische Gestalt des Judentums bei Philon von Alexandrien (For-
schungen zum jdisch-christlichen Dialog 5; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener,
1983).
Amir, Y. Measure for Measure in Talmudic Literature and in the Wisdom of
Solomon, Justice and Righteousness: Biblical Themes and Their Influence (ed.
H. G. Reventlow and Y. Hoffman; JSOT Supplementary Series 137; Sheffield:
Sheffield, 1992) 2946.
Amit, D. and H. Eshel (ed.), The Hasmonean Period: Sources, Summaries, Selected
Episodes and Supplemental Materials (Idan 19; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1995
[in Hebrew]).
Amit, Y., The Dual Causality Principle and Its Effects on Biblical Literature,
VT 37 (1987) 385400.
Arenhoevel, D., Die Theokratie nach dem 1. und 2. Makkaberbuch (Mainz: Mat-
thias-Grnewald-Verlag, 1967).
Artom, E. S., The Second Book of Maccabees (in: idem, The Apocrypha [Tel-Aviv:
Yavneh, 1969 (in Hebrew)]).
Avenarius, G., Lukians Schrift zur Geschichtsschreibung (Meisenheim/Glan: Hain,
1956).
Avi-Yonah, M., Historical Geography of Palestine: From the End of the Babylonian
Exile up to the Arab Conquest (Jerusalem: Bialik, 19844 [in Hebrew]).
Baer, Y. F., The Problem of Religion in the Hasmonean Period, in: Knowledge of
the Past in the Consciousness of the Nations and of the Jewish People (Jerusa-
lem: Historical Society of Israel, 1968/69) 5684 (in Hebrew; reprinted in idem,
Studies in the History of the Jewish People, I [Jerusalem: Historical Society of Is-
rael, 1985] 4977).
Bammel, E., Judaica (WUNT 37; Tbingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1986).
Barag, D., The Mint of Antiochus IV in Jerusalem: Numismatic Evidence on the
Prelude to the Maccabean Revolt, Israel Numismatic Journal 14 (2000/2002)
5977.
Barclay, J. M. G., Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora From Alexander to Hadrian
(323 BCE 117 CE) (Edinburgh: Clark, 1996).
Bardtke, H., Der Mardochustag, in: Jeremias (ed.), Tradition und Glaube,
97116.
Bar-Kochva, B., The Description of the Battle of Beth Zacharia: Literary Fiction or
Historical Fact?, Cathedra 86 (January 1998) 722 (in Hebrew).
Bar-Kochva, B., On Josephus and the Books of the Maccabees, Philology and His-
toriography, Tarbiz 62 (1992/93) 115132 (in Hebrew).
104 Introduction
Bar-Kochva, B., Judaism and Hellenism Between Scholarship and Journalism,

Tarbiz 63 (1993/94) 451480 (in Hebrew).
Bar-Kochva, B., Judas Maccabaeus: The Jewish Struggle Against the Seleucids
(Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1989).
Bar-Kochva, B., Pseudo-Hecataeus, On the Jews: Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora
(HCS 21; Berkeley: Univ. of California, 1996).
Bar-Kochva, B., The Seleucid Army: Organization and Tactics in the Great Cam-
paigns (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1976).
Baumgarten, A. I., Qumran and Jewish Sectarianism During the Second Temple
Period, The Scrolls of the Judaean Desert: Forty Years of Research (ed. M. Broshi
et al; Jerusalem: Bialik and Israel Exploration Society, 1992) 139151 (in Hebrew).
Beckwith, R., The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and its
Background in Early Judaism (London: SPCK, 1985).
Bell, H. I., Philanthropia in the Papyri of the Roman Period, Hommages Joseph
Bidez et Franz Cumont (Collection Latomus 2; Bruxelles: Latomus, 1949)
3137.
Bengtson, H., Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit. Ein Beitrag zum antiken
Staatsrecht, IIII (Mnchner Beitrge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken
Rechtsgeschichte; Mnchen: Beck 19371952; 2nd ed. of vol. III, 1967).
Bergren, T. A., Nehemiah in 2 Maccabees 1:102:18, JSJ 28 (1997) 249270.
Berve, H., Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen, III (Mnchen: Beck, 1967).
Bevan, E. R., The House of Seleucus, III (London: Routledge and Paul, 1966).
Bvenot, H., Die beiden Makkaberbcher (HSAT IV/4; Bonn: Hanstein, 1931).
Bickerman [Bickermann], E., Der Gott der Makkaber: Untersuchungen ber Sinn
und Ursprung der makkabischen Erhebung (Berlin: Schocken, 1937).
Bickerman [Bikerman], E., Institutions des Sleucides (Paris: P. Geuthner, 1938).
Bickerman, E., Studies in Jewish and Christian History, IIII (AGAJU 9/13;
Leiden: Brill, 19761986).2
Bilde, P. et al. (ed.), Religion and Religious Practice in the Seleucid Kingdom (Aar-
hus: Aarhus Univ., 1990).
Bleek, F., ber die Stellung der Apokryphen des alten Testamentes im christlichen
Kanon, TSK 26/1 (1853) 267354.
Blinkenberg, C., Lindos: fouilles et recherches 19021914: Fouilles de lAcropole,
II: Inscriptions publies den grande partie aprs les copies de K. F. Kinch, I
(Nos 1281; Berlin u.a.: de Gruyter, 1941).
Bonnet, C., Melqart: Cultes et mythes de lHracls tyrien en Mditerrane (Leuven
u.a.: Peeters, 1988).
Bons, E., comme lesprance de la vie dans lau-del dans la littrature
juive hellnistique, Ce Dieu qui vient: tudes sur lAncien et le Nouveau Tes-
2 As the present volume was going to press there appeared, in two volumes: E. J. Bick-
erman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History: A New Edition in English including
The God of the Maccabees (AJEC 68/12; ed. A. Tropper; Leiden: Brill, 2007).
tament offertes au Professeur Bernard Renaud loccasion de son soixante-cin-

quime anniversaire (ed. R. Kuntzmann; Paris: du Cerf, 1995) 345370.
Bousset, W., Deutsche Literaturzeitung, 22 (1901), cols. 16691674 (review of
Niese, Kritik).
Bowersock, G. W., Martyrdom and Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1995).
Box, H. (ed. with an introd., transl. and comm.), Philonis Alexandrini In Flaccum
(Oxford: Oxford Univ., 1939).
Brndle, R., Die Auswirkungen der Zerstrung des Jerusalemer Tempels auf
Johannes Chrysostomus und andere Kirchenvter, Tempelkult und Tem-
pelzerstrung (70 n. Chr.): Festschrift fr Clemens Thoma zum 60. Geburts-
tag (Judaica et Christina 15; ed. S. Lauer and H. Ernst; Bern: Lang, 1995)
231246.
Breitenstein, U., Beobachtungen zu Sprache, Stil und Gedankengut des Vierten
Makkaberbuchs (Basel: Schwabe, 1976).
Bringmann, K., Hellenistische Reform und Religionsverfolgung in Juda: Eine Un-
tersuchung zur jdisch-hellenistischen Geschichte (175163 v. Chr.) (Abhand-
lungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philologisch-historische Klasse,
3. Folge, 132; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983).
Broshi, M. and E. Eshel, The Greek King is Antiochus IV (4QHistorical Text =
4Q248), JJS 48 (1997) 120129.
Brown, P., The Body and Society (New York: Columbia Univ., 1988).
Brll, N. Das Sendschreiben der Palstiner an die Alexandriner, Jahrbcher fr
Jdische Geschichte und Litteratur 8 (1887) 3040.
Bruston, C., Trois lettres des Juifs de Palestine (2 Makkab. III,18), ZAW 10
(1890) 110117.
Buckler, W. H., Labour Disputes in the Province of Asia, Anatolian Studies Pres-
ented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (ed. idem and W. H. Calder; Manchester:
Univ., 1923) 2750.
Bchler, A., Das Sendschreiben der Jerusalemer an die Juden in Aegypten in
II Makkab. 1,112,18, MGWJ 41 (1897) 481500, 529554.
Bckers, H., Das ewige Leben in 2 Makk 7,36, Bib 21 (1940) 406412.
Bunge, J. G., Die sogenannte Religionsverfolgung Antiochos IV Epiphanes und die
griechischen Stdte, JSJ 10 (1979) 155165.
Bunge, J. G., Theos Epiphanes: Zu den ersten fnf Regierungsjahren Antio-
chos IV. Epiphanes, Historia 23 (1974) 5785.
Bunge, J. G., Untersuchungen zum zweiten Makkaberbuch: Quellenkritische, lite-
rarische, chronologische und historische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Makka-
berbuch als Quelle syrisch-palstinensischer Geschichte im 2. Jh. v. Chr. (Diss.
Bonn, 1971).
Buschmann, G., Das Martyrium des Polykarp (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru-
precht, 1998).
Camponovo, O., Knigtum, Knigsherrschaft und Reich Gottes in den frhjdi-
schen Schriften, (OBO 58; Freiburg, Schweiz: Universittsverlag, and Gttin-
gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984).
106 Introduction
Caquot, A., Pour une tude de linitiation dans lancien Isral, in: C. J. Bleeker
(ed.), Initiation (SHR 10; Leiden: Brill, 1965) 119133.
Chantraine, P., Les verbes grecs signifiant lire, AIPHOS 10 (1950) 115126.
Chazon, E. G., Gather the Dispersed of Judah: Seeking a Return to the Land as a
Factor in Jewish Identity of Late Antiquity, in: Heavenly Tablets: Interpre-
tation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism (JSJSup 119: ed. L. LiDonnici
and A. Lieber; Leiden: Brill, 2007) 159175.
Cigoi, A., Historisch-chronologische Schwierigkeiten im zweiten Makkaberbuche
(Klagenfurt: Leon, 1868).
Cohen, G. D., Hannah and Her Seven Sons in Hebrew Literature, in: idem,
Studies in the Variety of Rabbinic Cultures (Philadelphia and New York: Jewish
Publication Society, 1991) 3960.
Cohen, G. M., The Antiochenes in Jerusalem Again, Pursuing the Text:
Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of His Seventieth
Birthday (ed. J. C. Reeves and J. Kampen; JSOT Supplement 184; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic, 1994) 243259.
Cohen, S. J. D., The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties
Collins, J. J. and G. E. Sterling (ed.), Hellenism in the Land of Israel (Notre Dame:
Univ. of Notre Dame, 2001).
Corradi, G., Studi ellenistici (Torino: Societ editrice internazionale, 1929).
Cotton, H. M. and M. Wrrle, Seleukos IV to Heliodoros: A New Dossier of
Royal Correspondence from Israel, ZPE 159 (2007) 191205.
Cowey, M. S. and K. Maresch, Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis
(144/3 133/2 v. Chr.) (P. Polit. Iud.) (Papyrologica Coloniensia, 29; Wies-
baden: Westdeutscher Verlag, 2001).
Dancy, J. C., A Commentary on I Maccabees (Oxford: Blackwell, 1954).
Daniel, S., Recherches sur le vocabulaire du culte dans la Septante (tudes et com-
mentaires 61; Paris: Klincksieck, 1966).
Danker, F. W., Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testa-
ment Semantic Field (St. Louis: Clayton, 1982).
De Bruyne, D., (avec la collaboration de B. Sodar), Les anciennes traductions
latines des Machabes (Anecdota Maredsolana 4; Maredsous: Abbaye de
Maredsous, 1932).
De Bruyne, D., Notes de philologie biblique, RB 30 (1921) 400409.
Deissmann, A., Bible Studies (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1901).
Deissmann, A., Licht vom Osten: Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten
Texte der hellenistisch-rmischen Welt (Tbingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 19234).
Delorme, J., Gymnasion: tude sur les monuments consacrs lducation en
Grce (des origines lEmpire romain) (Paris: Boccard, 1960).
Dimant, D., 4Q127 An Unknown Jewish Apocryphal Work? Pomegranates
and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law and
Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman and
A. Hurvitz; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 805813.
Dpler, J., Theatrum Poenarum, suppliciorum et executionum criminalium , II

(Leipzig: Lanck, 1697).
Dommershausen, W., 1 Makkaber, 2 Makkaber (Neue Echter Bibel 12;
Wrzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1985).
Donner, H., Argumente zur Datierung des 74. Psalms, Wort, Lied und Gottes-
spruch: Beitrge zu Psalmen und Propheten, Festschrift fr Joseph Ziegler (ed.
J. Schreiner; Forschung zur Bibel 2; Wrzburg: Echter Verlag Katholisches Bi-
belwerk, 1972) 4150.
Doran, R., The High Cost of a Good Education, Hellenism in the Land of Israel
(ed. John J. Collins; Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 13; Notre Dame:
Univ. of Notre Dame, 2001) 94115.
Doran, R., Jasons Gymnasion, Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible,
Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins Presented to John Strugnell on
the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday (ed. H. W. Attridge, J. J. Collins and T. H.
Tobin; Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1990) 99109.
Doran, R., The Martyr: A Synoptic View of the Mother and Her Seven Sons,
Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms (ed. J. J. Collins and
G. W. E. Nickelsburg; Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1980) 189221.
Doran, R., Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees
(CBQMS 12; Washington, D. C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America,
1981).
Doran, R., 2 Maccabees 6:2 and the Samaritan Question, HTR 76 (1983)
481485.
Dover, K. J., Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1974).
Downey, G., A History of Antioch in Syria (Princeton, N.J.: Univ. Press, 1961).
Drew-Bear, T., Recherches pigraphiques et philologiques, I: O mourut Anti-
ochos IV?, REA 82 (1980) 155157.
Dunbabin, J., The Maccabees as Exemplars in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries,
The Bible in the Medieval World: Essays in Memory of Beryl Smalley (ed.
K. Walsh and D. Wood; Studies in Church History, Subsidia 4; Oxford: Black-
well, 1985) 3141.
Dupont-Sommer, A., Le quatrime livre des Machabes (Sciences historiques et
philologiques 274; Paris: Champion, 1939).
Eckstein, A. M., Moral Vision in the Histories of Polybius (HCS 16; Berkeley:
Univ. of California, 1995).
Edson, C., Imperium Macedonicum: The Seleucid Empire and the Literary Evi-
dence, CP 53 (1958) 153170.
Elhorst, H. J., Die beiden Makkaberbcher und die Vorgeschichte des jdischen
Freiheitskrieges, Vierteljahrsschrift fr Bibelkunde, talmudische und patristische
Studien, 2 (1905) 367394.
Efron, J., Studies on the Hasmonean Period (SJLA 39; Leiden: Brill, 1987).
Eliav, Y., Gods Mountain: The Temple Mount in Time, Place, and Memory (Bal-
timore: Johns Hopkins, 2005).
108 Introduction
Elizur, S., Piyyutim of Hanukkah: Symbol vs. Realia, in: Amit and Eshel, The
Hasmonean Period, 303310 (in Hebrew).
Enermalm-Ogawa, A., Un langage de prire juif en grec: Le tmoignage des deux
premiers livres des Maccabes (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1987).
Eshel, H. and Amit, D. (ed.), Refuge Caves of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (Tel-Aviv:
Israel Exploration Society, Academic College of Judaea and Samaria and C.G.
Foundation [Jerusalem], 1998 [in Hebrew]).
Ettelson, H. W., The Integrity of I Maccabees, TCAAS 27 (1925) 249384.
Exler, F. X. J., The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter of the Epistolary Papyri (3rd c.
B.C. 3rd c. A. D.): A Study in Greek Epistolography (Washington D. C.: Cath-
olic Univ., 1923).
Fiensy, D. A., Prayers Alleged to be Jewish: An Examination of the Constitutiones
Apostolorum (BJS 65; Chico, Cal.: Scholars, 1985).
Fischer, T., Heliodor im Tempel zu Jerusalem: Ein hellenistischer Aspekt der
frommen Legende, Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten Israel:
Festschrift fr Siegfried Herrmann zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. R. Liwak and
S. Wagner; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1991) 122133.
Fitzmyer, J. A., Some Notes on Aramaic Epistolography, JBL 93 (1974)
201225.
Fitzmyer, J. A., Tobit (CEJL; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2003).
Flusser, D., Kiddush Hashem in 2 Maccabees, Mahanaim 41 (Hanukkah
1959/60) 5356 (in Hebrew).
Flusser, D., The Dedication of the Temple by Judas Maccabaeus: Story and
History, in: The Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman World: Studies in Memory
of Menahem Stern (ed. I. M. Gafni, A. Oppenheimer and D. R. Schwartz;
Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar and Historical Society of Israel, 1996) 5582 (in
Hebrew).
Flusser, D., The Memory of the Maccabees Among Medieval Jews, Cathedra 75
(April 1995) 3654 (in Hebrew).
Fraser, P. M., Ptolemaic Alexandria (3 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1972).
Grtner, B., The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation (Uppsala: Almqvist and
Wiksell, 1955).
Gafni, I. M., Josephus and I Maccabees, Josephus, the Bible, and History (ed.
L. H. Feldman and G. Hata; Leiden: Brill, 1989) 116131.
Gafni, I. M., Oppenheimer, A. and Schwartz, D. R. (ed.), The Jews in the Hellen-
istic-Roman World: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern (Jerusalem: Zalman
Shazar and the Historical Society of Israel, 1996 [in Hebrew]).
Gardiner, E. N., Athletics of the Ancient World (London: Oxford Univ., 1930).
Geiger, A., Urschrift und bersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhngigkeit von der in-
nern Entwicklung des Judenthums (Frankfurt am M.: Madda, 19282).
Geiger, J., The History of Judas Maccabaeus: One Aspect of Hellenistic Histori-
ography, Zion 49, 1 (1984) 18 (in Hebrew).
Gera, D., The Battle of Beth Zachariah and Greek Literature, The Jews in the Hel-
lenistic-Roman World: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern (ed. I. M. Gafni,
A. Oppenheimer and D. R. Schwartz; Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar and Historical

Society of Israel, 1996) 2553 (in Hebrew).
Gera, D., Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 219 to 161 B.C.E. (BSJS 8; Leiden:
Brill, 1998).
Gera, D., On the Credibility of the History of the Tobiads (Josephus, Antiquities
12, 156222, 228236), in: Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel: Collected Essays
(ed. A. Kasher, U. Rappaport and G. Fuks; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi and Israel
Exploration Society, 1990) 2138.
Gera, D. and W. Horowitz, Antiochus IV in Life and Death: Evidence from the
Babylonian Astronomical Diaries, JAOS 117 (1997) 240252.
Gieschen, C. A., Angelomorphic Christology (Leiden: Brill, 1998).
Gil, L., Sobre el estilo del libro segundo de los Macabeo, Emerita 26 (1958)
1132.
Giovannini, A. and H. Mller, Die Beziehungen zwischen Rom und den Juden im
2. Jh. v. Chr., MH 28 (1971) 156171.
Glucker, J., Herbal Nutrition Squashing the Intellect, Katharsis 4 (2005/6)
133152 (in Hebrew).
Goldstein, J. A., I Maccabees (AB 41; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1976).
Goldstein, J. A., II Maccabees (AB 41A; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983).
Goldstein, J. A., The Tales of the Tobiads, Christianity, Judaism and Other
Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, III (SJLA 12/3; ed.
J. Neusner; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 85123.
Goodblatt, D., Medinat Hayam The Coastal District, Tarbiz 64, 1 (1994)
1337 (in Hebrew).
Goodman, M. (ed.), Jews in a Greco-Roman World (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998).
Goodman, M., Kosher Olive Oil in Antiquity, A Tribute to Geza Vermes (ed. P. R.
Davies and R. T. White; JSOT Supplement 100; Sheffield: JSOT, 1990)
227245.
Graetz, H., Das Sendschreiben der Palstinenser an die gyptisch-jdischen Ge-
meinden wegen der Feier der Tempelweihe, MGWJ 26 (1877) 116, 4972
(= idem, Geschichte der Juden, III, 2, Leipzig 19065) 673687.
Grainger, J. D., The Cities of Seleukid Syria (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990).
Grainger, J. D., A Seleukid Prosopography and Gazetteer (Leiden: Brill, 1997).
Granier, F., Die makedonische Heeresversammlung (Mnchener Beitrge zur Papy-
rusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 13; Mnchen: Beck, 1931).
Grimm, C. L. W., Das erste Buch der Maccaber (KEHA 3; Leipzig: Hirzel,
1853).
Grimm, C. L. W., Das zweite, dritte und vierte Buch der Maccaber (KEHA 4; Leip-
zig: Hirzel, 1857).
Grintz, Y. M., Sefer Yehudith (The Book of Judith) (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1957 [in
Hebrew]).
Gruber, M. I., Women in the Cult According to the Priestly Code, Judaic Per-
spectives on Ancient Israel (ed. J. Neusner, B. A. Levine and E. S. Frerichs;
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 3548.
110 Introduction
Gruen, E. S., Fact and Fiction: Jewish Legends in a Hellenistic Context, Hellen-
istic Constructs: Essays in Culture, History, and Historiography (HCS 26; ed.
P. Cartledge, P. Garnsey and E. Gruen; Berkeley: Univ. of California, 1997)
7288.
Gruen, E. S., Hellenism and Persecution: Antiochus IV and the Jews, Hellenistic
History and Culture (HCS 9; ed. P. Green, Berkeley: Univ. of California, 1993)
238274.
Gruen, E. S., The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (2 vols.; Berkeley:
Univ. of California, 1984).
Gruen, E. S., Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition
Gruen, E. S., The Origins and Objectives of Onias Temple, SCI 16 (1997)
4770.
Gruen, E. S., The Purported Jewish-Spartan Affiliation, Transitions to Empire:
Essays in Greco-Roman History, 360146 B.C., in Honor of E. Badian (ed.
R. W. Wallace and E. M. Harris; Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma, 1996) 254269.
Guraud, O., : Requtes et plaintes adresses au roi dgypte au IIIe
sicle avant J.-C. (Le Claire: Impr. de lInst. Franais dArchologie Orientale,
1931).
Gutberlet, C., Das zweite Buch der Machaber (Mnster i. W.: Aschendorff,
1927).
Gutman, Y., The Beginnings of Jewish-Hellenistic Literature (2 vols.; Jerusalem:
Bialik, 19581963 [in Hebrew]).
Gutman, Y., The Mother and Her Seven Sons in the Aggadah and in the Second
and Fourth Books of Maccabees, in: Commentationes Iudaico-Hellenisticae in
Memoriam Iohannis Lewy (19011945) (ed. M. Schwabe and I. Gutman; Jeru-
salem: Magnes, 1949) 2537 (in Hebrew).
Habicht, C., Gottmenschentum und griechische Stdte (Zetemata 14; Mnchen:
Beck, 19702).
Habicht, C., Hellenismus und Judentum in der Zeit des Judas Makkabus, Jahr-
buch der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften fr das Jahr 1974 (ed. Hei-
delberger Akademie der Wissenschaften; Heidelberg: Akad. 1975) 97110.
Habicht, C., Royal Documents in Maccabees II, HSCP 80 (1976) 118.
Habicht, C. Der Stratege Hegemonides, Historia 7 (1958) 376378.
Habicht, C., 2. Makkaberbuch (JSHRZ I, 3; Gtersloh: Mohn, 1976).
Hacham, N., The Third Book of Maccabees: Literature, History and Ideology
(unpublished PhD. Dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2002 [in
Hebrew]).
Hacham, N., 3 Maccabees: An Anti-Dionysian Polemic, in: J.-A. A. Brant, C. W.
Hedrick and C. Shea (ed.), Ancient Fiction: The Matrix of Early Christian and
Jewish Narrative (SBL Symposium Series 32; Leiden: Brill, 2005) 167183.
Hack, M., Two Hanukkah Letters, Sinai 12 (1942/43) 9299 (in Hebrew).
E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Oxford: Blackwell,
1971).
Hanhart, R., Die Heiligen des Hchsten, in: Hebrische Wortforschung: Festsch-
rift zum. 80. Geburtstag von Walter Baumgartner (VTSup 16; ed. B. Hartmann
et al.; Leiden: Brill, 1967) 90101.
Hanhart, R. (ed.), Maccabaeorum liber II, copiis usus quas reliquit Werner Kappler
(Septuaginta 9, 2; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19762).
Hanhart, R., Zum Text des 2. und 3. Makkaberbuches: Probleme der Ueberliefe-
rung, der Auslegung und der Ausgabe (NAW 1961, no. 13; Gttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1961).
Hanson, V. D. (ed.), Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience (London:
Routledge, 1991).
Harvey, G., The True Israel: Uses of the Names Jew, Hebrew and Israel in Ancient
Jewish and Early Christian Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1996).
Heinemann, I., The Relationship Between the Jewish People and their Land in
Hellenistic-Jewish Literature, Zion 1314 (19481949) 19 (in Hebrew).
Heinemann, I., Philons griechische und jdische Bildung (Breslau: Marcus, 1932).
Heinemann, I., Wer veranlate den Glaubenszwang der Makkaberzeit?
MGWJ 82 (1938) 145172.
Hengel, M., Das Johannesevangelium als Quelle fr die Geschichte des antiken
Judentums, in: Oppenheimer (ed.), Jdische Geschichte, 4173.
Hengel, M., Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During
the Early Hellenistic Period, III (London: SCM, 1974).
Henten, J. W. van, The Ancestral Language of the Jews in II Maccabees, Hebrew
Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda (ed. W. Horbury; Edinburgh: Clark, 1999)
5368.
Henten, J. W. van, Datierung und Herkunft des vierten Makkaberbuches,
Tradition and Re-Interpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature:
Essays in Honour of Juergen C. H. Lebram (ed. J. W. van Henten et al.; Leiden:
Brill, 1986) 136149.
Henten, J. W. van, Die Entstehung der jdischen Martyrologie (Leiden: Brill, 1989).
Henten, J. W. van, Judas the Maccabees Dream (2 Macc. 15:1116) and the Egyp-
tian Kings Sickle Sword, Zutot: Perspectives on Jewish Culture, IV (ed.
S. Berger, M. Brocke and I. E. Zwiep; The Nethelands: Springer, 2004) 815.
Henten, J. W. van, The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People:
A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees (JSJSup 57; Leiden: Brill, 1997).
Henten, J. W. van and F. Avemarie (ed.), Martyrdom and Noble Death: Selected
Texts from Graeco-Roman, Jewish and Christian Antiquity (London and New
York: Routledge, 2002).
Henten, J. W. van, Martyrdom and Persecution Revisited: The Case of 4 Macca-
bees, Mrtyrer und Mrtyrerakten (ed. W. Ameling; Altertumswissenschaft-
liches Kolloquium 6; Stuttgart: Steiner, 2002) 5975.
Henten, J. W. van, Pantokrator Theos in 2 Maccabees, YHWH Kyrios: Antithe-
ism or The Power of the Word Festschrift fr Rochus Zuurmond, (ed. K. A.
Deurloo and B. J. Diebner; Dielheimer Bltter, Beiheft 14; Heidelberg: Selbstver-
lag des DBAT, 1996) 117126.
112 Introduction
Henten, J. W. van, 2 Maccabees as a History of Liberation, in: M. Mor, et al.

(ed.), Jews and Gentiles in the Holy Land in the Days of the Second Temple, the
Mishnah and the Talmud (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2003) 6386.
Herkenne, H., Die Briefe zu Beginn des zweiten Makkaberbuches (1, 1 bis 2, 18)
(Biblische Studien 8/4; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1904).
Herman, G., Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City (Cambridge: Cambridge
Univ., 1987).
Hertz, J. H. (ed.), The Authorised Daily Prayer Book (3 vols.; London: National
Council for Jewish Religious Education, 19431945).
Himmelfarb, M., Judaism and Hellenism in 2 Maccabees, Poetics Today 19
(1998) 1940.
Hlscher, G., Die Feldzge des Makkabers Judas, ZDPV 29 (1906) 133151.
Holladay, C. R., Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, IIV (Chico, Calif.:
Scholars, 198396).
Holleaux, M., tudes dpigraphie et dhistoire grecques, III: Lagides et Sleucides
(Paris: Boccard, 1942).
Horst, P. W. van der, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs (Kampen: Kok, 1991).
Horst, P. W. van der, Hellenistic Parallels to the Acts of the Apostles (2.147),
Studies on the Hellenistic Background of the New Testament (ed. P. W. van der
Horst and G. Mussies; Utrechtse Theologische Reeks 10; Utrecht: Rijksuniver-
siteit, 1990) 131142.
Horst, P. W. van der, Philos Flaccus: The First Pogrom (Philo of Alexandria Com-
mentary Series, 2; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003).
Houghton, A., The Seleucid Mint of Mallus and the Cult Figure of Athena Mag-
arsia, Festschrift fr Leo Mildemberg/Studies in Honor of Leo Mildenberg (ed.
A. Houghton et al.; Wetteren: Editions NR, Belgium 1984) 91110.
Hunt, S. and Edgar, C.C., Select Papyri, II: Official Documents (London: Heine-
mann, 1934).
Hyldahl, N., The Maccabean Rebellion and the Question of Hellenization, in:
Bilde, Religion and Religious Practice, 188203.
Ilan, T., Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine (TSAJ 44, Tbingen: Mohr [Sie-
beck], 1995).
Ilan, T., Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity, I (TSAJ 91; Tbingen: Mohr
[Siebeck], 2002).
Ilan, T., The Names of the Hasmoneans in the Second Temple Period, Eretz-
Israel 19 (1987) 238241 (in Hebrew).
Jacobson, H., The Exagoge of Ezekiel (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1983).
Jaeger, W., Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture (3 vols.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1945).
Jeremias, G., H.-W. Kuhn and H. Stegemann (ed.), Tradition und Glaube: Das
frhe Christentum in seiner Umwelt Festgabe fr Karl Georg Kuhn zum
65. Geburtstag (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971).
Johnson, S. R., Historical Fictions and Hellenistic Jewish Identity: Third Maccabees
in Its Cultural Context (HCS 43; Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: Univ. of
California, 2004).
Jossa, G., La storiografia giudeo-ellenistica: Il secondo libro dei Maccabei e la

Guerra giudaica di Flavio Giuseppe, La storiografia della Bibbia (Atti della
28 Settimana Biblica; Bologna: Dehoniane, 1986) 93102.
Joon, P., Les mots employs pour dsigner le Temple dans lAncien Testament,
le Nouveau Testament et Josphe, RSR 25 (1935) 329343.
Kah, D. and P. Scholz (ed.), Das hellenistische Gymnasion (Wissenskultur und
gesellschaftlicher Wandel 8; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2004).
Kahana, A. (ed.), HaSepharim HaHizonim, II/1 (Tel-Aviv: Meqorot, 1936/37 [in
Hebrew]).
Kahrstedt, U., Syrische Territorien in hellenistischer Zeit (Berlin: Weidmann, 1926).
Kampen, J., The Hasideans and the Origin of Pharisaism: A Study in 1 and 2 Mac-
cabees (SCS 24; Atlanta: Scholars, 1988).
Kappler, V. [= W.], De memoria alterius libri Maccabaeorum (Diss. Gttingen,
1929).
Kasher, A., Athenians in the Persecutions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Tarbiz 51
(1982) 537542 (in Hebrew).
Kasher, A., Jews and Hellenistic Cities in Eretz-Israel: Relations of the Jews in
Eretz-Israel with the Hellenistic Cities During the Second Temple Period (332
BCE 70CE) (TSAJ 21; Tbingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1990).
Kasher, A., Jews, Idumaeans, and Ancient Arabs: Relations of the Jews in Eretz-Is-
rael with the Nations of the Frontier and the Desert During the Hellenistic and
Roman Era (332 BCE 70 CE) (TSAJ 18; Tbingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1988).
Kasher, A., The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal
Rights (TSAJ 7; Tbingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1985).
Kasher, A., A Second-Century BCE Greek Inscription from Iamnia, Cathedra 63
(April 1992) 321 (in Hebrew).
Kasher, A. and A. Oppenheimer (ed.), Dor Le-Dor: From the End of Biblical Times
Up to the Redaction of the Talmud: Studies in Honor of Joshua Efron (Jerusa-
lem: Bialik Institute, 1995 [in Hebrew]).
Katz, P., Eleazars Martyrdom in 2 Maccabees: The Latin Evidence for a Point of
the Story, SP 4/2 (1961) 118124.
Katz, P., The Text of 2 Maccabees Reconsidered, ZNW 51 (1960) 1030.
Keel, O., Die kultischen Massnahmen Antiochus IV.: Religionsverfolgung und/
oder Reformversuch? Eine Skizze, in: Keel and Staub, Hellenismus und Juden-
tum, 87121.
Keel, O. and U. Staub, Hellenismus und Judentum: Vier Studien zu Daniel 7 und
zur Religionsnot unter Antiochus IV. (OBO 178; Freiburg, Switzerland: Univer-
sittsverlag, and Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000).
Keil, C. F., Commentar ber die Bcher der Makkaber (Leipzig: Drffling und
Franke, 1875).
Kellermann, U., Auferstanden in den Himmel: 2 Makkaber 7 und die Auferste-
hung der Mrtyrer (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 95; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibel-
werk, 1979).
Kennell, N. M., New Light on 2 Maccabees 4:715, JJS 56 (2005) 1024.
114 Introduction
Kilpatrick, G. D., Gttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 215 (1963) 1022 (review of

Hanhart, 2 Macc and Hanhart, Text). Reprinted, with original pagination, and
with a brief addition that does not address 2 Maccabees, in: S. Jellicoe (comp.),
Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations (New York:
Ktav, 1974) 418433.
Kippenberg, H. G., Die vorderasiatischen Erlsungsreligionen in ihrem Zu-
sammenhang mit der antiken Stadtherrschaft (Frankfurt am M.: Suhrkamp,
1991).
Kochabi, S. Sources of the First Book of the Maccabees, BM 28 (1982/83)
278290 (in Hebrew).
Koenen, L., Eine ptolemische Knigsurkunde: (P. Kroll) (Wiesbaden: Harrasso-
witz, 1957).
Kolbe, W., Beitrge zur syrischen und jdischen Geschichte: Kritische Untersu-
chungen zur Seleukidenliste und zu den beiden ersten Makkaberbchern (Bei-
trge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament, n. F. 10; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,
1926).
Kooij, A. van der, The Use of the Greek Bible in II Maccabees, Journal of North-
west Semitic Languages 25 (1999) 127138.
Kopidakes, M. Z., Third Maccabees and Aeschylus: Reminiscence of Aeschylus in
the Vocabulary and Thematics of III Maccabees (Heracleon, Crete: Vikelaia
Vivliotheke, 1987 [in Greek]).
Kosters, W. H., De polemiek van het tweede boek der Makkaben, Theologisch
Tijdschrift 12 (1878) 491558.
Kraft, R., Christian Transmission of Greek Jewish Scriptures: A Methodological
Probe, Paganisme, Judasme, Christianisme: Influences et affrontements dans
le monde antique Mlanges offerts Marcel Simon (Paris: Boccard, 1978)
207226.
Laconi, M., Primo e secondo libro dei Maccabei (Padova and Torino: L.I.C.E.
Gottardo, n.d. [1960?]).
Lapp, P. W. and N. L. Lapp (ed.), Discoveries in the Wdi ed-Dliyeh (Annual of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 41; Cambridge: American Schools of
Oriental Research, 1974).
Laqueur, R., Griechische Urkunden in der jdisch-hellenistischen Literatur, HZ
136 (1927) 229252.
Laqueur, R., Kritische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Makkaberbuch (Strassburg:
Trbner, 1904).
Launey, M., Recherches sur les armes hellnistiques, III (Paris: Boccard,
19491950). Reprinted with addenda in 1987.
Lebram, J. C. H., Zur Chronologie in den Makkaberbchern, Das Institutum
Judaicum der Universitt Tbingen in den Jahren 19681970, 6370.
Lemaire, A.,Tarshish-Tarsisi: Problme de topographie historique biblique et as-
syrienne, Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography Pres-
ented to Zecharia Kallai (VTSup 81; ed. G. Galil and M. Weinfeld; Leiden: Brill,
2000) 4462.
Lenger, M.-Th., Corpus des ordonnances des Ptolmes (C. Ord. Ptol.) (Acadmie
royale de Belgique, classe des lettres: Mmoires, collection in-8o, deuxime srie,
56/5; Bruxelles: Palais des acadmies, 1964, 19802).
Le Rider, G., Les ressources financires de Sleucos IV (187175) et le paiement de
lindemnit aux Romains, Essays in Honour of Robert Carson and Kenneth
Jenkins (ed. M. Price, A. Burnett and R. Bland; London: Spink, 1993) 4967.
Le Rider, G., Suse sous les Sleucides et les Parthes (Paris: Geuthner, 1965).
Lvi, I., Sur les deux premiers livres des Macchabes, REJ 43 (1901) 215230.
Levine, L. I., Jerusalem: Portrait of the City in the Second Temple Period (538
B.C.E. 70 C.E.) (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2002).
Levine, L. I., Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence? (Seattle:
Univ. of Washington, 1998).
Lvy, I., Notes dhistoire hellnistique sur le second livre des Maccabes,
AIPHOS 10 (1950) 681699.
Levy, J. H., Studies in Jewish Hellenism (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1960 [in Hebrew]).
Lewis, N., The Interpretation of Dreams and Portents (Toronto: Stevens Hakkert,
1976).
Lichtenberger, H., Gottes Nhe in einer Zeit ohne Gebet: Zum Geschichtsbild des
2. Makkaberbuches, in: Gottes Nhe im Alten Testament (Stuttgarter Bibel-
studien; ed. G. Eberhardt and K. Liess; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2004)
135149.
Lichtenberger, H., History-Writitng and History-Telling in First and Second Mac-
cabees, in: Memory in the Bible and Antiquity: The Fifth Durham-Tbingen
Resarch Symposium (Durham, September 2004) (WUNT 212; ed. S. C. Barton,
L. T. Stuckenbruck and B. G. Wold; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007) 95110.
Lieberman, S., Some Aspects of After Life in Early Rabbinic Literature, Harry
Austryn Wolfson Jubilee Volume, II (Jerusalem: American Academy for Jewish
Research, 1965) 495532.
Lieberman, S., Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Life and Manners of Jewish
Palestine in the IIIV Centuries C.E. (New York: Feldheim, 19652).
Lieberman, S., Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission,
Beliefs and Manners of Palestine in the I Century B.C.E. IV Century C.E.
(New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 19622).
Lieberman, S., Studies in Palestinian Talmudic Literature (ed. D. Rosenthal; Jeru-
salem: Magnes, 1991 [in Hebrew]).
Liebmann-Frankfort, T., Rome et le conflit judo-syrien (164161 avant notre
re), AC 38 (1969) 101120.
Lifshitz, B., Sur le culte dynastique des Sleucides, RB 70 (1963) 7581.
Lissarague, F., Around the Krater: An Aspect of Banquet Imagery, in: Murray,
Sympotica, 196209.
Lorein, G. W., Some Aspects of the Life and Death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes:
A New Presentation of Old Viewpoints, AS 31 (2001) 157171.
Lucian, The Syrian Goddess (De Dea Syria), Attributed to Lucian (ed. and trans.
H. W. Attridge and R. A. Oden; SBLTT 9; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1976).
116 Introduction
Lderitz, G., What is the Politeuma?, Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy (ed.
J. W. van Henten and P. W. van der Horst; AGAJU 21; Leiden: Brill, 1994)
183225.
Lhrmann, D., Epiphaneia: Zur Bedeutungsgeschichte eines griechischen Wor-
tes, in: Jeremias et al. (ed.), Tradition und Glaube, 185199.
Ma, J., Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor (Oxford: Oxford Univ.,
1999).
Maas, M., Die Maccaber als christliche Heiligen (Sancti Maccabei), MGWJ 44
(1900) 145156.
Main, E., Les Sadducens et lorigine des partis juifs de la priode du Second
Temple (PhD. Diss., Hebrew University [Jerusalem] and cole pratique des
hautes tudes [Paris], 2004).
Mariani, B., Lalleanza e lamicizia dei Maccabei con i Romani sotto laspetto teo-
cratico, Divinitas 9 (1965) 75104.
Mason, S., Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees (SPB 39; Leiden: Brill, 1991).
Mauersberger, A., Polybios-Lexikon (Berlin: Akad.-Verlag, 1956).
Mayser, E., Grammatik der griechischen Papyri, III (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1970).
(Each volume has three parts. Vol. I of this edition has been reedited by
H. Schmoll, while Vol. II is a reprint of the edition of 19261934.)
Mlze Modrzejewski, J., How to Be a Jew in Hellenistic Egypt?, in: S. J. D.
Cohen and E. S. Frerichs (ed.), Diasporas in Antiquity (BJS 288; Atlanta:
Scholars, 1993) 6592.
Mlze Modrzejewski, J., The Jews of Egypt from Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian
(Philadelphia and Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, 1995).
Mendels, D., A Note on the Tradition of Antiochus IVs Death, IEJ 31 (1981)
5356.
Menxel, F. van, : Espoir, Esprance tudes smantiques et thologiques du
vocabulaire de lesprance dans lHellnisme et le Judasme avant le Nouveau Tes-
tament (Europische Hochschulschriften 23/213; Frankfurt-Bern: Lang, 1983).
Meyer, E., Ursprung und Anfnge des Christentums, II (Stuttgart and Berlin: Cotta,
192113).
Milikowsky, C., The End of Prophecy and the Closure of the Bible in Judaism of
Late Antiquity, Sidra 10 (1994) 8394 (in Hebrew).
Millar, F., The Background to the Maccabean Revolution: Reflections on Martin
Hengels Judaism and Hellenism, JJS 29 (1978) 121.
Mitford, T. B., Ptolemy Macron, Studi in onore di Aristide Calderini e Roberto
Paribeni, II (Milano: Ceschina, 1957) 163187.
Mlleken, W., Geschichtsklitterung im I. Makkaberbuch (Wann wurde Alkimus
Hoherpriester?), ZAW 65 (1953) 205228.
Mrkholm, O., Antiochus IV of Syria (Classica et mediaevalia, Dissertationes 8;
Kbenhavn: Gyldendalske Nordisk, 1966).
Moffatt, J., The Second Book of Maccabees, APOT 1.125154.
Momigliano, A., Prime linee di storia della tradizione maccabaica (Torino: 1931;
repr. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1968).
Momigliano, A., The Romans and the Maccabees, Nono contributo alla storia
degli studi classici e del mondo antico (Storia e Letteratura 180; Roma: Ed. di
Storia e Letteratura, 1992) 747761 (originally in: A. Rapoport-Albert and
S. J. Zipperstein [ed.], Jewish History: Essays in Honour of Chimen Abramsky
[London: P. Halban, 1988] 231244).
Momigliano, A., The Second Book of Maccabees, CP 70 (1975) 8188.
Montevecchi, O., Pantokrator, Studi in onore di Aristide Calderini e Roberto
Paribeni, II (Milano: Ceschina, 1957) 401432.
Motzo, [R.] B., Ricerche sulla letteratura e la storia giudaico-Ellenistica (ed. F. Par-
ente; Roma: Centro editoriale internazionale, 1977).
Mugler, C., Remarques sur le second livre des Macchabes: La statistique des mots
et la question de lauteur, RHPR 11 (1931) 419423.
Murray O. (ed.), Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposium (Oxford: Clarendon,
1990).
Nagel, G., Les Maccabes, RTP 26 (1938) 193201 (review of Bickerman, Gott).
Nagel, G., Rvolte et rforme Jrusalem (169166 avant Jsus-Christ), Recueil
de la facult de thologie protestante de lUniversit de Genve 8 (1942) 522.
Nelis, J. T., II Makkabeen, uit de grondtekst vertaald en uitgelegd (De boeken van
het Oude Testament 6,[2]; Bussum: Romen: 1975).
Nelis, J. T., La distance de Beth-Sur Jrusalem suivant 2 Mac. 11,5, JSJ 14
(1983) 3942.
Nestle, E., Einiges zum Text des zweiten Makkaberbuchs, Septuagintastudien,
IV (Wissenschaftliche Beilage zum Programm des knigl. Wrttembergischen
evangelisch-theologischen Seminars Maulbronn; Stuttgart: Vereins-Buchdruck-
erei, 1903) 1922.
Nestle, W., Legenden vom Tod der Gottesverchter, ARW 33 (1936) 246269.
Nickelsburg, G. W. E., 1 and 2 Maccabees Same Story, Different Meaning,
Concordia Theological Monthly 42 (1971) 515526.
Nickelsburg, G. W. E., Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertesta-
mental Judaism (HTS 26; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ., and London: Ox-
ford, 1972).
Niese, B., Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten, III (Hand-
bcher der alten Geschichte 2; Gotha u.a: Perthes u.a., 1903).
Niese, B. Kritik der beiden Makkaberbcher, nebst Beitrgen zur Geschichte der
makkabischen Erhebung (Berlin: Weidmann, 1900).3
Nock, A. D., Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, III (ed. Z. Stewart; Cam-
bridge, Mass.: Havard Univ., 1972).
Nodet, E., La ddicace, les Maccabes et le messie, RB 93 (1986) 321375.
3 I cite according to the pages and text of this book, which originally appeared in two
installments in Hermes 35 (1900). To find pages in Hermes, add 267 to my references
up to p. 40 and 413 for the rest.
118 Introduction
OBrien, E., The Scriptural Proof for the Existence of Purgatory from 2 Macha-
bees 12:4345, Sciences ecclsiastiques 2 (1949) 80108.
Ogle, M. B., The Sleep of Death, MAAR 11 (1933) 81117.
Oppenheimer, A. (ed.), Jdische Geschichte in hellenistisch-rmischer Zeit: Wege
der Forschung Vom alten zum neuen Schrer (Mnchen: Oldenbourg,
1999).
Otto, W., Zur Geschichte der Zeit des 6. Ptolemers (Mnchen: Akademie der Wis-
senschaften, 1934).
Otto, W. and H. Bengtson, Zur Geschichte des Niederganges des Ptolemerreiches:
Ein Beitrag zur Regierungszeit des 8. und des 9. Ptolemers (Mnchen: Akade-
mie der Wissenschaften, 1938).
Parente, F. and Sievers, J. (ed.), Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman
Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (Leiden: Brill, 1994).
Parente, F., Onias IIIs Death and the Founding of the Temple of Leontopolis, in:
Parente and Sievers (ed.), Josephus and the History, 6998.
Parente, F., Le tmoignage de Thodore de Mopsueste sur le sort dOnias III et la
fondation du temple de Lontopolis, REJ 154 (1995) 429436.
Parente, F., The Third Book of Maccabees as Ideological and Historical Source,
Henoch 10 (1988) 143182.
Parente, F., < < (II Macc.
IV,9): Gerusalemme mai stata una ?, Rivista di storia e letteratura re-
ligiosa 30 (1994) 338.
Parker, R., Miasma (Oxford: Clarendon, 1983).
Pearson, B. A. (ed.), The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut
Koester (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991).
Pdech, P., La mthode historique de Polybe (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1964).
Penna, A., Libri dei Maccabei (La Sacra Bibbia; Torino and Roma: Marietti,
1953).
Porten, B. and A. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, I:
Letters (Jerusalem: Hebrew University [Dept. of the History of the Jewish
People], 1986 [Hebrew and English]).
Porter, S. E., in Ancient Greek Literature, with Reference to the Pau-
line Writings (EFN 5; Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 1994).
Prato, G. L., La persecuzione religiosa nellermeneutica maccabaica: lellenismo
come paganesimo, Ricerche storico bibliche, I [Israele alla ricerca di identt tra
il III sec. a.C. e il I sec. d. C.] (1989) 99122.
Preisigke, F., Wrterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden: mit Einschlu der
griechischen Inschriften, Aufschriften, Ostraka, Mumienschilder usw. aus gyp-
ten (ed. E. Kieling; Berlin: Selbstverlag der Erben; from Suppl. 2: Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz-Verlag, 1925ff.).
Pritchett, W. K., The Greek State at War, IV (Berkeley: Univ. of California,
19711991).
Procksch, O., Der Friede des Lysias vom Frhling 164 v. Chr., Theologisches
Literaturblatt 24 (1903), cols. 457464, 481484.
Rahlfs, A., Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments (NAW
Beiheft, 1914 = Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens der Kniglichen
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gttingen 2; Berlin: Weidmann, 1914).
Rajak, T., Dying for the Law: The Martyrs Portrait in Jewish-Greek Literature,
Portraits: Biographical Representation in the Greek and Latin Literature of the
Roman Empire (ed. M. J. Edwards and S. Swain; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997)
3967 (= eadem, Jewish Dialogue, 99133).
Rajak, T., The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome: Studies in Cultural and
Social Interaction (AGAJU 48; Leiden: Brill, 2001).
Rampolla del Tindaro, M., Martyre et spultre des Macchabes, Revue de lart
Chrtien 48 (1899) 377392.
Rappaport, U., Akko-Ptolemais and the Jews in the Hellenistic Period, Cathedra
50 (December 1988) 3148 (in Hebrew).
Rappaport, U., The Extradition Clause in 1 Maccabees, XV, 21, Immigration
and Emigration Within the Ancient Near East: Festschrift E. Lipinski (ed. K.
van Lerberghe and A. Schoors; Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 65; Leuven:
Peeters, 1995) 271283.
Rappaport, U., The Hellenization of the Hasmoneans, in: Jewish Assimilation,
Acculturation and Accomodation: Past Traditions, Current Issues and Future
Prospects (Studies in Jewish Civilization 2; ed. M. Mor; Lanham, Maryland:
University Press of America, 1992) 113.4
Rappaport, U., A Note on the Use of the Bible in I Maccabees, in: Stone and Cha-
zon (ed.), Biblical Perspectives, 175179.
Reeg, G. (ed.), Die Geschichte von den zehn Mrtyren: Synoptische Edition mit
bersetzung und Einleitung (TSAJ 10; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985).
Renaud, B., La loi et les lois dans les livres des Maccabes, RB 68 (1961) 3967.
Richnow, W., Untersuchungen zu Sprache und Stil des zweiten Makkaberbuches
(Diss. Gttingen, 1967).
Rigsby, K. J., Asylia: Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World (HCS 22; Ber-
keley: Univ. of California, 1996).
Rinaldi, G., Biblia Gentiun: A First Contribution Towards an Index of Biblical
Quotations, References and Allusions Made by Greek and Latin Heathen
Writers of the Roman Imperial Times (Rome: Sacre Scritture, 1989).
Risberg, B., Textkritische und exegetische Anmerkungen zu den Makkaberb-
chern, Beitrge zur Religionswissenschaft 2 (1918) 631.
Rokeah, D., The Jewish Bible and the New Testament in the Pagan World (Re-
view of: Rinaldi, Biblia Gentium), Tarbiz 60 (1990/91) 451464 (in Hebrew).
Romilly, J. de, Magic and Rhetoric in Ancient Greece (Cambridge: Havard Univ.,
1975).
Roth-Gerson, L., The Jews of Syria as Reflected in the Greek Inscriptions (Jerusa-
lem: Zalman Shazar, 2001 [in Hebrew]).
4 An expanded Hebrew version appeared in Tarbiz 60 (1990/91) 477503.

120 Introduction
Rothschild, J. P., Une pice tardive verser au dossier mdival des Livres des
Maccabes, Biblische und judaistische Studien: Festschrift fr Paolo Sacchi
(ed. A. Vivian; Judentum und Umwelt 29; Frankfurt am M.: Lang, 1990)
545574.
Roug, J., Le de mortibus persecutorum, 5e livre des Macchabes, SP 12/1 (1975)
135143.
Rowley, H. H., Menelaus and the Abomination of Desolation, Studia Orientalia
Ioanni Pedersen: septuagenario A. D. VII id. nov. anno MCMLIII a collegis,
discipulis, amicis dicata (Hauniae [Kopenhagen]: Munksgaard, 1953) 303315.
Sachs, A. J., and D. J. Wiseman, A Babylonian King-List of the Hellenistic
Period, Iraq 16 (1954) 202211.
Savigni, R., Istanze ermeneutiche e ridefinizione del canone in Rabano Mauro: Il
commentario ai Libri dei Maccabei, ASE 11 (1994) 571604.
Schatkin, M., The Maccabean Martyrs, VC 28 (1974) 97113.
Schiffman, L. H., 2 Maccabees, Harpers Bible Commentary (ed. J. L. Mays; San
Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988) 898915.
Schubart, W., Das hellenistische Knigsideal nach Inschriften und Papyri, AfP 12
(1937) 126.
Schrer, E., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175
B.C.A.D. 135) (3 vols. in 4; new English ed. G. Vermes et al., Edinburgh:
Clark, 19731987).
Schrer, E., Zu II Mcc 6,7 (monatliche Geburtstagsfeier), ZNW 2 (1901) 4852.
Schunck, K.-D., Makkaber/Makkaberbcher, Theologische Realenzklopdie
20 (1991) 736745.
Schunck, K.-D., Die Quellen des I. und II. Makkaberbuches (Halle a. d. Saale:
Niemeyer, 1954).
Schwankl, O., Die Sadduzerfrage (Mk 12,1827 parr): Eine exegetisch-theol-
ogische Studie zur Auferstehungserwartung (BBB 66; Frankfurt am M.: Athe-
num, 1987).
Schwartz, D. R., Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea (TSAJ 23; Tbingen: Mohr
[Siebeck], 1990).
Schwartz, D. R., Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Jerusalem, Historical Perspectives:
From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 37;
ed. D. Goodblatt, A. Pinnick and D. R. Schwartz; Leiden: Brill, 2001) 4556.
Schwartz, D. R., The Battles of Judas Maccabaeus (Review of Bar-Kochva, JM),
Tarbiz 60 (1990/91) 443450 (in Hebrew).
Schwartz, D. R., Divine Punishment in Second Maccabees: Vengeance, Abandon-
ment or Loving Discipline?, Der Mensch vor Gott: Forschungen fr Her-
mann Lichtenberger zum 60. Geburtstag (ed. U. Mittmann-Richert, F. Avemarie
and G. S. Oegema; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2003) 109116.
Schwartz, D. R., From the Maccabees to Masada: On Diasporan Historiography
of the Second Temple Period, in: Oppenheimer (ed.), Jdische Geschichte,
2940.
Schwartz, D. R., Hasidim in I Maccabees 2:42?, SCI 13 (1994) 718.
Schwartz, D. R., How at Home Were the Jews of the Hellenistic Diaspora?,
CP 95 (2000) 349357.
Schwartz, D. R., Judaean or Jew? How Should We Translate Ioudaios in Josep-
hus?, in: Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World/Jdische Identitt in der
griechisch-rmischen Welt (AJEC 71; ed. J. Frey, D. R. Schwartz and S. Gripen-
trog; Leiden: Brill, 2007) 327.
Schwartz, D. R., The Jews of Egypt Between the Temple of Onias, the Temple of
Jerusalem, and Heaven, Zion 62 (1997/98) 522 (in Hebrew).
Schwartz, D. R., < : Josephus Source on Agrippa
II, JQR 72 (1981/82) 241268.
Schwartz, D. R., Mizpeh, Alema, Mella, Pella (I Maccabees 5:35): Philology and
Historical Geography in Judas Maccabeus Campaign to the Gilead, Studies in
the History of Eretz Israel Presented to Yehuda Ben Porat (ed. Y. Ben-Arieh and
E. Reiner; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2003) 2738 (in Hebrew).
Schwartz, D. R., On Some Papyri and Josephus Sources and Chronology for the
Persian Period, JSJ 21 (1990) 175199.
Schwartz, D. R., On Something Biblical About 2 Maccabees, in: Stone and Cha-
zon (ed.), Biblical Perspectives, 223232.
Schwartz, D. R., The Other in 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tolerance and Intolerance in
Early Judaism and Christianity (ed. G. N. Stanton and G. G. Stroumsa; Cam-
bridge: Cambridge Univ., 1998) 3037.
Schwartz, D. R., Philos Priestly Descent, Nourished with Peace: Studies in Hel-
lenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel (ed. F. E. Greenspahn, E. Hilgert
and B. L. Mack; Scholars Press Homage Series 9; Chico, California: Scholars,
1984) 155171.
Schwartz, D. R., The Priests of Ep. Arist. 310, JBL 97 (1978) 567571.
Schwartz, D. R., Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (WUNT 60;
Tbingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992).
Schwartz, D. R., Temple or City: What did Hellenistic Jews See in Jerusalem?,
The Centrality of Jerusalem: Historical Perspectives (ed. M. Poorthuis and
C. Safrai; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996) 114127.
Schwartz, D. R., Why Did Antiochus Have to Fall (II Maccabees 9:7)?, in:
Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism
(JSJSup 119: ed. L. LiDonnici and A. Lieber; Leiden: Brill, 2007) 257265.
Schwartz, D. R., Wo wohnt Gott? Die Juden und ihr Gott zwischen Juden-
staat, Diaspora und Himmel, in: Gottesstaat oder Staat ohne Gott: Politische
Theologie in Judentum, Christentum und Islam (Linzer philosophisch-theo-
logische Beitrge 8; ed. S. J. Lederhilger; Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2002)
5873.
Schwartz, J., Once More on the Nicanor Gate, HUCA 62 (1991) 245283.
Schwartz, J. and Y. Spanier, On Mattathias and the Desert of Samaria, RB 98
(1991) 252271.
Schwartz, S., The Hellenization of Jerusalem and Shechem, in: Goodman (ed.),
Jews in a Graeco-Roman World, 3745.
122 Introduction
Schwartz, S., Israel and the Nations Roundabout: 1 Maccabees and the Has-
monean Expansion, JJS 42 (1991) 1638.
Schwartz, S., John Hyrcanus Is Destruction of the Gerizim Temple and Judaean-
Samaritan Relations, JH 7/1 (Spring 1993) 925.
Schwarz, A., Taanith Esther, Festskrift i Anledning af Professor David Simonsens
70-aarige Fdselsdag (Kbenhavn: Hertzs, 1923) 188205.
Scullard, H. H., The Elephant in the Greek and Roman World (London: Thames
and Hudson, 1974).
Scurlock, J., 167 BCE: Hellenism or Reform?, JSJ 31 (2000) 125161.
Seeligmann, I. L., Menschliches Heldentum und gttliche Hilfe: Die doppelte Kau-
salitt im alttestamentlichen Geschichtsdenken, TZ 19 (1963) 385411.
Seeligmann, I. L., The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of Its Problems
(Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux, Mededelingen en
verhandelingen 9; Leiden: Brill, 1948).
Seeligmann, J. A., Jerusalem in Jewish-Hellenistic Thought, Judah and Jerusa-
lem: The Twelfth Archaeological Convention (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Society, 1957) 192208 (in Hebrew).
Shatzman, I., The Armies of the Hasmonaeans and Herod: From Hellenistic to
Roman Frameworks (TSAJ 25; Tbingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1991).
Shatzman, I., The Hasmonean Army, in: Amit and Eshel (ed.), The Hasmonean
Period, 2144 (in Hebrew).
Sherk, R. K., Roman Documents from the Greek East: Senatus Consulta and Epis-
tulae to the Age of Augustus (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1969).
Sievers, J., The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters From Mattathias to the Death of
John Hyrcanus I (SFSHJ 6; Atlanta: Scholars, 1990).
Sievers, J., Jerusalem, the Akra, and Josephus, in: Parente and Sievers (ed.), Jo-
sephus and the History, 195209.
Sievers, J., Synopsis of the Greek Sources for the Hasmonean Period: 12 Macca-
bees and Josephus, War 1 and Antiquities 1214 (Subsidia Biblica 20; Roma:
Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2001).
Skard, E., Zwei religis-politische Begriffe: Euergetes Concordia (Oslo: Dybwad,
1932).
Skehan, P., St. Jerome and the Canon of the Holy Scriptures, A Monument
to Saint Jerome (ed. F. X. Murphy; New York: Sheed and Ward, 1952) 259
287.
Sluys, D. M., De Maccabaeorum libris I et II quaestiones (Diss. Amsterdam, 1904).
Smith, M., Palestinian Judaism in the First Century, in: Israel: Its Role in Civili-
zation (ed. M. Davis; New York: Harper and Bros., 1956) 6781.
Sowers, S., On the Reinterpretation of Biblical History in Hellenistic Judaism,
Oikonomia: Heilsgeschichte als Thema der Theologie (ed. F. Christ; Hamburg/
Bergstedt: Reich, 1967) 1825.
Sperber, D., A Dictionary of Greek and Latin Legal Terms in Rabbinic Literature
(Dictionaries of Talmud, Midrash and Targum 1; Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan Univ.,
1984).
Spicq, C., Notes de lexicographie no-testamentaire, III + Supplment (OBO

22/13; Fribourg, Suisse: ditions universitaires, and Gttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 19781982).
Spiegel, S., The Last Trial: On the Legends and Lore of the Command to Abraham
to Offer Isaac as a Sacrifice: The Akedah (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication So-
ciety, 1967).
Starcky, J., RB 66 (1959) 424430 (review of Hanhart, 2 Macc).
Stemberger, G., La festa di Hanukkah, il libro di Giuditta e midrasim connessi,
in: G. Busi (ed.), We-zot le-Angelo: Raccolta di studi giudaici in memoria di
Angelo Vivian (Associazione Italiana per lo Studio del Giudaismo: Testi e studi,
11; Bologna: AISG, 1993) 527545.
Stemberger, G., Der Leib der Auferstehung: Studien zur Anthropologie und
Eschatologie des palstinischen Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (ca.
170 v. Chr. 100 n. Chr.) (Analecta Biblica 56; Rome: Biblical Institute Press,
1972).
Stern, M., Antioch in Jerusalem: The Gymnasium, the Polis and the Rise of
Menelaus, Zion 57 (1991/92) 233246 (in Hebrew).
Stern, M., The Documents on the History of the Hasmonaean Revolt (Tel-Aviv:
HaKibbutz Hameuhad, 19722 [in Hebrew]).
Stern, M., The Land of Israel in the Hellenistic Period (332160 B.C.C.), in:
M. Stern (ed.), The Hellenistic Period and the Hasmonean State (33237
B.C.E.) (The History of Eretz Israel 3; Jerusalem: Keter and Yad Ben-Zvi, 1981)
9190 (in Hebrew).
Stern, M., Hasmonaean Judaea in the Hellenistic World: Chapters in Political His-
tory (ed. D. R. Schwartz; Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar, 1995 [in Hebrew]).
Stern, M., Jewish-Hellenistic Literature, in: Stern and Baras (ed.), The Diaspora,
208237, 346355 (in Hebrew).
Stern, M., Judaism and Hellenism in Palestine in the Third and Second Centuries
B.C.E., in: Acculturation and Assimilation: Continuity and Change in the Cul-
tures of Israel and the Nations (ed. Y. Kaplan and M. Stern; Jerusalem: Zalman
Shazar, 1989) 4160 (in Hebrew; reprinted in idem, Studies, 321).
Stern, M., Studies in Jewish History: The Second Temple Period (ed. M. Amit,
I. Gafni, M. D. Herr; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1991 [in Hebrew]).
Stern, M. and Z. Baras (ed.), The Diaspora in the Hellenistic-Roman World (Jeru-
salem: Am Oved, 1982/83 [in Hebrew]).
Stokholm, N., Zur berlieferung von Heliodor, Kuturnaunte und anderen miss-
glckten Tempelrubern, ST 22 (1968) 128.
Stone, M. E. and E. G. Chazon (ed.), Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpre-
tation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 28; Leiden: Brill,
1998).
Strobel, K., Die Galater: Geschichte und Eigenart der keltischen Staatenbildung auf
dem Boden des hellenistischen Kleinasien, I (Berlin: Akademie, 1996).
Sundberg, A. C., The Old Testament of the Early Church (HTS 20; Cambridge,
Mass.: Havard Univ., 1964).
124 Introduction
Tcherikover, V., The Documents in 2 Macc 11, Tarbiz 1/1 (1929) 3145
(in Hebrew; reprinted in idem, The Jews in the Graeco-Roman World,
181198).
Tcherikover, V. A., Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Pub-
lication Society, 1959).
Tcherikover, V. A., The Jews in the Graeco-Roman World (Tel-Aviv: Neumann,
1960/61 [in Hebrew]).
Toki, K., The Dates of the First and Second Books of Maccabees, Annual of the
Japanese Biblical Institute 3 (1977) 6983.
Torrey, C. C., Die Briefe 2 Makk. 1,12,18, ZAW 20 (1900) 225242.
Torrey, C. C., The Letters Prefixed to Second Maccabees, JAOS 60 (1940)
119150.
Tov, E., Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings, Melbourne Symposium on Septua-
gint Lexicography (ed. T. Muraoka; Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series 28;
Atlanta: Scholars, 1990) 83125.
Tov, E., Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, and Assen:
Royal Van Gorcum, 20012).
Trindl, M., Ehrentitel im Ptolemerreich (unpublished diss. Mnchen, 1942).
Tromp, J., The Assumption of Moses: A Critical Edition with Commentary
(SVTP 10; Leiden: Brill, 1993).
Tromp, J., The Formation of the Third Book of Maccabees, Henoch 17 (1995)
311328.
Tyson, J. B., The Jewish Public in Luke-Acts, NTS 30 (1984) 574583.
Urbach, E. E., The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes,
1975).
VanderKam, J. C., Calendrical Texts and the Origins of the Dead Sea Scroll Com-
munity, in: Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet
Qumran Site (ed. M. O. Wise et al.; New York: NY Academy of Science, 1994)
371388.
VanderKam, J. C., From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests After the Exile (Minnea-
polis: Fortress, and Assen, the Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 2004).
VanderKam, J. C., People and High Priesthood in Early Maccabean Times, The
Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters (ed. W. H. Propp, B. Halpern and D. N.
Freedman; Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1990) 205225.
VanderKam, J. C., 2 Maccabees 6, 7A and Calendrical Change in Jerusalem,
JSJ 12 (1981) 5274.
Vergote, J., Les principaux modes de supplice chez les anciens et dans les textes
chrtiens, BIHBR 20 (1939) 141163.
Vinson, M., Gregory Nanzianzens Homily 15 and the Genesis of the Christian
Cult of the Maccabean Martyrs, Byzantion 64 (1994) 166192.
Volkmann, H., Die Massenversklavungen der Einwohner eroberter Stdte in der
hellenistisch-rmischer Zeit (Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschaft-
lichen Klasse der Akademie der Wissenschaften und Literatur, 1961, Nr. 3; Wies-
baden: Steiner, 1961).
Wacholder, B. Z., The Letter from Judah Maccabee to Aristobulus: Is 2 Macca-

bees 1:10b2:18 Authentic? HUCA 49 (1978) 89133.
Wagenaar, L., Juda Makkabi und die Hohenpriesterwrde, IL 8 (1882/83)
133142.
Walbank, F. W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius, IIII (Oxford: Clarendon,
19571979).
Walbank, F. W., History and Tragedy, Historia 9 (1960) 216234.
Wegner, J. R., Philos Portrayal of Women, Women Like This: New Perspec-
tives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World (Society of Biblical Litera-
ture: Early Judaism and Its Literature, 1; ed. A.-J. Levine; Atlanta: Scholars,
1991) 4166.
Weinfeld, M., The Common Heritage of Covenantal Traditions in the Ancient
World, I Trattati nel mondo antico: Forma, Ideologia, Funzione (ed. L. Can-
fora, M. Liverani and C. Zaccagnini; Saggi di storia antica 2; Roma: LErma di
Bretschneider, 1990) 175191.
Weinreich, O., Trffnung im Wunder-, Prodigien- und Zauberglauben der Antike,
des Judentums und Christentums, Genethliakon Wilhelm Schmid (Tbinger
Beitrge zur Altertumswissenschaft 5; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1929) 200452.
Weitzman, S., Surviving Sacrilege: Cultural Persistance in Jewish Antiquity (Cam-
bridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ., 2005).
Welles, C. B., Hellenistic Tarsus, MUSJ 38 (1962) 4375.
Welles, C. B., Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period: A Study in Greek
Epigraphy (New Haven: Yale, 1934).
Wellhausen, J., Ueber den geschichtlichen Wert des zweiten Makkaberbuchs, im
Verhltnis zum ersten, NAW 1905, 117163.
Wendland, P., Berliner philologische Wochenschrift, 21/1 (5 Jan. 1901), cols. 17
(review of Niese, Kritik).
Wheeler, E. L., Stratagem and the Vocabulary of Military Trickery (Mnemosyne
Supplementum 108; Leiden: Brill, 1988).
Wifstrand, A., Epochs and Styles: Selected Writings on the New Testament, Greek
Language and Greek Culture in the Post-Classical Era (WUNT 179; ed. L.
Rydbeck and S. E. Porter; Tbingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 2005).
Wilhelm, A., Ein Brief Antiochos III., Anzeiger der AWW, 57 (1920) 4057. Re-
printed, with original pagination, in his Akademieschriften zur griechischen In-
schriftenkunde (18951951), II (Leipzig: Zentralantiquariat der DDR, 1974).
Wilhelm, A., Neue Beitrge zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde, V, Sitzungsbe-
richte der AWW 214, 4 (1932) 351. Reprinted in vol. I of his Akademieschrif-
ten, with original pagination.
Wilhelm, A., Zu einigen Stellen der Bcher der Makkaber, Anzeiger der AWW 74
(1937) 1530. Reprinted ibid., vol. II, with original pagination.
Wilhelm, A., Zwei Epigramme aus Delphi, Anzeiger der AWW 68 (1931) 7896.
Reprinted ibid., vol. II, with original pagination.
Wilken, R. L., The Land Called Holy: Palestine in Christian History and Thought
(New Haven: Yale, 1992).
126 Introduction
Will, E., Histoire politique du monde hellnistique, III (Nancy: Presses universi-
taires de Nancy, 19792).
Will, E. and F. Larch et al., Iraq al Amir: Le chteau du Tobiade Hyrcan (2 vols.;
Paris: Geuthner, 1991).
Williams, D. S., Recent Research in 2 Maccabees, Currents in Biblical Research 2
(2003/4) 6983.
Winston, D., The Wisdom of Solomon (AB 43; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday,
1979).
Woess, F. von, Das Asylwesen Aegyptens in der Ptolemerzeit (Mnchener Beitrge
zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 5; Mnchen: Beck, 1923).
Wolff, C., Jeremia im Frhjudentum und Urchristentum (Texte und Untersuc-
hungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 118; Berlin: Akademie-Ver-
lag, 1976).
Yerushalmi, Y. H., The Lisbon Massacre of 1506 and the Royal Image in the Shebet
Yehudah (HUCA Supplement 1; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Jewish In-
stitute of Religion, 1976).
Young, R. D., The Woman with the Soul of Abraham: Traditions about the
Mother of the Maccabean Martyrs, Women Like This: New Perspectives on
Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World (Society of Biblical Literature: Early
Judaism and Its Literature, 1; ed. A.-J. Levine; Atlanta: Scholars, 1991) 6781.
Zambelli, M., La composizione del secondo libro dei Maccabei e la nuova crono-
logia di Antioco IV Epifane, Miscellanea greca e romana (Roma: Istituto ita-
liano per la storia antica, 1965) 195299.
Zeitlin, S. (ed.), The Second Book of Maccabees (with English trans. by S. Tedesche;
New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954).
Ziegenaus, A., Kanon (Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte, I, 3a [2]; Freiburg:
Herder, 1990).
Zimmermann, C., Die Namen des Vaters: Studien zu ausgewhlten neutestament-
lichen Gottesbezeichnungen vor ihrem frhjdischen und paganen Sprachhor-
izont (AJEC 69; Leiden: Brill, 2007).
Zollschan, L. T., The Earliest Jewish Embassy to the Romans: 2 Macc 4:11?,
JJS 55 (2004) 3744.
TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY
Introductory Letters (1:12:18) 129
Introductory Letters (1:12:18)
First Epistle
(1) To their brethren the Jews in Egypt (from) the Jews in Jerusalem and in
the country of Judaea: greetings (and) good peace. (2) And may God be be-
neficent unto you and remember His covenant with Abraham and Isaac and
Jacob His faithful servants; (3) and may He give you, all of you, a heart to
revere Him and to do His will wholeheartedly and with a willing spirit;
(4) and may He open your heart in His Torah and in the commandments,
and make peace; (5) and may He hear your requests and become reconciled
with you and not abandon you in an evil time.
(6) And now, we are praying for you here. (7) In the reign of Demetrius,
year 169, we Judaeans have written you concerning 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.
(8) And they set fire to the gate and spilled innocent blood, and we prayed
to the Lord and He hearkened unto us, and we brought sacrifices and fine
flour. And we lit the lamps and presented the showbreads. (9) And now (we
have written you) so that you shall celebrate the days of (the festival of)
Tabernacles of the month of Kislev (10) of the year 148.
Second Epistle
The people in Jerusalem and those in Judaea and the Council of Elders and
Judas to Aristobulus the teacher of King Ptolemy, who is of the line of the
anointed priests, and to the Jews in Egypt: greetings and good health.
(11) Having been saved by God from great dangers, we who drew our-
selves up for war against the king give great thanks unto Him. (12) For He
Himself drove out those who drew themselves up for war in the Holy City.
(13) For when the leader came to Persia along with an army thought to be
irresistible, they were cut down in the temple of Nanaia, the priests of Na-
naia having employed a stratagem. (14) Namely, when Antiochus and his
Friends came to the place as if to cohabit with her, in order to take the great
sums of money (that were there) as a payment towards her dowry, (15) and
130 Translation and Commentary
after the priests of the temple of Nanaia had displayed them and he, accom-
panied by a few people, had come to the precinct of the sacred enclosure,
then, after Antiochus entered, they locked the temple and, (16) having
opened the secret door of the compartment in the ceiling, they thundered
down upon the leader, throwing rocks (through it); after cutting them to
pieces and severing their heads they cast them out to those outside. (17) For
all this is our God to be blessed, who handed those who did impiously over
(to their condign fate).
(18) As we are about to celebrate on the twenty-fifth of Kislev the purifi-
cation of the Temple, we thought it necessary to inform you so that you too
shall celebrate it as the holiday of Tabernacles and fire that Nehemiah (cel-
ebrated) when, after constructing the Temple and the altar, he offered up sac-
rifices. (19) For when our fathers came to the Persian country the pious
priests of the time, having taken fire from the altar, secretly hid it in the hol-
low of an empty cistern, and they secured it there so that the place remained
unknown to all. (20) But after enough years had passed, as seemed appro-
priate to God, Nehemiah who had been delegated by the king of Persia
sent the descendants of the priests, who had hidden the fire, to bring it.
(21) When they informed him that in fact they found no fire, but only a vis-
cous liquid, he ordered them to draw it up and bring it. And when the things
pertaining to the sacrifices had been offered up (on the altar) Nehemiah or-
dered the priests to douse with the liquid the pieces of wood and that which
lay upon them. (22) When that was done and time passed, the sun lit up hav-
ing previously been clouded over and a great fire broke out, so that every-
one was amazed. (23) And the priests prayed while the sacrifice was con-
sumed the priests and everyone else, Jonathan leading and all the others,
including Nehemiah, chiming in. (24) Their prayer had the following form:
O Lord, O Lord God, creator of all, who is terrible and powerful and
just and merciful, who alone is king and good, (25) who alone sustains,
who alone is just and All-Ruler and eternal, who preserves Israel from all
evil, who chose the Patriarchs and sanctified them (26) accept this
sacrifice on behalf of all Your people Israel and protect Your portion
and hallow it. (27) Gather in our diaspora, emancipate those who are
enslaved among the Gentiles, look down upon those who are set at
naught and held to be abominable, and let the gentiles know that You
are our God. (28) Torment those who oppress and outrage in arrogance.
(29) Plant Your people in Your holy Place, as Moses said.
(30) And the priests sang the hymns. (31) When the parts of the sacrifice
had been consumed, Nehemiah ordered that the remaining liquid be
poured out upon large rocks. (32) When that was done, fire broke out, but
it was consumed when the light was reflected back from the altar. (33)
When what had happened became known, and the king of Persia was told
that in the place, where the exiled priests had hidden the fire, this liquid
had appeared from which Nehemiahs people had sanctified the parts of
the sacrifice, (34) the king after getting confirmation of the event fenced
off (the place) roundabout and made it into a temple. (35) And the king
took large sums of money and bestowed them upon the people who had
drawn out (the liquid). (36) Those who were with Nehemiah called it
nephthar, which in translation means purification, but among most
people it is called nephthai.
(Chapter 2: Continuation of Second Epistle)
(1) And it is found in the writings that the prophet Jeremiah ordered the ex-
iles to bring some of the fire, as has been indicated, (2) and that the prophet,
in giving them the Law, enjoined the exiles not to forget the Lords com-
mandments and not to go astray in their minds when seeing golden and
silver idols and all their ornaments. (3) And saying other similar things he
encouraged them not to let the Law depart from their hearts. (4) In that text
it is also (written) that the prophet upon the occurrence of a divine oracle
ordered (some people) to follow him with the Tabernacle and the Ark (of
the Covenant), when he went out to the mountain from which Moses, after
ascending it, viewed the inheritance of God. (5) And Jeremiah, after going
there, found a cave-like house and brought into it the Tabernacle and the
ark and the altar of incense, whereupon he blocked the way to the door.
(6) When some of them who had together followed him approached in
order to mark the way, they could not find it. (7) When Jeremiah learned of
this, he rebuked them saying:
This place shall also remain unknown until God will gather in the
people and be merciful. (8) Then will the Lord display these things, and
the glory of the Lord and the cloud will be seen, as it was also evident in
the days of Moses just as Solomon too asked that the Place be sancti-
fied greatly.
(9) And we have also been informed that, being wise, (Solomon) offered
up a sacrifice for the rededication and completion of the Temple. (10) And
just as Moses prayed before the Lord, and fire descended from heaven
and consumed the parts of the sacrifice, so too did Solomon pray, and fire
descended and consumed the whole burnt offerings. (11) And Moses
said: Since the sin-offering was not to be eaten, it was consumed. (12) So
too did Solomon celebrate the eight days. (13) And the same things are
also related in the records and in the memoirs of the days of Nehemiah, as
well as that he, having founded a library, collected the books concerning
the kings and the prophets, and also Davids books, and kings epistles
concerning votive offerings. (14) So too did Judas gather all (the writings)
which had been scattered by the war which transpired, and they are with
us. (15) So if you ever have need of any of them, send people to bring them
to you.
Conclusion of Second Epistle
(16) So, as we are about to celebrate the (holiday of) purification, we have
written you; and you will indeed do well if you celebrate the days. (17) For
the God who saved His entire people and returned to all (of us) the inherit-
ance, including the kingdom and the priesthood and the sanctity, (18) as is
promised in the Law in that God we place our hope, that He will speedily
be merciful to us and gather us from (all places) under heaven unto the Holy
Place; for He saved us from great evils and purified the Place.
COMMENT
The first two chapters of our book are not really part of it. Rather, they con-
sist of two letters (1:110a; 1:10b2:18) and the epitomators preface
(2:1832). Formally, the book itself, which begins with the idyll at 3:1, is an
attachment to the letters. Indeed, the seventh verse of the first letter seems
explicitly to refer to the book, summarizing it as the story of events which
began with Jason.1
The first letter, of which the paratactic Semitic (Hebrew or Aramaic)
style is very tangible beneath the Greek (with appearing three-four
times in most verses, eight in v. 8), is addressed in general by the Jews of Je-
rusalem and Judaea to those of Egypt, inviting them to celebrate the festi-
val commemorating the rededication of the Temple. It is very straightfor-
ward: the opening salutation (v. 1) is followed by a series of stylized
1 For the understanding of Ch. 3, which reports events prior to Jason, as something of a
prologue, see above, pp. 46.
expressions of good will (vv. 25), whereupon the writers segue in v. 6 into
the matter at hand (vv. 710a): they summarize the story from the advent
of Jason to the rededication of the Temple and then urge the recipients to
join in the celebration of the holiday instituted to commemorate that
event.
The second letter, in contrast, is more convoluted, due to two reasons:
(a) its first section (1:1117) seems to have suffered an extensive interpo-
lation (vv. 1316), and (b) the main body (1:182:15) tells its story in re-
verse historical order. It begins somewhat like the first letter: a salutation
from the Jews of Jerusalem to the Jews of Egypt (which adds some specific
names on both sides v. 10b) is followed by a summary reporting that God
had rescued them, and the Holy City, from great troubles. It concludes,
similar to the first one, with an invitation (2:1618) to join in the cel-
ebration of the holiday. In between, there are two main parts and each pres-
ents some difficulties.
The first part, 1:1117, follows its opening statements, about God hav-
ing saved us (v. 11) by expelling those who had drawn up for war
against the Holy City (v. 12), with a story (vv. 1316) about Antiochus IVs
troubles and death in Persia, after having attacked a temple there. While
this contributes to the general case that God punishes evildoers in general
especially for attacks upon temples and punished Antiochus IV in par-
ticular, it focuses on the wrong temple. Moreover, there is some evident
clumsiness at its introduction, as is seen by the repetition of in both
v. 12 and v. 13; and it is also significant that the verb used in v. 12, of those
expelled from the Holy City (which in our book refers to Jerusalem), is
the same as the one used at 5:8 to refer to the expulsion of Jason from Je-
rusalem. It seems, therefore, that someone has interpolated, into a letter
that focused upon the salvation of Jerusalem and the expulsion of a Jewish
villain, a section which enriched the letter by telling a story about the
downfall of Antiochus Epiphanes, who is also a prominent villain in our
book.
At this point, 1:18, the letter initiates its second main move, namely, the
tracing of the history of the central functional element of the Temple of Je-
rusalem: the fire on its altar. The story begins with Nehemiah, describing
how at his direction the priests, at the time of the building of the Second
Temple, found a viscous liquid in the cave in which the fire from the First
Temple had been hidden at the time of its destruction. This liquid, when
poured upon the altar, ignited in an amazing way; thus, more or less mir-
aculously, the fire on the altar of the Second Temple may be seen to be
identical with, and hence just as legitimate as, the fire which was on the
altar of the First Temple.
Having shown that, and having noted that Nehemiah had instructed
the priests to pour the remaining oil onto rocks, which evidently absorbed
it (the significance of which will be explained below), the epistle now goes
on, in its continuation in Chapter 2,2 to trace the Temples fire back
through the First Temple period. As in 1:1819, he moves backwards.
First he shows how Jeremiah, at the time of the destruction of the First
Temple, arranged for the fire to be hidden (thus amplifying the brief ac-
count in 1:19), along with some other of the Temples appurtenances.3
Then he moves back with some statements about Solomon and Moses,
which are not entirely clear, but which do include, at 2:10 and 2:12, the
two most important points for the author of the letter: that the fire in use
in the First Temple descended from heaven when Solomon dedicated it (a
claim explicit already in 2 Chr 7:1) and that Solomon celebrated the
Temples dedication for eight days (so 1 Kgs 8:66 and 2 Chr 7:910).
These two points guarantee, respectively, the ultimately heavenly and
hence sacred origin of the fire in use in the Second Temple, and the appro-
priateness of celebrating the Temples rededication for eight days. Accord-
ingly, after documenting his claims by referring to documents collected
first by Nehemiah and then again by Judas Maccabaeus, the epistle ends
with a call upon its recipients to join in the celebration of the new festival
celebrating the Temples rededication Hanukkah (2:16). This invitation
is bolstered by a heavy peroration (vv. 1718) that underlines the unity of
the Jewish people.
As for the question of why Nehemiah had the unused oil poured onto
rocks, the answer is given in 10:3: when Judas Maccabaeus and his men re-
dedicate the Temple, the fire for the altar was supplied by igniting rocks
and extracting fire from them. That is, these rocks served the same func-
tion as had the cave chosen by Jeremiah: to store and preserve the original
sacred fire, in one form or another, until opportunity arose to revive it.
Thus, the most recent link in the story, that of Judas Maccabaeus, is at-
tached to a chain which links it back to Solomon, and so to heaven, assuring
the legitimacy of the restored Temple and leaving no doubt about the pro-
priety of celebrating its rededication. Q.E.D.
Questions concerning the dating and authenticity of these two letters are
dealt with in Appendix 1.
2 For the artificial and merely technical division between Chs. 1 and 2, see above, p. 17.
3 For an interpretation of this story that focuses upon the way it allowed Jews to believe
the preservation of the Temple, for the future, transpired beyond the reach of foreign
rule, see Weitzman, Surviving Sacrilege, 2528.
NOTES
1:1. To their brethren. This is a standard salutation in letters between Jews.

Note, for some other cases of letters concerning holidays: the Passover ep-
istle from Elephantine (A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century
B.C. [Oxford: Clarendon, 1923], no. 21) and Rabban Gamaliels letters
cited in t. Sanh 2:6 (ed. Zuckermandel, 416417): To our brethren the
Galileans and to our brethren the southerners and to our brethren of
the Babylonian diaspora 4 Cf. NOTE on 10:21, brethren.
the Jews in Jerusalem and in the country of Judaea. This formulation

implies that the city of Jerusalem has its country ()), that is, Judaea
is the territory that surrounds Jerusalem and is defined by it. The writer is
using standard Hellenistic terminology, just as, for example, 1 Macca-
bees 14:3637; Letter of Aristeas 83; Josephus, Antiquities 13.284 ( B -
P )Q); Acts 10:39 (* P )Q B
B ), etc.; see also above, p. 6, n. 8. Such usage is especially
prevalent with regard to Alexandria and Egypt; so e.g. Letter of Aristeas
107111; 3 Maccabees 3:1; Philo, In Flaccum 5; and LSJ, 2015, s.v. )
(fin). In rabbinic literature, the equivalent of ) would seem to be
medina, which is frequently paired with ir (city); so, for example, it is
allowed in the ir and forbidden in the medina (t. Demai 4.12 [ed. Lieber-
man, 80]), fruit in Jerusalem and money in the medina (m. Maaser
Sheni 3.4).
greetings (). This is a standard Hellenistic opening, which appears

in various combinations; cf. v. 10, also 11:16, 22, 27, 34; 1 Macca-
bees 10:18, 25; etc. For the particular order used here, to X (addressee)
from Y (the writer), see Exler, Greek Letter, 4244, 6567. As
Exler notes, the usual order puts the writer first, as in the letters in Chap-
ter 11, so the order employed here usually bespeaks the writers wish to
portray himself as less important than the recipient the same usage that
figures as part of the joke at 9:19, below. But that does not seem to be the
case in the present epistle, and anyway the end of this verse will show that it
is not to be judged by the standards of Greek letters.
4 On rabbinic reports concerning the emissaries who brought calendrical information

from Palestine to the Diaspora see R. T. Beckwith, Calendar, Chronology and Wor-
ship: Studies in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (AGAJU 61; Leiden & Bos-
ton: Brill, 2005) 814.
good peace. A typically Aramaic formulation; the wish for peace appears
at the end of almost every Aramaic letter. See Fitzmyer, Notes, 214217.
Goldstein (2 Macc, 140) suggests that these words allude especially to Jere-
miah 33:9, for all the good and all the peace, and it is indeed possible, in
light of what is assembled in our next note.
2. be beneficent unto (!"). From here until v. 5 we have a

string of blessings overflowing with biblical diction; see Enermalm-Ogawa,
Langage de prire, 5658. It seems that there is particular reference to Jere-
miah 32 which, beginning in v. 26, refers to the Babylonian conquest of Je-
rusalem (for comparison of Antiochus Epiphanes to the Babylonian king see
also NOTE on 9:9, worms) and to the Babylonians introduction of their
abominations into the Temple (Jer 32:34; cf. below, 6:45 and 10:23), but
also has Jeremiah expressing his hope that God will be beneficent to the
residents of the city (Jer 32:39, 40, 41) and even as in our next verse that
I will give them one heart and one way to fear Me (Jer 32:39).
remember His covenant. A frequent motif in prayers, e.g. 1 Maccabees 4:10.

The formulation, here and in the continuation, recalls prayers ascribed to
Moses, such as Deuteronomy 9:27 (Recall for your servants, Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob) and Exodus 32:13 (Remember for your servants, Abra-
ham, Isaac and Jacob, to whom You swore ). However, it is especially
important to cite here Exodus 2:24 and Leviticus 26:42. In both of these
passages, recalling the covenant with the fathers introduces the end of
exile just as in Jeremiah 32 (v. 37), and as such is especially appropriate in
a letter from Jerusalem to the Diaspora.
with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. For reference to them in a similar con-
text, in a letter urging celebration of a holiday, and expressing the hope that
God will become reconciled with the addressees, see 2 Chronicles 30:6.
His faithful (#). On and related terms in our book, see

NOTE on 3:22, to preserve the trusts entrusted. For Abraham as faith-
ful, see Nehemiah 9:8 (in the wake of Gen 15:5: and he believed
]ymXh , ) and Sirach 44:20 (in a test he was found to be faith-
ful ]mXn , ).
servants (%
#). On in ancient religious terminology
and the depth of obligation which it expresses, see: Spicq, Notes,
1.211215 and Enermalm-Ogawa, Langage de prire, 135136. See also
7:6, 33; 8:29.
3. and may He give you, all of you. There is an apparent emphasis upon the
fact that the letter is addressed to all the Jews of Egypt a call for national
unity made even more explicit at the end of the second letter (2:17) and,
again, in the narrative about the institution of the Hanukkah festival (10:8).
(For links between 10:18 and these opening letters, see above, pp. 89.)
a heart to revere him. We have already noted, in NOTE to v. 2, be benefi-

cent unto, that both elements of this seem to recall Jeremiah 32:39; now we
may add that Jeremiahs reference there to one heart fits our verses implied
call for unity.
wholeheartedly (' )). Lit.: with a big heart. But it is clear

that what is intended is the common biblical phrase, with a complete
heart (,l> blb ), for which see especially 1 Chronicles 28:9 where, as
here, it is joined by and with a willing spirit. The same phrases reappear
in Rabbi Alexandris prayer quoted in b. Berakhot 17a preserved in the
daily Uva leZion prayer: May He open our heart unto His Torah that
we may do His will and serve Him with a perfect heart (Hertz, Authorised
Daily Prayer Book, 1.2045).
4. may He open your heart in His Torah. This phrase too reappears in the
Uva leZion prayer, on the basis of the prayer of Mar, son of Rabina, cited in
the Talmud (loc. cit.): He will open our hearts in his Torah. For a remark-
able medieval understanding of the phrase that takes the implied physiology
quite seriously, see I. Ta-Shma, JQR 87 (1996/97) 237238. Cf. Apostolic
Constitutions 8.6.5 (ed. F. X. Funk, 478 = Fiensy, Prayers, 9293: open the
ears of their hearts).
the commandments (). This term compares the commands of

the Torah to those of Hellenistic kings, for whose decrees this was the stan-
dard term (see Lenger, Corpus); see NOTE on 7:30, decree of the king
decree of the Law. (Elsewhere, we indeed translate decrees, even as in
7:30, 10:8 and 15:3 in connection with Jewish law, in order to underline
as the author seems to desire the contrast between Gods decrees and
those of the king. But here, in light of this letters Semitic background, we
stuck to the Jewish term commandments, just as we used Torah in-
stead of Law for earlier in this verse.)
and make peace. Goldstein (2 Macc, 141) suggested omitting these words,
viewing them as a marginal gloss on good peace at the end of v. 1. How-
ever, his argument is only that vv. 34 imply that the Jews of Egypt are
sinners who have not yet repented and have not yet been forgiven only
after the mention of Gods forgiveness in vs. 5 is there room for a prayer for
peace in vss. 35. Even if we subscribed to his reading of the implication of
vv. 34 we could still read the text as is with no difficulty: the peace-making
mentioned here would be the result of or would allow for Gods hearing
of prayers, and that, in turn, would move Him to reconciliation. Moreover,
the whole point of departure is doubtful, for vv. 34 can easily be taken as
general language always appropriate to prayer, which need not imply any
specific statement about the Jews of Egypt.
5. and may He hear your requests. This is polite: to express the wish that
God hear the recipients prayers eliminates the impression that the writers
think their own prayers for the Egyptian Jews are sufficient, the only
prayers that matter.
become reconciled () with you. As Spicq pointed out (Notes,

1.407411), in the Septuagint only our book uses this word, in its various
forms (5:20; 7:33; 8:29). However, it is not only exceptional; it is also cen-
tral to the entire historiographical scheme of our book, for reconciliation
is one of its central motifs. See above, pp. 2122. In general, see esp. Porter,
in Ancient Greek Literature. The use of this verb here, in this
letter attached to the book, means that the Judaean readers of the book,
who wrote this letter to accompany it, correctly recognized the notions cen-
trality, and alluded to it here. For a similar move on their part, see NOTE on
10:4, fall edified. The assumption that these words reflect the Judaeans
reading of the book and not pace Goldstein (see NOTE on v. 4, and make
peace) any particular view on Egyptian Jewry, is important regarding the
next bit of text as well:
and not abandon you in an evil time. Just as we shied away, in v. 4, from
seeing any special reference to the sins of Egyptian Jewry, so too here we
hesitate to follow those who, such as Bickerman (Studies, 2.155156),
would infer that Egyptian Jews were undergoing particular troubles at the
time of this letter; see Appendix 1, p. 524, n. 18. Rather, these are routine el-
ements of prayer; see for example Psalms 37:1819 (The Lord knows the
days of the blameless, and their heritage will abide for ever; they are not put
to shame in evil times, in the days of famine they have abundance) and
Flusser, Jerusalem, 277278, n. 31. For evil time see, for example,
Jeremiah 2:2728; 11:12. Cf. 4Q525, fragments 23, col. ii, lines 35
(DJD 25.122): happy is the man who acquires wisdom and does not
abandon it in a time of trouble. Had the writers of our letter seen their ad-
dressees as suffering some special troubles, it is doubtful that they could

have ignored that in the continuation of the letter, when they get down to
brass tacks. Here, until the transition in vv. 67, we are still reading the gen-
eral introduction.
6. And now. Transitional words, as in Ezra 4:17 and 5:17, and in almost
every Aramaic letter; see Fitzmyer, Notes, 216. Cf. Acts 5:5, 33. Here the
transition is from the general introduction to the practical part of the letter;
note its recurrence, as if to emphasize the practicality of the matter, in the
final urging in v. 9. For the same usage in prayers, see esp. our NOTE on
14:36, And now.
praying for you. Mention of the prayer on behalf of the addressees is meant
to encourage them to acquiesce to the writers request. Compare, for
example, Jonathans letter to his Spartan brethren (1 Macc 12:11) and
Pauls opening of his first letter to the Thessalonians.
7. In the reign of Demetrius, year 169. We may assume that a letter from
the Jews of Jerusalem uses the Jewish (Babylonian) method of reckoning the
Seleucid era, viz., from the spring of 311 BCE; see Introduction, p. 11,
n. 24. That means the present date is equivalent to the year which began in
the spring of 143 BCE, which was indeed during the reign of a Demetrius:
the Seleucid king Demetrius II, who ruled 145139 BCE and then again
(after captivity in Parthia [1 Macc 14:13]) 129125 BCE. According to a
letter preserved at 1 Maccabees 13:3640 this Demetrius freed Judaea of all
taxation, something which the author of 1 Maccabees takes to mean that
in the 170th year the yoke of the Gentiles was removed from Israel
(13:41). Demetrius letter, as preserved in 1 Maccabees, bears no date, but
the original must have had one, at its conclusion (see e.g. the letters in
Ch. 11); since the very first verse after the document refers, as we have seen,
to the year 170, it is relatively easy and secure to guess that the author
found the date in the document itself and wove it into his narrative (for a
similar case, see 1 Macc 15:10). This means, however, that the date in
1 Maccabees 13:41 should be understood according to the Seleucids own
(Macedonian) system, counting from the autumn of 312 BCE, in which case
170 SE was the year that began in the autumn of 143. That year overlapped
with the one specified here between the autumn of 143 and the spring of
142 BCE, and we may assume, therefore, that this letter was written dur-
ing that period, in anticipation of the celebration of Hanukkah 143 or
142 BCE the first celebration of the holiday in conditions of Jewish inde-
pendence. For more detail, see Appendix 1.
we Judaeans. Here the context seems to require Judaeans rather than

Jews; after v. 1 clarified that both the writers and the recipients are Jews,
the former now identify themselves according to their residence. For such
issues, see my Jew or Judaean?.
have written (). The use of the perfect here has engendered
difficulties because normally, in Greek, it would refer to something
written prior to the present document. This led commentators, beginning
with Bickerman (see Appendix 1), to propose viewing the next few verses
as a quotation from such an earlier letter. However, as Torrey noted
(Letters, 123; so too Zeitlin, 2 Macc, 101), the verb refers to the present
letter itself. On such usage, which reflects the point of view of the recipi-
ent (who is reading after perhaps even long after the letter was
written), see D. Dempsey, The Epistolary Perfect in Aramaic Letters,
BN 54 (1990) 711. For Hebrew, see Miqsat Maase HaTorah, C26
(DJD 10.62): We too have written (vnbtk) you some matters of Torah
that we thought appropriate for you and your people; the reference is to
the same letter itself. For parallel usage even in Greek, see Welles, RC, lxx-
lxxi. So too below, 2:16, although there the verb is in the aorist and not
perfect; that is of no significance here, for our letter was translated from a
language Hebrew or Aramaic that does not distinguish between the
two.
concerning the oppression and the crisis which came upon us ( * "
, * !* * "%) -.). We translated on the assumption that
there is an allusion here to Proverbs 1:27: when oppression and crisis come
upon you (LXX: * F ). For 02 as a cri-
sis, a pinnacle of troubles, cf. 4:13 and 12:22, along with LSJ, 51, s.v. As
for concerning, we translated on the assumption that the Jews of Judaea
were not, according to our author, suffering from oppression and crisis at
the time of writing, in 169 SE, since the rest of our verse makes it clear that
the troubles belong to a past generation, the period between Jason and the
rededication of the Temple twenty years and more before he wrote. There-
fore, we took the preposition to mean about, as for example in Deute-
ronomy 6:7 (LXX: 2 $). The writers evidently mean his
vv. 78 to summarize the main points of the book which the letter will ac-
company, namely:
beginning when Jason and those who were with him. The episodes concern-
ing Jason are in Chapters 45, thus, the writers do not relate at all to the He-
liodorus story reported in Chapter 3. This is one of the reasons we assume
that the book, accompanied by this letter, was basically understood as one
dealing with the period that opened with Jason; see above, pp. 4-6.
rebelled (!). The Hebrew sar, which apparently lies behind the Greek
here, is frequently used in the sense of rebellion; for examples from another
work of the second century BCE see Damascus Document 1:1314 and
7:1113. Thus, the use of this word intimates an element of insolence, re-
bellion, not just innocent going astray.
the Holy Land. This is the only time this term appears in our book, which
otherwise focuses upon a city; see above, pp. 67. Here, however, the Ju-
daean letter-writer bespeaks his own point of view, not that of the book
itself. As Wilken emphasizes (Land Called Holy, 2425), the expression
holy land is altogether rare in ancient Jewish literature; cf. Winston, Wis-
dom of Solomon, 238. This is its first occurrence in Greek, and its first ap-
pearance altogether since Zechariah (2:16: >dqh tmdX //, # ,
4 ). It seems that it was only centuries later, with the loss of Jerusalem,
that it would become more widespread, among Jews, to focus on the land
rather than the city.
and the kingdom. Which kingdom? The phrase is ambiguous: does it refer
to the Seleucid kingdom or to that of God? The former is perhaps simpler
from the point of view of language and context (given the reference to
Demetrius only one verse back), but it is difficult despite Heinemann,
Wer veranlate, 151, n. 18 to view Jason as a rebel against the Seleu-
cids. Even if he brought about the abrogation of the privileges granted by
Antiochus III (4:11), he did it with the cooperation of Antiochus IV. And in
any case it is difficult to think that a nationalist Judaean writer, such as the
author of the present letter, would characterize Jason, whom he viewed as a
villain, as having done something of which such a writer would approve
rebelling against the Seleucid government. Similarly, this passage should not
be taken as alluding to Jasons fight with Menelaus, described in Chapter 5;
the writer had no reason at all to view that as one against Gods kingdom,
hardly reason to view it as a revolt against the Seleucid kingdom, and no
reason at all to condemn it as such if that were, nevertheless, how he con-
sidered it. Moreover, if the present reference were to events described in
Chapter 5, this summary of the book would be skipping not only the events
of Chapter 3, which we are prepared to accept, but also those of Chapter 4,
for which we see no justification. Rather, we should see here a characteriz-
ation of Jason as having rebelled against the kingdom of God. Note that the
same verb is used at 5:8 to speak of Jason having rebelled against the laws
( 0), where the reference is to Jewish law, which

amounts to rebelling against God. And the same interpretation is supported
by the details supplied in v. 8, which too point to sins against the Temple (or
Jerusalem) and the Jews, not against the Seleucid government. The term
kingdom was probably selected in order to serve the same purpose as that
of in v. 4: the writers wish to remind their brethren in Egypt
of the kingdom of God, which is supposed to oblige them all. On this con-
cept in general see Camponovo, Knigtum; pp. 186188 on this verse.
8. And they set fire to the gate. Of the Temple; see NOTE on 8:33, holy
gates.
and spilled innocent blood. See esp. 5:6, but also 1 Maccabees 7:17 (on Al-
cimus, not Jason), which cites Psalms 74:79: they spilled their blood like
water around Jerusalem. This psalm, which opens Gentiles have come
into Your inheritance and defiled Your holy sanctuary, could like Jere-
miah 32 (see NOTE on v. 2, be beneficent unto) easily be read in connec-
tion with the events of this period. For a consideration of the pros and cons
of the once widely-held view, that Psalm 74 was in fact composed in this
period, see H. Donner, Argumente.
and we brought sacrifices and fine flour. For a similar account in the book
itself, see 10:3. It seems that whole-offerings and meal-offerings are meant;
see Daniel, Recherches, 222, 257. Some witnesses read sacrifice in the
singular ( rather than ), thus pointing to the familiar phrase
hxnmv xbz (e.g. Isa 19:21; Jer 17:26; Ps 40:7); so Kahana, HaSepharim, 178
and Torrey, Letters, 142 (Xxnmv xbd ).
the lamps (%) and presented the showbreads. The former were on the
arms of the candelabrum. For the lamps and the showbread, in that order as
here, see Leviticus 24:19. Note that, just as here, so too at 10:3 apart from
sacrifices the only appurtenances of the Temple that are mentioned are the
candelabrum and the showbread. As we have argued, it seems that the two
passages are the work of the same Jerusalemite hands; see above, pp. 89.
The candelabrum and showbread figure together frequently in ancient rep-
resentations of the Temple (on coins and elsewhere), and were apparently
considered to be its prime symbols; see D. Barag, The Menorah in the
Roman and Byzantine Periods: A Messianic Symbol, BAIAS 1985/86,
4447. However, note that the table (upon which the showbread was set
out) almost always precedes the lamp, as already in the Bible (Exod 25:23,
31; 2 Chr 13:11, etc.), whereas here as in Leviticus 24 the lamps come
first. It may be that this reflects the context, given the fact that Hanukkah is
known as the festival of lights (so already Josephus, Ant. 12.325). On the
Temples candelabrum during the Second Temple period see L. I. Levine,
The History and Significance of the Menorah in Antiquity, in: From
Dura to Sepphoris: Studies in Jewish Art and Society in Late Antiquity
(Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 40; ed. L. I. Levine
& Z. Weiss; Portsmouth, Rhode Island: JRA, 2000) esp. 134142.
9. And now. Enough history; the writer now gets to the point of the letter.
Cf. NOTE on v. 6, And now.
so that you shall celebrate (0 1). So too in v. 18, but there the main
verb (to inform) is explicit; here the present phrase depends, implicitly,
on have written you in v. 7, which we have parenthetically repeated for
the sake of clarity.
the days of (the festival of) Tabernacles () of the month of

Kislev. This name for Hanukkah recurs below, v. 18. In the Septuagint,
is the usual term for the holiday of Tabernacles (so too
1 Macc 10:21; John 7:2; etc.); the present designation of Hanukkah seems,
accordingly, to reflect an early interpretation of Hanukkah that links it, and
the fact that it was eight days long (note days here), to Tabernacles. This
is explained below, at 10:67 (yet another link between this letter and
10:18).
10. Of the year 148. Of the Seleucid era; assuming again (as at v. 7), as is
appropriate for a letter such as this, that the Jewish (Babylonian) reckoning
is followed, this turns into the year beginning in the spring of 164 BCE, the
year which includes, in Kislev (ca. December), Judas Maccabaeus rededi-
cation of the Temple the first Hanukkah. In other words, this letter, which
is dated to 143/142 BCE (v. 7), is inviting the addressees to celebrate the
holiday commemorating the famous event of the year 148. The reading
148, which we have adopted, is found in two miniscules (nos. 55, 62), of
which the former is said to be nearly as valuable as the uncials (Hanhart,
2 Macc, 37); and it was accepted by various scholars, such as Kolbe (Beit-
rge, 118) and Momigliano (Prime linee, 7778).5 True, in recent decades it
has been more popular to adopt another and better-attested reading, 188
(= 124/123 BCE on Jewish reckoning), and to view the letter as having been
5 Although the latter two thought it was the opening of the second epistle.
written in that year and quoting one written in 169 SE. But that relies upon
a misunderstanding of the verb in v. 7 (see our NOTE ad loc. on have
written). Moreover, there seems to have been no particular reason to send
such a letter as this in 124 BCE, nor, if they were sent annually, is there any
apparent reason for this particular letter to have been attached to the book;
but 188 () could easily turn into 148 (). For more details, see Ap-
pendix 1.
The people in Jerusalem. As in v. 1; that they are Jews (or Judaeans) is

taken for granted.
the Council of Elders. On the gerousia see NOTE on 4:44, Council of

Elders.
Judas. Apparently Maccabaeus. That is, the letter purports to be written

by him (and his colleagues) to the Jews of Egypt after having received news
of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes (vv. 1317) and on the eve of celebra-
ting the first Hanukkah (v. 18 and 2:16). The order of events is thus as
below, Chapters 910, and the letter would seem to be a notification of the
Jews of Egypt of the decision reported at 10:8 (which would, of course,
have been taken prior to the celebration). But the fact that the order of
events conforms to that in the body of the book does not prove that this
letter is an integral part of the book, for it seems that 10:18 itself is a sec-
ondary addition to the book; see above, pp. 89. It is difficult to guess when
this letter was written, and pace Goldstein, 2 Macc, 157159 it cannot
be excluded that it is based upon an original going back to Judas himself;
see Wacholder, Letter from Judah Maccabee and Flusser, Dedication of
the Temple, 5578. However, if there was such an authentic kernel, it
grew; see NOTE on v. 12, For () He Himself drove out.
Aristobulus the teacher of King Ptolemy. The importance of this Aristobu-

lus is underscored by the writers failure to give any byname for the king,
as if the Jerusalemites couldnt care less if the reference is to Philadelphus,
Philopator or Philometor. So too Demetrius (above, v. 7), just like
Dem]trius and Antiochus in the first column of Pesher Nahum from
Qumran (DJD 5.38), and so frequently in Palestinian texts. In the body of
our book, however, written by a Hellenistic Jew, we hear of Philometor
(4:21) and Ptolemy Philometor (9:29). As for the identity of this Aristo-
bulus, it seems clear that the present verse should be linked up with evidence
(from Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius) for a Jewish philosopher of the
same name; see esp. Holladay, Fragments, 3, with pp. 4546 on this verse.
who is of the line of the priests. This notice that Aristobulus was a priest
is not supported elsewhere, and it certainly does fit the interests of the
writer, who is clearly fascinated by the Temple. But neither consideration is
reason enough to doubt the notice. The high status of priests in the Jewish
community of Egypt is known from other sources too, such as Letter of Ar-
isteas 3106 and 3 Maccabees 6:1; see my The Priests, 569571.
anointed. Although anointment of priests is mandated by the Pentateuch

(Exod 30:30), the rabbis held that this was not done during the Second
Temple period since the anointment oil was one of the things lost at the time
of the destruction of the First Temple; see t. Sotah 13.1 (ed. Lieberman,
229) and parallels, along with S. E. Loewenstamm, Kiryat Sepher 34
(1958/59) 4748 (in Hebrew). But our verse does not in fact claim that Ar-
istobulus himself was anointed.
to the Jews in Egypt. The way Aristobulus is singled out alongside this col-
lective implies that he held some administrative or representative position
within the community similar to that of Judas Maccabaeus, who is
singled out alongside the other authors of the letter. We know that Egyp-
tian Jewry had ethnarchs (Strabo, apud Josephus, Ant. 14.117; ibid
19.283) and/or genarchs (Philo, In Flaccum, 74) in the Roman period;
perhaps such positions existed in the Hellenistic period too (in general,
see Stern, GLA, 1.280281). But apart from any inference from our verse
we have no evidence for Aristobulus filling such a role. For an Alexan-
drian Jewish philosopher, said (by Jerome) to have been a priest, who
did fulfill communal responsibilities, see Philos Legatio 178 ff. and his
6 For the argument that the priests mentioned at Let. Arist. 310 are not Alexandrian
but rather, Judaean, such as those mentioned in 184, see C. Zuckerman, Hellenistic
politeumata and the Jews: A Reconsideration, SCI 89 (1985/88) 183, n. 30. How-
ever, Zuckermans argument is merely the claim that Alexandrian priests are men-
tioned in 53 only to demonstrate their ignorance of the Tora prescriptions (so the
author would not want to depend upon them in 310). In my opinion that is quite an
arbitrary reading of 53(56), for all that is said there is that when some priests and
other Alexandrian Jews told the king he could build a larger table for the Temple of
Jerusalem, if he so desired, he decided to preserve the current measurements; the
Torah is not mentioned, and the story is meant to show not the priests ignorance of it
but, rather, the kings respect for Jewish tradition. Lderitz too has rejected Zucker-
mans interpretation: Politeuma, 206. (In general, Zuckermans case against the
existence of Hellenistic Jewish politeumata, of which the priests would be part of the
leadership, has since been undermined by Cowey & Maresch, Urkunden; see esp.
A. Kashers review of the latter: JQR 93 [2002/3] 257268.)
De specialibus legibus 3.3; Josephus, Antiquities 18.259; and Schwartz,

Philos Priestly Descent.
greetings and good health. This is a standard wish, but only in private
letters; see Habicht, Royal Documents, 5 and the NOTE on 9:19, many
greetings Bickerman (Studies, 2.136137) depended on this formulation
to date the present letter, since apart from one instance in the fourth cen-
tury BCE it is not in evidence before the middle of the first century BCE; so
too Goldstein, 2 Macc, 164165. But such considerations are not very re-
liable, for salutations are among those parts of documents that are most
vulnerable to editing in texts passed on from one generation to the next.
11. Having been saved. The genitive absolute indicates both the timing and
the causal relationship: we give thanks to God after He saved us because He
saved us.
from great (
) dangers. These words can apply to the entire story
told by the book, through the dedication of the Temple in Chapter 10. For a
summary, see 8:24.
we who drew ourselves up for war against the king. That is: we, who drew
ourselves up for war against the Seleucid king, must thank God. The next
verse will explain why. Here there is a clear subscription to the notion of
dual causality (see Seeligmann, Menschliches Heldentum, and Amit,
Dual Causality Principle): we drew ourselves up to fight, but it is God
who achieved the results. Some scholars would emend the text here, so as to
have it say that God alone drew Himself up for war against the king;
so Abel (Macc, 290) and Habicht (2 Macc, 202, n. 11a) in the wake of Brus-
ton, Trois lettres, 115, n. 1. But there is no manuscript support for this,
and if our verse were to say already that God Himself did battle, the next
verse would become somewhat redundant.
give great (
) thanks. The use of the adverbial form of the adjective
used earlier in the verse underlines that the thanksgiving is commensurate
with the dangers faced.
12. For () He Himself drove out ( ) those who drew them-
selves up for war in the Holy City. This explains the declaration in v. 11, as
if to say: True, we drew ourselves up for war, but what was more crucial is
that He did. As for what this verse refers to, however, there is room for
doubt. The next verses (introduced by another for) assert that the refer-
ence is to Antiochus Epiphanes, but in fact they do not refer to him being
driven out but, rather, to him being killed and that in Persia, not in
the Holy City (Jerusalem). Rather, it seems that the real reference is i.e.,
originally was to Jason, who was driven out (7) of Jerusalem
after attacking it (5:8). In the entire Septuagint, there is only one other pas-
sage where is used, so its use in our two passages is significant.
That is, just as in the first epistle (v. 7), so too here Jason is presented as the
main villain. But this means that the next several verses, which tell a story
about Antiochus Epiphanes in Persia, are a secondary addition, by someone
who had another story to tell about the death of the infamous king;
cf. Enermalm-Ogawa, Langage de prire, 5859. Note that by defining
vv. 1316 as an interpolation we remove the main objection to the assump-
tion that the author of the second letter knew our book; see below, Appen-
dix 1, p. 527.
in the Holy City ( P 4 Q ). It has been thought that the context
requires that the preposition be taken to mean against the Holy City; so
Abel, Macc, 291 (contre la ville sainte) and Goldstein, 2 Macc, 154
(made war on the Holy City). This would point in the direction of a He-
brew Vorlage for this letter, something which as Goldstein himself notes in
this connection (2 Macc, 169170) would be exceptional for this letter,
despite some biblicizing style. In fact, however, there is no reason not to
take the preposition here in its usual sense, in, which contrasts neatly
with the opening 7- of the verb (drove out) and also fits the fighting
within Jerusalem described in Chapter 5.
Holy City. On this appellation, see NOTE on 3:1, Holy City.
13. For (). The secondary nature of this passage is easily detected in the
clumsy repetition of for.
when the leader came. It is clear that this refers to Antiochus Epiphanes,
whose name appears in vv. 1416. But why term him the leader (T-
)), rather than king? If it is not a piece of irony, it may reflect a desire
to avoid using the latter title with regard to flesh and blood monarchs out of
deference for the kingdom of God, see NOTE on v. 7, and the kingdom.
Similarly, according to 2:17 the kingdom has been given to all of Israel. In
this connection, note too the use of T instead of king in 1 Mac-
cabees (9:30, 13:42, 14:41 etc.; cf. NOTE on 14:16, the leaders) and the
trouble some Qumran texts take to distinguish between kings and other
rulers; thus Pesher Nahum 1.3 (DJD 5.38) refers to the kings of Greece
but the rulers of the Kittim (Republican Rome); cf. D. R. Schwartz, The
Messianic Departure from Judah (4Q Patriarchal Blessings), TZ 37 (1981)
259261 and A. Rof, Qumranic Paraphrases, the Greek Deuteronomy
and the Late History of the Biblical Xy>n , Textus 14 (1988) 169174. But
one shouldnt expect consistency in such things; note King Ptolemy in
v. 10 and King of Persia in vv. 20 and 33. Or was our writer especially
sensitive about Antiochus Epiphanes, that villain?
to Persia. This general toponym seems to be used without any particular in-
tent; see NOTE on the end of the verse, in the temple of Nanaia. On Anti-
ochus Persian expedition of 165/164 BCE, which led to his death, see also
Chapter 9; 1 Maccabees 3:2733 and 6:116; Polybius 31.9; Mrkholm,
Antiochus IV, 170180; Le Rider, Suse, 311324; Walbank, Polybius,
3.473474; Will, HP, 2.352355; Gera & Horowitz, Antiochus IV,
243249.
along with an army thought to be irresistible. We have no data about the

size of Antiochus army. But it was preceded by a military procession at
Daphne, near Antioch, which included more than 40,000 infantry and
thousands of cavalrymen; see Polybius 30.25 and our NOTE on 5:2, ac-
cording to units. According to Diodorus 31.17a, following this procession
which just preceded the Persian campaign Antiochus was considered the
most powerful king of his day; see Mrkholm, Antiochus IV, 166167. Of
course, we should not forget that our writers purpose here is to contrast the
force which was thought to be irresistible to the divine power that truly is
(cf. 8:5!); see Otto, 6. Ptolemer, 8687, n. 4.
in the temple of Nanaia. A Babylonian goddess identified by the Greeks

with Artemis. Indeed, Polybius (31.9.1 = Josephus, Ant. 12.358) and Josep-
hus (ibid. 354) report that the temple Antiochus wished to rob was of Ar-
temis. According to our verse this temple was in Persia, and 9:12 agrees
that Antiochus defeat came in the Persian regions, in the city called
Persepolis. However, Josephus (loc. cit.), 1 Maccabees (6:1, Josephus
source) and Appian (Syriak, 66) all speak instead of Elymais (Elam), and
Strabo (Geog. 16.1.18, p. 744) indeed mentions a wealthy temple of Arte-
mis in Elam. Hundreds of kilometers separate Susa, the capital of Elam, and
Persepolis. Rather than viewing this as a serious disagreement, it seems
more reasonable, given our writers limited knowledge and lack of interest
about such things, to see here only his inaccuracy concerning the details of
far-off eastern regions. For discussion, see Le Rider, Suse, 323, n. 6 and Wal-
bank, Polybius, 3.473474.
14. Friends (). That is, his courtiers; so too at 7:24; 8:9; 10:13; 14:11.
On them, see Bickerman, Institutions, 4050; Corradi, Studi, 318343;
Spicq, Notes, 3.940943; G. Herman, The Friends of the Early Hellen-
istic Rulers: Servants or Officials?, Talanta 1213 (19801981) 103149;
and I. Savalli-Lestrade, Les philoi royaux dans lAsie hellnistique (Hautes
tudes du monde grco-romain 25; Genve: Droz, 1998). On those in Anti-
ochus IVs court, see Mrkholm, Antiochus IV, 102106.
to cohabit with her. There was good ancient Mesopotamian precedent for
marriage between a king and a goddess, and since it is known that Antiochus
Epiphanes married Atergatis in Hieropolis (Bambyke) and so took treasures
from her temple as her dowry (see Granius Licinianus, ed. Flemisch, 5, re-
printed by Flusser in Dedication of the Temple, 81), there is nothing sur-
prising about the present story. It seems, however, that the priests of Nanaia
(unlike Mrkholm, Antiochus IV, 132) quite reasonably doubted the sincer-
ity of Antiochus intentions and suspected that what drew him to the god-
dess was her money; for a Greek observer of the same opinion, see Granius
Licinianus, loc. cit. Indeed, according to Polybius 30.26.9 Antiochus looted
most of the temples of Egypt, and there is papyrological evidence for the des-
truction of a temple in the Fayyum by his soldiers; see Mrkholm, Antiochus
IV, 93, also Broshi & Eshel, The Greek King, 127128. And then, of
course, there is the raid on the Jerusalem temple too (5:1516 and
1 Macc 1:2024). Thus, the priests of Nanaia could know what to expect.
the great sums of money. On treasures in temples, see NOTE on 3:6, treas-
ury in Jerusalem.
as a payment towards (2 3). On the terminology, see NOTE on

3:6, applied to the account
15. the temple of Nanaia. For the names of temples such as , built
on a divine name + , see also 12:26 and P. Walters, The Text of the Sep-
tuagint (ed. D. W. Gooding; London: Cambridge, 1973) 5456.
displayed them. I.e., displayed the treasures. This is the stratagem men-
tioned in v. 13: they let the king think that they were in fact prepared to turn
over the treasures, and thus lured him into entering the temple with his
guard down.
16. the secret door (, , ). The use of the definite article
seems to indicate that the reader takes for granted that eastern temples have
all sorts of secret passageways. Indeed, it is a common motif; see for

example the apocryphal story of Bel and the Dragon (end of LXX Dan),
vv. 15 and 21, and Josephus, Antiquities 18.74. See too Heron of Alexan-
dria, Pneumatica 1.3839 (on automatic opening devices for temple doors),
along with Weinreich, Trffnung, 407410.
cutting them to pieces. In the eastern fashion, including the decapitation

mentioned in the sequel; see Walbank, Polybius, 2.97. On decapitation see
also NOTE on 15:30, to cut off Nicanors head
they cast them out to those outside. I.e., to the rest of Antiochus contin-
gent, apart from the few who had gone in with him (v. 15).
17. handed over (4

) (to their condign fate). The parenthetical ex-
pansion appears to be required by the context. Some witnesses indeed give
(or Latin tradidit), which is frequently used in this fatal sense
in Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian literature; see 10:4; 14:31; and Spicq,
Notes, 3.510513.
those who did impiously (02). This could apply equally to Anti-
ochus and his associates or to Jason (termed 02 at 4:13). That is, this
verse could have been in the original version too, prior to the interpolation
of vv. 1316 (see NOTE on v. 12, For () He Himself drove out ).
18. As we are about to celebrate. For the implied date, see NOTE on v. 10,
Judas. The writer now turns to the main point of his letter. Several witnesses
quite appropriately insert here an U, as at 2:16 which repeats the lan-
guage of this verse and thus indicates the end of the historical review that
begins here. For such usage, cf. e.g. 2:32 and 3:22.
we thought it necessary to inform you (5). This informing is

the main content of the letter: the demonstration of the legitimacy of the
sacrificial fire of the Temple of Jerusalem. The story is told as a three-linked
chain, moving backward from Nehemiah to Jeremiah to Solomon. The verb
, that here introduces the first link, will return to introduce the
last one as well (2:9), thereby signaling to the reader that the story is about
to end.
so that you too shall celebrate it as the holiday of Tabernacles (-

) and fire. In repeating his agenda, which is basically identical to
that of the first letter too (v. 9), the present writer adds in the element of fire,
which will be his focus from now on. This may well reflect a development in
the history of Hanukkah, from the original analogy to Tabernacles to a
focus upon lights (according to Josephus, Ant. 12.325, lights was indeed
the name of the holiday), in which case the present letter would play an
important role in explaining the transition. See too our NOTE on 1:8,
the lamps
Nehemiah after constructing the Temple and the altar. Of course, they
were in fact built in the late sixth century BCE, more than half a century be-
fore the earliest possible date of Nehemiahs arrival in Judaea (it is usually
assumed, for good reason, that the Artaxerxes under whom he served was
the first 464425 BCE). But however erroneous, it was nonetheless com-
mon to link Nehemiah to the reconstruction of the Temple (and the rabbis
indeed contemplated identifying him with Zerubbabel b. Sanh 38a [top]).
See Bergren, Nehemiah, 254263; L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, VI
(New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1968) 438439, n. 26; and U. Kel-
lermann, Nehemia: Quellen, Ueberlieferung und Geschichte (BZAW 102;
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1967) 146; Kellermann tries to minimize the problem by
taking the chronological reference here more generally (see ibid., 122). The
mistake derives not only from the fact that Nehemiah, as Zerubbabel, was
termed tirshata (Neh 7:65 and 8:9), but also from a general telescoping of
the Persian period (the two centuries between Cyrus and Alexander) in Jew-
ish historical memory, something in evidence in Qumran, in Josephus and in
rabbinic literature (of which the latter claims the whole period was only
34 years b. Abodah Zarah 8b etc.); see Schwartz, On Some Papyri,
esp. 184185. This telescoping, in turn, seems to have derived from the pau-
city of data about the period combined with the fact that too many Persian
kings bore the same names (three each for Artaxerxes and Darius). In
any case, Nehemiah was famous for having built in Jerusalem (see Neh 34;
also Sir 49:13, where he is cited right after Zerubbabel and his contempor-
ary, Joshua b. Jehozadak), so it was not difficult to add more to his credit.
Bergren (loc. cit.) adds yet another factor: it may be that the emphasis upon
Nehemiah reflects an attempt by our writer, or more generally by pro-Has-
monean propagandists, to compare Judas Maccabaeus to this great hero of
the past.
offered up sacrifices. This is our authors first claim: if Nehemiah, that

exemplary figure, offered up sacrifice in Jerusalem, it must have been legit-
imate to do so. This means that, if the proper measures are taken, such as
those the author will now report, the cult can be resumed after destruction
(and, by implication, after desecration).
19. our fathers. The writer emphasizes the commonality of the entire
people, including the Jews of Egypt a point to be emphasized again in his
summation; see NOTE on 2:17, His entire people
to the Persian country. I.e., Babylonia, following the destruction of the

First Temple another case of our writers lack of concern for the details
of eastern geography (see NOTE on v. 13, to Persia). But by referring
to Persia our writer has the advantage of making the continuity between
the First and Second Temple periods, which is his major theme, all the
simpler.
the pious priests of the time. For someone writing after the days of Jason,
Menelaus and Alcimus, it is clearly not superfluous to point out that some
priests were pious. Later in the letter, at 2:1, we will learn that it was Jere-
miah (himself a priest: Jer 1:1) who supervised the hiding of the fire.
having taken fire from the altar. Fire which, given its heavenly origin
(known to pious priests and about to be explained to readers), had to be
preserved if at all possible; the notion of igniting a new fire all by them-
selves, when the time came, was unthinkable (see Lev 10:12).
in the hollow of an empty cistern. Lit.: in the hollow of a cistern which was
in a dry condition (7 * 6). For the text (cf. 9:18) and
translation, see Hanhart, Text, 3031 (vs. Wilhelm, Zu einigen Stellen,
1519 and Katz, Text, 1213).
secured it there (). This seems to imply a very thorough

sealing, something easily done in cisterns, as was emphasized by Wilhelm,
Zu einigen Stellen, 1718; for the verb, he compares 3 Maccabees 4:9
and Matt 27:54.
20. enough years had passed, as seemed appropriate to God. It is not clear
whether the writer means that God had fixed in advance the length of the
Babylonian Exile, a notion which corresponds to Jeremiahs prophecy that it
would last seventy years; see Jeremiah 25:1112; 29:10; Daniel 9:2. In any
case, he did not mention that number, if only because despite his confusion
(see NOTE on v. 18, Nehemiah after constructing the Temple and the
altar) he knew that more time than that had elapsed by the days of Nehe-
miah; so Goldstein, 2 Macc, 177. Others, such as Habicht (2 Macc, 203),
translate as if the text refers to many years. But although many can
be the right translation for V (and so we translated at 8:25), its basic
meaning is enough, appropriate; see 5:25 and Spicq, Notes, 3.345346;

Mauersberger, PL, 1.11721175. In the present case, it seems that the basic
meaning is also indicated by the explanation as seemed appropriate to
God, for these words explain Who it is that decided how much is enough.
Nehemiah who had been delegated by the king of Persia. To be governor

in Jerusalem; see Nehemiah 2.
21. When they informed him that in fact they found no fire. The translation
assumes a minor and generally-accepted emendation: instead of T,
which would have them informing us, Risberg suggested reading W 2,
truly, in fact; for this expression, used in oaths and emphatic state-
ments, see LSJ, 1127, s.v. 2, II,1. See B. Risberg, Konjekturer till ngra
stllen i de apokryfiska bckerna, Eranos 15 (1915) 3335, followed by
Wilhelm, Stellen, 19; Katz, Text, 13; and Habicht, 2 Macc, 203204.
Reading us, although supported by most witnesses and retained by Han-
hart (who defends it as a forgivable stylistic oddity Text, 30), makes no
sense, as the writer is clearly writing long after Nehemiahs day.
And when the things pertaining to the sacrifices. The animals along with
their accompanying meal-offerings and libations. On the construction and
punctuation here, see Hanhart, Text, 31.
had been offered up (!") (on the altar). And were now awaiting fire.
For the use of 0 for sacrificing, not merely for bringing along (as
Katz, Text, 13) see 1:18, 2:9 and 10:3; Hanhart, Text, 31, n. 6; Spicq,
Notes, 1.9193; and Daniel, Recherches, 240, 255.
to douse with the liquid (7 8). Lit. with the water. The use of I
(lit. water), as already earlier in this verse (where, together with vis-
cous, we had to use liquid and not water), is strange, and it may be
meant to hint at something which makes the story even better, by an allu-
sion to the Elijah story at 1 Kings 18:3335: not only had the original fire
disappeared, but what was found should have, like water, made it even
harder to ignite a new fire. Note, however, that while I is more or less
(but only more or less) unambiguously water in ancient Greek (which
offers F for liquid, e.g. in Aristotle, Meteorologica 4.6, 383b), there
is no ancient Hebrew word for liquid and so mayyim (water) serves
also for liquids in general; see e.g. Jeremiah 8:14; the qeri of 2 Kings 18:27
and Isaiah 36:12; Ezekiel 7:17 and 21:12. The word used here may, accord-
ingly, point us to a Semitic Vorlage for this story, if not for the whole letter.
22. the sun. That is, not only was the fire of the Second Temple preserved
from the First; it too was lit up from heaven.
23. while the sacrifice was consumed. By the fire. For such usage of -
see v. 32; 2:10; and Appendix 8.
Jonathan. Otherwise unknown. Perhaps the reference is to a high priest

mentioned at Nehemiah 12:11, also known as Johanan (ibid. v. 23). True, it
seems to us that his floruit was a few decades after Nehemiahs, but
problems like that need not have bothered our writer; see NOTE on v. 18,
Nehemiah, after constructing Goldstein (2 Macc, 178) speculates that
Jonathan here is a corruption of Mataniah, who seems to have been, in
Nehemiahs days, something like a prayer leader (Neh 11:17). That would
fit his function here. However, apart from the fact that the witnesses here
unanimously read Jonathan it should also be noted that the meaning of
Nehemiah 11:17, and what it says of Mataniah, is not very clear.
all the others chiming in. This seems to mean that Jonathan began and
the others responded. Cf. Judith 16:1 (Rahlfs 15:14): Then Judith began
this thanksgiving before all Israel, and all the people loudly sang this song
of praise. Both accounts are similar to that envisioned by R. Nehemiah
for the recitation of the Song of the Sea (Exod 15): Like people who say
the Shema in the synagogue: as it is written, and they said, saying
(Exod 15:1) this means that Moses would first open and then Israel
answered after him and completed it with him, viz.: Moses said Then
Moses sang and Israel answered I will sing unto the Lord etc.; Moses
said The Lord is my strength and my song and Israel said this is my God
and I will praise Him; Moses said The Lord is a man of war and Israel
said the Lord is His name (t. Sotah 6.3 ed. Lieberman, 183184). On
the division of prayer between the cantor and the congregation, on the
basis of this and other texts, see E. Fleischer, Towards a Clarification of
the Expression Poreis al Shema (im> li crvp ), Tarbiz 41 (1971/72)
133144 (in Hebrew).
24. the following form. In general, on this prayer, see Enermalm-Ogawa,

Langage de prire, 5986.
O Lord, O Lord God. For the same opening, which of course recalls Moses
highly effective (post-Golden-Calf!) prayer at Exodus 34:6, see e.g. 3 Mac-
cabees 2:2 and LXX Esther 4:17a.
creator of all. We translated in accordance with the usual Septua-

gintal use of create. So too in other prayer contexts 7:23 and
13:14. For Hellenistic usage, of foundation, see NOTE on 6:23, divinely-
established legislation. For God as creator, see Zimmermann, Namen des
Vaters, 345383; in her discussion of 2 Maccabees (pp. 350351) Zimmer-
mann emphasizes the link our book establishes between Gods being the
creator and the expectation that He will intervene to save those in need of
His assistance.
25. who alone is just. For emphasizing Gods justice before making re-
quests of Him, see also 12:6, 4142.
All-Ruler (). Used frequently of God in our book (5:20;

6:26; 7:38; 8:11, 24, etc.), as in the rest of the Septuagint (where it usually
accompanies Kyrios as the translation of Lord of Hosts; see H&R,
2.10531054). It is a particularly apt term for our book, which is frequently
bent on demonstrating Gods strength () 3:34; 7:17; 9:17; 11:4. See
Enermalm-Ogawa, Langage de prire, 6769; van Henten, Pantokrator;
and Zimmermann, Namen des Vaters, 233271 (248249 on 2 Maccabees,
with emphasis on the characteristic usage of this epithet in prayers, as here).
For the suggestion that the term is of Jewish origin, although there are
others close to it in older Greek literature, see Montevecchi, Pantokrator,
403406.
who chose the Patriarchs and sanctified them. This is not particularly rel-
evant to the issue of restoring the Temple, but is eminently important for the
writer; see NOTE on v. 19, our fathers. So too:
26. all Your people Israel. Again the same emphasis, here expressed via
all (as in 2:17) rather than fathers.
Your portion. Perhaps an echo of For the Lords portion is His people
(Deut 32:9). For the use of this chapter in our book, see pp. 2122. How-
ever, given the move to diaspora in the very next verse, it could well be
that the reference is instead to the Land of Israel, just as inheritance,
which appears in the continuation of Deuteronomy 32:9 (and Jacob is his
allotted inheritance), is taken to refer to it later in this letter (2:4, 17).
27. Gather in our diaspora. For prayers for the ingathering of the Dias-
pora, see Chazon, Gather the Dispersed; at p. 164 she notes that our
verse, as Sirach 36:11 (quoted below), seem[s] to use Isa. 49:56, perhaps
intertextually with Isa. 11:12, noting that 2 Macc 1:27s connection with
this Isaiah passage is suggested by the additional motif of the despised
nation, which it shares with Isa. 49:7 (Goldstein, II Maccabees, 179). For
some prime parallels, see Sirach 36:11, Gather all the tribes of Jacob, and
give them their inheritance, as at the beginning, and Psalms of Solomon
8:28: Gather together the dispersed of Israel, with mercy and goodness. It
is interesting that in our Hellenistic Jewish book it is only here, in this Pa-
lestinian letter attached to it, that the term Diaspora (), or a
prayer for its ingathering, appears; see Enermalm-Ogawa, Langage de
prire, 7576 and W. C. van Unnik, Das Selbstverstndnis der jdischen
Diaspora (AGAJU 17; Leiden: Brill, 1993) 122123. For a diasporan
author who believes that the people is more important than the place (5:19),
this is as expected. So too:
emancipate those who are enslaved among the Gentiles set at naught and
held to be abominable. Another expression of a Palestinian view of the na-
ture of life in the Diaspora. See NOTE on 10:2, non-Jews.
look down. As in the prayer in Deuteronomy 28:15. Again, as opposed to

what is emphasized in the body of our book (2:21; 3:15, 20, 34, 39; 8:20;
9:4, 20; 10:29; 11:10; 14:34; 15:34, 8, 21, 23, 34), that it is from heaven
that He looks down upon (i.e., providentially supervises) us a point which
is already emphasized in Deuteronomy (ibid.) and in Psalms 33:1314 this
Palestinian letter, even when, as here, it assumes God is in heaven, does not
point that out. It is to the rest of our book precisely what the Judaean 1 Mac-
cabees 7:3638 is to its parallel in our 14:3436 (see NOTE on 14:35, You
are not in need of anything).
that You are our God. Or, perhaps: that You, our God, are, i.e., really
exist. Such phrases are frequent in the Bible, e.g. Exodus 8:18; 2 Kings 19:19;
Isaiah 37:20, 45:3.
28. those who oppress and outrage ( ) in arrogance (-

'). No names are mentioned, but it is difficult also due to the last-
cited word to avoid the assumption that the reference is to Antiochus
Epiphanes, who is described as an arrogant braggart (see esp. 5:21 and
9:812); on hybris see NOTE on 8:17, outrage. So much the less reason to
imagine that this is indeed a prayer from the days of Nehemiah.
29. Plant Your people in Your holy Place, as Moses said. In Exodus 15:17:
Thou wilt bring them in, and plant them on thy own mountain, the place,
O Lord, which thou hast made for thy abode, the sanctuary, Lord, which
thy hands have established. This allusion to the Song of the Sea, the first
step of the Israelites on their way from Egypt to the Promised Land, is a very
apt one in the present context, which has expressed the hope for the ingath-
ering of the exiles first and foremost, of the addressees, namely, the Jews
of Egypt. For the hope of the exiles being gathered to the Holy Place, see
also the last verse of this letter (2:18). The metaphor of planting for firm es-
tablishment was esp. on the basis of this verse in Exodus and 2 Sa-
muel 7:10, but here it is especially apposite to cite also Jeremiah 32:41 (see
NOTE on v. 2, be beneficent unto) popular in Jewish literature of the Sec-
ond Temple period; see S. Fujita, The Metaphor of Plant in Jewish Litera-
ture of the Intertestamental Period, JSJ 7 (1976) 3045; P. A. Tiller, The
Eternal Planting in the Dead Sea Scrolls, DSD 4 (1997) 312335.
30. And the priests sang the hymns. Levites, who are known from our
sources to have been the Temple singers (1 Chr 25 etc.; Josephus, Ant.
20.216218), are not mentioned at all in our book, just as in general they
are quite rare in the literature of the Second Temple period; see J. Liver,
Chapters in the History of the Priests and Levites (Jerusalem: Magnes,
1968) esp. 6472 (in Hebrew), and Schwartz, Studies, 9398. Temple
singers (V) are mentioned in Antiochus IIIs decree cited in An-
tiquities 12.142, but even there it is not said they were Levites. Note, how-
ever, that it is difficult to render Levites in Greek; indeed, at Antiquities
20.216 Josephus felt the need to gloss the Levites and explain to his
readers that they are a tribe. Accordingly, it would be understandable if
some original references to Levites turned, in Greek texts such as ours, into
priests.
31. When the parts of the sacrifice had been consumed. By the fire, as in
v. 23.
the remaining liquid. Which, it should be recalled, was a metamorphosis of

the First Temples altar fire.
upon large rocks. The ones from which Judas Maccabaeus will extract old-
new fire to rededicate the Temple, according to 10:3, which is the raison
dtre of this whole story. For the text here, see Kappler, Memoria, 66, as
well as Katz, Text, 13, on the one hand; Hanhart, Text, 29, on the other.
Kappler thought the preposition must be added and that without it the
text as in Hanharts edition: -
sounds like Hebrew, not Greek; Katz backed Kappler up by showing
that the preposition could have been elided by homoioteleuton. Hanhart re-
sponded that a Hebraism is not surprising in a text translated from Hebrew
or Aramaic (see Introduction, p. 8, n. 15). However, it seems that Hebrew
too would require a preposition here; note that Torrey (Letters, 145), Ka-
hana (HaSepharim, 181), Artom (2 Macc, 11), and Hack (Two Hanukkah
Letters, 98) all felt the need to insert al, and Torrey explicitly noted that
the Greek text wrongly lacked the .
32. fire broke out. Thus proving that the liquid was still combustible.
was consumed (") when the light was reflected back (!-
) back from the altar. Apparently we are to understand that the
flames of the fire that broke out on the rocks were reflected back from the
altar, and when that happened the fire went out was consumed by the
rocks; no longer needed, for the present, the fire was stored in the rocks
until needed again at 10:3.
33. the king of Persia was told. Judaea being part of his empire at the time
of Nehemiah. That the non-Jewish ruler is not named indicates lack of
knowledge (see NOTE on v. 18, Nehemiah after constructing the Temple
and the altar), lack of interest (see NOTE on v. 10, Aristobulus the teacher
of King Ptolemy), or both.
34. getting confirmation (). On the verb, see NOTE on 4: 3, one

of Simons partisans.
fenced off (the place) roundabout. This is a crucial step in the foundation of
any temple; note that the term , sacred enclosure, derives from
to cut, to separate. Our author imagines the Persian king built
a temple to honor the site where the Jerusalem fire had so miraculously been
preserved. On Persian temples and their focus upon fire, see esp. K. Schipp-
mann, Die iranischen Feuerheiligtmer (Berlin & New York: de Gruyter,
1971).
35. large sums of money. This is the usual meaning of in the Hel-
lenistic period; cf. NOTE on 3:6, discrepancies.
drawn out. Our translation assumes another of Risbergs emendations

(Anmerkunken, 1718): 7 (who had drawn out) instead of
, which is the reading in Hanharts and Abels editions, based
upon the Venetus and the Latin and Syriac versions. As for what the latter
might mean, Abel (Macc, 298) thought the implication is that the king took
large sums of money and gave them to those he favored. But this is difficult,
for such a statement would have nothing to do with the current context; for
the use of (it) in the next verse shows that we are still talking
about the remarkable liquid, but such an elliptic reference would be imposs-
ible if the intervening verse had turned to another subject. To solve this
problem, in their translations Abel, Habicht and Goldstein all replace it
in v. 36 with the liquid a deviation that merely points up the problem.
So too, all the more, does the fact that Abel inserted en into his trans-
lation of our verse (Le roi faisait part des grands revenues quil en reti-
rait), to indicate that the sums of money were derived from the new
temple; this restores the context wonderfully, but there is nothing to sup-
port it in the Greek, just as there is nothing in the story to indicate that this
temple produced any revenue. Goldstein (2 Macc, 180181) took another
route, based on the fact that the verb does not appear here in the
Alexandrinus. He adopted this shorter reading (which may be read in
Swetes edition) and explained that the king took great sums of money and
gave them to them, i.e., to Nehemiahs people mentioned in v. 33. But the
fact that a full verse (34) separates them from its suggested antecedent
makes it difficult to accept this reading as is shown by the fact that, in his
translation (p. 155), Goldstein does not in fact content himself with them
and instead explicitly names Nehemiah and his followers. All in all, Ris-
bergs solution seems the best: the verb he inserts maintains the context
(those who were rewarded are those who drew out the liquid) and is paleo-
graphically similar to but much rarer (see LSJ, 588, s.v. 7,
citing inter alia Plutarch, Quaestiones convivales 637e).
36. nephthar ("), which in translation means purification ("-

3). The latter is our writers preferred term for Hanukkah (1:18; 2:16).
That is, the holiday of purification should be celebrated in memory of the
purification, that is the pure nephthar, which allowed for continuity from
the First Temple to the Second, and which was absorbed into rocks at the
dedication of the Second Temple, thereby allowing renewed continuity when
Judas Maccabaeus rededicated the Temple. On naphtha (), i.e. crude
oil, see esp.: Strabo, Geog. 16.1.5, p. 743; Plutarch, Life of Alexander, 35 (in-
cluding ibid., 34, on its speedy combustibility, similar to what is reported
in our v. 32); R. J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology, I (Leiden: Brill,
1955) 1214. Forbes offers various suggestions about the etymology of
naphta. But we do not know in what language the word nephthar (sic) is sup-
posed to mean as the writer claims purification. Grimm (2 Macc, 4850)
and Goldstein (2 Macc, 181) suggest deriving the term from the Hebrew
niphtar, i.e. released, freed from obligation, as if it refers to becoming

free of pollution, i.e., purification. This is just as likely as anything else.
2:1. it is found in the writings. We can hardly even guess as to what writings
in particular are meant, or whether the claim in v. 13 that the same things
are related in the records and in the memoirs of the days of Nehemiah
applies only to the events reported about Solomon and Moses (vv. 812) or,
rather, to the Jeremiah material as well; see Wolff, Jeremia, 2223, n. 5.
There are several Jewish sources that discuss the fate of the vessels and ap-
purtenances of the First Temple and Jeremiahs role in hiding them: Eupole-
mus (apud Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 9.39.5 = Holladay, Fragments, 1.134);
Paraleipomena Ieremiou 3:811 (ed. R. A. Kraft & A.-E. Purinton [Mis-
soula, Montana: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972] 1617); and esp. 2 Ba-
ruch 6. For rabbinic lists of what was missing during the Second Temple
period, see Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-Fshutah, VIII: Nashim (New York: Jewish
Theological Seminary, 1973) 733 (on t. Sota 13.1); Goldstein, 1 Macc, 547,
n. 1. Note also Massechet Kelim (in A. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch: Samm-
lung [Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 19673] 8891), republished along with
translation and some relevant inscriptions from Beirut by J. T. Milik, Notes
dpigraphie et de topographie palestiniennes, RB 66 (1959) 567575. On
Jeremiahs role in the present story, see esp. Wolff, Jeremia, 6171.
the prophet Jeremiah. Around whom the second stage of our letters story
focuses: if the first stage told how Nehemiah discovered and resuscitated
the fire of the First Temple, this second stage will tell how that was all made
possible by Jeremiah, who had hidden the fire. Jeremiah, who went into
exile in Egypt at the time of the Temples destruction (Jer 4344), was a
popular figure among the Jews of that country; for traditions concerning his
burial there, and that Alexander the Great used his bones when founding
Alexandria, see Wolff, Jeremia, 3942, 90. Hence, it was a wise move by the
authors of this letter to mobilize Jeremiah for their story; so too the author
of our book, at 15:1416.
as has been indicated. In 1:19; here we are told that the pious priests oper-
ated under Jeremiahs instructions.
2. in giving them the Law. In the apocryphal Epistle of Jeremiah, building

upon Jeremiah 10:211, the prophet repeatedly warns his people not to
be tempted into idolatry. Perhaps this was one of the writings cited by
our author in v. 1; see Wolff, Jeremia, 23, n. 1, and D. Dimant in
DJD 30.107108.
not to go astray in their minds (8 , 0 ).

For the verb here, see NOTE on 6:25, go astray. This seems to allude to
verses in Deuteronomy 29 where Moses warns the Israelites not to go astray
after the idols of Egypt; see its v. 17 (and you have seen their detestable
things, their idols of wood and stone, of silver and gold, which were among
them our writer, who refers to their ornaments, apparently took
them to refer to the idols) and v. 19 (one who blesses himself in his
heart, saying, I shall be safe, though I walk in the stubbornness of my
heart [LXX: W 02 # ]). The
present passage bespeaks a tradition according to which Jeremiah repeated
such a warning to those who were exiled to Babylonia. Such a tradition lies
behind the Epistle of Jeremiah; see also 4Q385a, Frg. 18 I a-b (DJD
30.159163). For stubbornness of heart as the source of sin, see esp.
Damascus Document 2:173:12.
3. he encouraged them not to let the Law depart from their hearts (:
!5 ; 3 !; 5 <#). Cf. Deuteronomy 4:9
(lest they depart from your heart; LXX: , 02 0" #
) and such verses as Isaiah 59:21 (they shall not depart from
your mouth ) and Joshua 1:8 (this book of the Law shall not depart
from your mouth ).
4. in that text. I.e., the one mentioned in v. 1. Or perhaps we should trans-

late In (that) Scripture? For such usage, see BDAG, 206.
upon the occurrence of a divine oracle. On this sense of see

BDAG, 885; Macrobius, On Scipios Dream, 1.3 (in Lewis, Dream Inter-
pretation, 2023). For another meaning, see NOTE on 11:17, document.
For the suggestion that the present reference is to Jeremiah 3:16, see Weitz-
man, Surviving Sacrilege, 2627.
ordered (some people) to follow him with the Tabernacle and the Ark.
Without the parenthetical insertion, the verse would mean that he ordered
the Tabernacle and the ark to follow him, which would be a miracle that
should have been made explicit. Since v. 6 makes it clear that people accom-
panied Jeremiah on this expedition, it seems most reasonable to infer they
are assumed here too. See esp. Grimm, 2 Macc, 51. For the juxtaposition of
the Tabernacle and the Ark, cf. t. Sotah 13 (ed. Lieberman, 229): When the
First Temple was built the Tabernacle was hidden (see 1 Kgs 8:4) when
the Ark was hidden
the mountain from which Moses, after ascending it. Mt. Nebo; see Deute-
ronomy 3:27 and 34:1. This site, where Moses was buried and no one
knows his burial site until this very day (34:7), was apparently thought to
be an especially appropriate place to hide holy things. For other traditions
linking Jeremiah and Moses, see Wolff, Jeremia, 7983.
viewed the inheritance of God. Here, clearly: the land of Israel; see Num-
bers 27:1213. Usage of this term in this sense amounts to a delicate hint
by the Palestinian author: while others used Gods inheritance of the
people (so e.g. LXX Esth 10:3, and see NOTE on 6:16, His own people),
the present writer uses it of the Land; so too in v. 17. In this way reminis-
cent of the Holy Land in the first letter (1:7) he reinforces his appeal to
the Jews of Egypt to participate in the celebration of the Temples centrality;
cf. NOTE on 1:27, Gather in our diaspora. On biblical usage of inherit-
ance, see H. O. Forshey, The Construct Chain nahalat YHWH/elohim,
BASOR 220 (Dec. 1975) 5153. See also Pseudo-Philo, LAB, ch. 21 (end),
and NOTE on 1:26, Your portion. Contrast our NOTE on 14:15, His own
people His own portion.
5. cave-like. According to 2 Baruch 6, the earth opened up and swallowed

the holy vessels.
altar of incense. Which was not mentioned above, nor in the other lists of
missing vessels (see NOTE on v. 1, it is found in the writings). The fact that
this altar was covered with gold (Exod 37:26), and nevertheless despite
the emphasis on the taking of things made of gold (2 Kgs 25:15//Jer 52:19)
not mentioned among them, may explain the genesis of the legend that it
was among the things hidden.
6. who had together followed him. See NOTE on v. 4, ordered (some

people ).
could not find it. Given the fact that they themselves had brought the vessels
to the cave, we are to understand the fact that they couldnt find it as a re-
sult of special divine intervention; cf. Genesis 19:1.
7. also () remain unknown. I.e., not only now, to you.
until God will gather in the people. As in the prayer in 1:27. For the ex-
pression here (lit.: gather in the gathering of the people) cf. such biblical
usage as at Isaiah 56:8 and Deuteronomy 30:3.
8. and the Glory of the Lord and the cloud will be seen. The definite article
for the latter is intriguing, as if the reader is supposed to know what is
meant; in context, it probably indicates that the cloud bears or implies
the presence of the Glory of the Lord. This, along with the coming reference
to Moses and Solomon, points us directly to Exodus 40:3435 (Then the
cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tab-
ernacle; and Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting, because the
cloud abode upon it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle), in the
context of Moses dedication of the Tabernacle, and 1 Kings 8:10 (And
when the priests came out of the holy place, a cloud filled the house of the
Lord, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud;
for the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord), in the context of So-
lomons dedication of his Temple. For the expected reappearance of the
cloud in the end of days, see esp. Daniel 7:13 and Acts 1:911.
just as Solomon too asked. Here begins the transition to the third link in the
chain: from Nehemiah (1:18) to Jeremiah (2:1) and now to Solomon. Note
that while the comparison to the days of Moses further supports the legit-
imacy of the Second Temple by underscoring its similarity to Moses Taber-
nacle, there is no claim of continuity between the Tabernacle and the First
Temple; the fire used in the latter, which is our writers focus, came down
anew from heaven in Solomons day (2 Chr 7:1). Moreover, Solomons
Temple dedication ceremony was an especially good precedent for Hanuk-
kah, for it too was eight days long (v. 12) and was held on the festival of Tab-
ernacles (1 Kgs 8:2, 65; 2 Chr 5:3; 7:810) to which Hanukkah is compared
(1:9; 10:5). Cf. NOTE on v. 12, So too did Solomon celebrate the eight days.
9. And we have also been informed (.). See NOTE on 1:18, we

thought it necessary to inform you; the repetition of the verb reminds
readers that they are reading a series of links in a chain.
being wise. A famous tradition; see 1 Kings 3:912; Proverbs 1:1; Sir-
ach 47:1217; Wisdom, esp. Chapters 79; etc. See also above, p. 85, n. 194.
the rededication and completion of the Temple. This is a direct precedent

for what was done by Judas and his men (1:8; 10:3). The term rededi-
cation (), which recurs in v. 19, serves as one of the names of
the holiday; see 1 Maccabees 4:26, 59; John 10:22. Note, however, that is
the context alone, not the term itself, that justifies the translation redi-
cation; neither the Greek term, nor the Hebrew term that it represents, ha-
nukkah, implies in and of itself the restoration of a previous state.
10. just as ("=). This verse emphasizes the total parallelism between
Moses and Solomon. Since the author has already told us, in v. 9, of Solo-
mons sacrifice, the point of the present verse must be to show that what So-
lomon did was based on good precedent.
Moses prayed before the Lord, and fire descended from heaven. See Leviti-
cus 9:2324: And Moses and Aaron went into the tent of meeting; and
when they came out they blessed the people, and the glory of the Lord ap-
peared to all the people. And fire came forth from before the Lord and con-
sumed the burnt offering and the fat upon the altar Although this does
not really say that Moses prayed, blessing the people comes close enough
for the purpose of constructing a parallel; cf. NOTE on 15:12, having
stretched out his hands
so too did Solomon pray, and fire descended and consumed the whole burnt
offerings. See 2 Chronicles 6 and the next verse 7:1. Note that the parallel
in 1 Kings 8 has the prayer but no fire from heaven, just as there is no par-
allel in 2 Samuel to 1 Chronicles 21:26s claim that fire also came down
from heaven to Davids altar in the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.
Thus, both our author and the Chronicler strive both to underpin the legit-
imacy of the Temple by making it as parallel as possible to its predecessors,
and to coordinate between legitimizing the Temple and nonetheless believ-
ing that God Himself is actually in heaven and not in His house. See S. Ja-
phet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical
Thought (BEATAJ 9; Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 19972) 8385.
11. And Moses said: Since the sin-offering (; , 5 4) was

not to be eaten, it was consumed. On the Greek terminology see NOTE on
12:43, a sin-offering. This verse is one of the most enigmatic in our book. It
purports to be quoting Moses, but there is no verse like this one in the Bible
or anywhere else. It seems, given the context and the repetition of the verbs
at the end of v. 10 and here (02 0)), that it is the writers
purpose, in citing this statement by Moses, to show that what happened in
Solomons days repeated an event in Moses. But what does the verse mean?
It is reasonable to assume that it relates in some way to the story told in Le-
viticus 10:1620, that Moses looked for the goat for the sin-offering and
discovered that it had been burnt, rather than eaten by the priests. So too it
seems, given the present context, that the author understood that it had been
burnt by the fire which as reported in the preceding chapter (9:24) had
come down from heaven. Thus, our verse has Moses explaining that the sin-
offering was not eaten (by the priests) because it had been consumed (by the
fire). The problem with this is that according to the story in Leviticus, Moses
did not explain this point. Rather, he was angered when he discovered that
the goat had been burnt and it was Aaron who explained why this had been
done (Lev 10:1920). Goldstein (2 Macc, 185) tried to deal with this diffi-
culty by emending Moses statement here into the very same question asked
by Moses. Another approach would be to imagine that the verse was made
up by someone who wanted the story to have a happy ending. For there is
quite a difficult problem with the story as told in the Bible, and our verse
could resolve it. Namely, as the story is told in Leviticus 10:16 Moses was
angry at Aarons sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, but was assuaged when Aaron,
in v. 19, explained to him why he, Aaron, had not eaten the sin-offering: be-
cause two of his other sons had just died. How does this explanation, by
Aaron and about Aaron, answer Moses question, which was put to Eleazar
and Ithamar?! Indeed, according to v. 12 Moses had commanded all three
father and two sons to eat the sin-offering, but v. 16 has Moses angry at
the sons alone, as if he already understood why Aaron had abstained from
doing so; so how does Aarons answer, in v. 19, change anything? Our verse
might be meant to supply a response: the fact that the sin-offering was
burned by the fire which came down from heaven, before the sin and death
of Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10:12), means that to begin with it was not
meant to have been eaten. Our verse has Moses himself pointing this out,
realizing, as it were, that it was consumed because it was not supposed to be
eaten. Perhaps the lack of clarity results from the mistranslation of an unvo-
calized Hebrew text, which, using a present participle, said that the sin of-
fering was consumed because it was not lka X n regularly eaten, to be
eaten. If this was mistakenly taken to be a verb in the perfect, lk+ X n , the re-
sult would approximate our Greek text. It is worth noting that this is the
way our verse was understood by three modern Hebrew translators, all of
whom used a present participle, tlkXn (feminine because they use hattaat
for the sin-offering); see Kahana, HaSepharim, 182; Artom, 2 Macc, 13; and
Hack, Two Hanukkah Letters, 98. This form can only serve to give the
rule, not to recount what in fact occurred. On this difficult verse see also
E. Regev, Hannukkah, Succot and the Days of Milluim in II Maccabees,
BM 46/3 (no. 166 AprilJuly 2001) 236, n. 22 (in Hebrew).
12. So too did Solomon celebrate the eight days. Although nowhere has
either letter noted that Hanukkah is an eight-day holiday (and it will be
said only at 10:6), it is now taken for granted. Solomons celebration
(1 Kgs 8:66//2 Chr 7:910), as Moses (Lev 9:1), was an appropriate and
useful precedent and it was natural to follow it, as already was done in the
days of Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:17).
13. in the records and in the memoirs. Here, as in vv. 1 and 4, the writer
documents his claims by referring us to written evidence; now he backs
this up by explaining how it happens that the records exist. For the use
of F for historical records, cf. 2 Esdras 4:15 ( 8
F = Ezra 4:15 Xynrkd rpcb ) and U. Wilcken, <-
, Phil 53 (1894) 103. For another meaning, see NOTE on 4:23,
take care of memoranda .
collected the books. We have no other information on such a role by Nehe-

miah. But it may be an implication of the more basic belief, here, that Nehe-
miah founded the Second Temple (see NOTE on 1:18, Nehemiah, after con-
structing ), for one of the typical things a Hellenistic king would do
would be to establish an archives. See M. Haran, Archives, Libraries, and
the Order of the Biblical Books, JANESCU 22 (1993) 59, also Bergren,
Nehemiah, 263264.
concerning the kings and the prophets, and also Davids books. It seems
clear that implies , hence Davids books. More-
over, it seems quite likely, given Luke 24:44 (everything written about me
in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled) to-
gether with ibid. v. 27, and given Philos Contemplative Life 25 (laws
prophets psalms and the other [books]), that Davids books are the
Psalms, mentioned pars pro toto to represent the whole of the third divi-
sion of the Hebrew Bible. See T. H. Lim, The Alleged Reference to the Tri-
partite Division of the Hebrew Bible, RQ 20 (2001/2) 2337. Lim, how-
ever, denies that the same may be said of Miqsat Maase HaTorah, C26
(DJD 10.58): In the book of Moses and in the books of the prophets and
in David, and more recently doubt has been cast on the reconstruction of
that MMT text; see E. Ulrich, The Non-attestation of a Tripartite Canon
in 4QMMT, CBQ 65 (2003) 202214. Be that as it may, it is clear, also
from another passage in our book (15:9) and from the preface to Sirach
(the Torah and the Prophets and the other books of the fathers), that in
the second century BCE there was a notion of a third division but it was
still less well defined than the first two as was the case even a few cen-
turies later, as is shown by the rabbinic discussions of the late first to mid-
second centuries CE recorded in m. Yadayyim 3.5. See Bergren, Nehe-
miah, 265266; S. Z. Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture:
The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence (TCAAS 47, 1234; Hamden,
Conn.: Archon, 1976) 2830; H. M. Orlinsky, Some Terms in the Pro-
logue to Ben Sira and the Hebrew Canon, JBL 110 (1991) 483490; G. J.
Brooke, The Explicit Presentation of Scripture in 4QMMT, in: M. Bern-
stein, F. Garca Martnez & J. Kampen (ed.), Legal Texts and Legal Issues
(Leiden: Brill 1997) 8587.
kings epistles concerning votive offerings. An important topic in this book;

see 3:23; 5:16; 9:16. For the Temple having an archives, see Josephus,
Against Apion 1.2836. Although Josephus refers to it there only for gen-
ealogies, it is likely that it contained other documents as well, such as rel-
evant epistles; see NOTE on v. 15, So if you ever have need of any of them.
So too, note that Eupolemus, who seems to have been a Jerusalemite priest
(see NOTE on 4:11, Johanan [father of the Eupolemus ]), cites corre-
spondence between Solomon and Hiram of Tyre concerning the construc-
tion of the First Temple; see Holladay, Fragments, 1.120123. True, Josep-
hus claims, at Antiquities 8.88, that these letters were preserved in a Tyrian
archives, but other copies could have been kept in Jerusalem too (which is
not to say that their authenticity is guaranteed). For the preservation of lists
of royal dedications to temples note esp. the chronicle of the temple of
Athena at Lindos: Blinkenberg, Lindos, 152181.
14. So too did Judas gather. The writer promises his readers that even now,
despite all the calamities that befell the Temple and Jerusalem, the docu-
ments still exist. Josephus too claims that the Temples archives were recon-
structed after catastrophes Against Apion 1.3435.
15. So if you ever have need of any of them. This is courteous, but is also a
challenge directed to the addressees: either come and check yourselves, or
believe us and draw the practical conclusions. Note, in this connection, that
according to Josephus (Ant. 13.7479) the Jews of Alexandria who in a
debate with Samaritans in the days of Ptolemy Philometor defended the
sanctity of Jerusalem and its Temple, did so on the basis of arguments
from the Torah and from the successions of high priests (
0), namely, that each one ruled the temple having received the
position from his father, and on the basis of the fact that all the kings of
Asia honored the Temple with votive offerings and magnificent gifts. The
arguments from high-priestly succession and royal gifts would have had to
be based upon archives; indeed, Josephus too, in Against Apion 1.36, refers
to the Temple archives specifically in connection with the succession of the
high priests from father to son over two millennia.
16. So, as we are about to celebrate ( @ 1). The text

echoes 1:18 and thus, as a Wiederaufnahme, reverts to the main theme after
all the historical material that intervened.
we have written (). Referring to the present letter; see NOTE on

1:7, have written.
you will indeed do well. A standard polite formulation of a request; cf.

11:26; Welles, RC, no. 13, l. 13; 1 Maccabees 12:22; etc.
17. His entire people to all (of us). Including the Jews of Egypt. The
writer, as earlier (1:3, 19, 2526), emphasizes that the Temple, and Hanuk-
kah, are not the concern of the Judaeans alone; see Alon, Jews, 233234,
n. 113. See also Schwartz, Studies, 6061, 67, where it is shown how this
verse was (mis)used by A. Geiger and many followers, as if it bespoke a (pu-
tatively Pharisaic) claim to universal priesthood part of Geigers thesis that
2 Maccabees is an anti-Sadducean tract (see below, NOTE on 12:43, resur-
rection).
the inheritance. This again seems to mean the Land of Israel; see NOTE on
v. 4, viewed the inheritance.
the kingdom and the priesthood and the sanctity. See Camponovo, Knig-
tum, 189190. According to the words at the opening of the next verse, as
is promised in the Law, it seems clear that we have here an allusion to Ex-
odus 19:6: And you shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests and holy
people. In Jewish sources this verse is usually taken to refer to three differ-
ent estates: kings, priests, and lay Israelites. On the interpretation of this
verse in ancient Jewish literature, see Schwartz, Studies, 5766. On the dif-
ference between the wording here and that in the Septuagint (which refers
not to kingdom and priesthood but, rather, to a royal priesthood) see
van der Kooij, Use, 129131, 136137; he suggests that our books ver-
sion reflects a preference for separating kingship from priesthood. Of
course, we should note that the kingship was not really returned to Israel in
the days of Judas Maccabaeus; only two generations later, in the days of Ar-
istobulus I (Josephus, Ant. 13.301), or perhaps only in those of his suc-
cessor Alexander Jannaeus (so Strabo, Geog. 16.2.40, p. 762, and see now
Main, Les Sadducens, 375389), did the Hasmoneans take the royal
title. But in popular usage it seems to have been common to use the term
king generally when speaking about rulers who actually bore other titles;
note esp. Josephus, Antiquities 14.157, 165, 172; 18.93; Matthew 2:22 and
14:9; H. W. Hoehner, Herod Antipas (SNTSMS 17; Cambridge: Cambridge
Univ., 1972) 149150. Accordingly, and certainly in light of the verse from
Exodus, we should not be surprised by the use of the term here, nor should
we build much upon it. All that is meant is independent rule, something
which Judas Maccabaeus definitely enjoyed at the time this letter claims to
have been written.
18. as is promised in the Law. Exodus 19:6; see our preceding note.
merciful to us and gather us. The prayer, and the notion that Jewish life in
the Diaspora is a tragic situation that should arouse pity, are as above, 1:27.
the Holy Place. The Temple, or Jerusalem and the Temple; see NOTE on
3:2, the Place. For the hope of being gathered in to the Place, see also 1:29.
for He saved us from great evils. Which means that His power is proven,
and He is thus definitely capable of doing what we ask; see NOTE on 1:25,
All-Ruler. Perhaps there is a further element of having come this far, only a
little more is required for a complete redemption. For such logic, see also
8:29.
Bibliography
Bergren, Nehemiah.
Bickerman, Ein jdischer Festbrief.
G. Bohak, Joseph and Asenath and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis (Diss. Prince-
ton, 1994) 126137.
Brll, N. Sendschreiben.
Bruston, Trois lettres.
Bchler, Sendschreiben.
Enermalm-Ogawa, Langage de prire, 5686.
Exler, Greek Letter.
Fitzmyer, Notes.
Flusser, Dedication of the Temple.
Graetz, Sendschreiben.
Hack, Two Hanukkah Letters.
Herkenne, Briefe.
Torrey, Briefe.
Torrey, Letters.
Wacholder, B. Z., Letter from Judah Maccabee.
Wehofer, T. M., Untersuchungen zur altchristlichen Epistolographie (Sitzungsbe-
richte der AWW 143/17; Wien: Gerolds, 1901) 2442.
Authors Preface (2:1932)
(19) The matters concerning Judas Maccabaeus and his brothers,

and the purification of the greatest temple and the rededication of the
altar,
(20) as well as the wars against Antiochus Epiphanes and his son Eupator,
(21) and the heavenly apparitions which occurred for those who nobly
fought with manly valor for Judaism, so that although they were few in
number they plundered the entire country and chased away the barbaric
hordes (22) and retook the temple which was spoken of throughout the en-
tire civilized world and liberated the city, and firmly reestablished the laws
that were about to be abolished, the Lord having become merciful toward
them in total grace
(23) (all this), which was recounted by Jason of Cyrene in five books, we
have attempted to epitomize in one composition. (24) For having seen the
confused mass of numbers and how difficult it is for those who wish to en-
compass the narratives of history, due to the plethora of material, (25) we
have given consideration to arousing the imagination of those who wish to
read (the story), to making it easier for those who take pleasure in memoriz-
ing, and to the profit of all readers. (26) Now the drudgery of epitomization
which we undertook was not light, but rather a matter of sweat and sleepless
nights, (27) just as it is not simple for him who prepares a symposium and
seeks to further the interests of others; nevertheless, we willingly undertook
the drudgery in order to earn the gratitude of many. (28) Leaving to the author
the precise clarification of each and every detail, we have striven to follow the
rules laid down for epitomizing. (29) For just as the architect of a new house
must consider the entire structure, while he who undertakes to paint it en-
caustically or to paint animals upon it needs to scrutinize what is necessary for
the proper arrangement, so too, I believe, is it in our case. (30) Namely, to go
into (the topic), giving an expansive report and occupying oneself with each
and every detail are the province of a historys originator, (31) while the pur-
suit of brevity of diction, along with an exemption from diligent inquiry into
what happened, must be allowed to him who prepares a paraphrase.
(32) Here, then, we shall begin the narrative, wrapping up (our preface)
with the aforementioned matters. For it would be foolish to expatiate prior
to the history and then to shorten the history itself.
Authors Preface (2:1932) 171
COMMENT
An anonymous writer, using the first-person, introduces himself and his

work to the readers. Employing some standard topoi about the pleasure
and usefulness of historical literature, and about the efforts he himself in-
vested in his work, he clearly distinguishes his own role from that of the
original author, Jason of Cyrene, comparing himself to a decorator who
adds beauty to the basic structure planned by another. We know nothing
about the identity of Jason or of the present writer (the Epitomator,
whom we prefer simply to term the author [see above, p. 37]), but his
Greek education shines through clearly here, as does the fact that he is Jew-
ish; in several excurses in which he reappears, later in our book, we can also
see something of his theology; see above, pp. 2125.
NOTES
2:19. The matters concerning. The author here begins a very long period
which lasts until the end of v. 23, artfully sustaining the readers interest by
postponing until its end, indeed until the very last word ( to
epitomize), a statement of his own purpose. On this preface, see Alex-
ander, Preface, 148151 and G. Engel, De antiquorum epicorum didactico-
rum historicorum prooemiis (Diss. Marburg 1910) 6364. After studying
the prefaces various motifs, Engel concludes that it is quite a typical one for
a Greek work.
Judas Maccabaeus and his brothers. It sounds like the reference is to his
brothers in the familial sense, not to his brothers-in-arms (see NOTE on
10:21, brethren). If this passage indicates that Jasons work showed a gen-
eral interest in Judas brothers, then one of the things our author did, in
epitomizing Jasons work, was to play down their role; in the work as it is,
they get next to no attention (see only 8:22, 10:1920, and 14:17). This
need not be seen as polemics; see NOTE on 10:20, But Simons men It
might also be the case, however, that Jasons work did not expand on the
other brothers, and that the statement here bespeaks only our authors
awareness of them. Judas and his brothers is frequent in 1 Maccabees
(4:36, 59; 5:10, 61, 65; 7:6, 10 etc.).
the greatest temple. The same characterization reappears in the Nicanor

story: 14:13, 31. Cf. the opening of v. 22, below.
the altar. The use of here departs from that which is usual not only
for the Septuagint in general but also for our author (10:2): usually they
took care to use , which is reminiscent of the Hebrew bamah, only
for pagan altars, preferring a Jewish neologism, 2, for the Jew-
ish altar. See both the second letter (1:18, 19, 32) and the body of the book
(3:15; 4:14; 6:5; etc.); note esp. 14:33, where even a non-Jew, Nicanor, is
made to follow the same convention. But there is one other such exception
in our book, at 13:8, and this fact led Daniel (Recherches, 2425) to con-
clude that our book reflects a stage in the process in which Jewish writers
began finding their way back to the usual Greek terminology, which was in
fact common for both Philo and Josephus. It seems, in other words, that the
matter became less sensitive as the fear of paganism diminished over time,
and so the desire to use generally accepted terminology was able to over-
come the original squeamishness.
20. the wars against Antiochus Epiphanes and his son Eupator. There is
something comically ironic here: failure to repeat the name Antiochus
for the latter king links him up very tightly to the preceding one ( la John
and Sam Jones instead of John Jones and Sam Jones), as does also the
name Eupator, which means who has a good father but our book
portrays Epiphanes as a villain. Similarly, summarizing all that happened
in their days as wars contributes to the same effect. For similar irony see
10:10. On another front, note that Seleucus IV is not mentioned here an-
other reason to view Chapter 3 as only marginally part of the book; see
above, pp. 46.
21. heavenly apparitions. The use of continues the joking

begun with the name Eupator (see preceding NOTE), contrasting the vil-
lain who claimed to be Epiphanes with the true epiphanies that ac-
tually helped his enemies. These apparitions are of great importance in our
book, their occurrence turning into something of an axiom (see NOTE on
12:22, the apparition ); see 3:2426, 3334; 5:24; 10:2930; 11:8;
12:22; 14:15; 15:27; Doran, Temple Propaganda, 98104; Adinolfi, Ques-
tioni bibliche, 123154. For the Greek background of the word and the
phenomenon, see Spicq, Notes, 1.284287, and Pritchett, War, 3.1146; see
also NOTE on 5:2, there appeared in the air. For emphasis upon the fact
that the term refers not merely to an apparition but specifically to one
which brings aid, see: Lhrmann, Epiphaneia, esp. 194. For believers
pride in the apparitions with which they and their temples were privileged,
see Blinkenberg, Lindos, 181187.
nobly (
) fought with manly valor (!"). These
Hellenistic virtues are frequently predicated of Judas and his men in our
book; see NOTE on 8:7, And the fame
for Judaism. This is how the author summarizes the issue; so too 8:1 and
14:38. The term Judaism ( B C), which recurs a few times in Jew-
ish-Hellenistic literature (4 Macc 4:26; Gal 1:1314), is not known from
any earlier source, and it clearly functions here as an antithesis to Hellen-
ism and foreignism, which both appear in 4:13; the former, as far as LSJ
knows, for the first time in this general sense and the latter for the first
time at all. See Y. Amir, Der Begriff BC zum Selbstverstndnis
des hellenistischen Judentums, in: idem, Studien zum antiken Judentum
(BEATAJ 2; Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1985) 101113. While Gruen (Heri-
tage and Hellenism, 34), and Bar-Kochva (Judaism and Hellenism,
464465) have emphasized the fact that Judaism, although mentioned a
few times in our book, is never juxtaposed with Hellenism, the facts that
all of these words are new (our authors inventions?), or new in this sense,
and of the same structure (X + -), seem fairly clearly to indicate that
the author viewed each in the light of the other. The same would also seem
to be indicated by the characterization of Antiochus decrees as the imposi-
tion of Greek ways 6:9 and 11:24, and by the statement that those who
resisted his decrees remained in Judaism (8:1). In general, on this
contrast, see Prato, Persecuzione religiosa, 114117, and Rajak, Jewish
Dialogue, 6163.
so that although they were few in number. A common motif, and quite a use-
ful one, for if you win youre a hero and if you lose its not your fault; see
NOTES on 8:20, 120,000, and on 11:4, myriads of foot-soldiers, along with
Niese, Kritik, 33; Bar-Kochva, JM, 2947; and Shatzman, Armies, 2528.
they plundered the entire country. On ) see NOTE on 1:1. As for

plundering, (), which appears here alone in the Septuagint, it is
surprising insofar as there is nothing apologetic about it; contrast
Esther 9:15, but they laid no hands on the plunder. Accordingly, various
translators prefer to tone our text down, as if it refers to conquest alone
(they seized the whole land [NRSV]; das ganze Land zurckzuer-
obern1 [Einheitsbersetzung]). But there is nothing ambiguous about the
1 Note how zurck-, makes it even more acceptable; the Jews were only conquering
back that which previously had been theirs.
verb; see for example Polybius 5.96.1 and 33.6.6. It seems, rather, that our
author saw no reason for apologetics about such things; la guerre, comme
la guerre. See NOTE on 8:20, and they took much booty and on 10:17, cut-
ting down. Niese (Kritik, 5960) commented on the nave joy of our
author regarding such matters, here and below (8:57 and 12:16), as op-
posed to the more restrained and surprisingly apologetic author of
1 Maccabees.
chased away the barbaric hordes (A "). For this type of

language, cf. 12:27 and 14:23. Barbaric refers both to their ethnic origin
and to their wildness and cruelty; see 4:25; 5:22; 10:4; 15:2. By employing
this adjective, which was generally used of non-Greeks, to describe a Greek
king and his army, the author is attempting to present himself as a good
Greek (of the Jewish type), hoping thereby to gain the sympathies of Greek
readers.
22. the temple which was spoken of throughout the entire civilized world.
Cf. 2:19; 3:12; 5:15; 14:13, 31; Josephus, Antiquities 13.77 (where Jewish
defenders of the Temple of Jerusalem, arguing against defenders of the one
at Mt. Gerizim, call it the most famous temple in the entire civilized
world). See also Polybius, apud Josephus, Antiquities 12.136 (along with
Stern, GLA, 1.115116) and Philo, Legatio 191, 198.
and reestablished in total (A ) grace. The verb re-

curs in the story itself (5:20), there too along with , which is a
turn of phrase our author loves to use (3:1, 22; 14:38; 15:1, 67, 17). For
the use of of the restoration of a city or temple, see: Spicq,
Notes, 1.259260. Here then, as usual (see esp. 6:1), our author compares
Jewish law to the law of a city a part of his case for Jews and Judaism
being Greek types; see NOTE on v. 21, chased away and above, p. 51.
the laws that were about to be. The author likes to impress the reader by
underlining what almost happened, what was about to happen had not
something i.e., Someone intervened just in the nick of time; cf. 3:28; 8:3;
9:8; 13:11, etc. The opposite case: 4:45 and 6:29.
abolished (%"). The verb recurs, with regard to Jasons attack on

the laws, at 4:11.
the Lord having become merciful (0

) toward them in total
grace (). So too in the course of the story, this is what punctuates,
and accounts for, the changes in the Jews fortunes. See 7:37; 10:26; and
esp. 8:5, 29. For Gods grace, see also 10:4 and Spicq, Notes, 1.263267.
23. Jason of Cyrene. Otherwise unknown. Cyrene is sometimes used not

only for the city, but also for the whole region (Cyrenaica). A good deal is
known about the Jews of the region in antiquity, but primarily during the
Roman period; see S. Applebaum, Jews and Greeks in Ancient Cyrene
(SJLA 28; Leiden: Brill, 1979); G. Lderitz, Corpus jdischer Zeunisse aus
der Cyrenaika (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1983); Barclay, Jews, 232242. As
noted by Lderitz (p. 31) and Habicht (2 Macc, 170, n. 12), Jason is a
common name, among Jews and non-Jews alike; we may assume that this
one was a Jew. It may be that the words of Cyrene indicate that he had left
that place of origin; but, as Philo of Alexandria, it need not indicate any-
thing more than that the person mentioning him, our author, was from a
different place. And even that is not necessary. For the old-new suggestion
that he be identified with Judas Maccabaeus envoy to Rome, Jason son of
Eleazar (1 Macc 8:17), see Hyldahl, Maccabean Rebellion, 201; Momi-
gliano, Romans and the Maccabees, 752753. If that were true, it would
mean that both envoys wrote histories; on the other one, see NOTE on 4:11,
Johanan (father of the Eupolemus ). But its no more than a guess.
in five books in one composition. For the use of to designate a

unit within a larger composition (), see T. Birt, Das antike Buch-
wesen (Berlin: Hertz, 1882) 2930. We do not know the size of Jasons
books or how the material that now composes 2 Maccabees was divided
among them, but we can show that our book, as it is, is indeed of normal
size; see immediately below, NOTE on in one composition.
to epitomize (.). The verb recurs at the end of v. 32, thus quite ap-
propriately rounding out this preface. Accordingly, in vv. 26 and 28 he uses
the term epitome of his work, which has led scholars to term him,
usually, the Epitomator. As explained in the introduction (p. 37), I prefer to
term him author.
in one composition (%). A. Schumrick points first and foremost to

this verse to illustrate that, despite its etymology, can denote not
only a composition built by collecting a few works but also a single work
(Obervationes ad rem librariam pertinentes [Diss. Marburg, 1909] 39). But
epitomizing might be seen as collecting from various parts of the larger
original. See also ibid., 4143, on another nuance of the term, that empha-
sizes as opposed to a F (see NOTE on 2:13, in the records and in
the memoirs), which could be rougher (ibid. 7082) the great effort that
went into the preparation of a . See for example Cicero, To At-
ticus 16.3.1, also J. Glucker in SCI 20 (2001) 306307. That is, our author
not only shortened the work, he also put a lot of work into editing it, as he
shall next explain with the help of some comparisons. As for the size of our
volume, we can compare it to other ancient books with the help of the
tables provided by Birt, Das antike Buchwesen, 310314. As is usual (see
e.g. Josephus, Ant. 20.267), Birt quantified the sizes of ancient books by the
number of lines they would have had in a manuscript, assuming an average
of 35 letters per line (Birt, 194202 and 310, n.1). For 2 Maccabees, from
Chapter 3 to the end, I calculate 1,186 full lines in Rahlfs edition with
about 50 letters per line; at 35 letters per line this would turn into 50/35
1186 = 1694 lines of the ancient size. That makes our book (beginning with
Ch. 3) comparable to those of medium length, according to Birts tables,
such as among the historians the fourth book of Strabos Geographia
and various volumes of the fifth decade of Cassius Dio. That is, in this re-
spect the final product of our authors work justifies his claim.
24. For having seen (#). The author loves to use the participle of
this verb to reflect an actors here: his own considerations for doing
something; see, for example, 4:4; 5:17; 8:8; 14:30. The verb implies not
only seeing but also understanding; see BDAG, 974.
confused mass of numbers. That is, the great quantity of numbers dis-
tances, sizes of armies, and the like. Doran (Temple Propaganda, 7778),
who cites several translations that assume (as we have) that 0 here
means number, as is usual (LSJ, 240), prefers Bickermans suggestion
(Studies, 1.256, n. 36) that it in fact refers to the lines. That is, this would be
yet another reference to the size of Jasons work. However, although Doran
assembles some evidence for such usage, it remains quite limited, and it
seems out of place to refer to lines as an indication of size after already
pointing to five books. Be that as it may, it is nevertheless true that a good
number of numbers remain in our book; Bar-Kochva counted more than 50
(JM, 178, n. 82).
the narratives of history. Note: not the narratives of this history; the in-
definite reference is especially clear in Habichts translation [2 Macc, 208]:
fr diejenigen, die sich von historischen Erzhlungen umfangen lassen
wollen. Thus, the author directs his attention to those who wish to learn
all history, and not just the story told in this book, and announces his inten-
tion to make life easier for them; cf. NOTE on in memorizing in the next
verse. In this way, the pose he takes is of one whose story is part of universal
history a pose appropriate for an educated participant in the Hellenistic
world.
25. arousing the imagination. That is, by making the book easier to read he
hopes to encourage readers to continue. On , see Walbank,
History and Tragedy, 232 and I. Hadot, Seneca und die griechisch-r-
mische Tradition der Seelenleitung (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969); de Romilly,
Magic and Rhetoric, 15, 74. In Polybius (e.g. 6.2.8) psychagogia is fre-
quently paired with usefulness, in which case it takes on something of the
nuance of entertainment; see Alexander, Preface, 149150.
to read readers (!= ). Two different verbs

are used, probably, as usual, only to vary the diction; see Introduction, p. 68.
For these two verbs, of which the former refers more to the mere act of
reading and the latter more to checking and searching, see: Chantraine,
Lire, 115123. The latter verb, accordingly, which recurs twice more in
our book (6:12; 15:39), is more complimentary to readers, insofar as it as-
cribes them a certain seriousness; indeed, in both reappearances it is used by
our author in reference to his readers.
those who take pleasure. For the text () and translation see
Hanhart, Text, 3839 and Goldstein, 2 Macc, 193. Risberg (Anmer-
kungen, 1819) suggested reading , and his suggestion was
adopted by Katz, Text, 13; Habicht, 2 Macc, 208, n. 25a; and Doran,
Temple Propaganda, 7879, n. 8. True, the received verb is a rare one, but
our author loves rare words (see p. 67), and in any case it is difficult to accept
the emendation. For love of effort/suffering is something which authors
are proud of concerning themselves, claiming that it has allowed them to
serve their readers; note for example Thucydides 1.22.3 (); Josep-
hus, War 1.1516 ( ) and Life 338; Lucianus, How to
Write History, 34, 74. But here our author is speaking of his readers, and his
point is that he put in a lot of effort so as to enable them to learn easily, that
is without . Cf. NOTE on 7:36, suffering.
in memorizing. On learning books by heart in antiquity, see W. V. Harris,

Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ., 1989) 3033. Note
that here too, as with history in v. 24, the writer does not limit his scope
to those who wish to read or learn his book alone. See also NOTE on v. 28,
the rules laid down.
and to the profit of all readers. On the emphasis of a works Y in its

preface, alongside the pleasure of reading it, see Avenarius, Lukians Schrift,
2829; Alexander, Preface, 149150. Note the fine balance within our
verse, which turns first to these, then to those, then to all together (
): it offers entertainment to readers, brevity to memorizers,
and thus to all the benefit they are seeking. Cf. Josephus opening of his
Against Apion (3): the book was meant to refute those who calumniate
the Jews, on the one hand, to correct the ignorance of others, on the other
hand, and to teach all who wish to know what is true (
).
26. drudgery of epitomization sweat and sleepless nights. Such com-

plaints are standard in ancient prefaces. The term 0 (sleepless-
ness) was apparently invented by Callimachus (an Alexandrian poet of the
third century BCE) in order to describe the work of a diligent author; see his
Epigram 27, line 4 (ed. Pfeiffer, p. 88), also OGIS, no. 194, l. 24. See T. Jan-
son, Latin Prose Prefaces (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964) 9798,
also 2 Corinthians 11:27 and for a modern example M. Baillet,
DJD 7.xiv.
not light (< BC). Here and in the next verse ($2), the author uses
two synonyms for easy, as usual with no special reason apart from the de-
sire to vary his diction; see above, p. 68.
27. for him who prepares a symposium. The author brackets the book by
offering a similar comparison at its very end (15:39). On symposia, see
Murray, Sympotica. By alluding to a symposium, rather than simply to a
meal, the author implies that although his role is as that of a caterer, the
project is an important one meant to nourish the mind and the spirit.
28. the rules laid down (.) for epitomizing. Or perhaps the
models; see LSJ 1877. See esp. Diogenes Laertius 10.35 and 8485, which
open, respectively, Epicurus own epitomes of his writings on physics and of
his views about celestial phenomena. He emphasizes the need to organize
the material under major headings so it can easily be remembered the
same goal our author posits in v. 25.
29. For just as the architect of a new house. To whom our author compares
the works originator, Jason.
he who undertakes to paint it. To whom our author compares himself.

encaustically. On encaustic painting painting by applying heat to colored

wax see Pliny, Natural History, 35.3940 along with M. Robertson,
A History of Greek Art, I (London: Cambridge Univ., 1975) 485489.
to paint animals (
.). True, can regularly apply to
painters in general; see LSJ, 758. But this verse seems to require a distinction
between two types of painting, a fact pointed up by the fact that those who
choose the general meaning for our verb are forced either into making the
preceding one much broader (so Habicht: Dekorateur und Maler 2 Macc,
209) or making the two into one (so Abel: dcorer de peintures lencaus-
tique Macc, 313). For the use of of someone who paints ani-
mals in particular, see C. Wunderer, Gleichnisse aus dem Gebiet der Malerei
bei Polybios, Phil 66 (1907) 472, in connection with Polybius 12.25e.7 and
Pausanias 1.29.5. Ibid., 471475, Wunderer discusses Polybius use of anal-
ogies drawn from art; of especial interest are Polybius 12.25e.7 and 12.25h.2,
where he contrasts the work of a true historian, who is comparable to a true
artist since both work directly with nature, to that of a pseudo-historian, who
works on the basis of books alone. Our author, like Polybius, makes a similar
distinction, but compares his own work, that of the non-historian, to the art-
ist. In the Hellenistic world, it was apparently more prestigious to be an artist
than an historian. For a Jewish in Rome, note CII, no. 109.
30. go into. On the nuances of , which include entering and

also taking possession, see Ettelson, Integrity, 318319, 328; here he
translates occupying the ground/position.
occupying oneself with each and every detail. The verb, ,

implies some scorn, la busying onself; see A. W. H. Adkins, Poluprag-
mosune and Minding Ones Own Business: A Study in Greek Social and
Political Values, CP 71 (1976) 301327. Thus, our author reveals that he
is leaving out details not only because they are too numerous and would en-
cumber readers, but also because they are not very important; although
above he seemed to be taking the role of second fiddle, here he takes up the
more usual stance of editors with regard to authors. For the image of an
author serving up his book as a banquet (cf. v. 27!), and therefore leaving
out less important details, cf. Lucian, How to Write History, 56: 02
$ ignore the cheaper things. Compare Polybius
critique of Timaios: at 12.25e.12 Polybius admits that occupying oneself
with documents ( F2 ) is part of the
historians craft, but he emphasizes that its only the third of its three parts,
and at 12.28.47 he criticizes Timaos because he thought it was the main
part. However, Polybius, an historian, contrasts this occupying oneself

with real experience in life and personal examination of the scenes where
things occurred the first two obligations of the true historian, while our
author, who does not claim to be an historian, contrasts it with the art of
good writing and composition.
31. what happened. For such usage of note especially Poly-

bius use of pragmatic history, i.e., history of events (not of topics); see
Polybius 1.2.8 etc., along with Walbank, Polybius, 1.8,42; Spicq, Notes,
2.727, n. 1; Pdech, Polybe, 2132.
32. Here, then (D" @). Thus the author signals clearly the transi-
tion to the body of his work; cf. NOTE on 1:18, As we are about to cel-
ebrate.
narrative. Thus, 2 is our authors term for the body of his work, as
opposed to this preface, his excurses, and other additions; see too 6:17. On
the transition from preface to 2 see Lucian, How to Write History,
55, also G. Zuntz, Zum Aristeas-Text, Phil 102 (1958) 245.
aforementioned. Our author likes this pedantic adjective (that recurs at 3:7,
28; 4:1; 6:29; and 14:8), but it was not uncommon; already Mugler (Remar-
ques, 420, n. 2) noted that the emploi abusive of was com-
mon to both our author and Polybius. It is also characteristic of 3 Maccabees
(1:26; 4:17; 6:3536) and the Letter of Aristeas (3, 11, 31, 63, 93, 99, etc.).
For it would be foolish to expatiate On the proper proportions of a pref-

ace in comparison to the body of a work see Lucian, How to Write History,
23; Lucian complains about those who attach the head of the Colossus of
Rhodes to the body of a midget.
Bibliography
Alexander, Preface to Lukes Gospel.

Avenarius, Lukians Schrift.
T. Birt, Das antike Buchwesen (Berlin: Hertz, 1882) 2930.
G. Engel, De antiquorum epicorum didacticorum historicorum prooemiis (Diss.
Marburg 1910).
T. Janson, Latin Prose Prefaces (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964).
A. Schumrick, Obervationes ad rem librariam pertinentes (Diss. Marburg, 1909).
Chapter III 181
Chapter III
The Opening Idyll
(1) The Holy City being inhabited in complete peace and the laws being ob-
served optimally due to the high priest Onias piety and hatred of evil, (2) it
happened that the kings themselves used to honor the Place and aggrandize
the Temple with the most outstanding gifts, (3) just as King Seleucus of Asia
used to supply out of his own revenues all the expenses incurred for the sac-
rificial offices.
Simon vs. Onias, Round I
(4) But one Simon of the tribe of Benjamin, who had been appointed over-
seer of the Temple, had his differences with the high priest concerning mar-
ket supervision in the city. (5) And since he was unable to overcome Onias,
he went to Apollonius son of Thraseas, who was at that time the governor
of Coele Syria and Phoenicia, (6) and informed him concerning the inde-
scribable sums of money with which the treasury in Jerusalem was replete,
to such an extent that it was impossible to calculate the massive discrep-
ancies, and that since they had not been applied to the account of the sacri-
fices it was possible for them to revert to the royal authority.
Heliodorus First Mission
(7) After Apollonius met the king and reported to him about the moneys
concerning which he had been informed, the king selected Heliodorus, the
head of state, and, giving him orders, sent him to take care of impounding
the aforementioned funds. (8) Heliodorus immediately made the journey,
ostensibly in order to make the rounds inspecting the cities of Coele Syria
and Phoenicia, but in fact in order to carry out the kings assignment.
(9) Upon arriving in Jerusalem and being received courteously by the high
priest of the city, he reported about the disclosure that had been made, ex-
plained why he had come, and asked whether there happened to be any
truth in these matters. (10) Although the high priest pointed out to him that
the moneys were deposits of widows and orphans, (11) some of them be-
longing to Hyrcanus the son of Tobias, a man of very high preeminence, and
that matters were not as they had been misrepresented by the villainous
Simon; that the silver totaled 400 talents and the gold 200; (12) and that it
would be totally impossible to treat unjustly those who had placed their
trust in the sanctity of the Place and in the augustness and immunity of the
temple which is honored throughout the entire world (13) the other, due
to the royal orders which he had, said that the moneys must in any case be
recovered in full for the royal treasury. (14) Having fixed a day, he entered
to take care of the audit concerning them.
The Citys Anguish
And the anguish all over the city was quite considerable. (15) The priests,
throwing themselves before the altar in their priestly vestments, called to
heaven, upon Him who legislated concerning deposits, to preserve them in-
violate for their depositors. (16) And it pierced the mind to see the high
priests face, for his appearance and the changes of coloration revealed the
distress of his soul. (17) For the man was inundated by fear and bodily
trembling, through which the anguish present in his heart became apparent
to his observers. (18) Many came flocking out of their houses for a suppli-
cation by the entire population in light of the fact that the Place was going
to be disgraced. (19) Women, bound around with sackcloth under their
breasts, congregated in the streets, and of the closed-in virgins some ran
together to the gates and some to the walls, while yet others peeked out
through the windows (20) all of them making their entreaty, their hands
stretched out to heaven. (21) And anyone who saw the prostration of the
entire community all mingled together, and the anxiety of the highly an-
guished high priest, had to be moved to pity.
The Confrontation in the Temple
(22) So they, on the one hand, were calling upon the all-ruling Lord to pre-
serve the trusts whole and in complete security for them who had entrusted
them, (23) while Heliodorus, on the other hand, was beginning to execute
that which had been decided upon. (24) But just as he, together with his
bodyguards, was already at the treasury, the Ruler of the spirits and of all
authority brought about a great apparition, so that all those who had been
Chapter III 183
audacious enough to enter together were overwhelmed stricken by the

power of God with weakness and cowardice. (25) For they saw a horse,
with a fear-inspiring rider and outfitted with beautiful accoutrements; gal-
loping wildly it stormed at Heliodorus with its front hooves. And it ap-
peared that the rider sitting upon the horse had golden armor. (26) More-
over, another two youths appeared to him, of outstanding strength,
beautiful dignity, and splendid attire; standing on either side of him they
flogged him incessantly and rained blows upon him. (27) After he fell
suddenly upon the ground and was enveloped by thick darkness, they ga-
thered him up and put him into a litter. (28) And so he who just before had
entered the aforementioned treasury with a large entourage and all his
bodyguard was carried off, rendered powerless to aid himself with his
weapons, having plainly recognized the power of God.
(29) Thus he, on the one hand, was voiceless and totally lacking hope
and salvation, having been cast down by the divine intervention, (30) while
they, on the other hand, were praising the Lord who had wonderfully glori-
fied His own Place; and the Temple, which had just before been replete with
fear and tumult, was filled with joy and mirth due to the apparition of the
all-ruling Lord. (31) Immediately some of Heliodorus intimates asked
Onias to call upon the Most High, so that He would bestow life upon him
who was prostrate and breathing his absolutely final breath. (32) The high
priest, being wary lest the king infer that the Jews had worked some wrong-
doing in the matter of Heliodorus, brought a sacrifice for the mans sal-
vation.
Heliodorus New Mission
(33) As the high priest was performing the atonement, the same youths
again appeared to Heliodorus, wearing the same garments, and while
standing they said: Be very grateful to Onias the high priest, for it is due to
him that the Lord has graced you with life. (34) You, who were flogged
from heaven recount to all the greatness of the power of God. Upon say-
ing that they disappeared. (35) As for Heliodorus after bringing a sacrifice
to the Lord, making great vows to Him who had preserved his life, and re-
ceiving Onias, he returned with his soldiers to the king. (36) And he testified
to all concerning the works of the most great God which he had observed
with his own eyes. (37) When the king asked Heliodorus, Who would be
the most appropriate person to send some other time to Jerusalem?, he
said: (38) If you have some enemy or conspirator against the state, send
him thither, and youll get him back flogged, if he survives at all; for around
that place there is truly some power of God. (39) For He, though He has His
residence in heaven, watches over and aids that place and with blows de-
stroys those who come there to do evil.
(40) That, on the one hand, is how the affair of Heliodorus and the safe-
guarding of the treasury turned out.
COMMENT
Just as the author announced at the end of Chapter 2, this chapter begins
the story of 2 Maccabees. Accordingly, the first verses of Chapter 3 pro-
claim the storys theme: by focusing on the Holy City and emphasizing that
once upon a time all was fine there, they indicate to the reader that the
book will focus upon Jerusalem and its ups and downs in the period covered
by the book. Thus, the opening verses of our chapter form a bracket
answered by another one at the books conclusion, when again things are
said to be just fine in Jerusalem (15:37).
As noted in the Introduction (pp. 46), this chapter is self-contained; the
crisis caused by Simon is successfully resolved by its conclusion, and Helio-
dorus who failed in his attempt to violate the sanctity of the temple of Je-
rusalem learns the appropriate lesson. Thus, the story serves only as a in-
troduction, an opening idyll that shows that even when things do go wrong,
these are only glitches which with Gods help may be overcome, thus
allowing for reestablishment of the status quo ante.
As for what that status quo ante consists of, it is important to note that it
maintains an easy and mutually respectful co-existence of respectable Ju-
daism and benevolent foreign rule. That is how the story begins with a pious
high priest, and with benevolent Gentile kings in general and Seleucus IV (the
contemporary ruler) in particular showing respect for the Temple of Jerusa-
lem and that is how it ends. Thus, the chapter is a statement of the terms of
existence of Diaspora Jewry: Jews who are scrupulous about their own re-
ligion accept foreign rule of their terrestrial lives in return for the govern-
ments acceptance of their right to worship their God who is in Heaven. What
makes our book interesting is that it shows, on the one hand, a diasporan per-
spective on events that in fact transpired in Jerusalem itself, where, in the
shadow of the Temple, it was not always so simple or natural to recall that
God resides in heaven (see vv. 15, 20, 39) and not in what the Bible calls His
house. See Introduction, p. 47. On the other hand, our book reveals its Hel-
lenistic orientation by viewing the Temple as that of the city, as is shown by the
progression city-place-Temple in vv. 13 and by the reference to the
high priest of the city in v. 9; see also v. 14b and Introduction, pp. 67.
Chapter III 185
Concerning historicity, finally, one cannot say much. True, the basic el-
ements of the story are acceptable: Onias III, Seleucus IV, Hyrcanus the To-
biad, and Heliodorus are all known historical figures; we have good corrob-
orative evidence for Apollonius son of Thraseas (v. 5); and there is other
evidence both for Seleucid subventions for the sacrificial cult and for the use
of the Temple as a bank. But a heavenly horseman and handsome floggers
are another story. Moreover, three related points are obvious:
The story is very similar to the one in 3 Maccabees 12, where the
king is Ptolemy IV of Egypt and the high priest is Simon;
The body of our story prefers to refer to the Jewish protagonist awk-
wardly as the high priest (vv. 9, 10, 16, 21, 32, 33), avoiding the name
Onias (which begins to reappear only toward the end: vv. 31, 33, 35) al-
though that name is given by the storys framework (vv. 1, 5);
Similarly, if somewhat less awkwardly, our story avoids the use of the
kings name (see vv. 8, 32, 35, 37) although the context (3:3 and 4:7) makes
it clear that the author means Seleucus IV.
These points lead us to suspect that the story is a floating legend, our
author preferring, usually, to replace its proper names with titles rather than
use other proper names and thus find himself required, time and again, to
contradict his source frontally.1 This argues against historicity, indicating
instead that our author borrowed the story from elsewhere in his quest for
an introduction that would flesh out the idyllic status quo ante against
which his real story should be read. Given its main ideas, it serves this pur-
pose very well.
In this connection we should note, however, that a recently-published in-
scription comes tantalizingly close to touching upon the story this chapter
tells; see Cotton and Wrrle, Seleucos IV to Heliodoros. Namely, an in-
scription of unknown provenance, but probably from somewhere in south-
ern Israel, preserves i.e., published for ancient readers a dossier of letters
of the year 178 BCE that document Seleucus IVs order to Heliodorus to do
something about the temples of Coele Syria and Phoenicia (Palestine). As
the dossier shows, Heliodorus passed the order on to a subordinate, Dory-
menes who in his turn passed it on to yet another who apparently saw to
the publication of the documents. Unfortunately, while the chain of com-
mand is well-preserved, the contents of the order are not. However, as Cot-
ton and Wrrle show, it is a likely inference, from what does remain, that
what was involved was the appointment of one Olympiodorus to supervise
the provinces temples.
1 For Josephus similar practice, see above, p. 5, n. 7.

Thus, this text puts us into guessing distance of our chapters story. True,
it seems that if anyone came to Jerusalem as a result of the kings order, it
would have been Olympiodorus, not Heliodorus. Nevertheless, the text
does testify to a move by Seleucus IV to interfere with the temples of Pales-
tine, and it also shows that the requisite steps were implemented on the
kings behalf by Heliodorus. It is not such a jump for that to turn into a
memory of Heliodorus interfering with the Temple of Jerusalem a mem-
ory which could be fleshed out, as we have suggested, by a floating legend
about such an event.
NOTES
3:1. Holy City. So too 1:12, 9:14, 15:14. The citys sanctity derives from
that of the Temple; cf. the city of the Temple in CD 12:1,
11QTemple 45:1112, 1617, and 4Q248 (Broshi & Eshel, The Greek
King, 121), also have mercy upon Your holy city Jerusalem, the foun-
dation of your residence (Sir 36:12). Holy city also appears in
Isaiah 48:1, Nehemiah 11:1, etc.; see Grimm on 1 Maccabees 2:7. On other
holy cities see Bickerman, Institutions, 152154.
being inhabited (). It conforms to the authors purpose to

recall here that Seleucus IVs father, Antiochus III, contributed to the proper
inhabitation of Jerusalem by restoring to it those who had been dispersed in
the course of the Fifth Syrian War ( Ant.
12.139).
in complete peace. Our author likes combinations with (2:22,

3:22, 5:20, 14:38, 15:1, 6, 7, 17).
due to Onias piety. Cf. Sirach 10:2: A wild king will destroy a city, but
a city is settled by virtue of the intelligence of its officials. On the notion
that the high priest ruled the city, see NOTE on v. 4, market supervision.
piety (<). One of the most positive terms which Hellenistic Greek
can attach to a persons name: that which is more important than every-
thing (Let. Arist. 2), the sweetest pleasure of mankind (OGIS 383, ll.
1213 [Antiochus of Commagene]), the beginning of all the virtues
(Philo, Decal 52). On its place among the cardinal virtues, see S. C. Mott,
Greek Ethics and Christian Conversion: The Philonic Background of Titus
II 1014 and III 37, NovT 20 (1978) 2326. By featuring this term along-
Chapter III 187
side of polis in the first verse of his story, our author clearly situates himself,
and his story, in the Hellenistic world.
Onias. An abbreviation of Johanan, as results from the comparison of

Sirach 50:1, which refers to Simon the son of Johanan, to Antiquities
12.237, which identifies Simons father as Onias; see also Antiquities 12.43.
We know of four high priests of this name, of whom the first two belong to
the fourth and third centuries BCE too early to be identified with ours. As
for the later two Oniases, since our book says its hero was murdered in
Antioch (4:46, 34) in the days of Antiochus IV, while Josephus reports that
an Onias son of Onias emigrated to Egypt and, about a generation later,
founded a temple there (Ant. 12.387388; 13.6273), it is simple, and
usual, to identify ours as Onias III and the other as his son. However, there
has been debate about this, particularly because Josephus, in his earlier
work (War 1.33, 7.423), indicates that it was Onias son of Simon who
founded the temple in Egypt; it is usually assumed that it was Onias III
whose father was Simon (II). For this debate, see Stern, Studies, 3550;
V. Keil, Onias III. Mrtyrer oder Tempelgrnder?, ZAW 97 (1985)
221233; Parente, Onias IIIs Death and Le tmoignage; Gruen, Ori-
gins and Objectives, 4857. To my mind, chronological considerations
nevertheless favor the traditional view: since the way Josephus, in An-
tiquities, repeatedly breaks up the story of Onias IV placing his infancy,
his emigration, and his foundation of a temple in three different contexts
(Ant. 12.237, 387388, 13.6273) seems to indicate that he knows what
he is doing, we should take seriously the fact that he places the latter after
the death of Demetrius I in 150 BCE. Moreover, in a world in which most
men died by the age of 50, it is unlikely that someone who had been a high
priest in the days of Seleucus IV (d. 175) would have been doing anything
more than 25 years later. For some recent discussion of Onias III, see Van-
derKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 188197, 204208.
hatred of evil (). This too, as piety, is a universal value (see

e.g. Polybius 30.32.5; 32.6.6 and SIG 780 [= RDGE, no. 67], l. 31) empha-
sized in our book, where it characterizes not only a Jewish hero (here) but
also good Gentiles (4:36, 49) and God Himself (8:4).
2. it happened (). As at the beginning of Chapter 5, this verb

allows for the transition from the general context to the specific details
which provide the background for our story: there are circumstances, some-
thing interesting happened amidst them, and the story can unfold accord-
ingly. However, for our author it is clear that things do not just happen to
happen; see esp. 12:34 and 13:7! In our case, the use of the imperfect
allows for the painting of a static picture of what kings used to do in the
good old days before our story began.
the kings themselves. Royal respect for Jews and Judaism is very important
to our diasporan author, and their votive offerings are also mentioned at
5:17, as already in the second epistle (2:13). There is in fact much evidence
for such royal gifts to the Temple in the Hellenistic-Roman period; see
Philo, Legatio 157, 317319; Josephus, War 2.412413 etc.; Schrer, His-
tory, 2.312313; S. J. D. Cohen, Respect for Judaism by Gentiles Accord-
ing to Josephus, HTR 80 (1987) 412415.
the Place. As at 5:16 and 8:17, frequently denotes the Temple; cf.
Joon, Mots employs, 341342. True, the term is absent from the LXX
prior to 2 Maccabees but does appear in 3 Maccabees (1:9) and in the New
Testament (Matthew 24:15; Acts 6:13, 21:28), and this led Nelis (2 Macc,
27) to suggest that it indicates a late date for our book. But the use of
place (maqom) in reference to temples is well-attested to in biblical and
cognate literature (see D. Vanderhooft, Dwelling Beneath the Sacred Place:
A Proposal For Reading 2 Samuel 7:10, JBL 118 [1999] 628630), and in
theological contexts the term referred especially to the Temple (J. Gambe-
roni, maqm, TDOT 8 [1997] 544); note, especially, the comparison of
1 Chronicles 16:27 with Psalms 96:6. It is, therefore, difficult to see here
such a linguistic novum as to allow us to draw chronological conclusions.
As for the sense of the term, despite its application to the Temple it is no-
netheless broader, referring to what surrounds the Temple as well (cf.
13:23!). Thus, here it serves well the authors desire to slide from the open-
ing reference to the city in general to the present focus upon the Temple in
particular.
3. Seleucus. The fact that 4:7 precisely identifies his successor as Antiochus
IV Epiphanes allows us to identify this king as Seleucus IV Philopator, who
ruled 187175 BCE.
Asia. Here this refers to the Seleucid kingdom, a usage known elsewhere as
well, and one that makes sense especially from the Ptolemaic (African)
point of view; see Appian, Syriak 12; OGIS 54, l. 8 (Ptolemy III invades
Asia during the Third Syrian War) and no. 253 (Antiochus Epiphanes is
savior of Asia and founder of the city); 1 Maccabees 8:6, 11:13, etc.; An-
tiquities 12.119, 129; 13.113; Bickerman, Institutions, 5. Antiquities 13.78
is especially apposite here, for there too the topic is the fact that the kings
Chapter III 189
of Asia honored the Temple of Jerusalem with votive offerings and gifts,
and the matter is said to have functioned in polemics in Egypt not far-re-
moved from the time 2 Maccabees was composed.
offices. The use of in connection with sacrifices, as at 4:14, is

quite widespread in Hellenistic Greek; see Spicq, Notes. 1.475481; Daniel,
Recherches, 7678. For the funding of sacrifices by a Hellenistic king, see
also 9:16 and Schrer, History, 2.311312.
4. But. For such heavy adversative use of in order to contrast with

a preceding idyll, even when there is no foregoing , see also 12:2 and
14:5, 26.
one Simon ( ). It seems that the authors use of here allows

him not only to indicate that this is a new character, but also to voice some
disparagement, as if to say, Our problems began because some nincom-
poop started a feud with such a wonderful high priest. The situation is
similar with regard to Auranus (4:40) and Alcimus (14:3), but not necess-
arily to Lysias (10:11).
of the tribe of Benjamin. As seen in the Introduction, many scholars, includ-

ing Hanhart, have preferred Balgea, following the Vetus Latina (De
Bruyne, Anciennes traductions, x and 118119). They see here the name of
the family of priests into which Simon and his brother (4:23), Menelaus,
were born; for this family, see 1 Chronicles 24:14, along with Hanharts ap-
paratus here and, inter alia, Tcherikover, HC, 4034. For our decision to
prefer the Greek witnesses Benjamin see pp. 9596. If this reading is in-
deed accepted, the implication would be that our storys first troublemaker
and its worst villain both lacked priestly descent. Although it might seem
strange that our author did not harp upon this point, his general lack of
interest in details of the Temple cult (see Introduction, pp. 4648) and his
general tendency to play down the importance of differential descent (see
NOTE on 4:35, of the man), make this less surprising.
appointed. For the use of for appointments, see also 5:22 and
14:13 and, for example, H. Cotton, The Guardianship of Jesus Son of Ba-
batha: Roman and Local Law in the Province of Arabia, JRS 83 (1993) 95.
overseer of the Temple. We have no other direct evidence for a

in the Temple of Jerusalem, but later sources (Josephus, War 2.409 and
6.294; Acts 4:1; 5:24) refer to a strategos of the Temple and it may be that
they are the same; see, in general, including for rabbinic material, Eliav,
Gods Mountain, 216. For as the translation of paqid (official)
of the Temple in 2 Chronicles 24:11, and of temple administrators in Egypt,
see: Bickerman, Studies, 2.161. For its use with regard to Jewish communal
officials, see Kasher, Jews in Egypt, 111114, also B. J. Brooten, Iael
in the Jewish Donative Inscription from Aphrodisias, in:
Pearson, Future, 153154.
market supervision. The position of agoranomos, who supervised measures

and prices in the market, is well known from the Hellenistic East; see
Schwartz, Agrippa, 48. For his significant impact upon a citys economy, as
reflected in an inscription (IG XII,5, no. 129) of the island Paros roughly
contemporary with our book (second century BCE), see W. H. Buckler, La-
bour Disputes in the Province of Asia, in idem & W. M. Calder (ed.), Anat-
olian Studies Presented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (Manchester: Man-
chester University, 1923) 28. For rabbinic evidence see D. Sperber, On the
Office of the Agoranomos in Roman Palestine, ZDMG 127 (1977)
227243. Our storys apparent assumption, that the high priest was in-
volved in the affairs of this municipal officeholder, conforms well with its
opening assertion that the high priests merits impacted upon the city as a
whole; see also below, v. 9, high priest of the city. In his commentary to
Psalm 54, Theodorus of Mopsuestia (d. 428) paraphrased v. 1 as follows:
The high priest of the people was Onias, a man most righteous and most
god-fearing at that time rule of the people was deposited with the high
priests (R. Devreesse [ed.], Le commentaire de Thodore de Mopsueste sur
les Psaumes [Citt del Vaticano: Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, 1939] 351).
For a theory about a broader political background for Simons delation, see
below, NOTE on v. 11, Hyrcanus the son of Tobias.
5. Apollonius son of Thraseas. This family is well-known among the offi-

cials of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid dynasties. The best known represen-
tative was Ptolemy son of Thraseas, who moved from service of the former
dynasty (Polybius 5.65.34) to that of the latter, becoming governor of
Coele Syria and Phoenicia under Antiochus III after the latter conquered Pa-
lestine during the Fifth Syrian War; see, inter alia, Antiquities 12.138; OGIS
230; and the Hefzibah inscription (Y. H. Landau, A Greek Inscription
Found Near Hefzibah, IEJ 16 (1966) 5470 SEG 41, no. 1574). See also
D. Gera, Ptolemy Son of Thraseas and the Fifth Syrian War, AS 18 (1987)
6373; C. P. Jones & Ch. Habicht, A Hellenistic Inscription from Arsinoe
in Cilicia, Phoenix 43 (1989) 317346. It is possible that our Apollonius,
who is otherwise unknown, was that Ptolemys brother; in any case, it
Chapter III 191
would seem rash to assume with Bengtson, Strategie 2.161163 that our
author or text is in error and that we should see here an allusion to Ptolemy
himself. This is so both because of the unanimity of the textual witnesses
here and because it is difficult to imagine that a man who served Ptolemy IV
during the Fourth Syrian War (219217) was up to serving the Seleucids
forty years later. See also Cotton and Wrrle, Seleukos IV to Heliodoros,
198, n. 45. Note also that when Chapter 4 refers to the next incumbent in
this position, Apollonius son of Menestheus, it states that patronymic not
only the first time he is mentioned (4:4), but also the second (4:21). This in-
dicates that our author was aware that his readers knew of two governors
named Apollonius, and took care to eliminate ambiguity.
Coele Syria and Phoenicia. For this province and its governors, see: Bengt-
son, Strategie 2.159169; Kahrstedt, Syrische Territorien, 5160.
6. informed. For this nasty usage of , rather than plain

told, see 13:21, also some of the passages cited in LSJ, p. 1499, s.v. Here
we overhear something of the revulsion of a minority, diasporan commu-
nity for one of the most heinous crimes one of its members can commit
and this is the category which our author chose to use to characterize not
only Simons crime (here and at the outset of Ch. 4) but also those of Alci-
mus (14:4ff.; 26ff.) and of unnamed other villains (6:11, 14:37).
treasury in Jerusalem. Mentioned also at 4:42 and 5:18, as well as 1 Macca-

bees 14:49, John 8:20, etc. On it see Bickerman, Institutions, 167170;
Spicq, Notes, 2.654; N. Q. Hamilton, Temple Cleansing and Temple
Bank, JBL 83 (1964) 365370. See also NOTE on v. 10, deposits.
discrepancies. I.e., budget surpluses. For this sense of (and not

just money as at 1:35) see also 4:28 and Bickerman, Studies, 2.163166.
Thus, as Bickerman argued, Simons calumnious charge was that the Jews
were not spending on sacrifices all the royal budget supplied for that pur-
pose (v. 3), but were instead accumulating the money. Goldstein (2 Macc,
206) rejected this interpretation because if it were true the king (or Helio-
dorus) would not have settled for recovering the funds, but would have
moved to arrest and prosecute Onias and the Temple officials. However,
had Heliodorus indeed been able to corroborate the charges that might
have in fact happened, and in any case our author preferred to describe a
sensational confrontation in the Temple and not go into legal details. As for
Goldsteins own suggestion (2045), that Simon was referring to private de-
posits, as is shown by vv. 1012, 15, 22, that is to be rejected not only be-
cause it divorces the story from its introduction (v. 3), but also because it
would portray the king as an unmitigated villain. That might be fine for Pa-
lestinian authors (see 1 Macc 1:9, 19, 2123, 6:2123; 2 Macc 1:14), but
not for our diasporan author of 2 Maccabees, who prefers to portray Gen-
tile kings as well-meaning. Rather, what our story means is that while in fact
the money accumulated was from private deposits, the troublemaking
Simon alleged, maliciously and untruthfully, that it was from the royal
budget for sacrifices.
applied to the account of the sacrifices. For the technical terminology here,
see Bickerman, Studies, 2.165. For in the sense of account, see also
1:14 and 12:43, also the royal epistle (or spoof thereof; see NOTE on 9:21,
I remember with sincere love) in 1 Maccabees 10:40, 44.
7. the king. According to the context (v. 3) Seleucus IV. As for the fact
that his name will not reappear here until his death (4:7), which may indi-
cate the story was originally told about another king, see our opening
COMMENT.
reported to him. According to Mayser (Grammatik 2/2, 267), the verb

is usually officialese. Hence, it is very appropriate here and in
11:29.
Heliodorus. This senior official in Seleucid IVs service is known from in-
scriptions (IG XI/4, nos. 11121113, 1114 [OGIS, no. 247]; see now also
the inscription published by Cotton and Wrrle, Seleukos IV to Heliodo-
ros) and from Appian, Syriak 45. See Mrkholm, Antiochus, 33; D. Gera,
Philonides the Epicurean at Court: Early Connections, ZPE 125 (1999)
7880.
head of state (, #
). Literally: He who is over the af-
fairs. For pragmata (affairs) in the sense of state, as also in v. 38, see
Holleaux, tudes 3.225226. For this title of the highest official of a Hel-
lenistic state, which also appears at 10:11, 11:1 and elsewhere, including
the inscriptions mentioning Heliodorus just cited in the preceding NOTE,
see Bickerman, Institutions, 187188, 197; Walbank, Polybius, 1.571. Both
of the latter translate vizier (Walbank adding in grand) and depend sig-
nificantly upon Corradi, Studi, 256267.
aforementioned. Our author loves this pedantic adjective; see NOTE on

2:32, aforementioned.
Chapter III 193
8. make the rounds. For this meaning of see 1 Maccabees 16:14;
Mauersberger, PL, 2.1063 (of the captain of the guards checking up on
sentinels); a Macedonian papyrus of the third century BCE (P. Roussel, Un
reglement militaire de lpoque macdonienne, RA, 6 sr. 3 [1934] 40);
and P. Tebtunis 703 (SP 204, late third century BCE) the responsibilities
of an official Z . All of these conform to Heliodorus obvious
intention here, to do something which would be viewed as regular and non-
threatening. (Contrast the usage of the noun * for invasion; see Ap-
pendix 3.)
9. received courteously. For Jews happy to report the proper reception of

dignitaries upon their arrival (adventus) at a city, as also at 4:22, see: An-
tiquities 11.329331, 12.138; 1 Maccabees 11:60; S. J. D. Cohen, Alex-
ander the Great and Jaddus the High Priest According to Josephus, AJSRe-
view 78 (19821983) 4547. The present verse, which has Heliodorus
being received (0 ) upon his arrival in the city, is the opening
bracket of a story which will end when, the tables having been turned, he re-
ceives (07) Onias before departing the city (v. 35). On the verb,
which implies goodwill, and which is common in the world of Hellenistic
diplomacy, see: Welles, RC, 316; Mauersberger, PL, 1.178179; R. Merkel-
bach, Der griechische Wortschatz und die Christen, ZPE 18 (1975)
128129.
high priest of the city. Onias, according to vv. 1, 5; see the opening COM-
MENT for the possibility that the use of the title rather than proper name,
here and below, indicates that the story was originally told about another
high priest. For the high priest as ruler of the city (and not only of the
Temple, as would be said when things went badly 14:13), see already vv. 1
and 4, also 4:2, Sirach 50:14; Josephus, Antiquities 20.237, etc. Accord-
ingly, although the Venetus and some other witnesses would read high
priest and the city, we may retain (with Rahlfs and Hanhart) the Alexan-
drinus reading. The latter is also supported by the abovementioned paral-
lelism between our verse and v. 35, which, using the same verb as here, has
Heliodorus receive Onias just prior to his departure: since it is obvious
that v. 35 is meant to be the closing bracket of the story beginning here, the
fact that the city is not mentioned separately there supports the assump-
tion that it was not mentioned separately here.
whether there happened to be any truth in these matters. Namely, in the ac-
cusation that funds from the royal budget had been accumulated rather
than spent on sacrifices. The phrasing of the question (happened to be)
seems to be especially polite, a hesitant opening for a matter unpleasant to

both sides, especially in light of the respectful reception which Heliodorus
had just received.
10. deposits. The author shows off with a classical form, 2,
rather than the more usual Hellenistic form, 2. On the use of the
verb for depositing, in the Hellenistic period, see esp.
W. Schubart, in der hellenistischen Amtssprache,
PW 52 (1932), cols. 10771084 (col. 1080 on our verse). On deposits, their
sanctity, and their storage in temples, see e.g. Philo, De specialibus legibus
4.3032; Josephus, Antiquities 4.285; Spicq, Notes, 2.651655; and the lit-
erature cited in NOTE on v. 6, treasury in Jerusalem.
widows. For inheritance by widows, which was an innovation for Judaea in

the Hellenistic period (cf. Num 27:811!), see esp. Judith 8:7; Sirach 22:4;
Grintz, Sefer Yehudith, 188189; Bickerman, Studies, 2.169170; idem,
The Jews in the Greek Age (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univ., 1988)
186197. Documents from the Judaean Desert, of a somewhat later period,
have added some new data and issues; see Ilan, Jewish Women, 167174,
and H. Cotton, The Law of Succession in the Documents from the Ju-
daean Desert Again, SCI 17 (1998) 115123. For similar material from
Egypt, see G. Hge, Ehegterrechtliche Verhltnisse in den griechischen
Papyri gyptens bis Diokletian (Kln & Graz: Bhlau, 1968) 9199,
244245.
11. Hyrcanus the son of Tobias. That is, Hyrcanus son of Joseph of the To-
biad clan. Josephus too locates him in the days of Seleucus IV (Ant. 12.234).
The facts that Hyrcanus kept money in the Temple while Onias was high
priest, and that Onias is said here to have pointed to Hyrcanus property in
particular, have been taken to indicate that Onias really shared Hyrcanus
pro-Ptolemaic tendency (see our next NOTE), something which could have
been the real point of Simons delation to the Seleucids; see Tcherikover,
HC, 157, followed by Will & Larch, Iraq al Amir, 1718. But that seems
to be building quite a lot on very little.
a man of very high preeminence. For Hyrcanus prestige and links to the
Ptolemies (for whom his father had been a tax-farmer), and for his conse-
quent wealth, see Antiquities 12.186ff. and Will & Larch, Iraq al Amir,
1922. Our books assumption, here, that a high Seleucid official should
respect the rights and property of someone so close to the Ptolemies, fits in
well with Josephus claim (Ant. 12.154) that when Seleucus IVs sister
Chapter III 195
married Ptolemy V she brought him, as dowry, the taxes of Coele Syria
despite the fact that it had just been conquered by Antiochus III. True, it is
usual to discard Josephus claim, along with his chronology for the story;
see e.g. Tcherikover, HC, 128, and, more recently, Johnson, Historical Fic-
tions, 82.2 However, the basic reason for this stance seems to be only the
conviction that Ptolemaic taxation implies Ptolemaic rule, so the story
must pertain to the third century BCE, prior to the Seleucid conquest of
Coele Syria. But Josephus too knew that taxation normally implies rule,
and if he was nevertheless willing to posit this anomaly, perhaps we should
not lightly discard his testimony; cf. 4:30! For detailed debate of the issue,
see Schwartz, Josephus Tobiads, along with G. Fuks, Josephus To-
biads Again: A Cautionary Note, JJS 52 (2001) 354356 and my re-
joinder: Once Again on Tobiad Chronology: Should We Let a Stated
Anomaly be Anomalous? A Response to Gideon Fuks, JJS 53 (2002)
146151. On Hyrcanus, see also Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism,
1.272277.
villainous (2). The opposite of Onias, who was $2 (v. 1):

so too Jason (4:13). Our author likes to compound with -; see esp.
12:21. Of the forty-four compounds opening with - listed in H&R,
1.357358, eleven appear only in 2 Maccabees and another four includ-
ing 2 appear only in 23 Maccabees.
12. totally impossible (!). That is, forbidden, but the impli-
cation is also that it in any case cannot be done. By phrasing the matter
this way, Onias reinforces his refusal, but at the same time attempts to
persuade Heliodorus that the matter is in fact out of his own hands, la
the British Im sorry but its really quite impossible. For a similar
apology in the same situation, see 3 Maccabees 1:11, where the Jews
2 Johnson goes so far as to assert here not only that Josephus claim was untrue, but
also that Josephus must have known it to be false. But her only argument is that
Polybius 28.20.9 contradicts Josephus claim, taken together with Goldsteins argu-
ment (Tales of the Tobiads, 86), which she cites, that the good evidence of Poly-
bius was surely available to Josephus (see, e.g., AJ xii. 9. 1 358). However, Josep-
hus might have thought Polybius was wrong. (Goldstein himself, ibid., does not assert
that Josephus knowingly erred, and at p. 121 he admits the possibility that Josephus
was unaware of the chronological difficulties of his own account.) As for Polybius
considerations in this specific case, see my Josephus Tobiads, 5152. (For a similar
issue, this time regarding Polybius vs. 3 Macc, see my review of Johnsons book in
JQR 97 [2007] e25-e26, available only on Internet.)
explain to Ptolemy IV that even they, and even their priests, may not enter
the Holy of Holies; see also Philo, Legatio 306, also Antiquities 12.145
(an edict by Antiochus III which forbids Gentiles to enter the Temple
precincts but points out that even Jews may not enter unless they purify
themselves; for the apologetic nature of the latter explanation, see Alon,
Jews, 167, n. 34).
immunity. For the bestowal of 0 upon temples and cities in the Hel-
lenistic period, see Rigsby, Asylia. For Syria and Palestine in particular, see
H. Seyrig, Les rois Sleucides et la concession de lasylie, Syria 20 (1939)
3539: for Egypt von Woess, Asylwesen. See also 4:33 and again with
reference to the Temple of Jerusalem 9:14 and 1 Maccabees 10:43 (and
note that where ibid. v. 31 had only holy and free, Josephus, at An-
tiquities 13.51, added in probably, as Stern notes [Documents, 102], as his
own interpretation and not on the basis of any other source the technical
term 6). In his discussion of Jerusalem, Rigsby (pp. 527531) empha-
sized that what is meant here is a general immunity which derived from the
sanctity of the place, not from any explicit grant of immunity by some par-
ticular king something which began to appear in this part of the world
only in the latter half of the second century BCE.
honored throughout the entire world. See NOTE on 2:22, the temple which
was spoken of
13. the other. Heliodorus. The use of the other emphasizes the parallel
between these two servants of their respective sovereigns: as Onias, so too
Heliodorus had no choice, and so the duel could not be avoided.
14. audit. For this technical meaning of , see Welles, RC, p. 335;
Mauersberger, PL, 2.952; Bickerman, Studies, 2.171. For non-technical
usage, see 11:36.
anguish. The author uses this loaded term, 0 , which appears in the
LXX only in our book (here, 3:16 and 15:19), to summarize the coming
scene, which as 6:311 and 15:1819 is one of those moving pathetic
scenes intended to arouse the reader to share the feelings of the characters
involved.
all over the city. That is, not just in the Temple: the author reminds us of his
basic focus.
Chapter III 197
quite considerable. Lit. not at all inconsiderable. The double negative (li-
totes) has an intensifying effect, i.e., very considerable; cf. for example
Acts 21:39 and Josephus, Vita 1. As Doran notes (Temple Propaganda, 42)
our author is fond of this device; Doran notes another nine cases in our
book (including another in connection with distress 15:19) and remarks
that there is not even one in 1 Maccabees.
15. The priests. The scene described here, and in the coming verses, is remi-
niscent of Joel 2:1617. This is very suggestive, given the fact that Joel goes
on to refer (v. 20) to the northerner (easily equated with the king of the
North, i.e., Seleucid king, of Daniel 11), and his sufferings and stench,
which probably underlies Chapter 9s account of the death of Antiochus IV.
See above, p. 62.
called to heaven. Gods residence, as is made clear in v. 39. As at 14:3435,

it is especially important for a diasporan author to underline that even the
priests in the Temple, which some might (with good biblical basis) consider
Gods house, recognize this. On the text, see p. 93.
Him who legislated. This emphasis upon law and legislating, as in the open-
ing verse of this chapter, is one facet of our authors attempt to portray
those who attack Judaism as if they are attacking a polis and its institutions,
for each polis had its own laws. For this motif in 2 Maccabees, see esp. Re-
naud, Loi et lois, 5567; Kippenberg, Erlsungsreligionen, 183191,
198200. But it is important to note that it is God who is here viewed as
legislator; so too 4:17, 6:1, 23; 4 Maccabees 5:25. In contrast, many Jew-
ish-Hellenistic texts portray Moses as the Jews legislator; so, for example,
Letter of Aristeas 144; Philo, Life of Moses 1.6 and elsewhere (see Amir,
Hellenistische Gestalt des Judentums, 77106); Acts 15:5, 21. In 2 Macca-
bees, in contrast, apart from the second epistle appended at the outset (1:29,
2:4, 811), Moses is mentioned only in Ch. 7 (vv. 6, 30) another indication
that that chapter came to our book from elsewhere (see above, pp. 1920).
Thus, it seems that 2 Maccabees reflects a relatively early stage of the
Jewish-Hellenistic adoption of this Hellenistic category, a stage in which the
Torah was still Gods but He had become one legislator among others; the
next stage would be to relativize it further, by making it the work of a
human legislator. See Schwartz, Studies, 18.
16. pierced the mind. An invitation to the reader to share the experience;
on such invitations, see above, p. 79. The verb ) means wound,
but since it appears in 11:9 with regard to walls, pierce is better.
the high priest. Onias; see NOTE on v. 9, the high priest of the city.
his appearance and the changes of coloration. For changes in facial color-
ation, and trembling, as visible signs of 0 , see e.g. Antiquities 15.236
and Philo, Legatio 266267.
18. supplication. As usual in our book, whenever a threat arises: 8:29,

10:16, 25; 11:6; 12:42; 13:12; 14:15. On V , see NOTE on 9:18, in the
form of a supplication.
19. Women, bound around with sackcloth under their breasts. The empha-
sis upon womens suffering and the exposure of their bodies is among the
standard moves of pathetic Hellenistic historiography; compare, for
example, Diodorus 17.3536, along with Polybius complaints at 2.56.7.
See also below, 6:10 (the more prudish 1 Macc 1:61 has necks instead of
breasts), and, for another Jewish Hellenistic example, the way Ezekiel the
Tragedian (apud Eusebius, Praep. evang. 9.29.14; Jacobson, Exagoge,
6265, lines 207213) displays terrified women and children among the Is-
raelites at the Red Sea, although there is no mention of them in Exodus 14.
As for sackcloth as a sign of mourning, and of self-humiliation intended
to arouse divine sympathy, see also 10:25; Jonah 3:8; Esther 4:1; Ju-
dith 4:1015; 1 Maccabees 2:14, 3:47; etc. But it seems not to have been
widespread among the Greeks; see LSJ, p. 1581 (s.v. II,3), which
refers only to the Jewish practice. On Greek mourning costume, see G. Her-
zog-Hauser, Trauerkleidung, RE II/12 (1937) cols. 22252229.
closed-in virgins. For the notion that ideally virgins should be protected by
keeping them out of the public eye, see also 3 Maccabees 1:18; Sirach 42:11
(Keep strict watch over a headstrong daughter ); Philo, In Flaccum 89
and De specialibus legibus 3.169; 4 Maccabees 18:7 (I was a virgin and
did not leave my fathers house), etc. For similar Jewish and non-Jewish
material, see Heinemann, Philons Bildung, 107108, 232234; and
A. Standhartinger, Das Frauenbild im Judentum der hellenistischen Zeit
(AGAJU 26; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 101; van der Horst, Philos Flaccus,
179180. It seems that this ideal is better documented for the Diaspora than
for Judaea, and even in the former it may well have been honored more in
the breach, as Standhartinger (ibid., n. 22) infers from Flac 95. See also Ilan,
Jewish Women, 132134.
20. hands stretched out to heaven. A classical stance for prayer; see also
14:34, 15:12; Ag. Ap. 1.209; 1 Esdras 8:73; 3 Maccabees 2:1; 4 Macca-
Chapter III 199
bees 4:11; Deissmann, Licht, 354355 (on CII 725a-b Jewish inscriptions
from Delos showing prayers and hands extended toward heaven; on the ap-
peal to the Most High God in those prayers, as here in v. 31, see also:
Enermalm-Ogawa, Langage de prire, 125126). See also E. Zimmer, So-
ciety and Its Customs: Studies in the History and Metamorphosis of Jewish
Customs (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar, 1996) 7888 (in Hebrew). For the
ancient Near Eastern background, see J. F. Ross, Prophecy in Hamath, Is-
rael and Mari, HTR 63 (1970) 3.
21. prostration (3
). This term appears in the LXX only in our
book here and at 13:12. Here Habicht translated Auflauf (tumult), but
that might be too chaotic for the pious, even if they do allow themselves to
be all mingled together. Moreover, it appears clear that at 13:12 it refers
to prostration as an act of supplication (as Habicht agrees there: Kniefall)
and that seems appropriate here too; so too 10:26: threw themselves
() upon the step opposite the altar. However, since the
preceding verses did not mention prostration, it may be that the term is
being used metaphorically, of supplication in general.
community. This is clearly the translation of # here, not horde or

mob or the like, which have a deprecatory nuance as at 2:21, 14:1, etc.
For neutral or positive usage see: 4:5, 39; 11:16; Letter of Aristeas 310;
3 Maccabees 7:13 (quoted below in NOTE on 15:31, people priests);
Acts 19:9, etc; M. Schwabe, The Ancient Synagogue of Apameia Syri,
Kedem 1 (1942) 92 (in Hebrew); S. Lieberman, The Martyrs of Caesarea,
AIPHOS 7 (19391944) 426. Use of this communal term, rather than a
more ethnic one, again identifies the author as a diasporan Jew.
all mingled together (5). This word, which appears in the LXX only
here and at 12:13 (hodgepodge), indicates just how bad things were: due
to the severity of the situation no attention was given to the usual distinc-
tions of rank and order. For the pride taken by Hellenistic Jews in the or-
derliness of the Temple of Jerusalem, see 3 Maccabees 1:10 and Letter of
Aristeas 9296.
anxiety ( ). Lit. expectation, but (as noted in LSJ, 1507)

usually fearful expectation is meant.
had to be moved (. E). For the translation, see Grimm, 2 Macc, 72,
who adduces 6:6 (add 14:29) and 3 Maccabees 1:29.
22. So (@). As usual, the author uses this to indicate that he has finished
setting the stage; see NOTE on 1:18, as we are about to celebrate.
on the one hand. The author opens an inclusio which frames the main
scene, the apparition. As in a play, he first uses to portray the com-
petitors opposite one another in vv. 2223, and then, reversing their order,
again in vv. 2930. For a similar procedure, see 15:67 and 15:2426.
the all-ruling Lord. The use of # alludes to the epithet Pantok-

rator, which is indeed used in the closing bracket of this inclusio (v. 30). On
that epithet, frequently used in prayers for deliverance (such as 1:25, 8:18
and 12:28), see NOTE on 1:25, All-Ruler.
to preserve the trusts entrusted (A . 3).

The formulation is similar to the one in v. 15, but here the use of pistis
(trust, faith) emphasizes the religious dimension of the depositors de-
pendence upon the inviolability of the Temple. This is a nice piece of mime-
sis by our author: with Heliodorus they spoke of deposits (v. 10), and
that too was the word used in the legal formulation of v. 15, but when it
came to intensive prayer the language of faith is more appropriate.
On pistis see Spicq, Notes, 2.697703; D. R. Lindsay, Josephus and Faith:
and % in the Writings of Flavius Josephus and in the New
Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1993); and on use of the term in legalese in the
Ptolemaic world (i.e., that of our author) W. Schmitz, in den Pa-
pyri (Diss. Kln, 1964). For the use of pistis as a loanword meaning de-
posit in rabbinic Hebrew, see Sperber, Dictionary, 145147.
and in complete security. Reminiscent of in complete peace in v. 1. For

the same phrase, but as threat rather than hope, see 15:1.
23. beginning to execute. This would seem to be the sense of the imperfect
here.
that which had been decided upon. By the king; see NOTE on v. 13, the
other.
24. bodyguards. Lit. lance-bearers; the allusion to their weapons inten-

sifies the confrontation (see v. 28!).
Ruler (). This epithet too (lit. power-holder), just as pantok-

rator (see NOTE on v. 22, the all-ruling Lord), announces the main theme
Chapter III 201
of the rest of the story: He who is truly powerful is revealed and in His
power the arrogant are stricken (in this verse), which leads to Heliodorus
recognizing His power (v. 28); he is then required to proclaim to all the
greatness of Gods power (v. 34), and indeed does so (vv. 3839). For usage
of in Jewish Hellenistic literature, see Enermalm-Ogawa, Lan-
gage de prire, 128129 (where emphasis is also placed on the link between
Gods power and His apparitions e.g. 3 Macc 5:51; 6:39).
of the spirits. Probably angels are meant, thus hinting at what is to come.
Angels are spirits in Psalms 104:4 and frequently in Qumran and Enochic
literature; see Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 114116.
been audacious (). The formulation of their intention as

audacity, as arrogance, makes it crystal-clear that the intruders were evil
and not simply victims of a misunderstanding. The same verb at 5:15 recurs
in connection with Antiochus entrance into the Temple. Such an under-
standing of wickedness as a product and expression of arrogance (hybris)
such as at 5:21, 9:4, 1012; 15:5, 32 etc. is of course widespread in Greek
literature. Cf. NOTE on 8:18, audacity.
stricken. For such usage of 2 with passive and accusative, see

also 8:16.
cowardice. For see also 8:13; Pritchett, War, 2.233.
25. they saw a horse. Heavenly horses reappear at 5:2 and return to earth
at 10:29. But the careful phrasing leaves open the possibility that only He-
liodorus and his men, but no others, saw the horse; so too vv. 26, 33; cf. 9:5;
10:29; 3 Maccabees 6:18; Mark 1:1011 (contrast Matt 3:1617 and its
textual variants, which indicate debate concerning this point). Such care has
two advantages: it allows the author, who might worry about rationalistic
critics, to evade an unequivocal statement that a miracle occurred; and it
allows for the continuation of the story, which depends upon Simon being
able to claim that the attack was staged (4:1).
outfitted with beautiful accoutrements. On such decorative equipment, see

5:2, 10:29, and J. K. Anderson, Ancient Greek Horsemanship (Berkeley &
Los Angeles: Univ. of California, 1961) 85.
armor. The term (see also 10:30, 11:8, 15:28) refers not only to
armor, but also to all of the armored soldiers equipment. See A. M. Snod-
grass, Arms and Armour of the Greeks (Ithaca: Cornell, 1967; ch. 5 on the
Hellenistic period).
26. another two youths. The phrasing sounds as if a youth or youths have
already been mentioned, which is not the case. True, it might be only an in-
stance of careless formulation; for other cases of 6 or [ in the
sense of and also or apart from him, see NOTE on 14:11, the other
Friends, also Luke 23:32, where the Christian writer reports that along with
Jesus there were executed two other (!) criminals; cf. J. M. Mlze
Modrzejewski, Droit impriale et traditions locales dans lEgypte romaine,
(Hampshire: Variorum, 1990), IV, 1068. That is, the text may indicate no
more than that apart from the horse and rider there also appeared two
youths. But it may also be that this is a remnant of an earlier version of this
story, according to which other youths had already appeared from heaven.
This possibility gains some probability from a comparison with 3 Macca-
bees 6:18, where two angels descend from heaven. Those angels are said to
be fear-inspiring () as is our horses heavenly rider ("
* " v. 25), and since it is obvious that 3 Macca-
bees 6:1621 is an inlay (for beginning in the next verse the king reacts to
something else but not to the angels), it may be that they bear witness to an
earlier stage of this floating story.
to him. To Heliodorus; although he was accompanied by others (v. 24), here

too, as there (was already), the story focuses upon Heliodorus himself.
27. they gathered him up and put him into a litter. According to the flow of
the story, one might understand that the two floggers put Heliodorus into
the litter, but it is more reasonable to suppose that the reference is to
members of his retinue. This inconcinnity, just as that examined in the
preceding verse (another), is another indication that this story has a his-
tory; see too Bickerman, Studies, 2.173174, and above, p. 5.
28. And so he who just before. Our author likes to celebrate his villains
misfortunes, contrasting their heights to their depths and underlining just
how little time was needed to bring them down; see also 5:710; 8:36;
9:810. Cf. NOTE on 2:22, the laws that were about to be.
aforementioned. See NOTE on 2:32, aforementioned.
power of God. The point of the story; see NOTE on v. 24, Ruler.
Chapter III 203
2930. he, on the one hand they, on the other hand. The end of the in-
clusio; see NOTE on v. 22, on the one hand.
29. cast down (4). Bickerman (Studies, 2.173174) thought that the
use of the pluperfect here is incompatible with the imperfect used in v. 28,
which had the bodyguards already carrying Heliodorus away; accordingly,
he considered this evidence for the splicing of two traditions. However, it
seems that having completed the details about Heliodorus the author is re-
verting to a more general view of what happened.
30. replete () with fear and tumult. The narrator subtly reminds us
that it was a complaint of what the Temple was replete () with that
had caused all the trouble. Fear and tumult recur in 13:16.
31. call upon ("). It should be noted that Heliodorus men

are said to have asked Onias to call upon God, that is, to pray, not to sac-
rifice; the sacrifice mentioned in the next verse is, accordingly, taken to be a
means of praying. That is, the main category is prayer, and one of the ways
to pray is to bring a sacrifice. This reflects a Jewish-Hellenistic point of
view, one to be expected from people who usually cannot sacrifice and do
not want to think that they are excluded from the real thing. For the same,
see our NOTE on 12:44, to pray. Note, similarly, the introduction of prayer,
and emphasis upon it, in Wisdom 18:2122, where the biblical original of
the story (Num 17:1213) has incense alone. So too Philo, Life of Moses
2.5, where the high priests responsibilities are mentioned, including the de-
tails of his prayers but no sacrifices: and see also his De specialibus legibus
1.97, where already when referring to the priests of other peoples Philo first
mentions their prayers and only thereafter their sacrifices, while of the Jew-
ish high priest he mentions prayers alone and forgets sacrifices altogether!
Most High. This epithet, a relativistic one which leaves room for other gods,
was especially favored by Hellenistic Jews and in conversations with non-
Jews. So already Genesis 14:1822, so too here. See Enermalm-Ogawa,
Langage de prire, 124126; Jacobson, Exagoge, 151 and 217, n. 63; and,
in general, H. Niehr, Der hchste Gott (Berlin & New York: de Gruyter,
1990) and Zimmermann, Namen des Vaters, 573602.
32. infer ( *). Wrongly, as also at 5:11. For our diasporan

author, any royal notion that the Jews had plotted against him had better be
mistaken.
33. atonement (V). See Daniel, Recherches, 321, 325. Here a sac-
rifice is meant, and it is characteristic of our author that he is no more spe-
cific about it than he is about the holy vessels of 5:16. Cf. Introduction,
pp. 4648.
appeared to Heliodorus. Perhaps to him alone; see NOTE on v. 25, they

saw a horse.
Be very grateful graced. The Greek highlights the parallel:

35. after bringing a sacrifice. Apparently another one, not Onias (v. 33).
Gentiles at times brought sacrifices at the Temple of Jerusalem (just as they
also brought votive offerings v. 2), although theologically it is not at all
clear that they should have been allowed to do so: Should a jealous God, or
His servants, consent to accept sacrifices from someone who sacrifices to
other gods too? For the most fateful expression of a negative response, see
Josephus, War 2.409; on the problem in general, see Schwartz, Studies,
102116. In this case, however, the problem is not so acute, for Heliodorus
is said to have acknowledged the power of the Jewish God. Accordingly, he
is somewhere in the vicinity of a proselyte or God-fearer, reminiscent of
another Syrian general of an earlier era (2 Kgs 5:1517). See also Antiochus
promises at 9:1617.
receiving Onias. That is, taking leave of him; so too 13:24. This closes
the circle begun at v. 9. True, one would expect receiving to entail
Onias coming to Heliodorus, whereas here it seems Heliodorus went to
Onias. But this (pace Bickerman, Studies, 2.184, n. 155, followed by Ha-
bicht, 2 Macc, 214, n. 35a) is not a sufficient reason to ascribe a rare
meaning (thank) to 0 here. Rather, the authors desire to
have the end of the story echo its beginning led him to use the same word
although it does not precisely fit. Cf. NOTES on 6:3, onslaught of evil
and 8:36, because they follow (Alternatively, one cannot exclude the
possibility that the author meant that Onias did go to Heliodorus, taking
the opportunity to display respect to the royal official and so to demon-
strate that now, the crisis behind them, normal relationships might be re-
stored.)
36. And he testified to all. As the youths demanded of him (v. 34), and as
Antiochus himself would later promise (9:17). The use of is in-
teresting, for it underscores the fact that 2 Maccabees has no technical use
Chapter III 205
of martyr or its forms, despite the fact that the book devotes a great deal
of space to martyrs. The technical usage of the word appears only in the
Christian period; see T. Baumeister, Die Anfnge der Theologie des Martyri-
ums (Mnster: Aschendorff, 1980) 257268; van Henten, Maccabean Mar-
tyrs, 6. See also above, p. 20, n. 51.
39. residence in heaven. As in vv. 15, 20. The author distinguishes clearly
between Gods residence ( ) in heaven and the place over which
He watches: He does not reside in the latter, but only tents in it (14:35).
Such a distinction exists already in the Bible, but at times it is forgotten (and
the Temple is regularly termed Gods house); for Jews of the Diaspora it
was critical. Note especially Stephens speech (Acts 7), which has a Hellen-
istic Jew (6:1) emphasizing just how accessible God is outside of the so-
called Holy Land (esp. Acts 7:2, 9, 33) and admitting that the Tabernacle
(which moved about) was legitimate (vv. 4446) and God had His
2 there but denying that God resides () in the Temple
(vv. 4850), which was stationary. On the interpretation of that speech, see
Schwartz, Studies, 117127. See also below, NOTE on 14:35, Your tenting.
According to the end of Acts 7, Jerusalemites stoned Stephen to death, not
surprisingly; cf. above, NOTES on 1:7 (the Holy Land) and 1:27 (Gather in
our diaspora).
watches over. The notion that the heavenly God watches over us is under-
lined several times in our book (1:27; 7:6, 35; 8:2; 9:5; 12:22; 15:2), as
elsewhere in Hellenistic Jewish literature: 3 Maccabees 2:21; Letter of
Aristeas 16; LXX Esther 5:1a, 8:12d; Philo, Legatio 336 and Hypothetica
apud Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 8.7.9; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.294; Deissmann,
Licht, 357 (on CII 725: ); Jacobson, Exagoge,
221, n. 53.
40. That turned out. Such summary sentences appear at the end of
Chapters 7, 9, and 13; see also 10:9 and 15:37; cf. above, pp. 1617, n. 36.
The same verb, (turned out) appears at the end of Chapter 13 and
at 15:37; it implies both the process and its end. Compare, for example,
Polybius 28.17.12 (things did not turn out for them as expected).
on the one hand (). This verse ends the story but at the same time warns
us that the problem has not been put finally to rest. For a similar but oppo-
site transition, from an open problem to its solution, see 7:42.
Bibliography
Bickerman, E., Hliodore au temple de Jerusalem, in: idem, Studies, 2.159191

(appeared originally in AIPHOS 7 [19391944] 540).
Cotton and Wrrle, Seleukos IV to Heliodoros.
Doran, Temple Propaganda, 4752.
Fischer, Heliodor.
Stokholm, N., Zur berlieferung von Heliodor.
Will & Larch, Iraq al Amir.
Chapter IV 207
Chapter IV
Simon vs. Onias, Round II
(1) But the aforementioned Simon, on the other hand, who had become an
informer against the moneys and the fatherland, slandered Onias, as if it
were he who had stormed Heliodorus and had been the troublemaker.
(2) He had the temerity to say that he who was the citys benefactor, the
caretaker of the members of his people, and zealot for the laws, was a con-
spirator against the state! (3) When the hostility had gone so far that even
murders were committed by one of Simons partisans, (4) Onias seeing the
intensity of the contentiousness, and that Apollonius son of Menestheus,
the governor of Coele Syria and Phoenicia, was further inciting Simon in his
wickedness (5) betook himself to the king, not as a plaintiff against his fel-
low citizens, but, rather, with his eyes set upon the benefit of each and every
member of the community. (6) For he saw that without royal providence it
would be impossible for the state to attain peace again, nor would Simons
folly ever cease.
Jason and His Innovations in Jerusalem
(7) When Seleucus passed away and the kingdom was taken over by Anti-
ochus surnamed Epiphanes, Onias brother Jason corruptly usurped the
high-priesthood (8) by promising the king, in a petition, 360 talents as well
as another 80 talents of other revenue. (9) Additionally, he promised to sign
over another 150 talents, if he would be allowed to found, on his own auth-
ority, a gymnasium and ephebeion and to register the people of Jerusalem as
Antiochenes. (10) When he got royal approval and took control of the gov-
ernment, he immediately brought his co-religionists over to the Greek style.
(11) Indeed, abrogating the benevolent royal privileges which had been
fixed for the Jews through the agency of Johanan (father of the Eupolemus
who participated in the embassy concerning friendship and alliance with
the Romans), and abolishing the regular civic usages, he innovated lawless
practices. (12) With relish he laid the foundations for a gymnasium directly
beneath the acropolis, making the strongest of the ephebes submit to (wear-
ing) sun-hats. (13) And there was such an apogee of Hellenism and inroad
of foreignism due to the extreme impurity of that impious and unhigh-
priestly Jason, (14) that the priests were no longer enthusiastic about the
altar ministries. Rather, in their disdain for the Temple, and in their lack of
concern for sacrifices, they hurried to participate in the lawless distributions
in the palaestra which followed upon the call of the discus; (15) considering
the ancestral values to be worthless, they considered the Greek honors to be
the best. (16) For this reason they were overtaken by a difficult state of af-
fairs, and those for whose ways they were enthusiastic, and whom they
wanted fully to imitate, became their own enemies and nemeses. (17) For it
is no trivial matter to be impious vis vis the divine laws. But this shall be
shown by the next period.
Two Scenes in the Life of Antioch in Jerusalem
(18) When the quadrennial games were being celebrated at Tyre, in the pres-
ence of the king, (19) the abominable Jason sent some of the Jerusalem
Antiochenes as observers, conveying with them 300 silver drachmas for a
sacrifice for Heracles. But those who conveyed the gift asked that it not be
used for a sacrifice, as that would not be appropriate, but, rather, that it be
applied to some other expense. (20) So these (drachmas), which he who had
sent them meant to be spent for a sacrifice to Heracles, were instead ap-
plied, thanks to those who conveyed them, to the outfitting of triremes.
(21) When Apollonius son of Menestheus was sent to Egypt for the
prtoklsia of King Philometor, Antiochus having received notice that he
had become hostile toward his state gave thought to his own security.
Therefore, after coming to Joppe he went on down to Jerusalem. (22) He
was received sumptuously by Jason and the city, and accompanied into it
with torches and loud cries. Thereupon he brought his men back to their
quarters in Phoenicia.
The Rise of Menelaus
(23) In the third year thereafter Jason sent Menelaus, the brother of the
aforementioned Simon, to bring the money to the king and to take care of
memoranda concerning pressing governmental matters. (24) But he, upon
being presented to the king and evincing respect for him in the manner of a
person of authority, shifted the high priesthood to himself by outbidding
Jason by 300 talents of silver. (25) Upon receiving the royal orders, he came
Chapter IV 209
(to Jerusalem) equipped with nothing worthy of high priesthood, but,

rather, with the temper of a cruel tyrant and the anger of a barbarian beast.
(26) So Jason, who had corruptly usurped his own brother, was corruptly
usurped by another and driven to flee to the land of Ammanitis. (27) Mene-
laus, for his part, took over the government, but as for the monetary pay-
ments he had promised the king he did not at all keep them up, (28) des-
pite the demand which was made by Sostratus, the commandant of the
acropolis, who was charged with handling the discrepancies. For this rea-
son both were summoned to the king. (29) Menelaus left his own brother
Lysimachus as substitute in the high priesthood, while Sostratus left in his
stead Crates, the commander of the Cypriots.
The Murder of Onias
(30) At this juncture it happened that the Tarsians and Mallotians rebelled
because they had been given as a gift to Antiochis, the kings concubine.
(31) Therefore the king hurried off to stabilize the government there, leav-
ing as his substitute Andronicus, who was one of those held in great honor.
(32) Menelaus, thinking to seize this as a natural opportunity, bestowed
upon Andronicus some golden vessels that he had purloined from the
Temple, just as it happened that he had sold some others to Tyre and the
surrounding cities. (33) Onias, after ascertaining what had happened, first
took refuge in the asylum site in Daphne, outside of Antioch, and then ex-
pressed his indictment (of Menelaus). (34) Therefore Menelaus took An-
dronicus aside privately and urged him to overcome Onias. So he, after
coming up to Onias and greeting him with oaths by giving him his right
hand, beguiled him despite his suspicions to come outside of the asylum;
then he suddenly closed in on him, showing no regard at all for justice.
(35) For this reason not only Jews, but also many of other nations were
outraged and vexed about the unjust murder of the man. (36) So when the
king returned from the Cilician regions he was petitioned by the Jews of the
city joined by the Greeks out of hatred for evil concerning the unreas-
onable murder of Onias. (37) Antiochus, who was aggrieved in his spirit
and moved to pity and tears due to the moderation and total discipline of
the deceased, (38) in a burning rage immediately stripped Andronicus
purple from him, tore his clothes away, and had him paraded around the
entire city to the precise spot where he impiously attacked Onias. There he
removed the abominable murderer from the world, the Lord allocating him
his condign punishment.
Robbery and Violence in Jerusalem
(39) But since there were many cases of robbery from the Temple in the city
by Lysimachus, on behalf of Menelaus, and talk of it had spread abroad, the
community gathered up against Lysimachus; for many golden vessels had
already been scattered about. (40) The populace being aroused and totally
enraged, Lysimachus armed about 3000 men and began (to act) with unjust
hands; one Auranus was the leader, a man of advanced age and no less ad-
vanced folly. (41) When (the protesters) saw Lysimachus onslaught, some
took stones, others thick pieces of wood, while yet others scooped up
handfuls of the ashes which were lying thereabouts and began to throw
them in utter confusion at Lysimachus men. (42) As a result many of them
were wounded, others were knocked down, and all were driven to flee; they
overcame the temple-robber himself near the treasury.
Menelaus on Trial
(43) In connection with these matters charges were brought against Mene-
laus: (44) when the king came down to Tyre, three men sent by the Council
of Elders presented the case against him. (45) But when Menelaus was all
but lost, he promised a substantial amount of money to Ptolemy son of
Dorymenes, so that he would sway the king. (46) Ptolemy therefore took
the king aside to a peristyle, as if to get some fresh air, and there he brought
him over. (47) Accordingly, he acquitted Menelaus of all the accusations, al-
though he was the cause of all the trouble, at the same time sentencing to
death the poor unfortunates (who had accused Menelaus), although they
would have been released as completely guiltless even if they had spoken be-
fore Scythians. (48) Swiftly they paid the unjust penalty they, who had
spoken for the city and the populace and the holy vessels. (49) For this rea-
son the Tyrians, out of their hatred of evil, munificently supplied the funeral
expenses.
(50) But Menelaus remained in office due to the greed of the powerful,
growing in evil while being a great conspirator against his fellow citizens.
COMMENT
After Chapter 3 ended with the restoration of the idyllic status quo,
this chapter begins the real story. Namely, after a brief beginning featur-
ing the renewed competition between the good Onias and the wicked
Chapter IV 211
Simon1 of whom the former will be murdered in this chapter and reappear
only in heaven (15:1214) and the latter will never appear again two new
and lasting villains appear, one after the other. First Jason supplants Onias
as high priest and introduces Hellenizing innovations into Jerusalem, which
our author roundly condemns, and then Menelaus supplants Jason and
moves on to blatant crime: temple-robbery, murder of Onias, and bribery.
And this time there is no solution Deus ex machina, so the chapter con-
cludes with the triumph of injustice.
Characteristically for our book, the only points of light in this chapter
are supplied by Jews who participated fully in the Hellenistic world while
remaining faithful to Jewish law (vv. 1822), and by righteous Gentiles, es-
pecially Greeks (v. 36), who beginning with Antiochus IV himself (who as-
cends to the throne in v. 7) properly take umbrage at the Jews subjection
to injustice and do what they can to amend the situation (vv. 3538, 49).
Thus, the chapter makes it clear that Jews, not Gentiles, were to blame
for the Jews troubles. Indeed, in an aside to his readers (vv. 1617) the
author assures us that the Jews suffering was deserved; although it came at
the hands of Greeks, that was so it could be appropriate tit for tat punish-
ment for Jewish imitation of Greek ways.
As for historicity, 2 Maccabees is basically our only source for the
events reported in this chapter. 1 Maccabees, although it does briefly
refer to Hellenization in Jerusalem (1:1115), says nothing at all about
Onias, Jason or Menelaus, if only because the very existence of pre-
Hasmonean high priests raised questions about the legitimacy of the
new dynasty, and Josephus accounts of the period, in War 1 and Anti-
quities 12, are so confused and bare-boned that they are virtually useless.2
1 As suggested above (pp. 46), this renewed opposition was originally the first round,
which continued directly upon 3:4; only due to the insertion of the Heliodorus ma-
terial did the opening of our chapter become a second round.
2 In War 1.3133 Josephus makes no mention of Jason or Menelaus and has Onias (III,
apparently, since he was old enough to function as high priest and be involved in
politics) fleeing Antiochus Epiphanes to Egypt and founding a temple there, while in
Ant. 12, where he changes his story and has Onias IV go to Egypt and found the
temple there (see our Introduction, p. 12), he creates new problems: (a) he contradicts
our book, insofar as he has (i) Onias III dying in office and being succeeded in a regu-
lar way by his brother since his own son was an infant (237), (ii) claims that Mene-
laus too was a brother of Onias III and Jason (239), and (iii) has Menelaus rather
than Jason initiating the Hellenistic reforms in the city (239241); and (b) he runs
up against common sense, insofar as he has Menelaus real name being Onias (239),
just as that of one of his brothers! See Tcherikover, HC, 392397, and VanderKam,
From Joshua to Caiaphas, 199222. As for how Josephus may have concluded that
Accordingly, our books account is usually allowed to stand more or less

uncontested. The main debates have concerned two issues: one on which
our books account is less than clear, and one on which it is clear, but
contradicted by other sources. The former issue focuses on v. 9: what,
exactly, is meant by registering Jerusalemites as Antiochenes? Does this
presume that Jason made Jerusalem into a polis Antioch in Jerusalem?
See Appendix 2. The other issue has to do with the death of Onias III:
while our book clearly states that he was killed by Andronicus at Mene-
laus behest, and that for this reason Antiochus executed Andronicus, Jo-
sephus, in his War (1.3233; 7.423), has Onias III alive and well and active
in Egypt at a much later date; Theodorus of Mopsuestia (see our NOTE on
3:4, market supervision), who closely paraphrased a large part of our
chapter, nevertheless follows Josephus War story; and Diodorus (30.7.2)
gives another reason for Antiochus execution of Andronicus, namely, that
he had killed a young son of Seleucus IV.3 All these points raise the possi-
bility that Onias was not killed by Andronicus. However, none of them is
very impressive. Note that Josephus corrects himself in his Antiquities
(12.237, 387388; 13.62), that Theodorus is late and evidently dependent
on 2 Maccabees and Josephus War alone, and that the fact that some non-
Jewish sources pin the execution of Andronicus on the murder of a royal
prince does not contradict our book, for perhaps Andronicus killed Onias
too and if he did, we would well understand the preference of a Jewish
writer, who knew what and Who really makes things happen in this world,
to link Andronicus death to Onias. Accordingly, many scholars have,
quite reasonably, accepted our books version, and continue to do so des-
pite some recent debate.4
Menelaus was a brother of Onias III and Jason, and how that might have forced him
into concluding that Menelaus was originally called Onias, see Schunck, Die
Quellen, 123124, n. 2, and Stern, Studies, 4445. They suspect that Menelaus was
married to a sister of Onias and Jason, and if Josephus source called him, therefore,
Onias IVs uncle, it would not be difficult for the misunderstanding to arise that he
was their brother.
3 The latter is also reflected by John of Antioch (frag. 58, FHG 4.558), although An-
dronicus name is not mentioned.
4 Of the most recent discussions I have seen, VanderKam (who cites bibliography)
tends to accept our books version of Onias IIIs death and Johnson tends to reject it:
VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 2067; Johnson, Historical Fictions, 1516.
For other discussions, see NOTE on 3:1, Onias.
Chapter IV 213
NOTES
4:1. But (). For the resumption of troubles after a respite, announced by
such a heavy , see also 12:2, 13:9 and 14:26.
aforementioned. See NOTE on 2:32, aforementioned.
fatherland (). Here too, as with , and the like, the

author as is made clear in the next verse prefers to portray attacks upon
the Temple as if they were attacks against the city; see Introduction, pp. 67.
For Jerusalem as the Jews , see also 5:8, 9, 15; 8:33; 13:3, 11, 14;
14:18. Philo too uses it, for example at Legatio 281 and Life of Moses 1.36.
However, Philo also uses metropolis (mother city) of Jerusalem (Leg. 203,
281, 294 etc.), leaving patris available for Alexandria (as is very explicit in
In Flaccum 46); this reflects diasporan Jews problems with double
loyalty. See Kasher, Jews in Egypt, 236238. But even a diasporan Jew,
such as our author, would have no trouble with using patris of Jerusalem
when speaking of Judaeans. Note that patris can be juxtaposed with polis,
as at 13:14, thus indicating a somewhat wider connotation, hence I have
used the usual English fatherland rather than father-city; in general,
however, there is no need to distinguish between the two and at times, as for
example 8:33, it is clear that Jerusalem itself is intended.
stormed Heliodorus. For the Greek verb here, , LSJ (655) offers
three main meanings: shake, urge on, assault. The first would seem to be ex-
cluded, here, by the fact that the attack on Heliodorus was much more than
a mere shaking.5 Goldstein (2 Macc, 216) prefers the second meaning, ren-
dering This same Simon spread slanders about Onias, declaring that Onias
it was who had incited Heliodorus and had been the author of the evil af-
fair. But clearly our author did not mean to say that Simon accused Onias
of inciting Heliodorus to commit some crime against the king, and it is al-
most as unlikely that he meant Simon accused Onias before the Jews, claim-
ing that he had incited Heliodorus to invade the Temple and raid its treas-
ury. The latter might be more probable than the former, but it fails to fit the
text, for the Jews arent mentioned and what is said is that Simon accused
Onias of plotting against the state (v. 2), which can only mean the Seleucid
state (see NOTE on 3:7, head of state), not Jerusalem. Rather, we must
5 And the same may be said of Bickermans suggestion (Studies, 2.189) that we take the
verb to mean frightened.
assume that the accusation in question was made to the king, which is why
Onias found it necessary to seek the king out. Accordingly, the third mean-
ing, assault, is best here; Simon accused Onias of having engineered the
attack upon him, comme si ce dernier avait agi sur Hliodore et ourdi tous
les maux (Abel, Macc, 329). There is room to consider the possibility that
instead of (which appears in 2 Macc only here) we should read
storm, attack; this verb appears in 2 Maccabees four times
(3:25; 12:15, 37; 14:46), of which the first indeed describes what happened
to Heliodorus.
and had been ("=). Here intransitive amounts to a

verb of being; see Grimm, 2 Macc, 74 (on 3:28). Nevertheless, it seems that
it retains something of its sense of appointment to a position; see NOTE on
3:4, appointed. That is, our author has Simon claiming that Onias, who had
been appointed to fill a sacred role in the Temple, instead acted as if he had
a different, opposite, position to fill. The same usage reappears in the last
verse of this chapter, thus pointedly contrasting hero and villain.
troublemaker (# # 3). Simon claimed that Onias had in

fact staged the so-called heavenly attack upon Heliodorus. For such
trickery see Xenophon, Hellenica 6.4.7 (but some say all these things [mir-
aculous portents which indicated the Lacedaemonians would be defeated]
had been engineered [] by the leaders); Weinreich, Trff-
nung, 258259.
2. had the temerity. See NOTE on 3:24, been audacious.
benefactor. As $2 (see NOTE on 3:1, piety), so too $ was one

of the most respected and flattering titles one could give in the Hellenistic
world, usually bestowed upon kings and other rulers. See Spicq, Notes,
1.307313; Schubart, Knigsideal, 1415; Skard, Zwei Begriffe, 666;
G. Rinaldi, Nota, BeO 12 (1970) 34; A. Pasoni DellAcqua, Euergetes,
Aegyptus 56 (1976) 177191; Danker, Benefactor; Rajak, Jewish Dialogue,
373391.
caretaker of the members of his people. As his father before him, according
to Sirach 50:4 (he considers how to save his people from calamity).
zealot for the laws. Onias devotion to the laws was underscored at the very
outset (3:1); for the emphasis upon law, see also 3:15, Him who legislated.
As for zeal, it should be noted that the root - appears in 2 Maccabees
Chapter IV 215
only in this chapter: Onias was zealous for the laws, but the young priests
were zealous about sports (v. 16)! (For other such ironic contrasts, see e.g.
NOTES on 3:30, replete with fear and tumult, on 4:14, ministries, and on
7:24, his appeal). Zeal for the law was a popular category in Palestinian
Judaism, as is demonstrated by 1 Maccabees (2:24, 2627, 50, 54, 58) and by
Josephus (see M. Hengel, The Zealots [Edinburgh: Clark, 1989] 146228),
but, understandably, seems not to have attracted much positive attention in
the Diaspora. On Philo, see: J.-A. Morin, Les deux derniers des douze:
Simon le zlote et Judas Iskarith, RB 80 (1973) 340342.
conspirator against the state. On the terminology, see, respectively, 3:38,

and 3:7 (head of state).
3. one of Simons partisans. Which shows that Simon was not an isolated
villain, however much the author tried to portray his Jewish villains as iso-
lated bad apples; see also v. 40, 10:15, and above, pp. 4950. The words
are somewhat hazy. Literally they mean
one of those tested and confirmed by Simon; cf. 1:34, also Mauersberger,
PL, 2.565 (usage with reference to soldiers accepted into special units
Polybius 6.20.9).
4. Onias seeing. See NOTE on 2:24, For having seen.
contentiousness. In the Septuagint appears only here and in

4 Maccabees, but just as hybris (see NOTE on 3:24, been audacious) and
7 (4:50) it is a common motif in the way Greek literature por-
trays strife; see Dover, Morality, 233234. For a case close to ours, see Jo-
sephus, War 7.431, where Onias foundation of his Temple in Egypt is said
to have been an expression of vis vis the Jews of Jerusalem.
Apollonius son of Menestheus. On the orthography of the patronymic, here

and in v. 21, see Kappler, Memoria, 13. See also the end of our NOTE on
5:24, the Mysarch Apollonius. The family is known to us from Polybius
(31.13.23) and inscriptions; see P. Herrmann, Milesier am Seleukidenhof:
Prosopographische Beitrge zur Geschichte Milets im 2. Jhdt. V. Chr., Chi-
ron 17 (1987) 175182. For the distinction between him and Apollonius
son of Thraseas, his apparent predecessor, see NOTE on 3:5, Apollonius
son of Thraseas.
5. betook himself. Here the passive of is only a fancy way of

saying went; cf. 9:29, betook himself.
not as a plaintiff. This need not reflect our authors knowledge that some-
one claimed the opposite. Rather, within his own book it was important for
the author to distinguish between Onias appeal to the king and those of
such villains as Simon (3:56) and, especially, Alcimus (14:34; for the
studied contrast between him and Onias, see above, p. 82). Cf. Pauls simi-
lar disclaimer according to Acts 28:19.
fellow citizens. Our author, as other Hellenistic Jews, regularly uses -

of Jews, as part of his general tendency to depict Judaism as if it were
the constitution of the Jewish polis; see above, pp. 67, 51.
community. See NOTE on 3:21, community.
6. providence. Like piety and benefaction (see NOTE on v. 2, benefactor),

was another one of the characteristics of the ideal Hellenistic king;
see Schubart, Knigsideal, 1819; Pdech, Polybe, 216220 (on Poly-
bius heroes); H. A. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the
Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars,
1976), esp. ch. 3 and pp.154156; J. J. Farber, The Cyropaedia and Hel-
lenistic Kingship, AJP 100 (1979) 506507. Thus, our author again be-
speaks confidence that the Jews may depend upon their Hellenistic rulers.
On the use of in the Jewish Hellenistic world, see: T. Rajak, The
Gifts of God at Sardis, in: Goodman, Jews in a Greco-Roman World,
232236; Sowers, Reinterpretation. In this case, note that the contrast
between Simons folly (6) and the kings providence () in-
volves, as so often in this book, playing with the prepositional prefixes; see
above, p. 81.
state. On , see NOTE on 3:7, head of state. Here the author

has Onias including Judaea in the Seleucid state, as is proper for good sub-
jects.
folly. Our author likes to portray crimes against the state as if they were the
result of faulty thought; for such 6, see also v. 40 and 14:5; 15:33,
along with 13:23 (0) and 14:8 (0 ). As noted, the villains
6 comes here in fine contrast to the good kings .
7. When Seleucus passed away ( H ; %).

Lit. passed out of life. The phrasing 7 is also
found at the opening of an Athenian inscription which deals with An-
tiochus accession to the throne OGIS 248; see Holleaux, tudes
Chapter IV 217
2.127147; Stern, Studies, 38. However, the inscription does not add "
(out of life), which is characteristic of our book; see NOTE on 7:14,
pass away from among men. It may be noted that Appian (Syr. 45) claims
that Seleucus did not just die, but was murdered, by Heliodorus. But since
that claim is not supported by any other source, and our authors low-key
allusion to Seleucus death is echoed not only by the Athenian inscription
but also by a Babylonian chronicle, it may be that Appian merely reflects
some nasty rumor; see Stern, ibid. (on the frequency of such nasty rumors,
whenever rulers die; cf. Schwartz, Agrippa, 218). As for the date of Seleu-
cus death, the abovementioned Babylonian chronicle fixes it at Septem-
ber 3, 175 BCE; see Walbank, Polybius, 3.284285, with discussion and
bibliography concerning Antiochus IVs succession to the throne.
With Seeligmann and others, it should be noted that there is something of
a break in our narrative between v. 6 and v. 7; perhaps the original version
included more about Onias trip to Antioch (to which we shall return only in
v. 33) and/or about Seleucus death. See Seeligmann, LXX Isaiah, 9194. It is
not surprising that the author would skip details about Seleucus death,
which is outside his major theme (and if indeed Heliodorus killed the king
our author would not want us to know it, given the fact that he had just be-
come something of a Jew). But as for Onias, the author may well have written
more, and there has been speculation to the effect that another version of our
story had the high priest go to Egypt and found a temple there (a suggestion
which entails viewing vv. 3038, below, as a secondary interpolation). On
such speculation, see our opening COMMENT. Beyond what is said there, it
may be added that the recognition that something was left out here does not
at all imply that vv. 3038 are not authentic; for a defense of their authen-
ticity, as part of the general thesis that Onias III was killed in Antioch and
Onias IV founded the temple in Egypt, see Stern, Studies, 4042.
Antiochus surnamed Epiphanes. Seleucus brother, who was born ca. 215
and ascended to the throne in 175 BCE; on him, see esp. Mrkholm, Anti-
ochus. It should be noted that our book refers to a few other individuals
with names and by-names, but only Antiochus Epiphanes has his name re-
peatedly emphasized both coming and going, here and at 10:9! by the
use of . Contrast the cases of Judas Maccabaeus (5:27),
Ptolemy Philometor (9:29) and Antiochus Eupator (10:10), where
there is no verb at all, and for Ptolemy Macron the author uses the more
low-key (10:12). It thus seems that the use of is
an expression of reserve, similar to our so-called, with regard to the use
of epiphan- in reference to a human, especially one who will turn out to be a
villain. For our authors sensitivity with regard to epiphan-, see NOTES on
2:20, the wars against Antiochus Epiphanes and his son Eupator, on 2:21,
heavenly apparitions, and on 9:4, arrogantly.
Jason. Josephus says his original name was Jeshua (Ant. 12.239); he will oc-
cupy center stage until v. 22 and then reappear at the beginning of
Chapter 5.
corruptly usurped. This rare verb, F (from , bastard), which
appears in the Septuagint in this chapter alone (here and twice in v. 26), and
for which LSJ (p. 1890) cites only one more instance (an astrological text),
aptly indicates not only that Jason gained the high priesthood via illegit-
imate means, but also that he degraded the office by entering into it.
8. in a petition (2 %
). On such, see Guraud, ; Spicq,
Notes, 1.245149; Chantraine, Lire, 122123; and the end of our Ap-
pendix 4.
360 talents as well as another 80 talents of other revenue. This apparently

means an increase of the annual tribute (phoros) to 360 talents, along with a
promise of another 80. But the amount of annual tribute prior to this time is
unknown. True, according to a late source, followed by Bickerman and
others in his wake, it was 300 talents per annum in the days of Seleucus Ni-
cator (sic, although the context is that of Seleucus IV Philopator); see Sul-
picius Severus, Chronicon 2.17.5 (and cf. ibid. 21.4); Bickerman, Institu-
tions, 107108. This would mean Jason raised the tribute by sixty talents a
fifth. But we do not know what Severus source was, and it may well be that
he was only drawing a conclusion, a false one, from the Greek here, 72
" (sixty along with the three hundred), which in fact
means 360; the next verse expresses 150 the same way. By way of com-
parison, note that Jonathan was to pay 300 talents for all of Judaea, including
three districts of Samaria (1 Maccabees 11:28; see Stern, Hasmonaean Ju-
daea, 51, n. 5), and that the annual Seleucid indemnities to Rome, according
to the Treaty of Apamaea, were 1000 talents each (see below, Appendix 6).
That treaty defined the weight of each talent as 26 kilograms (Le Rider, Res-
sources, 50); on buying power, see below, NOTES on v. 19, 300 silver drach-
mas, and on 8:11, ninety slaves per talent. As for the assumption that the high
priest was responsible for taxation, see also Josephus, Antiquities 12.158.
9. sign over (). LSJ (392) distinguishes between pay for,

write an order for bankers draft, and plain pay, listing our verse in the
latter category (V), together with some Ptolemaic documents. But our
Chapter IV 219
author would not like us to use a simple word if a more complicated one is
available.
on his own authority. That is, Jasons, as high priest (see our NOTE on 3:9,
high priest of the city), without the need to consult other Jerusalem author-
ities.
gymnasium and ephebeion. Respectively: the central educational institution

of a Greek city, and its student body. See esp. Delorme, Gymnasion; Kah &
Scholz, Das hellenistische Gymnasion (including contributions by L. Burck-
hardt and S. V. Tracy on the Athenian ephebeia in the Hellenistic period).
On the Jerusalem gymnasium, mentioned only here and at 1 Maccabees 1:14
(along with texts which depend upon one or the other of these, such as Ant.
12.241), see: Delorme, ibid. 198199; Stern, Antioch in Jerusalem,
235238; Doran, Jasons Gymnasium, and idem, High Cost. Accord-
ing to the map at the end of Delormes volume (fig. 63), which summarizes
his findings, it appears that the one in Jerusalem was very isolated in its
day the only one between the Nile in the south and Laodicea in the north.
See also Stern, loc. cit., n. 10. For the primary role of the gymnasium in the
founding of a city, see the end of our Appendix 2.
and to register the people of Jerusalem as Antiochenes. It seems that this

verse, that has been the object of much debate, means registering Jerusale-
mites as the citizens of a new city called Antioch in Jerusalem; see Appen-
dix 2. For several epigraphic parallels to 0 with two direct ob-
jects in the accusative, of which one is a person and one is something
predicated of the person (such as writing up NN as a benefactor of the
city), see Kennell, New Light, 15.
10. royal approval (%). Lit. royal nod (cf. with a single nod
of His head 8:18). For the same verb in other diplomatic contexts, see also
11:15 and 14:20. As is emphasized by both Ameling (Jerusalem, 107) and
Kennell (New Light, 17), the use of this verb is as is now shown by an At-
talid inscription, where it appears in line 14 () in the context of a
Phrygian communitys request that Eumenes II agree to their organization
as a new polis good evidence for our authors familiarity with Hellenistic
chancellery usage. For more on the Attalid inscription, see Appendix 2.
control of the government. That is, the high priesthood; for this view of that
position, see also, inter alia, vv. 2, 1920, 27, 50; 5:7; and see NOTE on 3:9,
high priest of the city. For the same view in other contemporary literature,
see e.g. (Pseudo-?) Hecataeus apud Diodorus 40.3.5 (GLA I, no. 11) and
Sirach 50:14.
co-religionists (I%). Although 2 and can refer to groups

defined by descent, we have translated here on the basis of 0
in v. 13, which obviously refers to things one can choose to adopt. For the
same usage, see Antiquities 12.23, where Josephus breaks Aristeas state-
ment that I am not a Jew into the statements that he
2 $ ], i.e., that he is a Jew neither by birth
nor by religion (i.e., by conversion). The term appears only here in 2 Mac-
cabees, as opposed to member of the people, which appears in v. 2 and a
few more times (5:6; 12:5; 15:3031). It seems clear that the author, here,
wanted a word which could contrast well with Greek style, and a word
which refers to descent would have been beside the point.
Greek style. See on v. 13, Hellenism.
11. benevolent royal privileges. For in the sense of privileges

bestowed by kings, see: Welles, RC, 373; Walbank, Polybius, 2.332; Schu-
bart, Knigsideal, 1011. See also NOTE on 6:22, humane treatment. It
seems that the reference is to Antiochus IIIs declarations on behalf of Jeru-
salem and the Temple and his guarantee of the Jews right to live according
to their ancestral laws; see Josephus, Antiquities 12.138146 (Stern, Docu-
ments, nos. 12). For our author, the introduction of Greek institutions into
Jerusalem constituted a violation of those privileges. However, as we argue
in Appendix 2, it is doubtful that all Jerusalemites were forced to become
citizens of the new city and to participate in its institutions; those who
wanted to go on observing the ancestral ways were certainly allowed to do
so. (This will change only in the course of the persecution, which came
later Chs. 67). Accordingly, we should understand only that Antiochus
decision to allow the formation of Antioch in Jerusalem gave those who
associated themselves with it a certain advantage in the eyes of the crown,
somewhat marginalizing traditional Jewish life in Jerusalem. Such a devel-
opment would encourage Jews to abandon traditional Jewish values (as is
illustrated in the next few verses) and to that extent there is truth in the as-
sessment that Antiochus IV, already at this stage and prior to his decrees of
persecution, was tending in a direction contrary to the one his father had
underwritten some thirty years earlier.
Johanan (father of the Eupolemus who participated in the embassy con-

cerning friendship and alliance with the Romans). Josephus report of
Chapter IV 221
Antiochus IIIs privileges (Ant. 12.138146), ca. 200 BCE, does not men-
tion the involvement of any Jewish delegates or diplomats, but it is reason-
able to assume that some did participate. We do have additional evidence
for Johanans son, Eupolemus, being sent to Rome in 161 BCE: the main
source for that alliance with Rome identifies him as Eupolemus son of
Johanan son of Akkos (1 Macc 8:17; Accos was one of the subdivisions
[courses] of the priesthood [2 Chr 24:9]). That is, we have evidence for
two generations, father and son, involved in international diplomacy on
behalf of the Jews. Individuals such as these, who could respectably take
part in negotiations with foreign powers, must have been at home in
Greek culture to some significant degree and so it is not surprising to
see that while Johanans father, sometime in the latter half of the third cen-
tury BCE, gave his son that Jewish name, a generation later Johanan
was already naming his own son Eupolemus; he probably gave him a cor-
responding Greek education, as best he could. For other evidence of
Hellenization in Jerusalem in the generation preceding the Hasmonean
revolt, before things became polarized, see Levine, Judaism and Hellen-
ism, 3739, also Hengels chapter on Ben-Sira (Judaism and Hellenism,
1.138153).
The phrasing of this verse, which identifies Johanan by reference to his
son, Eupolemus, who is identified by participation in the embassy to
Rome, is unusual. For the suggestion that the problem be avoided, in part,
by assuming that the verse refers to an otherwise unknown mission by
Johanan to the Romans, see Zollschan, Earliest Jewish Embassy. How-
ever, that interpretation would seem to give readers the confusing impres-
sion that the royal rights had been obtained from the Romans, and it also
leaves us wondering why Eupolemus is mentioned at all. Rather, it seems,
we should stick by the standard interpretation that associates John with the
royal (Seleucid) privileges and Eupolemus with the mission to Rome
(which is, after all, documented also in 1 Macc 8), and infer from the fact,
that the former is identified by reference to the latter, that Eupolemus was a
well-known personality. This lends support to the oft-suggested hypothesis
that he is to be identified with the pro-Jerusalem historian of the same
name who wrote, it seems, in the fifties of the second century BCE, of
whose work fragments were preserved by Eusebius; see Holladay, Frag-
ments 1.93156. Perhaps our author knew this colleague, or his writings;
perhaps his readers did too.
For the Greek tradition which lies behind the notion that participation in
a diplomatic mission ( ) is a measure of Eupolemus importance,
see D. J. Mosley, Envoys and Diplomacy in Ancient Greece (Wiesbaden:
Steiner, 1973).
Finally, note that this verse contributes to our early terminus ad quem
for 2 Maccabees, given the fact that it seems to be unaware of later dele-
gations to Rome; see above, p. 14.
regular civic usages (^ ^ ). We must either live with

the application of this masculine adjective to the feminine noun (as e.g. Iso-
crates, To Nicoles 22 and Josephus, Ant. 11.76), or adopt the Alexandrinus
. More difficult is how to translate normally consti-
tution, as at 8:17 and 13:14. That hardly works in the plural, and the
parallel with practices implies something less official. See esp. van
Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 197198; he offers lawful Jewish ways of
life. But ways of life omits the civic nuance of , which is so im-
portant for our author, and lawful sounds too well defined, given the par-
allel with practices and also the usual use of the substantive ,
for normative practices not necessary on a par with laws; at 11:24 we
used regulations. Thus, Philo (Hypothetica 7.6) distinguishes among
unwritten practices, , and the themselves and Josephus
(Ant. 13.296297) reports that Hyrcanus abrogated (, as here) the
ancestral which are not in the Mosaic ; perhaps he was think-
ing of halakhot. Thus, our author avoids the unambiguous statement
that Jason abrogated the heart of Jewish law. Rather, he hit around it,
abrogating regular usages and innovating lawless practices. Had our
author been able to specify some law violated by, or in, Jasons gymnasium,
for example, he certainly would have done so. The issue was a more general
one of introducing Greek style (v. 10), which competed with and margin-
alized Jewish practice.
Note, however, that even when complaining about Hellenization, our
author persists in using Hellenistic terminology with regard to Judaism:
Jasons measures impacted upon the Jewish , and Jason built his
gymnasium right under Jerusalems acropolis (v. 12). This is all part of his
attempt to depict true and proper Judaism as analogous to the code of a
Greek city, and thus to undercut the notion that Jasons measures could be
understood as an attempt to bring Hellenistic progress to a primitive orien-
tal city; see above, p. 51. On , see Renaud, Loi et lois 63; Spicq,
Notes, 2.710715; on acropolis see Sievers, Jerusalem, the Akra, 197.
innovated. For the presumption that innovation in the religious sphere is in

and of itself reprehensible, see e.g. Josephus, Antiquities 7.362; 15.178;
18.9; 20.216218; P. Pilhofer, Presbyteron Kreitton: Der Altersbeweis der
jdischen und christlichen Apologeten und seine Vorgeschichte (WUNT
II/39; Tbingen: Mohr [Siebeck] 1990).
Chapter IV 223
practices. For Jewish Hellenistic usage of (as at 12:38) and similar
terms, such as *, for something like custom, less binding than law, see:
Welles, RC, 329 and Spicq, Notes, 3.194201; D. Dimant, 4Q127: An Un-
known Jewish Apocryphal Work?, in: Pomegranates and Golden Bells:
Studies in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman &
A. Hurvitz; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 809.
12. directly beneath the acropolis. Were the reference to the Akra, as in v. 28,
it would be difficult to understand the emphasis: what is so surprising or
shocking about erecting a foreign institution alongside the citys most de-
monstrative expression of foreign rule? Therefore, it may be that the refer-
ence is to the Temple Mount, something which would make the contrast in
v. 14 all the more poignant. For acropolis in connection with the Temple of
Jerusalem, see also Strabo, Geog. 16.2.37, p. 761. For the use of this Greek
term, see above, v. 11, end of NOTE on regular civic usages. On the Temple
Mount in the Second Temple period, see the first chapter of Eliav, Gods
Mountain. Eliav underlines the general lack of interest in the Mount per se in
the Second Temple period, but does not relate specifically to our verse.
making submit (F). I translated the verb as at 9:12; here it

seems to mean that Jason forced them to wear the hat (cf. our next NOTE).
The verb is a very strong one, chosen both to express reprobation and to
allow for word-play: F F" (cf. NOTE on 5:20, dis-
asters). On wordplay like this, see above, pp. 8081. Recently, Kennell
(New Light, 2122) has argued that we should translate F
with military overtones, la drew up, station, and understand that the
reference is to Jasons selection of the strongest ephebes for a special unit,
leaving it open whether that would be a squad of personal bodyguards or
the elite troops of Jerusalems new civic militia. However, Kennells dis-
cussion ignores the reference to sun-hats. As explained above, it seems to
me that the choice of verb here probably resulted merely from the use of
that noun, so it would not be well-advised to build much upon it.
the strongest (). For this literal translation, see Kennell, New
Light, 2122.
ephebes. The students of the ephebeion, citizens-in-training. See Stern,

Antioch in Jerusalem, 237, n. 15; Kennell, New Light, 22.
sun-hats. The petasos was a typical Greek hat, broad-brimmed for pro-
tection against the sun; see E. Schuppe, , RE I/37 (1937)
11191124. As has been noted (by H. A. Harris, Greek Athletics and the
Jews [Cardiff: Univ. of Wales, 1976)] 31, followed by Doran, Jasons Gym-
nasion, 106), this type of hat was so big that any wind could blow it off and
it was therefore highly impractical for most types of sports. Accordingly, it
seems that it was mentioned as a metaphor for Hellenism in general, to which
we may add that it was a particularly welcome one insofar as it allowed for
the wordplay mentioned just above (see NOTE on making submit).
13. Hellenism. Equivalent here to the Greek style mentioned in v. 10 and

the foreignism mentioned later in this verse, as well as to the Greek
ways mentioned in 6:9 and 11:24. It is explicitly contrasted with ancestral
values in v. 15, and implicitly with the Judaism mentioned in the intro-
duction (2:21) and later on in the book (8:1; 14:38); see NOTE on 2:21, for
Judaism. These terms are all very much at the heart of our authors interest:
the entries in LSJ (71, 536, 832) list our verse alone for 0
(foreignism; add 6:24) and for the general meaning of (i.e.,
Hellenism, not merely the knowledge of the Greek language), just as our
book is the earliest witness for BC.
impurity. LSJ (101) cites our verse alone for 0 . For other use of 4
see 12:38; 13:8.
impious. Jasons 0 (so too v. 17) contrasts him just as 2

contrasted Simon (3:11) to Onias, who was presented as the epitome of
$ (3:1). Accordingly, it is clear why the author is sure that Jason was
unhighpriestly. For our author it is clear that an impious man should not be
a high priest. Indeed, it was common for Hellenistic Jews to assume that
priests should be of special moral worth. This idea, although not without
biblical roots (e.g. Num 25:1012 and 1 Sam 2:1216, 27ff.), flourished es-
pecially on the background of the Greek term for priest, V, which
implies that a priest should be holy. See Schwartz, Studies, 6366.
14. no longer enthusiastic. A standard complaint of all traditionalists with

regard to youth attracted to new fashions. For a particularly close example,
see Cicero, De oratore 2.5.21 (cited by Wilhelm, Neue Beitrge, V
4647): Cicero complains about youths who leave his philosophy classes
and run to anoint themselves the minute they hear the discus call.
ministries. It seems that the author uses here in order to inten-

sify the contrast between the disdained sacrifices and the preferred
Chapter IV 225
(mentioned just below), for the latter was considered a type of

public . As Doran noted (Temple Propaganda, 4445, n. 91),
the authors point is, accordingly, that they preferred the wrong liturgy.
Moreover, the attentive reader will no doubt recall that part of our books
opening idyll was the statement (3:3) that the good Seleucid king supplied
() the needs of the sacrificial offices ( ), just as
when Antiochus IV repents he promises to restore that practice (9:16); now,
however, the same words are used to show just how wrong things are.
the Temple. For our books distinction between ), which appears in the
Septuagint in this book alone and is identical to what is usually termed
V, Temple, on the one hand, and the more specific , Sanctuary,
on the other, see: Joon, Mots employs, 342343, n. 32. See also our
NOTES on 8:2 and 15:18, the Sanctuary.
lawless distributions. For this sense of see: Wilhelm, Neue Beit-

rge, V, 4546, who shows that the reference is probably to the distribu-
tion of oil, which was needed for wrestling. On the use of oil in gymnasia,
see C. A. Forbes, NEOI (Middletown, Conn.: American Philological As-
sociation, 1933), 2122, 47; Gardiner, Athletics, 78; Kennell, New Light,
1819; and B. Dreyer, Die Neoi im hellenistischen Gymnasion, in: Kah,
Das hellenistische Gymnasion, 222223. For the insistence of Jews, even in
the Hellenistic diaspora, not to use oil prepared by Gentiles, see Antiquities
12.120, Marcus note ad loc. in the LCL edition, and Goodman, Kosher
Olive Oil. On the talmudic discussions of the issue, in connection with
m. Abodah Zarah 2:6, see Z. A. Steinfeld, Concerning the Prohibition
Against Gentile Oil, Tarbiz 49 (1979/80) 264277 (in Hebrew).
in the palaestra. The gymnasiums wrestling arena. On the palaestra and its
relationship to the gymnasium, see Gardiner, Athletics, 7292. On wrest-
ling: ibid. 181195 and Delorme, Gymnasion, 253271.
call of the discus. A round piece of metal which was banged upon, as a
gong, to summon people to the gymnasium; see Wilhelm, Neue Beitrge,
V, 4647. If we were to pursue the contrast the author emphasized at the
beginning of this verse, we would recall the more legitimate noises attend-
ant upon the Temple cult that, according to m. Tamid 3:8, called wor-
shippers to the Temple even from afar.
15. ancestral values Greek honors. I.e, the honors associated with serv-
ing in the Temple vs. the honors to be attained by success in the Greek in-
stitutions; see Kennell, New Light, 19.
considering worthless ( < "). Cf. Claudius letter to the

Alexandrians, which, according to Josephus (Ant. 19.290), forbade the
Jews of Alexandria to consider worthless (7 ) the religious be-
liefs of their Gentile neighbors.
16. those for whose ways (!

) they were enthusiastic ().
That is, the Greeks, whom Jason and his partisans wanted to imitate. On
02 (practice, policy, way), which also appears at 6:8 and
11:24, see Welles, RC, 309; Spicq, Notes, 1.3840. As for , see
NOTE on v. 2, zealot for the laws. Authorial remarks like these (vv. 1617),
which comment on events, hint at their outcome, and explain them, also ap-
pear at 5:1720 and 6:1217 (and shorter ones at 8:11b, 9:13b, and 11:4a);
see above, p. 21. This verse presents the first instance of talio (tit for tat) in
our book: the Jews sin was imitation of Greeks, and it was precisely the
Greeks who punished them. Such making the punishment fit the crime,
which demonstrates the working of divine providence and justice, recurs
often: see vv. 26, 38, 42; 5:910; 8:25, 33; 9:56, 28; 12:6; 13:38; 15:33.
For the background and parallels, see Doran, Temple Propaganda, 9495;
Sowers, Reinterpretation, 19; Amir, Measure for Measure; Winston,
Wisdom, 232233 (a long note on Wis 11:16: that they might know that
by those things through which a man sins, through them he is punished);
and Urbach, Sages, 1. 372373, 438439; 2.881, n. 68.
nemeses. Here the author announces a theologoumenon which will be de-

veloped later on: the Gentiles are tools God uses to avenge Himself against
those who violate His laws. See esp. 6:15 (another authorial comment) and
7:9. For the biblical background of this idea, given the importance of Deute-
ronomy 32 for our book (see above, pp. 2123) it is especially important to
cite its vv. 35 and 43.
17. to be impious (!.). See NOTE on v. 13, impious.
18. quadrennial (D). Lit. quinquennial, but according to

Greek inclusive counting, which counted the first and last year in a se-
quence (so e.g. Olympic games are quinquennial 2004, 2005, 2006,
2007, 2008), this was equivalent to our quadrennial; cf. NOTE on v. 23,
In the third year thereafter. See Goldstein, 2 Macc, 521522; L. Ziehen,
Penteteris, RE I/37 (1937) 537542.
games. For quadrennial games in honor of Heracles/Melqart, founded by

Alexander in Tyre after he conquered the city in 332 BCE (Arrian 2.24.6)
Chapter IV 227
and celebrated for centuries thereafter (as is shown by epigraphic and nu-
mismatic evidence), see Bonnet, Melqart, 5758.
19. abominable (3). See NOTE on 5:16, abominable hands.
Jason sent. This verse and the next one clearly bespeak the authors view
that Jason himself ruled the city and was, accordingly, responsible for all
that was wrong in it. See NOTE on 3:9, high priest of the city.
Jerusalem Antiochenes. That is, citizens of Antioch in Jerusalem; see

NOTE on v. 9, and to register As Bringmann noted (Hellenistische Re-
form, 90), their participation indicates that their city was officially recog-
nized; compare 1 Maccabees 10:5966, where Jonathans participation at a
royal wedding constitutes official recognition of him.
observers. On the institution of , delegates who enjoyed sacred im-

munity and who usually brought with them sacrifices as an indication of
their citys desire to participate in the festivals they visited, see P. Boesch,
: Untersuchung zur Epangelie griechischer Feste (Diss. Zrich;
Gttingen: Dieterichsche, 1908); P. Foucart, La fte des leusinia,
REG 32 (1919) 192194; L. Robert, Notes dpigraphie hellnistique,
BCH 49 (1925) 234235; L. Ziehen, Theoroi, RE II/10 (1934)
22392244.
300 silver drachmas. For comparative data on the prices of sacrifices, see
Goldstein, 2 Macc, 233, who, terming the present figure the right order of
magnitude, cites epigraphic evidence for sacrifices costing 100500 drach-
mas each (SIG 398, ll. 4445; SIG 402, l. 30; OGIS 319, l. 20) and for
cattle costing 70120 drachmas per head.
a sacrifice. Here, as in v. 20, the Greek uses a definite object the sacri-
fice, i.e., the one normally to be expected.
Heracles. This Greek god was, early on, identified with Melqart, the chief
god of Tyre. See Bonnet, Melqart; K. Preisendanz, Melkart, RE Supple-
mentband VI (1935) 293297; E. Lipinski, Dieux et desses de lunivers
phnicien et punique (Leuven: Peeters, 1995) 226243.
asked (J
). Some translators (such as Abel, Macc, 335 and Zeitlin,
2 Macc, 135) preferred to render the verb here in accordance with its orig-
inal meaning thought right, considered proper, as at 9:15, or even
decided (Goldstein, 2 Macc, 217). But given the fact that apart from 9:15
all other use of the verb in our book is in the sense of ask, request (3:31;
5:4; 7:28; 8:14, 29 etc.), as is, overwhelmingly, Polybius usage (Mauers-
berger, PL, 1.149150) and that of the Hellenistic inscriptions (Welles, RC,
314), I opted for the latter; so too, for example, Habicht, 2 Macc, 218.
not appropriate (, 2). For the use of this formulation in connec-

tion with what Jewish law allows and forbids, see also 6:4, 21; 14:31.
20. thanks to those who conveyed them. This story demonstrates that even
Antiochenes need not violate Jewish law; see NOTE on v. 11, regular
civic usages. Whether the story is true, or rather only an expression of the
type of living in two worlds our Hellenistic Jewish author knew and took
for granted, is another question; see above, pp. 5153.
triremes. Here too, as with the sacrifices (see NOTE on v. 19, a sacrifice),
the Greek has a definite article (the triremes), as if we all know what is
usual at such a Tyrian festival. Triremes were the standard warships of the
classic and Hellenistic periods. For descriptions and illustrations, see J. S.
Morrison & J. F. Coates, The Athenian Trireme (Cambridge: Cambridge
Univ., 1986); L. Casson, Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World
(Princeton: Princeton Univ., 1971) 7797 (9496 on Phoenician triremes).
21. Apollonius son of Menestheus. According to v. 4, he was the governor

of Coele Syria and Phoenicia under Seleucus IV. As stated in our NOTE on
3:5, Apollonius son of Thraseas, it seems that the repetition of the patro-
nym here indicates our authors awareness that this Apollonius is indeed to
be distinguished from the one mentioned there; plain Apollonius no
longer suffices.
Apollonius trip to Egypt raises a problem, because Polybius (31.13.3)
says he retired from politics upon Antiochus accession to the throne. But it
should be noted that our verse does not say that Antiochus sent Apollonius
to Egypt, nor that the latter reported back to Antiochus about Ptolemys
hostility. All that is said is that Apollonius was sent and that Antiochus
received notice; as frequently in our book, we are not told how new in-
telligence was garnered (see e.g. 11:6; 12:5, 8, 21; 13:10, 23; 15:1, along
with Introduction, p. 73). In fact, in most cases the impression is that the
reference is to the discovery of the enemys intentions via some clandestine
source so we should not expect Apollonius to be the source of Antiochus
knowledge, and it may be that his very mission was part of the hostile pic-
ture. In this connection, since we know from Polybius that Apollonius had
Chapter IV 229
served Seleucus IV, and also that Apollonius sons had remained close to Se-
leucus son Demetrius I (who was the main in-house threat to Antiochus
IV), we would suggest that Apollonius was sent to Egypt by Demetrius and
that Antiochus, quite reasonably, viewed this as evidence of Ptolemys hos-
tility toward him. For more detailed discussion, see D. R. Schwartz, Apol-
lonius, Son of Menestheus: Whose Ambassador?, AJAH 7 (1982) 4552.
For the suggestion that the problem be resolved not by reinterpreting our
passage but, rather, by rejecting Polybius testimony, see Gera, Judaea,
122123, 265267.
prtoklsia. A royal ceremony celebrating Ptolemys attainment of matur-

ity. There are various opinions as to the nature of the ceremony (which lit-
erally means first reclining): perhaps it refers to his first sitting at the head
of a table, perhaps to his coronation, or some similar ceremony. See Otto,
6. Ptolemers, 1517; Walbank, Polybius, 3.323324; Bunge, Theos
Epiphanes, 7072. In any case, it does not seem to be possible to infer
from this reference the exact date of Apollonius visit in Egypt. True, Wal-
bank (as others, including Gruen, Hellenistic World, 2.649, n. 185) thought
that the present context in 2 Maccabees gives a terminus ad quem of late
172, given the fact that the next story begins after a period of three years
(v. 23) and assuming that that refers back to Antiochus accession to the
throne in 175, mentioned in v. 7. But see our NOTE on v. 23, In the third
year thereafter. In general, we must content ourselves with dating this event
to the late 170s, when Ptolemy VI (b. ca. 184/183 BCE?; see Otto, 6. Ptol-
emers, 37) was somewhere in his teens the eve of the Third Macedonian
War and the Sixth Syrian War.
received notice. For this sense of , which recurs frequently

(e.g. 11:6; 13:10), see J. Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm
erhaltenen Reste judischer und samaritansicher Geschichtswerke (Breslau:
Skutsch, 1875), 125, n. *.
that he. Ptolemy, not Apollonius, both because Ptolemy was the last-men-
tioned and because Antiochus reaction shows that he feared a threat from
Egypt.
hostile toward his state (!3

). The identical phras-
ing recurs at 14:26. On , see NOTE on 3:7, head of state.
22. received sumptuously by Jason and by the city. On such receptions, see
NOTE on 3:9, received courteously. As for the separate mention of Jason,
see ibid., NOTE on high priest of the city. Note that our author, on the verge
of introducing the books worst villain, not only gives us a placid picture of
life in Jerusalem and relations with the Seleucid government, but also passes
up, for once, the opportunity to juxtapose some nasty adjective to Jasons
name. For a similar procedure, see Josephus, War 2.277; 7.263.
Thereupon (K" 8
). This phrase, which recurs at 15:13, implies both
timing and cause. That is, his reception in Jerusalem convinced Antiochus
that he need not worry about pro-Ptolemaic sympathy there. True, there is
some evidence of support for the Ptolemies among the Jews; see Poly-
bius 5.86.10; Daniel 11:14; Jerome on Daniel 11:14, 2122 (CCSL 75a,
pp. 909, 915 = GLA II, nos. 464L, 464N); Josephus, War 1.32. We must
therefore adopt one or more of the following alternatives: either we play
down the significance of those bits of evidence (so Gera, Judaea, 2535,
158159), or we assume that Antiochus did not see everything he might
have seen. In any case, whatever we imagine Antiochus saw or might have
seen, it is very clear that our diasporan author would not want his readers
to imagine that good Jews could be rebellious; see esp. our NOTE on 5:7,
coming to a shameful end.
brought back to their quarters. LSJ (914) renders

march (transitive), but cites only this verse for that meaning. Since the
verb appears frequently in Polybius in the sense of to encamp (see
Mauersberger, PL, 3.13391341), it seems best to prefer such a translation
here. For the combination with , as here, see Polybius 1.30.14; 3.91.10.
in Phoenicia. Gera (Judaea, 123) surmised that Antiochus stayed with his
forces (or at least left forces) in the southern part of Judaeas coastal plain,
so as to be able to confront any invading Ptolemaic forces; he cites evidence
for the stretching of the toponym Phoenicia that far south, right down to
the Egyptian border. This is reasonable, for otherwise the implication
would be that Antiochus visit in Jerusalem eliminated his fears concerning
Egypt itself, and that makes no sense at all. According to the context, we
should understand that the king took his army back to the vicinity of Joppe.
Probably, in fact, despite the attention our author naturally devotes to the
Jerusalem visit, we should assume that the bulk of his army had remained in
Joppe the whole time, and that only relatively few forces accompanied him
on this side trip.
23. In the third year thereafter. Lit. after a three-year period. But note
that the same phrasing, # , appears at 14:1, and there
Chapter IV 231
it is clear given the data in 13:1 and 14:4 that the meaning is inclusive,
i.e., in the third year, not after three years. We will allow that, as also
the use of such inclusive chronology just above (see NOTE on v. 18,
quadrennial), to guide our translation. Nevertheless, the present datum is
far from clear. Our author, who indeed expressed his lack of interest in
numbers (2:24), does not often supply dates (apart from those in the ep-
istles in Chs. 1 and 11 there are only two 13:1 and 14:4), nor even relative
chronology (apart from this instance, there are only 10:3 and 14:1), and in
the present case we cannot be sure where his count began: with Jasons ap-
pointment (which v. 7 associates with Antiochus accession to the throne
175 BCE), or, rather, with Antiochus visit in Jerusalem (which, in turn, we
couldnt date precisely; see NOTE on v. 21, prtoklsia)? Accordingly, we
will leave the rise of Menelaus somewhere between 173/172 (the third year
after Antiochus accession) and 168 (Antiochus second Egyptian cam-
paign 5:1).
brother of the aforementioned Simon. Who was last mentioned at the be-
ginning of this chapter. On our authors pedantic use of aforementioned
(as there too), see NOTE on 2:32, aforementioned. If indeed, as we argued
in the Introduction (pp. 9596), Simon was of the tribe of Benjamin, Mene-
laus succession to the high priesthood constituted a radical departure from
tradition, which limited the priesthood, and certainly the high priesthood,
to Aaronites, of the tribe of Levi. However, this type of detail might not
have interested our author very much; see our NOTE on 3:4, of the tribe of
Benjamin.
money. Promised by Jason, according to vv. 89.
take care of memoranda concerning pressing governmental matters. The

nature of which did not, evidently, interest our author, who likes to give us
the impression that he knows more than he tells and thus avoids wasting
our time; see above, p. 73. For F as memoranda (more of-
ficialese, just as *7 in v. 8), see Welles, RC, 372; Bickerman, Institu-
tions, 194195; Walbank, Polybius, 3.215216. For another meaning of
the term, see NOTE on 2:13, in the records and in the memoirs.
24. evincing respect for him ( <;) in the manner of a person of

authority. The expression is difficult, but it seems to mean that Menelaus, in
expressing his respect for the king, deliberately gave the impression that he
himself enjoyed authority among the Jews. This convinced the king to ap-
point him to the high priesthood although the author also adds, perhaps
ironically, that the hefty promise of money mentioned later in the verse also
played a role. See esp. Abel, Macc, 338, and Bringmann, Hellenistische
Reform, 124. Goldstein (2 Macc, 236237) would make Menelaus self-
aggrandizement clearer by reading .
shifted to himself. For this transitive sense of (as opposed to

its usual intransitive usage for come to, arrive as in 4:21, 44, and
6:14), see LSJ, 903, s.v., II. However, while with reference to the present
verse it translates make to come back, bring back (my emphasis), there
is in fact no suggestion, here, that Menelaus had already once been the high
priest.
300 talents. For comparable material, see NOTE on v. 8, 360 talents
25. royal orders. The same phrase as 3:13.
with nothing worthy of high priesthood. Concerning Menelaus descent, see

Introduction, pp. 9596. As for the assumption that the high priest should
be worthy of his position, see the end of v. 13.
cruel tyrant. This combination which recurs at 7:27 was guaranteed to

make any Greek reader realize that Menelaus was a total villain. For
in its usual sense as a pejorative term for a lone ruler see e.g. Poly-
bius 2.59.6 (the very word tyrant alone conveys to us the height of im-
piety ) and 5.11.6 (It is indeed the part of a tyrant to do evil that he
may make himself the master of men by fear ) (trans. Paton, LCL);
Berve, Tyrannis; P. Barcel, Basileia, Monarchia, Tyrannis (Stuttgart:
Steiner, 1993).
barbarian. For animals as barbarians, cf. 5:11; 15:2, 21.
26. had corruptly usurped was corruptly usurped. Tit for tat; see NOTE
on v. 16.
Ammanitis. In Transjordan, where the Tobiads lived; for their links with
Ptolemaic Egypt, see NOTE on 3:11, Hyrcanus the son of Tobias. This may
have something to do with the fact that Jason eventually fled to Egypt (5:8).
27. took over the government () did not at all keep up (<H
<). For the inclusion of this in a list of Endreime in our book see
Richnow, Untersuchungen, 91; the paronomasia emphasizes the contrast
Chapter IV 233
between what Menelaus did do and what he should have been doing. On
the sense and tense of the first verb, see Appendix 11, along with ibid.,
n. 120. For the danger which could befall Jerusalem if the high priest failed
to keep up the tribute payments, see Antiquities 12.159. For the high priest
as ruler, see NOTE on v. 10, control of the government.
28. Sostratus, the commandant of the acropolis. Which was mentioned in

v. 12. This verse indicates that there was a Seleucid garrison in Jerusalem
even before the events described in the next chapter probably ever since
the eviction of the Ptolemaic garrison at the turn of the century (Ant.
12.133, 138). Its base was called the Akra, which was somewhere in the vi-
cinity of the Temple Mount, in the City of David (1 Macc 14:36). Josep-
hus used acropolis of the Antonia fortress, which was northwest of the
Temple Mount (see Ant. 14.5 vs. War 1.121), but that is only one consider-
ation among many in scholarly debate concerning the precise location of
the Akra; for that debate, see Bar-Kochva, JM, 460462; Sievers, Jerusa-
lem, the Akra, 196; Levine, Jerusalem, 7578. In any case, we may note
that while this evidence for a Seleucid garrison is not supported by other
evidence, there is nothing unlikely about it, nor about the implication that
the Akras commander was responsible not only for military matters, but
also for taxation; see Sievers, loc. cit., 197 and 203204.
the discrepancies. I.e., the overdue taxes. The same word is used in 3:6 of
budget surpluses.
summoned. This verb, , has a legal or administrative resonance

to it, as also at 7:25 and 14:5; Acts 5:40; Welles, RC, no. 3, l. 42.
29. left as substitute in the high priesthood. That is, in his absence. For
the widespread assumption that a high priests brother might replace him,
especially in the absence of a son, see also Antiquities 12.44, 237; E. Bam-
mel, Die Bruderfolge im Hochpriestertum der herodianisch-rmischen
Zeit, ZDPV 70 (1954) 147153 (= idem, Judaica, 2127). Note that -
here does not mean that Menelaus gave up his position and appointed
Lysimachus to succeed him, but only that Lysimachus was to stand in for
Menelaus in his absence, just as Crates was only a temporary substitute for
Sostratus, according to the end of our verse, and Andronicus only filled in
for the king, according to v. 31 (); see Deissmann, Bible
Studies, 115; M. Trindl, Ehrentitel, 116, n. 131. Menelaus will return to
Jerusalem and the high priesthood in Chapter 5. On the meanings of -
see also Appendix 9. Accordingly, the use of 0 (here, 10:19
and 13:23) does not by itself indicate the temporary nature of the appoint-
ment; rather, as also (4:31; 5:22; 9:24) it is used of appoint-
ments in general. See Lifshitz, Culte dynastique, 7880; Ma, Antiochos
III, 5253; and the inscription cited in our NOTE on 12:2, local governors.
his own brother Lysimachus. As Menelaus, this too is a typical Greek name.
Crates, the commander of the Cypriots. Cypriot mercenaries, although not

the most common in the Hellenistic world, are known from elsewhere as
well; see 12:2 and Launey, Recherches 1.487489.
30. happened. See NOTE on 3:2, it happened.
Tarsians and Mallotians. That is, the residents of Tarsus and Mallus, cities
in Cilicia ruled by the Seleucids. (As for the controversial question, whether
Tarsus is to be identified with biblical Tarshish, see A. Lemaire, Tarshish-
Tarsisi.) Rebellion by these cities will have reflected not only their um-
brage at being presented to a concubine but also, and more basically, the
general weakening of the Seleucid hold on Asia Minor. For doubts as to the
seriousness of these rebellions, see Mrkholm, Antiochus, 122. On Tarsus
in the Hellenistic period, see C. B. Welles, Hellenistic Tarsus, MUSJ 38
(1962) 4175 (4952 on the present episode). On Mallus: A. Houghton,
The Seleucid Mint of Mallus and the Cult Figure of Athena Magarsia, in:
Festschrift fr/Studies in Honor of Leo Mildenberg (ed. A. Houghton et al.;
Wetteren, Belgium: NR, 1984) 97102.
they had been given as a gift. That is, the revenue from them. On such gifts,
see Welles, loc. cit., also OGIS 225 (= Welles, RC, no. 18, according to
which Antiochus II gave territory to his wife in the context of divorce ar-
rangements), Cicero, In Verrem 2.3.33.76 (the kings of Persia and Syria
used to marry numerous wives and required the possession of various cities
to support them); and Josephus, Antiquities 12.154, which reports that the
revenue of Coele Syria and Phoenicia was given as a dowry to Cleopatra
Syra upon her marriage to Ptolemy V (see NOTE on 3:11, a man of very
high preeminence).
Antiochis, the kings concubine. Who is otherwise unknown, although a

few Seleucid princesses of this name are known, including a daughter of
Antiochus III. Welles (loc. cit., 5051) suggested that the reference might be
to Antiochus IVs sister or niece, who married him, and that our author
turned her into a concubine out of spite; but there is little to support this.
Chapter IV 235
On royal concubines in the Hellenistic period see e.g. Diodorus 2.10.1 (on
the kings of Syria), 17.77.67 (on Alexander the Great); Strabo, Geog.
13.4.3, p. 625 (on Mithridates the Great); Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.55 (on Pto-
lemy V); Antiquities 13.380 (on Alexander Jannaeus). In general, see M. de
Vries, Pallake (Amsterdam: Paris, 1927).
31. Therefore the king hurried off. For a similar case a couple of decades
later, see 1 Maccabees 11:14.
leaving as his substitute. In the capital, Antioch. On such stand-ins, see v. 29.
Andronicus held in great honor ( 07)). On honorific titles

in the Seleucid court, see Bickerman, Institutions, 4050; Holleaux, tudes
3.220225.
32. opportunity (). Lit. time. Our diasporan author expresses his
confidence that it was only due to the absence of the king (who looks
providentially after the Jews v. 6) that attacks upon the Jewish Temple,
and high priest, could be possible. For the same line in medieval diasporan
historiography, see above, p. 49, n. 113. Note that in 2 Maccabees (as in the
Babylonian Talmud [Berakhot 7b]) only the wicked have the advantage of
favorable (here and 14:5, 29), while it is divine providence which
looks out for the righteous. In 1 Maccabees, in contrast, where God hardly
plays a role (esp. after the first four chapters see above, pp. 6364), it is in-
deed the that governs human affairs, for Jews as for others (9:10;
12:1; 15:3334).
golden vessels. With the vague some gold vessels, compare the equally
vague holy vessels of v. 48 and, especially, 5:16. Details about the Temple
cult and its appurtenances are not our authors forte. For golden vessels in
temples see, for example, Seleucus Is letter in favor of the Temple of Apollo
in Miletus: OGIS 214, l. 26 (= Welles, RC, no. 5, line 17).
that he had purloined from the Temple. That is, already before leaving Je-
rusalem for Antioch; see v. 39. But our authors arrangement of the material
makes it seem as if not only the soon-to-be-reported murder of Onias, but
also the robbery in Jerusalem, became possible only due to the kings ab-
sence.
just as it happened that he had sold. Some translators ignore the periphrasis,
but it seems preferable to go with Grimm, 2 Macc, 92, who compares the
phrasing here ( )) to 9:1 and translates von anderen

traf es sich, da er sie verkauft hatte. Indeed, it seems that one should not
ignore the first verb; on happening in 2 Maccabees, see NOTE on 3:2, it
happened.
33. Onias. His sudden appearance here, after his story broke off at v. 6,
seems to point to a loss of material, whether when the original work was
epitomized or at some later point; see NOTE on v. 7, When Seleucus passed
away.
took refuge in the asylum. According to the context, he fled out of fear of
Menelaus. Readers should remember, as probably Onias did, that Menelaus
was Simons brother, who had not balked even at committing murder; see
v. 3. On sites of asylum in the Hellenistic world, see Rigsby, Asylia.
in Daphne, outside of Antioch. This probably means that Onias took refuge
in the temple of Apollo there; see Strabo, Geog. 16.2.6, p. 750; Rigsby,
Asylia, 496499; and Downey, Antioch, 110. It has been suggested that a
pious Jew like Onias would not have taken refuge in such a pagan shrine,
and/or that an author like ours would not report such a thing, so the refer-
ence must be to a synagogue; see Sluys, Quaestiones, 75, n. 1. But although
a Byzantine source does refer to a synagogue in Daphne, we have no evi-
dence as to its existence in the second century BCE; see Joh. Chrysostomos,
Adversus Judaeos 1.6; Malalas, Chronographia (ed. Dindorf [Bonn]), 261;
Downey, Antioch, 206, 447; L. Roth-Gerson in Diaspora, 108; C. H. Krael-
ing, The Jewish Community at Antioch, JBL 51 (1932) 140141. More-
over, while we do know of Jewish synagogues in Ptolemaic Egypt which en-
joyed the right of asylia, we have no such evidence for Seleucid Syria; see
Rigsby, Asylia, 571573, and A. Kasher, Synagogues as Houses of Prayer
and Holy Places in the Jewish Communities of Hellenistic and Roman
Egypt, in: Ancient Synagogues, I (SPB 47/1; ed. D. Urman & P. V. M.
Flesher; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 215216. And in any case, had the author
meant to refer to a synagogue he could have done so (as Stern notes
Studies, 36, n. 7), and it rather seems that the vagueness (asylum site)
points rather to some discomfort, which points us back toward the pagan
temple; for vagueness as a way of avoiding problems, cf. p. 5, n. 7. On the
other hand, the author did not want to pass up using the story, because the
juicy combination of asylum violation and murder was too good to refuse,
and depicted Menelaus not only in Jewish eyes, but also in those of Gen-
tiles as a super-villain. For a similar move, note that our author has Anti-
ochus attempt to rob a non-Jewish temple at 9:12.
Chapter IV 237
34. to overcome. The verb derives from , worse, and so

means overcome, subdue and the like; it appears in 2 Maccabees only
here and in v. 42. Of course, what it really means, in both passages, is kill;
see immediately below, NOTE on closed in on.
greeting him ( "). LSJ (p. 379) cites our verse alone for such passive
usage of 7, saying it amounts to a form of 7. But given the
coming reference to the giving of the right hand, G 7, this might be
only an aspect of the textual problem here; see our next NOTE.
giving him his right hand. There is some problem with the text here; see
Hanharts apparatus and Habicht, 2 Macc, 221, n. 1. In any case, what is
meant is shaking hands and swearing agreement; see also 11:26, 30;
12:1112; 13:22; 1 Maccabees 6:58; Polybius 29.27.6; etc. On the ex-
pression and the practice, see A. Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien (Marburg:
Elwert, 1897) 7879; Weinfeld, Common Heritage, 181; G. Herman,
Ritualised Friendship, 5054. On its reflection in rabbinic literature, see
S. Lieberman, Studies, 472475.
closed in on. This is the translation of , but it is clear if not al-

ready here, then from the next verse that it means killed. Our author
has a rich stock of verbs for killing; see De Bruyne, Notes, 408409, and
above, p. 71.
justice (; ). As with unjust and man in the next verse, this use
of universal categories is quite deliberate, explaining the general outrage
about to be detailed. On and its identification, in Jewish Hellenistic
thought, with providence (see e.g. Philo, In Flaccum, 104), see van der
Horst, Philos Flaccus, 191192; Sowers, Reinterpretation.
35. not only Jews. The fact that Gentiles (esp. Greeks; v. 36) joined the Jews
in their outrage and mourning, in connection with what had been done to a
Jew, is very important for the diasporan writer. See also: vv. 3637, 49;
6:2122; 10:12; 3 Maccabees 3:810. See A. E. Gardner, III Maccabees
A Reflection of the Maccabean Crisis, Proceedings of the Ninth World
Congress of Jewish Studies, vol. B/1 (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish
Studies, 1986) 4.
outraged. LSJ (374) cites this verse alone for ; it appears again at
13:25, there too alongside .
of the man. Not just unjust murder and not just of Onias or of him.
Just as by reporting that Andronicus had violated the asylum at Daphne, so
too by emphasizing that a man had been killed, the author underlines the
universal values which have been violated, thus explaining the involvement
of non-Jews. Compare esp. 14:28, also 3:32; 5:6; 7:28; 12:6; 3 Macca-
bees 3:8; 4 Maccabees 12:13. And note Acts 10:1, where too the heavy use
of 02 itself adumbrates the point that its right to evangelize non-Jews,
for they too are men.
36. when the king returned. To Antioch. As Gera noted (Judaea, 129131),
since (a) we know from this story that it brought about the execution of
Andronicus, but (b) we know (from Diodorus 30.7.2 and John of Antioch,
frag. 58 [FHG 4.558]) that in fact the king killed him on the charge that he
had murdered Seleucus IVs son Antiochus, and (c) we know from a Baby-
lonian document that the latter youth was killed in the summer of 170 (see
Mrkholm, Antiochus, 4249) we may conclude that our story has now
taken us to a time no earlier than that summer.6
Cilician regions. See NOTE on v. 30, Tarsians and Mallotians.
joined by the Greeks out of hatred for evil. LSJ (1679) cites this verse alone
for . Hatred of evil is a very important trait in our
book, characterizing the books terrestrial hero (3:1), its heavenly hero
(8:4), and good Gentiles (here and v. 49).
unreasonable. The description of a murder as sounds strange,

but in Greek terms it adds an additional aspect to the horror of the murder,
until now characterized as unjust (v. 35): the murder violates not only
justice ( ) but also logic (). See Mauersberger, PL, 4.1490, and
esp. Polybius 2.38.5, which contrasts acts which are and those
which are .
37. aggrieved in his spirit. Just as the other good Greeks of Antioch. For
good kings upset by Jewish suffering, according to Jewish Hellenistic litera-
ture, see also 3 Maccabees 6:23 and Philo, Legatio 304.
6 Geras further specification, that the story is now in the latter half of 170, depends on
his argument that the campaign mentioned in 5:1 is Antiochus first Egyptian cam-
paign, despite the fact that our book calls it the second; see our Appendix 3.
Chapter IV 239
moderation and total discipline. That is, Onias was the compleat Hellenistic
gentleman; so too 15:12. As Grimm notes here (2 Macc, 94), our author is
attempting to reflect the kings point of view, not his own Jewish one, which
instead emphasized Onias religious virtue (3:1); Grimm compares Anti-
ochus Onias to Polybius Scipio Aemilianus (Polybius 31.25.8). On
$7 , see P. Brown, The Body and Society (New York: Columbia, 1988)
7. On , see Spicq, Notes, 2.867874; Dover, Morality, 6669;
H. North, Sophrosyne: Self-Knowledge and Self-Restraint in Greek Litera-
ture (Ithaca, NY: Cornell, 1966).
38. stripped paraded. So as to let all see justice done, and thus be
warned; for similar cases, see 6:10 and Polybius 2.60.7; Josephus, War
6.359 and Antiquities 20.136; Curtius 4.6.29; Eusebius, De martyribus Pa-
laestinae 9.7. For the stripping away of an officials purple vestment as a
sign of humiliation, see e.g. Lactantius, DMP 28.34.
purple (garment). For the purple worn by royal friends (see NOTE on
1:14, Friends) and other officials in the Hellenistic kingdoms, for which rea-
son the Romans called them purpurati, see Corradi, Studi, 342; Bickerman,
Institutions, 32, 42; and M. Reinhold, History of Purple as a Status Symbol
in Antiquity (Collection Latomus 116; Bruxelles: Latomus, 1970) 2936
(35 on the evidence of 12 Maccabees).
removed from the world. LSJ lists our verse alone for the use of 0-
of killing; cf. NOTE on v. 34, closed in on him.
abominable murderer. The term reappears at 12:6 in a similar context. On

the moral, not ritual, sense of -, see NOTE on 5:16, abominable hands.
the Lord allocating (!3). For the assumption that the kings of this
world are only tools in Gods hand, see NOTE on v. 16, nemeses.
condign punishment. Poetic justice: Andronicus killed, and so he was killed,

and precisely at the site of the crime. For this motif, see below, NOTE on
v. 42, near the treasury.
39. robbery from the Temple. All Greeks abominated temple-robbery; see
T. Thalheim, 2, RE I/16 (1913) 15891590. See, for
example, Polybius 31.9.4 (on Antiochus Epiphanes), 32.15 (on Prusias II of
Bythinia). Note that the terms V , V, V, and the
term used here, V, appear in the Septuagint only in 2 Maccabees:
here and below, v. 42; 9:2; 13:6. They refer in general to the violation of
temples, specifically to robbery. In this connection, note that among ancient
Jew-haters there were some who derived the name of Jerusalem from these
terms, viewing Jerusalem as a city of Temple-violators; so Manetho and Ly-
simachus apud Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.249, 311 (= GLA I, nos. 21, 158). Ac-
cordingly, it may have been especially important for our author to speak of
V of which the Jews, in Jerusalem (!), were the victims.
in the city. I.e., Jerusalem. The fact that the city means Jerusalem al-
though the last episode occurred in Antioch, and the fact that the robbery is
said to have been in the city although it occurred specifically in the Temple,
confirm the usual point of view of our book it focuses on the Jewish polis,
Jerusalem. For more of the same, see NOTES on 5:2, the city and 10:27, ad-
vanced a considerable distance outside of the city.
on behalf of Menelaus ( 5 D =). Lit. with

Menelaus knowledge, but it is clear that our author wants to make Mene-
laus the prime mover. For ) in the sense of desire see also 11:37 and
14:20 also e.g. Josephus, Antiquities 2.309 (where Pharaoh disobeys Gods
)).
the community (5"). See NOTE on 3:21, community. Here too it is

clear that the reference is to positive characters, hence not to a horde or
the like.
for many golden vessels had already been scattered about. The author is
careful to make us understand that the situation was so bad that even law-
abiding subjects of the crown could no longer be expected to restrain them-
selves. For the scattering of vessels, cf. v. 32.
40. the populace. Of Jerusalem. For E as the population of a city, not a

mob, see also 11:6 and P. Joon, 5 au sens de peuple, population
dans le grec du nouveau testament et dans la Lettre dAriste, RSR 27
(1937) 618619 (on Let. Arist. 245, 267, 271 etc.); Mauersberger, PL,
4.1847. It seems that this meaning is required here, for the text says the
E became aroused, and had a mob been meant it would already have
been aroused. Thus, the author has used two separate terms, # and
E, for the Jewish population of Jerusalem; for his delight in such vari-
ation, see above, p. 68.
about 3000. Probably from among the Antiochenes; according to Tche-

rikover (HC, 162), the figure of 3000 is more or less in line with the
Chapter IV 241
number of citizens usual in an aristocratic polis in Greece. Another reason

to assume the number is reliable is the fact that our author made every ef-
fort to keep us from learning about the degree of support which his villains
enjoyed; sometimes the truth was so much a part of the story that it could
not be repressed (see NOTE on v. 3, one of Simons partisans).
one Auranus. For such an apparently disparaging introduction of a pre-

viously unknown villain, see NOTE on 3:4, one Simon. The name Auranus
is otherwise unknown, and some would prefer to read ; see Han-
hart, Text, 4748, n. 1. Hanhart defends Auranus, noting that this is not
the only case in which our book has an unprecedented name7 and that the
context would seem to demand a proper name. To his arguments we may
add that tyrant is, in our book, reserved for rulers alone, and is not used
to denote their agents; see 4:25 (Menelaus is the ruler of Jerusalem v. 27);
5:8; 7:27.
folly. On 6 see NOTE on v. 6, folly.
41. Lysimachus onslaught. Despite all the provocations directed against

the Jews, the diasporan author insists on claiming that Lysimachus men
began the violence, despite the fact that v. 40 points in the opposite direc-
tion. Similarly, he makes sure his reader knows that the Jews, far from hav-
ing easy access to weapons (contrast the Gentiles of 9:2!) were armed only
with
wood ashes (D). There is some ambiguity here: does mean

dust (as it is indeed translated here by one of the Latin witnesses [P]
humum [De Bruyne, Anciennes traductions, 137] and by Kahana afar
[HaSepharim, 192]) or, rather, ashes? It can mean either; see LSJ, 1629.
I have chosen ashes, as most translators, for two reasons. On the one
hand, is something typically thrown on the head as a sign of hu-
miliation (see e.g. 1 Macc 3:47, 4:39; Jdt 4:11), but when our author speaks
of such practice he uses # (10:26, 14:15), which clearly refers to dirt or
dust; on the other, he clearly uses for ashes at 13:8. That is, our
author seems to have avoided the ambiguity. A more involved argument
leads to the same conclusion. Namely, it is obvious that both dust and ashes
are very inefficient as weapons, so an explanation is needed for mentioning
7 Note, however, that in our NOTE on 12:35, one of the Tobians, we take issue with
Hanharts other example.
here (just as earlier, in our NOTE on v. 12, sun-hats, we noted that

the petasos is not an efficient hat for sports but was mentioned to make a
rhetorical point). That explanation would seem to be not only the authors
diasporan desire to depict the Jews as unarmed, but also his desire to sug-
gest to us that the wood and ashes were from the altar, it itself being mobi-
lized, as it were, to defend its sanctity against the crimes of Menelaus and
his stand-in. That is, we have here something of an illusion to Menelaus
crimes upon the altar, something that prepares us for the way his death is
explained, tit for tat, at 13:8 and so supports the translation ashes here.
42. were wounded. Lit., made into wounded. The same phrasing recurs
at 8:24, there too alongside others who are made to flee. We translated
as usual, of wounds; although the word does appear very fre-
quently in the Septuagint with regard to death, in original Greek such as
that of 2 Maccabees there is no need to consider such a translation; see also
8:24; 11:12.
to flee. We are not told whither or until when, but the book does supply
some hints: (a) Chapter 5 will reveal (nolens volens) that Jerusalem was in
the hands of Jewish opponents of Menelaus (see NOTE on 5:7, coming to a
shameful end); (b) 10:15 will refer, in passing, to Jews who fled from Jeru-
salem and joined the Jews enemies. Understandably, our author tries to
hide the former case (and portrays Antiochus attack on the city as a result
of misunderstanding see NOTE on 5:11, he inferred) and gives no details
at all concerning the latter. Cf. NOTE on 14:14, And those Gentiles near Ju-
daea.
overcame. For the verb, see NOTE on v. 34, to overcome. For the assump-
tion that Temple robbers should be killed, see Isocrates, Against Lochites 6;
Demosthenes, On Syntaxis 14; m. Sanh 9:6 (along with G. Alon, Jews, Ju-
daism and the Classical World, 114117). For the additional denial of
burial, see NOTE on v. 49, funeral expenses.
near the treasury. Of the Temple (see NOTE on 3:6, treasury in Jerusalem),
from which he had stolen; as in v. 38, it is appropriate, and indicative of true
justice, that punishment comes at the scene of the crime. For that motif
in Greek literature, see e.g. Xenophon, Hellenica 6.4.7: the Thebans were
destined to defeat the Lacedaemonians at the very site where the latter had
defiled Theban virgins (cf. Pausanias 9.13.5); Josephus, Antiquities 13.314.
On its reflections in midrash, see S. Lieberman (ed.), Midrash Debarim Rab-
bah (Jerusalem: Bamberger & Wahrmann, 1940) 82, n. 4 (in Hebrew).
Chapter IV 243
43. against Menelaus. On whose behalf Lysimachus had acted, according

to v. 39; see also v. 32.
44. Council of Elders. The gerousia; note that this time it is three men,
not Jerusalem Antiochenes (v. 19), who were sent. The fact that the tradi-
tional body (last heard of in the days of Antiochus III Ant. 12.138, 142)
continued to exist through the days of Jason and Menelaus, the sweeping
statement in v. 11 notwithstanding (see NOTE there on benevolent royal
privileges), and that the king was willing to hear its delegates, confirms that
traditional Jerusalem remained in existence despite the establishment of,
and alongside, Antioch in Jerusalem. On the gerousia, see also 1:10;
11:27; 13:13; 14:3738, and, in general, H. Sefer, The Institution of the
Elders in the Days of the First Hasmoneans (PhD. diss., Univ. of Haifa,
1999/2000; in Hebrew).
case. For (of which this is the only occurrence in the Septua-
gint) see Polybius 3.21.3, 6; 22.12.1, etc.; Mauersberger, PL, 2.544.
45. when Menelaus was all but lost, he promised. For our authors love of
last-minute reverses, see above, p. 174. For in the sense of to
be defeated, see LSJ, 1036, which refers, inter alia, to Polybius 1.62.6.
Ptolemy son of Dorymenes. The fact that this is his first appearance but
he is mentioned, nevertheless, with neither one (as e.g. 3:4; 4:40; 10:11;
14:3) nor words of identification (as e.g. 5:22 or 13:21) seems to be a result
of careless abridging. This Ptolemy is mentioned at 1 Maccabees 3:38 as a
Seleucid officer. There are those who would identify him with Ptolemy, the
governor of Coele Syria and Phoenicia mentioned at 8:8, but see our
NOTE ad loc. For more prosopographical detail and options in this connec-
tion, see Cotton and Wrrle, Seleukos IV to Heliodoros, 200201. The
authors claim that the bribe was not given directly to the king but, rather,
to a courtier who could influence the king, is quite an efficient one from the
point of view of apologetic historiography, for accusing the king himself
threatens the very basis of existence under foreign rule; Where conflict
does occur it is inevitably8 blamed not upon the king himself but upon
8 This goes a bit too far; some rare cases, such as that of Antiochus Epiphanes later in
our book, and of Gaius Caligula, were too egregious to be avoided, and in those cases
the option was at least to let some respectable underlings such as Ptolemy Macron
(10:12) and Petronius (Philo, Leg. 243253; Josephus, Ant. 18.279288) oppose
the king as best they can. Cf. our NOTE on 14:33, this sacred enclosure of God.
somebody else, usually his evil henchmen (Johnson, Historical Fictions,

159). See, for example, 10:1213; 14:11; 3 Maccabees 6:24 and 7:3; Letter
of Aristeas 23; Antiquities 20.182183 (only the villains bribes prevented
the ratification of the Jews claim); Philo, Legatio 160, 172, 203206. See
also NOTE on 12:2, local governors.
46. get some fresh air. Lit. refresh his spirit. The use of the verb
0 (on which see Spicq, Notes, 1.9495), which recurs at 13:11, in-
troduces an element of irony into the story: Ptolemy took the king aside as if
in order to elevate (0) his spirit/soul, but in fact misled him into the de-
basement of condemning the innocent and acquitting the guilty.
47. cause of all the trouble (5 L M). As in v. 41, it is im-

portant for the author to emphasize just where the guilt does and does not
lie. Virtually the same characterization of Menelaus recurs at his end 13:4;
see our NOTE there on the cause of all the troubles. Note that this phrase is
the opposite of a standard positive one; see NOTE on 11:19, a beneficial
agent.
sentencing to death. In ancient literature it is common to read of the execu-

tion of complainants if their serious accusations were rejected (crimen ca-
lumiae). See, for example, Deuteronomy 19:1621; Esther 7; Lucian, De
dea syra, end of ch. 28. Wellhausen once suggested (Wert, 125) that those
executed were not, in fact, merely delegates sent by the Jerusalemites to ac-
cuse Menelaus, for why he argued should the king care to hear com-
plaints about theft from the Temple of Jerusalem (als ob Epiphanes darn-
ach viel gefragt htte)?! Rather, he theorized, they had been arrested in
Jerusalem, charged with responsibility for the violence in which Lysimachus
was killed, and sent to the king for trial. Perhaps he was right, perhaps not,
but it is in any case clear that, at this point, our author still wants his readers
to believe that the good king Antiochus was interested and that the good
Jews of Jerusalem thought he was interested in defending the sanctity of
the Temple of Jerusalem.
poor unfortunates. A proleptic description; the author allows us no room to

hope that they can defeat Menelaus.
Scythians. Who were known for their cruelty and barbarity; see NOTES on
7:4, scalping him about and on 15:39, wine by itself; Strabo, Geog. 7.3.6,
p. 298; 3 Maccabees 7:5; 4 Maccabees 10:7; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.269. It has
been suggested that already Jeremiah 50:4142 (Behold, a people comes
Chapter IV 245
from the north they are cruel, and have no mercy ) refers to them. For
a passage very similar to ours, see Cicero, In Verrem 2.5.58.150: Cicero
mentions the Scythians as very barbaric people who nevertheless would be
shocked by the suffering of innocent people.
48. unjust penalty. As that suffered by Onias (v. 35).
who had spoken for the city and the populace and the holy vessels. In this
too they are similar to Onias; see v. 2. As usual, note that while the problem
concerned the Temple it is formulated as if it concerned, first of all, the city;
see above, p. 6. As for the people (2, in the genitive), Hanhart follows
the Alexandrinus and reads here the plural 2 districts, villages
or the like; he is followed by Abel, Habicht and Goldstein ad loc. But it is
difficult to see how they might fit into the story, whereas 2, as in the
Venetus and other witnesses, gives a good parallel to 15:14: for the people
and the Holy City. True, 15:14 uses another term for the people, ,
which is the usual one in 2 Maccabees, rather than #, and Habicht
(2 Macc, 224, n. 48a) depends upon this as a reason to prefer villages.
But variation of vocabulary is our authors bread and butter (see Introduc-
tion, p. 68); elsewhere he shows no interest at all in villages, and when he
does mention them, at 8:1, 6, he uses another term.
49. the Tyrians. As usual, it is important for our author to emphasize that
Gentiles too are shocked at Jewish suffering; see NOTE on v. 35, not only
Jews.
hatred of evil. Which they share with all good people, as with God Himself;
see NOTE on v. 36, joined by the Greeks out of hatred for evil.
funeral expenses. The importance of a proper burial is emphasized several

times in this book; see 5:10; 9:15, 2829; 12:39; 13:7. For the terrible and
dangerous situation of death without burial, in the ancient world, see: Prit-
chett, War, 4.235241; Parker, Miasma, 4345; Lieberman, Some As-
pects, 513530; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 118. See also NOTES on 12:39, collect ,
and on 13:7, without his
50. greed of the powerful. Our author preaches to his readers, pointing out
what a tragedy ensued because Ptolemy son of Dorymenes fell victim to
7 , greed a standard sin in Greek and Hellenistic Jewish literature.
See Spicq, Notes, 2.704706; A. Fuks, Social Conflict in Ancient Greece
(Jerusalem: Magnes & Leiden: Brill, 1984) 194195 (originally AJP 92
[1971] 5253); M. Wolter, Ethos und Identitt in paulinischen Ge-

meinden, NTS 43 (1997) 436. Note that the author refers here to the
powerful in general, abstaining from specific reference to the king; see
NOTE on v. 45, Ptolemy son of Dorymenes.
being ("=). This word, in the Greek the last in the chapter, closes the
circle begun in its first two verses: that which Simon calumniously claimed
about Oniass role is in fact true about Simons villainous brother.
conspirator against his fellow citizens. This too closes the circle opened at
the beginning of the chapter: Simon claimed that Onias was a wicked con-
spirator (v. 2), but in fact it is Menelaus who fits that description. The fact
that there the reference was to conspiracy against the state, and here it is to
conspiracy against the Jews, only reinforces the diasporan authors claim
that the two share a common interest, and that only trouble-makers and
corrupt people, on one side or the other, blur that fact; so too Philo, Legatio
159161.
Bibliography
Ameling, Jerusalem.
Bickerman, Gott, 5965.
Bringmann, Hellenistische Reform, 6696.
Cohen, The Antiochenes in Jerusalem.
Delorme, Gymnasion.
Doran, High Cost.
Doran, Jasons Gymnasion.
Elhorst, Die beiden Makkaberbcher.
Kennell, New Light.
Nagel, Rvolte et rforme.
Parente, Onias IIIs Death and the Founding of the Temple of Leontopolis.
Parente, < <.
Parente, Le tmoignage.
Schwartz, S., Hellenization of Jerusalem and Shechem.
Stern, Antioch in Jerusalem.
Stern, The Death of Onias III, in idem, Studies, 3550 (in Hebrew; originally
published in Zion 25 [1959/60] 116).
Tcherikover, HC, 152174, 404409.
Zollschan, Earliest Jewish Embassy.
Chapter V 247
Chapter V
A Military Apparition in the Sky above Jerusalem
(1) About that time Antiochus undertook his second invasion of Egypt.
(2) And it happened that all around the city, for almost forty days, there ap-
peared in the air running cavalry decked out with golden vestments, com-
panies mustered according to units, (3) and deployed troops of horses. And
there were attacks and charges of one against the other, and movements of
shields and a multitude of spear-shafts and the drawing of knives and
throwing of projectiles and the gleam of gilt equipment and of all sorts of
breast-armor. (4) Therefore all prayed that the apparition was for the good.
Jasons Putsch and Its Outcome
(5) A false rumor having arisen that Antiochus had passed away, Jason
taking with him no fewer than 1000 men made a sudden onslaught upon
the city. When those who were upon the wall were driven back and the city
already being completely taken, Menelaus fled to the acropolis. (6) Jason
mercilessly perpetrated massacres of his fellow citizens, not realizing that
success against ones kinsmen is the greatest misfortune, and supposing that
he was erecting trophies over his enemies rather than over members of his
own people. (7) But he did not gain control of the government; his conspi-
racy coming to a shameful end, he again fled and made his way to Ammani-
tis. (8) In fact, in the end his fate took a turn for the worse: accused before
Aretas, the tyrant of the Arabs, he fled from city to city, pursued by all, de-
tested as a traitor to the laws and loathed as the executioner of his father-
land and fellow citizens, until he was driven out to Egypt. (9) Thus he who
had forced great numbers (of people) from the fatherland to go abroad him-
self perished abroad, having set sail to the Spartans hoping to find shelter by
virtue of kinship. (10) And thus he who had cast forth a multitude of people
without burial was himself unmourned, having neither a funeral nor burial
in an ancestral grave.
Antiochus Rampage in Jerusalem
(11) When news of what had happened reached the king he inferred that Ju-
daea was in revolt. Accordingly, his spirit maddened like a beasts, after
coming back from Egypt he took the city at spear-point (12) and ordered his
soldiers mercilessly to smite those who fell into their hands and to cut down
those who had returned to their houses.
(13) And there was destruction of young and old,
disappearance of women and children,
slaughter of virgins and infants.
(14) In a mere three days 80,000 perished 40,000 were slaughtered in
battle and no fewer were sold. (15) Not satisfied by that, he also dared to
enter into the most sacred temple of the whole world, having Menelaus
that traitor both to the laws and to the fatherland! as his guide, (16) tak-
ing the holy vessels with his abominable hands and seizing with his profane
hands the votive offerings which had been given by other kings for the ag-
grandizement, honor and respect of the Place.
Some Authorial Reflections
(17) And Antiochus mind went soaring, for he did not see that it was due to
the sins of the citys residents that the Sovereign briefly distanced Himself
from it in anger, and that was why the Place was unsupervised. (18) 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 im-
mediately upon moving forward (into the Temple) would have been flogged
and overturned from his insolence. (19) But God did not choose the people
on account of the Place; rather, He chose the Place on account of the people.
(20) 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.
More Suffering in Jerusalem
(21) Now Antiochus, having taken 1800 talents from the Temple, hurriedly
departed to Antioch, thinking in his arrogance to make the land navigable,
and in the soaring of his heart to make the sea walkable. (22) But he left
behind officials to torment the people:
Chapter V 249
in Jerusalem Philip, who was of Phrygian descent and by nature even

more barbaric than him who had appointed him;
(23) and in Argarizin Andronicus;
and in addition to them Menelaus, who worse than the others lorded
over his fellow citizens, being of hostile disposition toward the Jewish
citizens.
(24) And he sent the Mysarch Apollonius with an army of 22,000 men,
ordering him to cut down all the adults and to sell all the women and youth.
(25) Upon arrival in Jerusalem he pretended to be peaceful, holding back
until the holy Sabbath day. Then, catching the Jews while they were abstain-
ing from labor, he instructed the men under his command to muster for
parade: (26) he then skewered all those who came out to watch the show,
and rushing with his armed men into the city they laid low great multitudes.
(27) But Judas, also known as Maccabaeus, around whom a group of
ten or so had gathered, fled to the mountains and, along with his men, lived
there in animal-like fashion, for food limiting themselves to grass so as to
avoid defilement.
COMMENT
After Chapter 4 ended at a low point, without even holding out a promise of
change,1 the present chapter begins anew with another story, turning our
view from an internal Jewish context to international events as if to say,
meanwhile, on the other side of town . Readers must assume that some-
how these international events will impact upon the local story, but just
like the Jerusalemites of v. 4 who see an apparition and do not know how to
interpret it they have to wait to discover how that will happen.
In the event, things turn out badly. First, the wicked Jason, whom we per-
haps thought we could forget, imagined Antiochus campaign to Egypt
would be a suitable opportunity for him to restore himself to power in Je-
rusalem. His attack on the city not only engendered a good bit of direct suf-
fering, but also (so our author claims) created in Antiochus mind the false
impression that the Jews had rebelled against him. Thus, although Jasons
escapade did have the salutary result of bringing about his own final down-
fall, in a typically tit for tat way (vv. 910), its major result was that it
1 That is, unlike Chs. 3 or 7, Ch. 4 ends without even an on the one hand. The
wicked Menelaus is here to stay.
brought down Antiochus attack upon the city which resulted in the
slaughter of myriads of Jews and enslavement of myriads of others, robbery
of the Temple, and the establishment of military rule in the city. Only the
mention of Judas Maccabaeus and his men, who are first and only briefly
mentioned in the chapters final verse, holds out a glimmer of hope.
In this chapter, which shows for the first time a major clash between the
Jews and their Gentile ruler, our author very explicitly propounds two main
themes, which are tightly interlocked. The first is that God runs history. The
author makes this point very heavy-handedly by the opening apparition, by
Jason getting his just deserts, and then quite explicitly in the excursus in
vv. 1720, which emphasizes (as already 4:1617) that it is the sins of the
Jerusalemites that really explain their sufferings, Antiochus being only
and unwittingly Gods agent to punish, most appropriately (as already ex-
plained at 4:1617), those sinful Antiochenes of Jerusalem. The second
theme is that the Jews rulers can have no good reason of their own to at-
tack or persecute the Jews,2 so if they do, it can be due only to a misunder-
standing (such as Antiochus impression that the Jews had rebelled), and
back to the first theme to the fact, of which they are not aware, that God is
using them to punish His people for their sins.
As for historicity: with this chapter we have come to the point where our
books story may be compared with that of 1 Maccabees (and of Josephus,
which is mostly dependent upon the latter).3 With regard to this chapter, the
comparison is not very difficult. True, we are immediately confronted by a
chronological discrepancy: we know that Antiochus twice invaded Egypt,
once in 170/169 BCE and once in the spring/summer of 168; but while
1 Maccabees 1:20, by dating Antiochus attack upon Jerusalem and rob-
bery of the Temple to 143 SE, places the episode after the first campaign, the
first verse of our chapter specifically places it after the second campaign.
Appendix 3 sets forth the reasons why our books version appears to be pre-
ferable. Other than this point, both books basically tell the same story:
Antiochus rampage in Jerusalem4 and robbery of the Temple were followed
by the appointment of Apollonius the Mysarch (v. 24//1 Macc 1:29), who
continues the persecutions.
Attention should be drawn, however, to a major contribution of this
chapter to the history of the period, against its authors will: as Tcherikover
2 Just as Chs. 34 gave several opportunities to show that the Jews are loyal subjects of
the kingdom; see 3:13, 9; 4:6, 22.
3 For a convenient tool, see Sievers, Synopsis.
4 Actually, 1 Maccabees refers to the Temple alone.
Chapter V 251
showed, several points in this chapter indicate that there was a Jewish re-
bellion in Jerusalem against Seleucid rule during Antiochus Egyptian cam-
paign, led not by Jason but, apparently, by Jewish traditionalists or
nationalists, and that it was this not some figment born out of misunder-
standing that Antiochus put down.5 See NOTE on v. 7, coming to a
shameful end. Neither the author of 1 Maccabees (a Hasmonean mouth-
piece who had no interest in reporting rebels who preceded his heroes) nor
our diasporan author (who abhors the ideas of Jewish rebels in the absence
of religious persecution) reported the rebellion an event which, however,
goes a long way toward explaining Antiochus attack upon the city reported
in this chapter, and his persecution of the Jews reported in the next one.
NOTES
5:1. About that time (, H ; ; D). Transitional phrases

such as this one allow authors to impart some appearance of continuity to
narratives which have in fact skipped to new places and themes; compare
the openings of Chapters 6, 9, 11; so too, for example, Genesis 38:1. Cf.
Schwartz, <, 246254.
his second invasion. In the spring of 168 BCE; see Appendix 3.
2. And it happened. In the nature of supernatural things, it is quite clear

that it did not just happen to happen; see NOTE on 3:2, it happened.
the city. Jerusalem, although most recently we have heard of Egypt and be-
fore that of Tyre. Cf. 4:39 and 10:27.
there appeared in the air. This is (after 3:2426) the second apparition
() of those promised in the introduction (2:21). On this appar-
ition, see Adinolfi, Questioni, 126134. Clearly it is heralding military
activity. Compare, for example, Diodorus 17.10. For other such appar-
itions, see Pritchett, War, 3.1146, along with Julius Obsequens Book of
Prodigies (in LCL Livy, 14.239319); see also NOTE on v. 4, for the good.
Note, however, that most of the Greek examples feature appearances of
5 On rebellion in other Syrian cities at the same time, see Porphyry apud Jerome on
Dan 11:4445 (CCSL 75a, 931 = FGrH 260 F56) doubted by Mrkholm (Anti-
ochus IV, 122124) but bolstered by Barag (Mint of Antiochus IV, 7075).
gods, whereas this Jewish text, of necessity, speaks only of others. For other
apparitions above Jerusalem, which as this one were ambiguous but
turned out to have presaged its destruction, see Josephus, War 6.298299;
Tacitus, Historiae 5.13.1 (GLA II, no. 281).
companies (3). So according to Abel and Habicht ad loc., as opposed

to Hanhart and Goldstein who read companies of soldiers armed
with lances. It seems that the present verse deals with units and only the
next with their weapons.
mustered (
). The word reappears in v. 25, which will also
allow the chapter to end by clarifying, cruelly, what exactly the apparition
presaged. Cf. the citations from Polybius in the next NOTE.
according to units (3). This term is found in the Septuagint only

here and at 12:2. Polybius seems to have used for units of 256 men;
see Polybius 5.5.9 and Walbank, Polybius, 1.541. For parades by units, see
e.g. Polybius 30.25, which describes Antiochus IVs military procession
at Daphne in 166 BCE, which was led by 5000 soldiers armed (*
) in Roman style, followed by Mysians (see v. 24), by Cili-
cians armed () as light infantry, etc. See also below,
NOTE on 8:9, from various peoples. On the Daphne procession, see
F. W. Walbank, Two Hellenistic Processions: A Matter of Self-Definition,
SCI 15 (1996) 125129; for its date in 166 BCE, see ibid., n. 39, also Gera &
Horowitz, Antiochus IV, 248.
3. shields spear-shafts. The reference is to the main weaponry of the

cavalry; see Bar-Kochva, JM, 11.
drawing of knives. On the basis of some textual witnesses, and along with
Grimm, Abel, Habicht and Goldstein, but contrary to Hanhart, we have
moved these words ( ) to here from the opening of v. 3.
This restores order: first the units, then their movements, then their
weapons. We translated according to classical usage, knife, al-
though it could mean sword; see LSJ, 1085; Mauersberger, PL, 4.1514. Our
author has other words for swords; see NOTE on 15:15, broadsword.
throwing of projectiles (# ). Perhaps this refers to spears (al-

though 15:11 uses ); on them, see Walbank, Polybius, 1.704705.
For an illustration of a Thracian cavalryman preparing to throw a short
spear, see Bar-Kochva, JM, 576.
Chapter V 253
gleam of gilt equipment. For this motif in Greek literature, see 1 Macca-
bees 6:39; Gera, Battle of Beth Zachariah, 2731.
breast-armor. This is the only reference given s.v. in LSJ, 813.6
On breast-armor, see Walbank, Polybius, 2.281282.
4. prayed. Lit. asked, but whom but God could they ask? For the use of
07 for prayer, cf. 8:14, 29; 10:4, 16, 26; 12:42; Letter of Aristeas 245;
CII 725a-b (see NOTE on 3:20, hands stretched out to heaven); BDAG, 94.
for the good. But to find out the reader will have to wait until v. 25. The
motif of ambiguous oracles and apparitions was widespread in antiquity.
See, for example, Herodotus 1.53, 74; Diodorus 17.41.56; Cicero, De
Divinatione 2.56.115116; Josephus, War 6.312313; Tacitus, Histories
5.13.12 (GLA II, no. 281); Suetonius, Vespasian 4.5 (GLA II, no. 312);
Lieberman, Hellenism, 198199 (who cites, inter alia, Cicero op. cit. and
Esther Rabba on Esther 3:14: the Gentiles have ambiguous prophecies and
do not know whether they mean they will be killed or kill).
5. false rumor that Antiochus had passed away. For the phrase, see
NOTE on 4:7, When Seleucus passed away. What caused this false
rumor? It is likely that it arose out of the high-handed manner in which
the Roman envoy, Popilius Laenas, humiliated Antiochus and ejected him
from Egypt in the summer of 168; see Polybius 29.27. However, from
Polybius (ibid.) and Daniel 11:30 it sounds like Antiochus left Egypt
within a few days of this episode, and it is unlikely that such a short
period could have allowed both for the creation and dissemination of the
rumor, for its arrival in Palestine, and for Jasons organization of his at-
tack upon Jerusalem. Accordingly, either Antiochus stayed longer in
Egypt, or else the rumor arose earlier; rumors in wartime are rampant.
On this issue, see M. Gwyn Morgans response in Gruen, Hellenism and
Persecution, 265.
Jason. Last mentioned in flight to Ammanitis (4:26). The present story will
show that he still had supporters.
6 For the loan-word of the same meaning in Talmudic Aramaic, see A. Tal,
ThRQYH, in: Studies in Rabbinic Literature, Bible, and Jewish History (ed. Y. D.
Gilat, Ch. Levine & Z. M. Rabinowitz; Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan Univ., 1982) 256260
(in Hebrew).
those who were upon the wall. We are not told for whom they were fight-
ing, but the authors wrath about their death, in the next verse, shows they
were not Menelaus men; see NOTE on v. 7, coming to a shameful end. As
for Jerusalems walls in this period, which were apparently still where Nehe-
miah erected them (Neh 34; Sir 49:13), there are various views; see Levine,
Jerusalem, 2326.
Menelaus fled (). On the text and translation, see our NOTE
on 14:14, who had fled before Judas.
to the acropolis. The Temple Mount? See NOTE on 4:12, directly beneath
the acropolis.
6. fellow citizens. The usual term; see above, p. 6, n. 9.
not realizing. See on 4:6, folly.
kinsmen own people ( ). As opposed to fellow

citizens, these terms view the Jews as people who share a common descent.
This apparently intensified the pathos of the matter in our authors eyes; so
too 15:18. See also NOTE on 12:5, the members of his people.
greatest misfortune. As in the case of Onias murder (the man 4:35),

our author prefers to formulate his principles universally. This shows him to
be more cosmopolitan than a later colleague from Jerusalem, who noted
that it is forbidden to us to take up arms against the members of our own
people; Josephus, Vita 26. See also Antiquities 6.82.
erecting trophies. On the Greek , mentioned also at 15:6, see Prit-

chett, War, 2.246275; A. H. Jackson, Hoplites and the Gods: The Dedi-
cation of Captured Arms and Armour, in: Hanson, Hoplites, 228249. To
our authors words here compare esp. Jocastas in Euripides Phoenician
Women, lines 568ff.: in attempting to dissuade her son from attacking his
native city, she ironically asks him what type of trophy he would like to
erect and what inscription he would display upon it. Cf. above, p. 65.
7. government. The high priesthood and all that it entailed; see 4:10, con-
trol of the government.
coming to a shameful end. We are not told who overcame Jason. But if
Menelaus was still cowering in the acropolis (v. 5), and if Antiochus not
Chapter V 255
only from afar but even when he arrived at Jerusalem heard rumors that
the city had rebelled against him and indeed had to take it by force
(vv. 1114), and if our author, who hated Menelaus, was upset about those
killed by Jason, then it seems clear, as Tcherikover saw (HC, 187188),
that there must have been beside Jasons and Menelaus contingents a
third Jewish force.7 Perhaps these Jews traditionalists or nationalists
had ruled the city since the expulsion of Lysimachus men (4:42). In any
case, it seems that these Jews had rebelled upon hearing the rumor of Anti-
ochus death and that they were the ones killed defending the city against
Jason (v. 5).
to Ammanitis. As before (4:26). Note that the Tobiads lived there; given
their Ptolemaic ties, it is significant that Jason is said to have continued on
to Egypt. Especially against the backdrop of the recently completed Sixth
Syrian War, it is not difficult to understand these moves on the part of a
refugee from Antiochus. However, we should also note the remarkable
similarity between Jason, as depicted here, and Ishmael son of Netania, the
leader of those who assassinated Gedalia son of Ahiqam, the Babylonian
governor of Jerusalem: after murdering eighty Israelite pilgrims he fled to
the Ammonites (Jer 41:115). Could our author have seen Menelaus as
something of a latter-day Gedalia, and Jason as Ishmael?
8. accused ("). For this reading, see Habicht, 2 Macc, 225, n. 8b,
also Nestle, Einiges, 22. It seems that Jason wasnt allowed to remain in
Ammanitis due to a complaint and extradition request on the part of Anti-
ochus or some Seleucid official. On extradition in the Hellenistic world,
see apropos of 1 Maccabees 15:21 Rappaport, Extradition Clause,
esp. 274.
Aretas. Apparently the first of that name, king of the Nabataeans. This
verse used to be the earliest evidence for a Nabataean king, but now there is
earlier epigraphic evidence; see Goldstein, 2 Macc, 255256, and R. Wen-
ning, Eine neuerstellte Liste der nabatischen Dynastie, Boreas 16 (1993)
2729.
7 The fact that Tcherikover made his discovery around the Israeli War of Independence
(and first published his reconstruction a few years after it (in [Eshkolot] 1
[1953/54] 86109 [in Hebrew]) may help explain what opened his eyes to the possi-
bility of a Jewish rebellion not in reaction to religious persecution. But it in no way
vitiates his observations which, in retrospect, seem quite obvious.
tyrant. For the use of this title for local rulers in this region, possibly with-
out the pejorative connotation it frequently has (as at 4:25 and 7:27), see
e.g. Josephus, Antiquities 13.235, 324; 14.40, 297; Strabo, Geog. 16.2.7
(fin) and 16.2.8 (fin); Berve, Tyrannis 1.432434.
Arabs. See on 12:10, Arabs.
laws fatherland. For this shorthand way of summarizing what our story
is all about, compare v. 15 and 8:21; 13:11, 14.
executioner. The literal meaning of 2 is merely [official] of the

people, but it came to apply particularly to executioners; so too 7:29.
driven out to Egypt. The verb (throw out) in the sense of to
expel (here in the passive) is quite rare, but appears in a similar context in
the second epistle opening our book; see NOTE on 1:12, For He Himself
drove out.
9. Thus he As usual, our author has no qualms about demonstrating an

attitude contrary to the counsel of Proverbs 24:17//m. Avot 4:19: Do not
rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he
stumbles; see Introduction, pp. 7778.
who had forced abroad himself perished abroad. The Greek juxtaposes
the two and additionally uses paronomasia (07) 7) so as
to underline the poetic justice. As a matter of fact, we hear nothing specific
about those Jason exiled or left unburied (see v. 10). While it is not unlikely
that there were some, we should not put it past our author, who was a firm
believer in providential talio, to have inferred, from the way he heard Jason
died, that he must have committed such crimes.
to the Spartans kinship. According to Genesis 10, the Jews and the
Greeks descend from different sons of Noah Shem and Japhet, respect-
ively. That is, ten generations before the first Jew, Abraham, their lines of
descent were separated one from another. Nevertheless, the notion that the
Jews were related to the Spartans is known from a few Jewish Hellenistic
sources, esp. from Jonathans letter to them (1 Macc 12:523); see on this
theme Gruen, Purported Jewish-Spartan Affiliation and Stern, Hasmon-
aean Judaea, 6370 (with much bibliography). Probably the Jews liked
comparing themselves to the most disciplined of the Greeks; see esp. Josep-
hus, Against Apion 2.225231. In any case, the Spartans reply to Jonathan
Chapter V 257
(1 Macc 14:2023) does not evince much enthusiasm, and, correspond-

ingly, the present story too suggests that the Spartans did not take the no-
tion seriously. In fact, this story serves mainly as gloating irony: after deal-
ing so terribly with his true kinsmen ( v. 6) the wicked Jason
thought he could find refuge with the Spartans on the basis of some dubious
and instead got what he well deserved. For Greek epigraphic
evidence for claimed between cities and peoples, see Welles, RC,
217, and esp. D. Musti, Sullidea di in iscrizioni greche,
ASNSP, ser. II, 32 (1963) 225239.
find shelter. The use of (protection, refuge, patronage)

which recurs at 13:17, the verb at 10:30 was widespread in Ptolemaic
Greek, in both technical (legal) and general senses. See von Woess, Asyl-
wesen, 9799, 190; M. Piatkowska, La dans lgypte ptolmaque
(Wrocaw: Zaklad Narodowy, 1975), esp. 4154.
10. Thus he. Having inserted the knife at the opening of v. 9, the author
now enjoys turning it some more.
cast forth a multitude of people without burial. Something typical of the

worst villains; see 9:15. For this theme, prominent in our book, see NOTE
on 4:49, funeral expenses.
having neither a funeral nor burial in an ancestral grave. For similar gloat-
ing, see 9:28 (Antiochus Epiphanes), 13:78 (Menelaus), Psalms of Solo-
mon 2:31 (Pompey).
11. he inferred. It is of cardinal importance for our author that we under-

stand that the kings notion, although perhaps reasonable, was in fact a mis-
taken inference. On the weakness of in Koine in contrast to the
stronger to understand in Attic Greek, see Welles, RC, 325, and LSJ, 400.
(So too at 3:32: is a mistaken inference, just as Heliodorus at-
tempt to take funds from the Temple, according to Ch. 3, was the result of an
untrue report about the funds accumulated in the Temple.) Thus, according
to our author, the conflict between the Jews and their king resulted from
mere misunderstanding: an incorrect rumor that the king had died was fol-
lowed by an incorrect surmise that the Jews had rebelled. Even worse: the
king infers, here, that the Jews had rebelled (0), not realizing that
they had in fact expelled from their land the truly villainous 0,
Jason (v. 8). For similar apologetic historiography, note that Josephus has
Gaius Caligula falsely believing (7) that the Jews were about to
rebel against him (Ant. 18.302; see also ibid. 271: We will in no way
fight , and Schwartz, Agrippa, 81, n. 56). So too, b. Gittin 56a claims that
the war that culminated in the destruction of the Second Temple began due to
a villain who misled Nero into thinking that the Jews were in rebellion. Our
author, Josephus and the rabbis of the Babylonian Talmud all bespeak the
typical attitude of diasporan Jews, who attempt to convince themselves and
others that true Jews would not think of rebelling against their rulers.
spirit maddened like a beasts. As Menelaus 4:25. Our author likes to

compare ardor to bestiality, especially of the wicked (see also 9:7) but also
of the good (10:35; 12:15); in the Septuagint, (here) and
(12:15) appear only in 2 Maccabees, while ) (10:35) is found ad-
ditionally only in 4 Maccabees 12:13. See also NOTE on 9:15, bird-eaten to
wild animals ().
at spear-point (
). This expression, which recurs at 10:24,
means by military conquest; see e.g. Polybius 23.10.6; 24.13.4.
12. mercilessly (!#). As Jason (v. 6). On the topoi of capturing cities
in ancient pathetic literature, see G. M. Paul, Urbs capta: Sketch of an
Ancient Literary Motif, Phoenix 36 (1982) 144155.
smite. For the different senses of (smite, smite down, crush) see
Mauersberger, PL, 3.1422. Cf. , cut down (1:13).
returned to their houses. Lit. gone up to their houses, but 0- here, as fre-
quently, seems to refer instead to returning. On returning home from the
marketplace cf. e.g. Polybius 10.4.6: 0 0" # 0 `
, . Note also our authors usage of 0 (8:25; 9:1; 12:7; 15:28)
and 02 (9:2; 13:26) in connection with withdrawal, retreat. For the
biblical background of the phrase, see NOTE on v. 13, young and old
13. destruction disappearance slaughter. This is a good example of

our authors love for variety; see Introduction, pp. 6871. For 0,
disappearance, i.e., causing to disappear, destruction, see M. Nouhaud,
Remarques sur 0 , RP 56 (1982) 7379 (with p. 78 on the mys-
terious and tantalizing nature of the verb, used by authors to provoke the
imagination of their readers).
young and old women and children virgins and infants. This verse has
a poetic and almost Semitic style, and it seems clear that it, and the preced-
Chapter V 259
ing one, are allusions to Deuteronomy 32:25: In the open the sword shall
bereave, and in the chambers shall be terror, destroying both young man
and virgin, the sucking child with the man of gray hairs (RSV). Otherwise,
why should v. 24 distinguish between those killed outside or inside? For the
role of Deuteronomy 32 (Song of Moses) as the foundation of our books
understanding of the events it narrates, see above, pp. 2123.
14. 80,000. This number is higher than most estimates of the total popu-
lation of Jerusalem even at its apogee in the days of Herod. See: M. Broshi,
La population de lancienne Jrusalem, RB 82 (1975) 514; J. J. Price, Je-
rusalem Under Siege (BSJS 3; Leiden: Brill, 1992) 2089. In general, on
exaggerated numbers in our book, see above, p. 80.
in battle ( # .). Lit. by right of hands; see Mauersberger,

PL, 4.1663; 3 Maccabees 1:5; A. Wilhelm, B und -
(") Z, Glotta 24 (1936) 133144 (pp. 135136 on our
verse, 139 on Polybius); Jacobson, Exagoge, 196, n. 39.
were sold. On the massive enslavement of inhabitants of captured cities,

see: Pritchett, War, 5.223245 and Volkmann, Massenversklavungen. For
some Judaean examples. see Antiquities 14.120, 275 and NOTE on 8:11,
ninety slaves per talent.
15. dared (3). As Heliodorus and his retinue (3:24 -

2). The element of audacity makes the crime all the worse.
most sacred temple of the whole world. For similar phrases, see NOTE on
2:22, the temple
traitor (3). Even now, the author still finds it important to insist
upon the influence of evil advisors upon the king; see NOTE on 4:45, Pto-
lemy son of Dorymenes. For temple-robbery as a type of treason, see Xeno-
phon, Hellenica 1.7.22, who fixes the same law for both (V
); see also Josephus, Against Apion 2.263 (Socrates neither be-
trayed his city to its enemies nor did he rob any temple). For Menelaus
death, in the end, as one indeed fitting for traitors, see NOTE on 13:7, with-
out his
16. holy vessels. For temple-robbery by Antiochus IV, see NOTE on 1:14,
to cohabit with her; for temple-robbery in general, see NOTE on 4:39, rob-
bery from the Temple. The present passage, that offers only two brief words
to describe that which Antiochus took contrasting starkly both with the
long and detailed inventory in 1 Maccabees 1:21238 and with the number
of words allotted later in our verse to the general goodwill of Hellenistic
kings is an eloquent example of what does and does not interest our dias-
poran author. For similar material on his lack of interest in the Temple cult,
and comparison with 1 Maccabees, see Introduction, pp. 4648.
abominable hands. On the severity of the touching of sancta with impure

hands see, for example, Judith 10:13 along with Grintz, Sefer Yehudith,
192193. But it seems that our author does not mean to refer to some ritual
impurity, but, rather, to Menelaus wickedness; the adjective (or:
) appears in 2 Maccabees another four times (4:19; 7:34; 9:13;
15:32), and in each it is immorality which is meant; note esp. the parallelism
in 7:34: impious and most impure. For the Greek background, see
Parker, Miasma, esp. 25. For biblical and Jewish views of moral sin as pol-
luting, which in contrast to impurity resulting from physical sources
sometimes seems more metaphorical than real, see esp. J. Klawans, Impur-
ity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (New York: Oxford, 2000) and C. E. Hayes,
Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities (Oxford: Oxford Univ., 2002)
2224. As Hayes emphasizes at p. 51, our verse does not indicate that Anti-
ochus was impure qua Gentile, but, rather, that he was impure qua im-
moral.
profane hands. Similarly, Hayes emphasizes (ibid.) that this too refers not to
his being a non-Jew but, rather, to his being a non-priest; even a Jew who is
not a priest is profane (). See also Spicq, Notes, 1.186188.
votive offerings (!"). The text is according to Abel and Habicht ad

loc., apparently supported by 2:13 and 9:16. Hanhart prefers 0-
(set up, erected). However, see Josephus, War 2.413, where
dedicated objects are said to have been set up in the Temple; hence, on
both readings the meaning remains more or less the same.
by other kings. In contrast to the holy vessels, these dedications inter-

ested our diasporan author greatly, as evidence for the respect in which
others held Judaism; they were mentioned at the very start of his story (3:2).
But they are not mentioned in 1 Maccabees 1:2123, which details the
8 This observation does not depend on the identification of the two robberies as one
and the same for which we argue in Appendix 3.
Chapter V 261
cultic appurtenances which were stolen. The author of 1 Maccabees, like

the nationalist hotheads who started off the Great Revolt against Rome (Jo-
sephus, War 2.409417; see Schwartz, Studies, 102116), probably con-
sidered such gifts abominable. The dedicatory offerings stolen by Antiochus
are indeed mentioned by Josephus (Ant. 12.249); on the commonalities of
his account with that of 2 Maccabees here, see Appendix 3.
17. mind went soaring. This echoed in v. 21, which resumes the narrative
after the present excursus opens a circle which is closed only at 9:8, when
Antiochus is brought back to earth. For the notion that thought is at the
root of the problem, see our NOTE on 4:6, folly. At v. 21, it is instead Anti-
ochus heart that goes soaring.
did not see. I.e., did not understand; just as is predicted in Deuteron-
omy 32:27. Our author likes this verb; see NOTE on 2:24, For having seen.
The use of this verb, the self-conscious presentation of an historical inter-
pretation in the next verses, the reference to the Heliodorus episode, and the
very phrasing of v. 20 all these show that the present section, vv. 1720,
are our authors own reflections and not part of his source.
due to the sins. This is a major theological premise of the book; see 4:1617;
6:1416; 7:32; and above, pp. 4748.
the citys residents. The usual focus; see above, pp. 67.
Sovereign (3). A heavy epithet, used to emphasize that it is not due

to lack of ability that God failed to defend Jerusalem, but, rather, that He so
decided. The term recurs in v. 20, also at 6:14; 9:13; 15:22 (and as a verb at
14:46), in each case with reference to God. As opposed to the English des-
pot, the Greek term does not entail a pejorative nuance; see J. B. Fischer,
The Term in Josephus, JQR 49 (1958/59) 136. For the fre-
quent use of the term with regard to God in Jewish Hellenistic literature, see
Enermalm-Ogawa, Langage de prire, 126128.
briefly (
). So too the seventh martyred son (7:33). It seems that the
combination of briefly, anger and looking away (the latter two yet
to come in this verse) points to Isaiah 54:78: For a brief moment I for-
sook you, but with great compassion I will gather you; In overflowing
wrath for a moment I hid my face from you, but with everlasting love I will
have compassion on you, says the Lord, your Redeemer (RSV). See also
2 Maccabees 7:29, which refers to ingathering at the time of mercy.
But these Isaianic verses link up easily with our basic subtext here, Deute-
ronomy 32, via the shared motif of God hiding His face (Deut 32:20).
distanced Himself in anger. Reading, as all editions, 0); note

the contrast with )i at 7:33. Here we are still in the time of Gods
anger, and God turns away (thus allowing Antiochus free rein), but by 7:33
well already be moving toward reconciliation and even when angry He will
deal directly with the Jews; see above, p. 22, n. 53.
the Place was unsupervised. Lit. there was a looking away ()
from the Place. In the Septuagint, this term appears only here. It is to be
understood, first of all, against the background of our books frequent em-
phasis upon the fact that God always, providentially, looks after His
people; see NOTE on 3:39, watches over. Accordingly, we are now told
that the current situation was an exception, which requires explanation.
We may assume that here too, ultimately, the author has Deuteronomy 32
in mind (see NOTE on v. 13, young and old); this time he is thinking of its
v. 20, which has God hiding His face from the Jews, in anger; as we saw,
two NOTES above, this motif is linked to briefly by Isaiah 54:78. On
Gods hiding His face, see also Ezekiel 39:23, which underlies CD 1:3,
Tobit 3:6, 3 Maccabees 6:15, etc.; S. E. Balentine, The Hidden God: The
Hiding of the Face of God in the Old Testament (Oxford: Oxford Univ.,
1983).
the Place. See on 3:2, the Place. Here too, the reference to the sins of the
citys residents shows that the term does not allude to the Temple alone.
18. been caught up ("). LSJ (1481) cites this verse alone for
this verb.
he too. Antiochus. Some witnesses omit the too (); they are followed
by Abel and Hanhart ad loc. But as Habicht notes ad loc., the rhetoric of the
argument here seems to require it.
Heliodorus. Ch. 3. This verse shows that that chapter was in the epitome
from the outset; see above, pp. 56.
19. But God did not choose the people on account of the Place. A state-
ment of paramount importance for Jews of the Diaspora. See NOTE on
6:16, His own people.
Chapter V 263
20. disasters (
). Again our verse is the only evidence for
this word in LSJ (460). For our authors love of - words, see above,
NOTE on 3:11, villainous. Is it going too far to imagine that he liked this
one because it reminded him of the , with which he already played
at 4:12 (see our NOTE there on making submit)? In any case, it is clear
he liked it because of the contrast it affords with
benefactions (<
). The paronomasia sharpens the contrast
with the just-mentioned disasters and points us back to Gods most re-
spectable role; see NOTE on 4:2, benefactor.
All-Ruler. See on 1:25, All-Ruler.
reestablished. On see NOTE on 2:22, and reestablished
with full. is typical of our author; see NOTE on 3:1, in com-

plete peace.
21. Now (D). This alerts us to the fact that we are now reverting to the
narrative. For similar usage of plain U, see 2:16 and 7:42.
land navigable sea walkable. Miracles. The description is meant to

remind us of the classic arrogance of Xerxes, who wanted to dig a canal
through Athos and build a bridge over the Hellespont (Herodotus
7.2224,3336); for the popularity of this story, about which Isocrates ac-
tually complained (Panegyricus 89), see Lysias, Funeral Oration 29;
Aeschylus, Persians, 744748; Diodorus 11.2.4; Josephus, War 2.358;
etc.; M. Nouhaud, LUtilisation de lhistoire par les orateurs attiques
(Paris: Les belles lettres, 1982) 180181. The same characterization is re-
called at 9:8, when our author closes his accounts with Antiochus, and cf.
NOTES on 8:35, made himself as destitute , and on 9:1, disorderly re-
treat.
22. officials to torment ( D D). Epistatai are well

known as city governors in the Hellenistic world; see Holleaux, tudes
3.216219, 253254; Guraud, , xlixlvii, lxviilxxii; Lifshitz,
Culte dynastique, 7980 (there too on the verb here, see
NOTE on 4:29, left as substitute in the high priesthood). But it is no-
netheless the case that those who know their Septuagint will doubtless rec-
ognize here an allusion to the wicked Pharaoh of Exodus 1:11, who ap-
pointed officials to torment (LXX: 8 )!)
the Hebrews. In this connection, see also NOTE on v. 24, the Mysarch
Apollonius and on 6:3, onslaught of evil.
the people (). The Jews; other peoples, such as the Phrygians men-
tioned later in this verse, need be identified. Here the term applies equally to
the two components specified immediately hereinafter: Jerusalem and Mt.
Gerizim, Jews and Samaritans. The same parallelism recurs at the outset of
Chapter 6. This reflects, first of all, the kings point of view: he saw Jews
and Samaritans as part of the same people. But it seems that it must also
have been our authors position, for he made no effort, in either instance, to
distance himself from it. Such lack of opposition to the existence of the Sa-
maritan temple, which competed with that in Jerusalem, is part of our auth-
ors general lack of interest in temple cult; see above, pp. 4648.
The term , which recurs later in our verse of the Phrygians, refers
specifically to common descent; cf. NOTES on v. 6, kinsmen own people
and on v. 9, to the Spartans kinship; also on 1:10, who is of the line.
Philip, who was of Phrygian descent. On Phrygian mercenaries in the Hel-

lenistic armies, see Launey, Recherches 1.481483.
more barbaric than him who had appointed him. Antiochus; for his barbar-
ity, see v. 11.
23. Argarizin. It was common, both in Greek and in Hebrew, to write this
toponym (Har [= Mt.] Garizim/n) as one word, as here and at 6:2; see Han-
hart, 2 Macc, 26; De Bruyne, Notes, 405407; S. Talmon, Masada VI
(The Yigael Yadin Excavations 19631965 Final Reports; Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society and the Hebrew University, 1999) 142146. Talmon
tended to view the practice as typical of the Samaritans themselves; for
doubts about that, see R. Pummer, : A Criterion for Samaritan
Provenance?, JSJ 18 (1987) 1825.
Menelaus, who worse than the others. Menelaus hardly belongs here, since
these two verses are reporting new appointments. But as at v. 16 (and 4:47;
13:4) it is important for our author to emphasize that Menelaus was at the
root of all troubles just as in general he prefers to blame Jewish villains,
such as Simon, Jason and Alcimus. Therefore he inserted Menelaus here
too. See also NOTE on v. 24, and he sent.
being of hostile disposition. Several scholars link these words to the next
verse and make them motivate the sending of Apollonius; so Grimm, Abel,
Chapter V 265
Habicht and Goldstein ad loc. But to begin now to explain Antiochus be-
havior toward the Jews seems late and superfluous, and it appears that it is
rather Menelaus who is new here and the intended object of the authors
denigration. Therefore we have translated according to the punctuation in
Hanharts edition; so too Bvenot and others. For , disposition,
which appears here in the sense of attitude at 14:5 as well, see Welles,
RC, 324325; Mauersberger, PL, 2.476478.
the Jewish citizens. Various witnesses omit Jewish, and it may be that it is
indeed only a gloss. For use of plain in the sense of a Jews fellow
Jews, see pp. 5051.
24. And he sent. In context, the subject of the verb is Menelaus, but it
seems clear that the king is meant; Menelaus couldnt dispatch Seleucid
troops, and 1 Maccabees 1:29 clearly has Antiochus sending Apollonius.
This inconcinnity bolsters the suggestion that our author has added Mene-
laus into a context which originally made no mention of him; see NOTE on
v. 23, Menelaus, who worse than the others.
the Mysarch Apollonius. That is, the commander of mercenaries from Mysia
in northwestern Asia Minor; compare Cypriarch at 12:2, Lybarches
(Polybius 15.25.12; cf. Walbank, Polybius, 2.483484; Lenger, Corpus, no.
18, l. 4). On these mercenaries, see Launey, Recherches 1.436449; Wilhelm,
Zwei Epigramme, 86; cf. Walbank, Polybius, 1.605. 1 Maccabees 1:29
calls this Apollonius a tax official, which in the original Hebrew presum-
ably was sar missim; although some have supposed this reflected a misunder-
standing (some translator mistaking missim for taxes instead of Mysians),
it seems more likely that this was part of an attempt reflected in our book
too (see NOTE on v. 22, officials to torment) to compare Antiochus to
Pharaoh, who sent sarei missim to torment the Hebrews (Exod 1:11). For a
similar move, see 1 Maccabees 3:32 (and see below, NOTE on 11:1, kins-
man). Moreover, concerning 2 Maccabees we should note that for the Greek
ear, might well point to , abomination (as at 6:19, 25); see
LSJ, 1156, where indeed the word was translated originator of a foul deed;
only later, in the 1968 Supplement, p. 102, was this corrected to Leader of
the Mysians. We may suppose that just as much as Jews familiar with the
Hebrew Bible will have happily turned Mysians into oppressive tax officials,
those who preferred Greek will have happily left them their foul nuance.
Similarly, note that the various scribes who read c)
when first introducing Apollonius son of Menestheus (4:4, 21), which led the
Vulgate to read Apollonium insanire (4:4), probably enjoyed doing so.
25. pretended. On F see Spicq, Notes, 3.650657. Apollonius

treachery is also mentioned at 1 Maccabees 1:30, but there it is not con-
nected with the Sabbath. Mentioning the Sabbath here is part of a general
tendency of 2 Maccabees to emphasize the days sanctity (see also 8:2628;
12:38; 15:12), so perhaps the author inserted it here gratuitously. A. Geiger
(Urschrift, 217218, 224226) thought this was part of a general polemic
against the Hasmoneans, who had decided to allow defensive war on the
Sabbath (1 Macc 2:3941). But in the absence of any reason to think that the
author knew of that decision or particularly wanted to polemicize against
the Hasmoneans, it seems reasonable, and sufficient, to view this simply as
an emphasis on one of the central institutions of Judaism, one which func-
tioned in the Diaspora as well and aroused considerable non-Jewish interest.
See, for example, the documents collected by Josephus in Antiquities 14
(226, 242, 245, 258, 263); Philo, On Dreams 2.123; R. Goldenberg,
The Jewish Sabbath in the Roman World up to the Time of Constantine,
ANRW II 19.1 (1979) 414447; R. Kraft, Philo and the Sabbath Crisis:
Alexandrian Jewish Politics and the Dating of Philos Works, in: Pearson,
Future, 131141. On the whole topic of war on the Sabbath in Jewish an-
tiquity, see M. D. Herr, The Problem of War on the Sabbath in the Second
Temple and the Talmudic Periods, Tarbiz 30 (1960/61) 242256, 341356
(in Hebrew); Bar-Kochva, JM, 474493; L. Doering, Schabbat: Sabbathhal-
acha und -praxis im antiken Judentum und Urchristentum (TSAJ 78; Tb-
ingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1999) 537565. Note that the present incident does
not assume that the Jews of Jerusalem would abstain even from defensive
warfare on the Sabbath (as did those the author of 1 Maccabees is happy to
present as pious fools, foils for the Hasmoneans, at 2:2941). Had that been
the case, there would have been no need to trick them. Our story does as-
sume, however, quite reasonably, that the Jews were in a lower state of readi-
ness on the Sabbath. See below, our NOTE on 15:1, on the day of rest.
the holy Sabbath day. A somewhat cumbersome formulation, perhaps

meant to make sure that Gentile readers unfamiliar with the Sabbath would
know that it is holy; cf. NOTE on 7:1, forbidden flesh.
instructed. The verb appears here in its usual meaning, in

Greek in general and Polybius in particular; see A. Fuks, The Bellum Ac-
haicum and Its Social Aspect, JHS 90 (1970) 80, n. 10. Cf. NOTE on 12:5,
he gave his men instructions.
for parade. Here, finally, by the use of

(for which see Poly-
bius 11.9.4, 9), which directs readers back to v. 2 (7), the
Chapter V 267
author signals that we are about to learn the true interpretation of the ap-
parition that opened the chapter: if at first the Jews prayed the heavenly
signs would be for the good, now they acted on the assumption that they
had nothing to worry about and their fateful error will immediately be-
come apparent.
26. skewered. LSJ (1706) lists our verse alone for this verb,
(cf. 7 in 12:6) yet another item in our authors repertoire for
terms of killing; see above, pp. 6970.
27. Judas, also known as Maccabaeus. For Mattathias sons and their by-
names, see 1 Maccabees 2:1. As there, here too, and at 8:1 (his next appear-
ance), Judas byname is Maccabaeus, which apparently means hammer
(Isa 44:12; m. Kelim 29:7), whether that refers to some physical quality (see
m. Bekhorot 7.1) or, rather, to his military prowess; see Schrer, History,
1.158, n. 49 and Ilan, Lexicon, 438. Note that Judas alone is named; there
is no mention of his father or brothers, and no names are given for his com-
rades. See NOTE on 2:19, Judas Maccabaeus and his brothers. Judas is
mentioned here so as to sow in the readers heart a little hope, which will
then have time to grow before it flowers visibly in Chapter 8; compare, for
example, the way Jewish tradition ends a weekly lection with Genesis 6:8.
For the passage of time represented by Chapters 67 see NOTE on 6:18,
was being forced.
ten or so. D. Flusser (Judaism and the Origins of Christianity [Jerusalem:

Magnes, 1988] 518, n. 16) pointed to this verse as the earliest datable evi-
dence for a minyan, the quorum of ten men that defines a Jewish commu-
nity; for another testimony, of more or less the same period, see the Qumran
Manual of Discipline 6:67. That is, it may have been important for the
author to emphasize that just as flight to the hills did not entail violating
Jewish dietary laws (as the verse goes on to note), neither did it entail giving
up on communal prayer.
fled to the mountains. Some witnesses read fled to the desert and
lived in the mountains, corresponding to the juxtaposition of mountains
and desert in the same context in 1 Maccabees 2:2829; see already An-
tiquities 12.271; Habicht 2 Macc, 228, n. 27b; and J. Schwartz & Spa-
nier, On Mattathias, 268269. However, the attestation of this reading
is not very impressive, and it may be that it reflects only the assumption
based on the biblical reports about Saul vs. David and Elijah vs. Ahab
that whoever flees, in Judaea, flees to the desert; see Hanhart, Text, 20;
Bar-Kochva, JM, 198. Indeed, it may be that the tradition which adds in
desert is merely a gloss explaining that E here, although usually
meaning mountain, in fact has the rarer meaning, desert; see NOTE
on 9:28, in the mountains. In any case, it is reasonable to suppose that
Judas and his men did in fact flee to the desert, just as those described at
6:11 and 1 Maccabees 2:2829; for the argument that the desert of Sama-
ria is meant, as indicated inter alia by 15:1, see Schwartz and Spanier, loc.
cit., 252271.
in animal-like fashion ("

3). The same expression recurs in the
story of the Temples rededication (10:6). For our author, life in the moun-
tains (or desert) is the radical opposite of civilized life, which is city life; see
p. 23. For his interest in animals, see NOTE on v. 11, spirit maddened like a
beasts.
for food limiting themselves to grass. Lit.: persevering in eating grassy

food. Thus they avoided violating the Jewish dietary laws; the same sol-
ution was found by Essenes expelled from the group but still bound by their
oaths (Josephus, War 2.143) and by Jewish prisoners in Rome (Josephus,
Vita 14), as also by Isaiah himself, according to Martyrdom and Ascension
of Isaiah 2:11 (wild herbs, according to M. A. Knibbs translation in
OTP 2.158). Note also Mark 1:6, along with J. A. Kelhoffer, The Diet of
John the Baptist: Locusts and Wild Honeyin Syntoptic and Patristic In-
terpretation (WUNT 176; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). As for what
such refugees actually ate, see also M. E. Kislev, Vegetal Food of Bar
Kokhba Rebels at Abior Cave near Jericho, Review of Palaeobotany and
Palynology 73 [1992] 153609 (on ten types of fruits and nuts [both culti-
vated and wild], also grains and beans found in refuge caves); S. H. Steckoll
et al., Red Stained Bones from Qumran, Nature 231 (18 June 1971)
469470 (on madder [rubia tinctorum] roots); and A. C. Western, in: Lapp
& Lapp, Discoveries, 88.
defilement. This term, , is used by our author to denote the prac-

tical distinction between good Jews, such as those described here, and bad
ones (14:3); see also 6:2. For self-preservation from defilement in times of
persecution, see also 14:38 and 1 Maccabees 1:6263.
9 For a summary, see H. Eshel & B. Zissu in DJD 38.19.

Chapter V 269
Bibliography
Broshi & Eshel, The Greek King.

Gera, Judaea, 223226.
Mrkholm, Antiochus IV, 88101.
Schwartz, Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Jerusalem.
Tcherikover, HC, 186200.
Chapter VI
Antiochus Decrees against Judaism
(1) Not much time later the king dispatched Geron the Athenian to force the
Jews to depart from the ancestral laws and no longer conduct their civic
behavior according to the divine laws, (2) and both to defile the Temple in
Jerusalem and change its name to of Zeus Olympios, and (to change the
name of) the one in Argarizin, as the residents of the place requested, to of
Zeus Xenios. (3) And the onslaught of evil was harsh and totally vex-
atious. (4) For the Temple was filled with licentiousness and reveling by the
Gentiles, who amused themselves with whores and were intimate with
women in the sacred courts, also bringing in things which are not appropri-
ate. (5) And the altar was filled with forbidden things that the laws pro-
scribe. (6) Thus there was no way to keep the Sabbath or to observe the an-
cestral festivals, nor even simply to admit to being a Jew. (7) Under bitter
duress they were dragged off to eat the entrails of sacrifices on the kings
monthly birthdays, and when the festival of Dionysus came around they
were forced, crowned with ivy, to make processionals for Dionysus. (8) At
Ptolemys suggestion a decree was issued, calling upon the neighboring
Greek cities to adopt the same practice concerning the Jews and have them
eat the entrails of sacrifices, (9) and to cut down those who did not prefer to
go over to Greek ways.
The First Martyrs
And one could really see the suffering coming on. (10) For two women who
had circumcised their sons were hauled up (for punishment): they hung
their babies from their breasts and then, after parading them publicly
around the city, flung them down from the wall. (11) Others, who had come
together in nearby caves in order to celebrate the seventh day secretly, were
after having been informed upon to Philip burned together, in conse-
quence of their scrupulous refusal to defend themselves due to their respect
for the most august day.
Chapter VI 271
Encouragement for Readers
(12) Now I call upon the readers of this book not to be depressed due to the
sufferings, but rather to consider that the punishments were not to destroy
our nation, but, rather, to edify it. (13) 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. (14) 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 appro-
priate to handle us that way, (15) so as not to take vengeance upon us later,
after our sins are complete. (16) Therefore He never removes His mercy
from us, and while edifying us with suffering He does not abandon His own
people. (17) These things we had to say merely as a reminder. After a few
words we should return to the narrative.
Torture and Death of Eleazar
(18) Eleazar, one of the prominent scribes, a man of advanced age and
whose face had a handsome appearance, was being forced to open his
mouth and eat swine-flesh. (19) But preferring death in good repute to life
with abomination, he went to the torture-drum of his own accord, (20) spit-
ting (the meat) out taking the path which behooves all who persevere in
abstaining from those things which one is not allowed to taste due to love of
life. (21) Those who were assigned to the lawless entrails-eating took the
man aside and encouraged him since they knew him for a long time to
bring meat which it was appropriate for him to eat, which he himself had
prepared, and pretend that he was eating the portions of meat ordered by
the king, from the sacrifice, (22) so that by doing so he could escape death;
thus could he elicit humane treatment from them thanks to his long-stand-
ing friendship with them. (23) He, however, adopting an honorable argu-
ment, one which was worthy of his age, of his hoary preeminence, of the
magnificent white hair which he had come to have and of his superior de-
portment since childhood, but especially of the holy and divinely-estab-
lished legislation, immediately declared, accordingly, that they should send
him on to Hades:
(24) For it is not worthy of our age to dissimulate, of which the result
would be that many of the youth, under the impression that the nonagenar-
ian Eleazar had gone over to foreignism, (25) would themselves due to my
pretension and my short and merely momentary life go astray because of
me, and I would (thus) cause abomination and blemish to sully my old age.
(26) After all, even if now I do escape punishment by humans, neither living
nor dead will I escape the hands of the All-Ruler. (27) Therefore, passing out
of life manfully I will on the one hand show myself worthy of old age, (28)
and on the other I will leave to the youth a noble example of enthusiastically
and nobly dying the good death for the august and holy laws.
Saying that much he immediately went up upon the torture-drum.
(29) The benevolence of just a moment ago, of those who were leading
him, turned into malevolence on account of the aforementioned words,
which they thought were madness, (30) but he on the verge of dying from
the blows groaned aloud and said: It is evident to the Lord of holy
knowledge that, although I could escape death and although, being beaten,
I am suffering severe bodily pains, in my soul I suffer them gladly, out of
fear of Him.
(31) Then he passed away in this manner, leaving behind not only to
the youth, but also to the multitude of his people his own death as an
example of nobility and as a memorial of virtue.
COMMENT
In this chapter things go from bad to worse. If Chapter 5 ended with a Se-
leucid military takeover of the city,1 we now hear of decrees of persecution
against the Jewish religion. And if Chapter 5 saw our author still making an
effort to hide Jewish rebelliousness, which at that point could only have
been an expression of Jewish nationalism, now, with the onset of religious
persecution, our author can be very open about Jewish opposition. But the
opposition upon which it focuses is, as may be expected (and in complete
contrast to 1 Macc), that of the only type which is available to Jews of the
diaspora: martyrdom. Indeed, for our author it is martyrdom that works
atonement and therefore allows for reconciliation and salvation; martyr-
dom is not (as it is for 1 Macc2) part of the problem, rather it is the sol-
1 Which, as 1 Macc 1:33ff. details, led to the establishment of a military garrison; there
the author elaborates upon this extensively, even inserting a dirge to emphasize the
horror of it (1:3640). Our author, in contrast, a good diasporan Jew, says nothing
about this assertion of foreign rule, but focuses only on the infringement of Jewish re-
ligious freedom.
2 Where martyrs get only short shrift at 1:6064 and 2:3238 as foils for the Hasmon-
ean rebels, and where it is Judas heroism (3:8), not the blood of martyrs
(2 Macc 8:25), that overcomes the (wrath which, indeed, only our book
[8:5] defines as being Gods).
Chapter VI 273
ution. Thus, this chapter and the next, which constitute the central section
of the book, are also the pivot upon which it turns; they provide the turning
point which will allow (as the author assures his readers in the excursus in
vv. 1217) for the move from the downhill begun in Chapter 4 to the uphill
that will begin in Chapter 8.
Along with continuing our books usual focus upon the city, which is ex-
pressed pointedly by the infinitive that concludes the very
first verse of this chapter, and with repeating Chapter 4s contrast between
being a Jew (v. 6) and adopting Greek ways (v. 9), the main new theme
of this chapter is that suffering for ones religion is a positive and useful
thing. This is argued in three ways:
By implicit example: after characterizing Antiochus innovations in Je-
rusalem as a matter of licentiousness, whores, and things that are not
appropriate and forbidden (vv. 45), the author proceeds to relate an at-
tempt to force Jews to participate in the pagan cult (v. 7) and horror stories
about those who refused to do so (mothers killed brutally along with their
circumcised babies and Sabbath-observers killed after villains informed
upon them vv. 1011) clearly expecting us to understand that those who
died were positive models.
By explicit example: When it is Eleazars turn to suffer he gives a
speech (vv. 2428) which not only explains why he chooses death as
a martyr but also explicitly presents this as a noble example for others
to follow.
By theological argument: in his excursus in vv. 1217 the author ex-
plains that it is actually a matter of divine grace for the Jews that God
allows them to suffer as soon as they sin, rather than allow them to accumu-
late a plenitude of sins and then punish them accordingly.
As for historicity, there can be no doubt about the main claim, that Anti-
ochus issued and enforced decrees against the practice of Judaism. This is
corroborated not only by our other main source, 1 Maccabees (1:4167),
but also by such Jewish sources as Daniel (11:31ff.), the Assumption of
Moses (Ch. 8), Josephus (War 1.3435; Ant. 12.251256), as well as pagan
writers such as Diodorus 3435.1.34 and Tacitus, Histories 5.8.2; among
the Christians, Jeromes commentary on Daniel, which drew upon the
otherwise lost work of Porphyry, is especially important.3
3 For the latter, see esp. Stern, GLA 2.455475. In general, on these persecutions, see
Bickerman, Gott, 90139; Tcherikover, HC, 175203; Mrkholm, Antiochus IV,
142149; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1.283292; Bringmann, Hellenistische
Reform; and Prato, Persecuzione religiosa.
Moving to the details, our book claims there were three main elements
to the persecution: defilement of the Temple (vv. 25), prohibition of the
practice of Jewish law (vv. 1, 6, illustrated in vv. 1011), and enforced
worship of Dionysus (v. 7). The first is corroborated by several other
sources and stands at the very foundation of the festival of Hanukkah
(rededication of the Temple), and the second as well is corroborated
by a number of sources. Moreover, the persecutions are said to have ap-
plied especially to circumcision and to Sabbath worship, and since these
are among the most salient aspects of Judaism in ancient pagan sources4 it
indeed makes sense to think that they will have drawn Antiochus atten-
tion. The third element, however, worship of Dionysus, seems out of place
for a Seleucid persecution, and might be no more than the contribution of
a hyperactive imagination familiar with the Ptolemaic world; see Appen-
dix 5.
NOTES
6:1. Not much time later. A new beginning, similar to about that time
(5:1). Apparently, our author did not know or care much about the precise
chronological or causal relationship between the doings of Philip and Apol-
lonius, left ruling Jerusalem in Chapter 5, and the new events. It is usually
assumed, on the basis of 1 Maccabees 1:20 (143 SE) + 29 (two years
later) that the decrees (1 Macc 2:41ff.) were issued in 167 BCE; as we
show in our COMMENT on Chapter 10 (p. 373), while this view cannot be
derived from our book, it does explain a peculiarity of our books chrono-
logy. For the opinion that the decrees described here were in fact issued in
168, not much time later than Antiochus second Egyptian campaign, see
Bringmann, Hellenistische Reform, 25, followed by Hyldahl, Maccabean
Rebellion, 199. But their view is based on another basic approach to the
translation of years SE to years BCE; for the rejection of that approach, see
Bar-Kochva, JM, 562565.
dispatched. As with the sending of Nicanor to Judaea (14:12) with the de-
mand that he dispatch Judas immediately to Antioch (14:27), we should
understand the usage of the intensified , rather than the plain
and usual used fourteen times in our book (e.g. 4:19, 21, 23),
as an indication of intensification and urgency; compare D. R. Schwartz,
4 See the index to GLA, 3.114, 146.

Chapter VI 275
Two Pauline Allusions to the Redemptive Mechanism of the Crucifixion,

JBL 102 (1983) 261.
Geron the Athenian. This translation (and not an old Athenian or an

Athenian elder or Athenaeus the Elder) is based upon Wilhelm,
Stellen 2022, who has been followed by many, including Stern, Studies,
586; cf. Hanhart, Text, 48; Kasher, Athenians. For Antiochus special re-
lationship with Athens, which is reflected also at 9:15 (and in OGIS 248, on
which see NOTE on 4:7, When Seleucus passed away), see Mrkholm,
Antiochus IV, 5860, and Kasher, Athenians.
ancestral laws. Our author deploys here a typically Greek term: every city
had its own , and every reader of Greek knew how reprehen-
sible it was to violate or suppress them. See Renaud, Loi et lois; Kippen-
berg, Erlsungsreligionen, 206209; B. Schrder, Die vterlichen Gesetze:
Flavius Josephus als Vermittler von Halachah an Griechen und Rmer
(TSAJ 53; Tbigen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1996; pp. 207212 on 2 Maccabees).
The term is very widespread in Jewish Hellenistic literature; see e.g. 3 Mac-
cabees 1:23; Antiquities 12.267 (where Josephus follows 1 Macc 2:114
but it refers to the Temple and makes no mention of laws or of willingness
to die for them; see Gafni, Josephus and I Maccabees, 124125. See also
NOTE on 7:2, ready to die.) Given our authors desire to impress upon his
readers, even non-Jews, that what happened to the Jews is comparable to
something which could happen to them, it is understandable that it is only
after defining the Jews laws as ancestral with which all readers could
identify that he also defines them as Gods. See above, pp. 5051.
conduct their civic behavior (

). On this verb, which recurs
when the decrees are rescinded (11:25), see: Spicq, Notes, 2.718720;
P. Hermann, Epigraphische Notizen, 10: ,
EA 21 (1993) 7072. It serves to compare religious life to life according to a
municipal code; so too Antiquities 12.142 (used by Antiochus III);
Acts 23:1; Phil 1:27 (and ibid. 3:20), etc. See also Josephus, Vita 12, along
with Mason, Josephus on Pharisees, 347352. And see the quote from Eu-
menes II in Appendix 2 (p. 532).
2. to defile (). The verb is meant to remind the reader of what

Judas and his men avoided (5:27 ); for another apparent
echo of Chapter 5, see NOTE on v. 3, onslaught of evil.
Temple. For this general sense of see NOTE on 4:14, the Temple.
of Zeus Olympios. Who was revered in Athens (see NOTE on v. 1, Geron

the Athenian) but also in Seleucia, Antiochus birthplace, and in whose
honor Antiochus Epiphanes began a project uncompleted until the time of
Hadrian, but often mentioned in the ancient sources (beginning with Poly-
bius 26.1.11) to rebuild a temple in Athens; perhaps he built him others as
well. See Mrkholm, Antiochus IV, 58, 122, 130131; K. J. Rigsby, Seleu-
cid Notes, TAPA 110 (1980) 233238; Walbank, Polybius, 3.287288.
the one in Argarizin. On the toponym, see NOTE on 5:23, Argarizin. As for
the Temple there, which the Samaritans had constructed somewhat earlier,
see Y. Magen, H. Misgav & L. Tsfania, Mount Gerizim Excavations, I (Je-
rusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology [Civil Administration of Judea and
Samaria] & Israel Antiquities Authority, 2004) 36.
as the residents of the place requested. Reading . See Appen-

dix 4, where we argue that this clause is secondary, and that, in the original,
our author was equally upset about the pollution of the Samaritans Temple
as he was about that of the Temple in Jerusalem just as we would expect
on the basis of 5:2223.
of Zeus Xenios. On this epithet, see the beginning of Appendix 4.
3. onslaught of evil ( ). means to stand

on, usually in the sense of stopping; for onset LSJ (659, III) lists only
our verse and Acts 24:12. So too BDAG, 381 (top): onslaught. It seems
that our author wanted to echo 5:22, , a point ap-
parently missed by some copyists (and Glucker, Herbal Nutrition, 148),
who for some reason read (stretching, spreading out); for our
authors willingness to make such connections even at the price of strange
diction, see our NOTE on 3:35, receiving Onias.
and totally vexatious. For in the sense of totally, in all re-

spects, see also 7:5 and Mauersberger, PL, 4.17171718 (gnzlich, vl-
lig). (vexatious) reappears at 9:7, 24 and 14:45.
4. licentiousness reveling whores women. On the nature of the cult

involved, see esp. Bickerman, Gott, 90116; Tcherikover, HC, 157158;
Hengel, JH 1.294299; Stern, Studies, 583584; Millar, Background,
1820; Scurlock, 167 BCE. Bickerman, followed by Tcherikover and
Hengel, emphasized the oriental nature of the cult, linking it to Syrian gods
and assuming that the women involved functioned as sacred prostitutes;
Chapter VI 277
probably it should be linked to the Syrian soldiers garrisoned in the city. For
doubts about sacred prostitution, see Scurlock, 167 BCE, 150, n. 103;
Scurlocks doubts (viewing the reference to sexual intercourse in the sanc-
tuary as an obvious slander and the notion that sacral sex was charac-
teristic of Semitic civilizations as an unfortunate survival of 19th century
Orientalism) may be well-founded even if one hesitates to follow her own
broader theory: that Antiochus introduced Dionysiac practices into Jerusa-
lem on the notion that it was appropriate for the Jews, whom he took to be
a type of Egyptians. In any case, as Stern noted, even if this was a Syrian
cult, the Jews viewed it as Greek. Jewish sensitivity concerning this type
of activity was especially great given its introduction into the Temple; see
Leviticus 15:31; Psalms of Solomon 8:12; CD 5:67. As for our pathetic
authors inclination to use women in order to intensify feelings, see also v. 10
and on 3:19; nothing like this appears in the more prudish 1 Maccabees.
sacred courts. As in Isa 62:9; on them, see Eliav, Gods Mountain, 2122.
which are not appropriate. A usual formulation; see NOTE on 4:19, not ap-
propriate. As often (see above, p.73), here too the author lets us imagine he
knows the details but spares us as part of his epitomizing.
5. forbidden things (
). Given the next clause (that the laws pro-
scribe), this word sounds as if the author wants us to understand that these
things are not only proscribed but, rather, the law proscribes them because
they are bad; refers primarily not to what is forbidden by ordin-
ance but to violation of tradition or common recognition of what is seemly
or proper (BDAG, 24). That is, as opposed to idolatry, for example, which
the law prohibits to Jews alone (12:40), here the author wants readers to
suppose that what Antiochus imposed upon Jerusalem no civilized person
could tolerate. This way he invites even the non-Jewish reader to share in
the horror here. See also NOTE on v. 19, abomination. For the use of -
of that which the Torah forbids, here and in v. 20, cf. e.g. Josephus,
Antiquities 14.72 and Vita 26; Acts 10:28; at 3 Maccabees 5:20, the wicked
king is made to turn it on its head and uses it to describe the Jews. The Sep-
tuagint has this adjective only in 2 Maccabees (here, 7:1 and 10:34; note
also 12:14 " ) and in 3 Maccabees 5:20 another index of our auth-
ors Greek culture. See R. Hirzel, Themis, Dike und Verwandtes (Leipzig:
Hirzel, 1907); J. Harrison, Themis (London: Merlin, 19632).
that the laws proscribe (). For the translation, see NOTE
on 13:25, to annul the instructions.
6. to admit (). Although the Septuagint usually uses this verb

in the sense of giving thanks, here (as expected) it appears in its normal
Greek sense; see Tov, Greek Words, 108. Compare As. Mos. 8:12,
which refers apparently with reference to Antiochus decrees to Jews
who admitted circumcision (confitentes circumcisionem) and others
who deny (negare) it; as Tromp notes (Assumption of Moses, 217),
circumcision is not the type of thing one need confess or can deny, so the
reference is probably more generally to confessing to be Jewish, as in our
verse (which, as he notes, the Vulgate renders with the same verb: neque
se quisquam Judaeum esse confitebatur). The confession Christianus
sum was of central importance in ancient Christian martyrdom stories;
compare, for example, Justins Dialogue with Tryphon 96.2:
# $ # & . On this motif,
see G. Buschmann, Das Martyrium des Polykarp (Gttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1998) 193198. Since apart from our book it is dif-
ficult to find additional evidence for this in such an early period, or with
regard to Jews (note Buschmann, 193, n. 113 a long list of sources
that begins with our verse and then continues with Mark 14:61parr. and
Christian martyrological texts!), one might suspect that we have here,
in our book, a late motif which, given the books Christian readers and
copyists, has worked its way into our text. However, already Pseudo-
Hecataeus (late second-century BCE; see Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus),
as quoted by Josephus, Against Apion 1.191, emphasizes that Jews, when
persecuted by Persian rulers, preferred to suffer torture rather than
repudiate (" ) their patria; the verb refers clearly to verbal
repudiation and the report probably reflects the persecution by Antiochus
Epiphanes (see Bar-Kochva, ibid., 9197). Similarly, Josephus himself re-
ports, with pride, that the historical record shows that Jewish prisoners
have frequently endured torture and every sort of death in the theatres
as the price for their refusal to utter even a single word against the laws
and documents associated with them (ibid. 1.43; cf. 2.219 and War
2.152153).
7. the kings monthly birthdays. Monthly celebration of royal birth-

days is known from Ptolemaic Egypt, but only rarely from elsewhere in
the Hellenistic world, and one may wonder whether our author, familiar
with Ptolemaic realia, enriched his story with this element; see Appen-
dix 5.
festival of Dionysus. Here too there is reason to suspect that this reflects
more what a Jew familiar with Ptolemaic Egypt would expect to happen, in
Chapter VI 279
times of persecution, than with what actually happened in Seleucid Jerusa-

lem; see Appendix 5.
crowned with ivy. Lit. having ivy; the reference is to ivy wreaths (see
Grimm, 2 Macc, 111, who cites the usage of ). For ivy in the
cult of Dionysus, see 3 Maccabees 2:29 and NOTE on 10:7, wands.
processionals. For a list of thirty processionals in honor of Dionysus, here

and there in the Hellenistic-Roman world, see F. Bmer, Pompa, RE I/42
(1952) 19361943 (nos. 109138). Note however that this list, which opens
with examples from Alexandria (nos. 109110) and Athens (112117),
mentions no site in the Seleucid world apart from Jerusalem (for which only
our verse is cited no. 125); see our Appendix 5.
8. At Ptolemys suggestion (
). This is the reading
of the majority of the Greek witnesses, followed by Hanhart and Habicht
ad loc., Stern (Studies, 583), Bringmann (Hellenistische Reform, 102), and
others. Other witnesses, led by the Vetus Latina, read The people of Ptol-
emais, a reading adopted by such scholars as Bickerman (Gott, 121122,
n. 6), Abel (Macc, 363364), Goldstein (2 Macc, 276278), Rappaport
(Akko-Ptolemais, 43), and Bunge (Sogenannte Religionsverfolgung).
Each reading has its pros and cons. On the one hand, the hostility of the
people of Ptolemais (Akko) to the Jews is mentioned at 13:25, and there is
other evidence for this as well (see esp. Rappaport, loc. cit.), so it would
not be surprising to hear of the citys initiative here; add to this the fact
that usually refers to a decision by a city (see our next NOTE).
On the other hand, the witnesses favoring that reading are mainly Lu-
cianic or Latin, while the main Greek tradition reads Ptolemy; see Han-
hart, Text, 4950, who suggests that that name may have been changed
into Ptolemais under the influence of the allusion, later in our verse, to
the neighboring cities. So too, note that Ptolemais has not yet been
mentioned in our book, while Ptolemy son of Dorymenes was, and there
he was seen to be hostile to the Jews (4:45). Again, it is reasonable that an
appeal to the cities of Coele Syria would issue from the capital, Antioch,
and not from Ptolemais; why should Ptolemais be involved here in such a
central way?
However, if we would read Ptolemy we must ask who actually made
the decision. Perhaps what is meant is that Ptolemy himself issued the de-
cree; so Stern, Studies, 583. But this fails to account for the use of sugges-
tion, and to judge from 4:4546 we are to conceive of Ptolemy not so
much as an office-holder who enjoys official authority as a courtier capable
of influencing the king.5 Accordingly, we would suggest that our author

means the king himself issued the decree, enlarging at the wicked Pto-
lemys urging the scope of his original decree. For such a broader usage of
, of royal decrees, Abel (Macc, 363) cites Josephus, Antiquities
13.262 and 18.69, along with LXX Esther 3:7 and 9:24. See also Goldstein,
2 Macc, 277.6 For our authors attempt to convince us that since the Jews
are of course good neighbors their difficulties with their neighbors in Pa-
lestine must have derived only from the hostility of wicked Seleucid offi-
cials, see also 8:11, 10:1415, and 12:23.
a decree (). Literally this refers to a decision arrived at by vote,

with the votes signified by small stones used as counters; cf. $ in
14:20, of a unanimous vote. See F. Quass, Nomos und Psephisma
(Mnchen: Beck, 1971). For a broader usage, as apparently intended here,
see our preceding NOTE.
was issued. For in connection with the result of a vote, see Xeno-
phon, Symposion 5.10; at Polybius 30.32.10 it seems that the verb refers
both to the arrival at the decision and to its publication. It preserves the
original image of voting stones being dropped out of a ballot box in order to
be counted.
the neighboring Greek cities. I.e., those near Jerusalem. For the decrees
applying outside of Jerusalem see also 1 Maccabees 2:15ff. (Modein
on which see below, 13:14), Antiquities 12.257ff., and Stern, Studies,
153154.
adopt the same practice. As in Jerusalem. On , see NOTE on 4:16,

those for whose ways
eat the entrails of sacrifices (). On the text here, see Habicht,
2 Macc, 230, n. 8b; for the translation Spicq, Notes, 2.812815. Accord-
ing to this verse, the meat that will be given to Eleazar should be assumed to
5 True, some have thought Ptolemy son of Dorymenes was governor of Coele Syria and
Phoenicia, but we shall argue against that at 8:8, Ptolemy, the governor of Coele Syria
and Phoenicia.
6 For criticism of this broad interpretation, see Bringmann, Hellenistische Reform,
9496. But his insistence that the word cannot mean a royal decree because the Se-
leucid chancellery would not have used the word that way is not convincing, because
the text we are interpreting is a Jewish book, not a Seleucid document.
Chapter VI 281
be from a sacrifice, although this is not underlined in v. 18. The same also
results from the comparison of v. 5 to v. 20, and from v. 21.
9. Greek ways ( #). The author sets forth the options in the
most general and polarized way, just as with Greek style at 4:10; see also
11:24. Judaism will pointedly appear as the opposite pole at 8:1 (as at
2:21 and 14:38), immediately after the martyrology which we are now be-
ginning.
one could really see the suffering. As in the Heliodorus episode (3:16), the
author is inviting us to imagine the scene and share the experience.
10. two women. Nothing can compare with the suffering of women to
spice up a story and involve the reader; cf. 3:19.
who had circumcised their sons. This probably means only that they had
had their sons circumcised. Note, similarly, that while also 1 Maccabees 1:60
refers to these women as having circumcised their sons, the next verse no-
netheless refers to the execution not only of the women and children but
also of those who had circumcised them. On the halakhic issue of women
actually performing the operation, see D. Sperber, Minhagei Yisrael, IV
(Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1995) 89, and R. Wilk, Mattathias
Enforcement of Circumcision, Sinai 115 (1994/95) 283, n. 6 (both in
Hebrew). Cf. Cacqot, Pour une tude, 132.
hung. So as to display the reason for their execution. Cf. Lieberman, Greek,
162164, who focuses upon Sifre Num. 137 (ed. Horowitz, 183184): a
woman being punished for pre-marital sexual intercourse asked to have un-
ripe figs (a metaphor for her act) hung from her neck so people would know
that she had done that and nothing worse.
from their breasts. Which were also mentioned in the Heliodorus story
(3:19), but not in the parallel to the present one at 1 Maccabees 1:61, which
(just as the midrash cited in our preceding NOTE) more prudishly has the
babies being hung from their mothers necks. On this difference between the
books, see NOTE on v. 4, licentiousness reveling whores women.
parading them. As with Andronicus; see 4:38, stripped paraded.
publicly (%). For this formulation of a demonstrative punishment,

see also 3 Maccabees 2:27 and Acts 16:37.
flung them down (). On the walls of Jerusalem, see NOTE on

5:5, those who were upon the wall. For a woman killed this way by a Se-
leucid queen, see Athenaeus 13.593 (cited by Goldstein, 2 Macc, 279). As
for the flinging of young boys from the city walls, this may well have been
calculated to remind readers of the famous death of Hectors son Astyanax,
which was often recalled in literature and drama; see F. Graf, Astyanax,
in: Brills New Pauly, 2 (ed. H. Cancik & H. Schneider; Leiden & Boston:
Brill, 2003) 212; Wifstrand, Epochs and Styles, 174175. Towards the end
of our book, a hero will throw himself down ( ) to
his death and will thus so we are to understand contribute to the sal-
vation of the city; see NOTE on 14:43, did not manage to place the sword-
stroke well. Here the villains do the throwing, but the outcome is the same;
see NOTE on 8:4, infants.
11. come together. This solidarity of the pious Jews, emphasized later in the
verse by their being burned together ( -
), contrasts pointedly with the behavior of the unnamed informers.
to celebrate the seventh day. This story too, as that of the women and their
circumcised children, is reported in 1 Maccabees at 2:2838 (caves
v. 36), which speaks of flight to the desert. Hiding in caves in the Judaean
Desert is a well-known phenomenon; see NOTE on 5:27, fled to the moun-
tains. Both books agree in reporting that those who fled were killed because
they observed the Sabbath, but (a) our book makes them heroes while
1 Maccabees 2:3941 has its heroes reject the way of these nave Sabbath-
observers; and (b) only our book says that these unfortunates left the city in
order to observe the Sabbath. Both points are part of the generally special
emphasis which our book places on Sabbath observance; see NOTE on
5:25, pretended.
having been informed upon. As in 1 Maccabees 2:31 (and Josephus, Ant.

12.272) the identity of the informers is not stated. But the very use of in-
forming, which implies a treasonous element, seems to point to Jews. As at
14:37, the use of the passive allows our author brevity and thus the avoid-
ance of an unpleasant topic; see above, pp. 7475. Apart from the few prin-
cipal villains (Simon, Jason, Menelaus, Alcimus), our author does not like
to talk about Jewish miscreants; see above, p. 49.
burned together. This detail is not found in 1 Maccabees, but does reappear
in Antiquities 12.274275, which also mentions the caves. But this need not
indicate that Josephus used 2 Maccabees; for the usual assumption that he
Chapter VI 283
did not, see above, pp. 8687. Rather, the very fact that both 1 and 2 Mac-
cabees give versions of these two stories which are basically so similar may
indicate that they circulated independently, in which case Josephus, who
grew up in Jerusalem, could have had access to this detail not only via our
book. In any case, it is the kind of detail easily supplied by experience or
common wisdom; for Josephus very personal experience with this, note
his War 3.350 (and compare, for example, his War 1.311//Ant. 14.428).
Apart from burning the refugees in a cave, attackers could also smoke
them out with fires set at their entrances; see Lapp & Lapp, Discoveries, 8
(P. & N. Lapp) and 18 (F. M. Cross). In general, for evidence on military
operations in the Judaean Desert refuge caves, see G. D. Stiebel, Dust to
dust, ashes to ashes : Military Equipment from Destruction Layers in
Roman Palestine, Carnuntum Jahrbuch 2005, 99108.
12. Now I call upon Vv. 1217, as already 4:1617 and esp. 5:1720,
constitute a well-defined enclave in which the author, here using the first
person singular, turns to his readers and explains the meaning of the events
he is recounting.
to consider (
). Our author compliments his readers, that they
are thinking people who want to have more than a superficial understand-
ing of events as they seem to appear; cf. our NOTE on 2:25, to read
readers. For the verb, compare esp. v. 23 () and 11:24; 3 Macca-
bees 4:4.
the punishments were not to destroy (' ( )

) our nation. As op-
posed to what they do to such wicked people as Menelaus (+ ,
13:6). Compare esp. 4 Maccabees 8:19, where the tyrant who tries to cajole
prospective martyrs into surrender defines the tortures as ,
whereas the true view is that the torments in fact bring about reward (ibid.
9:8).
our nation. In his authorial reflections the author makes no attempt to hide
the fact that he is Jewish; see NOTE on v. 14, concerning other peoples. In
the book itself, in contrast, he was careful to avoid this, referring to the Jews
only in the third person; although the author frequently sides with the Jews,
the only explicit self-identification as a Jew, it seems, is at 14:34.
to edify (( ). One of the most ponderous terms of the Greek

world; see esp. Jaeger, Paideia. The term recurs several times in our book:
v. 16; 7:33; 10:4. The idea, however, already appears in the Bible: for as a
man edifies his son, so does the Lord your God edify you (Deut 8:5; see
also Prov 13:1112 etc.). Note in particular that this motif is not found
in the preceding collection of authorial reflections (4:1617), where the
author speaks of vengeance; see p. 22, n. 53.
13. to bring down (). This verb serves here, as at 10:4, and
as is usual, to denote the advent of something bad; see Spicq, Notes,
2.684685.
is a sign of great benefaction. Here God is depicted as a benevolent Hellen-

istic king; on . see NOTE on 4:2, benefactor. For this type of theo-
dicy, which insists that God is exacting with those He loves (punishing them
for every little thing Wis 12:2) so as to allow atonement for their sins, see
Psalms 94:1213; Wisdom 12; Urbach, Sages, 444448.
14. concerning other peoples. Here again, as in v. 12, the author is un-
abashedly a Jew. Cf. Wisdom 12:22, which contrasts the severe punish-
ments God imposes upon others with the edifying ones () He im-
poses upon the Jews.
long-forbearingly (
*). A frequent term in the Septuagint, but
here used ironically.
until they reach the plenitude of sins. And then He totally destroys them; cf.
v. 12. For the notion, see Genesis 15:16 (the Amorites sin is not yet full),
also Daniel 8:23 (with LXX); CD 9:20; 1 Thessalonians 2:16; Pseudo-Philo,
LAB 26:13; etc.
15. so as not to take vengeance. For divine punishment as vengeance, see

NOTE on 4:16, nemeses.
16. Therefore while edifying us with suffering. The author begins to

conclude this excursus by returning to the terms of its opening verse.
He does not abandon. But in the authors preceding reflections (5:17) he

said that God does indeed, at times, due to sins, turn away from the Jews for
brief periods. As we have seen, as the book moves on it seems that the
author subtly revises his message in this regard, moving, in his explanation
of how the Jews can suffer, from God turning His face away in anger to God
chastising His people as a father chastises His sons; see NOTE on 5:17, dis-
tanced Himself in anger.
Chapter VI 285
His own people. Perhaps based upon Psalms 94:14, For the Lord will not
abandon His people, nor will He leave His inheritance, of which the first
half recurs in 1 Samuel 12:22. See also below, 7:16. It may well be that the
preceding two verses of Psalm 94 were already underlying our authors
thoughts in the preceding verses; see Goldstein, 2 Macc, 280. Note that
while our verse links the verb , abandon, to people, the
LXX of Psalms links it to inheritance. This exchange underlines how
closely our book (as opposed to its Jerusalemite editors see NOTE on 2:4,
viewed the inheritance of God) identifies Gods inheritance as His people;
see 14:15 and NOTE on 5:19, But God did not choose the people on ac-
count of the Place.
17. the narrative. At 2:32 the author used this same term, , to
refer to the body of the book as opposed to its introduction. It is usual to
interpret the present verse as if the author means that now he is returning
to the story after having given us, in vv. 1216, a brief reminder con-
cerning the theology of suffering; so, for example, Abel, Habicht and
Goldstein ad loc. However, it seems that in fact we should distinguish be-
tween the reminder, which is indeed vv. 1216, and the few words;
and that the latter are yet to come, prior to the return to the narrative.
Note that all agree that + in our verse refers to the things already
said (just as at the end of Chapter 7 refers to that which pre-
cedes it), and that all agree that , in 17b7 refers to what is to
come; the question is, whether the words / 0 , after a few words,
refer to the past or the future. To my mind it seems that their location in
17b points in the latter direction, and that if they referred to the past, they
would be superfluous and 17b could have begun simply with now. Ac-
cordingly, it seems that the author means to tell us that after he told us
these things (vv. 1216) as a reminder, he will get back to his narrative,
but only after first giving us a few words which will turn out to be the
two long martyrologies which take us to the end of Chapter 7. That is, he
is now introducing an excursus, which stands outside of the narrative; as it
were, it stands still in time and illuminates the current situation. On this
time-out, see NOTE on v. 18, was being forced. (For a similar pro-
cedure, see Josephus, Antiquities 12.137, who promises to return to his
after some extraneous material.) Our author concludes his ex-
cursus very self-consciously in the last verse of Chapter 7, and then the
story resumes in 8:1.
7 Which is the only example for this word given in LSJ, 532, s.v.
18. Eleazar, one of the prominent scribes. Scribes are mentioned occasion-
ally in literature of the Second Temple period, but it is difficult to define
them; see in general Schrer, History, 2.322325 and, on some texts of the
second century BCE, as ours: M. Himmelfarb, A Kingdom of Priests: An-
cestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism (Phildadelphia: Univ. of Penn, 2006)
1152. The sources closest to our book that mention them are Sirach 38:24
and Antiquities 12.142. Note, on the one hand, that the latter, a proclama-
tion by Antiochus III, refers to scribes of the Temple, to which we might add
that 4 Maccabees 5:4, another version of our present story, says that Elea-
zar was a priest. It has indeed been noted that the name Eleazar was typical
of priests during this period; see Stern, Studies, 97, n. 119. For allusions to
exemplary priests named Eleazar in Jewish Hellenistic literature, see Letter
of Aristeas 121ff.; 3 Maccabees 6:115; Antiquities 14.1067. These data
do not prove that our Eleazar was a priest, only that we have here a topos.
On the other hand, there is good evidence for translating
not as scribes but, rather, as officials (in the Septuagint it frequently
renders shoterim minor officials) and to see them as Levites, not priests;
see Schwartz, Studies, 89101. But that does not take us very far, because
our sources on Levites in the Second Temple period are not any better than
those on scribes; see NOTE on 1:30, And the priests sang the hymns. In any
case, what was important for our author was that Eleazar just as Razis
(14:3738) was an exemplary Jewish individual who had served in some
public Jewish role.
advanced age. According to v. 24, he was ninety. His age will function
throughout the chapter.
handsome appearance. A fact which intensifies the horror of his suffering.

And see v. 23: noblesse oblige. Compare the rabbinic story of the torture of
R. Ishmael, of whom it was said that he was among the seven most
beautiful people who ever lived and his face was similar to that of an angel
of the Lord of Hosts (Reeg, Geschichte, 62*ff.).
was being forced. The use of the imperfect, which indicates continuity, cor-
responds to the authors notice in v. 17 that we are now turning to some-
thing outside of time, a scene we can take time to observe without holding
up the narrative; for the same move, see were being tortured at 7:1. Com-
pare NOTE on 8:1, had been going in and out and around, and see P. Vil-
lalba i Varneda, The Historical Method of Flavius Josephus (ALGHJ 19;
Leiden: Brill, 1986) 171, where he shows how the timeless geographical ex-
cursus on the Galilee, in Josephus War 3.506521, fills up, from the point
Chapter VI 287
of view of the reader, the time needed to build boats a project which is
announced in 505 and completed in 522. Similarly, Josephus timeless
account of the Jewish sects in Antiquities 18.1125 allows us to feel, as it
were, the passage of time between the beginning of Quirinius census of Ju-
daea (announced at the beginning of the book) and its conclusion, which
allowed for the resumption of the narrative, at 18.26.
to open his mouth. So Hanharts edition, which we have followed here and
in v. 20, despite Katz, Eleazar. Katz correctly noted the lack of unanimity
and weakness of the textual tradition here, but his point of departure was in
fact a problem with the human logic of the story: if Eleazars mouth had
been forced open and non-kosher food inserted, as we read here, but he had
spat it out (v. 20), then the friendly appeal in v. 21 would be totally out of
place, much too late. Accordingly, Katz preferred the Latin and Lucianic
evidence which instead of open () employs a verb of being,
, which relates to Eleazars qualities listed at the opening of v. 18
(old and handsome), and instead of Eleazar spitting (), in
v. 20, has him serve as a model for others, a prototype .
Hanhart, in response (Text, 5256), pointed out how weak the textual sup-
port for these readings is and that they are easy readings, meant precisely
to solve the putative problems Katz noted. I would add that Katzs point of
departure is not very convincing, for why is it impossible to suggest a com-
promise after the failure of a direct confrontation? In fact, this way our
author intensifies his story, by having Eleazar refuse not only to eat for-
bidden meat, but even to pretend to do so (v. 20). Similarly, in b.Gittin 57b
(a rabbinic version of the story of Ch. 7, although the king is called
Caesar), when the last son (as all his brothers before him) refuses to wor-
ship idolatrously the king offers to allow him to save himself by pretending
to do so an offer which the son, as Eleazar here, refuses.
swine-flesh. According to v. 21, it was from a sacrifice; see NOTE on v. 8,

eat the entrails of sacrifices. But referring to it as swine-flesh, and not as sac-
rificial, fits our authors educational purposes, because it broadens our
story into one that underlines just how important it is, for Jews, to abstain
from eating non-kosher foods. Cf. NOTE on v. 20, taking the path which
behooves all who persevere It is interesting that our author has no prob-
lem defending the Jewish dietary laws, although elsewhere e.g. Letter
of Aristeas 144, Philo, Legatio 361 we see they were the object of scorn.
Perhaps it was especially easy to defend the abstinence from swine, for
pigs were considered abominable, or at least impure and so inappropri-
ate for sacrifice, in many parts of the ancient Near East; see J. Milgrom,
Leviticus 116 (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991) 649652; Scurlock,

167 BCE, 139142.
19. good repute (). For the importance that the Hellenistic world
attached to death with , so as to leave a good example for youths
and for future generations, see Polybius 6.54.23; 23.14.12. For emphasis
upon the Greek, non-biblical, nature of this desideratum, see Adinolfi,
Questioni, 103122.8
abomination. It seems that refers here both to moral blemish and

to the impurity of swine; cf. NOTE on v. 5, forbidden things. Note
also the parallelism in v. 25. On this term, see also 5:24, the Mysarch
Apollonius.
torture-drum (). This seems to have been a flogging block, to

which were bound those who were to be flogged, including those flogged
to death. Cf. 3 Maccabees 3:27; Vergote, Sup-
plice, 153155; E. C. E. Owen, , JTS 30 (1929)
259266.
20. spitting out (). On the text, see NOTE on v. 18, to open
his mouth. The fact that, as Katz (Eleazars Martyrdom, 120) pointed out,
the word seems to be attested only here (LSJ, 1496), does not at all show the
text is corrupt, given our books love for rare words; see Introduction, p. 67.
taking the path which behooves all who persevere Here we again clearly
see our authors educational agenda: Eleazar constitutes an example of
proper behavior, as is made even more explicit in the next verse. On mar-
tyrdom stories as boundary-marking educational tools, see M. A. Tilley,
Scripture as an Element of Social Control: Two Martyr Stories of Christian
North Africa, HTR 83 (1990) 383397, and van Henten, Martyrdom
and Persecution Revisited, 6974.
not allowed (. ). See NOTE on v. 5, forbidden things.
8 However, one need not agree with Adinolfi (ibid.) that 1 Macc 6:4346, which as-
cribes to Eleazar such a motive, is accordingly condemning him. Rather, the passage
does indeed seem to praise Eleazar (just as Judas Maccabaeus too gives thought to his
own good name 1 Macc 9:10), and is therefore among the ones that show just how
far removed 1 Maccabees is from biblical historiography; cf. above, pp. 6364.
Chapter VI 289
due to love of life. On see NOTE on 9:21, I remember with

sincere love. It seems that what is meant is that it is forbidden to taste such
things even due to love of life (Habicht: auch um der Liebe zum Leben wil-
len), i.e., in order to save ones life. For love of life as an insufficient mo-
tive for shameful behavior in order to avoid death, see esp. Valerius Maxi-
mus, Facta et dicta memorabilia, 9, Chapter 13 (De cupiditate vitae);
M. Vogel, Geschichtsschreibung nach den Regeln von Lob und Tadel: Ster-
beszenen bei Josephus und im Neuen Testament, in: Josephus und das
Neue Testament (WUNT 209; ed. C. Bttrich & J. Herzer; Tbingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2007) 537.
21. since they knew him for a long time. As Rajak notes (Dialogue,
122123), the whole scenario here becomes blatantly Socratic, recall-
ing Socrates friends in the Phaedo and the Crito, when they tell him he
must allow them to arrange for him to escape from prison.
pretend (
). They suggested to Eleazar that he do what the
wicked Apollonius had done (5:25 3), but he of course rejected
the offer out of hand (v. 24). There is a scene reminiscent of this one in the
next chapter as well, when the king asks the mother to act against her con-
science; in that case (7:2529), she is allowed, as a woman, to play a game
which the noble Eleazar could not or would not.
22. humane treatment (

,). On philanthropia, see also 14:9
(and cf. 4:11; 9:27; 13:23); Spicq, Notes, 2.922927; Schubart, Knigsi-
deal, 911; Bell, Philanthropia. Even in the midst of this terrible scene
our author does not pass up the opportunity to point out that good Gentiles
respected this exemplary Jew and tried to help him; cf. Introduction, p. 48.
23. honorable argument. On , a term which was has been the ob-
ject of much scholarly attention and which alongside the adjective
pious became the main topic of 4 Maccabees version of our story, see
Dupont-Sommer, 4 Macc, 4950. According to 4 Maccabees, he who is
characterized by ." , as are the heroic martyrs of 2 Macca-
bees 67, is beyond all physical suffering. See NOTES on v. 12, to consider,
and on 7:21, awakening her womanly reasoning power. For the precise
sense of ." , see also S. Lauer, Eusebes Logismos in
IV Maccabees, JJS 6 (1955) 170171, and R. Weber, Eusebeia und
Logismos: Zum philosophischen Hintergrund von 4. Makkaber, JSJ 22
(1991) 212234. As for honorable, , we may assume that for
our author, who put the city and its values at the center of his story, the
original derivation from 5, city, was not forgotten. See Spicq, Notes,
1.152153; Dover, Morality, 112114; and E. S. Ramage, Urbanitas:
Ancient Sophistication and Refinement (Norman, Okla.: Univ. of Okla-
homa, 1973), esp. 819 and 153160 on the Greek concept. Cf. 12:43;
14:40; and Introduction, p. 51. We should also note the usual contrast, in
Greek, between and ; see, for example, Polybius 2.35.3,
8.8.1, and the sources and discussion in Dupont-Sommer, 4 Macc, 5056.
This means that thinking is considered to be urbane while is
wild and barbaric, more appropriate for animals than people; see esp. 4:25.
Accordingly, in the present confrontation Eleazar excels as the thinking and
cultured man of the city. As for the king, in contrast, who already had a rec-
ord of animal-like behavior in attacking a city (5:11): although he is not di-
rectly contrasted with Eleazar, in the next story he is shown to be charac-
terized by rage and raw instincts; faced with dignified people like Eleazar, he
will even become 6 (7:3, 39; 9:4; cf. 14:27).
magnificent (). For magnificent white hair, see also 15:13; on the

adjective, see also Tov, Greek Words, 110118.
since childhood. Which again emphasizes that he is meant to serve as an

example for the youth; see NOTE on v. 20, taking the path which behooves
all who persevere , and cf. NOTE on 15:12, a fine and good man.
divinely-established (
) legislation. Cf. 3:15. The identification
of God as a (founder) fits in well with our authors general pres-
entation of Judaism as if it were the constitution of a city (see v. 1!), for
every self-respecting city had its revered . See W. Leschhorn,
Grnder der Stadt: Studien zu einem politisch-religisen Phnomen der
griechischen Geschichte (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1984) 334344 (on the Hellen-
istic period in general).
declared. This heavy verb () occurs in our book only here and at
15:4, in both cases introducing courageous responses of persecuted Jews
who thereby challenge those who torment them.
accordingly (
,). That is, his declaration was consistent with the
factors summarized earlier in the verse.
send him on to Hades. I.e., kill him. For a similar formulation, see 3 Mac-
cabees 5:42. In the Septuagint, Hades is usually used for the Hebrew
sheol; see van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 172, and especially Fitzmyer,
Chapter VI 291
Tobit, 307, on Tobit 13:2 (where the Greek Hades indeed corresponds to
sheol in the Hebrew text preserved in 4Q200 6:6 DJD 19.70). On Hades =
Sheol = the realm of the dead, see also Fitzmyer, ibid., 178 (on Tob 4:19),
and van der Horst, Epitaphs, 48, 115, 152. But our author had a more de-
veloped view of the afterlife; see NOTE on 12:45, in order that they be re-
leased from the sin.
24. gone over to. For such use of , of a constitutional change,
see vv. 1, 9; Renaud, Loi et lois, 5859, with references to Platonic usage,
such as Republic 550d, 569c.
foreignism. On see 4:13, where it parallels Hellenism.
25. due to my pretension and my short and merely momentary life. That is:
due to my having chosen to dissimulate in order to protect something as
worthless as that.
go astray (
*). Frequent in the Septuagint, and see 2:2 (" -
7) and 7:18.
abomination and blemish. See NOTE on v. 19, abomination.
26. neither living nor dead. The novum here is the latter: Eleazar hints that
Hades is a place where sinners are punished, an idea especially developed at
12:4345; see NOTE on v. 23, send him on to Hades.
27. passing out of (#-) life. The expression is somewhat dim, but
fits the point of the preceding verse: death is not the last word. For the same
usage (and the same implication?), see OGIS 4, lines 34: 8
9 (sic) 0 . Cf. 7:14, and the use of a cog-
nate verb at 4:7.
manfully (,). This again illustrates the books educational aim, for
it is clear that a righteous man should not himself make such a self-serving
statement; see Proverbs 27:2! It is rather our author who wants to make
sure his readers realize that such courage is praiseworthy; under the circum-
stances, there was no other mouth into which he could put the words. For
manful in our book, see also NOTE on 8:7, And the fame
worthy (.-) of old age. Just like Razis (14:42). Compare the question the
Roman governor is said to have asked R. Eliezer when he was charged with
being a min (Christian?): Should an old man like you involve himself
in such nonsense?! (t. Hullin 2:24 [ed. Zuckermandel, 503]; b. Avodah
Zarah 16b).
28. to the youth example. And the next chapter will indeed focus on
youths who followed Eleazars example.
noble nobly. In the Septuagint the various forms of appear only

in 2 Maccabees and 4 Maccabees; see H&R, 1.237. The adverb appears, as
here, another seven times in our book, and the adjective another two or
three; note also the noun in v. 31. These lexical data well reflect
Jewish Hellenstic adoption of this Greek value; on the latter see Dover,
Morality, 3335, and on its adoption, see Himmelfarb, Judaism and Hel-
lenism, 3335.
enthusiastically (
,). For numerous examples of people praised for
having served the public enthusiastically, see Skard, Zwei Begriffe, 1823
(on this adverb p. 23).
dying the good death. LSJ (187) cites our verse alone for this verb, -
another case of our authors predilection for varying his vocabu-
lary concerning killing and dying (see Introduction, pp, 7071).
29. benevolence malevolence (/ 0 ). The similarity

and juxtaposition of the words intensifies the contrast between them; for
our authors predilection for such play with prefixes, see e.g. NOTES on
4:6, providence, and on 8:36, to take care of proclaimed.
of just a moment ago. For our authors habit of pointing out how things
changed within short periods of time, see Introduction, p. 78. For the pres-
ent phrase, : , see also 3:30.
those who were leading him. The opening of this verse is corrupt in the
manuscript tradition; see Kappler, Memoria, 6163, followed by Han-
harts edition ad loc.; Risberg, Anmerkungen, 1922. But the sense
seems more or less assured. The only main question is whether we should
build upon 7, which is found in the Alexandrinus and other
witnesses and translate those who were leading him, or rather, build on
which appears in the Venetus (but in the wrong place, at
the end of the verse). The latter is a more intensive verb, taking him
away, with, as Habicht explains, the apparent implication being to be
Chapter VI 293
executed. Kappler and Hanhart take the first approach, Risberg and
Habicht the latter, Habicht translating Die aber, die ihn zum Tode
fhrten. We have followed the former approach, for until this point we
have not been told that Eleazar was to be executed, only that he was to be
tortured.
which they thought were madness. On see NOTE on 13:23, had

taken leave of his senses. The fact that the wicked thought the virtuous hero
was crazy is an ironic twist, similar to those in 7:17, 39.
30. on the verge of dying said. The martyrs last speech, before expiring,
is of course a widespread topos; see all through Chapter 7; 14:46; Diogenes
Laertius 9.27 (Zeno) and 9.59 (Anaxarchus) both of the latter in van
Henten and Avemarie, Martyrdom and Noble Death, 2627; Acts 7:56, 59;
Josephus, Ant. 19.347; etc. Especially the Socratic model should be recalled
here, although Socrates speeches were much longer as Eleazars will be-
come in 4 Maccabees. For the comparison with Socrates, see esp. van
Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 2089 and Rajak, Jewish Dialogue, 120122
(along with NOTE on v. 21, since they knew him for a long time).
Lord of holy knowledge. There seems to be no reason to attach special sig-

nificance to the use of gnosis here. Rather, it is as if Eleazar is saying as
God is my witness, that is, the holy God knows that what Eleazar says is
true.
escape death. A literal repetition of that which was offered him in v. 22.
suffering severe bodily pains, in my soul. On the coming distinction be-

tween body and soul, see NOTE on 14:38, body and soul.
fear. The use of , rather than , although the - root is so

common in our book (including such compounds as ., ;,
), has something of a Hebrew sound to it, pointing more to fear
than to urbane reverence. So too the multitude of his people in the next
verse, which sounds like the description of Mordechai in the last verse of
Esther; and in my soul gladly, just above, might reflect the Hebrew
willing soul, which in another formulation we posited for the Hebrew
original of 1:3. These Hebraisms might be added to the ones Habicht noted
for Chapter 7; see Introduction, p. 20, n. 48. But they need not be taken as
evidence for a Hebrew source; they are the type of biblicizing diction that
any Jewish writer might insert in a context like this.
31. passed away. But in contrast to Seleucid kings (4:7; 5:5; 9:28) not
finally, not from life; see NOTE on 7:14, pass away from among men.
leaving (1). In Greek this is the last word of the chapter, ending it,
and Eleazars martyrdom, with finality. For its usage in more mundane con-
texts, see NOTE on 4:29, left
not only to the youth example of nobility memorial of virtue (

2 2 3 2 ). Compare
an Athenian decision to honor the philosopher Zeno because when
youths came to seek contact with him he encouraged them to (seek) virtue
and moderation setting his own life as an example for all (# +
.: 7 7 0 " /

< = / > Diogenes
Laertius 7.10). For this sort of material in Hellenistic inscriptions see Dan-
ker, Benefactor, 437440. For historiography as literature which supplies
examples () of the behavior of good people, so that it is pos-
sible to view history as philosophy via paradigms (see Pseudo-Dionysus,
Ars rhetorica 11.398 [ed. Usener & Radermacher, 376], quoting Plato and
Thucydides), see Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 2425.
virtue. The basic meaning of , which was the central ideal of all of
Greek culture (Jaeger, Paideia, 1.15), began by referring to manliness and
courage, a sense preserved below at 10:28 and 15:17, but over time turned
more generally into a term used of the totality of good qualities: virtue.
See Jaeger, ibid., 314 and Danker, Benefactor, 318. As is often the case
with regard to words that are of such fundamental significance in the cul-
ture that produced them, translation is tricky; Danker in fact settled for
transliteration because virtue does not do justice to the emphasis on per-
formance that is frequently conveyed through use of the word arete.
Bibliography

Bunge, Sogenannte Religionsverfolgung.
Doran, The Martyr.
Doran, 2 Maccabees 6:2.
Flusser, D., Kiddush Hashem in 2 Maccabees.
Heinemann, Wer veranlate.
van Henten and Avemarie, Martyrdom and Noble Death, 6466.
Chapter VI 295
Katz, Eleazars Martyrdom.

Keel, Kultischen Massnahmen.
Millar, Background.
Prato, Persecuzione religiosa.
Rajak, Dying for the Law.
Rowley, Menelaus.
Schrer, Zu II Mcc 6,7.
Scurlock, 167 BCE.
Stemberger, Leib, 1415.
VanderKam, 2 Macc 6,7A.
Vergote, Supplice.
Chapter VII
The Mother and Her Seven Sons
(1) It also happened that seven brothers had been arrested together with
their mother and were being forced by the king, tortured by whips and
cords, to touch the forbidden flesh of swine. (2) One of them becoming their
spokesman, he spoke as follows: What do you want to ask us and learn
from us?! After all, we are ready to die and not transgress the ancestral
laws! (3) The king, losing his temper, ordered that skillets and pots be
heated up. (4) As soon as they were heated up he ordered that they cut out
the tongue of the one who had become their spokesman and, after scalping
him about in the Scythian fashion, cut off his limbs while his remaining
brothers and mother were watching. (5) Then, after he was totally helpless,
he ordered that still breathing he be brought to the fire and fried. When
the vapor had spread out considerably from the pan, together with the
mother they encouraged one another to die nobly, saying: (6) The Lord
God watches over us and is in truth becoming reconciled with us, as Moses
stated clearly in the song which face to face bears witness against us, saying,
And He will reconcile Himself with His servants (Deut 32:36).
(7) The first having passed away this way, they led up the second to
make sport of him. After they flayed the skin from his head, together with
his hair, they asked him: Will you eat rather than have your body punished
bit by bit? (8) But he, answering in the ancestral language, said forth-
rightly: No. Therefore he too suffered the next torment, like the first (of
the brothers). (9) As he was drawing his final breath he said: You,
O Avenger, free us from the present life, but the King of the cosmos will raise
us up, since we have died for His laws, to eternal resurrection unto life.
(10) After him they made sport of the third, and when his tongue was de-
manded he immediately stuck it out, also courageously extending his hands,
(11) and nobly said: I acquired these from Heaven and on account of His
laws I now look beyond them, hoping to receive them again from Him.
(12) Accordingly the king himself and those who were with him were
stunned by the spirit of the youth, who accounted the pains as nothing.
(13) He too having passed away they tormented the fourth one similarly,
torturing him. (14) On the verge of death he said the following: It is better
Chapter VII 297
to pass away from among men in the expectation of the God-given hopes of
again being resurrected by Him; you, in contrast, will have no resurrection
unto life.
(15) Thereupon they led the fifth one forward and tortured him. (16) But
looking at him he said: Since you have authority among men you do what
you want to do, although you are bound to perish. But do not think that our
nation has been abandoned by God. (17) Be patient and you will observe
His great strength, which shall torment you and your posterity.
(18) After him they led up the sixth, and when he was about to die he
said: Do not go astray idly; for we are suffering these things on our own
account, having sinned against our own God. Amazing things have hap-
pened. (19) But you, who have undertaken to fight God do not think
youll get off scot-free.
(20) The mother was exceedingly amazing and worthy of being remem-
bered well she who, after watching the destruction of seven sons on one
and the same day bore it in high morale due to her hopes upon the Lord.
(21) In the ancestral language she encouraged each of them, filled with
noble purpose. Awakening her womanly reasoning power with masculine
fervor she said to them: (22) I do not know how you appeared in my
womb, nor was it I who bestowed upon you spirit and life; it was not I who
arranged the various elements of each of you. (23) Therefore the Creator of
the cosmos, He who designed the genesis of mankind and invented the gen-
esis of everything, will in mercy return to you both spirit and life, just as you
now look beyond yourselves due to His laws.
(24) Since the youngest boy still remained, Antiochus thinking that he
was being scoffed and suspecting the reproachful voice made his appeal
not only with mere words. Rather, he also promised, by oaths, that if the
boy would turn away from the ancestral ways he would make him both rich
and enviable, making him a Friend and entrusting him with commissions.
(25) But since the youth paid him no attention at all, the king summoned
the mother and urged her to be a counselor of salvation for the boy.
(26) Since he urged her intensively, she agreed to influence her son. (27) Ben-
ding down to him she spoke to him in the ancestral language as follows,
mocking the cruel tyrant: Son, pity me, who carried you about in my
womb for nine months and nursed you for three years and brought you up
and raised you and sustained you until your present age. (28) I ask you,
child, to raise up your eyes and, seeing the heaven and the earth and all that
is in them, know that God did not make them out of existing things; and so
too did the human race come to be. (29) Do not fear this executioner.
Rather, being worthy of your brothers, accept death, so that in the Mercy I
will receive you back together with your brothers.
(30) As soon as she concluded that the youth said: What are you wait-
ing for? I will not obey the decree of the king, for I listen instead to the de-
cree of the Law which was given to our fathers by Moses. (31) But you, hav-
ing devised all the Hebrews troubles, will not escape the hands of God.
(32) For we suffer for our own sins. (33) And if for the sake of punishment
and edification our living Lord briefly became angry, He will again be rec-
onciled with His own servants. (34) But you, O impious and most impure of
all men, do not soar about prancing idly, trusting in some vague hopes, after
you raised your hand against the children of Heaven. (35) For you have not
yet escaped the judgment of the all-ruling overseeing God. (36) For our
brothers, on the one hand, after undergoing brief suffering have come into
Gods covenant of eternal life; you, on the other hand, shall in the divine
judgment incur the just punishments for arrogance. (37) As for me, just as
my brothers I give up both body and soul for the ancestral laws, calling
upon God that He speedily become merciful to the people; and that you,
after afflictions and scourging, will therefore admit that He alone is God;
(38) and that, with me and my brothers, shall be stayed the anger of the All-
Ruler which was justly loosed against our entire nation.
(39) The king, losing his temper and suffering bitterly from this sneering,
treated this one worse than the others. (40) And so he passed away in purity,
in complete faith in God. (41) The mother died last, after her sons.
(42) Let that, on the one hand, be enough said about the eating of the en-
trails of sacrifices and the tortures which exceeded all bounds.
COMMENT
This is certainly the most famous chapter of our book, whether in the orig-
inal, in translation, or in secondary versions, both Jewish and Christian, be-
ginning with the Talmud and the midrash and through the Middle Ages. In
a ruthlessly relentless way it pits seven brothers, one after the other, against
the king, who demands that they submit to his decrees; each refuses, is tor-
tured horribly, and dies nobly, all of them bespeaking their faith in God,
some of them adding in their hope to be resurrected. And it all happens in
the presence and with the encouragement of their mother, who in the end
follows them to their fate.
Coming as it does after Chapter 6, which pictured the elderly Eleazar as
an example to youth, this chapter which focuses on youths and on a
woman and thus allows Jews of all ages and both sexes to share in martyr-
dom, just as 5:13, where, under the apparent inspiration of Deuteron-
omy 32:25, they all share in the original suffering as well concludes the
Chapter VII 299
central martyrological section of the book. Its final verse carefully rounds
out both chapters, and it is followed, immediately, and as a result, by God
relenting and, hence, the beginning of redemption.
Basically this chapter complements the preceding one. It should be
noted, however, that there are two new emphases here one on the national
level and one on that of the individual.
Concerning the nation (regarding which the Eleazar narrative took no
interest), the present chapter emphasizes repeatedly that the death of mar-
tyrs causes God to become reconciled with His servants vv. 6, 16, 33,
3738. The language of reconciliation (), used in vv. 6 and
33, shows in consonance with the citation of Deuteronomy 32:36 in the
former verse that this hope builds upon the historical analysis presented in
Deuteronomy 32: sin leads to punishment, punishment leads to suffering at
the hands of a foreign oppressor (who, failing to realize that his license and
success is solely due to God, becomes arrogant Deut 32:27//above 5:17),
suffering atones and hence reconciles God with His servants, whereupon
He steps in and punishes the foreign oppressor. Thus, if already above
(5:1213, 17) we have seen our authors use of Deuteronomy 32 to illumi-
nate earlier parts of the story, he now applies it for the next step as well.
Concerning the individual martyr: while for Eleazar (as for Socrates)1 it
was simply noble to die rather than violate ones principles, now we hear,
repeatedly, that martyrs may hope for resurrection vv. 9, 11, 14, 23, 29,
36. This is one of the earliest, and certainly the most intensive, sources for
this belief in ancient Jewish texts a belief that again surfaces, with empha-
sis, at the end of Chapter 12 and in the last verse of our books other mar-
tyrology (14:46).
As for historicity: while there definitely were martyrs in the Antiochian
persecutions (see 1 Macc 1:5664; Daniel 11:3233; As. Mos. 8), no one
would claim that this story as such is anything more than a stylized didactic
narrative, perhaps deriving, ultimately, from a historicization of Jere-
miah 15:9, which refers to the unfortunate mother of seven who died the
same day they did.2 Moreover, although the story seems to transpire in Je-
rusalem and clearly has the king present, we know from Chapter 5 (and
from 1 Macc 1) that in fact Antiochus was not in Judaea; having the king
rather than some underling play the antagonist is characteristic of folklore.
1 For this comparison, see NOTE on 6:30, on the verge of dying said.
2 For the possibility that it was preceded, in turn, by yet another story, about a father
with seven sons (such as that later found in As. Mos. 9), see Nickelsburg, Resurrec-
tion, 97109.
For the speculation that the story referred, originally, to a persecution in

Antioch, see p. 19, n. 47.
NOTES
7:1. It also happened. The fact that the chapter neither links up to the
preceding one (contrast Chs. 4, 8) nor opens with a comment about the pas-
sing of time (contrast Chs. 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14) reminds us that we are still in
a timeless excursus, in which we are now, so to speak, about to view an-
other tableau. Cf. NOTE on 6:17, the narrative.
seven brothers together with (#) their mother. This picks up on the
emphasis, at the end of Chapter 6, that Eleazars death should serve as an
example for youth, the preposition setting off their mother as an addition.
But see the beginning of NOTE on v. 21, awakening her womanly reasoning
power.
by the king. Here, and in the continuation of the chapter, the king is said to be
present. Given the apparent presumption that the events are taking place in Je-
rusalem, this is a problem, for above we were told that the king had returned
to Antioch and that his decrees were enforced by various officials (5:21; 6:1;
so too 1 Macc 1:24ff). This may well indicate that our story was not composed
by our author, but was, rather, taken from an extant source. For other argu-
ments leading in the same direction, see Introduction, pp. 1920. If so, how-
ever, then it is characteristic of his interests that he took pains to make the
chapter fit in theologically with the rest of his book (see COMMENT above,
on reconciliation and resurrection), but overlooked the historical issue.
were being tortured. The imperfect is just as at the beginning of Eleazars

story, for the same reason; see NOTE on 6:18, was being forced.
to touch (#
). Some translate eat so Grimm, Bvenot, Ha-
bicht, and Goldstein ad loc., also Kellermann, Auferstanden, 20. But
touch is the normal translation, and it is also reflected in some of the
Latin versions (contingere), followed (as usual) by Abel (toucher). We
should assume that this is a bit of rhetorical intensification: the king wanted
to force them (as Eleazar) to eat the forbidden meat, but they refused even
to touch it.
forbidden flesh. On see NOTE on 6:5, forbidden things It may

be that this clarification, that swines flesh is forbidden to Jews, is just as
Chapter VII 301
the similar notes about the sanctity of the Sabbath (5:25) and the prohibition
of idols (12:40) meant for non-Jewish readers. See Introduction, p. 94.
of swine. As opposed to the preceding story, where the meat proffered to

Eleazar was sacrificial (6:21), here the reference seems to be a problem of
kashrut alone. For the educational advantages of this, see NOTE on 6:18,
swine-flesh.
2. ready to die. A typically diasporan stance: we are ready to die, not to

fight. Cf. Philo, Legatio 229230; Josephus, Antiquities 18.271; Gafni, Jo-
sephus and I Maccabees, 124125; Jossa, La storiografia giudeo-ellenis-
tica, 96; Kippenberg, Erlsungsreligionen, 206209; Schwartz, Agrippa,
81.3 But when the Jews do have soldiers, they too are willing to die: 8:21;
13:14.
ancestral laws. See NOTE on 6:1, ancestral laws. Note that apart from that
verse the present chapter (vv. 2, 24, 37) is the only part of our book which
uses this term. True, for a chapter about seven sons it might be especially
appropriate to speak about fathers, but when taken together with the
lack of all political terminology in this chapter, of the type which is so
characteristic of the book as a whole, and with other considerations, it
seems likely that this use of different concepts also reflects the use of a dif-
ferent source; see NOTE on v. 1, by the king.
3. losing his temper (6 ). This expression appears in

the Septuagint only in our book: here, v. 39, and 14:27. Note, moreover,
that our book uses it negatively, the usual sense is positive spirited,
ardent (LSJ, 507). For Antiochus as a man of , as opposed to his
philosophical victims, see also NOTE on 9:4, Borne on the wave of his
temper.
skillets and pots. For a similar description in Jewish martyrological litera-

ture (they took hold of him and put him in a gridiron and roasted him
alive), see Pesiqta Rabbati (ed. Ish-Shalom, 43, 180b; English: Pesikta
Rabbati, II [trans. W. G. Braude; New Haven & London: Yale, 1968] 761).
For Christian literature, see Dpler, Theatrum 2.538539.
3 For the typically diasporan nature of this emphasis on martyrdom, see also Yudkas
speech in Haim Hazazs The Sermon (in English in: J. Blocker [ed.], Israeli Stories
[New York: Schocken, 1966] 6686).
heated up (). For this sense of the verb, cf. Polybius 12.25.2,

where it is used, as here, in describing a tyrants instrument of torture.
4. he ordered. I.e., the king ordered, as in the next verse as well. The king is
mentioned explicitly very rarely in this chapter (vv. 1, 3, 12, 25, 30, 39),
something which points up the fact that he is, throughout, the antagonist
par excellence.
cut out the tongue limbs. In the best of Assyrian and Persian tradition;
see esp. Arrian 4.7.34, together with A. B. Bosworth, A Historical Com-
mentary on Arrians History of Alexander, II (Oxford: Clarendon, 1980)
2.4445. Thus, Antiochus is depicted as a cruel oriental despot; for a similar
report about Antiochus father, see Polybius 8.21.3 (and Walbank, Polybius
2.97). A Jew, of course, might do something terrible like this only to a
corpse, and even then, of course, only to an arch-villain: 15:33.
scalping him about in the Scythian fashion. For the fabled cruelty and general
lack of culture of the Scythians, see NOTE on 4:47, Scythians. On Scythian
scalping of their victims, reflected both in literature and in archeological
finds, see Herodotus 4.64 and R. Rolle, The World of the Scythians (Berkeley
& Los Angeles: Univ. of California, 1989) 8285. For scalping see also v. 7.
5. nobly (,). See NOTE on 6:28, noble nobly.
6. watches over us (4). A common motif in our book; see NOTE on

3:39, watches over.
which bears witness. This echoes the diction of Deuteronomy 31:19,

which explains that the Song of Moses (Deut 32) is meant to be a witness on
behalf of God against the sinful Israelites proof, if ever needed, that they
had been warned about the consequences of sin; see also vv. 26, 28. For the
central role of Deuteronomy 32 in our book, see NOTE on the end of the
present verse.
face to face ( 2,). For the immediacy indicated here, see also
Acts 25:16; BDAG, 888.
And He will reconcile Himself with His servants. This is the second line
of the LXX version of Deuteronomy 32:36; the first line (which also ap-
pears as Ps 135:14) promises that God will judge His people. That is,
taken together, the verse promises that God will judge His people and then
become reconciled with them. The promise of reconciliation reappears in
Chapter VII 303
our v. 33, in the words of the seventh son thus framing this chapter and
it also shows up again at 8:29; in both cases the fact of allusion to our verse
is clinched by the fact that the reference to reconciliation comes together,
as in Deuteronomy, with terming the Jews Gods servants (). Note
that while the present verse has , as the LXX, the allu-
sions in 7:33 and 8:29 instead use forms of ; apparently the
author, or copyists, took care to make the formal citation match the Septua-
gint version but failed to do so regarding the allusions. In general, it is clear
that it is the latter verb which our author used for reconciliation; on it,
see Porter, #, in Ancient Greek Literature. On the fundamental
importance of Deuteronomy 32 for our book, see above, pp. 2123.
7. having passed away (). But, as Eleazar (6:31), not from

life; see NOTE on v. 14, pass away from among men.
flayed the skin from his head. An apparent reference to scalping, as in v. 4.

For this type of torture, see: Herodotus 7.26; Aristophanes, Frogs 619 and
Clouds 442; Xenophon, Anabasis 1.2.8; Ten Martyrs, 52*-54*; Dpler,
Theatrum, 361367.
Will you eat (0 #). For such a formulation of a direct question,

cf. 15:3 and Grimm, 2 Macc, 121.
your body (( *) punished bit by bit ( ). Which is, quite ap-

propriately, what eventually happened to Antiochus himself, according to
9:7 (? ).
8. ancestral language. Hebrew, not Aramaic, which our book terms Sy-
rian (15:36); see NOTE on 12:37, ancestral language. As Himmelfarb
notes (Judaism and Hellenism, 37), our author could have allowed even
the most provincial of Jews to say no in Greek, so the use of Hebrew here
should be seen as an expression of defiance.
9. Avenger (#,). For this idea, see NOTE on 4:16, nemeses. For the
term, LSJ, 6061, I; Josephus, War 1.596; Antiquities 17.1. Gutman (The
Mother,31) and van Henten (Maccabean Martyrs, 167), following the pass-
ive meaning of the term (LSJ, 6061 II), take it to mean, instead, a person
whose evil deeds merit vengeance. However, that seems to conform less to
the general trend of this chapter, both implicit in its general dependence upon
Deuteronomy 32 (see opening COMMENT) and explicit (vv. 18, 3233), as
that of the book as a whole (see esp. 4:1617; 5:1720; 6:1216), which em-
phasizes that the persecutor is in fact Gods agent to punish His sinful people.
Of course, that does not make the persecutor (who is ignorant of the true
situation that allows for his success) into a good person, hence the ambiguity
of the term here. Cf. Kellermann, Auferstanden, 23: somewhat appropriately
having it both ways, he translates Verbrecher but in his note adds, in con-
nection with War 1.596, the parenthetical explanation: Rachegeist.
free (). This is precisely the reverse of the situation in Chapter 6:

there it was suggested to Eleazar that he be freed (@ v. 22) from
death by pretending to give in, and he refused to be freed (A
v. 30), while here, according to the second son, a courageous stance which
will bring about his death will in fact free him from the present life which
anyway, in comparison with eternal life, is only a pretence. For another
twist of this motif, cf. below, NOTE on 12:45, in order that they be released
from the sin. For the view of the body as an impediment to the soul, and its
Platonic background, cf. esp. Wisdom 9:15: 9 ? 7
(for the perishable body weighs down the soul), along with Win-
ston, Wisdom, 207. Cf. the Greek expression which equates A and
7 (grave and body) Plato, Gorgias 493a, etc.; S. J. K. Pearce, The
Land of the Body: Studies in Philos Representation of Egypt (WUNT 208;
Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), esp. 8587.
raise us up. For belief in resurrection in this period, see esp. Daniel 12:2 and
1 Enoch 91:10; Nickelsburg, Resurrection; Stemberger, Leib (525 on
2 Macc); Kellermann, Auferstanden (2034: commentary on Ch. 7);
Schwankl, Sadduzerfrage, 173292 (245259 on 2 Macc). See also our
NOTE on v. 14, pass away from among men. As especially Kellermann em-
phasizes, our chapter differs from Daniel 12:2 (echoed at Matt 25:46),
which has all beings resurrected and then standing in differential judgment,
in that it in consonance with its view that the righteous may escape from
their bodies (v. 9) holds that only the righteous are to be resurrected (see
esp. v. 14).4 So too, perhaps, Psalms 1:56: the wicked will not arise in
judgment for their way shall perish.
4 Stemberger (Leib, 18) argues that 6:26, where Eleazar says that if he (sinfully) gives in
to the royal decrees he will escape God neither alive nor dead, shows that sinners too
go living after their death and thus excludes the plain meaning of 7:14. But there is no
need to expect totally consistent theology from our author, nor should Ch. 6 govern
the interpretation of Ch. 7. Moreover, Eleazar was a Jew and a basically righteous
man, and his confidence in his own life after death even if he sins here and there need
not imply the same for such a thoroughly wicked person as Antiochus.
Chapter VII 305
for His laws. See NOTE on 6:23, divinely-established legislation.
10. when his tongue was demanded he immediately stuck it out (,

). See NOTE on v. 4, cut out the tongue. The willing sticking
out of the tongue was something of a martyrological topos; see, for
example, Eusebius, Martyrs of Palestine 2.3 ( "
B).
11. nobly. As in v. 5.
said. Some manuscripts of the Latin version omit this verse, but that may
only be because someone wondered how he could talk after his tongue was
cut out. But either one assumes that he managed to get the sentence in be-
fore it was cut out (after all, the cutting out is not actually mentioned in
v. 10), or one concludes that questions like that are not appropriate to lit-
erature like this. Cf. Haenchen, Acts, 172, n. 1.
from Heaven. That here this term (.) alludes to God Himself (and
not just to the place of His habitation, as in 3:39 etc.) is shown by the use of
His laws; as in v. 9, the laws are Gods. For Heaven as a way of refer-
ring to God, see also v. 34 and Urbach, Sages, 1.6971.
look beyond. Given the reference to Heaven in the first part of the verse,
it seems that 3 here means not merely ignore or despise (cf.
Spicq, Notes, 2.899900); rather, we should emphasize the opening 3
and understand that here, as in v. 23, the speaker is looking above his
own body, toward heaven. Cf. above, p. 81. For the comparison of martyrs
to ascetics, another type of religious hero who looks above his or her
body, see M. A. Tilley, The Ascetic Body and the (Un)Making of the World
of the Martyr, JAAR 59 (1991) 467479.
hoping. The use of hope in connection with resurrection recurs at vv. 14

and 20 (contrast v. 34!), and elsewhere seems to function almost as its syn-
onym; see Acts 23:6; 24:15; 26:6, and van Menxel, 7: Espoir, Espr-
ance, esp. 283295; Bons, , esp. 356360.
12. stunned. For the common motif that observers were astonished by the
fortitude of those being tortured, see e.g. Diodorus 17.107.5; Josephus,
Against Apion 2.233234; Martyrium Polycarpi 3.2 (in which connection
Buschmann [Martyrium, 118] notes that this is a traditional motif and adds
further references).
14. pass away from among men. For the translation, see Habicht, 2 Macc,
235, n. 14a. It seems that this full formulation, which adds from among
men, explains the plainer pass away used here in connection with mar-
tyrs (vv. 7, 13, 40; see also 6:31 and 14:46), in contrast to others who pass
out of life (4:7; 5:5; cf. ended his life at 9:28 and left life behind at
10:13). That is, the martyrs depart from among men alone, but they go on
living as opposed to others, especially the wicked, for whom death is the
end of life; cf. v. 9, raise us up. For the Hellenistic background of the use of
in connection with death see Welles, RC, 348; Spicq, Notes,
2.553; E. Kornemann, Zur Geschichte des antiken Herrscherkulte, Klio 1
(1901) 61, n. 1. At first the verb was used only with regard to heroes,
thought to be immortal, but in time it became equivalent to plain die; see
Stemberger, Leib, 10. The result is that when the author of a Seleucid docu-
ment wants to claim immortality for someone the mere verb does not suffice
and something must be added, as below at 11:23.
expectation of hopes. See NOTE on v. 11, hoping.
16. Since you have authority among men. That is, over men (Abel:
autorit sur les hommes), as is reflected in some of the Latin versions:
potestatem hominum. Habicht translated Macht hast Du, als ein Ver-
gnglicher, unter den Menschen , as if the point were that Antiochus
authority is limited to the time in which he is among men. But this requires
him to view the two elements of 6 // 9 H as syn-
onymous, and, furthermore, by leaving the object of power (the men Anti-
ochus rules) unspecified Habichts reading fails to prepare us well for the
next verse, where we read of Gods power over the king and his seed: the
king has power over men, but God has power over him.
although you are bound to perish (

2). For the same adjective in
the same context, see Wisdom 9:15, cited above at v. 9, free. It is frequent
in Philo; see, for example, On Dreams 2.253 (on the souls desire to pass
from the world to that which is 5); The Worse Attacks
the Better 49 (the wise man lives a life which is 5 and seems to
die to the life which is ). Cf. esp. 1 Cor 15:4255.
Do not think that our nation has been abandoned. Something which 6:16
says can never happen.
17. Be patient. There is some irony here, in that he who is being tortured
asks his tormentor to be patient. This should be understood as a threat, la
You just wait.
Chapter VII 307
observe His great strength. Just as it was seen by Heliodorus (3:28) and will
be seen by Nicanor (8:36), Antiochus (9:1112) and Lysias (11:13) a very
important point for our writer (see Introduction, p. 48).
18. Do not go astray idly on our own account, having sinned. Here the
sixth son applies the notion posited by our author in his excursus at 5:17:
Antiochus, fulfilling Deuteronomy 32:27ff., did not understand that he was
successful against the Jews only because their God was using him to punish
them for their sins. For another case of such rhetorical concern for the tor-
mentor, see 15:2. On the verb see NOTE on 6:25, go astray.
suffering. For the nuances of see L. Boreham, The Semantic

Development of , Glotta 49 (1971) 231244. In the Hellenistic
period the negative sense, suffer, came to predominate; so too here (as
also in v. 32, which repeats our verse almost verbatim). For the tendency to
use the verb even to denote death (e.g. Ant. 15.65; Acts 1:3), see BDAG,
785, 3a; it could be that this too is implied here.
Amazing things have happened (.-

). If along with
Hanhart, Abel and Goldstein we retain this parenthetical comment, its point
is that amazing things have happened to the Jews as a result of their sins.
Read this way, we must take this verse as in opposition with the next: True,
amazing things have happened (to us) , but you But it seems that such
an interpretation requires us to read quite a lot into a short text. Moreover,
note that a number of witnesses lack these words, so perhaps we should
omit them; for the suggestion that they began as a marginal note, see Katz,
Text, 1920, in the wake of De Bruyne, Anciennes traductions, xi. More-
over, as Habicht suggests (2 Macc, 235, n. 18a), it in fact seems likelier that
such a marginal note was meant to refer to the next verse, as an alternative
reading for the comment on the mother there (in which case the accenting
would have been [worthy in the feminine singular] rather than 5
[amazing things]).
19. undertaken. See NOTE on 9:2, set his hand.
to fight God. The motif of was widespread in Greek literature,

such as in Euripides Bacchae; see Gutmann, The Mother, 2931; GLA,
1.86; Nestle, Legenden; J. C. Kamerbeek, On the Conception of -
in Relation with Greek Tragedy, Mnemosyne, 4th series, 1 (1948)
271283. See also Acts 5:39 and Josephus, War 5.378. At this point the
author has not clarified how, precisely, persecuting Jews constitutes fight-
ing God. Perhaps no explanation is needed, but in any case it will be indi-
cated at v. 34 where again, as here, with reference to Antiochus having
raised his hand the Jews are characterized as the children of Heaven, that
is, as Gods protgs.
20. The mother. By turning to the mother, when we all expect to hear of the
seventh son, the author announces that the last scene will be more extensive
than all the others. Indeed, more space will be devoted to it than to all the
others combined.
exceedingly amazing and worthy of being remembered well high morale

( 82,
' 3
- /,). For
amazement at the martyrs comportment, see NOTE on v. 12, stunned, and
cf. esp. Polybius 16.30.24: the siege of Abydus was amazing ()
not so much due to the efforts of the besiegers as due to the nobility and out-
standing spirit (. see 14:18) of the besieged, who were worthy of
memory ( ) and of being passed down from generation to gen-
eration. For epitaphs on graves of Jewish women, see van der Horst, Epi-
taphs, 102113 (with p. 45 on ).
seven sons. The author hereby gives up any chance of sustaining the readers
suspense; throughout all the coming speeches, the reader knows that the
last son too will die.
on one and the same day. Lit. in the time of one day. The expression re-
curs at 3 Maccabees 4:14, and may derive, ultimately, from Jeremiah 15:9.
hopes. See NOTE on v. 11, hoping.
21. ancestral language. See NOTE on v. 8, ancestral language. But there

only one simple word (no) was said in the ancestral language, while here
we are given an entire speech and the king cannot understand it.
Awakening her womanly reasoning power masculine fervor ((

( .
9 ). Cf. 15:10: Awakening them in their
rage ( .). On , see NOTE on 6:23,
honorable argument. By having the mother become masculine, the author
inducts her into the same group as her sons, all of whom followed the manly
model of Eleazar (6:31); cf. Young, Woman, 70. But this verses notions
concerning women and their reasoning, and in what sense the mother be-
came masculine, are not at all clear. Does it assume that women have good
Chapter VII 309
reasoning power but normally lack the fervor needed to translate their
thoughts into actions? Or does it mean, rather, that their reasoning is in fact
impaired, sluggish and in need of being awakened, because of their lack of
fervor? The former notion would invite us to imagine this woman as an
intelligent woman who was normally quiet and modest but departed from
her usual limitations due to the special situation a latter-day Deborah
or Judith. But the other notion seems preferable, that is, our text seems
to echo texts like Polybius 2.4.8, where the historian explained a queens
wrong-headed policies by saying that she was following womanly reason-
ing ( M ). Such scorn for women is also
apparent in Polybius statement about Prusias II of Bithynia: He was
not only a coward, but also unfit for all suffering, in short: womanly
() in both spirit and body throughout his life (Poly-
bius 36.15); see also 2.56.9, where bad historiography is said to be full of
scenes that are ignoble and womanly (M / 7), and for
example, Josephus, War 1.59, where John Hyrcanus, overcome by emotion
and therefore unable to function, is said to have become a woman. See also
van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 234, who cites, inter alia, Philo, Legatio
319320: womens intellects are somewhat weak and cannot grasp any
mental concept but only objects of sense. See also Brown, Body and So-
ciety, 910; Dover, Morality, 98102 (referring inter alia to Euripides,
Orestes, 12041205); Eckstein, Moral Vision, 150157; R. A. Baer, Jr.,
Philos Use of the Categories Male and Female (ALGHJ 3; Leiden: Brill,
1970); D. Sly, Philos Perception of Women (BJS 209; Atlanta: Scholars,
1990) esp. 6667 (on Philos avoidance of characterizing the matriarch
Sarah as a woman, when he sets her up as an example for men Spec. leg.
2.5455); J. R. Wegner, Philos Portrayal of Women. For virility, on the
other hand, see NOTE on 6:31, virtue, and below, NOTE on 8:7, And the
fame of his manly valor. Given all of this, it is difficult to imagine our author
thinking that the perfect combination is womanly reason and masculine fer-
vor. It seems, rather, that he was of the opinion that thinking too is best
when done by men, and that what we have here is an exceptional case of a
woman attaining that masculinity. For the frequent motif in early Christian
literature that a woman saint becomes in some sense or other a man (or
even that Jesus said: every woman who will make herself male will enter
the Kingdom of Heaven [Gospel of Thomas 114, trans. Lambdin]), see
E. Castelli, I Will Make Mary Male: Pieties of the Body and Gender
Transformation of Christian Women in Late Antiquity, in: Body Guards:
The Cultural Politics of Gender Ambiguity (ed. J. Epstein & K. Straub;
New York & London: Routledge, 1991) 2949.
22. you you each of you. The second person plural is used, in light of
the statement in v. 21 that she (had) encouraged each of the sons.
spirit and life. As in the next verse, also in 14:46, although there reversed.
arranged. LSJ (410) cites apart from this verse only a single inscription as
evidence for , which literally means arrange in rhythm or
proportion. The text is reminiscent of the line in the Nishmat prayer
said on Jewish sabbaths and holidays, which refers to the bodily parts
which you distinguished within us and the spirit and the soul that you
breathed into our noses (Hertz, Authorised Daily Prayer Book, 2.418419
[my translation]).
the various elements (,). For the translation, see esp. Grimm,
2 Macc, 126, along with LSJ, 1647.
23. genesis of mankind genesis of everything. See Hanhart, Text, 4041.
look beyond. See NOTE on v. 11, look beyond.
due to His laws. See NOTE on v. 2, ancestral laws.
24. youngest. Lit. the younger ( comparative, not super-

lative). For Hellenistic use of the comparative in a superlative sense (as also
at 12:14 and elsewhere), see Mayser, Grammatik II/1, 49 (and ibid. 47 on
the nuances of ).
reproachful (:) voice. The king suspected the voice because he

couldnt understand the mothers words, which were in the ancestral lan-
guage (v. 21, as also v. 27): since the words were in a reproachful tone,5 he
thought he himself was being mocked. In fact, however, this is just a re-
flection of the kings arrogance, his assumption that he must be in the
center of things. In fact, as the readers know, the mother had ignored the
king in her words (vv. 2124), and although that ipso facto entails disre-
spect for the king, what he had suspected to be words mocking him were in
5 Some translators render the verse as if it says Antiochus suspected the voice was
rebuking; so for example Grimm, 2 Macc, 125126; Abel, Macc, 377; and van
Henten & Avemarie, Martyrdom and Noble Death, 69. But the text says, as the
RSV renders, that he was suspicious of her reproachful tone ("
3 ); so too Habicht, 2 Macc, 236 (die schmhende Stimme
beargwhnte).
Chapter VII 311
fact (so it seems) the mothers earnest urging of her sons to be steadfast.
Characterization of that as reproachful seems to imply that she was
arguing against some tendency to give in to the king an implication that
plays up the mothers role, as does this entire section of the chapter.
his appeal. This translation of is according to the context; so

too at 13:23. But note that in this chapter the same root denotes the way the
brothers (v. 5) and their mother (v. 21) encouraged one another to resist the
king. So the king turns out to be pleading a case opposite the mother: he and
she are competing with one another for the seventh son. That is, our author
is exploiting the broad semantic field of this term, which runs the gamut
from encouragement and consolation all the way to legal pleading; see the
dictionaries and also J. G. Davies, The Primary Meaning of -
, JTS n.s. 4 (1953) 3538. Note too the promise, in v. 6, that
God will become reconciled . Thus the stage is set for a
clear-cut choice between two sides: here, God and family, there the king.
For similar moves by our author, who uses the same word for the alter-
natives chosen by both conflicting and competing sides, see NOTE on 4:2,
zealot for the laws.
a Friend. See NOTE on 1:14, Friends.
commissions. For as a function, service, and esp. as a position a king

might bestow upon someone, see also 15:5; 1 Maccabees 13:37; Holleaux,
tudes 3.227228.
25. youth boy. On and see LSJ, 1163 and 1093; be-
tween the two, a teenager would seem to be indicated; cf. NOTE on v. 28,
child.
summoned counselor (# ). These words

too, as appeal in the preceding verse, contribute to the quasi-legal atmos-
phere of the confrontation. On summoning see NOTE on 4:28, sum-
moned.
27. mocking. Cf. 6:21: there Eleazar refused to mislead the Jews, but here
the mother does indeed mislead the king, thus leaving the full-fledged open
defiance to the boy. Note the irony here: at v. 24 the king thought he was
being mocked, which was not really the case (see NOTE on v. 24, reproach-
ful voice), and now, when he thought the mother was doing his bidding, she
was in fact mocking him. This king is always wrong!
cruel tyrant. Same combination 4:25.
pity me. Here the author inserts an element of suspense, letting the reader
think, for a moment, that the mother is going to ask her son to avoid mar-
tyrdom for her sake which would not only be ignoble, but also contradict
the statement that she mocked the king.
nursed you for three years. For the rabbis assumption that nursing usually
lasted two years, see m. Gittin 7:6; t. Niddah 2:24; H. Albeck, Shishah Sid-
rei Mishnah: Tohorot (Jerusalem: Bialik & Tel-Aviv: Dvir, 1959) 584 (in
Hebrew). For biblical hints of long nursing, see: Gruber, Women in the
Cult, 48, n. 10.
raised you and sustained you (

# 3 ). For the
same combination of verbs see 1 Maccabees 6:15. According to Grimm
(1 Macc, 95), the former refers more to physical care, the latter to edu-
cation. On the text here, see Hanhart, Text, 24.
28. child (). For emphasis upon the fact that this term need not in-
dicate anything about the childs age, and that elderly parents could address
even mature children this way (cf. NOTE on v. 25, youth boy), see:
G. Delling, Studien zum Neuen Testament und zum hellenistischen Juden-
tum (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970) 270280.
raise up your eyes. See NOTE on v. 11, look beyond (although another verb
is used). The continuation seems to indicate an allusion to Isaiah 40:26:
Lift up your eyes on high and see: Who created these?
the heaven and the earth and all that is in them. This is a typical Semitic,
non-Greek, formulation. See, for example, Exodus 20:11; Nehemiah 9:6;
LXX Esther 4:17c; Acts 17:24; Grtner, Areopagus Speech, 172173; Zim-
mermann, Namen des Vaters, 374. For other biblicisms in this chapter, see
p. 20.
God did not make () them out of existing things. Rather, ex
nihilo. Goldstein (2 Macc, 307315) correctly notes that this doctrine is not
set out here in a very exact form. However, our book is not a philosophical
tract, and the lack of precision is not sufficient reason to reject the exegetical
tradition which, beginning with Origen (see Introduction, p. 58), indeed sees
here the doctrine of creation ex nihilo; for more references, see Goldstein,
2 Macc, 307. The point of the analogy is that just as Gods power is dem-
Chapter VII 313
onstrated by the creation of a fetus with no participation by the fetus itself, so

too is it demonstrated by the world which too did not participate in its own
creation; such demonstrations of Gods power are meant to arouse in the be-
lievers mind the conviction that God will be able to reward him for his de-
votion. As Goldstein notes, there is a link between this belief and the belief in
resurrection, for when the body is destroyed, for example via fire as in the
present chapter, as is explicit with regard to the first son there is need for a
new creation out of nothing in order to allow for resurrection; see, on this
point, the exchange between J. A. Goldstein (The Origins of the Doctrine of
Creation Ex Nihilo, JJS 35 [1984] 127135) and D. Winston (Creation Ex
Nihilo Revisited: A Reply to Jonathan Goldstein, JJS 37 [1986] 8891).
human race. The mother bespeaks, characteristically for our author, a uni-
versal philosophy and not one that regards the Jews alone; see NOTE on
4:35, of the man.
29. executioner. See NOTE on 5:8, executioner.
in the Mercy ( 9 ). See also v. 38 and 8:5, 27. What seems to be
meant is the time of mercy, namely, the one promised at Isaiah 54:7; see our
next comment.
I will receive you back. Under the circumstances, this implies that the
mother too will be resurrected. For the mother receiving her children
back at the time of Mercy, after they had been abandoned for a short
time during which God had hidden his face in anger (see our 5:17), see
Isaiah 54:78.
30. As soon as. Hanharts text here, R, was suggested by Kappler

(Memoria, 64), instead of the 6 of the witnesses, on the basis of 9:5; 10:12;
and 3 Maccabees 6:16.
What are you waiting for? ( ). This youths words and comport-
ment remind us of Antigones stance before the tyrant Creon (according to
Sophocles play): after she explained to him that she rejects his laws because
they were given neither by Zeus nor by Justice (line 450ff.), but only by a
mortal (9 0 cf. below, 9:12), whereupon he threatened her with
torture (line 473ff.), her response at l. 499 is merely A , why
dally then? (trans. F. Storr, LCL). So too Martyrium Polycarpi 11.1: when
threatened with being burned alive the hero responds ,
But why delay?
decree of the king decree of the Law. On as royal de-

crees, see Hollleaux, tudes 3.205207 and Lenger, Corpus; as here, al-
ready the epistles use the term with regard to the laws of the Torah 1:4;
2:2. See also the use of the verb in 15:3, 5 there too in a confrontation be-
tween the Seleucid king and the heavenly One. Thus, the seventh son de-
clares his refusal to submit by contrasting the kings demands frontally with
those of Judaism. The youths response is similar to Polycarps, when it was
demanded that he swear by the genius () of the emperor: How can I
blaspheme my king who has saved me? (Martyrium Polycarpi 9.3). For
prostagma as a loan-word in rabbinic Hebrew, used (as here) of Gods laws
in explicit contrast to those of earthly kings, see Leviticus Rabbah 27:6 (ed.
Margaliot, 637); Sperber, Dictionary, 157159. On the other hand, in more
irenic circumstances we also find Jews happy to make the apologetic claim
that those who observe Gods prostagmata will loyally observe the kings as
well; see 3 Maccabees 7:11 and Philo, Legatio 160.
by Moses. Cf. NOTE on 3:15, Him who legislated.
31. having devised all the Hebrews troubles. For similar formulations, see
4:47 and 13:4 (both of Menelaus).
Hebrews. This term for the Jews appears only twice elsewhere in our book:
11:13 and 15:37, just as in general it is rare in literature and inscriptions of
the Second Temple period. It has an archaic sound, hinting that the Jews so
described are faithful adherents to the traditions of their ancestors. See Har-
vey, True Israel, 114115; D. T. Runia, Philonic Nomenclature, SPA 6
(1994) 1417.
32. suffer sins. Almost precise repetition of v. 18, and anticipation of

v. 33 so much so that De Bruyne (Anciennes traductions, xi) and Katz
(Text, 20) would eliminate it as secondary. But as usual these consider-
ations are a double-edged sword, for if the verse were so superfluous, why
would someone add it (see above, p. 93)? Moreover, the fact that it repeats
something said fourteen verses earlier is hardly a problem, and in contrast
to v. 33 this verse refers explicitly to the Jews sins.
33. punishment. The term is rare and in the Septuagint appears
only here. It basically means reproof, accusation, but the meaning
punishment is attested by papyri; see LSJ, 651 (which cites our verse in
support of in a strong sense, punishment).
Chapter VII 315
edification. Here the author picks up the heavy term paideia, which he used
prominently in his introduction to this whole martyrology section (6:12,
16), thus signaling that he is beginning to summarize.
living Lord. Recurs at 15:4, there too in the context of a declaration to a

persecutor. For this emphasis upon Gods being alive, something which
gives even youths the confidence to defy persecutors, Goldstein (2 Macc,
316) compared Davids confidence on the eve of his struggle with Goliath:
1 Samuel 17:26, 36. In general, see S. Kreuzer, Der lebendige Gott (Stutt-
gart: Kohlhammer, 1983) and Zimmermann, Namen des Vaters, 385531;
as with regard to other texts that describe God this way, so too at pp. 389
and 472474 with regard to our verse and this chapter in general, Zimmer-
mann emphasizes the link between Gods being alive and His ability to re-
vive the dead.
briefly. See NOTES on v. 29, I will receive you back, and on 5:17, briefly.
became angry. At us, face to face (see v. 6!); see our NOTE on 5:17, dis-
tanced Himself in anger.
be reconciled with His own servants. See NOTE on v. 6, And He will rec-
oncile Himself with His servants.
34. impious. The nasty adjective was associated with Jews by

Manetho (Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.248 = GLA I, no. 21), and over time it be-
came standard in anti-Semitic usage; see A. Fuks, Aspects of the Jewish Re-
volt in A.D. 115117, JRS 51 (1961) 1034. On the adjective, see Dover,
Morality, 253. In his n. 81 Fuks remarks that before A.D. 115117 the
adjective was never a standing designation of the Jews, but the way our
author is happy, here and at 8:32, to use it of the Jews enemies, just as are
the other Jewish authors cited by Fuks (Let. Arist. 289; Philo, In Flaccum
104), makes us wonder. Cf. our NOTE on 4:39, robbery from the Temple.
most impure (1). See NOTE on 5:16, abominable hands.
vague hopes. In contrast to the clear and certain ones held by Jews; see
NOTE on v. 11, hoping.
children of Heaven. Lit. heavenly children. On the text, see Hanhart,

Text, 40. For Heaven as a way of referring to God, see NOTE on v. 11,
from Heaven. The notion that the Jews are Gods children a notion par-
ticularly useful in a chapter like this which is devoted to children and their
mother but ignores their father appears in other, similar texts, such as
3 Maccabees 6:28 (which also emphasizes that God is in heaven); Wis-
dom 12:19; Psalms of Solomon 17:30. In connection with suffering, note
esp. Deuteronomy 8:5, which has God edifying (punishing) the Children
of Israel as a father does his sons; see our NOTE on v. 33, became angry. For
the conclusion that our verse refers to the holy martyrs on earth as Gods
children, see Hanhart, Heiligen, 9495.
Note, however, that the Hebrew phrase sons of Heaven or sons of
God can also refer to angels; see 1QS 4:22 and 11:8; 1QH 3:2122;
1 Enoch 6:2; 14:3, etc.; Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 104; M. Black, The
Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch (SVTP 7; Leiden: Brill, 1985) 106107. This fact
is very interesting here, for the present chapter emphasizes the belief in res-
urrection, and at least one variety of that belief seems to have held that dead
people destined to be resurrected spent the intermediate period, between
death and resurrection, as angels or as similar beings: see Luke 20:36, also
Acts 23:8 (which seem to mean that the Sadducees did not believe in resur-
rection at all, neither after an intermediary period as spirit nor after one as
angel; see S. T. Lachs, The Pharisees and Sadducees on Angels: A Reexami-
nation of Acts XXIII.8, GCAJS 6 [1977] 3542; B. T. Viviano & J. Taylor,
Sadducees, Angels and Resurrection [Acts 23:89], JBL 111 [1992]
496498). Thus, it may be that our author is hinting at the martyrs future
status. For the ascent of martyrs into heaven immediately upon their death,
see Kellermann, Auferstanden.
35. all-ruling overseeing God. This formulation links together two of the
central attributes of God according to our book: His power and His provi-
dence. See NOTE on 1:25, All-Ruler, and on 3:39, watches over.
36. suffering. On , see Spicq, Notes, 3.560565; cf. NOTE on 2:25,

those who take pleasure.
have come into Gods covenant of eternal life. Scholars have debated
whether the use of eternal life in the genitive ( A) depends
upon covenant (as we translated, following Kellermann, Auferstanden,
79 and others) or, rather, upon suffering (so Bckers, Das ewige
Leben, followed by Stemberger, Leib, 2122), as if the latter construc-
tion which would say only that the brothers, having suffered the suffering
requisite for eternal life, now participate in Gods covenant did not mean
that they had already inherited eternal life. Kellermann characterizes the
latter reading as futuristische Deutung, and rejects it for that reason.
Chapter VII 317
That, however, seems to be too pedantic a reading, for once the brothers
paid the price for eternal life, a covenant-keeping God must bestow it upon
them. As for , its usual translation in this context is covenant (so
too 1:2; 8:15), but its basic meaning is testament and that indeed goes
well with the verb here, (to fall, i.e., come into ones possession
see LSJ, 1407 s.v., V3); the image is that God, as it were, bequeathed eter-
nal life to the martyrs. (Against the suggestion [Abel, Macc, 380] that the
verb should be emended here so as to allow the martyrs to drink of [-
] eternal life, see Stemberger, Leib, 2122.) The present claim that
the brothers have already received their portions in eternal life proves that
this chapter assumes the continuity of post-mortem life even before resur-
rection. Such a two-stage belief is similarly attested by Josephus, War 3.374
(which is similar to Ag. Ap. 2.218); see also Acts 23:8, and NOTE on v. 34,
children of Heaven.
37. that you, after afflictions and scourging, will therefore admit (2)
that He alone is God. As will happen in Chapter 9. Therefore i.e., as a
result of your afflictions and scourging. Here there is a clear tit for tat: you
have been afflicting us and scourging us and we have not changed our mind
about anything, but you will in fact give in under similar duress.
38. and that, with me and my brothers, shall be stayed the anger of the All-
Ruler. That is, God will relent. The notion that the death of martyrs can put
an end to divine wrath () recurs in numerous sources; see esp. As. Mos.
9:7 together with J. Licht, Taxo, or the Apocalyptic Doctrine of Ven-
geance, JJS 12 (1961) 95100; Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 96. Nickelsburg
noted that this motif is not to be found in the words of the other six sons, who
focused on their own devotion to observing the Law, on their faith in God,
and on their recognition that punishment has justly come upon the Jews;
now, at the peak of the chapter, our author has worked in the element which
will make this chapter into the turning point of the national story. Thus,
8:45 are, as it were, the application of the present verse. See also NOTE on
v. 29, in the Mercy, and, in general: Bar-Kochva, JM, 487488. In contrast,
note that in 1 Maccabees the wrath affecting the Jews is not said to be Gods
(1:64) and Judas Maccabaeus ends it by his valor (3:8), not by his death.
39. losing his temper. Here too the author closes up the chapter by revert-
ing to its beginning v. 3.
suffering bitterly (* ,). For similar expressions, see 11:1

( ) and 4:35 (). Here we have another ironic
switch, as in v. 17 (be patient): the torturer is tortured. Cf. 14:2931,

where the stratagemizer is out-stratagemized.
40. he passed away in purity. It is remarkable that the entire chapter makes
no reference to swines flesh as something impure, but only as something
forbidden. Rather, the reference to purity here is more reminiscent of Chap-
ter 6, where forbidden food is also abominable; see NOTE on 6:5, for-
bidden things. Thus, this reference to purity indicates that now, toward the
end of his martyrology, the author is reminding us that his long excursus
has included two episodes, which he now wants to draw together and con-
clude. He will be more explicit about this in v. 42.
41. died. It is very difficult to imagine that this laconic verse was composed
by our author, whose tastes concerning suffering women are clearly shown
at 3:19 and 6:10; see Introduction, pp. 1820.
42. Let that, on the one hand, be enough said. Here is the formal ending of
the excursus announced at 6:17. At this point the author will return us to
his narrative, using on the one hand, as at the end of Chapter 3 and at
12:1, to push us forward into the next chapter.
eating of the entrails of sacrifices. In Jewish ears the term ,

with its plethora of consonants, sounds horrendous, as if already the word
itself shows how disgusting the topic is. But perhaps there is such Wort-
malerei here also for Greeks as well; LSJ (1628) lists our book alone for
this term. Thus, given that it is such a distinctive word, the fact that apart
from this verse it appears only in Chapter 6 (vv. 7, 21) but not in Chapter 7
(which lacks not only the term, but also the assumption that the proffered
meat was sacrificial) shows clearly that the present verse is meant to sum-
marize both chapters; so already Doran, Temple Propaganda, 22 (where he
properly rejects Habichts argument [2 Macc 171, 174] that the contradic-
tion between this verse and the rest of Chapter 7 indicates that the body of
the chapter is a secondary addition, our verse originally having concluded
Ch. 6). For an earlier hint in the same direction, see NOTE on v. 40, he
passed away in purity.
Chapter VII 319
Bibliography
Bckers, Das ewige Leben.

Cohen, Hannah and Her Seven Sons.
Doran, R., The Martyr.
Gutman, The Mother.
van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs.
Kellermann, Auferstanden.
van Menxel, 7: Espoir, Esprance.
Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 93109.
Stemberger, Leib, 1522.
Rampolla del Tindaro, M., Martyre et spultre.
Schatkin, The Maccabean Martyrs.
Schwankl, Sadduzerfrage, 245259.
Young, Woman.
Chapter VIII
Judas Maccabaeus Goes Into Action: The Beginning of the Reversal
(1) Judas Maccabaeus and those with him, on the other hand, had been going
in and out and around secretly to the villages, summoning their kinsmen and
those who remained in Judaism; growing in numbers, they gathered together
about 6000 men. (2) And they called upon the Lord: To look down upon the
people oppressed by all, / and to have pity upon the Sanctuary, which had
been profaned by impious men, / (3) and to be merciful also to the city which
was being destroyed and about to be leveled to the ground, / and to listen to
the blood which was calling out to Him, / (4) and also to remember the law-
less destruction of innocent infants and the blasphemies which had been
committed against His name / and (so) to act out of hatred for evil.
(5) As soon as Maccabaeus got his corps together he could not be with-
stood by the Gentiles, the Lords anger having turned into mercy.
(6) Coming upon cities and villages unexpectedly he set them aflame, and
capturing strategic places he caused not a few of the enemies to flee. (7) He
especially chose the nighttime as his collaborator for such attacks. And the
fame of his manly valor spread everywhere.
Nicanors Invasion
(8) But Philip, seeing that the man was making progress bit by bit and being
more and more frequently successful, wrote Ptolemy, the governor of Coele
Syria and Phoenicia, (asking him) to come to the aid of the kings government.
(9) The latter immediately selected Nicanor the son of Patroclus, one of the
First Friends, and sent him with an army at his command of no fewer than
20,000 from various peoples to wipe out the entire nation of Judaea. Along-
side him he also placed Gorgias, who was a commander and had experience in
military service. (10) Nicanor undertook to make up for the king the tribute
(still owed) to the Romans, which came to 2000 talents, by making the Jews
captives. (11) Immediately he wrote to the coastal cities, inviting them to the
sale of the Jewish slaves, promising to supply them with ninety slaves per tal-
ent not expecting the All-Rulers justice which was going to pursue him.
Chapter VIII 321
(12) As for Judas news of Nicanors invasion came to his ears, and
when he informed those with him of the approach of the army (13) those
who were cowardly and did not have faith in Gods justice ran away and
fled the scene. (14) But the others sold everything which was left, and to-
gether asked the Lord to rescue them who had been sold by the impious Ni-
canor (even) before he had met up with them (15) if not for their sake,
then due to the covenants with their fathers, and for the sake of His august
and magnificent Name which they bore.
Judas Maccabaeus Speech
(16) Maccabaeus, gathering the 6000 in number who were with him, called
upon them not to be panic-stricken by the enemies nor to be afraid of the
multitude of Gentiles that was coming against them unjustly, but rather to
struggle nobly, (17) keeping before their eyes the outrage they had unlaw-
fully perpetrated against the Holy Place and the torture of the humiliated
city, along with the abrogation of the ancestral constitution. (18) For they
trust in arms and audacity, he said, but we trust in the all-ruling God,
who can with a single nod of His head overthrow not only those who are
coming upon us, but the whole cosmos. (19) He additionally recounted
before them (His) acts of assistance that happened in the days of the ances-
tors, including the one in the days of Sennacherib, when 185,000 were de-
stroyed, (20) and the one in Babylonia, when there was a confrontation
with the Galatians, when only 8000 showed up for the task, together with
4000 Macedonians: when the Macedonians were in confusion, the 6000 de-
stroyed the 120,000 by virtue of assistance from heaven, and they took
much booty.
The Battle against Nicanor
(21) Having thereby rendered them courageous and ready to die for the
laws and the fatherland, he divided them into something of a four-part
army. (22) After he appointed his brothers Simon, Joseph and Jonathan as
leaders of each unit, assigning to each 1500 men, (23) and also Eleazar,
and after reading the sacred book and giving the motto Gods help, he
himself led the first unit and threw himself at Nicanor. (24) Since the
All-Ruler was their ally they cut down more than 9000 of the enemy;
wounding and maiming the greater part of (those who remained of) Nica-
nors army they forced them all to flee. (25) They took the money of those
who had come to buy them, but after pursuing them for a considerable
distance they broke it off, being hemmed in by the lateness of the hour.
(26) For it was the (day) before the Sabbath, and for this reason they did
not long continue to run them down.
Prayers and the Division of the Spoils
(27) After collecting their weapons and stripping the enemy bare of spoils
they went about (celebrating) the Sabbath, extraordinarily blessing and
thanking the Lord who had preserved them until that day, having fixed it
for them as the beginning of Mercy.
(28) After the Sabbath, after distributing some of the spoils to those who
had been mistreated, to the widows and to orphans, they and their children
divided the rest among themselves. (29) Having completed that they to-
gether petitioned the merciful Lord, asking that He become completely rec-
onciled with His own servants.
(A Similar Case)
(30) Clashing with Timothys and Bacchides men they killed more than
20,000 of them, gained control of very high strongholds, and distributed a
great quantity of spoils, making equal portions for themselves and for those
who had been mistreated, widows and orphans, as well as the old. (31) Col-
lecting their weapons they carefully deposited them in strategic places,
bringing the rest of the spoils to Jerusalem. (32) And they killed Timothys
phylarch, a most impious man who had greatly harassed the Jews. (33) Con-
ducting victory celebrations in the fatherland they burned those who had
set fire to the holy gates and also Callisthenes, who had fled into a small
building; thus he received fitting wages for his godlessness.
Nicanors Flight
(34) As for the thrice-accursed Nicanor, who had brought the thousand
merchants for the sale of the Jews: (35) humbled with the Lords help by
them whom he had thought were the lowest of all, he took off his glorious
garment and, having made himself as destitute as a fugitive slave, he found
his way through the hinterland back to Antioch, having succeeded es-
pecially in accomplishing the destruction of his army.
Chapter VIII 323
(36) Thus he who had undertaken to take care of the tribute (owed) to
the Romans by taking the Jerusalemites captive proclaimed that the Jews
have Someone who fights for them, and that it is for this reason that the
Jews are invulnerable: because they follow the laws ordained by Him.
COMMENT
This chapter portrays the beginning of the military struggle led by Judas Mac-
cabaeus against the Seleucids. Emerging from his hiding, where we first (and
last) saw him at the end of Chapter 5, Judas gathers a force which now that
God has been moved by the martyrs blood to relent is bit by bit (v. 8) suc-
cessful against the Jews enemies. When the local garrisons are unable to deal
with him, an expeditionary force commanded by Nicanor is sent from Syria,
but Judas and his men after properly preparing themselves via prayers and
an encouraging speech recounting biblical precedents for divine assistance
defeat it. The victorious Jews follow this up by joyous celebration of the Sab-
bath and charitable distribution of the booty, while the defeated Nicanor is
made not only to flee in humiliation but also to recognize, as the chapters
final verse tells us, the great power of the Jews Champion.
Thus, this chapter begins to reap the benefit of the previous two: after
the blood of martyrs caused Gods wrath to turn to mercy (8:5), it is clear
that the normal covenantal relationship is restored, according to which the
devout Jews are protected by their all-powerful ruler, no matter how bad
the odds. The point is made both by Judas citation of examples from the
past (vv. 1920) and by the outcome of this story itself.
Historically, this chapter parallels the story told by 1 Maccabees 24:23.
There too we read first of the modest beginnings of the Hasmonean move-
ment, of its growth, of the way they went around (1 Macc 2:45) the Jew-
ish villages (as here, 8:1), and eventually drew the attention of the Seleucid
officials; when the local commanders could not overcome them, they called
in forces from Syria, but these too after a speech by Judas in which he
pointed out that the fact that the enemies were numerous did not pose any
problem for God (3:1822) were defeated by Judas and his men. This is
followed by yet another Seleucid campaign against Judas, this time led by a
triad including Nicanor (3:38): this army, which came accompanied by
prospective slave buyers (3:41), was eventually defeated by Judas in the Em-
maus campaign. It is this campaign which is depicted in our Chapter 8,
which, beginning with v. 9, focuses on Nicanor and includes (in v. 11) the
reference to the expectation that his campaign will make numerous slaves
available at cheap rates.
Thus, on the one hand the main datum of our chapter is borne out by the
much more detailed account of 1 Maccabees 34: there was a Seleucid in-
vasion, of which Nicanor was at the head (see below), and it did fail. On the
other hand, however, there are major differences between the two accounts.
Mostly they are simply a matter of greater detail of 1 Maccabees, for most
of our chapters account is taken up, typically, with religious matters
(prayer, speech citing biblical precedent, reading the Torah prior to the
battle and distribution of charity after it); the fighting itself is summarized
in a few brief verses (2326) that give us no inkling at all of the involved
moves and topographical detail described in 1 Maccabees 34. Indeed, our
book fails even to tell us where the fighting took place. This, of course, is
consistent with the fact that 1 Maccabees also describes in detail no small
measure of combat before this campaign as well in Chapter 2, which deals
with the days of Mattathias, whom our book does not mention (see below),
and in the first half of Chapter 3, which deals with the first clashes with the
Seleucids events which our book covers only in the most general way in
vv. 58.
Differences such as those are not surprising, given our authors usual re-
ligious interests and his stated intention to summarize other matters; see
2:2324 and especially with regard to warfare 10:10. Four differences,
however, should be pointed out in particular. The first two go to the heart of
what our book is, and is not, about, and the latter two illustrate important
values of its diasporan author:
1. 1 Maccabees 2 is devoted to Mattathias, the father of the Hasmonean
dynasty, but 2 Maccabees makes no mention of him. In fact, vv. 1 + 57 of
our chapter, which deal with the early growth and first successes of Judas
force, might be taken as something of a brief summary of 1 Macca-
bees 2:4248 on the growth of the Jewish resistance under the leadership of
Mattathias. This difference between the two books is fundamental, insofar
as 1 Maccabees is built as a dynastic history, following each of the Hasmon-
ean leaders until finally the dynasty is established by John Hyrcanus suc-
cession of his father Simon, at which point the book concludes. For 1 Mac-
cabees, Mattathias is an essential character, for it is he who, as father of all
the sons, allows for the establishment of the dynasty; indeed, 1 Maccabees
2:65 even has Mattathias proclaiming that Simon should be his main heir.1
1 The fact that this proclamation, tacked on at the end of Mattathias deathbed speech,
is contradicted immediately by 1 Macc 3:1, which has Judas succeeding his father, in-
dicates how important Mattathias was for the author of this book: although Simons
inheritance of the leadership contradicted history, and the story as received, it could
be justified if traced back to Mattathias.
Chapter VIII 325
For 2 Maccabees, which focuses on Judas alone (see esp. Geiger, History of
Judas Maccabaeus) and has no interest in (knowledge of?)2 the Hasmon-
ean dynasty, Mattathias would have been useless, and indeed he is not men-
tioned.
2. Whereas our book has Nicanor alone head the Seleucid expedition-
ary force, 1 Maccabees 3:38 puts three officers at the head of it, and al-
though Nicanor is listed among them, he is never mentioned again in this
connection. Rather, it is another one of the three, Gorgias, who, according
to 1 Maccabees, functions consistently alone as the chief of the Seleucid
force (4:1, 5, 18). This difference between the two books is almost certainly
to be traced to our authors wish to build his book around struggles with
Nicanor. By concentrating on them in the books middle chapter (here) and
its final one, the book fulfilled its original mission of explaining and justify-
ing the Nicanors Day festival. See Introduction, p. 9.
3. Although both books have scenes of prayer and encouragement prior
to the battle, the one appearing in 1 Maccabees 3:4354 focuses on the
Temple and the cult, while these are not mentioned at all in 8:1420. This is
as to be expected from our diasporan author (see above, p. 46).
4. Although our vv. 67 seem to refer to the same events as 1 Macca-
bees 2:4448 and 3:58, only that book clearly states that the rebels at-
tacks were directed against Jews (sinners, lawless and impious col-
laborators with the Seleucids); our book speaks of attacks upon villages and
flight by enemies but offers nary a word about who exactly was attacked or
fled. Thus, whether or not he was aware of it, our author has suppressed
evidence both for Jewish traitors and for fighting among Jews which fits
the diasporan tendency we noted earlier (see Introduction, pp. 4950) to
limit the number of Jewish villains as much as possible. In contrast, 1 Mac-
cabees had no problem admitting that the Hasmoneans had many Jewish
enemies; see 1 Maccabees 1:11, 52 and esp. 7:5 (contrast 2 Macc 14:3!).
NOTES
8:1. Judas Maccabaeus and those with him, on the other hand. Here we
have both on the other hand, which makes our chapter flow out of the
preceding one, and also a Wiederaufnahme which continues our story from
the end of Chapter 5, where we last saw Judas. But the story line was in fact
interrupted, as we saw, a little bit later, beginning with 6:12, which means
2 See above, p. 14.

that apart from 5:27 Judas appears in the story itself, now, right after the
story about the women who were killed along with their circumcised babies
and those who were killed for Sabbath observance (6:1011) which is
where we find Mattathias appearing in 1 Maccabees; see 1 Maccabees
1:6061 and 2:2938. So there may be some common tradition at work
here. On our authors lack of interest in Mattathias, and focus upon Judas,
see COMMENT above.
had been going in and out and around (2). This verse is
the only example given for this composite verb in LSJ, 1334, and so I have
allowed myself to follow the prefixed prepositions to give a fuller meaning
than the unimaginative enter offered there. The use of the participle in-
dicates that the activities mentioned here had been going on for a while, as it
were during the time taken up by the two timeless tableaux; thus, the mere
ten of 5:27 have had time to grow considerably. See NOTE on 6:18, was
being forced.
secretly growing gathered (). This account of the begin-

nings of Judas movement recalls that of Mattathias movement 1 Macca-
bees 2:4245. It is interesting that the latter account refers, at v. 42, to a com-
munity () of soldiers (apparently not Hasidim see Schwartz,
Hasidim). Similarly, ibid. v. 47, as v. 6 here, apparently refers to the rebels
attacks upon other Jews. Thus, it may be that one tradition underlies these
parts of both books, just as we observed (in our first NOTE on this verse)
concerning the two stories in 6:1011. See esp. Schunck, Quellen, 117118;
Bunge, Untersuchungen, 230232; and above, p. 43, n. 97.
remained in Judaism. And did not adopt Hellenism; see NOTE on 2:21, for
Judaism, and on 6:9, Greek ways.
growing in numbers. On , see Spicq, Notes, 3.583.
2. And they called upon. From here until v. 4 we are presented with a series
of clauses linked by and () an imitation of biblical style. See NOTE
on 10:3, After purifying.
look down upon. A frequent motif in our book; see NOTE on 3:39, watches
over.
the Sanctuary (2). For this translation, see NOTE on 4:14, the Temple.
But here there was no reason to limit the reference to the central building of
Chapter VIII 327
the Temple complex, and so it may be enough to assume that the author of
this prayer preferred the fancier term, which also has the advantage of
rhyming with (people), mentioned a few words earlier.
profaned by impious men. Not necessarily by non-Jews, nor by people de-

filed by this or that ritual impurity; their wickedness, their being irrever-
ent (cf. 3:1; 4:13, 17; 10:10), is what makes them impure. This is basi-
cally a Hellenistic point of view, which equates wickedness and impurity.
But is it not foreign to ancient Judaism; see NOTES on 5:16, abominable
hands, and on 12:23, sinners.
3. about to be. As the author likes to point out; see NOTE on 2:22, the
laws that were about to be.
leveled to the ground (02). I.e., destroyed. The same expression re-
curs at 9:4 describing Antiochus plans for the Temple of Jerusalem, and
also at 3 Maccabees 5:43 describing Ptolemy IVs. Cf. 14:43 (+ )
and TestJob 5:2 (+ 9 6).
blood which was calling out. The expression is based upon Genesis 4:10,
echoed for example in Philos The Worse Attacks the Better 48, 70 and
m. Sanh 4:5. However, given the importance of Deuteronomy 32 in our
book, esp. in the preceding chapter (see NOTE on 7:6, And He will recon-
cile Himself ), we should also think of Deuteronomy 32:43, for He will
avenge His servants blood and return vengeance upon His enemies. The
basic point was predicted by the seventh son: with me and my brothers
shall be stayed the anger of the All-Ruler which was justly loosed against
our entire nation. For the special effectiveness of blood in this regard, see
e.g. R. Eleazar ben Shammuas dictum, that there is no atonement without
blood (b. Yoma 5a); in the Midrash of the Ten Martyrs (Reeg, Geschichte,
102*) the same sage explains, to his persecutor, that God is refraining from
saving His servants precisely so as to be able to demand their blood of
you. For the Greek background of the notion, see NOTE on 14:45, his
blood flowing
4. and also to remember the blasphemies which had been committed

against His name. For such usage of , see Grimm, 2 Macc, 135; that,
plus the rhythm of the sentence, show that the blasphemies are another
item in the long list of things God is being asked to recall. Accordingly, it is
difficult to accept Abels suggestion, on the basis of Latin witnesses, that the
blasphemies are instead to be linked to the verb at the end of the verse.
Moreover, Abels suggestion, followed by Goldstein (who translates to be

mindful of the wicked massacre of innocent babes and also to avenge the
blasphemies perpetrated against His name) requires a transitive usage of
(to avenge), and that is unlikely, for our author considers
that verb itself to specify its object; see 4:36, 49, also 3:1.
It should be noted, however, that blasphemies have not yet been men-
tioned in this book. So either they were mentioned in the original and our
author omitted them, or else the persecutions and defilements are taken to
constitute blasphemies. In any case, the topic will occupy our author later
on (9:28; 10:3435; 12:14; 15:24, 32), and so it is not surprising that he
mentions it here too.
innocent. For this widespread concept and its use in religious discourse see:
H. Herter, Das unschuldige Kind, JAC 4 (1961) 146162.
infants. When it comes to motivating God to intervene, nothing can com-

pete with the suffering of innocent babies. For the killing of babies as a
type of supplication in times of stress, in Phoenicia and Carthage, see: I.
Ephal, Siege and Its Ancient Near Eastern Manifestations (Jerusalem:
Magnes, 1996) 135140 (in Hebrew). But it is not clear who is meant in
our verse: Does it refer to the seven sons of Chapter 7, or to the babies of
6:10? If the reference is to the former, then it is quite overstated, for there
even the youngest seems to have been in his teens; see NOTE on 7:25,
youth boy. Some would retain the reference to Chapter 7 by translating
children instead of infants, but that is rather desperate. So
too must we note that Chapter 7 does not at all say the seven sons were sin-
less. On the contrary, the sixth and seventh admit that they were being
punished for their own sins; even if the nation as a whole is meant, the
words apply to them too. But not to babies. Accordingly, it seems best
to see the primary reference of our verse to the babies of 6:10; so too
Grimm and Abel ad loc. This supports the assumption that the martyro-
logical excursus (6:18-end of Ch. 7) came from a separate source. See
above, pp. 1920, and on v. 8, But Philip.
and (so) to act out of hatred for evil. The hatred of evil is mentioned as a
central virtue already in the first verse of our story (3:1), and then again at
4:36, 49; now we hear that God too, as good Jews and good Gentiles,
shares this virtue. The verbs appearance here, at the end of the long list of
things to remember, is very sudden. This heralds, as it were, the turnabout
in the Jews fortunes which begins in the very next verse.
Chapter VIII 329
5. got his corps together ( ). As Grimm notes (2 Macc, 135),

Polybius uses frequently of the organization of military forces;
see Polybius 1.81.11; 3.53.6; 8.26.8. Cf. NOTE on 15:12, entire Jewish
corps.
he could not be withstood (2) by the Gentiles. As opposed to

the Seleucid army, which was only thought irresistible (1:13). The rest of
our verse explains what made the difference. Note that the adjective applies
to Judas himself, not to his force; from this point on the story focuses upon
him. See esp. Geiger, History of Judas Maccabaeus.
the Lords anger having turned into mercy. This is the turning point of the
entire book, answering the prayer of vv. 24 and the hopes of 7:38. If Chap-
ters 37 took us from the idyll to the pits of persecution, the way back up
begins right here. Contrast 1 Maccabees 3:8, where it is the valor of Judas
Maccabaeus that turns away the as at 1:64, not even said to be
Gods from Israel.
6. Coming upon cities and villages. As 1 Maccabees 2:4448 and 3:58, it

seems that the text is actually referring to attacks upon Jews (who collab-
orated with the Seleucids); but our diasporan author, even if he was aware
of this, would not say so. See the end of our opening COMMENT.
strategic () places. This adjective, which recurs another three

times in our book (v. 31 and 10:15; 14:22), appears nowhere else in the
Septuagint. It is analogous to , used frequently by Polybius for
places with military or economic advantages; see Mauersberger, PL,
2.10271028; Pdech, Polybe, 535. As for what places are meant, our
author gives no details at all, just as the rest of the chapter gives no geo-
graphical details concerning Nicanors campaign or the battle with him. It
seems not only that the author wasnt interested in such details, but that he
wanted us to understand that right from the beginning; for a similar move,
see NOTE on 4:23, take care of memoranda In any case, the detailed ac-
count in 1 Maccabees 3:1024 of Judas first two successes against the Se-
leucids makes no reference to his capture of any fortresses. See Bar-Kochva,
JM, 138 and 205.
7. especially chose the nighttime. On night-fighting, see Pritchett, War,

2.162170; on Judas see also 10:28; 12:6, 9; 13:15 and esp. 1 Macca-
bees 4:125. In general, on the guerilla nature of Judas fighting in its early
stages, see Bar-Kochva, JM, 138141.
collaborator. In the Septuagint, appears only here and at 14:5; in

both cases it is a personification. For similar formulations, see Poly-
bius 8.2.6 ( ? # ) and 31.29.2 (? A
).3
And the fame of his manly valor spread everywhere. This constitutes a Sam-
melbericht that serves both to summarize all that has been said and also to
explain the next step of the story; cf. Exodus 1:7; Luke 4:37 (with Wif-
strand, Epochs and Styles, 3536, who compares LXX 1 Sam 14:19);
Acts 5:11; H. Zimmermann, Die Sammelberichte der Apostelgeschichte,
BZ n.s. 5 (1961) 7182. As for Judas ., I translated manly valor
and not multitude of men (preferred by Doran, Temple Propaganda, 55)
because the next verse goes on to speak about Judas alone; note that at
15:17, which is the only other time this word appears in our book (and the
entire Septuagint), it parallels nobly and must refer to manly valor, not to
numbers. For the same type of parallelism, see 6:28. On Judas manly valor,
see also 14:18. On ancient notions of masculinity see: When Men Were
Men: Masculinity, Power and Identity in Classical Antiquity (ed. L. Fox-
hall and J. Salmon; London: Routledge, 1998), also our NOTE on 7:21,
Awakening her womanly reasoning power masculine fervor.
8. But Philip. Who was ruling Jerusalem, according to 5:22; last heard
from at 6:11. Allusion to him here by name alone seems to indicate that he
is more present in the readers mind than he actually is another indication
that 6:127:42 is secondary. For use of Philips name as a handle to
switch the readers attention to another front, compare vv. 12 and 34 and
10:14.
seeing. A favorite phrase of our author; see NOTE on 2:24, for having seen.
bit by bit and more frequently. Niese (Kritik, 112113) understood the
text to mean that Philip saw that Judas was not progressing slowly, but
rather () faster and faster; accordingly, he suggested inserting a negation.
However, the need not be adversative, and ? usually means
gradually; see Mauersberger, PL, 4.1619.
Ptolemy, the governor of Coele Syria and Phoencia. Who seems to be Pto-
lemy Macron of 10:1213, although there is room for doubt. True, 10:12
3 I am grateful to Ari Finkelstein for these references to Polybius.

Chapter VIII 331
says Ptolemy was fair to the Jews due to the injustice which had been done
to them, whereas here he is sending an army against them. But this is not a
real contradiction: Ptolemy may well (in truth, or in our authors mind)
have done this and nevertheless, at the same time or later, sought justice for
the Jews. Moreover, since in Chapter 10 the author wants to praise Pto-
lemys fairness in contrast to the wicked people mentioned right after him
(vv. 1415), he may have stretched the truth; cf. Josephus, War 2.277;
7.263. Another objection may be raised on the basis of 1 Maccabees 3:38,
which with reference to the same campaign (see above, p. 323) has Lysias
send Ptolemy son of Dorymenes. The parallelism between the two books
brought various scholars to put them together: to learn from 1 Maccabees
that our Ptolemy is the son of Dorymenes, and to learn from the present
verse that this Ptolemy was governor of Coele Syria and Phoenicia, hence
the predecessor of Ptolemy Macron. So, for example, Habicht, 2 Macc,
223, n. 45a, and Lvy, Notes, 688689.4 But the parallel with 1 Macca-
bees 3 is not complete, for there Lysias sends and Ptolemy is sent (along
with two others), whereas here Ptolemy sends two and Lysias is not men-
tioned at all just as our author is altogether careful not to mention him
prior to the death of Antiochus Epiphanes; Lysias first appears at 10:11 (see
NOTE on 10:11, one Lysias). Thus, we have two conflicting versions of this
campaign. Moreover, given the fact that Ptolemy son of Dorymenes does
not function at all in 1 Maccabees version of this campaign, we need not
ascribe much weight to the appearance of his name at 3:38. In other words,
we would accept the plain implication of our book, that the Ptolemy men-
tioned here is the Ptolemy Macron of 10:1213; this need not contradict the
statement of 1 Maccabees, that Ptolemy son of Dorymenes was among the
Seleucid commanders during this campaign.
9. Nicanor the son of Patroclus. This is the first appearance of the Seleucid
general in our book, the only appearance of his patronymic. He is a central
figure in our book, which ends with the establishment of a holiday in honor
of Judas final victory over him; see 15:36. For the identity at least in our
authors mind of this Nicanor and the one of Chapters 1415, see NOTE
4 Some scholars assumed that these two Ptolemies were in fact identical; so, for
example, Abel (Macc, 387) and Marcus on Ant. 12.298 in the LCL edition. But this is
a very difficult suggestion (and is properly rejected by Mitford, Ptolemy Macron,
176177), for why should our author skip between patronymic and byname? And
can we really imagine the villain of 4:4546, 50 getting such a nice sending-off at
10:1213?!
on v. 34, thrice-accursed Nicanor. Nicanors importance for our book ex-

plains also why he is listed first and Gorgias is mentioned (later in this verse)
only in a secondary role and never again in this narrative; see Introduction,
pp. 910.
one of the First Friends. On this rank in the Seleucid hierarchy, see 1 Mac-
cabees 11:27. In general, on such ranks, see NOTE on 1:14, Friends. I Mac-
cabees 7:21 refers to Nicanor in only a general way as one of the honored
officials, but Josephus, as our verse, says that he was the most loyal and
trustworthy among the kings Friends (7 Ant. 13.402).
no fewer than 20,000. For such double negations see NOTE on 3:14, quite
considerable. Our author apparently liked the number 20,000 (two myr-
iads); it recurs in v. 30 and again in 10:17, 23. 1 Maccabees 3:39 refers
here to 40,000 soldiers and another 7,000 cavalry, which is totally outland-
ish, while our 20,000 is quite reasonable; see Bar-Kochva, JM, 4041.
(However, since it is not usual for our book to be modest and reasonable in
contrast to an exaggerating 1 Maccabees, Bar-Kochva [171172] suggests
that our text has suffered from scribal error and originally referred to a
much higher number. On exaggerated numbers in our book, see Intro-
duction, p. 80.)
from various peoples. The text mixes neutral and masculine (6 .
) but as constructio ad sensum it is acceptable; see Hanhart,
Text, 33 (vs. Niese, Kritik, 113 and Katz, Text, 14) and below, 12:27
and 14:14. On the different national units in the Seleucid army, such as
the Mysians, Cypriots, and Thracians mentioned in our book (5:24; 12:2,
35), see the descriptions of the Seleucid army at the battle of Raphia
(217 BCE Polybius 5.79), at the battle of Magnesia (190 BCE
Livy 37.40; Appian, Syriak 32), and at the Daphne parade of 166 BCE,
not long before the Emmaus campaign (Polybius 35.25; see NOTE on 5:2,
according to units). See also Bar-Kochva, JM, 116120; idem, Seleucid
Army, 4853.
wipe out the entire nation of Judaea. A very exaggerated formulation, in-
tended to intensify the threat. The verb (on which see Spicq, Notes,
3.276277) appears only here in our book, but seventeen times in 1 Macca-
bees another thread linking our chapter to the latter; cf. NOTE on v. 1, se-
cretly growing. Note also, however, that in our book only the nation is
threatened; 1 Maccabees 3:5859, characteristically, mentions the threat to
the Temple too. See above, p. 46.
Chapter VIII 333
Alongside him he also placed Gorgias. As a matter of fact, Gorgias seems to

have been the major figure, a fact which emerges not only from 1 Macca-
bees 34 but also from his description here. Our author wanted to empha-
size Nicanor; see Introduction, p. 9.
a commander (. 2). Here, as at 10:14, and as opposed to 3:5

and 4:4 where we used governor, the context seems to require the original
military nuance. For the construction here, cf. 12:35: 6 .
10. undertook (). As Habicht comments (2 Macc, 239, 10a), it

is difficult to construe this verb in the present context, for it usually means
distribute or divide, but we may be guided by the clear parallel in v. 36,
where the verb is unproblematic: .
tribute (still owed) to the Romans. According to the Treaty of Apamaea

(188 BCE), in the wake of the Seleucid defeat at Magnesia. On these indem-
nities and the likelihood that, as our book claims, money was still due more
than twenty years after the Treaty, see Appendix 6.
by making the Jews captives. Followed, of course, by their sale; see the next
verse and 1 Maccabees 3:41.
11. he wrote to the coastal cities. Lit. the cities next to the sea. See Good-
blatt, Medinat Hayam. On them, see the convenient list of eleven in
Tcherikover, HC, 9196. At times they displayed hostility toward Jews: see
12:39; 13:25; Kasher, Jews and Hellenistic Cities, 5490 (on the period of
Antiochus IV and Judas Maccabaeus; 6061 on the present episode). Here,
however, after placing Nicanor at the head of the Seleucid campaign, our
author makes him all the worse by making him responsible for inviting the
slave merchants of those cities to join him and do business at the expense of
the Jews a claim he repeats at v. 34. According to 1 Maccabees 3:41, there
was no need for a Seleucid official to invite such slave merchants; they came
on their own initiative as soon as they heard of the coming opportunity.
Our book presents the matter in a way which serves two of our authors
goals: it both denigrates Nicanor and allows for a more optimistic portrayal
of Jewish-Gentile relations in general: if things go badly, it must be the fault
of some villainous troublemaker. See also 10:14 and 12:2.
ninety slaves per talent. Figuring six thousand drachmas per talent, as is
usual, this works out to 67 drachmas per slave a good deal less than
the price of an animal (see NOTE on 4:19, 300 silver drachmas). By way
of comparison, see the table in R. Scholl, Corpus der ptolemischen Skla-

ventexte, I (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1990) 213, where data on the sale of twenty
slaves, mostly from Syria, are assembled. Prices in drachmas for adults in-
clude 300, 200, 150, and 112. Thus, Nicanor thought he would take so
many captives that he would drive prices down to a half or less of their
usual level;5 for instances of such gluts on the slave market depressing
prices, see Josephus, War 6.384, and Volkmann, Massenversklavungen,
(117)-(118).
not expecting the All-Rulers justice which was going to pursue him. Having
arrived at the second half of his book, when things start improving for the
Jews, our author takes care to make sure his readers know that things will
turn out just fine. As for the use of pursue here, , in
connection with divine justice, it is interestingly reminiscent of the inscrip-
tions which forbade Gentiles to enter the Temple, warning violators, some-
what vaguely and mysteriously, that their death would come pursuant
() thereto (OGIS, no. 598).
12. As for Judas. Our author likes to set his antagonists one against the
other, as if on a stage, turning back and forth between the villain and the
hero. For similar contrasts, see, among others, 3:2223 and 15:67; Intro-
duction, p. 76.
came to his ears. As usual, the author whether or not he knew does not
explain how this happened; see above, p. 73.
5 V. Tscherikower, Palestine Under the Ptolemies (A Contribution to the Study of the

Zenon Papyri), Mizraim 45 (1937) 75, n. 15, surveys some evidence for slave
prices, but focuses on the Roman period, when, as he notes, prices were consider-
ably higher. Nevertheless, he concludes that also in Hellenistic just as in Roman
times a full-grown slave cost, on an average, not less than 1000 drachmas. However,
his only evidence for that is P. Hamb. 28 (= Scholl, Corpus, no. 19), of ca. 173 BCE,
where a female slave is deposited as security for 1200 drachmas. Although F. Heichel-
heim (Wirtschaftliche Schwankungen der Zeit von Alexander bis Augustus [Jena:
Fischer, 1930] 3031, n. 4) had thought that 1200 silver drachmas was too high and
had therefore suggested that they were copper which at a rate of 60:1 would then be
equal to 20 silver drachmas Tcherikover finds the latter unacceptably low and,
therefore, sticks with 1200 silver drachmas. Scholl (Corpus, 9798), however, citing
more recent literature, reverts to Heichelheims assumption that copper drachmas are
meant but, using somewhat lower rates, translates them into either 60 or 30 silver
drachmas.
Chapter VIII 335
13. cowardly and did not have faith ( 3 ).

On see NOTE on 3:24, cowardice; on see NOTE on 3:22, to
preserve the trusts entrusted. Here it seems the reference is to the cer-
emony mandated at Deuteronomy 20:8 and actually narrated as such (ac-
cording to the Law) in the present context, in 1 Maccabees 3:56 yet an-
other point of similarity between the narratives (see NOTE on v. 1,
secretly growing). But it must be noted that our author, who was out to
glorify Judas and his men, chose to portray the matter not as a mandated
ceremony (which legitimizes cowardice) but, rather, as one which shows the
reader who is and is not worthy of admiration. For the same reason, he ig-
nores the other categories of those exempted from service, according to
both Deuteronomy and 1 Maccabees: those who had built new houses or
had become engaged to marry. That leaves the picture clear: here, cowards;
there Judas and his men.
Gods justice. About which the author began to write in v. 11. This termi-
nology makes it clear, as best as our universalistic author can even in the
current combative context, that he is not describing a special relationship
between God and His chosen people, but, rather, simply that which is just.
Cf. 4:35 and, in contrast, v. 15.
14. the others sold everything which was left. This seems to refer to the
property left behind by the cowards, who departed helter-skelter. We are
not told why their property was sold to purchase military equipment? To
turn it into cash, so as to allow for liquidity and flight? For the author, the
sole item of importance here is the coming contrast between the valiant
Jews, who prayed after selling off the property of cowards and faithless, on
the one hand, and the impious Nicanor who sold the righteous before he
even met up with them, on the other.
15. due to the covenants. For dependence upon covenants when there is no
other merit, see Exodus 32:13; Psalms 74:20; Jeremiah 14:21; LXX Da-
niel 3:3436 (Prayer of Azariah); Wisdom 18:22; 1 Maccabees 4:10; etc. It
has been noted that Greek authors and translators preferred to use the plu-
ral when the reference is to a covenant between God and more than one
partner; see H. Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philos Liber Antqui-
tatum Biblicarum (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1996) 1.435; 2.1079.
and for the sake of His Name. This too is a consideration frequently ad-
duced by sinners hoping to move God to be gracious toward them; as it
were, Gods own reputation is held hostage to their good fortunes. See, for
example: Psalms 115:1; Jeremiah 14:21; LXX Daniel 3:34, 43 (Prayer of

Azariah). As is frequently the case, this argument appears here alongside the
one which refers to the covenant; the two are more or less one, for Gods
good name is also dependent upon His fulfillment of His promises. On this
type of argument, see: P. D. Miller, They Cried to the Lord: The Form and
Theology of Biblical Prayer (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994) 120126.
16. 6000 in number. As promised in v. 1. Bar-Kochva (JM, 4748) thinks

the number reasonable.
called upon. On , see NOTE on 7:24, his appeal. On pre-battle

speeches in Greek literature, see W. K. Pritchett, Ancient Greek Battle
Speeches and a Palfrey (Amsterdam: Gieben, 2002); pp. 2829 on those in
Polybius. Cf. NOTE on v. 19, acts of assistance.
unjustly. See NOTE on v. 13, Gods justice.
nobly. see NOTE on 6:28, noble nobly.
17. outrage. On ? see N. R. E. Fisher, Hybris: A Study in the Values of

Honour and Shame in Ancient Greece (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1994).
unlawfully (2,). It is superfluous to say that an outrage was done un-

lawfully, but our author is not the type to avoid rhetorical overkill; neither
is the author of 3 Maccabees 6:12, who links up hybris with the adjective,
5 (for the frequent similarity of the two books diction, see Introduc-
tion, p. 87). Although the adverb appears only here in the Septuagint, the
adjective is common.
the Holy Place. The Temple; see NOTE on 3:2, the Place. For the events to
which Judas is alluding, see 5:1516 and 6:45.
torture of the humiliated city. Most of what is reported in Chapters 47 fits

this rubric.
abrogation of the ancestral () constitution. Thus, troubles

began under Jason (4:11); so too 1:7, 12 (see Introduction, p. 4). On an-
cestral, cf. the allusion to ancestors in v. 19.
18. they trust but we trust. This sounds like such verses as Psalms 20:8;
cf. below, 10:28; 15:2526.
Chapter VIII 337
audacity (). That is, courage, but our author of course avoids the
use of a positive word, such as . (ascribed to Judas in v. 7); so too at
3:24 and 4:2.
with a single nod of His head (3 ). All that a real king needs to sig-
nify his will; see NOTE on 4:10, royal approval.
19. additionally recounted before them. LSJ, 1501, s.v. ,

lists our verse alone for the medium of this verb.
acts of assistance that happened in the days of the ancestors. For the term
see NOTE on 15:7, that assistance Encouraging speeches
such as this one, which list past instances of salvation, are common in our
literature: for some examples, see 12:15; 15:9, 22; 1 Maccabees 2:4964
and 4:811; 3 Maccabees 2:28; 6:215. The ancestors are termed
, thus linking our verse up with the earlier reference to the an-
cestral constitution (v. 17).
Sennacherib. See Isaiah 37:36; 2 Kings 19:35. This miracle is frequently

cited in our literature, including below at 15:22; 1 Maccabees 7:4142;
3 Maccabees 6:5; Sirach 48:21; Josephus, War 5.388. See also NOTE on
14:33, he extended his right hand , and on the importance of this
precedent for salvation of Jerusalem W. R. Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots,
and Josephus: An Inquiry into Jewish Nationalism in the Greco-Roman
Period (New York: Columbia, 1956) 97111.
20. confrontation with the Galatians. For Galatians as terrifying warriors

see e.g. Livy 38.16; R. R. R. Smith, Hellenistic Sculpture: A Handbook (New
York: Thames and Hudson, 1991) 99104; and Strobel, Die Galater, 224
(their appearance and the terror they spread made the Galatian warriors, in
the eyes of the their contemporaries, the epitome of the barbarian, the exist-
entially threatening Other, who is no longer human, but rather bestial, a vi-
olator of divine law and human order and a threat through the power of
chaos [my translation]). See also NOTE on 15:39, wine by itself. As for the
battle alluded to here, it is usual due both to the mention of Galatians (who
inhabited a region under Seleucid control) and to the use of the term Mace-
donians (see below) to assume that it involved the Seleucids, but there is
controversy as to the precise identification of the battle. See Bar-Kochva, JM,
500507, and below, Appendix 7 (by the late Menahem Stern, who summar-
izes at pp. 547548 that it is in the nature of things that no suggestion is
very convincing). Thus, while we do know of a Galatian invasion of Asia
Minor in the 270s (see Will, Histoire politique, 1.143144; Strobel, Die Ga-
later, 236264), and of both Galatian (Launey, Recherches 1.490534) and
Jewish (Ant. 12.149; Launey, Recherches 1.541554; Bar-Kochva, JM, 85,
n. 47) mercenaries in Hellenistic armies, we nevertheless have no evidence
for a battle between the Seleucids and the Galatians in Babylonia, or for Jew-
ish participation in any battle between the Seleucids and the Galatians.
Moreover, note that our verse does not explicitly say that the non-Mace-
donians who fought the Galatians were Jewish. Although Stern (infra, Ap-
pendix 7, n. 87) and Bar-Kochva (JM, 500501, n. 1) thought that this goes
without saying, in fact it seems that we should not exclude the possibility
that a diasporan author might allow God to help good and courageous
Gentiles or, at least, that such an author would be happy not to limit such
a possibility to Jews.
Macedonians. A common term for the Seleucids. See, for example OGIS
239; Strabo, Geog., end of Book 16; Josephus, Antiquities 12.434 and
13.273, etc.; Bickerman, Institutions, 5; and esp. Edson, Imperium Mace-
donicum.
were in confusion. As Edson notes (loc. cit, 163), given the equation of
Macedonians and Seleucids it is especially apposite, in the present context,
for Judas to recall a time when they were confounded and God helped
others on to victory.
the 6000. The authors desire to arrive at a plain and impressive calculation,
according to which each Jew (let us assume) killed twenty Galatians, but
also to posit that the number of Jews was equal to that in Judas own force,
seems to have gotten the better of him, contradicting the numerical datum
given earlier in the verse: 8000. Whether the latter is the number of Jews
alone, or rather includes the 4000 Macedonians mentioned there, the
number of Jews is not 6000. Either the author was careless, or the text is
corrupt, or we adopt some desperate harmonization, such as Goldsteins
suggestion (2 Macc, 333) that we are to assume that of an original 8000
Jews 2000 fled, like the cowards of v. 13.
120,000. A force twenty times larger than that of the Jews. Such exagger-
ations were de rigueur in this type of historiography, which glorifies the few
who fought the many and prevailed; cf. NOTE on 2:21, so that although
they were few in number.
assistance. Concerning , see NOTE on v. 24, ally.

Chapter VIII 339
and they took much booty. So too in the battle of Emmaus, where the topic
will receive much attention; see vv. 2730. Our books attitude toward the
taking of booty is similar to its attitude toward slaughter (v. 24), devoid of
embarrassment. This is similar to Exodus 3:22: where the Hebrew uses
somewhat vague formulations for how the Israelites shall acquire property
from the Egyptians, the Septuagint has no problem with , de-
spoil. Even Philo views the taking of booty as legitimate in war, the law of
the victors (8 7 Life of Moses 1.142). See also
NOTES on 2:21, they plundered the entire country and 10:17, cutting
down.
21. ready to die ( U). Our author thus compares

these soldiers to martyrs (see 7:2 V U); so too 13:14.
divided them into something of a four-part army. A reasonable division and

one without biblical precedent, as opposed to that of thousands, hundreds,
fifties and tens mentioned in the parallel at 1 Maccabees 3:24 and recalling
Exodus 18:21, 24. See also below, 12:20.
2223. his brothers Simon, Joseph and Jonathan and also Eleazar. On
the reading Eleazar, see the next NOTE. The present verse is one of the
few in our book which relate to Judas brothers; see NOTE on 2:19, Judas
Maccabaeus and his brothers. According to 1 Maccabees 2:1 as well Judas
had four brothers, and there is only one difference between the two lists of
names: here Joseph (and so too at 10:19, again next to Simon), there Joha-
nan. Ilan (Lexicon, 7) suggests that we accept our verses testimony and add
Joseph to the list; her main argument is that the name Joseph was popular in
the Second Temple period. However, the name does not reappear in the
Hasmonean family itself, although its onomasticon is well-documented.6
Moreover, in general it is preferable to assume that 1 Maccabees, the dyn-
astic history, got it right, especially in light of the fact that Josephus himself,
who had every interest not to forget a Joseph, confined himself to copying,
in the same order, the five brothers that book lists (Ant. 12.265266). But
neither is it reasonable to think that brothers here should be taken in a
general sense, as at 10:21; 11:7; 12:25; for the other three were indeed
6 The closest we get is Josephus grandfather (Vita 5) but despite Josephus exagger-
ated formulations at Antiquities 16.187 and Vita 2, his was not an Hasmonean
family: when Vita 4 gets down to details all it says is that one of Josephus ancestors,
apparently in the second century BCE, married the daughter of an Hasmonean.
brothers in the literal sense. It seems, rather, that our author has simply
erred, perhaps led astray by the combination of his knowledge that Joseph
was a commander and that most of the commanders were Judas brothers.
In fact, this Joseph is usually assumed to be identical with the Joseph son of
Zechariah mentioned at 1 Maccabees 5:56.
23. and also Eleazar. Some witnesses read Ezra, apparently under the in-
fluence of Esdris of 12:36; this reading also neatly fits this characters role
here, as reader of the Torah, just like his famous forebear (Neh 8). However,
in our NOTE on he himself led the first wait, later in this verse, we shall
argue that it is not this person, but rather Judas, who is said to have read the
Torah. For defense of Eleazar, see Hanhart, Text, 63, n. 1; Katz, Text,
1415.
after reading the sacred book and giving the motto Gods help. Although
we are not told from what part of the Bible Judas read, probably we are
supposed to infer that the lection suggested the motto. It seems, as is indi-
cated by the parallel at 1 Maccabees 3:48, that the reference is to a type of
divination: a chance opening of the Bible and selection of a text, on the as-
sumption that God Himself is guiding the choice; on that verse, see esp.
Abel, Macc, 6870. For such divination, see Lieberman, Hellenism,
194199. On the use of mottos (to signal the start of combat? as pass-
words? as battle-cries?) see also 13:15 and 1QM 34 (including Gods
War, Gods Vengeance, Gods Struggle, Gods Requite etc. 4:13).
For much Hellenistic material, see Bar-Kochva, JM, 220221; Y. Garlan,
tudes dhistoire militaire et diplomatique, XII: W, BCH
100 (1976) 299302.
he himself led the first unit ( 1 /( ).

This seems plainly to mean that Judas himself took command of the first of
the four units mentioned in v. 22, although he had appointed a separate
commander for it. That is, Judas seniority and bravery are demonstrated
by the fact that he himself, not another on his behalf, led the attack. So too
11:7; 12:22; and note the significant contrast at 10:1923, which shows
what can happen when someone else is in charge. Compare also Diodo-
rus 17.57.6, which, describing Alexander the Great at Arbel, says he him-
self led the right wing (.9 M Y).
Some copyists and interpreters were not happy with this plain meaning
of our verse, and therefore tried to have vv. 2223 name only three com-
manders, apart from Judas. Building on the way Eleazars name comes be-
latedly, some suggest excluding Eleazar (or Ezra) from the list of com-
Chapter VIII 341
manders, leaving him only reading the Bible and giving the motto (so
Goldstein), while others would erase his name altogether, assuming that it
was later added by scribes familiar with 1 Maccabees (so Wellhausen,
Wert, 133, n. 3, followed by Katz, Text, 1415 and Habicht, 2 Macc,
241, n. 21a). But such an approach leaves Judas on a par with his brothers,
which is certainly not our authors position; see esp. J. Geiger, History of
Judas Maccabaeus. Nor would it be easy to explain why particularly Elea-
zar, of all the brothers, read the Bible and gave the motto; one would expect
some explanation as to why this brother alone was defined as a religious fig-
ure. But there is nothing surprising about our author endowing Judas with a
religious role; he is portrayed throughout as a religious leader (see 5:27;
8:1819; 10:2526; 11:6; 12:6, 42ff.; 13:14; 15:8ff.).
24. ally. For God as the Jews see also 10:16; 11:10; 12:36; cf.
3 in v. 36. The term compares God to a political power, whose re-
lationship with the Jews is similar to their with Rome (4:11): the
terminology of help and assistance (vv. 20, 23, 35; 12:11;
13:13; 15:35), (3:39) and (15:8) are other items in the
same lexicon. Gafni (Josephus on I Maccabees, 126127) underlines Jo-
sephus reference to Gods role as the Hasmoneans at An-
tiquities 12.285 as part of his effort to distinguish between them and the re-
bels of his own day, whom he wished to present as illegitimate, and who did
not enjoy such divine support (War 2.390; 5.377). This need to legitimize
rebels by showing their religious justification is a diasporan one; it moti-
vated our author just as much as it motivated Josephus. For God as the
Jews ally, see also Mariani, Lalleanza e lamicizia.
cut down. With no apologetics; see NOTE on v. 20, and they took much
booty.
more than 9000. Around half of Nicanors army, according to v. 9.
wounding forced them all to flee. For a very similar formulation, see 4:42.
25. the money. See v. 11. Our author loves turnabouts like this, where there
is done unto evil others what they would have done unto us; compare esp.
vv. 3536; 3:28; 9:10.
a considerable distance ( 7 =2). For a similar phrase, see e.g. Poly-

bius 11.25.1, 0 Z (considerable experience Paton in
LCL edition). Cf. NOTE on 1:20, enough years.
26. the (day) before the Sabbath (> ( #). Friday, as also
at Antiquities 13.255, Judith 8:6 (where Judith is said to have fasted every
day / / ), and Mark 15:42, where the
is glossed as preparation. But it is not always clear
whether all of Friday is meant, or rather the afternoon alone. As for the Sab-
bath taking precedence over warfare, see NOTE on 5:25, pretended. As in
that instance (Apollonius entry into Jerusalem), where 1 Maccabees 1:30
mentions the same event but with no reference to the Sabbath, so too here:
the implication of 1 Maccabees 4:15 is that the Jews broke off their pursuit
simply because they were getting too close to the coastal cities. For the this-
worldly dynastic historian it sufficed to indicate that it was not wise, mili-
tarily, to be there; our religious author had another agenda. On this basic
difference between the two books, see Introduction, pp. 6364.
did not long continue. LSJ, 1075, lists our verse alone for this meaning of
.
27. After collecting their weapons. The same is the case for active usage of
the verb $, which recurs in v. 31; see LSJ, 1240.
and stripping the enemy bare () of spoils. The verb corresponds

to similar usage at 11:12.
beginning of Mercy. See our NOTE on 7:29, in the Mercy. Here we see the
author enumerating, as it were, the stations along the way to complete sal-
vation. Next stop: v. 29.
28. distributing some of the spoils. The spoils are mentioned in 1 Macca-
bees 4:23, but that this-worldly book (cf. NOTE on v. 26, the [day] before
the Sabbath) makes no mention of charitable distribution which our book
details here and in v. 30. For distribution of spoils, cf. Numbers 31:25ff.;
Pritchett, War, 5.363401.
29. completed together petitioned. The parallelism of the verbs here

hints that not only the prayer, but also the charitable distribution of booty,
was meant to have a positive influence upon God; cf. Sirach 7:10, Do not
be fainthearted in your prayer, nor neglect to give alms, also Tobit 4:711
(which builds upon Prov 10:2; 11:4): Give alms Do not turn your face
away from any poor person. Then Gods face will not be turned away from
you So you will be storing up good treasure for yourself against a day of
need. For almsgiving preserves one from death (trans. Fitzmyer, Tobit).
Chapter VIII 343
Not much is known about the actual practice of charity during the Sec-
ond Temple period; see G. H. Hamel, Poverty and Charity in Roman Pales-
tine: First Three Centuries C.E. (Berkeley: Univ. of California, 1990),
esp. 216218.
completely reconciled with His own servants. The conjunction of recon-

ciliation and servants ensures that just as 7:33, where as here we have
the intensified possessive, His own servants this is an allusion back to 7:6.
Having seen the beginning (v. 27!) of reconciliation, the Jews express the
hope that it will be completed.
30. Clashing (). This verb appears nowhere else in the Sep-
tuagint, and our verse is one of only two references for it in LSJ, 1712.
Timothys and Bacchides men. Who have not yet been mentioned. It ap-
pears that this account was located here, out of historical context, because
of the theme it shares with the present story: the charitable distribution of
booty (see Momigliano, Prime linee, 79; Bar-Kochva, JM, 512). So despite
the allusions at 9:3 and 10:24, we should not understand that the battle
mentioned here necessarily occurred right after the one against Nicanor. Cf.
NOTES on v. 31, to Jerusalem, and on v. 33, Callisthenes.
very high strongholds. As usual, our author has no interest in the geographi-
cal details; see NOTE on v. 6, strategic places. Very ([ right
well) recurs in the same type of context in 10:18, 32.
a great quantity of spoils. But not all of the spoils, for some were brought to
Jerusalem, apparently for the victory celebration; see v. 33.
equal portions for themselves and for widows and orphans, as well as the
old. The author wants to emphasize that Judas and his men did not take for
themselves more than they gave to the unfortunates listed here. But pace
Risberg (Anmerkungen, 22, followed by Katz, Text, 15 and Habicht,
2 Macc, 242, n. 30d) it is not at all clear that emendation is required to
make that point; cf. Hanhart, Text, 34.
those who had been mistreated (?). In the present context, appear-
ing alongside widows and orphans and before the surviving and their
families, one would expect this term to refer to those wounded in battle.
However, the literal meaning of the word is those who had been outraged/
mistreated insultingly/tortured, and since this root is typical of the marty-
rology in Chapter 7 (see above, p. 17), it may be that we are meant to under-
stand this as a reference to the surviving victims of the persecution (so Abel,
Macc, 393; so too RSV: those who had been tortured). If so, then here
too, as in the prayer that opens this chapter and as in v. 21 (ready to die),
our author is binding up Judas struggle with that of those martyrs.
31. strategic. Somewhere or other; see NOTE on v. 30, very high strong-
holds. As for , see NOTE on v. 6, strategic places.
to Jerusalem. Which, at this point of the story, has not yet been taken by the
Jews; nor have we even been told that the victory over Nicanor would allow
for that. Indeed, according to 1 Maccabees 4 it did not; yet another cam-
paign (1 Macc 4:2635) was still needed. This too indicates that the present
pericope should be read not as part of the sequential narrative, but, rather,
as an excursus illustrating and reinforcing an element of it: the proper dis-
tribution of spoils.
32. Timothys phylarch. According to the structure of this verse, phy-

larch () would seem to be a (military) rank or title; for dis-
cussion, see esp. Bar-Kochva, JM, 511, who cites Grimm (2 Macc, 144) and
esp. Richnow (Untersuchungen, 121) for the view that it is a proper
noun. Grimms assertion that it is sicher Nomen proprium is based on the
claim that if it were a military rank or title it should be accompanied by
, a (hitherto unmentioned) phylarch; but that seems to be based on
the unfounded assumption that Timothys force included more than one
phylarch. As for Richnow, he in fact deliberates the issue without coming to
a conclusion, even adding in the point that there is very little evidence for
Phylarch as a proper noun to which Habicht (2 Macc, 242, n. 32a) adds
that such evidence as there is points rather to Phylarchos, whereas the spell-
ing with , as we have it, points rather toward a title.
If it is a title (as held for example by Habicht, ibid., and by Abel, Macc,
394), what would it mean here? In classical Athens phylarchs were the com-
manders of cavalry units of each tribe ( Herodotus 5.69), so Habicht
(ibid.) translates Reiterkommandeur; for Timothys cavalry, see 10:24.
See also Bunge, Untersuchungen, 280. But it does not seem that the term,
which literally alludes to tribes and not to cavalry, moved completely from
the former to the latter realm, and, indeed, it is difficult to find supporting
evidence for cavalry commander; see LSJ, 1961. Bunge refers to Bengston
(Strategie 2.305), who, along with additional bibliography, suggested that
in Dura Europus the was responsible for the Arab tribes in the
vicinity of the city. Such an interpretation could fit our verse as well, for no
Chapter VIII 345
less than 5000 Arabs joined Timothys forces, according to 12:10. Com-
pare the arabarch (), known from the Roman period the of-
ficial in charge of customs-collection from the Arab tribes or regions; see
Stern, GLA, 2.9697.
a most impious man (). On this adjective, see NOTE on 7:34,

impious.
harassed. Apart from a variant reading in Herodotus 9.50, this is the only
citation in LSJ, 644 for the active voice of .
33. victory celebrations (). On the customary epinikia (Arrian

5.20.1), which were post-victory celebrations and esp. sacrifices, see Prit-
chett, War, 3.186189, who cites much evidence, including Diodo-
rus 16.86.6 and Polyaenus 1.43.2 and 7.43.
fatherland. Jerusalem itself is clearly meant here, as is shown by v. 31. See

our NOTE on 4:1, fatherland.
burned those who had set fire. Tit for tat, what the end of this verse calls
fitting wages; see NOTE on 4:16, those for whose ways
holy gates. The fact that they were burned is also mentioned in the first ep-
istle (1:8), which indicates that Jasons or Menelaus supporters had done
such a thing; also in 1 Maccabees 4:38. We cannot know which gates are
meant, and we in fact know very little about the Temples gates and those of
its courts in this early period; most of our evidence pertains to the Herodian
period. See Josephus, War 5.198206 and Antiquities 15.410420; m. Mid-
dot 1:35; Schalit, Knig Herodes, 372380 (on gates of Temple Mount),
385392 (on gates of inner precinct); L. I. Levine, Josephus Description
of the Jerusalem Temple, in: Parente & Sievers, Josephus and the History,
242.
Callisthenes. The fact that this character is unknown but not presented as
such is, apparently, more evidence for the assumption that this pericope is
out of context; see NOTE on v. 30, Timothys and Bacchides men.
received fitting wages. As Andronicus (4:38). There are variant readings

here, which apparently reflect copyists desire to punish not only Callis-
thenes, but rather all of those who set fire to the gates; see Kappler, Mem-
oria, 6364; Hanhart, Text, 2627, n. 4.
34. As for Nicanor. This leads us back into the main narrative, following
the excursus in vv. 3033. This is, then, another example of the authors use
of names as handles to move our attention in the direction he desires; see
NOTE on v. 8, But Philip.
thrice-accursed Nicanor (). For this colorful word LSJ

(1822) cites only our verse and LXX Esther 8:12p. Use of such a rare de-
scription of Nicanor both here and at 15:3 shows clearly that our author
thought that they are one and the same; that is indeed the reason he focuses
upon him here; see Introduction, pp. 910.
who had brought the thousand merchants. On Nicanors responsibility for

this, see NOTE on v. 11, he wrote to the coastal cities. The number of mer-
chants was not mentioned there, nor in 1 Maccabees 3:41. But the use of the
definite article here makes it sound as if the reader knew of it; perhaps this
was one of the numbers the author left out when editing Jasons original
(see 2:24). In any case, it is grossly exaggerated.
35. with the Lords help. In accordance with the Jews motto (v. 23); note
that the author is not bothered by the use of there and here, just
as he generally alternates between the two without any apparent rationale.
Thus, for example, in this chapter he uses in vv. 2, 5, 14, 27, 29
alongside of in vv. 13, 18, 23, and in Chapter 10 the Jews pray to
in v. 25, before the battle, but depend upon in v. 28 and thank Him
in v. 38; etc.
made himself as destitute as a fugitive slave ( ). Tit for

tat: he wanted to sell the Jews into captivity, but in the end only managed to
escape by feigning the same plight. According to Josephus (War 2.358),
Xerxes, the classic exemplar of royal arrogance (see NOTE on 5:21, land
navigable ), in the end fled like a fugitive slave (\ ); cf. Ae-
schylus description of his flight in Persians, 734, 832836, and Diodorus
at 11.19.6.
through the hinterland. Given his defeat he was afraid, or embarrassed, to

go back via the coastal cities to which he had turned so confidently at the
outset of his campaign (v. 11).
having succeeded especially in accomplishing the destruction of his army.

On the irony here, see Doran, Temple Propaganda, 58 (as opposed to Ha-
bicht 2 Macc, 243, n. 35c); for more joking at Nicanors expense, see our
Chapter VIII 347
NOTES on the next verse. The adverb 3 (especially) is relatively

rare but appears twice more in our book (10:34; 13:25) and is defended by
Katz, Text, 15 and Kilpatrick, Review of Hanhart, 18, as opposed to
Hanhart who reads and defends (Text, 39) 3M > (above all).
36. Thus he. The author likes these gloating ad hominem summaries; see
Introduction, pp. 7778.
to take care of proclaimed. These two verbs are juxtaposed and very
similar to one another ( ), which highlights
the contrast between his original plan and what he ended up doing; Cf.
NOTE on 6:29, benevolence malevolence. This seems to be the first of
two cases of word-play, at Nicanors expense, in this final verse of the
chapter; see below, NOTE on and that it is for this reason because.
the Jerusalemites. The books usual focus; see Introduction, pp. 67.
proclaimed. Like Heliodorus (3:3439), Antiochus promise (9:14), and Ly-

sias conclusion (11:13).
Someone who fights for them. For God as the Jews 3 see also
14:34; cf. above, NOTE on v. 24, ally.
and that it is for this reason because. The translation is based on the par-
allelism between the repeated use of ?. Note that the concatenation of
consonants makes 9 into something of a
tongue-twister, which may add to the mirth over poor Nicanors fate; cf.
NOTE on to take care of proclaimed earlier in this verse.
Jews are invulnerable. Lysias too will reach the same conclusion; see 11:13.
The present verse conforms nicely to v. 5 and together they frame the
chapter: there the Jewish author says that Jewish attacks cannot be with-
stood, and here the Gentile, having learned this lesson, preaches that those
who would attack Jews come to a sorry end. That is just what is needed to
prepare us for the next chapter.
because they follow (

) the laws ordained () by
Him. For the implied comparison of Gods laws to royal prostagmata, see
NOTE on 7:30, decree of the king As for follow, there are parallels for
such usage of ; see e.g. Judith 2:3 and Andocides, Against Alci-
biades 4.19. Nevertheless, this meaning is rare enough to justify the suspi-
cion that it is used here to close a circle: Gods justice pursued Nicanor
( v. 11), and the Jews followed His laws and thereby
merited that He fight for them. For such usage of a somewhat inappropriate
word in order to close a circle, cf. NOTE on 3:35, receiving Onias.
Bibliography

Goodblatt, Medinat HaYam.
Wellhausen, Wert, 132138.
Chapter IX 349
Chapter IX
Antiochus Disease and Fall
(1) About that time it happened that Antiochus had made a disorderly re-
treat from the Persian regions. (2) For he had entered into the city called
Persepolis and set his hand to robbing the temple and securing the city for
which reason the masses, having rushed to arms for assistance, defeated
them; and so it happened that Antiochus was put to flight by the natives and
made a humiliating retreat. (3) When he was near Ecbatana there reached
him the news of what had happened to Nicanor and to those with Timothy.
(4) Borne on the wave of his temper he thought he could avenge upon the
Jews also the misfortune which had been imposed upon him by those who
had forced him to flee. He therefore ordered his wagon-driver to drive with-
out letup so as to finish the trip but the heavenly judgment kept up with
him. For he arrogantly said, When I get to Jerusalem I will turn it into a
Jewish cemetery!, (5) but the all-seeing Lord, the God of Israel, smote him
with an incurable and invisible blow: right after he ceased speaking he was
overcome by unrelenting pain in his entrails and bitter torments of his in-
nards (6) quite justly, for he had with numerous and exotic sufferings tor-
mented the entrails of others. (7) But he in no way gave up his haughtiness,
but was even filled with arrogance, breathing fire in his rage against the
Jews and ordering (his driver) to make haste along the way. But it happened
that, carried along by the rush, he fell from the chariot; in the severe fall it
befell all the parts of his body to be racked intensely.
(8) And so he who until just now had thought, in superhuman vaing-
lory, to give orders to the oceans waves, and who had supposed he could
weigh on a scale the heights of mountains came back to earth and, being
carried in a litter, exhibited to all the revealed power of God, (9) in that also
worms came bubbling up out of the villains eyes, and while he was still
alive his flesh disintegrated in pain and suffering, and the entire camp was
belabored under the stench of his decaying. (10) And he who just a bit ear-
lier had thought he could touch the stars of heaven no one could bear him
due to the intolerable burden of his stench.
Antiochus Repents
(11) At this point, shattered, he began to give up something of his arro-

gance and to come to his senses, for under the divine scourge his pains
were continually becoming worse and worse. (12) No longer able even to
stand his own stench, he said: It is right to submit to God and, being mor-
tal, not to think oneself equal to God. (13) And the abominable man
made a vow to the Sovereign who would no longer be merciful to him
saying as follows:
(14) that he would proclaim the Holy City to which he had been hurry-
ing in order to level it to the ground and rebuild as a cemetery free;
(15) and that he would set the Jews whom he had considered not even
worthy of burial, but had thought to throw out bird-eaten to wild animals,
together with their babies equal to Athenians;
(16) and that he would deck out the Holy Temple which he had pre-
viously pillaged with the most beautiful votive offerings, and that he
would restore many times over the sacred vessels and supply from his own
revenues the expenses incurred for the sacrifices;
(17) and that, moreover, he would become a Jew and, visiting all inhab-
ited places, would proclaim the power of God.
Antiochus Epistle to the Jews
(18) But since the suffering did not at all let up for he had already been
visited by the just judgment of God he gave up hope for himself and wrote
the Jews the letter written below, in the form of a supplication, as follows:
(19) To the respected Jews, fellow citizens, many greetings, health and suc-
cess (from) the King and Governor Antiochus. (20) If you are well, and your
children and your affairs are satisfactory, I pray the greatest gratitude to
God, for my hope is in Heaven. (21) As for me, although I am in a weak
condition, I remember with sincere love your respect and goodwill. Since
while returning from the region of Persia I fell ill, and I am in a bad way,
I have thought it necessary to give thought to the common security of all.
(22) Although I do not despair of myself, and have full hope to get out of the
clutches of this disease, (23) nevertheless:
seeing that my father, whenever he campaigned to the highlands, ap-
pointed him who would succeed him, (24) so that if anything surprising
should develop or any difficulty be reported, all the inhabitants of the
country would know to whom the state had been left and would not be even
more upset;
Chapter IX 351
(25) and realizing, moreover, that the nearby and neighboring rulers are
looking for opportunities and building expectations about developments;
I have appointed my son Antiochus king, just as frequently, when I has-
tened up to the upper satrapies, I entrusted and recommended him to the
majority of you. And I have written him the things written below. (26) Ac-
cordingly, I call upon you and ask you that recalling my benefactions to
the commonalty and to each and every one of you each of you maintain
the present goodwill toward me and my son. (27) For I am convinced that
he graciously and humanely following my own policy will be lenient
with you.
Antiochus Dies
(28) Thus the murderer and blasphemer, suffering the worst possible fate,
ended his life in the way he had treated others: in a foreign land, in the
mountains a most miserable death. (29) Philip, who had been reared with
him, bore the body back, and then, wary of Antiochus son, betook himself
to Egypt, to Ptolemy Philometor.
COMMENT
The death of Antiochus Epiphanes was a favorite theme in ancient de mor-

tibus persecutorum literature (see Bibliography to this chapter), and our
chapter is the earliest of them all. All that happens in this chapter is that our
author enjoying himself immensely settles the Jews accounts with Anti-
ochus IV Epiphanes. The king, whose very name bespeaks arrogance (see
NOTE on v. 4, arrogantly) and whose mind had gone soaring (5:17, 21)
since he hadnt understood that his successes against the Jews were due to
Gods desire to punish his sinful people (5:17), is brought back to earth in a
very real and excruciating way, and so to understanding Gods power. The
story begins with a Persian mob defeating the kings attempt to rob their
temple, and proceeds to have him flee, hear bad news from Judaea, be
stricken by a God-sent disease, and severely wounded by a fall from his
chariot. Then, when he has begun to recognize that it is right to submit to
God, he first makes all sorts of wonderful promises concerning Jerusalem,
the Jews and God Himself but it turns out that these too are only ex-
pressions of his arrogance, for he can in fact do nothing. So there is nothing
left for him but shameful death, although not before the author shows him-
self to be a virtuoso in spoofing a royal deathbed epistle.
As for historicity, most of what we have in this chapter is not the type of
material one would expect to be able or to want to confirm or deny. It is,
rather, a gloating combination of Greek and Jewish motifs about arrogant
kings and their spectacular downfalls; many of the building blocks may be
traced back, directly or indirectly, to Aeschylus Persians (on Xerxes) and
Isaiah 14 (on the King of Babylon). See, respectively, our NOTES on v. 1,
disorderly retreat, and on v. 9, worms. Nevertheless, it may be noted that
the two basic facts Antiochus death in the course of his eastern campaign,
and in some connection to an attempt to plunder a temple are borne out
by other sources as well; see NOTES on 1:13, to Persia and in the temple of
Nanaia.
NOTES
9:1. About that time. As at the opening of Chapter 5, which opens the same
way with reference to Antiochus campaign to Egypt, our author has no in-
terest in giving a precise date. Antiochus departure for the East is dated at
1 Maccabees 3:37 to 147 SE, that is according to the Jewish system (see
Introduction, p. 11, n. 24) between the spring of 165 and that of 164 BCE.
For literature on the campaign, see NOTE on 1:13, to Persia.
it happened (). This too parallels the opening of Chapter 5, al-

though the verb there is different; for ours, see NOTE on 4:32, just as it
happened. In the present chapter also a few other things happen
( vv. 2, 7), and it is clear that the author wants us to understand
that God made them happen; see NOTE on 3:2, it happened.
disorderly (2,) retreat. Just like Xerxes army, according to Aeschy-

lus Persians, lines 422, 470, 481. For other comparisons of Antiochus to
Xerxes both paragons of arrogance in this chapter, see NOTE on v. 4,
kept up with him, on v. 8, give orders to waves weigh mountains,
and on v. 12, being mortal (
2)
the Persian regions. The phrasing is very general, probably because our
author did not know, nor could he care less, where exactly these events
transpired; cf. 4:36; 8:6, 31; 10:19; etc. Other more specific sources indicate
that the event described in v. 2 happened in Elymais which is, in a general
way, part of Persia; so too 1 Maccabees 6:1. Cf. NOTE on 1:13, temple
of Nanaia.
Chapter IX 353
2. called. Such a formulation is usually used to apologize, as it were, before

readers, upon introduction of foreign or strange-sounding words or names;
thus, for example, 12:17, 21, 32; 14:6; 15:36. But Persepolis was certainly
quite well known; see our next NOTE. Rather, in this case it seems that
there was another problem: the name was understood to mean city of the
Persians, and according to a well-established rule such names were sup-
posed to remain divided into two words, such as 7 in 12:29, as
opposed to one word for the residents, , mentioned in the
very next verse. Persepolis was for some reason exceptional, but our author,
who preened himself on his Greek style, felt the need to demonstrate some
unease. See J. Wackernagel, Griechische Miszellen, 1: ,
Glotta 14 (1925) 3644 = idem, Kleine Schriften, II (3 vols.; Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1953[?]) 844852.
Persepolis. The capital of ancient Persia, which became famous esp. upon
its destruction by Alexander the Great; see E. N. Borza, Fire From Heaven:
Alexander at Persepolis, CP 67 (1972) 233245; M. Wheeler, Flames
Over Persepolis (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1968). For this reason,
and due to the fact that hundreds of kilometers separate it from Elymais,
one may suspect that our author named this city only because he knew that
the events to which he alludes happened somewhere in Persia; so, for
example, Schunck, Quellen, 41.
set his hand. The verb is , as at 7:19, and there too there is a
strong nasty nuance; see also 10:15, 3 Maccabees 6:24 and Acts 12:1 (al-
though above 2:29 it has no such nuance).
the masses, having rushed to arms for assistance, defeated them. I translated
as if an active verb had been used instead of the passive , so as
to avoid ambiguity (that led some translators, such as the RSV, to add
Antiochus and his men into the text). On the sense of the verb, see our
NOTE on 12:27, defeated and destroyed. The scene is similar to the one
played out in Jerusalem at 4:3942, but our diasporan author, who here has
Persians taking up weapons, limited his unarmed Jerusalemite heroes to
whatever they could find; see NOTE on 4:41, wood ashes.
3. Ecbatana. The capital of Media, found to the north of Elymais; today:

Hamadan. According to Polybius 31.9, however, death overtook him at
Tabae which is in Persis, hundreds of kilometers southeast of Ecbatana;
see Walbank, Polybius, 3.474; Drew-Bear, Recherches, I. Perhaps our
author knew of the special relationship between Antiochus Epiphanes and
Ecbatana, which was reflected in the fact that the city renamed itself Epiph-
aneia; see Mrkholm, Antiochus, 117. For a good map of the region, see
A. B. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great
(Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1988) 86.
there reached him the news. As usual, our author would not want us to stop
to wonder how; see Introduction, p. 73.
what had happened to Nicanor and to those with Timothy. The reference to
Nicanor is fine, but as for those with Timothy, whose defeat at the hands
of the Jews is reported in 8:3033, it seems (see NOTE on 8:30, Timothys
and Bacchides men) that the story there was out of place historically, meant
only to illustrate the topic of charitable distribution of booty. Here, how-
ever, as also in a brief allusion at 10:24, it sounds as if the event has already
taken place. Although it is possible that these two references to Timothys
men were added in after the book was completed, it seems more economical
to assume (with Bar-Kochva, JM, 512) that already Jason had the material
appearing in what is now 8:3033 and that our author, in a mistaken at-
tempt to bind the narrative together better, added in the present reference,
as also the one at 10:24. 1 Maccabees 6:5ff. agrees that the king, while in
Persia, heard of his forces defeat in Judaea, and that the news led to his
death; but there the reference is especially to the defeat of Lysias in the first
Beth-Zur campaign (and Timothy is not mentioned). For our author, who
believed that Lysias was appointed to office only after the death of Anti-
ochus IV (see 10:11), there had to be some other reference. Note, moreover,
that if indeed, as suggested above (pp. 2830), the original order of our
books chapters at this part of its story was 8, 13, 12, 9, the defeats of Ni-
canor (Ch. 8) and Timothy (Ch. 12) would indeed have preceded Anti-
ochus death (Ch. 9).
4. Borne on the wave of his temper. The kings reaction to this news from
Judaea is similar to the one recorded at 5:11. For Antiochus being taken
over by his rage (), also v. 7 and NOTE on 6:23, honorable argument;
for him becoming 6 see 7:3, 39 (and cf. 14:27).
also the misfortune. That is, he could avenge upon the Jews not only what
they did to Nicanor and Timothy, but also what the Persepolitans had
done to him.
heavenly. I.e., of God; see NOTE on 7:11, from Heaven.

Chapter IX 355
kept up with him. This is real irony: he is hurrying to attack Jerusalem, but
the citys Champion accompanied him, not even having to pursue him
(8:11). The author might have Aeschylus, Persians, 742 in mind: when
man hasteneth to his own undoing, God too taketh part with him (trans.
Smyth, LCL); cf. NOTES on v. 1, disorderly retreat, and on 8:35, made him-
self as destitute as a fugitive slave.
arrogantly (#,). Here, as in vv. 7, 11 (3) and 8 (-

) our author plays games at the expense of Antiochus illustrious by-
name, Epiphanes; this becomes, via repetition, something of a leitmotif in
this chapter. So too, already, at 3:2021 and the joke at 10:10; cf. above,
p. 81. For Antiochus arrogance, see esp. 5:21. On this sin, see NOTE on
3:24, been audacious. For another Jewish Hellenistic author who saw fit to
repeatedly urge kings against it, see Letter of Aristeas 211, 262, 263, 269.
cemetery (). Lit., place of many men; may also be used of a

whorehouse (so Philo, On Flight, 153), an overtone that makes the threat
sound even worse (cf. 6:4!). For the calamity of a temple turning into a
, see also Josephus, War 5.19.
5. all-seeing (2) Lord. The adjective appears only here in the

Septuagint, but the idea itself is frequent in our book; see NOTE on 3:39,
watches over. On this adjective in a Gerasan inscription and on similar ex-
pressions in Greek literature, see A. H. M. Jones, Inscriptions from Jer-
ash, JRS 18 (1928) 173, no. 42.
smote him (#-). The use of this verb might be meant to hint at the
comparison of Antiochus to the biblical Pharaoh, who was (along with the
Egyptians) the most famous victim of divine ; see H&R, 2.1103.
For this comparison, see also NOTES on 5:22, officials to torment; 5:24,
the Mysarch Apollonius; and 15:24, be terrified. For Luke playing a similar
game with another persecutor, whom Gods angel strikes at Acts 12:23,
see Schwartz, Agrippa, 120, n. 51. Already Polybius knew that there were
those who thought that it was God who inflicted disease upon Antiochus, in
His wrath at him for attempting to violate a temple; but Polybius was refer-
ring to the temple of Artemis in Elymais see NOTE on 1:13, in the temple
of Nanaia. Just as Josephus was to wonder (Ant. 12.358359) at Poly-
bius failure to connect the kings death to the temple of Jerusalem, other
Jews may have been bothered by the same problem; our book, just as 1 Mac-
cabees 6 shows a Jewish tradition linking the two versions together. Cf.
our NOTE on 10:13; because he had abandoned Cyprus. For a comparison
of this Jewish version to the Prayer of Nabonid from Qumran (4Q242;

DJD 22, 8393), see Mendels, Note.
invisible blow. But its results were visible; cf. 3:25, they saw a horse.
entrails (#,). Any reader used to our authors style should realize
that this term points back to the martyrologies (6:8, 21; 7:42) and that, ac-
cordingly, if the disease first manifested itself in the entrails this was:
6. quite justly. For similarly pedantic comments in similar contexts, see

12:45 and 13:8.
for he had tormented the entrails (#) of others. In context, this

can only mean that he had forced Jews to eat that is, he had imposed upon
their entrails forbidden foods.
7. in no way gave up. Our author refuses to let his victim learn, thus setting
him up for the final fall.
haughtiness arrogance. See NOTE on v. 4, arrogantly.
breathing fire ( ,). Cf. the fire-breathing () arro-

gance of the Jews enemies at 3 Maccabees 6:34. This especially graphic
way of portraying anger may reflect folkloristic notions of dragons; see
S. Thompson, Motif-Index of Folk Literature, I (Bloomington & London:
Indiana Univ., 19662) 351, 473.
in his rage. On Antiochus , see NOTE on v. 4, Borne on the wave of

his temper.
But it happened. Of course, such things do not just happen to happen; see
NOTE on v. 1, it happened.
he fell. This element, missing in all the other versions of Antiochus death,
seems to have been required so as to correspond to Isaiah 14:12 and bring
Antiochus literally back to earth after his earlier soaring (5:17, 21); see
Schwartz, Why did Antiochus?. Adding this in engendered some rough-
ness; see the first NOTE on v. 9.
all the parts of his body. Readers geared by now to seeking tit for tat will re-
call 7:7, have your body punished bit by bit.
Chapter IX 357
to be racked intensely. LSJ (220) lists our verse alone in its entry on -
.
8. And so he who until just now had thought. For such gloating knife-turn-
ing, here paralleled at v. 10, see NOTE on 3:28, And so he who just before.
give orders to waves weigh mountains. The first clause echoes 5:21.
It is characteristic of our Jewish Hellenistic book, which bespeaks a syn-
thesis of the two worlds, that it is impossible, and unnecessary, for us to de-
cide whether the allusion here is or is more to Xerxes (Herodotus 7.24,
3637; Aeschylus, Persians, 744751, 820 etc.) or, rather, to Isaiah 40:12:
Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand and weighed
the mountains in scales ? For of weighing, see Abel, Macc, 399.
Either allusion would justify the authors assumption that Antiochus ulti-
mate sin was equating himself with God as is explicitly said in v. 12.
On this motif here and in Hellenistic and Roman literature, see Africa,
Worms, 89.
exhibited to all the power of God. Just as, in other ways, Heliodorus
(3:28), Nicanor (8:36) and Lysias (11:13); see above, p. 48.
revealed (#). Another joke at the expense of Epiphanes; see

NOTE on v. 4, arrogantly.
9. in that also (@ 3). This is an attempt to make the story flow, but in
fact continues the story from v. 6; it is the bowel disease, not the fall
(vv. 78), that created the worms that now come crawling up and out. See
NOTE on v. 7, he fell.
worms. A common motif in death of tyrants accounts e.g. Sulla (Plut-

arch, Sulla 36), Herod (Josephus, War 1.656; Ant. 17.169), Agrippa I
(Acts 12:23); for other cases, see Plutarch, ibid., Judith 16:17; Pseudo-
Philo, LAB 44.9; 63.4; b. Sotah 35a; etc. (Spicq, Notes, 2.8056; Schwartz,
Agrippa, 148). On these stories and their motifs, see esp. Nestle, Leg-
enden (253258 on lice and worms; 267 summary table of who died
how) and Africa, Worms. Note especially that Queen Pheretime of Cy-
rene is said to have died this way as the gods punishment for having taken
exaggerated vengeance upon her enemies (Herodotus 4.205; cf. ibid. 202),
a point which may have been known to our Jason.
But it is also important that the King of Babylon, an epithet easily ap-
plied to a Seleucid, is promised a wormy fate (although post-mortem) at
Isaiah 14:11, and that that chapters account of that arrogant mans rise and
fall seems to be echoed at a few points in the present account; see Nickels-
burg, Resurrection, 79, and Schwartz, Why did Antiochus?, along with
the following NOTES: v. 10, touch ; v. 12, being mortal ; and v. 28,
in a foreign land. Thus, as with regard to the preceding verse, so too here
with regard to this standard element in the death of persecutors dossier, it
is difficult, but also unnecessary, to choose between Greek and Jewish.
flesh disintegrated. This seems to be the sense of here; cf. 2:14.

Compare Qohelet Rabbah on Qohelet 9:12, which, in the context of a dis-
cussion of nations that besieged Jerusalem, reports that the limbs of the
wicked spies of Numbers 14:37 sloughed off (whereas b. Sotah 35a has
them being eaten by worms, which shows that this is all one complex). For
Philo on tyrants who dismember their victims while still alive, but in the end
suffer the very same fate themselves, see That Every Good Man is Free, 89;
it is usually thought that the reference is to Herod (see above, p. 86, n. 199).
For Antiochus dismemberment of his victims, see 7:45.
stench. Which accompanied his disease; so too Herods (Ant. 17.169).

Goldstein (2 Macc, 355) adduces Joel 2:20, where God promises that the
stench of the northerner whom one could easily identify as the Seleucid
King of the North, as throughout Daniel 11 will rise (spread out).
For our authors use of the immediately preceding verses in Joel 2, see In-
troduction, p. 62.
10. And he who just a bit earlier See NOTE on v. 8, And so he ; this
time he is said to have taken on not only the oceans and the mountains, but
heaven itself.
touch the stars no one could bear him. Some more ironic tit for tat; he
thought to touch what mortals cannot, and mortals in fact couldnt even
bear him. On touching the stars, see Isaiah 14:13, of the arrogant King of
Babylon: And you said in your heart, I will go up to the heaven, I will raise
up my chair above the stars . As for the inability to bear him, see also
NOTE on v. 29, bore the body back ().
11. continually ( ). For the translation, see Hanhart, Text,

19; he compares ? A in 6:7 and ] in LXX Isaiah 29:5.
12. being mortal (

2), not to think oneself equal to God
(02
). The Venetus reading +, attested already by Hippolytus
Chapter IX 359
and Cyprian, was adopted by Abel, Habicht and Goldstein. Hanhart (Text,
4243), after deliberation, adopted 3 (magnificent), which
is attested by the Alexandrinus and other Greek witnesses. But equal
to God creates a better contrast with mortal than does magnificent,
and it is surprising that Hanhart ascribed any weight to the fact that
+ appears nowhere else in the Septuagint; see above, p. 67. For Greek
parallels for +, see Goldstein, 2 Macc, 355. As for the background
here, note that at Isaiah 14:14 (see NOTE on v. 9, worms) the King of
Babylon said he would become like the Most High, and that at Da-
niel 11:36 we read that Antiochus Epiphanes will elevate himself and
magnify himself above all gods and speak wonderful things about the
God of gods. Cf. Letter of Aristeas 263: the ruler must always remain a
person (cf. NOTE on v. 4, arrograntly). But it seems that, as at 5:21, it is
mainly the Xerxes story which functions here; see Aeschylus, Persians,
744751, 820, where, in the context of the attempt to bridge the Helles-
pont, the contrast between a and the gods recurs. See also Anti-
gones protest to Creon in line 455 of Sophocles Antigone, cited in our
NOTE on 7:30, What are you waiting for?
13. abominable man. See NOTE on 5:16, abominable hands.
who would no longer be merciful to him. Just as in v. 4, our author takes

care not to let his readers worry.
saying as follows. Despite this opening, his words are brought in indirect
speech. The long list of extravagant promises demonstrates that although
he has decided to change his policy, he still thinks he can do anything he
wants. Thus, he has moved only part of the way down. After pausing to
enjoy this stage (vv. 1417), the author will go on to depict his final despair
(vv. 18ff.).
14. proclaim. As in vv. 23, 25; 10:11; 14:26. On in Hellenistic

Greek, see Bickerman, Studies, 3.25; Spicq, Notes, 3.3839. The items
proclaimed are each contrasted with what he had planned to do, thus show-
ing his full turnabout.
Holy City. See NOTE on 3:1, Holy City.
level it to the ground. As we heard at 8:3.
cemetery. As we heard in v. 4.
free. This apparently refers to freedom from taxation and to asylum status,
as obtained during the days of Antiochus III; see NOTE on 3:12, immunity;
Rigsby, Asylia, 635 (index, s.v. -); and Ma, Antiochos III, 160165.
15. not even worthy of burial. Actually, we did not hear this about Anti-
ochus, only Jason (5:10); but see our NOTE on v. 28, in a foreign land. For
the horror implied, see NOTE on 4:49, funeral expenses.
bird-eaten to wild animals (

). Here too, as with the mountains of v. 8
and the worms of v. 9, it is impossible, but also unnecessary, to decide
whether this is a Greek motif or a Hebrew one. See, on the one hand, Iliad
1.45; 11.162 etc. (M. Faust, Die knstlerische Verwendung von
Hund in den homerischen Epen, Glotta 48 [1970] 2224); Sophocles,
Antigone 29, 205206, 698, 10171022; Lactantius, DMP 4.3 etc. On the
other: Deuteronomy 28:26; 1 Samuel 17:4446; Jeremiah 7:33; Eze-
kiel 39:4; Psalms 79:2; Psalms of Solomon 4:2122. On the importance of
proper burial, see NOTE on 4:49, funeral expenses. As for , the
Septuagint usually uses it for hayyah, not behemah, that is, it usually uses
it for the wilder of the two; when in two of the abovementioned passages
(1 Sam 17:44 and Jer 7:33) it nevertheless uses it for behemah (see H&R
1.650651), this apparently indicates an awareness of the especially bestial
nature of that which is alluded to.
equal to Athenians. With whom Antiochus had a special relationship; see

NOTE on 6:1, Geron the Athenian. Here too there is an ironic twist, be-
cause when we last heard of Athenians (ibid.) Antiochus was using one to
persecute the Jews.
16. pillaged. As we heard at 5:1516.
votive offerings. On which see NOTE on 3:2, the kings themselves.
supply from his own revenues the expenses incurred for the sacrifices. As his
brother had done in the idyllic good old days; with the exception of ex-
penses, the Greek wording here is identical with that of 3:3.
17. become a Jew. Here our author has really outdone himself; hitherto he
has spoken only of Gentiles who recognized Gods power (see NOTE on
v. 8, exhibited to all ). On becoming a Jew, see Cohen, Beginnings.
With regard to our verse Cohen emphasizes (pp. 9293, 129130, 151) that
what is meant is Jew by religion, i.e., worshipper of the Jewish God, not
Chapter IX 361
Judaean; after all, Antiochus is a Macedonian king and intends to re-

main one (93).
visiting proclaim. As Heliodorus and Nicanor before him (3:36; 8:36).

But our author will now delight in showing that, as opposed to them, Anti-
ochus will not succeed, for although he promised to visit ()
18. he had already been visited (

7 /2) by the just judg-
ment of God. For the subject becoming object, cf. 14:29, 31; the present in-
stance is similar to that at 11:2, 4 ( ). For
such games, see Introduction, pp. 8081. As the author has explained
(v. 13), the gates of repentance were closed to Antiochus. For rabbinic no-
tions of this punishment as the lot of the worst people, see m. Avot 5.18, t.
Taaniyyot 4.11 (Lieberman, 253); y. Hagigah 2:1 (77b), Urbach, Sages,
1.465466. On the closing of the Temples gates (which amounts to the
same thing) before arch-sinners, see Alon, Jews, 138145.
in the form of a supplication (= #-). Supplicating bespeaks ipso

facto a status inferior to that of the addressee; see, NOTE on 3:18, suppli-
cation; 10:25; 11:6; Philo, Leg. 228; Welles, RC, 57; C. Spicq, Le philon-
isme de lptre aux Hbreux, RB 56 (1949) 549; J. Gould, ,
JHS 93 (1973) 74103. Already this is enough to indicate that what we
have is the work of a Jewish falsifier who probably would have been
miffed had anyone taken his work to be authentic. Rather, we are supposed
to laugh along with him. For the inclusion of this letter and only this letter,
of all those in 2 Maccabees in a list of royal letters in ancient literature
which are vllig stilwidrig and not to be taken as seriously, see W. Schu-
bart, Bemerkungen zum Stile hellenistischer Knigsbriefe, AfP 6 (1920)
343. See also J.-D. Gauger, Authentizitt und Methode: Untersuchun-
gen zum historischen Wert des persisch-griechischen Herrscherbriefs in
literarischer Tradition (Hamburg: Kovac, 2000) 310311, n. 36 (nicht zu
retten).
19. To the respected Jews (from) the King. The formulation is consonant
with the term petition, not only in the use of respected but also in its
to X from Y form, which indicates Xs superiority; cf. NOTE on 1:1,
greetings.
fellow citizens. The king speaks like a Jew (as promised in v. 17 and exemp-
lified in v. 20), denoting the Jews as his fellow citizens; see NOTE on 4:5,
fellow citizens. This too is part of the joke.
many greetings, health and success. In the epistles of Chapter 11, which are
authentic, the standard greeting is merely the first of these, greetings
(). The addition of health, as in private letters and as in the Jewish
letter at 1:10, is one of the prime indications that this letter is a spoof; the
author is piling everything on. See Habicht, Royal Documents, 56.
King and Governor. No Seleucid king would stoop to adding governor to

his title, but compare the spoof on Artaxerxes at LXX Esther 3:13a-b; see
also Habicht, loc. cit. For the totality of king, in the Hellenistic world,
which therefore makes any such addition only a joke, see Wifstrand,
Epochs and Styles, 160161.
20. If you are well. Standard style; see e.g. 11:28; Antiquities 12.148; Exler,
Form, 103107.
I pray God hope is in Heaven. After all, he did promise to become a

Jew. For Heaven as stand-in for God, see NOTE on 7:11, from Heaven.
But note also that hope hints at life after death or resurrection (see NOTE
on 7:11, hoping); for the notion that the righteous are resurrected directly
into heaven see NOTE on 7:34, children of Heaven. That is, Antiochus is
supposed to be understood either as articulating the hope that God will save
his life or the hope that God will see to his resurrection into heaven just like
one of the righteous. One way or the other, the reader is supposed to know,
and has already been told (vv. 13, 18), that the hope was misplaced.
21. weak condition. I.e., sick, but this phrasing, with 7, intensifies
the contrast between the king and God of whom only the latter has power,
as the king in fact undertook to proclaim (v. 17). In fact, however, he goes
on to talk about himself:
I remember with sincere love your respect and goodwill. Another standard
line in royal epistles; see Welles, RC, 71, lines 34; Habicht, Royal Docu-
ments 172, n. 12. For sincere love (-) in royal letters, see
Welles, RC, 374; Spicq, Notes, 944948. As for goodwill (), it is
yet another element in the standard lexicon which adds to the humor here;
see also v. 26 and on 11:19, If now you will maintain goodwill toward the
state. Note also 1 Maccabees 10:26, where Demetrius I makes a similar
statement; that long-winded epistle too is probably a Jewish forgery (or
even spoof, as in the present case), as scholars have argued (for various rea-
sons); see Schrer, History, 1.178179, n. 14; Rigsby, Asylia, 528531; and
Main, Les Sadducens, 274281.
Chapter IX 363
22. I do not despair of myself. Yet another joke, this time mocking the
kings dishonesty, for v. 18 has already revealed that the opposite is the case.
23. seeing that my father, whenever he campaigned to the highlands. That

is, to Mesopotamia and Iran the upper satrapies of v. 25. For Antiochus
IIIs famous anabasis (journey up) to them, 212205 BCE, see Will, His-
toire politique, 2.5169. On his last eastern campaign, in 187 BCE, in the
course of which he died, see ibid. 238239.
appointed him who would succeed him. It is known that Antiochus III first
appointed his eldest son, Antiochus, as his heir but he died in 193 BCE,
whereupon another son, Seleucus, was appointed in his stead. For this and
similar cases in the Seleucid dynasty, see Goldstein, 2 Macc, 367368, and
Bickerman, Institutions, 2124.
24. if anything surprising should develop or any difficulty be reported. For

such royal euphemisms see, for example, the testament of Ptolemy VIII,
which was composed in 155 BCE, not long before our book. Although writ-
ing about what is to happen upon his death, he writes only ?
7 0 5 if any of the things that happen to men
should occur (SEG 9 [1944] no. 7, lines 1112). Similarly, when Herod
went off to a fateful meeting with Augustus he first arranged that his
brother, Pheroras, would take over the kingdom if they hear anything an-
noying ( ) about him Antiquities 15.184.
the inhabitants of the country (= ' 1). The Seleucid king-

dom, that is, those who stayed at home when the king went off on his cam-
paign; compare ? (Polybius 4.72.4; 8.30.3; 8.33.13; etc.)
in the sense of staying at home.
to whom the state had been left (). See NOTE on 4:29,
left as substitute in the high priesthood.
even more upset. Than they were already by the news of the death of their
beloved king.
25. nearby and neighboring rulers are looking for opportunities. We do not
know of any particular threat to which Antiochus might be supposed to be
referring, but such considerations are always appropriate, even in imagin-
ary letters. In general, Ptolemaic Egypt was the main competition; cf. 4:21
and Goldstein, 2 Macc, 368. There were also local potentates who could be
expected to dream of independence whenever the central Seleucid govern-

ment seemed weak; see Habicht, 2 Macc, 248, n. 25a, and esp. Bickerman,
Institutions, 166169. Finally, although Antiochus, understandably, makes
no mention of them, high officials of his own realm could never have been
very far from suspicion; for the revolt of a provincial governor shortly after
Antiochus death, see NOTE 15:27, no fewer than 35,000.
my son Antiochus. Later known as Antiochus V Eupator; see 2:20 and

10:10. He was nine at the time of his fathers death, according to Appian,
Syriak, ch. 46 and 66. For defense of this datum against another which has
him being twelve (Porphyry, FGrH 260 F32.13), see Mrkholm, Antiochus,
48, n. 41 and Jacoby, FGrH, II/D, 872873.
frequently, when I hastened up to the upper satrapies. On the expression

upper satrapies see Walbank, Polybius, 2.315; so too, for example, An-
tiquities 12.147. The element of haste here, and the very reference to the
upper satrapies, imply military campaigning. But since we in fact know
of no such campaign by Antiochus IV prior to the present one, and certainly
not of anything frequent, this is evidently part of the joke: our author has
Antiochus brag about his military exploits when it was widely known that
they were purely fictional. The implied comparison to his father (cf. v. 23),
who had indeed been victorious on many fronts and earned the title the
Great, makes Epiphanes seem all the more pathetic. Note that had our
author wanted to be fair he could instead have mentioned Egypt, where
Antiochus had indeed campaigned just a few years earlier, and had even
been successful but that, of course, was not part of our authors agenda.
the things written below. There is no such attachment; for a similar situ-
ation in the case of an authentic letter, see 11:17. In the present instance,
however, it may be there was in the original no such attachment; perhaps
the author spared himself the trouble of concocting it, and just inserted the
promise as part of the fun of imitating officialese.
26. my benefactions to the commonalty. Which of course have no basis in

reality, according to our author.
present goodwill. The same word, and same irony, as above; see NOTE on
v. 21, I remember with sincere love your respect and goodwill.
27. For I am convinced ( #). Note that in this final sentence

of his letter, the closest the king who is supposed to now believe in God
Chapter IX 365
gets to faith is to affirm his belief in something which is obviously untrue;

cf. NOTE on 3:22, to preserve the trusts entrusted. In the rest of the verse
the author lays the officialese on thick:
graciously (7). Just like God, of course; see NOTE on 2:22, the Lord
having become merciful
humanely (
1,). See NOTE on 6:22, humane treatment.
following my own policy. The use of in the meaning of policy

is another imitation of overblown royal diction; see 11:26 and Welles, RC,
310.
lenient. So is this usage of ; see Welles, RC, 365.
28. murderer (2) and blasphemer. Our author finally stops kid-
ding around, and moves in for the kill, summarizing Antiochus as one who
had committed the worst possible sins against man and God alike; the pe-
dantic use of for the former is meant to clarify the duality. For
the abrupt transition here, between nice letter and angry Jewish rejection of
the king, without any need to explain why the letter was without effect, cf.
1 Maccabees 10:46 (along with NOTE on v. 21, I remember with sincere
love your respect and goodwill). The term appears only here in
the Septuagint, reminding us of the universalistic phrasing of 4:35. As for
blasphemous, see NOTE on 8:4, and also to remember
ended his life. Totally and finally, with no hope for the future; see NOTE on
7:14, pass away from among men.
in the way he had treated others. Here the author resumes the tit for tat
theme of v. 6.
in a foreign land. Just like Jason; see 5:9 and NOTE on v. 15, not even
worthy of burial. True, we hear nothing specific about Antiochus exiling
any Jews, but if he died abroad we are supposed to understand that it must
be given that God is just and punishes tit for tat that he had. Moreover,
denial of proper burial was forecasted for the wicked King of Babylon
(Isa 14:1820); see NOTE on v. 9, worms.
in the mountains ( )). It has been suggested that we take

here to mean desert rather than mountain, the emphasis being upon Anti-
ochus dying far from civilization; see Drew-Bear, Recherches, I,

156157. But that would be quite a rare meaning (cf. NOTE on 5:27, fled
to the mountains), and here the use of the plural points more readily to
mountains than to deserts; Drew-Bear, who translates dans le dsert, in
the singular, seems to ignore this. In any case, what we are supposed to note
is that Antiochus died precisely in the type of place to which his innocent
victims had been forced to flee: , (5:27 and 10:6), and the
mountains can be just as far from civilization as deserts can. Note that LXX
Isaiah 14:19 adds , to the description of the death of the
wicked King of Babylon; see NOTE on v. 9, worms, along with Seeligmann,
Septuagint Version, 8384.
death. For this meaning of (lit. fate), as also at 13:7, see LSJ, 1147;
Hanhart, Text, 45.
29. Philip. Not to be confused with the governor of Jerusalem (5:22; 6:11;
8:8), who evidently remained there. This Philip might be the person men-
tioned in an inscription of 166 BCE (OGIS 253, line 7); see Mrkholm,
Antiochus, 100, n. 48, and 105106. But there is no certainty about the
identity, and in any case the inscription adds little. According to 1 Macca-
bees 6:14, he was one of the kings friends; on them, see NOTE on 1:14,
Friends.
reared with him (). On the practice of raising and educating

members of aristocratic families together with royal princes, see Bickerman,
Institutions, 4243; Corradi, Studi, 269281; Schwartz, Agrippa, 4243,
n. 20.
bore the body back (). To Syria, for burial. For cuneiform tes-
timony to the passage of the body through Babylon in late 164 or early 163,
see Gera & Horowitz, Antiochus IV. Goldstein (2 Macc, 372) emphasizes
the use of the imperfect here, which might indicate that Philip only tried to
bring the body to burial; based on this interpretation, the reason Philip did
not complete his mission is supplied by the continuation of the verse. This
analysis might require us to read too much into the verse, for the verse does
not actually say that Philip gave up his attempt to bring the body back for
burial; had that been the case, we would expect our author to celebrate it
more explicitly. Be that as it may, it is clear that the formulation here takes
another potshot at Antiochus: while he was alive no one could bear
() him because of the intolerable stench (v. 10), but now, in
his death, he was more bearable.
Chapter IX 367
wary of Antiochus son. Antiochus Eupator. No explanation is given for

Philips fear. Perhaps this indicates only our authors lack of interest; see e.g.
4:23 and 10:9. All that he cares about is that Antiochus was dead, and the
ironic fact that he who cared for his body had to flee from the kings own
son. But it may be that our author was brief here because he knew, from
Jason or otherwise, that in fact Philips fear was vis vis Lysias, who was
as we learn from 1 Maccabees 3:3233 Antiochus Eupators guardian,
having been appointed to the position at the time Antiochus left on his east-
ern campaign. Our author, who only introduced Lysias and Eupator into his
story after the death of Antiochus IV (see esp. 10:1011), and who put the
designation of Antiochus Eupator as Epiphanes heir here at the end of
Epiphanes eastern campaign, not as is posited by 1 Maccabees 3:32, and
as our v. 23 should have led us to expect at its beginning, would have been
hard pressed to deal with any statement concerning them prior to Anti-
ochus death, hence the brevity here. For the struggle between Philip and Ly-
sias, which led to the formers flight to Egypt, see 1 Maccabees 6:5563 and
our 13:23 (and for the misunderstanding of the letters in Chapter 11 that
apparently explains why our author placed the present account of Anti-
ochus Epiphanes death before Chapter 13, see Introduction, pp. 3034).
betook himself (
) to Egypt. This fancy verb also describes Onias
trip to Antioch at 4:5, but there it was only fancy. Here, given the fact that it
applies to Philip going from one kingdom to another, it retains something of
its literal meaning of moving from one side to another; cf. Mauersberger,
PL, 2.483. For Ptolemaic involvement in the Seleucid infighting, see NOTE
on 4:21, Apollonius son of Menestheus, also e.g. 1 Maccabees 10:5158;
11:118; Antiquities 13.267268.
to Ptolemy Philometor. Who was Antiochus Epiphanes nephew, son of his

sister. At the time of Epiphanes death, late in 164 BCE (see above, NOTE
on v. 29, bore the body back), Philometor was entangled in various difficul-
ties, especially a struggle with his brother, Ptolemy Euergetes. This led
Philometor to flee Egypt for a time, to Rome, beginning in October 164; he
returned to Alexandria in the following spring (163). See Koenen, Knig-
surkunde, 2; Will, Histoire politique, 2. 360361. As such, our verse pres-
ents a problem, but various solutions are available: perhaps some time went
by between Antiochus death and Philips move to Egypt (so Goldstein,
2 Macc, 372), or perhaps our text originally said only Ptolemy and our
author added in Philometor on the assumption that the reference is to the
king already mentioned at 4:21. The latter hypothesis may be preferable,
for it can explain an anomaly: with reference to this king who reigned for
a long time (180145 BCE), including, apparently, while the book was
written our author usually writes plain Philometor, without the useless
Ptolemy; see 4:21 and 10:3. If we assume that Jason referred to plain
Ptolemy the historical problem would disappear, because we would take
the text either to be a general reference to whichever Ptolemy it was or,
alternatively, to Ptolemy Euergetes.
Bibliography
Africa, Worms.
Drew-Bear, Recherches, I.
DMP.
Gera & Horowitz, Antiochus IV.
Holleaux, M., La mort dAntiochos IV piphans, REA 18 (1916) 77102
(reprinted with some corrections in idem, tudes, III, 255279).
van der Horst, Hellenistic Parallels.
D. J. Ladouceur, The Death of Herod the Great, CP 76 (1981) 2527.
Lorein, Some Aspects.
Mendels, Note.
Nestle, Legenden.
Prato, Persecuzione religiosa, 111114.
Schwartz, Agrippa, 148, 217218.
Schwartz, Why Did Antiochus Have to Fall?.
Chapter X 369
Chapter X
Hanukkah
(1) Maccabaeus and those who were with him, led forward by the Lord,
took the Temple and the city, (2) and destroyed the altars which the non-
Jews had constructed in the city-square and also the sacred precincts.
(3) After purifying the Temple they made a new altar and having ignited
rocks and extracted fire from them they offered up sacrifices after a two-
year period, and they also took care of incense and lamps and the presenta-
tion of the showbreads. (4) Having done those things, falling upon their
bellies they asked the Lord never again to make them fall into such troubles;
rather, if they ever sin again to be edified by Him Himself, with grace, and
not to be given up into the hands of blasphemous and barbaric Gentiles.
(5) And it happened that on the very date upon which the Sanctuary was
profaned by the non-Jews, on that very date the Sanctuary was purified, on
the twenty-fifth day of the same month Kislev. (6) And with mirth they
celebrated for eight days in the style of (the festival of) Tabernacles, recal-
ling that not long before they had been grazing away the festival of Taber-
nacles in the mountains and in the caves, as if they were wild animals.
(7) Therefore, holding wands and also fresh branches, along with palm-
fronds, they offered up hymns to Him who had made successful the path to
the purification of His own Place. (8) And they resolved by an edict and de-
cree made in common that the entire people of the Jews should celebrate
these days annually.
Changes in the Seleucid Government
(9) Such, then, were the circumstances of the death of Antiochus surnamed
Epiphanes. (10) Now we shall recount the events of (the reign of) Antiochus
Eupator, the son of that impious man, summarizing the main calamities of
the wars. (11) When he took over the kingdom he proclaimed one Lysias
head of state and governor-in-chief of Coele Syria and Phoenicia. (12) For
Ptolemy known as Macron, who had taken the lead in maintaining jus-
tice toward the Jews on account of the injustice which had been perpetrated
against them, attempted to deal with them peacefully, (13) and for that rea-
son had been denounced to Eupator by the Friends. Continually hearing
himself called a traitor because he had abandoned Cyprus, which had
been entrusted to him by Philometor, and gone over to Antiochus Epiph-
anes, instead of dignifying his post with noble behavior he drugged him-
self and left life behind.
Battles against the Idumaeans
(14) But Gorgias, upon becoming commander of the region, collected mer-
cenaries and at every occasion waged war against the Jews. (15) Along with
him the Idumaeans too, who were in control of strategic strongholds, har-
assed the Jews and, taking in those who had fled Jerusalem, set their hands
to waging war. (16) Those who were with Maccabaeus first made an en-
treaty and asked God to be their ally; then they stormed out against the Idu-
maeans strongholds. (17) Attacking them eagerly they gained control of all
the sites, driving back all those who fought them from the walls and cutting
down all those who fell into their hands; they killed no fewer than 20,000.
(18) But when no fewer than 9000 took refuge in two very strong towers
that were supplied with everything needed for a siege, (19) Maccabaeus
took himself off to more pressing places, leaving behind Simon and Joseph,
as well as Zachaeus and a considerable number of his men, to besiege them.
(20) But Simons men, who loved lucre, were lucratively convinced by some
of the people in the towers; taking 70,000 drachmas they allowed some to
slip away. (21) When Maccabaeus was informed about what had happened
he convened the leaders of the people and accused them of having sold out
their brethren for lucre by allowing their enemies to go free against them.
(22) He killed them, for they had become traitors, and then immediately
took the two towers. (23) With his weapons he was successful all along the
way, in all that he undertook, destroying more than 20,000 in the two
strongholds.
Battles with Timothy
(24) But Timothy, who had previously been defeated by the Jews, having
assembled a great number of foreign forces and collected not a few horses
from Asia, came to Judaea to take it at spear-point. (25) When he ap-
proached, those around Maccabaeus strewing dirt upon their heads in
petition to God and girding their loins with sackcloth (26) threw them-
Chapter X 371
selves upon the step opposite the altar and asked that He, having become
merciful to them, be an enemy to their enemies and adversary to their ad-
versaries, just as the Law clearly states. (27) Upon completing their sup-
plication and taking up their weapons they advanced a considerable dis-
tance outside of the city. When they had neared the enemy they kept to
themselves, (28) but as soon as the rays of dawn spread out they attacked
one another: these having along with their own virtue their depend-
ence upon the Lord as their guarantor of success and victory, while the
others made their rage the guide of their struggles. (29) A mighty battle
having developed, out of heaven there appeared to the enemys soldiers
five distinguished men on horses with gold-studded bridles, leading the
Jews. (30) Two of them also took Maccabaeus between them and pro-
tected him unblemished, sheltering him with their own armor and throw-
ing arrows and thunderbolts at the enemy. Accordingly, they were con-
founded by blindness and, filled with tumult, they scattered about in all
directions; (31) 20,500 (soldiers) along with 600 cavalrymen were cut
down.
(32) As for Timothy himself he took refuge in a stronghold named
Gezer, an excellent fortress, of which Chaereas was the commander.
(33) Maccabaeus men besieged the fortress with relish for four days.
(34) Those inside, putting their faith in the places strength, were extra-
ordinarily blasphemous and spewed forth forbidden words. (35) But at
daybreak on the fifth day twenty of Maccabaeus youths, burning up with
rage due to the blasphemies, manfully threw themselves upon the walls
and with animal-like rage smote those who fell into their hands. (36)
Others, who similarly climbed up and in by virtue of the diversion, set fire
to the towers and, setting other fires as well, burned the blasphemers
alive; they also broke through the gates, and (thereby) letting in the rest of
the (Jewish) force they took the city. (37) They cut down Timothy, who
had hidden in a cistern, and also his brother Chaereas and Apollophanes.
(38) Having done all that, with hymns and prayers of gratitude they
blessed the Lord, who had been greatly beneficent to Israel and given
them victory.
COMMENT
This chapter is one of new starts at the capitals: the Jews retake Jerusalem,
purify and rededicate the Temple (vv. 18), while for the Seleucids there is a
new king, Antiochus V Eupator, accompanied by a new head of state, Lysias
(vv. 913). Thereafter, we hear of two secondary theaters of war, first on the
southern front, vis vis Gorgias and the Idumaeans (vv. 1423), then ap-
parently in the north vis vis Timothy (vv. 2438). The fact that Judas
Maccabaeus is victorious in both campaigns, against secondary figures, sets
the stage for the invasion by the king and his viceroy themselves in the next
chapter.
This chapter is very Maccabean. It begins with a focus on the Temple
itself, even focusing on some cultic details in a way reminiscent of the Ju-
daean epistle which is appended at the outset of our book (compare 10:3 to
1:8) and very uncharacteristic of our own diasporan author (cf. 5:16!); and
it moves on to lengthy battle accounts in which it is Judas valor, and that of
his soldiers, which carries the day. When one compares these accounts to
our authors two main battle scenes, in Chapter 8 and Chapter 15, one sees
a striking contrast, for the latter are for the most part devoted to prayers,
speeches dedicated to encouraging religious faith, and the like, while the
battles themselves get much less attention.
Nevertheless, although concerning the first eight verses of the chapter
which not only focus on cult but also create an unnatural separation be-
tween Antiochus death at the end of Chapter 9 and the summary of it at
10:9 we suggested in the Introduction (pp. 89) that they were added
along with the opening epistles by Judaean editors of our book, the battle
scenes here are another story. Although for various reasons we have sug-
gested in the Introduction (pp. 3035) that our author got them from a
source other than the one which supplied the body of his work (Jason), we
do assume that as with the martyrologies in Chapters 67, but as opposed
to 10:18 it was our author himself, not later Judaean editors, who used
the materials. This is shown not only by the most basic consideration here,
namely that it was such a source which (due to the dates supplied by the
documents in Ch. 11) caused our author some confusion, but also by an-
other factor, very apposite to the characterization of our book: these battle
scenes are bracketed by prayers (vv. 16, 2526, 38) and punctuated by di-
vine intervention (vv. 2930). Both of these are characteristic of our book.
As for historicity, the big story in this chapter (as it now is), the rededi-
cation of the Temple followed by warfare in the south and north of Pales-
tine, corresponds to the order of events reported in 1 Maccabees 4:365:8,
and there is no reason to doubt it. Details are another matter. Our book
does not give too many, but concerning those that it does give there are
some major errors:
1. V. 2 says sacrifices had been suspended for two years, but Daniel (7:25,
8:14, 12:7; so too Josephus, War 1.32) speaks of three and a half and the com-
bination of 1 Maccabees 1:54 and 4:52 results in three. While the date in Da-
niel seems simply to be wrong, reflecting the fact that it is a prophecy written
Chapter X 373
before the rededication actually occurred,1 it is nonetheless difficult to reject

the clear data in 1 Maccabees, which are also followed by Josephus (Ant.
12.248, 319322). Rather, the datum in our 10:2 seems to be wrong. The gen-
esis of the error can perhaps be explained without much difficulty. Namely,
we see that the Jerusalemite editors who introduced this passage (as we posit
see Introduction, pp. 89) assumed (1) that the Temple was rededicated in
Kislev, and (2) that this occurred prior to the death of Antiochus Epiphanes,
which is why they place the account prior to the summary of his death in
10:9.2 Both assumptions are what we would expect from Jerusalemite edi-
tors, as they are found in the Jerusalemite 1 Maccabees as well (which has the
rededication in Ch. 4 and Antiochus death in Ch. 6). Now, since the docu-
ments of Chapter 11 seemed misleadingly all to apply to Antiochus Eu-
pator and thus place the death of Antiochus Epiphanes prior to the spring of
148 SE (see Introduction, p. 33), the result is, according to our book, that the
dedication of the Temple came in the Kislev that preceded that spring. At this
point, all we need to assume is that someone either the Jerusalemite editors
of 10:18 themselves or some later editor read the dates in Chapter 11 ac-
cording to the Jewish system which had the year begin in the spring (see p. 11,
n. 24). This would result in the inference that the Temple was rededicated in
Kislev of 147 and hence two years after it was polluted in Kislev of 145 (the
date given in 1 Macc 1:54). (True, the assumption that the Temple was re-
dedicated in 147 SE would contradict 1:10, according to our understanding,
which is that the Jerusalemite authors of that letter knew, just as the Jeru-
salemite author 1 Macc 4:52 did, that the Temple was rededicated in 148 SE.
But the contradiction is not frontal, as that chapter gives no relative dates and
ours gives no absolute dates; hence no one had to notice it.) In fact, of course,
our book is all wrong: Antiochus IV in fact died late in 164 and, as it hap-
pened, that is also when the Temple was rededicated; the dates in Chapter 11
are Seleucid, with the year beginning in autumn; and the king who figures in
those letters, apart from the second one, is Antiochus Epiphanes, not his son.
1 For the dating of Daniel 78 to 167/166 BCE, and Dan 12 to somewhat later but still
prior to Antiochus death, see J. J. Collins, Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress,
1993) 323324, 343, 403. Daniels choice of three and a half is, of course, part and
parcel of his general decision to divide history up according to weeks of years (i.e.,
seven year periods) or parts thereof. For three-and-a-half years as a standard number
(half of a week of years) see J. Bergmann, Die runden und hyperbolischen Zahlen
in der Agada, MGWJ 82 (1938) 364365.
2 As we see from the fact that the death is summarized only at 10:9, after the rededi-
cation story. That is, readers should understand that the rededication happened more
or less parallel to the events of ch. 9.
2. The section on war against the Idumaeans opens at v. 14 with a ref-

erence to Gorgias which seems to indicate that he incited them against the
Jews, something we would never have guessed from the parallel narrative in
1 Maccabees 5:35. In fact, however, our verse does not really say that Gor-
gias incited them and there is no more talk of him in this connection. Thus,
although 12:32 does have Gorgias being the Seleucid commander/governor
of Idumaea, it may well be that the reference to him here is only part of our
authors general apologetic tendency to make the Jews problems with their
neighbors seem to be only the result of hostile machinations by malicious
officials; cf. 8:11 and 12:2.
3. At v. 24 Timothy, who is not identified, is said to have invaded Ju-
daea with a huge force, a claim which fits in well with his taking refuge in
Gezer (v. 32); Gezer is indeed in Judaea, at the beginning of the coastal
plain, i.e., west of Jerusalem. However, 1 Maccabees 5:68 has Judas fight-
ing the Ammonites, i.e., in Transjordan far to the east of Jerusalem, meeting
a large unit commanded by Timothy; this is followed by the capture of
Jazer (and, later on in 1 Macc 5, by battles with Timothy further north,
paralleled by Ch. 12 in our book). Jazer is in Transjordan (see NOTE on
v. 32, Gezer). Given the similarity of the two toponyms and our authors
tendency to focus on Jerusalem and Judaea, it seems that our author has
glorified the fighting with Timothy, in Transjordan, into the repulsion of a
major campaign into Judaea proper.
4. Timothy is killed in v. 37. However, this is an obvious error, for not
only does 1 Maccabees 5 have him alive for more fighting in the north; so
does our book itself, in Chapter 12 (v. 10ff.). This is one of the major signs
that materials in Chapters 1011 derive from a source other than Jason; see
NOTES
10:1. took. The verb, , is very low-key and seems to refer more to
entrance and taking control than to capturing; cf. Polybius 4.72.8; 18.18.6,
where it refers to the transfer of cities via agreement; Mauersberger, PL,
3.1421 (zurckerhalten). Something similar emerges from 1 Macca-
bees 4:36, but there it comes after the victory over Lysias at Beth-Zur, which
allows for the ascent to Jerusalem and takeover of the city basically without
combat, apart from some exchanges with the men of the Akra ibid. v. 41;
for our book, the battle of Beth-Zur is yet to come as a result of confusion
of the order of Chapters 913 (see Introduction, pp. 2534). Nevertheless,
the Jerusalemite editors of this passage write on their own presumptions,
Chapter X 375
which are like those of 1 Maccabees. The use of the unadorned ,
as opposed to the more ornate and in the preced-
ing verse, typifies the lower register of the first eight verses of this chapter
one of the indications that they were added in by the books Judaean editors
(see Introduction, pp. 89).
the Temple and the city. It is clear that the city was taken before the
Temple was, but the author of this section is reflecting their relative import-
ance in his Jerusalemite eyes. This too reflects the secondary nature of these
eight verses, for in the rest of the book the relationship is reversed, as al-
ready at the outset of the story 3:12; see esp. NOTE on 4:48, who had
spoken for the city and the populace and the holy vessels.
2. altars (,). Their construction is mentioned at 1 Maccabees 1:54.

For the obligation to destroy them, see Deuteronomy 7:5 and 12:3; 1 Mac-
cabees 2:25, 45; 5:68; Philo, Legatio 303; etc.; cf. below 14:33. For the ter-
minology here, which conforms to that usual in the Septuagint in connec-
tion with non-Jewish altars, see NOTE on 2:19, the altar.
non-Jews. I have used this term, which defines by exclusion, to approximate

the Greek , which appears in our book only here and in v. 5 an-
other indication of the special, Judaean, nature of this eight-verse section.
Josephus (another Jerusalemite) also favored this term, including when
(War 5.194 and Ant. 12.145) he wanted a more politically correct term
than the supplied by his source (OGIS 598); on his usage see my
Should Josephus Have Ignored the Christians?, in: Ethos und Identitt:
Einheit und Vielfalt des Judentums in hellenistisch-rmischer Zeit (ed.
M. Konradt & U. Steinert; Paderborn: Schningh, 2002) esp. 166170.
Nevertheless, given the present context it is difficult to avoid the impression
that here, and in v. 5, the word has a pejorative flavor, la goyyim, more
at home in 1 Maccabees than in our universalistic book or Josephus politi-
cally correct one; see, in general, Schwartz, The Other.
sacred precincts (). The construction of which is mentioned at 1 Mac-

cabees 1:47. This term too was used only to denote non-Jewish shrines; see
NOTE on 14:33, this sacred enclosure of God.
3. After purifying (3
). At this point the text starts a
series of clauses linked in series by / (and), a typical sign of translation
from a Hebrew Vorlage which is found elsewhere in our book only in the
first epistle (1:25), which was translated from Hebrew or Aramaic (see p. 8,
n. 15); in 5:13, which imitates biblical poetry; and in the prayer at 8:24,
which too imitates Hebrew style.
the Temple. On the terminology, see NOTE on 4:14, the Temple.
made a new altar. For details, see 1 Maccabees 4:4347.
having ignited rocks and extracted fire from them. This is a strange phrase,
and may well reflect the difficulties of translating something from the He-
brew; how can one ignite rocks? But it seems clear that this story is meant to
continue the one told by the second epistle at the beginning of our book,
where we read that in Nehemiahs day priests poured onto rocks a viscous
liquid which had remained from the fire of the First Temple (1:31). If now
we hear of fire being extracted from rocks, it would mean that, as Nehe-
miah had planned, some of the fire-oil had remained in the rocks, and was
now available for use thus guaranteeing that, notwithstanding all viciss-
itudes, the fire now on the altar of the Temple of Jerusalem was the same
fire that had come down from heaven in the days of Solomon (see 2:10).
Thus, this verse too indicates the close relationship between the opening ep-
istles and the present pericope. (Wacholder [Letter, 116] saw a contradic-
tion between this verse and the second epistle, because he believed our verse
referred to the need to manufacture new fire. However, that could have
been said more simply, or, indeed, not at all; 1 Maccabees 4:4158 says not
a word about the origin of the fire in the rededicated Temple, nor does the
first epistle above. Thus, introduction of something about fire and rocks
seems to be an unambiguous pointer to the second epistles story about fire
and rocks.) On the translation, cf. p. 528, n. 26.
after a two-year period. Here we must translate this way, given the state-
ment in v. 5; cf. NOTE on 4:23, In the third year thereafter. This datum
is difficult, for according to 1 Maccabees 1:54 + 4:52 the interruption of
sacrifices lasted three years, 148145 SE; more or less the same emerges
from Daniel 7:25 and 8:14. It seems clear that three years (167164
BCE//148145 SE) is to be preferred. In our opening COMMENT on this
chapter we have suggested, within the context of our assumption that
10:18 is a Jerusalemite addition to an extant book, how the erroneous
two years if indeed the text is intact may have come to be.
incense and lamps and the presentation of the showbreads. As promised

in the first epistle (1:8), although there for some reason a meal-offering
was mentioned first. In any case, this is typical Palestinian and non-dias-
Chapter X 377
poran interest in the details of the Temple cult; see NOTE on 5:16, holy
vessels.
4. fall edified. The verbs point to our authors language at 6:1216. That
is, just as with the addition of the opening letters (see NOTE on 1:5, become
reconciled), here as well, whoever added in this section used some of the
books basic motifs. For the idea, cf. Psalms of Solomon 7:3.
not be given up. For the use of in connection with being

transferred to something bad, see NOTE on 1:17, handed over.
5. And it happened. As usual, it didnt just happen (see NOTE on 3:2, it

happened), and the detail about to be announced proves it:
on the very date So too 1 Maccabees 1:59; 4:5254. The motif is well-
known. Thus, for example, the Messiah was born on the same day the
Temple was destroyed (y. Berakhot 2:3 [5a]), Ventidius defeated the Par-
thians on the anniversary of their defeat of Crassus (Eutropius 7.5), the
Caesareans murdered thousands of Jews in their city on the same day and
same hour, as if out of divine providence that the Jews perfidiously mur-
dered Roman soldiers who had surrendered in Jerusalem (Josephus, War
2.457); etc. This motif, as other types of poetic justice, functions as another
indication that God providentially rules the world. See I. M. Gafni, Con-
cepts of Periodization and Causality in Talmudic Literature, JH 10/1
(Spring 1996) 2829.
6. eight days. See NOTE on 2:12, So too did Solomon
in the style of (the festival of) Tabernacles. See 1:9; here too this pericope
agrees with the first epistle.
in the mountains. See on 5:27, fled to the mountains.
in the caves. For caves as hiding-places see 6:11; for such life as appropriate
for animals, as is said in the continuation and also in 5:27, compare for
example an inscription of Agrippa (II?) which condemns outlaws who
[ (dwell in caves like animals OGIS 424).
7. wands (
). The reference would seem to be to lulabim, palm
branches waved by Jews on Tabernacles in fulfillment of Leviticus 23:40
(and that, indeed, is how, in their Hebrew translations, Grintz translated
at Judith 15:12 and Schalit at Josephus, Ant. 13.372). For the use
of this term for lulabim in a letter of the Bar-Kokhba period, P. Yadin 3, see
H. Lapin, Palm Fronds and Citrons: Notes on Two Letters from Bar Kosi-
bas Administration, HUCA 64 (1993) 116118. Note, however, that the
Greek term typically refers to a wand wreathed in ivy and vine-
leaves with a pine-cone at the top, carried by the devotees of Dionysus
(LSJ, 812); cf. above, 6:7. Accordingly, use of the term for lulabim was liable
to arouse the impression that Tabernacles (Sukkoth) is a Dionysiac festival;
see, for example, Plutarch, Quaestiones conviviales 4.6 and Tacitus, His-
toriae 5.5 (Stern, GLA I, no. 258 and II, no. 281); A. Reinach, Lorigine du
thyrse, RHR 66 (1912) 148. Presumably any diasporan author would be
sensitive about that, and take pains to avoid it; for Jewish antipathy to
Dionysiac cult see p. 543, n. 77.3 The fact that the author of the present sec-
tion used , although clearly he did not want to arouse the impression
that the Jewish cult was Dionysian, means that the matter did not trouble
him and so (just as other aspects of 10:18; see Introduction, pp. 89)
bolsters our certainty that he as Bar-Kokhba a few centuries later was a
Palestinian Jew who, as opposed to the diasporan author of 2 Maccabees,
was not so sensitive about what non-Jews think about Judaism. Indeed, it
may be that the author/translator of this verse, as that of 1 Maccabees 13:51
(see below), was not even aware of the Dionysian association.
fresh branches (# A). With reference to our text Grintz (Sefer

Yehudith, 173) translated asei hadar, thus echoing Leviticus 23:40 and in-
dicating his confidence that the reference is to the etrog (citron), also char-
acteristic of Tabernacles.
palm-fronds. They are listed in Leviticus 23:40 among the items for the cel-
ebration of Tabernacles, but they also functioned more generally in cel-
ebrations; see 14:4; 1 Maccabees 13:51; John 12:13. For the use of them as
a symbol of Palestine, see S. Fine, On the Development of a Symbol: The
Date Palm in Roman Palestine and the Jews, JSP 4 (1989) 105118.
had made successful the path (9 /1). See NOTE on v. 23, was
successful all along the way.
3 This might explain Philos strange failure to mention the four fruits of Lev 23:40 in
his account of Tabernacles in Special Laws 2.204213. Cf. Heinemann, Philons
Bildung, 99100 (who instead thinks Philos silence might reflect the relative unim-
portance of this practice in the Diaspora).
Chapter X 379
8. an edict and decree made in common. On this formal Hellenistic termi-

nology, and , see, respectively, NOTES on 7:30, de-
cree of the king, and on 6:8, a decree. A very similar formulation recurs at
15:36 with regard to Nicanors Day; for the suggestion that the latter is
more original than the present passage, which imitates it, see Introduction,
pp. 910.
the entire people of the Jews. The emphasis upon the fact that the festival
was for all Jews may also be found in the second epistle; see NOTE on 2:17,
His entire people
9. Such, then death of Antiochus. This line, which sounds like the last
lines of Chapters 3, 13, 15 (v. 37), clearly concludes Chapter 9, and is the
clearest sign that vv. 18 are a secondary intrusion. See Introduction, p. 8.
surnamed Epiphanes. For this pointed allusion to the byname see NOTE on
4:7, Antiochus surnamed Epiphanes.
10. Antiochus Eupator, the son of that impious man. This is a joke, for
Eupator means who has a good father. See NOTE on 2:20, the wars
summarizing the main calamities of the wars. The author repeats his intro-
ductory characterization of his work as a summary; see 2:23ff. For ?
as the main points see Risberg, Anmerkungen, 2324, also
LSJ, 1714, s.v. , 3. Risberg (followed by Habicht, 2 Macc, 250,
n. 10c), omitted , on the assumption that it was inserted only on the
basis of someones mistaken notion that means continuous.
But in fact it seems fine even given the true meaning of ; Gold-
stein (2 Macc, 387) quite appositely points to Philodemus phrase ? -
(the main good things), cited in LSJ, ibid.
11. When. The use of here seems to indicate that it was Lysias who
is introduced here and who replaced someone who had attempted to
maintain justice toward the Jews (v. 12) who was responsible for the
renewed troubles. This, however, will be supported only by the narrative
in Chapter 11. This is additional support for the assumption that Chap-
ters 10 (beginning here) and 11 are closely related one to another; see
above, pp. 3031.
proclaimed. He, not his father; see the next comment. For proclaim, see
NOTE on 9:14, proclaim.
one Lysias. This type of reference, with , indicates clearly that for
our author this is a new appointment, the introduction of a new character,
who, indeed, has not yet been mentioned; compare, for example, 3:4;
4:40; 12:35; 14:3. This postponement of Lysias involvement until after
the death of Antiochus IV is a fundamental difference between our book
and 1 Maccabees and of basic importance for understanding the order
of Chapters 913; see Introduction, p. 30 (and NOTE on 9:29, wary of
Antiochus son).
head of state. On this title see NOTE on 3:7, head of state.
governor-in-chief of Coele Syria and Phoenicia ( B 3

( 1). So Hanhart (edition, ad loc. and
Text, 4849); Grimm, 2 Macc, 158159; Abel, Macc, 409; Kahrstedt, Ter-
ritorien, 57; Bickerman, Institutions, 204. Others took the last-quoted
Greek word as the proper name, Protarchos, of the new governor of Coele
Syria and Phoenicia; so Stern, Documents, 44; Habicht, 2 Macc, 251,
n. 11c; Goldstein, 2 Macc, 387; Bengston, Strategie 2.164165; Lvy,
Notes, 690691, n. 5. For Protarchos as a personal name, see OGIS 139,
line 29; CPJ, II, no. 149, line 1; Bar-Kochva, JM, 535, n. 56. If we were to
adopt that reading, this verse would be similar to 13:24. However, al-
though there is no room for certainty it seems that we should nonetheless
prefer to assume our text means Lysias was appointed governor-in-chief,
for: (1) in contrast to 13:24, where there is external evidence for Hegemon-
ides, there is none for this Protarchos; (2) the absence of here would
indicate that while Lysias, who is the more important of the two, is not
known to the reader (see our NOTE on one Lysias earlier in this verse),
Protarchos is which is not at all the case and in fact the opposite of what
we would expect; (3) according to Chapters 11 and 13 Lysias did indeed
function as chief governor of our region, until his death; (4) the contrast
at 12:12 between Lysias and local officials best makes sense on the as-
sumption that Lysias is considered a governor-in-chief; (5) all the ancient
Latin versions prefer this reading (see De Bruyne, Anciennes traductions,
180181); (6) a fragmentary inscription from Andros apparently testifies to
the use of the title: ] [ (IG 12/5, no. 724,
line 3, cited in LSJ, 1544, s.v. ; see also ibid., s.v. ,
to be chief magistrate).
12. Ptolemy Macron. Who hitherto was governor of Coele Syria and
Phoenicia; see NOTE on 8:8, Ptolemy It seems that Macron was his
grandfathers name; see Mitford, Ptolemy Macron, 186.
Chapter X 381
had taken the lead in maintaining justice toward the Jews. We know of no
details, nor can we guess why the author would have omitted them unless
if we assume that here too, as at 9:29 (see NOTE there on wary of Anti-
ochus son), the authors reticence reflects his perplexity in the wake of his
chronological error: if he heard that Ptolemy Macron had played a role in
the abrogation of Antiochus IVs decrees (as is suggested, for example, by
Mrkholm, Antiochus, 188), he would understandably have left out the de-
tails here, given his own mistaken notion that the decrees were abrogated
only later, by Antiochus Eupator.
13. Friends. Of Eupator; on them, see NOTE on 1:14, Friends.
because he had abandoned Cyprus. Since our author viewed this Ptolemy as a
friend of the Jews, he took care to make Ptolemys enemies sound ridiculous:
they attacked Ptolemy for having changed his allegiance to the Seleucids!
There is, in fact, other evidence for a Ptolemaic governor of Cyprus, named
Ptolemy (son of Ptolemy?, with Macron being a byname), going over to
Antiochus Epiphanes ca. 168 BCE; see OGIS 117 and Polybius 27.13.1; Ha-
bicht, 2 Macc, 251252, n. 13c; Walbank, Polybius, 3.311312; and esp.
Mitford, Ptolemy Macron. Whatever the reason for Macrons suicide, our
author is happy to use him as a foil for wicked Seleucids; the case may be
similar to that of the execution of Andronicus, whose execution our book ex-
plains in a Jewish context although another one seems to be better testified
(see our COMMENT on Chapter 4, also our NOTE on 9:5, smote him). Cf.
Josephus conviction that it was Gods concern with properly recompensating
Petronius, who had at risk to his life protected the sanctity of the Temple of
Jerusalem, that brought about the assassination of Gaius Caligula (Ant.
18.3069); Roman historians, who did not know about double causality
(see p. 64, n. 155), thought it had to do only with Roman politics.
instead of dignifying his post with noble behavior (/). There are
numerous variant readings here, bringing Kappler (Memoria, 4445) and
Hanhart (edition, 31) near to despair. Nevertheless, Kappler concluded that
what is needed here is an infinitive, parallel to the two earlier in the verse
(, A), to which Risberg (Anmerkungen, 24) and Katz
(Text, 15) added that only an infinitive would make it clear that it is the
nasty Friends opinion which is being related, not that of our author. Ac-
cordingly, we have accepted Risbergs . rather than the participle,
., that Grimm (2 Macc, 159160) had suggested and which still
appears in Hanharts edition, albeit surrounded by daggers that indicate
probable corruption.
left life behind (- ( ). For Polybius use of this elegant ex-
pression, as at 31.9.3 in connection with Antiochus Epiphanes, see Mauers-
berger, PL, 2.725. For its use in connection with suicide, as here, see e.g.
Lucian, Macrobioi 19.
14. But Gorgias. For use of his name as a handle to make the reader turn
to a new front, compare v. 24 and, for example, 8:8, 12, 34. Gorgias par-
ticipation in Nicanors campaign was briefly mentioned at 8:9, but he did
not figure in the rest of that story. Neither will he figure again in this story;
after his name is mentioned here the Idumaeans take over. True, at 12:32 we
do hear that Gorgias was governor/commander of Idumaea, so it may be
that he really did play a role in stirring the Idumaeans up. Whether or not he
did so, it is important for our author to give us the impression that he did;
see our opening COMMENT on this chapter.
every occasion ( 7 E). So according to LSJ, 500, s.v. V, III2

and Mauersberger, PL, 2.707, referring to Polybius 3.57.4; see also 3 Mac-
cabees 3:23.
waged war. LSJ, 1433, s.v. , refers to our book alone; it

recurs in the next verse and at 14:6.
15. the Idumaeans. About them see Kasher, Jews, Idumaeans, and Ancient
Arabs, 16. For Mnasaes reference (early second century BCE?) to the
long war between the Judaeans and the Idumaeans, see Josephus, Against
Apion 2.112114 (GLA I, no. 28). On the present clashes with them, see
also 1 Maccabees 5:3, 65 and Kasher, op. cit., 2427.
harassed () the Jews. This verb, which in the Septuagint appears
only here, literally refers to training, exercising; for numerous examples, see
Mauersberger, PL, 1.404405. For the present sense, see LSJ, 362, II.
those who had fled () Jerusalem. On the verb, see our
NOTE on 14:14, who had fled before Judas. The author offers no details;
apparently the topic is not a pleasant one for him. The reference is likely to
Jews who had supported Menelaus; see the similar hint at 4:42, also 1 Mac-
cabees 2:44; 7:6; 10:14; 15:21. It is likely that other Jews too were expelled
from the city after Judas and his followers took over, and just as under-
standable that our author, for two reasons, suppressed any details he might
have known: (1) he did not want to admit the extent of support for Jason
and Menelaus, preferring to leave them individual villains (see Introduc-
Chapter X 383
tion, p. 49); (2) expelling Jews from their homes, especially from Jerusalem,
was the type of outrage he preferred to associate with a villain like Jason
(5:9), not with a hero like Judas.
set their hands. On see NOTE on 9:2, set his hand.
16. asked God to be their ally. See NOTE on 8:24, ally.
17. cutting down. The author saw no need to make things sound any nicer,
neither here nor in v. 31; cf. NOTE on 8:20, and they took much booty. On
massacres by the victors as a standard element in Greek warfare, see:
W. Carlton, Massacres: An Historical Perspective (Aldershot: Scolar, 1994)
2937.
no fewer than 20,000. Both the figure and the formulation are standard for
our author; see NOTE on 8:9, no fewer than 20,000.
18. very (F #). This idiom (right well) is used of fortresses, as here,
in v. 32 and 8:30.
19. Maccabaeus took himself off to more pressing places. That is, to places
where there was more pressing work to be done. As usual (see Introduc-
tion, p. 73), the author enjoys giving us the impression that he knows (from
Jason) more than he says but does not want to waste our time with the de-
tails; this heightens the importance of the next story, which he does choose
to tell us.
leaving behind (). For the verb, see NOTE on 4:29, left as
substitute. It hints that Judas is operating like a ruler, as if he were high
priest or king (cf. 4:29, 31).
Simon and Joseph, as well as Zachaeus. For our authors identification of

the first two as brothers of Judas, see NOTE on 8:2223, his brothers
Zachaeus is not mentioned elsewhere. But since one Joseph son of Zechar-
iah is mentioned in a similar context at 1 Maccabees 5:56, it could be that
our Zachaeus has somehow grown out of that patronymic; for Zakkai as
a short version of Zechariah, see F.-M. Abel, Grammaire du grec biblique
(Paris: Gabalda, 1927) 4344; D. Schwartz, Was Rabban Johanan ben
Zakkai a Priest?, Sinai 88 (1980/81) 3738, n. 35 (in Hebrew). For com-
parable material, see Ilan, Lexicon, 2324 (2.4.1.12).
20. But Simons men, who loved lucre. The claims that Simons men ac-
cepted a bribe and that Judas took the towers immediately upon his return
(v. 22), amount to criticism of Simon, as does also the story at 14:17 con-
cerning a setback Simon suffered. These verses were, accordingly, one of the
points of departure for the thesis that our book was a response to 1 Macca-
bees, a book which glorifies the Hasmonean family in general (e.g. 5:65!)
and in particular focuses on Simon, from Mattathias last words at 2:65
(which make Simon his heir)4 to the last episode of the book (the establish-
ment of the Hasmonean dynasty with the accession of Simons son, John
Hyrcanus); for that theory, see esp. A. Geiger, Urschrift, 209214, 219220,
and Kosters, Polemiek. However, it is in fact difficult to show that 2 Mac-
cabees is a response to 1 Maccabees, and it is equally difficult to argue that
our book takes a particular interest in Simon;5 our verse and 14:17 com-
bined offer very little support for such an argument. Note, first of all, that
in the former case it is Simons men and not he himself who failed; as
for 14:17, note that the author seems himself to belittle the dimensions and
importance of the defeat, indeed excusing it by pointing to the suddenness
of the enemys approach. Thus, rather than polemicizing against the Has-
moneans or Simon, our author simply ignored them, focusing on Judas
himself; see esp. J. Geiger, History of Judas Maccabaeus, 6, also Niese,
Kritik, 3839; Meyer, Ursprung, 457 (although Meyer goes too far when he
argues [ibid. n. 1] that Simon, here, is not Judas brother but, rather, some
unknown figure. Meyer derives this from the claim that v. 22 has Judas kill-
ing this Simon, but in fact them there refers back to our Simons men,
which need not include Simon himself. For the expression Z / 9 X
[Xs men] see Bar-Kochva, JM, 350351.)
were lucratively convinced ( 8). An ironic for-

mulation; cf. Antiquities 14.490; 18.29; 20.119, 163, 183.
70,000 drachmas. An astronomical sum; cf. NOTE on 8:11, ninety slaves

per talent.
slip away (). This verb, which appears only here in the Septua-
gint, compares those who fled to leaking water; see Mauersberger, PL,
2.506, with examples from Polybius 2.122.11; 15.28.4; etc.
4 See above, p. 324, n. 1.

5 For an example of the lengths to which Kosters went in order to prove the opposite,
see p. 460, n. 3.
Chapter X 385
21. brethren. I.e., brethren-in-arms; for similar use in the days of Bar-
Kokhba, see B. Lifshitz, The Greek Documents from Nahal Seelim and
Nahal Mishmar, IEJ 11 (1961) 6061. For loose usage of brethren in
Jewish texts see for example 1 Maccabees 5:13, 16, 17; 6:22, and Fitzmyer,
Tobit, 103. It is, however, rare in our book (as opposed to the Judaean ep-
istle attached at its opening 1:1), just as in general it was rare among the
Jews of Hellenistic Egypt (see V. Tscherikower, Jewish Religious Influence
in the Adler Papyri?, HTR 35 [1942] 3233); for both, the preference was
to view Jews as fellow citizens (coreligionists); see pp. 6, 51.
to go free against them. That is, to go free and so to fight again against them
in the future.
22. traitors. For the punishment of traitors, see NOTE on 13:7, without
his
23. was successful all along the way. This usage of ., a high-sound-
ing verb which was employed in v. 7 to describe what God did for the Jews,
indicates that Judas is operating as Gods agent.
destroying more than 20,000. As usual; see NOTE on v. 17, no fewer than
20,000.
24. But Timothy. For such use of a name as a handle to switch our at-
tention elsewhere, see NOTE on v. 14, But Gorgias. As our book, so too
1 Maccabees 5:68 has fighting against Timothy follow upon fighting
against the Idumaeans (vv. 35), and it relates (in v. 8) the conquest of Jazer
which parallels that of Gezer here (v. 32). According to 12:2, it seems that
Timothy was a local governor, apparently in northern Transjordan which
fits the reference in 1 Maccabees to Jazer. But it seems that our author
thought that the present campaign was in the Judaean heartland; see NOTE
on the end of the present verse, to take it at spear-point.
who had previously been defeated. For the translation here, see Doran,
Temple Propaganda, 59, n. 32 (vs. Goldstein, 2 Macc, 395396). Just like
9:3, so too this verse indicates the authors belief that the events re-
counted at 8:3033 are, in fact, in the proper location from the point of
view of relative chronology. That, however, seems not to be the case; see
NOTE on 9:3, what had happened to Nicanor and to those with Tim-
othy.
great number of foreign forces. I.e., mercenaries, such as those of the My-
sians, Cypriots, and Thracians mentioned elsewhere in our book; see
NOTE on 8:9, from various peoples.
horses from Asia. Bar-Kochva (JM, 514) emphasizes that this refers to
horses and not to the cavalrymen themselves; it may well be that the horses
were made available to local troops, such as those commanded by Timothy.
to take it at spear-point. I.e., by military force; see NOTE on 5:11, at spear-

point. This formulation of Timothys intention is very overstated, for in
fact the coming story is one which deals with a Jewish initiative against a
local commander in Transjordan. Lvy (Notes, 695, n. 2) and Habicht
(2 Macc, 253, n. 24a) view this whole invasion as a mere figment of imagin-
ation. But it is not only imagination; rather, our diasporan author under-
standably preferred to portray Jews who were on the offensive (so
1 Macc 5:68) as if in fact they themselves were the victims. Moreover, as
Bar-Kochva notes (JM, 514), it could be that the original sin of turning Jazer
into Gezer led our author further to conclude that Timothy was active in the
Judaean heartland (a conclusion which figures in 12:2 as well), far from his
bailiwick so he must have invaded Judaea.
25. strewing dirt (H) upon their heads. Similar: 14:15. For this gesture in
times of stress, see also Joshua 7:6; 1 Maccabees 11:71; Philo, Legatio 228;
etc. Sometimes we hear instead of the strewing of ashes on the head:
Esther 4:1; Daniel 9:3 etc. Indeed, sometimes the use of is ambigu-
ous; see our NOTE on 4:41, wood ashes (). On the practice see
also As. Mos. 3:4 and Tromp, Assumption of Moses, 166167.
girding their loins with sackcloth. See NOTE on 3:19, women
26. threw themselves upon the step opposite the altar ('
). For scenes like this, when faced with the threat
of invasion, see also 3:21 and 13:12, 2 Chronicles 20:18, and esp. Ju-
dith 4:1112, where, as in v. 25, sackcloth is very prominent. It is not clear
what step the author means, but we know (from m. Sukkah 5:4 and
m. Middot 2:5) that steps in the Temple, especially those leading up to
the main courtyard, where the altar was, were considered to be particu-
larly appropriate places to pray. As noted in our Introduction, the text of
this verse has been debated, for the usual meaning of is foun-
dation, and this, together with most of the Latin texts (contra altaris
marginem, ad altaris crepidinem, ante crepedinem arae De Bruyne, An-
Chapter X 387
ciennes traductions, 182183), led Abel (Macc, 413) to consider a minor

emendation, changing the case of so as to have them fall oppo-
site the foundation of the altar ( A
); Abel adduces LXX Joel 2:17, which has the priests wailing
between the Porch and the altar (? A -
). For other use of Joel 2:1620 in our book, see above, p. 62. But
what priests might do not all of Judas men could do. For the view that
here and in Joel (ibid.) refers to a step of the altar, see the LSJ
Supplement (19962) 88.
asked having become merciful to them. As we heard at 7:37; 8:5, 27, 29.
as the Law clearly states. At Exodus 23:22: I will be an enemy to your en-
emies and an adversary to your adversaries. This biblical phrase is also
well known in Greek and Roman treaties. See M. Weinfeld, Common
Heritage, 180; idem, The Loyalty Oath in the Ancient Near East, Uga-
rit-Forschungen 8 (1976) 390391. The verse in Exodus goes on to promise
for My angel will go before you as we shall see in v. 29 and at 11:8. On
such biblical promises, see Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 6667.
27. advanced a considerable distance outside of the city. Jerusalem, which

has been mentioned here only by implication, by reference to the Temple.
For other, and more extreme, cases of the assumption that it is at the center
of attention even when unmentioned, or even when another city has been
mentioned, see 4:39; 5:2; 11:78.
they kept to themselves ( 7 * I). I.e., avoided contact; cf. Josep-

hus, Against Apion 2.227, the Spartans, as long as they had their own city,
kept to themselves ( 0 7).
28. as soon as the rays of dawn spread. Which shows they marched at
night; see NOTE on 8:7, especially chose the nighttime.
these the others. Such contrasts are frequent in our book, characters
being arranged opposite one another as if on a stage; see above, p. 76.
virtue. Here the term is close to its roots; see NOTE on 6:31, virtue.
made their rage the guide of their struggles. Allowing to be ones

guide is the arch-characteristic of the wicked; see NOTE on 9:4, borne on
the wave of his temper. It may also induce a tit for tat reprisal; see v. 35.
29. A mighty battle having developed ( #).

Same phrase: 12:11.
there appeared to the enemys soldiers. But not to the Jews; see NOTE on
3:25, they saw a horse.
men. That is, angels, as requested; see NOTE on v. 26, as the Law clearly
states. For the frequent use of men to describe angels as they appear to
humans, see e.g. Genesis 18:2//19:1; Judges 13:6; Daniel 9:21; N. P. Brat-
siotis, TDOT 1 (1974) 233.
gold-studded (,) bridles. As one would expect of heavenly

horses; see NOTE on 3:25, outfitted with beautiful accoutrements. For such
extravagant bridles LSJ (2011) cites Herodotus 9.20 and Xenophon, Cyro-
paedia 1.3.3.
30. Two of them (= ). So according to Hanhart (edition ad loc. and

Text, 28), following the Alexandrinus and the Vulgate and followed by
Habicht (2 Macc, 253). Several other witnesses, however, including the
Venetus and the Vetus Latina, omit two, thus allowing all five of the
angels to shelter Judas. The latter version (accenting J) is preferred by
Grimm, Abel and Goldstein ad loc., who explain that two was added in by
some unimaginative copyist who did not understand how five angels could
take Judas between () them. Alternatively, Adinolfi (Questioni,
135136) suggested that two was added by someone who couldnt im-
agine the same angels at the same time both sheltering Judas and also shoot-
ing at his enemies. But can we really imagine a copyist who was so troubled
by such geometric or operational problems but yet willing to ignore the
question he himself created, namely: What did the other three angels do?
(Contrast the parallel at Josippon, ch. 19 [ed. Flusser, 87], where in fact two
angels shelter and three fought, but there, indeed, the division of labor is ex-
plicit.) Is it not simpler to imagine that the original text said two but
some copyists left that out because they knew there were five angels, and
since they did not know what the other three did (something perhaps clari-
fied in the original source) found it intolerable to ignore them? That dif-
ficulty, to the extent it is one, may be overcome without deleting the two
by allowing the other three to go on leading the Jews (v. 29) and having
the reference to the two reflect awareness of the other three, and that may
be accomplished either by translating Z two of them (so Hanhart,
Text, 28) or by adding in ^, allowing for five distinguished men of
whom, two. As Habicht notes (2 Macc, 253, n. 30a), if the original text
Chapter X 389
did include ^ it could easily have been lost by haplography (-

WW). One way or another, as both Hanhart and Habicht
note, it is difficult to imagine anyone creating the reference to two if it
were not original.
sheltering him (#). See NOTE on 5:9, find shelter.
throwing arrows and thunderbolts () at the enemy. A hint at

Psalms 144:6 (make lightning flash and scatter them, shoot Your arrows
and rout them)? Or a hint that our God is just as powerful as Zeus, the
thunder God of whom was a characteristic epithet? As usual,
our Jewish-Hellenistic author had no need to choose; compare, for
example, our NOTE on 9:8, give orders to waves weigh mountains.
blindness. Cf. what angels did at Genesis 19:11 and esp. 2 Kings 6:18. For
the comparison of the present story to the latter one, about Elisha, see
Schwartz, Something Biblical, 226, where it is shown that there are not
numerous points of comparison nor any attempt to portray Judas as a
latter-day Elisha.
they scattered about in all directions (-). The text is according

to Hanhart, following Kappler, Memoria, 58; , which does
not appear in LSJ, is an expansion of , to scatter.
31. cut down. As above; see NOTE on v. 17, cutting down.
32. As for Timothy himself he took refuge. Just as he will at the end of his
next appearance (12:24). Our author, who firmly subscribes to the manly
virtues (see NOTE on 8:7, And the fame ) and amongst them the will-
ingness to die (see NOTES on 7:2, ready to die and on 8:21, ready to die),
refuses to let his villains die nobly in battle; just like Nicanor (8:3435) and
Antiochus (9:12) before him and Lysias (11:12) and Gorgias (12:35) after
him, Timothy too will flee (here) or even be captured, only to achieve his re-
lease by guile (12:24). Moreover, if in the cases of Nicanor, Antiochus and
Lysias it is said they learned the proper lesson about God and His protection
of the Jews, in the case of Timothy the humiliation has no such redeeming
feature.
Gezer. So according to all witnesses; our authors assumption that Tim-

othy was active in central Judaea is also evident at v. 24 (see NOTE there on
to take it at spear-point) and at 12:10. Nevertheless, the parallel at 1 Mac-
cabees 5:8 refers to Jazer, which is in Transjordan, and it is apparent not

only that both books are referring to the same place but also that Jazer is
to be preferred; note that our book too, at 12:10ff., has Timothy active in
Transjordan (see 12:17, along with Momigliano, Prime Linee, 6970 and
Bar-Kochva, JM, 512). The exact location of Jazer is not certain; see J. L.
Peterson, Jazer, ABD 3.650651.
Chaereas. Timothys brother, according to v. 37.
34. were blasphemous and spewed forth forbidden words. This is a new
element in our book apart from the general allusions in v. 4 and at 8:4. This
verse is very similar to 12:14.
35. burning up with rage. Their rage makes them similar to Timothys men
(v. 28), while burning up compares them to Antiochus (9:7). Thus, the
players on both sides are equally inflamed these for the good (just as Anti-
ochus Epiphanes himself at 4:38) and those for evil.
manfully (7). For this adverb LSJ (247) lists our verse alone. For
the theme, see NOTE on 8:7, And the fame
animal-like rage. As at 12:15, but also as Antiochus himself when first at-
tacking Jerusalem (5:11).
smote. On , see NOTE on 5:12, smite.
36. by virtue of the diversion. The term usually refers to a

180-degree about-face by a unit of soldiers (Walbank, Polybius, 2.226), but
that wont fit here. For another meaning, to be occupied with something
else, see Risberg, Anmerkungen, 2425. Cf. e.g. Josephus, Vita 104. Ac-
cordingly, it seems that our verse means that the direct attack on the walls,
mentioned in v. 35, was in fact only a diversion to allow for the real attack,
described here.
burned the blasphemers alive. As at 8:33. But while there the punishment fit
the crime, here there is no such special explanation. The biblical and rab-
binic punishment for blasphemy was stoning; see Leviticus 24:1316;
m. Sanh 7:4.
they also broke through the gates. I.e., from the inside.
Chapter X 391
37. cut down. Although he will reappear in Chapter 12; see Introduction,
p. 27.
Timothy, who had hidden in a cistern. While his soldiers were fighting and
dying! See NOTE on v. 32, As for Timothy himself
Apollophanes. Not mentioned elsewhere (see p. 72).
38. they blessed. As opposed to the blasphemers, but like 3:30; 8:27; 11:9;
12:41; 15:29, 34. Here this element creates a proper conclusion for the
chapter.
had been beneficent (/). See NOTE on 4:2, benefactor.
Israel. This name is rare in our book, appearing twice in the second epistle
(1:2526) and again only at 9:5 and 11:6. In all cases, it adds an element of
religious depth which is not borne by Jews, and it appears, therefore,
that similar to the biblical style at the opening of Chapter 8 it is intended
to hint at the language of the prayer which is reported here. Compare
esp. 3 Maccabees: it usually uses Jews, but for prayers Israel is used
(2:6, 10, 16; 6:4, 9; 7:16, 23 [the books final verse, which ends with
Amen]). For its religious aura, as opposed to Jews and even He-
brews, see Harvey, True Israel.
Bibliography

Flusser, Dedication of the Temple.
Kasher, Jews, Idumaeans, and Ancient Arabs, 2533.
Lvy, Notes.
Mitford, Ptolemy Macron.
Chapter XI
The Beth-Zur Campaign
(1) After an entirely brief interval Lysias, the kings guardian and kinsman
and head of state, upon whom what had happened weighed quite heavily,
(2) gathered about 80,000 men and all the (kingdoms) horses and came
upon the Jews, thinking to make the city a residence for Greeks (3) and the
Temple a source of money like the sacred enclosures of the other peoples,
and to make the high priesthood into something sold a year at a time
(4) having in mind his myriads of foot-soldiers and thousands of caval-
rymen and eighty elephants and not at all giving more thought to the power
of God. (5) Having entered Judaea and nearing Beth-Zur, a strong place
about five schoinoi from Jerusalem, he pressed hard upon it. (6) When Mac-
cabaeus men received notice that he was besieging the strongholds, to-
gether with the populace they beseeched the Lord, with wailing and tears, to
send a good angel to the rescue of Israel. (7) And Maccabaeus, being himself
the first to take up his arms, impelled the others together with him to en-
danger themselves so as to aid their brethren; together they all stormed out
with enthusiasm. (8) But right there, when they were still near Jerusalem,
there appeared someone leading them on horseback, dressed in a white gar-
ment and brandishing golden weaponry. (9) Together all blessed the merci-
ful God and buoyed up in their spirits they were ready to pierce not only
men, but even the wildest animals and iron walls. (10) They moved forward
in formation, having a heavenly ally the Lord having become merciful to-
ward them. (11) Like lions they threw themselves against the enemies and
laid low 11,000 of them, as well as 1600 cavalrymen; they forced all (the
others) to flee. (12) Most of them managed to escape, wounded and naked,
and Lysias himself escaped by fleeing shamefully.
Negotiations and the Abrogation of the Decrees against Judaism
(13) 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 (14) and urged them to settle with him ac-
Chapter XI 393
cording to all that is just, (saying that) if so he would urge the king as well to
be an indispensable friend to them. (15) Maccabaeus, giving thought to the
benefit, approved everything which Lysias proposed; for the king agreed to
everything which Maccabaeus transmitted in writing to Lysias concerning
the Jews.
(16) The letters written to the Jews by Lysias were as follows: Lysias to
the community of Jews: greetings. (17) Johanan and Absalom, who were
sent by you, having transmitted the document copied below, made requests
concerning the things indicated in it. (18) I clarified, accordingly, which
things it was necessary to bring before the king too; but those things which
were possible I approved them myself. (19) If now you will maintain
goodwill toward the state, I will attempt to be a beneficial agent in the fu-
ture as well. (20) As for the details, I have ordered them and my people to
discuss them with you. (21) Be well. In the year 148, the 24th of Dioscorin-
thios.
(22) The kings letter was as follows: King Antiochus to his brother Ly-
sias: greetings. (23) Now that our father has passed over to the gods, in our
desire that the people of the kingdom be untroubled and take care of their
own affairs, (24) and having heard that the Jews did not willingly concur in
their conversion to Greek ways by my father, but rather, preferring their
own way of life, ask that their own regulations be allowed to them
(25) now then, in our policy that this people too should be untroubled we
have decided to restore the Temple to them and that they should conduct
their civic behavior according to the customs of their ancestors. (26) So you
will do well if you send to them and give them the right hand, so that in per-
ceiving our policy they will be in good spirits and happily go about taking
care of their own affairs.
(27) The kings letter to the people was as follows: King Antiochus to the
Jews Council of Elders and the other Jews: greetings. (28) If you are well,
that is how we would have it; we too are healthy. (29) Menelaus has re-
ported to us that you wish to return (home) and devote yourselves to your
own affairs. (30) Accordingly: to those Jews who return by the thirtieth of
Xanthicus there shall be extended the promise that without fear (31) they
may use their own foods and laws as in the past, and no one of them shall in
any way be troubled due to the things which were done out of ignorance.
(32) And I have also sent Menelaus to encourage you. (33) Be well. In the
year 148, the 15th of Xanthicus.
(34) The Romans too sent them a letter, as follows: Quintus Memmius
(and) Titus Manius, emissaries of the Romans, to the people of the Jews:
greetings. (35) Concerning those matters which Lysias, the kings kinsman,
has allowed to you, we too willingly concur. (36) But as for those matters
which he decided to bring before the king, send us someone immediately

after reviewing them, so that we shall be able to present (these matters) as
suits you; for we are proceeding on to Antioch. (37) Therefore be quick and
send us people, so we too shall learn what your opinion is. (38) Be healthy.
In the year 148, 15th of Xanthicus.
COMMENT
After the preceding chapter dealt with clashes involving minor league com-
bat against Idumaeans and secondary Seleucid officials in the south and the
north, this chapter opens with a major campaign led by the viceroy himself.
Lysias invades with a huge army and commensurate self-confidence, plan-
ning to take Jerusalem and convert the city and the Temple into Greek in-
stitutions, but is met by Judas forces who their prayers for divine help
being answered manage to defeat and rout the Seleucid army. This leads
Lysias to realize the power of God, and therefore to advise the king to make
peace with the Jews as is testified by the correspondence which fills the
last half of this chapter. Thus Lysias campaign ends up not only as did
Nicanors in Chapter 8, with Judas victory and the Syrian generals recog-
nition of Gods power, but with an official Seleucid abrogation of its anti-
Jewish policy as well. This, will leave for the next chapter the question why
the book cannot end with this one.
The chapter divides into two sections, namely the Beth-Zur campaign
and the correspondence, and each generates a complex of historical issues:
(1) The Beth-Zur Campaign(s): 1 Maccabees recounts two Beth-Zur
campaigns, the first prior to Antiochus death and the second which re-
sulted logically and causally from the first somewhat thereafter. The first,
narrated in 1 Maccabees 4:2835, has Lysias and a large army camping near
Beth-Zur, whereupon Judas and his men after an appropriate prayer
(vv. 3033) attack Lysias forces and force them to withdraw, not without
promising to return for a second round (v. 35). This victory allowed for the
Jewish takeover of Jerusalem and rededication of the Temple (1 Macc 4), as
well as for some further Jewish campaigning in the south and north
(1 Macc 5) both of which (generally) parallel our Chapter 10. The prom-
ised second round at Beth-Zur soon comes, and is related in 1 Macca-
bees 6:1863, after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes: upon the urging of
the men of the Akra, the king but Eupator was but a child, so Lysias
was the main mover besieged Beth-Zur (which had been fortified by Judas,
according to 1 Macc 4:26, 61) with a large army, whereupon Judas took an
army to nearby Beth Zechariah. When battle was joined it resulted in a Se-
Chapter XI 395
leucid victory, and in the garrisoning of Beth-Zur (v. 50), but shortly there-
after Lysias preferred to withdraw to Antioch so as to deal with the threat
posed by Philip, whom Antiochus Epiphanes had appointed to be regent.
Our book too seems to report two Beth-Zur campaigns: here and in
Chapter 13. However, both come after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes
(Ch. 9). Moreover, there is no logical or causal relationship between them:
the second introduces Beth-Zur at 13:19 as if for the first time, as if the
reader hadnt read of a campaign there just two chapters earlier. Again, not
only the timing, but also the details of both narratives read as if they refer to
the second campaign as described by 1 Maccabees: both have the royal
army besieging Beth-Zur (as 1 Macc 6:31 but not 1 Macc 4:2835); both
have the Seleucid force including elephants (as 1 Macc 6:3046 but not
1 Macc 4:2835); and the number of elephants our book gives at 11:4,
eighty, although ridiculously high, is strikingly identical to the number
given by Josephus in connection with the second campaign (War 1.41).1
Thus, it seems that both of our books Beth-Zur narratives, in Chap-
ters 11 and 13, refer to the same campaign, and that that campaign is the
second of the two narrated by 1 Maccabees, namely, the one in the days of
Antiochus Eupator (which in fact corresponds to the fact that they are both
placed, in our book, after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes in Chapter 9
and the succession of Antiochus Eupator in Chapter 10).2 The fact that
they are not coordinated indicates the use of a separate source in Chap-
ters 1011; other arguments in favor of that conclusion are set forth above,
pp. 3034.
(2) The Letters: The latter conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the
letters (hereinafter termed Letters A-D, in the order in which they appear)
that fill the latter half of our chapter seem to relate to the same period, for in
v. 23, at the opening of Letter B, Antiochus Eupator explicitly refers to his
fathers death. True, this is the only letter which explicitly identifies the re-
1 See Introduction, p. 36.

2 In the Hebrew version of this commentary (29, n. 34) I assumed that our chapters
campaign was the first one, for two reasons: the fact that our chapters account ends,
as does that of 1 Macc 4, with the Seleucids withdrawing due to Judas success, and
not (as those of our Ch. 13 and 1 Macc 6) due to the threat posed by Philip, and the
fact (as it seems) that it was found together with the letters of 148 SE. However, the
first point is the kind of thing any pro-Hasmonean writer, certainly an epitomizer,
would be happy to omit, and the latter point is not very probative, given the fact that
the second letter is from the period after Antiochus Epiphanes death. Upon addi-
tional reflection, the circumstantial details mentioned above (siege, elephants, eighty)
seem to be better guides.
igning king as Antiochus Eupator; Letter A and Letter D refer to the king
and Letter C refers to King Antiochus. However, since Letter B is in the
midst of this dossier, and since all the letters refer to Lysias who according
to our author (10:11) makes his appearance only after the death of Anti-
ochus Epiphanes, it is clear that our author placed the entire chapter in the
reign of Antiochus Eupator, after his fathers death.
But although our authors placement of these letters thus bolsters our
conclusion that both Beth-Zur reports pertain to the period after Antiochus
IV died, it is clear that our author was wrong. This is shown sufficiently by
cuneiform evidence now available, which shows that Antiochus Epiphanes
death came more than half a year later than the spring of 164 BCE (Xan-
thicus of 148 SE, the year given for Letters A, C, D vv. 21, 33, 38).3 Even
long before this evidence became available, however, Richard Laqueur
(Griechische Urkunden) noticed that Letter B is both the only letter as-
cribed to the days of Antiochus Eupator and the only one without a date.
All three of the others are dated to 148 SE but fail to identify the king, and
so apart from the fact that our chapter juxtaposes them one to another,
there is no particular reason to assume that their king is Eupator, as in
Letter B. Hence, there is no particular reason not to interpret Lettters A, C
and D historically (i.e., not as contemplated by our books confused author)
on the background of the picture supplied by 1 Maccabees 6, according to
which Lysias was in fact appointed regent when Antiochus Epiphanes left
for the East. That is, apart from our authors placement of this dossier there
is every reason to assume that the king and King Antiochus of Letters
A, C and D was Antiochus Epiphanes. This is, indeed, the prevailing as-
sumption today, at least for Letter C, which is clearly dated. Letters A and
D which indeed display some verbal similarity (vv. 18//3536), could go
either way. True, Letter D has the exact same date as Letter C, but this is
itself suspect, as is the use of a Seleucid date in this Roman letter. As for
Letter A, given the uncertainty about the month mentioned it too could go
either way, but since it seems to imply (in v. 18) that the king is at some dis-
tance from Lysias we may prefer to assume that here too the king is Anti-
ochus Epiphanes, who in 148 SE was far away, in the East.4
But the fact that our author was confused, and wrongly mixed at least
one letter applying to Antiochus Epiphanes into a file of which one or more
of the others apply to the reign of his son, and apparently allowed this mis-
take to force an erroneous reorganization of this entire part of his book (see
3 See above, p. 41, n. 92.

4 See p. 27, n. 60.
Chapter XI 397
Introduction, pp. 3233), is more than compensated for by the value of

these four documents which he preserved. They indicate, first of all, that the
spring of 164 saw Antiochus Epiphanes, in response to Jewish resistance
and an appeal by Menelaus (!), agreeing to give up his decrees against Ju-
daism if the Jews put down their arms (Letter C). This is the type of datum
which neither our book, which hates Menelaus, nor 1 Maccabees, which
hates Antiochus Epiphanes, was interested in revealing. Second, these
letters flesh out the negotiations between the Seleucid government and the
rebels: Letter A, while referring to the Jews merely as a multitude and
failing to dignify their Jewish emissaries who bear very Jewish names
(v. 17) by terming them ambassadors or the like (cf. v. 34), nevertheless
has Lysias making concessions and urging the king to do more of the same.
This is something that 1 Maccabees would never tell us; as far as that book
is concerned, whatever the Jews have achieved they owe to Hasmonean
valor alone. Finally, Letter D is one of the earliest pieces of evidence for
Roman interference in Seleucid affairs. Given Romes successes against
Antiochus III (see Appendix 6) and more recently against Antiochus IV (see
NOTE on 5:5, false rumor ), it fills in a bit of the picture of the inter-
national scenario which facilitated the Hasmoneans success.
NOTES
11:1. After an entirely brief interval. Apart from our verse, LSJ (2008) lists
no other evidence for . The use invention? of such a diminu-
tive seems to indicate that the author is somewhat puzzled and is attempting
to force all he has to recount into a very short period. Presumably this re-
flects the need, created by the dates later in the chapter that showed (so he
mistakenly thought see Introduction, p. 33) that Antiochus IV was dead,
and that Antiochus V was ruling, by the spring of what we call 164 BCE.
Lysias. Who was inserted into the story together with Antiochus Eupator
(10:11) but nothing has yet been said of him; although he was head of
state, he is not even said to have been behind Gorgias or Timothys cam-
paigns reported in Chapter 10. In fact, his story should have already begun
in the days of Antiochus IV, as regent while the king was on his eastern cam-
paign; so it is at 1 Maccabees 3:32. Our author seems to have been unaware
of that; see immediately below and NOTE on 9:29, wary of Antiochus son.
the kings guardian. That is, the guardian of the young Antiochus Eupator.
Use of this title (repeated at 13:2 and 14:2) corresponds to 1 Maccabees 3:32
and 6:17 but contradicts 10:11, according to which Lysias was appointed
by Antiochus Eupator himself. As we have seen, that statement which re-
flects our authors assumption that, as usual, but as incorrect in this case, a
king takes office only after the end of his predecessors reign was among
the reasons for the assumption that the war materials in Chapters 1011
came to our book from a separate source; on that assumption, the present
identification must be considered a gloss. See p. 28, n. 61, and p. 37, n. 80.
kinsman (). A rank in the Seleucid hierarchy; see Stern, Hasmon-

aean Judaea, 4950, n. 3; Corradi, Studi, 281290. In this case 1 Maccabees
(3:32) is misleading, for it presents Lysias as of the royal seed, which
could be taken to denote a real family tie. This need not mean that the
author of 1 Maccabees did not understand the true situation; indeed, he was
familiar with the aulic titles (see 1 Macc 10:89; 11:31), so perhaps as
Niese suggested (Kritik, 51) he only wanted to give his narrative a biblical
flavor. For of the royal seed, see 2 Kings 25:25, Jeremiah 41:1 and Eze-
kiel 17:13. For a similar move at 1 Maccabees 1:29, see above, NOTE on
5:24, the Mysarch Apollonius.
what had happened. In context, this refers to the failure of Timothys at-
tempt to conquer Judaea (10:24), which explains the renewed attempt de-
scribed here (vv. 23). However, the phrasing here is so vague that just as
after an entirely short period in v. 1 it seems to indicate that our author
is not certain, or bothered, about the precise context for the present story.
2. about 80,000 men. An entirely exaggerated figure, just like the 60,000
and 100,000 which 1 Maccabees 4:28 and 6:30 cite for the Beth-Zur cam-
paigns; see Bar-Kochva, JM, 42, and Shatzman, Hasmonaean Army, 32
(the data on the size of Lysias army are impossible).
thinking (). This is the opening of an impressive bit of word-

play, to be concluded in v. 4: .7 .
3. a source of money. LSJ (236) cites our verse alone for .
Goldstein translates subject to tribute, but as he notes (2 Macc, 404)
while our book might be well-informed, the fact is that we have next to no
information about any levying of tribute upon temples in the Hellenistic
world; on the Seleucids, see Bickerman, Institutions, 114115 and M. Ros-
tovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, I (Ox-
ford: Clarendon, 1941) 506 with n. 282. In contrast, there is a good bit of
evidence for the sale of priesthoods, which is mentioned further on in our
Chapter XI 399
verse (see NOTE on something sold ). Accordingly, we have preferred to

translate more literally, as Habicht (zu machen den Tempel zu einer
Geldquelle), and to assume that the end of the verse explains its opening:
that which Jason and Menelaus had done (4:8, 24) would become the rule.
the sacred enclosures of the other peoples. See NOTE on 14:33, this sacred
enclosure of God.
something sold a year at a time. In the Hellenistic world it indeed seems to

have been common to sell high-priestly positions annually. See W. Otto,
Priester und Tempel im hellenistischen Aegypten, I (Leipzig & Berlin:
Teubner, 1905) 232244 (and idem, W. Otto, Kauf und Verkauf von
Priestertmern bei den Griechen, Hermes 44 [1909] 594599); Bicker-
man, Institutions, 115. From the point of view of Jewish tradition, Lysias
plan involved three innovations: (a) that the high priest would be appointed;
(b) that the appointment would be sold; (c) that the appointment would be
only for a year. Traditionally, in contrast, the position was held by inherit-
ance and was lifelong. Together, these threatened innovations would have
undermined the high priesthoods prestige and made it subject to the crown,
just as our author has already condemned Jason and Menelaus for their re-
spective usurpations of the position (4:7, 26). Indeed, in the days of Herod,
the Roman procurators after him, and the last Herodians, high priests were
switched frequently, so much so that occasionally we get the impression
that it was an annual appointment (and perhaps it sometimes was); see An-
tiquities 18.3435 (along with Schwartz, Studies, 182201); John 11:49
and 18:11; b. Yoma 9a; Alon, Jews, 6165; U. Holzmeister, Der Hohe-
priester jenes Jahres (Joh 11,49.51; 18,13), ZKT 44 (1920) 306312.
This image, coupled with rumors that the post was being sold (see b. Yoma
8b and Alon, ibid., 6569), destroyed the positions prestige.
4. myriads of foot-soldiers and thousands of cavalrymen and eighty elep-

hants. The elephants were not mentioned in v. 2, and their number is very
exaggerated (as is even the twenty-two mentioned at 13:2); see Bar-Kochva,
JM, 307. It seems, accordingly, that our author has, as usual (for 1 Macc
too), greatly exaggerated the enemys strength, so as to inflate the import-
ance of the Jews victory; see NOTE on 2:21, so that although they were
few in number. Note that Josephus, at War 1.41, speaks of eighty Seleucid
elephants at the battle of Beth Zechariah more confirmation that the pres-
ent account refers to the second Beth-Zur campaign; it seems that Jose-
phus used the same source as did our author (see COMMENT above,
p. 395). On elephants in ancient warfare, see, in general, Scullard, Elephant;
Bar-Kochva, Seleucid Army, 7583; U. Staub, Das Tier mit den Hrnern:
Ein Beitrag zu Dan 7,7f, in Keel & Staub, Hellenismus und Judentum,
esp. 7075.
5. Beth-Zur. For the identification of the site, which is north of Hebron on

the border between Judaea and Idumaea, and on the finds there, see Bar-
Kochva, JM, 285287. From our text it emerges that Beth-Zur was in Jew-
ish hands, a cardinal point indicating, again, that we are now reading about
the second Beth-Zur campaign; cf. 1 Maccabees 4:61 and 6:31. Note that,
characteristically, the Palestinian author of 1 Maccabees saw no need to add
any words to identify Beth-Zur when he first mentioned it (4:29), as op-
posed to our author, who goes on to characterize the place and to state its
distance from Jerusalem.
about five schoinoi from Jerusalem. South of Jerusalem, near the road to
Hebron. The schoinos is a Persian measure used widely in Egpyt. If each
was equal to thirty stadia, as Strabo assumes (Geog. 17.1.24, p. 804), then
the distance given here amounts to 150 stadia some thirty kilometers
(see NOTE on 12:9, the gleam of the flames ); this datum is more or less
correct. See Bar-Kochva, JM, 276, also Abel and Goldstein ad loc. But
Strabo also notes that there was some lack of consistency concerning the
length of a schoinos (as other measures; see J. Geiger, Julian of Ascalon,
JHS 112 [1992] 39). This is the only place where this measure is cited in
our book; elsewhere in our book distances are stated only in Chapter 12
(vv. 9, 10, 16, 17, 29), and then only in stadia. Assuming the reading
(based on the Alexandrinus) is correct, it is an important indication of the
use of separate sources; see above, p. 30. Cf. Nelis, La distance; he argues
that an original reading of about two hundred could explain the vari-
ous readings in manuscripts here, on which hypothesis the reference to
schoinoi was not original but only the contribution of Egyptian scribes
who were familiar with that measure. But why should the original text
have omitted the unit? In any case, as Bar-Kochva remarks (ibid.), it is dif-
ficult to accept a reading that is not testified by any of the numerous wit-
nesses.
6. the strongholds. For the use of the plural although the ref-
erence is to a single fortress (Beth-Zur), cf. Polybius 2.69.9; 5.73.1.
the populace. For this sense of ,, see NOTE on 4:40, the populace.
beseeched (Z). See NOTE on 3:18, supplication.

Chapter XI 401
with wailing and tears. Which, as at 13:12, raises the dramatic tension; cf.
3:14, 16 and 15:19 and contrast 1 Maccabees, where we never hear of any
tears, crying or wailing (not to mention more abstract distress). Cf.
NOTE on 3:19, Women, bound around with sackcloth under their breasts.
a good angel. Although figures come down from heaven a few times in our
book, it employs the term angel (5) only here and at 15:23, in
both cases in a request that God send a good angel; the same specification
also appears in the confidence expressed at Tobit 5:22. But while in the
latter passage the rhetorical requirements of the situation (Tobits need to
allay his wifes fears) explain the adjective, here it is a puzzling formulation.
Can anyone imagine that God might send a bad angel? True, God was pre-
sumed to have at His disposal angels of destruction, but why hint in prayer
that without our special pleading He might send one? And if this prayer is
continuing the one begun at 10:26, which refers to Exodus 23:22 which is
itself followed by Gods promise to send an angel, there too it is taken for
granted, but not stated, that it would be a good angel. Is not specifying the
request for a good angel comparable to asking a host, who has offered a
glass of water, to use a clean glass? I have no solution for this puzzle. For the
assumption that the angel meant here is Michael, who frequently figures in
military contexts, see Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 126.
7. the first to take up his arms. As at 8:23.
brethren. That is, comrades in arms; see NOTE on 10:21, brethren.
8. there appeared. Not necessarily was; see NOTE on 3:25, they saw a
horse.
on horseback (K). Probably the good angel requested in v. 6. For

horseback angels see also 10:29; cf. 3:25.
brandishing golden weaponry. For see NOTE on 3:25, armor.
9. pierce. For this translation of , see NOTE on 3:16, pierced the
mind.
10. heavenly ally. See NOTE on 8:24, ally.
the Lord having become merciful toward them. For this turnabout, see 8:5,
27, 29.
11. Like lions (2). LSJ (1038) lists only this verse. Correspond-
ingly, Gil (Sobre el estilo, 27) notes our authors love for forms ending in
or , which have a poetic and archaic ring to them; see 3:18; 4:41;
14:14, 45.
12. naked. That is, without their weapons; cf. 8:27, Polybius 3.81.2, etc.
fleeing shamefully. As usual; see NOTE on 10:32, As for Timothy himself
13. he mulled. This is the only appearance of in the Septuagint

and the only reference LSJ (154) gives for this sense of the verb.
Realizing the powerful God who is their ally. As his predecessors too had
realized: 3:3439; 8:36; 9:1117.
Hebrews. For this formal name, which as at 15:37 seems to have been
thought appropriate for such a major statement, see NOTE on 7:31, He-
brews.
14. according to all that is just (/ ). The same phrase
reappears at 13:23, after the other Beth-Zur campaign; as we have seen
(p. 395), it seems the two are in fact identical.
urge the king as well (3 ( ). That is, as well as Lysias himself.
to be an indispensable friend to them. On the text here, which is difficult,

see esp. Goldstein, 2 Macc, 4078. Three verbs have been transmitted in
the infinitive: . , and this seems
to be impossible to render. Moreover, is difficult because
whatever the true facts of the matter, it is not likely that the kings guardian
would be said to have told subjects that he would force the king to do
something. Habicht (2 Macc, 256, n. 14b, followed by Goldstein, ibid.),
emphasized this latter consideration, but saw it as proof that
is, accordingly, the more difficult reading and hence to be retained; he sug-
gested that we view (to convince) as a gloss meant to avoid the
problem. Hanhart tended toward the same solution, and so although he re-
tained in his edition he marked it as doubtful; see also his Text, 44.
These scholars also thought that the repetition of at the beginning
and end of this same verse was bad style, hence another reason to eliminate
. However, it seems that that parallelism is in fact to be welcomed,
for it allows Lysias to appear in the role of mediator between the two sides;
Chapter XI 403
cf. in 8:18. It seems, therefore, that we should

retain and resolve the problem another way, as Katz suggested
(Text, 15, following others): by changing into an adjective.
Indeed, the Latin witnesses include one (P) that reads here necessarius
amicus; see De Bruyne, Anciennes traductions, 189. For several illus-
trations of in the sense of vital, impossible without, or
in connection with people very close, beloved, and the like, see
Mauersberger, PL, 1.92; Josephus, Antiquities 7.350; and esp. Acts 10:24:
# . / # (his kinsmen and
his closest friends).
15. Maccabaeus, giving thought to the benefit. This as also 12:12 and
perhaps 14:20 sounds like an apology, as if there is some problem with the
notion of making agreements with foreign powers. Perhaps it was a theo-
logical problem: Should those who have God as their ally seek out, or ac-
cept, alliances with mortals, especially with those who had persecuted the
Jews?! See, for example, Exodus 23:32; Deuteronomy 7:2; Isaiah 36:56;
1 Maccabees 12:9; also Mariani, Lalleanza e lamicizia. It may be that
such second thoughts brought our author to explain that the agreements
were advantageous.
approved (). See NOTE on 4:10, royal approval.
for the king agreed. As Letter B will show.
everything which Maccabaeus transmitted in writing to Lysias. Via the em-

issaries named in v. 17.
16. letters. But in fact there is only one from Lysias. There is, of course, evi-
dence for the usage of the plural for a single letter; see LSJ, 660,
also Ettelson, Integrity, 320. But the closest we come to that in our book
is at 14:13, where the text is however uncertain; see NOTE ibid. on letters.
Otherwise, vv. 22, 27, and 34 below use the singular, and nowhere else does
our author use the plural in reference to a single letter; see also 2:13 (plural
for more than one letter) and 9:18 (singular for a single letter); indeed, ac-
cording to BDAG 381, in our literature the plural almost always refers to
more than one letter. Thus it seems we should understand that Lysias, as is
stated in v. 17, attached to his own letter that which Judas sent him (men-
tioned in v. 15) and it is unfortunate that it was not preserved. A similar
situation: 9:25.
to the community of Jews. Here, given the tone of the letter, A clearly
has a respectful meaning, not horde. See NOTE on 3:21, community. But
it is not the name of a formal institution; contrast the gerousia, mentioned
in v. 27. Thus, it is a peace-seeking letter from Lysias to the rebels. Note
how our author insists that Judas runs the negotiations while Lysias, of
course, ignores Judas; cf. the way Demetrius II writes the nation of Jews
and ignores Jonathan at 1 Maccabees 10:26 after his competitor, Alexander
Balas, came to an agreement with him (ibid. 1821).
17. Johanan and Absalom. Otherwise unknown. The former name was ex-
tremely popular among Jews of the Second Temple period, the latter much
rarer; see Ilan, Lexicon, 6061, 134143. But it too appears in a few Has-
monean contexts: see 1 Maccabees 11:70 and 13:11; Antiquities 14.71; and
the mystifying reference to the House of Absalom in 1QpHab 5:9. These
data have engendered quite a bit of speculation; see Stern, Hasmonaean Ju-
daea, 5758, n. 26; W. H. Brownlee, The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk
(SBLMS 24; Missoula, Montana: Scholars, 1979) 92.
having transmitted. The same verb as in v. 15 ().
document. For this meaning of see Welles, RC, 375. Cf.

NOTE on 2:4, upon the occurrence of a divine oracle.
below. Judas letter was apparently attached, as is usual, but was lost, as
happens; see NOTE on v. 16, letters.
18. I clarified, accordingly, which things it was necessary to bring before

the king too. That is, Lysias distinguishes between those more far-reaching
requests, which he must refer to the king, and the simpler requests he could
and did approve himself. The former, he says, he indeed forwarded to the
king (presumably with his own recommendation). We do not know what
the requests were or how they were divided. As noted in our opening COM-
MENT on this chapter, the fact that Lysias implies the king is far away leads
us since we know the story as told in 1 Maccabees to assume that the ref-
erence is to Antiochus Epiphanes, not Eupator. But it is clear that our
author thought the opposite.
I approved them myself. Most witnesses read , he agreed,

and this is followed by Hanhart. But other witnesses read ,
I agreed, and this is followed by many. As Habicht notes (Royal
Documents, 176), the latter reading should be preferred on the basis of
Chapter XI 405
Letter D, which explicitly says that Lysias (the present I) had agreed
() to requests put forward by the Jews. As for the other read-
ing here, he agreed, it may reflect the influence of the end of v. 15.
19. If now you will maintain goodwill toward the state. Lysias diplomati-
cally ignores the wars, just as he ignores Judas (see NOTE on v. 16, to the
community of Jews). Since this document deals with the future, not with the
past or present, this passage, which is probably authentic, lacks the satirical
effect of the similar words in the deathbed letter ascribed to Antiochus
Epiphanes (9:21, 26). References to subjects goodwill () and the
kings matching providence ( see NOTE on 4:6, providence)
are de rigueur in the Hellenistic period; see Welles, RC, 390391 (index);
Spicq, Notes, 3.316321. For Jewish Hellenistic literature, see e.g. Letter of
Aristeas 205, 225, 230, 264265, 270. For toward the
(state), as here, see Holleaux, tudes, 3.226.
a beneficial agent (
*
). I.e., for you; some wit-
nesses indeed insert 3. Describing a person as = 7 for a city
or other body was standard in Hellenistic Greek; see for example Poly-
bius 7.11.7 (7 ) and OGIS, no. 4, ll. 89
( 7 = ). (For the equivalence of
= and in Hellenistic Greek, see LSJ, 1311.) For numerous
examples, see Skard, Zwei Begriffe, 2427. Cf. NOTE on 13:4, the cause of
all the troubles.
20. I have ordered them. I.e., the aforementioned Jewish emissaries.
21. Be well (K,

). For this standard conclusion of formal letters (as
also at v. 33), see Welles, RC, 399, s.v. `. It should not be confused
with a wish for good health expressed at the opening of a letter, which is
standard in private correspondence; see NOTE on 1:10, greetings and good
health.
In the year 148, the 24th of Dioscorinthios. 148 SE, in the Macedonian
reckoning, is the year that began in the autumn of 165 BCE; see above, p. 11,
n. 24. But the month name given here is otherwise unknown, and is prob-
ably corrupt; for the suggestions that have been offered, see Hanhart, Text,
5152 and Goldstein, 2 Macc, 411414. Antiochus Epiphanes was alive
throughout the year, and it is therefore clear that he is the king mentioned
here (v. 18); the fact that he was away in the East readily explains why, as
v. 18 implies, considerable time would go by before answers might be forth-
coming from the king concerning the matters referred to him. Nevertheless,
the next two verses will immediately make it clear that as the very place-
ment of this chapter after Chapters 910 indicates our author thinks the
king is Antiochus Eupator. As explained above (pp. 3233), this mistake is
of cardinal importance for understanding the arrangement of Chapters 913.
22. The kings letter. This formulation makes it clear that the author as-
sumes this king is the one mentioned in v. 18; the way it is cited without any
introduction explaining its circumstances implies that it is, in fact, the kings
response to the questions Lysias forwarded to him, according to v. 18.
his brother Lysias. For such honorific use of brother (which goes together
with our in the next verse) see, Bickerman, Institutions, 43, 193, also:
Habicht, 2 Macc, 257, n. 22a; cf. 1 Maccabees 10:18 and 11:30, and our
NOTE on v. 1, kinsman.
23. Now that our father has passed over to the gods (0
L -
#). That is: died (and perhaps also: became a god; see Habicht, Gott-
menschentum, 177178). For the expression, see also OGIS 308, ll. 24
and 339, l. 16; cf. OGIS 56, l. 55 (+ # A went over to the
gods). See the end of our NOTE on 7:14, pass away from among men. As
we have noted, the present verse makes it crystal clear that the author of this
letter is Antiochus Eupator, and its seamless placement alongside the other
letters in this chapter shows that the author of our book (as most of his
readers until Laqueur) thought, accordingly, that Antiochus Epiphanes was
dead halfway into 148 SE, i.e., by the spring of 164 BCE. This is not true;
we know he died more than half a year later; see Introduction, p. 41, n. 92.
But it is a key to understanding the order of events as presented in this part
of our book; see Introduction, p. 33.
that the people of the kingdom. The king first states the general principle
and only later applies it to the Jews (which will engender a repetition of the
terms of this verse in v. 25). For the insistence, typical in Hellenistic royal
letters, on spelling out general whereas principles before ordaining a spe-
cific application, see Welles, RC, xliv.
be untroubled (#) and take care of their own affairs (* 0,).

For the former see, for example, Diodorus 18.18.6; Josephus, Antiquities
14.157 (and for , in contrast, as a standard term for trouble, see
3:30, 10:30, 11:25, 13:16, 15:29, and Koenen, Knigsurkunde, 2). As for
their own affairs, which recurs in vv. 26 and 29, see in a similar context
Chapter XI 407
(a royal decree defending the Jews) 3 Maccabees 7:8, also (in connection
with a royal amnesty!) Koenen, ibid., 1617, with many examples. See also
Spicq, Notes, 3.337341 and esp. the references ibid., 341, n. 2, also Wil-
helm, Ein Brief Antiochos, 4445.
24. and having heard. Another diplomatic phrasing, as if he were referring

to a mere report, not to anything that might have caused a war.
did not willingly concur in (" ). The gap between this
diplomatic understatement and the facts of the matter is reminiscent of v. 19
(maintain goodwill) and of v. 31 (things which were done out of ignor-
ance).
Greek ways ( #). For such a summary of the point of the decrees,
see already 6:9; cf. NOTE on 4:13, Hellenism.
own way of life. On see NOTE on 4:16, those for whose ways
ask that their own regulations be allowed to them. This summarizes the
Jews request, and the king grants it. For our author, who thought that the
king of all these letters is Antiochus Eupator, the implication was that
the decrees of Chapter 6 were still in force and only now abolished. For the
truth, see below, NOTE on v. 25, the Temple . For , regulations
or halakhot, see NOTE on 4:11, regular civic usages.
25. now then (F). For such transitions from the whereas part of a
document to its operative contents, see NOTES on v. 23, that the people of
the kingdom, and on 14:36, And now (3 ).
our policy (=). Lit. since we prefer; we use our policy in light
of the noun used in the next verse.
to restore (
). On this verb, which has a broad sense of
restoration and reconstruction, see: Welles, RC, 316317; cf. the apocalyp-
tic usage at Acts 1:6 and 3:21, along with F. Mussner, Praesentia Salutis
(Dsseldorf: Patmos, 1967) 223234.
the Temple conduct their civic behavior (). The two themes
addressed are precisely those addressed at the imposition of the decrees: life
according to the civic laws of the Jews (6:1: " ) and the
Temple (6:2, 45). The truth is that by the time Antiochus Eupator took
over, Judas and his men had restored the Temple to Jewish hands and re-
dedicated it, late in 164; accordingly, the parallel narratives in 1 Macca-
bees 5:59 and Josephus, Antiquities 12.381382, refer only to the right to
live according to Jewish law. But our letter shows Antiochus Eupator insist-
ing, understandably, on the fiction that what a king had forbidden only a
king might restore; note that Letter C had ignored the Temple.
26. you will do well. A polite request; see our NOTE on 2:16, you will in-
deed do well.
if you send to them. Scil.: my decision. The way the chapter is organized it
sounds as if he is referring to the kings letter to the people, which comes
next (vv. 2733). However, that letter was clearly written by Antiochus IV;
see NOTE on v. 27, to the people.
and give them the right hand. On such cementing of agreements, see NOTE
on 4:34, giving him his right hand.
our policy. On (lit. preference) in royal letters, see NOTE on

9:27, following my own policy.
in good spirits (). On this adjective in the Hellenistic period see

Welles, RC, 337; Spicq, Notes, 1.314317. Compare, in a similar context:
Josephus, Antiquities 18.284. For a similar text with slightly different
wording: P. Tebtunis 703 (Hunt and Edgar, Select Papyri, no. 204), ll.
4243 (late third century BCE): an official is called upon to encourage the
population and develop its confidence ( / .
). On encouragement, see also below, NOTE on v. 32, to
encourage () you.
taking care. Here it seems that maintains its basic meaning,

namely, to take in hand. For its technical meaning, which includes resol-
ution of the problems in hand, see NOTE on 15:7, that assistance
27. to the people. The heading distinguishes the letter from the preceding
one, which was addressed to Lysias. However, the preceding one is so com-
prehensive that it leaves little to be desired the king made his decision
known to Lysias and instructs him to make it known to the Jews. From this
discontinuity, just as from the date in the spring of 164 BCE, it becomes
clear that this letter was like the first one and unlike the second written
by Antiochus Epiphanes, who was still alive and well off in the East.
Chapter XI 409
the Jews Council of Elders. See NOTE on 4:44, Council of Elders.
28. If you are well we too are healthy. A standard opening line; see
Welles, RC, nos. 56, 58, 59, 71. Cf. above, 9:20.
29. Menelaus has reported () to us. For this verb, usual in
bureaucratic parlance, see NOTE on 3:7, reported to him. According to
v. 32, Menelaus traveled to the king in order to present the state of affairs to
him. This means that Menelaus, although not able to serve as high priest
(see 13:3 and VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 225226), was playing
some important role in the lobbying to abolish the decrees. Of course our
author offers no details about this, for he held Menelaus to be a complete
villain; particularly the mention in letter 3 of Menelaus, the arch-enemy of
the Maccabees, as the mediator between the Syrian king and the Jews,
makes it virtually impossible to regard the letters as later falsifications
(Mrkholm, Antiochus IV, 164).
30. Accordingly. Again [; see NOTE on v. 25, now then.
those Jews5 who return. That is, the king is announcing an amnesty. For
similar announcements, see the mass of material assembled by Koenen, K-
nigsurkunde, 1215.
by the thirtieth of Xanthicus. Sometime in April or May. As noted by Wil-

helm (Stellen, 22), the same deadline is given in a similar context (a royal
demand that exiles be returned) at Diodorus 18.56.3. It is a convenient date
insofar as it is early enough in the campaigning season to allow for renewed
warfare if ignored.
there shall be extended the promise. Lit.: right hand; see NOTE on v. 26,
and give them the right hand.
without fear. On 5 in such legal contexts, see Preisigke, Wrterbuch,

1.18 and 3 Maccabees 7:12.
31. use (A). This verb is frequently used to describe life according
to given laws (cf. usus, usage, Brauch); see for example Josephus,
5 The word Jews appears in the Greek in v. 31 but the English seems to require it
here.
Antiquities 12.150, 381; 16.213, 227, 246, 260; Welles, RC, no. 3, l. 50;
also Wilhelm, Stellen, 2425; Renaud, Loi et lois, 58.
their own foods. On the text and translation see Appendix 8.
things which were done out of ignorance (>,). That is, things
which were done without rebellious or criminal intent; at LXX Gen-
esis 43:12 renders mishgeh (mistake; cf. Grintz, Sefer Yehu-
dith, 114). This too, as vv. 19 (maintaining goodwill) and 24 (did not
willingly concur in), is a piece of diplomatic courtesy: far be it from the
king to imply that Jews may have deliberately violated the royal decrees!
For another conciliatory Seleucid kings usage of the same language con-
cerning the Jews see 1 Maccabees 13:39; for its usage in Ptolemaic am-
nesties of the second century BCE, see Koenen, Knigsurkunde, 56. See
also Lenger, Corpus, nos. 35 (l. 3), 53 (l. 3), 54 (l. 2); 3 Maccabees 3:9; etc.
32. to encourage () you. On the verb, see NOTE on 7:24,

his appeal. Cf. the papyrus cited above in NOTE on v. 26, in good spirits.
As for the involvement of Menelaus, see NOTE on v. 29, Menelaus has re-
ported () to us.
33. the 15th of Xanthicus. The authenticity of this date is doubtful, primarily
because it allows only two weeks between the composition of the letter and
the deadline for compliance with the ultimatum; and here we should recall
that Antiochus was off in Persia, which would have significantly delayed
the letters arrival in Judaea. True, one could imagine that this date is auth-
entic and that the one given as the deadline is wrong; but this is less likely,
given both the parallel in Diodorus (see NOTE on v. 30, by the thirtieth of
Xanthicus) and the fact that it comes in the course of the letter, which is less
subject to tampering and corruption than is the final dateline. Since the same
date, 15 Xanthicus, recurs in v. 38, it seems likely that all we have here is an
ancient scribal error which repeated that date in our verse as well.
It is noteworthy that neither our document nor the historical narrative
gives any attention at all to the fact that the 15th of Xanthicus was the first
day of Passover (for the equivalence of Nisan and Xanthicus, see e.g. Josep-
hus, Ant. 1.81), the Jewish festival of national redemption. The same phe-
nomenon recurs at Josephus, War 7.401, where Masada is said to have
fallen on the same date. Or did the ancient writers assume that readers
would make the connection and would each according to his taste and
leanings interpret the coincidence? (On such interpretation, see NOTE on
10:5, on the very date.)
Chapter XI 411
34. The Romans too. On various Roman delegations to the East in this
period, see T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic,
I (New York: American Philological Association, 1951) 438441 (on
165163 BCE). On the nature of Roman involvement in the East at this
time, see below, Appendix 6.
sent them a letter. Despite the way this letter is introduced, it is nevertheless
clear that as Gruen emphasized (Hellenistic World, 2.745757) the ref-
erence here is not to a Roman initiative but, rather, to a restrained Roman
response to a Jewish initiative. The Roman delegates were in the East any-
way, for their own reasons, and the Jews hoped to reap some benefit. It is
understandable that our author would rather give another impression,
more flattering to the Jews; cf. NOTE on 10:13, because he had abandoned
Cyprus.
Quintus Memmius (and) Titus Manius. These Roman emissaries are un-
known from elsewhere and there is in fact no great security about their
names. Walbank (Polybius, 3.464465), following Niese (Kritik, 7274),
argues that instead of the second name we should read Manius Sergius,
which would make this delegation the one mentioned by Polybius at 31.1.6,
datable to 163 BCE (see Broughton, loc. cit.). This view has been widely ac-
cepted; for more bibliography, but also for skepticism, see Gruen, Hellen-
istic World, 2.746, n. 7. In any case, there is of course no need to assume, as
does Walbank, that the fact that this letter comes after one that mentions the
death of Antiochus IV (v. 23) means that this letter too was written after that
kings death. As we have seen, that fact reflects only our authors confusion.
35. those matters which Lysias, the kings kinsman, has approved for you.
This points us back to v. 18, which too uses the verb .
we too willingly concur (). A nice piece of Roman arrogance

toward the Seleucid kingdom, as if Rome claimed the right to oversee not
only that kingdoms foreign affairs (see NOTE on 5:5, false rumor ) but
also its decisions concerning its own subjects. Readers may note some irony
in the reappearance of the relatively rare verb here, as in v. 24, as if to tell us,
concerning Antiochus IV, not only that he failed to get the Jews to concur
in his decrees but also that his decisions are even contingent upon Roman
concurrence.
36. as for those matters which he decided to bring (

) be-
fore the king. The repetition of the same verb as the one appearing in v. 18
indicates that the present letter was written after Lysias (vv. 1621). On the
other hand, the present letter indicates that the king (Antiochus IV) has not
yet responded and the Romans here offer to help influence the king con-
cerning the requests that had been forwarded to him. However, Antiochus
IV was in fact not in Antioch in the spring of 164, the date of this letter (v.
38), so how does the fact that the emissaries were on their way to Antioch
explain anything? One way to deal with this problem would be to assume
that the date here is corrupt, a possibility bolstered by the fact that the
identical date appears in v. 33. However, in our NOTE on v. 33, the 15th of
Xanthicus, we explained why it is likelier that that date is corrupt. Perhaps,
therefore, we should settle for noting that since the emissaries say theyre on
their way to Antioch but do not specifically say that they will see the king,
all they mean is that in Antioch theyll have some opportunity, if only indi-
rect, to influence the king e.g. by passing on messages to him or in dis-
cussions with high officials.
after reviewing (#) them. Here the verb retains its non-techni-
cal meaning; contrast NOTE on 3:14, audit. The Venetus gives here -
, in the singular, which thus has only the Jewish emissary review-
ing the issues; that is preferred by Meyer (Ursprung 214, n. 1) but rejected
by Bickerman, Gott, 180, n. 3 and Habicht, 2 Macc, 260, n. 36a. This
minor point might have something to do with the next one:
37. send us people (). So too acording to three of the six Latin ver-
sions (BMP aliquos; De Bruyne, Anciennes traductions, 193). But the
other three Latin witnesses (LXV De Bruyne, ibid., 192), make no refer-
ence to any people here; they read Ideoque festinate (re)scribere ut nos
quoque sciamus cuius estis uolumtatis. Moreover, in v. 36 the Romans
asked that someone () be sent (and there all Latin versions indeed read
aliquem). Thus, it could be that our represents a mistranslation of
the original Latin, which may have referred not to the people being sent,
but, rather, to the words the (single) messenger might be expected to bring.
38. Be healthy (). There is no concluding 6, the usual con-

clusion in Greek letters (such as vv. 21 and 33) which has the same meaning
(see NOTE on v. 21, Be well). It seems that our text is the result of trans-
lation of the Latin valete; so Habicht, who adds: I do not hesitate to regard
this as the decisive argument in favor of the authenticity of the letter
(Royal Documents, 12, n. 24).
In the year 148, 15th of Xanthicus. See NOTE on v. 33, the 15th of Xanthicus.
Chapter XI 413
Bibliography

Gera, Judaea, 239253.
Giovannini & Mller, Die Beziehungen zwischen Rom und den Juden.
Gruen, Hellenistic World, 2.745747.
Habicht, C., Royal Documents.
Koenen, Knigsurkunde.
Laqueur, Griechische Urkunden.
Liebmann-Frankfort, Rome et le conflit judo-syrien.
Mariani, Lalleanza e lamicizia.
Nelis, La distance.
Procksch, Der Friede des Lysias.
Stern, Documents, 5673.
Tcherikover, The Documents.
Tcherikover, HC, 213219.
Chapter XII
Tribulations in Coastal Towns
(1) After these covenants had been concluded, Lysias, for his part, went
back to the king, and the Jews, for theirs, turned to their farming. (2) But
some of the local governors Timothy, and Apollonius son of Gennaeus,
and also Hieronymus and Demophon and, additionally, Nicanor the Cy-
priarch, did not allow them to settle down and keep still. (3) And the Jop-
pites went so far in their wickedness that having called upon the Jews who
resided with them to embark, together with their wives and children, upon
boats which they had prepared for them, as if they harbored no hostility at
all toward them; (4) and the Jews, upon the united resolution of the entire
city, agreed and set sail, for they were desirous of peace and did not suspect
anything they sank them, no less than 200 people.
(5) When Judas received notice of the atrocity which had been perpe-
trated against the members of his people he gave his men instructions
(6) and after calling upon God, the righteous judge he set out against the
brethrens foul murderers: at night he set fire to the port, burned the boats,
and skewered those who had taken refuge there. (7) As the place was closed
off he departed, planning to return and uproot the entire city of the Jop-
pites. (8) And having received notice that the people of Jamnia too wanted
to act in the same way against the Jews who lived among them, (9) he at-
tacked the Jamniaites too by night and set fire to the port together with the
fleet; the gleam of the flames was visible even in Jerusalem, 240 stadia away.
In Pursuit of Timothy
(10) Moving off from there nine stadia, making their way against Timothy, he
was attacked by no fewer than 5000 Arabs, together with 500 cavalrymen.
(11) A mighty battle developed, and after Judas men had with Gods assist-
ance been successful, the defeated nomads promising to supply cattle and
also otherwise to be useful asked Judas to give them the right hand. (12)
Judas, supposing that they truly could be useful in many ways, agreed to keep
the peace toward them; after taking the right hand they departed to their tents.
Chapter XII 415
(13) And he attacked a strong city named Kaspin, surrounded by walls

and inhabited by a hodgepodge of peoples. (14) Those within, trusting in
the strength of the walls and in the stockpiled food, behaved quite un-
couthly toward Judas men cursing and even blaspheming and saying
things that are not allowed. (15) But Judas men, after calling upon the great
Ruler of the world, who without battering rams and war-machines flung
Jericho down in the days of Joshua, stormed the wall ferociously. (16) After
taking the city, in accordance with Gods will, they carried out an indescrib-
able slaughter, such that the adjacent lake, which was two stadia wide, ap-
peared to have been filled by the blood flowing down into it.
(17) Moving off from there 750 stadia, they covered the distance to the
fortified camp (of) the Jews called Tobians. (18) They did not catch Tim-
othy along the way, for at the time he had departed the region without
doing anything, leaving behind a very strong garrison in a certain place.
(19) Dositheus and Sosipater, two of Maccabaeus officers, set out and de-
stroyed those Timothy had left behind in the fortress more than 10,000
men. (20) And Maccabaeus, having divided his army into units, appointed
them over the units and stormed out after Timothy, who had with him
120,000 soldiers and 2500 cavalrymen. (21) Timothy, having received no-
tice of Judas invasion, sent ahead the women and children and other bag-
gage to the place called Karnion; for the place was difficult to besiege and
difficult to approach, due to the narrowness (of passages) in the entire area.
(22) When Judas first unit appeared and terror and fear descended upon
the enemy due to the apparition of Him who oversees all, they rushed to
flee, each one turning hither and thither, so that many were wounded by
their own forces and impaled on the points of their swords. (23) Judas con-
ducted the pursuit energetically and, skewering the sinners, destroyed about
30,000 men. (24) Timothy himself, having fallen into the hands of Dosi-
theus and Sosipaters men, asked with consummate guile that they set him
free, given the fact that (his men) held a great number of (the Jews) parents
and brethren (as prisoners), for whom no one would show any consider-
ation. (25) After he repeatedly committed himself to the stipulation to re-
store them unharmed they released him in order to rescue their brethren.
More Battles in the North
(26) Departing from there against Karnion and the temple of Atergatis he
cut down 25,000 corpses. (27) After they were defeated and destroyed he
also campaigned against Ephron, a strong city, in which there was found a
multi-ethnic multitude; strong youths posted before the walls rebuffed the
attack energetically, and within there were numerous reserves of war-ma-

chines and projectiles. (28) After they called upon the Ruler, who with
power breaks the weight of (His) enemies, they took over the city and laid
low about 25,000 of those within it. (29) Departing from there they rushed
toward Scythopolis, which is 600 stadia from Jerusalem. (30) But when the
Jews residing there testified to the goodwill which the Scythopolitans had
for them and to the gentleness with which they dealt with them in times of
misfortune, (31) (Judas men), after thanking them and encouraging them
to remain well-disposed toward the nation in the future as well, went on to
Jerusalem, the Festival of Weeks being imminent.
A Battle against Gorgias
(32) After the so-called Pentecost they stormed out against Gorgias, the
commander of Idumaea. (33) He came out (to meet them) with 3000 sol-
diers and 400 cavalrymen. (34) And it happened, after they had drawn
themselves up opposite one another for battle, that a few of the Jews fell.
(35) Dositheus, one of the Tobians, a strong cavalryman, grabbed Gorgias
and, taking hold of his mantle, dragged him forcefully, desiring to take the
accursed man while still alive; but one of the Thracian cavalrymen threw
himself upon him and cut off his arm, allowing Gorgias to escape to Ma-
rissa. (36) When Esdris men had fought for a long time and were very
weary, Judas after calling upon the Lord to appear as ally and guide in
war, (37) and after opening in the ancestral language the war-cry accompa-
nied by hymns fell unexpectedly upon Gorgias men and imposed defeat
upon them.
Why There Were Jewish Casualties
(38) Judas assembled the army and proceeded to the city of Adullam. Due
to the onset of the seventh day they purified themselves according to the
custom and celebrated the Sabbath there. (39) The next day, when the time
came to do the task, Judas men went to collect the bodies of those who had
fallen and, together with their kinsmen, to inter them in their ancestral
graves. (40) And they found, under the tunic of each of the deceased, objects
dedicated to the idols of Jamnia, which the Law prohibits to Jews. Thus it
became clear to all that it was for this reason that those (soldiers) had fallen.
(41) After they all blessed the Lord who judges righteously and who makes
the hidden things visible, (42) they turned to petition, asking that the sin
Chapter XII 417
that had occurred be completely obliterated. And the noble Judas called
upon the multitude to preserve itself sinless, having seen with their own eyes
that which had occurred due to the sin of those who had fallen. (43) After
making a collection for each man, totaling around 2000 silver drachmas, he
sent it to Jerusalem for the bringing of a sin-offering doing very properly
and honorably in taking account of resurrection, (44) for had he not ex-
pected that the fallen would be resurrected, it would have been pointless
and silly to pray for the dead (45) and having in view the most beautiful
reward that awaits those who lie down in piety a holy and pious notion.
Therefore he did atonement for the dead, in order that they be released from
the sin.
COMMENT
After Chapter 11 put an end to the clash between the Jews and the Seleucid
state as such, this chapter is devoted to fighting between Judas men and
their neighbors in Palestine. It begins with attacks upon Jews in coastal
cities, and Jewish reprisals, and then continues with fighting in Transjor-
dan; after a break in Jerusalem, for the celebration of the Pentecost festival
(vv. 3132), there is further fighting in the south. In general, this parallels
the story of 1 Maccabees 5. Moreover, the story also parallels material
in Chapter 10 of our own book, even to the extent of making Timothy
the main antagonist in the fighting in Transjordan just as he was in
Chapter 10, which ended with his death. It is, accordingly, evident that ma-
terial in this chapter is based upon a source different from that which
supplied the war stories in Chapter 10. As we have seen, it seems that the
present chapter reflects our authors main source (Jason of Cyrene), while
Chapters 1011 reflect the use of a secondary source; see above, pp. 3034.
For the most part, this chapter is devoted to the heroism, perseverance
and military prowess of Judas forces. As usual in our book, Gods help is
mentioned throughout, whether as requested in pre-fighting prayers (vv. 6,
15, 28, 36) or as a fact postulated by the narrator (vv. 11, 16, 22). By way of
comparison, note that neither God nor prayer is mentioned at all in 1 Mac-
cabees 5, which our chapter parallels.1
Gods involvement in the story is particularly apparent in the last episode
of the chapter (vv. 3845), which explains that those Jews who had died in
battle had been sinners. It does not suffice, from our authors point of view,
1 Cf. Introduction, p. 64.

to report that they had died in battle; even if only a few died (v. 34) he feels
compelled to state that each, individually, must have deserved his death.
However, atonement for them was still possible, and desirable, for as we
know from Chapter 7 not all ends with death: as the author underlines in
the final verses of the chapter, the fact that Judas and his men donated sac-
rifices to atone for the sins of the dead indicates their belief in resurrection.
Before addressing the historicity of the events, we must first point out
one major correction in the order of events recorded in this chapter: it seems
that vv. 1719 should come before vv. 1016. For after the opening fighting
on the coast (vv. 19), there is no way nine stadia (v. 10) could be thought to
take Judas men to a region where they would be attacked by Arabs
(vv. 1112) and right after that to fighting at Kaspin, in the Golan
(vv. 1316). Moreover, 1 Maccabees 5:25 puts the encounter with the Arabs
after a three-day march after crossing the Jordan; this, indeed, could bring
them to the vicinity of Kaspin. But the 750 stadia around 150 kilometers
mentioned at v. 17 would in fact be about right for the distance from the
coastal cities to Transjordan. Accordingly, it appears that the order of two
pericopae should be reversed: vv. 1016 should come after 1719; the two
pericopae, which begin identically ( 0 M ),
seem somehow to have been exchanged.2
Once that operation is made, the chapter tells a story basically paral-
leled, in the same order, by 1 Maccabees 5:
2 Maccabees 12 1 Maccabees 5
vv. 19, fighting in coastal cities
vv. 1719, fighting against Timothy vv. 68
vv. 1012, Judas makes peace with some Arabs v. 25
vv. 1316, Judas besieges and captures Kaspin vv. 2636
vv. 2025 pursuit and capture of Timothy, including vv. 3744
capture of Karnion
vv. 2629 siege and capture of Ephron vv. 4651
vv. 3031, interlude in Scythopolis and Pentecost visit vv. 5254
in Jerusalem
vv. 3237 fighting in Idumaea, against Gorgias; vv. 5568
some Jews die
vv. 3845 theological consideration of why some (v. 62)
Jewish soldiers died
2 For more detail concerning this point and the places mentioned in 1 Macc 5, see
Schwartz, Mizpeh.
Chapter XII 419
There are, of course, numerous differences. Thus, for example, our books
focus on Kaspin is not echoed in 1 Maccabees 5, which in v. 26 lists pre-
sumably the same town (called Khaspo) as just one of a series of cities
attacked; 1 Maccabees does not actually record the capture of Timothy
(whereas our chapter has him captured but then paroled); our book has
Judas lead the fighting against Gorgias, but 1 Maccabees 5 reports that this
was first in the hands of others, just as 1 Maccabees 5 has a whole campaign
to western Galilee, led by Simon, which our book omits. Similarly, our book
has the Jewish soldiers dying because they took idolatrous images as booty
instead of destroying them, while 1 Maccabees 5:62 pins it on the simple fact,
so important for the dynastic historian, that they were not Hasmoneans.
That is, in general our book has simplified the story by leaving out nu-
merous toponyms and related details (as the author promised he would
2:23ff. and 10:10), and it also omits the Hasmonean focus of 1 Maccabees;
on the other hand, it does find it significant to mention the celebration of
Pentecost, while omitting all reference to sacrifices in contrast to 1 Mac-
cabees 5:54, that focuses on sacrifices. These differences in focus are typical
of the two books; in general, nevertheless, they tell the same story.
We should note, however, that (as argued in our Introduction, p. 28),
this chapter seems to be out of place. It begins with the statement that after
these covenants had been concluded, Lysias went back to the king, but
although Chapter 11 ended with documents and with Lysias, (1) the docu-
ments are not covenants and (2) Chapter 11, which knows of no king
other than Antiochus Eupator, gives no indication that Lysias was not with
him.3 In contrast, Chapter 13 does end with covenants between Lysias
and the Jews (v. 25) and with Lysias departure to Antioch (v. 26). That is,
our chapter would seem to belong after Chapter 13, and probably was there
before our author came across the new material he used for Chapters 1011.
Now, if (as in the table above) we are sure that our chapter parallels 1 Mac-
cabees 5, which describes events after the dedication of the Temple
(1 Macc 4) and the death of Antiochus IV (which we know to have occurred
around the same time, in late 164), the result is that the events of our
chapter belong to 163 BCE, so those of Chapter 13 come right before that.
3 The second consideration is formulated to reflect the fact that, as we have argued, we
who know the fuller story told by 1 Maccabees can take 11:18 to mean that Lysias
had to refer issues to Antiochus Epiphanes, who was campaigning in the East. Readers
of our book alone would not imagine that, or that Epiphanes was still alive for the
events of Ch. 11. Contrast 13:26, which has Lysias appearing alone in Ptolemais and
then returning alone to Antioch; that would flow without difficulty into 12:1. Cf.
above, p. 16, n. 36.
However, it is also the case that the campaign described in Chapter 13 is

the second one, reported in 1 Maccabees 6; see COMMENTS on Chapter 11
(p. 395) and on Chapter 13 (p. 447). What we must now conclude, accord-
ingly, is that the original form of our book indicated that the second Beth-
Zur campaign (Ch. 13//1 Macc 6) occurred before Judas northern cam-
paign (Ch. 12//1 Macc 5). This contrasts with the order of things in 1 Mac-
cabees 46, and with that books late dating (6:20 150 S.E.) of the second
Beth-Zur campaign, but new cuneiform evidence seems to show that 1 Mac-
cabees was wrong about this; see above, pp. 2930.
NOTES
12:1. these covenants. The documents which conclude Chapter 11 are not
agreements and are not termed A; despite the fact that 11:15 refers
to points which Lysias suggested and Judas agreed to accept, they are uni-
lateral declarations. And certainly the Romans letter, which concludes
Chapter 11, is no agreement at all. In general, see P. Kumaul, Synthekai
(Diss. Basel, 1969), and esp. H. H. Schmitt, Die Vertrge der griechisch-r-
mischen Welt von 338 bis 200 v. Chr. (Mnchen: Beck, 1969) 438439,
where there are assembled more than 100 references to the use of this term
for agreements between states in the Hellenistic period.
Lysias went back to the king. But according to 11:1, which terms Lysias the
kings guardian, we would have assumed that they were together, in Anti-
och; nothing in the story explains these words. As we have noted (see COM-
MENT, above p. 419), it seems that this problem and the one discussed in our
preceding NOTE point to this chapter originally having followed Chapter 13,
which ends with covenants and with Lysias and the king far from one another.
turned to their farming. That is, to their own affairs (11:23, 26, 29). The
reference to agriculture creates an image of idyllic routine, here as in other
documents. See, for example, U. Wilcken, Grundzge und Chresthomatie der
Papyrusurkunden, I/2 (Leipzig & Berlin: Teubner, 1912), no. 19, col. 2, lines
1315; Josephus, War 4.84; Antiquities 16.271; 17.193; 18.284. Note that
our story has ended; according to the diasporan author, the abrogation of the
decrees against Judaism was followed by the establishment of peace between
the Jews and the Seleucid monarchy. Hence the need for a new beginning:
2. But. On such heavy usage of to move from idyll to problems, see

NOTE on 3:4, But.
Chapter XII 421
local governors. For such usage of ? cf. for example an inscription

from Akko-Ptolemais in which a local governor ( /
7 ) honors Antiochus VII Sidetes (Lifshitz, Culte dynastique,
7880). It is important for our author to stress that if there were Seleucid
troublemakers, they were only low-level officials, not the king and his viceroy
(Ch. 11). This is typical minority historiography; so too, for example, Philo
(Leg., 299305) has Pontius Pilates villainy being unknown to Tiberius, just
as Josephus (War 2.350354) has Agrippa II underline that Florus terrible
behavior was unknown to Nero; etc. This is a variation on the motif of the
wicked advisor, for which see NOTE on 4:45, Ptolemy son of Dorymenes.
Timothy. Who has already been mentioned a few times (8:3032; 9:3), in-
cluding at the end of Chapter 10 which culminates in his death. Of course,
theoretically the present Timothy could be someone else, but that sugges-
tion rings hollow; had our author been aware of this being a new homo-
nym, he should have used as in v. 35, in 10:11, etc. And recall our
authors care to distinguish between two homonymous governors of Coele
Syria and Phoenicia (see NOTE on 3:5, Apollonius son of Thraseas), and
note the way Apollonius and Nicanor are identified in the continuation of
this verse which again seems to indicate that Timothy is known to the
reader. But if this is so, then the report of his death in Chapter 10 must come
from another source as we have argued above, pp. 3033.
Apollonius son of Gennaeus, and also Hieronymus and Demophon. All un-
known.
Nicanor the Cypriarch. That is, commander of the Cypriot mercenaries (cf.
NOTE on 5:24, the Mysarch Apollonius). For Cypriot soldiers, see NOTE
on 4:29, Crates. Use of the Cypriarch is a good example of our authors
ability to distinguish between homonyms when he wants to, a point that in-
creases our confidence that when he twice speaks of a thrice-accursed Ni-
canor (8:34; 15:3) he means the same other person; see NOTE on 14:12,
Immediately selecting Nicanor.
3. the Joppites. On the two episodes recounted from here until v. 9 see, in
general: Kasher, Jews and Hellenistic Cities, 6468.
wickedness. On see NOTE on v. 21, difficult to besiege and dif-

ficult to approach. Note that while it is not actually said that the Joppites
did what they did at the urging of the local officials, and while indeed it is
not likely that that was the case (given the fact that Joppa was an auton-
omous city), nevertheless our author prefers to hint, if only by juxtaposi-

tion, that the anti-Jewish attacks in Joppa and Jabneh did not reflect bad re-
lations between Jews and their neighbors, but, rather, were due only to the
vile influence of relatively minor Seleucid officials. In fact, our author pre-
ferred to claim that the Jews neighbors usually had good relations with
them; see v. 30, also 4:3536, 49. For similar moves, aimed apologetically
at presenting the Jews troubles with their neighbors as the result of incite-
ment by Seleucid officials (since Jews are respectable and neighborly folk
and so no clashes would develop without interference by nasty and med-
dling outsiders), see 8:11, also 6:8 and 10:1415. The story of these minor
officials will be resumed in v. 10.
the Jews who resided with them (# .). Emphasis upon living to-
gether intensifies the horror of the crime. For similar formulations in other
Jewish Hellenistic documents, see e.g. Philo, In Flaccum 52 and Josephus,
Antiquities 19.281 (for the Jewish origin of the latter text see Schwartz, Ag-
rippa, 1005). There seems to be no other evidence for Jews in Joppa in this
early period.
to embark upon boats. It is difficult to understand how the Jews of Joppa

could have seen this as a friendly invitation, especially in light of the fact
that it followed upon an official decision; what would have been the reason
for such a formal invitation? And were the Jews of Joppa really so nave
about their neighbors intentions? Rather, it is preferable to assume that in
fact the Joppites had decided to expel the Jews an assumption which cor-
responds to that which is reported in 1 Maccabees 5 about the general hos-
tility of the non-Jews of Palestine following Judas early victories and then
perfidiously sank their boats (or some boats sank and the Jews chose to
blame the Joppites). For the sinking of ships carrying exiles, cf. Lactantius,
DMP 23.8 and for a case of Moriscos expelled from Spain in 1609 B. Z.
Kedar, Expulsion as an Issue of World History, JWH 7 (1996) 175176.
4. upon the united resolution. On see NOTE on 6:8, a decree.
desirous of peace. The author already made this point in vv. 12 but wants
to be very sure we know who was at fault.
5. the members of his people ($). For this term, see also 4:2; 5:6;
15:3031; it is similar to brothers, which appears in the next verse, in
that both refer to the Jews with regard to their common descent and not as
belonging to a religious or political collective. In this case it would have
Chapter XII 423
been very difficult for our author to use his usual fellow citizens (-
see above, p. 6), for here he is speaking of Jews living in another city.
he gave his men instructions. This is the primary meaning of the verb
; see NOTE on 5:25, instructed. But it may be that here, as in
two other occurrences of the word in our book (13:10 and 15:10), exhort
or encourage might be more appropriate; as is noted in LSJ, 1306, s.v.
(II2), its sense is not as strong as that of , which often appears in our
book (5:12; 7:5; 9:7; 14:27) and is clearly to be translated by ordered.
6. the righteous judge. This epithet recurs in v. 41. Here, beyond the usual
reiteration of our authors conviction that history is not chaotic, it indicates
that what is to come is not merely one clans vengeance against another but,
rather, an expression of universal justice. Cf. NOTE on 4:35, of the man.
foul murderers (). This term too, as the righteous judge, re-
calls the murder of Onias; see 4:38. Both cases combine murder and breach
of trust.
at night set fire. As in v. 9; see also 8:67.
the port the boats. Tit for tat, as is usual in our book; see NOTE on 4:16,
those for whose ways. As noted by Diodorus 1.31.2, there was no important
port between Joppa and Alexandria which explains the importance the
Hasmoneans would later attach to the capture of Joppa in the days of Simon
(1 Macc 14:5, 34). On Joppa in the Hellenistic and Hasmonean periods, see
J. Kaplan, The Archaeology and History of Tel Aviv-Jaffa, BA 35 (1972)
esp. 8890; A. Raban, The Ancient Harbors of Jaffa, Israel People and
Land: Eretz Israel Museum Yearbook 78 (19901993) 95114 (in Hebrew).
skewered. I.e., stabbed with swords; for the same verb, see 5:26.
7. As the place was closed off. Apparently well-defended.
uproot (7) the entire city of the Joppites. As expected in pathetic

historiography, neither good guys nor bad guys do anything only partially;
cf. e.g. 2:21 (they plundered the entire country) and 8:9 (to wipe out the
entire nation of Judaea).
the entire city of the Joppites. The city of the X-ites is simply a standard
Greek way of referring to a city named X. Compare, for example, Josephus,
Vita 37, 241, 271, 280, etc. For the eventual Hasmonean conquest of
Joppa, see 1 Maccabees 10:7576; 13:11; 14:5.
8. having received notice. As usual, the author omits all details about how
this happened; see above, p. 73.
that the people of Jamnia too. This reference too points us toward 1 Mac-
cabees 5 (vv. 58ff.); cf. NOTE on v. 3, to embark upon boats. On Jabneh
and its port in antiquity, see Tcherikover, HC, 74; Stern, GLA, 1.293;
M. Fischer, The Archaeology and History of Yavneh-Yam, in: Yavneh,
Yavneh-Yam and Their Neighborhood (ed. M. Fischer; Tel-Aviv: Eretz,
2005) 173208 (in Hebrew); idem, Yavneh-Yam Reports, I (forthcoming).
There is presumably some link between the Jewish attack on the port of Jab-
neh and the inscription of summer 163 BCE in which the locals recall as-
sistance they had given to the Seleucid government and, apparently, ask its
assistance; see B. Isaac, A Seleucid Inscription from Jamnia-on-the-Sea:
Antiochus V Eupator and the Sidonians, IEJ 41 (1991) 132138; Kasher,
A Second-Century BCE Greek Inscription. Either the inscription pre-
ceded the Jewish attack, in which case it may be that their assistance to the
Seleucids contributed to the Jews decision to attack them, or else it came
after the Jewish attack, which would explain the request for aid. The in-
scription is fragmentary and it is difficult to build upon it. For Jamnias con-
tinued functioning as an outpost of support for the Seleucids in Judaea, see
also 1 Maccabees 10:69; 15:40.
the Jews who lived among them. Although the Greek phrasing in v. 3 is dif-
ferent, the emphasis is the same.
9. the gleam of the flames was visible even in Jerusalem, 240 stadia away.
Assuming, as usual, that a stadium is about 190 meters, this works out to
around 45 km., which is close to the true figure. On the length of the sta-
dium, see F. Lehmann-Haupt, RE II/6 (1929) 19311963 and Walbank,
Polybius, 3.623624. True, Bar-Kochva (JM, 514, n. 14) criticizes our
books accuracy here, for while he admits that the stated distance is not far
from the distance as the crow flies (although 55 km. would be closer), the
distance along the roads would have been about twice as much. However, it
is perfectly possible that our author, or his source, could figure the distance
as the crow flies. As for the possibility of seeing so far, note that it is possible
to see the coastal region from high spots in Jerusalem even without the aid
of a massive fire; see Strabo, Geog. 16.2.28, 34, pp. 759, 760 (= GLA I, nos.
114115) on seeing Joppa from Jerusalem, and Josephus, War 5.160, on
Chapter XII 425
seeing the Mediterranean from the Psephinus Tower in the northwestern

corner of Jerusalem, also Appian, Mithridatica 12.67, 278 on seeing a
great fire at the distance of 1000 stadia (close to 200 km.). Nevertheless, it
would be foolish to insist on the accuracy of the present statement.
10. Moving off from there. The same phrasing recurs in v. 17, giving the
chapter something of the nature of an itinerary. But as we have seen in our
opening COMMENT (above, p. 418), it seems that the order of these two
episodes has been reversed, i.e., vv. 1016 should come after vv. 1719.
making their way against Timothy. Who was mentioned alongside others in
v. 2, but no connection was made between him (or the others) and the in-
tervening events in Joppa and Jabneh.
he. Judas Maccabaeus. The fact that his name is omitted, and is rather taken
for granted although within the immediate context the antecedent is in fact
Timothy, highlights the fact that Judas is in fact the star of the entire
chapter. See also NOTES on v. 26, Departing he and 13:17, which had
come to his aid.
Arabs. We do not know exactly who is meant. The same term appeared in
5:8, referring to Nabataeans, just as 1 Maccabees 5:25 reports that Judas
encountered Nabataeans in the course of his expedition to the Gilead but
there we read of initial friendship, whereas here we read of peace which was
reached only after a fight and then some real-political considerations. This
could indicate that the reference here is not to the same Arabs; so Kasher,
Jews, Idumaeans, and Ancient Arabs, 30, who suggests that the ones men-
tioned here had been incited by the Seleucids. However, it may also be that
the difference between the two accounts derives only from our authors de-
sire both to give Judas an additional victory and to avoid a theological prob-
lem; see NOTE on v. 12, Judas, supposing that they truly could be useful.
11. A mighty battle developed. For the same phrasing, see 10:29.
nomads. The Arabs of v. 10. This is a striking instance of our authors

love of variety. For others in this chapter, see vv. 2425 (set him free
released him), vv. 3132 (Festival of Weeks Pentecost), and v. 38
(the seventh day the Sabbath). In general, see Introduction, p. 68.
to give them the right hand. In peace; see NOTE on 4:34, giving him his
right hand.
12. Judas, supposing that they truly could be useful. See NOTE on 11:15,
Maccabaeus, giving thought to the benefit. As there, here too it seems that
we should infer the need for apology for entering into an agreement with
Gentiles.
13. a strong city ( ). The Alexandrinus reads -

before ,4 as if that were the name of the city, but (a) no such
city is known; (b) were this the name of a city we would expect that to be
said, e.g. by called (9:2) or named in our verse; and (c) our verse deals
with Kaspin. Hence, it seems preferable to view this word as the contribu-
tion of some helpful scribe who wanted to identify the place and, noticing
that our v. 27 uses the same language ( ) of Ephron, which is
called by Polybius at 5.70, inserted the identification here but
this is of course a Verschlimmbesserung, since Ephron is first mentioned,
and introduced as someplace new (a strong city), in v. 27; our verse refers
to Kaspin. If, therefore, we reject , we should also reject, as a sec-
ondary attempt to make sense of the latter, the reading (with
bridges) in Ms. 55. True, that reading would be nicely parallel to the
walls and peoples also mentioned in dative plural in the continuation
of our verse; but that reading shifts us from the frying pan into the fire, be-
cause, as Abel notes (Macc, 435), bridges do not contribute to the fortifi-
cation of a city. All in all, it seems preferable to ignore the word, which is
indeed missing from numerous witnesses; Hanhart marked it as probably
corrupt and it was skipped by Abel, Habicht and Goldstein; see esp. Abel,
Macc, 435436 and Goldstein, 2 Macc, 439.
Kaspin. Hispin, in the Golan; on it, see O. Cohen & D. Talshir, Hispin The
History of the Settlement and Meaning of Its Name, Al Atar 45 (Nisan
1998/99) 95156 (in Hebrew), also D. Urman, Public Structures and Jewish
Communities in the Golan Heights, in: idem & P. V. M. Flesher (ed.),
Ancient Synagogues (SPB 47/2; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 556561. Some scholars
such as Habicht and Bevenot ad loc., following Hlscher, Feldzge,
149150 have argued that our text in fact refers to another site in the Aur-
anitis: el-Muzerib, which is located within a lake whose size recalls that stated
in v. 16. However, in antiquity this site was totally surrounded by the lake (see
G. Schumacher, Across the Jordan [London: Bentley, 1886] 164165), and
such a special situation does not seem to be implied by v. 16. Therefore, it is
4 Ed. Swete reads and punctuates as follows: , ?

/
Chapter XII 427
preferable to assume that our text refers to Hispin, and resolve the problem of
the lake another way; see NOTE on v. 16, the adjacent lake.
inhabited by a hodgepodge of peoples ( K

). This, as also
v. 27 seems to imply an element of scorn, la mongrels. Note that the
reference is not to something as respectable as separate national units in the
Seleucid army, as at 8:9, but, rather, to the inhabitants of one and the same
city. For the less than respectable nuance of , see NOTE on 3:21,
all mingled together ().
14. trusting in the strength of the walls. As at 10:34, and there too blas-
phemy is mentioned another indication that Chapters 10 and 12 include
two versions of the events, paralleling 1 Maccabees 5. Doran (Temple
Propaganda, 42), following Gil (Sobre el estilo, 23), points to the present
verse ( ) as one of the good
examples of alliteration in our book; cf. above, p. 80.
quite uncouthly (). The author sounds like a shocked

schoolmaster; cf. NOTE on 14:30, coarser. For the use of the comparative
instead of superlative, see NOTE on 7:24, youngest.
cursing (). On this verb see Spicq, Notes, 1.503505; An-

tiquities 17.37.
blaspheming. As at 10:34; see NOTE on trusting at the beginning of the

present verse.
things which are not allowed ('

). On this terminology, which too re-
curs in the parallel at 10:34 (), see NOTE on 6:5, forbidden things.
15. battering rams and war-machines. On Hellenistic siege machines, see

Bar-Kochva, JM, 1921, with bibliography in n. 21. On rams in particular,
see: Y. Garlan, Recherches de poliorctique grecque (Paris: de Boccard,
1974), pp. 236239. For similar emphasis on the fact that the walls of Jer-
icho were demolished without machines (5 ), see the
Jewish-Hellenistic prayer preserved in the Constitutiones apostolorum
8.12.26 (ed. F. X. Funk, p. 504 = Fiensy, Prayers, 1089).
flung Jericho down. See Joshua 6. For such use of examples from the past,
see also 8:1920; 15:22. The case of Jericho is especially appropriate here
because it featured a siege and high walls.
ferociously (
,*). As at 10:35; see NOTE ibid., on animal-like rage.
16. an indescribable slaughter. As usual, the author is not squeamish about

reporting warfare; see NOTE on 2:21, they plundered the entire country.
the adjacent lake, which was two stadia wide. I.e., somewhat less than
400 meters. The identity of this lake is not clear. It is frequently assumed
that the Sea of Galilee is meant, and, indeed, there is evidence for it being
termed a , as it is here; see Polybius 5.70.4; Strabo, Geog. 16.2.16,
p. 755; Josephus, War 3.506ff; Luke 5:1; etc. But the Sea of Galilee is not
adjacent to Hispin, which is around 15 km. away, and its breadth is
around 10 kilometers (around forty stadia Josephus, War 3.506), not
400 meters. Moreover, usually denotes a swamp or lagoon; see LSJ,
1050; Mauersberger, PL, 4.1481. Accordingly, it seems best to think of
some swamp in the vicinity of Hispin; see Abel, Macc, 436.
17. Moving off from there. As in v. 10.
750 stadia. Around 140 km. As we have seen in our opening COMMENT
(above, p. 418), it seems that vv. 1719 should precede vv. 1016, the stated
distance referring to the move from the vicinity of Jabneh to that of Trans-
jordan. For another opinion, see NOTE on Tobians at the end of the
present verse.
they covered the distance. On , which combines completion and ar-

rival, see Mauersberger, PL, 4.499.
fortified camp. Termed fortress in v. 19; for this sense of , see Gera,
On the Credibility, 2930; Bar-Kochva, JM, 510, n. 3; Pritchett, War,
2.134135. The Bar-Kokhba letters once define one Joshua ben Galgula as
the head of a camp and once as being found in a krakh; see DJD 2/1,
pp. 156, 160 (on the latter reading, see M. Mor, The Bar-Kochba Revolt: Its
Extent and Effect [Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi & Israel Exploration Society,
1991] 115, n. 84 [in Hebrew]).
called (). This is, as it were, an apology for the use of a foreign
term which apparently was expected to sound strange to Greek ears; cf.
NOTE on 9:2, called.
Tobians. I.e., of Tobias. They were evidently connected in some way to

the military colony in Transjordan (centering around Arak el-Amir) which
Chapter XII 429
was once headed by Joseph ben Tobias and his son Hyrcanus (see our
NOTES on 3:11). Our story reports that Judas Maccabaeus men set out for
their fortified camp in order to lend them assistance. That the Tobians were
no longer in the vicinity of Arak el-Amir emerges from 1 Maccabees 5:9ff.,
which reports that many Jewish refugees from the Gilead had taken refuge
in the Dathema fortress; there too, as here, we read that Judas and his
men, after hearing of the fate of the Tobians (ibid., v. 13), set out to assist
them. Thus, it seems that the refugees from the Tobiad colony took refuge in
a fortified camp at Dathema; for suggestions as to where that was located,
see F.-M. Abel, Tell Hamad dans le Haurn, JPOS 12 (1932) 15;
Schwartz, Mizpeh, 31. Those who assume that 750 stadia separated the
camp from the area in northern Transjordan where Judas was operating, ac-
cording to vv. 1016, assume that our verse is in fact referring to Arak el-
Amir, and that its claim is that Judas, moving far to the south, rescued Jews
who had not fled from that center. See: Bar-Kochva, JM, 8283, n. 42; Gera,
On the Reliability, 29. Bar-Kochva holds that our author was simply in
error, while Gera holds that he was right; but both agree that the distance is
about right. It is, however, difficult to accept that our author would report
the long trip south and not the return north for the continued pursuit of Ti-
motheus (v. 21), and Arak el-Amir was much more than a fortified camp.
Accordingly, we tend to think it likelier, as argued in our opening COM-
MENT (p. 418), that the text is out of order, and that the present reference
is to Dathema, wherever in the north that was.
18. the region. Lit. the places which they traversed. Goldstein (2 Macc,
440) suggests an allusion to Timothys title / 7 (as in v. 2).
However, in that case we should expect as Goldstein notes a definite ar-
ticle ($). Moreover, given v. 10 we should not expect our author to add any
words identifying Timothy.
in a certain place. Of which, as usual, the identity did not interest our aut-
hor; cf. NOTE on 8:6. Given the placement of this notice, following Tim-
othys flight, and given the fate of the local inhabitants as reported in the
next verse, perhaps the reference is to the place mentioned in 1 Maccabees
5:35: after Timothys men fled (v. 34), Judas attacked this new place, killed
all its men and plundered it, and burned it down. But there are serious prob-
lems concerning the name of that town. Most of the manuscripts read
(Mizpeh) but that is impossible; at Antiquities 12.340 Josephus
reads according to some witnesses Mella (or Malla) and no such place is
known. However, it should be noted that 1 Maccabees 5:26 lists the names
of places in which Jews were besieged, and all but one of these places are
scenes of action recounted later in the chapter. The exception is Alema,

and some scholars have, accordingly, made v. 35 refer to Alema (so, for
example, Abel [Macc, 99] and the RSV), a suggestion that draws support
from the paleographic similarity between and Josephus ,
on the assumption that they refer to the same place; see R. Marcus ad loc. in
the LCL Josephus and A. Schalit, Namenwrterbuch zu Flavius Josephus
(Leiden: Brill, 1968) 85. However, the paleographic similarity is not so im-
pressive, and anyway this suggestion hardly helps us, as there is no certainty
about the location of Alema. Moreover, as Goldstein notes (1 Macc, 301), it
does not seem that 1 Maccabees 5:26 in fact mentions a separate place
named Alema; rather, it refers to 0 (Bosor-in-Alema)
the latter term defining the location of the former, so in fact there is no rea-
son for it to reappear in the chapter. But if we reject Alema as our cer-
tain place, and are left with Josephus Mella, perhaps we should con-
sider this a corrupted version of Pella; the difference between
and is only in the angle of the top bar of the first letter; for a similar
case, see Appendix 1, p. 525. Pella, which was located a little southwest of
the places mentioned in 1 Maccabees 5:26, was near whatever route Judas
would have taken from Jabneh to the Golan, and was fortified.5 For the
suggestion that Timothy depended upon support from cities like Pella, see:
Kasher, Jews and Hellenistic Cities, 7475.
19. Dositheus and Sosipater, two of Maccabaeus officers. Their names,

just as Eupolemus and Jason (1 Macc 8:17), indicate that Hellenizers
too were among those who joined the rebels. Dositheus recurs in v. 35;
meaning Gods gift, just as such Hebrew standards as Jonathan and Mat-
tathias, it was along with Theodosius and Theodotus (14:19) quite
popular among Jews of the Second Temple period; see Tcherikover, CPJ
3.173174, 176177; Ilan, Lexicon, 273276.
20. units. Cf. NOTE on 8:21, divided them into something of a four-part
army.
appointed them. Dositheus and Sosipater.
120,000 soldiers. Even more than the number ascribed to Antiochus Eu-
pator and Lysias (13:2) and even less reliable, given the fact that here the
reference is to a local force.
5 For a more detailed discussion of this issue, see Schwartz, Mizpeh.

Chapter XII 431
21. the women and children and other baggage. The term refers
to equipment, baggage; see Mauersberger, PL, 1.202. For its use of all that
accompanies an army, including service personnel and family members, see
Bickerman, Institutions, 91; Holleaux, tudes, 3.1526; Launey, Re-
cherches, 2.785790; Pritchett, War, 5.173174; Bar-Kochva, JM, 4546.
On the attitude our passage bespeaks with regard to women and children
(and other baggage), cf. Deuteronomy 20:14, Judges 18:21, Josephus,
Against Apion 2.157; and E. Bickerman & M. Smith, The Ancient History of
Western Civilization (New York: Harper & Row, 1976) 222224 (section on
Shortage of Manpower, Use of Women, Children, and Other Animals!).
place called Karnion. On Karnaim in the Bashan, mentioned already in

Genesis 14:5 and Amos 6:13, and usually identified with Se Sad, 4 km.
northeast of Tell Astara (some 35 km. east of the Sea of Galilee), see: D. Kel-
lermann, Astarot Ast$rot Qarnayim Qarnayim: Historisch-geograp-
hische Erwgungen zu Orten im nrdlichen Ostjordanland, ZDPV 97
(1981) esp. 4950; see also NOTE on v. 26, the temple of Atergatis.
difficult to besiege and difficult to approach (2 3

2). Both adjectives are rare; in the Septuagint they appear here
alone, and Polybius uses the former but once (5.3.4) and the latter not at all
(preferring ; Mauersberger, PL, 1.216). For our authors love of
-words, see NOTE on 3:11, villainous.
22. first unit. Apparently this means that Judas himself took command of
the first unit, as already at 8:23 and 11:7; without that assumption, Judas
role in the battle itself would not be mentioned at all, despite the fact that he
was the central character (see NOTE on v. 26, Departing he).
appeared (). Where is not said; perhaps before the walls, where
the battle in Karnaim itself is later said to have taken place (v. 26). Use of
appeared both implies the impression caused by the sudden arrival of
Judas forces and prepares us for:
the apparition () of Him who oversees all. This time, as at 15:27,
no details are given (contrast 3:2426; 10:2930), and it might be that the
author is merely articulating the axiom that Judas victory must have been
the result of divine aid; after all, is it not the case that God by apparition
always succors His own portion (14:15)? On apparitions, see NOTE on
2:21, heavenly apparitions, and on who oversees all see NOTE on 3:39,
watches over.
flee hither and thither, so that many were wounded by their own
forces. Panic and death by friendly fire are routine features of ancient
accounts of battles and flight. See, for example, Aeneas Tacticus, On
Withstanding Siege 4.3; Polybius 11.33.4; Diodorus 16.80.2 and 17.34.8;
Livy 38.21.8; Josephus, War 1.383 and 3.296; Appian, Mithridatica
85,386387; Lucian, Zeuxis 10. See also NOTE on 13:2, along with 300
scythed chariots.
23. sinners (). By such a description, similar to the one used to

describe Nicanor ( 8:34; 15:3) our Diasporan author re-
minds us that the struggle he describes is in fact one between good and bad,
not as it is for 1 Maccabees one between Jews and Gentiles. Cf. NOTE
on 6:5, forbidden things.
24. Timothy himself, having fallen into the hands. As usual, our author
prefers not to let the enemy commander die honorably with his soldiers; see
NOTE on 10:32, As for Timothy himself.
consummate guile. For the use of (witchcraft, jugglery) to in-

dicate the ability to delude and mislead, see LSJ, s.v. 356 (finesse);
Mauersberger, PL, 1.399 (Verfhrungskunst Polybius 33.18.11); De
Romilly, Magic and Rhetoric, 3033. It is not clear where our author saw
the guile. Perhaps what is meant is that in fact Timothy did not hold any
hostages, or that he in any case did not contemplate freeing them; so
Grimm, 2 Macc, 179. But since that is not stated, and below it is not even
said that he broke his promise, it seems rather that in fact our author means
to condemn the officers who agreed to the deal even if Timothy fulfilled it.
Be that as it may, it is clear that our author blames Judas officers but not
Judas himself similar to 10:1920 and 14:17. This fits his general brief of
lionizing Judas; see Geiger, History of Judas Maccabaeus.
set him free (-). Only here in the Septuagint, an obvious product of
our authors obsession about varying his diction, in contrast to in
the next verse; cf. NOTE on v. 11, nomads.
for whom no one would show any consideration. This seems to be the sense
of A : a politely formulated threat la too bad if
anything should happen to them.
25. in order to rescue their brethren. I.e., their relatives. For broad use of
brothers see NOTE on 10:21, brethren. By adding this in the author ex-
Chapter XII 433
plains that even if the Jewish officers erred in freeing Timothy, they did so
out of good intentions. Cf. 14:17, where he similarly takes care to excuse
another failure.
26. Departing he. Judas; there is no need to mention his name; cf.
NOTE on v. 10, he.
Karnion. See NOTE on v. 21, place called Karnion. If up until now we have
heard of the fighting against Timothys forces after he sent his baggage to
Karnion, now we turn from battle to cutting down (slaughter) in Karnion
and, especially, in:
the temple of Atergatis. On the form 8 see NOTE on 1:15, the

temple of Nanaia. In the parallel at 1 Maccabees 5:4344 we read of a
temple in Karnaim, that is, Ashterot Karnaim (see above on v. 21, place
called Karnion). Atergatis, a latter-day version of Astarte, was a venerated
goddess in Syria. See Lucian, De dea syra, and P. Bilde, Religion and Relig-
ious Practice, 151187.
he cut down 25,000 corpses. The term (bodies) can apply to slaves
or prisoners (see Pritchett, War, 5.182185), but it is clear that that is not the
case here. Rather, it seems that the author chose this term in order to exhibit
the results of the slaughter in as graphic a way as possible. Precisely on that
background it is important to note that our diasporan author fails to tell us
that which his Judaean colleague had no problems making explicit in 1 Mac-
cabees 5:4344: that what we are reading of is a temple, and that Judas men
slaughtered those who had taken refuge in it and then burned it. Our author
prefers to describe a battle with enemies (v. 22), all of whom are defined as
sinners (v. 23), but passes over the fact that the bodies described here
were of women and children, killed in violation of the laws of refuge (cf. 3:12;
4:34).
27. defeated and destroyed. Hanhart (Text, 2425) thought that

should be rendered rout here and in v. 37 a normal sense of the word.
However, if they were routed they were not destroyed, and our verse goes
on to say that they were destroyed, just as the preceding verse says that they
were slaughtered. It is therefore preferable to translate defeat, here and in
v. 37; for the widespread use of the term in this sense, see Pritchett, War,
4.71. As for destruction, , note that it is not reflected in the
Latin witnesses; this led Katz (Text, 1819) to suggest that it is in fact a
gloss on meant to clarify the sense we have attributed to it.
he also campaigned against Ephron. Niese (Kritik 60, n. 5) quite properly

noted the contrast between this narrative and that of 1 Maccabees: here we
read of an unprovoked Jewish attack and slaughter, whereas 1 Macca-
bees 5:4651 tells the story as a latter-day version of the story outlined in
Numbers 21:2124, relating that the inhabitants of the city refused the Jews
passage, thus leaving them no choice but warfare. This then, like cutting
down in the preceding verse, is another case in which our author makes no
attempt to make war seem any prettier than it is; see NOTE on 2:21, they
plundered the entire country. Ephron is identified as et-Taiba near Pella,
east of Beth-Shean (to which the Jews will continue in v. 29), around 12 km.
southwest of Irbid; see Polybius 5.70.12; Avi-Yonah, Geographia, 160;
Walbank, Polybius, 1.596.
a multi-ethnic multitude. More mongrels, as in v. 13. According to Latin

and Armenian witnesses to this verse, it reported also that Lysias used to
live there (in Ephron) in qua Lysias habitabat; this reading was adopted
by several scholars, including Abel (Macc, 440), Habicht (2 Macc, 264) and
Goldstein (2 Macc, 443444). But there is no good Greek support for this
reading, and it should be noted that some of the witnesses that support it in
fact refer to Lysanias and not to Lysias; see p. 35 of Hanharts edition. Now,
on the one hand it is quite difficult to imagine that we are supposed to think
that Lysias, the right-hand man of Antiochus (father and son), resided in
Ephron, and the suggestions of those who would adopt the reading just
point up this difficulty: Grimm (2 Macc, 180) and Goldstein suggest that
the text means only that Lysias maintained a residence in Ephron, to which
Goldstein adds, alternatively, the possibility that it means that Lysias had
previously lived there, before the time discussed here as if that were of in-
terest to the reader. On the other hand, however, it is easy to imagine a
learned Christian scribe viewing Ephron as the residence of Lysanias, who
was known to have lived somewhere in the north and who figures promi-
nently as a peg for dating the beginning of Jesus mission in Luke 3:1. Ac-
cordingly, along with Hanhart I have ignored these words. Cf. below, p. 555,
n. 119.
reserves. For this sense of in Hellenistic Greek, see Welles, RC,

352.
28. who with power breaks the weight of (His) enemies. Thus according to
Hanharts text: ? ? 7 $?.
Some witnesses and editors prefer , strengths, which is certainly ea-
sier to render; see Hanharts apparatus and, for example, Goldstein, 2 Macc,
Chapter XII 435
444. Confusion between the two is in fact in evidence at Sirach 29:13; there,
as here, the word is parallel to , power. However, as Habicht
notes (2 Macc, 264, n. 28a), the fact that $ is more difficult is actually
an argument in its favor. Moreover, the verb too, break, fits better with
an object which has weight, and we should recall here the allusion to the
walls of Jericho in v. 15. On Gods power () see NOTE on 3:24,
Ruler.
29. Scythopolis. Beth Shean. On the form of the Greek toponym, in two
words (7 city of Scythians), see NOTE on 9:2, called. This
verse supplies the earliest evidence for Jews in this city, according to G. Fuks,
Scythopolis: A Greek City in Eretz-Israel (Jerusalem: Ben Zvi, 1983) 147
(in Hebrew).
600 stadia from Jerusalem. On converting stadia, see NOTE on 12:9, the
gleam of the flames. 600 stadia are equivalent to approx. 115 km.; accu-
rate or fairly accurate (Gera, On the Credibility, 29, n. 37). See also Avi-
Yonah, Geographia, 117118.6
30. gentleness (c). As opposed to those of Joppa and Jabneh, de-

scribed at the opening of this chapter. This adjective, used only here in
2 Maccabees, usually applies to tame animals as opposed to wild ones; see
e.g. Letter of Aristeas 145146; Josephus, Against Apion 2.137. Here it is
part of a well-developed semantic field in use in our book; see above, p. 23.
31. the nation. See NOTE on v. 5, the members of his people.
Festival of Weeks. On which see esp. Leviticus 23:1521 and Deuteron-

omy 16:912. The reference to this holiday shows that the events described
here occurred in the spring, when the kings go out [to war] (2 Sam 11:1//1
Chr 20:1). Zeitlin (2 Macc, 214), pointing to the fact that the name Festi-
val of Weeks does not appear elsewhere in Jewish Hellenistic literature and
that the next verse uses another name for this holiday, preferred some Latin
6 Kahana (HaSepharim, 221) for some reason translated our verse as if it refers to 300
stadia, but there is no basis for that (and Kahanas commentary indeed reads 600).
I mention this lapsus only because Bar-Kochva (JM, 514, n. 14) apparently depended
on that reading 300 as one of his few examples of our books lack of geographical
accuracy. For the other two, see our NOTES on v. 12, the gleam of the flames, and
on the nine stadia between Transjordan and Jamnia (v. 10) our opening COM-
MENT on this chapter (above, p. 418).
witnesses which refer here to Passover. However, the designation Festival

of Weeks was known well from the Bible, and is now known from an Ara-
maic Enoch text as well (4Q196); on this and other evidence see Fitzmyer,
Tobit, 131132. Moreover, variation of diction is precisely what we would
expect from our author; see NOTE on v. 11, nomads. Finally, note that sub-
stitution of Passover for Pentecost would also raise a real problem: why
would Judas interrupt his campaign with a seven-week long break early in
the season, after Passover? Or why would our author skip whatever Judas
was doing during that long period? For these reasons we have retained the
usual reading.
32. so-called Pentecost. This is the usual Greek name for the holiday in this
period; see e.g. Tobit 2:1; Josephus, War 1.253 and Antiquities 13.252;
Acts 2:1; A. Pelletier, La nomenclature du calendrier juif a lpoque helln-
istique, RB 82 (1975) 224225.
Gorgias, the commander of Idumaea. This identification explains the refer-

ence to him in 10:1415, where the district in his charge was not named; for
commander see our NOTE on 8:9, a commander. On Gorgias position,
see Kahrstedt, Territorien, 59; he notes, inter alia, that Josephus juxtaposed
the plains of Idumaea with Gezer, Ashdod and Jabneh (Ant. 12.308, cf.
1 Maccabees 4:15, and note also governor of Idumaea and Gaza in Ant.
15.254). It therefore seems that Idumaea is used here in a general way of
the southern part of Palestine.
34. And it happened. But not by chance, of course, as vv. 4041 will dem-
onstrate. Cf. NOTE on 3:2, it happened.
had drawn themselves up for battle. As usual, our author does not bother
to say where this happened. But the next verse, and v. 38, point to the vi-
cinity of Marissa. Similarly, 1 Maccabees 5:6568 describes a campaign by
Judas and his brothers in the south, and inter alia we read of some deaths
in a battle near Marissa (v. 66). It is characteristic of the difference between
the two books that the dynastic historian explains the deaths as a result of a
failure to obey Judas and his brothers (cf. vv. 19, 61), while our book in
what is to come will point to a religious sin.
a few. For our author, who views the struggle as one between good and evil,
a struggle supervised by God who judges righteously (vv. 6, 41) and
guides the course of war (v. 36), even the death of a few Jews requires an
explanation.
Chapter XII 437
35. Dositheus, one of A Greek name common among Jews; see NOTE
on v. 19, Dositheus and Sosipater The use of here indicates that this
Dositheus is a new figure, to be distinguished from the officer of the same
name who figures there and in v. 24.
one of the Tobians ( * *). On the text here see Katz,

Text, 16 and Bar-Kochva, JM, 70, n. 3, both of whom adopt this read-
ing of the Lucianic witnesses, as opposed to Hanhart, who refused to
give up on Bakenor, the lectio difficilior supplied by the uncial wit-
nesses; see Hanhart, Text, 47, and our NOTE on 4:40, one Auranus.
Bakenor makes no sense, whereas reading of the Tobians has a
clear context: earlier, in v. 17, we read that Judas set out to save people
from the land of the Tobiads, and here it seems that some of them joined
his forces. Their military experience (see below) could certainly be of use
to him.
a strong cavalryman. For a papyrus of 259 BCE mentioning a cavalryman

from the Tobiad territory, see CPJ I, no. 1 (as was noted by Gera, Credi-
bility, 29); on continual warfare in their region, see Josephus, Antiquities
12.229. On cavalrymen in Judas army see Bar-Kochva, JM, 6970, where
the discussion is based for the most part on the present verse. Cf. Stern,
Hasmonaean Judaea, 3940, n. 40.
Thracian cavalrymen. On Thracian soldiers see Launey, Recherches,

1.366398, including pp. 395398 on cavalrymen; Bar-Kochva, JM,
1011, 260 and the illustration on p. 576. For their reputation for being es-
pecially cruel, see e.g. Valerius Maximus, Facta et dicta memorabilia 9.2.4
and Josephus, Aniquities 13.383. The latter reports that Alexander Jan-
naeus extreme cruelty toward his enemies earned him the nickname
Thrakidas on which see esp. Stern, Studies, 125127.
allowing Gorgias to escape. As usual; see NOTE on 10:32, As for Timothy

himself.
to Marissa. The main city of Idumaea, in which (according to v. 32) Gorgias

was responsible for Seleucid rule. On its remains see: A. Kloner, Under-
ground Metropolis: The Subterranean World of Maresha, BAR 23/2
(March/April 1997) 2435, 67; idem, Maresha Excavations Final Report I:
Subterranean Complexes 21, 44, 70 (IAA Reports 17; Jerusalem: Israel An-
tiquities Authority, 2003) 56.
36. Esdris. He is otherwise unknown. Possibly he was introduced some-

where in Jasons original work, in which case we encounter a rare instance
of carelessness by our author; cf. Introduction, p. 72. See also the end of
our NOTE on 8:2223, his brothers . On the text here, see Kappler,
Memoria, 4849.
ally. For this concept, see NOTE on 8:24, ally.
guide in war. Not just the guide of the Jews, but the guide of the war itself;
see NOTE on v. 34, a few.
37. ancestral language. Apparently Hebrew is meant, the language of

prayer; so too 15:29 (and see also 7:8, 21, 27). As Goldstein notes (2 Macc,
447), the special reference here seems to indicate that usually another lan-
guage was used, Aramaic (Syrian 15:36); so too van Henten, Ances-
tral Language. See also Appendix 10.
the war-cry accompanied by hymns. For the linkage of shouting and song
(), usual in Greek literature, see Gera, Battle of Beth Zachariah,
and Pritchett, War, 1.105108. However our author did not use
here; rather, he used d for Jewish songs, here as at 1:30 and 10:38, re-
serving for pagan songs (15:25). So too the Septuagint prefers to use
d, and apart from our 15:25, where it is used of the war-song of Nica-
nors forces, it never uses . Philo too uses the Jewish term more
than fifty times and the other only twice, one of which referring to the wor-
ship of Gaius Caligula as if he were a god (Leg. 96). For such distinctions
see also NOTES on 2:19, the altar, on 14:33, this sacred enclosure of God,
and below, on v. 40, to the idols (01,) of Jamnia.
defeat. For this translation of see above, on v. 27, defeated and de-
stroyed.
38. city of Adullam. About 15 km. north-east of Marissa; see Avi-Yonah,

Geographia, 113. The term city is quite an overstatement and reflects no-
thing more than our own authors usual orientation.
the seventh day. On the sanctity of the Sabbath in 2 Maccabees see NOTE
on 5:25, pretended.
they purified themselves according to the custom. On see NOTE on

4:11, practices. The nature of this purification is not clear. Does it pertain to
Chapter XII 439
purifying rituals for before the Sabbath, or for after battle? Goldstein
(2 Macc, 447448) refers to b. Shabbat 25b for the former and 1QM 14:2
for the latter, but as he notes, concerning the latter, if our reference were to
impurity due to contact with the dead it would have required seven days
(Num 31:19; see also Jdt 16:18, although there it is in explicit connection
with the Temple). Moreover, as long as the returning soldiers were not plan-
ning to come into contact with the Temple or with holy things there would
be no pressing need for them to purify themselves. So perhaps the reference
is to plain washing prior to the Sabbath. In any case, this does not seem to
be a reference to any Greek practice; as Pritchett emphasizes (War
3.196202) there was no widespread Greek custom of purifying an army,
and the scattered references which do exist refer to events during war and
not following it.
the Sabbath. See NOTE on v. 11, nomads.
39. when the time came to do the task (

7 N 2 (
2). The formulation is difficult, but one way or another it refers to
the fact that work resumed after the Sabbath. For in the sense of
task see NOTE on 7:24, commissions.
collect inter them in their ancestral graves. For the importance of proper
burial, in the eyes of our author and in general, see NOTE on 4:49, funeral
expenses. On the collection of the bodies of fallen soldiers see P. Vaughn,
The Identification and Retrieval of the Hoplite Battle-Dead, in: Hanson,
Hoplites, 3862. Vaughn (p. 57) emphasizes that it was imperative for his
soldiers morale that a commander demonstrate concern for the proper care
of the corpses of those who fall in battle; see Onasanders instructions to
commanders in Strategicus 36.12 and also, for example, Diodorus 13.61.6;
13.75.4; 17.68.4.
40. objects dedicated. These Z were not necessarily amulets; at An-

tiquities 1.322 the term refers to idols of gods (see ibid. 310). See Goldstein,
2 Macc, 448449. As he suggests, the reference may be to booty taken during
the attack upon Jabneh (above, v. 9). Given that they were found under the
tunics of the dead, they may have been pendants; for an example relating to
an Egyptian god who was very popular in the Hellenistic period, see M.
Fischer & R. E. Jackson-Tal, A Glass Pendant in the Shape of Harpokrates
from Yavneh-Yam, Israel, Journal of Glass Studies 35 (2003) 3540. Cf.
Deuteronomy 7:2526 (You shall burn with fire the idols of their gods );
1 Chronicles 14:12 (contrast 2 Sam 5:21!); 1 Maccabees 5:68; etc.
to the idols (01,) of Jamnia. Despite our authors differential and de-
rogatory terminology (cf. NOTE on v. 37, the war-cry accompanied by
hymns), he means the that the objects in question were dedicated to the gods
of Jabneh, Heracles and Hauran, who are mentioned in two inscriptions of
the late second or early first centuries BCE discovered in Delos (Inscriptions
de Dlos, nos. 23082309); see P. Bruneau, Recherches sur les cultes de
Dlos lpoque hellnistique impriale (Paris: de Boccard, 1970), 410, 475.
which the Law prohibits to Jews. As in the case of such comments concern-
ing the Sabbath (5:25) and pigs (7:1), here too it is likely that this expla-
nation was meant for non-Jewish ears (however difficult it might be to im-
agine that even Gentiles would not know Jews were supposed to keep away
from idolatry); see Introduction, p. 85.
for this reason. And not just by chance; cf. v. 34, And it happened.
41. the Lord who judges righteously. As in v. 6, although here as one word
(); LSJ (p. 428) lists, apart from our verse, only a flattering
petition to a Roman prefect of Egypt in 133 CE (J. de M. Johnson, V. Mar-
tin & A. S. Hunt [ed.], Catalogue of the Greek Papyri in the John Rylands
Library, Manchester, II [Manchester: Manchester Univ., & London: Long-
mans Green, 1915] 9697, no. 113, l. 35). Our verse, which links this epi-
thet with a blessing, reminds us of the traditional blessing Blessed is the
true judge, said upon receiving news of deaths or other tragedies (m. Be-
rakhot 9.12; Sifre Deut 304 [ed. Finkelstein, p. 323]).
who makes the hidden things visible. This may allude to Deuteron-
omy 29:28 (the hidden things are Gods ), which follows directly upon
a threat of divine punishment of the Israelites for worshipping idols.
42. to petition (0 =). Or supplication, see NOTE on 9:18, in the

form of a supplication. That verse too, as our v. 41, emphasizes that God is
just, so all that one can do, against His judgment, is beg.
that the sin that had occurred having seen with their own eyes that
which had occurred due to the sin of those who had fallen (( (
4# 2 4). The first phrasing politely
avoids saying that the dead people had sinned, but the second one makes it
clear that their fate was deserved and calls upon observers to learn the les-
son well (cf. Deut 13:11!). We have translated according to Hanharts text,
despite the fact that two considerations spurred Wilhelm (Stellen, 2528),
Chapter XII 441
followed by Katz (Text, 16), to emend our verse. First, from the point of
view of contents, Judas urges his soldiers to avoid sin having seen with their
own eyes (3 0 ,) what had happened, and Wilhelm insists that some of
the soldiers did not see their fellows die. Second, there are witnesses which
read (tools, products or the like) in v. 43, where it is
difficult to do anything with the word; while all Hanhart does, accordingly,
is omit it there, Wilhelm suggests moving it up to our verse (as Katz explains,
it seems Wilhelm surmised the word was originally in the margin, and a bit
too low), reading 3 0 , ? ? " 7 -
4 . That is, Judas points to the
manufactured items that had been made and worn due to the sin of those
who had fallen as proof of their sin. However, this suggestion fails to con-
vince me, for (a) the author probably takes it for granted that all of Judas
soldiers saw their fellows die or that, at least, Judas words apply to the fact
of having seen them dead (even Wilhelm, p. 27, is willing to accept this ren-
dition, although it is somewhat free); (b) to keep the remaining soldiers
away from sin, Judas needs to point not to the dedicated objects themselves,
as in Wilhelms text, but, rather, and especially, to the death of those who
wore them; (c) Wilhelms text assumes that the dedicated objects were made
on account of the sin of those who wore them, but we have no reason to
think that the Jewish soldiers who attacked Jabneh had had the time or in-
terest to order idols from local craftsmen or to make them themselves. It is
much simpler to assume that the reference is to booty but then the idols
were not made due to any Jewish sin. See also Hanhart, Text, 32, who def-
ends the text without (explaining it away as a result of a
Lucianic reading in v. 43) and points out how usual it is for our author to use
to summarize previous events (9:3; 10:21; 11:1; 13:9).
completely. That is, that the death of the sinners shall be complete atone-
ment for them; cf. 8:29.
noble Judas. See NOTE on 6:28, noble nobly.
43. a collection. On see esp. Deissmann, Licht, 8385; Wilhelm,

Stellen, 25. The meaning is close to one of ; see NOTE on 3:6, ap-
plied to the account of the sacrifices. On the offering of a tithe or the like
from booty, see 8:2830, also Numbers 31:25ff. on the biblical hand and
Pritchett, War, 1.93100 on the Greek one.
for each man ( 7 .). Lit. man by man. It seems preferable to

assume, as we have, that this means for each of the fallen, not (as e.g.
Habicht) from each of the survivors, for what was crucial was that atone-
ment be worked for each of the dead. But our author would also want us to
assume, of course, that all of Judas men participated in the collection. For
the text here, see Hanharts apparatus and Wilhelm, Stellen, 2526.
around 2000 silver drachmas. For their value, see NOTES on 4:19, 300
silver drachmas, and on 8:11, ninety slaves per talent.
a sin-offering (3 4). This is the standard Septuagint term for the

hattaat, as also at 2:11; see Daniel, Recherches, 319328.
doing. Here the author begins to analyze Judas underlying assumption: be-
lief in resurrection.
very properly and honorably. For the latter adverb (), which lit-
erally means urbane, city-like, see NOTE on 6:23, honorable argu-
ment. The combination with 7 (properly) is very Greek and recalls
the characterization of another hero, Onias, at 15:12. On 7 see Dover,
Morality, 6973.
resurrection. The fact that our author sees fit to emphasize this may indicate
that such a belief was a matter of controversy. Indeed, from Josephus (War
2.165), the New Testament (Luke 20:2740; Acts 23:8) and rabbinic litera-
ture (m. Sanh 10.1 [on the text, see Urbach, Sages, 2.991992, n. 11] and
Avot de Rabbi Natan, ed. Schechter, p. 26) we learn that the Sadducees de-
nied resurrection; see Schwankl, Sadduzerfrage, 332338. This could
easily lead to the old suggestion that 2 Maccabees should be viewed as a
Pharisaic polemic; see esp. A. Geiger, Urschrift, 223224. But only a few
passages and aspects of our book could support this case (and see NOTE on
2:17, His entire people), so although one can to some extent make the case
that 1 Maccabees is Sadducean (see most recently Gera, Battle of Beth Za-
chariah, 4951), it is better to resist the tendency to make everything sym-
metric by asserting our book is, therefore, specifically Pharisaic or anti-Sad-
ducean. For general skepticism about the relevance of Pharisees and
Sadducees to our books, see Bar-Kochva, JM, 571572. Rather, what we
have here is an aspect of the similarity of Pharisaic religion and diasporan
religion; see above, pp. 6364, n. 154, and D. R. Schwartz, Josephus on
the Pharisees as Diaspora Jews, in: Josephus und das Neue Testament:
Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen (WUNT 209, ed. C. Bttrich & J. Herzer;
Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007) 137146.
Chapter XII 443
44. pointless and silly. On praying over spilt milk, cf. m. Berakhot 9.3: He
who shouts (in prayer) about the past, lo this is a pointless prayer.
to pray (
). Or to make vows. But it seems preferable to translate
to pray, for v. 43 has the vows already fulfilled. It seems that the author is
using to pray in the sense of to worship, something of which sacrificing
is an example; this would be a diasporan usage, which allows what diaspo-
ran Jews can do (pray) to be the major category and makes that which they
cant do (sacrifice) into something secondary; for similar cases, see NOTE
on 3:31, call upon. On prayers for the dead in antiquity, see Ogle, Sleep of
Death, also (concerning Jews) S. Reinach, Lorigine des prires pour les
morts, REJ 41 (1900) 161173. On the basis of our verse and other evi-
dence, Reinach suggests that the Jewish practice originated in Egypt.
45. lie down. I.e., die. Such euphemistic usage of 7 is known from
the Septuagint, Greek literature and epitaphs; see esp. Ogle, Sleep of
Death, who holds that it has especially Oriental and Hebrew roots. On our
verse: ibid., 93. See also Van der Horst, Epitaphs, 115118. For our books
exceptionally rich vocabulary for dying, see above, p. 70.
in piety. On ., a central value in our book, see NOTE on 3:1, piety.

Here it is considered as if it were a static state, similar to purity, not some-
thing expressed by appropriate actions.
a holy and pious notion ( 3 /' > ). These words con-
stitute a note within a note and sound secondary (esp. in light of the similar
comment in v. 43); for the suggestion that they have been added from some
marginal note, see G. C. Cobet, Variae lectiones (Lugduni-Batavorum: Brill,
18732) 480, who compares a similar comment frequently excised by editors
of Platos Republic 504E. See also Niese, Kritik, 110, n. 3 and Katz, Text,
2021.
atonement. On , which is used for kippurim in LXX Leviti-

cus 23:2728, see Daniel, Recherches, 326. Cf. NOTE on 3:33, atonement
(=2); the prefix - here expresses the notion of free from explicit in
the end of our verse.
in order that they be released from the sin. The sacrifice was offered due to
the fear that, despite the prayer mentioned in v. 42, death was not enough to
atone for the sins of the fallen and they were in need of yet more merit, sup-
plied by the sacrifice. The assumption is that if their sin is not atoned they
will suffer even more, and might even be excluded from resurrection. This
implies that sinners are punished after their death, an implication that easily
begets the notion of a place where that happens Gehenna/Purgatory, a no-
tion with a history of its own in both Judaism and Christianity. See Lieber-
man, Some Aspects, 495501 and, especially on the present passage,
OBrien, Scriptural Proof. For this beliefs role in Reformation debate
concerning our books canonical or non-canonical status, see Introduction,
pp. 6061. It should be noted, however, that although our author links the
two belief in post-mortem suffering (and so: Gehenna/Purgatory) need not
imply belief in resurrection. One might believe, for example, that those who
died are bound to suffer for their sins, and that an appropriate sacrifice
might help them out, without any expectation that eventually they will be
returned to life; their better future might be a spiritual one. Thus, it seems
that for our author the main point here is not resurrection in particular but,
rather, the more general thesis that there is some life after death. For a simi-
larly general view of the matter, see Acts 23:8, where various options of life
after death are listed and it is said that the Sadducees denied them all. See
NOTE on 7:34, children of Heaven, and the bibliography cited there.
released from the sin. The verb A (be released) points us back
to a leitmotif of chapters 67; see NOTE on 7:9, free (). There the
topic was freeing sinless live people from life in this world, whereas here it is
the freeing of dead sinners from sin so as to allow them sinless life in the
next; the result is the same.
Bibliography
Kasher, Jews and Hellenistic Cities, 6490.

Kasher, Jews, Idumaeans, and Ancient Arabs, 2533.
OBrien, Scriptural Proof.
Ogle, Sleep of Death.
Schwankl, Sadduzerfrage, 245259.
Schwartz, Mizpeh.
Chapter XIII 445
Chapter XIII
A New Invasion on the Way
(1) In the 149th year the news reached Judas men that Antiochus Eupator
had come with hordes against Judaea, (2) and with him Lysias his guardian
and head of state, each having a Greek force of 110,000 foot-soldiers, 5300
cavalrymen and 22 elephants, along with 300 scythed chariots.
Menelaus Fate
(3) Menelaus joined them, encouraging Antiochus with great insincerity,

having in mind not the welfare of the fatherland but, rather, his own instal-
lation in office. (4) But the King of Kings awakened Antiochus wrath
against the sinner, and after Lysias fingered him as the cause of all the
troubles, he ordered as was customary in the region that he be brought
to Beroia in order to be annihilated. (5) There is in that place a tower fifty
cubits high, full of ashes, and it is fitted out with a contraption which spin-
ning all around propels (whatever is in it) down into the ashes. (6) There
he who is liable to punishment for temple-robbery or all those who com-
mitted any other preeminent act of wickedness were pushed forward to per-
dition. (7) Such a death happened to befall the lawless Menelaus, without
his even attaining (any burial place) in the ground, (8) and very rightly so
for since he had committed many sins against the altar, of which the fire and
ashes are pure, death came to him in ashes.
The New Invasion
(9) But the king, becoming barbaric in his intentions, began to display him-
self toward the Jews in ways as bad as the worst which had happened in his
fathers days. (10) Judas, having received notice of this, exhorted the multi-
tude to call upon the Lord day and night that if ever (He did so) at some
time or other so too now He should come to the aid of (11) those who
were on the verge of being deprived of the Law, fatherland, and holy
Temple, and not allow the people, which had only shortly before revived its
spirit, to be given up into the hands of maligning Gentiles.
(12) After they all did the same together, petitioning the merciful Lord
with wailing and fasts and prostration for three days without letup, Judas,
after encouraging them, commanded them to stand by. (13) After privately
consulting with the elders he decided to sally out, before the kings army in-
vaded Judaea and took control of the city and to settle the matter with
Gods help. (14) After entrusting the outcome to the Creator of the universe
and calling upon all his men to struggle nobly until death for laws, temple,
city, fatherland, constitution, he made his camp near Modein. (15) Assig-
ning his men the motto Gods victory, with his best selected youths he
made a night-attack upon the royal courtyard, (that is) the encampment,
and killed about 2000 men, also skewering the first of the elephants to-
gether with him who was in the house. (16) In the end they filled the en-
campment with fear and tumult and then, having been successful, they
broke away. (17) This happened as day was already breaking, by virtue of
the Lords sheltering which had come to his aid.
The Beth-Zur Campaign and an Agreement
(18) The king, having had a taste of the Jews daring, attempted to take the
places by devious routes. (19) Coming up against Beth-Zur, a strong for-
tress of the Jews, he was rebuffed; blocked; defeated. (20) Judas sent the
necessities to those within. (21) But Rhodocus, one of the Jewish unit, re-
vealed the secrets to the enemies; he was sought out and arrested and shut
away. (22) The king again addressed those in Beth-Zur; he gave the right
hand; took it; departed; (23) attacked Judas men; had the worst of it; re-
ceived notice that Philip, who had been left behind in Antioch as head of
state, had taken leave of his senses; was disconcerted; called the Jews to-
gether; conceded and swore according to all that is just; came to an agree-
ment and offered a sacrifice; honored the Temple and displayed humane
love for the Place; (24) and he received Maccabaeus; left Hegemonides gov-
ernor (of the region) from Ptolemais to Gerar. (25) He came to Ptolemais;
the people of Ptolemais hardly tolerated the covenants they were very
upset; wanted to annul the instructions. (26) Lysias went up onto the tri-
bune; defended (the covenants) as far as possible; convinced; calmed down;
engendered goodwill; returned to Antioch.
That is how the kings invasion and return turned out.
Chapter XIII 447
COMMENT
The main chain of events in this chapter is quite straightforward: Antiochus

Eupator and Lysias invade Judaea with huge armies; the Jews organize for
defense and indeed get the better of the royal army at a first engagement
near Modein; a renewed attempt by the Seleucids culminates in a siege of
Beth-Zur, which is interrupted by the threat posed by Philips return to Anti-
och. In order to meet that threat, Antiochus and Lysias come to an agree-
ment with the Jews and return to Syria. This simple story is interrupted
abruptly by one extraneous episode: the colorful and well-deserved execu-
tion of Menelaus (vv. 38).
The chapter is, however, extremely half-baked. True, the middle episode
(vv. 917) is well-built, and reads basically like the first half of Chapter 11
(news of invasion, prayer, encouragement by Judas, going out to meet the
threat, victory). But the Menelaus pericope, in contrast, while whole in and of
itself, disrupts the first narrative and leaves its continuation illogical (for if the
king recognized Menelaus was the source of the difficulties [v. 4] there was no
reason for hostilities to resume after he executed Menelaus, and indeed none
is given), and the Beth-Zur narrative is full of staccato and asyndetic for-
mulations that seem to be no more than remnants of the authors notes.
As suggested in our Introduction (p. 34), it may be that, once he had found
Chapters 1011, our author was at a loss concerning this chapters Beth-Zur
narrative, so he gave this part of his notes short shrift and moved on as quickly
as he could;1 for a similar procedure, see NOTE on 11:1, what had happened.
NOTES
13:1. In the 149th year. This is the first date in our book, apart from those
given in the first letter in Chapter 1 and those in Chapter 11. Assuming that
the era is the Seleucid Macedonian one, which began in the autumn of
1 Habicht had the same impression of the style of vv. 1826, although his explanation
as to why the author wanted to get it all over with is that the story did not portray the
Jews favorably (Der Grund hierfr liegt schwerlich in schriftstellerischer Unzulng-
lichkeit, eher in dem Bestreben, ber Dinge rasch hinwegzugehen, die fr die Juden
keineswegs vorteilhaft oder schmeichelhaft waren 2 Macc, 269, n. 18a). However,
our author had no problem in turning things around, whenever he put his mind to it;
see, for example, our NOTE on v. 23, attacked Judas men; had the worst of it. It
therefore seems preferable to assume that he was simply perplexed as to where this
whole story belonged, and left this part of his work unfinished.
312 BCE, it is equivalent to 164/3 BCE. But 1 Maccabees 6:20 dates this
campaign Lysias second to 150 S.E.; for the debate among historians,
see Bar-Kochva, JM, 543551 (with bibliography on both sides listed ibid.,
545, n. 7), and above, pp. 2930.
2. and with him Lysias. An invasion by Lysias was already reported in

Chapter 11. It is difficult to imagine that an author who was aware of this,
and of the fact that it too came to a head at Beth-Zur, would fail to make any
allusion to this, if only by adding again or despite his earlier failure (cf.
10:24) or the like. This is all the more surprising given our authors predilec-
tion for internal cross-referencing; see NOTE on 2:32, aforementioned. And
what of Lysias realization, at the end of his first campaign, that it is imposs-
ible to defeat the Jews (11:13)?! These are some of the considerations under-
lying our suggestion that whoever authored the present narrative was un-
aware of the contents of Chapter 11, and that the campaign described in this
chapter was the same as the one described there; see Introduction, pp. 2635.
each. Goldstein (2 Macc, 459) rejected this, although it is supported by most

of the textual witnesses, because he thought it unlikely that the nine year old
Eupator (see NOTE on 9:25, my son Antiochus) would command an army or
that the invading forces would be divided into two. But reasonableness does
not seem to be the best measure by which to judge the authenticity of battle de-
scriptions in our book, a point that the numbers in the present verse also con-
firm. In any case, the splitting of the army does not function in the chapter,
which deals with only one army, termed the kings army (vv. 13, 26).
a Greek force. This seems to be a characterization of the two special items

mentioned at the end of the verse elephants and scythed chariots.
110,000 foot-soldiers. This is an astronomic figure, even if we ignore the

statement that there were two such armies. By way of comparison, note that
1 Maccabees speaks of 60,000 soldiers in Lysias first invading force (4:28)
and 100,000 in the second (6:30) and Bar-Kochva (JM, 4243) says both
must be totally rejected as exaggerated. See also Niese, Kritik, 33 and
Shatzman, Hasmonean Army, 32 (these numbers are totally exagger-
ated and impossible).
22 elephants. This datum too is quite exaggerated, although it cannot com-

pete with the thirty-two mentioned in 1 Maccabees 6:30 or the eighty men-
tioned above (11:4) and by Josephus at War 1.41; see Bar-Kochva, JM, 307.
According to Bar-Kochva, it is likely that the forty elephants that marched in
Chapter XIII 449
the procession at Daphne (in 166 BCE; see Polybius 30.25.11 and on 5:2, ac-
cording to units) were all the Seleucid army had, and that half of them accom-
panied Antiochus in his eastern campaign; see Bar-Kochva, Seleucid Army,
80; see ibid., 7583, for data on the numbers of elephants in other battles.
along with 300 scythed chariots. For the terrifying effect of scythe-wheeled
chariots see e.g. Appian, Mithridatica 18 (cited by Bar-Kochva, JM, 19) and
Diodorus 17.53.1. But their number here is fantastic, as usual; in the
Daphne procession there were only 140 (Polybius 30.25.11). Indeed, Bar-
Kochva doubts that such chariots remained in use after the Seleucid defeat
at Magnesia in 190 BCE, where they inflicted great losses upon the Seleucid
army itself (Livy 37.41.542.1); see Bar-Kochva, Seleucid Army, 8384 and
idem, JM, 19, 305.
3. Menelaus joined them. He was last mentioned at 11:2932 as a partici-

pant in the negotiations between the king and the Jews. The end of our verse
indicates that, unsurprisingly, he had not been restored as high priest, and
so it seems that he remained in Antioch, attempting both to influence the
royal policy concerning the Jews and to improve his own station.
great insincerity. That is, hypocrisy; on +, which appears in the Sep-
tuagint only here, see Epistle to Diognetus 4:1 (on the Jews hypocrisy con-
cerning fasting and new moons), also G. Markantonatos, On the Origin
and Meaning of the Word , RF 103 (1975) 1621; C. Forbes,
Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony: Pauls Boasting and the Conventions
of Hellenistic Rhetoric, NTS 32 (1986) 1013.
having in mind not the welfare of the fatherland. Menelaus appeal to the
king is presented as the opposite of Onias (4:5), who had been the oppo-
nent of Menelaus brother.
his own installation in office. That is, his restoration to office; obviously he
was not able to maintain his position after Judas retook Jerusalem (see NOTE
on 11:29, Menelaus has reported ). Moreover, at some point the Seleucids
replaced him with Alcimus; see NOTE on 14:3, a former high priest.
4. the King of Kings. A rare epithet in Jewish-Hellenistic literature, but see

3 Maccabees 5:35 and Philo, De Decalogo 41. It seems to have originated
as an oriental and more particularly Persian royal epithet; see Ezekiel 26:7;
Ezra 7:12; Daniel 2:37; J. G. Griffiths, # : Remarks on
the History of a Title, CP 48 (1953) 145154.
awakened Antiochus wrath. As usual, it is clear to our author that Anti-

ochus was only doing Gods will.
against the sinner. Menelaus.
the cause of all the troubles. As we were already told at 4:47; see our NOTE
there on cause of all the trouble. Thus, according to our diasporan book
even the Seleucid officials realized, eventually, that which the good subjects
of the kingdom (4:35, 49) and readers of the book already knew; cf.
Esther 7:510, also 3 Maccabees 6:2226 and 7:1015.
as was customary in the region. On 6 see NOTE on 4:11, practices.
Beroia. Aleppo, founded by Seleucus I. See: Grainger, Cities, 7980, 132.
5. fifty cubits high. Which is also the height of the gallows prepared by
Haman, upon which he was himself hung (Esth 5:14; 7:10). Is it too wild to
see, accordingly, in Gods awakening Antiochus wrath (v. 4), a hint to
the kings sleep being upset (Esth 6:1), especially in light of the Persian
King of Kings that begins that verse? And note the three days of fasting
mentioned in v. 12, as in Esther 4:16, and the fact that the elaborate mode
of execution described here seems too to point us toward Persia; see Hero-
dotus 2.100; Ctesias apud Photius, Bibliotheca 72 (FGrH 688, 48, 52,
58); Ovid, Ibis 315316; Valerius Maximus, Facta et dicta memorabilia
9.2.6; F. W. Knig, Persika des Ktesias, Graz 1972, 8588. Knig conjec-
tures that we should understand that the contraption did not really turn
around but, rather, that it was round and, like a funnel, made those thrown
into it slip down into the ashes; for in the sense of round, not
only moving around, see LSJ, 1392. Knig also emphasizes the religious
nature of the crimes of those punished this way.
ashes. Apparently hot ashes are meant, as Grimm notes 2 Macc, 187.
6. temple-robbery. On this crime, which is singled out here because it was

Menelaus, see NOTE on 4:39, robbery from the Temple.
to perdition. As Antiochus (Ch. 9 and 7:14), so too Menelaus sufferings

were final, and not merely educational chastisement as were those of
the Jews; see NOTE on 6:12, the punishments were not to destroy.
7. Such a death. For this sense of (lit. fate) see NOTE on 9:28, death.
Chapter XIII 451
happened. See NOTE on 3:2, it happened.
without his even attaining (any burial place) in the ground. A terrible fate;
see NOTE on 4:49, funeral expenses. For the denial of burial to temple-
robbers and the like, see Parker, Miasma, 45, with references, inter alia, to
Diodorus statement (16.25.2) that according to the law common to all
Greeks temple-robbers are to be cast out without burial and Thucydides
explanation (1.138.6) that Themistocles could not be buried in Attica
because he had been expelled due to treason; for the association of
treason and temple-robbery, see NOTE on 5:15, traitor. See also Eur-
ipides, Phoenician Women 1630; Pseudo-Plutarch, Ten Orators 1 (Anti-
phon) 833a ( / 7 7 3/ 5
[after being punished with the traitors punishment he was cast
out without burial]).
8. and very rightly so. For such pedantic comments, see also 9:6 and 12:43.
many sins against the altar. For the term used here, , see NOTE on
2:19, the altar. Menelaus sins did not, in fact, affect the altar alone; rather,
they affected the Temple as a whole; see 4:32, 39 and 5:1516. But our
author must find the poetic justice, he must make the punishment fit the
crime even if it is somewhat artificial; cf. NOTE on 4:41, wood ashes. It
may be that some viewed Menelaus death as a fulfillment of Ezekiel 28:18:
By the multitude of your iniquities, in the unrighteousness of your trade
you profaned your sanctuaries; so I brought forth fire from the midst of
you; it consumed you, and I turned you to ashes upon the earth
9. But the king began to display himself toward the Jews in ways as bad
as the worst which had happened in his fathers days. Our translation fol-
lows Grimm, 2 Macc., 188; Abels is similar (Macc, 453). What is meant is
not that Antiochus Eupator already did things worse than his father had,
only that he contemplated doing them. Note that our author gives no rea-
son at all for the kings volte-face, from punishing Menelaus as the cause of
all the troubles to persecuting the Jews. According to 1 Maccabees, which
never mentions Menelaus, Lysias second campaign was a natural resump-
tion of the first; see esp. 1 Maccabees 4:35, which has Lysias returning to
Antioch, after the failure of his first campaign, in order to restore his army
and return to Judaea. There is nothing parallel in our book; on the contrary,
after his first campaign Lysias concludes that there is no chance to succeed
against the Jews (11:13). Our author has worked himself into a corner, torn
between his desire to claim that the kings were basically good to the Jews
and that any troubles were due only to isolated troublemakers such as
Menelaus, on the one hand, and the need to report how events continued,
on the other. In fact, the account which follows apparently concerns the
same campaign as the one in Chapter 11; see our opening COMMENT on
that chapter.
10. exhorted. See NOTE on 12:5, he gave his men instructions.
if ever (He did so) at some time or other (P 3 .). Of course

the if here is rhetorical; our author knows very well that there were in-
deed such precedents (see 8:1920; 15:89, 22).
11. on the verge of being deprived. Our author loves to point out what dire
things were on the brink of happening; see NOTE on 2:22, the laws that
were about to be.
only shortly before revived its spirit. Which would make renewed troubles
all the worse; for a similar idea, see 14:36, Judith 4:3, and Josephus, An-
tiquities 8.128, where God warns Solomon that if he sins the Temple,
which only now had been built, will be given up to his enemies to be burned
and plundered. For the verb see NOTE on 4:46, refresh his
spirit. Cf. Polybius 18.14.6, where we read that the Peloponnesians began
to breathe again and once again to think of freedom ( /
6).
maligning Gentiles. Cf. 10:4.
12. with wailing. Like 11:6, although a different term is used; cf. NOTE on
11:6, with wailing and tears.
and fasts. On fasting in preparation for battle see also 1 Sa-

muel 14:2830//1 Maccabees 3:17; 1 Maccabees 3:47; Josephus, Vita 290;
etc. The secondary status of the fasting here should be noted; it is only
an expression of the main activity: petitioning (contrast 1 Macc 3:47,
where the fasting is more independent). This is reminiscent of the way our
author treats sacrifice too; see NOTE on 12:44, to pray.
and prostration. See NOTE on 3:21, prostration.
for three days. Another echo of Esther (4:16)? See NOTE on v. 5, fifty cubits
high, but also Assumption of Moses 9:67.
Chapter XIII 453
after encouraging them. On and its nuances, see NOTE on

7:24, his appeal.
13. the elders. It seems that these are members of the ger-
ousia; see NOTE on 14:37, one of the elders of Jerusalem. The present con-
text seems to assume that this council sat in Jerusalem, which is entirely
likely.
Judaea. In its restricted sense, i.e., the territory around Jerusalem, as the rest
of the verse hints; cf. NOTE on 1:1, the Jews in Jerusalem
the city. Jerusalem; for the centrality implied by the failure to name it, cf.
NOTE on 4:39, in the city.
settle the matter ( #). This seems to be the appropriate

translation of this phrase, which recurs at 15:17 and is used regularly by
Polybius in connection with battles; so for example Polybius 1.15.4, 1.87.7
and 5.82.1. But can also designate the state; see NOTE
on 3:7, head of state. Perhaps, accordingly, there is also a hint that God
(whose aid is invoked here) will defeat the Seleucid state or even taking
in its literal sense judge it; after all, He is a righteous judge
(12:6, 41).
with Gods help. On the hope for Gods see NOTE on 8:24, ally.
14. entrusting the outcome. That is, accepting in advance whatever God
will decide. For the formulation here, # , compare, in a
similar context, Josephus, Vita 138: B M : : ? 0 9
(as for me, having given over my fate to God ).
to the Creator of the universe. See NOTE on 1:24, creator.
to struggle nobly (,). See NOTE on 6:28, noble nobly.
until death. See NOTE on 7:2, ready to die.
laws, temple, city, fatherland, constitution. This is the first appearance of

the perplexing staccato which occurs frequently in this chapter (from v. 19
to the end of the chapter); for a possible explanation (unreworked notes?),
see Introduction, pp. 3435.
Modein. This is the only reference in our book to the Hasmoneans home
(see 1 Macc 2:1; 13:25), which is located northwest of Jerusalem, some 12
km. east of Lydda. Goldstein (2 Macc, 457) and Bar-Kochva (JM, 172 and
197198) doubt that there was in fact any clash here. Indeed, one could
easily imagine that the historical memory of the town as the Hasmoneans
home would engender the creation of legends about a battle or battles there;
cf. b. Kiddushin 66a, where in Modein seems to serve as a general refer-
ence to during the Hasmonean wars. However, it is difficult to move
beyond suspicion here. Goldstein suggests that the story was created on the
basis of a tradition that Judas prevented the royal army from encamping in
Judaea (see v. 13!) coupled with the fact that Modein was right on Judaeas
border. However, despite Goldsteins arguments (2 Macc, 464465) it is not
at all clear that there was such a tradition about Judas, and there is nothing
specific enough in Daniel 11:45 (between the seas and the glorious holy
mountain) to point to Judaeas border. (Nor, indeed, is it certain that Mo-
dein was on the border; perhaps it was outside of Judaea see Goldstein,
1 Macc, 231, and Stern, Studies, 583.) As for Bar-Kochva, his argument is
basically that all we have is (as above) the historical memory of the Has-
moneans origin in Modein; since (according to 1 Macc 6) all of the fighting
described in this chapter took place in the vicinity of Beth-Zur, the allusion
to Modein is another indication of our authors unfamiliarity with Palesti-
nian geography. However, we have already noted that although our author
is not interested in geography, his ignorance is not as great as some have
thought; see NOTES on 12:9, the gleam , on 12:17, Tobians, and p. 435,
n. 6. Moreover, there is no other indication that our author knew of the
Hasmoneans origin in Modein, and in light of v. 18 (devious routes)
there is no special reason to assume that everything happened near Beth-
Zur. On this point see Schwartz, Battles of Judas Maccabaeus, 445 and
Bar-Kochvas response On Josephus , 128.
15. Assigning (# ). This formulation echoes # in the

preceding verse, thus indicating, artistically, that Judas has completed his
preparations: having first turned to the true Fighter and given Him His due,
he now turns to his flesh and blood fighters and gives them theirs.
the motto. See NOTE on 8:23, after reading
Gods victory. For the use of as a motto in war, see esp. D. Gera,
Tryphons Sling Bullet from Dor, IEJ 35 (1985) 154155. Note the mod-
est abstention from tying Gods hands: in line with v. 14, the slogan does not
actually say to which side He will give the victory.
Chapter XIII 455
a night-attack. See NOTE on 8:7, especially chose the nighttime.
the royal courtyard (' ' /) (that is) the encampment.
For the use of . of wherever the king was located, even of a tent in a
military camp (as in Polybius 5.25.3; 5.26.9), see Bickerman, Institutions,
33. However, since usually one would assume that the word refers to the
royal palace in the capital, the author or some glossator appended an ex-
planation.
skewering (). Reading according to Grimm (2 Macc, 189190),

as at 5:26; cf. 12:23.
the first of the elephants. This episode is somewhat reminiscent of that of

Eleazar at Beth Zechariah, according to 1 Maccabees 6:4346, but that is
not enough to show that our story has been wrongly located in Modein, for
key elements of the Eleazar story are lacking here, such as Eleazars belief
that the king was on the elephant, and Eleazars death underneath it. Our
story refers to a nocturnal attack on elephants who were apparently rider-
less at the time.
him who was in the house. It seems that + here does not refer to the
tower (1 Macc 6:37) on top of the elephant (termed + in Polybius,
frag. 162b; see Bar-Kochva, JM, 317318 and the illustrations ibid.
584588), i.e., the howdah, for usually more than one person rode in one
and anyway no one would be in it at night. Rather, it appears that the ref-
erence is to the elephant-pens guardhouse. Perhaps, as Scullard thought
(Elephant, 187), the reference is specifically to the elephants mahout.
16. they filled with fear and tumult ( 3 ,).

We may assume that the author would be happy if attentive readers saw in
this episode the closing of a circle, in partial payment of the Seleucid debt to
the Jews: for the same pair, see 3:30.
they broke away. LSJ, 513, s.v. , cites our verse as the only example of
such intransitive use of this verb.
17. the Lords sheltering. As anticipated in v. 14 and in the motto cited in

v. 15. On sheltering () see NOTE on 5:9, find shelter.
which had come to his aid. That is, to Judas aid; the formulation indicates
his centrality. Cf. NOTE on 12:10, he.
18. the Jews daring (/). The prefixed .- (good) assures us that
what characterizes the Jews was not just audacity, which could be reprehen-
sible as at 4:2 and 8:18; cf. the opposite usage, , at 3:24 and
5:15.
attempted to take (). A military verb, which appears only here

in the Septuagint but is common in Polybius; see Mauersberger, PL,
1.13201321.
by devious routes (
2,). This seems to mean that in the wake of the
failed attempt to invade Judaea directly from north to south, via Modein, the
king (Lysias) now decided to come up and around from the south (via Idu-
maea 1 Macc 6:31) and attack Jerusalem via the region of Hebron. LSJ
(1092) lists our verse alone for the meaning stratagem, and that is how it
is usually translated here; see also Spicq, Notes, 2.548, n. 2. However, the
present context gives no support for that translation, and it would indeed be
a rare usage, as is emphasized by Wheeler, Stratagem, 42; when our author
wants to refer to a stratagem, he indeed uses (14:29). Hence it
seems best to retain, here, the etymological sense of the word.
19. Coming up rebuffed; blocked; defeated. More staccato; see NOTE

on v. 14, laws, temple. The result of all this is that the siege continued. For
intransitive use of (strike against) of military defeat, see LSJ,
1518, s.v.
Beth-Zur. On which see 11:5, Beth-Zur. As for the need to introduce this
site as if for the first time, despite Chapter 11, see NOTE on v. 2, and with
him Lysias.
20. the necessities. Our author had no interest in detailing these supplies,
and wants us to know that; cf. 4:23 and above, p. 73.
21. Rhodocus. This seems to be a Hellenized form of an Iranian name; see

Goldstein, 2 Macc, 466. Bar-Kochva (JM, 88, n. 54) guesses that Rhodocus
was a Jew from the Hellenistic diaspora, a volunteer in the forces of Judas
Maccabaeus; his assumption is that a Palestinian Jew would not have had
such a name if he were not from among the Hellenists. However, as Bar-
Kochva recognizes, it is well possible that Rhodocus was a Judaean who
preferred the rebel cause despite the name he received from his Hellenizing
father (cf. Eupolemus, Dositheus and Sosipater 4:11 and 12:19). More-
over, it is not clear which side Rhodocus was on; see immediately below.
Chapter XIII 457
one of the Jewish unit. The extreme abbreviation here creates a fundamen-
tal ambiguity: Was Rhodocus a soldier in Judas army or in the kings? It is
usual to assume the former, and to assume he was either among those be-
sieged or among those trying to relieve them; that is, it is usually assumed
that the Jewish unit denotes the rebels. For of Judas forces, see
10:36. According to that view, Rhodocus perfidiously revealed to the Seleu-
cid besiegers the secrets that had allowed Judas to supply those in the for-
tress, thus allowing the Seleucids to cut off the supplies. However, if that
were the case, we would expect to read next that Beth-Zur indeed capitu-
lated, or, alternatively, to receive some explanation as to how it avoided
doing so. Indeed, Bar-Kochva (JM, 309) seems to take the next verse (22) as
if it referred to the cutoff of supplies and, hence, to surrender. However, that
verse refers again, with extreme brevity to an agreement between the
sides, not to surrender (although surrender is indeed implied by the parallel
at 1 Macc 6:4950). So if our verse means that Rhodocus betrayed the Jew-
ish side, we would have to say that there is no logical sequel to this in our
narrative. Of course, this might be due only to the radical abbreviation here;
perhaps the original version made things clearer; Stern (Studies, 356), for
example, noting that our book is very inaccurate here, suggests that in
the original version Jason of Cyrene reported Lysias victory and that our
author deliberately beclouded the matter. However, as we suggested above
(pp. 3435) it seems that these terse verses are themselves a remnant of
Jasons account via our authors unreworked notes on it, so it is difficult to
imagine that our account differs deliberately, in such a radical way, from
Jasons. Of course, this may have happened unintentionally, in the course of
abbreviating. But we should at least consider the other alternative, namely,
that Rhodocus is to be understood as a soldier in the Seleucid army, in a unit
known as the Jewish unit as distinguished from other national units;
his treason, then, was against the Seleucids, and consisted of passing on
to Judas side the secret information which allowed them to smuggle in
supplies. On this interpretation, we can understand how it happened that
although eventually Rhodocus was caught and punished (by the Seleucids)
Beth-Zur was not forced to surrender and Antiochus was therefore forced
to negotiate. This interpretations strong points are the logical connection it
establishes between v. 21 and v. 22 and the proper sense it gives the term
the Jewish unit, which sounds strange in reference to the Jews besieged
in Beth-Zur or those attempting to relieve them; for the use of for a
unit among others, such as a national unit (on which see NOTE on 5:24,
the Mysarch Apollonius), see A. B. Bosworth, , CQ n.s. 23
(1973) 252253. Its weaknesses are its application of enemies, in this
Jewish book, to Judas Maccabaeus partisans; the contradiction which
would ensue between our book and 1 Maccabees concerning the fate of
Beth-Zur; and, in general, the fact that we have no evidence for such a Jew-
ish unit in the Seleucid army (but cf. Appendix 7, n. 91). We can hardly
hope for clarity and certainty about something which our author left so
murky and telegraphic.
shut away (
). This may mean that he was put into chains, as at
3 Maccabees 3:25. Frequently, however, it is assumed that this is a euphem-
ism for execution; see for example Goldstein, 2 Macc, 466, who builds
upon the usage of in 4:34; see our NOTE ad loc. on closed in
on. See also De Bruyne, Notes, 408409. However, the fact that we at
times know that a person who was shut away or closed in upon was
killed does not turn that into the meaning of the verb.
22. again addressed (2). This verse is the only reference

for the verb in LSJ, 381. It seems that the verb indicates that the king had
appealed to those besieged at the onset of the siege and now recognizing
the futility of the siege he addressed them again.
he gave the right hand; took it; departed. More staccato, which continues
into the next verse as well. In 1 Maccabees 6:4950 as well it is not ex-
plicitly said that the defenders of Beth-Zur surrendered; rather, the author
says the king made peace with them, a formulation which left both sides
their honor.2 On the giving and taking of the right hand, see NOTE on 4:34,
giving him his right hand.
23. attacked Judas men; had the worst of it. According to the continu-
ation of the story in 1 Maccabees 6:5154, the Seleucid forces attacked
Jews who had fortified themselves in the Temple, and this might, indeed,
explain the reference to the Temple at the end of the present verse. But in
plain contradiction to our account, according to 1 Maccabees the king was
not at all defeated; rather, the Jews were in a very bad way and were saved
only by the news of Philips revolt which caused the king to withdraw.
that Philip, who had been left behind in Antioch. For the formulation
( 0 f 9 ) as referring to an appointment see
2 But Antiochus cant keep his for long: within a few verses after again swearing peace
with the Jews (1 Macc 6:6061), he of course reneges; see NOTE on v. 23, displayed
humane love.
Chapter XIII 459
NOTE on 4:29, left Here, however, there is a problem, for according to

the end of Chapter 9 Philip had fled to Egypt out of fear of Antiochus Eu-
pator so it is not reasonable to suppose that the latter had appointed
Philip regent in his absence. Accordingly, we should assume that Philip fled
to Egypt only after the rebellion mentioned here, and that the rebellion
began only because Philip had been appointed or so he claimed regent
not by Antiochus Eupator but, rather, by Antiochus Epiphanes all as re-
ported by 1 Maccabees 6:55, 63. Given the fact that Philip probably con-
trolled the forces left from the eastern campaign (Will, Histoire politique,
2.342), we can understand the threat he posed to Lysias. The confusion here
is another result of our authors assumption that all the events pertaining to
Antiochus V and Lysias occurred only after the death of Antiochus IV; see
had taken leave of his senses. The use of in connection with re-
bellion indicates that the reference is to something which any sane person
for example, any respectable diasporan Jew would never do. Cf. 14:8 and
NOTE on 4:6, folly. Note also in the story of Eleazar (6:29)
there the observers thought that Eleazar must be out of his mind to allow
himself to be killed for his religion, and they were of course wrong; our
diasporan author justifies religious martyrdom but cannot justify rebellion.
Cf. NOTE on 7:2, ready to die.
called the Jews together. That is, he invited them to negotiate with him; here
the sense of is like that at 7:24.
all that is just. Just as in the first account of the post-Beth-Zur agreement
(11:14).
displayed humane love (

1). For the formulation, see NOTE
on 6:22, humane treatment. Our verse alludes to an agreement, as is made
explicit in v. 25, but its terms are not stated. We may assume that it included
the promises made in Antiochus Eupators letter preserved in 11:2226, of
which the main point is we have decided to restore the Temple to them and
that they should conduct their civic behavior according to the customs of
their ancestors. According to 1 Maccabees 6:62 and Josephus, Antiquities
12.383, Antiochus Eupator violated the agreement and tore down a wall of
the Temple; there is no reference to anything like this in our book, and no
way of knowing if our author deliberately omitted it, out of diasporan
apologetics or for other reasons. Cf. p. 467, on 1 Maccabees 7.
the Place. Here, alongside (see NOTE on 4:14, the Temple), the
Place clearly has the broad meaning which includes all that surrounds the
Temple, that is, the city of Jerusalem; see NOTE on 3:2, the Place.
24. he received. I.e., with respect and courtesy; cf. NOTES on 3:9, received
courteously and on 3:35, receiving Onias.
Hegemonides. Here there is a lucky collocation of epigraphic evidence: of

two inscriptions from the Achaean city of Dyme, one (OGIS 252; cf. SEG
14, no. 368) records a dedication to Antiochus Epiphanes and his family by
a man called Hegemonides (son of Zephyros) and the other (SEG 14, no.
369) documents the Syrian city of Laodiceas honoring of Hegemonides of
Dyme. We may assume that both inscriptions, and our verse, all refer to the
same individual; see Habicht, Hegemonides. Mrkholm (Antiochus IV,
6162) views this individuals status as evidence for Antiochus efforts to
maintain good relations with Achaeans; see also Walbank, Polybius, 3.401.
from Ptolemais to Gerar. For this administrative unit, bounded here by

points in the north and the south of the coast of Palestine, see: 1 Macca-
bees 11:59, where the Hasmonean Simon is appointed governor of more or
less the same region, and 15:38, where Cendebeus replaces him; Bengtson,
Strategie, 2.176181; Stern, Hasmonaean Judaea, 56; Goodblatt, Medi-
nat Hayam,30.3 Goldstein (2 Macc, 468469) preferred to understand
Gerar here to refer not (as usual) to somewhere on the southern coast of
Palestine but, rather, to a place in the vicinity of Beirut, suggesting that the
appointment was meant as a gesture toward the population of Ptolemais,
assuring them that there would be Seleucid (and not Jewish) rule in the re-
gion to their north. However, if that is how it was meant, it failed to achieve
its aim; see v. 25. Moreover, Goldsteins whole point of departure, namely,
that Gerar normally appears in the Septuagint as so the present ref-
3 Before the discovery of the inscriptions mentioned in our preceding NOTE it was
possible and common to read 9 Y as a title, and that occa-
sioned one of the wilder items in the dossier assembled in support of the argument
that our book should be read as a response to 1 Maccabees and as polemic against the
Hasmoneans. Namely, rather than using 1 Macc 11:59 to confirm the existence of
this administrative unit, Kosters (Polemiek, 531532) pointed to it as evidence that
in fact all our author knew was that Simon had been appointed (at some later point in
time) to the position and, not wanting to mention his name and report his accom-
plishment, referred instead to a ruling governor. Cf. NOTE on 10:20, But Simons
men, who loved lucre.
Chapter XIII 461
erence to should refer to somewhere else, is a very weak reed; for

the irrelevance of the Septuagints usual practice for our book, which was
composed in Greek, see Introduction, p. 67. Accordingly, it seems better to
depend upon the aforementioned parallels in 1 Maccabees, that refer to the
coast of Palestine.
25. the people of Ptolemais. Who were known for their hostility to Jews;
see Rappaport, Akko-Ptolemais. (But it seems that 6:8 is not relevant; see
NOTE ad loc. on At Ptolemys suggestion.)
hardly tolerated were very upset. For the same combination, see 4:35.
the covenants (*
*). Mentioned in v. 23. On the term, see
NOTE on 12:1, these covenants.
to annul the instructions (#). LSJ (412) lists our verse alone for
this word and translates arrangement, compact. However, it seems
better to link it to the verb in the Hellenistic sense of order,
instruct, in which case the reference here would be to the instructions
that derived from the kings agreement with the Jews; note esp. 14:28, -
, and cf. 6:5, . On the Hellenistic usage of
, see Lenger, Corpus, no. 3031, l. 3, and no. 35, l. 6; she trans-
lates recommander. See also H. Anz, Subsidia ad cognoscendum grae-
corum sermonem vulgarem e Pentateuchi versione alexandrina repetita,
DPH 12 (1894) 326327, and J. H. Moulton & G. Milligan, The Vocabu-
lary of the Greek Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1929) 154.
26. the tribune. For the kings ascent upon a A in order to address a
crowd see, for example, with regard to Alexander the Great: Curtius 9.3.18;
10.2.30.
convinced; calmed down; engendered goodwill; returned to Antioch. More

staccato.
turned out. For such usage of in a rounding-out summary, see

NOTE on 3:40, That turned out. In this case it sounds mocking ( la
look what came of the whole massive invasion [v. 2!]), especially in light
of the extreme abbreviation of the story which hints that no details could
possibly be of any interest or significance.
Bibliography

Habicht, Hegemonides.
Rappaport, Akko-Ptolemais.
Chapter XIV 463
Chapter XIV
A New Informer: Alcimus
(1) In the third year thereafter the news reached Judas men that Demetrius
son of Seleucus, having sailed into the port of Tripoli with a strong force
and fleet, (2) had taken control of the country and eliminated Antiochus
and his guardian, Lysias. (3) But one Alcimus, a former high priest who had
willingly defiled himself in the times of strife, realizing that he could in no
way redeem himself nor ever again have access to the holy altar, (4) went to
King Demetrius in the 151st year, bringing with him a golden crown and a
palm frond, along with a few of the customary fresh branches from the
Temple. On that day he kept quiet, (5) but when he was summoned to the
council by Demetrius and asked how the Jews were disposed and what their
attitude was, he took this to be an opportunity that would further his own
mad purpose, and so responded as follows: (6) The Jews called Asidaioi,
who are led by Judas Maccabaeus, are carrying on war and being seditious
and do not permit the kingdom to attain stability. (7) Therefore, although
deprived of my ancestral honor I speak of the high priesthood I have
now come hither, (8) first out of genuine concern for the kings interests,
and secondly having regard also for my own fellow-citizens. For due to the
thoughtlessness of the aforementioned people our entire nation has in no
small measure become disinherited. (9) And you, O King, knowing all of
this, give providential attention both to the country and to our beleaguered
nation, with the same love of mankind with which you graciously receive
everyone. (10) For as long as Judas is around it will be impossible for the
state to attain peace.
(11) After things like this had been said by him, the other Friends, who
were hostile to Judas cause, quickly inflamed Demetrius anger even more.
(12) Immediately selecting Nicanor, the former elephantarch, and appoint-
ing him governor of Judaea, he dispatched him (thither), (13) giving him
letters (ordering him) to eliminate Judas, scatter his men, and install Alci-
mus as the high priest of the greatest Temple. (14) And those Gentiles near
Judaea who had fled before Judas joined Nicanor in droves, supposing the
Jews misfortune and suffering would be their own lucky day.
From Confrontation to Agreement
(15) Having heard of Nicanors invasion and the Gentiles onslaught they
strewed dirt (upon their heads) and entreated Him who had constituted His
own people forever, who by apparition always succors His own portion.
(16) Upon the leaders order they moved out of there immediately and
clashed with them near the village of Dessau. (17) Simon, Judas brother,
had encountered Nicanor and suffered a minor setback due to the sudden-
ness with which the antagonists appeared. (18) Nevertheless, when Nicanor
heard of the manly valor of Judas men and of their high morale in struggles
for the fatherland, he was somewhat afraid to bring the matter to trial by
bloodshed. (19) Therefore he sent Posidonius, Theodotus and Mattathias to
give and take the right hand. (20) After thorough inquiries were made, and
the leader had shared the matter with the multitudes and a unanimous
opinion had become apparent, they approved the covenants. (21) They
fixed a day, upon which they were to come together privately, and from
each side a litter came forward; they arranged chairs; (22) Judas stationed
armed men ready in strategic places, lest the enemies suddenly do some-
thing villainous; they held the appropriate discussion. (23) Nicanor re-
mained in Jerusalem, did nothing out of place, and disbanded the herd-like
multitudes that had been gathered together. (24) And he kept Judas before
him continually, for his soul was drawn to the man. (25) He called upon
him to marry and to father children; he married, settled down, partook of
life.
Renewed Informing and Hostilities
(26) But Alcimus, realizing their mutual goodwill and taking with him the
covenants which had been made went to Demetrius and said that Nicanor
was hostilely-minded toward the state, (saying) For he has appointed
Judas, who conspires against the kingdom, to be his successor. (27) The
king lost his temper and provoked by the arch-villains accusations
wrote Nicanor, saying that he found the covenants intolerable and ordering
him immediately to dispatch Maccabaeus in chains to Antioch. (28) When
these (orders) reached Nicanor he was disconcerted and could only with
difficulty tolerate the notion of annulling the instructions, given the fact
that the man had done nothing unjust. (29) But since it was impossible to
oppose the king, he sought an appropriate opportunity to fulfill (the kings
order) by stratagem. (30) But Maccabaeus, seeing that Nicanor was treat-
ing his affairs with him more abruptly, and that his manner with him was
Chapter XIV 465
coarser than usual, concluded that this harshness was not for the better and
therefore, gathering not a few of his men, together with them he hid from
Nicanor. (31) When the latter realized that the man had out-stratagemized
him with aplomb, he came to the greatest and holy Temple and ordered the
priests, who were busy bringing the appropriate sacrifices, to hand the man
over. (32) When they said, with oaths, that they did not know where the
wanted man was, (33) he extended his right hand toward the Sanctuary and
swore as follows: If you do not give up Judas to me, in chains, I will level
this sacred enclosure of God to the ground, and I will destroy the altar, and I
will erect here a magnificent temple to Dionysus!
(34) Having said that much he went away. But the priests, extending
their hands toward heaven, called upon Him who has always championed
our people, saying as follows: (35) You, Lord, although You are not in
need of anything, thought it right that there be in our midst a sanctuary for
Your tenting. (36) And now, O holy Lord of all holiness, preserve forever
undefiled this house which only recently has been purified.
The Martyrdom of Razis
(37) Someone informed to Nicanor about Razis, one of the elders of Jeru-
salem a man who loved his fellow-citizens and had a very good repu-
tation, who due to the goodwill toward him was called Father of the
Jews. (38) In the foregoing times of strife he had brought in a decision
for Judaism and with complete intensity had risked body and soul for Ju-
daism. (39) Nicanor, desiring to make his hostility to the Jews eminently
clear, sent more than 500 soldiers to arrest him. (40) For he thought to
cause them suffering by arresting him. (41) When the hordes were about
to take the tower and were forcing the gate of the courtyard, ordering fire
to be brought up so as to set fire to the gates, Razis, who was about to be
surrounded and taken, thrust himself down upon his sword, (42) wanting
to die nobly rather than fall into the sinners hands and have his own dig-
nity outraged in unseemly fashion. (43) But since he did not manage to
place the sword-stroke well, due to the tumult of the struggle, and the
mob was already pouring in within the gateways, he ran valiantly up
upon the wall and manfully flung himself down into the mob. (44) Since
they quickly moved backwards a gap opened up, and he landed in the
midst of the empty area. (45) Still breathing, and burning up in rage, he
stood up his blood flowing like a fountain and his wounds quite severe
and after traversing the multitudes on the run he stood up on a precipi-
tous rock. (46) Totally out of blood, he bared his innards and, taking
them in both his hands, threw them into the mob; and in this manner,
after calling upon the ruler of life and spirit to return them to him again,
he passed away.
COMMENT
Chapter 14 opens very similarly to Chapter 13: after two verses that give a
date and report what news Judas and his men heard about Seleucid kings
and their doings there follows a longer narrative focusing on a Jewish villain,
a former high priest. Since Chapter 13 had featured the elimination of Mene-
laus (who had been the cause of all the troubles [13:4]) and a royal agree-
ment with Judas, a new beginning is required, and since (according to our
diasporan author) that new beginning had better not come from trouble-
making by any legitimate and representative Jewish source or from the king,
the only options are to introduce either a new Jewish villain or (as in Ch. 12)
some secondary Seleucid ones. Our author takes the former option, hence
the similarity of our chapter with the preceding one: Alcimus picks up where
Menelaus had left off, inciting the new king, Demetrius I, against the Jews.
Thus, our chapter focuses on Alcimus. It is he who said to be a former
high priest hoping for his own personal advancement incites the new king,
Demetrius I, against the Jews. Demetrius appoints a new governor, Nicanor,
with the mission of bringing Judas to heel, but although Nicanor does indeed
begin to campaign against Judas, soon impressed by the personal qualities
of Judas and his men he breaks off fighting and makes peace with Judas.
His first effort foiled, Alcimus again stirs the pot with new complaints in
Antioch until Demetrius orders Nicanor to arrest Judas. Judas escapes, and
Nicanor, angered, makes threats against the Temple if the priests fail to see to
the handing over of Judas. With that threat hanging in the air, the chapter
concludes with a long martyrdom scene, which reminds us how bad things
could again be, and which contrasts Alcimus, who had willingly defiled him-
self during the times of strife (v. 3), with a Jewish hero, Razis, who had re-
mained steadfast during that same period (v. 38) and continues to do so in
the present. Thus, this chapter, having again poised models of faithless and
faithful Jews one against the other, concludes with the new crisis at its height;
the final resolution will come in the next chapter, concluding the book.
Historically, this chapter returns us to firmer ground. The first two verses
give a firm chronological framework: Demetrius Is takeover of the Seleucid
throne in 162/161 BCE, a framework that is supported by other sources as
well (see our NOTE on v. 1, In the third year thereafter). Similarly, 1 Mac-
cabees 7:5 agrees with our book that it was accusations against Judas that
Chapter XIV 467
Alcimus presented to Demetrius, immediately upon his ascent, that brought

about the renewed hostilities. The only major difference between the two
books is in the fact that 1 Maccabees goes on to report Bacchides mission to
Judaea, together with Alcimus (1 Macc 7:825), before it presents Nicanors
mission to Judaea (v. 26ff.), without Alcimus,1 while our book has only Ni-
canor sent, and then re-sent (v. 27), against Judas. By ignoring Bacchides,
just as by ignoring Gorgias almost completely in Chapter 8, our book serves
its general focus on Nicanor; see our Introduction, pp. 910.
Another characteristic difference between the two books pertains to a
lesser issue: Did Nicanor mean to keep the peace with Judas, as our book
claims, in which case it was (as our author reports) only Alcimus renewed
appeal to the king that forced Nicanor, against his will, to move against
Judas? Or is it rather the case that as 1 Maccabees 7:27 maintains Ni-
canor was perfidious from the outset, just as 1 Maccabees 7:10 claimed the
same concerning Bacchides? We can never hope to know the true answer to
this (and probably most cases of broken agreements entail at least one side
claiming the other was never sincere), but it is characteristic that 1 Macca-
bees assumes non-Jews are not to be trusted (and the smart and open-eyed
Judas knew that 1 Macc 7:11, 30), while 2 Maccabees is happy to portray
the Gentile official as full of sincere respect for Judas and to report the genu-
ine friendship that ensued between the two.
NOTES
14:1. In the third year thereafter. For this translation see NOTE on 4:23, In
the third year thereafter. 151 SE, specified also in 1 Maccabees 7:1 as the
first year of Demetrius reign, ran from autumn 162 to late summer
161 BCE. Demetrius escaped from Rome late in the summer of 162 and
began to rule already in the autumn of that year; the story our book is about
to recount will end by the spring of 161 (15:36 and 1 Macc 7:49; for the
year, see ibid. 7:1 and 9:3). This chronological framework is supported by
other sources as well; see Walbank, Polybius, 3.478; Bar-Kochva, JM, 544.
the news reached Judas men. The reader should recall the identical opening
of Chapter 13 and realize that a new round is about to begin between the
Seleucids and the Jews; see our opening COMMENT.
1 Alcimus reappears in 1 Maccabees only in Ch. 9, again alongside Bacchides, in a cam-

paign that occurred after the period covered by our book.
that Demetrius son of Seleucus. Demetrius I, son of Seleucus IV with whom

our book opened (3:3), was born in 186 BCE and raised as a hostage in
Rome in accordance with terms imposed by the Treaty of Apamaea. He
must have regarded his uncle, Antiochus IV, who took over after his fathers
death in 175, as a stand-in for him due to his youth, and when Antiochus
died, in 164, Demetrius thought that the time had come for him to take over
the Seleucid throne. But the Roman Senate thought otherwise (Poly-
bius 31.2), preferring a nine-year-old Antiochus Eupator (see NOTE on
9:25, my son Antiochus) on the Syrian throne. Demetrius therefore fled
from Rome a story which Polybius tells in detail, apparently from first-
hand knowledge, at 31.1115; see Walbank, Polybius, 3.478484.
the port of Tripoli. On the Mediterranean coast of Syria (Lebanon). The

parallel account at 1 Maccabees 7:1 contents itself by referring to a coastal
city; it is typical of that Palestinian book, which gives much detail about
Palestinian geography (as ours does not), not to bother to name the foreign
city. Josephus does (Ant. 12.389), one of the few places where he agrees
with our book as against 1 Maccabees; see above, p. 86.
with a strong force and fleet. 1 Maccabees 7:1 speaks of him having only a
few men, and Josephus (Ant. 12.389) reports that Demetrius arrived in
Tripoli and only afterward mobilized a number of mercenaries. Their ac-
counts conform better to what we would expect on the basis of Polybius re-
port of Demetrius undercover escape from Rome, while our author, as
usual, exaggerates; having given such an inflated picture of the forces con-
trolled by Antiochus Eupator and Lysias (13:2) he was required to say
something similar of him who would now so easily overcome them.
2. the country (1). That is, the Seleucid state; so too 9:24. Cf. NOTE
on 1:1, the Jews in Jerusalem and in the country of Judaea.
eliminated (,). This verb, which reappears in v. 13, is another

item in our authors rich vocabulary concerning killing; see above, p. 71,
also Mauersberger, PL, 1.861862. For more explicit testimony to the same
events, see 1 Maccabees 7:34; Josephus, Antiquities 12.390; Appian, Sy-
riak 47. As explained in our opening COMMENT, with both Menelaus
and Antiochus V out of the way, a new beginning that is, a new villain is
now needed.
3. But one Alcimus (

5 ). For such introductions of villains, see
also 3:4 and 4:40, together with NOTE on v. 5, his own mad purpose.
Chapter XIV 469
a former high priest. After Menelaus; see VanderKam, From Joshua,

226239. According to Josephus (Ant. 12.387; 20.235), Alcimus was ap-
pointed after Menelaus death, but that might reflect only the usual assump-
tion of a regular succession. As for the silence of 1 Maccabees 7:5, which
seems to indicate that Alcimus was never high priest prior to the reign of
Demetrius I this seems to be no more than a pro-Hasmonean authors way
of undermining Alcimus legitimacy, reminiscent of the way he simply ignores
Onias, Jason and Menelaus; so Mlleken, Geschichtsklitterung, 206.
had willingly defiled () himself. The attentive reader will no-

tice that Alcimus is depicted as the opposite of Judas and his men, who took
care to avoid defilement (5:27 ).
in the times of strife. The term (lit.: non-mixing), which recurs
with times of in v. 38, has been the subject of much discussion due to its
appearance in documents reflecting rebellion and civic strife in Ptolemaic
Egypt which was the context in which our author wrote. Here, given the
fact that it refers to the time when Alcimus obeyed Antiochus decrees while
others defied them, it seems that strife is the best translation. See Risberg,
Anmerkungen, 2930; Otto-Bengtson, Geschichte des Niederganges, 66
(ibid., n. 4, on our book); P. Collart & P. Jouguet, Un papyrus ptolmaque
provenant de Deir el-Bahari, EP 2 (1934) 33.
in no way redeem himself nor ever again have access to the holy altar. I.e.,
without royal intervention. Alcimus is described as one who attempted to
advance his own personal interests by badmouthing his people similar to
Simon (3:56; 4:16) and Menelaus (13:3), not at all like Onias (4:46) and
Paul (Acts 28:19). On the heinous nature of such delation, see NOTE on
4:5, not as a plaintiff.
4. in the 151st year. SE, on the Seleucid system, i.e. autumn 162 late
summer 161 BCE.
a golden crown. A customary and appropriate gift to kings, insofar as it is

both valuable and bespeaks recognition of their sovereignty. See esp. Bick-
erman, Institutions, 111112, with references, inter alia, to Poly-
bius 21.34.4; Welles, RC, no. 15, l. 4; 1 Maccabees 13:37. Sometimes the
crowns (or wreaths) were thought to be holy; see OGIS, no. 227 (= Welles,
RC, no. 22), l. 11 and Dittenbergers note in OGIS ad loc. On the trans-
formation of such crowns, offered as gifts, into a monetary tax see immedi-
ately below.
and a palm frond. So too Simon would send a palm frond together with a
gold crown to Demetrius II; see 1 Maccabees 13:37. Stern (Documents,
125) thought that the two passages refer not to real palm fronds (and olive
branches see below) but, rather, to a monetary substitution. This would
make it similar to the Kranzsteuer (aurum coronarium) known as pay-
ment in lieu of crowns; see e.g. Josephus, Antiquities 12.142; Stern, Docu-
ments, 39; Bickerman, Institutions, 112; A. Schalit, Knig Herodes (Berlin
& New York: De Gruyter, 20012) 283286. But I know of no evidence for
similar practice with regard to palm fronds. For palm fronds as symbolic of
the Land of Israel, see NOTE on 10:7, palm-fronds.
the customary fresh branches (* ,

* L =). For
refuge-seekers presenting green (olive?) branches, see Polybius 3.52.3
(most barbarians consider this [presenting olive-branches and wreaths] a
sign of friendship); 30.9.5; 38.20.10; Walbank, Polybius, 1.389390.
Given this custom, it is not surprising that the word came to mean simply
gift; see LSJ 782, s.v., 3.
from the Temple. The intention is unclear. It may be that our author is inti-
mating theft from the Temple. Perhaps, additionally, the reader is supposed
to contrast Alcimus with the loyal Jews who used branches like these in
order to celebrate the purification of the Temple (10:7); however, the for-
mulation there is different and we have suggested (Introduction, pp. 89)
that that verse is part of a secondary addition to our book.
5. summoned (
). For this formal verb, see NOTE on 4:28,
summoned.
council (). The royal council; such bodies of the kings friends
are well known from Hellenistic courts; see Bickerman, Institutions, 189;
Corradi, Studi, 231258; A. M. Rabello, Herods Domestic Court? The
Judgment of Death for Herods Sons, Jewish Law Annual 10 (1992)
3956. But this is the only time such a council is mentioned in our book; our
author prefers to depict kings as acting by themselves, for good or for bad.
Here, however, he wants to depict a reasonably organized Seleucid govern-
ment being led astray by a self-seeking Jewish villain: when the council ex-
hibits its goodwill and serious nature by inviting the former high priest to
enlighten them about the Jews, Alcimus takes advantage of them.
attitude (#
). For this translation, see NOTE on 5:23, being of hostile
disposition.
Chapter XIV 471
an opportunity that would further (( 2). The same type of

personification as above, 8:7.
his own mad purpose. That is, Alcimus is similar to Simon and Auranus not
only in being a mere (v. 3) but also in his madness (4:6, 40).
6. called (2). Here Alcimus apologizes to his audience for the use
of a foreign term, just as our author does to his readers; see NOTE on 9:2,
called.
Asidaioi. This is the only time they are mentioned in our book. On the Hasi-
dim (concerning whom there is a striking disproportion between paucity of
sources and richness of bibliography), see Kampen, The Hasideans. In
1 Maccabees they appear at 7:13,2 there too in connection with Alcimus.
Here, Alcimus claims that the Hasidim lie behind the Seleucids troubles in
Judaea, and that Judas Maccabaeus is their leader, but there is no other evi-
dence for either claim: while it is true that Judas has been leading the
troublemaking, there has been no connection between him and any named
group at all. On the contrary, in 1 Maccabees 7 it is clear that the Hasidim
are not his followers; they are portrayed as welcoming, in their naivet,
Bacchides and Alcimus, and paying the price for it. Of course, it is possible
that 1 Maccabees 7 reflects a split within the Hasidic movement, and
that hitherto Judas had indeed been their leader, as Alcimus says here. But
(a) there is no evidence for that; (b) readers of our book have been led to
expect that Alcimus is not truthful; and (c) anyway the name Hasidim
sounds like it refers to a group of religious people, so linking them up with
rebels is readily understood as a calumny by a wicked informer. In any case,
the important point for our author is that the claim that good Jews (Judas
and the Hasidim) were responsible for anti-Seleucid trouble is found in the
mouth of a lying villain.
to attain stability (/
). Compare v. 10, + ,
which even more precisely echoes 4:6: +. Our author wants
us to compare these two high-priestly appellants to the king, and to note
that while both Onias and Alcimus pretended to be seeking both the good
of their own fellow Jews and that of the kingdom, Onias (vouched for by
the narrator) was honest while Alcimus (who speaks for himself) was a
2 They also appear in 1 Macc 2:42, but the text there is not secure; see Schwartz,
Hasidim.
self-serving liar. (For the diasporan claim that the good of the state and
that of the Jews stand and fall together, see e.g. Philo, Legatio 159161,
236, 305; Johnson, Historical Fictions, 156157). Moreover, note (with
Abel, Macc, 459) that Alcimus speech is very similar to that ascribed by
Jewish Hellenistic literature to another villain, Haman, who too is out for
his own ends but phrases his request in terms of the welfare of the king-
dom in general (LXX Esth 3:13e 9 " " .
). For other echoes of Esther in our book, see 13:45, 12, and
on 13:5, fifty cubits. Cf. 3 Maccabees 7:4, where it is reported that
Ptolemy IV accused his wicked advisors of having incited him against
the Jews by charging that if they were not repressed our rule will
never become stable ( . ? Y7).
On . (stability, quietude) as a basic aim of the state, see also
12:2 and 14:25; Welles, RC, 338.
7. although the high priesthood. Having allowed the hypocrite to pre-

tend to have the commonweal at heart, our author now makes him expose
his real, personal, motive.
8. out of genuine concern (, *). The use of such impressive

phrasing only intensifies his hypocrisy.
the kings interests (* 2, 9 ). Lit.: the things that

pertain to the king. The verb is common in royal inscriptions; see Welles,
RC, 384, also Mauersberger, PL, 1.122.
having regard (2) also for my own fellow-citizens. Our author

is really enjoying himself, letting Alcimus claim that the good of the Jews
requires, of all things, the elimination of Judas Maccabaeus! For of
fellow Jews see Introduction, p. 6; for the good kings concern for the wel-
fare of his subjects, see 11:23 and NOTE on 4:6, providence.
the thoughtlessness. On , which appears in the Septuagint only

here and in 3 Maccabees 5:42, see Mauersberger, PL, 1.68. Compare Phil-
ips going out of his mind (13:23), which explains his rebelling, and see
NOTE on 4:6, folly.
aforementioned. Our author loves this pedantic usage; see NOTE on 2:32,
aforementioned. Here the inflated style, as with some of the other diction in
this speech, contributes to the irony.
Chapter XIV 473
our entire nation disinherited. More hypocrisy; Alcimus is in fact con-

cerned about his own inheritance (v. 7) but phrases it as if it were a matter
concerning the entire nation.
9. give providential attention (

). As may be expected from the
ideal king; here too there is an echo of Onias mission (see NOTE on 4:6,
providence, and Introduction, p. 82).
love of mankind. More irony; Alcimus asks that the kings philanthropia be
expressed by helping the wicked against the good. For the term, see NOTE
on 6:22, humane treatment.
10. to attain peace. See NOTE on v. 6, to attain stability.
11. the other Friends. Of the king, that is, his courtiers, those present in the
council mentioned in v. 5; see NOTE on 1:14, Friends. Although the phras-
ing other () here seems to indicate that Alcimus too was counted
among them, this should not be pressed; see NOTE on 3:26, another two
youths.
who were hostile to Judas cause. There is some irony in the characteriz-
ation of Friends by their hostility; for a similar trick, see Josephus, An-
tiquities 14.8. For the diasporan motif of the wicked counselors who move
the otherwise good king against the Jews, see NOTE on 4:45, Ptolemy son
of Dorymenes.
inflamed Demetrius anger even more (,). LSJ, 1524 lists

our verse alone for this verb. But the basic comparison of rage to fire is stan-
dard (see also v. 45, also, inter alia, 4:38; 9:7; 10:35).
12. Immediately selecting Nicanor. According to the continuation, which

identifies him as the former elephantarch, one might think that he is not the
same as Nicanor son of Patroclus (8:9) who played the central role in Chap-
ter 8; all the more so, given the fact that the latter is said to have learned his
lesson about fighting with Jews (8:36). Stern (Documents, 65) speculates
that this new Nicanor was the one Polybius mentions among Demetrius
friends who accompanied him from Rome; see Polybius 31.14.45 and on
v. 1, In the third year thereafter. But the similarity between the phrasing of
8:9 and that of our verse, and especially the characterization of Nicanor as
both at 8:34 and at 15:3, show that for our author, at least,
the two Nicanors are one and the same. Habicht (2 Macc 239, n. 9a),
indeed, held not only (as Stern) that this Nicanor was the one mentioned by
Polybius, but also that he was in fact identical with the one mentioned in
Chapter 8. In any case, whether true or only assumed by our author, the
identification of the two gives our book an obvious balance: Nicanor in-
vades twice and fails twice, once at the middle of the book and once at its
end, and a holiday commemorating the latter ends the book. The import-
ance of this balance, for our author, is underlined by a comparison with
1 Maccabees, where Alcimus first appeal to the king results in an invasion
not by Nicanor but, rather, by Bacchides. Our author has Nicanor sent al-
ready the first time, just as in Chapter 8 he gave Nicanor the central role
although judging by 1 Maccabees it was in fact quite secondary; see NOTE
on 8:9, Nicanor the son of Patroclus. True, Mlleken (Geschichtsklitte-
rung) tried to support 2 Maccabees version of the current story, claiming
that the story about Bacchides in 1 Maccabees 7 was a mistaken and biased
import from 1 Maccabees 9. But this is quite difficult to accept; see Bar-
Kochva, JM, 345, n. 91, in the wake of Kochabi, Sources, 289290.
governor of Judaea. Such a Seleucid position is not known from any other
source. It may have been created ad hoc for the very purpose of fighting the
Judaean rebels. See Bengtson, Strategie, 2.184, n. 2.
dispatched (-). This intensified (-) verb, which recurs in v. 27,

indicates urgency; see NOTE on 6:1, dispatched. This is the sole distinction
between this phrasing and the one employed in reference to Heliodorus
(3:7) and Nicanor the first time around (8:9).
13. letters (#). Some witnesses, followed by Abel and Habicht,

have , orders, as in 3:7 and 4:25. But whatever the reading is, the
meaning is identical; if we do not introduce orders into the text, we have
to add the equivalent in parentheses. For the use of letters in the plural,
see NOTE on 11:16, letters.
to eliminate. See NOTE on v. 2, eliminated.
and install Alcimus as the high priest. His main goal, according to v. 3. The
phrasing here, which has the elimination of Judas parallel the installation of
Alcimus as high priest, with nothing said of the unseating of any incumbent
high priest, seems to imply that Judas was serving as high priest. Nothing
like that is said in 1 Maccabees, but neither does it name any high priest at
all for the period after Judas retook Jerusalem. It is obvious, however, that
someone served as high priest, if only so as to allow for the Temple cult on
Chapter XIV 475
the holiest day of the year, the Day of Atonement, and certainly to judge by
the behavior of his brothers Judas would seem to be the likeliest candidate.
Josephus says Judas was high priest from the conquest of Jerusalem until his
death (Ant. 12.414, 419, 434). True, it is usual to reject that statement, but
mainly for the following reasons: (1) the assumption that were it so it would
have been reported in 1 Maccabees; (2) Josephus own failure to mention
Judas in his summary of the history of the high priesthood in Antiquities 20;
and (3) the assumption that Josephus simply but anachronistically as-
sumed that Judas served as high priest, as did his brothers after him. But the
silence of 1 Maccabees need not be very decisive, for the author of that work
was a partisan of Simon (see esp. 1 Macc 2:65 and Ch. 14, along with our
COMMENT on Ch. 8, p. 324) and so had good reason to ignore any com-
petition; cf. below, on v. 14, And those Gentiles near Judaea. The absence of
Judas name from the chronicle in Antiquities 20 is only one of several prob-
lems raised by that list, and may reflect no more than legitimist opposition
to Judas high priesthood. As for the notion that Josephus was simply mak-
ing an anachronistic assumption, that is of course possible, but the very fact
that Josephus is willing to write openly about there not having been any
high priest at all for four years after Judas death (Ant. 13.46) shows that he
was perfectly capable of reporting anomalous situations.3 For detailed dis-
cussion (con and pro respectively), see Wagenaar, Juda Makkabi, also
VanderKam, People and High Priesthood, 219221 and idem, From Jos-
hua to Caiaphas, 241244. And note M. O. Wise, 4Q245 (PSDAN AR)
and the High Priesthood of Judas Maccabaeus, DSD 12 (2005) 313362,
which not only introduces a fascinating (but very fragmentary) Qumran text
into the discussion but also underlines, at 357358, that different observers
may have had different views on the question.
of the Temple. This phrasing bespeaks the overlords attitude, according

to which the high priest is only a cultic figure. As we have seen, Jewish ob-
servers preferred to give the high priest a broader responsibility; see NOTE
on 3:9, high priest of the city.
greatest Temple. As in v. 31 and the authors preface (2:19).
14. And those Gentiles near Judaea. Their attitude toward the Jews is simi-
lar to that of those neighbors described at the time of Nicanors first cam-
3 Cf. Ant. 20.237, where Josephus says the city had no high priest for seven years after
Alcimus death; Judas is not mentioned.
paign (8:11), although their flight is not mentioned there or anywhere else
until now. This similarity is part of the identity of the two Nicanors, in our
authors eyes; see NOTE on v. 12, Immediately selecting Nicanor. Some
scholars have tended to think that the present verse refers not to Gentiles
but, rather like 10:15 to Jews, given the fact that the parallel at 1 Mac-
cabees 7:5 refers, in general, to Jewish villains. This suggestion is at times
also bolstered by the lack of agreement here between the masculine article
Z and the neutral noun 6 (Gentiles), which suggests that the latter
might be a gloss; see Habicht, 2 Macc, 272, n. 14a. Thus, according to this
suggestion the 6 should be excised, whether as a product of corruption
(Wellhausen, Wert, 153, n. 2) or as a mistake by the author (Katz,
Text, 17). However, such a linkage of masculine object and neutral noun
is acceptable in a construction ad sensum referring to people; for a similar
case, see NOTE on 8:9, from various peoples (there too with regard to
6), also Hanhart, Text, 33. Moreover, and decisively, the very next verse
makes it clear that the reference is to Gentiles. Accordingly, we should leave
in place the contradiction between our verse and 1 Maccabees 7:5 and
admit that our book was not interested in reporting about Jews who op-
posed Judas Maccabaeus, apart from a few scattered arch-villains; see
NOTES on v. 19, Posidonius,Theodotus and Mattathias, and 6:11, having
been informed upon.
who had fled before Judas. The very is usually transitive, mean-
ing banish, force to flee, as at 9:4; but it can also have the passive
meaning live in banishment, as in Polybius 10.22.1; see LSJ, 1959. As
Kappler shows (Memoria, 5556), the latter is close to what is required at
10:15, while in the present verse and at 5:5 what seems to be required is
simply flee. Those ancient (such as the Venetus) or modern (such as Ha-
bicht, 2 Macc, 225, n. 5a) who do not accept this as a nuance of live in
banishment are forced to emend into .
in droves. Like in v. 23; the word reflects not only the large
number but also, by the implicit comparison with herds of animals, our
authors scorn for them.
supposing. The formulation recalls that of 5:6, which similarly expresses a

scheming villains misplaced hopes.
15. the Gentiles. Mentioned in v. 14. And see NOTE on 15:8, the Gentiles
invasion.
Chapter XIV 477
strewed dirt (upon their heads). For the parenthetical supplement, see
10:25.
His own people His own portion ( ). Another allusion to

Deuteronomy 32: For Gods people is His portion (Deut 32:9; LXX:
); see Introduction, pp. 2122. It should be noted that the
threat here is conceived as one against the people, not the Land or the
Temple, just as the continuation of the biblical verse refers to Jacob being
Gods inheritance; see also our NOTE on 6:16, His own people. Com-
pare another diasporan text, 3 Macc 6:3, which, although describing a situ-
ation of Jewish suffering in exile, nevertheless persists in using Gods por-
tion of the seed of Abraham (i.e., the whole Jewish people, wherever
they may be), the descendants of Jacob. Cf. our NOTE on 2:4, viewed the
inheritance of God.
by apparition. See NOTE on 2:21, heavenly apparitions.
16. the leaders. That is, Judas. For the use of the participle Y of a
ruler see Spicq, Notes, 1.348352. In connection with the Hasmoneans,
prior to their taking of the royal title, see esp. 1 Maccabees 14:41. Cf.
NOTE on 1:13, when the leader came.
they moved out of there clashed. That is, Judas forces moved out of Je-
rusalem. The scene is similar to those at the opening of Chapter 11 and after
the resumption of hostilities in Chapter 13 (vv. 1014): the Jews sitting
peacefully in Jerusalem hear of an invasion and move north to meet it be-
fore it gets to the Holy City.
village of Dessau. If this is the place called Adasa () in 1 Macca-

bees 7:40 (and in LXX Josh 15:37), then it seems there is some more tele-
scoping here, as in fact the battle at Adasa, at which Nicanor was killed,
came only later and is narrated in Chapter 15; see NOTE on 15:19, in the
open field. But note that according to 1 Maccabees 7:31 Nicanor clashed
with Judas earlier at Kfar Shalem, which seems to have been somewhere not
far north of Jerusalem; see Bar-Kochva, JM, 356358.
17. had encountered. The use of the perfect here seems to mean that Nica-
nors decision, described in the next verse, came despite his victory in that
early encounter, thus indicating that while Nicanor had once overcome
Simon he was afraid to slug it out with Judas. This would be a fine occasion
for the author to use Simon as a foil for Judas, but he promptly rejects that:
a minor setback. Here, and in the rest of the verse, the author tries to excuse
Simon: he minimizes the extent of the setback and also explains how it oc-
curred, just as the next verse will show that no terrible consequences en-
sued. For a similar move, see NOTE on 12:25, in order to rescue their
brethren. In this light it is difficult to see here any special desire to denigrate
Simon; see our NOTE on 10:20, But Simons men .
minor appeared (, ). Text according to Risberg,

Anmerkungen, 2527, followed by Katz, Text, 17 and Habicht,
2 Macc, 273, n. 17a. For the first word they follow the Venetus and Lu-
cianic witnesses that read ; for the second evidence (such as
Polybius 1.37.5 and 3.53) for the use of in the sense of frighten-
ing appearance. Hanhart (Text, 40, 4546) stuck to ,
on the basis of the main witnesses. However it is very difficult to render
that text. Hanhart rendered the adverb as saumselig (dilatory, negli-
gent) and viewed it as expressing criticism of Simon, but then why should
the author have exerted himself to belittle the defeat? Moreover, it is diffi-
cult to agree with Hanhart that one may translate as
(aphasia, lack of ability to speak) caused by those who struggled
against them; Hanhart himself recognizes that such a translation of the
genitive is unnatural. By the same token it is difficult to accept van
Hentens translation; he adopted , retained , and trans-
lated Simon, the brother of Judas, had encountered Nicanor, but had
briefly stumbled because he was at once speechless about the enemy, ex-
plaining that apparently, the enemy embarrassed Simon for a moment
(van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 54). True, may be used figu-
ratively to represent an inability to react properly (so, in connection with
this verse: DGE 3.633), but, again, it does not seem reasonable to take the
genitive of to mean about the enemy rather than of the en-
emies. Moreover, van Hentens reading would not explain why Simon
was speechless, and it would seem that an author who meant that owes
his readers some explanation.
18. Nicanor somewhat afraid. According to 1 Maccabees 7:33 Nicanor

followed his first defeat at Judas hands at Kfar Shalem with his threat at the
Temple recorded below, v. 31ff. That is, the events narrated from here until
v. 31 are without parallel in 1 Maccabees quite naturally, for they focus on
the negotiations in good faith between Judas and Nicanor and the ensuing
friendship between the two (which meant that renewed hostility must be the
doing of the new villain, Alcimus). On this distinction between the two
books, see Introduction, pp. 4849.
Chapter XIV 479
manly valor. On see Dover, Morals, 165; Pritchett, War,

2.280283. For a similar term, ., see NOTE on 8:7, And the fame
of his manly valor
high morale. On ., another one of those fine-sounding words which

in practice mean courage (see the list above, p. 70), see Mauersberger,
PL, 1.1052. Cf. NOTE on 7:20, exceedingly amazing and worthy of being
remembered well.
19. Posidonius, Theodotus and Mattathias. Given their names, it is clear

that the third was Jewish and likely that the second was as well (see NOTE
on 12:19, Dositheus and Sosipater ). But our author makes no comment
on this; as noted above (v. 14, And those Gentiles near Judaea), he does not
like to discuss Jews who supported the Seleucids against their fellow Jews.
to give and take the right hand. I.e., to agree; see NOTE on 4:34, giving him
his right hand.
20. After thorough inquiries were made. The rest of the verse seems to in-
dicate that there was considerable deliberation as to whether or not to ac-
cept the proffered agreement, a positive and unanimous decision being
reached only after Judas gave explanations. No detail is given concerning
the considerations, but we may assume that they pertained both to the
terms of the agreement and to the more general question, both political and
theological (see NOTE on 11:15, Maccabaeus, giving thought to the bene-
fit), of the propriety of making any agreement at all with the foreign power.
the leader. Judas, as in v. 16.
had shared the matter. As above, 13:13. But there the consultation was with
the elders, here with the entire army. For such deliberations in Hellenistic
armies, see Granier, Heeresversammlung.
the multitudes. For the senses of A, see NOTE on 3:21, community.
The use of the plural, here, seems to reflect the size of the army; see too v. 41.
unanimous (). The word does not appear in LSJ, but is similar
to $. It derives from A, the small stone used for voting; cf.
NOTE on 6:8, a decree. On the praxis of such votes and the fiction that they
were unanimous, see Granier, Heeresversammlung, 56, with references to
Curtius 6.11.8, 7.2.7 and 9.3.16.
approved. See NOTE on 4:10, royal approval.
the covenants. As usual, our author gives no details; perhaps v. 26 implies

that Judas received the high priesthood (see Appendix 9). In any case, the
term A implies a certain parity between the sides; see NOTE on
12:1, these covenants. This is reflected in the phrasing of the next verse too:
21. together (0 ( /2). The phrase recalls Acts 2:47 ( 9 .),
which in turn may reflect the Qumran usage of yahad; see D. R. Schwartz,
Non-Joining Sympathizers (Acts 5,1314), Bib 64 (1983) 554.
from each side. Emphasizing the diplomatic parity. For a similar case, cf. Jo-
sephus, Antiquities 18.102.
a litter came forward; they arranged chairs (A 6

). Some staccato style runs from here until the end of v. 22. As op-
posed to Chapter 13 (where there is much more of it), however, here no reason
is apparent. See Introduction, pp. 3435. Translation: I rendered
litter, as Abel and Zeitlin; others render chariot (so Bvenot, Habicht,
Goldstein, RSV), which is possible, but note that our author prefers >
for chariot (9:7; 13:2). In any case, these translations distinguish between
this and the chairs that were also arranged. However, given the fact that Ni-
canor and Judas were to speak together privately, it is not at all clear why
litters (or chariots) should have been brought up from each side if also chairs
were arranged. Abel (Macc, 462463) supposes that what is meant is that
Nicanor and Judas each arrived in litters, alighted from them and sat in
chairs that had been brought for them. That is of course possible, but one
wishes the book itself had offered this explanation; and if its failure to do so
is because of the brevity of the narrative here, then we wonder why it should
tell us all these logistical details altogether. Moreover, there is something
suspicious about the juxtaposition of such similar words. Accordingly, given
the facts that (a poetic form of ), which is a relatively rare
term, can mean not only chariot or litter but also chair, couch or
the like (see LSJ, 438; Mauersberger, PL, 2.558), it seems likely that 6
is only a gloss explaining A . For a similar sug-
gestion, note that instead of 6 the Lucianic text4
4 On which see Kappler, Memoria, 4344. Note that the Lucianic text prepares the way
for eliminating the chariots and the chairs by taking A to mean Judas came
forward; indeed, the statement that the chariots came forward, rather than were
Chapter XIV 481
reads 6 (they set us special enclosures), re-

placing the chariots and chairs with enclosures, meant to afford privacy
and protection. Kappler (Memoria, 44) assumes this indicates Lucian did
not understand the term , and therefore replaced it with something
else; this is similar to our suggestion, above, that others who did understand
meant chair, or thought that was so, chose to gloss it with a more
common term for chairs.
22. something villainous. For an emphasis on the element of deception and

trickery indicated by , see Spicq, Notes, 1.398, n. 1.
they held the appropriate (42) discussion. That is, they discussed
whatever was relevant to their circumstances; so Risberg, Anmerkungen,
27, following Polybian usage. See Mauerberger, PL 1.224225 and 3 Mac-
cabees 1:19.
23. did nothing out of place (.). The word is common enough; see
for example Mauersberger, PL, 1.251. Nevertheless, it is especially appro-
priate here, with regard to appropriate behavior in Jerusalem; for Jerusalem
as the topos par excellence, see 3:2, 5:19 and 13:23. For the formulation, cf.
Philo, Legatio 297.
and disbanded the herd-like (). See NOTE on v. 14, in droves.

For a defense of the text here, see Habicht, 2 Macc, 274, n. 23a.
multitudes. I.e., the Palestinian Gentiles who had joined him, according to
v. 14.
24. his soul was drawn to the man. According to 1 Maccabees 7:2630, in
contrast, Nicanors intentions were treacherous from the outset, and his
agreement with him a mere ploy. Each authors version suits his purposes
well: for 1 Maccabees Gentiles are always hostile, only nave fools think
brought forward, is somewhat strange (and Grimm, 2 Macc, 197, indeed insists that
Judas is the subject of the verb which corresponds to the fact that he makes no ref-
erence to the chariots). Given the failure of our verse to mention Judas name, that
understanding of A goes hand in hand with the Lucianic reading of 6(),
in the singular (instead of the better-testified ), at the outset of the verse.
However, this reading has only Judas going forward to the meeting, whereas the par-
ity implied by 0 makes us expect to hear that both parties came for-
ward.
otherwise (1 Macc 7:1218), and only the Hasmoneans can save the Jews.
Our author, in contrast, assumes that good subject-ruler relations between
the Jews and Gentiles are the rule and that only isolated villains, on one side
or the other, cause difficulties. See Introduction, pp. 4849. Here, when Ni-
canor has the opportunity not only to hear of Judas manly valor (v. 18)
but also to get to know him personally, our author has a showpiece for his
optimistic picture.
25. to marry and to father children. Nicanor sounds somewhat like Jere-
miah (take wives, father boys and girls and seek the peace of the
city Jer 29:57); that is the foundation of diasporan life, and the re-
sult, for Judaea, is indeed an idyll of peace and quiet, until the next verse.
That Judas married and had children is not said in 1 Maccabees or any-
where else. But in and of itself it is natural and reasonable, and just as
understandable that, if true, the author of 1 Maccabees would pass over it
in silence, for any children of Judas would be well-placed competitors of
Simon and his sons; see NOTE on v. 13, and install Alcimus However,
if Judas indeed married only at Nicanors suggestion, which came only in
the course of 162/161, then Judas who was to die within a year
(1 Macc 9:3) could hardly have seen any children (and, indeed, our text
does not say he did). In any case, the main point of our text is to portray
the idyll between the two men, and thus to set us up for the next stage; cf.
3:13 and 12:1.
he married, settled down, partook of life. The last instance of the mysteri-
ous staccato in our book, and the only case, it seems, in which it might be
acceptable as an emphatic phrasing la veni, vidi, vinci; see p. 35, n. 73.
For partook of life ( ) see Polybius 12.25h.5: just as only
he who has participated in wars should write about them, so too only he
who has fathered children and lived with a wife should write about life.
See too 3 Maccabees 4:6: 9 (for marital
partnership in life).
26. But (). For such a heavy renewal of the story after an idyll, see also
3:4, 12:2, and above, v. 3.
hostilely-minded toward the state (2 * #,). Same

phrasing: 4:21.
appointed (-). For this verb, see NOTE on 9:14, proclaim.

Chapter XIV 483
his successor (#). As we have noted it seems that, true or not, this
means that Nicanor had appointed Judas to replace Alcimus as high priest;
see Appendix 9.
27. The king lost his temper. As at 7:3, 39.
immediately to dispatch. The adverb explains the intensive form of the

verb; see NOTE on v. 12, dispatched.
in chains. In the previous round Nicanor had been ordered to eliminate

Judas (v. 13). Now, apparently, having seen what that came to, the king is
not willing to content himself with hearing a report from Nicanor; he wants
to see to the elimination of Judas himself.
28. he was disconcerted. This too might be an echo of Esther (3:15: when
the good people of Susa heard of the decree to destroy the Jews, they were
disconcerted); see NOTE on v. 6, to attain stability. See also 3 Macca-
bees 3:8: there too good Gentiles are in dismay about the decision to perse-
cute the Jews, and Philo, Legatio 209, where Petronius is at a total loss (0
g) when ordered by Gaius to defile the Temple of Jerusalem
(which is of course natural, given the fact that Petronius was naturally kind
and gentle 243). Cf. below, NOTE on v. 33, this sacred enclosure of
God.
annulling the instructions. I.e., those made in fulfillment of his agreement

with Judas; cf. NOTE on 13:25, to annul the instructions.
the man (2) had done nothing unjust. And therefore, as all men, was
entitled to fair treatment; cf. NOTE on 4:35, of the man.
29. it was impossible (/ I). For this formulation, cf. 3:21.
to oppose the king. The author continues to defend Nicanor, all the more to
denigrate Alcimus.
sought an appropriate opportunity ( ). In defense of

this unusual formulation against suggestions to emend it (Wilhelm, Zu
einigen Stellen, 28; Katz, Text, 1617), Hanhart (Text, 32) cites
such similar expressions as . at Luke 22:6. See above,
p. 96.
stratagem (). This is one of the best-loved words in Hellen-

istic military vocabulary. Note, for example, Frontinus work entitled Stra-
tegmata, also Polybius 3.18.9; 5.47.4; 11.22.1; Wheeler, Stratagem.
30. But Maccabaeus, seeing. For such reflection of a characters consider-

ations see NOTE on 2:24, For having seen. Note that the formulation here
does not reflect that of Genesis 31:2 a passage which would surely occur
to any author who liked to imitate biblical style. Our author had no such
concern; see Introduction, p. 63.
coarser (2). Literally: more rustic, more boorish, the oppo-

site of urbane; see NOTE on 6:23, honorable argument. See also NOTES
on 15:2, wildly and barbarically, and on 15:39, wine by itself; O. Ribbeck,
Agroikos: Eine ethologische Studie (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1885).
than usual (0
). See NOTE on 4:11, practices.
31. out-stratagemized (). As usual, our author enjoys re-

peating words for rhetorical effect: Nicanor came with stratagem and was
defeated by stratagem. Cf. NOTE on 7:39, suffering bitterly, also 9:1718,
11:2/11:4, 15:67.
with aplomb (,). Lit. nobly; compare English with class. On

this word-family in our book, see NOTE on 6:28, noble nobly.
the greatest and holy Temple. As in v. 13 and the introduction (2:19).
the appropriate sacrifices. Whatever they may be; our author cares no more
about them than about the specifics of the holy vessels stolen according
to 5:16. According to 1 Maccabees 7:33 the priests were actually involved
in sacrificing on behalf of the king, and even explained that to Nicanor, but
it did not help a point which makes it all the more clear, as that author
would have it, that there was no chance of conciliation between the two
sides; the same point is made, in a bloodier way, ibid. vv. 1218. None of
that appears here, of course.
to hand the man over. Plain usually refers to turning one over
to some bad fate, as here; see NOTE on 1:17, handed over.
33. he extended his right hand toward the Sanctuary. This is likely an echo
of Isaiah 10:32, which speaks of the king of Assyria, Sennacherib, who
Chapter XIV 485
shook his hand at the mountain of the house/daughter of Zion, the hill
of Jerusalem. For the Jewish understanding of invaders of Judaea as latter-
day Sennacheribs, see NOTE on 8:19, Sennacherib, and H. & E. Eshel,
4Q448, Psalm 154 (Syriac), Sirach 48:20, and 4QpISAa, JBL 119 (2000)
645659. Note the specific reference to the Temple Mount in the present
context in 1 Maccabees 7:33. Note too that rabbinic references to Nicanors
threat to the Temple rely on the same verse from Isaiah (scholion to Megillat
Taanit to 13 Adar [ed. Noam, 298] and b. Taanit 18b; note their use of
vdy [ynm , which recalls Isaiahs diction), as does also 4QpIsaa (see Eshel loc.
cit., 652653). For our author, Nicanors hand functions both as the an-
tithesis of those of the priests (v. 34), and of God (15:24), and, eventually, as
the focus of the tit for tat response (15:30, 32).
this sacred enclosure of God. Nicanor is portrayed as recognizing the places

sanctity but as nonetheless bound to fulfill the royal command. Note, in this
connection, that when referring to the enclosure Nicanor is made to use
, which appears only here in the Septuagint, and not the more usual
, which our book uses three times (1:15, 10:2, 11:3) but only for
pagan shrines. That is, even now our author has Nicanor as considerate as
possible of Jewish sensitivities; the same recurs later in this verse as well (see
NOTE on destroy the altar). Cf. above, NOTE on v. 28, he was disconcerted.
to the ground. A standard threat; cf. NOTE on 8:3, leveled to the ground.
destroy the altar ((

#,). Here, the noun Nicanor
uses is not only not one typically used (as enclosure just above) for pagan
institutions; it is, in fact, used by Jews (and Christians) alone; cf. NOTE on
2:19, the altar. The verb is the same as at Deuteronomy 12:3, but since the
Hebrew there uses bamot, and the Septuagint uses , the differentiat-
ing here is all the clearer.
a magnificent temple to Dionysus. On the cult of Dionysus, and doubts

about its historicity in this context, see Appendix 5. Magnificent here is
; for the translation see NOTE on 6:23, magnificent. By ending his
threatening speech this way, Nicanor offers readers of the book, who are by
now entitled to expect both divine apparitions () and tit for tat
poetic justice, a hint about how to imagine this story coming to a happy end.
34. extending their hands toward heaven. For this typical gesture of prayer,
see NOTE on 3:20, hands stretched out to heaven. The two camps are
poised directly opposite one another: here the villain, there the chorus of the
righteous. He stuck out his hand in arrogance and they in petition; he to

the Temple, but they to heaven, knowing that the Temple enjoys heavenly
protection (3:39). Note especially the neatly contrasted use of in
vv. 3334: both spoke as follows, but he, arrogantly, swore, in full de-
pendence upon himself, while they, in humility, only said what they had
to say, to God. See Introduction, p. 76.
our people. Apart from the ruminations at 6:1216, which are a well-de-
fined aside, this seems to be the only place in which the author explicitly
identifies himself as a Jew.
35. although. For the use of such a concessive phrase with 3, com-
pare Acts 16:20, 37 (although we are Jews, although we are not Ro-
mans) along with D. R. Schwartz, The Accusation and the Accusers at
Philippi (Acts 16,2021), Bib 65 (1984) 360362.
You are not in need of anything. The words recall those of Solomons prayer
at the dedication of the Temple (1 Kgs 8:27) and his letter to Hiram
(2 Chr 2:5), but the term seems to be typical specifically of Hel-
lenistic Jews; see 3 Maccabees 2:9 (in a similar context), Letter of Aristeas
210; Josephus, Antiquities 8.111; Acts 17:25; etc.; Grtner, Areopagus
Speech, 215218. It is characteristic of the difference between the two
books that the parallel at 1 Maccabees 7:37, which too has the priests pray-
ing after Nicanors threat, has them neither raise their hands toward heaven
nor say anything qualifying the importance of the Temple.
Your tenting (,). This term appears only here in the Septuagint. It
seems to have been created so as to emphasize that God does not really
reside in the Temple, just as the Bible itself frequently takes care to say that
God only is present in it or causes His name to be present in it; the ver-
bal similarity of the Greek root to the Hebrew skn may have played a role.
For our books diasporan emphasis on Gods residence being in heaven, and
comparison to Stephens speech in Acts 7 (which insists in vv. 4450 that
Gods was once in the Tabernacle, but not in the Temple), see
NOTE on 3:39, residence in heaven, and above, p. 47.
36. And now (3 ). Here is the transition from the whereas clause to
the petition itself; so too at 1:6 (see NOTE ibid. on And now) and 15:23,
also e.g. Numbers 14:17, Nehemiah 9:32, 1 Chronicles 17:23 and 29:13;
3 Maccabees 6:9; Josephus, Antiquities 4.43; Acts 4:29; CII, no. 358, l. 2,
etc. See also Van der Horst, Hellenistic Parallels, 150.
Chapter XIV 487
preserve forever undefiled. The use of implies something broader

than the avoidance of merely ritual impurity; see NOTE on 5:16, abomin-
able hands. Our author has mentioned various villains who have already
defiled the Temple, one way or another, and were punished (on Jason,
Menelaus, and Antiochus Epiphanes see, 4:19, 5:16, 7:34, and 9:13), and
use of the same word here therefore encourages the reader to believe that the
priests prayer will indeed be answered. So too, when this final round of our
books story ends the author will demonstratively reuse the present phrasing
so as to highlight the fact that the prayer was in fact answered (15:34).
only recently has been purified. A fact which would make its defilement
even worse; see NOTE on 13:11, only shortly before revived its spirit.
37. Someone informed. The Greek avoids the name by using a verb in the
passive (), just as at 6:11; the informers identity is not important to
the story. Moreover, if as is likely he was a Jew, our author, who prefers
to present the Jews as unified, apart from a few bad apples, would not like
to tell us. See Introduction, 4950, 7475.
Razis. The origin of this name is not clear. See Goldstein, 2 Macc, 491492;
Hanhart, Text, 4748, n. 1; R. Zadok, On the Post-Biblical Jewish Onom-
asticon and Its Background, in: Kasher & Oppenheimer, Dor Le-Dor, v (in
English); Ilan, Lexicon, 354. Goldstein and Zadok suggest an Iranian ori-
gin. However, since there is no other evidence for the use of this name by
Jews, Goldstein went on to suggest that the name was chosen so as to allude
to Isaiah 24:16 ( I pine away, I pine away [razi li, razi li] ); the text
goes on to speak of someone who flees from one source of danger only to
fall into another, but also perhaps of resurrection. Both of the latter
themes would be appropriate to Razis story.
one of the elders of Jerusalem. This probably means not merely that he was
old, but, rather, that he was a member of Jerusalems gerousia, last heard
from in 13:13; see also NOTE on v. 38, had brought in a decision. For
in the sense of member of city council see Schrer, History,
3/1,102. However, the statement there about the lack of early evidence for
such a title in Jewish communities should now be corrected on the basis of a
fragmentary papyrus of the second century BCE that refers to the Jewish
elders (as well as the Jewish archons) in one or two places in Egypt; see
Griechische Urkundenpapyri der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek, I (Stuttgart
1986), no. 49, pp. 810 (D. Hagedorn); van der Horst, Philos Flaccus,
168169.
a man who loved his fellow-citizens (). This term appears in

the Septuagint only here, and surprisingly enough LSJ (1938) offers no
earlier evidence for it. As for the orientation around the polis that it be-
speaks, see Introduction, pp. 67.
Father of the Jews. For this type of honorific title cf. parens plebis
Romanae (Livy 6.14.5); van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 2067; A. Al-
fldi, Der Vater des Vaterlandes im rmischen Denken (Darmstadt: Wis-
senschaftliche, 1971); for Greek notions of the ruler as father, see ibid.
118121 (= MH 11 [1954] 139142).
38. times of strife. That is, during the decrees; see NOTE on v. 3, in the
times of strife. Razis conduct is presented as the opposite of Alcimus.
had brought in a decision ( 0) for Judaism. On Ju-

daism see NOTE on 2:21, for Judaism. What these words mean is not at
all clear. Risberg (Anmerkungen, 3031) linked them to elder, which
he took to mean member of the gerousia, and concluded that Razis had
published its decisions in support of Judaism; perhaps he was its scribe. But
Risberg read decisions in the plural; there is no support for that, and so
his interpretation is very difficult to maintain. Another path is taken by
Abel and Goldstein ad loc., followed by van Henten (Martyrs, 93): building
on the judicial sense of krisis, they translate as if Razis had been tried for
having practiced Judaism. This is possible, but apart from being less than
natural it also leaves open (as Goldstein notes 2 Macc, 492) the weighty
question as to why, if tried, Razis did not meet the same fate as those of
Chapters 67. It cannot be that our author would have wanted us to start
suspecting some dishonorable story here, but that would seem to be inevi-
table if we adopt that interpretation. In sum, it seems best to assume that all
we have here is a fancy way of saying that Razis had himself decided for
Judaism.
and with complete intensity. The author loves with complete formu-
lations; see NOTE on 3:1, in complete peace.
body and soul. A typically Greek and non-Hebraic dyad, that also appears
here at 6:30 and 15:30; see also NOTE on 7:9, raise us up and on 7:16, al-
though you are bound to perish. Here the dual phrasing prepares the reader
for their separation in the immediate sequel. Compare, for example, the
first section of Eleazar ben Yairs second speech at Masada, which is de-
voted to proving that it is good for the soul to separate itself from the body
Chapter XIV 489
(Josephus, War 7.341357); on the Greek background, see M. Luz, Elea-

zars Second Speech on Masada and Its Literary Precedents, RhM n. F. 126
(1983) 2543.
39. more than 500 soldiers. The next verse will explain why he needed so
many.
40. For he thought to cause them suffering by arresting him. Which is why
such a large force was used. We have translated according to Hanharts
text. Abel (Macc, 468) and Goldstein (2 Macc, 493494) have suggested,
on the basis of secondary witnesses, to read here, instead (Abel) or along-
side (Goldstein) of by arresting, the verb h or the like (cf.
NOTE on 12:24, for whom no one would show any consideration). This
would mean that Nicanor wanted to demonstrate his lack of consideration
for Razis (Goldstein) or his desire to make him disappear (Abel). One way
or another, and with or without such clarification, the verse explains that
such a large force was needed because it was expected that the arrest of
such an important Jew would arouse grief, and so perhaps unrest, among
the Jews.
41. When the hordes. Nicanors 500 men.
42. wanting to die nobly (/*) his own dignity (/) out-
raged (
). So too the next verse as well (). Razis, as
Eleazar before him (6:2425), wants to be assured that his death will not
fall short of his life nor leave any stain on his good name. But while Eleazar
let others kill him, here being killed by others is itself considered to be de-
filing, so Razis must kill himself. On suicide as honorable see Eckstein,
Moral Vision, 4054, and A. J. L. van Hooff, From Autothanasia to Sui-
cide: Self-Killing in Classical Antiquity (London & New York: Routledge,
1990), esp. 107120 on suicide so as to avoid humiliation. For the formu-
lation here, cf. the end of Eleazar ben Yairs first speech at Masada, which
emphasizes that that which he proposes will allow the women to die un-
defiled ( War 7.334).
unseemly (-,). Razis, as Eleazar, chose to die in a seemly way; see

NOTE on 6:27, worthy (.-) of old age.
43. did not manage to place the sword-stroke well. Van Henten (Martyrs,
145150) aptly compares to this account those of the suicide of Menoeceus,
according to Euripides Phoenician Women, Statius Thebais, and other ver-
sions. Menoeceus, who died for the salvation of his city, first tried to kill
himself by a sword-thrust (Euripides, ll. 10901092; Statius 10.774776),
and when that failed he hurled himself down amongst the enemys lines
(Statius, ll. 778779) and then indeed died. For the comparison of Eur-
ipides and Statius versions, see D. W. T. C. Vessey, Menoeceus in the The-
baid of Statius, CP 66 (1971) 236243. On that storys importance for
ours, see Introduction, p. 65.
manfully (,*). Same adverb: 1 Maccabees 6:31. But the notion is

well at home in our book; see NOTE on v. 18, manly valor.
flung himself down (). This too appears in the Menoeceus

story; see our NOTE on this verse, did not manage For the motif else-
where in classical stories of those who killed themselves for something,
see Van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 145. See also NOTE on 6:10, flung
them down.
44. he landed in the midst. Compare Statius, Thebais, ll. 778779, on Me-
noeceus: super medias acies iecit.
45. burning up in rage. For this image, see NOTE on v. 11, inflamed Deme-
trius anger.
his blood flowing like a fountain (2). An excellent example of

pathetic historiography; see p. 79. For the same word and picture, but in
the gloating account of the well-deserved death of a villain, see Philo, In
Flaccum 190. Van Henten (Martyrs, 149150) noted the special emphasis
upon blood in the story of Menoeceus too; it may have contributed to its
role in our story too. For the Jewish background of this emphasis, see
NOTE on 8:3, blood which was calling out.
46. calling upon the ruler to return them. For the belief in bodily resur-
rection expressed here, see NOTES on 7:9, raise us up and on 12:43, resur-
rection.
life and spirit. The same duality as in 7:2223, although there reversed.
he passed away. But of course, as appropriate for someone who may ex-
pect resurrection, he did not pass out of life (4:7) or leave life behind
(10:13); see NOTE on 7:14, pass away from among men.
Chapter XIV 491
Bibliography

van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 116119.
Kochabi, Sources.
Mlleken,Geschichtsklitterung.
Wagenaar, Juda Makkabi.
Chapter XV
On the Way to the Final Showdown
(1) Nicanor, upon receiving notice that Judas men were in the vicinity of
Samaria, determined to attack them in complete security on the day of rest.
(2) When those Jews who had been forced to come along with him said,
You should not at all be so wildly and barbarically destructive; rather, give
honor to the day which has been most honored with sanctity by Him who
oversees all, (3) the thrice-accursed man inquired, Is there a ruler in
heaven who decreed the celebration of the Sabbath day? (4) When they de-
clared, Yes the living Lord, He, the ruler in heaven, is the one who com-
manded the observance of the seventh day, (5) he said: And I, ruler on the
earth, am he who decrees that you take up arms and carry out the royal
commissions. Nevertheless, he did not successfully carry out his abomin-
able design.
(6) And so Nicanor, on the one hand, his neck outstretched in complete
pretence, set his mind upon erecting a common trophy (celebrating his vic-
tory over) Judas men. (7) But Maccabaeus, on the other hand, was with-
out letup in his total faith, with complete hope that assistance would be
made available to them by the Lord, (8) and encouraged his men not to fear
the Gentiles invasion, keeping rather in their mind the saving acts from
heaven which had been done for them in the past and the present expec-
tation of victory that the All-Ruler would supply them. (9) Reassuring
them out of the Law and the prophets, and also reminding them of the
struggles which they had accomplished, he brought them to a better
morale. (10) Then, after awakening their fervor he exhorted them also
by pointing to the Gentiles faithlessness and their violation of oaths.
(11) Each one of them he armed not with the security that comes from
shields and spears, but with the encouragement of the good words, and by
setting out before them a dream (he had had) which was more trustworthy
than anything else he gladdened them all.
Chapter XV 493
Judas Maccabaeus Dream
(12) Its appearance was as follows: Onias the former high priest, a fine
and good man who received others humbly, was mild-mannered and a
proper conversationalist and since childhood had always devoted himself
to all that pertains to virtue having stretched out his hands was praying
down for the entire Jewish corps. (13) Thereupon appeared a man of dis-
tinguished gray hair and grandeur, about whom there was a preeminence
which was somehow amazing and most magnificent. (14) And after Onias
responded, saying, This lover of his brethren who offers many prayers
for the people and the Holy City is Jeremiah, the prophet of God, (15)
Jeremiah, stretching out his right hand to give Judas a golden broads-
word, addressed him as follows while handing it over: (16) Take this
holy broadsword as a gift from God, with which you shall shatter the en-
emies.
(17) Encouraged by Judas words, which were very fine and capable of
propelling (his men) to virtue and making men out of the souls of youths,
they decided not to tarry but, rather, to throw themselves nobly into battle
and with all manly valor interweaving themselves among (the enemy)
to settle the matter, due to the danger facing the city, the holy things and
the Temple. (18) For fear for their wives and children, also brothers and
other kin, weighed upon them in smaller measure; greatest and first was
their fear for the Sanctuary which had been made holy. (19) And among
those who had been left behind in the city too there was no merely margi-
nal distress, for they were upset about the (upcoming) assault in the open
field.
Judas Maccabaeus Prayer
(20) And while they were all expecting the coming decision, and the enemies
had already come together, and the army had been arrayed and the beasts
had been stationed in an opportune place and the cavalry had been posted
in the wings, (21) Maccabaeus seeing the arrival of the hordes, the diver-
sity of weapons with which they were equipped, and the wildness of the
beasts raised up his hands toward heaven and called upon the miracle-
working Lord, for he knew that it was not through weapons, but, rather, ac-
cording to how He deems, that victory is secured for them who deserve it.
(22) And calling upon Him he spoke in the following manner: You, O Sov-
ereign, sent out Your angel in the days of King Hezekiah of Judah, and he
killed about 185,000 men in the camp of Sennacherib. (23) And now, Ruler
of the heavens, send a good angel before us (to inspire in our enemies) fear
and trembling. (24) Let those who come with blasphemy against Your holy
people be terrified by Your great arm. And he, on the one hand, finished
up with those words.
The Final Battle
(25) Then Nicanors men, on the other hand, moved forward accompanied
by trumpets and war-songs, (26) and Judas men, accompanied by in-
vocations and prayers, clashed with the enemies. (27) And while fighting
with their hands, in their hearts they were praying to God, and they laid low
no fewer than 35,000 of them, having been gladdened greatly by the ap-
pearance of God.
Nicanors Corpse and Nicanors Day
(28) Withdrawing in joy when the job was done, they identified the fallen
Nicanor together with his armor. (29) There ensued outcry and tumult, and
they blessed the Ruler in the ancestral language. (30) And he who with his
whole body and soul had taken the lead in the struggle on behalf of his fel-
low citizens, and who still maintained his youthful goodwill toward the
members of his people, ordered them to cut off Nicanors head and hand,
together with the shoulder, and to bring them to Jerusalem. (31) When he
arrived there he first called together the members of his people and had the
priests stand before the altar; then he sent for the people of the Akra.
(32) After showing them the abominable Nicanors head and the blasphem-
ers hand, which he had stretched out when boasting against the holy house
of the All-Ruler, (33) cutting the tongue of the impious Nicanor out of his
head he said to give it piecemeal to the birds, and to hang up his arms of
folly opposite the Sanctuary. (34) And turning toward heaven they all
blessed the God who had become manifest, saying, Blessed be He who pre-
served His own Place undefiled! (35) And he fastened Nicanors torso to
the Akra, as visible proof for all of the Lords assistance. (36) And they all
decided, in a decree made in common, 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 Mor-
dechais Day.
Chapter XV 495
Authors Conclusion
(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. (38) And if it is proper and to the point
in its formulation, that is what I wanted; but if it is cheap and middling, that
is what I could attain. (39) For just as it is inimical to drink wine by itself, so
too is it with water; but the same way that wine mixed with water makes for
pleasure, delight and gratification, so too does something of the (proper)
construction of an account bring delight to the ears of them who read the
composition.
So let the end be here.
COMMENT
Having completed the Razis narrative the story reverts to Nicanors search
for Judas. The Razis story not only illustrated how bad things might get, but
also, as it were, allowed Judas and his men time to relocate to Samaria and
Nicanor time to hear of that.1 Thus, the stage has been set for the final
showdown, which is precisely what the present chapter describes.
The Razis story prepares our chapter in another more fundamental way
as well. Namely, just as readers know that the martyrdoms of Chapters 67
prepared the way for the victory over Nicanor in Chapter 8, so too when
reading the story of Razis, which is introduced right after his threats to
Judas and the Temple, they should realize that it will allow for a successful
resolution of that crisis. Such readers will come to Chapter 15 on the basis
of expectations built on Chapter 8, and they will not be disappointed.
Indeed, the author gives us many signals that Chapter 15 should be read
as a second, but more final, version of Chapter 8. Both describe head-on
clashes between Judas forces and Nicanors; both portray the Jewish
anxiety, prayers, and motivational speeches even citing the same biblical
precedent prior to the actual fighting; both term Nicanor thrice-ac-
cursed; and both end in his defeat. The major difference between the two
chapters, made all the more salient by their general similarity, is that Nica-
nor himself escaped the first clash and so all the Jews could do was hope
1 For a similar move (the way the martyrdom stories allow Judas time to get organized
between 5:27 and 8:1), see NOTE on 6:18, was being forced.
that this beginning of grace would come to complete fruition (8:29),

whereas this time Nicanor is killed, his body is demonstratively dismem-
bered and displayed, and a holiday is established to commemorate the
event which is taken to mean the final salvation of Jerusalem, hence allow-
ing the author to conclude his entire narrative.
Historically, it is enough to note that the chapter parallels the last twelve
verses of 1 Maccabees 7, which too end up with Nicanor dead and decapi-
tated and Judaea enjoying peace. Typically, that account gives us geographi-
cal details, about the location of the battle (v. 39) and the rout following it
(v. 45), but there are no real contradictions apart, of course, from the basic
fact that our book considers this victory final whereas 1 Maccabees, which
has a much longer story to tell, concludes its account here by noting that the
peace and quiet achieved by the victory were to last only for a few days
(7:50).
NOTES
15:1. Nicanor, upon receiving notice. A usual way to resume the narrative,
as in Chapters 13 and 14.
Samaria. This verse supports the view that the wilderness mentioned as a
refuge in 1 Maccabees 2:29 was in Samaria; see NOTE on 5:27, fled to the
mountains.
in complete security. The same phrase appears at 3:22, but there the hope
was in a good cause and was ultimately justified, whereas here the opposite
is the case.
on the day of rest. Yet another way of referring to the Sabbath, alongside
Sabbath (5:25, 6:6 etc.) and seventh day (v. 4 and 6:11); for such vari-
ation, cf. p. 68. Here it is evident that Nicanor thought that the Jews would
not defend themselves, or at least would not be well-prepared for battle, if
attacked on the Sabbath. Its sanctity, and Jewish unwillingness to fight on
it, are underscored often in our book; see NOTE on 5:25, pretended.
2. Jews who had been forced to come along with him. At face value, the ref-
erence is to Jews who had been conscripted into service. Some scholars pre-
ferred to imagine that it refers to loyalist Jews who willingly joined Nica-
nors force, and assume that our author is hiding the truth; so for example,
Wellhausen, Wert, 153, n. 2; Bar-Kochva, JM, 489; Meyer, Ursprung,
Chapter XV 497
245. (This is similar to what was suggested earlier concerning 6:11 and
14:14; see NOTE on 14:14, And those Gentiles near Judaea). Building on
that hypothesis and contributing his own additional assumption that Nica-
nor had relatively few troops at his disposal (see NOTE on v. 27, no fewer
than 35,000), Meyer further supposed that Nicanor in fact relented and did
not attack Judas on the Sabbath. But all of this runs counter to the plain
wording of the text, and also requires us to assume that loyalist Jews who
willingly supported the Seleucid cause nevertheless took the Sabbath so seri-
ously that they would allow it to interfere with military operations. That as-
sumption was impossible for our author, if not for us.
You should not at all be destructive. Some would translate as if they

called upon Nicanor not to ruin the Jews; so Abel and Goldstein, who both
use massacre. But it seems better to take it to mean that he should not de-
stroy himself, as if they were looking out for his well-being; cf. 7:1718.
wildly and barbarically. The former, , implies something like

beastly, like in v. 21. For its use in regard to people, note both
its linkage here with barbaric and its verbal similarity to 5,
both of which lead us to a familiar characterization of villains; see NOTE
on 14:30, coarser.
Him who oversees all ( # *). A frequent motif in our

book; see NOTE on 3:39, watches over (with reference to CII, no. 725).
3. thrice-accursed man. Nicanors title in 8:34 too. This colorful term

will signal to the attentive reader that this chapter should be read on
the background of Chapter 8 (see our opening COMMENT). It is also
one of the main pillars of our assumption that the author took both
Nicanors to be one and the same; see NOTE on 14:12, Immediately
selecting Nicanor.
Is there a ruler in heaven. (0 K /9 #). We read, des-

pite Hanhart, according to those witnesses which leave ruler anarthrous,
for Nicanor is denying the existence of any such ruler; as is noted by Ha-
bicht (2 Macc, 277, n. 3b) and Goldstein (2 Macc, 495), a definite article
would spoil the sense. For a question in direct speech beginning with +, see
NOTE on 7:7, Will you eat.
who decreed (1). Just as ruler, so too the verb indicates the
comparison to a human king; cf. NOTE on 7:30, decree of the king
4. declared (,). A very formal response, just as at the other

occurrence of this verb: 6:23. The formality of the response is also reflected
in its length, in its repetition of the terms of the question (ruler in
heaven), and in its abstention from the use of and between its clauses.
the living Lord. For this standard epithet, see NOTE on 7:33, living Lord.
5. And I, ruler on the earth (1 # 3 ). Here, with

no kid-gloves, is the villains hybris-full challenge. In this final chapter of the
book there will be no ambiguities, nor any authorial joking of the type
found in Chapter 9. For other Jewish portrayals of similar challenges, see
Judith 6:2, where Holofernes, the Assyrian commander, asks rhetorically
Who is God apart from Nebuchadnezzar?!, and Psalms of Solomon
2:2930, where a Jewish writer gloatingly writes of Pompey: He said, I
shall be the lord of the earth and the sea! and did not recognize that God is
the great one, the powerful one in His great strength; He is king over the
heavens and judges kings and rulers.
royal commissions. On see NOTE on 7:24, commissions.
he did not successfully carry out. As is usual in the second half of the book,
the author allays our fears in advance; cf. 8:11; 9:4, 18; and 11:4.
6. And so Nicanor, on the one hand. As with Heliodorus (3:2223), so too

here the camps are set against each other, as if on a stage; see Introduc-
tion, p. 76. This verse opens a circle; for its closing, see NOTE on v. 24, And
he, on the one hand. Cf. NOTE on 3:22, on the one hand, and on 14:34, ex-
tending their hands toward heaven. But within the larger circle there is also
an internal opposition, between Nicanor, who (as Antiochus 9:8) came in
complete pretence, and Judas, who came in complete hope (v. 7).
his neck outstretched. This picturesque image, which recurs in the Septua-
gint only at 3 Maccabees 3:19, amounts to our with nose in the air; cf.
Psalms 10:4: the wicked man, given the height of his nose, does not seek
Him. Use of this term allows our author not only to flaunt a rich vocabu-
lary in re arrogance (cf. p. 69) but also to prepare the ground for presenting
Nicanors decapitation (v. 30) as a case of making the punishment fit the
crime, no less than the sawing off of his arm (15:30//14:33).
in complete pretence. As if no human limitations could affect him, just as

Antiochus (9:8) and we all know what happened to him.
Chapter XV 499
erecting a common trophy. That is, one to commemorate his victory over all
of them together. On the translation and realia here, see esp. Goldstein,
2 Macc, 496. On trophies, see also our NOTE on 5:6, erecting trophies.
7. that assistance would be made available. For (assistance)

see Welles, RC, 314; Deissmann, Bible Studies, 92. For its non-technical
sense, see NOTE on 11:26, taking care. However, the term appears fre-
quently in Ptolemaic documents in the more or less technical sense of assist-
ance from the king; at times it comes with the verb , as here and in
3 Maccabees 2:33. The term appears in the same sense and the same context
in the account of Nicanors first campaign (8:19), just as other formulations
from that chapter are echoed here (in vv. 89, 12, 22); we have already
noted the return of thrice-accursed (v. 3//8:34). These all contribute to
the unity of our book as one built around two clashes with Nicanor.
8. encouraged (#). On the verb and its nuances, see NOTE on

7:24, his appeal. The words of encouragement ( v. 11) of-
fered below are especially reminiscent of Judas speech prior to Nicanors
first invasion (8:1620).
the Gentiles invasion (*

* K). Just as 14:15 juxtaposed Nica-
nor, Gentiles, and invasion, this verse does the same, which serves to
remind us that Chapters 1415 tell one story; see NOTE on 14:18, Nica-
nor somewhat afraid. For the translation, see Appendix 3, p. 534.
the saving acts () from heaven which had been done for them in
the past. Cf. 8:1920 and, for the terminology, see NOTE on 8:24, ally.
the All-Ruler. For this epithet see NOTE on 1:25, All-Ruler, and especially,
in the present context 8:18. It will reappear, appropriately, after the vic-
tory v. 32.
9. the Law and the prophets. Cf. 8:19. This formulation seems to indicate
that, at least for our author, the third division of the Bible was not yet rec-
ognized as such; see NOTE on 2:13, concerning the kings
10. awakening their fervor. For a similar formulation see 7:21, but there
the reference is to the awakening of an exceptional woman to manly fer-
vor whereas here the reference is to run-of-the-mill men who have such fer-
vor but it needs to be awakened.
exhorted (). See NOTE on 12:5, he gave his men instructions.
Gentiles faithlessness and their violation of oaths. In context, the reference

is to the breach of covenant that Demetrius forced upon Nicanor
14:2629.
11. the security that comes from shields and spears. I.e., the type of com-
plete security upon which Nicanor depended (v. 1).
good words. Of his speech; on its success, see v. 17 (where his words are
said to be very fine).
by setting out before them (-#). LSJ (1509) lists our verse
alone for this verb.
a dream which was more trustworthy. Our author apparently knows that
some dreams are not trustworthy. See, for an example from another second
century BCE source, Agatharcides story (apud Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.2067 =
Stern, GLA I, no. 30a) of the foolish and fateful mistake made by Stratonice
due to her superstitious dependence upon a dream. See also Sirach 34:57
(Divinations and omens and dreams are folly Unless they are sent from
the Most High For dreams have deceived many ) and Cicero, De divi-
natione 2.62.127: he asks if anyone would dare to say that all dreams are true,
and although he continues to say that some are, he emphasizes our inability to
know which and declares his scorn concerning the whole topic. For similar
thoughts, although with less scorn, see Aristotles work on divination based
on dreams; for an annotated edition, see D. Ross, Aristotle: Parva naturalia
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1955). In general, see Lewis, Interpretation of Dreams.
than anything else. We translated Hanharts text (3 ); for its defense,

see esp. Grimm, 2 Macc, 205 and Goldstein, 2 Macc, 498. Some scribes
seem not to have recognized the expression in the sense of more than
everything or very much, and therefore corrected to d, vision;
that reading is defended by Abel, Macc, 473, who is followed by Habicht,
2 Macc, 277. It creates a nice intensification: what Judas saw was not only a
dream (while asleep) but a vision as well (when awake, closer to prophecy).
he gladdened them all. For this joy see also v. 27. For similar encouragement
of soldiers on the basis of a dream of heavenly help, see Polybius 10.11.58
(cited by Doran, Temple Propaganda, 73).
Chapter XV 501
12. Onias. The hero of Chapters 34. Reintroducing him now hints that
we are now on the verge of bringing the story to its close.
a fine and good man On 9 / as the ideal of a Greek

gentleman, see Dover, Morality, 4145; Danker, Benefactor, 319320 and
esp. F. Bourriot, Kalos Kagathos Kalokagathia (2 vols.; Spudasmata
58.12; Hildesheim: Olms, 1995). On its usage here: Himmelfarb, Ju-
daism and Hellenism, 3536. The present verse piles up all the Hellenistic
educational ideals;2 on a proper conversationalist see Himmelfarb, ibid.,
3637. The fact that Onias had devoted himself to virtue since childhood
( ) makes him like Eleazar (6:23) but is also reminiscent of Poly-
bius praise for Scipio Aemilianus, who from the earliest age ( A
Y) developed his and (his mod-
eration and gentlemanliness 31.28.10) both like Onias (4:37 and here).
virtue. Which is how our author summed up Eleazars characteristics too;

see NOTE on 6:31, virtue.
having stretched out his hands was praying down (

). Our
author strives to be precise: as opposed to Judas (v. 21) and others (3:20,
14:34) who raise their hands to heaven and pray to it, which is presumably
above, Onias who is in heaven spreads out his hands like a priest on a
raised platform blessing his congregation. For priests holding out their
hands toward the people in blessing them from above see m. Tamid 7:2//m.
Sotah 7:6 (using Leviticus 9:22) and Sirach 50:20.
entire Jewish corps (). For the military sense of this term see 8:5,
got his corps together. True, sometimes it refers to the Jewish community;
so, for example, in 3 Maccabees 3:9 and 7:3; Josephus, Against Apion 1.32,
etc.; for use of it in Egypt and elsewhere for corporations see Kasher, Jews
in Egypt, 229230, also T. Drew-Bear, An Act of Foundation at Hy-
paipa, Chiron 10 (1980) 521 (guild, corpus). Accordingly, some have
preferred that translation here too; so Habicht (Gemeinde) and Abel
(nation). However, Abels position (Macc, 474) is perplexing, for he him-
self notes the unit de vocabulaire in the two verses so if he translated
corps de troupe at 8:5, why move to nation here? In any case, it seems
that the military context here, as at 8:5, should govern the translation.
2 Cf. he is a gentleman and a scholar, a fine judge of women, whiskey and racing
horses still current, if already with humor, in the Maryland of my youth.
13. Thereupon (S
7 T,). For this expression, which combines timing
and causality, see NOTE on 4:22, Thereupon.
appeared. As at all critical moments in this book; see NOTE on 2:21,

heavenly apparitions.
14. And after Onias responded, saying (

0). Since
there is no question which Onias needed to answer, it seems that we
should take this as a biblicizing phrase (see e.g. Deut 21:7; 25:9), which the
author apparently thought fitting when referring to a biblical prophet. In
1 Maccabees, by way of contrast, such usage is of course at home; see
1 Maccabees 2:17, / / &, there too without any
preceding question.
lover of his brethren (#). A common epithet for Hellenistic kings,

such as Ptolemy II in the third century BCE and two Pergamene kings (Eu-
menes III and Attalus II) in the second. See, for example, OGIS, nos.
302304.
offers many prayers. For Jeremiah as one who prays for his people see Jere-
miah 7:16; 11:14; 14:11 (here God warns him not to, which seems to mean
his prayers are effective), etc. For post-biblical literature, see Wolff, Jeremia,
8389. At pp. 8283 Wolff notes the similarity between Moses and Jere-
miah in this regard; cf. NOTE on 2:4, the mountain from which Moses. See
also N. Johansson, Parakletoi (Lund: Gleerup, 1940) 1618.
the Holy City. This term appeared alongside Onias in the very first verse of
the story (3:1); its recurrence here, again with Onias, amounts to the closing
of a circle another indication that things are moving toward the finale.
(Otherwise the term appears only in one of the opening epistles [1:12] and
at 9:14.)
15. to give Judas. For similar scenes, in East and West, see Doran, Temple
Propaganda, 7275 and D. Flusser, Hystaspes and John of Patmos, in:
S. Shaked (ed.), Irano-Judaica (Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1982) 5253;
van der Kooij, Use, 134135. Note esp. Ezekiel, Exagoge, lines 6882
(Jacobson, Exagoge, p. 54), where Moses receives a sceptre and a crown
from heaven. However, as van Henten (Judas the Maccabees Dream) has
shown, while there is no close biblical parallel there are very precise paral-
lels in Egypt, both of the Pharaohs and of the Ptolemaic period, where nu-
merous monuments and texts depict gods transferring swords to kings, who
Chapter XV 503
are then victorious and humiliate their foes all as in the present chapter. In
this connection we should recall that Jeremiah fled to Egypt and was es-
pecially popular among the Jews of Egypt; see NOTE on 2:1, the prophet
Jeremiah. Thus, both the prophets identity and his symbolic gesture, here,
bespoke the interests of Egyptian Jews in particular and were calculated to
enlist their identification with Judas.
broadsword (U,). This seems to be what is meant, although there is

room for doubt about its precise nature; see Bar-Kochva, JM, 16, n. 17.
Similarly, it is difficult to know whether our author had any particular rea-
son for using other terms elsewhere, such as (12:22; 14:41) and
(5:3), or whether, as usual, he was just varying his vocabulary; see
Introduction, p. 68.
16. shatter (
) the enemies. As God already shattered Antiochus IV
(9:11: ).
17. propelling (his men) to virtue. Like that of Onias himself, according to
v. 12.
making men manly valor (V /). See NOTE on

8:7, And the fame of his manly valor
not to tarry. Translation according to A. Vaccari, Note critiche ed eseg-

etiche, Bib 28 (1947), 404406. Hanhart gives " , in ac-
cordance with most witnesses, but the plain meaning of this would be not
to go out to war, which is the opposite of the decision taken here. Hanhart
(Text, 4142) attempted to resolve this problem by suggesting that the verb
refers only to taking the field but not to actually beginning the fight, in
which case our verse means that they decided not only to go out to war but
also to throw themselves into battle. But this seems to be too much to in-
sert without more help from the author, who should have made the distinc-
tion clearer. Moreover, if some ancient scribes missed the point (as Hanhart
notes), and therefore changed the verb to " , not to
encamp, and if Abel and Habicht felt the need to delete the negation (),
we must admit that there is a real problem here. To resolve it, it seems best
to take one of Vaccaris two alternative suggestions that led him to not to
tarry: either translate " that way or emend it to " -
(or ), a rarer verb with that meaning. For the
latter alternative, see LSJ, 1651, s.v. , which refers inter alia
to LXX Judges 19:8; see also LXX II Regnorum 15:28.
interweaving themselves (). This root usually denotes the

braiding of hair, wickets, ropes and the like; see Mauersberger, PL,
1.769770. Here it refers to hand-to-hand combat with the enemy as op-
posed to the mere exchange of projectiles from a distance.
to settle the matter. See NOTE on 13:13, settle the matter.
the city, the holy things and the Temple. The order expresses our authors
agenda, not Nicanors who had threatened the Temple and not the city
(14:33). So too 4:2, 48; cf. above, pp. 67.
18. wives and children, also brothers and other kin. The lack of definite ar-
ticles or possessive adjectives is striking. Although it is clear that the refer-
ence is to the soldiers families, the general phrasing underlines, as it were,
the point that no one in the world was more important for them than:
the Sanctuary () which had been made holy. For the translation, see
NOTE on 4:14, the Temple. Having referred to the Temple in the preceding
verse, the author is now both varying his language and also intensifying the
issue, by referring to the most sacred part of the Temple.
19. those who had been left behind in the city too. I.e., just as those at the
battlefield. As if in a play, the author describes the fear of those awaiting the
results of the battle. Compare for example the opening of Aeschylus, The
Persians, also above, 3:14.
no merely marginal distress. I.e., a serious one. For such a double negative
to describe the Jerusalemites distress, see also 3:14 and our NOTE there on
quite considerable.
in the open field. For the use of d in battle accounts see Poly-
bius 1.12.4, 1.30.6 etc.; LSJ, p. 1851. As for the battles location, as usual
there is not a word in our book; 1 Maccabees 7:40, 45, places it at Adasa,
which, according to Josephus (Ant. 12.408), was 30 stadia away from Beth
Horon, northwest of Jerusalem. On the battle, which took place in the early
spring (v. 36) of 161 BCE, see Bar-Kochva, JM, 359375 (363365 on iden-
tifying the site).
20. while they were all expecting the coming decision. The author surveys
the stage one more time, drawing out the tension yet a bit more.
Chapter XV 505
the enemies had already come together (-#,). At 14:16 and

below in v. 26 the same verb refers to clashing between opposing armies.
Accordingly, some scholars have taken it that way here as well; but if they
are clashing already now, what is left to happen at v. 26? Goldstein (2 Macc,
500) solves the problem by turning the verb into future tense (the enemy
were about to engage); but this lacks textual support. Or perhaps we
should view the repetition of the verb at v. 26 as a Wiederaufnahme resum-
ing the narrative after the interruption by prayer in vv. 2126? Perhaps. But
even if we do, it is still simplest to follow Grimm (2 Macc, 207) and Abel
(Macc, 476) and take the verb here to refer to the drawing together of dif-
ferent Seleucid units; note (arrival) in v. 21. As for v. 26 and
14:16, where the verb means clash, note that they refer to the coming
together of soldiers from both sides, whereas our verse mentions only the
enemies, i.e., the Seleucid forces.
the beasts (
,). Probably means elephants, as is usual in Polybius; see
Mauersberger, PL, 1.11531154 and Bar-Kochva, JM, 317. But the parallel
at 1 Maccabees 7:3950 makes no mention of elephants, and it is indeed
usual to think that the Seleucid elephants had been destroyed in 163 or 162
BCE (well before our battle), in tardy fulfillment of one of the terms of the
Treaty of Apamaea (for the date, see Bar-Kochva, JM, 547548; on the leni-
ent enforcement of that treaty, see also below, Appendix 6). True, there is no
certainty that all the elephants were really destroyed; see Schwartz,
Battles, 446, and Bar-Kochvas detailed response in On Josephus ,
119128. But be that as it may, it is in any case clear that our author likes to
mention elephants (11:4; 13:2, 15; 14:12), which made the Seleucid armies
more colorful and terror-inspiring, and he was certainly capable of exagger-
ating in this respect; see NOTE on 11:4, myriads of foot-soldiers
in the wings. On the of Greek armies preparing for battle, see Prit-
chett, War, 2.190207.
21. wildness (). Only here in the Septuagint; cf. NOTE on v. 2,

wildly and barbarically.
raised up his hands toward heaven. For this gesture see NOTE on 3:20,
hands stretched out to heaven. Here it is especially meaningful, because it
recalls the beginning of the confrontation with Nicanor (14:3334).
according to how He deems (

V B /9
H). Translation ac-
cording to Grimm, 2 Macc, 208 (wie etwa von ihm geurtheilt wird).
22. sent out Your angel in the days of King Hezekiah. The same precedent,
which Judas cited also in the parallel to our passage at 1 Maccabees 7:41,
was adduced above as well, during Nicanors first campaign; see NOTE on
8:19, Sennacherib. Since it worked then, the reader may hope it will work
again. As noted by van der Kooij (Use, 133), the story here is closer to
that of LXX Isaiah 37:36 than that of LXX 4 Regnorum 19:35.
23. And now (3 ). The transition to the body of the prayer; see NOTE
on 14:36, and now. But here it also retains something of the original sense,
as if to say: Just as in the days of Hezekiah, so too now
a good angel. The need to specify good is just as perplexing here as at

11:6, see our NOTE there on a good angel.
24. come with blasphemy. For this important motif see NOTE on 8:4, and
also to remember
be terrified () by Your great arm (

2
). The allusion to Gods arm functions, of course, as an antithesis to Ni-
canors; see our NOTE on 14:33, he extended his right hand toward the
Sanctuary. The present verse clearly uses Exodus 15:16: Let terror and
dread fall upon them, because of the greatness of Thy arm On Gods
arm in other Jewish texts and prayers (such as Dan 9:15 and Baruch 2:11),
and on the use of Exodus 15 (the Song at the Sea) in Jewish liturgy, see:
Enermalm-Ogawa, Langage de prire, 136138. On the use of the Song of
the Sea in the Temple, see b. Rosh Hashanah 31a and I. Elbogen, Jewish Lit-
urgy: A Comprehensive History (Philadelphia & Jerusalem: Jewish Publi-
cation Society, and New York & Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary,
1993) 99. Cf. NOTE on 1:23, all the others.
And he, on the one hand (3 W ). This completes the circle opened
in v. 6: vv. 67 presented Nicanor on the one hand vs. Judas on the other
hand, and now, to finish up the preparations for battle, we have [Judas]
on the one hand, followed immediately by Then Nicanors men, on the
other hand. The chiastic arrangement is just as neat as at 3:2223 and ibid.
vv. 2930.
25. by trumpets. For use of trumpets in Hellenistic armies, see also 1 Mac-
cabees 6:33 and 9:12; m. Sotah 8.1; Bar-Kochva, JM, 394, with many
examples ibid., n. 1. On classical usage, see P. Crantz, The Salpinx in
Greek Warfare, in: Hanson, Hoplites, 110120. Bar-Kochva dismisses the
Chapter XV 507
evidence of our verse, but only, it seems, because the parallel account in
1 Maccabees 7:3950 is silent on this subject.
and war-songs (3 #,). Our author is careful to assign paeans to

Nicanors pagans but hymns to the Jews; see NOTE on 12:37, the war-
cry accompanied by hymns.
26. clashed with (-). Finally, after all the preparations. On the
verb, see NOTE on v. 20, the enemies had already come together.
27. fighting with their hands, in their hearts they were praying. Cf. Psalms
149:6: Let the high praises of God be in their throats, and two-edged
swords in their hands, used to describe the Community of the Pious (Hasi-
dim) ibid., v. 1. Our author is happy to contrast the raucous enemy (v. 25)
with the restrained Jews, so he made their prayers into quiet ones.
no fewer than 35,000. 1 Maccabees 7 gives no indication of the size of

Nicanors army, apart from the general large force (v. 27), but Josep-
hus says it included 9,000 men (Ant. 12.411), a number which im-
presses Bar-Kochva (JM, 362363) as reasonable; he suggests that Josep-
hus got the number from Nicolas of Damascus. Meyer (Ursprung, 245,
n. 3) rejects the present number out of hand and supposes that Nica-
nor had at most a few thousand men of his own (Demetrius having
taken his army for his campaign against the rebel Timarchus; see Will,
Histoire politique, 2.365367), which is why he was forced to add Jew-
ish loyalists to his ranks; but see our NOTE on v. 2, Jews who had been
forced
having been gladdened (/

) greatly by the appearance (-
%) of God. After v. 11 reported that Judas dream greatly gladdened
() the soldiers, now we read the same of Gods appearance. So
it may be that here we simply have another allusion to that dream. How-
ever, it seems more natural to assume we are to infer that God appeared to
the soldiers, somehow, during the course of this battle, as at 10:2930. For
a comparable case, see NOTE on 12:22, the apparition
28. job was done. On see NOTE on 7:24, commissions. Note that at
the outset of our chapter Nicanor was trying to force Jews to do the royal
commissions (v. 5 ? ), so there is poetic justice in denot-
ing the destruction of his army, and his execution, by the same term, as if to
say: You wanted the Jews to do a for you, so they did for you the
you deserve. On such tit for tat, more of which is coming, see NOTE
on 4:16, those for whose ways
together with his armor. This probably means that they identified him by his
armor, which was of a special type or specially marked.
29. There ensued outcry and tumult ( 3 ). Both words

have negative connotations and usually imply people who feel threatened
and frightened; for see 12:37, for 3:30; 10:30; 11:25;
and 13:16. And compare, for example, the usual combination of
and fear, such as at Thucydides 3.79.3 and Josephus, Antiquities 2.100 and
14.273. Why use such words of people who have discovered their archen-
emy is dead and see his corpse before their eyes? It seems that the point is
that, for religious people, a demonstration of Gods active providence, even
on ones own behalf, may first of all awaken fear, reverence, and only there-
after joy; see 12:4041, also Exodus 14:3015:1 (And Israel saw the Egyp-
tians dead and the people feared God then Moses and the Israelites
sang ); Psalms 52:6 (MT 52:8); Mark 4:41; Luke 1:65 and 5:26;
1 Macc 10:8 (perhaps; see Abel, Macc, 181).
the ancestral language. Hebrew, the language of prayer; see NOTE on

12:37, ancestral language.
30. his whole body and soul. Cf. 14:38, body and soul.
to cut off Nicanors head and hand, together with the shoulder. The hand
and head had been held high arrogantly (14:33 and above, v. 6) and are now
the focus of punishment, tit for tat, for which see NOTE on v. 28, job was
done. That hand together with the shoulder means arm is made clear
in vv. 3233; 1 Maccabees 7:47 is somewhat less precise in that it refers
to the cutting off of the head and " (right hand? right arm?).3 For
the decapitation of enemies and taking of their armor, see e.g. 1 Samuel
17:54, Judith 13:710, Polybius 11.18.48, 1 Maccabees 11:17, and Iliad
17.3940, along with C. Segal, The Theme of the Mutilation of the Corpse
in the Iliad (Mnemosyne Supplement 17; Leiden: Brill, 1971) 2021.
3 The scholion to Megillat Taanit (ed. Noam, 298) just speaks generally about his head
and his limbs, and Josephus, understandably, keeps quiet about the mutilation
of Nicanors corpse, and (as opposed to our author see NOTE on 10:32, As for
Timothy himself ) is such a gentleman that he even allows Nicanor to die after fight-
ing gloriously (Ant. 12.409411).
Chapter XV 509
31. people priests. For such enumeration of the two separate groups in
order to mean all Jews, see also 1 Maccabees 14:28, 41; Josephus, An-
tiquities 14.24; m.Yoma 6.2 and innumerable other passages, including
Jewish Hellenistic literature, such as 3 Maccabees 7:13 (Z [= 7
0] Z / 9 A) and Letter of Aristeas 53 (7
Z / 7 5).
the people of the Akra. On the Akra, the Hellenistic citadel in Jerusalem, see
NOTE on 4:28, Sostratus, the commandant of the acropolis. Here, Judas
taunts its residents with Nicanors downfall.
32. abominable. On see NOTE on 5:16, abominable hands.
All-Ruler. See NOTE on v. 8, the All-Ruler.
33. cutting the tongue of the impious Nicanor out. For that tongues sins
see 14:33 and above, vv. 5, 10, 24. For the excision of tongues, cf. NOTE on
7:4, cut out the tongue . Note a piyyut (liturgical poem) for Hanukkah,
written perhaps by Eleazar HaQaliri (seventh century?), that expresses joy,
inter alia, about the fact that the sword has cut down every Greek tongue
(tynvvy ]v>l lk tynx hjjyq ). The poem was published, on the basis of dif-
ferent 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 Hanuk-
kah, 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 Nica-
nors tongue. Indeed, the same Hebrew verb is used in other accounts of Ni-
canors fate: they cut off (vjjq ) his thumbs and big toes (b. Taanit 18b);
they cut off (vjjqv ) his limbs (scholion to Megillat Taanit 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: -
.
give it piecemeal to the birds. See our NOTE on 9:15, bird-eaten to wild
animals.
arms ().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 Nicanors 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 sun-
dering of the arm and head, but the etymology, along with our storys em-
phasis upon Nicanors 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 Taanit 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 com-
pletely fulfilled.
35. fastened Nicanors torso to the Akra. I.e., the arm with shoulder men-
tioned in v. 30, termed hand in v. 32 and arms of folly in v. 33. Al-
though some translators render 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 Nicanors 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 Me-
gillat Taanit (ed. Noam, 298, Ms. Parma) both report explicitly that Nica-
nors 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 auth-
ors 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.
Lords assistance. On see NOTE on 8:24, ally.
36. a decree made in common. On 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. 78.
Chapter XV 511
not at all to allow that day to remain unmarked. For the various traditions
on Nicanors fate, and the establishment of the holiday to mark the victory,
see J. Schwartz, Once More, 263275.
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 Taanit 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 cor-
roborated 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 Baby-
lonian reckoning.)
in the Syrian language. I.e., Aramaic. On the text and its meaning, see Ap-
pendix 10. Use of this adjective here contributes to our confidence that
when our author refers to the ancestral language he means another He-
brew; see NOTE on 12:37, ancestral language.
the day before Mordechais Day. I.e., Purim, as it is usually called (Esth 9:26
[Hebrew and Greek ]; Josephus, Ant. 11.295; etc.); for its date
being the fourteenth of Adar see Esther 9:19, 21; Josephus, Antiquities
11.291292. The name Mordechais Day is otherwise unknown; it might
have developed, at least in our authors imagination, simply as a reflection
of the fact that Nicanors Day was the name of the adjacent holiday, dis-
cussed 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 Is-
rael of Tel-Aviv University and Haifa University one more and more hears it re-
ferred to as Jerusalem University.
to Esther, in the Septuagint, tend to play up Mordechais role, perhaps re-

flecting myths of male heroism from the Hasmonean period, so perhaps this
term for the holiday is part of a larger trend; see Bardtke, Mardochus-
tag. Goldstein (2 Macc, 502) suggests, in particular, that the term may re-
flect a desire to indicate a parallel between Mordechai and Judas, both of
whom annihilated the Jews enemies and established holidays in commem-
oration thereof. In any case, the holiday named Nicanors Day, caught
on, as we see from Megillat Taanit (ed. Noam, 47, 298) and Josephus, An-
tiquities 12.412.5 For the various traditions on Nicanors fate, and the es-
tablishment of the holiday to mark the victory, see J. Schwartz, Once
More, 263275. This verse is among the oldest testimonies to the holi-
day 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) 387395, and A. Oppenheimer, Love of Mordechai or
Hatred of Haman? Purim in the Days of the Second Temple and After-
wards, ibid. 408418 (both in Hebrew). On our verse see, respectively,
388 and 410. Bar-Kochva emphasizes that our verse does not actually say
Mordechais 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 at-
tacks, 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 storys 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 import-
ant 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 Esthers 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 (2:2332) 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 (/
,). That is, properly focused (cf. 14:43, -
), not expansive and detailed; see his statements of purpose at
2:2432 and 10:10.
in its formulation. For this translation of see H. A. Rigg, Papias

on Mark, NovT 1 (1956) 167168.
cheap and middling (/* 3 ,). For a disorganized composi-

tion being . see Polybius 32.11.6 and Walbank, Polybius, 3.533,
who translates trivial; Lucian, How to Write History, 22: .A
/ ? / words which are cheap and vul-
gar 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 (easy to obtain, accessible, possible)

see Mauersberger, PL, 1.10581059.
39. inimical (). Lit.: hostile. For its use in such a sense, LSJ
1432 cites Plato, Protagoras 334B (oil is to all plants) and
Aristotle, Historia Animalium 612a (when weasels fight snakes they eat
rue, for its smell is 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 10.426427; he who does not do so is said to
be 5 (so Theophrastus, Characters 4; on this adjective see above,
NOTE on 14:30, coarser) or Scythian (so Herodotus 6.84 ,
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. Hage-
now, Aus dem Weingarten der Antike (Mainz: von Zabern, 1982),
111122. Cf. LXX Jeremiah 32:1 and Psalms 74:9; 3 Maccabees 5:2 (un-
mixed 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, 201202. It is typical of the intermeshing of Judaism and Hellen-
ism 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 ( 2).

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
() a symposium. Just as there he claimed that his work was
meant to give an attractive form and appearance to a book which is other-
wise 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 ad-
ding water to make it more palatable.
ears. For this sense of 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, 116121; Wifstrand, Epochs and Styles,
94100; and P. J. Achtemeier, Omne verbum sonat: The New Testament
and the Oral Environment of Late Western Antiquity, JBL 109 (1990)
1517. It is possible that our book was read aloud in public, on Hanukkah
or on Nicanors 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. 8590) it is unlikely if only
Chapter XV 515
because it is about twice as long as Esther and 3 Maccabees (in Rahlfs edi-
tion, they take up, respectively, around 39, 23, and 18 pages); who could sit
through it in a single holiday celebration?
who read (* 2,). See NOTE on 2:25, to read readers.
Bibliography
Bardtke, Mardochustag.
Bohak, G., Joseph and Asenath and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis (Diss.
Princeton, 1994) 137144.
van Henten, Judas the Maccabees Dream.
Schwartz, J., Once More.
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: On the Letters in Chapters 12 519
Appendix 1: On the Letters in Chapters 12
The story of 2 Maccabees opens at 3:1. Preceding that, 2:1932 (end of

Ch. 2) are just as clearly the authors (epitomators) 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 (15:3839). Re-
garding the letters composing 1:12:18, however, questions concerning dat-
ing, 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 Macca-
bees. 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 sec-
tion 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 1:12:18
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), Nieses Kritik der bei-
den Makkaberbcher, published in that year, engendered a general revol-
ution 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 For the status of our book as a matter of dispute between Catholics and Protestants,
see above, pp. 6061.
2 Cigoi, Historisch-chronologische Schwierigkeiten, 46.
3 See Graetz, Sendschreiben; Brll, Sendschreiben; Bruston, Trois lettres;
Bchler; Sendschreiben; Torrey, Briefe. For a survey of scholarship until the
early twentieth century, see Herkenne, Briefe, 14 (with ibid. 1920 on the number of
letters).
520 Appendices
to be taken seriously and gratefully as a basically sound source for the his-
tory of the eventful period it addresses. From the point of view of the letters,
however, there were two ironic points about Nieses work. First, if Cigoi
stipulated right at the beginning of his study that there was no need to con-
sider the theory that 1:12:18 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 Curiositt,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 Macca-
bees was written not before the death of John Hyrcanus in 105/104 BCE, as
emerges from a literal reading of 1 Maccabees 16:2324 (which apparently
refers to all of Hyrcanus accomplishments), Niese (926) 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 gener-
ation or more older than 1 Maccabees. This serves as the basis of Nieses
call to upgrade the historical evaluation of our book. Thus, Cigois 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 Nieses
general stance regarding 2 Maccabees found general acceptance (see
above, pp. 3940), 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
Nicanors Day (and apparently did not deal, originally, with Hanukkah);
the fact that Judas Maccabaeus, who is the putative author of the letter ac-
cording to 1:10, died decades before 125 BCE; the fact that the account of
Antiochus death in 1:1316 differs radically from that in Chapter 9. Quite
4 Cigoi, Historisch-chronologische Schwierigkeiten, 46; Grimm, 2 Macc, 36.

5 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 trans-
lates into 124/123 and the same assumption about its timing leads us to the fall of
124 as for example in the title of Bickermans article upon which we shall focus
below. This issue need not concern us here.
reasonably, not many scholars were willing to accept Nieses explanations,

such as that Judas of 1:10 was not Judas Maccabaeus but, rather, some
unknown other,6 and that Antiochus of 1:1316 was not Antiochus IV
Epiphanes but, rather, Antiochus VII Sidetes.7 Thus, for example, Well-
hausen opened his 1905 monograph with a three-page discussion of the
letters, which completely rejected Nieses 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
Nieses rehabilitation of the book even as they rejected his point of depar-
ture. 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 jdischer Festbrief vom Jahre 124 v. Chr.,
a detailed study of 1:110a of which the two main points, clearly indicated
by his articles 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.
Bickermans 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 1:110 was
composed of two letters, each with its own date, or, rather, by maintaining
in line with the traditional verse-division that vv. 19 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. 79 as a separate letter, for there is no salutation.
Accordingly, Bickerman proposed that in fact 1:110a (ending with the
date) is a single letter of 188 SE that quotes from an earlier letter of 169 SE.
6 Niese, Kritik, 16.

7 Ibid., 19.
8 Wellhausen, Wert, 118120. Similarly, by 1949 Abel was back to Cigois position:
Il ny a pas sarrter lopinion de Niese qui voit une seule lettre de 1, 1 2, 18.
Cela saccorde difficilement avec la multiplicit des dates, des adresses et des salu-
tations (Abel, Macc, 299).
9 Bickermans study appeared originally in ZNW 32 (1933) 233254 but is cited here
according to the reprint in his Studies, 2.136158.
10 Bickerman, Studies, 2.138 (Die Voranstellung der Datierung, die in einem antiken
Brief unmglich 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 Gold-
stein, all three of which translate the perfect in v. 7a with the
past tense (avons crit, haben geschrieben, wrote) and print vv. 7b-8
within quotation marks.
However, with all due respect it seems to me that Bickermans 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 Bickermans article studies of the letters and retro-
versions 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
Torreys 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 as-
sume that Torreys 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 for-
mally 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 Torrey, Letters; Hack, Two Hanukkah Letters.

12 For surveys of scholarship of that generation, see M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to
the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: Clarendon, 19543) 414, and M. Wilcox, The Semit-
isms of Acts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965) 412.
13 D. Dempsey, The Epistolary Perfect in Aramaic Letters, BN 54 (1990) 711. And
see our NOTE on 1:7, have written.
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 fol-
lowers on this point, the reading 188, we must ask how to translate the
words / j 5 ? Y A
9 6 / (1:910a). Here, it
turns out upon examination that there is no scholarly agreement: Bicker-
man 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 Ha-
bicht and the 1980 German Einheitsbersetzung.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
(6 , 9 /
+); 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 For his death in 152 SE see 1 Macc 9:3, 54.

15 Goldstein, 2 Macc, 153.
16 Habicht offers the sentence Im Jahre 188 (2 Macc, 201) and the Einheitsberset-
zung (available on Internet) has: Geschrieben im Jahr 188.
17 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,
6567, 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 read-
ings abound: Hanhart gives / on the
basis of the Syriac (!), which is usually considered one of the least significant
witnesses to our books text; although that same number is supported by
some other witnesses more or less clumsily (such as the Venetus .
. .), 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
alone. See also Exler, Greek Letter, 78100; 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.
18 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,
155156. 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 145118; see
also Stern, Hasmonaean Judaea, 128135. However, Bickermans 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 Ge-
schichte 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 gen-
eral persecutions of the Jews by him (Stern, Hasmonaean Judaea, 127; see also idem,
Studies, 112113).
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 in-
viting 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 inde-
pendent witness of a value comparable to that of the uncials.20 Moreover,
Bruston already argued long ago, that the reading 188 () could be no
more than a paleographic error for 148 (), 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 cer-
tain place.
So much for the dating of the letter, which was Bickermans second
major point. We now turn to his first major point: his argument that
1:110a 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 letters 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 (/ 3). This verb is relatively rare
in Greek religious parlance, but it is utterly basic to 2 Maccabees. In
Chapters 78 the martyrs pray that God will become reconciled (-
) 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 + -
A); accordingly, it is not surprising to find the term in the auth-
19 See Rahlfs, Verzeichnis, 177, 245246.

20 Hanhart, 2 Macc, 37.
21 Bruston, Trois lettres, 114.
526 Appendices
ors own reflections as well (5:20: @). 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 re-
appears 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 sacri-
fices 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 descrip-
tion of the event itself: they offered up sacrifices after a two-year
period, and they also took care of incense and lamps and the presenta-
tion of the showbreads. Now it has often been noticed that 10:18 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 Nicanors Day. However, it is also the case
that the way the Hanukkah holiday is announced at 10:8 parallels pre-
cisely, nearly verbatim, the way Nicanors Day is announced at 15:36.23
So it is clear that 10:18 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 Jasons story comes in
Chapter 4, whereas Chapter 3 deals with Heliodorus. However, as we
22 See above, pp. 2122.

23 : 7 0 6 // M
period. See above, pp. 78.
24 For this translation of see our NOTE on 1:7, concerning the oppression
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 8:24 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 summar-
izing 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 be-
tween the account of Antiochus death in 1:1316 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 interpo-
lation; the repetition of in vv. 1213 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
() and the object of v. 17 () point directly at Jason;
see 4:13 ( / . 0) and 5:8 ().
Thus, excision of vv. 1316 (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 10:18
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 So-
lomon (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 ob-
vious question, which is the only one of contemporary significance, namely:
25 See NOTE on 1:12, For (#) 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
( ; 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 ( /
) 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 stor-
age, so to speak, having been put there in the days of Nehemiah, and that it
contained the original heavenly fire of Solomons 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 10:18 was added in by the Jerusalemite author
of the first letter, but that also the second letter is bound up essentially with
10:18, 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 10:18 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 Nieses. He thought
that the book opened with a single letter stretching from 1:12:18 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 tir des tincelles des pierres feu, ils prirent de ce feu Had the Greek
said tincelles and pierres 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 eli-
ciendi modis apud antiquos, HSCP 1 (1890) 3538.
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 (10:18). 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. 1115.
27 See 1 Macc 13:4142: In the one hundred and seventieth year the yoke of the Gen-
tiles 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, 479480), it seems that Ant.
14.145148, 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-pub-
lished inscription can put an end to it. Taken at face value, this verse pre-
scribes 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 Je-
rusalemites as (!) Antiochenes, that is, the granting of Antiochene status
to Jerusalemites.
As for the identity of this Antioch, however, there are two main possibil-
ities.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 Je-
rusalemites could be registered in a new entity to be founded there, known
as Antioch or, more probably, Antioch-in-Jerusalem (so as to distin-
guish it from many other Antiochs, such as Antioch on the Cydnus [Tar-
sus], Antioch in Mygdonia [Nisibis], etc.; see Mrkholm, Antiochus IV,
116, and Le Rider, Suse, 41). For such usage, note esp. 4:19, where Jeru-
salem Antiochenes are sent on a diplomatic mission.
28 Apart from the commentaries see esp. Bickerman, Gott, 5965; Tcherikover, Hellen-
istic Civilization, 131, 319322; Mrkholm, Antiochus IV, 138; Stern, Foun-
dation, 239243; Parente, W W; Cohen, Antiochenes
in Jerusalem.
29 See 4:33, 5:21, 8:35, 11:36, 13:23 and 14:27.
30 I see little to support Cohens suggestion (ibid.) that the reference is to Akko-Ptol-
emais, 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 13:2425.
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-Jeru-

salem a corporation, perhaps termed a politeuma, within the city of Jerusa-
lem? 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 (4:1011). This language is easily under-
stood 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 Anti-
ochus exempted these new Antiochenes from the obligation to live ac-
cording 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 Bicker-
mans position that Seleucid permission to live according to Jewish law con-
stituted 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 accord-
ing to Jewish law to do so;33 for an explicit statement of this type of posi-
tion, although in a later text, see Antiquities 14.258, where the people of
Halicarnassus allow those Jews who wish to () to observe the
Sabbath and observe the sacred Jewish laws.
Accordingly, if what the king authorized Jason to do involved the chang-
ing of laws, it must have affected a city; given the fact that Antioch is a well-
attested 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 contra-
dict that conclusion, given the general paucity of sources available for the
period. Similarly, the fact that the gerousia a typical institution of pre-
polis 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. 197160), in which prob-
31 See Bickerman and Parente (above, n. 28).

32 Bickerman, Studies, 2.7172.
33 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 constitu-
tion, their own laws, and a gymnasium and all those entail (so Letter 1, lines
911), summarized in Letter 2 (lines 4142) as a constitution and a gym-
nasium, to our books report that Jason asked for permission to found a
gymnasium and ephebeion and to register the people of Jerusalem as Anti-
ochenes, 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. How-
ever, 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 2728) the king goes on to note that he expressed recog-
nition of their politeuma at the beginning of the other letter which opens
by addressing the boul and the dmos of the Toriaitoi, which is a stan-
dard 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 de-
scribes the process without using the actual word polis.
Accordingly, it now seems clearer both that our books 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. 5253.
34 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) 130, and again by Jonnes, The Inscriptions of the
Sultan Dagi,
I (Inschriften griechischer Stdte aus Kleinasien 62; Bonn: Habelt, 2002)
8589, no. 393.
35 As for example in Welles, RC, nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 1315. Cf. V. A. Tcherikover, Was Je-
rusalem a Polis?, IEJ 14 (1964) 6263.
36 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)
/ M 9 9 " 6 $ 8 + =-
.
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 Alex-
andria as well but shortly thereafter was expelled by a famous Roman ul-
timatum.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 Macca-
bees 1:2024 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 (11:2830) 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 argu-
ment against the notion that there were two such robberies of the Temple.
So is the consideration that if everything listed in 1 Maccabees 1:2123 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 in-
vasion 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 Mrkholm, Antiochus IV,
64101; Walbank, Polybius, 3.321324, 403404; Gruen, Hellenistic World,
2.651660.
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 6 (see below). Kolbe and Gera went another route, view-
ing the kings trip to Joppe (4:2123) 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 6 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
kings invasion () and return turned out. As Ettelson put the matter,
The word 6 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 kings trip to Joppe was, for our author, com-
parable to his invasion of Egypt. The differences between what the king ac-
tually 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 in-
vasions 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 chro-
nology 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 Jasons attack to be a matter of rioting and rebellion. The present
chapter (= 2 Macc 5) combines the two royal visits into one.43
38 Abel, Macc, 348, followed by Schrer, History, 1.129, 153.

39 Kolbe, Beitrge, 99100; Gera, Judaea, 155156. In the last German version of his
work, published in 1901, Schrer 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 verses use of second, that there had been a
preceding campaign, in 171 BCE; see his Geschichte, 1.170. However, writing as he
was before Nieses Kritik (1900) had yet made any impact (see Introduction, p. 39),
Schrer rejected this notion due to the general unreliability of our book.
40 Gera, ibid.
41 And see also our NOTE on 3:8, make the rounds.
42 Ettelson, Integrity, 319.
43 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 fragmen-
tary 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 pro-
Hasmonean 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. 2.8384)
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 Jasons rebellion.46 However, if Poly-
bius really wrote what Josephus attributed to him, it could be that he simply
did not know of that rebellion, or didnt credit the report; in general Poly-
bius was hostile to Antiochus Epiphanes,47 so such criticism of him neednt
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 So, for example, Goldstein, 2 Macc, 246247; Bringmann, Reform, 36; Stern, GLA
1.116.
45 On 4Q248 (DJD 36.192200) see Broshi & Eshel, The Greek King, and my Anti-
ochus IV Epiphanes in Jerusalem, 5053.
46 See Stern, GLA 1.115116.
47 See for example Polybius 26 and Mrkholm, Antiochus IV, 181184.
48 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 evi-
dence for that statement is the reference to 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 con-
vincing 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 his-
tory 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 reper-
cussions for two years.
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), here in fact refers to Antiochus general wicked-
ness, 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 Jerusa-
lem, 48.
49 The opening words of 1 Macc 1:29, ? 6 Y7 (= 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.
50 Reform, 3637.
Appendix 4: as the residents of the place requested (6:2) 537
Appendix 4: as the residents of the

place requested (6:2)
M / 9 B / 9
0 / 9 , B Z 9
+, 9 k.
As S. Schwartz noted, this verse is a notorious crux.51 According to the

usual reading, cited above from Hanharts edition, some translate the
underlined words as (were) the residents of the place or as (was prac-
ticed) 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. Ger-
izim,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 as-
sumed 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 S. Schwartz, John Hyrcanus, 15. Schwartz sets out the options, some bibliography
and some considerations, but does not argue any particular case.
52 So e.g. Moffatt, 2 Macc, 139; Bvenot, Macc, 198; Gutberlet, 2 Macc, 9091; Doran,
2 Maccabees 6:2.
53 W. H. Roscher, Ausfhrliches Lexikon der griechischen und rmischen Mythologie,
VI (Leipzig-Berlin: Teubner, 19241937) 522525; M. Nilsson, Geschichte der grie-
chischen Religion, I (Mnchen: Beck, 19552) 419421.
54 On , love for guests and foreigners, see Spicq, Notes, 2.932935.
55 See Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica 9.17.56; Holladay, Fragments, 1.172173.
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 interpre-
tations run into two other types of difficulties. From the point of view of
language, note that LSJ (18321833) assigns the verb two main
senses: (1) happen to be at a place, or, when appearing alongside the par-
ticiple of another verb happen to be; (2) gain ones 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; 5:89; 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 to be accompanied by a participle of a verb of being.
Our verse has only one participle, +, but if it were linked to -
no verb would be left to link to . This is what led translators
either to insert a verb of being ( et pour appeler celui de Garizim temple
de Jupiter lHopitalier, comme ltaient ceux qui habitaient en ce lieu58) or
even to double the adjective (Zeus Hospitable, just as the inhabitants were
hospitable59). But in all other occurrences of 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 See Doran, 2 Maccabees 6:2, 484.

57 As Hanhart wrote concerning the suggestion that our passage is referring to the Sa-
maritans 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
dermaen zweideutiger Krze Text, 37).
58 So for example in P. Giguets translation of the Septuagint, now available on Internet
(http://ba.21.free.fr).
59 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

5:2223, 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 Hanharts 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 in-
dicate that the words in question were added secondarily. If such a hypoth-
esis 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, An-
tiquities 12.258264. This text purports to be a document sent by the Sa-
maritans (or residents of Samaria Josephus took to be Samaritans) to Anti-
ochus 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
kings decision to grant their request. It seems likely that this correspon-
dence 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 Sido-
nians; 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 im-
agine that anti-Samaritan Jewish polemicists Josephus himself61 or an-
other 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 Josep-
han text and/or shared its anti-Samaritan attitude, to add in a note explain-
ing that the name-change at Mt. Gerizim came at the request of the Samari-
tans themselves.
Accordingly, it seems that the words in question are to be seen as an ad-
dition to the basic text of our book, which itself is free of anti-Samaritan
60 Although Bickerman (Studies, 2.105135) argued it is. For a detailed discussion con-
cluding 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 34; ed.
A. D. Crown & L. Davey; Sydney: Mandelbaum [Univ. of Sydney], n. d. [1995?])
283287. For a partial response to the latter, see S. Schwartz, John Hyrcanus Is De-
struction, 2324, n. 35.
61 Cf. Ant. 9.291; 11.114, 340347, etc.
540 Appendices
polemic (see our NOTE on 5:22, the people) and that they should be ren-
dered as the residents of the place requested. As to how to get there from
the Greek, if we hesitate to accept Hanharts view that may be
translated that way62 we may with many, beginning with Niese emend
the verb to (requested via petition).63
62 See Hanhart, Text, 3637, disputed by Doran, 2 Maccabees 6:2 481, n. 2.

63 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, 360361; 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 kings birthday and the cult of Dionysus. Con-
cerning 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 kings birthday is known from Ptolemaic
Egypt.64 Schrer and VanderKam (n. 64) viewed such evidence as proof of
the reliability of our books 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, Bicker-
man 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. 78: [ / M]
[]7 [ ] Habicht and Robert related
to this restoration with caution (vielleicht, il se peut) and Robert even
64 See VanderKam, 2 Macc 6,7A, 6367, following Schrer, Zu II Mcc 6,7. For the
Ptolemaic kingdom, see esp. OGIS, no. 49, ll. 89; no. 56, ll. 3334; 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 sovereigns calendar for something relating to him and nevertheless to
maintain their own calendar for their own customary uses. Moreover, it is difficult to
accept VanderKams position (loc. cit., 7071, also Calendrical Texts, 385386)
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 Van-
derKams Theory, CBQ 45 (1983) 8688.
65 Van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 90; Habicht, Gottmenschentum, 139, 152, 156.
66 Bickerman, Institutions, 246.
67 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 1:5859 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 kingdoms preference for Zeus as the dynastic
deity.69 As for Antiochus IV in particular, Mrkholm 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 Mag-
nesia) 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 (temple-sharing gods) in the Temple
of Dionysus in Teos. Even here, however, the reference is to a local initi-
ative, 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 Habicht, Gottmenschentum, 139; L. Robert, tudes anatoliennes (Paris: de Boccard,

1937) 173175.
69 Habicht, ibid., 149, referring inter alia to OGIS, no. 245, to M. Rostovtzeff, -
, JHS 55 (1935) 5666, and to Bickerman, Institutions, 250257.
70 Mrkholm, Antiochus IV, 130131.
71 Institutions, 236257; see esp. 255.
72 P. Herrmann, Antiochos der Grosse und Teos, Anadolu (Anatolia) 9 (1965 [1967])
29159. 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)
4345.
73 Nock, Essays, 1.202251 (= HSCP 41 [1930] 162).
74 See NOTE on 6:7, processionals, also R. Martin and H. Metzger, La religion grecque
(Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1976) 122133.
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 Jerusa-
lem. 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 any-
thing parallel in the Seleucid kingdom76 that, as with monthly birthday cel-
ebrations, 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, in-
stead having Nicanor simply threatening, unimaginatively, to burn the
Temple down.
75 See Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 1.201207.

76 The isolation of our verses 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 ver-
gessenes Dionysosfest in Jerusalem, ARW 22 (1923/24) 198199.
77 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 Romes defeat of Antiochus III
at Magnesia, near Mt. Sipylus. According to the terms of the treaty, the Se-
leucids 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 Nicanors (and Gorgias) first campaign
a decade later, ca. 165 BCE (see 1 Macc 3:37). Some scholars have con-
cluded, 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 stipen-
dium, 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 See esp. Polybius 21.42.1921; Mrkholm, Antiochus IV, 2226; Le Rider, Les res-
sources financires.
79 For such a motivation, compare Lukes reference to Quirinius census at Luke 2:2; it is
usually thought that this is a chronological error and bespeaks Lukes knowledge of
the event and his desire to link Jesus birth to it. See R. Bultmann, Theologie des
Neuen Testaments (Tbingen: 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. 154160.
80 So for example Mrkholm, ibid., 65, n. 4; Niese, Kritik, 93, n. 2; Goldstein, 2 Macc,
328329.
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 addi-
tional 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 Antiochus emissary excusavit, quod stipendium serius quam ad diem praestaret;

id se omne advexisse, ne cuius nisi temporis gratia regi fieret.
82 See OLD 2.1821. Note, for example, Livy 33.46.9 (pecunia, quae in stipendium Ro-
manis suo quoque anno penderetur) and 32.2.1 eo anno argentum in stipendium.
83 So too Le Rider, Les ressources financires, 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.
84 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 par-
ticular, not even after 168; see his Hellenistic World, 1.293; 2.644, 648.
85 For growing Roman pressure on the Seleucids during the 160s see Stern, Studies,
5455, n. 10. It is not easy to accept Goldsteins assertion (2 Macc, 328329) 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 Apamaeas 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

Galatians (8:20)86
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 en-
couraging his soldiers on the eve of their confrontation with the Seleucid
army commanded by Nicanor and Gorgias (2 Macc 8:1820). Macca-
baeus adduces two examples of heavenly aid for the Jews. Of these, the
first relates to Sennacheribs 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 de-
tailed 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 [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. 3067) in my 2004 Hebrew volume on
2 Maccabees. D.R.S.]
87 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 vic-
tory by non-Jews.
88 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 manu-
scripts attempted to deal with this contradiction [as may be seen in the critical appar-
atus 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 express-
ed 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 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].
90 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 5.5154. But no Jews are
mentioned in this context. Zeitlin too (2 Macc, 175) thought of Molons rebellion.
Moffatt (2 Macc, 142) left open, as an equal possibility alongside the clash be-
tween Antiochus III and Molon, Antiochus I Soters victory over Galatian invaders in
the 270s (Appian, Syriak 65.343; Lucian, Zeuxis, 811 and idem, Pro lapsu, 9 [Stro-
bel, Die Galater, 257264]), and the latter was indeed favored by Edson, Imperium
Macedonicum, 169, n. 58. But the battle in which Antiochus I defeated the Gala-
tians 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, Unignota irruzione dei
Galati in Siria al tempo di Antioco III?, BFC 36/6 (19291930) 151155 (= idem,
Quinto contributo alla storia degli studie clasici e del mondo antico, I [Roma: Storia
et letteratura, 1975] 591596); he builds on Sudas Lexicon (ed. Adler, IV, 362, no.
443, s.v. ), of which the manuscripts have Antiochus III defeating the Ga-
latians with the help of elephants; this contradicts Lucian, loc. cit, who has Anti-
ochus I defeating the Galatians with the help of elephants. Similarly, Momigliano
pointed to a papyrus fragment of a Greek elegy (I. U. Powell, Collectanea Alexan-
drina [Oxford: Clarendon, 1925] 131132 [= D. L. Page, Select Papyri, III (LCL;
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ., 1941) 462467, no. 110]; cf. bibliography and
notes on the text in Griechische Papyri der Hamburger Staats-und Universittsbib-
liothek [Hamburg: Augustin, 1954] 126127). 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. 171188; A. J. Reinach, Les Gaulois en gypte, REA 13 (1911)
3374; 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 Pto-
lemies. See V. Bartoletti, Noterelle papirologiche, 2: Due frammenti di unelegia el-
lenistica?, SIFC 34 (1962) 2530 [who relates to another papyrus fragment that, he
suggests, is part of the same elegy]. Lvy (Notes dhistoire hellnistique, 681688)
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 Baga-
daonia ( @ f) 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 ser-
vice 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 Jew-
ish 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 poten-
tial is reflected in the fact that Antiochus III settled two thousand Jewish
families in Lydia and Phrygia (Ant. 12.147153),91 in the establishment of a
Jewish state in Babylonia in the first century CE (ruled by Asineus and An-
ileus [Ant. 18.310370]), and in the tenacious resistance of Babylonian
Jews during the Roman invasion under Trajan.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 unsup-
ported by anything in the sources [according to Strobel, Die Galater, 259, the battles
site is unknown], and in any case we have no knowledge of any participation by Jews
in that battle. Finally, we note Bar-Kochvas suggestion that we link the events men-
tioned in our text to the struggle between Seleucus II and his brother Antiochus Hie-
rax, a struggle [229/228 BCE] in which the latter was supported by Galatians; see
Bar-Kochva, On the Sources and Chronology of Antiochus Is Battle Against the Ga-
latians, PCPS n.s. 19 (1973) esp. 58 [and idem, JM, 500507]. 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.
91 [On this text see Momigliano, loc. cit., 153154 (= 593594); Stern, Studies, 373 and
638; and the first half of J. Gauger, Beitrge zur jdischen Apologetik (Kln & 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 Ptol-
emaic Egypt, JSJ 19 (1978) 5767.]
92 [On which see Stern, GLA 2.153155 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) 191217.]
Appendix 8: their own foods (11:31) 549
Appendix 8: their own foods (11:31)
I have maintained as in Hanharts edition, on the basis of the

nearly unanimous testimony of the manuscripts. That is, I have not ac-
cepted the emendation into , proposed by Wilhelm and adopted
by many.93 The term 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 prob-
ably right to assume Wilhelm meant way of life.94 However, it is difficult
to accept the emendation. True, Habicht correctly emphasizes, against Han-
hart, that this issue in the text of a royal letter preserved in a book orig-
inally 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 means only a financial
expense (as above, 3:3), a sense which does not fit the context here;96
93 Wilhelm, Ein Brief Antiochos III., 43 (a brief suggestion) and Zu einigen Stellen,
2225. Several followers of Wilhelm will be cited in the coming notes. For Hanharts
defense of his reading, see below, n. 96. Among those who retain , but
with no discussion, see Stern, Documents, 70 and DGE 5.877.
94 Katz, Text, 16; Habicht, 2 Macc, 259, n. 31a; Goldstein, 2 Macc, 421422.
95 Habicht, ibid., also Royal Documents, 11, n. 19. Habicht responds here to Han-
harts argument; see the next note.
96 Although that was how it was translated here in the Vetus Latina (of which some wit-
nesses use sumptus and some impendium see De Bruyne, Anciennes traductions,
190191), an understanding defended by Hanhart, Text, 45, and by Mrkholm, Anti-
ochus IV, 156. According to Hanhart, 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 drfen von den ihnen ge-
whrten 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, A, ar-
gues against this; so does the fact that on Hanharts interpretation the king is pretend-
ing 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

comes with no argument or example. My own search came up with no-
thing: the term appears especially in medical literature, but in the
literature usually compared with our book Septuagint, Polybius, Philo, Jo-
sephus, New Testament it is not to be found, just as it is not to be found in
the documents assembled in Welles RC, in Preisigkes Wrterbuch, or in a
comprehensive computerized corpus of Greek inscriptions and papyri.97
On the other hand, it has been argued that the term , ex-
pense, 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. ,
where the translation may be found.99 Goldstein nevertheless re-
jected that meaning here, arguing that since our verse gives the Jews per-
mission to live according to their laws in general there is no point to specifi-
cally 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 67, 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 Packard Humanities Institute CD-Rom 7 (Greek Documentary Texts).

98 See Grimm, 2 Macc, 430; Bickerman, Gott, 180, n. 5; Abel, Macc, 430 (he aptly com-
pares 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. (necessaries, supplies, food
for our verse).
99 Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, I (ed. K. Latte; Hauniae: Munksgaard, 1953) 405.
100 Goldstein, 2 Macc, 421422; Bunge, Untersuchungen, 397398.
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 (successor)

mean here?; (2) To whom does his allude?; and (3) Was Alcimus state-
ment 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 Hanharts appar-
atus shows, there are those who place . (his) after Judas rather
than before that name, and those that read the intense (of him-
self) instead of mere .. But even these readings fail to clarify the text
completely. In order to avoid the difficulty created by the possessive adjec-
tive, Deissmann and Abel suggested that we view here as an ab-
solute term, namely, a relatively low title known from the Ptolemaic court,
where it designated a person who was allowed to be nominated for a posi-
tion.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 no-
tion that Nicanor was accused of appointing Judas to be high priest or dep-
uty governor although both were the kings 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 Nicanors compet-
ence, Alcimus stance as complainant becomes more reasonable.
The choice between the two, Nicanor and Alcimus, will impact upon the
translation of : 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 Deissmann, Bible Studies, 115; Abel, Macc, 464. See also Trindl, Ehrentitel,
115123; H. Kornbeutel, RE Supplement VII (1940) 124126; and L. Mooren, The
Aulic Titulature in Ptolemaic Egypt: Introduction and Prosopography (Verhandel-
ingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone
Kunsten van Belgi, Klasse der Letteren, 78; Brussel: Paleis der Academin, 1975)
216219.
102 Bunge, Untersuchungen, 199200.
103 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 4:2829, 31 and Polybius 3.87.9 or otherwise prevented from fulfilling
his responsibilities as governor; but there is nothing here to indicate or ex-
plain 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 Al-
cimus, 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 Al-
cimus 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 villains
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 verses emphasis; according to Bunge, In 14,26 wird
nmlich ganz aufflllig vehement die Unterstellung des Alkimos, Judas
strebe nach dem Hohenpriesteramt, als Verleumdung zurckgewiesen.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 appoint-
ment 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 So e.g. Keil, Macc, 417.

105 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 Hanharts text: @ C@ @.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 Alex-
andrinus (fifth century CE), reads not CW but, rather W.108
Accordingly, Swetes 1912 edition, which follows the Alexandrinus, read @
@ @, a reading which found its way into Kahanas and Artoms
Hebrew translations, both of which quite naturally render it as in the
Lords 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 Kapplers and
Bvenots assessment that it was very carelessly prepared,111 it is in general
risky to build upon it when it is isolated.
2. The adjective 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 Lampes lexicon of patristic Greek tells the story quite well.112 It is, accord-
106 I would like to thank Prof. Berndt Schaller of Gttingen for his assistance with some
of the matters addressed in this Appendix.
107 In this appendix, for a reason that will become obvious in 4, I have written the capi-
tal sigma as a C, as usual in ancient manuscripts, rather than as .
108 Hanhart does not list the Alexandrinus reading in his apparatus ad loc., having ex-
plained at p. 15, n. 1 of his edition that he viewed it as a trivial paleographical
error.
109 See below, n. 114.
110 Grimm, 1 Macc, xxxii (Der Cod. Alex bietet nicht selten Varianten, die den Char-
akter vorwitziger Correctur tragen).
111 Kappler, Memoria, 54 (codex Alexandrinus summa incuria conscriptus sit);
Bvenot, 2 Macc, v (sehr nachlssig). Similar: Niese, Kritik, 109, and Hanhart,
2 Macc, 15.
112 See LSJ, 1013, and G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon,
1961) 785786.
554 Appendices
ingly, natural to imagine that @ here is not original but was intro-
duced, instead, in the course of the books 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 lan-
guage 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 @ 1 @ 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
Gods language was Hebrew.114 So if @ @ @ were the true read-
ing, it would not provide any contrast to the ancestral language, al-
though, as noted, it seems that it should.115 But there is an obvious distinc-
tion between Hebrew and Aramaic a point in favor of reading @
C@ @. Compare, for example, Letter of Aristeas 11, which notes
that although some think the Jews use the Syrian language ("
C@) 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
( m).
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 @ C@ @ and @ @ @ is, in uncial manu-
scripts, only the upright attached to the left of the opening C of CW.
Such mistakes are known from elsewhere.116 Thus, for example, the con-
113 On this point see esp. van Henten, Ancestral Language.

114 See M. Rubin, The Language of Creation or the Primordial Language: A Case of
Cultural Polemics in Antiquity, JJS 49 (1998) 306333.
115 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.
116 See B. Schaller, k W: Zur Textgestalt von Jes 59:20f. in
Rm. 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 C f ).
Appendix 10: the Syrian Language (15:36) 555
cluding iota () of the preceding word may have become attached, mis-
takenly, 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) In-
spection 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
CW (just as there is none at the end of the word). Of course, the mis-
take 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 () or with no special reason at all; it happens. However,
since (2) 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 negli-
gence.
5. Hence my preference for another explanation, more in line with
Grimms characterization of the Alexandrinus than with Kapplers and
Bvenots. Above I noted that Kyrios, in our book, refers to God. But I
also noted that 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 too can refer to Jesus; in-
deed, the great majority of citations in Lampes entry for this word (n. 112)
do refer to Jesus. But Jesus language was Aramaic, a fact that every Chris-
tian, and certainly scribes, could know directly from such passages as
Mark 5:41 and 15:34.118 Accordingly, it is likely that the Alexandrinus em-
ployment of 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
Lords language.119
117 See Mayser, Grammatik, I/1, 99108 (20).

118 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) 78. 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 (@ @)?
119 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)
7 [ ? d / 0 7
7 A 39 7 / .9 .
9 .
The authors 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 sig-
nificant 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 Luthers, the Revised Standard
Version, and Goldsteins:
Luther: die Hebrer 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, , 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 Moff-
att, Abel and Habicht:
Moffatt: as the city was held from that period by the Hebrews
Abel: la ville demeura en possession des Hbreux
Habicht: seit dieser Zeit die Hebrer 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 authors 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 con-
cluded 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
, 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 () 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 () is the object. A fourth case,
4:27, where the verb appears in the imperfect, is somewhat less clear; per-
haps 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 Accord-
ingly, 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 trans-
lates 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 0 7 7 (from those times)? If -
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 ( present
participle of &) has been omitted and the city, although mentioned
only once in the verse, in fact is to be understood as functioning as the sub-
ject of two verbs (the phenomenon known as 9 )
and . 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 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.
121 On these phenomena see, respectively, F. Blass & A. Debrunner, Grammatik des neu-
testamentlichen Griechisch (ed. F. Rehkopf; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
198416) 127128 and 479.
558
559
INDICES
560 Indices
Index of References 561
Index of References1
I. Hebrew Bible 2
Genesis 19:6 168, 169

4:10 327 20:11 312
6:8 267 23:20 62
10 256 23:22 62, 387,
14:5 431 401, 403
14:18 537 25:23 142
14:1822 203 25:31 142
15:5 136 30:30 145
15:16 284 32:13 136, 335
18:2 388 34:6 154
19:1 162, 388 37:26 162
19:11 389 40:3435 163
31:2 63, 484
33:18 537 Leviticus
38:1 251 9:1 165
41:1 536 9:22 501
43:12 410 10:12 152, 165
10:1920 165
Exodus 23:40 378
1:7 330
1:11 62, 263, 265 Numbers
2:24 136 14:17 486
3:22 339 14:37 358
8:18 156 17:1213 203
14 198 21:2124 434
14:3015:1 508 25:3 13
15 154, 506 25:1012 224
15:1 154 25:1113 13
15:16 62, 506 27:1213 162
15:17 156 27:811 194
18:21 339 29:2830:1 16
18:24 339 31:19 439
1 My thanks to Yonatan Miller, who prepared these indices. D.R.S.

2 Includes references to Septuagint for these books.
562 Indices
31:25ff. 342, 441 7:6 386

LXX 35:33 536 LXX 15:37 477
Deuteronomy Judges
3:27 162 13:6 388
4:9 161 18:21 431
6:7 140 LXX 19:8 503
7:2 403
7:5 375 1 Samuel
7:2526 439 2:1216 224
8:5 22, 69, 284, 316 2:27ff. 224
8:11 64 12:22 285
9:27 136 LXX 14:19 330
12:3 375, 485 14:2830 452
13:11 440 17:26 315
16:912 435 17:36 315
19:1621 244 17:44 360
20:8 335 17:4446 360
20:14 431 17:54 508
21:7 502
25:9 502 2 Samuel
26:6 62 5:21 439
28:15 156 7:10 157
28:26 360 11:1 435
29 161
29:28 440 1 Kings
30:3 162 3:912 163
31:19 302 3:1628 85
32 21, 22, 62, 63, 66, 226, 259, 8 164
262, 299, 302, 303, 327, 477, 8:2 163
526 8:4 161
32:9 155, 477 8:10 163
LXX 32:9 477 8:27 486
32:20 22, 262 8:65 163
32:25 22, 259, 298 8:66 134, 165
32:27 261, 299 14:29 15
32:27ff. 307 16:27 15
32:35 226 18:3335 153
32:36 296, 299, 302, 526
32:43 226, 327 2 Kings
32:36 22, 62 5:1517 204
34:1 162 6:1518 63
6:18 389
Joshua 10:20 15
1:8 161 17 538
6 427 18:27 153
19:19 156 10:211 160

19:35 62, 337, 546 11:12 138
20:34 15 11:14 502
25:15 162 14:11 502
25:25 398 14:21 335, 336
15:9 63, 299, 308
Isaiah 17:26 142
10:32 62, 484 25:1112 152
11:12 156 29:57 482
14 62, 352 29:10 152
14:11 358 32 136, 142
14:12 356 LXX 32:1 514
14:13 358 32:34 136
14:14 359 32:37 136
14:1820 365 32:39 136, 137
LXX 14:19 366 32:40 136
19:21 142 32:41 136, 157
24:16 487 33:9 136
LXX 29:5 358 41:1 398
32:6 536 41:115 62, 255
36:56 403 4344 160
36:12 153 50:4142 244
37:20 156 52:19 162
37:36 62, 337, 546
LXX 37:36 506 Ezekiel
40:12 357 7:17 153
40:26 63, 312 17:13 398
44:12 267 21:12 153
45:3 156 26:7 449
48:1 186 28:18 62, 451
49:56 155 39:4 360
49:7 156 39:23 262
54:7 22, 313
54:78 261, 262, 313 Joel
56:8 162 2:1617 197
59:21 161 2:1619 62
62:9 277 2:17 94
LXX 2:17 387
Jeremiah 2:20 62, 197, 358
1:1 152
2:1 163 Amos
2:2728 138 6:13 431
3:16 161
7:16 502 Jonah
7:33 360 3:8 198
8:14 153
564 Indices
Zechariah 7 244
2:16 141 7:510 450
7:10 62, 450
Psalms LXX 8:12d 205
1:56 304 LXX 8:12p 346
10:4 398 9:15 173
20:8 336 9:19 511
33:1314 156 9:21 511
37:1819 138 LXX 9:24 280
40:7 142 9:26 511
52:6 508 9:2632 9
74:9 514 10:3 293
74:20 335 LXX 10:3 162
74:79 142
79:2 360 Daniel
94:1213 284 2:37 449
94:14 285 LXX 3:34 336
LXX 94:14 285 LXX 3:3436 335
96:6 188 LXX 3:43 336
104:4 201 78 373
115:1 336 7:13 163
135:14 302 7:25 372, 376, 541
144:6 389 8:14 372, 376
149:6 507 8:23 284
LXX 8:23 284
Proverbs 9:2 152
1:1 163 9:3 386
1:27 140 9:15 506
10:2 342 9:21 388
11:4 342 9:26 59
13:1112 284 11 197, 358
24:17 256 11:14 230
27:2 291 11:2830 533
11:30 253
Esther 11:31ff. 273
LXX 3:7 280 11:3233 299
LXX 3:13a-b 362 11:36 359
LXX 3:13e 472 11:45 454
3:15 483 12 373
4:1 198, 386 12:2 304
4:16 36, 450, 452 12:7 372
LXX 4:17a 154 LXX 14 150
LXX 4:17c 312
LXX 5:1a 205 Ezra
5:14 35, 62, 450 1:5 95
6:1 450 4:15 166
4:17 139 16:27 188

5:17 139 17:23 486
7:1 3 20:1 435
7:12 449 21:26 164
24:14 95, 189
Nehemiah 25 157
1:18 163 28:9 137
2 153 29:13 486
34 151, 254
7:65 151 2 Chronicles
8 340 2:5 486
8:9 151 5:3 163
9:6 312 6 164
9:8 136 7:1 134, 163, 164, 527
9:32 486 7:810 163
11:1 186 7:910 134, 165
11:17 154 13:11 142
12:11 154 20:18 386
24:9 221
1 Chronicles 24:11 190
10:10 510 29:17 165
14:12 439 30:6 136
II. New Testament
Matthew 1:65 508

2:22 168 2:2 544
3:1617 201 3:1 434
14:9 168 4:37 330
24:15 188 5:1 428
25:46 304 5:26 508
27:54 152 20:2740 442
20:36 316
Mark 22:6 483
1:6 268 23:32 202
1:1011 201 24:44 59, 166
4:41 508
5:41 555 John
14:61 278 4:2124 47
15:34 555 7:2 143
15:42 342 8:20 191
10:22 87, 163
Luke 11:49 399
1:5 95 12:13 378
1:8 95 18:11 399
566 Indices
Acts 19:9 199

1:3 307 21:28 188
1:6 407 21:39 197
1:911 163 23:1 275
2:1 436 23:6 305
2:47 480 23:8 316, 317, 442, 444
3:21 407 24:12 276
4:1 189 24:15 305
4:29 486 25:16 302
5:5 139 26:6 305
5:11 330 28:19 216, 469
5:1314 480
5:24 189 Romans
5:33 139 11:1 95
5:39 307 11:26ff. 554
5:40 233
6:1 205 1 Corinthians
6:13 188 15:4255 306
7 205, 486
7:2 205 2 Corinthians
7:9 205 11:27 178
7:33 205
7:4446 205 Galatians
7:4450 486 1:1314 173
7:4850 205
7:56 293 Philippians
7:58 205 1:27 275
7:59 293 3:5 95
8:30 514 3:20 275
10:1 238
10:24 403 1 Thessalonians
10:28 277 1:2 139
10:39 135 2:13 538
12:1 353 2:16 284
12:23 355, 357
15:5 197 Hebrews
15:21 197 11:3536 88
16:20 486 11:3538 52
16:37 281, 486 11:38 88
17:21 71
17:24 312 1 John
17:25 486 3:2 538
III. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha
Assumption of Moses 13:15 510

3:4 386 14:1 510
4:8 95 15:12 378
8 299 16:1 154
8:12 278 16:17 357
9 299 16:18 439
9:7 317
Letter of Aristeas
1 Baruch 2 186
2:11 506 3 51, 180
11 180, 554
2 Baruch 16 205
6 160, 162 23 244
31 180
Bel and the Dragon 36 51
15 150 44 51
21 150 53 509
63 180
1 Enoch 83 135
6:2 316 9296 199
14:3 316 93 180
91:10 304 99 180
107111 135
Epistle of Jeremiah 121ff. 286
Pp. 160, 161 126 51
144 197, 287
1 Esdras 145146 435
8:73 198 205 405
210 486
2 Esdras 211 355
4:15 166 225 405
230 405
Judith 245 240, 253
2:3 347 262 355
4:3 452 263 355, 359
4:1015 198 264265 405
4:11 241 267 240
4:1112 386 269 355
6:2 498 270 405
8:1 3 271 240
8:6 342 289 315
8:7 194 310 145, 199
10:13 260
13:710 508
568 Indices
1 Maccabees 2:2938 86, 282, 325

1 299, 533, 535 2:2941 50
1:9 192 2:31 282
1:11 49, 325 2:3238 272
1:1115 43, 211 2:3941 266, 282
1:14 219 2:41ff. 274
1:19 192 2:42 471
1:20 250, 274 2:4243 323
1:2024 149, 533 2:4245 326
1:21 534 2:4248 324
1:2123 46, 48, 192, 260, 533 2:44 382
1:24ff. 300 2:4448 325, 329
1:29 41, 250, 265, 398, 536 2:45 323, 375
1:30 49, 266, 342 2:4964 337
1:33ff. 272 2:50 215
1:3640 272 2:54 13, 215
1:4167 273 2:58 215
1:43 49 2:65 324, 475
1:47 375 3 331
1:52 49, 325 34 324, 333
1:54 372, 373, 375, 376 3:1 324
1:5664 299 3:333 29
1:5859 542 3:58 325, 329
1:59 377 3:8 317, 329
1:60 281 3:1024 329
1:6061 326 3:17 452
1:6063 50, 54 3:24 339
1:6064 272 3:2733 148
1:61 19, 198, 281 3:32 41, 265, 367, 397, 398
1:6263 268 3:3233 30, 367
1:64 317, 329 3:37 352, 544
2 324 3:38 9, 30, 243, 325, 331
24:23 323 3:39 332
2:1 267, 339, 454 3:41 333, 346
2:114 275 3:4354 46, 48, 325
2:7 186 3:47 198, 241, 452
2:14 198 3:48 340
2:15ff. 280 3:56 335
2:16 49 3:5859 46, 332
2:17 502 4 34, 344, 394, 395, 419
2:24 215 46 40, 420
2:2426 13 4:1 9, 325
2:25 375 4:125 329
2:2627 215 4:5 9, 325
2:2829 267, 268 4:811 337
2:29 496 4:10 136, 335
4:15 342, 436 6:1 148, 352

4:18 9, 325 6:116 25, 29, 148
4:23 342 6:5ff. 354
4:26 163, 394 6:14 366
4:2635 344 6:15 312
4:28 398, 448 6:16 32
4:2835 394, 395 6:17 398
4:29 400 6:1863 394
4:35 26, 451 6:20 29, 30, 41, 448
4:36 171, 374 6:21 49
4:365:8 372 6:2123 192
4:38 345 6:22 385
4:39 241 6:26 26
4:4158 376 6:30 398, 448
4:4347 376 6:3046 395
4:46 57 6:31 395, 400, 456, 490
4:52 372, 373, 376, 523 6:33 506
4:5254 377 6:37 455
4:59 163, 171 6:39 253
4:61 26, 394, 400 6:4346 288, 455
5 29, 30, 374, 394, 417, 418, 6:4950 457, 458
419, 420, 422, 424, 427 6:5154 458
5:3 382 6:55 459
5:35 374 6:55ff. 29
5:68 374, 385, 386 6:5556 30
5:9ff. 429 6:5563 367
5:10 171 6:58 237
5:13 385 6:6061 458
5:16 385 6:62 49, 459
5:17 385 6:63 459
5:25 418, 425 7:1 86, 467, 468, 511
5:26 419, 429, 430 7:34 468
5:35 429 7:5 49, 325, 466, 469, 476
5:4344 433 7:6 171, 382
5:4651 434 7:810 9
5:54 46, 48, 419 7:825 467
5:56 340, 383 7:10 171, 467
5:58ff. 424 7:11 467
5:59 408 7:1218 482
5:61 171 7:13 471
5:62 13, 419 7:14 96
5:65 171, 382, 384 7:17 142
5:6568 436 7:18 49
5:68 375, 439 7:21 332
6 34, 36, 60, 355, 395, 7:22 49
396, 420, 454 7:2630 481
570 Indices
7:27 467, 507 10:89 398

7:30 467 11:118 367
7:31 477 11:13 188
7:33 478, 484, 485 11:14 235
7:35 543 11:17 508
7:3638 156 11:25 49
7:37 486 11:27 332
7:3950 496, 505, 507 11:28 218
7:40 477, 504 11:30 406
7:41 506 11:3037 73
7:4142 337 11:31 398
7:43 511 11:53 39
7:45 504 11:59 460
7:47 508, 510 11:60 193
7:49 467 11:70 404
8 14, 221 11:71 386
8:6 188 12:1 235
8:17 175, 221, 430 12:14 14
9 3 12:523 256
9:3 482, 523 12:7 73
9:10 235, 288 12:9 403
9:12 506 12:11 139
9:23 49 12:1922 73
9:27 57 12:22 168
9:30 147 13:11 404, 424
9:33 14 13:25 454
9:54 523 13:3640 11, 139
9:58 49 13:37 311, 469, 470
9:69 49 13:39 410
10:8 508 13:41 11, 139
10:14 49, 382 13:4142 529
10:1521 13 13:42 147
10:18 135, 406 13:51 378
10:21 143 14 475
10:25 135 14:13 139
10:26 362, 404 14:5 423, 424
10:31 196 14:2023 257
10:40 192 14:28 509
10:43 196 14:34 423
10:44 192 14:36 233
10:46 365 14:3637 135
10:5158 367 14:41 57, 147, 477
10:5966 227 14:49 191
10:61 49 15:10 11, 139
10:69 424 15:21 255, 382
10:7576 424 15:27 49
15:3334 235 1:1819 134

15:40 424 1:182:15 133
16:14 193 1:19 134, 160, 168, 172
16:2324 520 1:20 148
1:23 157
2 Maccabees 1:25 200
12 11, 17 1:2526 168, 391
1:1 6, 8, 132, 137, 140, 144, 385, 520 1:27 162, 169, 205
1:19 521 1:29 169, 197, 538
1:11:10a 132, 521, 525 1:30 438
1:12:18 4, 519, 520, 528 1:31 376, 528, 538
1:2 317 1:3132 9
1:25 133, 136, 375 1:32 154, 172
1:3 168 1:33 148, 159
1:34 137, 138 1:34 159, 215
1:4 138, 142, 314 1:36 159
1:5 10, 525, 526 2:1 152, 163, 166
1:6 133, 486 2:2 291, 314
1:7 4, 9, 11, 143, 147, 162, 2:4 155, 166, 197
336, 522, 524, 526, 527, 529 2:6 161
1:78 140 2:811 197
1:79 521 2:812 160
1:710a 133 2:9 150, 153, 164
1:7a 522 2:10 134, 154, 164, 376, 538
1:7b-8 522 2:12 134, 163
1:8 132, 163, 345, 372, 376, 526 2:13 160, 260, 403
1:9 9, 139, 150, 163, 377 2:14 358
1:910a 523 2:16 134, 140, 144, 150,
1:910 11 159, 263, 523
1:10 5, 8, 15, 59, 135, 148, 2:1618 133
243, 362, 373, 520, 521, 523 2:17 9, 137, 147, 155, 162
1:10a 11, 521, 522, 524 2:1718 134
1:10b 133, 523 2:18 157, 538
1:10b-2:18 132 2:1832 132
1:11 133, 146 2:19 31, 163, 174, 475, 484
1:1117 133 2:1923 171
1:12 133, 186, 336, 502, 527 2:1932 4, 16, 24, 25, 37, 519
1:1213 527 2:20 4, 364, 527
1:13 71, 133, 149, 258, 329 2:2021 81
1:1316 133, 147, 150, 520, 521, 527 2:21 47, 80, 156, 199,
1:1317 25, 144 224, 251, 281, 423
1:14 192 2:22 186
1:15 13, 150, 485 2:23 36
1:17 527 2:2324 324
1:18 9, 133, 143, 144, 153, 2:2331 17, 24
159, 163, 167, 172, 523 2:2332 513
572 Indices
2:23ff. 379, 419 3:16 5, 69, 185, 196, 281, 401

2:24 177, 231, 346, 514 3:17 69, 70
2:2431 27 3:18 48, 402
2:2432 513 3:19 18, 277, 281, 318
2:25 24, 72 3:20 47, 48, 156, 184, 205, 501
2:26 24, 34, 175 3:2021 355
2:2627 68 3:21 5, 79, 185, 386, 483
2:27 24, 179, 514 3:22 48, 71, 174, 186, 191, 496
2:28 72, 175 3:2223 18, 76, 200, 334, 498, 506
2:29 24, 353 3:24 40, 70, 71, 202, 259, 337, 456
2:32 24, 150, 175, 285 3:2426 172, 251, 431
3 4, 16, 37, 41, 42, 75, 87, 172 3:25 70, 202, 214, 356, 401
34 12, 18 3:26 201
35 19, 42, 43 3:28 78, 174, 180, 200,
37 329 201, 307, 357
315 16 3:29 76
3:1 3, 7, 50, 70, 74, 75, 174, 3:2930 200, 506
185, 193, 195, 200, 214, 224, 3:30 32, 48, 70, 200, 292,
238, 239, 327, 328, 502, 512 391, 406, 455, 508
3:12 375 3:31 46, 48, 61, 71, 185, 228
3:13 4, 6, 48, 184, 250, 482 3:32 5, 46, 48, 185, 238, 257
3:14:6 4 3:33 5, 61, 185, 201, 204
3:16:17 25 3:3334 172
3:2 74, 204, 260, 481 3:34 47, 93, 155, 156, 201, 204
3:23 18, 48, 167 3:3439 347, 402
3:3 4, 5, 74, 185, 191, 192, 3:35 69, 185, 193
225, 360, 468, 549 3:36 361
3:4 5, 6, 27, 74, 95, 211, 3:3639 48
243, 380, 468, 482 3:37 185
3:45 49 3:38 192, 215, 331
3:5 4, 185, 193, 333 3:3839 201
3:56 216, 469 3:39 47, 64, 93, 156, 184,
3:6 233 197, 305, 341, 486
3:7 180, 215, 474 3:40 379, 512
3:8 185 4 16, 18, 300
3:9 5, 69, 184, 185, 204, 250, 538 45 51, 140
3:10 5, 185, 200 47 336
3:1012 191 4:1 69, 70, 180, 201
3:11 224 4:14 4
3:12 174, 433 4:16 4, 18, 469
3:13 232 4:1b 4
3:14 69, 401, 504 4:2 6, 213, 219, 220, 245,
3:14b 184 246, 337, 422, 456, 504
3:1417 79 4:3 50, 236
3:15 5, 47, 48, 93, 156, 172, 4:4 4, 176, 191, 228, 265, 333
184, 191, 200, 205, 290 4:46 187, 469
4:5 6, 199, 367, 449 4:29 31, 235, 383

4:56 4, 82 4:30 42
4:6 48, 80, 82, 217, 236, 4:3034 12
250, 273, 471, 538 4:3038 217
4:7 4, 6, 31, 49, 70, 185, 188, 4:31 234, 383, 552
192, 211, 217, 229, 231, 4:32 240, 243, 451, 538
294, 306, 399, 490, 527 4:3238 49
4:79 82 4:33 196, 530
4:715 41 4:34 48, 71, 187, 433
4:8 231, 399 4:35 48, 67, 238, 245, 254,
4:89 231 317, 335, 365, 450, 461
4:9 212, 273, 530 4:3536 422
4:911 6 4:3538 211
4:10 83, 222, 224, 254, 281, 557 4:36 51, 68, 187, 211, 328, 352
4:1011 531 4:3637 237
4:11 14, 15, 141, 174, 4:37 501
243, 289, 336, 456 4:38 71, 226, 242, 345,
4:12 222, 233, 263 390, 423, 473, 554
4:13 23, 67, 70, 83, 140, 173, 4:39 199, 235, 243, 251,
195, 220, 232, 291, 327, 527 387, 451
4:14 172, 189, 223 4:3940 68
4:15 83, 224 4:3942 52, 353
4:16 215 4:40 27, 50, 215, 216, 241,
4:1617 21, 22, 24, 25, 37, 64, 65, 243, 380, 468, 471
75, 211, 226, 250, 261, 283, 4:41 244, 402
284, 303 4:42 35, 71, 191, 226, 237,
4:17 24, 197, 224, 327 240, 255, 341, 382
4:18 52 4:44 52, 232
4:1820 52, 53 4:45 48, 72, 174, 279
4:1822 211 4:4546 279, 331
4:19 243, 260, 274, 487, 530 4:47 264, 314, 450, 514
4:1920 219 4:48 6, 7, 46, 235, 504
4:20 227 4:49 48, 187, 211, 237,
4:21 5, 73, 144, 191, 215, 232, 238, 257, 328, 422, 450
265, 274, 363, 367, 482 4:50 6, 215, 219, 331, 557
4:2123 534 5 16, 18, 54, 141,
4:22 193, 218, 250 300, 534, 535, 536
4:23 31, 73, 95, 229, 274, 367, 456 5:1 42, 231, 238, 274, 533
4:2324 82 5:2 69, 201, 266, 387
4:24 399 5:24 172
4:25 49, 95, 174, 241, 256, 5:3 68, 69, 252
258, 290, 312, 474 5:4 48, 228, 249
4:26 18, 31, 218, 226, 253, 255, 399 5:5 70, 254, 255, 294, 306, 476
4:27 80, 219, 241, 557 5:6 6, 80, 142, 220, 238,
4:28 191, 223, 448 258, 422, 476
4:2829 552 5:7 18, 62, 219, 242, 557
574 Indices
5:710 35, 202 6:1 7, 18, 19, 41, 174, 197, 251,
5:8 6, 133, 141, 213, 232, 274, 291, 300, 407, 536
241, 257, 425 6:111 19
5:89 538 6:2 18, 19, 47, 86, 264, 268, 407, 537
5:9 47, 80, 213, 365, 383 6:25 274
5:910 78, 226, 249 6:3 19
5:10 245, 256, 277, 360 6:311 196
5:11 49, 53, 73, 203, 232, 6:4 228, 355
264, 290, 354, 390, 534 6:45 136, 273, 336, 407
5:1113 79 6:5 172, 281, 461
5:1114 255 6:6 19, 199, 274, 496
5:12 71, 423 6:7 17, 18, 39, 273, 274, 318,
5:1213 299 358, 378, 541
5:13 20, 298, 376 6:8 17, 356, 422
5:14 80 6:9 69, 83, 173, 224, 291
5:15 174, 201, 213, 256, 456 6:10 18, 20, 198, 239, 318, 328
5:1516 149, 336, 360, 451 6:1011 273, 274, 326
5:16 18, 22, 46, 48, 89, 6:11 19, 74, 86, 87, 191, 268,
167, 188, 204, 235, 264, 330, 366, 377, 487, 496, 497
372, 484, 487, 533 6:12 24, 47, 69, 70, 177, 284,
5:17 21, 22, 68, 176, 188, 284, 315, 325, 513
299, 307, 313, 351, 356 6:1216 21, 64, 285, 303, 377, 486
5:1720 21, 24, 25, 37, 64, 75, 6:1217 19, 24, 25, 37, 75, 226,
226, 250, 261, 283, 303 273, 283
5:18 5, 68, 191 6:14 24, 232, 261
5:19 46, 156, 481 6:1416 261
5:20 21, 68, 71, 138, 155, 174, 6:15 226
186, 261, 262, 526 6:1516 24
5:21 19, 26, 69, 156, 201, 261, 300, 6:16 21, 69, 283, 306, 315
351, 355, 356, 357, 359, 530 6:17 68, 180, 286, 318
5:22 19, 62, 174, 189, 234, 6:17b 285
243, 276, 330, 366 6:18 281, 287
5:2223 18, 47, 539 6:1832 19, 23
5:23 6, 69 6:187:42 21, 22, 24, 25, 37,
5:24 19, 41, 68, 250, 252, 55, 328, 330
259, 332, 535 6:19 88, 265
5:25 18, 19, 69, 94, 153, 252, 6:20 281, 287
253, 289, 301, 440, 496 6:21 17, 228, 281, 287,
5:26 68, 69, 70, 80, 423, 455 301, 311, 318, 356
5:27 3, 19, 82, 84, 217, 275, 6:2122 237
326, 341, 366, 377, 469, 6:22 293, 304, 538
495 6:23 19, 23, 197, 283, 286, 498, 501
5:277:41 89 6:24 23, 286, 289
6 16, 17, 18, 300 6:2425 489
67 7, 17, 20, 24, 48, 50, 75, 6:2428 50, 273
90, 220, 372, 444, 495, 550 6:25 23, 83, 265, 288
6:26 71, 155, 304 7:33 22, 47, 68, 71, 93, 136,
6:27 70 138, 261, 262, 283, 299, 303,
6:28 23, 67, 70, 88, 330 314, 343, 525, 526
6:29 180, 459 7:34 22, 69, 260, 305, 308, 487
6:30 23, 69, 70, 304, 448, 488, 554 7:35 205
6:31 23, 50, 291, 303, 306, 308 7:36 69, 299
7 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 31, 52, 59, 7:37 19, 23, 24, 48, 175, 301, 387
88, 90, 293, 318, 328 7:3738 299
7:1 17, 93, 277, 286, 302, 440 7:38 23, 50, 155, 313, 329
7:2 19, 70, 301, 339 7:39 290, 293, 301, 302, 354, 483
7:3 290, 302, 317, 354, 483 7:40 306
7:4 244, 303, 514 7:41 70
7:45 86, 358 7:42 17, 20, 23, 68, 69, 205,
7:5 70, 276, 305, 311, 423 263, 285, 299, 318, 356
7:6 19, 22, 24, 62, 136, 197, 8 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 25, 300,
205, 299, 311, 315, 343, 526, 554 354, 372, 394, 495, 497
7:7 88, 302, 306, 356 8:1 68, 82, 84, 173, 224, 245, 267,
7:8 19, 69, 438, 554 281, 285, 323, 324, 336, 495
7:9 226, 299, 305, 306 8:2 70, 205, 346
7:10 70, 305 8:23 7
7:11 299 8:24 4, 19, 22, 48, 83, 146,
7:12 69, 302 326, 329, 376, 527
7:13 17, 306 8:25 272
7:14 70, 299, 304, 305, 450 8:3 174, 359
7:15 17 8:34 50
7:16 285, 299 8:4 187, 238
7:17 155, 293, 318 8:45 65, 317
7:1718 497 8:5 23, 48, 80, 83, 148, 175, 272, 313,
7:18 23, 93, 291, 314 323, 346, 347, 387, 401, 501
7:19 353 8:57 174, 324
7:20 79, 305 8:58 324
7:21 19, 310, 311, 438, 499, 554 8:6 245, 326, 352
7:2124 310 8:67 325, 423
7:2223 490 8:7 471
7:23 71, 155, 299, 305 8:8 176, 243, 323, 366, 382
7:24 19, 149, 301, 311, 459 8:9 46, 71, 149, 341, 382, 423,
7:25 233, 302 427, 473, 474
7:2529 289 8:9ff. 323
7:26 302 8:10 42, 544
7:27 19, 232, 241, 256, 8:11 76, 155, 280, 323, 335, 341,
310, 438, 554 346, 348, 355, 374, 476, 498
7:28 58, 63, 228, 238, 302 8:11b 226
7:29 88, 256, 261, 299 8:12 73, 330, 382
7:30 19, 137, 197, 302 8:13 201, 346
7:31 52 8:14 228, 253, 346
7:32 93, 261, 307 8:1415 48
576 Indices
8:1420 46, 48, 325 9:2 240, 241, 258, 352, 426
8:15 317, 335 9:3 73, 343, 385, 421, 441
8:16 201 9:4 7, 47, 81, 156, 201,
8:1620 64, 499 290, 327, 359, 476, 498
8:17 4, 7, 69, 188, 222, 337, 527 9:5 69, 71, 201, 205, 313, 391
8:18 76, 200, 219, 346, 403, 9:56 47, 226
456, 499 9:6 357, 365, 451
8:1819 341 9:7 67, 69, 70, 81, 258, 303, 352,
8:1820 546 354, 355, 390, 423, 473, 480
8:19 62, 499 9:78 357
8:1920 323, 427, 452, 499 9:8 25, 69, 174, 263, 355, 360, 498
8:20 47, 71, 156, 341, 546 9:810 26, 202
8:21 50, 70, 256, 301, 344 9:812 156
8:22 31, 171, 340 9:9 62, 70, 86, 92, 360
8:2223 340 9:10 25, 78, 235, 341, 366
8:23 32, 70, 341, 346, 401, 431 9:1012 201
8:2326 324 9:11 81, 355, 503
8:24 71, 155, 242, 339 9:1112 307
8:25 47, 152, 226, 258 9:1117 402
8:2627 19 9:12 223, 313, 357
8:2628 266 9:1217 48
8:27 313, 343, 346, 387, 9:13 76, 260, 261, 361, 362, 487
391, 401, 402 9:13b 226
8:2730 339 9:14 186, 196, 347, 502
8:29 22, 23, 24, 48, 76, 84, 136, 138, 9:1415 7
169, 175, 198, 228, 253, 303, 9:1417 359
342, 346, 387, 401, 441, 496, 9:15 41, 227, 228, 245, 257, 275
525, 526 9:16 48, 83, 167, 189, 225, 260
8:30 9, 71, 332, 342, 383 9:1617 204
8:3032 421 9:17 155, 204, 362
8:3033 354, 385 9:1718 81, 484
8:31 329, 342, 345, 352 9:18 69, 152, 362, 363, 403, 498
8:32 71 9:18ff. 359
8:33 72, 213, 226, 343, 390 9:19 6, 135
8:34 9, 84, 330, 333, 382, 421, 432, 9:20 47, 156, 409
473, 497, 499 9:21 405
8:3435 389 9:23 359, 364, 367
8:35 341, 530 9:24 234
8:36 7, 42, 48, 64, 78, 80, 202, 9:25 72, 359, 363, 403
307, 333, 357, 361, 402, 473, 544 9:26 362, 405
9 16, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 35, 9:27 289
148, 300, 354, 395, 450, 527 9:28 47, 226, 257, 294, 328
910 40, 406 9:2829 245
913 25, 33, 380, 46 9:29 27, 29, 144, 205, 217, 381
9:1 236, 251, 258, 538 10 16, 30, 394, 397, 427
9:12 148, 236, 389 1011 31, 32, 34, 35, 374, 398, 419
1013 26 10:24 27, 31, 258, 343, 344, 354,

10:1 8 374, 382, 389, 398, 448
10:13 8 10:2438 372
10:18 8, 11, 14, 16, 17, 25, 30, 37, 10:25 31, 198, 346, 361, 477
143, 144, 371, 372, 373, 376, 10:2526 48, 341, 372
378, 379, 526, 527, 528, 529 10:26 62, 94, 175, 199, 241,
10:2 172, 372, 373, 485 253, 401, 538
10:23 136 10:2630 63
10:3 8, 9, 134, 142, 153, 157, 158, 10:27 7, 31, 251
163, 231, 372, 526, 528 10:28 76, 294, 329, 336, 346, 390
10:4 22, 24, 32, 48, 69, 150, 174, 10:29 47, 62, 156, 201,
175, 253, 283, 284, 390, 452 387, 388, 401, 425
10:5 47, 163, 375, 376 10:2930 31, 172, 372, 431, 507
10:6 88, 165, 268, 366 10:30 201, 257, 406, 508
10:67 9, 143 10:31 383
10:7 8, 48, 385, 470 10:32 343, 374, 383
10:8 7, 10, 137, 144, 510, 526 10:34 277, 347, 427
10:9 8, 16, 205, 217, 367, 10:3435 328
372, 373, 526 10:3436 32
10:913 371 10:35 67, 70, 71, 258, 387, 390, 473
10:911:38 32, 36, 37 10:36 457
10:10 72, 172, 217, 324, 10:37 27, 71, 72, 374
327, 355, 364, 419, 513 10:38 48, 346, 372, 438
10:1011 367 11 11, 16, 28, 30, 32, 42, 300,
10:1011:38 33, 34 372, 373, 395, 420, 448
10:10ff. 30 11:1 27, 29, 41, 68, 192,
10:11 30, 189, 192, 243, 331, 251, 317, 420, 441
354, 359, 396, 397, 421 11:2 31, 81, 361, 399, 484
10:12 217, 237, 243, 11:23 7, 398
313, 330, 379 11:24 283
10:1213 42, 244, 330, 331 11:3 67, 485, 538
10:13 149, 490 11:4 36, 81, 86, 155, 361, 395,
10:14 68, 80, 330, 333, 374 398, 448, 484, 498, 505
10:1415 280, 331, 422, 436 11:4a 226
10:1423 372 11:5 26, 30, 31, 32, 456
10:15 50, 215, 242, 329, 353, 476 11:6 31, 48, 73, 79, 198, 228,
10:16 48, 198, 253, 341, 372 229, 341, 361, 391, 401, 452
10:17 70, 71, 332 11:7 31, 70, 339, 340, 431
10:18 343 11:78 387
10:1819 31 11:8 31, 172, 201, 387
10:19 73, 233, 339, 352 11:9 70, 197, 391
10:1920 171, 432 11:10 47, 156, 341
10:1923 340 11:11 70
10:21 31, 339, 441 11:12 242, 389
10:22 384 11:13 48, 64, 307, 314, 347,
10:23 71, 332 357, 448, 451
578 Indices
11:1314 26 12:8 228

11:14 32, 459 12:9 30, 70, 329, 400, 423, 439
11:15 219, 403, 404, 405, 420 12:10 27, 30, 345, 389,
11:16 135, 199 400, 418, 425, 428, 429
11:1621 412 12:1011 68
11:17 72, 364, 397, 403 12:1012 418
11:18 27, 396, 405, 406, 411 12:1016 418
11:19 362, 407, 410 12:10ff. 374, 390
11:21 412, 523 12:11 341, 388, 417
11:22 135, 403 12:1112 237, 418
11:2226 459 12:12 403
11:23 33, 395, 411, 420, 472 12:13 199, 434
11:24 173, 222, 224, 226, 12:1316 418
281, 410, 411 12:14 51, 277, 328, 390
11:25 275, 406, 508 12:1415 77
11:26 168, 237, 365, 406, 420 12:15 48, 70, 214, 258,
11:27 135, 243, 403, 404 337, 390, 417, 435
11:2733 408 12:16 30, 174, 400, 417, 426
11:28 362 12:17 30, 353, 390, 400, 425, 437
11:29 192, 406, 420 12:1719 418
11:2932 449 12:18 73
11:30 237 12:19 71, 428, 456
11:31 407, 549 12:20 70, 339
11:32 409 12:2025 418
11:33 405, 412, 523 12:21 31, 195, 228, 353, 433, 534
11:34 135, 397, 403 12:22 69, 70, 140, 172, 205,
11:3536 396 340, 417, 433, 503
11:36 196, 412, 530 12:23 69, 433, 455
11:37 240 12:24 389, 437
11:38 410, 523 12:2425 29, 31, 68, 425
12 16, 28, 29, 30, 32, 12:25 339
354, 374, 420, 427 12:26 149, 431
1213 31 12:2629 418
12:1 16, 27, 33, 235, 318, 482 12:27 174, 332, 426, 427
12:12 48, 77, 380, 422 12:28 48, 200, 417
12:19 418 12:29 30, 353, 400, 434
12:2 48, 189, 213, 234, 252, 265, 12:30 422
332, 333, 374, 385, 386, 425, 12:3031 48, 418
472, 482 12:31 7
12:23 280 12:3132 34, 46, 48, 68, 417, 425
12:3 424 12:32 353, 374, 382
12:39 333, 421 12:3237 418
12:5 220, 228 12:34 65, 188, 418, 440
12:6 31, 48, 69, 155, 226, 238, 239, 12:35 27, 70, 332, 380,
267, 329, 341, 417, 436, 440, 453 389, 421, 430
12:7 71, 258 12:36 48, 72, 341, 417, 436
12:37 214, 433, 508, 554 13:1415 81

12:38 19, 223, 224, 266, 425, 436 13:15 32, 329, 340, 455, 505
12:3845 417, 418 13:16 32, 203, 406, 508
12:39 245 13:17 257
12:3941 65 13:18 454
12:40 80, 277 13:19 26
12:4041 47, 436 13:1926 28, 34, 453
12:41 391, 436, 453 13:20 73
12:4142 48, 155 13:21 75, 191, 243, 457
12:42 198, 253, 443 13:22 68, 237, 457
12:42ff. 341 13:23 27, 29, 70, 188, 216, 228,
12:43 7, 48, 192, 290, 451 234, 289, 311, 367, 402, 461,
12:4345 291, 299 472, 481, 530
12:44 46, 48 13:24 41, 42, 204, 380
12:45 60, 70, 356 13:2425 530
13 16, 28, 29, 30, 32, 35, 13:25 28, 32, 68, 237, 279, 333,
300, 395, 420 347, 419, 459, 460
13:1 32, 41, 73, 231 13:26 205, 258, 379, 419,
13:12 26, 28, 77 448, 512, 534
13:2 35, 397, 399, 430, 14 16, 17, 300
461, 468, 480, 505 1415 17, 18, 19, 25, 499
13:3 213, 409 14:1 26, 86, 87, 199, 230, 231
13:35 86 14:12 77
13:38 28, 35, 36, 37, 47, 226, 447 14:2 71, 397, 557
13:4 28, 35, 70, 71, 244, 14:3 27, 49, 50, 82, 189, 243, 268,
264, 314, 447, 450, 466 380, 466, 471, 474, 482, 552
13:45 472 14:34 216
13:5 62 14:310 18
13:6 240 14:4 231, 378, 511
13:7 188, 245, 366, 538 14:4ff. 191
13:78 78, 257 14:5 82, 189, 216, 233, 235, 264,
13:8 172, 224, 241, 242, 356 330, 473
13:9 28, 37, 213, 441 14:6 68, 353, 382, 538
13:917 447 14:7 473, 552
13:926 28 14:710 82
13:10 228, 229, 423 14:8 6, 180, 216, 459
13:1012 48 14:9 289
13:1014 477 14:10 471, 538
13:11 32, 47, 49, 174, 213, 244, 256 14:11 68, 149, 244
13:12 36, 62, 198, 199, 14:12 274, 505
386, 401, 450, 472 14:1225 9
13:13 243, 341, 448, 454, 14:13 71, 171, 174, 403, 468,
469, 479, 487 483, 484, 552
13:1314 7, 64 14:14 332, 402, 476, 481, 497
13:14 28, 34, 47, 50, 155, 213, 14:15 48, 172, 198, 241,
222, 256, 301, 339, 341, 455 285, 386, 499
580 Indices
14:16 479, 505 15:1 70, 174, 186, 200,

14:17 31, 171, 384, 432, 433 228, 268, 500
14:18 68, 70, 308, 330, 482 15:12 18, 19, 266
14:1825 49 15:2 174, 205, 232, 307
14:19 430 15:3 10, 84, 137, 303, 314,
14:20 219, 240, 280, 403 346, 421, 432, 499
14:21 28, 35 15:34 47, 156
14:2122 480 15:4 71, 290, 315, 496
14:22 73, 329 15:5 76, 201, 311, 314, 507, 509
14:23 174, 476 15:56 18
14:25 28, 35, 472 15:6 69, 186, 254, 508
14:26 189, 229, 359, 480, 551, 552 15:67 77, 174, 200, 334, 484, 506
14:2629 500 15:7 186, 538
14:26ff. 191 15:79 64
14:27 274, 290, 301, 354, 15:8 17, 47, 156, 341
423, 467, 474, 530 15:89 452, 499
14:28 32, 238, 461 15:9 70, 166, 337
14:29 81, 199, 235, 361, 456 15:10 70, 308, 423, 509
14:2931 318 15:11 70, 252, 507
14:30 63, 176 15:12 68, 239, 442, 499, 503
14:31 81, 150, 171, 174, 15:1214 12, 211
228, 361, 475 15:13 230
14:31ff. 478 15:14 20, 61, 68, 186
14:33 7, 17, 18, 53, 62, 172, 375, 15:1416 160
498, 504, 508, 509, 510, 543 15:1516 69
14:3334 18, 486, 505 15:17 7, 70, 174, 186, 294,
14:34 47, 156, 283, 347, 330, 453, 500
485, 501, 510, 513 15:18 31, 254
14:3435 197 15:1819 196
14:3436 48, 156 15:18ff. 341
14:35 205, 341 15:19 69, 79, 196, 197, 401, 477
14:3536 84 15:2022 74
14:36 17, 452, 510 15:21 47, 156, 232, 497, 501, 538
14:37 6, 7, 51, 191, 282 15:2124 48
14:3738 243, 286 15:2126 505
14:3746 23, 55, 59, 60 15:22 62, 261, 337, 427, 452, 499
14:38 83, 84, 173, 174, 186, 224, 15:23 47, 156, 401, 486
268, 281, 466, 469, 508 15:24 20, 62, 328, 485, 509, 510
14:40 290 15:2426 200
14:41 479, 503 15:25 438, 507
14:42 291 15:2526 18, 336
14:43 70, 327, 513 15:26 505
14:45 402, 473 15:2627 48
14:4546 80 15:27 172, 431, 500
14:46 23, 48, 214, 293, 299 15:28 201, 258
15 9, 16, 372, 495 15:2835 35
15:29 48, 391, 406, 438, 554 3:810 237

15:30 6, 17, 62, 485, 488, 498, 510 3:9 410, 501
15:3031 220, 422 3:19 498
15:32 17, 69, 201, 260, 3:23 382
328, 485, 499, 510 3:25 458
15:3233 508 3:27 288
15:33 7, 62, 216, 226, 302, 510 4:4 283
15:3334 235 4:6 482
15:34 17, 47, 48, 93, 156, 391, 487 4:9 152
15:35 341, 510 4:14 308
15:36 7, 9, 10, 303, 331, 353, 379, 4:17 180
438, 467, 526, 553 5:2 514
15:37 3, 7, 15, 50, 52, 184, 205, 5:20 277
314, 379, 402, 556, 557 5:35 449
15:3738 24 5:42 290, 472
15:3739 24, 37 5:43 327
15:38 72, 460 5:51 201
15:3839 519 6:1 145
15:39 24, 177, 244 6:115 286, 337
6:3 477
3 Maccabees 6:4 391
1 54 6:5 337
12 5, 6, 87, 185 6:9 391, 486
1:5 259 6:12 336
1:9 188 6:15 262
1:10 199 6:16 313
1:11 195 6:1621 202
1:18 198 6:18 201, 202
1:19 481 6:2226 450
1:22 51 6:23 238
1:23 275 6:24 244, 353
1:26 180 6:28 316
1:29 199 6:34 356
2:1 198 6:3536 180
2:2 154 6:39 201
2:28 337 7:3 244, 501
2:6 391 7:4 472
2:9 486 7:5 244
2:10 391 7:8 407
2:16 391 7:1015 450
2:21 205 7:11 314
2:27 281 7:12 409
2:29 279, 543 7:13 199, 509
2:33 499 7:16 391
3:1 135 7:1819 9
3:8 238, 483 7:23 391, 514
582 Indices
4 Maccabees 36:11 155, 156

4:11 199 36:12 186
4:26 173 38:24 286
5:4 286 42:11 198
5:25 197 44:20 136
8:19 283 47:1217 163
10:7 244 48:20 485
12:7 554 48:21 337
12:13 238, 258 49:13 151, 254
16:15 554 50:1 187
18:7 198 50:14 193, 220
50:4 214
Martyrdom and Ascension 50:20 501
of Isaiah
2:11 268 Tobit
2:1 436
Paraleipomena Ieremiou 3:6 262
3:811 160 4:711 342
4:19 291
Pseudo-Philo, 5:22 401
Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 13:2 291
21:10 162
26:13 284 Wisdom of Solomon
44:9 357 79 163
63:4 357 9:15 304, 306
11:16 226
Sirach 12 284
7:10 342 12:2 284
10:2 186 12:19 316
22:4 194 12:22 284
29:13 435 18:2122 203
34:57 500 18:22 335
35:17 31
IV. Dead Sea Scrolls
1QH 1QS
3:2122 316 4:22 316
6:67 267
1QM 11:8 316
34 340
14:2 439 4QMMT
C26 140, 166
1QpHab
5:9 404 4QpIsaa 485
4QpNah 4Q525
1 144 frgs. 23, col. ii, ll. 35 138
1.3 147
11QTemple
4Q196 436 45:1112 186
45:1617 186
4Q200
6:6 291 Damascus Document (CD)
1:3 262
4Q242 356 1:1314 141
2:173:12 161
4Q248 186, 535 5:67 277
9:20 284
4Q385a 12:1 186
frg. 18, I, ab 161
V. Rabbinic Literature
V.1. Mishnah
Abodah Zarah Menahot

2:6 225 13:10 12
Avot Middot
4:19 256 1:35 345
5:17 61 2:5 386
5:18 361
Sanhedrin
Bekhorot 4:5 327
7:1 267 7:4 390
9:6 242
Berakhot 10:1 442
9:3 443
9:12 440 Sotah
7:6 501
Gittin 8:1 506
7:6 312
Sukkah
Kelim 5:4 386
29:7 267
Tamid
Maaser Sheni 3:8 225
3:4 135 7:2 501
584 Indices
Yadayyim Yoma
3:5 166 6:2 509
V.2. Tosephta
Berakhot Sanhedrin
4:3 514 2:6 135
Demai Sotah
4:12 135 6:3 154
13 161
Hullin 13:1 145, 160
2:24 292
Taaniyyot
Niddah 4:11 361
2:24 312
V.3. Palestinian Talmud
Berakhot Hagigah
2:3,5a 377 2:1,77b 361
V.4. Babylonian Talmud
Abodah Zarah Sanhedrin

8b 151 38a 151
16b 292
Shabbat
Berakhot 25b 439
17a 137
29a 64 Sotah
35a 357, 358
Gittin
56a 258 Taanit
57b 287 18b 485, 509
Pesahim Qiddushin
104b 514 66a 64, 454
Rosh Hashanah Yoma

31a 506 5a 327
8b 399
9a 399
V.5. Other
Avot de Rabbi Natan (ed. Schechter) Megillat Taanit (with Scholion)

A, 5 442 (ed. Noam)
B, 10 442 47 512
298 485, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512
Deuteronomy Rabbah
(Midrash Debarim Rabbah, Midrash of the Ten Martyrs (ed. Reeg)
ed. Lieberman) 52*-54* 303
82 242 102* 327
Ecclesiastes Rabbah Pesiqta Rabbati (ed. Ish-Shalom)

(Qohelet Rabbah) 180b 90, 301
9:12 358
Seder Olam Rabbah
Lamentations Rabbah 30 57
8485 90
Sifre Deuteronomy
Leviticus Rabbah 304 440
27:6 314
Sifre Numbers
137 281
VI. Early Christian Literature

(See also index of names)
Apostolic Constitutions Hilary of Poitiers, De Trinitate
8.6.5 137 4.16 58
Epistle to Diognetus Jerome, Commentary on Daniel

4:1 449 11:14 230
11:2122 230
Eusebius 11:36 25
Demonstratio evangelica 11:4445 251
3.7.10 555
De martyribus Palasestinae John Chrysostomos
2.3 305 Adversus Judaeos
9.7 239 1.6 236
Hist. eccl. MPG 48, 900 89
6.5 58 On the Maccabean Martyrs
Praep. Evang. and Their Mother
8.7.9 205 MPG 50, 617628 89
9.17.56 537
9.29.14 198 Justin, Dialogue with Tryphon
9.39.5 160 96.2 278
586 Indices
Lactantius, Martyrdom of Polycarp

De Mortibus Persecutorum 3.2 305
4.3 360 9.3 314
23.8 422 11.1 313
28.34 239
Photius, Biblioteca
Malalas, Chronographia 72 450
261 236
Sulpicius Severus, Chronicon
2.17.5 218
21.4 218
VII. Classical Literature

(including Philo and Josephus)
Aeneas Tacticus 11.66 25

On Withstanding Siege 32 332
4.3 432 45 192, 217
46 364
Aeschylus 47 468
Persians 65.343 547
Opening 504 66 148, 364
422 352
470 352 Aristophanes
481 352 Clouds
734 346 442 303
742 355 Frogs
744748 263 619 303
744751 357, 359
820 357, 359 Aristotle
832836 346 Historia Animalium
612a 513
Andocides Meteorologica
Against Alcibiades 4.6 153
4.19 347 4.383b 153
Appian Arrian
Mithridatica 2.24.6 226
12.67 425 4.7.34 302
12.278 425 5.20.1 345
18 449
85.386387 432 Athenaeus
Syriak 10.426427 513
12 188 13.593 282
Callimachus 17.36.12 79
Epigrams 17.41.56 253
27, l. 4 178 17.53.1 449
Hymns 17.57.6 340
4, ll. 171188 547 17.68.4 439
17.107.5 305
Cicero 18.18.6 406
De Divinatione 18.56.3 409
2.56.115116 253 30.7.2 212, 238
2.62.127 500 31.17a 148
De Oratore 31.18a 25
2.5.21 224 3435.1.34 273
In Verrem 40.3.5 220
2.3.33.76 234
2.5.58.150 245 Diogenes Laertius
Orator 7.10 294
3742 71 9.27 293
To Atticus 9.59 293
16.3.1 176 10.35 178
10.8485 178
Curtius
4.6.29 239 (Ps.) Dionysius of Halicarnassus
6.11.8 479 Ars Rhetorica
7.2.7 479 11.398 294
9.3.16 479
9.3.18 461 Euripides
10.2.30 461 Orestes
12041205 309
Demosthenes Phoenician Women
On Syntaxis Opening 65
14 242 568ff. 254
10901092 490
Diodorus Siculus 1630 451
1.31.2 423
2.10.1 235 Eutropius
5.26.3 514 7.5 377
11.2.4 263
11.19.6 346 Herodotus
13.61.6 439 1.53 253
13.75.4 439 1.74 253
16.25.2 451 2.100 450
16.80.2 432 4.64 302
16.86.6 345 4.202 357
17.10 251 4.205 357
17.34.8 432 5.69 344
17.3536 198 5.114 510
588 Indices
6.84 513 2.157 431

7.2224 263 2.193198 20
7.24 357 2.219 278
7.26 303 2.225231 256
7.3336 263 2.227 387
7.3637 357 2.233234 305
9.20 388 2.263 259
9.50 345 2.269 244
2.294 205
Heron of Alexandria 3 178
Pneumatica Antiquities
1.3839 150 1.81 410
2.100 508
Homer 2.309 240
Iliad 4.43 486
1.45 360 4.285 194
11.162 360 7.350 403
17.3940 508 7.362 222
7.367 95
Isocrates 8.88 167
Against Lochites 8.111 486
6 242 8.128 452
Panegyricus 9.291 539
89 263 11.22 5
To Nicoles 11.76 222
22 222 11.114 539
11.291292 511
Josephus 11.295 511
Against Apion 11.325339 5
1.2836 167 11.340347 539
1.32 501 12 211
1.3435 167 12.23 220
1.36 167 12.136 174
1.41 57 12.137 285
1.43 278 12.138146 220
1.46 56 12.142 157, 470
1.191 278 12.145 196, 375
1.206207 500 12.150 409
1.248 315 12.154 194, 234
1.249 240 12.158 218
1.311 240 12.186ff. 194
1.320 17 12.229 437
2.55 235 12.234 194
2.8384 535 12.237 13, 187, 211, 212
2.112114 382 12.239 211, 218
2.137 435 12.239241 211
12.248 373 13.296297 222

12.249 261 13.301 168
12.251256 273 13.314 242
12.257264 86, 539 13.324 256
13.262 280 13.354359 25
12.265 95 13.372 378
12.265266 339 13.380 235
12.267 275 13.383 437
12.272 282 13.402 332
12.274 86 14.5 233
12.274275 282 14.8 473
12.284 135 14.24 509
12.285 341 14.40 256
12.308 436 14.72 277
12.319322 373 14.117 145
12.325 143, 151 14.145148 14, 529
12.354 148 14.157 168, 406
12.358 148 14.165 168
12.358359 355 14.172 168
12.381 410 14.226 266
12.381382 408 14.228 283
12.383 459 14.242 266
12.384385 36, 86 14.245 266
12.387 469 14.247255 14
12.387388 13, 187, 212 14.258 266
12.389 86, 468 14.263 266
12.390 468 14.273 508
12.408 504 14.297 256
12.409411 508 15.178 222
12.411 507 15.410420 345
12.412 8, 511, 512 16.187 339
12.414 475 16.213 409
12.419 475 16.227 410
12.434 338, 475 16.246 410
13.46 475 16.260 410
13.51 196 16.271 420
13.62 13, 212 17.1 303
13.6273 187 17.169 357
13.7479 167 17.193 420
13.77 174 18.9 222
13.173 64 18.1125 286
13.235 256 18.26 286
13.252 436 18.69 280
13.260265 14 18.74 150
13.273 338 18.93 168
13.296 64 18.102 480
590 Indices
18.259 146 2.411417 54

18.271 256, 301 2.412413 188
18.279288 243 2.413 260
18.284 408, 420 2.457 377
18.302 257 3.296 432
18.306309 381 3.350 283
19.1273 5 3.374 317
19.281 422 3.505 286
19.283 145 3.506 428
19.290 226 3.506521 286
19.347 293 3.506ff. 428
20 475 3.522 286
20.136 239 4.84 420
20.216 157 5.19 355
20.216218 157, 222 5.160 424
20.235 469 5.194 375
20.237 193, 475 5.198206 345
20.267 176 5.377 341
War 5.378 307
1 72, 197, 211 5.388 337
1.18 56 6.294 189
1.1516 177 6.298299 252
1.3133 211 6.312313 253
1.32 230, 372 6.359 239
1.3233 212 6.384 334
1.33 12, 187 7.263 230, 331
1.3435 273 7.341357 489
1.41 36, 86, 395, 7.401 410
399, 448 7.423 12, 187, 212
1.59 309 7.431 215
1.121 233 7.455 513
1.253 436 Vita
1.311 283 2 95, 339
1.383 432 4 339
1.596 303 5 339
1.656 357 12 275
2.143 268 14 268
2.152153 278 26 254, 277
2.164165 63 37 424
2.165 442 104 390
2.277 230, 331 138 453
2.350354 421 241 424
2.358 263, 346 271 424
2.390 341 280 424
2.409 189, 204 290 452
2.409417 261 338 177
Livy Philo
6.14.5 488 De Decalogo
14.239319 251 41 449
32.2.1 251 52 186
33.46.9 545 Hypothetica
36.4.7 545 7.6 222
37.40 332 In Flaccum
37.41.542.1 449 5 135
38.16 337 46 213
38.16.9 547 52 422
38.21.8 432 74 52, 145
42.6.7 544, 545 89 198
104 237, 315
Lucian 136 514
De dea syra 190 490
28 244 Legatio
How to Write History ad Gaium
22 513 96 438
23 180 157 188
34 177 159161 246, 472
47 34 160 244, 314
55 180 172 244
56 179, 513 191 174
74 177 198 174
Macrobioi 203206 244
19 382 209 483
Pro lapsu 211 51
9 547 228 361, 386
Zeuxis 229230 301
811 547 229305 421
10 432 243253 243
266267 198
Onasander 281 213
Strategicus 297 481
36.12 439 303 375
304 238
Ovid 306 196
Ibis 317319 188
315316 450 319320 309
336 205
Pausanias 361 287
1.7.2 547 Life of Moses
1.29.5 179 1.6 197
9.13.5 242 1.36 213
1.142 339
2.5 203
592 Indices
On Dreams 1.62.6 243

2.123 266 1.81.11 329
2.253 306 1.87.7 453
On Flight 2.4.8 309
153 355 2.35.3 290
Spec. Leg. 2.38.5 238
3.169 198 2.56.7 198
4.3032 194 2.56.9 309
That Every Good Man is Free 2.56.1011 79
89 358 2.59.6 232
The Worse Attacks the Better 2.60.7 239
49 306 2.69.9 400
2.122.11 384
Plato 3.18.9 484
Gorgias 3.21.3 243
493a 304 3.21.6 243
Protagoras 3.52.3 470
334B 513 3.53 478
Republic 3.53.6 329
504E 443 3.57.4 382
550d 291 3.81.2 402
569c 291 3.87.9 552
3.91.10 230
Plutarch 4.72.4 363
Life of Alexander 4.72.8 374
35 159 5.3.4 431
Life of Cicero 5.5.9 252
49 510 5.11.6 232
Life of Marcus Cato 5.25.3 455
2223 71 5.26.9 455
Questiones Convivales 5.47.4 484
4.6 378 5.5154 547
637e 159 5.65.34 190
Sulla 5.70 426
36 357 5.70.2 434
Ten Orators (Ps.-Plutarch) 5.70.4 428
1 451 5.73.1 400
5.79 332
Polybius 5.86.10 230
Frag. 162b 455 5.96.1 174
1.2.8 180 6.2.8 177
1.12.4 504 6.20.9 215
1.15.4 453 6.54.23 288
1.30.6 504 7.11.7 405
1.30.14 230 8.2.6 330
1.37.5 478 8.8.1 290
8.21.3 302 31.2 468

8.26.8 329 31.9 25, 148, 353
8.30.3 363 31.9.1 148
8.33.13 363 31.9.3 382
9.42.4 550 31.9.4 239
10.4.6 258 31.1115 468
10.11.58 500 31.13.23 215
10.22.1 476 31.13.3 228
11.9.4 266 31.14.45 473
11.9.9 266 31.25.8 239
11.18.48 508 32.6.6 187
11.22.1 484 32.11.6 513
11.25.1 341 33.6.6 174
11.33.4 432 33.18.11 432
12.25.2 302 35.25 332
12.25e.12 179 36.15 309
12.25e.7 179 38.20.10 470
12.25h.2 179
12.25h.5 482 Sophocles
12.27.3 514 Antigone
12.28.47 179 29 360
15.25.12 265 205206 360
15.28.4 384 450ff. 313
16.30.24 308 499 313
18.14.6 452 698 360
18.18.6 374 10171022 360
21.34.4 469
21.42.1921 544 Statius
22.12.1 243 Thebais
23.10.6 258 10.774776 490
23.14.12 288 10.778779 490
24.13.4 258
26 535 Strabo
26.1.11 276 Geographia
27.13.1 381 7.3.6 244
28.17.12 205 13.4.3 235
28.20.9 195 16.1.5 159
29.27 253 16.1.18 148
29.27.6 237 16.2.6 236
30.9.5 470 16.2.7 256
30.25 148, 252 16.2.8 256
30.25.11 449 16.2.16 428
30.26.9 149 16.2.28 424
30.32.5 187 16.2.34 424
30.32.10 280 16.2.37 223
31.1.6 411 16.2.40 168
594 Indices
16 (end) 338 1.138.6 451

17.1.24 400 3.79.3 508
Suetonius Valerius Maximus

Vespasian 9.2.4 437
4.5 253 9.2.6 450
9.13 289
Tacitus
Historiae Xenophon
5.5 378 Anabasis
5.8.2 273 1.2.8 303
5.13.1 252 Cyropaedia
5.13.12 253 1.3.3 388
Hellenica
Theophrastus 1.7.22 259
Characters 6.4.7 214, 242
4 513 Symposion
5.10 280
Thucydides
1.22.3 177
VIII. Epigraphic Collections
CII 3031, l. 3 461

109 179 35, l. 3 410
358, l. 2 486 35, l. 6 461
725 205, 497 53, l. 3 510
725a-b 199, 253 54, l. 2 410
CPJ OGIS
I1 437 4, ll. 34 291
I 128, ll. 219 51 4, ll. 89 405
I 128, ll. 4344 51 49, ll. 89 541
II 149, l. 1 380 54, l. 8 188
III 173174 430 56, ll. 3334 541
III 176177 430 56, l. 55 406
90, l. 47 541
IG 117 381
XI 4, 11121113 191 139, l. 29 380
XI 4, 1114 191 194, l. 24 178
XII 5, 129 190 214, l. 26 235
XXII 5, 724, l. 3 380 222, l. 2 541
225 234
Lenger, Corpus 227, l. 11 469
18, l. 4 265 229, l. 84 542
230 190 47 523

239 338 55 523
245 542 56 409
247 192 57 361
248 216, 275 58 409
252 460 59 409
253, l. 7 366 6567 523
302304 502 71 409, 523
308, ll. 24 406 71, ll. 34 362
319, l. 20 227 75 523
339, l. 16 406 217 257
383, ll. 1213 186 309 226
424 377 310 365
598 334, 375 314 228, 499
316 193
P. Tebtunis 316317 407
703 193 324325 265
703, ll. 4243 408 325 257
329 223
RC 335 196
xliv 406 337 408
lxx-lxxi 140 338 472
2 532 348 306
3, l. 42 233 352 434
3, l. 50 410 365 365
4 532 372 231
5 532 373 220
5, l. 17 235 374 362
7 532 375 404
1013 72 384 472
13, l. 13 168 390391 405
1315 532 399 405
15, l. 4 469
18 234, 523 RDGE
19 523 67 187
22 469
37 523 SIG
38 523 398, ll. 4445 227
44 523 402, l. 30 227
45 523 780, l. 31 187
596 Indices
Index of Names and Subjects
1 Maccabees 3842, 43, 44, 49, 5354, Andronicus 209, 212, 249, 281, 345,
61, 86, 250, 339340 381
Contrasting Order of Events 2930, Ancestral Language; see also Hebrew
373374, 380, 394395, 533 19, 296, 297, 416494, 554
Contrasting Presentation of Events Angels 31, 63, 89, 201, 202, 316, 392,
323325, 396397, 419, 467, 469, 493, 494
475, 481482, 496, 535 Antigone 65, 313, 360
Dating of 15, 520521 Antioch 19, 49, 52, 89, 248, 300, 322,
Martyrdom in 48, 50, 272, 326 394, 412, 419, 446, 449, 464, 466,
3 Maccabees 87, 185 530
Dating of 87 Antioch(enes) in Jerusalem 5153, 207,
Public Recitation of 514 208, 212, 220, 243, 250, 530532
4 Maccabees 70, 86 Nature of 531532
Dating of 86 Antiochis 209
Aaron 165 Antiochus I Soter 547
Sons of 165 Antiochus II Theos 234
Abraham 129, 256, 537 Antiochus III the Great 141, 157, 190,
Absalom 393 195, 234, 286, 350, 397, 542, 544,
Achaeans 460 547, 548
Acropolis 207, 247 Privileges Granted by 220221, 360,
Adar 494 531
Adasa 477, 504 Antiochus IV Epiphanes 4, 14, 26, 27,
Adullam 416 30, 53, 86, 129, 141, 156, 170, 207,
Aeschylus 352 208, 209, 225, 228229, 234, 243,
Afterlife; see Body and Soul, Resurrection 247, 248, 297, 300, 349, 350, 370,
Agoranomos 190 412, 468, 503, 530
Akra 29, 223, 233, 374, 394, 494 Attachment to Athens 41, 275, 360,
Alcimus 49, 189, 463, 464, 466467 542
Successor of 551552 Campaign(s) to Egypt 247, 248,
Alema 430 249251, 274, 533536, 545
Alexander Balas 13, 404 Death of 29, 32, 37, 40, 41, 60, 62,
Alexander Jannaeus 168, 437 90, 92, 130, 133, 303, 331,
Alexander the Great 160, 226, 340, 353, 351352, 369, 372, 373, 380, 382,
461 389, 394396, 405, 406, 411, 419,
Alexandrian Jewry 45, 5253, 167, 459, 520, 527
226 Death Compared to that of Other
Alexandrinus; see Textual Witnesses Tyrants 357
Ammanitis 247 Devotion to Apollo 542
Index of Names and Subjects 597
Decrees Against Judaism 270, 541 Educational Purpose 287, 288, 291,
Epistles to the Jews 350351, 301, 501
396397 Jewish Identity 283, 486
Repentance of 350 Lack of Interest in Details of Temple
Visits to Jerusalem 533536 Cult 4648, 189, 204, 235, 260,
Antiochus V Eupator 27, 2829, 30, 264, 484
3233, 170, 351, 369, 370, 371, 393, Lack of Interest in Military Details 73,
395396, 414, 419, 430, 445, 445, 324, 329, 343, 419, 454, 456
446, 447, 463, 468 Lack of Interest in Numbers 231
Antiochus VII Sidetes 421, 521 Methodology 170
Antonia Fortress 233 Objective of 3, 1014, 72
Apocryphal Books 5761 Preface 16, 24, 170, 519
Apollo, Temple of 236 Ptolemaic Influence 278279,
Apollonius son of Gennaeus 414 541543
Apollonius son of Thraseas 4, 27, 181, Reflections of 24, 208, 248, 271
185 Sitz im Leben 5155, 66
Apollonius son of Menestheus 4, 27, Style; see Style
191, 207, 208, 265, 274, 289 Versus Epitomator 171
Apollonius, the Mysarch 41, 249, 250 Azariah de Rossi 49
Apostolic Fathers 88
Apollophanes 72, 371 Babylonians 136, 321
Apparitions 47, 64, 170, 182183, 247, Jewry 546548
249, 371, 392, 415, 464, 485, 493 Bacchides 322, 467, 471, 474
Arabs 414 Bar-Kokhba 378, 385, 428
Arak el-Amir 428429 Ben-Sira 61
Aramaic 303, 438, 511, 553555 Beroia (Aleppo) 445
Aretas 247 Bestiality 258, 290, 360, 371
Argarizin; see Mount Gerizim Beth-Shean; see also Scythopolis 434, 435
Aristobulus 129 Beth Zechariah 30, 394, 399
Identity of 144145 Eleazars Death at 455
Aristobulus I 168 Beth-Zur 29, 392
Arrogance; see also under Motifs 62, Accounts 3435, 394395, 420,
130, 201, 248, 298, 346, 349, 350 457458
Art 178179 Battle(s) of 26, 2930, 32, 39, 354,
Artemis, Temple of 148, 355 374, 392, 394395, 402, 446, 447
Asia, Name for Seleucid Kingdom 181 Biblical Nature; see also Deuteronomy 32
Asidaioi; see also Hasidim 463 and under Motifs 6166
Astyanax 282 Allusions 6163, 137, 140, 153, 157,
Attalids 531 168, 258259, 263, 303, 312, 357,
Atergatis, Temple of 415 387, 477, 484, 502, 526
Athens/Athenians 41, 275, 276, 279 Historiography; see under Motifs
Augustine 59 6466
Auranus 49, 189, 210, 471 Spirit of the Hebrew Bible 63
Author 17, 24, 3435, 37, 45, 170, 199 Structure 6566
Confusion of 3233, 396397, 406, Style 326
447, 457, 459 Quotations 61, 296
598 Indices
Bilgah 95 Coastal Cities, Battles in 424

Birthdays, Celebration of Kings 270, Conflicts; see Struggles
541543 Correspondence, Royal (Ch. 11) 373,
Blasphemy 320, 369, 371, 415, 494 393394, 395397, 409, 459, 549
Blessings 164, 322, 440, 501 Dating of 396, 410, 411, 412
Blood 50, 53, 65, 129, 320, 415, 465 Historicity of 396, 409, 412
Body and Soul, Distinction Between 23, Identity of King in Ch. 11 396397,
293, 298, 304, 465, 494 406, 408
Booty; see Spoils of War Council of Elders 129, 210, 393, 453,
Brethren 6, 31, 129, 370, 392, 414, 487, 531
415, 493 Covenants 27, 3334, 419, 446, 464,
Burial; see Death 500
Between God and the People 129,
Calendrical Systems 11, 139, 143144, 298, 321
274, 373, 396, 405, 447448, 511, Crates 209
520, 541 Creatio ex nihilo 89, 312313
Callimachus 178 Cuneiform; see Inscriptions
Callisthenes 72, 322 Cypriots 209, 332, 370
Calvin, J. 61
Canon, Tripartite 166 Daniel, Book of 372, 533
Canonical Status 5761 Daphne 148, 209, 252, 332, 449
Catholic Church 5961 Dathema 429
Causality, Dual 146, 381 Dates (in 2 Macc); see also Calendrical
Caves 131, 133, 270, 369 Systems 1112, 15, 2930, 230231,
Cendebeus 460 373, 447448, 466
Chapter Order; see also Sources of Dating 1115
2 Maccabees 910, 2834, 3637, David 315
354, 380, 406, 419 David, City of 233
Chaereas 371 Day of Atonement 475
Chariots 349, 445, 480481 Desert 267268, 282, 365366
Charity 322, 343, 417 Death and Burial 245, 247, 350, 365,
Children 198, 248, 298, 312, 322, 350, 416, 417418, 439, 445
414, 415, 464, 493 Mourning 198, 247
Christians 52 Terminology for 306, 406
Cult of Maccabean Martyrs 89 Death, Noble 299
Interest in 2 Macc 5761, 85, 8889, Demetrius I 13, 26, 49, 187, 229, 362,
278, 298 463, 464, 466467
Chrysostom, John 89 Demetrius II 11, 129, 139, 404, 470
Cilicians 252 Demophon 414
Circumcision 270, 274, 278 Dessau 464
City 46, 50, 65, 66, 375 Deuteronomy 32; see also under Mo-
City States 6 tifs 2123, 62, 66, 155, 226, 259,
Claudius 226 261, 262, 296, 298, 299, 302303,
Clemens Alexandrinus 88 307, 327, 477, 526
Cleopatra II 524 Diaspora 43, 85, 156, 213
Cleopatra Syra 234 Jews of Hellenistic 45, 50
Origins of 2 Macc 38 Epitomator; see also Author 17, 25, 37

Religion of 442 Epitomizing 170, 175176, 179180,
Diasporan Historiography; see also under 277, 379, 457
Motifs 4555, 184, 203, 211, 216, Esdris 72, 416
235, 242, 257258, 301, 325, 329, Essenes 268
341, 382383, 386, 421, 433, 482 Esther, Book of 3536, 362, 450, 452,
Dietary Laws 267, 268, 287, 296298, 472, 483, 512, 514
301, 549550 Eumenes II 41, 219, 531532
Diodorus 410 Eupolemus 167, 221, 430, 456, 537538
Dionysus, Dionysiac Cult 8, 18, 270,
274, 378, 465, 514, 541543 Faith 77, 200, 298, 321, 365, 371, 492
Dioscorinthios 393 Faithlessness 335, 466, 492
Diplomacy; see also under Rome 221 Farming 414
Discus, Call of 208 Fatherland 207, 247, 248, 321, 322, 445,
Distances 30, 400, 418, 428, 429, 435 446, 464
Divine Providence 47, 6365, 205, 235, Festival of Weeks; see also Pentecost 416
262, 316, 508 Fire, Liquid from Altar 89, 130, 131,
Dorymenes 185 133134, 150, 527528
Dositheus 415, 416, 456 First-Person Singular 19, 24, 37, 171,
Dura Europus 344 513
Dreams; see also under Judas 500 Forbidden Foods 270, 271272, 296,
298, 356
Ecbatana 349 Foreignism 23, 173, 208, 271
Editors, Jerusalemite 89, 1011, 14, Forgery 362
142, 144, 285, 373, 526528 Friends 129, 297, 320, 371, 463, 470
Egypt
Jews in 129, 503, 523 Gaius Caligula 5, 243, 257258, 381,
Priests in 145 438
Eleazar 321 Galatians 321, 514, 546548
R. Eleazar b. Shammua 327 Galilee, Sea of 428
Eleazar, Martyr 23, 271272, 280, 298, R. Gamaliel 135
304, 459, 489, 501 Gentiles 4849, 65, 130, 188, 196, 226,
As Priest 286 237, 270, 369, 446, 463, 464, 492
Similarities to Socrates 289, 293 Geron the Athenian 270, 543
Eleazar son of Yair 488, 489 Gerousia; see also Council of Elders 404
Elephantarch 463 R. Gerschom 90
Elephants 36, 86, 392, 395, 445, 446, Gezer 371, 374
505, 547 Glosses 37, 9394, 137, 265, 268, 398,
R. Eliezer 291292 402, 433, 476
Elijah 153 God 48, 64, 130, 170, 182, 209, 248,
Elymais 352 320, 321, 349, 350, 369, 371, 392,
Emmaus Campaign 323, 332, 339 414, 415, 416, 445, 464, 492
Ephebeion 207 As Benevolent Hellenistic King 284
Ephron 415, 426 As Legislator 197, 341
Epigraphy; see Inscriptions Help of 417, 446, 494
Epistles; see Correspondence and Letters Hiding His Face 2122, 262
600 Indices
Kingdom of 141142, 147 Hegemonides 41, 42, 380, 446

Language of 554 Hellenistic Jews 4344, 55, 88
Of Heaven 4748, 93, 156, 184, 197, Literature of 52, 71
205, 305, 486 Hellenistic Kings 49, 54
Titles of 155, 200, 203, 261, 346, 449 Hellenization, Institutionalized 3, 5153
Gorgias 320, 325, 370, 372, 374, 389, Heracles 208
397, 416, 419, 467, 544, 546 Herod 86, 358, 363, 399
Greeks 85 Hezekiah 493
Common Roots with Jews 256257 Hieronymus 414
Greek (Language); see also under Motifs High Priesthood 12, 42, 59, 95, 231,
and Style 57, 67, 509 392, 463
Motifs 6566, 76 As Kingship 168
Versus Latin 5960 As Municipal Position 67, 184, 190,
Gymnasium 207 193, 219220, 254
Sale of 398399
Hades 271 Succession of 469, 474475, 483,
Hadrian 276 551552
Halicarnassus 531 Usurpation of 207, 208
Haman 450, 472 Hippolytus 88
Hanukkah, Holiday of 10, 14, 24, 37, Historicity 3844, 45, 5556
88, 134, 137, 139, 143, 163, 165, 274, Holidays; see Hanukkah, Nicanors
369, 509, 514 Day, Passover, Pentecost, Purim,
Festival of Lights 143, 150151 Tabernacles
Name of 159160 Holofernes 498
Secondary Interest 810, 87, 520, 526 Honor 23, 271
Hanukkah Narrative 369, 529 Horses 183, 247, 370, 371, 392
Connection to Opening Letters 8, Humor; see also under Motifs 346347,
143, 372, 526, 528 361, 362, 364, 379
Distinctiveness 89, 372, 375, 379, Hybris; see Arrogance
526 Hyrcanus son of Tobias 182, 185, 429
Historicity 372374
Purpose of 810 Idolatry 130, 277, 301, 416
Semitic Vorlage 375 Idumaeans 370, 372, 374
Hasidim 326, 471, 507 Idyll 3, 7, 132, 181, 420, 482, 512
Hasmoneans 13, 42, 64, 419, 477 Inheritance 131, 285, 477
Polemics Against 266, 384, 460 Inscriptions 30, 4041, 53, 185,
Hasmonean Revolt 5556, 323 190191, 192, 216217, 219, 366,
Hebrew (Language) 59, 67, 296, 297, 380, 396, 420, 424, 460, 531532,
375, 416, 438, 494, 511, 554 542; see also index of sources cited
Hebrews 52, 298, 392, 495 Irony 147, 172, 215, 244, 257, 284, 293,
Heliodorus 4, 41, 42, 181, 182, 183, 306, 311, 317318, 346347, 355,
207, 248, 259, 361, 474 358, 360, 367, 411, 472, 473
Heliodorus, Story of 42, 76, 7879, 86, Isaac 129
184186, 257, 261, 281 Isaiah 156, 268, 352, 356, 357, 484485
Externality 46, 37, 46, 140141, R. Ishmael 286
172, 211, 526527 Ishmael b. Netania 255
Israel 130, 349, 371 John Hyrcanus 15, 43, 309, 324, 383
Israel, Land of 162 Death of 520
Jonathan 13, 139, 218, 256, 321, 404
Jacob 129 Joppe 208, 534
Jamnia 414, 416, 439 Joppites 414
Jason (high priest) 3, 4, 49, 129, 133, Joseph 321, 370
141142, 147, 207, 208, 209, 211, Joseph son of Tobias 429
247, 249, 258, 336, 345, 360, 365, Josephus 36, 8687, 172, 187, 194195,
399, 430, 526527, 530, 531, 552 257258, 282283, 339, 355, 375,
Jason of Cyrene 15, 16, 45, 72, 170, 171, 381, 395, 399, 468, 539
457 Divergences from 1 Maccabees 535
Jason son of Eleazar 175 Joshua 415
Jazer 374 Josippon 90
Jeremiah 131, 134, 137, 160, 163, 482, Judaea 248, 370, 374, 392, 445, 454,
493 463
Jericho 415, 435 Country of 129, 320
Jerome 5859, 85 Judaism 66, 170, 320, 465
Jerusalem 3, 7, 129, 133, 135, 181, 207, Judas Maccabaeus 3, 7, 23, 62, 63, 129,
209, 248, 249, 279, 299, 300, 322, 132, 134, 157, 168, 170, 249, 250,
349, 353, 370, 387, 414, 416, 464, 274, 320, 321, 323325, 369, 370,
493, 494, 496, 530 371, 372, 392, 393, 414, 415, 416,
Antiochenes in; see Antiochenes in 419, 445, 463, 464, 465, 466467,
Jerusalem 492, 494, 495, 520
As polis 6, 5153, 197, 531532 Brothers of 170, 267, 321
As Subject of 2 Macc 3, 6, 495 Dream of 493
Focus on 67, 50, 184, 453, 481 Focal Character 325
Hellenism in 211 Gods Agent 385
History of 714 High Priest
Primacy vs. Temple 245, 375 43, 383, 474475, 483, 551552
Vs. Holy Land 67, 141 Latter-Day Elisha 389
Jesus 553 Lifespan of 523
Language of 555 The Maccabee 31, 249
Jewish Hellenism 4244 Justice; see also Universalism 155, 209,
Jewish Unit 446, 546, 548 320, 321, 369
Jews (and Judaism) 31, 47, 48, 50, 65,
66, 85, 220, 270, 392, 393, 414, 445, Karnion 415
463, 492 Kaspin 51, 415, 418
Common Roots with Greeks 256257 Kfar Shalem 477, 478
Pro-Ptolemaic 230 Kislev 369, 373
Nationalists/Traditionalists 251, 255,
272 Language; see also under Style 6771
Terminology for; see Brethren and Lactantius 88
Politai 31 Lamps 129, 369, 526
Johanan 393 Latin; see under Greek and Translations
Johanan (father of Eupolemus) 14, Laws, Jewish 170, 222, 271, 416
207 Ancestral 19, 270, 296, 298, 531
602 Indices
Compared to Laws of Cities 67, 51, Recompense; see also Resurrection

174, 216, 275, 290 316
Compared to Royal Decrees 137, 314, Terminology of 204205
347 Martyrologies 37, 52, 55, 270272,
Letter, First 129, 132133 296298, 356, 466, 495, 550
Connection to 2 Maccabees 525529 As Secondary Source 1925, 90, 300,
Letter, Second 129132, 133134 301, 326, 328, 330, 372
Letters (Chs. 12) 10, 37, 85, 132, 372, Connection Between Episodes 318
519529 Hebraisms In 20, 293
Author of 144 Historicity of 299300
Connection to 2 Maccabees; see under Interest Among Christians 20, 8889,
Hanukkah Narrative 278
Dating 11, 520521, 522525, Jewish Traditions 20, 90
528529 Relation to 4 Maccabees 86
Distinctiveness; see also Hanukkah Masada 410, 488, 489
Narrative 4, 144 Mattathias 464
Hasmonean Propaganda 151 Mattathias (Hasmonean) 40, 43, 324,
Number of 520521, 528529 326
Purpose of 524525 Melchizedek 537
Semitic Vorlage 8, 67, 132, 137, 140, Melqart; see also Heracles 227
147, 153, 157158, 522 Menelaus 49, 141, 208, 209, 210, 211,
Levites 157, 286 247, 248, 249, 258, 283, 314, 345,
Lights; see Hanukkah, Holiday of 382, 393, 397, 469, 552, 557
Livy 544545 Death of 28, 3536, 445, 447, 466
Lucian of Samosata 91 Latter-Day Gedalia b. Ahiqam 255
Luther, Martin 6061 Priestly Descent of 95
Lysanias 434 Menorah; see Lamps
Lysias 26, 2829, 30, 32, 41, 189, 331, Mercenaries 265, 338, 386
354, 369, 371, 389, 392, 393, 394, Miracles; see Supernatural Events
414, 419, 445, 446, 447 Mizpeh 429
Place of Residence 434 Mnasaes 382
Lysimachus 49, 209, 210, 255 Modein 7, 280, 454, 456
Battle at 28, 446, 447
Maccabean Martyrs, Christian Cult of; Molon 547
see under Christians Mother and Her Seven Sons 23, 59, 63,
Macedonians 321, 546 65, 90, 296298, 298300
Magnesia, Battle of 332, 333, 544 Mother as Latter-Day Deborah or
Mallotians 209 Judith 309
Manliness 51, 170, 294, 308309, 320, Moses 19, 131, 132, 134, 160, 197, 296,
389, 464, 493 298, 502
Marissa 416 Motifs (Thematic)
Marriage 149, 234, 464 Celebrating of Enemies Defeats 78,
Martyrdom 17, 4748, 50, 65, 272273, 202, 322
298300, 459 Concealing Divisiveness 47, 50, 282,
In 1 Maccabees; see under 1 Maccabees 325, 487
Function of; see under Motifs Despised Nation 156
Diasporan; see Diasporan Recognition of Gods Power

Historiography by Gentiles 48, 64, 307
Exaggerating the Enemys Reconciliation 10, 21, 23, 24, 6263,
Strength 399 66, 298, 302303, 322, 525526
Few Defeat the Many 173, 338 Royal Respect for Jews and Judaism
Games with Epiphanes 25, 81, 172, 188
355, 357 Sinning Causes Suffering 4748, 226,
Gentile Kings Are Well-Meaning 192, 250, 261
211, 243244 Struggle is Between Good and Evil;
Gentiles are Gods Tools for Punishing see also Universalism 432, 436
Sinners 226, 250, 307 Tit for Tat 25, 35, 47, 64, 78, 211,
Gentiles Protest Persecution of 226, 249, 317, 318, 345, 358, 365,
Jews 237, 245 423, 485, 508
God Rules History 65, 250 Villains are Considerate of Jewish
God Turns Away in Anger 6869, Sensitivities 485
261262 Villains are Jewish 264
Greek; see also under Greek 253 Villains as Acting Alone 49, 65, 215
Hatred of Evil 238 Villains Do Not Die Nobly in
Hellenistic Kings are All Evil 54 Battle 389, 432
Hellenistic Virtues Bestowed Upon Willingness to Die 50, 301, 339
Jews 173 Mottos 32, 321, 446
Jerusalem as Greek Polis 5153, Mount Gerizim (Argarizin) 18, 47, 174,
240 249, 270, 276
Jewish Fatalities Require Expla- Residents of 537538
nation 418, 436 Mount Nebo 162
Jews are Gods Children 315316 Mourning; see under Death
Jews are Victims Even When on the Mordechai 293, 511512
Offensive 386 Mordechais Day; see also Purim 494
Martyrdom Catalyzes Reconciliation Mourning; see Death
(and Redemption) 48, 50, 53, 65, Mysians 252, 265, 332
272, 317, 323
Martyrs as Heroes 50, 55, 282, 289, Nabataeans 255, 425
305 Names, Royal 217218
Pathetic; see Pathetic Historiography Nanaia, Temple of 129
Persian 35, 47, 302 Nehemiah 130, 131, 132, 133134, 163,
Poetic Justice 239, 242, 256, 377, 376, 527528
451, 498, 507; see also Tit for Tat R. Nehemiah 154
Problems are Caused by Misunder- Nepthar; see also Fire, Liquid from Altar
standing 48, 5355, 216, 242, 250, 131
257258 Nero 54, 258
Problems are Caused by Wicked Nicanor 3, 1718, 62, 171, 274, 320,
Officials 280, 333, 374, 421, 422, 321, 323325, 349, 361, 394, 464,
482 465, 466467, 495, 543, 544, 546,
Prominence of the City 5051 551552, 556
Punishment as Pedagogy 47, 271, Character Unity 473474
298, 377 Death of 494, 496
604 Indices
Focal Villain 325, 485 Plundering; see Spoils of War

Thrice-Accursed 910, 322, 492, 495 Politai 6, 31, 5051, 216, 265, 361, 423,
Nicanors Day 8, 14, 87, 325, 379, 494, 472, 488
514, 520, 526 Polybius 67, 179180, 228229, 355,
Nicanor the Cypriarch 414 468, 473474, 535
Noah, Sons of 256 Pompey 498
Nobility 272, 417, 465 Popilius Laenas 253
Numbers, Accuracy of 80, 148, 259, Porphyry of Tyre 85
332, 338, 430 Posidonius 464
Prayer 46, 48, 64, 89, 130, 131, 154,
Oaths, Violation of 492 182, 320, 321, 322, 325, 369, 370,
Olympiodorus 185 371, 372, 392, 414, 445, 464, 493
Oniads 13 In 1 Maccabees 486
Onias III 46, 12, 18, 51, 181, 183, 185, Echoes of Liturgy 310
187, 193, 207, 209, 211, 212, 254, Prayer for Dead 417
367, 423, 442, 449, 469, 473 Quorum for 267
Onias IV 12, 187, 212 Shema 154
Onias, Temple of 1214, 187, 215, 217 Preface; see under Author
Origen 58, 88, 312 Prophets 64
Protarchos 380
Palaestra 208 Protestant Reformation; see also Martin
Palm-Fronds 369, 463 Luther 5960, 444
Passover 410, 436, 514 Prtoklsia 208
Pathetic Historiography 18, 7880, 198, Psalms 142, 166, 285
277, 281, 318, 401, 423, 490 Ptolemais (Akko) 279, 446, 530
Paul 469 Ptolemy Macron 42, 243, 320, 330331,
Pentecost 34, 416, 419, 436 369
Persecutions 65, 170, 270, 272274 Ptolemy II Philadelphus 502, 547
Etiology of; see also under Rebellion Ptolemy IV Philopator 5, 54, 191, 472,
5354 543
Historicity of 273274 Ptolemy V Epiphanes 195, 234
Source of 283 Ptolemy VI Philometor 144, 167, 229,
Persepolis 349 351, 370
Persia 129, 349 Ptolemy VIII Euergetes 363, 367, 524
Petasos 208, 223224 Ptolemy son of Dorymenes 72, 210, 270,
Petronius 381, 483 279, 331
Pharaoh 62, 263, 265, 355 Ptolemy son of Thraseas 190
Pharisees 38, 168, 442 Purgatory 60, 89, 444
Philip (Governor of Jerusalem) 7, 27, Purim 511512, 514
2829, 32, 249, 270, 274, 320
Philip 351, 446, 472 Quintus Memmius 393
Philo 45, 86, 172
Phrygians 219, 249, 532 Rabbinic Literature 90, 135, 151, 160,
Phylarch 322 166, 237, 286, 287, 361, 442, 485
Piety 181, 417 Rare Words; see under Style
Planting 130 Razis 7, 17, 286, 291, 465
Literary Parallels 489490 Seleucid Kingdom 141, 188, 363, 411,

Martyrdom of 55, 59, 60, 65, 465 541543, 551
Turning Point 495 Seleucus IV Philopator 172, 181, 185,
Readers of 2 Maccabees 8590, 94, 174, 207, 218, 228229, 468
177, 266, 283, 301, 440, 539 Self-Defense; see under Sabbath
Public Recitation 514 Sennacherib 62, 321, 484485, 493
Rationalists 201 Septuagint 57, 9196
Rebellion Servants, Jews as Gods 22, 136, 296,
Etiology 4243, 250251, 254255, 298, 322
272 Shechem 537
Reflections; see under Author Showbread 129, 369, 526
Resurrection 89, 291, 296, 297, 299, Siege Warfare 370, 371
304, 313, 316, 317, 362, 417, 418, Simon 6, 49, 181, 207, 469, 470, 471
444, 487 Tribe of 9596, 189
Sectarian Debate 442 Simon (Hasmonean) 321, 324, 370, 383,
Rhodocus 446 423, 460, 482
Ritual Purity 249, 260, 275, 318, 327, Sinning 24, 47, 161, 226, 260, 302, 369,
416, 465 416
Romans 207, 323, 393 Atonement for 417
Interference in Seleucid Affairs 397, Sin-Offering; see under Sacrifices
411, 545 Slaughter 248, 250, 339, 415, 433
Rome 55, 544545 Socrates; see also under Eleazar 65, 259,
Delegations to 14, 221222 289, 299
Solomon 131, 132, 134, 160, 376, 452,
Seleucia 276 486
Seleucus II Callinicus 548 Song of the Sea 154, 157, 506
Seleucus IV Philopator 4, 5, 41 Sosipater 415, 456
Sabbath 270, 301, 322, 416, 492, 531 Sostratus 209
Attitude Towards in 1 Maccabees 282 Soul; see Body and Soul
Exploitation of 18, 249 Sources of 2 Maccabees; see also under
Self-Defense on 50, 266, 270, 496 Hanukkah Narrative and Martyrol-
Sacrifices 4648, 54, 129, 130, 419, 465 ogies 1635, 3637, 42, 395, 398,
As a Form of Prayer 203, 443 417
Sin-Offerings 132, 417 Chapter Division; see Chapter Order
Suspension of 372373 Reconciling Disparate; see also
Votive Offerings; see under Temple Author, Confusion of 32
(Second) Spartans 247
Sadducees 38, 6364, 168, 316 Spoils of War 173174, 321, 322,
Samaritans (see also Mount Gerizim) 47, 441
167, 264, 539 Stadia 414, 415
Schoinoi; see also Distances 30, 392 Stipendium 544
Scribes 271, 488 Style, Linguistic and Literary 7284
Scripture; see Biblical Nature Abbreviation; see also Epitomiz-
Scythians 65, 210, 296, 513514 ing 7276
Scythopolis 416 Alliteration 80, 427
Sectarianism; see Pharisees, Sadducees Asyndetic 28, 75, 447
606 Indices
Change of Terminology in Successive Tarsians 209

Verses 68 Taxes 11, 195, 233, 265
Conjugations 75 Temple (First) 133134, 376
Greek Terminology 172, 222 Temple (Second) 7, 14, 18, 47, 174, 320,
Lively Diction 7980 322, 350, 372, 393, 463, 465, 466,
Officialese 192, 231, 364, 365 493, 494
Oppositional Constructions 75 Administrators of 189190
Parataxis 8 Altar 9495, 130, 170, 270, 369, 445,
Participles 7374 463, 494
Passive Verbs 7475 Archives 167
Pathetic 7880 Cult of 18, 4648, 372, 474475
Pedantic 180, 192, 231, 356, 365, Defilement of 270, 536
451, 472 Destruction of 258
Personification 330, 471 Fire; see Fire
Prepositional Prefixes 81 Gates 129, 322, 361
Rare Words 3032, 51 Legitimacy of 133, 150, 163, 164
Repetition of Terms 69 Mount 223, 254
Sammelbericht 330 Offerings from Gentiles 181, 204,
Semitic; see under Letters, Hanukkah 248, 260261, 350
Narrative, Martyrologies Purification and Rededication of;
Staccato 18, 3435, 447, 453, 456, see also Hanukkah Narrative
458459, 461, 480, 482 130, 134, 170, 369, 394, 408, 470,
Stereotypical Descriptions 523
of Characters 8283 Robbery of 5, 210, 248, 259260,
Unity 8384 533
Variety of Vocabulary 67, 6971, 425, Status as City 67, 213
432 Steps 94, 386
Verb Tense 286287 Treasury 181182, 191192, 248
Wiederaufnahme 167, 325, 505 Temple Vessels 46, 134, 142143, 160,
Word Play 8081, 93, 347, 398, 427, 209, 210, 248, 350, 369
510 Teos 542
Struggles 7684 Textual Witnesses 9096
Suicide; see also Razis 382, 465, 489 Lectio brevior/difficilior 9296
Supernatural Events 39, 64, 89, 161, Theodicy 21
201, 263, 337 Theodorus of Mopsuestia 212
Synagogues 236 Theodosius 430
Syrian; see Aramaic Theodotus 430, 464
Syrian Wars 548 Thracians 332, 416
Third 188 Throne Names
Fifth 186, 190 Confusion of 5
Fourth 191 Timothy 27, 29, 322, 349, 370,
Sixth 229, 255 371, 372, 374, 397, 398, 414, 415,
417
Tabernacle 131 Titus Manius 393
Tabernacles, Festival of 129, 130, 369 Tobiads 255, 415, 416
Impression of Dionysiac Festival 378 Torah 129, 166, 340, 554
Torture 70, 271272, 296, 297, 298, Venetus; see Textual Witnesses
321, 343344 Villains; see under Motifs
Trajan 548 Virgins 182, 248
Transjordan 232, 374, 390, 418
Translations (of 2 Maccabees) Wine 495
English VII-VIII Women 270, 297, 298, 308309, 431,
Latin 9196 489
Modern 97
Treason 247, 248, 325, 370, 451 Xanthicus 33, 393, 394
Treaty of Apamaea 42, 218, 333, 468, Equivalent of Nisan 410
505, 544 Xerxes 263, 352, 357, 359
Tribute Payments 218, 233, 320, 323,
398, 544545 Zachaeus 370
Tripoli 8687, 463 Zealotry 207, 214215
Tyre 208, 209, 210 Zeno 294
Tyriaion 532 Zerubbabel 151
Zeus 542
Universalism 177, 187, 237, 238, 254, Zeus Hellenios 539
313, 335, 365, 423 Zeus Olympios 270
Urbanity 51 Zeus Xenios 270, 537
608 Indices
Index of Authors
Abel, F.-M., 88, 90, 91, 94, 97, 102, 146, Baer, Y.F., 103, 309
147, 158, 159, 179, 214, 227, 232, Baillet, M., 178
245, 252, 260, 262, 264, 279, 280, Balentine, S.E., 262
285, 300, 306, 307, 310, 317, 327, Bammel, E., 89, 103, 233
328, 331, 340, 344, 357, 359, 380, Barag, D., 53, 103, 142, 251
383, 387, 388, 400, 426, 428, 429, Barcel, P., 232
430, 434, 451, 472, 474, 480, 488, Barclay, J.M.G., 103, 175
489, 497, 500, 501, 503, 505, 508, Bardtke, H., 103, 512, 515
521, 522, 523, 524, 528, 533, 540, Bar-Kochva, B., 11, 15, 29, 30, 32, 34,
550, 551, 556 36, 64, 72, 79, 97, 100, 103, 104, 120,
Abrahams, I., 40, 102 173, 176, 233, 252, 266, 268, 274,
Achtemeier, P.J., 514 278, 317, 329, 332, 336, 337, 338,
Adinolfi, M., 78, 80, 102, 172, 251, 288, 340, 343, 344, 348, 354, 380, 384,
388 386, 390, 391, 398, 399, 400, 413,
Adkins, A.W.H., 179 424, 427, 428, 429, 431, 435, 437,
Africa, T., 102, 288, 357, 368 442, 448, 449, 454, 455, 456, 457,
Albeck, H., 312 462, 467, 477, 491, 496, 503, 504,
Albrektson, B., 93, 102 505, 506, 507, 512, 515, 548
Alexander, L., 178, 180 Bartoletti, V., 547
Alexander, P.S., 87, 88, 103, 514 Baumeister, T., 205
Alfldi, A., 488 Baumgarten, A.I., 44, 104
Alon, G., 103, 168, 196, 242, 361, Beckwith, R.T., 57, 104, 135
399 Bell, H.I., 104, 289
Ameling, W., 41, 43, 103, 111, 219, 246, Bengston, H., 344, 380
532 Bergmann, J., 373
Amir, Y., 103, 126, 173, 194, 197, 206, Bergren, T.A., 104, 151, 166, 169
226, 428, 429 Berve, H., 104, 232, 256
Amit, D., 44 Bethge, H.-G., 89
Amit, Y., 64, 103, 146 Bevan, E.R., 39, 40, 104
Anderson, J.K., 52, 201 Bvenot, H., 104, 265, 300, 480, 537,
Anz, H., 461 553, 555
Applebaum, S., 175 Bickerman, E., 40, 42, 43, 61, 78, 91,
Arenhoevel, D., 103 104, 117, 138, 140, 146, 149, 169,
Artom, E.S., 103, 158, 165, 553 176, 186, 188, 190, 191, 192, 194,
Attridge, H.A., 107, 115, 216 196, 202, 203, 204, 206, 213, 218,
Avenarius, G., 34, 103, 178, 180, 231, 235, 239, 246, 273, 276, 279,
294 294, 338, 359, 363, 364, 366, 380,
Avi-Yonah, M., 103, 434, 438 398, 406, 412, 413, 431, 455, 470,
Index of Authors 609
520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 530, Camponovo, O., 105, 142, 168
531, 539, 540, 542, 550 Caquot, A., 106
Bilde, P., 104, 112, 433 Carlton, W., 383
Birt, T., 175, 176, 180 Casson, L., 228
Black, M., 107, 316, 522 Castelli, E., 309
Blass, F., 557 Chantraine, P., 106, 177, 218, 514
Bleek, F., 58, 104 Chazon, E.G., 106, 123, 155
Blinkenberg, C., 104, 167, 172 Cigoi, A., 106, 519, 520, 521
Bmer, F., 279 Coates, J.F., 228
Boesch, P., 227 Cobet, G.C., 443
Bohak, G., 12, 169, 515 Cohen, G.D., 20, 90
Bonnet, C., 104, 227 Cohen, G.M., 43
Bons, E., 104, 305 Cohen, O., 426
Boreham, L., 307 Cohen, S.J.D., 97, 188, 193
Borza, E.N., 353 Collart, P., 469
Bosworth, A.B., 302, 354, 457 Collins, J.J., 44, 106, 107, 373
Bourriot, F., 501 Corradi, G., 106, 149, 192, 239, 366,
Bousset, W., 105 398, 470
Bowersock, G.W., 19, 20, 105 Cotton, H.M., 41, 43, 106, 185, 189,
Box, H., 105 191, 192, 194, 206, 243
Brndle, R., 89, 105 Cowey, M.S., 51, 106, 145
Bratsiotis, N.P., 388 Cowley, A., 135
Braverman, J., 59 Cox, R.B. Jr., 58, 61, 554
Breitenstein, U., 70, 71, 86, 105 Crantz, P., 506
Bringmann, K., 43, 105, 227, 232,
246, 273, 274, 279, 280, 535, Dancy, J.C., 106
536 Daniel, S., 142, 189, 204
Brock, S., VII Danker, F.W., 98, 106, 214, 294,
Brooke, G.J., 166 501
Brooten, B.J., 190 Davies, J.G., 311
Broshi, M., 104, 105, 149, 186, 259, Davies, P.R., 541
269, 535 De Bruyne, D., 59, 70, 92, 94, 106, 189,
Broughton, T.R.S., 411 237, 241, 264, 307, 314, 380, 386,
Brown, P., 99, 105, 239, 309 403, 412, 458, 549
Brownlee, W.H., 404 Debrunner, A., 557
Brll, N., 105, 169, 519 Deissmann, A., 106, 199, 205, 233, 237,
Bruneau, P., 440 441, 499, 551
Bruston, C., 105, 169, 519, 525 Delling, G., 312
Buckler, W.H., 105, 190 Delorme, J., 106, 219, 225, 246
Bchler, A., 105, 169, 519 Dempsey, D., 140, 522
Bckers, H., 105, 316, 319 Dimant, D., 106, 160, 223
Bultmann, R., 544 Dodd, C.H., 87
Bunge, J.G., 31, 105, 229, 279, 294, 326, Doering, L., 266
344, 550, 551, 552 Dommershausen, W., 107
Burstein, S.M., 542 Donner, H., 107, 142
Buschmann, G., 105, 278, 305 Dpler, J., 107, 301, 303
610 Indices
Doran, R., 4, 17, 20, 31, 35, 43, 46, 67, Flusser, D., 49, 90, 108, 138, 144, 149,
72, 79, 107, 172, 176, 177, 197, 206, 169, 267, 294, 388, 391, 502
219, 224, 225, 226, 246, 294, 318, Forbes, C., 449
319, 330, 346, 385, 427, 500, 502, Forbes, C.A., 225
537, 538, 540 Forbes, R.J., 159
Dover, K.J., 107, 215, 239, 290, 292, Forshey, H.O., 162
309, 315, 442, 479, 501 Foucart, P., 227
Downey, G., 89, 107, 236 Foxhall, L., 330
Drew-Bear, T., 107, 353, 366, 368, 501 Fraser, P.M., 52, 108, 543
Dreyer, B., 225 Freudenthal, J., 229
Dunbabin, J., 89, 107 Fujita, S., 157
Duncker, P.G., 60 Fuks, A., 99, 245, 266, 315
Dupont-Sommer, A., 86, 107, 289, 290 Fuks, G., 109, 195, 435
Eckstein, A.M., 107, 309, 489 Gafni, I.M., 108, 123, 275, 301, 341,
Edgar, C.C., 112, 408 377
Edson, C., 107, 338, 547 Gamberoni, J., 188
Efron, J., 5, 107, 113 Gardiner, E.N., 108, 225
Elbogen, I., 506 Gardner, A.E., 237
Elhorst, H.J., 39, 40, 107, 246 Garlan, Y., 340, 427
Eliav, Y., 107, 190, 223, 277 Grtner, B., 108, 312, 486
Elizur, S., 90, 108, 509 Gauger, J.-D., 361, 548
Enermalm-Ogawa, A., 108, 136, 147, Geiger, A., 168, 266, 384, 442
154, 155, 156, 169, 199, 201, 203, Geiger, J., 3, 67, 78, 325, 329, 341, 384,
261, 506 400, 432
Engel, G., 171, 180 Gera, D., 14, 30, 44, 63, 64, 97,
Ephal, I., 328 108, 109, 148, 190, 192, 229, 230,
Eshel, E., 149, 186, 485, 535 238, 252, 253, 269, 366, 368, 413,
Eshel, H., 103, 105, 108, 122, 149, 186, 428, 429, 435, 437, 438, 442, 454,
268, 269, 485, 535 534
Ettelson, H.W., 40, 108, 179, 403, 534 Gieschen, C.A., 109, 201, 387, 401
Exler, F.X.J., 108, 135, 169, 362, 524 Gil, L., 35, 67, 109, 402, 427
Eynikel, E., 550 Ginzberg, L., 151
Giovannini, A., 109, 413
Farber, J.J., 216 Glucker, J., 109, 176, 276
Farmer, W.R., 337 Goldenberg, R., 266
Faust, M., 360 Goldstein, J.A., 11, 15, 58, 62, 82, 86,
Fiensy, D.A., 108, 137, 427 97, 109, 136, 137, 138, 144, 146, 147,
Fine, S., 378 152, 154, 156, 159, 160, 165, 177,
Fischer, J.B., 261 191, 195, 213, 226, 227, 228, 232,
Fischer, M., 424, 439 245, 252, 255, 265, 279, 280, 282,
Fischer, T., 108 285, 300, 307, 312, 313, 315, 328,
Fisher, N.R.E., 336 338, 341, 358, 359, 363, 366, 367,
Fitzmyer, J.A., 108, 136, 139, 169, 245, 380, 385, 388, 398, 400, 402, 405,
290, 291, 342, 385, 436 426, 429, 430, 434, 438, 439, 448,
Fleischer, E., 154 454, 456, 458, 460, 480, 487, 488,
489, 497, 499, 500, 505, 512, 523, Hagenow, G., 514
525, 529, 535, 544, 545, 549, 550, Hamel, G.H., 343
551, 556 Hamilton, N.Q., 191
Goodblatt, D., 109, 120, 348, 460 Hanhart, R., 67, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96,
Goodman, M., 86, 109, 121, 216, 225 97, 111, 114, 123, 143, 152, 153, 157,
Gordon, C., 57 158, 177, 189, 193, 237, 241, 245,
Gould, J., 361 252, 260, 262, 265, 267, 275, 279,
Graetz, H., 109, 169, 519 287, 293, 307, 310, 312, 313, 315,
Graf, F., 282 316, 332, 340, 343, 345, 347, 358,
Grainger, J.D., 109, 450 359, 366, 380, 381, 388, 389, 402,
Granier, F., 109, 479 404, 405, 426, 433, 434, 437, 440,
Griffiths, J.G., 449 441, 442, 476, 478, 483, 487, 489,
Grimm, C.L.W., 9, 35, 60, 63, 64, 67, 86, 497, 500, 503, 509, 524, 525, 537,
97, 109, 159, 161, 186, 199, 214, 235, 538, 539, 540, 546, 549, 551, 553
239, 252, 264, 279, 300, 303, 310, Hanson, R.P.C., 58
312, 327, 328, 329, 344, 380, 381, Hanson, V.D., 111, 254, 439, 506
388, 432, 434, 450, 451, 455, 481, Haran, M., 166
500, 505, 510, 520, 547, 550, 553, Harris, H.A., 224
555 Harris, W.V., 177
Grintz, Y.M., 109, 194, 260, 377, 378, Harvey, G., 111, 391
410, 510 Hauspie, K., 550
Gruber, M.I., 109, 312 Hayes, C.E., 260
Gruen, E.S., 6, 12, 14, 97, 110, 173, 187, Heichelheim, F., 334
229, 253, 256, 411, 413, 533, 545 Heinemann, I., 42, 111, 141, 198, 294,
Guraud, O., 110, 218, 263 378
Gutberlet, C., 110, 537 Hengel, M., 43, 44, 111, 116, 195, 215,
Gutman, Y., 20, 110, 303, 319 221, 273, 276
Henten, J.W. van, 10, 25, 45, 52, 65, 86,
Habicht, C., 15, 20, 40, 86, 90, 97, 110, 88, 97, 111, 112, 116, 155, 205, 222,
146, 152, 153, 159, 175, 176, 177, 288, 290, 293, 294, 303, 309, 310,
179, 190, 199, 228, 237, 245, 252, 319, 438, 478, 488, 489, 490, 491,
255, 260, 262, 265, 267, 279, 280, 502, 515, 541, 554
285, 289, 292, 293, 306, 307, 310, Herkenne, H., 112, 169, 519
318, 331, 333, 341, 343, 344, 359, Herman, G., 112, 149, 237
362, 364, 379, 380, 386, 388, 389, Hermann, P., 275
399, 402, 404, 406, 412, 413, 426, Herr, M.D., 123, 266
434, 435, 442, 460, 462, 473, 474, Herrmann, P., 108, 215, 542
476, 478, 480, 481, 500, 501, 503, Hertz, J.H., 112, 122, 137, 175, 180,
510, 522, 534, 535, 540, 541, 542, 310
549, 556 Herzog-Hauser, G., 198
Hacham, N., 87, 110, 543 Himmelfarb, M., 51, 112, 286, 292, 303,
Hack, M., 8, 110, 158, 165, 169, 522 501
Hadot, I., 177 Hirzel, R., 101, 102, 109, 277, 484
Hge, G., 194 Hoehner, H.W., 168
Haenchen, E., 110, 305 Hlscher, G., 72, 112, 426
Hagedorn, D., 487 Hoffman, C., 103
612 Indices
Holladay, C.R., 112, 144, 160, 167, 221, 293, 313, 345, 381, 389, 438, 476,
537 480, 481, 553, 555
Holleaux, M., 25, 112, 192, 216, 235, Kasher, A., 5, 30, 109, 113, 145, 190,
263, 311, 368, 405, 431 213, 236, 275, 333, 382, 391, 421,
Holzmeister, U., 399 424, 425, 430, 444, 487, 501, 548
Hooff, A.J.L. van, 489 Katz, P., 91, 92, 93, 94, 113, 152, 153,
Horst, P.W. van der, 112, 116, 198, 157, 177, 287, 288, 295, 307, 314,
237, 291, 308, 368, 443, 486, 332, 340, 341, 343, 347, 381, 403,
487 433, 437, 441, 443, 476, 478, 483,
Houghton, A., 112, 234 549
Hunt, A.S., 440 Kedar, B.Z., 422
Hunt, S., 112, 408 Keel, O., 43, 113, 295, 400, 543
Hyldahl, N., 43, 112, 175, 274 Keil, V., 187
Kelhoffer, J.A., 268
Ilan, T., 112, 194, 198, 267, 339, 383, Kellermann, D., 431
404, 430, 487 Kellermann, U., 20, 113, 151, 300, 304,
Isaac, B., 424 316
Kennell, N.M., 41, 43, 53, 113, 219,
Jackson, A.H., 254 223, 225, 246, 532
Jackson-Tal, R.E., 439 Kern, O., 543
Jacobson, H., 112, 198, 203, 205, 259, Kilpatrick, G.D., 91, 92, 94, 114, 347,
335, 502 509
Jaeger, W., 112, 283, 294 Kippenberg, H.G., 114, 197, 301
Janson, T., 180 Kislev, M.E., 268
Japhet, S., 256 Klawans, J., 260
Jeremias, G., 103, 112, 116 Kloner, A., 437
Johansson, N., 502 Kochabi, S., 114, 474, 491
Johnson, J. de M., 440 Koenen, L., 114, 367, 406, 407, 409,
Johnson, S.R., 5, 87, 112, 195, 212, 244, 410, 413
472 Knig, F.W., 168, 345, 367, 450, 470
Jones, A.H.M., 355 Kolbe, W., 114, 143, 534
Jones, C.P., 190 Kooij, A. van der, 62, 114, 168, 502, 506
Jonnes, L., 532 Kopidakes, M.Z., 114
Jossa, G., 45, 113, 301 Kornbeutel, H., 551
Jouguet, P., 469 Kosters, W.H., 114, 384, 460
Joon, P., 113, 188, 225, 240 Kraeling, C.H., 236
Kraft, R., 114, 160, 266, 555
Kah, D., 113, 219, 225 Kreuzer, S., 315
Kahana, A., 6, 63, 113, 142, 165, 241, Kuhn, H.-W., 112
435, 553 Kumaul, P., 420
Kahrstedt, U., 113, 191, 380, 436
Kamerbeek, J.C., 307 Lachs, S.T., 316
Kampen, J., 106, 112, 113, 121, 167, Laconi, M., 114
471 Lampe, G.W.H., 553, 555
Kaplan, J., 123, 423 Landau, Y.H., 190
Kappler, V., 91, 111, 113, 157, 215, 292, Lapin, H., 378
Lapp, N.L., 114, 268, 283 Mariani, B., 116, 341, 403, 413
Lapp, P.W., 114, 268, 283 Markantonatos, G., 449
Laqueur, R., 33, 114, 396, 406, 413 Martin, R., 542
Lauer, S., 105, 289 Martin, V., 440
Launey, M., 114, 234, 264, 265, 338, Martola, N., 43
431, 437 Mason, S., 116, 275
Lebram, J.C.H., 11, 111, 114 Mauersberger, A., 67, 97, 101, 116, 153,
Lehmann-Haupt, F., 424 193, 196, 215, 230, 238, 240, 243,
Leiman, S.Z., 166 252, 258, 259, 265, 276, 329, 330,
Lemaire, A., 114, 234 367, 374, 382, 384, 403, 428, 431,
Lenger, M.-Th., 115, 137, 265, 314, 410, 432, 456, 468, 472, 479, 480, 481,
461 504, 505, 513
Le Rider, G., 115, 148, 218, 530, 544, Mayser, E., 116, 192, 310, 555
545 Mlze Modrzejewski, J., 51, 52, 66, 85,
Leschhorn, W., 290 116, 202
Lvi, I., 90 Meltzer, E.S., 89
Levine, L.I., 44, 109, 115, 125, 126, 143, Mendels, D., 25, 44, 116, 356, 368
221, 233, 253, 254, 345 Menxel, F. van, 116, 305, 319
Lvy, I., 115, 331, 380, 386, 391, 547 Merkelbach, R., 193
Levy, J.H., 115 Metzger, H., 542
Lewis, N., 115, 161, 500 Meyer, A., 555
Licht, J., 106, 199, 205, 317, 441 Meyer, E., 40, 116, 384, 412, 496, 507
Lichtenberger, H., 25, 46, 48, 115, 120 Michel, O., 88
Lieberman, S., 44, 115, 145, 154, 160, Milgrom, J., 106, 223, 287
161, 199, 237, 242, 245, 253, 281, Milik, J.T., 160
340, 361, 514 Milikowsky, C., 116
Liebmann-Frankfort, T., 115, 413 Millar, F., 43, 44, 116, 276, 295
Lifshitz, B., 99, 115, 234, 263, 385, 421 Miller, P.D., 336
Lim, T.H., 166 Milligan, G., 461
Lindsay, D.R., 200 Misgav, H., 276
Lipinski, E., 227 Mitford, T.B., 116, 331, 380, 381, 391
Lissarague, F., 115 Moehring, H.R., 42, 544
Liver, J., 157 Mlleken, W., 116, 469, 474, 491
Loewenstamm, S.E., 145 Moffatt, J., 116, 537, 547, 556
Lorein, G.W., 25, 115, 368 Momigliano, A., 10, 86, 87, 116, 117,
Lderitz, G., 51, 116, 145, 175 143, 343, 390, 524, 547, 548
Lhrmann, D., 116, 172 Montevecchi, O., 117, 155
Lust, J., 550 Mooren, L., 551
Luz, M., 489 Mor, M., 112, 119, 428, 494
Morgan, M.H., 253, 528
Ma, J., 6, 116, 140, 166, 234, 360, 416 Morgenthaler, R., 71
Maas, M., 89, 116 Morin, J.-A., 215
Magen, Y., 276 Mrkholm, O., 34, 116, 148, 149, 192,
Main, E., 168, 362 217, 234, 238, 251, 273, 275, 276,
Marcus, R., 5, 71, 111, 225, 331, 430 354, 364, 366, 381, 409, 460, 530,
Maresch, K., 51, 106, 145 533, 535, 542, 544, 549
614 Indices
Morrison, J.S., 228 Pelikan, J., 60

Mosley, D.J., 221 Pelletier, A., 436
Mott, S.C., 186 Penna, A., 118
Motzo, [R.]B., 117 Peterson, J.L., 390
Moulton, J.H., 461 Petrochilos, N., 71
Mller, H., 99, 109, 413 Piatkowska, M., 257
Mugler, C., 35, 67, 73, 117, 180 Pilhofer, P., 222
Murray, O., 115, 117, 178 Porten, B., 118
Musti, D., 257 Porter, S.E., 118, 125, 138, 303
Powell, I.U., 547
Nagel, G., 117, 246 Prato, G.L., 118, 173, 273, 295, 368
Nelis, J.T., 117, 188, 400, 413 Preisendanz, K., 227
Nestle, E., 117, 255 Preisigke, F., 118, 409, 550
Nestle, W., 117, 307, 357 Price, J.J., 115, 259
Neuser, W., 61 Pritchett, W.K., 118, 172, 201, 251, 259,
Nickelsburg, G.W.E., 107, 117, 299, 329, 336, 342, 428, 431, 433, 438,
304, 316, 317, 319 439, 441, 479
Niehr, H., 203 Procksch, O., 39, 40, 118, 413
Niese, B., 8, 10, 15, 33, 39, 40, 43, 67, Pummer, R., 264
78, 79, 93, 102, 105, 117, 125, 173,
174, 330, 332, 384, 398, 411, 434, Quass, F., 280
443, 448, 519, 520, 521, 528, 534,
540, 544, 553 Raban, A., 423
Nock, A.D., 117, 542 Rabello, A.M., 470
Nodet, E., 117 Radin, M., 85
Norden, E., 67 Rahlfs, A., 71, 72, 91, 119, 154, 176,
North, H., 239 193, 515, 525, 553
Nouhaud, M., 258, 263 Rajak, T., 44, 119, 173, 214, 216, 289,
293, 295
OBrien, E., 118, 444 Ramage, E.S., 290
Ogle, M.B., 118, 443, 444 Rampolla del Tindaro, M., 119, 319
Oppenheimer, A., 108, 109, 111, 113, Rappaport, U., 44, 63, 109, 119, 255,
118, 120, 487, 512 279, 461, 462, 539
Orlinsky, H.M., 166 Reeg, G., 119, 286, 327
Otto, W., 39, 118, 148, 229, 399, 524 Regev, E., 165
Owen, E.C.E., 288 Reinach, A., 378
Reinach, S., 443
Page, D.L., 547 Reinhold, M., 239
Parente, F., 43, 87, 118, 122, 187, 246, Renaud, B., 50, 105, 119, 222, 275, 291,
345, 530, 531 410
Parker, R., 118, 245, 260, 451 Ribbeck, O., 484
Pasoni DellAcqua, A., 214 Richnow, W., 35, 67, 72, 119, 232, 344
Paul, G.M., 258 Ricl, M., 532
Pearce, S.J.K., 304 Rigg, H.A., 513
Pearson, B.A., 118, 190, 266 Rigsby, K.J., 119, 196, 236, 276, 360,
Pdech, P., 118, 180, 216, 329 362
Rinaldi, G., 85, 119, 214 Schwankl, O., 120, 304, 319, 442,
Risberg, B., 67, 119, 153, 158, 177, 292, 444
293, 343, 379, 381, 390, 469, 478, Schwartz, D.R., 5, 22, 45, 54, 90, 108,
481, 488 109, 120, 121, 123, 140, 145, 148,
Robert, L., 91, 115, 227, 541, 542 195, 229, 274, 375, 442, 480, 486,
Robertson, M., 179 535, 536
Rof, A., 148 Schwartz, J., 8, 267, 511, 512
Rokeah, D., 119 Schwartz, S., 20, 43, 537, 539
Rolle, R., 302 Schwarz, A., 122, 512
Romilly, J., 119, 177, 432 Scullard, H.H., 122, 399, 455
Roscher, W.H., 537 Scurlock, J., 122, 276, 277, 288, 295
Rose, C., 88 Seeligmann, I.L., 64, 146, 217, 366
Ross, D., 500 Seeligmann, J.A., 122
Ross, J.F., 199 Sefer, H., 49, 109, 194, 243, 260, 378,
Rostovtzeff, M., 542 410, 510
Roth-Gerson, L., 89, 119, 236 Segal, C., 508
Rothschild, J.P., 90, 120 Seyrig, H., 196
Roug, J., 88, 120 Shatzman, I., 122, 173, 398, 448
Roussel, P., 193 Sherk, R.K., 101, 122
Rowley, H.H., 120, 295 Sieben, H.J., 60
Rubin, M., 554 Sievers, J., 118, 122, 222, 233, 250,
Runia, D.T., 314 345
Skard, E., 122, 214, 292, 405
Sachs, A.J., 40, 41, 120 Skehan, P., 59, 122
Salmon, J., 330 Sluys, D.M., 122, 236
Savalli-Lestrade, I., 149 Sly, D., 309
Savigni, R., 89, 120 Smith, M., 431
Schalit, A., 345, 378, 430, 470 Smith, R.R.R., 337
Schaller, B., 553, 554 Snodgrass, A.M., 202
Schatkin, M., 120, 319 Soloveitchik, H., 90
Schiffman, L.H., 120 Sowers, S., 122, 216, 226, 237
Schmitt, H.H., 420 Sperber, D., 122, 190, 200, 281, 314
Schmitz, W., 200 Spicq, C., 52, 97, 123, 136, 138, 149,
Scholl, R., 334 150, 153, 172, 174, 175, 180, 189,
Scholz, P., 113, 219 191, 194, 200, 214, 218, 222, 223,
Schrder, B., 275 226, 239, 244, 245, 260, 266, 275,
Schubart, W., 120, 194, 214, 216, 289 280, 284, 289, 290, 305, 306, 316,
Schrer, E., 39, 40, 44, 86, 118, 120, 326, 332, 357, 359, 361, 362, 405,
188, 189, 267, 286, 295, 362, 487, 407, 408, 427, 456, 477, 481, 537
534, 541 Spiegel, S., 20, 123
Schumacher, G., 426 Standhartinger, A., 198
Schumrick, A., 175, 180 Starcky, J., 123
Schunck, K.-D., 43, 97, 120, 212, 326, Staub, U., 43, 113, 400
353 Steckoll, S.H., 268
Schuppe, E., 223 Stegemann, H., 112
Schwabe, M., 105, 110, 199 Stein, M., 58
616 Indices
Steinfeld, Z.A., 225 Vaccari, A., 91, 503

Stemberger, G., 88, 123, 295, 304, 306, Vanderhooft, D., 188
316, 317, 319 VanderKam, J.C., 43, 124, 211, 212,
Stern, M., 11, 12, 14, 25, 36, 43, 44, 56, 295, 409, 469, 475, 541
64, 73, 85, 86, 97, 99, 108, 123, 145, Vaughn, P., 439
174, 187, 196, 212, 217, 218, 219, Vergote, J., 124, 288, 295
220, 223, 236, 246, 256, 273, 275, Villalba i Varneda, P., 286
276, 277, 279, 280, 286, 337, 338, Vinson, M., 89, 124
345, 378, 380, 398, 404, 413, 424, Vogel, M., 289
437, 454, 457, 460, 470, 473, 474, Volkmann, H., 124, 259, 334,
500, 524, 530, 535, 545, 546, 548, 547
549 Volz, H., 60
Stiebel, G.D., 283 Vries, M. de, 235
Stokholm, N., 5, 123, 206
Stone, M.E., 119, 121, 123 Wacholder, B.Z., 106, 125, 144, 169,
Strobel, K., 123, 337, 338, 548 376
Sundberg, A.C., 57, 58, 61, 123 Wackernagel, J., 353
Swete, H.B., 57, 159, 426, 553 Wagenaar, L., 125, 475, 491
Walbank, F.W., 79, 97, 125, 148, 150,
Tal, A., 253 177, 180, 192, 217, 220, 229, 231,
Talmon, S., 264 252, 253, 265, 276, 302, 353, 364,
Talshir, D., 426 381, 390, 411, 424, 434, 460, 467,
Ta-Shma, I., 137 468, 470, 513, 533
Tcherikover, V.A., 33, 42, 51, 53, 54, 78, Walters, P., 149
85, 99, 100, 124, 189, 194, 195, 211, Weber, R., 289
246, 250, 255, 269, 273, 276, 333, Wegeler, C., 91
334, 385, 413, 424, 430, 530, 531, Wegner, J.R., 125, 309
532, 535 Weinfeld, M., 114, 125, 237, 387
Thalheim, T., 239 Weinreich, O., 125, 150, 214
Thompson, S., 356 Weitzman, S., 48, 103, 125, 134
Tiller, P.A., 157 Welles, C.B., 40, 72, 97, 101, 125, 140,
Tilley, M.A., 288, 305 168, 193, 196, 220, 223, 226, 228,
Toki, K., 10, 11, 124 231, 233, 234, 235, 257, 265, 306,
Torrey, C.C., 8, 124, 140, 142, 158, 169, 361, 362, 365, 404, 405, 406, 407,
519, 522 408, 409, 410, 434, 469, 472, 499,
Tov, E., 93, 124, 278, 290 523, 532, 550
Trindl, M., 124, 233, 551 Wellhausen, J., 38, 40, 42, 125, 244, 341,
Tromp, J., 5, 87, 124, 278, 386 348, 391, 444, 462, 476, 491, 496,
Tsfania, L., 276 515, 521
Tyson, J.B., 3, 124 Wendland, P., 39, 125
Wenning, R., 255
Ulrich, E., 166 Western, A.C., 268
Unnik, W.C. van, 156 Wheeler, E.L., 125, 456, 484
Urbach, E.E., 57, 124, 226, 284, 305, Wheeler, M., 353
361, 442 Wifstrand, A., 125, 282, 362, 514
Urman, D., 236, 426 Wilcken, U., 166, 420
Wilcox, M., 522 Yahalom, Y., 509

Wiles, J.W., 59 Yardeni, A., 118
Wilhelm, A., 40, 125, 152, 153, 224, Yerushalmi, Y.H., 49, 126
225, 259, 265, 275, 410, 440, 441, Young, R.D., 126, 308, 319
442, 483, 549
Wilk, R., 281 Zadok, R., 487
Wilken, R.L., 125, 141 Zambelli, M., 86, 126
Will, E., 126, 148, 194, 338, 363, 367, Zeitlin, S., 34, 52, 126, 140, 227, 435,
459, 507 480, 547
Williams, D.S., 126 Ziegenaus, A., 60, 61, 126
Winston, D., 126, 141, 226, 313 Ziehen, L., 226, 227
Wise, M.O., 124, 475 Zimmer, E., 71, 155, 199, 315
Wrrle, M., 41, 43, 106, 185, 191, 192, Zimmermann, C., 71, 126, 155, 203,
206, 243 312, 315
Woess, F. von, 126, 196, 257 Zimmermann, H., 330
Wolff, C., 126, 160, 162, 502 Zollschan, L.T., 126, 221, 246
Wolter, M., 246 Zuckerman, C., 145
Wunderer, C., 179 Zuntz, G., 180

2 Maccabees - Schwartz, Daniel R PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 Maccabees - Schwartz, Daniel R PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Daniel R.

Walter de Gruyter Berlin New York

Walter de Gruyter Berlin New York

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

used in my translation (such as citations to demonstrate the existence of

Jerusalem, August 2007 Daniel R. Schwartz

I. Subject, Purpose and Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY

Introductory Letters (1:12:18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Appendix 1: On the Letters in Chapters 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . 519

Index of References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561

I. Subject, Purpose and Date

that introduces Antiochus IV Epiphanes (4:7), and some significant ma-

Jason as its starting point, we conclude that we should, indeed, characterize

influence further historical developments. I would add that the disproportionate

as in 3 Macc 12), served his purpose in a general way by illustrating Gods

8 On city-states in the Hellenistic period, and on their preservation of identity and

the city by Antiochus and by Philip; Chapter 6 opens by formulating Anti-

2 Maccabees 10:8 2 Maccabees 15:36

II. Sources and Development

Chapter 6, which tells the story of the first persecutions, focusing on

41 See below, pp. 8182.

44 See our NOTE on 5:25, pretended.

comes is a reference to the destruction of innocent infants, but that refers

pletely ( ) in 8:29 indicates a reference to a process that has

Our conclusion is that the two martyrologies of 6:187:42, although orig-

Hence, we conclude not only that the martyrological stories of

ing about the new expedition reported in 6:28ff. In 2 Maccabees there is

6. The telegraphic style of several verses in Chapter 13, beginning with

corpse back to Syria, just as 1 Maccabees 6:5556 implies an immediacy

1. Only in these chapters do angels participate in battles (10:2930; 11:8).

Eupator and Lysias during Antiochus Epiphanes lifetime, lead us to suggest

prior to Richard Laqueur (Griechische Urkunden, 1927),68 our author

69 An opinion shared by a few modern scholars, such as Mrkholm, Antiochus IV,

Esther,75 nowhere else does is there such a concentration, so it may be that it

In summary, it seems that 2 Maccabees was formed as follows:

75 See NOTES on 8:34, thrice-accursed Nicanor (), 14:6, to attain stabil-

(b) An anonymous craftsman undertook to turn that work into a shorter

80 Although there were probably some additional interpolations or glosses added at

III. Historical Worth and Leading Ideas

1. 2 Maccabees as a Witness to the Events It Describes

frequently coupled with a nave willingness to unswervingly follow 1 Mac-

Greek epigraphical evidence confirms our books allusion to Hegemonides

(d) Heliodorus (Ch.3), Ptolemy Macron (10:1213) and Hegemonides

benszwang der Makkaberzeit? On this and other responses to Bickermans 1937

nomenon.98 With the publication of such seminal works as Liebermans Hel-

2. 2 Maccabees as a Witness to Its Authors World

2 Maccabees is a diasporan book.100 It is based upon a work written by

From all Jewish diasporan historiography we would expect a religious

13:11) or self-seeking apostates and troublemakers on the Jewish side

(lover of his fellow-citizens) to describe a particularly out-

At this point, having recognized the diasporan nature of 2 Maccabees, we

Jews of Alexandria,120 for example, could prefer to see no contradiction be-

IV. Between the Bible and Greek Literature

Canonical Status: 2 Maccabees was transmitted as part of the Septua-

Nevertheless, despite the recognition of their secondary status these books

R. B. Cox, Jr., The Nineteenth Century British Apocrypha Controversy, (unpub-

2 Maccabees and the Hebrew Bible

Canonical status does not, of course, dictate our assessment of our

angels surround and defend Judas Maccabaeus (10:2630) as if he were El-

151 See NOTE on 10:30, blindness.

13.173). Even if it is difficult to prove such a specific assessment (see Bar-Kochva,

75 See NOTES on 8:34, thrice-accursed Nicanor (), 14:6, to attain stabil-

(13:22), (13:25), (5:20), (6:17),

face, as a father chastises his children (G $ 7:34; cf.

By using two participles (, ) and two passive

greetings (). This is a standard Hellenistic opening, which appears

2. be beneficent unto (!"). From here until v. 5 we have a

wholeheartedly (' )). Lit.: with a big heart. But it is clear

the commandments (). This term compares the commands of

become reconciled () with you. As Spicq pointed out (Notes,

( 0), where the reference is to Jewish law, which

the days of (the festival of) Tabernacles () of the month of