In all the contributions one and the same method has been observed. Each contribution consists of an introduction, an English translation from the best critical text—in a few cases the Revised Version has been adopted and emendations suggested in the notes—and of a critical and exegetical commentary.?, As regards the introductions, the subjects dealt with in them have, so far as possible, been treated in the same order to facilitate the use of the work. Though a large discretion has naturally been given to the various editors, the following order has more or less been observed as a guide or been actually carried out.
§ 1. Short account of the book, embodying its leading features and the editor's chief conclusions. Title of the book. Date of (a) the original text, (4) of the Ancient Versions. Integrity or composite nature of the text. Authorship. Influence of the book on later literature—(z) Jewish ; (4) Christian. Theology of the book. ο. Bibliography— (2) Chief editions of the text (and of the Ancient Versions).
Ὁ 9 σοι ἘΦ
tS, SS Sh an .ς-.
(ὁ) Chief critical inquiries. (c) Chief editions of the book.
1 Kautzsch published an edition in German in 1900, but on a smaller scale than the present work and embracing fewer books of this literature (vol. i. 1- 507 ; vol. ii. 1-540).
2 In the case of Sirach and Tobit the editors have been allowed much beyond the normal number of pages for their critical apparatus, which they have used to good purpose.
lil a2
PREBACE
The extent of the present work.
The first volume contains what is generally known as the Apocrypha Proper, which constitutes the excess of the Vulgate over the Hebrew Old Testament, which excess was in turn borrowed from the LXX. But this volume differs from the Apocrypha Proper at once in the way of excess and in the way of defect. 3 Maccabees has been added after 2 Maccabees, since it is contained in many MSS. of the LXX, and 4 Ezra has been transferred to Volume ii since it is essentially a Pseudepigraph.
Volume ii contains all the remaining extant non-Canonical Jewish books written between 200 8.6. and a.p. 100 with possibly one or two exceptions. The greater part of these books have hitherto been accessible only in expensive editions—such as Jubilees, 1 Enoch, Testaments of the XII Patriarchs, 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, Psalms of Solomon, Pirke Aboth, the Story of Ahikar, &c. As regards the last two, it is not necessary to make any apology for their introduction into the present work, although they do not properly fall within the true limits above defined, but they were used, at all events partially, by Jewish readers within this period, nor can they be rightly designated Pseudepigraphs. The Fragments of a Zadokite Work are of an historical character, and are valuable in throwing light on a lost chapter of Jewish religious history. They contain likewise apocalyptic material of an interesting nature.
The General Editor, in conclusion, wishes to express his thanks to the Delegates of the Press for undertaking this work, and to the Officers of the Press, whose help and counsel were always ready to meet each difficulty as it arose. The Editor is also under deep obligations to the many scholars who, notwithstanding the pressure of other duties, have yet given themselves so unsparingly to the tasks they had undertaken, that in every instance most valuable service has been rendered to the student and the scholar, while in not a few instances their contributions form actual monographs within the limits assigned. His thanks are due to Messrs. A. and C. Black, the publishers of his editions of Jubilees, Martyrdom of Isaiah, Testament of the XII Patriarchs, Assumption of Moses, 2 Baruch, for permission to reprint the translation and make use of the introduction and notes contained in those editions. Finally, he would acknowledge his indebtedness to the Rev. A. LI. Davies, who has acted throughout as his secretary and also made the General Index.
“ΕΚ. He CHAR Es 24 BARDWELL ROAD, OXFORD.
CONN 195 OF: VOLUME. I
PAGES ELE OC REA OF shh OLD TESTAMENT GENERAL INTRODUCTION (Charles) . ; Γ ; : : Σ : : : vii ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA : : : é : : . : : : xi
HISTORICAL BOOKS— QUASI-HISTORICAL BOOKS WRITTEN WITH A MORAL PURPOSE— WISDOM LITERATURE— ADDITIONS TO AND COMPLETIONS OF THE CANONICAL BOOKS—
ADDITIONS TO DANIEL—
PRAYER OF AZARIAH AND SONG OF THE THREE CHILDREN (Bennett) . 625-637 BEL AND THE DRAGON (Witton Davies) . : ; : Σ : ; 652-664 ADDITIONS TO ESTHER’ (Gregg) i eh eats : ae rake 665-684
CONTRIBUTORS TO VOLUN
BALL, C. J., M.A., D.Litt., Queen’s College, University Lecturer in Assyriology, Oxford: The
BENNETT, W. H., Litt.D., D.D., Professor of Old Testament Exegesis, Hackney College, London: The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Children.
Box, G. H., M.A., formerly Scholar of St. John’s College, Oxford ; Lecturer in Rabbinical Hebrew, King’s College, London ; Rector of Sutton, Beds.: Szrach (along with Dr. Oesterley).
Cook, S. A., M.A., Ex-Fellow and Lecturer in the Comparative Study of Religions, and Lecturer in Hebrew and Aramaic, Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge: 1 Esdras.
Cow ey, A. E., M.A., D.Litt., Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford: Judith.
Davis, T. WiTTON, B.A., Ph.D., Professor of Semitic Languages, University College, Bangor:
EMMET, CyriL W., M.A., formerly Scholar of Corpus Christi College, Oxford; Rector of West Hendred : 3 Maccabees.
GREGG, J. A. F., D.D., Archbishop King’s Professor in Divinity, Trinity College, Dublin: The Additions to Esther.
HOLMES, SAMUEL, M.A., Lecturer in Theology, Jesus College, Oxford: The Wisdom of Solomon.
Kay, D. M., B.D., Professor of Oriental Languages, St. Andrews: Szsanna.
MOFFATT, JAMES, D.D., Yates Professor of New Testament Greek and Exegesis, Mansfield College, Oxford : 2 Maccabees.
OESTERLEY, W. O. E., D.D. (Cambridge): 1 Maccabees, Sirach (jointly with G. H. Box).
RYLE, RIGHT REv. BISHOP HERBERT E., D.D., Dean of Westminster ; formerly Hulsean Professor of Divinity, Cambridge, and Bishop of Exeter and Winchester: The Prayer of Manasses.
Stmpson, D. C., M.A., Lecturer in Theology and Hebrew, St. Edmund Hall, and Reader in Hebrew and Old Testament in Manchester College, Oxford: Tobit.
WHITEHOUSE, O. C., M.A., D.D., Theological Tutor, Cheshunt College, Cambridge: 1 Baruch.
Pero MmyerlON TO" VOLUME: I’
δι. The origin of the term apocryphal.
How the term ‘Apocryphal Books’ (améxpugda βιβλία) arose has not yet been determined. It did not, as Zahn (Gesch. des Neutestamentlichen Kanons 1. i. 123 sq.), Schurer, Porter, N. Schmidt, and others maintain, originate in the Late Hebrew phrase ow1 O85, ‘hidden books.’* But Talmudic literature knows nothing of sucha class. The Hebrew word ganaz (111) does not mean ‘to hide’, but ‘to store away’ things in themselves precious. Indeed, so far is it from being a technical term in reference to non-Canonical writings, that it is most frequently used in reference to the Canonical Scriptures themselves. When writings were wholly without the pale of the Sacred books—such as those of the heretics or Samaritans—they were usually designated /zsonzm, i.e. ‘ outside’ (Sanh. x. 1 DN OM|D and on AD). To this class the Apocrypha were never relegated, save Sirach, according to a statement found only in Sanh. x. 1 in the Palestinian Talmud, where it is stated that ‘whoso reads the outside books would have no part in the life to come’. But it is clear that there is some error either in the text or the interpretation; for Sirach is very frequently cited by the Rabbis (see the Origznzal Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus, Cowley and Neubauer, pp. xix—xxx), and two passages of it (Sir. vii. 10 in Erubin 65? and xiii. 16 in Baba Qama 920) are cited as belonging to the Hagiographa. The facts show that Sirach was read —read at all events for private edification though not in the synagogues.
§ 2. Extent of the Fewish apocryphal writings.
We are not here of course concerned with all Jewish apocryphal writings, but with those which were written between 200 B.C. and A.D. 120. The most notable of these in the past centuries were those which we may define as the Apocrypha Proper, i.e.
1 Esdras Epistle of Jeremy 2 Esdras Additions to Daniel—The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Children Tobit ᾿ Fe Susanna Yadith 7 3 Bel and the Dragon Additions to Esther Prayer of Manasses Wisdom of Solomon 1 Maccabees Ecclesiasticus or Sirach 2 Maccabees 1 Baruch
If we compare the collection of the Sacred books as they are found in the Hebrew Old Testament, the LX X, and the Vulgate, we shall find that the Apocrypha Proper constitutes the excess of the Vulgate over the Hebrew Old Testament, and that this excess is borrowed from the LXX. But the official Vulgate (1592) does not include 1 and 2 Esdras (i.e. 4 Ezra in this edition) and the Prayer of Manasses among the Canonical Scriptures, but prints them as an appendix after the New Testament. The Roman Church excludes them from the Canon.* Only 1 Esdras is
1 This Intreduction is not intended to be a General Introduction to the Apocrypha, but only to bring forward a few important points in connexion with the Apocrypha.
? This error appears to have arisen from Aboth Κα. N., I. i, where it is said, ‘Formerly because Proverbs, the Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes, contained only proverbs, and did not belong to the Hagiographa, they were stored away (O23) until the men of the Great Synagogue explained them.’ Here many scholars have rendered the Hebrew word wrongly as ‘hidden’.
The rest of the Apocrypha Proper was declared to be Canonical by the Council of Trent (1546), which pronounced an anathema on the man who did not accept bros zpsos integros cum omnibus suis partibus, prout tn Ecclesia Catholica leg? consueverunt et in veteri vulgata Latina editione habentur, pro sacris et canonicis,
INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME I
found in the LXX. That 2 Esdras (i.e. 4 Ezra) was not incorporated can only have been due to an accident. Further, it is to be observed that, whereas 3 and 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151 are found in most manuscripts of the LXX, they are absent from the Vulgate and the Apocrypha Proper.
Thus the difference between the Protestant Canon and that of Rome represents the difference between the Canon of the Palestinian and the Alexandrian Jews. This difference is not due, as it was thought at one time, to the difference in the language of the originals—a view which appears as early as the controversy of Africanus with Origen; for, as we are now aware, the bulk of the Apocrypha was originally written in Hebrew.
But besides the Apocrypha Proper there was a vast body of literature in circulation in Judaism to which is now generally attached the term ‘ Pseudepigrapha ’, i.e. books written between 300 B.C. and A.D. 120 under the names of ancient worthies in Israel. Since these will be briefly dealt with in the Introduction to vol. ii we shall not discuss them here.
To the Apocrypha Proper in this volume we have added 3 Maccabees—a quasi-historical work —which is found in very many manuscripts of the LXX. It might have been advisable to have included also Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, which was written originally in Hebrew and possibly soon after A.D. 70. But this work has not yet been critically edited. Of lost apocrypha we might mention the //istory of Fohannes Hyrcanus, mentioned in 1 Macc. xvi. 23, 24, Fannes and Mambres (i.e. Jambres), Book of Foseph and Asenath.
ᾧ 3. Various meanings of the term ‘ apocryphal’.
(1) In its earliest use this term (ἀπόκρυ φος) was applied in a laudatory signification to writings which were withheld from public knowledge because they were vehicles of mysterious or esoteric wisdom which was too sacred or profound to be disclosed to any save the initiated. In this sense it is found in a magical book of Moses, which has been edited by Dieterich (Adraxas 169) and may be as old as the first century A.D. This book is entitled ‘ A sacred secret Book of Moses’ (Μωυσέως ἱερὰ βίβλος ἀπόκρυφο»).
But we have still earlier indications of the existence and nature of the Apocrypha in this sense. The Book of Daniel is represented as withheld from public knowledge until the time came for its publication: xii. 4,‘ But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, even unto the time of the end.’ The writer of 1 Enoch speaks of his revelations as designed not for his own, i. 2, cviii. 1, but for the elect of later generations: xciii. 10
And at its close shall be elected The elect righteous of the eternal plant of righteousness, To receive sevenfold instruction concerning all His creation.
Similarly, the writer of the Assumption of Moses enjoins that his book is to be preserved for a later period, i. 16-17. That with large bodies of the Jews this esoteric literature was as highly or more highly treasured than the Canonical Scriptures is clear from the claims made by the Rabbis on behalf of their oral, which was originally in essence an esoteric, tradition, since it was not to be committed to writing. Though they insisted on the exclusive canonicity of the twenty-four books, they claimed to be the possessors of an oral tradition that not only overshadowed but frequently displaced the written Law. In 4 Ezra xiv. 44sq. we have a categorical statement as to the superior worth of this esoteric literature: ‘So in forty days were written ninety-four books. And it came to pass when the forty days were fulfilled, that the Most High spake unto me saying: The twenty-four books! that thou hast written publish, that she worthy and the unworthy may read (them): But the seventy last thou shalt keep to deliver to the wise among thy people.
The twenty-four books are, of course, the Old Testament: the seventy are the apocryphal, but especially the apocalyptic books.
Vili
——— | adnate Qin me
INTRODUCTION: TO VOLUME ΣΙ
For in them is the spring of understanding, The fountain of wisdom, And the stream of knowledge.’
In a like laudatory sense Gregory of Nyssa reckons the New Testament Apocalypse as ἐν ἀποκρύφοις (Oratio in swam ordinationem, 111. 549: Ed. Migne).
(2) But the word was applied to writings that were withheld from public circulation, not on the ground of their transcendent worth, but because their value was confessedly secondary or questionable. Thus Origen differentiates writings that were read in public worship from apocryphal works (Comm. in Matt. x. 18, xiii. 57). This use became current, and prepared the way for the third and unfavourable sense of the word.
(3) The word came to be applied to what was false, spurious, or heretical. This meaning appears also in Origen, Prolog. ix Cant. Cantic.: Lommatzsch, xiv. 325).
$4. The attitude of the Christian Church to the Apocrypha.
The degree of estimation in which the apocryphal books have been held in the Church has varied with age and place.
(1) The Greek Fathers such as Origen and Clement, who used the Greek Bible, which included these books, frequently cite them as ‘ scripture’, ‘ Divine scripture’, ‘inspired’, or the like. Later Greek Fathers! rejected in various ways this conception of the Canon, but it was accepted and maintained in the West by St. Augustine. Where the Greek differed from the Hebrew Augustine held that the difference was due to Divine inspiration, and that this difference was to be regarded as a sign that in the passage in question an allegorical—not a literal—interpretation was to be looked for. Since he habitually used a Latin Bible, which embraced the Apocrypha, he appealed to the authority of these books as of the rest of the Scriptures. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and that of Carthage (A.D. 397), at both of which Augustine was present respectively as a presbyter and a bishop, drew up a list of Canonical writings, which, though formed by Latin-speaking bishops, was the chief authority on which the Council of Trent based its own decision. In fact the list authoritatively issued by the Council of Hippo and that of Trent agree in nearly every respect, save that the Tridentine divines appear to have misunderstood the meaning of 1 and 2 Esdras in the list of the African Council. That in this list 1 Esdras meant the apocryphal book which Augustine acknowledged as Scripture (De Civ. Dei, xviii. 36) and 2 Esdras meant the Canonical Ezra and Nehemiah there is no reason for doubt; but the Tridentine divines, taking 1 Esdras as the Canonical Ezra and 2 Esdras as the Canonical Nehemiah,’ through a misunderstanding declared 1 Esdras (i.e. the apocryphal Esdras) apocryphal.
(2) On the other hand, teachers connected with Palestine and familiar with the Hebrew Canon, like Africanus and Jerome, declared all books outside the Hebrew Canon as apocryphal.
(3) Alongside these two opposing views arose a third which held that, though these books were not to be put in the same rank as those in the Hebrew collection, they nevertheless had their value for moral uses, and should be read in the Church services. Hence they were called ‘ ecclesiastical ’— a designation that is found first in Rufinus (ob. A.D. 410). Notwithstanding many variations in the attitude of different authorities and councils these three opinions maintained their ground down to the Reformation.
At the Reformation the above ecclesiastical usages were transformed into articles of belief, which may be regarded as characteristic of the Churches by which they were adopted. As we have already remarked, the Council of Trent adopted the Canon of the Council of Hippo and of Augustine, declaring : ‘If any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with
1 Tn the next century Athanasius, in an Easter letter (A. Ὁ. 365), states that the books of the Old Testament were twenty-two in number according to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Other books not included in the Canon, such as Wisdom, Sirach, Esther, Tobit, Judith, might be used for the instruction of catechumens. It is noteworthy here that the Maccabees are omitted, and Esther is treated as an apocryph.
5 Council of Trent, April 8, 1546. ‘Testamenti veteris ... Esdrae primus et secundus, qui dicitur Nehemias.’
INTRODUCTION TO" VOLUMEG
all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained —
in the old Latin Vulgate. . . let him be anathema.’’ All the Apocrypha except 1 Esdras, 4 Ezra, and the Prayer of Manasses belonging to the Apocrypha Proper were declared Canonical.
On the other hand, the Protestant Churches have universally declared their adhesion to the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament. Yet amongst these a milder and a severer view prevailed. While in some Confessions, i.e. the Westminster, it is decreed that they are not ‘to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings’, a more favourable view is expressed regarding them in many other quarters; e.g. in the preface prefixed to them in the Genevan Bible: ‘As books proceeding from godly men (they) were received to be read for the advancement and furtherance of the knowledge of history and for the instruction of godly manners: which books declare that at all times God had an especial care of His Church, and left them not utterly destitute of teachers and means to confirm them in the hope of the promised Messiah’; and in the Sixth Article of the Church of England: ‘the other books the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners.’
In addition to the spiritual and moral service rendered by these books, the modern student recognizes that without them it is absolutely impossible to explain the course of religious development between 200 B.C.and A.D. 100. In this respect the Apocrypha is to be regarded as embracing the Pseudepigrapha as well. If the Canonical and Apocryphal Books are compared in reference to the question of inspiration, no unbiased scholar could have any hesitation in declaring that the inspiration of such a book as Wisdom or the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs is incomparably higher than that of Esther.
ᾧ 5. Lditions—partial or complete—of the Apocrypha.
Fritzsche und Grimm, Kuragef. exegel. Handbuch gu den Apokryphen des A. T., 1851-60. Fritzsche, Lief. I, 3 Esra, Zusatze zu Esther und Daniel, Gebet Manasses, Baruch, Brief Jer.; 11, Tobit und Judith ; V. Strach. Grimm, Lief. III, 1 Afakk. ; TV. 2-4 Makk.; V1. Wesdom.
E, C. Bissell, Zhe Apocrypha of the Old Testament, with historical Introductions and Notes Critical and Explanatory, New York, 1880, This work contains the Apocrypha Proper (though 2 Esdras (i. 6. 4 Ezra) is added in an Appendix); also 3 Macc. and a summary of 4 Macc. In a second Appendix a short account is given of some of the Pseudepigrapha.
Wace, Apocrypha (in the ‘Speaker’s Commentary’), 2 vols., London, 1888, This edition is furnished with a good introduction by Salmon. The various books are edited by different English scholars,
O. Zockler, Die Apokr. des A. 7. nebst einem Anhang iiber die Pseudepigraphentiteratur, 1891.
Ball, Zhe Ecclescastical or Deutero-Canonical Books of the Old Testament, commonly called the Apocrypha (1892).
Kautzsch, Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments, 2 vols., Tiibingen, 1900. This is the best work that has hitherto appeared on this literature as a whole. But many parts of it are already antiquated.
§ 6. General literature dealing directly or indirectly with the period of this literature
Weber, Sys/em der allsynagogalen palistinischen T: heologte (1880). The last edition of this work was published under the title Lehre des Talmuds, 1897.
Bacher, Die Aggada der Tannaiten, 2 vols., 1884-90.
Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. ii, Das Ende des jiidischen Staatswesens (by O. Holtzmann). 1888.
Drummond, Philo Judacus, 2 vols., 1888.
Bois, Essa? sur les origines de la philosophie judéo-Alexandrine, 1890.
Toy, Judaism and Christianity, 1890.
1 This decree of the Council of Trent was ratified by fifty-three prelates, ‘among whom (Westcott, Bzb/e in the Church, 257) there was not one German, not one scholar distinguished by historical learning, not one who was fitted by special study for the examination of a subject in which the truth could only be determined by the voice of antiquity.’
This list includes only a few of the works interesting to the student of this literature.
» [INERODUCTION TO’ VOLUME I
Smith, G. A., As/orical Geography of the Holy Land, 1894, tgo1".
Mahaffy, Zhe Empire of the Ptolemies, 1895.
Bertholet, Die Svellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den Fremden, 1896.
Schechter, Svudzes zn Judazsm, 1896.
Cheyne, Jewish Religious Life after the Exile, 1898.
Streane, Zhe Age of the Maccabees, 1898.
Kent, A History of the Jewish People, Part II, 1899.
Wellhausen, /sraclitische und jiidische Geschichie®, 1901.
Schiirer, Geschichte des jitdischen Volkes*, 1898-1901.
Bevan, Zhe House of Seleucus, 2 vols., 1902.
Volz, Jiidische Eschatologie von Daniel bis Agiba, 1903.
Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zertalter, 1903, 1906”.
Baldensperger, Dee Messtanisch-Apokalyptische Hoffnungen des Judenthums, 1903.
Porter, Zhe Messages of the Apocalyptical Writers, 1905.
Friedlander, Dée religidsen Bewegungen innerhalb des Judenthums im Zettalter Jesu, 1905.
Marti, Geschichte der tsraelitischen Religion®, 1907. See Sections V and VI.
Oesterley and Box, Zhe Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, 1907.
Kent, Zhe Sermons, Epistles, and Apocalypses of Israel’s Prophets from the Beginning of the Assyrian Period to the End of the Maccabean Struggle, 1910.
H. Pentin, Znternational Journal of Apocrypha.
ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA TO VOLUME I
. 60 (1 Macc.), 1. 28 from bottom, delete comma after ‘although’ . 118, 1. 20 from bottom, vead ‘Sion’ for ‘Zion’ . 123, 1. 3 from top, read ‘enemies’ ’ for ‘enemies’ . 174. The evidence referred to in ὃ 3 will be published in the /. 7. (δι, July, 1913, under the title : ‘Original Text of Tobit’. Ρ, 197 (Tobit), 1. 26 from top, read ‘eternal’ for ‘ external’ P. 534. To the literature add ‘Goodrick, Zhe Book of Wisdom, 1913’—a very valuable commentary. P. 559 (Wisdom). In xv. 5 for ‘leadeth fools into lust’ (which gives the sense well) render more literally ‘for fools leadeth into lust’.
ge} Iq): ἘΠῚ tno} lao]
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS EMPLOYED IN INTRODUCTIONS,
TEXT AND NOTES
See special lists as under :— Sirach vol, I. 315. Test. XII Patr. vol. IT. 295. Tobit spielen 201. 1 Enoch sp ΝΠ Ht 4 Ezra ede 500. See also under Versions and MSS. in the different books. ΑἹ &c. See 2 Bar. § 7 Hiph Hiphil | Sir. Sirach A.J.Th. American Fournal of Theo- Hom. Homer Slav. Bar. See vol. ii. 131 Aboth Pirké Aboth (logy Il. Tliad , Slav. Vit. Slavonic Vita Adae et Evae Ab. R. Nathan Aboth Rabbi Nathan Int. Crit. Comm. Jiternational Critical See Books of Adam ara dm. dey. orelp. ἅπαξ λεγόμενον Or εἰρημένον Commentary Soph. Sophocles, {Eve Apoc.Abrah, Apocalypse of Abraham Intr. Introduction 4 Stob. Stobaeus Apoc. of Baruch 2 Baruch ἢ J.-E. Jewish Encyclopaedia | Symm. Symmachus Apoc. Zeph. Apocalypse of Zephaniah J.Q.R. Jewish Quarterly Review Ὁ Syncell. Syncellus| Aq. Aquila J.R.A.S. Journal of the Royal Astatic Syr. Syriac 73 Arabic Society ᾿ ; Syr. H. Hexaplaric Syriac Aram. Frag. AramaicFragment. See Test. J.T.S. Journal of Theological Studies | Syr. W. Syriac Version in Walton’s * App. IL Jalkut Schim. Jalkut Shimeoni ῦ Polyglot A Arm. Armenian Jashar Book of Jashar Sok. Sokoloy’s Text of 2 Enoch Asc. Is. Ascension of Isaiah Jer. Joma &c.Joma in Jerusalem Tal- Τ.Α. &c. See under ‘ Testaments’ in Ass. Mos. Assumption of Moses mud list of symbols prefixed to Aug. Augustine Jerus. Targ. Jerusalem Targum Index. i B! &c, See 2 Bar. § 7 Jos. Ant. δες. Josephus, Arntzguities, &c. Tb. Babylonian Talmud B.D. Bible Dictionary Jub. Book of Jubilees Targ. Jer. Jerusalem Targum B.S. Deissmann, /2b/ical Studies Jiid. Theol.? iidische Theologie® (Weber) Targ. Jon. Targum PeendGenonathn 1 Bar. Apocryphal Book of Baruch κ. Kautzsch ; Th. Gram. Thackeray, Grammar of Old 2 Bar. Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch K.A.T. Schrader, Die Ketlinschriften Testes Greek 3 Bar. Greek Apocalypse of Baruch und das Alte Testament Theod. Theodotion i Ber. Rabb. Bereshith rabba Kit. Kittel Theoph. Theophilus Berach. or Berakh. Berachoth L.A.E. Deissmann, Light from the Tebt. P. Tebtinehileaneee Beresh. Bereshith Ancient East Tert. Tertullian ᾿ (ΕΣ Corpus Inscriplionum Graedai. Weber, Dze Lehren des Tal- Test. Givectannent carum ἘΝ ᾿ muds ἢ Test.Sim. See vol. ii. 153 Com Cuneiform Inscriptions and | L. δὲ 5. Liddell and Scott ‘Test. XIU Patr aulectaraenteobthednela the Old Testament. See LXxX. Septuagint Version iPattnecne eS K.A.T. Lact. Lactantius Tisch. πε στην Cat. Niceph. Catalogue of Nicephorus Io, Welt Le Veteris Testamenti Tobe Tobit Chag. Chagigah (Talmud) Luc. ucian 7 ae as : Chron, Pasch. ee Paschale Lucr. Lucretius Melis αν | or oe Clem. Alex. Clement of Alexandria MS. Manuscript Vit. Ad. Vin Agke : Clem.Recog. Pseudo-Clementine Recogni- MT. Massoretic Text Vulg. Vul ri Cod. Codex [Δίογις 1 Mace. ὅς. First, &c., Book of Maccabees Wp Walton's ῬΟΙΤ ΤΟΪ 1.8. Dictionary of the Bible Macrob. Macrobius Wellh. Wellh bia ys Dan. Daniel Mart. Is. Martyrdom of Isaiah Wisd. Bost Achwiedor Diod. Sic. Diodorus Siculus Mass. Massoretic " on i Na ὭΣ 5 Diog. Laert. Diogenes oe 4 3 Megill: Meuills eee Z.A.T.W. ἘΠ ee AT. Wis- BSAC See 4 Ezra, § 7, and 1]. 560 Menach. enachoth (Talmud) Dee is Sas δῇ EB. or Bi, Lncyclopacdia Biblica Mg. Margin τς τονε τ τς ἐπ τας Enon Enoct ΝῊ W Neue hes Worterbuch schaft As 1 En. 1 Enoch or Ethiopian Enoch ~H.W. euhebratsches Worterbuch τ ; ᾿ς agg Cee - 2 En. 2 Enoch or ἘΠΕ ἢς Enoch N.T. New Testament BESS ὅς ae ae die NT. Encye. Brit. Ezcyclopaedia Britannica Ok Old Testament eels : ἘΝῚ Bali Epistle a Barnabas Onk. Onkelos, Targum of Z.W.T. or Ζ. eM ae σον 7 Ep. Jer. Epistle of Jeremy Onom. Sacr. Onxomasticon Saci une 3 Uae Epiph. Epiphanius Or. Sibyll. Sibylline Oracles fad Ἶ οι Eth. Ethiopic Orph. Frag. Orphic Fragment [ 1 indicate an intrusion into the Eus. Eusebius PLE. EP: Palestine Exploration Fund original text Ἐν. Nicod. Zvangelium Nicodemz PRs Petrie Papyri + + indicate that the word or 4 Ez. Fourth Book of Ezra P.R. Eliezer Pirke Rabbi Eliezer passage so enclosed is cor- FayumP. Fayum Papyri ΡΒ Real-Encyclopadie fiir prorupt τ Fr. or Frag. Fragment test. Theologie und Kirche Ras D so. {τ Greek Version BiS:Be A. Proceedings of the Society of ( ) 98 ivalics indicate that the G.d.Jud. Geschichte des Fudenthums Biblical Archaeology word or words/so enclased G.J.V. Schiirer’s Geschichte des ju- Pesikt. Pesikta or printed are supplied for dischen Volkes Ps. Clem. Recog. Pseudo - Clementine the sake of clearness. G.V.1. Geschichte des Volkes Israel Recognitions + indicates that the authority Gen. rabb. Genesis rabba Ps. Jon. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan or authorities quoted insert Gk. Greek Ps. of Sol. Psalms of Solomon the word or words follow- Gk. Frag. Greek Fragment. See Test. R. Rabbi ing this mark. App. I RE Real-Encyklopidie a - Gr. Gane R.E.J- Revue des Bicdes Juives a indica ae auneue Gr. of O.T. Greek Grammar of Old Testa- Rel. des Jud. Religion des Fudenthums ana ay aa allow ment Greek (Thackeray) Sam. Samaritan ine this mare H.D.B. Hastings’ Dictionary of the Sam.Chron. Samaritan Chronology ΚΑ ΤᾺΝ Bible Sanh. Sanhedrin « » indicate a restoration in the ἘΠῚ: History of the Fewish People Schiirer,E.T. Schiirer’s Hestovy of the Fewtext. Heb. Gr. Hebrew Grammar ash People, English Trans- Thick type indicates an emendation in Herm. Hermas, Pastor Sept. Septuagint [lation ὲ the text. Hes. Hesiod Shabb.
Shabbath
ΕΘ Θ
δι. PRELIMINARY ACCOUNT OF THE BOOK.
THE first book of the Apocrypha stands in a class by itself in that it is, with the exception of one portion, a somewhat free Greek version of the biblical history from Josiah’s Passover (2 Chron. xxxv.) to the Reading of the Law by Ezra (Neh. viii.). It differs, however, in several important particulars both from the corresponding canonical passages and from the more literal Greek translation of them (also preserved in the Septuagint), and an adequate treatment of its text and contents belongs properly to the commentaries and handbooks on Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. Consequently, in order to keep the Introduction and Notes within limits, it has seemed desirable to print the Revised Version of the ‘apocryphal’ and ‘canonical’ passages side by side, and to restrict all remarks to those points which appeared to be essential for the study of the relation between the texts and their significance for the period which they cover. Further reference to the commentaries and other works dealing with the period in question is therefore recommended.
The contents of 1 Esdras comprise :—
Εἰ. = 2 Chron. xxxv. I-xxxvi. 21. Josiah’s passover and death; the last kings of Judah to the
fall of Jerusalem, 586 B.c.
ii. I-15.= Ei. The decree of Cyrus permitting the rebuilding of the Temple and the return of
Sheshbazzar with the temple-vessels and a band of exiles, 538-537.
ii, 16-30. = E iv. 7-24. The Samaritan opposition to the rebuilding in the reign of Artaxerxes,
iii. I-v. 6. wanting in E. The successful oration of Zerubbabel, one of the bodyguard of Darius, in the second year of his reign (1). I, Hystaspes, 521-486), and the king’s decree permitting a return of exiles to rebuild the city and Temple; brief statement of the journey.
V. 7-73. = E ii. 1-iv. 5, 24 (υ. 6 is wanting). List of Zerubbabel’s band, the rebuilding of the Temple hindered by the Samaritans from the time of Cyrws to the second year of Darius (520).
vi-vii. = E v.-vi. The successful rebuilding of the Temple through the intervention of Darius in 520, and its completion in 516.
viii. I-ix. 36 = E vii—x. The decree of Artaxerxes in his seventh year (458), the return of Ezra and a body of exiles, the separation of the people from the foreign wives.
ix. 37-55 = N vii. 73-viii.13 a. The reading of the law by Ezra, placed in Ν ὦ Ἂς. after the return of Nehemiah in the king’s twentieth year (444).
The outstanding features are :—
(1) The presence of the Artaxerxes record before the reign of Darius, whether after the return of Sheshbazzar (£ ii. 16-30) or after the commencement of the rebuilding by Zerubbabel (E iv. 7-24), both of which are placed in the time of Cyrus.
(2) The inclusion of £ iii. 1-v. 6, the story famous for the Praise of Truth and the well-known dictum ‘magna est veritas et praevalet’, and the decree of Darius (which excludes any prior return).
(3) The confusion caused by the presence of this section (£ iii. 1—v. 6) in the history of the exiles who returned in the time of Cyrus (1 ii. 1-15 = E 1) and at once commenced the work of
(4) The omission in £& of N i.-vii. 72, with the result that the continuation of the story of Ezra (N viii.) is placed in immediate connexion with E vii—x., whereas the canonical books leave a gap of twelve years between E vii—x. and N i. seqq.
(5) Numerous readings in & of greater or less value, which are often important for the textual criticism of the MT, and sometimes affect the literary and historical problems of the sources.
£ ceases abruptly ; cf. the close of 2 Chron., ‘and let him go up’ ( =E i. 3), also Mark xvi. 8. The R.V. rendering of ix. 55 implies that this is intentional (so Ewald, Bissell, Lupton, Bayer, and others). Hence it is often supposed that £ is a self-contained work, written and compiled for some
1 For the abbreviations £, E, N, &c., see below, p. 19 seq.
I DRAS
specific purpose, e.g. to influence Gentiles in favour of the Jews, or (Lupton) to prepare the way for the building of the temple of Onias at Alexandria, or simply, perhaps, to bring together narratives relating to the Temple ; cf. the conclusion of £¢ ‘ explicit Esdrae liber primus de templi restitutione *. But the feature may also be explained on the view that the book, which begins somewhat abruptly, is merely a fragment of a larger work (Michaelis, Eichhorn, Trendelenburg, Rodiger, Treuenfels, Howorth, Torrey, and others). This raises several interesting questions ; in particular, ix. 38-55 belong in N viii. to the concluding chapters of Ezra’s history, and it is very noteworthy that Josephus finishes his account of Ezra before his introduction of Nehemiah—what was the original sequel of £? Moreover, not only was & used by this orthodox Jewish historian, the book was important enough to find a place in the Greek Bible, it was known to early Christian writers, and is referred to in terms which indicate that its canonicity and value were not doubtful (see § 2).
Now, the criticism of the O.T. has advanced sufficiently to prove that the biblical records E-N bristle with the most intricate and serious difficulties, the extent of which is manifest in the widelydiffering conclusions that prevail. As can be seen from other sources (see § 4, iv. 2), the history of the Persian period is plunged in obscurity, upon which some light has only recently been shed by contemporary records (Babylonian inscriptions, Jewish-Aramaic papyri from Upper Egypt). It can no longer be assumed that the MT necessarily represents a more trustworthy record of the age, and that £ is necessarily arbitrary and methodless. Both share fundamental imperfections. 4, therefore, in any case deserves impartial consideration, and its problems involve those of E-N. These problems, owing to the absence of decisive and independent evidence, can be handled only provisionally ; but enough is clear to permit the conclusion that & represents a text in some respects older than the present MT, to which, however, some attempt seems to have been made to conform it (cf. Ewald, 138 n. 6; Howorth, P.S2BA, xxiii. 306 seq.). From a comparison of both with Jos. and other sources (notably Daniel) it would further appear that & represents one of the efforts to give an account of a period, the true course of which was confused and forgotten, if not intentionally obscured ; different attempts were made to remove difficulties and inconsistencies, and the desire to give greater prominence to the priestly Ezra than to the secular governor Nehemiah is probably responsible for the arrangement of the extant texts.
E-N and & (with Jos.) exhibit diverging views of the history. But £, even in its present incomplete form, overlaps with Chronicles-Ezra~Nehemiah, and since it provides a distinctly paraphrastic and free rendering of the MT, it seems probable that when it was superseded by the more literal Greek translation—of Theodotion (cf. the two Greek texts of Daniel)—this confused and selfcontradictory book (or fragment) was preserved mainly on account of the excellent story of Zerubbabel (cf. Howorth, P.SBA, xxiv. 167). To the Jews, both Zerubbabel and Nehemiah pale before the growing majesty of Ezra; to the early Christians, the Praise of Truth was a familiar passage, and Augustine (de Czv. Dez, xviii. 36) saw in it a prophecy of Christ.! Dating, apparently, about the first century B.C.. £’s view of history was familiar to Josephus and his readers, to the Hellenist Jews, and to the Christians. The form in E-N, with the omission of the story of Zerubbabel (and the chronological confusions which attend it), represents that of the Rabbinical schools, and subsequently (through Jerome) of the Christian Church. Through these vicissitudes Z fell into unmerited neglect, and by this omission (apparently intentional) there was removed a story which could not fail to interest the Christians—for it is surely significant that although the two genealogies of Jesus are hopelessly inconsistent, the two lines of ancestry of ‘David’s greater Son’ converge in the person of Zerubbabel.
§ 2. TITLE AND STANDING.
The book is known as (1) Esdras A or 1 Esdras, so G*4, LZ, S, and English Bibles since the Geneva edition of 1560 (where the name ‘ Ezra’ is reserved for the canonical book) ; or (2) as Esdras B or 2 Esdras, so (δ΄ (where 1 Es. = Ezra and Nehemiah) ; or (3) as 3 Esdras, so Latin Bibles since Jerome, the ‘Great Bible’ of 1539, and also the Anglican Article VI in the Prayerbook. The name 3 Paraleipomenon (i.e. Chronicles) is found in a Florentine Greek MS., cf. the title Sermones Dierum (the Heb. title of Chron.) Esdvae in Hilary’s list (H. B. Swete, /ztrod. to O.T. in Greek, 210). It is also styled Zertins Neemiae by Franciscus Robles, 1532 (Lupton, 4). A convenient name for the book is the ‘Greek Ezra’, to distinguish it from the other and literal translation of the canonical books.?
_? A late Midrash (Jellinek, ii. 54-7) makes Zerubbabel the centre of ‘a short apocalypse on the certainty of the ultimate appearance of the Messiah son of David, on his precursor the Messiah son of Joseph, and on their friends
On the title ὁ ἱερεύς in G4 (to distinguish & from 2 or 4 Esdras of the Apocrypha 3), see Nestle, 29.
It is a significant fact that, as emphasized by Whiston in 1722, the Jewish historian Josephus uses & for his account of King Josiah, follows its order of events, and is influenced by its language, although for the other books he employs the LXX. Equally significant is the appearance of & with the canonical E-N in the best Greek MSS., either before (@"4, and presumably δ) or after (@") these. It is quoted by several early Greek and Latin Fathers) and Augustine and Origen cite iv. 41 and 59 respectively from ‘ Esdras’ without indicating that another than the canonical book is meant. Moreover, a Greek synopsis (Lag. 84) and a Syriac Catena (see on £ ix. 55) treat E as τ Esdras, and give the title 2 Esdras to N*. But-Jerome meanwhile had condemned the two apocryphal books of Esdras with their ‘dreams’ (Praef. Esd. et Neh.), and his ruling was confirmed in due course by the Church. £ is wanting in the early MSS. of the Vulgate, and it was rejected by the Council of Florence (1442). It is found in the Latin bibles of 1474, 1480, &c., but is regarded as apocryphal by De Lyra (1498), Karlstadt (1520), and Stephanus (1528). It is wanting in the Complutensian Polyglot (1514-17), and Luther ignored it—though not perhaps primarily (Bayer, 6 seq.) —for its triviality. There was even a belief that it did not exist in Greek (Torrey, 13 n. 1). The Council of Trent rejected it in 1546, but it is printed in an appendix in small type in the Tridentine edition of the Vulgate. Although it appears as 1 Esdras in the 1587 edition of the Septuagint (Rome), it was omitted three years later from the Sixtine Vulgate (Rome, 1590). In spite of the occasional attention paid to it by a few scholars, / has since too often been overlooked and neglected, and has only recently come into deserved prominence through the persistence of Sir Henry H. Howorth from 1893 onwards (see further Torrey, 13 seqq.).
E, on closer inspection, proves to be no free or less careful treatment of the Greek translation of the canonical books, as had been held by Keil, Zéckler, Bissell, Konig (Z7zzlectung, § 97), and formerly Schiirer (contrast his Gesch. Volk. Isr., 3rd ed., iii. 328). There is an overwhelming body of opinion that it is translated from a Semitic (Hebrew and Aramaic) original. There are, it is true, various readings, identical or apparently connected with the literal Greek translation, but they do not outweigh the many considerable and characteristic differences of rendering, the variations in the transliteration or translation of proper names, and the numerous readings in & which can be explained only from the MT (see especially Bayer, 156 seqq.). That & is an independent version older than the (δ of the canonical books was suggested by Grotius (1644, see PSBA, xxv. 139), Whiston (1722), Pohlmann (1859), Ewald (1864), Lagarde (1874), and others, and has since been more cogently shown by Howorth and Torrey. It is pointed out that the @ of E-N presents features characteristic of Theodotion’s translation (viz. transliteration of gentilics, and of difficult or uncertain words) and parallel to his translation of Daniel. The @ of £, on the other hand, as Gwynn also noticed, finds parallels in the ‘ Septuagint’ text of Daniel, especially the first six chapters. Moreover, the S of £ claims to be made from the Septuagint, and it is very probable that & took the place of the @ of Ε-Ν in Origen’s Hexapla. Volz, however, has properly drawn attention to the varying quality of the different sections of £,a feature which ‘ excludes the supposition that the Greek version can have been produced aus einem Guss’. In general, all the evidence tends to show that & held a more authoritative position than has been usually conceded to it (in consequence of Jerome), but that its unevenness as a translation and the complexity of its contents make its true origin and structure a more intricate problem.®
§ 3. TEXT VERSIONS, DATE, ETC.
(a) Character of Translation. £,on account of its peculiar relationship to the O.T., cannot be studied textually apart from the versions based directly upon the MT (see more fully, Torrey 62-114). While the @ of E-N is un-Greek, literal and mechanical, 15 is the very reverse of servile, and its language both elegant and idiomatic. The vocabulary is extensive, containing several words that occur nowhere else in ‘ Septuagint’ Greek, or only in other books of the Apocrypha, notably 2 Macc. (see Moulton’s list, 7A TW, xix. 232 seqq.). Semitic idioms are usually happily replaced by natural Grecisms. There is often a free treatment of the article, pronouns, and conjunctions ; hypotaxis for the parataxis of MT; active verbs for passive. Condensation, paraphrase, and re-arrangement are frequent, and the translator has generally made the best of the original text, gliding over or concealing the difficulties. Sometimes he has misunderstood the original; but the rendering is carefully worded and thus presents an apparently plausible result (see e.g. i. 10-12, 38, 51). He
1 e.g. Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius ; see Pohlmann, 263 seqq., and the tables in André, 22 seqq.
? Augustine, also, in a list of canonical books (de doctr. Christ. ii, 8) enumerates two books of Ezra ‘ of which our 1 Esd. was certainly one’ (Volz). See, on the other hand, Bayer, 4.
See Howorth, PSBA, xxiii. 156 seqq., xxiv. 164 seqq., xxix. 31 seqq., xxxili. 26 seqq.; Torrey, ib. xxv. 139 seqq., and his Ezra Studies, Chap. 1; J. Gwynn, Dict. Christ. Biog., ‘Theodotion’, and Lxtracts from the Syro-Hex. Version of the LX X (London, 1909), xx. seqq.
manifests his intelligence when the skilful paronomasia ἄνεσιν καὶ ἄφεσιν (iv. 62), suggestive of a Greek composer, goes back none the less to a Semitic original (cf. Susanna, 54 seqq-), and the use of the name Sisinnes (vi. 3) in place of the MT Tattenai is typical of his care. E, it is clear, was made to be read, it is a version rather than a translation, and its value for the criticism of the MT must not blind us to its imperfections (on which see Bayer, 11 seqq-). Consequently, a mean must be sought between a promiscuous and haphazard use of & and a whole-hearted though indiscriminate reliance upon its readings and paraphrases. The attempt must invariably be made to distinguish between the underlying text and the features which (as in the Septuagint elsewhere) are due to the translator alone, and the difficulty of this task in certain crucial cases is vital for the disentanglement of the roblems of £7 2
Ἶ (2) E and the MT. It is abundantly plain that 5 is not derived from the © (Theodotion) of the Canonical Books. Where there is agreement, the evidence points to accident or absence of intention, and is not strong enough to prove dependence (see the most recent study by Bayer, 156-61). In certain cases where they agree against the MT they sometimes are due to an easy misunderstanding, and sometimes point to a preferable reading ; now and then the more literal version alone preserves an older text. It is highly significant that IP, 15 occasionally conflate, and presents simple doublets (e.g. ii. 25, vi. 29, ix. 8, 46), or more elaborate combinations made with some have been made from the MT, and & vi. 25 actually presents the incorrect ‘new’ (n7n) of the MT by the side of the correct ‘one’ (7m). Revision has also been made for the purpose of removing difficulties (so, probably v. 734, in view of the date in vi. 1), or of making identifications (Zerubbabel, vi. 18,27, 29). These adjustments, which are not found in Theodotion, seem to have been made first in the Greek version, and thus might appear to confirm the view that £ is based upon an earlier Greek version (Ewald). The question of the underlying original, however, would still remain, and it is very important to notice that not only does £& often presuppose a better text than the MT, but that some of the readings raise questions of literary structure and historical criticism. Consequently, E is not directly based cither upon Theodotion’s literal translation or the extant MT; the marks of revision point rather to an attempt to adjust to the MT an earlier version which differed from it in some material respects, large (nos. 1, 2,4, on p. I above) and small (e.g. v. 39 seq., 47, Vi. 28, vii. 1,
“2.155. and Versions. The GREEK MSS. fall into two main classes, (1) Lucianic (MSS. 19, 108), and (2) B,A, &c. The former stand in a class by themselves, reveal many signs of correction and improvement in order to agree with the MT, and can be used only with great caution (see Torrey, 106 seqq.). The latter comprise two main subdivisions, B and A. Β is distinctly the inferior, but shows fewer traces of correction. For a full grouping of all the MSS., see the elaborate discussion by Moulton, ZA7 IV, xix. 211 seqq. W, it may be added, lacks #, but its subscription Εσδρας β (N xiii. 31) presupposes an ‘Esdras A.’
Two old LATIN translations were printed by Sabatier (470/. Sacr. Lat. 1. 1041 seqq.), with a collation of MS. Sangermanensis—¥ZL¢ (Cod. Colbertinus ; no. 3703), and a later which in a revised form was used as the Vulgate. A summary from a Lucca MS. was edited by Lagarde, Sept. «δ 2 κά. ii. 16 seqq. (# Lag.). These differ from, and, on the whole, are purer than (δ.
The SYRIAC Peshitta is without Chron., Ezra, and Neh. & © is the Syro-Hexapla of Paul of Tella, printed in Walton’s Polyglot and by Lagarde (Lib. Vet. Test. Apocr. Syr., 1861). It is explicitly said to be from the Septuagint, and the same is stated at the head of a collection of excerpts in the old Syriac Catena, British Museum, Add. 12168 (see on ix. 55). The variants of the latter and its selections from N are printed by Torrey, 5 seqq., and these selections, with a retranslation into Greek, collation, and complete introductory discussion by Gwynn (see p. 3 ἢ. 3). 5 has many points of contact with (δ᾽, especially in i. 1-9, but on the whole a relationship with G® is more distinct.
The ETHIOPIC translation (ed. Dillmann, Vez. Test. Aeth., Vol. V) represents the text of G3, 5, &c., in contrast to ©‘, and, according to Torrey (101), ‘is a valuable witness to the Hexaplar text. It must have been made with unusual care from a comparatively trustworthy codex.’
The Arabic translation awaits study (PSA, xxiv. 169) ; the Armenian is valueless (Volz, § 2).
(4) Fosephus. The Jewish historian (first cent. A.D.), with his continuous history of the monarchy and post-exilic age, stands nearest (of extant compilations) to the chronicler in point of antiquity. He isa valuable exponent of the attempt to weave heterogeneous material into a readable and more or less consistent whole, and his greatest claim to attention lies in the evidence he
? On the general features of Z’s version, see further Moulton, 226 ; Thackeray, 7602; Torrey, 83 seq.
_® For the textual value of Z see, in addition to the commentaries on E-N, the discussions by Riessler (Bzb/ische Zeitschrift, v. 146 seqq.) and Bayer.
ai ωρϑθϑεν κοπὐκοιψανσαι ἊΝ = nie
pavnisiebenneatac
furnishes for a comparative study of the traditions encircling the names and events of the period from Josiah to the Samaritan schism. Jos. is the earliest witness to /; the relationship is unmistakable as regards material and even language (Eichhorn, Eznlett. Apokr. [1795], 347 seqq.; Treuenfels, Der Orient [1850-1]; H. Bloch, Quellen d. Fl. Fos. [1879], 69 seqq.). There are several points of agreement with (δ᾽ as against (δ᾽ (Thackeray, 762 4), and also with (δ΄; Torrey (103) assigns the text an intermediate position. Unfortunately, Jos. is often extremely paraphrastic, and is therefore no safe guide for restoring the original of &. None the less, it is noteworthy that he is without the faults of Z i. 29, 34 seq., he presupposes a text more complete and older than that in vi. 18, viii. 55, he uses a slightly different version of iii. (see Biichler, 64, 100), and, while obviously harmonizing in some places, elsewhere presents singular divergences or additions which do not appear to be arbitrary. In particular, his treatment of the stories of E and N is highly suggestive (see appendix to note on ix. 55). Besides utilizing the canonical sources (Jer., Dan., Est.), he has had access (as in Est.) to other Jewish traditions (see on vii. 15), and possessed some acquaintance with external history (see p. 11, and oni. 25). But although Jos. is not a direct witness to 4 5 text—and ἃ. Hoélscher has suggested that he made use of Alexander Polyhistor (Quedlen d. Fos. [1904], 36, 43 seqq., 51)— he testifies to the authority of Z’s history, and it is unnecessary to assume (Swete, Thackeray, Bayer, 140) that he used it simply because it was written in good Greek.
(6) Date and place. While Jos. is evidence for the earlier existence of /, it is not certain that it then had precisely its present form. As a translation the linguistic features suggest that it belongs to the time of the old Greek translation of Daniel, and was perhaps due to the same translator (Torrey, 84 seq.). The date of the original is bound up with that of Chron.-Ez.-Neh., and must be some time after 333 B.C. The Persian period was past, and its history had become obscure, the identity of Darius and Apame (iv. 29) was forgotten, and the points of contact with Dan. and Est. (not necessarily in their present form), would suggest the late Greek age. The problem also involves the question whether iii. 1-v. 6 is a secondary insertion or part of the original compilation, and this naturally affects the discussion of the home of the book (see pp. 29, 32). Although the section seems to some scholars to point to the influence of Alexandrian thought and philosophy (Lupton, André, Thackeray, Volz), to others it is Palestinian (Zunz), or not necessarily Alexandrian (Torrey). The identification of Apame speaks for Egypt or Antioch ; the knowledge of the topography of Jerusalem (v. 47, ix. 38) is not that of the compiler or translator but of his source, and therefore cannot be claimed to support a Palestinian home. Egypt is suggested by the free irony in iii., iv., the unveiled women (iv. 18), the references to navigation (iv. 15, 23), and piracy (v. 27), and elsewhere by the use of Coelesyria (see ii. 17). Thackeray (762 4) compares the ‘friends’ of the king (viii. 26; E G σύμβουλοι) with the ‘first friends’ who were third in scale of the courtiers at Alexandria, and with ay φαίνηται σοι (ii. 21, not in E) the phrase ἐὰν φαίνηται in Aristeas and frequently in Egyptian papyri. In so far as these data point to Egypt one may recall the interest in history-writing among the Hellenists Demetrios, Eupolemos, Artapanos, Alexander Polyhistor and others.
(75) English versions. ΤΊ may be added that the old Geneva Bible, according to Lupton (6), is ‘in some respects closer to the Greek than that of 1611’. Various improvements to the A.V. are suggested by Ball in the Variorum Apocrypha, and even the R.V. is not such an advance as might have been anticipated. Note, for example, the archaic ‘ Artaxerxes his letters’ (ii. 30), ‘ cousin’ (iii. 7), ‘Jewry’ (v. 7), and the gliding over of the obscurities of an imperfect @ in viii. 8, and especially in the concluding words, ix. 55.
§ 4. PROBLEMS OF LITERARY AND HISTORICAL CRITICISM. I. The Period.
The problems of & and its relation to E-N involve that more complete and continuous series Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah which is united by sequence of contents and the recurrence throughout of similar features of language, interest, standpoint, and compilation. The ‘chronicler’s history’? of the post-exilic period deals with the fall of Jerusalem (586 B.C.), the return from exile under Zerubbabel and Jeshua, the reorganization of the Jewish people, the restoration of the Temple and
1 By ‘chronicler’ is meant the hand which, by writing, compiling, or revising, brought the three consecutive books into practically their present form. Owing to the complexity of the compilation the term may not be an adequate one, but there seems no reason to doubt that there has been a single editorial process af some stage in the literary growth (the objections of Jampel, i. 108, 112, 115 seqq., and Davies, 16 are unnecessary). In any case, historical criticism cannot start from the untrustworthiness of Chronicles, and minimize the extent of the ‘ chronicler ’ in E-N (Davies, 16 seq.), or exaggerate it (Torrey, 145 Seqq., on the E-story), or assume that all other records are necessarily relatively superior (so apparently Meyer, Ex/stehung). See below, pp. 17-19.
T ESDRAS
the furtherance of religious conditions, the separation from the Samaritans and one ne neighbours, and the inauguration of a church under the Mosaic Law. It is the perio poe ic a considerable portion of the O.T., after passing through the hands of Judaean writers and editors, was reaching its present form, and the sole consecutive canonical source for this period, the chronicler’s work, cannot be dated before the Greek age (333 B. C.). This source ignores all events between 586 and the decree of Cyrus, and omits other details which also refer to the period (see e.g. 2 Kings xxv. 22-30, Jer. xl.—xliv., lii. 28-34, Daniel, Esther). This feature, like the failure to record the history of (north) Israel after the fall of Samaria, cannot be wholly unintentional. Interest is concentrated upon exiles and reformers from Babylon, and upon their labours in rebuilding the Temple and in purifying religious and social conditions in the face of opposition within and without. A new and reformed Jewish community with its new Temple is linked historically with the old Judah of the Monarchy and the Temple of Solomon. The climax is reached partly in the great Covenant inaugurated by Ezra (N x.). after the Introduction of the Law (444 B.C.), and partly in the Samaritan schism initiated by Nehemiah (N xiii.) But such are the gaps and the one-sided standpoints that the records cannot be said to give us objective history. We have, rather, specific representations of certain events of vast importance for post-exilic Judaism, and, just as the account of the settlement of the old Israelite tribes in the land of their ancestors is found to contain conflicting traditions and the gravest difficulties, so also here, the compilation as a whole is dominated by certain larger views which tend to obscure the contradictions and intricacies that arise in any critical study of the data. In both cases the method of criticism is similar, and unfortunately the evidence is frequently insufficient for any confident recovery of the actual events during that period which is of such profound importance for the study of the O.T."
Il. The Age of Cyrus and Darius.
(a) Paucity of trustworthy evidence. It is evident that the fall of Jerusalem could not have had the catastrophic effects that the traditional view assumes. We cannot picture Judah between 586 and 537 as half-empty.? Neither the number of deported Judaeans nor that of those who returned points to any depopulation, and even the events under Gedaliah’s governorship and the account of the flight of the survivors into Egypt indicate that the disasters ending in 586, when taken by themselves, had no ruinous consequences for the land. Subsequent history is ignored in Chron., but it is known that Jehoiachin in later years received some favour, and that Tyre had once more a king. The thread is resumed in E i—vi. (£ ii—vii.), in the reigns of Cyrus and Darius, but the narratives contain serious difficulties and conflicting representations (ᾧ 6, @) which are increased by the independent prophecies of Haggai and Zech. i—viii. (see on £ ii. 1 seqq.). Not until we reach the time of Artaxerxes are the sources more extensive, and the light they throw upon preceding years renders the value of E i—vi. extremely doubtful. That is to say, between 586 and 458 (E’s return), or rather 444 (N’s first visit to Jerusalem), there is a lengthy period of the greatest significance for the internal history leading up to Judaism and Samaritanism, and the only continuous source is both scanty and untrustworthy (see Margq., 67, Torrey, 156, and, partly, Meyer, 74).
(6) The evidence of the prophets. The prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah, dated in the second year of Darius, 520, mention neither any previous important return nor any earlier attempt to rebuild the Temple. Zerubbabel now resumes dynastic history (Hag. ii. 23, contrast Jehoiachin, Jer. xxii. 24), and the high-priest Jeshua (grandson of Seraiah, 2 Kings xxv. 18-21), whose return in Dan. ix. 24-26 dates an epoch, is now officially installed. Yahweh had been angry seventy years (Zech. i. 12, cf. Jer. xxix. ro seq., Dan. ix. 2); but is aroused and returns to Jerusalem (i. 16, il. ro—13 ; contrast his departure in Ezek. x. 18 seq., xi. 23), He is jealous for Zion and full of wrath against her enemies; they shall be punished and his people shall enjoy increased happiness (i. 15, ii. 9). City and temple shall be rebuilt and the land re-inhabited (i. τό seq., ii. 4, cf. vil. 7). The dispersed shall be rescued and again dwell in Jerusalem. The community in Babylon is bidden to escape to Zion (ii. 7, cf. Jer. li. 45). Babylon is threatened (vi. 1-8), and a passage which suggests that small bands of exiles might occasionally return heralds the forthcoming building of the temple (vi. 9-15). Haggai declares that the Temple is waste (i. 4, 9, Aa7é, cf. the term in N ii. 3, 17) and he stirs the people to the work of rebuilding. The appeal is to the ‘remnant’ (i. 12, 14, ii. 2, cf. Zech. viii. 6), that is, not the
Modern criticism is influenced by the radical conclusions of W. H. Kosters and the forcible defence by E. Meyer (Entstehung) whose own position, however, is in many respects opposed to the purely traditional ; see 8. R. Driver, Lit. 552 (and on the introductory literary questions, ib. 544 seqq.). A striking advance has recently been made by Torrey (Z2ra Studies), to whose work the present writer gratefully records his indebtedness, and since reasons are given in these pages for adopting certain radical conclusions of Kosters, Torrey, and others, it may be well to refer readers to the writings (see § 8) of Davies, Driver, Holzhey, Jampel, Nikel, Ryle, and G. A. Smith, for the arguments adduced in support of a generally consistent traditional position.
40,000 of E ii., but those who had escaped deportation (cf. Zeph. il. 7, 9, Jer. xlii. 2, 15, &c., see Jahn, p. xxxviii.). Zerubbabel is the one to rebuild and complete the undertaking (Zech. iv. 8-10, vi. 12 seqq.). The people fetch wood and the work is begun on the twenty-fourth of the sixth month (Hag. i. 14 seq.) ; as yet one stone had not been set upon another (ii. 15). The foundations are laid on the twenty-fourth of the ninth month (ii. το-- 19), and two years later, in 518, Zech. vili. 9 seqq. look back upon the happier period which had thus been inaugurated. But the exilic fasts were still being celebrated (vii. 3-5), the return of the dispersed was still an event to be anticipated. From these data it is reasonable to infer—with an influential number of scholars—that ‘no considerable band of exiles can have returned—none that was able materially to influence the Jewish community’ (Cheyne, Zvcy. διό. 1481 n. 4).
(c) Objections. Various counter-arguments, influenced by the chronicler’s history in E—-N, have been brought forward (see p. 6 n. 1). Those based upon a representation of events which has perplexed a generation of scholars naturally tend to beg the question. For example, it is urged that the prophets address returned exiles and it was unnecessary to describe the people as such; that they do not say that the builders were not returned exiles ; that only E i—iii. explain the events of 520-516 and subsequent history; that the Temple could not have been built by the native ‘heathen’ Judaeans ; that the main stream of Jewish life had been diverted to Babylon and only the presence of a Babylonian ‘leaven’ explains the prophecies of Hag. and, Zech. While some scholars recognize and seek to explain the silence of the prophets touching a return and rebuilding before 520, others contend that there are indeed references to these events. Some, observing the profound difference between the promises of the ‘ Deutero-Isaiah’ (xl.-lv.) and the history in E ili. seq., are of opinion that, since ‘the reality was a bitter disenchantment,’ the disillusionment so great, the prophets naturally do not refer to the events. But others argue that unless these promises had been essentially fulfilled there would have been so fatal a falsification of popular expectation that the oracles of Is. xl. seqq. would scarcely have survived. It is obvious that the preservation of prophecies is hardly conditioned by their fulfilment, however partial, and the difference between the anticipations and the reality was surely sufficient, on the most conservative view, to throw Is. xl. seqq. into oblivion. Haggai, it is objected, ignores a future return and may well have ignored previous events—but his contemporary Zech. excludes a previous return, testifies to the continuation of the exile, and looks forward to a return. The avgumentum ὁ silentio is undoubtedly valid. Zech. (i. 2-6), in appealing to the people to repent, alludes to past experience, but does not refer to the return —which would have been the most immediate proof of the might of Yahweh. Was there a wish to put courage into the poor hearts of the returned exiles? There was one practical illustration of divine grace, but there is no allusion to it. In fact, the urgent supplication to Yahweh (i. 12) is unintelligible had a new era dawned as in E i-iii. ; one may note Daniel’s prayer for divine intervention (Dan. ix., cf. also N i.) and the prayers of E after his return (E ix. 8, N ix. 30 seq.). In point of fact, Zech. sees the punishment and misery of the past (vii.), and the ‘decalogue of promises’ belong to the future (viil.). Did the prophets intentionally refrain from mentioning the material help the exiles had received in the time of Cyrus, in order to emphasize the necessity of relying upon spiritual help? The very passage which has been quoted in support of this view refers to the small beginnings recently inaugurated by Zerubbabel (iv. 6, 9 seq.), and ignores E i-iv.
There is no explanation of the gap between 537 and 520; there is no hint of any hindrance, cessation, or of any more or less continuous rebuilding (see ὃ 6 a): the people are negligent and remiss, and according to Haggai the distress caused by the failure of the rains was a punishment for not rebuilding the Temple (i., cf. 2 Sam. xxi. 1-10, Zech. xiv. 17). It hardly required a Babylonian exile to teach this. Haggai certainly refers to an altar (ii. 14, ‘there’), but this does not prove the accuracy of E iil. 3 or its context. A holy place is not necessarily deserted when the sanctuary is ruined, and Jer. xli. 5 already presupposes an altar ; to contend that the existence of this altar throughout the exile ought to have been mentioned in the O.T. is unreasonable. Indeed, the references to priests and sacrifices (Hag. ii. ro—14, cf. Zech. vil. 3 5666.) go further and suggest that the cult of Yahweh was independent even of the existence of a Temple (cf. Sellin, Stud. 53 seq. ; Torrey, 305). There is, moreover, no good reason for believing that native Judaeans would be ‘heathenish’, and that if they had rebuilt the Temple they would have been treated otherwise by the reformers E and N. If Jer. and Ezek. bear witness to low religious conditions, Hag., Mal., and Is. lvi.—Ixvi. indicate no great improvement after the return ; and the degenerate community which all scholars recognize in the latter sources and which needed the reforms of E and N include—on the traditional view—the Babylonian ‘leaven.’ Yet the Judaeans and Samaritans felt themselves to be heirs of Israel and the latter could claim to ‘worship Yahweh (2 Kings xvii. 32 seq., 41, Jer. xli. 5, Ezek. xxxiii. 24, Εἰ ἵν. 2). The fall of Jerusalem and the Exile do not exclude the presence—even among ‘the poorest of the land’—of men who might follow in the footsteps of the Rechabites (Jer. xxxv.), or of such seers as Amos, Hosea, Micah or Jeremiah ; and considering the piety of the Jews in distant Elephantine (Sachau-papyri), there is clearly no necessity to deny the possibility of the continuous worship of Yahweh during the exile, or to demand after 538 the presence of a ‘leaven’ which nevertheless did not preclude the abuses confronting E, N, Mal., and the writers in Is. lvi. seqq. It is obviously impossible to start with presuppositions of what was orthodox Yahwism and what was heathenism whether in Elephantine or in Palestine (before or after 536). If, too, Meyer’s argument (177) is valid, that the Levitical family of Henadad (E iii. 9, wanting in E ii.) was indigenous, indigenous also was the family of Iddo to which Zech. belonged (see Z vi. 1) ; and this scholar’s recognition of the prominence in and around Jerusalem of Calebite and other families who had never tasted exile (see ὃ 5 ¢) is extremely important for any estimate of the internal conditions. The evidence of Hag. and Zech. outweighs other evidence which might appear to
be contrary ; hence one can hardly assume that the deliverance of Jeshua (Zech. iii. 2) necessarily refers to his return seventeen years previously, or that the xame Zerubbabel suggests that other Jews with him were necesssarily ‘ begotten in Babylon’. Nor can decisive objections be based upon references in E vii—x., N 1. seqq. to an earlier return. That men (? exiles) should come and assist in the rebuilding of the Temple is a promise for the future in Zech. vi. 15. The references in E ix. 4, x. 6 seq. present their own peculiar difficulties on any view, and in all probability the story of E should come after N i—vi. (see III.a@). Ν 1. 2 seq. are inconclusive : they may be used to support a theory (Kosters, 45, Berth., 47, Torrey, 301 ἢ. 27, Davies, 161), although Ryle (149), who maintains an independent, though strictly conservative position, refers the passage to the people who had escaped the exile—the passage, in any case, must be considered in the light of evidence for some disaster between the age of Zerubbabel and the return of N (see further, ὃ 5 /). It is to be remembered, also, that the belief in a great return under Cyrus (or Darius) might influence the description of subsequent events even as the complete Mosaic legislation appears at first sight to be confirmed by the form which the revised and redacted history has taken in the books that follow the Pentateuch. ὶ ‘ :
(41) Summary. The account of a large return to rebuild the Temple, whether in the time of Cyrus or Darius, must be tested by the independent Hag. and Zech. Great weight is often laid upon the circumstantial list in E ii., and its genuineness has been upheld, particularly by Meyer (73; 98 seqq., 191 5666: ; note the criticisms of Kosters, ZZ. Z. xxxi. 530-41); see below, p. 35. He, however, rejects in the main the rest of the Cyrus-history (49, 73, 99, 191, 193; Driver, 222, 552), although the decree of Cyrus is in itself entirely plausible (Nikel, 31-7; Torrey, 144 n. 12), and the list is closely bound up with the whole series E ivi. His position appears inconsistent from any traditional standpoint (see Nikel, 42 seq., Davies, 14, 80 seq.), as well as from one more consistently critical, although his recognition that the list (which contains names recurring throughout E-N) is fundamental for the criticism of the post-exilic history is thoroughly sound. But the list stands or falls with its context, and when it is admitted that the success of the opposition in E iv. proves that the return has been exaggerated (see Sellin, Stwd.1; O. C. Whitehouse, /sazah, 11. 228; G. A. Smith, Jerws. 11. 298 seq.), or that the list has been re-edited (Holzhey, 15 ; Davies, 51), it is necessary to determine what details in Ei.-vi. may be regarded as even essentially accurate. The tolerance and kindness of Amil-Marduk (to Jehoiachin), Nabunaid (who sent back Merbaal to be king of Tyre), Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius’ certainly allow the probability of the return of bands of exiles, even as the Sachau—papyri show how Cambyses might favour native Jewish communities. But E i.—vi. are so closely interconnected as a piece of history that if we accept—as we must—the testimony of Hag. and Zech., it is difficult, if not impossible, to reconstruct from E the course of events. On the one hand, we gain new presuppositions regarding the internal conditions of the age. On the other, there is remarkable confusion in the traditions of Cyrus and Darius in E and Z, E i. is repeated in the history of the time of Artaxerxes, and a narrative of this later period is actually inserted in E1.-vi. ; these combine with other features to extend the problems of E i.—vi. to those connected with the work of Eand N.
Ill. Zhe Work of Ezra and Nehemiah.
(2) Ezra. In the story of E there is considerable intricacy in the description of the separation from the heathen on the part of the ‘children of the captivity’ (i.e. E’s small band of exiles, or the congregation presumably formed in 536-516), and the inauguration of the new community, consisting of these and the elect of the ‘seed of Israel’. The whole story is closely interconnected, and much difficulty is caused by N i.-vii. which sever E vii—x. from N viii. seqq. by twelve years. There is, moreover, a very strong presumption that the Reading of the Law was originally described shortly after E’s arrival (cf. & ix.), and not (as in N viii.) after this lengthy interval, during which we hear nothing of him. Finally, on independent grounds there seems to be no place for E before the first visit, at all events, of N. It is indeed allowed that ‘it is impossible to decide upon the evidence at our disposal’ (G. A. Smith, Eafosiéor, July, 1906, p. 16), or that this jater position of E is only a possibility (Wellhausen) ; but it seems very doubtful whether the story is trustworthy (H. P. Smith, Torrey, Jahn), and, even if it be historical, many agree that it cannot be placed before N ivi. (Berth., Buhl, Cheyne, Guthe, Hoonacker [esp. Rev. Bibl., x. 15 seqq.], Kennett, Kent, Kosters, Marq., Sellin, Wildeboer). See further the notes on & viii-x.
(ὁ) Nehemiah. N was governor from the zoth year of Artaxerxes (Jos. xi. 5 7, 25th of Xerxes) to the 32nd (N v. 14), i.e. 444-432, and we hear of a return to the king and a second visit (xiii. 4-6). But N xiii. is joined to xii. so closely as to imply that only on the occasion of the datey visit were the walls dedicated, although the ceremony is ostensibly the immediate sequel of their completion, two months after his frs¢ visit (vi.).2 This must be due to defective compilation (cf. Nikel, 196 n. 1),
For the external evidence see Berth., 26 seq. ; Jampel, i. 502 seqq., ii. 11 5666. 8 Rawlinson and Klostermann (so Davies, 267), Howorth (PSBA, xxv. 18 seq.), G. A. Smith (of. cit. 10-12), R. H. Kennett (Camb. Bibl. Essays, 120) ; the dates N vi. 15, vil. 73, ix. I were evidently meant—by the compiler— to be consecutive. That the walls were actually completed in 52 days may be ‘hardly credible’ (Ew. 157 ἢ. δὴ» Jos. (§ 179) aliows 2 years and 4 months (hardly an invention, Ew.), and dates the completion in the ninth month (cf. 2 Mace. i. 18) of the 28th year of Yer-ves.
which will also explain the description of N’s social reforms (v.) amid the intrigues during the hurried rebuilding of the walls, where N looks back upon the period of his governorship (ν. 14). In fact, his strong position as reformer in v. seems more in harmony with that in xiii. than with the picture of suspicion and hostility represented in iv., vi., and this serious difficulty touching the course of N’s work (vii. 2 may hint at his departure) hampers every attempt to trace the history of his period. Consequently N, even with the elimination of the E-story, cannot be in its original form, as is clear also from the literary features of xi. and xii. (see also Torrey, 225 seq., 248 seq.).
(c) The List N vit. N’s-proposal to summon the people in order to augment Jerusalem (vii. 4 seqq.) is severed by part of the E-story (N viii—x.) from the list of inhabitants (xi.), other lists (xii. 1-26), the dedication of the walls and arrangements for the Temple officials (xii. 27-47), &c. His story is no longer autobiographical (contrast, however, xiii. 4-31) and fresh sources are to be recognized. Since the list found by him (vii. 5) is that of the return of Zerubbabel (E ii.), it is often assumed that the sequel in xi. must also refer to this earlier period (Ewald, Smend, Stade, Meyer, &c.). But xi. differs so widely from vii. 6 seqq. that both cannot be authentic (Meyer, 189). It is more probable, however, that xi. belongs to the story of N and follows upon vii. 4, ‘though the narrative is hardly continued wo tenore’ (Driver, 551). Yet, on any theory, the presence of N vii. 6-73 is inexplicable, since it is difficult to see why even a compiler should quote an azczent list which excluded the more recent return of E (E viii. 1-14; cf. Holzhey, 37). If ‘a genealogical register was necessary’ (Davies), this would have been out-of-date, and although lapse of time and later adjustment might explain—on this view—the various differences between E ii. and N vii. there are far more significant differences in N x. 1-27, a list which is referred to N’s time. Now, its conclusion (N vii. 73 6) is the proper introduction to the Reading of the Law (viii.), which is in a more natural position between E viii.and ix., and Torrey (256 seqq., cf. Kent, 369) points out that N vii. 70-3, also, are more in harmony after the account of E’s return. Indeed, vii. 66-9 (the enumeration) and 61-5 (the expulsion of the impure in Zerubbabel’s time, see on & v. 38) would be useless for N’s purpose, and in fact H. P. Smith would place the entire list (from vii. 5) after E viii. 36 (393 n. 1; see, however, Torrey 259 ἢ. 9). Accordingly, through compilation and revision the account of N’s work, with its own chronological embarrassments, has been broken bya portion of the story of E, the first part of which is now found before N i., while the list in vii. (vv. 5 a, 73 suggest a gathering of the people) records details which are not in keeping with the context, whereas in E ii. it is in a consistent context, albeit an unhistorical one. While the Reading of the Law (vii. 73 d-viii.) abruptly introduces E, the preceding material is partly (at least) connected with E’s return in E vii. seq., and partly belongs to the (unhistorical) account of Zerubbabel’s return. A considerable portion of the E-story is sundered from N viti. seqq., but the description of the separation from the heathen is confused and closely interrelated, and the list of those who had married strange women (see on £ ix. 21-36) includes families who are not mentioned in E’s band (E viii. 1-14), but appear in the list of E ii., which in || N vii. is connected with the return of E! Finally, this great list, though used for the time of Cyrus (or Darius, & v.) and treated in N vii.asa document of that period, reveals traces of the age of N himself, and of having been adjusted to the earlier context (see on ἢ v. 24 seq., 40, 44 seq., 46 seq.). Hence it would seem that E ii. N vii. originally belonged to an account of a return in some record of the history of the times of N, E, and Artaxerxes. On its repetition, see p. 19 (§ 6).
(ὦ) The Ezra-story. The well-supported view that E came to Jerusalem after N i.—vi. implies some rearrangement of the material; and the suitability of N vii. (some portion) and viii. between E vii. seq. and ix. suggests, not that the /atzer part of the E-story has been removed from E x. and placed after N vi. but that the whole once stood after that chapter. The complexity of the list vii. (which overlaps with E viii.) still remains, and it is at this point in the book that the critical problems become most intricate. But it must be noticed that the E-story is certainly composite and not in its original form, and some of the confusion may have arisen when it was divided and part of it placed before N i! If, moreover, the E-story stood after N vi. itmay be observed that there is a certain relationship between the stories of E and N: the reference to the son of Eliashib, E x. 6, cf. N xiii. 4,28; the suitability of N xiii. 1-2, between E x.g and 10 (W. R. Smith; Berth., 89); the coincidence in the day of arrival of each (see 25 viii. 6); the twelve-years’ gap in the history of each, and the parallel features in their measures on behalf of temple, priests and people. E, however, is mentioned only incidentally in the story of N (xii. 36, doubtful, see the comm.), and it is impossible that the two laboured together. On the other hand, the Tirshatha is prominent at the Reading of the Law (N viii. 9) and the signing of the Covenant (x. 1), and also in the list, vii. (v. 65, the degradation of the priests; v. 70, gifts to the treasury) ; he is identified with N (see on £& ix. 49), and N is
1 For the interrelation between the now sundered portions see p. 47, and cf. JE in Ex. xxxiil, seqq. and Num. x. 29-36, xi.; and also the contents of 2 Sam. v.—vill., xx1.-xxiv.
equally prominent in his own story (especially v., xiii.). N was not the only governor in post-exilic Jerusalem (N v.15, Mal. i. 8), but it is noteworthy that the E-story, especially in the narrativeportions, shows no interest in either the governor or the high-priest ; the story seems to be written from an independent standpoint, and is focussed upon the austere figure of E alone. The story represents a period of divine favour and royal clemency after the sufferings of Israel (Dan. ix., N 1 presuppose an earlier situation); it obviously comes after the disappearance of Zerubbabel, but it cannot be placed before the introduction of N. There are independent arguments for the tradition of a return under N and religious reorganization (see § 5 ὁ, 2), and this appears to be supplemented by the account of E. The latter describes the return of E and a representative community to a temple, but one sorely in need of replenishing (E vii. 15-27, viii. 36); to an ecclesiastical body (note E viii. 17), but a negligent one (N x. 32 seqq.) ; to a community that worshipped Yahweh, but had fallen from the ideal. It can hardly be called an Autobiography (Meyer, 205) or a Memoir, and there is no evidence to prove it to be a mere invention or fiction. Rather is it based upon facts which link the energy of N with the subsequent appearance of an established orthodox Jewish Church. It may be regarded as an ideal description of the inauguration of Judaism, and the introduction of the ‘Book of the Law of Moses’ (the Pentateuch is probably meant) is a later parallel to the story of the (re-)discovery of the ‘ Book of the Law’ (Deuteronomy) in the reign of Josiah ; cf. also the chronicler’s accounts of Asa, Jehoshaphat and Hezekiah (2 Chron. xiv. 4, Xv. 3, 10-13, xvii. 7, 9, xxix. 10). It does not seem to have been written by the compiler of the series Chron.- E-N; it appears rather as a tradition of independent origin, written around the age of N, combined with the story of N and ultimately with the great post-exilic history of Jerusalem and the Temple.
IV. Jnterrelation of Data.
(a) Intricacy of parallels. The intricacy of the list E ii. N vii. for the history of Cyrus, Darius (Z) and Artaxerxes does not stand alone. The close connexion in the narratives relating to Cyrus and Darius appears in E iii. 7 compared with Z iv. 48, in iii. 1 with Z v. 6, and in E ui. 2 with & v. 4-6. The Temple, according to Hag. and Zech., was not commenced before the time of Darius, in contrast to E ii.; but the laments in E iii. 12 in the time of Cyrus curiously recall Hag. 11. 3 seqq. The social and religious reorganization implied in E 11. 59, 62, vi. 21 finds a parallel in the reforms of E, and while E ii. 7o, iii. 1, introduce the erection of the altar, the text in & ν. 46 seq. presupposes a later period, and in fact these verses in N vii. 73, vili. 1, form the prelude to the Reading of the Law. The latter event is the sequel to the record of a return (N vil.) which in Z ix. is that of E himself. ἘΣ iii. is unhistorical, and has probably been influenced by material relating to the time of N; thus Meyer (73, 99) points to N viii. 17 seq., and Jahn compares iii. to-13 with N xl. 40-3. The account of the opposition in E iy. is untrustworthy, and there is a marked resemblance between the details and N iv., vi., enhanced by the insertion in E iv. 7-24 of a record of the time of Artaxerxes. This record attests a return of some importance, which, however, has yet to be identified, and while the decrees of Cyrus and Darius agree (cf. also Artaxerxes and E) in presenting several very similar features (Torrey, 125 seqq., 158; Bayer, 117 seqq.), the historical basis for any decree on the lines they take cannot be found in their reigns. For parallels in the stories of E and N see above, p. 9 (d). Such is the interrelation of the contents that it is hardly surprising that later sources should not infrequently combine Zerubbabel and Ezra (Lag. 18 ; Torrey, 49 n. 17) and that both should be united with Jeshua in a return in the time of Darius (Lag. 84). Even N xii. 47 looks back and mentions together Zerubbabel and N (see Berth.) ; and if Hashabiah and Sherebiah in N xii. 24 may be identified with the names in E viii. 18 566.» Joiakim (son of Jeshua) and E appear to be correlated much in the same way that N xii. 12-26 seem to confuse the times of Joiakim, N and E (see also the view of Kosters, 91 seq.).
(ὁ) Some modern views. The endeavour to recover the historical facts has led to very divergent conclusions among modern scholars. One favourite view has retained Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes in E iv., between Cyrus and Darius, by the simple device of changing the names or of assuming an alternative nomenclature. Equally popular has been the theory that Artaxerxes and Darius are to be identified with the second bearer of each name, and, indeed, this may have been the view of the compiler or writer (see Torrey, 38 seq., 178 seq:). Although this leaves an astonishing gap between Cyrus and Darius II, the belief that the Artaxerxes of the stories of N and E was the later king (404-359 8.6.) has found very weighty support (de Saulcy, Maspero, Hoonacker, and Howorth [partly], Marq., H. P. Smith [382], &c., see further Berth., 30 ; and PSBA, xxiii. 319 seqq.). It has also been proposed to identify the Cyrus of the narratives with Darius and Darius with Art. I, and so close is the interconnexion of events that N viii.—x. has been placed in the time of Zerubbabel, and the whole of E-N (extending from 537 to 432) has been compressed within a few years (see H. Winckler, Helmholt’s World’s Hist. iii. 216 seq., and the summaries in Jampel, ii. x seq.). Others hold that Zer. first returned in the time of Darius, and that E iii. 8 seqq. properly belongs to that later period. Moreover, the historical and prophetical writings are necessarily co-ordinated, and thus Hag. and Zech. have appeared to some to be of or about the time of Cyrus, although if Darius be D. II they are brought down to (about) 423-404 (see Howorth, PSBA, xxiii. 324). So, also, the prophecies in Is. xl.—-Ixvi., are subdivided and connected with the history of the times of Cyrus and Artaxerxes, although, under the influence of
another theory of the history, the chapters are once more treated as virtually a whole, either relatively early 288 n. 8, 314; Kennett). In contrast to these efforts to overcome the difficulties are the views of those scholars who do not admit the intricacies but continue to maintain the essential trustworthiness of E-N, the unhistorical character of Chron. itself being, nevertheless, almost unanimously realized. In so far as this is based upon the manner in which the narratives appear to be mutually confirmatory—cf. the conservative attitude to the criticism of the Pentateuch—and superficially, at least, consistent, it is necessary to observe that the chronicler’s history is singularly simple compared with the forms taken in £, or in Jos., or in the traditions that prevailed elsewhere in ancient times.
(c) Some ancient views. Jos., who is well-informed on the last Babylonian kings, asserts that the kingdom fell to Cyrus the Persian and Darius the Mede; the two were kinsmen and the latter, whose father was Astyages, had another name among the Greeks (x. 11, 2, 4). | Cyrus, son of Cambyses, was the father of the better-known Cambyses; his mother, according to tradition, was the sister of Cyaxares and daughter of Astyages. Astyages, the last Median king, was the son of Cyaxares and was defeated by Cyrus. But this name is also given by Alexander Polyhistor and others to Cyaxares (¢. 624~584), the founder of the Median empire, who took part with Nabopolassar in the attack upon Assyria.!| When the father of Darius is called Ahasuerus (Dan. ix. 1; cf. the synopsis, Lag. 15, where he is born of Vashti), and the latter and Nebuchadrezzar capture Nineveh (Tobit xiv. 15), the names Ahasuerus and Cyaxares have evidently been confused (Rawlinson). The Ahasuerus of Esther was certainly placed soon after the deportation of Jehoiachin by Nebuchadrezzar (so ii. 5 seq.), but in Judith iv. 1-6 the last-mentioned reigns over the Medes at a time when the Jews had recently returned from captivity and the high-priest was one Joiakim. The historical foundation for Esther’s king can only be Xerxes, although Jos., LX.X, and early writers identify him with Artaxerxes. Jos., moreover, states that he was also called Cyrus—in Dan. v. 31, vi. 28, Darius the Mede becomes king after the fall of Babylonia and is followed by Cyrus—and gives the name Xerxes to the Artaxerxes of the stories of E and N. The difficulty of distinguishing the names would obviously be increased by the fact that Darius I was actually followed by Xerxes (485-465), and D. IT (423-404) by Art. II (404~359), and that D. 11 had a son Cyrus, famous for the unsuccessful expedition against his elder brother Art. II. Not to pursue the confusing details further, it is enough to notice that the later historians had behind them a series of events of vital importance. During a relatively brief period the power of Assyria was broken up, Scythians and Medes entered into W. Asiatic politics, a new Babylonian empire was restored only to fall before the Persian régime under Cyrus ; a little more than a century later another Cyrus created a turmoil in W. Asia (400), and finally the Greeks, who had been gradually coming into closer touch with the Oriental world, established a new age under Alexander the Great. How soon history became enwrapped in legend is obvious from Herodotus and Xenophon (fifth century B.c.) and from Ctesias, who is even said to have drawn upon Persian records. Jos., for his part, endeavoured to reduce the confusion into some order; the Seder Olam (ch. xxx) ingeniously identifies all the Persian kings: Cyrus, Darius, Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes—Dan. xi. 2 knows only of four—and the whole of the Persian age from the restoration of the Temple to the time of Alexander the Greek was even compressed into a few decades. The appearance of simplicity in the chronicler’s history of the period is misleading; see further § 6 e.
§ 5. DATA FOR RECONSTRUCTION.
The foregoing survey of the intricacies of E—N, the prevailing confusion in regard to the period, and the efforts made by ancient and modern writers to present the historical facts, will perhaps be convincing proof that the difficulties in E-N are genuine. They concern both E-N and Δ᾽, and any attempt to discuss the origin and structure of £ must form some preliminary conception of the underlying history. For this the story of N seems most fruitful.
(a2) The Samaritans. N’s age was one of intermarriage and close intercourse between the Jews, Samaritans, and other neighbours (vi. 18, xiii. 3, 4, 23, 24, 28). The elliptical repulse of the
“Samaritans in N ii. 20 implies that they, as in E iv. 2 seq., had some claim ‘to a share in the fortunes of Jerusalem’ (Ryle, 171), and that they ‘ would have had no quarrel with the Jews if they had been permitted to unite with the latter in their undertakings and privileges’ (Davies, 177). These details, the character of the intermarriages, the efforts to compromise with N (vi. 2-4), the close relationship presupposed by the subsequent bitterness after the schism, the fact that Samaritanism was virtually a sister-sect of Judaism—these preclude the present position of E’s return and marriage-reforms and make it extremely doubtful whether there had as yet been any serious Samaritan hostility. They also suggest that the records of E-N have been written and revised under the influence of a bitter anti-Samaritan feeling, the date of which can hardly be placed before N xiii. Indeed, it is not improbable that the Samaritan schism should be placed (with Jos. xi. 7 seq.) at the close of the Persian period (see further Marq., 57 seq.; Jahn, 173 seqq.; Torrey, 321 seqq., 331 seq.).
(6) Place of Ez. iv. 7-23. This undated record of the reign of Artaxerxes, in spite of some
1 See Ency. Brit., 11th ed., on these names. II
internal difficulties (see criticisms in Berth., 18 seq., Nikel, 182), probably illustrates the story of N when ‘ Tobiah sent letters to put me in fear’ (vi. 19). It points to some new reconstruction of the city by returned exiles—evidently after an earlier disaster—and requires the assumption that the story of N is focussed upon the governor alone and that N and his military escort (ii. 9, cf. & v. 2, contrast ib. viii. 51 seq.) brought back a band of exiles (so Jos.) ; see below (@). Against this the objection has been brought that N, in spite of the royal command (E iv. 21 seq.), continued to build and actually did complete the walls. On the other hand, the walls were already practically finished (vi. 1, vii. 1, see Ryle, 219), and some time would necessarily elapse before letters could reach Artaxerxes and his reply come to hand (cf. the situation in Εἰ v. 5). The king does not order the walls to be destroyed or weakened; N naturally had other building operations to attend to in addition to the walls, and these may well have been stopped ‘by force and power’ (E iv. 23). The letter to Artaxerxes urges that the rebuilding of Jerusalem would be detrimental to the security of the province (iv. 13, 19 seq.), and disloyalty was the strongest charge brought against the governor (N ii. 19, vi. 6-7). In fact, N vii. 2 seq. may suggest that the perturbed governor left his brother in charge of the city while he visited the king—his leave had been limited (ii. 6)—and although the sequence of events is admittedly obscure there is a distinct gap between his position in N 1.-ἰν., Vi. and that as represented in xiii. (cf. v.). The formal steps of the Samaritans in E iv. 7 seqq. (similarly the satrap in E v. seq.) stand in contrast to the confusing account of the hostility in N iv., vi. against one who had come armed with royal authority, and undue weight must not be laid upon the present form of the N-story (see above [a]). All in all, the evidence does not exclude the helpful conjecture that E iv. 7-23 illustrate the troubles of N at that stage where the continuation of the book (after vi. 19) is almost inextricably complex. : os
(6) The semi-Edomite population. In the list of those who helped to rebuild the wall (N iii.) it is noteworthy (1) that very few of the names can be at all plausibly identified with the families who apparently returned with either Zerubbabel or Ezra (Kosters, 47), and (2) that some of the names have Calebite affinities. The list is evidence for the poverty of the Babylonian section of population and for the prominence of the Judaeans, who include both the natives and those Calebite and allied groups who moved up from the south of Judah some time after 586. The presence of the latter is only to be expected, and the fact, pointed out by Meyer himself in 1896, is obviously fundamental for the criticism of the book of Ezra (see Kosters, 7%. 7. xxxi. 536).? In this Calebite or semi- Edomite Judah—and to call these groups ‘ half heathen’ (with Nikel, 56,64) is to beg the question— we may find a starting-point for our conception of the district from the time of their immigration northwards to the date of the far-reaching reorganization associated with the names of N and E. Further, the list of the inhabitants of Jerusalem in N xi. recurs, though with variations, in 1 Chron. ix., where it represents the compiler’s conception of the post-exilic population after the captivity. According to his perspective of history, there was an old Israel which included a Judah of Calebite and Jerahmeelite origin (1 Chron. ii. and iv.) and some later stage which corresponds closely with N xi. N xi., however, differs widely from the lists in E ii. and viii. and ignores the return of Zerubbabel and Ezra. Its disagreement is hardly a proof that these lists are authentic ; what is significant is the agreement between the Judaean clans Perez, Shelah and the semi-Edomite Zerah in N xi. and the mixed genealogies in 1 Chron. ii. and iv. The chronicler, it will be observed, knows of no earlier Judah ; his evidence in ii., iv. is (in his view) pre-Davidic, and it agrees with this that his lists of the Levitical orders of David’s time illustrate the close bond uniting these ecclesiastical bodies with people of south Palestinian and Edomite affinity.
(d) A decree and a return. The introduction to the Jerusalem list reads like the sequel to the account of some return (N xi. 3,1 Chron. ix. 2; cf. E ii. 70, N vii. 73, and see Ewald, 159 n. 2). The list itself, after dealing with priests, Levites, &c., proceeds to refer to those who dwelt in the country, and it is noteworthy that N xi. 23 seq. have in view the fulfilment of some royal decree touching the singers (cf. & iv. 54 seq., E vii. 24). The singers, also, are subsequently collected from the Netophathite and other villages which they had built at some unspecified period (xii. 28 seq. ; cf. the Levites in 1 Chron. ix. 16), and the explicit references to the rest of Israel and their cities (xi. 20, 25), before the assembling at the dedication of the walls (xii. 27), recall the situation before
H. P. Smith, 348; Kent, 358; see also the remarks of Sellin, Sev., 53 seqq., Stud. 16-35. With Tobiah, cf. the Aram. form Tabeel, E iv. 7 (Hoonacker, Rev. Bibl. x. 183 n. 6; Sellin, Sz. 33).
_ * See also E. Meyer and Β. Luther, /svae/., 442 seqq., for evidence connecting Judah and the Edomites ; in their
opinion, however, the data, found in literature relating to pre-monarchical times, refer to pre-Davidic conditions.
the exiles were assembled in Jerusalem after their return and settlement in the Zerubbabel-story (E ii. 70, iii. 1). Thus, the difficult and much revised narratives of N’s work, between vi. and xiii., are connected with the list of the return in vii., with the return of E (see p. gc), and with some return associated with the figure of N himself. ἃ. A. Smith observes that the reforms of N ‘are best explained through his reinforcement by just so large a number of Babylonian Jews under just such a leader as Ε (Expos., July, 1906, p. 7 seq.). On the other hand, there is insufficient historical evidence for the presence of E and his band, and the above details strongly suggest that there was an account of some other return in connexion with the activity of N, although it is still impossible to reconstruct the course of N’s work (see § 4, III. δ).
(e) The Temple. The history after the rise of the Davidic Zerubbabel is a blank which can be filled only by conjecture (see e.g. Ewald; Sellin, Sev.; Nikel, 142-6, and others), The situation in Jerusalem at the return of N cannot be explained by the disasters at the fall of Jerusalem about 140 years previously. The city was in great affliction and reproach, and N’s grief, confession, and prayer recall E’s behaviour at the tidings of the heathen marriages. The ruins of Jerusalem were extensive (N i. 3, ii. 3, 8, 13, iii., cf. Ecclus. xlix. 13), and it is disputed whether the dzraz (ii. 8) refers to the fortress on the north side of the Temple (G. A. Smith, Fervs., ii. 347 seq., 461), or the Temple itself (cf. 1 Chron. xxix. 1 and see Jahn, pp. iv, 93). According to 2 Macc. i. 18, N built both the Temple and the Altar, and Jos. (independently) asserts that he received permission to build the walls of the city and to finish the Temple. An old Latin synopsis (Lag. 18 seq.) states that E restored the foundations of Zerubbabel’s temple, and an old Greek summary of ‘Second Esdras’ refers to N as a builder of the Temple (Lag. 84, 1.27: αὐτὸς ἠξίωσε περὶ τῆς οἰκοδομῆς τοῦ ἱεροῦ). These can scarcely all be based upon the references to the Temple in the Artaxerxes-record in δ ii. 18, 20. It is at least noteworthy that, both in & and E, compilers have placed this episode in the history of the Temple, and the different readings in Εἰ iv. 12, 14, might be due to the alternative position of the story (see below, ᾧ 6 (c)) after the account of the opposition in the time of Cyrus.' Moreover, the mention of the ‘ decree of Cyrus,and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia’ (E vi. 14, see & vii. 4) is unintelligible—for even a gloss or interpolation must express some plausible belief— unless there was a tradition associating Artaxerxes with the building of the Temple. Again, in view of the parallels between E iv. and N ii. iv., vi., in the account of the Samaritan opposition, it is surely significant that the abrupt allusion in N ii. 20 to the repudiation of the Samaritans can only be explained in the light of E iv. 3, where the building of the Temple is concerned.’ Finally, the E-story represents a period of favour during which the Temple had been restored or repaired through God’s mercy and the clemency of Persia (E ix. 8 seq.). This brief ‘moment’ (v. 8) cannot date back from the decree of Cyrus and the work οἵ Zerubbabel, rather must one read the whole situation—the strengthening of a neglectful community, the furthering of a poor temple—as a supplement to the disorganization and confusion in the story of N’s measures. Hence, it may be concluded that there is sufficient evidence for some tradition of a rebuilding of the Temple and of a return in the time of N.
(f) The recent disaster. The disaster which explains N’s grief, anxiety, and energetic labours may probably be ascribed in part at least to Edom. Friendly or neutral relations between Judah (and its semi-Edomite population, see c) and the ‘brother’ Edom appear to have continued at a relatively late period, until for some reason Edom is denounced for its unbrotherly conduct.’ The origin of the enmity is generally connected with the fall of Jerusalem in 586. But it cannot be found in the time of Jehoiakim (the conjecture ‘Edom’ for ‘Aram’ in 2 Kings xxiv. 2 is against Jer. xxxv. 11), or of Zedekiah (when Edom was among the allies of Judah ; Jer. xxvii., Ezek. xvii. 11 seqq.) ; the Chaldeans alone destroyed the Temple, and Jews had even taken refuge in Edom and elsewhere (Jer.xl.11). The very explicit statement that the Edomites burned the Temple ‘when Judaea was made desolate by the Chaldeans’, and occupied Judaean territory (£ iv. 45, 50), points to the reality of a tradition which, however, has been connected with the events of 586. The various allusions to Edom (Obad., Ezek. xxv. 12, χχχν. 10, 12, xxxvi. 5, Lam. iv., Ps. cxxxvii. 7), though possibly referring to different periods, cannot be based upon the history of the Chaldean invasion. The very circumstantial references to Edomite aggression (1 iv. 50, Ezek. xxxv. 10, xxxvi. 3, 5) have led to the view that the Jewish exiles recovered their land through Persian aid.* This, however, finds no support in the history of either Cyrus or Darius. But may it not be later (Nikel, 57 n. 1), before
1 See also Sellin, Sev. 56 ἢ. 1, 58; Stud. 18 seq.; Griinhut, Zinlettung (cited by Jampel, i. 105).
2 Parallel traditions elsewhere explain each other, cf. Ex. xvii. 6 with Num. xx. 8; Ex. xvii. τὸ with Num. xiv. 40, 44; Ex. xxxili. with Num. xi.
See the discussions of Ewald, 80 seqq., 88; Herzfeld, Gesch. (1847) i. 475 seq.; Smend, 22, 24; Stade, Gesch. ii.
the prophecy of Mal. i, 2-5, and between the times of Zerubbabel and N ? : If so, it is tempting to associate the relatively simple and unadorned decree attributed to Darius in E iv. 48-56 (which points to a return to rebuild the Temple after a period of Edomite hostility) with the situation that underlies the narratives of N, cf. d above. k ᾿
(Ὁ) Summary. The internal difficulties of Ε--Ν are exceedingly complex owing to the numerous untrustworthy features, the remarkable and suspicious parallels, and the intricacies of rearrangement, adjustment, and revision. The sources throw little (if any) light on the period before gee return of N, and traditions originally associated with him or his age appear to underlie the rest.” His story forms the starting-point for the problems of E—N, but it has too many serious difficulties for any confident theory of the order of events. Yet it seems clear that in N’s time there had not as yet been any previous Samaritan hostility of any extent, any separation from the ‘heathen’, any important return of exiles. It is not improbable that in the time of Zerubbabel there was a monarchy of some size (cf. Sellin, Sev., 89), and it is interesting to notice that the Samaritan opposition in the time of Artaxerxes is aimed especially at the apparent political pretensions of N (ii. 19, vi. 6—8, cf. E iv. 13). The population in and around Jerusalem consisted partly of the old indigenous stock and partly of the southern groups of Edomite affinity who moved northwards after 586. This semi-Edomite people had suffered from a disaster, due, in some measure, to the ‘ brother’ Edomites who had burned the Temple and occupied Jewish territory, and to repair the lamentable conditions was the object of N’s return. The southern groups in question are only to be expected after 1 Chron. ii. and iv., and the history in Chron. seems to reveal some traces of their perspective: their presence in the Levitical bodies, the stories of the reconstruction of Temple and cult, and the traditions of invasions of hostile southern peoples. On independent grounds it is probable that other traces of the presence and prominence of these groups may be observed elsewhere, and we may notice that the O.T. preserves the tradition of the high reputation of the eponymous Caleb, the ‘servant of Yahweh’, and that late traditions even ascribe a southern origin to some of the prophets.®
In the chronicler’s compilation the rise of the new Jewish Church and the opposition of the Samaritans are dated at the commencement of the Persian age, and in the light of this the later history was meant to be read, even as other writers presuppose the patriarchal ancestors of pre- Mosaic days or the elaborate Levitical ritual associated with Moses and Aaron. Although this view shapes the compilation, the study of the age of Artaxerxes throws a different light upon its value. There are persistent and independent traditions of some return in his reign, and of some reconstruction of the people. Subsequent to the situation represented in N iii. (see c above) a new community was formed, and since it would be composed of elements of exilic (Babylonian) and non-exilic ancestry, some of the names of the latter class (found e.g. in N iii.) might naturally recur in (the later) lists referring to earlier periods (for such names, see Nikel, 154 seqq.). From 1 Chron. ii. and iv., and from the place of Caleb and Jerahmeel among the ‘sons’ of Perez—Gen. xxxviii seems to record his superiority over the rival and semi-Edomite Zerah—it is obvious that there has been a genealogical readjustment of the groups of southern origin. Moreover, elsewhere, the specific traditions of such groups as these have been revised or mutilated, and it is probable that all these features may be connected with the intricate development of the priestly and Levitical figures, suggestive of rival representations and compromise.
E-N is written from the standpoint of a reorganized community which admitted no relationship with the semi-Edomite or native Judaean groups. The Babylonian exiles piqued themselves on their superiority to the Judaeans, who none the less could boast of their father Abraham—the hero of the Calebite city of Hebron (Ezek. xxxiii. 24). To the exiles from Babylon and thence (E ii.) to the old Judah which fell in 586, the community persistently attributed its origin. The Jews of the post-exilic theocracy laid most weight upon an ancestry from the deportation by Nebuchadrezzar, even as the old Israel ignored the large indigenous and mixed element in Palestine, and descent was claimed from the immigrant tribes from Egypt and thence from the pre-Mosaic sons of Israel. Different disasters were focussed upon 586, and traditions of return and rebuilding were concentrated upon the return of Zerubbabel. Consequently, by thus passing over the native groups, whether akin or not to the hated Edomites, the mixed origin of the Jews was rendered less conspicuous. The significance of this has been well pointed out by Torrey (155, 236 seq., 321 seqq., and,
Ξ Some later Edomite invasion has been inferred by J. Ley, 77. Jesaéa (1893), 150; T. K. Cheyne, Zntvod. 75.» Note also the earlier views of Kuenen and Sellin (Ser., 82) that Is. Ixiii. 18, Ixiv. 10 seq., point to another destruction of the Temple after 516.
ξ Note the tradition in 2 Mace. li. 13 that N collected writings and ‘letters of kings about sacred gifts’.
Habakkuk and Zephaniah of Simeon, Obadiah an Edomite proselyte, Nahum of Elkosh.
Palestine’ (xx. 615 seq.), and art. ‘ Edomites’ in Hastings’ Dict. of Rel. and Ethics.
especially, 328 n. 53). Both Jews and Samaritans were of mingled ancestry, but the latter could at all events claim to have been associated with the land longer than the former. The question of kinship between the two divisions was, as we see from Jos. (ix. 14 3, xi. 8 6, xii. 5 5), always a debatable one, and the knowledge of past history would only increase the bitter enmity at the rise of the rival cult on Mt. Gerizim. But the chronicler’s compilation very carefully conceals the course of events and upholds for Judah alone the sole right to be the legitimate descendant of the ancient confederation of Israel.!
§6. STRUCTURE OF THE SOURCES.
It may often be possible to point out conflicting data, to indicate traditions which seem to be older or more original, and to arrive at positive or negative conclusions regarding the underlying facts; but the endeavour to trace the literary growth of complex sources which are certainly the result of intricate reshaping and revision is a delicate problem of literary criticism and distinct from the historical criticism of the period they describe.
(a) The Sheshbazzar-Cyrus Tradition. The story of Zerubbabel and the first return of the Jews in the time of Darius (Z iii. 1-v. 6) is the pivot upon which the problems turn. Our startingpoint is the Aramaic section E v. seq., where Darius confirms and extends a decree of Cyrus, who had ordered the rebuilding of the Temple and had sent back the vessels with Sheshbazzar (v. 13-15). This tradition is supported by E i., which refers also to Mithredath the treasurer who apparently was once mentioned in E v. (see on & vi. 18). But E i. is written ina different style and in Hebrew ; it gives a highly-coloured form of the decree (note the parallels with the story of E, Marq. 56, Torrey, 157 seq.), and tends to minimize the importance of Cyrus by emphasizing the direct influence of Yahweh (contrast the initiative of Darius in # iv., E vi. 8-11 ; see also on £ vii. 1). Consequently, E v.seq., which have various marks of incompleteness (see on £ vi. 7 seq., 23), presuppose an account of Cyrus and the return of Sheshbazzar (probably also in Aramaic), some part of which at least has been replaced by E i. Further, Sheshbazzar returned to build the Temple, but instead of any account of his work, Jeshua and Zerubbabel are abruptly introduced in the great list, E ii. 2. These two erect the altar (iii. 2), and (mentioned in the inverse order) commence the rebuilding (iti. 8-10), repulse the ‘adversaries’ (iv. 2 seq.), and subsequently, in the time of Darius, are encouraged by the prophets to begin operations (v. 2, note the repetition of the ancestry). Zer., as in & iii. τον. 6, is the leading figure, whereas the Shesh. tradition in v. seq. refers to the ‘elders’ (E v. 5, 9, vi. δ. iy: in vi. 7 G® omits the unnamed governor, see Berth., 19). From the point of view of historical criticism Shesh. and Zer. are two distinct individuals, but it seems obvious that the compiler of E i.—vi. regarded them as the same, although it was left for ancient and modern harmonists to make the identification. And in fact it is implied and made in £ vi. 18, 27, 29, after the introduction of Zer. in iii. seq., but naturally not in Z ii. 1-15 (=Ei.); yet in E, strangely enough, it is nowhere made, although the return of Shesh. in E i. 11 evidently corresponds to the appearance of Zer. in ii. 2 (|| Z v. 8 immediately after the Zer. story). Hence Jos. is obliged to harmonize (xi. I § 14, 3 ὃ 32). Moreover, it is noteworthy that the Aramaic sources (v. 3-vi. 12) do not clearly indicate that the Jewish builders were exiles (contrast E iv. 12), and that there is no explicit reference in E v.15 to any return of exiles under Sheshbazzar ; on the other hand, the conflate text of Z vi. 5, ὃ clearly alludes to the Jews as being of the Captivity (cf. vii. 6, 10), and £ ii. 15 shows more distinctly than E i. 11 that exiles returned with Shesh. That there is a gap after this verse has often been suspected. Accordingly, there are two important features: (1) the Shesh. tradition has been mutilated and otherwise adjusted in order to give the greater prominence to Zer. and /zs return, and (2) while it is not certain that Shesh. was originally the leader of a band of exiles, the text in & partly identifies him with the more illustrious Zer., and partly seems to treat his return as that of the ‘captivity’ also. Finally, the Shesh. tradition is that of a continuous building of the Temple since the time of Cyrus (E v. 16). This may be supported by E iv. 4, 5, which refer to unceasing troubles and intrigues, and by v. 6, where the accusation in the reign of Ahasuerus means, in this context, that the Temple was still under construction. On the other hand, the presence of the Artaxerxes-episode would imply that the work was definitely brought to a stop (see iv. 21-24), and with this agrees the statement in v. 2 that Zer. and Jeshua, encouraged by the prophets, ‘rose up ... and Zegan to build the house of God’. Since the presence of these conflicting views can hardly be original, the Artaxerxes-episode and the cessation of the building may probably be regarded as foreign to the Shesh. tradition. Hence, although E does not present f’s remarkable confusion of the sequence of events in the reigns of Cyrus and Darius—a confusion which Jos. has
1 In so far as the foregoing paragraphs bear upon the prophetical writings, it must be remembered that the dates of the latter depend upon our knowledge of the historical conditions in the light of which they are to be explained.
done his best to remedy—it contains, on closer inspection, a very singular combination of conflicting — traditions of the Temple, and of Shesh. and Zer. ' Mie A f
(6) The Zerubbabel-Darius tradition. Since Jewish tradition has it that Darius was the son of Ahasuerus the Mede (Dan. ix. 1), and the Ahasuerus in Esth. was called Artaxerxes (although, historically, Xerxes must be meant), and since the sequence Art.-Darius is true of Art. I-Dar. II (or even of Art. III-Dar. III), compilers might be justified in placing the story of the opposition before a tradition of Darius, whether in Z ii. 16 seqq., iii, or E iv. 7-24, V. But it is not easy to decide which of the two is the earlier position. The cessation of the building of the Temple would be intelligible before 25 iv., which really describes a new era in the history, and would equally agree with the commencement of work mentioned in E v. 2. In either case it leads up to Zerubbabel. But whereas in & it forms a necessary link between Cyrus and Darius, in E it breaks the connexion (iv. 5, ν. 1) and conflicts with the Shesh. tradition. The assumption that £& gives the older position of the episode may be suggested by the fact that its text presents some features distinctly sounder than that in E iv. (note, however, the textual relation of Chron. to Sam.-Kings). On the other hand, in & v. 66 seqq. (E iv. 1 5644.) the compiler has made use of iv. 1-5, 24, and it is possible that he found iv. (6?) 7-24 before him, but naturally omitted the passage he had already used. In any case, iv. 1-5 is obviously most closely connected with the preceding chapters, and since these presuppose certain material found only in £& iii. 1-v. 6, E’s account of Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel in the time of Cyrus thus presupposes data in & of the time of Darius! The simplest explanation of these intricacies is that the MT has suffered by excision (see Torrey, 27 seq.), and it remains to determine whether the material in question originally belonged to the Darius period (as in £) or to that of Cyrus (as in E). Torrey alone has discussed this problem, and he has presented a complete, clever, and attractive hypothesis. He treats the Darius-Zer. story in £ iii. I-iv. 42 as an interpolation in the history of Cyrus, rejects or emends all that is impossible in such a context, and regards £ ii. 16 seqq. as a transposition from E iv. made by the interpolator (see p. 32). But this leaves the complexity of E i—vi.untouched. It treats as redactional certain passages that have by no means that appearance (viz. £ iv. 43-7a@, 57-61), and if E iv. 7-24 was deliberately borrowed, it is strange that no effort was made to form a reasonable link between ii. 15 and 16, as Jos. has done. The compiler used £ ii. 16 seqq. to link Cyrus and Darius, but this theory assumes that for no apparent reason whatsoever a story of Darius has been introduced into the Cyrus-history and combined with it by (redactional ?) material, which is partly of considerable independent value, and partly introduces a zezw tradition of Cyrus (iv. 44, 57) in conflict with all other evidence. The story, moreover, would hardly have been used in Jewish history unless it was associated with Zerubbabel, Darius, and the return of the Jews; hence its presence, general character, independence, and the confusion arising from the attempt to unite it with o¢ier traditions plead for the view (also held by Howorth and Bayer) that it is original.
(c) Result of combination. On this alternative theory, then, & preserves a Zer.-Darius nucleus corresponding to a Shesh.-Cyrus nucleus in E, and it seems probable that the intricacies in & and E have arisen from the endeavour to combine and compromise. £ iii. I-v. 6 commence like an independent story, presupposes no prelude, and quite excludes any current story of Cyrus. iv. 44, 57, it is true, refer to his inability to fulfil a vow, but this has neither any foundation in history nor support in extant tradition, and appears to be an early effort to connect the section with Cyrus. Thenceforth we apparently have the building-up of narratives. The Artaxerxes episode was taken from a source relating to the time of N (ᾧ 50), and the sequel of the story, the list v. 7 seqq., also has a Nehemian background. The connexion between v. 1-6 and 7 8646. is not close (note repetition 4, 7a, the preliminary vv. 5 and 7), and it is possible that iii. 1-v.6 once had another sequel, or that there has been later adjustment. In any case, the references to Cyrus (iv. 44, 57), the treatment of the Shesh. tradition, and the fact that £ ii. 1-15 are not in their original form, unite to show that there has been much revision, the stages in which cannot be traced. The list itself, partly connected with E’s return in N vii., has been applied to the return of Zer., and then treated (in N) by the compiler of E_-N as a quotation from the earlier period. It presents a materially older text, and its immediate continuation in & v. 47 seqq. (E iii.) is also based upon N viii. 1, and describes events in which one may recognize the influence of other passages in N (Meyer, 73, 99; Marq., 58 seq.; Volz,§g). But the material is adjusted to Zerubbabel and Cyrus, with the result that while & v. 8 (the introduction of Zer.) is explained by the preceding story, and v. 47 (the date) by v. 6; v. 55 has in view iv. 48 (Darius), but its context is of the time of Cyrus (note the harmonizing efforts of Jos., xi. 4 1, 3 seq.).
Haggai and Zech., in the second year of Darius, know of no return or earlier rebuilding. So far this agrees with the Zer. story, which, however, while excluding any earlier rebuilding, describes the first return of the Jews. The Shesh. story throws back the commencement of the temple, but in E does not clearly point to
any return (contrast Z). In so far as Darius is concerned, these stories are mutually contradictory, and neither is supported by the prophets, and in so far as the fortunes of the temple are concerned, it is possible that a compromise was found in the belief that the work was brought to a stop and that the building was 7e-commenced in the time of Darius. This explains the motive of the Artaxerxes episode, and if the references to the Temple in Z ii. 18, 20 are reliable, their absence in E iv. 12, 14 may be due to its new position. Further, if E v. 1 once had (as in & vi. r) the precise date, this would be in order after iv. 5 (see Berth., 19), but might naturally be omitted after the insertion of iv. (6) 7-24; and since also the retention of the date in Z vi. 1 would be unnecessary after v. 73 (=E iv. 24), the present unintelligible wording of the latter verse may be due to intentional alteration and not to corruption of the text. Thus, & partly presents material in an older text and form than E, partly shows signs of revision (apparently in the Greek), either to harmonize details or to conform with the MT, and partly is influenced by the form of E, whose imperfections it shares. The root of the problem lies in the two nuclei: Zerubbabel-Darius, Sheshbazzar-Cyrus-Darius, and in the endeavour to co-ordinate them ; but in addition to the complexity touching Cyrus and Darius, it is obvious that the present form of the narratives cannot be viewed apart from the literary treatment of the events of the time of Artaxerxes.
(4) The Ezra-story. The narratives involved are an account of N’s work, partly autobiographical, but now in a much revised and intricate form, which is divided by the E-story, also not from one hand, and itself split into two. These have suffered various changes and adjustments in the course of being combined with each other and with the great history of the ‘chronicler’. On both literary and historical grounds we may postulate a stage when the whole of the E-story was found after the first appearance of N (p. 9 d). To suppose that N viii—x. also once stood before N i. (Torrey, 265 seq.) only increases the difficulties. E appears relatively late in tradition, but continues to grow in reputation. He is absent from both Ben Sira xlix, 12 seq. and 2 Macc. i. seq., and here N is particularly prominent ; but N’s prominence, though in agreement with all the evidence, has not been made so obvious in the E-story (see § 4. III. ὦ). Moreover, the effort has apparently been made to give greater significance to E by placing the most important part of his mission—the Reading of the Law (and the sequel, the Covenant)—in the account of the completion of the walls of Jerusalem, and also by introducing the rest of the story before N’s arrival. £& has gone further, and in ix. 37 seqq. has read part of N viii. after E x. Now, although # presents in some cases a better text, it is noteworthy that in reproducing N viii. and the introductory vii. 734, the compiler has also unnecessarily removed v. 73a, which can hardly stand after / ix. 36 E x. 44 (cf. Volz, 1492). This deliberate transference perhaps explains the text in vv. 38, 49, and suggests that Z’s recension is here based upon the MT, with the E-story divided as at present. Consequently, both & and E-N share that complicated treatment of the purification of Israel which seems to have arisen when the story of E was rearranged. It is uncertain how 25, if more complete, would have continued. There is indeed some evidence, perhaps not of great value, for an account of E’s passover, suggesting that some portion of the story has been lost (see on ix. 55). However, if the whole of the presen¢ story had been placed before N i., both N i.—vi., xi.—xiii. and E vii—x., N viii—x. (or in any rearranged form) would still be in a confused, and certainly not original shape. The one source which actually effects this transposition is Jos., who finishes the life of E before dealing with N. His treatment is brief and paraphrastic, but it seems to be extremely significant that he does not point to the existence of the story of N in either the form or the sequence which it now has. To reconstruct the continuation of & is to make the overlapping with N more conspicuous; this is clear from the synopses cited below on p. 58, and it is interesting to notice that an old Syriac catena, which follows £, endeavours to readjust to N—it passes from Z ix. 1-10 to 466-47 ( N viii. 6) and thence to N i. 1~4, and places the Reading of the Law (N viii.) in the context it now has in the MT. 4, it is evident, does not enable us to go behind the MT, but, together with Jos., it tends to show that the MT is the late outcome of a very intricate literary development.
(e) The Compilation. At the stage when the stories of E and N were shaped in their present form, and when the traditions of the time of Artaxerxes had been used directly or indirectly for the age of Cyrus and Darius, we reach the complete historical work Chron.-E-N., and the structure of E-N really involves close attention to that of Chron. itself. Here it must suffice to observe that both Chron. and E-N furnish evidence representing different stages in the vicissitudes of the priests and Levites (see on £& viii. 28), and it is noteworthy that there are several traces of textual variation and confusion where these are concerned (see, e.g., i. 5 S€qq., 10, 15, Vv. 56, vii. 9, viii. 42, ix. 43 seqq.). It is also significant of the relative lateness of E-N that the age at which the Levites serve agrees with secondary passages in Chron. (see on v. 58), and that an apparent anti-Aaronite bias has found its way into both (see on vii. 10-12). Perhaps the most important feature in the compilation is the presence of gaps (e.g. before E v. 1, N i.), the more striking when we observe that the chronicler has ignored pertinent material in Kings, Jer., Daniel, and Esther. The book of Daniel was familiar in the Greek age and later (cf. 1 Macc. ii. 59 seq., and, for the Targums, Prot. Kealency., ii. 107 seq),
and was used by Jos. The story in & iii. seq. has literary points of contact with both Dan. and Est. (Marq. 66, 68, 72; Torrey, 47 seq. ; Bayer, 110 seqq.), and the former of these records traditions of the Temple-vessels (see on ii. 10).} The sacrilegious use of the holy objects by Belshazzar was followed by the fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians, and forthwith Darius the Mede, son of Ahasuerus, became king (v. 31, ix. 1). He was led to proclaim the God of Daniel (vi. 25-7), and to the first year of his reign is ascribed the prayer of Daniel (ix.). Here, the seventy years of desolation foretold by Jeremiah are complete, and Daniel prays on behalf of the Jews in Jerusalem and afar off, and on behalf of the ruined sanctuary. The tradition—irrespective of its present setting— is so far in harmony with Z iii. seq., the story of Zerubbabel in the second year of Darius (cf. Biichler, 7 seq.), where, as in Daniel's prayer, an earlier return is excluded. ΤῈ is difficult not to believe that these traditions are related, and it is noteworthy that while the references to Cyrus in the story of Zerubbabel appear to be due to later revision, Cyrus, according to Dan. vi. 28, x. 1, reigned after Darius. Thus, not only is it more intelligible that the Cyrus tradition is relatively the later, and probably grew out of the Darius tradition, than the reverse, but a tradition evidently once prevailed which placed Darius before Cyrus.
But it was also known that Cyrus preceded Darius, and in Bel and the Dragon he follows after Astyages (see above, p. 11) and—like Darius in Dan. vi.—becomes convinced of Daniel’s God. This correct sequence is that represented by Jos. and the ‘chronicler’, with one important difference, that while the former does his best to combine all the varying traditions of Cyrus and Darius, the present MT ignores Dan. and £ iii. 1-v. 6 and the complications these would introduce into the history. Accuracy of sequence does not necessarily prove greater antiquity of source. It depends upon accuracy of information, and if Jos. (xi. 2) knows that Cambyses and not Artaxerxes (£ ii. τό seqq.) reigned before Darius, he is confused in his treatment of Xerxes and Artaxerxes, and while the chronicler wrongly retains these two between Cyrus and Darius, he has, however, avoided the incorrect sequence of the latter two in Daniel. The traditions of this period (ὃ 4 IV. c.) combine in an inextricable manner trustworthy and untrustworthy data with the result that mere mechanical — rearrangement of material or correction of names is inadequate for the recovery of the historical — facts. Whether or no there was a continuous chronicle of the Kings of Media and Persia (Est. x. 2), — if a compiler of Jewish history followed the tradition which also appears in Dan., Darius the Mede reigned before Cyrus, and Darius, after / iii. seq., was the first to permit the Jews to return. On — the other hand, Cyrus was really the first king, and it is easy to understand the endeavours to adjust the traditions. It may not be possible to trace all the steps in the process, nevertheless, Z's recension is a valuable witness to the efforts made to effect a compromise, and it is significant that while all the evidence points to the relative iateness of the Cyrus tradition in the form it now has in # ii. 1-15 or E i., the immediate prelude in Z i. represents a text materially older in some respects (though more corrupt in others) than the corresponding 2 Chron. xxxv. seq.
(f) Conclusion. In the nature of the case, any explanation of the structure of £ and E—N must be a provisional one. At all events, Bayer’s view (93 seq., 102, 139), that & is a secondary and deliberate self-contained compilation dealing with the Temple, is inadequate, in that it accounts for only a small proportion of the textual features. Howorth, whose merit it has been to force the attention of biblical students to the importance of /, undoubtedly goes too far in championing the textual and historical value of &. As regards its text, used by Jahn with a certain lack of discrimination and by Bayer somewhat unduly underestimated, Torrey and Volz support an intermediate position, pointing out the general relative superiority of MT. Torrey justly observes, also, that as a history £ is not in its original form, and he has proposed a hypothesis of its relationship with E-N which he works out with much skill and thoroughness (18 seqq., 30 seqq., 255 seqq.). He starts from the chronicler’s history in almost its present form (dated c. third cent. B.C.), and assumes two important changes: (1) the transference of N vii. 70-x. 39 from their ‘ original’ position between F viii. and ix. to the place where they now stand, and (2) the interpolation of the story £& iii. I-iv. 42, in the history of Cyras, with redactional expansion, alteration, &c., and with the transposition of the Artaxerxes episode from E iv. 6-24 to £ ii. τό- 50. Subsequently, two rival forms arose: one (Δ) with the retransposition of N vii. 73—x. 40, this time between E x. and N i.; the other (B) with the ¢ excision of the Story of the Three Youths (£ iii. seq.) together with a part of the ‘ original’ history. The latter is represented by the MT; the former, after being translated into Greek, survives only in — the fragmentary £, which is defined as ‘simply a piece taken without change out of the middle of — a faithful Greek translation of the chronicler’s History of Israel in the form which was generally recognized as authentic in the last century B.C.’ (18). This hypothesis is complicated (see Bayer's criticisms,143 seq.), though not unduly so. On the other hand, there are objections to the view that
It is disputed whether Z iii. se
: 4. is later than these (Bayer, 128 seq.), or earlier (Torrey); in any case the canonical books, whatever their date, ae cor Pg "
may well incorporate or be based upon older traditions.
the Story of the Three Youths is an interpolation in the alleged original Cyrus-history, viz. in E i., E iv. 47-56, iv. 62-v. 6, E 11. seqq. (see p. (6), and to the assumption that the place of the E-story before N i. is the earlier (see p. 17). Further, although £ is obviously imperfect, to restore a complete work in which it should correspond to E in the chronicler’s series necessitates the belief that Jos., the only early source which places the E-story before N, is witness to the MT form of the stories of both E and N, and this cannot be said to be certain (see p. 57 seq.). The latter part of 5ὶ presupposes the present structure of E vii-x., N ... vil. 73-viil. 13 . . ., whereas the first half presents older traits in i., ii. τό seqq. (the position of the Artaxerxes episode), iii. τον. 6 (the Zerubbabel story), v. 7-70 (the background of the list, E ii.), and v. 71 (the immediate sequel, the prelude to the work of the returned exiles). Finally, the criticism of /& inevitably raises the problem of the entire series Chron.-E-N, which at one stage was a literary whole, and consequently we cannot take the chronicler’s history as a fixed starting-point. Asa matter of fact, apart from the literary questions arising out of Chronicles alone, it seems that the books were regarded by the Rabbis with some suspicion (Curtis and Madsen, Chrox. 2),and now stand after E—N ‘as if it were an afterthought to admit them to equal authority’ (W. R. Smith, Old Test. Few. Church, 182). It is not improbable that this severance involved some subsequent alteration and revision (cf. Marq., 29). Moreover, the recurrence of τ Chron. ix., N xi., in a single work hardly looks like an original feature; like the more remarkable repetition of the list E ii., N vii. (see Jampel, 1. 306 ; Howorth, PSA, xxvi. 26 ; Holzhey, 37 n. 2) the feature seems to point to the combination of sources which were primarily distinct.
All the data suggest that £ and E-N represent concurrent forms which have influenced each other in the earlier stages of their growth. They are rivals, and neither can be said to be wholly older or more historical than the other. The endeavour was made to correct & to agree with the MT—and @" is a conspicuous example of the extent to which the revisers could go—and the presence of such efforts and in particular the doublets (see § 3 6) are of essential importance in indicating that Z’s text does not precisely represent a Heb.-Aram. work, and that when all allowance is made for correction and revision of the Greek, problems of the underlying original text still remain. But it was impossible to make any very satisfactory adjustment, Z diverged too seriously from the MT, which had cut the chronological knot by the excision of the story of Zerubbabel, and we may suppose that this facilitated the desire for the more literal translation of Theodotion (p. 3 seq.).
Although our O.T. has lost the story of Zerubbabel and the Praise of Truth, there is no doubt that there is something ‘ unbiblical’ in the orations. In the course of the growth of the O.T., compilers and revisers have not unfrequently obscured or omitted that to which they took exception, and some light is thus often thrown upon other phases of contemporary Palestinian or Jewish thought. While the orations themselves remind us of the old ‘ Wisdom’ literature (Proverbs, Ben Sira, Wisdom), their combination with narrative will recall the interesting story of Ahikar. remains ‘apocryphal’ in so far as it was deliberately rejected by Jewish and Christian schools. It had indeed found a place in the Bible of the Greek-speaking Jews, and was familiar to Jews and Christians, either indirectly through Jos., or directly as a separate work. To the Christians the prominence of Zerubbabel must have been of no little interest (see § 1, end). But the value of & does not lie merely in this story. The book (or fragment) furnishes useful evidence for the criticism of the text and contents of the canonical passages, and illustrates methods of compilation and revision, swing of traditions, and play of motives. It clearly indicates the importance of the comparison of related traditions as apart from the ultimate question of the underlying facts, and shows, in conjunction with Jos., how a relatively straightforward account of history as in E-N may be the last stage in the effort to cut the knots formed by imperfect compilation. In its final form, the MT, the result of ‘ Rabbinical redaction ’ (Marq., 29), is ascribed by Howorth to the School of Jamnia in the time of Rabbi Akiba (PSEA, xxvi. 25), and although it is difficult to find decisive arguments in favour of this conjecture—or against it—it is not impossible that the chronicler’s history, as it now reads, may be dated about the beginning of the Christian era. It is significant that it is wanting in the Syriac Peshitta. Such a view, it should be observed, no more expresses an opinion on the dates of the component sources or sections than it would were the work in question a composite and much edited portion of Mishnah or Midrash.
ᾧ ὃ. SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ABBREVIATIONS. A, &, B = Codices of the Greek version.
André, L. E. T. Les Apocryphes del A. T. (1903). Ball, C. J. The Variorum Apocrypha (1896).
Bayer, E. ‘Das dritte Buch Esdras und sein Verhiltnis zu den Bichern Esra-Nehemia’, in Biblische Studien, ed. Bardenhewer, vol. xvi. (1911). Bertholet, A. Die Biicher Esra und Nehemia (1902). Ὁ Cheyne, T. K. Zntroduction to the Book of Isaiah (1895). Jewish Religious Life after the Exile (1898). See also sub Kosters. Davies, T. W. ‘ Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther’, 7he Century Bible (1909). Driver, S. R. Introd. to the Lit. of the O.T. (1909). E Ezra (the book or man). £ 1 Esdras. E Bi. Encyclopaedia Biblica (1899-1903). Ew. Ewald, H., History of Israel, 2nd ed. (1880), vol. v. Fr. Fritzsche, O. F., Comment. on 1 Esdras in Kuragef. exeget. Handbuch (1851). (ἃ Greek version. : i (τ Chron., GE, ἄς. (or Chron. G&, Ei, &c.) Greek version of Chronicles, Ezra, &c. GPA“ — Codices of the Greek. 3 Geissler, J. Die litterarischen Beziehungen der Esramemoiren (1899). . : Guthe, H. z Esdras, in Kautzsch, Die Apok. τι. Pseudepig. d. A. T. (1898). See also 5207. Holzhey, C. Biicher Ezra τι. Nehemia (1902). : 7 Hoonacker, A. van Wéhémie et Esdras (1890). Zerubabel et le second Temple (1892). Nouvelles Etudes sur la Restauration juive (1896). Articles in Revue Bibligue, 1901, January, April. ; 3 Howorth, Sir Henry H. Academy, 1893, January-July (passim), Transactions of Oriental Congress, London, ii. 69-85 (1893). Proceedings of Soc. of Bibl. Archaeology, 1901-10 (passim). Jahn, C. Die Biicher Esra (A πε. B) τε. Nehemja (1909). ἢ y " Ε΄. Jampel, 8. ‘ Die Wiederherstellung Israels unter den Achimeniden’, 776 W7, xlvi. and xlvii. (1902-3); here cited as i. and ii. Jos. Josephus, ed. Niese. Kennett, R. H. ‘ Hist. of the Jew. Church from Nebuchadnezzar to Alexander’, Cambridge Biblical Essays (ed. Kent, C. F. Lsvael’s Historical and Biographical Narratives (1905). Kosters, W. H. Die Wiederherstellung Israels in der persischen Periode (Germ. ed., by Basedow, 1895). a rH E Bi. Articles ‘ Cyrus’, ‘Ezra’, ‘Ezra-Nehemiah’, ‘Nehemiah’ (with additions by T. K. Cheyne), in 2 Bz. L Lucian’s recension of the Greek version. : H, UH Lag. Latin Versions, see above, ὃ 3 ¢. Lag. Lagarde, P. de, Seftuaginta-Studien, ii. (1892). Lupton, J. H.1 Esdras in Zhe Apocrypha, ed. H. Wace (1888). Marq. J. Marquart, Pavdamente israel. u. jiid. Geschichte, pp. 28-68 (1896). Meyer, E. Die Entstehung des Judentums (1896). » 757. Die Israeliten u. thre Nachbarstdimme (1906), by E. Meyer and B. Luther. MGW] Monatsschrift f. Gesch. u. Wissenschaft des Judentums. pte ‘ Uber die Uberlieferung u. d. textkritischen Wert d. III. Esr.’ in ZA TW, xix. 209-58 (1899) ; xx. 1-35 MT Massoretic Text. N Nehemiah (the book or man). Nestle, E. Marginalien τε. Materialien (1893), 23 seqq. Nikel, J. ‘Die Wiederherstellung des jiid. Gemeinwesens nach den bab. Exil’, in Bzblische Studien, ed. Barden- Pohlmann ‘ Uber das Ansehen des apokryphen Buches Esra’, 7zbinger Theolog. Quartalschrift, 1859. PSBA Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology. Ryle, H. E. ‘ Ezra and Nehemiah’ in the Cambridge Bible (1901). & Syriac version. Sachau, E. ‘ Drei aram. Papyrusurkunden aus Elephantine’ (Adhandl. hinigl.-preuss. Akad. Berlin, 1907). 1 alee a Sacred Books of the O.T., ed. P. Haupt: ‘Ezra and Nehemiah’, by H. Guthe (and, pp. 56-71, L. W. atten). ᾿ y Schrader, E. ‘Die Dauer des zweiten Tempelbaues’, Zheolog. Stud. und Kritiken, 1867, pp. 460 seqq. Sellin, E., Sex. Serubbadbel (1898). » Stud. Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte d. jiid. Gemeinde, vol. ii. (1901). Smend, R. Die Listen der Biicher Esra u. Nehemia (1881). Smith, G. A.In The Expositor, 1906, June-August. Th. 7. Theologisch Tijdschrift. Thackeray, H. St. J. Art. ‘Esdras’, Hastings’ Dict. Bible, i. 758-63. Theis, J. Gesch. τι. literarkrit. Fragen in E i-vé (1910). Torrey, C. C. Ezra Studies (Chicago, 1910). on Comp. ‘Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah’, Betheft sur ΖΑ͂ ΤῊΣ, 1896. Trendelenburg ‘ Apokr. Ezra’, Eichhorn, Allgem. Bibl. d. bibl. Litt. (1787), 178-232. Treuenfels Articles in Dery Orient (ed. J. Furst), 1850-1. Wellhausen, J. ‘Die Riickkehr der Juden aus dem bab. Exil’, in Wachrichten d. Géttinger Gelehrten Gesellschaft, 1895, pp. 166 seqq. Review of E. Meyer, Lntstehung u.s.w., in the Gott. Gel. Anzezgen, 1897, pp. 89 seqq. ZATW Leitschrift fiir Alttest. Wissenschaft.
Bee SDRAS: 2 CHR
HAS 35
-y AND Josias held the passover in Jerusalem unto his Lord, and offered the passover the four- 2teenth day of the first month; having set the | priests according to their daily courses, being arrayed in their vestments, in the temple of the 3 Lord. And he spake unto the Levites, the temple-servants of Israel, that they should hallow themselves unto the Lord, to set the holy ark of | the Lord in the house that king Solomon the son | 4 of David had built: απ said, Ye shall no more have need to bear it upon your shoulders: now therefore serve the Lord your God, and minister unto his people Israel, and prepare you after your | 5 fathers’ houses and kindreds, according to the | writing of David king of Israel, and according to the magnificence of Solomon his son: and standing in the holy place according to the several divisions of the families of you the Levites, who minister in the presence of your brethren the 6 children of Israel, offer the passover in order, and make ready the sacrifices for your brethren, and keep the passover according to the commandment |70f the Lord, which was given unto Moses. And unto the people which were present Josias gave thirty thousand lambs and kids, avd three thousand calves: these things were given of the king’s substance, according as he promised, to the peo- 9 ple, and to the priests and Levites. And Helkias, | and Zacharias, and Esyelus, the rulers of the temple, gave to the priests for the passover two thousand azd six hundred sheep, avd three hun- ΟΝ calves. And Jeconias, and Samaias, and ΠΝ his brother, and Sabias, and Ochielus, and Joram, captains over thousands, gave to the Levites for the passover five thousand sheep, ἀγα
| seven hundred calves. 2 And when these things |
including Daniel, 2, and unknown sources).
The paraphrastic 5-7 represent a rather different MT.
_Josiah’s passover and death, the last kings of Judah, and the exile. XXlll. 2I-xxv. 30 and the relevant portions of Jeremiah), cf. Jos. Azz. x. 4 5-xi. On the text and contents, see the Geen on Chronicles, also, for the versions, Moulton, ZA TW, xix. 234 seqq. The whole chapter when compared with MT and & of Chron. and Kings furnishes an instructive illustration of the methods and merits of the translator.
2. arrayed (ἐστολισμένους), cf. ν. 59, vii. 9. Perhaps an Aramaizing mistranslation (Nestle, 24). 3. temple-servants, mg. the Nethinim,a misreading of MT 0°27. Note the indirect narration in £ and Chron. (τ. 5. magnificence (μεγαλειότητα), Gee (cf. 33) and Chron, (θὰ διὰ χειρός, perhaps interpreted ‘by the might’.
Ι conj. "1" ὃν for MT 3323 (a repetition of 2})2), misread in Z as $493 (private communication).
AND Josiah kept a passover unto the Lord in 1 Jerusalem: and they killed the passover on the fourteenth day of the first month. And he set 2 the priests in their charges, and encouraged them to the service of the house of the Lord.
And 3 he said unto the Levites that taught all Israel, which were holy unto the Lord, Put the holy ark in the house which Solomon the son of David king of Israel did build ; there shall no more be a burden upon your shoulders: now serve the Lord your God, and his people Israel.
And 4 prepare yourselves after your fathers’ houses by your courses, according to the writing of David king of Israel, and according to the writing of Solomon his son. And stand in the holy place 5 according to the divisions of the fathers’ houses of your brethren the children of the people, and let there be for each a portion of a fathers’ house of the Levites. And kill the passover, and sanc- 6 tify yourselves, and prepare for your brethren, to do according to the word of the Lord by the hand of Moses. And Josiah gave to the 7 children of the people, of the flock, lambs and kids, all of them for the passover offerings, unto all that were present, to the number of thirty thousand, and three thousand bullocks: these were of the king’s substance. And his princes 8 gave for a freewill offering unto the people, to the priests, and to the Levites. Hilkiah and Zechariah and Jehiel, the rulers of the house of God, gave unto the priests for the passover offerings two thousand and six hundred small cattle, ἘΠῚ three hundred oxen. Conaniah also, and 9 Shemaiah and Nethanel, his brethren, and Hashabiah and Jeiel and Jozabad, the chiefs of the Levites, gave unto the Levites for the passover
| offerings five thousand small cattle, and five
hundred oxen. So the service was prepared,
Ch. 1. = 2 Chron. xxxv. seq. (cf. 2 Kings 7 (who uses the canonical books,
Charles
8. Esyelus ((& ‘Joel’), mg. Jehie/ (after MT) ; perhaps Haziel is intended (Fr., Guthe; cf. 1 Chron. xxiii. 9).
SDRAS
were done. the priests and Levites, having the unleavened bread, stood in comely order according to the kindreds,
Il and according to the several divisions by fathers’ houses, before the people, to offer to the Lord, as it is written in the book of
12 Moses: and thus dd ¢hey in the morning. And they roasted the passover with fire, as appertaineth: and the sacrifices they sod in the brasen
13 vessels and caldrons with a good savour, and set them before all the people: and afterward they prepared for themselves, and for the priests their
14 brethren, the sons of Aaron. For the priests offered the fat until night: and the Levites prepared for themselves, and for the priests their
15 brethren, the sons of Aaron. The holy singers also, the sons of Asaph, were in their order, according to the appointment of David, Zo zz, Asaph, Zacharias, and Eddinus, who was of the
16 king’s retinue. Moreover the porters were at every gate; none had need to depart from his daily course: for their brethren the Levites pre-
17 pared for them. Thus were the things that belonged to the sacrifices of the Lord accomplished
18 in that day, in holding the passover, and offering |
sacrifices upon the altar of the Lord, according 19 to the commandment of king Josias. So the children of Israel which were present at that time held the passover, and the feast of unleavened 20 bread seven days. And such a passover was not held in Israel since the time of the prophet 21 Samuel. Yea, all the kings of Israel held not such a passover as Josias, and the priests, and the Levites, and the Jews, held with all Israel that were present in their dwelling place at Jerusalem. 22 In the eighteenth year of the reign of Josias was 23 this passover held. And the works of Josias were upright before his Lord with a heart full of godli- 24 ness. Moreover the things that came to pass in his days have been written in times past, concerning those that sinned, and did wickedly against the Lord above every people and kingdom, and how they grieved him exceedingly, so that the words of the Lord were confirmed against Israel.
Io-12. A good example of misunderstanding and adjustment. ΤῊΣ), morning (cf. v. 50) oxen (0P3, & in Z and Chron., for 9P3) ; good savour favs (εὐωδίας for εὐοδίας [cf. A.V. mg.]|, (ἃ in Chron. εὐωδώθη ; a misunderstanding of the root ἸῸΝ in NINN}; for parallels, see Ecclus. xliii. 26, Ascens. — Isaiah, vi. 17, and Journ. Royal Asiatic Soc., 1901, p- 169). Ἷ
15. “Τὸ wit’, implying that these choir-masters were at Josiah’s passover (cf. Chron. &) is of course erroneous.
Zacharias, may be supported by 1 Chron. xv. 18, xvi. 5, was, mg. weve (Gr). (τι. Uc+ the prophets (so & in Ch
23 seq. An addition partly with reference to 1 Kings xiii. 2, 32, 2
See further Nestle, 27; Torrey, 88 seq. ; Bayer, 95 seq. 24. Better: ‘and the things pertaining to him had been written in times past, on account of those .
Chron.).
him ...and the words . . .’ (after Ball).
exceedingly (Ui ἐν αἰσθήσει [cf. 33], Ge ἔτι), mg. sensibly ; cf. Judith xvi. 17.
confirmed (ἀνέστησαν), a Hebraism, cf. Jer. xliv. 29.
ron.) ; some MSS. of MT read ‘seers’, cf. 1 Chron. xxv. I. i
and the priests stood in their place, and the Levites by their courses, according to the king’s commandment. And they killed the passover, rr and the priests sprinkled the blood, which they received of their hand, and the Levites flayed them. And they removed the burnt offerings, rz that they might give them according to the divisions of the fathers’ houses of the children of — the people, to offer unto the Lord, as it is written in the book of Moses. And so did they with the — oxen. And they roasted the passover with fire 13. according to the ordinance: and the holy offer- | ings sod they in pots, and in caldrons, and in — pans, and carried them quickly to all the children of the people. And afterward they prepared for 14_ themselves, and for the priests; because the | priests the sons of Aaron were busied in offering the burnt offerings and the fat until night: therefore the Levites prepared for themselves, and for the priests the sons of Aaron. And the singers 15) the sons of Asaph were in their place, according to the commandment of David, and Asaph, and Heman, and Jeduthun the king’s seer; and the — porters were at every gate: they needed not to | depart from their service, for their brethren the © Levites prepared for them. 1
So all the service 1€ of the Lord was prepared the same day, to keep ὁ the passover, and to offer burnt offerings upon — the altar of the Lord, according to the command- | ment of king Josiah. And the children of Israel τ’ that were present kept the passover at that time, and the feast of unleavened bread seven days. — And there was no passover like to that kept in τὶ Israel from the days of Samuel the prophet; | neither did any of the kings of Israel keep such — a passover as Josiah kept, and the priests, and | the Levites, and all Judah and Israel that were ~ present, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Int the eighteenth year of the reign of Josiah was | this passover kept.
Unleavened bread = commandment (ΤῚΣ, for
For Gs text, see Torrey, 107. where he ranks next to Asaph ; see Benzinger, Chron. 74. Kings xxiii. 14 seqq. (see also &’s addition in
- and grieved
25 Now after all these acts of Josias it came to pass, that Pharaoh the king of Egypt came to raise war at Carchemish upon Euphrates: and 26 Josias went out against him. But the king of Egypt sent to him, saying, What have I to do 27 with thee, O king of Judea? I am not sent out from the Lord God against thee; for my war is upon Euphrates: and now the Lord is with me, yea, the Lord is with me hasting me forward: depart from me, and be not against 28the Lord. Howbeit Josias did not turn back unto his chariot, but undertook to fight with him, not regarding the words of the prophet 29 Jeremy spoken by the mouth of the Lord: but joined battle with him in the plain of Megiddo, and the princes came down against king Josias. 30 Then said the king unto his servants, Carry me away out of the battle ; for 1am very weak. And immediately his servants carried him away out 31 of the host. Then gat he up upon his second chariot; and being brought back to Jerusalem
he died, and was buried in the sepulchre of his |
32 fathers. And in all Jewry they mourned for Josias; and Jeremy the prophet lamented for Josias, and the chief men with the women made lamentation for him, unto this day: and this was given out for an ordinance to be done continually
33in all the nation of Israel. These things are written in the book of the histories of the kings of Judzea, and every one of the acts that Josias did, and his glory, and his understanding in the law of the Lord. and the things that he had done
before, and the things now recited, are reported |
in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah.
After all this, when Josiah had prepared the 20 temple, Neco king of Egypt went up to fight against Carchemish by Euphrates: and Josiah went out against him. But he sent ambassadors 2 to him, saying, What have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah? / come not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith I have war; and God hath commanded me to make haste: forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me, that he destroy thee not.
Nevertheless Josiah would not turn his face from him, but disguised himself, that he might fight with him, and hearkened not unto the words of Neco, from the mouth of God, and came to fight in the valley of Megiddo. And the archers shot at 2 king Josiah ; and the king said to his servants, Have me away; for I am sore wounded. So his servants took him out of the chariot, and put him in the second chariot that he had, and brought him to Jerusalem; and he died, and was buried in the sepulchres of his fathers. And all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah. And Jeremiah lamented for Josiah: and all the singing men and singing women spake of Josiah in their lamentations, unto this day ; and they made them an ordinance in Israel: and, behold, they are written in the lamentations.
Now the rest of the acts of Josiah, and his good deeds, according to that which is written in the law of the Lord, and 27 his acts, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah.
And the people took Joachaz the son of
Then the people of the land took Jehoahaz 2 Cx
Josias, and made him king instead of Josias his | the son of Josiah, and made him king in 361
_ father, when he was twenty and three years old. 35 And he reigned in Judah and in Jerusalem three
months: and then the king of Egypt deposed |
36 him from reigning in Jerusalem. And he set a
tax upon the people of a hundred talents of |
37 silver and one talent of gold. The king of Egypt also made king Joakim his brother king of Judaa
38 and Jerusalem. And Joakim bound the nobles: but Zarakes his brother he apprehended, and brought him up out of Egypt.
his father’s stead in Jerusalem. Joahaz was 2 twenty and three years old when he began to reign; and he reigned three months in Jerusalem. And the king of Egypt deposed him at Jeru- 3 salem, and amerced the land in an hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold. And the king of 4 Egypt made Eliakim his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem, and changed his name to Jehoiakim. And Neco took Joahaz his brother, and carried him to Egypt.
' 25. Jos. x. 5 I explains the march of Neco as an attack upon the Medes and Babylonians who had overthrown
Assyria.
On the Median empire see /7¢vod., pp. 11 ¢, 17 e.
26. king of Egypt, based on a misunderstanding of ‘ messengers’ (83 50).
27. upon Euphrates, similarly Jos. 28. unto his chariot, mg. Azs chariot from him (&*).
undertook (so Jos., and & in Chron.), see Torrey, 221 ; Charles conj. UN‘ (private communication).
prophet. Neco (so Jos.) misread (x13) for 122) and plausibly expanded by the addition of the prophet’s name. 29. princes came down; another misreading (oqwn ὙἼ for OF 19) with which (τ Chron. and Jos. agree). 30. host, better ‘line of battle’; apparently reading 7D7y for 7237.
32. chief men ; reading DW for OW. The dirge, according to Jos., was still extant. 33. With the paraphrase cf. τ΄. 42.
34. Joachaz (i.e. Jehoahaz), but mg. Jeconzas (i.e. Jeconiah=Jehoiachin, τ΄. 43), soG*® Hand Matt. i. 11. Jos. x. 5 2 follows & of Chron. with which cf. 2 Kings xxiii. 31-35. All the texts show some confusion here; see the comm.
38. Hopeless confusion arising from misreadings of the MT.
DRAS
39 Εἶνε and twenty years old was Joakim when he began to reign in Judaea and Jerusalem; and he did that which was evil in the sight of the
40 Lord. And against him Nabuchodonosor the king of Babylon came up, and bound him with a chain of brass, and carried him unto Babylon.
41 Nabuchodonosor also took of the holy vessels of the Lord, and carried them away, and set them up in his own temple at Babylon.
42 But those things that are reported of him, and of his uncleanness and impiety, are written in the chronicles of the kings.
43. And Joakim his son reigned in his stead: for when he was made king he was eighteen years
44 old; and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem ; and did that which was evil before the Lord.
45 80 after a year Nabuchodonosor sent and caused him to be brought unto Babylon with
46 the holy vessels of the Lord ; and made Sedekias king of Judzea and Jerusalem,
when he was one and twenty years old; and he reigned eleven
47 years: and he also did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, and cared not for the words that were spoken by Jeremy the prophet
48 from the mouth of the Lord. And after that king Nabuchodonosor had made him to swear by the name of the Lord, he forswore himself, and rebelled; and hardening his neck, and his heart, he transgressed the laws of the Lord, the
49 God of Israel. Moreover the governors of the people and of the priests did many things wickedly, and passed all the pollutions of all nations, and defiled the temple of the Lord,
50 which was sanctified in Jerusalem. And the God of their fathers sent by his messenger to call them back, because he had compassion on them and on his dwelling place.@
51 But they mocked his messengers; and in the day when the Lord spake wnto them, they scoffed at his prophets :
52 so far forth, that he, being wroth with his people for their great ungodliness, commanded to bring up the kings of the Chaldeans
53 against them; who slew their young men with the sword, round about their holy temple, and
39 seqq. For Joakim’s history £ does not use the fuller @ of Chron. elaborates the traditions ; cf. Dan. i. 1 seq. On the text see further Torrey, 89.
43. Joakim, an error for Jehoiachin. eighteen, mg. eight ((τῦ UW S). 49. and passed all, mg. even above all (Gk). 50. messenger ; read the plural, as in τ. 51. xxix. 19, &c.) is wanting. 51. in the day, a misreading, DY for D'i2 (‘despised ’).
The Jeremian ‘rising up early and sending’ (mde pawn, cf. Jer-
Jehoiakim was twenty and five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord his God. Against himcame6 up Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and bound _ him in fetters, to carry him to Babylon. Ἢ
Nebuchad- 7 nezzar also carried of the vessels of the house of _ the Lord to Babylon, and put them in histemple at Babylon. Now the rest of the acts of Jehoi- 8 akim, and his abominations which he did, and that which was found in him, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah: and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead. ’
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began 9 — to reign; and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.
And at the return τὸ of the yearking Nebuchadnezzarsent,and brought | him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of the Lord, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem.
Zedekiah was twenty and one years old when 1 he began to reign ; and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord his God ; he humbled not himself before Jeremiah the prophet speaking from the mouth of the Lord. And he also rebelled 13. against king Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God: but he stiffened his neck, and hardened his heart from turning unto the Lord, the Lord God of Israel.
Moreover all the chiefs of the priests, and the people, trespassed very greatly after all the abominations of the heathen ; and they polluted the house of the Lord which he had hallowed in Jerusalem. And the Lord, the God of their fathers, sent to them by his messengers, rising up early and sending ; because he had compassion on his people, and on his dwelling place: but they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and scoffed at his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against his people, till there was no remedy. Therefore he brought upon them the king of the 17 | Chaldeans, who slew their young men with the, sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion upon young man or maiden, old man or ancient: he gave them all into his hand.
Jos. incorporates material from Jer. and
spared neither young man nor maid, old man | nor child; but he delivered all into their hands. 54 And they took all the holy vessels of the Lord, | And all the vessels of the house of God, great 18 both great and small, with the vessels of the | and small, and the treasures of the house of the ark of the Lord, and the king’s treasures, and | Lord, and the treasures of the king, and of his 55 carried them away unto Babylon. And they | princes; all these he brought to Babylon. And 19 burnt the house of the Lord, and brake down | they burnt the house of God, and brake down the the walls of Jerusalem, and burnt the towers | wall of Jerusalem, and burnt all the palaces thereof 56 thereof with fire: and as for her glorious things, | with fire, and destroyed all the goodly vessels they never ceased till they had brought them all thereof. to nought: and the people that were not slain And them that had escaped from the 20 δ] with the sword he carried unto Babylon: and | sword carried he away to Babylon; and they they were servants unto him and to his children, | were servants to him and his sons until the reign till the Persians reigned, to fulfil the word of the | of the kingdom of Persia: to fulfil the word of 21 58 Lord by the mouth of Jeremy: Until the land the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the hath enjoyed her sabbaths, the whole time of her | land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as desolation shall she keep sabbath, to fulfil three- | she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years. score and ten years. >, Inthe first year of Cyrus king of the Persians, Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, 1 that the word of the Lord by the mouth of | that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jere- 2 Jeremy might be accomplished, the Lord stirred | miah might be accomplished, the Lord stirred up up the spirit of Cyrus king of the Persians, and | the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made he made proclamation through all his kingdom, | a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and -3and also by writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus | pwz 12 also in writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus king of the Persians; The Lord of Israel, the | king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth Most High Lord, hath made me king of the | hath the Lord, the God of heaven, given me;
53. child, MT ww (? ‘aged’, cf. Ar. wathwath, ‘weak, impotent’).
54. the vessels, mg. ¢he arks of the Lord (x®, 5): based upon a confusion of W318 (‘treasure’) and j)78. 56. Lit. ‘and they made an end of spoiling . . .’ (συνετέλεσαν... ἀχρεῶσαι); MT 55 55 (‘ail the goodly . . .’)
treated as b> (‘made an end of’) 1p.
that were not slain: τοὺς ἐπιλοίπους ἀπήγαγεν μετὰ (Ex* ἀπὸ, cf. 3:5) ῥομφαίας ‘the people that were left he led away with the sword’.
58. The passage (see Jer. xxv. 12, xxix. 10 ; Lev. xxvi. 34 seq.) is treated as a quotation (cf. comm. on E ix. 11 seq.) ; on the statements, see Torrey, 286 ἢ. 2.
The decree of Cyrus and the return under Sheshbazzar, ii. 1-15=2 Chron. xxxvi. 22 seq., E i.; cf. Jos. dnt. xi. 1. (a) The compiler passes over the years of exile, ignores the tradition of the Median empire represented in Daniel, and proceeds to the first year of Cyrus the Persian, the divinely-appointed agent inspired to fulfil the prophecy of Jeremiah (see Jer. xxiv. 6, xxv. 12 seq., xxix. 10-19, xxxili. 10-13). His decree (to be contrasted with vi. 24 seqq.) has a marked Jewish tinge, as is recognized even by those who accept it as mainly genuine (Ewald, 49; Sellin, S¢wd. 154; Holzhey, 14), and should be compared with those of Darius (Z iv.) and Artaxerxes (vili. 8 seqq.), and with the royal decrees in the ‘canonical’ and ‘apocryphal’ Esther; see Torrey, 144 n. 12, 158. The place of Cyrus in Jewish tradition (see 15. xli. 25, xliv. 28, xlv. 1-13) has been idealized; the story of Bel and the Dragon reveals another view of his character. He was not a monotheist, nor did he fulfil all the expectations of the prophecies. On the other hand, the parallels between his ‘cylinder Inscription’ and Is. xliv. 28-xlv. 4 (see Kittel, ZA 7, xviii. 149 seqq.) could suggest that the biblical writers had been directly influenced by the inscription of this patron of the Babylonian gods. Tradition is embellished further in Jos., who refers to a prophecy of Jeremiah heralding the rebuilding of the Temple (x. 7 3, xi. 11-2; cf. on v. 61), and attributes the enthusiasm of Cyrus to his perusal of the prophecies of Isaiah (cf. similarly Alexander the Great and Daniel, xi. 8. 5, § 337).
(ὁ) The section E ivi. is mainly from the chronicler (Driver, Zz¢. 545 seq.), and while Chron. itself can be controlled by the parallel portions of Samuel and Kings, the criticism of this section rests upon internal data and the independent testimony of Haggai and Zech. i—viii. From a study of these prophecies it is urged that the rebuilding of the Temple at Jerusalem was first begun in the reign of Darius, and not Cyrus (as in E iii.), that the builders were the ‘remnant’ of Judah, no considerable body of exiles having as yet returned (as in E i. seq., iv.—v. 6), that no serious Samaritan hostility had as yet arisen, and that no separation from the heathen of the land had as yet led to the inauguration of a Jewish ‘congregation’ or ‘church’. See, in the first instance, Schrader, 460-504, and for fuller details Zztrod. § 4 (11).
On the text of ii. 1-15 see the comment., Moulton, ZA 7V, xix. 243 seqq., and Torrey, 120 seqq.
II. 3. Most High, MT ‘God of Heaven’, so also in vi. 31, viii. 19, 21. Definite conclusions can with difficulty be drawn from the numerous and often noteworthy variations in the form of the Divine name; for a summary of the data see Moulton, ZA7W, xix. 226 seqq. The title ‘Most High’ (ὕψιστος = DY) recurs frequently in Daniel (14 times), Psalms (21), Ecclus. (48), and in Jubilees; more rarely in the Pentateuch (6); see the details in R. H. Charles, /zéilees, pp. Ixvi, 213, who observes that it was most used in the second cent. B.c. On the Greek title see E. Schiirer, Zzeolog. Lit.-zeit., 1897, nos. 9 and (with a review of F. Cumont’s /yfszs/os) 19; J. Skinner, Genesis, 270 seq.
DRAS
4 whole world, and commanded me to build him 5 a house at Jerusalem that is in Judzea. If therefore there be any of you that are of his people, let the Lord, even his Lord, be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem that is in Judzea, and build the house of the Lord of Israel: he is the
6 Lord that dwelleth in Jerusalem. Of such therefore as dwell in divers places, let them that are
7 in his own place help each one with gold, and with silver, with gifts, with horses also and cattle, beside the other things which have been added by vow for the temple of the Lord which is in
8 Then the chief of the families of Judah and of the tribe of Benjamin stood up; the priests also, and the Levites, and all they whose spirit the Lord had stirred to go up, to build the house for the Lord which is in Jerusalem.
9 And they that dwelt round about them helped them in all things with silver and gold, with horses and cattle, and with very many gifts that were vowed of a great number whose minds were stirred up ¢hereto.
το King Cyrus also brought forth the holy vessels of the Lord, which Nabuchodonosor had carried away from Jerusalem, and had set up in his temple 11 of idols. Now when Cyrus king of the Persians had brought them forth, he delivered them to 12 Mithradates his treasurer, and by him they were delivered to Sanabassar the governor of Judza. 13 And this was the number of them: A thousand golden cups, a thousand cups of silver, censers of silver twenty nine, vials of gold thirty, and of silver two thousand four hundred and ten, and 14 other vessels a thousand. So all the vessels of gold and of silver were brought up, even five
5. people. (k*+‘who desireth to go up’; cf. v. 8, vill
g. in all things, 53, for MT sda. of a great number, reading 25) (i.e. (‘beside’). 10. holy vessels.
v. I-46), but the details are intricate.
lL ESDRAS 2,
let the Lord, mg. /et his Lord be, &c. (G*), cf. Chron. ΤΩΣ his God. the Lord that dwelleth, cf. Ε R.V. mg.: he zs the God whith... 7. horses, reading U3) for &3 (cf. τ΄. 9); perhaps wrongly, see Torrey, 121. added by vow (or ‘in accordance with vow’), cf. v. 9, viii. 13, and see ZA 7W,, xix. 231.
‘with precious things 27 abundance’) in place of the incorrect 1
There is an obyious effort to link the new Temple with that of Solomon (cf. similarly the Register of the exiles in — Some of the Temple-vessels were removed in the reign of Jehoiakim (2 Chron. |
and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whosoever3 . there is among you of all his people, his God — be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord, the God of Israel, (he is God,) which is in _ Jerusalem. And whosoever is left, in any place 4. where he sojourneth, let the men of his place help 4 him with silver, and with gold, and with goods, and with beasts, beside the freewill offering for ἢ the house of God which is in Jerusalem. fe:
Then 5 | rose up the heads of fathers’ Zowses of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests, and the Levites, even _ all whose spirit God had stirred to goupto build the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem. And all they that were round about them 6 strengthened their hands with vessels of silver, with gold, with goods, and with beasts, and with — precious things, beside all that was willingly offered. ei
Also Cyrus the king brought forth the 7 vessels of the house of the Lord, which Nebu- _ chadnezzar had brought forth out of Jerusalem, — and had put them in the house of his gods; even 8. those did Cyrus king of Persia bring forth by the — hand of Mithredath the treasurer, and numbered — them unto Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah. And this is the number of them : thirty chargers 9. of gold, a thousand chargers of silver, nine and | twenty knives ; thirty bowls of goid, silver bowls 1 of a second sort four hundred and ten, and other | vessels a thousand. All the vessels of gold and τι} of silver were five thousand and four hundred. |
(with omission of the brackets).
xxxvi. 7, Dan. i. 2; wanting in 2 Kings). Later, in the time of Jehoiachin @// were cut up or carried away (2 Kings | xxlv. 13 seq., a doubtful passage, see the comm.). In Zedekiah’s time, nevertheless, many evidently were left (Jer. | XXVil. 16 seqq., Xxvill. 3), and a prophecy of their removal also promises their restoration, although this latter feature | is absent from G’s text (xxvii. 16-22). Finally, at the fall of Jerusalem they were broken up and removed (2 Kings | XXV. 13-17, Jer. lil. 17 seqq.). (The evidence in Judith iv. 1-3 for a return of exiles and vessels in the time of Nebuchadrezzar and the high-priest Joakim can hardly be discussed.) The sacrilegious use of the vessels by Belshazzar ~ was avenged by the division of the Babylonian empire among the Medes and Persians, and Darius became king | (Dan. v.). The tradition of their restoration in the reign of Cyrus clearly conflicts with £ iv. 44, 57, where Darius } effects what Cyrus had been unable to accomplish, and this belief can hardly have been current among those who |} knew of their return as described in E i. Moreover, the prophets Hag. and Zech. (time of Darius) do not imply that | the vessels had been restored ; E received rich supplies (£ viil. 17), and returned with gifts something over £2,500,000 in value (Meyer, 69 seq.). But in the story of N the Temple appears to be neglected and poor, and Is. lx. 5-7 look forward to wealthy gifts. Another aspect is presented when it is supposed that the Temple-furniture had been concealed (see 2 Mace. ii. 4-8; Apoc. Baruch, ed. Charles, vi. 7 seqq., xxx. 2, and p. 168).
12. Sanabassar (€*), mg. Samanassar (G&® in v. 14, but ‘Sanamassar’ here). see Guthe (5.5 7) and Torrey, 136 seq. See below, vi. 18.
13 seq. On the variations in this passage see Torrey, 123 seq., 138 seq.
On the numerous variant forms
JRAS I ESDRAS 2. 15-18 Eze.
15 thousand four hundred threescore and nine, and | All these did Sheshbazzar bring up, when they
_ ΜΈΓ carried back by Sanabassar, together with | of the captivity were brought up from Babylon
them of the captivity, from Babylon to Jeru- | unto Jerusalem,
salem. ἜΣΕΙ
And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the begin- 6 ning of his reign, wrote they an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.
16 But in the time of Artaxerxes king of the Per- And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, 7 sians Belemus, and Mithradates, and Tabellius, | Mithredath,Tabeel,and the rest of hiscompanions, and Rathumus, and Beeltethmus, and Samellius | unto Artaxerxes king of Persia ; and the writing the scribe, with the others that were in com- | of the letter was written in the Syrian character, mission with them, dwelling in Samaria and | and set forth in the Syrian ‘¢ongwe. Rehum the 8 other places, wrote unto him against them that | chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter dwelt in Judza and Jerusalem the letter follow- | against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this
ιν ing: To king Artaxerxes our Lord, Thy servants, | sort: then zvvo¢e Rehum the chancellor, and Shim- 9 Rathumus the storywriter, and Samellius the | shai the scribe, and the rest of their companions ; scribe, and the rest of their council, and the judges | the Dinaites, and the Apharsathchites, the Tarthat are in Coelesyria and Phoenicia. pelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Baby-
lonians, the Shushanchites, the Dehaites, the
Elamites, and the rest of the nations whom the τὸ
great and noble Osnappar brought over, and set
in the city of Samaria, and in the rest of the
country beyond the river, and so forth. This is Τὰ
the copy of the letter that they sent unto Artaxerxes the king ; Thy servants the men beyond
18 Be it now | the river, and so forth. Be it known unto the 12 known to our lord the king, that the Jews that | king, that the Jews which came up from thee are are come up from you to us, being come unto | come to us unto Jerusalem; they are building
15. Neither MT nor the explicit Z supports the conjecture (Meyer, 193; cf. Holzhey, 15 seq., Davies, 47) that Sheshbazzar returned to prepare the way for Zerubbabel.
The opposition in the reign of Artaxerxes, ii. 16-30 = E iv. 7-24 (Aramaic), cf. Jos. “112. xi. 2 1-2.
(a) This passage cannot, in either E or Z, come between the reigns of Cyrus and Darius. There is an obvious gap after v. 15, and Jos., who ingeniously changes Artaxerxes into Cambyses, avoids it by an introduction (ὃ 19 seq., to be compared with § 88=£ ν. 72 seq.), and ends with the statement of a delay of nine years (including 6 of Cambyses, 2 of Darius). The passage has hardly ‘strayed’ to its place in E (Davies, 84); it is not indispensable in E, whereas in £ it is a necessary link between the return of Sheshbazzar and the tradition in ili. seq. Various attempts have been made to show that it is in its true position before the accession of Darius, whether by identifying the latter with D. IJ, or, like Josephus, by treating Artaxerxes as a mistake for Cambyses (cf. Sellin, Winckler, Torrey, and see references by Howorth in PS2A, xxiii. 313, 319, and Jampel, i. 103 seqq., iil. 97 seq.). These only cut the knot. Allowance must be made for a compilation based on a particular though erroneous theory of the Median and Persian kings (see Torrey, 38, 286, 302), but the real difficulty is the occurrence of this document relating to the time of Artaxerxes immediately after the reign of Cyrus. On its place, see further below, p. 56, and Jz/vod. § 5 (ὁ).
(ὁ) The text in Z is certainly from an Aramaic original. Note the translation of DYY Pl ‘story-writer’ (mg. “recorder’) in 17, 25, but the transliteration in 16 and (with a doublet) 25; the different renderings in EG (e.g. ἐν εἰρήνῃ for MT Bishlam, / Belemus, τ. 16) ; and such variant renderings as ‘cities’ (v. 22 for ‘ provinces’), ‘ passage’ (Ὁ. 24 and Jos. ὃ 25; son for MT pbn ‘portion’). £, although free and paraphrastic, preserves (as noticed by Volz, 1490) some better readings: ‘our lord, the king’ (vv. 17 seq., 21, cf. vi. 8; in agreement with Aramaic diplomatic Sometimes, however, decision is difficult; so in vv. 25 seq., 28, the references to the Temple in vv. 18, 20, and especially the introduction compared with E iv. 6-11. In the MT 7 and 8 imply ¢wo letters, but the relationship is not clear; both ὃ ὁ and τὸ ὁ (ending ‘and now’ as in v. 11) point to the immediate commencement of a letter. The (Hebrew) reference to Ahasuerus (Xerxes) in v. 6 (cf. the story of Esther) is wanting in Z, although v. 16 (end) seems to represent MT 62, and v. 17 covers MT wv. 8 (end), 9 (omitting the names after ‘Dinaites’, £ ‘judges’), and 10 (the reference to ‘beyond the river’). Thus Z v. 18 begins the letter and corresponds to MT 12 (ct. 11 ὁ with τὸ ὁ). The intricacies may be due partly to the compiler’s effort to quote a source and also to use it in his narrative (cf. on E vi. below), partly also to the revision of Z after E and the reverse. It is noteworthy that E (where i—iv. 6 is in Hebrew) takes care to state that the document was in Aramaic and needed translating (vv. 7 and 18 R.V. mg.) ; this is ignored in £, as also is the debatable w5D in £ ix. 48. See further the comment. and Torrey, 172 seq., 178 seqq., Bayer, 33 seq. d
17. Celesyria and Pheenicia. The geographical term in MT (‘Transflumen’, ‘Transpotamia’) represents the Persian province west of the Euphrates, and to this the earlier use of the term Coelesyria (before the first cent. B. C.) Corresponds. £’s rendering (contrast EGi’s literal πέραν τοῦ ποταμοῦ) may point to an Egyptian locale where the geography of Palestine and Syria was unfamiliar (Torrey, 83). Jos. names Syria and Phoenicia, and adds Ammon and Moab ; cf. perhaps Tobiah the Ammonite and Sanballat (if a native of Horonaim).
Jerusalem, do build that rebellious and wicked city, and do repair the marketplaces and the walls of it, and do lay the foundation of a temple. 19 Now if this city be builded and the walls thereof be finished, they will not only refuse to give tribute, but will even stand up against kings.
20 And forasmuch as the things pertaining to the temple are now in hand, we think it meet not to 21 neglect such a matter, but to speak unto our lord the king, to the intent that, if it be thy pleasure, search may be made in the books of thy fathers : 22 and thou shalt find in the chronicles what is written concerning these things, and shalt understand that that city was rebellious, troubling both 23 kings and cities: and that the Jews were rebellious, and raised always wars therein of old time ; for the which cause even this city was laid waste. 24 Wherefore now we do declare unto thee, O lord the king, that if this city be builded again, and the walls thereof set up anew, thou shalt from henceforth have no passage into Coelesyria and 25 Pheenicia. Then the king wrote back again to Rathumus the storywriter, and Beeltethmus, and Samellius the scribe, and to the rest that were in commission, and dwelt in Samaria and Syria and 26 Phoenicia, after this manner: I have read the epistle which ye have sent unto me: therefore I commanded to make search, and it hath been found that that city of old time hath made in- 27 surrection against kings ; and the men were given to rebellion and war therein: and that mighty kings and fierce were in Jerusalem, who reigned and exacted tribute in Coelesyria and Phcenicia. 28 Now therefore I have commanded to hinder those men from building the city,
and heed to
be taken that there be nothing done contrary to 29 this order; and that those wicked doings pro- 3° ceed no further to the annoyance of kings. Then king Artaxerxes his letters being read, Rathumus, and Samellius the scribe, and the rest that were in commission with them, removing in haste unto Jerusalem with horsemen and a multitude of people in battle array, began to hinder the builders ; and the building of the temple in Jeru-
18. lay the foundation . .
‘our salt is the. .
+) καὶ ναὸν ὑποβάλλονται (BA; ὑπερβάλλοντα θεμελιοῦσιν, L). in hand (ἐνεργεῖται τὰ κατὰ τὸν ναόν), lit. ‘are being urged on’. (&*4 om.) may mean that the writers are in the king’s service, or have entered into a covenant with him, or (reading -; Nestle, Strack) receive the dues of the palace or temple (cf. E vii. 22, 1 Macc. x. 29, xi. 35).
the rebellious and the bad city, and have finished the walls, and repaired the foundations. :
Be it 13 known now unto the king, that, if this city be τς builded, and the walls finished, they will not pay _ tribute, custom, or toll. and in the end it will endamage the kings, Now because we eat the τᾷ salt of the palace,and it is not meet for ustosee Ὁ the king’s dishonour, therefore have we sent and certified the king ; that search may be made in1t5 | the book of the records of thy fathers: so shalt thou find in the book of the records, and know that this city is a rebellious city, and hurtful unto kings and provinces, and that they have moved sedition within the same of old time: for which cause was this city laid waste.
We certify the τό | king that, if this city be builded, and the walls finished, by this means thou shalt have no portion — beyond the river. o 5 Then sent the king an answer 17 | unto Rehum the chancellor, and to Shimshai the scribe, and to the rest of their companions that dwell in Samaria, and in the rest of the country — beyond the river, Peace, and so forth. The letter 18 © which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me. And I decreed, and search hath been 19 | made, and it is found that this city of old time hath made insurrection against kings, and that rebellion and sedition have been made therein. | There have been mighty kings also over Jeru- 2¢ | salem, which have ruled over all the country beyond the river; and tribute, custom, and toll, was paid unto them. Make ye now a decree to 2! cause these men to cease, and that this city be — not builded, until a decree shall be made by me. © And take heed that ye be not slack herein: why 22 | should damage grow to the hurt of the kings?
Then when the copy of king Artaxerxes’ letter 73 | was read before Rehum, and Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews, and made them to cease by force and power.
Then ceased the work of
MT Now because... palace
£ apparently rests upon some confusion of nbn (‘salt’), with naxdn (‘work of’), nbn (‘the matter of’), or perhaps
ΝΣ (‘be full, complete ἢ. In any case the reference to the Temple here and in v. 18 is noteworthy; either it may be part of a deliberate aim to introduce allusions to the Temple (see Bayer, 87 seqq., 94 seq., 102), or there was a tradition of the building of the Temple in the time of Artaxerxes. The latter finds independent support (see Zzérod. § 5 ὁ), and the text in MT may be explained by the fact that, while in E and E Sheshbazzar had returned to rebuild the Temple, in E only is there an account of the commencement of the work and the delay. See also /z¢vod. 15 seq. 23. Rather ‘rebellious and still continuing sieges therein from of old’ (Ball). 30. horsemen, &c.; MT force (116. ‘arm’) and power (lit. ‘strength’ or ‘army’). Cf. the situation in N iv. 2, 8.
salem ceased until the second year of the reign | the house of God which is at Jerusalem; and it of Darius king of the Persians. ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.
8: Nowking Darius made a great feast unto all his subjects, and unto all that were born in his house, 2 and unto all the princes of Media and of Persia, and to all the satraps and captains and governors 3 that were under him, from India unto Ethiopia, in the hundred twenty and seven provinces. And when they had eaten and drunken, and being satisfied were gone home, then Darius the king went into his bedchamber, and slept, and awaked out of his sleep.
Then the three young men of the body-guard, that kept the king’s person, spake one to another : 5 Let every one of us say one thing which shall be strongest: and he whose sentence shall seem wiser than the others, unto him shall Darius the king give great gifts, and great honours in token of
The Story of the Three Pages and the Decree of Darius, iii. 1-v. 6, wanting in E ; see Jos. xi. 3 2-6.
(a) This section, famous for the Praise of Truth and for the familiar though often misquoted saying in iv. 41, is the centre of the problems of £. The story, well-known to early Christian Fathers and Synoptists, appears to be a piece of popular literature (cf. Susanna, Bel and the Dragon), not originally connected with Zerubbabel (see iv. 13, v. 5). Although ascribed to the early part of the reign of Darius (iv. 43, v. 6), it was evidently not written for the present context, which, indeed, it throws into great chronological confusion (see iv. 44, 57; v- 2, 55,71, 73). In fact, the name Apame (iv. 29) suggests the time of Darius III (Codomannus), and the original scene, not laid in Babylon (iv. 57, 61), though ostensibly in Susa, was probably Egypt (so most scholars) or Antioch in Syria (Marq. 66). The orations are not distinctively biblical. That on drink stands in contrast, 6. 5. to-Prov. xxiii. 29-35, Ecclus. xxxi. 25-30 ; and iv. 20 and 39 do not necessarily indicate any acquaintance with Gen. ii. 24 and Deut. x. 17 respectively. Allusions to Samson (so Lupton) are not obvious in iv. 17, 24, 26. The religious colouring is weak, but has been deepened by translators (see iv. 35 seq., 41, 59). Even the fine Praise of Truth seems to be an early addition: it is loosely appended to the paean of women, which, again, is out of touch with O.T. thought. Yet, even though the story be somewhat removed from biblical ideas, it may still be Jewish. The Praise of Truth, for example, may be a specimen of Palestinian wisdom (Zunz), and although Volz (1493) thinks it shows contact with Alexandrian religious philosophy, Torrey (46 seq.) fails to find anything ‘ hellenistic’ or suggestive of the influence of Greek literature or philosophy.
(4) Ewald has suggested a connexion with the Sibylline books (iii. 293 seq.), where allusion is made to Persian kings inspired by dveavzs to further the restoration of the Temple. This is as little convincing or helpful as the alleged parallel between the questions debated by the Three Pages and the propositions put to the Jewish elders in the Letter of Aristeas. On the other hand, the opening of the story is clearly reminiscent of Est. i. 1-3; ili. 9 seems to be connected with Dan. vi. 2 (Torrey, 48), and several other interesting points of contact with Esther and Daniel have been noticed by Bayer (110 seqq.). Lagarde (AZ7¢thezl. iv. 358) conjectured that the story once followed after Dan. vi.1. It is not improbable that the compiler identified Darius with the Mede in Dan. v. 31 (Hitzig, Reuss), and Biichler (51) further points out that Daniel’s prayer in the first year of Darius (ix.) knows of no earlier return of exiles and may be associated with Z’s story of Zerubbabel, which is placed in the king’s second year. The story contains data which ignore and exclude £& ii. 1~15 (note that Cyrus follows Darius in the book of Daniel). The land is waste and is partly occupied by Edomites who had burned the Temple. Neither exiles nor Temple-vessels had as yet returned, and now for the first time the favour of Persia had been gained and permission was given to return. For some reason Cyrus had been unable to fulfil his vow, and that of Darius is virtually a duplicate. It is, as Ewald (129) trenchantly observes, ‘as if these kings had been in the habit of thinking of the God of Israel and the fate of his people at every critical moment of their lives, and the history of the whole world had strictly hinged in consequence upon the changes of its lot’. Ewald, however, accepts the decree of Cyrus, and this leaves no room for that of Darius, which is as credible, in itself, as that of the other Persian kings. See below, p. 32.
(c) It is very generally agreed that, with the exception of v. 1-6, the section was probably or certainly composed in Greek. But signs of a Hebrew original have been noticed by Schrader, Renan, Ball, and especially Jahn, who offers a Hebrew retranslation (177-88). Torrey (20-25, 37-61) argues for a Hebrew or Aramaic original, on the grounds of internal linguistic features, antecedent probability (viz. the close connexion between v. 1-6 and the end of iv.), and the characteristic interest in the ecclesiastical bodies (iv. 51-56). He notices several ‘Aramaisms’ (e.g. use of τότε, Aram. IN ; ἤρξατο, 4), and concludes that the Story of the Three Pages was in Aramaic, and metrical (p. 47); vv- 43-46 were also in Aramaic, but the sequel in Hebrew (pp. 29 seq., 58). Bayer (123 seqq.) agrees, but urges that the whole of iii. and iv. was in Aramaic. See further Torrey’s retranslation and notes (50 seqq.), and below on iv. 42 seqq. Jos. reproduces the section, with a necessary introduction to account for the presence of Zerubbabel; he seems to have used a slightly different version (Biichler, 57 seqq., 100; see on ili. 3). An abbreviated version is given in the Latin summary published by Lagarde (Sefz. Stud. ii. 16 seqq.; here cited as Lag.), and in Josippon (see Biichler, 59 seqq., 62 seq., 100 seq.). For other witnesses see on iv. 36, 41, 59.
Ill. 3. slept, and awaked: ἐκοιμήθη καὶ ἔξυπνος ἐγένετο, ‘lay down and was sleepless’, cf. ἔξυπνος in mod. Greek ‘wide-awake’ (J. C. Lawson, Jod. Gr. Folklore, p.31). According to Jos. ὃ 35, cf. § 57, the king was restless (cf. Est. vi. 1), and was the first to suggest the orations and to promise and specify rewards. This conflicts with v. ὃ seq., but seems to be hinted at in iv. 42 (πλείω τῶν γεγραμμένων). On the other hand, & does not allow that the suggestion came from the king, who is asleep (vv. 8 seq., 13). Jahn proposes to read évumvos (p. 177); Torrey (24, 50) conjectures that the original Aramaic text read: ‘(v. 3)... Darius... slept. (v. 4) Then stood on the watch (or “bestirred themselves ” \7 p yn) three young guardsmen (who protected the person of the king: a gloss), and fheyssaid ....
5. thing (λόγον), i.e. sentence, as in v. 16.
strongest (ὑπερισχύσει), i.e. shall prevail.
sentence (ῥημα), i.e. argument.
ἢ honours, &c., ἐπινίκια μεγάλα, (τ΄. 6) καὶ πορφύραν περιβαλέσθαι ; Jos. ὃ 35 νικητήριον πορφύραν ἐνδίσασθαι. Cf.
rr ed ~
6 victory: as, to be clothed in purple, to drink in gold, and to sleep upon gold, and a chariot with y 7 bridles of gold, and a keadtire of fine linen, and a chain about his neck: and he shall sit next to — g Darius because of his wisdom, and shall be called Darius his cousin. And then | they wrote every 9 one his sentence, and set to their seals, and laid che writing under king Darius his pillow, and said, When the king is risen, some shall give him the writing ; and of whose side the king and the three princes of Persia shall judge that his sentence is the wisest, to him shall the victory be given, as it is — 10,11,12 written. The first wrote, Wine is the strongest. The second wrote, The king is strongest. The third wrote, Women are strongest: but above all things Truth beareth away the victory. ; 15. Now when the king was risen up, they took the writing, and gave it unto him, and so he read it: 14 and sending forth he called all the princes of Persia and of Media, and the satraps, and the captains, τῷ and the governors, and the chief officers; and sat him down in the royal seat of judgement ; and thee 16 writing was read before them. And he said, Call the young men, and they shall explain their own _ 17 sentences. So they were called, and came in. And they said unto them, Declare unto us your mind concerning the things ye have written. ᾿ 18 Then began the first, who had spoken of the strength of wine, and said thus, O sirs, how exceeding rg strong is wine! it causeth all men to err that drink it: it maketh the mind of the king and of the fatherless child to be all one; of the bondman and of the freeman, of the poor man and of the rich: 20 it turneth also every thought into jollity and mirth, so that a man remembereth neither sorrow nor 21 debt: and it maketh every heart rich, so that a man remembereth neither king nor satrap; and it 22 maketh to speak all things by talents: and when they are in their cups, they forget their love both 23 to friends and brethren, and a little after draw their swords: but when they awake from their wine, 24 they remember not what they have done. sirs, is not wine the strongest, seeing that it enforceth — to do thus? And when he had so spoken, he held his peace. 41,2 Then the second, that had spoken of the strength of the king, began to say, O sirs, do not men 3 excel in strength, that bear rule over the sea and land, and all things in them? But yet is the king stronger: and he is their lord, and hath dominion over them; and in whatsoever he commandeth 4 them they obey him. If he bid them make war the one against the other, they do it: and if he — 5 send them out against the enemies, they go, and overcome mountains, walls, and towers. They slay and are slain, and transgress not the king’s commandment: if they get the victory, they bring 6 all to the king, as well the spoil, as all things else. Likewise for those that are no soldiers, and have not to do with wars, but use husbandry, when they have reaped again that which they had sown, 7 they bring it to the king, and compel one another to pay tribute unto the king. And he is but one 8 man: if he command to kill, they kill; if he command to spare, they spare ; if he command to smite, they smite ; if he command to make desolate, they make desolate ; if he command to build, 9, 10 they build ; if he command to cut down, they cut down; if he command to plant, they plant. So all his people and his armies obey him: furthermore he lieth down, he eateth and drinketh, and
9. some (i.e. they) shall give, δώσουσιν. © dabimus. three princes, cf. Est. i. 14 (G, but MT 7, as in & viii. 11). as it is written, Jahn restores according to his writing. 12. above all things . . . (ὑπὲρ de πάντα . . .), 1.6. * Truth is victor over all’ (Torrey, p. 24, cf. by mys). ‘The third appears to have a double thesis to maintain, thus interfering with the symmetry’ (Lupton). 13. (α΄ ‘writings’, and similarly in v. 15. 14. (ἀπ om. satraps. Cf. Dan. iii. 2 for this list. seat of judgement (χρηματιστηρίῳ), council-chamber (cf. A.V. mg.). 17. they said, & he said, τὸ 305 and the king said. 18. 39. guam (+facile L°; cito Lag.) praewalet (L¢ vincit) vinum omnibus hominibus (3.5 omnes homines) gui bibunt
tllud. 21. speak .. . by talents, Gi‘ + καὶ πάντα διὰ γραμμάτων ποιεῖ ὅταν δὲ πίνωσι. 23. awake, (πὸ ἐγερθῶσιν, (πλ γενηθῶσιν, (τ΄ γένωνται, LS et cum digessertt vinum et surrexerint (Lag. cum a vino {πΕῈῈ| 0 Ὲ} Ὁ τ τὴς IV. 2. that bear . .., rather ‘in bearing rule. . . 3. their lord, (τα lord of all, cf. A.V.; % rex autem super omnia praecellit, U°. . . super fortis est. and hath .. . them, τ΄ om. obey, (πὴ ἐνακούουσιν, Ur" αὐτὸς, ἀκούουσι τοῦ ἑνός, πὸ ποιήσουσιν (cf. L Lag. faciunt); %°om.‘andin... him’. 5. as well the spoil ... (τ καὶ (A+ ὅσα) ἐὰν προνομεύσωσιν καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα (i.e. Sand if they raid— and all else’ [in
like manner]), % they bring to the king whatsoever they spoil. Torrey (52) conjectures a confusion of Aram. 4m ‘take’ and “nw ‘other’.
Ἐξ μεν One mat, ame. eee en: & καὶ αὐτὸς εἰ (r*ab*" εἷς) μόνος ἐστίν, cf. Josh. xxii, 20, Judith i. 11 (so Torrey, 2. who would join Ε words to τ΄. .
8. G& om. fin τ΄. 8 seq. (τὸ om. εἶπεν ἐρημῶσαι ἐρημοῦσι». Cf. generally Dan. v. 19.
ΠΕ ΞΘ ΑΘ Έ τὺ 998
11 taketh his rest ; and these keep watch round about him, neither may any one depart, and do his own
12 business, neither disobey they him zz anything. O sirs, how should not the king be strongest, seeing
that in such sort he is obeyed? And he held his peace. 13. Then the third, who had spoken of women, and of truth, (this was Zorobabel) began to speak.
14 Osirs, is not the king great,and men are many, and wine is strong ? who is it then that ruleth them,
15 or hath the lordship over them? are they not women? Women have borne the king and all the 16 people that bear rule by sea and land. Even of them came they: and they nourished them up that 17 planted the vineyards, from whence the wine cometh. These also make garments for men; these
'18 bring glory unto men ; and without women cannot men be. Yea, and if men have gathered together
old and silver and every other goodly thing, and see a woman which is comely in favour and beauty,
το they let all those things go, and gape after her, and even with open mouth fix their eyes fast on her ; oo and have all more desire unto her than unto gold or silver, or any goodly thing whatsoever. A man
21 leaveth his own father that brought him up, and his own country, and cleaveth unto his wife. And 22 with his wife he endeth his days, and remembereth neither father, nor mother, nor country. By this also ye must know that women have dominion over you: do ye not labour and toil, and give and
“23 bring all to women? Yea, a man taketh his sword, and goeth forth to make outroads, and to rob
24 and to steal, and to sail upon the sea and upon rivers; and looketh upon a lion, and walketh in the 25 darkness ; and when he hath stolen, spoiled, and robbed, he bringeth it to his love. Wherefore a man 26 loveth his wife better than father or mother. Yea, many there be that have run out of their wits for
27 women, and become bondmen for their sakes. Many also have perished, have stumbled, and sinned,
28 for women. And now do ye not believe me? is not the king great in his power? do not all regions
29 fear to touch him ἢ Yet did I see him and Apame the king’s concubine, the daughter of the illus-
30 trious Bartacus, sitting at the right hand of the king, and taking the crown from the king’s head, 31 and setting it upon her own head ; yea, she struck the king with her left hand: and therewithal the king gaped and gazed upon her with open mouth: if she laughed upon him, he laughed also: but if she took any displeasure at him, he was fain to flatter, that she might be reconciled to him again.
32 O sirs, how can it be but women should be strong, seeing they do thus Ὁ
33 Then the king and the nobles looked one upon another: so he began to speak concerning truth. 34 O sirs, are not women strong? great is the earth, high is the heaven, swift is the sun in his course,
for he compasseth the heavens round about, and fetcheth his course again to his own place in one 35 day. Is he not great that maketh these things? therefore great is truth, and stronger than all
13. οὗτός ἐστιν Zop., (α΄ 3:5 5. +the son of Salathiel, Lag. +of the house of David, of the tribe of Judah, cf. v. 5. The identity of the unknown third youth (note v. 58), thus parenthetically introduced, is stated also by τ" in v. 61, by 3. in 33, 43, 58, and by Jos. regularly after iv. 40.
14. isnot ... &' by omitting the negative, makes the statement, and joining the verse on to v. 15, reads ‘have not women borne the king? and all the people . . . land were even of them’.
men are many, or are mighty, see Torrey, 24, 53. From v. 14 seq. Biichler (61 seq.) conjectures that the first and second orations have been transposed ; cf. August. de Civ. Dei, xviii. 36 ‘ quum reges unus dixisset, alter vinum, tertius mulieres,’ &c. 17. garments . . . glory, probably a doublet (Torrey). 18. and see . . ., πὸ do they not love (cf. A.V.). comely ... beauty καλὴν... τῷ κάλλει, an evident sign of translation (Torrey, 53).
21. endeth his days, (ἃ ἀφίησι τὴν ψυχήν ; or ‘loseth his life’ (Ball, who cfs. Gen. xxxv. 18 Gt); otherwise ‘. . . for the sake of (3 misunderstood) his wife’ (Jahn, 178), or ‘abandoneth himself’ (Torrey, 53, cf. 3). Jos. § 52 καὶ ras ψυχὰς ἀφιέναι μετ᾽ αὐτῶν (ἀξιοῦμεν καί, see Niese) καρτεροῦμεν.
23. make outroads, (i®" ἐξοδεύειν (cf. 1 Macc. xv. 41), {πὸ εἰς ἐξοδίαν, LH ‘to waylay’, S ‘to travel’.
and to steal, &&' om.
24. looketh upon (i.e. faces or confronts), Ct θεωρεῖ, © contemnzt, Lag. vedit; Treuenfels conj. θηρεύει, ‘ hunts’.
25. Wherefore, /z¢. ‘and’, similarly in vv. 35 (‘therefore’), 49 (‘moreover ’).
27. stumbled, Gi“ ἐσφάλησαν, (π᾿ ἐσφάγησαν (ct. 38), S ‘ erred’.
29. Isee him and, Torrey, 339 conj. J myself (αὐτός) saw...
the illustrious Bartacus. (& Bapraxov (BA; Βαζακου, L; ραβεζακου, Jos. ; Bezacis, Bezzachi, Lat.; r-b-’-’r-t-k $) τοῦ θαυμαστοῦ (θεμασίου Jos.,? a proper name, cf. Θαμάσιος, Herod. vii. 194). The reference may be to no historical person (Bayer, 116), or to Apame daughter of the satrap Artabazos III, or of the Bactrian satrap Spitamenes ; the former was given to Ptolemy Lagos, the latter to Seleucus Nicator. Thus the story may relate to Egypt or to Antioch, and date from the time of Darius III], Codomannus (c. 300 B.C.). See further, Marq. 65 seq.; Torrey, 40 seqq., 54, 102 ; Josippon (Biichler, 66 n. 2) would make Apame the daughter of Axios (?) the Macedonian.
30. struck, ὑπ ἐράπιζεν, ‘was slapping’.
31. therewithal, (ἃ καὶ πρὸς τούτοις, ‘and moreover’ (Lupton, cf. τ΄. 10), or, ‘and in spite of this’ (Torrey, 25, 54).
33. one upon another, G&® εἷς [repos πρός, A] τὸν ἕτερον ; {π| ἔτ. τῷ ἑτέρῳ (see Torrey, 54 g)-
35. maketh, rather ‘ doeth’; the reference is transferred from the Sun to the Deity (see esp. Jos.).
therefore, καί, rather ‘ but’.
36 things. All the earth calleth upon truth, and the heaven blesseth her: all works shake and tremble, — 37 but with her is no unrighteous thing. Wine is unrighteous, the king is unrighteous, women are
unrighteous, all the children of men are unrighteous, and unrighteous are all such their works; and _ 38 there is no truth in them ; in their unrighteousness also they shall perish. But truth abideth, and 2: 39 is strong for ever; she liveth and conquereth for evermore. With her there is no accepting of
persons or rewards ; but she doeth the things that are just, and vefraineth from all unrighteous and 4o Wicked things ; and all men do well like of her works. Neither in her judgement is any unrighteousness; and she is the strength, and the kingdom, and the power, and the majesty, of all ages. Blessed | be the God of truth. And with that he held his tongue. And all the people then shouted, and said, Ὁ
Great is truth, and strong above all things. : ἢ ὶ it ἧς: 42. Then said the king unto him, Ask what thou wilt more than is appointed in writing, and we will | give it thee, inasmuch as thou art found wisest ; and thou shalt sit next me, and shalt be called my
36. calleth upon, A.V. mg. prazseth the truth, Lag. invocat ; Athanasius, Or. Il. c. Arian. ii. Xx, quotes the passage (‘all . . . tremble’), and argues that if all the earth ‘ praiseth (ὑμνεῖ) the Demiurge and Truth, the former is the Logos. ὴ works, ἔργα, perhaps originally ‘created things’ (Torrey), Lag. guae mouentur trement. ᾿ with her (so Jos.), but ἀζηε (mg.) is a well attested reading and refers to the Deity as in v. 35 (see Torrey, 55). 37. and there is, Torrey (25) conj. ‘if (εἰ) there iS - 2 as 38-40. See Cyprian, 47. Ixxiv., August. de Czvit. Dei, xviii. ch. 36. 38. for evermore, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος, a Semitism. 3 39. rewards, tk® διαφορά (cf, © 3), Ge" διαφθορά; Torrey, 56 ὦ, compares 2 Chron. xix. 7. : ; - and refraineth, similarly G*2£°L Lag.; the text implies a misunderstanding of the comparative particle: ‘things that are just vather than all . . .’ (Fr., Ball, Torrey, 25, 56). i do well like, εὐδοκοῦσι, cf. Matt. iii. 17. Το : 5 ἢ 4o. she, αὕτη ; τ΄ αὐτῆς ‘hers’; read perhaps αὐτῇ ‘to her’ (cf. Lag. 2252). With the doxology cf. 1 Chron. χχῖχ. 11, Blessed . . ., or, since Truth is praised, restore ‘blessed of God be Truth’ (Torrey, 56). ; ig 41. Ge Μεγάλη ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ὑπερισχύει ; @ magna est veritas et praevalet (1° + omnibus). There is no good authority for the erroneous /raevalebit. Jos. ignores the saying. Cyprian (22. lxxiv. 9) quotes it as veritas manet et tnvalescet. August. (de Civ. Dei, xviii. 36) refers to this passage as a prophecy of Christ. See further, for citations, Pohlmann, | 3 The appendix on Truth (wv. 33-41) does not seem to be part of the original story ; one may perhaps compare the various embellishments in the story of Ahikar. André (192) points out parallels in the praise of Wisdom and refers to Wisd. iii. 9, where Truth has a deeper mystical signification as though synonymous with the God of Truth. my The decree of Darius and the return of Zerubbabel, iv. 42-ν. 6. (a) The vow of Darius practically duplicates that | of Cyrus, and both kings are curiously associated with the capture of Babylon in Jos. x. 11 4. That Cyrus was unable ὦ to fulfil his vow need not imply, as Biichler supposes, the existence of some specific tradition; it may be merely an attempt to justify this story of Darius, see /¢/vod. p. 16. [ἢ any case the return of exiles under Zerubbabel in the reign of Darius (vy. 6) is complicated by the references in v. 7 seqq. (E ii. seq.) to that of Cyrus. Since ii, I-15 seemstobe | incomplete, it has been urged that the gap between Ei. and ii. may be filled, partly at least, by Z v. 1-6, reading Cyrus | for Darius in τ΄. 2 and adjusting or omitting v. 6 (see Ewald, 86; the comm. of Bertheau and Ryssel; Sellin, Stud., ὦ 112 seq.; Davies, 49 seq.). Against this see Schrader, 482 n. ὁ. It is otherwise held that v. 1-6 refer to a return, perhaps under Joakim (see v. 5), in the reign of Darius (De Saulcy and Kaulen [so Nikel, 52, 126]; Schrader; Reuss; Ryle, 15; André, 137-40). But it has been shown by Schrader (/oc. ct.) and Torrey that this passage cannot be severed from the close of iv, and that both are of Semitic origin. The relationship between E i. and Z& iv. v. 1-6, 7 seqq. (E ii.) thus becomes more difficult, and Torrey (followed by Kent) would treat the Story of the Three Youths as an (Aramaic) interpolation in the (Hebrew) history of the time of Cyrus. Hence iv. 43-7, 57-61, and v. 6a are regarded as redactional, linking the interpolated Darius story with the main narrative. The latter thus comprises | and in v. 6 reading only ‘in the second year of the reign of Cyrus, king of Persia, in the month . . .’); see Torrey, | earlier stage than the MT, but still furnishes a narrative, which both scholars regard as unhistorical, and which has been expanded by transferring E iv. 7 seqq. from its incorrect position before the reign of Darius to one equally | _ incorrect in £ ii. 16 seqq. q (ὁ) Although the effort has been made to link together traditions of Cyrus and Darius, the interpolation-hypothesis | brings fresh difficulties. The Story of the Three Pages (iii. 1-iv. 41), whatever its true origin and form, can only | have been used because of its sequel. True, it could only have been inserted here, but a compiler was under no obligation to insert it, and the exhibition of rhetorical skill evidently served his purpose. The royal favour once | obtained is turned to good account (cf. Est. v.), and unless the story had been already connected with Jewish history | it is difficult to explain its presence. Only the fact that it deals with Darius and not Cyrus explains its survival, and | the confusion arising from the effort to combine it with the history of the exiles is evidence of deliberate method. On | these grounds, then, we have a bona-fide tradition—not necessarily a valuable one—of a return in the reign of Darius. | Hence it is that ii. 16 seqq. seek to explain the delay between the time of Cyrus (who belongs to the past, ii. 30, iii. 1, | iv. 44, 57) and that of Darius, and that Darius is represented partly as initiating (iv. 43, 47-56) and partly as endorsing ὦ (iv. 44, 57, see vi. 34) the return of the Jews. The whole is the result of a compromise. iv. 43-6 (Aramaic, | Torrey, 29 ἢ. 13) and 57-61 (Hebrew, zd. 59) bear no resemblance to redactional patches (against Torrey, 57 seqq.). They actually being new details (the valuable v. 45), and vv. 44, 57, by ignoring the return of the vessels in ii. 10-15, | link conflicting traditions, but do not link an otherwise unnecessary interpolation with the tradition which runs through | ἘΠῚ. τη], Besides, it is not clear that the gap between E i. and ii. is filled by Torrey’s restoration (see Bayer, 134) or Ϊ that the attempt to fill it is (in view of the development of the Cyrus-tradition) at all necessary. It may be concluded, |
43 cousin. Then said he unto the king, Remember thy vow, which thou didst vow to build Jerusalem, 44 in the day when thou camest to thy kingdom, and to send away all the vessels that were taken out of Jerusalem, which Cyrus set apart, when he vowed to destroy Babylon, and vowed to send them 45 again thither. Thou didst also vow to build up the temple, which the Edomites burned when Judea 46 was made desolate by the Chaldeans. And now, O lord the king, this is that which I require, and which I desire of thee, and this is the princely liberality that shall proceed from thee: I pray therefore that thou make good the vow, the performance whereof thou hast vowed to the King of heaven with thine own mouth. 47 Then Darius the king stood up, and kissed him, and wrote letters for him unto all the treasurers and governors and captains and satraps, that they should safely bring on their way both him, and 48 all those that should go up with him to build Jerusalem. He wrote letters also unto all the governors that were in Ccelesyria and Pheenicia, and unto them in Libanus, that they should bring 49 cedar wood from Libanus unto Jerusalem, and that they should build the city with him. Moreover he wrote for all the Jews that should go out of his realm up into Jewry, concerning their freedom, 50 that no officer, no governor, no satrap, nor treasurer, should forcibly enter into their doors; and that all the country which they occupied should be free to them without tribute; and that the Edomites 51 should give over the villages of the Jews which then they held: and that there should be yearly 52 given twenty talents to the building of the temple, until the time that it were built; and other ten talents yearly, for burnt offerings to be presented upon the altar every day, as they had a command- 53 ment to offer seventeen: and that all they that should come from Babylonia to build the city should 54 have their freedom, as well they as their posterity, and all the priests that came. He wrote also 20 55 give them their charges, and the priests’ vestments wherein they minister; and for the Levites he wrote that their charges should be given them until the day that the house were finished, and 57 Jerusalem builded up. And he commanded to give to all that kept the city lands and wages. He sent away also all the vessels from Babylon, that Cyrus had set apart; and all that Cyrus had given in commandment, the same charged he also to be done, and sent unto Jerusalem. 38 Now when this young man was gone forth, he lifted up his face to heaven toward Jerusalem, and 59 praised the King of heaven, and said, From thee cometh victory, from thee cometh wisdom, and 30 thine is the glory, and I am thyservant. Blessed art thou, who hast given me wisdom: and to thee 11 give thanks, O Lord of our fathers. And so he took the letters, and went out, and came unto 2 Babylon, and told it all his brethren. And they praised the God of their fathers, because he had
therefore, that Z iii. 1-v. 6 furnish a distinctive tradition of some return in the reign of Darius in accordance with his decree in vv. 48-56. See further on vi. seq. On the text of iv. 42 seqq., see especially Torrey, 125 seqq. 43. Remember, ἀπ΄ + O king. 44. he vowed . . . Babylon, S$ om.; Gaab (see Fr.) and Torrey conj. ‘when he began’ (ἤρξατο) ; @ cum excideret (desolavit) B. Jos. ὃ 58 omits all reference to Cyrus—‘ the vessels which Neb., having pillaged, carried to B.’ 45. Edomites, cf. viii. 69. (τὴ Ἰουδαῖοι ; 3 Lag. ‘. . Chaldei cum desolata esset Iudea.’ Fr. cites MS. 44: ... ἐνεπύρισε NaB. See Jntrod.§ 5 /. 46. O lord the king, cf. Dan. iv. 24. and this is the . . .; ‘and since such munificence is thine’ (Torrey, 29 ἢ. 13). the vow ... vowed, lit. ‘the vow which thou didst vow.’ 47. letters, lit. ‘the letters’, viz. which he desired. The reference is naturally to Darius and Zerubbabel ; but on the theory that the story is an interpolation, Cyrus writes for Sheshbazzar (Torrey, Kent). 48. The grant of wood; see v. 55. 49. enter ... doors. According to Jos. § 61 the royal taxes are remitted, cf. E vii. 24. 50. Edomites (τ Chaldeans). Jos. adds the Samaritans and people of Coelesyria. 51. twenty talents, ὑπ S + ‘of silver’. Jos. reads ‘fifty’, but omits the numbers in v. 52.
temple, τὸ ἱερόν, probably onbsa n’.; for bon Ε usually has vads. 52. and other . . . yearly, #5 at end of verse, perhaps rightly. seventeen should probably be omitted (Lupton, 69; Torrey, 127).
53. The reference to freedom seems out of place, see Biichler, 98 seq., who joins the last words (‘and for all the
54. to give them, cf. {π΄ δοθῆναι.
charges, χορηγία. Inv. 55, Jos. ὃ 62 has ‘for the Levites, the musical instruments (τὰ ὄργανα) wherewith they praise God’. With the interest in the Levites, cf. E vii. 24, and especially N xi. 23.
56. kept (φρουροῦσι) the city ; Jos. + ‘and the temple’; on his paraphrase of the verse, see Bichler, 99 n. 3.
58. toward Jerusalem, cf. Dan. vi. 10, Tob. iii. 11 seq. With the prayer cf. E vii. 27, Dan. il. 19, 20, 23.
59. Ge" ‘counsel (βουλή) and wisdom and victory, and thine is the glory’; so 3:5. transposing ‘wisdom’ and ‘victory’. Origen, Hom. ix. in Iosuam, quotes from ‘Esdras’: ‘a te Domine est victoria et ego servus tuus, benedictus es Deus veritatis’ (cf. v. 40).
60. give thanks, rather ‘ praise’.
Espras I ESDRAS 4. 63—5. 7
63 given them freedom and liberty to go up, and to build Jerusalem, and the temple which is called by | his name: and they feasted with instruments of music and gladness seven days. Et ᾿ “5. 5. After this were the chiefs of fathers’ houses chosen to go up according to their tribes, with their 2 wives and sons and daughters, with their menservants and maidservants, and their cattle. And ~
Darius sent with them a thousand horsemen, till they had brought them back to Jerusalem safely, 3 and with musical instruments, tabrets and flutes. And all their brethren played, and he made them
go up together with them. : ; ΗΓ ; 4 And these are the names of the men which went up, according to their families amongst their 5 tribes, after their several divisions. The priests, the sons of Phinees, the sons of Aaron: Jesus the son of Josedek, the son of Saraias, and Joakim the son of Zorobabel, the son of Salathiel, of the 6 house of David, of the lineage of Phares, of the tribe of Judah ; who spake wise sentences before Darius the king of Persia in the second year of his reign, in the month Nisan, which is the first
month. ‘A 7 And these are they of Jewry that came up | Now these are the children of the province, 2
63. which is called... (τ οὗ ὠνομάσθη τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ em αὐτῷ ; a Hebraism, cf. 2 Chron. vi. 33, vii. 14, Z vi. 33. | : feasted, Jos. ὃ 66 τὴν ἀνάκτησιν καὶ παλιγγενεσίαν τῆς πατρίδος ἑορτάζοντες.
V. 2. brought .. . back, ὅτι ἀποκαταστῆσαι, (π΄ ἀποκατασκηνῶσαι. f: : safely, mg. w7th peace, a literal rendering in the Greek of the Hebrew term. For the escort, cf. E viii. 22, © 3. Aga all. . ., @ MSS. nos. 55, 58 omit ‘and’; the brethren were naturally the musicians, cf. v. 42 below. nm} he made . .., (= ‘they’. Restore perhaps (after Torrey, 130) ‘ played and were sending them (on their way) i as they went up’. Cf. Jos., and possibly (so Lupton) Tertullian, De Cor. 2711. ix. ‘facilius cum tympanis et tiblis | et psalteriis revertens de captivitate Babyloniae quam cum coronis’, &c. 4. Cf. viii. 28; the ¢vzéa/ arrangement also recalls E’s twelve lay-families. ; as 5. Read ‘of the priests’ (Torrey, 131), cf. E viii. 2, where also priests are mentioned first (cf. E iii. 2, but contrast | Ina Spies OE : ΠΕ (Phinehas), the son (Gx 55) + of Eleazar the son of Aaron (ki). het ; and Joakim the son of Z. (k" ὁ καὶ Z., thus identifying, cf. Zer. and Sheshbazzar in vi. 18. This genealogy Ἵ conflicts with that of Zerubbabel in 1 Chron. iii. 19 seqq., and Joakim the priest was the son of Jeshua (N xii. 10, 26). | Some (e.g. Fr., Reuss) accept Joakim as the original hero of the story in ili. seq. and as the leader of a return in the Ἵ reign of Darius. Biichler (56) would read ‘and Zer. the son of Shealtiel the son of Joakim’ (i.e. the king), | corresponding to Jeshua the grandson of the priest Seraiah. Similarly Bayer (121 seq.) who also reads ‘ Jeshua the i son... of Seraiah, the son of Phinehas, the son of Aaron the priest’. Torrey (131) suggests ‘and there rose up | with him Zer.’ (12 DP”, cf. ii. 8). This is attractive but seems rather abrupt. The analogy of E viii. 2 would suggest | the presence of priestly and Davidic representatives. Such is the confusion, however, in the history of the return that || ‘Joakim the son of’ may conceivably be an insertion on the view that Zer. (identified with Sheshbazzar) had already | led a return in the time of Cyrus. On the intricacies see /tvod. p. 15 seq. ἢ 6. which is. . ., rather ‘on the first of the month’ (Fr.; Jahn; Torrey, 27, 61). The date is properly not that when Zer. gained the king’s ear (cf. N ii. 1, also the first month), but of the departure (see Z viii. 6), and, although it conflicts with v. 57, the mention of the year is presupposed by the reference in v. 47. Note the care to give dates)
The Register of the Return. v. 7-46 = E ii, N vii. 6-73; Jos. xi. 3 10 merely gives a brief summary. This list) is the foundation-stone of the canonical post-exilic history, its authenticity a matter of keen dispute among those who have investigated this period, its essential trustworthiness accepted even by those who reject almost all that) remains for the time of Cyrus (£ 1.--ἶν. 5). Its problems involve the entire structure of E-N. It is the list of those’ who returned ‘every man to his own city’ (Z v. 8), thus connecting in the most realistic manner the large community, (the £aha/) which returned to the land of their ancestors with the pre-exilic population. It is no less closely connected) with subsequent events in E—-N; note the families in Ezra’s band several decades later (see on £ viii. 28-40), the] enumeration in Z ix. 21 seqq., the signatories of the covenant (N x.), and the various lists in N xii. As a whole the list may be likened to the register of the children of Israel before the Exodus (Gen. xlvi. 8-27) and after the settlement
As a Register of the Return it ignores both the many Jews who had never left Palestine or who may have fled) (perhaps temporarily) into Egypt, and the South Judaean families who had moved northwards into the neighbourhood, of Jerusalem (1 Chron. ii.). Confining itself to the deportation by Nebuchadrezzar it ignores other returns (on the! assumption that Zech. vi. 9 seq. do not represent an isolated occurrence). It implies the possibility of a very easy) settlement by the exiles among the people of the land (contrast the tradition in Z iv. 50); and the manifest improbabilit that the families could return after many years each to its old abode cannot be explained away (with Meyer, 151, and) others) in view of the explicit statements in v. 46 seq. Moreover, the list includes the common people (see 2 Kings) xxiv. 14-16), numbers Zerubbabel alone among the Davidic descendants, and apparently excludes guilds of artisans (2 Kings, /.c.). Although the numbers (v. 41) have been skilfully defended, considerable perplexity is caused by the place-names enumerated (see Elhorst, 77. 7. xxix, 97 seq.; Kosters ib. xxx, 499 seq., xxxi, 531; Nikel, 57 seq.) W hether the list enumerates families carried off at the exile or applies to the new settlers—and those who accept the list are divided on this very important question—it is very difficult to account for the absence of some places (Nikel. 54 seq.) and the presence of others (Meyer, 105 seqq., 190). Moreover, the list implies a careful retention of the various local origins and divisions of the ecclesiastical and lay families during the years of exile, although once ir Palestine there are, as is to be expected, continual changes and developments (Kosters, 5 Δ. col. 1483, ὃ 8). Ne doubt some of the personal names are old, but it is improbable that such family-names as Jeshua, Pahath-moab, Elam. Bigvai (better Bagoi £ v.14), and Aspadath (Z£ Aspharasus v. 8) are of pre-exilic date. It also assumes the existence —
- 9 Reelias, Roimus, avd Baana, their leaders.
from the captivity, where they dwelt as strangers, whom Nabuchodonosor the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon.
8 And they returned unto Jerusalem, and to the other parts of Jewry, every man to his own city, who came with Zorobabel, with Jesus, Nehemias, avd Zaraias, Resaias, Eneneus, Mardocheus, Beelsarus, Aspharasus,
number of them of the nation, and their leaders : the sons of Phoros, two thousand a hundred seventy and two: the sons of Saphat, four το hundred seventy and two: the sons of Ares,
11 seven hundred fifty and six: the sons of Phaath
Moab, of the sons of Jesus and Joab, two thousand eight hundred and twelve:
12 the sons of
Elam, a thousand two hundred fifty and four:
the sons of Zathui, nine hundred forty and five:
13 the sons of Chorbe, seven hundred and five: the
sons of Bani, six hundred forty and eight: the sons of Bebai, six hundred twenty and three:
I ESDRAS δ. 7-13
that went up out of the captivity of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and that returned unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city; which came with 2 Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanah. The number of the men of the people of Israel;
the children of Parosh, two thousand 3 an hundred seventy and two.
The children of 4 Shephatiah, three hundred seventy and two. The children of Arah, seven hundred seventy 5 and five. The children of Pahath-moab, of the 6 children of Jeshua axzd Joab, two thousand eight hundred and twelve. The children of Elam, a 7 thousand two hundred fifty and four. The children of Zattu, nine hundred forty and five. The children of Zaccai, seven hundred and threescore. The children of Bani, six hundred forty and two. The children of Bebai, six hundred twenty and
Φ οὐ
of trustworthy genealogies (v. 37 seqq.) which apparently were not preserved at Babylon, but were cherished by the natives of Judah. Such lists as are incorporated in Chron. (especially 1 Chron. xxiv., which has several points of resemblance with the E-N lists) are on critical grounds practically valueless for the pre-exilic age, and it is necessary, therefore, to suppose that—if the great list is genuine—the older genealogical records have disappeared (see Meyer, 140, 160 seqq.). On the other hand, one important list which vitally conflicts with this is preserved in Neh. iil, and, as Ed. Meyer was the first to observe, testifies to the prominence of an indigenous population, secular and ecclesiastical, wherein the presence of the South Judaean groups may be recognized. But that list testifies also to the weakness of any body of Babylonian exiles; see Zztrod. § 5 (c).
While this list forms the backbone of the biblical post-exilic history and is in a context where the events are closely interconnected (viz. the generous decree, the great return, the steps to reorganize religious conditions), the evidence of Haggai and Zechariah (520 B.C.) renders the whole context untrustworthy (so even Meyer, pp. 49, 73; 98 seq., 191). These prophets ignore the presence of this great community (see /v¢rod. § 4. [1.}, and the successful Opposition as described in Z v. 66 seqq. ‘shows how small a number had really returned’ (G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, ii, 298 seq.). Certain considerations might support the genuineness of the list and its context (see Davies, 14, 80 ; Torrey, 144), but the weight of evidence, and the recognition that the list has been subsequently ‘edited’ (Holzhey, 15 ; Davies, 51), or may comprise the result of several returns between 538 and 520 or 516 (Sellin, Sev. 7, Stud. 42, 108 564.» 115, 158), indicate that whatever return or returns took place the list and the context describe events in such a way that the historical facts cannot be recovered by any internal criticism of the narratives.
The list appears in the account of Nehemiah (c. 444) where it is treated as that of ‘the children of the province’, and should incorporate those native families who had separated from the heathen (£ vii. 6. 13); see /ntrod. p. 9. On internal grounds N vii. (not necessarily in its present form) appears to be its earlier form, and it is noteworthy that Z and to a greater extent E show traces of some adjustment of the list to the history before the building of the Temple (see below). On the minutiae of the list, see Smend (who notes frequent agreement with N, so also Bayer, 38) ; -} Moulton, ZA TVW, xix, 246 seq.; Meyer, 141 seqq., and Bayer, 42 seqq., and, besides the comm., the several articles in _| £ Bi, The readings in the R.V. mg., with the identifications of the more difficult names, have been omitted in the
notes here and in the other lists, viii. 29 seqq., ix. 19 seqq., &c.
7. captivity .. ., ( τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας τῆς παροικίας (π΄ ἀποικεσίας). 8. The leaders are twelve in number (cf. the tribes, and see on v. 4) through the insertion of Eneneus (= Nahamani
N vii. 7). N@ reads ‘who came with Zer. and Jeshua and Neh.: Azariah . . . Mispereth, Ezra, Bigvai . . . Baanah,
Masphar’; cf. the old view that the return of Zer. was contemporary with that of N or E (see /ztrod. p. 10 a).
Among the important variants are E Zaraias (E Seraiah, N Azariah); Resaias (E Reelaiah, N Raamiah, see
| £ Bi., 3997); Beelsarus (EN Bilshan, see E Bi., 574); Aspharasus (? Pers. Aspadata; Marq. 35); Meedias (i.e. | Reelaiah, EN Bigvaz); Roimus (E Rehum, N Nehum =" in E). Jos. xi. 3 § 73 seq. mentions besides Zer. and
Jeshua two names of prominent donors (see v. 44 seq.), Mordecai (see on vii. 15) and Sherebiah.
9-23. The lay-families. £15 seq. add Klan (? Keilah), Azetas (? Azekah), Azarw or Azuru (cf. Asara v. 31, or
Azur N x. 17), Annis or Annias (cf. Hananiah, or Hodiah N x. 18). For Avom cf. Harim, E 32 (wanting in £, ἢ unless Chorbe v. 12 represents it and not Zaccaz; see N x. 14) or Hashum (E 19 before Gibdar [see below]; N x. 18 | before Bezaz [E Bassai]). On these additions see also Bayer, 43 seqq.. 75. For the compound Arszphurith, cf. Jorah s E 18 = Hariph N vii. 24 (Gr8+‘the children of Asen’), x. 19. Baztferus (note the number) takes the place of
Gibbar (E) or Gzbeon (N); cf. perhaps Bether, Josh. xv. 19 € and see Guthe, SSO7. With the Chadiasat, cf. perhaps
Hadashah, Josh. xv. 37, or Adasa, 1 Macc. vii. 40; and with the Aidéoi, perhaps Modin, 1 Macc. ii. 1, or Migdal- ) Gad, or Middin (Ball); Bayer (45 seq.) discovers the names Hashum and Hodijah. In v. 21 Ai is wanting, and if | Niphish represents Magbish (E only, cf. Magpiash N x. 20), the men of Nebo, the other Elam (cf. E 31) and Harim
(see E 39, £ 25) are absent. Calantolalus (Gx* -calus) and Onus represent Lod, Hadid and Ano.
the sons of Astad, a thousand three hundred 14 twenty and two: the sons of Adonikam, six hundred sixty and seven: the sons of Bagoi, two thousand sixty and six: the sons of Adinu, four 15 hundred fifty and four: the sons of Ater, of Ezekias, ninety and two: the sons of Kilan and Azetas, threescore and seven: the sons of Azaru, 16 four hundred thirty and two: the sons of Annis, a hundred and one: the sons of Arom: the sons of Bassai, three hundred twenty and three: the 17 sons of Arsiphurith, a hundred and twelve: the sons of Baiterus, three thousand and five: the sons of Bethlomon, a hundred twenty and three: 18 they of Netophas, fifty and five: they of Anathoth, a hundred fifty and eight: they of Bethas- 19 moth, forty and two: they of Kariathiarius, twenty and five: they of Caphira and Beroth, 20 seven hundred forty and three: the Chadiasiai and Ammidioi, four hundred twenty and two: they of Kirama and Gabbe, six hundred twenty 21 and one: they of Macalon, a hundred twenty and two: they of Betolion, fifty and two: the sons of Niphis, a hundred fifty and six:
22 the sons of Calamolalus and Onus, seven hundred twenty 23 and five: the sons of Jerechu, three hundred 24 forty and five: the sons of Sanaas, three thousand three hundred and thirty. The priests: the sons of Jeddu, the son of Jesus, among the sons of Sanasib, nine hundred seventy and two: the sons of Emmeruth,a thousand fifty and two: 25 the sons of Phassurus, a thousand two hundred forty and seven: the sons of Charme, a thousand and seventeen. 26 The Levites: the sons of Jesus, and Kadmiel, and Bannas, and Sudias, seventy 27 and four. The holy singers: the sons of Asaph, 28 a hundred twenty and eight. The porters: the sons of Salum, the sons of Atar, the sons of Tolman, the sons of Dacubi, the sons of Ateta, the sons of Sabi, in all a hundred thirty and nine.
29 The temple-servants: the sons of Esau, the sons of Asipha, the sons of Tabaoth, the sons of Keras, the sons of Sua, the sons of Phaleas, the
three. The children of Azgad, a thousand two 1: hundred twenty and two. The children of 1: Adonikam, six hundred sixty and six. The! children of Bigvai, two thousand fifty and six, | The children of Adin, four hundred fifty and τῇ four. The children of Ater, of Hezekiah, ninety I) and eight. |
The children of Bezai, three hundred 1 twenty and three. The children of Jorah, ant hundred and twelve. The children of Hashum, 1 two hundred twenty and three. The children of 2) Gibbar, ninety and five. The children of Beth- 2) lehem, an hundred twenty and three. The men 2_ of Netophah, fifty and six. The men of Ana- 2) thoth, an hundred twenty and eight. The chil- 2. dren of Azmaveth, forty and two. The children 2) of Kiriath-arim, Chephirah, and Beeroth, seven | hundred and forty and three. The children of 2 Ramah and Geba, six hundred twenty and one. — The men of Michmas, an hundred twenty and τὸ two. The men of Beth-el and Ai, two hundred < twenty and three. The children of Nebo, fifty + and two. The children of Magbish, an hundred ¢ fifty and six. The children of the other Elam, τ a thousand two hundred fifty and four. The children of Harim, three hundred and twenty. The children of Lod, Hadid, and Ono, seven ; hundred twenty and five. The children of: Jericho, three hundred forty and five. The | children of Senaah, three thousand and six | hundred and thirty. The priests: the children | of Jedaiah, of the house of Jeshua, nine hundred seventy and three. d
The children of Immer, a thousand fifty and two, The children of Pashhur, | a thousand two hundred forty and seven. The. children of Harim, a thousand and seventeen. | The Levites: the children of Jeshua and Kadmiel, of the children of Hodaviah, seventy and’ four. The singers: the children of Asaph, an) hundred twenty and eight. The children of the porters: the children of Shallum, the children of Ater, the children of Talmon, the children of Akkub, the children of Hatita, the children of Shobai, in all an hundred thirty and nine.’ The Nethinim: the children of Ziha, the children of Hasupha, the children of Tabbaoth ; the chil-/ dren of Keros, the children of Siaha, the children,
24 seq. The priests. The family of Jedaiah is ascribed to Sanasib (1° Enassibe) i.e. Eliashib, grandson of Jeshua and grandfather of Jaddua (N xii. 10-12); Meyer, 169; Batten, SBOZ,59. The omission of Eliashib in EN is more] explicable (in view of the foreign alliance in N xiii. 4, 28) than its presence in Z. The reference to Jeshua may be due to insertion. Apart from this, it is noteworthy that there is little variation in the versions, perhaps an indication of the lateness of the list of the priests (SBOT Joc. cit.).
26. The Levites. As regards the small number, it may be noticed that certain Levitical families, at all events) appear not to have been deported, so Henadad (see v. 58), and also the Korahites (Meyer, Jsvae/., 352 ἢ. 5), see Meyer, Ent. 167, 177, Nikel, 86 (from another standpoint), and /wtrod. § 5 (c).
29 seqq. The Nethinim. £ (but not Gk‘, which is as usual corrected after the MT) adds U¢a (? cf. Uthai, E viii. 14}} Ketab (or Ketam, cf. N vii. 48 Ui, and see Torrey, 89 seq., Bayer, 52), Chaseba (Ὁ cf. Chezib, Cozbi), Asara (see Azar, — τ. 15, and cf. Hasrah, 2 Chron. xxxiv. 22), Pharakim (see E Bi., 3686) and (μέλα (? cf. the Cuthaeans, or, with Bayer
| 35 the sons of Allon.
a a SP
1)0 Zorzelleus, and was called after his name.
i ee ee ee a να
30 sons of Labana, the sons of Aggaba, the sons of Acud, the sons of Uta, the sons of Ketab, the sons of Accaba, the sons of Subai, the:sons of Anan, the sons of Cathua, the sons of Geddur, the sons of Jairus, the sons of Daisan, the sons of Noeba, the sons of Chaseba, the sons of Gazera, the sons of Ozias, the sons of Phinoe, the sons of Asara, the sons of Basthai, the sons of Asana, the sons of Maani, the sons of Naphisi,
the sons of Acub, the sons of Achipha, the sons of Asur,
32 the sons of Pharakim, the sons of Basaloth, the
sons of Meedda, the sons of Cutha, the sons of Charea, the sons of Barchus, the sons of Serar, the sons of Thomei, the sons of Nasi, the sons of Atipha. 3 The sons of the servants of Solomon: the sons of Assaphioth, the sons of Pharida, sons of Jeeli, the sons of Lozon, the sons of 34 Isdael, the sons of Saphuthi, the sons of Agia, - the sons of Phacareth, the sons of Sabie, the sons of Sarothie, the sons of Masias, the sons of Gas, the sons of Addus, the-sons of Subas, the sons of Apherra, the sons of Barodis, the sons of Saphat, All the temple-servants, and the sons of the servants of Solomon, were three 36 hundred seventy and two. These came up from Thermeleth, and Thelersas, Charaathalan lead- 37 ing them, and Allar; and they could not shew their families, nor their stock, how they were of Israel: the sons of Dalan the son of Ban, the sons of Nekodan, six hundred fifty and two. 38 And of the priests, they that usurped the office of the priesthood and were not found: the sons of Obdia, the sons of Akkos, the sons of Jaddus, who married Augia one of the daughters of when the description of the kindred of these men was sought in the register, and was not found, they were removed from executing the office of othe priesthood: for unto them said Nehemias and Attharias, that they should not be partakers
33 seq. Servants of Solomon.
of Padon ; the children of Lebanah, the children 45 of Hagabah, the children of Akkub; the children 46 of Hagab, the children of Shamlai, the children of Hanan; the children of Giddel, the children of 47 Gahar, the children’ of Reaiah; the children of 48 Rezin, the children of Nekoda, the children of Gazzam ; the children of Uzza, the children of 49 Paseah, the children of Besai; the children of 50 Asnah, the children of Meunim, the children of Nephisim; the children of Bakbuk, the children 51 of Hakupha, the children of Harhur; the children of Bazluth, the children of Mehida, the children of Harsha;
the children of Barkos, the children of Sisera, the children of Temah; the 54 children of Neziah, the children of Hatipha. The children of Solomon’s servants: the children 55 of Sotai, the children of Hassophereth, the children of Peruda; the children of Jaalah, the children of Darkon, the children of Giddel ; the children of Shephatiah, the children of Hattil, the children of Pochereth-hazzebaim, the children of Ami.
o1od1r
All the Nethinim, and the chil- 58 dren of Solomon’s servants, were three hundred ninety and two. And these were they which 5 went up from Tel-melah, Tel-harsha, Cherub, Addan, axd Immer: but they could not shew their fathers’ houses, and their seed, whether they were of Israel: the children of Delaiah, the 60 children of Tobiah, the children of Nekoda, six hundred fifty and two. And of the children of 61 the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Hakkoz, the children of Barzillai, which took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name. These sought 62 their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they deemed polluted and put from the priesthood. And the Tirshatha said unto 63 them, that they should not eat of the most holy
E (but not G) omits Sofaz, severs (with (ἃ of E-N) Pochereth-hazzebaim, and
between the latter and Amz (E; N Avion, E Allon) inserts eight names, on which see & δ.
WNT (NW) “head, leader’; but see v. 8 end. the addition of Bova, EGx®, NG.
was evidently doubtful.
36. See the comm. Leading is apparently based upon a doublet of Ze/-harsha (NWN), as though connected with
37. Dalan, (5 acuvy, MT Delaiah. Bax, marg. Baenan (&*), but MT Tobiah (? cf. N vi. 17 seq., xiil. 4), though with Nekoda(n), cf. v. 31.(E Noeba).
_ 38. And of the priests (similarly N 63), they that claimed .. . G® Obbeia, N Hobaiah. The family of Hakkoz, according to the traditional view, had been legitimate (1 Chron. xxiv. 10), was now deposed, but was subsequently reinstated and held a prominent place (N 11]. 4, 21, E viil. 33). this list is of the time of Zerubbabel we must explain the retention of the name in N vii. 63 and its omission in N x., xi. (cf. Kosters, 7%. 7., xxxi, 539). The passage has not the value set upon it (notably by Meyer, 170, who compares the Calebite Kos, 1 Chron. iv. 8; see also Jampel i, 313), but only shows that at some period the legitimacy of the family
Obdia,
(οἱ ἐμποιούμενοι [Ck" μεταποι.} ἱερωσύνης).
_ the sons of Jaddus, apparently Jaddua; note the variant text in E. 40. Attharias, i.e. the Tirshatha (cf. ix. 49). The verb (εἶπεν) is in the singular and ὑπ" (see A.V. mg.) identifies the two. (ὁ reads only Nehemiah, and MT only the Zirshatha (cf. the variants in £ ix. 49).
Even if the identification
| be due to a gloss (Fr., cf. Bayer, 53) it must serve a purpose (as in iv. 13, vi. 18), and it is only intelligible if the list | belonged originally to the history of N’s age (see W. R. Smith, Excy. 4rit., oth ed., art. ‘ Haggai’, xi, 370; Harvey, _ Expos., 1893, vii. p. 440; Howorth, PS BA, xxiii, 309 seq.). The mitigated form of the decision in the MT is probably
of the holy things, till there arose up a_ high | 41 priest wearing Urim and Thummim. So all |
they of Israel, from twelve years old and up-—
ward, beside menservants and womenservants, | were in number forty and two thousand three |
42 hundred and sixty. Their menservants and |
handmaids were seven thousand three hundred |
thirty and seven: the minstrels and singers, two | hundred forty and five:
43 four hundred thirty and five camels, seven thousand thirty and six horses, | two hundred forty and five mules, five thousand | five hundred twenty and five beasts of burden.
44 And certain of the chief men of their families, |
when they came to the temple of God that is in
Jerusalem, vowed to set up the house again in 45 its own place according to their ability, and to
give into the holy treasury of the works a thou-
sand pounds of gold, five thousand of silver, and
a hundred priestly vestments.
46 And the priests
and the Levites and they that were of the people |
dwelt in Jerusalem and the country; the holy singers also and the porters and all Israel in their villages.
But when the seventh month was at hand, and when the children of Israel were every man | in his own place, they came all together with one consent into the broad place before the first 48 porch which is toward the east. Then stood up |
Jesus the son of Josedek, and his brethren the
priests, and Zorobabel the son of Salathiel, and
his brethren, and made ready the altar of the
49 God of Israel, to offer burnt sacrifices upon it,
according as it is expressly commanded in the |
less original (Guthe, Bertholet, Jahn); instead of being removed, the priests are forbidden to share in the most holy
things, which were restricted to the Aaronites. 41. For the age-limit (also in Jos.) cf. Luke ii. 42. 42. For the minstrels cf. v. 2 seq., and see Meyer, 192.
43. The horses and mules are wanting in good MSS. of N.
44 seq. £ and E omit N vii. 70, which reters vaguely to the donations of the heads ‘to the work’ and mentions the gifts of the Tirshatha (i.e. Nehemiah, so G*), and also ib. 72, the gifts of the rest of the people, although the priestly garments are recorded. The emphasis upon the proposed building of the temple, natural in EE, is wanting in N, although the record there professes to be taken from the history of the time of Zerubbabel (N vii. 5). that ZE represent a less original form of the passage, see Meyer, 195; Wellh., GGA, 1895, p. 176; Nikel, 75 n. 1; Sellin, Stud., 110; Guthe, SGO7. For the general situation, cf. 1 Chron. xxix. 6 seqq.
46. On the data of MT and the versions, see the comm. the completion of the rebuilding of the city; the omission in MT may be due to the context: in E, the city has not yet been restored, in N it is still poorly inhabited and barely ready. a distinction between Jerusalem and the outside villages. In N xi. some of the ecclesiastical body dwell in the city (Ὁ. 21), but others live in the villages (N xii. 28 seq., cf. 1 Chron. ix. 16), and in N xiii. ro Levites and singers have deserted and returned to their abodes. In 1 Chron. xiii. 2, 2 Chron. xxiii. 2, they are summoned, especially when new conditions are inaugurated, or when (xxix. 4) the temple-service is resumed (cf. the dedication of the walls, N xii. 27 seq.), or when
fresh arrangements are made for them (2 Chron. xxxi. 19). The Rebuilding of the Altar and the Foundation of
description of the resumption of the Levitical service (cf. 1 Chron. xxiii. 31, 2 Chron. ii. 4, viii. 12 seq.) begins with
the congregating of the exiles (now ‘the children of Israel
(cf. v. 56 [Cyrus] and the preliminary date v. 6 [Darius)]).
(after the completion of the walls, vi. 15), and it introduces the Reading is the sequel to the purging of the community (cf. probably Z v. 36-40 and the allusions in vii. 6, 13). of the restoration of the Temple after some disaster, v. 9) presupposes E x. 9), 38 (N viii. 1), and, therefore, a later context in the history (cf. the later The MT has consequently altered the wording (see Bertholet, Guthe).
the assembly in v. 47 (cf. 2 Chron. xxix. 4, a story the existence of the Temple, as in ix. 6 ( background of the preceding list).
| hundred and threescore,
| they had two hundred singing men and singing | women. Their horses were seven hundred thirty 66 ]
| son of Jozadak, and his brethren the priests,
things, till there stood up a priest with Uri . and with Thummim. The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three
beside their menservants 65 and their maidservants, of whom there wereseven __ thousand three hundred thirty and seven: and
and six; their mules, two hundred forty and — five; their camels, four hundred thirty and five; 6, theiy asses, six thousand seven hundred and | twenty. And some of the heads of fathers’ 6g ; houses, when they came to the house of the | Lord which is in Jerusalem, offered willingly for the house of God to set it up in its place: they 69 | gave after their ability into the treasury of the work threescore and one thousand darics of gold, - and five thousand pound of silver, and one hundred priests’ garments. So the priests, and the jo Levites, and some of the people, and the singers, _ and the porters, and the Nethinim, dwelt in their — cities, and all Israel in their cities.
And when the seventh month was come, and 81) the children of Israel were in the cities, the people gathered themselves together as one man to Jerusalem. . Then stood up Jeshua the2 |
and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and his brethren, and builded the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt offerings thereon, as it is written in the law of Moses the man of God.
For the view
The mention of Jerusalem here and ix. 37 presupposes
Elsewhere, in 1 Chron. ix. 2, N xi, 3. 20 there 15
in the seventh month. This is the first year of the return In || N vii. 73 ὁ, viii. 1, it is the first year of N’s return The scene of
o book of Moses the man of God. And certain were gathered unto them out of the other nations of the land, and they erected the altar upon its own place, because all the nations of the land were at enmity with them, and oppressed them ; and they offered sacrifices according to the time, and burnt offerings to the Lord both morning and evening. Also they held the feast of tabernacles, as it is commanded in the law, and offered sacrifices daily, as was meet :
and after that, the continual oblations, and the sacrifices of the sabbaths, and of the new moons, and of all the consecrated feasts.
And all they that had made any vow to God began to offer sacrifices to God from the new moon of the seventh month, although the temple of God was not yet built. 4And they gave money unto the masons and 5 carpenters ; and meat and drink, and cars unto | them of Sidon and Tyre, that they should bring | cedar trees from Libanus, avd convey them in floats to the haven of Joppa, according to the commandment which was written for them by 6 Cyrus king of the Persians. And in the second year after his coming to the temple of God at Jerusalem, in the second month, began Zorobabel
the son of Salathiel, and Jesus the son of Josedek, - and their brethren, and the priests the Levites, _ and all they that were come unto Jerusalem out 7 of the captivity: and they laid the foundation of the temple of God on the new moon of the second month, in the second year after they were come
8to Jewry and Jerusalem. And they appointed | the Levites from twenty years old over the works |
50. upon its own place; cf. E R.V. mg. 77 z¢s place. And certain ... and because all...
cf. 1 Chron. xvi. 4o. αὐτοῖς ἀπεχθανομένων.
53. seventh month, mg. jsf (&*).
are doublets (# om. the latter), MT has only for fear. . (7282 represented in £ by ΝΞ ; EGk® om. the clause). £’s reading finds parallels in 1 Macc. v. 1-2, and possibly N iy. 12 (MT v. 6), where the enemy come up against the builders (see comm.).
oppressed (κατίσχυσαν), may point to 3P30N") ‘and they strengthened themselves’ (see Berth.), or P70") ‘and they [the foreigners] strengthened them’ (Ewald, ΤΟΙ n. 4; Bayer 25 compares v. 66).
to the Lord and according to the time (# om.) are based on doublets in & (κύριος, καιρός); for the sacrifices, Jos. ὃ 76 reads simply ταῦτα δὲ ποιοῦντες οὐκ ἦσαν ἐν ἡδονῃ τοῖς προσχωρίοις ἔθνεσιν πάντων
cars (MT and (ἃ o//), χάρα (("5 ἢ ΠΩ for OW’), kappa (A) καρυα (1.), καρπούς (58), καρδα, &c., Kc.
And they set the altar upon its base; for fear 3 was upon them because of the people of the countries: and they offered burnt offerings thereon unto the Lord, even burnt offerings morning and evening.
And they kept the feast 4 of tabernacles, as it is written, and offered the daily burnt offerings by number, according to the ordinance, as the duty of every day required ; and afterward the continual burnt offering, and 5 the offerings of the new moons, and of all the set feasts of the Lord that were consecrated, and of every one that willingly offered a freewill offering unto the Lord. From the first day of the seventh 6 month began they to offer burnt offerings unto the Lord: but the foundation of the temple of the Lord was not yet laid.
They gave money 7 also unto the masons, and to the carpenters ; and meat, and drink, and oil, unto them of Zidon, and to them of Tyre, to bring cedar trees from Lebanon to the sea, unto Joppa, according to the grant that they had of Cyrus king of Persia.
Now in the second year of their coming unto g the house of God at Jerusalem, in the second month, began Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and the rest of their brethren the priests and the Levites, and all they that were come out of the captivity unto
and appointed the Levites, from twenty years old and upward, to have the over-
. countries
52. Sabbaths ; appropriate, see Num. xxvill. 9 seq.; 2 Chron. il. 4, vill. 13.
although ..., Jos. ὃ 78: ‘they also began the building of the temple.’ MT Zaid; for the use of 10", see E iil, 10,
G® explains
Jos. § 78 τοῖς re Σιδωνίοις ἡδὺ Kai κοῦφον ἦν, &c., and 3} cum gaudio et dederunt carra(ct. A.V.). The grant in question is referred to only in the decree of Darius (iv. 48, cf. N ii. 8, Artaxerxes). Jos. here and in v. 71 characteristically combines Cyrus and Darius on the lines of iv. 57 (D. commands what had been commanded by C.). But, apart from other questions, was Cyrus in a position to make this grant (Ryle, 43) ?
56. A new paragraph, note the order Zer. and Jeshua (contrast v. 48), and the parentage (see v. 68 and vi. 2). second year, (τὸ (which is often corrected after MT) and 3.“ add ‘of Darius’ (but Ek" τῆς ἐλεύσεως αὐτῶν εἰς τὸν
. . .) in agreement with Haggai and Zechariah ; see /z/vod. p. 16 (foot). For the second month cf. τ Kings vi. 1. the priests the Levites, (&" inserts azd with MT, cf. v. 63.
58. For the age-limit of the Levites, cf. the secondary passages I Chron. xxiii. 24, 27; 2 Chron. xxxi. 17-19. The reference to the oversight of the works presupposes the statement in v. 57 which is wanting in MT. E v. 9 is very confused and the names of the Levites are severed; Z has doublets, and Jos. ὃ 79 points to the reading ‘ Kadmiel the brother of Judah (= Hodaviah, E ii. 40) the son of Amminadab’; see Bayer, 64 seq. Meyer observes that the Levites of Henadad (wanting in the preceding register) apparently were not of exilic origin ; see on v. 26.
OLKOV
of the Lord. Then stood up Jesus, and his sons and brethren, and Kadmiel his brother, and the sons of Jesus, Emadabun, and the sons of Joda the son of Iliadun, and their sons and brethren, all the Levites, with one accord setters forward of the business, labouring to advance the works in the house of God. So the builders builded 59 the temple of the Lord. And the priests stood arrayed in their vestments with musical instruments and trumpets, and the Levites the sons 60 of Asaph with their cymbals, singing songs of thanksgiving, and praising the Lord, after the 61 order of David king of Israel. And they sang aloud, praising the Lord in songs of thanksgiving, because his goodness and his glory are 62 for ever in all Israel. And all the people sounded trumpets, and shouted with a loud voice, singing songs of thanksgiving unto the Lord for the rearing up of the house of the 63 Lord. Also of the priests the Levites, and of the heads of their families, the ancients who had seen the former house came to the building of this with lamentation and great weeping. 64 But many with trumpets and joy shouted with 65 loud voice, insomuch that the people heard not the trumpets for the weeping of the people: for the multitude sounded marvellously, so that it was heard afar off.
66 Wherefore when the enemies of the tribe of Judah and Benjamin heard it, they came to know what that noise of trumpets should mean.
67 And they perceived that they that were of the captivity did build the temple unto the Lord,
68 the God of Israel. So they went to Zorobabel and Jesus, and to the chief men of the families, and said unto them, We will build together
69 with you. For we likewise, as ye, do obey your Lord, and do sacrifice unto him from the
59. stood, so (τ and some MSS. of the MT.
61. For the refrain see 2 Chron. v. 13, and especially Jer. xxxiii. 10 seq.,a prophecy of the repopulating of the desert ͵ land (cf. v. 7 seq.), which is followed by the promise of the ideal king (vz. 14-1 8) j 62. sounded, shouted, apparently doublets of IY ; cf. τ. 64 seq.
63. came (i.e. DN), but MT mazy (D2) is wanting.
the former house .. ., E R.V. mg. the first house standing on its foundation, when this house was before their For the mingling of joy and sorrow cf. Z ix. 50-4, and for the last words of v. 65, |
eyes; cf. Hagg. ii. 3 (Darius).
_ ., The Samaritan opposition. v. 66-73 = E iv. 1-5, 24; cf. Jos. xi. 4 3-4, δὲ 84-8. The result of the opposition | indicates that there could have been no large return of exiles fortified with the decree of a generous king. Jos. (xi. 2 1), and many modern scholars attempt to explain the success of the opponents, but the Sachau-papyri from Elephantine |
; 6 : Cambyses was ready to assist the Jews. i and Zechariah do not refer to any persisting opposition of the kind here implied, and, according to the former, when | the Temple was ultimately taken in hand in the reign of Darius, not external history but the desire to remove the | distress caused by the failure of the rains was the main factor. [
(Reuss), and, as Ewald (103 n. 4) remarks, ‘this severe desi
prove that, whatever may have been the case with Cyrus,
hostility of the neighbours on either side had quite brok
difficulties.
being especially interesting. See Juzrod.§ 5 a, be (end).
gnation only belongs to the later period in which the mutual | en out. worthy features (so even Meyer, 11g seqq-, 124 seqq. ; Cornill, Zz¢vod. 252), and the proposal of Rothstein (15, 20) to ascribe 47-55 and 56-73 a to the reigns of Cyrus and Darius respectively, though insufficient in itself, illustrates the | _Indeed, all the indications point to an initial absence of Samaritan hostility (see Davies, 81), and there are some striking resemblances between the details here and in N ii., iV., Vi., seq. a
sight of the work of the house of the Lord. Th stood Jeshua with his sons and his brethren Kadmiel and his sons, the sons of Judah, together, to have the oversight of the workmen in | the house of God: the sons of Henadad, with their sons and their brethren the Levites. when the builders laid the foundation of the — temple of the Lord, they set the priests in their apparel with trumpets, and the Levites the sons of Asaph with cymbals, to praise the Lord, after the order of David king of Israel. 1 And {πεν 11) sang one to another in praising and giving thanks unto the Lord, saying, For he is good, for his | mercy exdureth for ever toward Israel. And all the people shouted with a great shout, when they praised the Lord, because the foundation of the house of the Lord was laid. Ἢ But many of the 12 priests and Levites and heads of fathers’ ouses, | the old men that had seen the first house, when _ the foundation of this house was laid before their eyes, wept with a loud voice ; and many shouted aloud for joy: so that the people could not dis- 12) cern the noise of the shout of joy from the noise of the weeping of the people: for the people | shouted with a loud shout, and the noise was” heard afar off. Ἕ Now when the adversaries of Judah and 4) Benjamin heard that the children of the cap- | tivity builded a temple unto the Lord, the God | of Israel ; ce
then they drew near to Zerubbabel, 2 and to the heads of fathers’ /owses, and said | unto them, Let us build with you: for we seek | your God, as ye do; and we do sacrifice unto | him since the days of Esar-haddon king of it
Pee ee
Moreover, Haggai .
The term ‘ enemies’ (v. 66) is applied prospectively |
In fact the situation in 66 seqq. has many untrust- |
the relation between v. 68 seq. and N ii. 20 |
days of Asbasareth the king of the Assyrians, | Assyria, which brought us up hither.
70 who brought us hither. Then Zorobabel and But Zerub- Jesus and the chief men of the families of Israel | babel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the heads of said unto them, It is not for you to build the | fathers’ owses of Israel, said unto them, Ye have -|zxhouse unto the Lord our God. We ourselves | nothing to do with us to build an house unto our | alone will build unto the Lord of Israel, accord- | God; but we ourselves together will build unto ing as Cyrus the king of the Persians hath | the Lord, the God of Israel, as king Cyrus the -}72commanded us. But the heathen of the land | king of Persia hath commanded us. Then the lying heavy upon the inhabitants of Judea, and | people of the land weakened the hands of holding them strait, hindered their building; | the people of Judah, and troubled them in
and commotions, they hindered the finishing of | to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus the building all the time that king Cyrus lived: | king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia.
so they were hindered from building for the Then ceased the work of the space of two years, until the reign of Darius. house of God which is at Jerusalem; and it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.
Now in the second year of the reign of Darius, Now the prophets, Haggai the prophet, and Aggeus and Zacharias the son of Addo, the | Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophesied unto the
69. Asbasareth (&*), mg. Asbacaphath (B and partly S), but L axopdav; see Torrey, 169 n. Jos. has Shalmaneser (cf. E iv. 10 (ἀ΄ and Tobit i.); he ascribes the origin of the Samaritans to Cutha and Media (ἢ 85, cf. § 19), and, in his version of v. 71 (where Cyrus and Darius are associated), allows them and other peoples to come to Jerusalem for worship (similarly xviii. 2 2).
7o. for you, mg. for ws and you (G*, 45). τ
71. alone; E ¢ogether, which would be more appropriate in E iv. 2. For the spirit of the reply, cf. Neh. il. 20 and
72 seq. lying heavy, ἐπικοιμώμενα (BA), ἐπικοινωνοῦντα (L), gentes autem terrae guae commixtae erant (i), ‘that were set over them’ (S). Fr. conj. ἐπικείμενα.
holding them strait (πολιορκοῦντες), mg. desieging them.
by their secret plots, &c., mg. leading the people astray in counsel and raising commotions: καὶ βουλὰς (ἐπι- βουλάς, A) καὶ δημαγωγοῦντες (-as, B®; δημαγωγίας, AL) καὶ συστάσεις (ἐπιστάσεις, L) ποιούμενοι. See further, Moulton, ZATW, xx. 1 seq. The language (E v. 4 seq.) implies that the Jews were slandered at the Persian court (Ryle, Bertholet) ; the whole situation is illustrated by Neh. ii. 19 seq., ἵν.» vi.
73. for the space of two years; the MT is correctly reproduced in £ ii. 30; see Zutrod. p. 17 ¢. Jos. (§ 89), who has filled in the gap between ii. 15 and 16 (§ 19) and consistently placed £ v. in the reign of Darius (who carries out the wish of Cyrus), refers to the new opposition (as in the days of Cyrus and Cambyses), ignores the actual cessation and the fresh ‘ beginning’ (£ vi. 2), and passes on to the visit of Tattenai.
The rebuilding and completion of the Temple in the reign of Darius. vi.-vii. = E v.-vi., cf. Jos. xi. 4 1-8, whose treatment of the material is highly instructive. (a) In MT the narrative, apart from E vi. 19-22, is, like E iv. 8-24, in Aramaic, and the dialect, though in close agreement with Eg.-Aram.-papyri of the fifth cent., is certainly later; see Bevan, Danie/, 34; T. Noldeke, ἔχεν. Brit. xxiv.624; A. Kamphausen, ib. oto ἢ. 1; Driver, Zz¢. 504, 515; Torrey, 161 seqq. The excerpts show some traces of Jewish colouring and of compilation and adjustment (see Z vi. 8, 18, 23, 26, 33), and the whole concludes with an account, in the chronicler’s style, of the dedication of the Temple. To what extent reshaping and revision have been effected is of course uncertain (see Torrey, 142 seqq.). £ is especially noteworthy for its doublets (vi. 5, 10, 12, 15, 28, see further Marq. 44 seq.), perplexing paraphrases (e.g. vi. 19 seq., 26 seqq.), and for a few interesting material variations (see vi. 4, 18, 26 seq., 32, vil. I seq., 5 seq., 9).
(ὁ) The narrative represents a zealous satrap anxious to ascertain whether the Jews had really received permission from Cyrus to rebuild the temple. His procedure is quite formal (cf. E iv. 8 seqq., contrast N. iv., vi.), and Darius, having found the ‘memorandum’ of Cyrus, not only confirms that king’s permission, but goes further in his benevolence. Such a representation agrees with the traditional friendliness of Darius (see also vi. 26), but utterly conflicts with his own decree already given in Ziv. The wording does not suggest that the Jews, whether before or after the intervention of Darius, were rewarded for any act of loyalty, e.g. abstinence from the intrigues at his succession. Nor does it point to any serious Samaritan hostility (see Kosters, 7. 7. xxxi. 545 seq.; Meyer, 124; Sellin, Se. 88). In thus agreeing with Hag. and Zech. it also does not state that the Jewish builders were exiles from Babylon (Kosters, 26; contrast the explicit E iv. 12; see on 2 vi. 5,18). Both sources agree, moreover, in dating the founding of the Temple in the second year of Darius (see on vi. 1 seq.), and this narrative, implying that the building was in course of erection, might be taken to refer to a slightly later date.
(c) It throws another light upon the decree of Cyrus (vi. 17-20, 24-26, see ii. 1 seqq.). It confirms the return of the vessels (contrast iv. 44, 57), but gives prominence to Sheshbazzar (cf. E i.) and not to Zerubbabel (E iii., see on £ vi. 18 seq.). These two are identified by harmonists (see 18, 27, 29), but to the latter alone do the independent prophecies ascribe the commencement and completion of the Temple (see /7¢vod. § 4, 11). In addition to this, while vi. I seq. relate the ‘ beginning’ by Zer. and Jeshua, the context combines the representation of com¢inuwous operations since the return of Sheshbazzar (E v. 16) with a complete cessation (iv. 24) which is attributed to the decree of a Persian king. See further /¢vod. ὃ 6. On the text, see also Torrey, 189 seqq., 201 5666.
1 566. The opening verses agree with Hag. in the date of the beginning of the building, yet not ‘before a stone was laid upon a stone’ (Hag. ii. 15), but after a complete cessation (E iv. 24); contrast, however, v. 20 below. Addo, mg. Eddin (G&*). A Priest Zechariah son of Iddo is mentioned in the time of Joiakim the son of Jeshua
[73 and by their secret plots, and popular persuasions | building, and hired counsellors against them, 5
prophets, prophesied unto the Jews in Jewry and Jerusalem; in the name of the Lord, the
2 God of Israel, prophesied they unto them. Then stood up Zorobabel the son of Salathiel, and Jesus the son of Josedek, and began to build the house of the Lord at Jerusalem, the prophets of the Lord being with them, azd helping them.
3 At the same time came unto them Sisinnes the governor of Syria and Phcenicia, with Sathrabuzanes and his companions, and said unto them,
4 By whose appointment do ye build this house and this roof, and perform all the other things? and who are the builders that perform these things ?
5 Nevertheless the elders of the Jews obtained favour, because the Lord had visited
6 the captivity; and they were not hindered from building, until such time as communication was made unto Darius concerning them, and _ his answer signified.
7 The copy of the letter which Sisinnes, governor
of Syria and Pheenicia, and Sathrabuzanes, with
their companions, the rulers inSyria and Pheenicia,
wrote and sent unto Darius;
8 To king Darius, greeting: Let all things be known unto our lord the king, that being come into the country of Judzea, and entered into the city of Jerusalem, we found in the city of Jerusalem the elders of
9 the Jews that were of the captivity building a house unto the Lord, great azd new, of hewn
το and costly stones, with timber laid in the walls. |
And those works are done with great speed, and the work goeth on prosperously in their hands, and with all glory and diligence is it accom-
Jews that were in Judah and Jerusalem; in the name of the God of Israel prophesied they unto | them. Then rose up Zerubbabel the son of2 Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and | began to build the house of God which is at Jerusalem; and with them were the prophets of God, helping them.
At the same time came to 3 them Tattenai, the governor beyond the river, and Shethar-bozenai, and their companions, and said thus unto them, Who gave you a decree to build this house, and to finish this wall ? 1 Then 4 | spake we unto them after this manner, What are the names of the men that make this building? But the eye of their God was upon the elders of 5 the Jews, and they did not make them cease, till the matter should come to Darius, and then answer should be returned by letter concerning it.
The copy of the letter that Tattenai, the6 | governor beyond the river, and Shethar-bozenai, . and his companions the Apharsachites, which were beyond the river, sent unto Darius the king : they sent a letter unto him, wherein was 7 | written thus; Unto Darius the king, all peace. — Be it known unto the king, that we went into8 © the province of Judah, Ἷ
to the house of the great God, which is builded with great stones, and timber is laid in the walls, and this work goeth on with diligence and prospereth in their hands.
(N. xii. 16); but the family of Iddo, though among the priests in N. xii. 4, is not named in the great list (E ii., &c). ὺ
Did the four families in E 11. 36-9 suddenly expand into the twenty-two in Neh. xii. 1-7 or the twenty-four in 1 Chron, |
xxiv., or were the latter incorporated into four great classes? On the traditional view some explanation is necessary. unto them (ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς), E, R.V. mg. which was upon them, cf. Jer. xv. 16. j
3. On the identification of the names (UStani, a prefect of Transpotamia temp. Darius, or Taddanu a Bab. name; — and Mithrabuzanes, or perhaps Satibarzanes), see the comment. and Torrey,172. £’s Sisinnes, though probably — incorrect, is a thoroughly authentic name and typical of the cleverness of the translator.
his (E ¢heir) companions. On the variation in the possessive pronoun, see Guthe, SBO7.
4. roof, E wall, SIN (& χορηγία, ‘charges’ in £ iv. 54 seq.). The readings represent (so Torrey, 175 seq.) NN (¢ggara ‘roof’, agra ‘ pay’), cf. NWN ‘ shrine, temple’, in the Aram. papyri from Egypt (Sayce and Cowley, E 14 J 6, Sachau I, 6, &c.). δα) δ, also in Sachau I, 11, denotes some part of a temple, whether fore-court (Sach.), colonnade (Torrey), or the temple as a whole (see Haupt, Delitzsch, SSO 7, 34, 63, Nikel 130 ἢ. 2, Jampel i. 494). Jos. (ὃ 89)
finds a reference to the porticoes (στοαί, see on vii. 9) and the walls of the city. Was S738 altered in MT because of |
its heathen associations? Cf. its use in the Targums of a heathen altar, and the Bab. εἰμι; cf. also the distinction observed in MT between ji} and 123.
and who. E ‘then spake we’ (G& 5 ‘then spake they’), an actual quotation from the report, cf. ib. 9 seq. 5. the captivity (cf. EG), and see vv. 8, 27 seq.; based upon a doublet “aw “elders [of]’ and ‘S¥ ‘ captivity’. 7. & ‘The copy of the letter which he (&' ‘ they’) wrote unto D. and sent: Sis., the governor, &c., to king Darius greeting ’ (cf. 1). 7 seq. Let all things . . . 1° combines this with the reading of E. ane joni the ene, Mehey, τ 21 seq., i 17 seq. e reference to the arrival at Jerusa 8 i u i i i : same Sen: Jerusalem and the discovery is quite appropriate (Marq., 46 seq.) ; MT has
9. new, apparently based upon τ΄. 25, where it represents MT 5M an error for ἽΠ ‘one’; the doublet combines | both corrigendum and correctum (see Berth. xvi. seq., 24).
itplished. Then asked we these elders, saying, By whose commandment build ye this house, 12 and lay the foundations of these works? Therefore, to the intent that we might give knowledge unto thee by writing who were the chief doers, we questioned them, and we required of them 13 the names in writing of their principal men. So _ they gave us this answer, We are the servants of 14 the Lord which made heaven and earth. And as for this house, it was builded many years ago
τῷ finished. But when our fathers sinned against the Lord of Israel which is in heaven, and provoked him unto wrath, he gave them over into the hands of Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon, τό king of the Chaldeans; and they pulled down the house, and burned it, and carried away the 17 people captives unto Babylon. But in the first year that Cyrus reigned over the country of Babylon, king Cyrus wrote to build up this 18house. And the holy vessels of gold and of silver, that Nabuchodonosor had carried away out of the house at Jerusalem, and had set up in his own temple, those Cyrus the king brought forth again out of the temple in Babylonia, and they were delivered to Zorobabel and to Sanabassarus the governor, 19 with commandment that he should carry away all these vessels, and put them in the temple at Jerusalem; and that the temple of the Lord should be built in its place. 20 Then Sanabassarus, being come hither, laid the _ foundations of the house of the Lord which is in | Jerusalem ; and from that time to this being still a-building, it is not yet fully ended.
Now therefore, if it seem good, O king, let search be made among the royal archives of our lord the king 22 that are in Babylon: and if it be found that the building of the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem hath been done with the consent of king Cyrus, and it seem good unto our lord the king, let him signify unto us thereof.
Then commanded king Darius to seek among the archives that were laid up at Babylon:
15. Lord ... heaven. A conflate reading.
18. his own temple, cf. ii. 10.
E ‘whom he had made’ .
the texts are not in their original form is obvious. 19. all these vessels, mg. ¢ie same (G&*). :
by a king of Israel great and strong, and was |
LE SIDR AS: (Gh or
Then asked we those elders, and said unto them 9 thus, Who gave you a decree to build this house, and to finish this wall? We asked them their ! names also, to certify thee, that we might write the names of the men that were at the head of
And thus they returned us answer, say- I ing, We are the servants of the God of heaven and earth, and build the house that was builded
these many years ago, which a great king of
Israel builded and finished.
But after that our fathers had provoked the God of heaven unto wrath, he gave them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, the Chaldean, who destroyed this house, and carried the people away into Babylon.
But in the first year of Cyrus 1 king of Babylon, Cyrus the king made a decree to build this house of God.
And the gold andy silver vessels also of the house of God, which Nebuchadnezzar took out of the temple that was in Jerusalem, and brought them into the temple of Babylon, those did Cyrus the king
| take out of the temple of Babylon, and they
were delivered unto one whose name was Sheshbazzar, whom he had made governor; and het said unto him, Take these vessels, go, put them in the temple that is in Jerusalem, and let the house of God be builded in its place.
Then τ came the same Sheshbazzar, and laid the foundations of the house of God which isin Jerusalem : and since that time even until now hath it been in building, and yet it is not completed. Now therefore, if it seem good to the king, let there be search made in the king’s treasure house, which is there at Babylon, whether it be so, that a decree was made of Cyrus the king to build this house of God at Jerusalem, and let the king send his pleasure to us concerning this matter.
Then Darius the king made a decree, and 1 search was made in the house of the archives, where the treasures were laid up in Babylon. And there was found at Achmetha, in the palace
13. the Lord which made (τοῦ κτίσαντος), cf. 2 Chron. ii. 12 (ἐποίησεν) and the quotation in Eupolemos (ἔκτισεν), second cent. B.c. (Swete, /z¢vod. 370; Torrey, 82); also Jer. x. 11 and the late Gen. xiv. 19 R.V. mg.
Note that even the Aram. source presents the later and inaccurate form of the name Nebuchadrezzar.
_ and to Sanabassarus (mg. Sadanassarus). Some MSS. omit avd; this and the sequel (‘that he should carry’) indicate that the attempt has been made to identify Sheshbazzar (E i.) with the more prominent Zerubbabel (Nikel, Note the introduction of the latter in vv. 27, 29.
. -, but G4 ‘to the treasurer ... to Shesh., but to Mithredath (E i. 8) whom Jos. combines with Zer. here (§ 92, cf. ib. xi. 3 δὲ 11, 14), although in his version of 20, 26, he mentions only Shesh. The allusion to the treasury may be supported by E v. 17, vi. 1.
who was over the treasury’. This must refer not
That
21. of our lord (Κυρίου), {α΄ S, curiously ‘of Cyrus’ (so A.V.).
so at Ecbatana the palace, which is in the country of Media, there was found a roll where-
24in these things were recorded. In the first year of the reign of Cyrus king Cyrus commanded to build up the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem, where they do sacrifice
25 with continual fire: whose height shall be sixty cubits, and the breadth sixty cubits,
with three rows of hewn stones, and one row of new wood of that country; and the expenses thereof to 26 be given out of the house of king Cyrus: and that the holy vessels of the house of the Lord, both of gold and silver, that Nabuchodonosor took out of the house at Jerusalem, and carried away to Babylon, should be restored to the house at Jerusalem, and be set in the place where they were before.
And also he commanded that Sisinnes the governor of Syria and Pheenicia, and Sathrabuzanes, and their companions, and those which were appointed rulers in Syria and Phoenicia, should be careful not to meddle with the place, but suffer Zorobabel, the servant of the Lord, and governor of Judzea, and the elders of the Jews, to build that 28 house of the Lord in its place. And I also do
command to have it built up whole again ; and
that they look diligently to help those that be
of the captivity of Judea, till the house of the 29 Lord be finished: and that out of the tribute of Ccelesyria and Phcenicia a portion be carefully given these men for the sacrifices of the Lord, that 15, to Zorobabel the governor, for bullocks, and rams, and lambs; and also corn, salt, wine, and oil, and that continually every year without further question, according as the priests that be in Jerusalem shall signify to be daily spent :
23. roll (τὸ, Jos.), mg. Place ((πῆ HS), a confusion of τόμος and τόπος. The ‘memorandum’ (1) 3) recalls the 1 ἼΞΙ | (Sach. Pap. III) relating to the rebuilding of the Jewish sanctuary at Elephantine. ‘The fact that the roll was sought | for at Babylon but found at Ecbatana points to some condensation in the narrative.
24. continual fire. A slight change of the MT supported by most scholars.
25. Jos. (ἢ 99) applies these measurements to the altar, although in xi.1 3 (see below on v. 26) he rightly refers them |
to the Temple.
one row of new wood (similarly Jos.) of that country, ‘one’ and ‘new’ are doublets, (see v. 9), and ‘ country”
that is in the province of Media, a roll, and © therein was thus written for a record. ae
first year of Cyrus the king, Cyrus the king made a decree ; Concerning the house of God at Jerusalem, let the house be builded, the place where they offer sacrifices, and let the founda- — tions thereof be strongly laid; the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof threescore cubits; with three rows of great stones, 4 and a row of new timber: and let the expenses be given out of the king’s house: - and also let 5 the gold and silver vessels of the house of God, which Nebuchadnezzar took forth out of the temple which is at Jerusalem, and brought unto Babylon, be restored, and brought again unto the temple which is at Jerusalem, every one to its | place, and thou shalt put them in the house of God. Now therefore, Tattenai, governor beyond 6 the river, Shethar-bozenai, and your companions the Apharsachites, which are beyond the river, be ye far from thence:
let the work of this house 7 _ of God alone; let the governor of the Jews and | the elders of the Jews build this house of God in its place. Moreover I make a decree what yes | shall do to these elders of the Jews for the build- | ing of this house of God: ca
that of the king’s goods, even of the tribute beyond the river, expenses be given with all diligence unto these _ men, that they be not hindered. And that 9| which they have need of, both young bullocks, and rams, and lambs, for burnt offerings to the God of heaven, wheat, salt, wine, and oil, according to the word of the priests which are
seems to be some confusion of the Heb. γ᾽ δ (land) and M18 (cedar), so Jahn; or of the Aram. YN (land) and YS (wood), so Marq. For the details see 1 Kings vi. 36, vii. 12. 26. Note the changes of person and number in MT (E 6 has ¢hezy companions). The compiler turns the decree of
Cyrus into a command to Shesh. (azd thou shalt place), and then passes on to the commands of Darius (see Meyer, 47); a clear case of compilation.
instructive example of history-making.
27. the servant of the Lord. Jos. (§ 101) ‘the servants of God (cf. v. 13), the Jews and their leaders’. Here
and in v. 29 Zer. appears to be due to later insertion (Jos. omits) ; perhaps the translator misunderstood N72y (‘work’) |
in the MT, where (τῇ om. ‘the governor (&*" governors, or leaders) of the Jews and’, ‘elders of the Jews’ are mentioned ; see Guthe, SBO7.
28, till . . . finished, a natural limitation, cf. iv. 51, and the stipulation in N ii. 6; with MT cf. the free hand given. to Ezra (E vii.).
29. of the Lord .. ., cf. $; Gr τῷ κυρίῳ ({π Ὁ τοῦ, cf. Dan. vi. 26, Bel and Dragon, 41) Zop. ἐπάρχῳ (& om.). 30. question, a misunderstanding (as in ΕΠ) of by, as though from Say,
£, however, takes E 6 to belong to the old decree, and Jos. actually attributes the whole (to the end of v. 33) to Cyrus, which Darius (as in v. 34) simply endorses. Hence, in his history of Cyrus, Jos. (xi. 13) | gives a lengthy decree on these lines in the form of a letter to Tattenai and Shethar-bozenai, an interesting and |
I ESDRAS Ὁ: 31—7. if Ezra 6 at Jerusalem, let it be given them day by
} 31 that drink offerings may be made to the Most | day without fail: that they may offer sacri- τὸ High God for the king and for his children, and | fices of sweet savour unto the God of heaven, that they may pray for their lives. and pray for the life of the king, and of his sons.
32 And that | Also I have made a decree, that whosoever 11 commandment be given that whosoever shall | shall alter this word, let a beam be pulled transgress, yea, or neglect anything “ereiv | out from his house, and let him be lifted up written, out of his own ouwse shall a tree be | and fastened thereon; and let his house be taken, and he thereon be hanged, and all his | made a dunghill for this :
33 goods seized for the king. The Lord therefore, and the God that 12 whose name is there called upon, utterly destroy | hath caused his name to dwell there overthrow every king and nation, that shall stretch out his | all kings and peoples, that shall put forth their hand to hinder or endamage that house of the | hand to alter the same, to destroy this house of
34 Lord in Jerusalem. I Darius the king have | God which is at Jerusalem. I Darius have ordained that according unto these things it be | made a decree; let it be done with all dilidone with diligence. gence,
71 Then Sisinnes the governor of Ccelesyria and Then Tattenai, the governor beyond the river, 13 Pheenicia, and Sathrabuzanes, with their com- | Shethar-bozenai, and their companions, because panions, following the commandments of king | that Darius the king had sent, did accordingly
2 Darius, did very carefully oversee the holy works, | with all diligence.
assisting the elders of the Jews and rulers of the And the elders of the Jews 14
3 temple. And so the holy works prospered, while | builded and prospered, through the prophesying Aggzus and Zacharias the prophets prophesied. | of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of
Iddo. And they builded and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the decree of Cyrus, and Darius,
4 And they finished these things by the command- | and Artaxerxes king of Persia. And this house 15 ment of the Lord, the God of Israel, and with the | was finished on the third day of the month Adar, consent of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes, kings | which was in the sixth year of the reign of
5 of the Persians. “λα thus was the house finished | Darius the king. by the three and twentieth day of the month
6 Adar, in the sixth year of king Darius. And the And the children of Israel, the 16
children of Israel, the priests, and the Levites, and the other that were of the captivity, that were added unto them, did according to the things » written in the book of Moses. And to the dedication of the temple of the Lord they offered a hundred bullocks, two hundred rams, four hun-
ADE σεν. τὴ ὦ «ὦ
ἐνδελεχῶς at end of verse. 32. written, mg. afore spoken or written (G*). goods seized, similarly Jos.; cf. Dan. ii. 5, ili. 29, 33. therefore, MT for this, end of τ΄. 11.
whose name .
vill. 67 (E viii. 36), is less emphatic in MT ‘.. cf. above, 27 seq., with E vi. 7.
EG ‘and the Levites’.
only one name was originally written ; see /dvod. § 5 (e).
5. the house, mg. 216 holy house (G*).
by Jahn (55) and by Torrey (85, who compares Ar. a/a ‘take, obtain’).
VII. 1 seq. The more active intervention of the strangers (ἐπεστάτουν . . ι . their companions did according to the decree which . .
priests and the Levites, and the rest of the children of the captivity, kept the dedication of this house of God with joy.
And they offered at the dedication of this house of God an hundred bullocks, two hundred rams, four hun-
31. For the praying cf. Baruch i. 10 seq., 1 Mace. vii. 33, Sach. Pap. I, 25 seq. Gi reads θυσίαι x. σπονδαί and adds
G. This interpretation of MT wy (ry) ‘dunghill’ is supported
Bayer, 30, emends.
. , the Jewish colouring in this verse (cf. Deut. xii. 11, xiv. 23) is commonly admitted (Meyer, 51.
. ἐπιμελέστερον), though in harmony with . sent’,
2, rulers of the temple (ἱεροστάταις ; Jos. ‘ princes of the Sanhedrin’), cf, i. 8 (2 Chron. xxxv. 8), and the addition in
4. consent (A.V. mg. che decree, γνώμη) . . . Artaxerxes (Jos. omits Art., (ἀν transposes with Darius), kings (G* and MT /inzg) .. . The name can hardly be explained even as a careless interpolation ; the reading 477g suggests that
G4, S, @ add ‘until (by) the sixth year of Darius king of the Persians’.
Jos. confirms the 23rd day (adopted by Bertholet, Torrey, 195, but treated by Bayer, 83, as a misreading, DY for DY Ty), but reads the mth year of Darius; in C. were laid in the second year of Cyrus and it was finished again in the secovd year of Darius.
6. that were added, explained by v. 13, although this act of separation is not recorded, contrast N ix. 2, xiii. 3 (see
Afion. i. 21 he states that the foundations of the Temple
book of Moses, cf. v. 49, and especially N. vili. 1, x. 29, ΧΗ], 1.
8 dred lambs ; avd twelve he-goats for the sin of all
Israel, according to the number of the twelve 9 princes of the tribes of Israel. The priests also and the Levites stood arrayed in their vestments, according to their kindreds, for the services of the Lord, the God of Israel, according to the book of Moses: and the porters at every gate.
And the children of Israel that came out of the captivity held the passover the fourteenth day of the first month, when the priests and the 11 Levites were sanctified together, and all they that
were of the captivity ; for they were sanctified. 12 For the Levites were all sanctified together, and
they offered the passover for all them of the captivity, and for their brethren the priests, and for 13 themselves. And the children of Israel that came out of the captivity did eat, even all they that had separated themselves from the abominations of the heathen of the land, and sought the Lord.
14 And they kept the feast of unleavened bread
15 seven days, making merry before the Lord, for that he had turned the counsel of the king of Assyria toward them, to strengthen their hands in the works of the Lord, the God of Israel.
And after these things, when Artaxerxes the king of the Persians reigned, came Esdras the
8. princes, mg. /welve tribes of Israel (&").
9. Cf. v.59. For the Zorters (also in Jos.), cf. i. 16, and 2 Chron. vill. 14, xxill. 18 seq.; Jos. adds that the Jews ales if See vi. 4 above. a
built the cloisters (στοάς) of the inner temple.
dred lambs ; and for a sin offering for all Israel, twelve he-goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel. And they set the priests in their divisions, and the Levites in their courses, for the service of God, which is at Jerusalem; as _
it is written in the book of Moses. i
And the children of the captivity kept the το. passover upon the fourteenth day of the first month. For the priests and the Levites had 20 purified themselves together; all of them were pure: and they killed the passover for all the children of the captivity, and for their brethren the priests, and for themselves. ; And the chil- 2;/ dren of Israel, which were come again out of the captivity, and all such as had separated themselves unto them from the filthiness of the — heathen of the land, to seek the Lord, the God ~ of Israel, did eat, and kept the feast of unleavened 22 | bread seven days with joy: for the Lord had | made them joyful, and had turned the heart of — the king of Assyria unto them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel.
Now after these things, in the reign of Artax- 7 erxes king of Persia, Ezra the son of Seraiah,the
το. From this verse onwards the MT, with the exception of E vii. 12-26, is in Hebrew. With this account of the celebration of the Passover, cf. 2 Chron. xxx. (after the purification of the Temple by Hezekiah), xxxv. = £ 1 (after Josiah’s reforms) ; see also p. 58. ;
of Israel, lit. ‘ of Israel, of those that were of the captivity.’ when the priests, several MSS. decause. ἢ
ΤΙ seq. mg. and they that were of the captivity were not all sanctified together: but the Levites were all sanctified together. And, &c.; cf. GL S, but not Jos. For the textual variants see 7A 7W, xx. 12 seq. Since the Levites perform the slaughtering there may be an anti-Aaronite bias, as also in 2 Chron. xxix. 34 (cf. perhaps xxx. 3, 15 17); see Kittel, Chron. 160. ;
13. even, wanting in &.
15. Jos. ($$ 111-13) after summing up with an account of the constitution, &c., appends (δὲ 114-19) a new story of Samaritan enmity and of the intervention of Darius. The Jews send Zerubbabel and four nobles, including Ananias and Mordecai (see for the latter, v. 8 above) to complain that the Samaritans did not carry out the royal commands and were hostile. Darius accordingly writes to the eparchs and council (βουλή, cf. ii. 17), viz. to Taganas and Sambas (or Sambabas), the eparchs, and to Sadrakes and Bouédon (var. Bouélon, &c.), ‘the rest of their fellow servants’ (σύνδουλοι, cf. (τ E v. seq. for companions’). On the conjectural origin of these corrupt names, see Marq. 52, 54 (Tag. from Tattenai, Sad. and Bou. from Shethar-bozenai). j
The Work of Ezra. (a) The narratives are severed in the MT, which places E vii.-x. (Z viii. 1-ix. 36) in the seventh year of Artaxerxes (458 B.C.), and N viii. seqq. (£ ix. 37-55+...) in the twentieth. They are of composite origin: note the introductory impersonal E vii. 1-10 (see Driver, /7¢., 548 seq.), the change from ‘1’ (vii. 27—ix.) to the impersonal form in vill. 35 seq., the use of ‘I’ (ix.), ‘he’ (x.), and ‘we’ (N ix. 38, x. 30). In spite of parallels (Torrey, 244 seq.), these changes seem to prove diversity of source. Various signs of revision and condensation are to be noticed in vii. (see & viii. 8-24), x. (Meyer, 96 n. 1), and elsewhere.
(4) Although N viii. seqq. interrupt the history of Neh., and both E and N are engaged in reorganizing religious conditions, the story of N ignores the work of E, and the story of E mentions N only somewhat incidentally (N viii. 9. x. 1). The two groups of narratives have different backgrounds. The E-story shows no trace of the desolation and misery which N sought to remedy. E is intent upon the Temple and the law, and comes to an apparently peaceful city, whereas N appears as a reformer of elementary civic, social, and religious conditions at a time when E was presumably in Jerusalem. The secular pioneer builds up and reconstructs; the priestly scribe gives, as it were, a finishing stroke in the way of important, though less initial, reforms. While N laments the ruin and distress, E recognizes the manifestation of God’s favour, which the people had ill requited by their heathenish marriages The former encounters suspicion, hostility, and treachery; the latter, armed with most remarkable powers, finds a people anxious to hear and obey the law, eager to remove the stain of the marriages, and ready to carry out measures which N, with characteristic impulsiveness, seems merely to initiate in N xiii. The whole situation oa the E-story forbids
son of Azaraias, the son of Zechrias, the son of 2 Helkias, the son of Salem, the son of Sadduk, the son of Ahitob, ( the son of Amarias, the son of Ozias, the son of Memeroth, the son of Zaraias, the son of Savias, the son of Boccas, the son of Abisue, the son of Phinees, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the chief priest. '3This Esdras went up from Babylon, as_ being a ready scribe in the law of Moses, that was |4given by the God of Israel. And the king did - him honour: for he found grace in his sight in all his requests.
5 There went up with him also certain of the children of Israel, and of the priests, and Levites, and holy singers, and porters, and 6 temple-servants, unto Jerusalem, in the seventh year of the reign of Artaxerxes, in the fifth month, this was the king’s seventh year ;
for they went from Babylon on the new moon of the first month, and came to Jerusalem, according to the
son of Azariah,
the son of Hilkiah, the son of 2 Shallum, the son of Zadok, the son of Ahitub, the son of Amariah, the son of Azariah, the son of Meraioth, the son of Zerahiah, the son of Uzzi, the son of Bukki, the son of Abishua, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the chief priest :
this Ezra went up from Baby- 6 lon; and he was a ready scribe in the law of Moses, which the Lord, the God of Israel, had given: and the king granted him all his request, according to the hand of the Lord his God upon him. And there went up some of the children 7 of Israel, and of the priests, and the Levites, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinim, unto Jerusalem, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes the king. And he came to Jerusalem in 8 the fifth month. which was in the seventh year of the king. For upon the first day of the first 9 month began he to go up from Babylon, and on the first day of the fifth month came he to Jeru-
ὧι τ Oo
salem, according to the good hand of his God upon him. For Ezra had set his heart to seek 19 the law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach
in Israel statutes and judgements,
| prosperous journey which the Lord gave them ἡ for his sake. For Esdras had very great skill, so that he omitted nothing of the law and commandments of the Lord, df taught all Israel the ordinances and judgements.
the identification of E’s return with that in E iv. 12 (Z# ii. 18). The rebuilding mentioned in the latter is excluded in the E-story and ignored in N i.—vi., where there is neither any reference to an earlier attempt to rebuild nor any hint of such a return as that in E vii.—x. (c) E vii-x. are severed from E i—vi. by nearly sixty years. A large body of exiles, ‘children of the captivity’ (iv. 1), had rejected the families of doubtful blood (ii. 59-63), and had been reinforced by those who had separated from the heathen (vi. 21). Jewish exclusivism had apparently been established. Now, however, E returns with a representative band (vii. 7), ‘ children of the captivity’ (viii. 35), and, after an interval (the vague ix. 1), hears of the deplorable extent of intermarriage among the people of Israel, the ‘holy seed’ (ix. 2), ‘the captivity’ (ix. 4). The sin is admitted, and it is proposed to make a solemn covenant (x. 3). ‘The children of the captivity’ are summoned from their settlements under the penalty of excommunication from ‘the congregation of the captivity’ (x. 6-8). The area affected proves to be extremely restricted (x. 9). The congregation agrees to the separation (vv. 10-12). There is, however, an inquiry lasting three months, and as a veritable anti-climax we have an extremely small list of offenders (see on E ix, 21-36). Forthwith (so £), or apparently some twelve years later (so N viii.), Εἰ reads the law to the people, and all the congregation, those who had returned from captivity’ (N viii. 17, cf. E vi. 21), celebrate the feast of Tabernacles. After a solemn confession of sin, the erring ‘seed of Israel’ separate from the heathen (ix. 1 seq.), and this epoch-making event, which (see E x. I-12) might be expected after the prayer in E ix. 6 seqq., is followed by a second prayer on behalf of the backsliding people. Finally, there is a covenant (N ix. 38) signed by the congregation and all that separated themselves from the people of the land (x. 28). Whether we follow the tradition or any modern hypothesis, these data are extremely complicated (see Kosters, 67, 96 seqq., 7%. T., xxix, 554 seqq.). They point to a close literary connexion in the E-story, which makes it improbable that E vii.—x. should be severed, as in MT, from N viii. 5666. They reveal a serious literary intricacy which must be due to revision and reshaping, and they do not show at all clearly that the ‘children of the captivity’ who returned (E viii. 35) found a people constituted as E ii. 59-63, vi. 21, would imply. It is possible that the E-story (of independent origin, see /z¢vod. p. 9 d.) has confused the accounts of the purification of the exiles who returned with E and the separation of the native Judaeans from the heathen, the two events which are kept more distinct in E i.-vi.
The return of Ezra, viii. 1-67 = E vii., viii., cf. Jos. xi. 5 1-2 (who replaces Artaxerxes by Xerxes). to the comm., see Torrey, 196 seqq., 205 seqq., 265 seqq.
2. Azaraias and Zechrias ((k®; ‘E¢epiov A, ᾿Αζαραίου L) = Seraiah and Azariah. The former was contemporary with the fall of Jerusalem (1 Chron. vi. 14 seq.), but the genealogy would make him identical with the Seraiah in Neh. xi. 11 (1 Chron. ix. 11, Azariah), priest at the renovation of the city.
G® omits the names Memeroth—Savias (Uzzi).
5. temple-servants, mg. the Nethinim, cf.i. 3, and for the sequence of the classes cf. the arrangement in v. 9 5666. 6. The date of arrival (E 8) probably coincides with that of Nehemiah (departure in the first month, ii. 1; arrival at the beginning of the fifth, interval of three days, ii. 11; and, after fifty-two days, the completion of the walls on the 25th of the sixth month, vi. 15).
seventh year (x® ‘second’, cf. v. 6, vi. 1), the absence of a date in τ΄, I is noticeable. other details in the verse see the comm.
for his sake, (Ὁ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, G4 om., Ur (v. 7) ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν yap 6 Ἔζδρας ἦν, Os...
7. but taught, so (π᾿ διδάξαι. For the variants see Moulton, ZA 7 W, xx, 14.
In addition
On the chronological and
EspDRAS
I
Now the commission, which was written from Artaxerxes the king, came to Esdras the priest and reader of the law of the Lord, whereof this that followeth is a copy;
King Artaxerxes unto Esdras the priest and reader of the law of the Lord, greeting: Having determined to deal graciously, I have given order, that such of the nation of the Jews, and of the priests and Levites, and of those within our realm, as are willing and desirous, should go with thee unto Jerusalem. As many therefore as have a mind thereunto, \et them depart with thee, as it hath seemed good both to me and my seven friends the counseliors; that they may look unto the affairs of Judea and Jerusalem, agreeably to that which is in the law of the Lord, and carry the gifts unto the Lord of Israel to Jerusalem, which I and my friends have vowed ;
and that all the gold and silver that can be found in the country of Babylonia for the Lord in Jerusalem, with that also which is given of the people for the temple of the Lord their God that is at Jerusalem, be collected: even the gold and silver for bulJocks, rams, and lambs, and things thereunto appertaining ; to the end that they may offer sacrifices unto the Lord upon the altar of the Lord their God, which is in Jerusalem.
And whatsoever thou and thy brethren are minded to do with gold and silver, that perform, according to the will of thy God. And the holy vessels of the Lord, which are given thee for the use of the temple of thy God, which is in Jerusalem :
and whatsoever thing else thou shalt remember for the use of the temple of thy God, thou shalt give it out of the king's treasury. And I king Artaxerxes have also commanded the keepers of the treasures in Syria and Pheenicia, that whatsoever Esdras the priest and reader of the law of the Most High God shall send for, they should give it him with all diligence, to the sum of a hundred talents of silver, likewise also of wheat even to a hundred measures, and a hundred firkins of wine, and salt in abundance.
8-24. Jos. xi. 5 1, δὲ 123-30 reproduces this remarkable decree more carefully than he does the rest of the Ezra story. The document, which is in Aramaic, should be compared with the decrees of Cyrus and Darius (see Torrey, 158) : its value rests upon the Ezra-story as a whole and is variously estimated (see Berth., 34 seq., Nikel, 167 seqq.). According to Jewish tradition, of course, the book of Esther, with the story of the favour of Xerxes, would precede the present — situation. v. ὃ (τ has no conclusion and there are signs of unevenness especially in 9 seq. and 22.
9 seq. Read, perhaps E 12 seq., ‘ perfect peace, and now 1 make . .
1o. Some words are probably missing at the beginning (Lupton).
and of those, mg. being within GD &.
17. Jos. prefixes ἀναθήσεις, 3:5 ‘ pones’, cf. MT deliver (rather ‘hand over wholly’). The MT God of Jerusalem (G®* he God ; Is very Strange.
18, remember (ὅσα ἂν ὑποπίπτῃ σοι), rather, ‘shall occur to, or befall thee’, MT ‘thou shalt have to give’.
1g. send for (E shall require), a misreading (ὃν for Sew
20. salt (35 and some MSS. of tk), mg. other things (GAL; B om.); i° ‘sal sine mensura et caetera sine men.’; GS |
‘before God [π΄ ‘the God of Israel’] in J.’)
Now this is the copy of the letter that the king It Artaxerxes gave unto Ezra the priest, the scribe, even the scribe of the words of the commandments of the Lord, and of his statutes to Israel. Artaxerxes, king of kings, unto Ezra the ‘priest, the scribe of the law of the God of heaven, perfect and so forth. I make a decree, that all they 13 of the people of Israel, and their priests and the Levites, in my realm, which are minded of their own free will to go to Jerusalem, go with thee.
Forasmuch as thou art sent of the king and his seven counsellors, to inquire concerning Judah and Jerusalem, according to the law of thy God which is in thine hand ;
and to carry the silver 15) and gold, which the king and his counsellors have freely offered unto the God of Israel, whose habitation is in Jerusalem, and all the silver and 16 gold that thou shalt find in all the province of Babylon, with the freewill offering of the people, and of the priests, offering willingly for the house of their God which is in Jerusalem ; ;
therefore 17 thou shalt with all diligence buy with this money bullocks, rams, lambs, with their meal offerings and their drink offerings, and shalt offer them upon the altar of the house of your God which is in Jerusalem. And whatsoever shall seem ; good to thee and to thy brethren to do with the rest of the silver and the gold, that do ye after the will of your God. And the vessels that are τοὺ given thee for the service of the house of thy God, deliver thou before the God of Jerusalem. | And whatsoever more shall be needful for the 2 house of thy God, which thou shalt have occasion | to bestow, bestow it out of the king’s treasure house. And I, even I Artaxerxes the king, do 2) make a decree to all the treasurers which are beyond the river, that whatsoever Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law of the God of heaven, shall require of you, it be done with all diligence,
τ ΞΞΣ: ΤΩΣΣΞΞ:-::
unto 2. an hundred talents of silver, and to an hundred measures of wheat, and to an hundred baths of © wine, and to an hundred baths of oil, and salt —
so Ball, Moulton), or merely a paraphrase. ;
“and other things according to the law of God’? (see v. 21).
Let all things be performed after the law of God diligently unto the Most High God, that wrath come not upon the kingdom of the king and his sons.
22 IT command Ϊ you also, that no tax, nor any other imposition, be laid on any of the priests, or Levites, or holy singers. or porters, or temple-servants, or any that have employment in this temple, and that no man have authority to impose anything 23upon them. And thou, Esdras, according to the wisdom of God ordain judges and justices, that they may judge in all Syria and Pheenicia all those that know the law of thy God; and those that know it not thou shalt teach.
24 And whosoever shall transgress the law of thy God, and of the king, shall be punished diligently, whether it be by death, or other punishment, by penalty of money, or by imprisonment.
25. Then said Esdras the scribe, Blessed be the only Lord, the God of my fathers, who hath put these things into the heart of the king, to 26 glorify his house that is in Jerusalem: and hath honoured me in the sight of the king, and his counsellors, and all his friends and _ nobles. 27 Therefore was I encouraged by the help of the Lord my God, and gathered together out of Israel men to go up with me.
28 And these are the chief according to their families and the several divisions thereof, that went up with me from ‘9 Babylon in the reign of king Artaxerxes: of the sons of Phinees, Gerson: of the sons of Ithamar, Gamael: of the sons of David, Attus othe son of Sechenias: of the sons of Phoros, Zacharias; and with him were counted a hunjidred and fifty men: of the sons of Phaath - Moab, Eliaonias the son of Zaraias, and with 32 him two hundred men: of the sons of Zathoes, Sechenias the son of Jezelus, and with him three hundred men: of the sons of Adin, Obeth the son of Jonathan, and with him two hundred 3and fifty men: of the sons of Elam, Jesias son of Gotholias, and with him seventy men:
abstract in E iv. 49 seqq.
valeas. Blessed . . . , or ‘blessed alone be the Lord’ (Ball).
T ESDRAS 8:
without prescribing how much. Whatsoever is 23 commanded by the God of heaven, let it be done exactly for the house of the God of heaven ; for why should there be wrath against the realm of the king and his sons? Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, the singers, porters, Nethinim, or servants of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose tribute, custom, or toll, upon them.
And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God that is in thine hand, appoint magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all such as know the laws of thy God ; and teach ye him that knoweth them not. And 26 whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgement be executed upon him with all diligence, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.
Blessed be the Lord, the God of our fathers, 27 which hath put such a thing as this in the king’s heart, to beautify the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem ; and hath extended mercy unto 28 me before the king, and his counsellors, and before all the king’s mighty princes. And I was strengthened according to the hand of the Lord my God upon me, and I gathered together out of Israel chief men to go up with me.
Now these are the heads of their fathers’ 8 houses, and this is the genealogy of them that went up with me from Babylon, in the reign of Artaxerxes the king. Of the sons of Phinehas, Gershom: of the sons of Ithamar, Daniel: of the sons of David, Hattush. Of the sons of 3 Shecaniah ; of the sons of Parosh, Zechariah : and with him were reckoned by genealogy of the males an hundred and fifty. Of the sons + of Pahath-moab, Eliehoenai the son of Zerahiah ; and with him two hundred males. Of the sons 5 of Shecaniah, the son of Jahaziel; and with him three hundred males. And of the sons of Adin, 6 Ebed the son of Jonathan; and with him fifty males. And of the sons of Elam, Jeshaiah the 7 son of Athaliah; and with him seventy males.
22. The decree is now addressed to the Persian officials in Palestine, cf. the direct address E vi. 6 seq., and the
that have employment, πραγματικοῖς τοῦ ἱεροῦ ; 1S ‘scribes of the temple’ (as though γραμματικοῖς). 24. punishment, dk" τιμωρία, L, ἀτιμία, © cruciatu, 3.5 tormentis, E dan/shment, prop. * uprooting’, Gk παιδεία. imprisonment, mg. caftivity, G4 ἀπαγωγή, 1, δεσμεῦσαι, & abductione, 3.5 exilio. Jos.+éppwoo, cf. © Lag. dene
28-40. Ezra’s band. With the priestly families (v. 29), cf. Eleazar and Ithamar, 1 Chron. xxiv. 2 seqq., where the priesthood is not restricted to the Zadokites but as a compromise a share is given to the subordinate family of Ithamar. For the priestly and Davidic families, cf. Κ᾽ v. 5. With the preferable reading : Hattush of the sons of Shechaniah (v.29), cf. τ Chron. iii. 22. The names of the /we/ve (see v. 4) lay families recur in the great register £ v.; Pahath-moab : and Joab (vv. 31, 35) are, however, severed (contrast v. 11). The sons of Zattu (v. 32) are wrongly omitted in E (but
| see G4 ib.). Zaraias represents Zerahiah in v. 31, but Zebadiah in v. 34; Jezelus (v. 35) Jehiel, cf. oni. 8. The A ae | family of Bani (v. 36) is wanting in E (but see Gr ib.). Zstalcurus (Ὁ. 40) Zabbud or Zaccur; see & Bz, art. a Zabud (2) ; Bayer 56 would restore )31) 13 ‘My. For other details see the comm.
ESDRAS
of the
sons of Saphatias, Zaraias son of Michael, and 35 with him threescore and ten men: of the sons of Joab, Abadias son of Jezelus, and with him 36 two hundred and twelve men: of the sons of
Banias, Salimoth son of Josaphias, and with him 37 ἃ hundred and threescore men: of the sons of
Babi, Zacharias son of Bebai, and with him 38 twenty and eight men: of the sons of Astath,
Joannes son of Akatan, and with him a hun- 39 dred and ten men: of the sons of Adonikam, the last, and these are the names of them, Eliphalat, Jeuel, and Samaias, and with them seventy men: of the sons of Bago, Uthi the son of Istalcurus, and with him seventy men.
And I gathered them together to the river called Theras; and there we pitched our tents three days, and I surveyed them. But when I had found there none of the priests and Levites, then sent I unto Eleazar, and Iduel, and Maasmas, and Elnathan, and Samaias, and Joribus, Nathan, Ennatan, Zacharias, and Mosollamus, principal men and men of understanding. And I bade them that they should go unto Loddeus the captain, who was in the place of the treasury: and commanded them that they should speak unto Loddeus, and to his brethren, and to the treasurers in that place, to send us such men as might execute the priests’ office in 7 the house of our Lord. And by the mighty hand of our Lord they brought unto us men of understanding of the sons of Mooli the son of Levi, the son of Israel, Asebebias, and his sons,
and his brethren, who were eighteen,
Asebias, and Annuus, and Osaias his brother, of the sons of Chanuneus, and their sons were 49 twenty men; and of the temple-servants whom David and the principal men had appointed for the service of the Levites, two hundred and twenty temple-servants, the catalogue of all their
5° names was shewed. And there I vowed a fast for the young men before our Lord, to desire of him a prosperous journey both for us and for our children and cattle that were with us: BI for I was ashamed to ask of the king footmen, and horsemen, and conduct for safeguard against 52 our adversaries. For we had said unto the king, that the power of our Lord would be with
41. called, perhaps a better reading (Ew. 137 n. 4).
42. In E only the Levites are absent, see v. where the priests and Levites are concerned. 43 seq. sentI unto. Omit 2ε7ι20 : 45. place of the treasury,
48. Annuus = MT 7220 ‘with him’ (to be read e¢h, a mark of the accusative). Chanuneus (E A/erar7) might suggest Chenani(ah), Neh. ix. 4, 1 Chron. xv. 2
50. for the young men, an obscure statement, omitted (Ball).
7 the accusatival ὃ (see esp. 2 Chron. xvii. 7) was misunderstood. E Casiphia, but cf. ἐπ ib. Cf. also v. 46, where, too, the Nethinim are ignored.
perhaps a misreading of E’s v/ver ("5 for 93), Ahava being
(? πέραν for Θεράς, Lupton) the Euphrates’. 29 and note the textual difficulties in 42 seqq. (see Berth.),“and elsewhere; —
And of the sons of Shephatiah, Zebadiah thes son of Michael ; and with him fourscore males, Of the sons of Joab, Obadiah the son of Jehiel;9 | and with him two hundred and eighteen males, And of the sons of Shelomith, the son of Josjphiah ; and with him an hundred and threescore males. And of the sons of Bebai, Zechariah the son of Bebai; and with him twenty and eight males. And of the sons of Azgad, Johanan the son of Hakkatan; and with him an hundred and ten males. And of the sons of Adonikam, ¢hat1- were the last ; and these are their names, Eliphelet, Jeuel, and Shemaiah, and with them threescore males. And of the sons of Bigvai, Uthai and Zabbud ; and with them seventy males.
And I gathered them together to the river that runneth to Ahava; and there we encamped three days: and I viewed the people, and the priests,and found there none of the sons of Levi, Then sent I for Eliezer, for Ariel, for Shemaiah, and for Elnathan, and for Jarib, and for Elnathan, and for Nathan, and for Zechariah, and for Meshullam, chief men ; also for Joiarib, and for ΕἸ- nathan, which were teachers. And I sent them forth unto Iddo the chief at the place Casiphia; — and I told them what they should say unto Iddo, — and his brethren the Nethinim, at the place | Casiphia, that they should bring unto us minis- | ters for the house of our God.
And according 1 to the good hand of our God upon us they © brought us a man of discretion, of the sons οἵ. Mahli, the son of Levi, the son of Israel; and | Sherebiah, with his sons and his brethren, eighteen; and Hashabiah, and with him Jeshaiah of 1
the sons of Merari, his brethren and their sons, $ twenty ; 1a and of the Nethinim, whom David and: the princes had given for the service of the | — Levites, two hundred and twenty Nethinim: all of them were expressed by name. Then I pro- ἡ claimed a fast there, at the river Ahava, that we might humble ourselves before our God, to seek | of him a straight way, for us, and for our little) ones, and for all our substance. For I was | ashamed to ask of the king a band of soldiers;
and horsemen to help us against the enemy in the way : because we had spoken unto the king, | — saying, The hand of our God is upon all them) —
them that seek him, to support them in all ways. 53 And again we besought our Lord as touching
these things, and found him favourable wz¢o ws. 54 Then I separated twelve men of the chiefs of the
priests, Eserebias, and Assamias,and ten men of their brethren with them : 58 and I weighed them the silver, and the gold, and the holy vessels of the house of our Lord, which the king, and his counsellors, and the nobles, and all Israel, had 56 given. And when I had weighed it, I delivered unto them six hundred and fifty talents of silver, and silver vessels of a hundred talents, and a hun- 57 dred talents of gold, and twenty golden vessels, and twelve vessels of brass, even of fine brass, 58 glittering like gold. And I said unto them, Both ye are holy unto the Lord, and the vessels are holy, and the gold and the silver are a vow unto 59 the Lord, the Lord of our fathers. Watch ye, and keep them till ye deliver them to the chiefs of the priests and Levites, and to the principal men of the families of Israel, in Jerusalem, in the chambers of the house of our Lord. 60 So the priests and the Levites, who received the silver and the gold and the vessels which were in Jerusalem, brought them into the temple of the Lord.
And from the river Theras we departed the twelfth day of the first month, until we came to Jerusalem, by the mighty hand of our Lord which was upon us: and the Lord delivered us from assault by the way, from every enemy, and 62 so we came to Jerusalem. And when we had been there three days, the silver and gold was weighed and delivered in the house of our Lord on the fourth day unto Marmoth the priest 63 the son of Urias. And with him was Eleazar the son of Phinees, and with them were Josabdus the son of Jesus and Moeth the son of Sabannus, the Levites: all was delivered them by number and weight.
6 And all the weight of them was
Ἵ written up the same hour. 65 Moreover they that "were come out of the captivity offered sacrifices unto the Lord, the God of Israel, even twelve bullocks for all Israel, fourscore and sixteen rams, 66 threescore and twelve lambs, goats for a peace
offering, twelve; all of them a sacrifice to the
ne a σα το
priests (cf. v. 60). 55. all Israel, Jos. ‘who remained at Babylon’ (cf. v. 1
and the vessels .
omits ‘our’ in τ΄. 62. See on vv. 68 seqq. 66. peace offering, or thank-offering, cf. the Geneva B
., mg. and the vessels and the si
that seek him, for good; but his power and _ his wrath is against all them that forsake him. So 23 we fasted and besought our God for this: and he was intreated of us. Then I separated twelve 24 of the chiefs of the priests, even Sherebiah, Hashabiah, and ten of their brethren with them, and weighed unto them the silver, and the gold, and the vessels, even the offering for the house of our God, which the king, and his counsellors, and his princes, and all Israel there present, had offered: I even weighed into their hand six hundred and fifty talents of silver, and silver vessels an hundred talents; of gold an hundred talents ; and twenty bowls of gold, of a thousand darics; and two vessels of fine bright brass, precious as gold. And I said unto them, Ye are 2 holy unto the Lord, and the vessels are holy ; and the silver and the gold area freewill offering unto the Lord, the God of your fathers. Watch ye, and keep them, until ye weigh them before the chiefs of the priests and the Levites, and the princes of the fathers’ owses of Israel, at Jerusalem, in the chambers of the house of the Lord. So the priests and the Levites received the weight of the silver and the gold, and the vessels, to bring them to Jerusalem unto the house of our God.
Then we departed from the river of Ahava on ° the twelfth day of the first month, to go unto Jerusalem: and the hand of our God was upon us, and he delivered us from the hand of the enemy and the lier in wait by the way. And we came to Jerusalem, and abode there three days.
And on the fourth day was the silver and the gold and the vessels weighed in the house of our God into the hand of Meremoth the son of Uriah the priest ; and with him was Eleazar the son of Phinehas; and with them was Jozabad the son of Jeshua, and Noadiah the son of Binnul, the Levites; the whole by number and by 34 weight : and all the weight was written at that time. The children of the captivity, which were 35 come out of exile, offered burnt offerings unto the God of Israel, twelve bullocks for all Israel, ninety and six rams, seventy and seven lambs, twelve he-goats for a sin offering: all this was a burnt offering unto the Lord.
54. Eserebias (= Sherebiah), &® prefix ‘and’; there are thus twelve Levites (cf. v. 47 seq., N xii. 24) and twelve E includes the two men and their brethren among the twelve priests.
3 seq.), some qualification is necessary.
luer and the gold, &c. (G*).
60. which [were] in Jerusalem, the words belong to the end of the verse. 61. every enemy, reading IN) for 271N). G&® confuses the first and the third person (for the latter see 65-7) and
ible ‘ for salvation’.
E
67 Lord. And they delivered the king’s commandments unto the king’s stewards, and to the governors of Ccelesyria and Phoenicia ; and they honoured the people and the temple of the Lord.
68 Now when these things were done, the prin- 69 cipal men came unto me, and said, The nation of Israel, and the princes, and the priests and the Levites, have not put away from them the strange people of the land, nor the uncleannesses of the Gentiles, fo zwz¢, of the Canaanites, Hittites, Pherezites, Jebusites, and the Moabites, 7° Egyptians, and Edomites. For both they and their sons have married with their daughters, and the holy seed is mixed with the strange people of the land; and from the beginning ‘of this matter the rulers and the nobles have been 71 partakers of this iniquity. And assoon as I had heard these things, I rent my clothes, and my holy garment, and plucked the hair from off my head and beard, and sat me down sad and full of 72 heaviness. So all they that were moved at the word of the Lord, the God of Israel, assembled unto me, whilst I mourned for the iniquity : but I sat still full of heaviness until the evening sacri- 73 fice. Thenrising up from the fast with my clothes and my holy garment rent, and bowing my knees, and stretching forth my hands unto the Lord,
4 I said, O Lord, I am ashamed and confounded
5 before thy face ; for our sins are multiplied above our heads, and our errors have reached up unto heaven,
76 ever since the time of our fathers; and we
77 are in great sin, even unto this day. And for our sins and our fathers’ we with our brethren and our kings and our priests were given up unto the kings of the earth, to the sword, and to captivity, and for a prey with shame, unto this day.
78 And now in some measure hath mercy been shewed unto us from thee, O Lord, that there should be left us a root and a name in the place of thy
79 sanctuary ; and to discover unto us a light in the house of the Lord our God, avd to give us food in
80 the time of our servitude. Yea, when we were in bondage, we were not forsaken of our Lord; but he made us gracious before the kings of Persia, so
8t that they gave us food, and glorified the temple
67. honoured, ἐδόξασαν (so Ek)
third person. 69. the uncleannesses .. . Edomites, see iv. 45, 50.
72. So all they, *+ ‘that were zealous and all they’. 73- fast, cf. E R.V. mg. fasting.
75. multiplied above . . 77. we ae our brethren (ΠῸΝ ‘ 79. food, E reviving (NNO, cf. Judg. vi. 4).
we’ read as ns).
, cf. vill. 25, 81, and Is. Ix. 13; a weak and inappropriate rendering (Ew. 138 n. 6). The mixed marriages, vv. 68— 90 = ΞΞ ΒΡ Χ ΟΕ Jos. x1. 5 3.
, mg. 7107. their uncleannesses (to wit) of the Gentiles,
,ats ‘multiplied more than the hairs of our head’, cf. Ps. xl. 12.
τ. 88), perhaps influenced by 2 Kings xix. 30 seq. (Bayer, 15).
And they 36 delivered the king’s commissions unto the king's 2 satraps, and to the governors beyond the river: and they furthered the people and the house of God.
Now when these things were done, the princes 9 αὶ drew near unto me, saying, The people of Israel, | and the priests and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the | Egyptians, and the Amorites. For they have2 | taken of their daughters for themselves and for their sons; so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the peoples of the lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been | chief in this trespass. And when I heard this3 | thing, I rent my garment and my mantle, and | plucked off the hair of my head and of my beard, and sat down astonied. ὃ
Then were assembled 4 unto me every one that trembled at the words of the God of Israel, because of the trespass of them of the captivity; and I sat | astonied until the evening oblation. And at the 5. ἢ! evening oblation I arose up from my humiliation, even with my garment and my mantle rent; and I fell upon my knees, and spread out my hands unto the Lord my God; and I said,O my 6 God, I am ashamed and blush to lift up my face | to thee, my God : for our iniquities are increased | over our head, and our guiltiness is grown up | unto the heavens. Since the days of our fathers 7 | we have been exceeding guilty unto this day; and for our iniquities have we, our kings, and our priests, been delivered into the hand of the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, and to spoiling, and to confusion of face, as itis || this day. And now for a little moment grace 8) hath been shewed from the Lord our God, to | leave us a remnant to escape, and to give us | a nail in his holy place, that our God may lighten our eyes, and give us a little reviving in | our bondage.
For we are bondmen; yet οὐγ θ᾽ God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but | hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the | kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up
See below on ix. 37 seqq. (απ gives the narrative in the —
of our Lord, and raised up the desolate Sion, to give us a sure abiding in Jewry and Jerusalem. | 82 And now, O Lord, what shall we say, having these
things? for we have transgressed thy command- | ments, which thou gavest by the hand of thy
-83servants the prophets, saying, That the land,
which ye enter into to possess as an heritage, is a land polluted with the pollutions of the strangers of the land, and they have filled it with their uncleanness. 84 Therefore now shall ye not join your daughters unto their sons, neither shall ye take 85 their daughters unto your sons. Neither shall ye seek to have peace with them for ever, that ye may be strong, and eat the good things of the land, and that ye may leave it for an in- 86 heritance unto your children for evermore. And all that is befallen is done unto us for our wicked works and great sins: for thou, O Lord, didst 87 make our sins light, and didst give unto us such a root: μι we have turned back again to transgress thy law, in mingling ourselves with the [88 uncleanness of the heathen of the land. Thou | wast not angry with us to destroy us, till thou | hadst left us neither root, seed, nor name. 89 O Lord of Israel, thou art true: for we are left a }g0 root this day. Behold, now are we before thee in our iniquities, for we cannot stand any longer | before thee by reason of these things. 91 And as Esdras in his prayer made his confession, weeping, and lying flat upon the ground | before the temple, there gathered unto him _ from Jerusalem a very great throng of men and
ΟΠ women and children: for there was great weep-
-p2ing among the multitude. Then Jechonias the | son of Jeelus, one of the sons of Israel, called out, ΟΠ and said, O Esdras, we have sinned against the | Lord God, we have married strange women of
| the heathen of the land, and now is all Israel aloft.
3 Let us make an oath unto the Lord herein, that | we will put away all our wives, which we have _ |)4 taken of the strangers, with their children, like as
| seemeth good unto thee, and toas many as do obey
the law of the Lord.
ἢ Arise, and put in execution : | forto thee doth this matter appertain, and we
the house of our God, and to repair the ruins thereof, and to give us a wall in Judah and in Jerusalem. And now, O our God, what shall 10 we say after this? for we have forsaken thy commandments, which thou hast commanded by 11 thy servants the prophets, saying, The land, unto which ye go to possess it, is an unclean land through the uncleanness of the peoples of the lands, through their abominations, which have filled it from one end to another with their filthiness. Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their prosperity for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever.
N
Andafter all that is come upon us for our evil deeds, and for our great guilt, seeing that thou our God hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve, and hast given us such a remnant, shall we again break thy commandments, and join in afhnity with the peoples that do these abominations ? wouldest not thou be angry with us till thou hadst consumed us, so that there should be no remnant, nor any to escape? O Lord, the God 15 of Israel, thou art righteous; for we are left a remnant that is escaped, as it is this day: behold, we are before thee in our guiltiness ; for none can stand before thee because of this.
Now while Ezra prayed, and made confession, 10 1 weeping and casting himself down before the house of God, there was gathered together unto him out of Israel a very great congregation of men and women and children: for the people wept very sore. And Shecaniah the son of 2 Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have married strange women of the peoples of the land: yet now there is hope for Israel concerning this thing. Now therefore let 3 us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God ; and let it be done according to the law. Arise; 4 for the matter belongeth unto thee, and we are
δι. Sion. G. A. Smith (Jerusalem, i. 150 seq.) observes that the term is not found in Ezek., Chron. (except the
᾿ quotations 1 Chron. xi. 5, 2 Chron. v. 2), E and N.
| 88. Thou wast not, mg. wast thou not, &c., see E.
A 82. having . . . transgressed, presumably based upon misreadings "INN for ‘INN, 1273y for 1231p (see Ball).
The marriage-reforms, viii. gI-ix. 36 = E, x., cf. Jos. xi. 5 4.
92. Israel (Jos. ‘ Jerusalem’), E Elam, cf. E x. 26.
aloft, mg. exa/ted (with a reference to Deut. xxviii. 13, ndynd). This points to the reading Syn ‘trespass’
» de populo I.).
| (E ix. 2, 4, x. 6) for MPD ‘hope’ (GS here) and is preferred by Jahn. % et nunc es super omnem Israel (1 et nunc Bayer (16) con). ἐπάνω corruption of ὑπομονή (EG).
} “Concerning this thing’ in E is read by G®4 % at the beginning of £ 93.
94. Gi" 3 ‘and as many as obeyed . . . having arisen, said unto Ezra, Arise . . .’
(reading DYINNT WP).
95. put into execution, nbp has probably dropped out from the MT (Guthe, SOT).
EsprRas
96 will be with thee to do valiantly. So Esdras arose, and took an oath of the chief of the priests and Levites of all Israel to do after these things ; and so they sware.
9: Then Esdras rising from the court of the
temple went to the chamber of Jonas the son of
2 Eliasib, and lodged there, and did eat no bread nor drink water, mourning for the great iniquities of the multitude.
3 And there was made proclamation in ali Jewry and Jerusalem to all them that were of the captivity, that they should be gathered
4 together at Jerusalem: and that whosoever met not there within two or three days, according as the elders that bare rule appointed, their cattle should be seized to the use of the temple, and himself cast out from the multitude of them that were of the captivity.
And in three days were all they of the tribe of Judah and Benjamin gathered together at Jerusalem: this was the ninth month, on the 6 twentieth day of the month. And all the multi-
tude sat together trembling in the broad place
before the temple because of the present foul
7 weather. So Esdras arose up, and said unto
them, Ye have transgressed the law and married
strange wives, ¢hereby to increase the sins of
8 Israel. And now make confession and give
glory unto the Lord, the God of our fathers, gand do his will, and separate yourselves from
the heathen of the land, and from the strange το women. Then cried the whole multitude, and said with a loud voice, Like as thou hast spoken, so will we do. But forasmuch as the multitude is great, and it is foul weather, so that we cannot stand without, and this is not a work of one day or two, seeing our sin in these things is spread far: therefore let the rulers of the multitude stay, and let all them of our habitations that have strange wives come at the time appointed, and with them the rulers and judges of every place, till we turn away the wrath of the Lord from us for this matter.
“ἢ Then Jonathan the son of Azael and Ezekias the son of Thocanus accordingly took the matter upon them: and Mosol-
lamus and Levis and Sabbateus were assessors
96. the chief (rather chiefs, as in viii. 49) . .
IX. 2. lodged there, rightly reading rea for a. 6. in the broad place. ὑπαίθρῳ) of the temple.
8. (τῆλ ‘Give confession (€r"+ and) glory’; a doublet of TDN (Fr., &c.).
11, forasmuch as, wanting in &.
13. for this matter, cf. E R.V. mg. as touching this matter. 14. took the matter (ἐπεδέξαντο, cf. with Fr. 1 Macc. i. 42); cf. Ε R.V. On the conflicting interpretations of this passage see the comm.
Ezekias, mg. Lzias (G** 3). Levis ..., E (τ ‘the Levites’.
, with thee: be of good courage, and do it. Then5 arose Ezra, and made the chiefs of the priests, ; the Levites, and all Israel, to swear that they would do according to this word. So they sware. Then Ezra rose up from before the 6 house of God, and went into the chamber of Jehohanan the son of Eliashib: and when he came thither, he did eat no bread, nor drink water: for he mourned because of the trespass of them of the captivity. And they made pro-7 | clamation throughout Judah and Jerusalem unto all the children of the captivity, that they should gather themselves together unto Jerusalem ; and 8 that whosoever came not within three days, according to the counsel of the princes and the elders, all his substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the congregation of the captivity.
Then all the men of Judah and Ben- 9 jamin gathered themselves together unto Jeru- | salem within the three days; it was the ninth month, on the twentieth day of the month: and all the people sat in the broad place before the house of God, trembling because of this matter, and for the great rain. And Ezra the priest rc stood up, and said unto them, Ye have trespassed, and have married strange women, to increase the guilt of Israel. Now therefore make ri! confession unto the Lord, the God of your — fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the peoples of the land, and from the strange women. Then all the congregation 1: answered and said witha loud voice, As thou hast said concerning us, so must we do. But the! people are many, and it is a time of much rain, | and we are not able to stand without, neither is | this a work of one day or two: for we have | greatly transgressed in this matter. Let now 1) our princes be appointed for all the congregation, and let all them that are in our cities which have | married strange women come at appointed times, — and with them the elders of every city, and the — judges thereof, until the fierce wrath of our God | be turned from us, until this matter be des- | patched. Only Jonathan the son of Asahel and ! Jahzeiah the son of Tikvah stood up against this | matter: and Meshullam and Shabbethai the |
Settee
. and Levites, for avd see Guthe, SBOT.
According to Jos. § 149 there was a meeting of the elders in the upper room (but Niese |
Levite helped them.
mg. were appointed over this (matter). ’
assessors, (ἃ συνεβράβευσαν, & cooperati (305 consenserunt).
5 Il ESDRAS: 9. τς- Ezra 10
13tothem. And they that were of the captivity did according to all these things.
16 And Esdras the priest chose unto him principal men of their families, all by name: and on the new moon of the tenth month they were shut in
17 together to examine the matter. So their cause
that held strange wives was brought to an end
by the new moon of the first month. 18 And of the priests that were come together, and had strange
19 wives, there were found ; of the sons of Jesus the son of Josedek, and his brethren ; Mathelas,
2oand Eleazar, and Joribus, and Joadanus. And they gave their hands to put away their wives, and zo offer rams to make reconcilement for
21 their error. And of the sons of Emmer; Ananias, and Zabdeus, and Manes, and Sameus, and Hiereel, and Azarias.
22 And of the sons of Phaisur; Elionas, Massias, Ismael, and Nathanael, and
"25 Ocidelus, and Saloas. And of the Levites ; Jozabdus, and Semeis, and Colius, who was called Calitas, and Patheus, and Judas, and Jonas.
25 the holy singers ; Eliasibus, Bacchurus. Of the
26 porters; Sallumus, and Tolbanes. Of Israel, of the sons of Phoros; Hiermas, and Ieddias, and Melchias, and Maelus, and Eleazar, and Asibias,
27and Banneas. Of the sons of Ela; Matthanias, Zacharias, and Jezrielus, and Oabdius, and Hiere-
28 moth,and Aedias. And of the sons of Zamoth;
Eliadas, Eliasimus, Othonias, Jarimoth, and
And the children of the 16 captivity did so. And Ezra the priest, w7th certain heads of fathers’ Aowses, after their fathers’ houses, and all of them by their names, were separated ; and they sat down in the first day of the tenth month to examine the matter. And 17 they made an end with all the men that had married strange women by the first day of the first month. And among the sons of the priests 18 there were found that had married strange women: zamely, of the sons of Jeshua, the son of Jozadak, and his brethren, Maaseiah, and Eliezer, and Jarib, and Gedaliah. And they τὸ gave their hand that they would put away their wives ; and being guilty, they offered a ram of the flock for their guilt. And of the sons of 2 Immer; Hanani and Zebadiah. And of the 21 sons of Harim; Maaseiah, and Elijah, and Shemaiah, and Jehiel, and Uzziah. And of the sons 22 of Pashhur; Elioenai, Maaseiah, Ishmael, Nethanel, Jozabad, and Elasah. And of the 23 Levites ; Jozabad, and Shimei, and Kelaiah (the same is Kelita), Pethahiah, Judah, and Eliezer. And of the singers; Eliashib: and of the porters; 24 Shallum, and Telem, and Uri.
And of Israel: 25 of the sons of Parosh; Ramiah, and Izziah, and Malchijah, and Mijamin, and Eleazar, and Malchijah, and Benaiah. And of the sons of Elam ; Mattaniah, Zechariah, and Jehiel, and Abdi, and Jeremoth, and Elijah. And of the sons of 27 Zattu; Elioenai, Eliashib, Mattaniah, and Jere-
29 Sabathus, and Zardeus. Of the sons of Bebai;
Laccunus, and Naidus, and Matthanias, and Ses- 32 thel, Balnuus, and Manasseas. And of the sons - of Annas; Elionas, and Aseas, and Melchias, and 33 Sabbeus, and Simon Chosameus. And of the sons of Asom; Maltanneus, and Mattathias, and Sabanneus, Eliphalat, and Manasses, and Semei. 34 And of the sons of Baani; Jeremias, Momdis, Ismaerus, Juel, Mamdai, and Pedias, and Anos, Carabasion, and Enasibus, and Mamnitanemus, Eliasis, Bannus, Eliali, Someis, Selemias, Nathanias: and of the sons of Ezora; Sesis, Ezril, 35 Azaelus, Samatus, Zambri, Josephus. And of the sons of Nooma; Mazitias, Zabadeas, Edos, Juel, Banaias.
On the variants see the comm. and £& 82. Zaccur should be added after Eliashib in E 24 (cf. Gk").
moth, and Zabad, and Aziza. And of the sons 28 | Joannes, and Ananias, and Jozabdus, and Ema- | of Bebai; Jehohanan, Hananiah, Zabbai, Athlai. 30 theis. Ofthe sons of Mani; Olamus, Mamuchus, | And of the sons of Bani; Meshullam, Malluch, 29 _ Jedeus, Jasubus, and Jasaelus, and Hieremoth. | and Adaiah, Jashub, and Sheal, Jeremoth.
31 And of the sons of Addi; Naathus, and Moossias, And 30
of the sons of Pahath-moab ; Adna, and Chelal, Benaiah, Maaseiah, Mattaniah, Bezalel, and Binnui,and Manasseh. And of the sons of Harim ; 31 Eliezer, Isshijah, Malchijah, Shemaiah, Shimeon ; Benjamin, Malluch, Shemariah. Hashum; Mattenai, Mattattah, Zabad, Eliphelet, Jeremai, Manasseh, Shimei. Of the sons of 34 Bani; Maadai, Amram, and Uel; Benaiah, 35 Bedeiah, Cheluhi ; Vaniah, Meremoth, Eliashib ; 36
Mattaniah, Mattenai, and Jaasu; and Bani, and 37, 38
Binnui, Shimei ; and Shelemiah, and Nathan, and 39
Adaiah ; Machnadebai, Shashai, Sharai; Azarel, 40, 41
and Shelemiah, Shemariah ; Shallum, Amariah, 42 Joseph. Of the sons of Nebo; Jeiel, Mattithiah, 43
16. chose; read accordingly in E ‘separated for himself’ (Eichhorn, Bayer, &c.), or better (Torrey) ‘ they separated’.
to examine .. ., MT v7); the singular Heb. word has a no less singular resemblance to ‘ Darius’ (W177).
20. Read in E 19 ‘and for their guilt offering . . .᾿ (DOWN) for OWN) ‘and being guilty’).
21-36. In view of the tenour of the whole narrative viii. 68-ix. 20 this list of 113 (E, 111 @) offenders is an anticlimax. On the one hand, the separation of the people of Israel generally, though anticipated at this juncture {see viii. 91-ix. 17), is not recorded until N ix. 2, after the reading of the law. On the other hand, the list cannot refer only to ‘ the congregation that had come out of captivity’ with E (N viii. 17, combined with the purified Israel in x. 28), since the families of Harim, Hashum and Nebo did not return with E, but many years earlier under Zerubbabel. There are omissions in vv. 21, 25, much confusion in vv. 31 seqq., and
Of the sons of 32, 33
All these had taken strange wives, and they put them away with their children.
the priests and Levites, and they that were of Israel, dwelt in Jerusalem, and in the country, on the new moon of the seventh month, and the children of Israel in their habitations.
And the whole multitude were gathered together with one accord into the broad place before 39 the porch of the temple toward the east: and
they said unto Esdras the priest and reader,
Bring the law of Moses, that was given of the 40 Lord, the God of Israel. So Esdras the chief priest brought the law unto the whole multitude both of men and women, and to all the priests, to hear the law on the new moon of the seventh month. And he read in the broad place before the porch of the temple from morning unto midday, before both men and women; and all the multitude gave heed unto the law.
And Esdras the priest and reader of the law stood up upon the pulpit of wood, which was made for that purpose. And there stood up by him Mattathias, Sammus, Ananias, Azarias, Urias, Ezekias, Baalsamus, upon 44 the right hand: and upon his left hand, Phaldeus, Misael, Melchias, Lothasubus, Nabarias, Zacha-
the children of Israel were in their cities.
Zabad, Zebina, Iddo, and Joel, Benaiah. All 44. these had taken strange wives: and some of | them had wives by whom they had children.
So the priests, and the Levites, and the Ny ἡ porters, and the singers, and some of the people, 73 ' and the Nethinim, and all Israel, dwelt in their | cities. And when the seventh month was come,
And all the people gathered themselves together Nj) 8 asone man into the broad place that was beforethe water gate ; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel.
And Ezrathe priest brought the law before the congregation, 2 both men and women, and all that could hear — with understanding, upon the first day of the | seventh month. And he read therein before the 3 | broad place that was before the water gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of the men and the women, and of those that could understand ; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law. And Ezra 4. the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose ; and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Uriah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand ; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mis- | hael, and Malchijah, and Hashum, and Hash- ©
36. The MT cannot be translated (R.V. mg. has ‘some of the wives had borne children’) and E’s reading is | eminently more intelligible. ᾿ The division between the books E and N which occurs at this point is a relatively late feature in the MT. The scribes counted them as one book. This is important in considering questions of the transposition and rearrangement! of the contents. ’
The Reading of the Law, ix. 37-55 Neh. vil. 73-viii. 13 a, cf. Jos. xi. 5 5. The view is strongly urged (Hoonacker, Ryle, Meyer, Bertholet, Nikel, Jampel, Driver, &c.) that E iv. 7 seqq. ( ii. 16 seqq.), which cannot refer to the return © of Ezra, fills partially at least the gap between the books E and N. This would imply a new catastrophe, a new and | important return, and a somewhat extensive work of rebuilding in the time of Artaxerxes, after E x. and before Ni. " On the other hand, the formal proceedings of the adversaries in E iv. 7 seqq. and the words of the king do not suggest that the opponents would be likely to exceed instructions which, in themselves, are not necessarily sufficient to explain the ruined Jerusalem which so deeply moved Nehemiah. Further, it cannot be assumed that the disgrace of 113 | offenders in the matter of the mixed marriages aroused the hostility that is represented in N i.-vi. The people | themselves had recognized their sin (£ viii. 68 seqq.), they feel themselves to be the ‘holy seed’, and the proposed | covenant and the willingness of the people to act ‘according to the law’ (v. 94, E x. 3), would make the entire tenour — of the narrative unintelligible unless the writer was describing the successful issue (despite the obscure opposition in 4 _ E x. 15) of steps initiated, not by Ezra, but by the community (Meyer, 228, 240, 241 n. 2, Torrey, 278). Moreover, the ᾿ close literary connexion between E ix. seq. and N viii. 5666. forbids the severance of these portions (see above, p.47¢). | The sequence of events in £ ix. is adopted by many (Michaelis, Fr., Berth., &c.), but can hardly be original, since © there is stilla lacuna between the reforms and the Reading of the Law, and ix. 37, though the natural introduction to the latter, is not in place after vv. 1-36 (note the awkward dates vv. 17, 37). v. 378 more properly concludes the account | of some return, as in v. 46, where vv. 47 seqq. describe another religious event, also dated in the seventh month. | Finally, it is a very natural supposition that the law brought by Ezra was being made known during the four months’ | interval between viii. 67 and 68 (E viii. and ix.); see A. P. Stanley, Jew. Church, iii. 118; Lupton, 60. Hence it is | highly probable, following Torrey (Comp. 29 seqq., Essays, 253 seqq., 260 seq.), H. P. Smith (His¢. 393), and ‘Kent | (ii, 369 seqq.), that the introduction of the law to the notice of the people came at the beginning of Ezra’s work | (after E vil.), and thus explains the people’s recognition of their sins. Such an arrangement is found in the Greek | summaries of Esdras Book I ( 4) and Esdras Book II (= N) in Lag. Sept. Stud., ii, 84 (see below, p. 58).
38. For the locality cf. v. 47, ix.6. Perhaps the compiler who placed this narrative before N i.-viii. believed that the water-gate was in ruins (see N iii. 26); cf. the adjustment in E iii. 1.
_ 40. the priests, a misreading of j3 for 3) (see E viii. 16, 1 Chron. xxv. 8), or merely a paraphrase ; in any case | in an unsuitable position.
41. all the multitude . . ., mg. they gave all heed ((π5).
43 seq. & adds Azariah after Anaiah, reads Hezekiah for Hilkiah, other variants see £ Bz. and comm.
and perhaps rightly omits Meshullam. For
|gsrias. Then took Esdras the book of the law before the multitude, and sat honourably in the first place before all.
6 And when he opened the i law, they stood all straight up. So Esdras blessed the Lord God Most High, the God of hosts, ἢ Almighty. And all the people answered, Amen ; and lifting up their hands they fell to the ground, 4g and worshipped the Lord. Also Jesus, Annus, Sarabias, Iadinus, Jacubus, Sabateus, Auteas, Maiannas, and Calitas, Azarias, and Jozabdus, and Ananias, Phalias, the Levites, taught the law of the Lord,
and read to the multitude the law of the Lord, making them withal to understand it. 1g Then said Attharates unto Esdras the chief priest and reader, and to the Levites that taught the ‘o multitude, even to all, This day is holy unto the Lord ; (now they all wept when they heard the law :)
go then, and eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions to them that have -2nothing; for the day is holy unto the Lord: and be not sorrowful; for the Lord will bring you to honour.
So the Levites published all things to the people, saying, This day is holy; 4be not sorrowful. Then went they their way, » every one to eat and drink, and make merry, and to give portions to them that had nothing, -|5and to make great cheer; because they under- _ stood the words wherein they were instructed,
| and for the which they had been assembled.
(wanting in 3.5).
| 1s apparently a corruption of Banaias.
and read ... Lord, G&*i om.
The texts are confused, see N&.
ΟΠ ch exe 3); others omit ‘N which was’ (Fr., Schlatter,
omitting all reference to N (Meyer, 200 n. 3; Howorth, caused by the presence of N or of an unnamed Tirshatha
to give the Tirshatha undue prominence, but this may be the governor Bagohi in the Sachau papyri. 52. honour, NN, ‘joy’, misread N77 (Ball).
and for the which...
the verb. Bayer’s explanation (go seq.) seems too artifi
. Succession of Eliashib (cf. N xii. 10). He then gives a
_ | aband of exiles in the 25th year of Xerxes (cf. N iii. 9).
48. The teachers are Levites, cf. 2 Chron. xvii. 8 seq., and contrast N and.
version or else based upon another recension (xi. 5 6-8).
baddanah, Zechariah, avd Meshullam. And 5 Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people ;) and when he opened it, all the people stood up: and 6 Ezra blessed the Lord, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with the lifting up of their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the Lord with their faces to the ground. Also Jeshua, and Bani, and 7 Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people s¢ood in their place. And they read in the book, in the 8 law of God, distinctly; and they gave the sense, so that they understood the reading. And 9 Nehemiah, which was the Tirshatha, and Ezra the priest the scribe, and the Levites that taught the people, said unto all the people, This day is holy unto the Lord your God; mourn not, nor weep. For all the people wept, when they heard the words of the law. Then he said unto them, Go your way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions unto him for whom nothing is prepared : for this day is holy unto our Lord: neither be ye grieved ; for the joy of the Lord is your strength. So the Levites stilled all the people, saying, Hold your peace, for the day is holy; neither be ye grieved. And all the people went their way to eat, and to drink, and to send portions, and to make great mirth, because they had understood the words that were declared unto them.
And on the second day were gathered together...
46. (ἃ 3. (but not τ) transliterate the familiar NINI¥ 11’, and add the paraphrase Παντοκράτωρ, omnipotentem On the use of this paraphrase, see H. St. J. Thackeray, Gram. of O.T. in Greek, 9, and for the distribution of the term ‘ Lord of Hosts’, see M. Lohr, Buch Amos (Betheft to ZATW, 1g01), 38 seqq.
On the forms in & see E Lz.; Annus
49. In N, some read ‘and N and E’, omitting ‘which was the Tirshatha’ (Smend, Stade, Wellh., Nikel, &c.,
Guthe, Torrey, &c.) ; and yet others read simply ‘and E’, PSBA, xxv. 15 seq.; Berth., Jahn, Davies). The difficulty makes it still more difficult to remove it by simple excision.
| The identification of N and the Tirshatha, even if a gloss, expresses a plausible view (cf. N x. 1), and its omission in E may be due to the presence of the passage before N i. seqq. (cf. Meyer, 200 ἢ. 3).
N and especially “ may seem supported by v. 40, N vil. 70 (his gifts), and the position of
53. published, ἐκέλευον, an error for κωλύω, or DWM (‘stilled’) read as DN.
55. understood, mg. were inspired by; ἐνεφυσιώθησαν (cf. John xx. 22); cf. v. 48 ἐμφυσιοῦντες Gua τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν. This conceals the abruptness of (τ : καὶ ἐπισυνήχθησαν. δευτέρᾳ συνηχ., but Z, which handles the MT more freely (cf. the dates in viii. 62, ix. 37), probably placed the date after
NG reads καὶ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ
cial. (ἀπ cites the whole of N 13. 2 reads: et coadunati
(congregati) sunt omnes (universi) in ler. iocundari (celebrare laetitiam) secundum dispositionem (testamentum) Domini dei Israel; %°+ explicit Esdrae liber primus de templi restitutione. Jos., whose treatment of the story of E is free and summary, proceeds to refer to the feast of tabernacles (N viii. 16 seqq.), the return of the people to their homes, the death of the aged E, and his burial in Jerusalem contemporary with the death of the high-priest Joiakim and the
summary of the labours of N, either an extremely arbitrary N, hearing of the desolation and captivity, returns with He appeals to the people (cf. ii. 17 seq.) and the work of
ΝΕΗ. 8
PESDEAS
rebuilding is distributed (cf. iii.) Ammon, Moab, Samaria, and Coelesyria are hostile, but the walls (evidently begu in the 5th month, ef. vi. 15) are completed in 2 years 4 months, in the 9th month of the 28th year of Xerxes (N ν. ignored). The walls are dedicated (cf. xii. 27 seqq.) and there is a feast of eight days. The surrounding peoples enraged at the completion of the building (cf. vi. 16). The population of the city is augmented (cf. vii. 4, xi.), a arrangements are made for the priests and Levites (cf. xii. 44, xiii. 10-13). N dies an old man, and the walls of city are his eternal monument (cf. Ben Sira, xlix. 13). Next follows the story of Esther (xi. 6), and the Samari schism (cf. N xiii.) is placed at the close of the Persian age (xi. 7, 8). Thus Jos. does not testify to the present fragmenta condition of Z ; he treats the life of E independently of and before that of N, and his points of agreement with the make his divergences the more significant. ; ἶ ‘ ». A Syriac Catena (Brit. Mus. Add. 12168), representing a text of the seventh cent., illustrates the relationship between ΑΕ and the MT in an interesting manner. It uses 1 and 2 Chron., ‘1 Ezra’ (i.e. Z), ‘2 Ezra (i.e. N) and Daniel ; E is said to be ‘according to the tradition of the Seventy (ie. the Septuagint).’ ite passes from 2 Chron. XXXV. 20-25 to removal of the Reading of the Law appears to be a compromise between £ (note the retention of Ix. 46 6-47) and the MT of N. But there is some evidence that ~ may have had another sequel, and that it or a following book may have treated the life of E and of N on other lines (cf. H. Bloch, Quellen d. FU. Jos., 1879, p. 79 seq.). Thus according to. { Justin Mart. (Dial. TryPph. \xxii) an account of the passover celebrated by E was among the passages cancelled by the Jews. The passage quoted recurs in Lactantius (Last. iv. 18): ‘Apud Esdram ita scriptum est : Et dixit Esdras ad populum: Hoc pascha Salvator noster est, et refugium nostrum, cogitate et ascendat (Just. καὶ ἐὰν διανοηθῆτε καὶ ἀναβῇ) Ὁ in cor uestrum, quoniam habemus humiliare eum in signo (Just. ὅτι μέλλομεν αὐτὸν ταπεινοῦν ἐν σημείῳ), et post ha sperabimus (but Epit. xlviii. -avzws) in eum, ne deseratur (J. ἐρημωθη) hic locus in aeternum tempus (J. ἅπαντα χρόνον dicit Dominus Deus virtutum (λέγει 6 θεὸς τῶν δυνάμεων [ MNS ΠῚΠ᾽]). Si non credideritis ei neque exaudieritis annuntiationem eius, eritis derisio (ἐπίχαρμα) in gentibus.’ ia The quotation may be compared generally with the spirit of E’s prayers (E ix., N ix.). It can hardly be based — ; upon E viii. 35, which recalls the sacrifices at the dedication of the Temple by Zerubbabel (vi. 17) mentioned before the celebration of the passover by the ‘children of the captivity’ (vi. 19 seqq.). Elsewhere the chronicler deals at _ length with the passover celebrated by Hezekiah and Josiah (2 Chron, xxx., xxxv.), in each case after a restorati { or reform of the Temple, and 2 Chron. xxx. 6-9 illustrate the importance attached to the celebration. It is very note~ worthy, also, that the Latin Lucca Synopsis (Lag. 18 seq.), after using Z iii. seq., combines the return of Zerubbab with that of E (using £ viii.) and asserts that the passover was celebrated on reaching Jerusalem. Moreover, a Gre synopsis of 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras ( N) testifies to E’s passover. According to 1 Z, Jeshua, E and Zer. were the | three youths of Δ᾽ ili. seq., and the statement of the return is followed immediately by the notice that the builders were. Zer., Jeshua and N ; E brings the law, reads it, casts out the foreign wives and the people observe the passover a1 a fast. As for 2 E: ἐν τούτῳ τῷ βιβλίῳ τὰ αὐτὰ μὲν TO πρώτῳ λέγει Ἔ. περὶ τῆς ἐπανόδου χωρὶς τῶν προβληθέντων. But it is chiefly concerned with ‘ N. the eunuch’ and his building of the Temple. E reads the law and celebrates the passover, and in the seventh month there is a fast and the Feast of Tabernacles. E then notices the foreign marriages (Ashdodite | women are mentioned, see N xiii. 23) and persuades the people to promise to observe the law and expel the women. They swear to keep the law and after being cleansed rejoice and depart each to his own home (Lag. Sef7. Stud. ii. 84). ἢ It seems clear from the foregoing evidence that the form of the narrative whether in the present EN or in 2 was not — the only one extant. See further, /¢rod., p. 17. Ἢ
“1 ΕΠ Ἰ BOOK OF MACCABEES
Ci Une.
THE Greek title Μακκαβαίων ἴ a’ takes its origin from the surname applied, in the first instance, ‘to Judas (cp. 1 Macc. ii. 4. 66; 2 Macc. viii. 5.16; x. 1. τό, &c.), but later on to all the members of the family and their followers. The title is transliterated by Origen (Eusebius, 7152. Eccl. vi. 25. 2) Σαρβὴθ Σαβαναιέλ (= "ΟΠ Ma 1D ‘the book of the house of the Hasmonezans’, see further, Dalman, Aramdaische Grammatik, p. 7 [2nd ed.]) ; but this title is Aramaic, and is not likely to have stood at the head of a book written in Hebrew (see § 6); it was, therefore, probably, the title of an Aramaic translation of the original Hebrew. What the actual title of the book in its original form was, is not known.
§ 2. CONTENTS.
Oe ee ae, ee τ
εἰ The book is a sober and, on the whole, trustworthy account of the Jewish struggle for religious liberty and political independence during the years 175-135 B.C., i.e. from the accession of Antiochus Epiphanes to the death of Simon the Maccabee. The narrative is, with few exceptions, written in chronological order, and is concerned almost wholly with military events. The main part of the book deals with the exploits of Judas Maccabaeus, who is regarded as the central figure in the whole struggle. The divisions of the book are clearly marked, and are as follows : i. 1-g. A brief introduction in which reference is made to the conquests of Alexander the Great, and the division of his kingdom. 10-64. The original cause of the Maccabaean struggle. ii. 1-70. The beginning of the struggle, under the leadership of Mattathias. iii. I-ix. 22. The account of the events during the leadership of Judas. The purification of the Temple and re-dedication of the altar. The acquisition of religious liberty. ix. 23-xii. 53. The leadership of Jonathan; the establishment of the Hasmonaean high-priesthood. xiii, τον. 24. The leadership of Simon ; political independence secured. A brief reference to the rule of John Hyrcanus.
§ 3. THE AUTHOR.
: There are no direct indications in the book as to who the author was, nor is anything to be gathered elsewhere regarding him ; but some points concerning him may be inferred from certain dada in his book. It is clear that he was a rigid adherent of orthodox Judaism, and his patriotism is everywhere evident. That he was a native of Palestine is equally clear, for he manifests an intimate, and even minute knowledge, both of the geography and topography of the land. There are grounds for '|believing that he belonged to the circle of the Sadducees ; although a loyal upholder of the Law, his [268] is not characterized by any approach to Pharisaic fanaticism ; his sympathy for the Jewish high- |pfiesthood is frequently manifested; his tolerant attitude towards the profaning of the Sabbath |i. 413; ix. 43 ff.) is very different from that which would have been adopted by a Pharisee ; there is Mot the slightest hint of a belief in the life after death, see ii. 52 ff. where a reference to this would have been eminently appropriate, had it been believed in. These reasons go far in justifying the ‘opinion that the author was a Sadducee.
+ The name is derived, most probably, from the Hebrew 72) ‘ hammer’ (cp. Judges iv.21) ; another derivation is suggested by S. J. Curtiss (Zhe name Machadvee, Leipzig, 1876), namely ‘32’ ‘quencher ἡ (cp. Isa. xliii. 17), i.e. he who xterminated the enemies of his people. Earlier commentators explained the name as consisting of the initial letters bf the words mn ΟΝ ADMD 1D (‘who is like unto thee among the gods, Yahweh’, Exod. xv. 11); but there is no _/feason to suppose that a cryptic title of this kind would have been adopted by those whose special boast was loyalty [Ὁ their God and His Law.
§ 4. DATE OF THE BOOK.
The passages which throw light on the date of the composition of the book are : ;
(a) In reference to the sepulchre which Simon the Maccabee built for his parents and his four brothers at Modin, the writer says in xiii. 30: ‘This is the sepulchre which he made at Modin, and it is there unto this day. The sepulchre in question was an elaborate one, as is clear from the description given (xiii. 27-29) ; it consisted of seven pyramids with ‘ great pillars’ around them ; when, therefore, it is spoken of as being in existence ‘unto this day’, it must have been standing for some considerable time when the author wrote this book. The building of this sepulchre is described as _ having taken place immediately after the death of Jonathan (xiil. 25), 1. 6. in 143 B.C.,and Simon | was murdered in 135 B.C. When the writer, therefore, speaks of the sepulchre standing ‘unto this day’, we must allow at the least the lapse of about thirty years, probably more, from the time the year 143 B.C. to the time when the writer made this statement. That would make the earliest ‘possible date of the book about 110 B.C. i
(6) But in xvi. 23,24 we have the following: ‘ And the rest of the acts of John, and of his wars... | behold, they are written in the chronicles of his high-priesthood, from the time that he was made | high-priest after his father’; the formula here used is very frequent in the O.T., but it is invariably employed in reference to a ruler whose reign has been concluded. These chronicles, that is to say, | — took up the narrative at which our author ceased his account; therefore he was writing at a period subsequent to the time at which the chronicles of John’s high-priesthood had been compiled. Now — John (Hyrcanus) died in 105 B.C., so that even if the records of his doings were being kept from year to year during his rule, they were not finished until the year 105 B.C., and therefore the | writer of t Macc. did not begin his work until, at the earliest, after this year. On the other hand, the book cannot have been written after the year 63 B.C., for it was in the autumn of this year that Pompey took Jerusalem, and desecrated the Temple by entering into the Holy of Holies | (cp. Josephus, Azézg. XIV. iv. 2-4; Bell. Jud. I. vii. 3-6); it is inconceivable that the book would | have contained no reference to this, had it been written after this calamity had taken place. Cf. the | references to the faithfulness of the Romans as allies (viii. 1. 12, xii. I, xiv. 40). Roughly speaking, therefore, the book must have been finished some time between the years 100-70 B. C., nearer the former | than the latter date. But this does not mean to say that the writer did not degzz his work at an | earlier period ; for, although, the author made use of certain documents (see below), which implies, | of course, that he was writing some time subsequent to the events recorded, there are passages which certainly give the impression that he wrote as a contemporary of those who took the leading part in those events; such a passage, e.g. as xiv. 4-15, in which the details of Simon’s reign are described, » reads like the account of an eye-witness; it was a period of peace (‘And the land had rest all the | days of Simon’), and therefore conducive to literary work. There seems to be nothing that can be urged against the belief that the writer began his work during the reign of Simon; the looking-up of | records, and the compiling of a book which is, upon the face of it, a very careful piece of work, must | have taken some time to complete. The conclusion, therefore, is that the gathering of materials | began as early as the time of Simon (142-135 B. C.), but that the completed work must be dated some | time later. We cannot be far wrong in assigning the work in its final form to somewhere during the last quarter of the second century B. C.
§ 5. LITERARY AND RELIGIOUS CHARACTERISTICS.
Although a translation (see καὶ 6) the literary style of the book is admirable ; the narrative is written! in a simple, straightforward manner, with an entire absence of anything artificial ; the reader’s interest is engaged throughout, both on account of the easy flow in the style of writing, as well as on account, of the graphic way in which the details are presented. The author writes as a historian, whose duty) it is to record the facts without colouring them with personal observations; he is impartial, but this) does not prevent him from sometimes bursting out into a poetical strain. While, as might be) expected, there are frequent reminiscences of the language of the Old Testament, the author in no) wise imitates this, his writing being marked throughout by his own individual style. On the othe | hand, there are not infrequent exaggerations, especially in point of numbers; and considerable freedom is observable in the way in which discourses are put into the mouths of important persons: but in these things the author only shows himself to be the child of his age; his substantial accuracy and trustworthiness are not affected thereby. ᾿
From the religious standpoint the book is likewise marked by special characteristics ; these are tc be explained partly by the writer’s sober and matter-of-fact way of looking at things, and partly by — the somewhat altered religious outlook of the age as compared with earlier times. The most striking
characteristics here are (i) that the direct divine intervention in the nation’s affairs is not nearly so _ prominently expressed as in the books of the Old Testament ; and (ii) that God is not mentioned by -name in the whole book. The writer is very far from being wanting in religious belief and feeling ; his conviction of the existence of an all-seeing Providence who helps those who are worthy comes out strongly in such passages as ii. 61, iii. 18 ff., iv. 10 ff., ix. 46, xii. 15; but he evidently has an almost equally strong belief in the truth expressed in the modern proverb, that ‘God helps those who help themselves’. This very sensible religious attitude, which is as far removed from scepticism as it is - from fatalism, fully corresponds to the writer's sober impartiality as a historian. But his attitude was, doubtless, also due to the influence of certain tendencies which were beginning to assert themselves. 'These centred round the Jewish doctrine of God. Just as there was a disinclination, on account of its transcendent holiness, to utter the name of God, and instead, to substitute paraphrases for it, 80 there arose also a disinclination to ascribe action among men directly to God, because of His ‘inexpressible majesty. One result of this was the further tendency to emphasize and extend the scope of human free-will. These tendencies were only beginning to exert their influence, but they largely explain the religious characteristics of the book.
δ 6. ORIGINAL LANGUAGE.
In his Prologus Galeatus Jerome distinctly states that Hebrew was the language in which the | book was written: ‘Machabaeorum primum librum hebraicum repperi’ (cp. also the title given by | Origen, see ὁ 1 above). The question arises, nevertheless, as to whether Hebrew proper or Palestinian Aramaic is meant; two considerations, however, make it almost certain that it was Hebrew. In the first place, the writer clearly takes as his pattern the ancient inspired Scriptures (cp. Grimm, p. xvii), so that the obvious presumption is that he would have written in the holy tongue. And, secondly, there are many indications in the book itself that it was translated from Hebrew rather }than from Aramaic, many of these will be found in the commentary ; in some cases, mistakes in translation are most easily and naturally accounted for on the supposition that they were translated from Hebrew, e.g. i. 28 καὶ ἐσείσθη ἣ γῆ ἐπὶ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας αὐτήν : this presupposes an original ὃν which was translated ‘against’ instead of ‘ because of’; it can mean either of these, according to the context; fother examples are found in ix. 24, xiv. 28, see notes in commentary. There are, furthermore, many examples of Hebrew idiomatic phrases translated literally into Greek. There can, therefore, be no reasonable doubt that the book was originally written in Hebrew. But it seems clear that this original Hebrew text was little used, and disappeared altogether at a very early period; the reasons which lead to this supposition are firstly that not even does Josephus show any signs of having used it, and secondly, as Torrey (£. 2B. 2866) points out: ‘ There is no evidence of correction from the Hebrew, either in the Greek, or in any other of the versions ...on the contrary, our Greek version is plainly seen to be the result of a single translation from a Hebrew manuscript which was not free from faults.’
§ 7. THE SOURCES OF THE BOOK.
One of the chief sources of information utilized by the writer of 1 Macc. seems to have been the accounts given to him by eye-witnesses of many of the events recorded ; one is led to this conviction by considering the wonderfully graphic descriptions of certain episodes (cp., 6. g., iv. I-24, vil. 28-54, Vil, 26-50, ix. I-22, 32-53, x. 59-66, &c.), the sober presentation of the facts, and the frequent mention of details obviously given for no other reason than that they actually occurred. That the writer had also written sources to draw from is to be presumed from such passages as ix. 22: ‘And |the rest of the acts of Judas, and his wars, and the valiant deeds which he did, and his greatness, {they are not written,’ the implication being that in part these acts had been written (cp. xi. 37, xiv. 18, 127, 48, 49), and xvi. 23, 24: ‘And the rest of the acts of John . . . behold, they are written in the _thronicles of his high-priesthood. . . .’
; Besides these sources, there are a certain number of documents which have been incorporated in the book ; the genuineness, or otherwise, of these requires some more detailed consideration. They fall into three groups; but for reasons which will become apparent the documents belonging to each 3foup respectively cannot in every case be kept separate.
i. Letters of Fewish origin.
(a) The letter from the Jews in Gilead asking Judas to send them help because they were being ttacked by the Gentiles (v. 10-13), This purports to contain the very words which were written ; ut it is probably merely a summary of what the author of the book had derived from some wellnformed source; that it represents, however, in brief, the contents of some written document, and
1 MACCABEES ὰ was not simply a verbal message, may be assumed, as it stands in contrast to what is said to have | been a verbal message in v. 1.5. ἣν ΗΝ “-“χ"σ (ὁ) The letter from Jonathan to the Spartans (xii. 6-18). Concerning this it must be said that the artificial way in which it has been pressed into the text is sufficient to arouse suspicion. In xii. 1 we are told of an embassy being sent to Rome; the narrative is broken by v. 2 which refers toa | letter which was sent to the Spartans, and ‘to other places’; in v. 3, which comes naturally after v1, | the thread of the narrative is taken up again. Then in v. 5, where one might reasonably have | expected further details about the embassy to Rome, it goes on to say: ‘And this is the copy of the letter which Jonathan wrote to the Spartans. The copy of this letter then follows ; but the main subject with which the chapter began, obviously a more important one, 1s left without further | mention. On considering the letter itself, it must strike one that it is not easy to understand what | the purpose of it was. In v. 10 the purpose is stated to be the renewing of brotherhood and friend- | ship ; but in the same breath, as it were, it is said that the Jews needed none of these things, ‘ having | for our encouragement the holy books which are in our hands.’ Then, again, in v. 13, after reference | has been made to the afflictions which the Jews had endured, the letter continues (vv. 14, 15): ‘We ~ were not mindful, therefore, to be troublesome unto you . . . for we have the help which is from heaven to help us. . . .’ Thus, in the same letter, brotherhood and friendship are desired, on the one | hand, while on the other it is said that this is not required. The object of the letter is, therefore, not apparent; nor can it be said that it reads like a genuine document. That a relationship of some kind existed between the Jews and the Spartans need not be doubted ; the letter probably reflects | the fact of this relationship, which the writer of this book, or more probably a later editor, desired to | place on record, while not wishing to make it appear that his people had any need to depend upon foreign help in struggling with their enemies (see further the notes on this passage in the commentary). In connexion with this letter the following one must be considered. : (c) The letter from Areios, king of the Spartans, to Onias the high-priest (xii. 20-23). This owes its presence here to the fact that in the letter just dealt with Jonathan cites the existence of former | friendship between the Jews and the Spartans as a reason for renewing the same (xii. 7-9); it is — added as an appendix to Jonathan’s letter. The original of this document must have been written | about 150 to 200 years earlier than that in which it is incorporated (see the notes on the passage in | the commentary). It is only of indirect importance in the present connexion as it does not bear on | the history of the Maccabaean struggle. But the fact of a letter written so long before this period | being quoted here shows with what care such documents were preserved, and thus tends to inspire | confidence in the general historicity of our book, since it is clear that the writer (or, as in this case, | probably a later editor) had recourse to the national archives for information; for even if, as some commentators rightly believe, this letter was added by a later editor, it is equally true that he depended on ancient documents for his additions. (4) In xiv. 27-47 we have a source of an entirely different character. This passage contains | a panegyric on Simon, together with a réswmé of his prosperous reign. It is stated to have been engraved on tables of brass, and to have been set up in a conspicuous place within the precincts of the sanctuary ; copies of it are also said to have been deposited in the treasury (cp. vv. 27, 48, 49).| On comparing the details of Simon’s reign given in this section with those in chaps. xi—xiii, however,| it will be found that there are several chronological discrepancies. The course of the history, as μ given in the book itself, is acknowledged on all hands to be, on the whole, of a thoroughly trustworthy character ; but if the passage in question be really the copy of an official document, as it purports to) be, the accuracy of other portions of the book is, to some extent,impugned. It is difficult to suppose that one and the same author would write the historical account of Simon’s reign in chaps. xi-xiii, and then in the very next chapter give a réswmé of what had preceded differing from it in a numbe: of particulars. The suggested explanation of the difficulty is as follows: The original writer of the book gave in chaps. xi-xiii a substantially correct account of the period of history in question, but was inaccurate in the sequence of events; a later editor added a copy of the document under consideration, to which the original author of the book; for some reason or other, did not have access : or perhaps he gathered his materials from different eye-witnesses of the events recorded, and therefore
ii. Letters from the suzerain power (Syrian kings) to Fewish leaders.
(a) The letter from Alexander Balas’ to Jonathan (x. 18-20). There can scarcely be two opinions regarding this document; it is not a copy of the letter, but merely its purport which our author has woven into his narrative, much after the same manner in which he incorporates the general | sense of the various speeches he records. It is far too short and abrupt to be the actual letter of one . ΠΟ who was seeking the help and alliance of the Jewish leader, and for whose friendship this aspirant to
the Syrian throne was bidding. The author of our book, moreover, adds some words of his own in the middle of the letter, a thing he is scarcely likely to have done had he been quoting the actual words of the letter itself. On the other hand, there is not the slightest reason to doubt that a genuine document has been made use of here. (6) The letter from Demetrius I to the nation of the Jews (x. 25-45). This was written for the purpose of out-bidding Alexander Balas in promises of favour, remitting of taxes, and conferring of privileges, &c., on the Jews in return for their support in his struggle to retain his throne. While it /must be admitted that the letter is based upon an original document—all the probabilities go to | support this—there are two reasons for questioning the accuracy of the details. The promises and concessions made to the Jews are of such an exaggerated character that, had they really been made, they would have defeated their object by arousing suspicions among the Jews regarding the writer’s | sincerity ; this, indeed, was actually the case (see v. 46), but the reason of Jonathan’s incredulity is ) not the character of the promises, but the fact that Demetrius had before done ‘ great evil in Israel ’, and ‘had afflicted them very sore’; that does not tally with the contents of the letter as given. If one compares the sober contents of another letter from Demetrius on the same subject, not actually ' quoted, but incorporated in the narrative (x. 3-6), the document under consideration must strike one as untrustworthy as regards details. Then, in the second place, a number of the things actually | promised in the letter correspond so exactly with the highest aspirations of the Jews at this time, that they suggest rather the expression of Jewish ideals than actual promises ; such are, the promise that | Jerusalem is to be ‘holy and free’ (v. 31), a thing which would have been impossible for the Syrian king to grant if he was to have any real hold upon this part of his kingdom, a Syrian garrison in jerusalem being essential to his overlordship ; the promise to permit the full observance of all the -ancient feasts and holy-days, together with ‘immunity and release’ * for all Jews during these periods, as well as during three days before and after each (vv. 34, 35); this would have meant an end to the | hellenization of Jewry which the Syrian kings had always regarded as indispensable if the Jews were to be their genuine subjects ; the promise that the Jews were to have their own laws (v. 37), a thing -which would have meant an zmperium in cmperio, a dangerous state of affairs from the Syrian point ‘of view; and finally, the promise to remit a large amount of taxation, and to give princely gifts to the sanctuary (vv. 39 ff.); this would have meant considerable loss to the royal coffers at a time when “there was the highest need of increasing monetary supplies. For these reasons, the letter we are considering must be regarded as ungenuine so far as most of its details are concerned. (c) The letter from Demetrius II to Jonathan, enclosing one to Lasthenes (xi. 30-37). Most of »what has been said regarding (4) applies to this document as well. It represents an original letter, )the contents of which were utilized by the author of 1 Macc., and elaborated in accordance with his ideas of things. (4) The letter from Antiochus VI to Jonathan (xi. 57). This is clearly a succinct summing-up of the contents of the original letter; its extreme shortness and the absence of salutation show that, jalthough written in the first person, it does not profess to do more than to give the general sense of ‘the original. (e) The letter from Demetrius II to Simon (xiii. 36-40). This letter, in which the Syrian king acknowledges receipt of certain presents from the Jewish high-priest, and confirms earlier privileges, |is stamped with the mark of genuineness; it reads like an original, and is doubtless a copy of this. (f) The letter from Antiochus VII to Simon (xv. 2-9). To some extent what was said in _}teference to (6) and (c) applies also to this letter; it is probably not a verbatim copy of the original, but represents in part the contents of this; on the other hand, there are elements in it which are the €xpression of ardent desires rather than the actual facts of the case.
iii, Letters from the rulers of foreign kingdonts,
(2) The document containing the treaty of alliance between the Romans and the Jews (viii. 23-32). In vv. 24 ff. it is stated, as one of the articles of the treaty, that if the Romans are attacked, the Jews
1 He was, of course, not yet king when he wrote this letter. ? See, on this, the notes in the commentary.
must not render the enemy any help, whether of ‘ food, arms, money, or ships’ (v. 26); this mention of ships is held by several commentators to be a proof that this document belongs to a later date than the time of Judas, when the Jews were not in possession of any ships, and that therefore the whole section is a later interpolation. But it is quite possible that the foresight of the Romans sufficiently explains this mention of ships; they might, indeed, very naturally have assumed the possession of ships by the Jews, as they must have been aware of the long stretch of coast-land which belonged to Palestine. It was, as a matter of fact, not long after the time of Judas that the Jews acquired a harbour: ‘ And amid all his glory he (i. e. Simon) took Joppa for a haven, and made it an entrance for the isles of the sea’ (xiv. 5),cp. also xiii. 29. There seems no sufficient reason to doubt that the author of 1 Macc. made use here of the actual document in question, though it may be that he gives only its general contents, and not a verbatim copy. ᾿ (ὁ) The letter from the Spartans to Simon (xiv. 20-22). We are confronted here with the same difficulty which occurs in the letter from Jonathan to the Spartans (xii. 6-18, see i. (6) above). The section opens (v. 16) with the words: ‘And it was heard at Rome that Jonathan was dead, and even unto Sparta, and they were exceedingly sorry ;’ it then goes on to say that the Romans wrote to Simon (who had succeeded his brother) on tables of brass to renew ‘the friendship and the confederacy’ (v. 18); but then, instead of giving a copy of this letter, as might reasonably have been expected, it goes on to say: ‘ And this is a copy of the letter which the Spartans sent.’ In this letter it is stated that the two Jewish ambassadors who were the bearers of it were Numenius, the son of Antiochus, and Antipater, the son of Jason. But then the narrative (in v. 24) goes on: ‘ After this Simon sent Numenius to Rome with a great shield of gold of a thousand pound weight, in order to confirm the confederacy with them.’ On the previous occasion on which mention is made of a rapprochement between the Jews and the Romans on the one hand, and the Spartans on the other, the same two ambassadors were sent, first to the Romans and then to the Spartans, on the same » journey (see xii. 16,17); on the present occasion it is to be presumed, for the text implies it, that this | was also done ; but if so, how is one to account for the fact that in the letter to the Spartans these ambassadors are said to be the bearers of it, while immediately after (v. 24) it is said that Numenius | — started on his journey? Then there is this further difficulty ; is it likely, as stated in the text, that | on the death of Jonathan the Romans would have taken the initiative in renewing the treaty with ὦ the Jews? This seems to be directly contradicted by v. 24. It seems probable that vv. 17-23 are | an interpolation added later; this would also explain the otherwise unaccountable words ‘and even | unto Sparta’ in τ΄ 16, which was presumably put in because of the interpolation ; the text of this verse, Ὁ as it stands, cannot fail to strike one as suspicious: καὶ ἠκούσθη ἐν Ρώμῃ ὅτι ἀπέθανεν ᾿Ιωναθάν, καὶ ἕως Σπάρτης, καὶ ἐλυπήθησαν σφόδρα. The contents of the letter read like an official document; the © probability seems to be that use has been made of some genuine record which, as already remarked. | was interpolated at a later period. (c) The letter from Lucius, the Roman consul, to Ptolemy Euergetes II, king of Egypt (xv. 16-21). | This is the copy of a circular letter written in the name of ‘ Lucius the consul’, and brought back by | — Numenius. In it the friendship between the Romans and the Jews is proclaimed ; copies of it are sent not only to the kings of Egypt and Syria, but also to a number of small separate States which | enjoyed complete independence. Now Josephus (Aztig. XIV. viii. 5) mentions a letter from the Roman Senate, written in the name of the praetor Lucius Valerius in reply to a message brought by | a Jewish embassy; as in the case just referred to, Numenius, the son of Antiochus, is one of the | ambassadors,' and he brings a gift of a golden shield ; the contents of the letter are similar, and it is, likewise, sent to a number of independent petty States. But, according to Josephus, this happened — in the ninth year of Hyrcanus II, who reigned 63-40 B.C. Now if, as is maintained by some | (especially by Willrich, in his Faden und Griechen vor der makkabaischen Erhebung, pp. 70 ft), Josephus is right here, the passage in question is an interpolation, and must have been added shortly | before the beginning of the Christian era. Mommsen (Hermes ix. 284 ff, cp. Kautzsch, Die! Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des alten Testamentes, i. p. 30) has proved that Josephus is recording genuine history in saying that the praetor Lucius Valerius sent a letter to the Jews, with; the contents as given, during the reign of Hyrcanus II. But this does not constitute an insuperable difficulty, for one of the consuls in 139 B.C. was named Lucius Calpurnius Piso, and the ‘Consul, Lucius’ spoken of in the text (xv. 16) could quite well refer to him. What is more difficult is the fact of the great similarity in the contents betwcen the letter as given in 1 Macc., and that given in Josephus; Mommsen maintains that they are not identical, which would mitigate the difficulty ; but the mention of Numenius, the son of Antiochus, in both documents is more serious; the explanation
: Two other ambassadors, Alexander the son of Jason, and Alexander the son of Dositheus, accompany him, according to this account.
given by Torrey (1.}. 2865) that Josephus ‘omitted the portion of 1 Macc. containing the mention of Numenius and the golden shield, but took occasion to introduce this important name, and the most interesting details, at the next opportunity’, is not very illuminating. Probably Willrich is right in regarding the passage as a later interpolation, added because it seemed appropriate in a place where Simon's treaty with Rome was mentioned (of. c7¢. p. 72); this conclusion was arrived at independently by the present writer, on the following grounds:—Numenius is mentioned in 1 Mace. in connexion with an embassy to Rome in xii. 16, in the letter of Fonxathan to the Spartans, which, as we have already seen reasons to believe, is a later interpolation; he is also referred to incidentally in a similar connexion in the time of Szonw xiv. 24, cp. xv. 15. But a Numenius, in all respects identical, so far as description and name are concerned, is mentioned by Josephus as taking part in an embassy to the Romans, and having presented a shield of gold of a thousand pounds’ weight, in the reign of yrcanus //; it seems, on the face of it, highly improbable that both references can be correct ; either the episode of the shield in connexion with Numenius took place in the reign of Szmon, or in that of Hyrcanus 7]. The account given by Josephus, and the letter as quoted by him (Azéig. XIV. vili. 5), appear to be undoubtedly genuine ; it follows that 1 Macc. xv. 15-24 is due to an interpolator; there are also independent reasons for regarding this passage as an interpolation, since it breaks the narrative in a very obvious and awkward manner. The interpolator, knowing that negotiations had actually taken place between Simon and the Romans, has transferred an incident describing a Jewish embassy to Rome, which belongs to a later period, to the time of Simon. Josephus, in his edition of 1 Macc., did not read the section xv. 15-24 as we have it (see Antiq. XIII. vii. 3); he does, however, follow 1 Macc. xii. τό ff. (see Aztig. XIII. v. 8) in associating Numenius, the son of Antiochus, and Antipater, the son of Jason, with an embassy sent to Rome in the reign of Foxathan ; but we have already seen that the whole of this letter in 1 Macc. is a later interpolation; it follows, therefore, that Josephus had this interpolation in his copy of 1 Macc., though the Lucius letter (xv. 16-24) seems to have been absent from the text he used.
§ 8. THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS.
The most important of these are the three uncials Cod. Sinatticus (x), Cod. Alexandrinus (A), Cod. Venetus (V), the latter belonging to the eighth or ninth century. Cod. Vaticanus (B) does not contain the books of the Maccabees. The text represented in S V is, on the whole, better than that represented in A; but all three are undoubtedly the offspring of a single Greek MS. Whether, however, it can be said that αὐ our texts, as well as the Versions, come from one Greek MS. (Torrey, in .5.8. 2867) is not so certain; for there are isolated readings (small in number, it is true) in some of the cursives which presuppose a better text in the passages in question than that represented in the three uncials ; in some cases these readings are supported by one or other of the Versions. Of the cursives which have been used, 52, 106, 107 follow, now xA against V, now & V against A; in a somewhat less degree this is also true of 56, 62, as well as of 55; but this latter has retained some readings, peculiar to itself, which are superior to those in any other represent echoes of a MS. or MSS. other than the single Greek MS. which is the parent of the three uncials; at the same time the fact is not lost sight of that in other cases the variations in 55 are merely explanatory additions, and in this, as well as in its agreement at times with 3° (see below), betrays a Lucianic colouring. Another group is formed by 19, 64, 93;! these are Lucianic in character, but 64 less so than the other two; with these three Ν ἢ sometimes agrees against all other Greek MSS.; very frequently 19, 93 and S$! (see below) go together against all other authorities ; this occurs in about fifty cases. The cursive 71 offers a curious phenomenon on account of its large number of omissions; these are usually skilfully manipulated ; they have been recorded in the apparatus criticus because it quite looks as if in some instances a better reading were afforded by the omission. That in spite of these omissions 71 here and there shows signs of Lucianic colouring is an interesting fact. So far as the cursives are concerned, with the exception of 19, 64, 93, and 71, only those readings are recorded in the apparatus criticus which seemed to be of importance.
The collations used for the above are, for the uncials, Swete’s The Old Testament in Greek, vol. iii., and for the cursives the apparatus criticus of Holmes and Parsons.
§ 9. THE SYRIAC AND LATIN VERSIONS.
; (2) The Syriac text exists in two forms; one is represented in Cod. Ambrosianus (sixth century) ; ἢ this follows in the main the text of the Greek uncials (95 in the αὐ. crit.), and is preserved up to
1 — Luc in the apparatus criticus. ? Edited by Ceriani (Milan, 1876).
PMACCABEES
xiv. 25°, from there onwards it = $™°; the other is the text found in the Peshitta,) which i: ever, Lucianic in character, and has, as we have seen, great affinity with the Lucianic group cursives 19, 64, 93.2. See the very useful notes on the two Syriac recensions by G. Schmidt, ἡ beiden syrischen Uebersetzungen des 1. Makkabaerbuchs,’ in 7A 7 W, 1897, pp. 1 ff., 233 ff. —
(4) The Latin Version is also preserved in two recensions ; both are pre-hieronymian ; one is found in the Vulgate (3.1), the other is that contained in Cod. Sangermanensis ;* (%*) the latter j
only preserved up to the beginning of chap. xiv. Both the Syriac and Latin Versions are translations from the Greek.
LITERATURE.
Grimm, in Kurzgefasstes Exeg. Handbuch .. . (1853... .).
Bissell, in Lange-Schaff’s Commentary .. . (1880).
Fairweather and Black, Zhe First Book of Maccabees, in the Cambridge Bible for Schools (1897). Kautzsch, in Die Afokryphen und Pseud. des A. T. (1900).
Knabenbauer, in Cursus Scriptuvae Sacrae (1907).
For the older literature see Grimm, and Schiirer 277. II. iii. pp. 9 ff. (E. T. 1890).
Other works which have been of use are referred to in the body of the work.
1 Edited by P. de Lagarde, Lidri vet. test. apocryphi Syriace . . . (Leipzig, 1861). * It is represented by $!"¢ in the aff. crit.; the sign S denotes the consensus of these two recensions.
8 Edited by Sabatier, 226]. Sacr. Latinae versiones antiguae, ii. pp. 1017 ff.
Dae FIRST BOOK OF MACCABEES
INTRODUCTION. I. I-g.
I. 1-4. The Victory of Alexander the Great over the Persians, and the founding of his empire.
And it came to pass after Alexander, the son of Philip the Macedonian*, who came from the land of Chittim, had smitten Darius, king of the Persians and Medes”, that he reigned in his stead°. And he waged many wars, and won strongholds‘, °and slew kings‘, and pressed forward to the ends of the earth, and took spoils from many peoples®. But when the land was silenced® before him, "he became exalted", and his heart was lifted up Then he gathered together a very mighty army‘, and ruled over lands and peoples and principalities!; and they became tributary unto him.
I. 5-9. The sickness and death of Alexander ; the division of his empire.
And after these things he took to his™ bed, and perceived that he was about to die. Then he called his chief ministers, men who had been brought up with him from his youth, and divided his kingdom among them while he was yet alive. And Alexander had reigned twelve years when he ‘died. And his ministers ruled, each in his particular domain. And after he was dead they all
I. *+ who first reigned in Greece i! bthe repetition of the verb (και ἐπαταξενὴ ts not required; > DL Ὄπροτερον (mporepos οἰ Luc) ἐπὶ τὴν Ἑλλαδα ἡ» Probably a gloss; > W d+ many #? + all 3" cael > cole f+ ofthe earthN Vi 8wassilent and quiet Sue = bh > Se τιον k-k a strong and numerous host Sve Iprinces δὲ Mayrov ἃ Α iL?
I, 1. And it came to pass. The Hebrew original of the book is indicated at the outset, καὶ ἐγένετο being the usual Septuagint rendering of ‘1.
Alexander the ‘ Great’, 356-323 B.C., the third Macedonian king of this name.
Chittim. i.e. the people of the islands and coastlands of Greece, cp. Jer. ii. 10 ONND YIN. In Gen. χ. 4 the Chittim are called ‘sons of Javan’ (Greece). They took their name originally, according to Phoenician inscriptions, rom ΑΖ (the Greek A7¢/on), the chief city on the island of Cyprus, now called Larnaca. The original colonists were Phoenicians, later on many Greeks settled down there, hence the term ‘sons of Javan’ applied to these Chz¢tinz.
- Darius. The third of the name, known as Codomannus.
he reigned in his stead. Cp. Dan. viii. 21, where Alexander is spoken of as ἢ)" bn, and xi. 2, where his
singdom is spoken of as ἢ)" madn. 2. kings. Not to be taken in a literal sense, generals, governors, and the like, are meant. | 3. the ends of the earth. A constant O.T. expression: NT DSN Tp.
his heart was lifted up. Cp. Dan. xi. 12. 220 op. - 4. principalities. The reading of δὲ (τυράννων for τυραννιῶν) is perhaps preferable; satrafies (or satrap), the 2ersian province is presumably meant, though in Esther ix. 3 a difference is made between the ruler of a province and . ‘tyrannos’ (οἱ ἄρχοντες τῶν σατραπειῶν καὶ οἱ τύραννοι). they became tributary unto him. In Judges i. 28 ( Sept. i. 30) this phrase occurs, but the Heb. pnd ὙΠῸ ‘they were subject to task-work’, cp. Gen. xlix. 15. 6. chief ministers. παῖς is used in 1 Sam. xix. 1 of the chief officers of Saul (1"72)). brought up with him. τοὺς συνεκτρόφους αὐτοῦ, cp. Acts xiii. 1 Μαναήν τε Ηρῴδου τοῦ τετράρχου σύντροφος. divided his kingdom... Grimm, 27 /oc., gives numerous references to ancient authors in which this is eferred to, but shows that the statement is unhistorical; he says that the story was probably circulated by the ee of the various Hellenic kings in order to make their assumption of kingship appear legitimate in the eyes the people.
while he was yet alive. When one remembers how young Alexander was at his death, the improbability of the thole tradition is obvious. ‘ Greater likelihood attaches to the statement of Justin (xii. 15), Diodorus Siculus (xviii. 2), nd Curtius (x. 5. 7), that when no longer able to speak, the dying Macedonian took off his signet-ring and handed it Ὁ Perdiccas, the captain of his body-guard, in token of his desire that he should reign after him’ (Fairweather and Slack, 72 /oc.; this is also referred to by Grimm) ; but as an hereditary monarchy existed in Macedonia (cp. v. 9), this tatement must also be regarded as unhistorical. 7. he died. He was taken ill with fever in the night of May 31, 323 B.C., and died eleven days after. 8. And his ministers ... This is a continuation of the unhistorical statement just referred to. b 9: they allassumed ... This is inexact, as only five of Alexander's generals assumed the title of king, and that ot till 306 B.C., seventeen years after his death.
assumed the diadem, and their sons after them [did likewise ; and this continued for] many years, ὃ And these wrought much evil on the earth.
THE CAUSE OF THE MACCABAEAN REVOLT. 1. 10-64. I. 10-15. Antiochus Epiphanes and the Hellenistic party in Fudaea.
ro And a sinful shoot came forth from them, Antiochus Epiphanes, the son of Antiochus the king, who had been a hostage in Rome, and had become king in the one hundred and thirty-seventh
τι year of the Greek kingdom. In those days there came forth out-of Israel lawless men®, and persuaded many, saying: ‘Let us go and make a covenant with the nations that are round about us; |
12 for since® we separated ourselves from them many evils have come upon us.’ And the saying
13 appeared good in their eyes; and as certain of the people were eager (to carry this out), they went
14 to the king, and he? gave them authority to introduce the customs of the Gentiles. And they built
15 a gymnasium® in Jerusalem according to the manner of the Gentiles. They also submitted them- | selves to uncircumcision’, and repudiated the holy covenant; yea, they joined themselves to the } | Gentiles, and sold themselves® to do evil.
I. 16-19. Antiochus subdues Egyft.
16 And when, in the opinion of Antiochus, the kingdom was (sufficiently) established, he determined to exercise dominion also over the land of Egypt, in order that he might rule over two |
17 kingdoms. So he pushed forward into Egypt with an immense force ; with chariots, and elephants
nn ἃς 3.1 °+ the day Luc 3.5 Pthe king Luc 9 2? Istadium $ Tit. they drew forward _
the prepuce $'t¢ Swere tempted N&-# το Slue ;
the diadem. Cp. viii. 14, xi. 54; Josephus, Av¢ig. XII. x. 1; a blue and white band which was worn around the. { Persian royal hat as a badge of royalty; to be distinguished from the crown worn on state occasions. The Heb.) equivalent is ἢ ΝΣ and 52312. It was also worn by the Parthian kings, and by the Byzantine emperors. wrought much evil. Heb. Y15 nivyd 3377; cp. Ecclus. xlviil. 16 (Sept.; the Heb. is different).
το, a sinful shoot. Cp. Ecclus. xl. 15; in Dan. xi. 21 he is called a ‘contemptible person’. : Antiochus Epiphanes. The fourth of the name; he seized the Syrian throne in 175 B.C, on the murder of his} — elder brother Seleucus IV; he died in 164 B.C. (cp. 1 Macc. vi. 1-16, 2 Macc. i. 10-17). The title ‘ Epiphanes’ (the; — ‘Tilustrious’) which he assumed on coming to the throne, was in mockery changed to ‘ Epimanes’ (the ‘ Madman’) on) — account of the outrageous acts of which he was guilty. On his coins are found the epithets Θεός and Νικηφόρος ; the former title is applied to him by the Samaritans in their letter to him asking him to permit their temple to be called) — ‘The Temple of Hellenius’ (Josephus, Azzzg. XII. v. 5). ἢ the son of Antiochus. i.e. the ‘Great’; the third of the name, who reigned 223-187 B.C. : who had been a hostage in Rome. The reference is to Antiochus Epiphanes, who was sent as a hostage tc| Rome after the defeat of his father at the battle of Magnesia (190 B.C.) ; he remained in Rome for twelve years. ! ᾿ in the ... of the Greek kingdom. The reference is to the Seleucid era, which began on October 1, 312 B.C.
on the accession of Seleucus I (cp. Josephus, Avézg. XIII. vi. 7); the author of this book reckons according to the months of the Jewish calendar, according to which the year begins on the first of Nisan (April), so that his dates ar¢ all six months earlier than those of the Seleucid era. : 11. In those days. An indefinite reference to date occurring very often in the O.T. as well as the N.T.; Heb)
onn 2. i there came forth... Cp. Deut. xiii. 13 (14 in Sept.); the reference is to Jason, cp. v. 13 and 2 Macc. iv. 7-Ic) make a covenant. The regular Heb. phrase, 1°72 N13. The object of this was, according to Josephus (Az/ig'
XII. v. 1, Bell. Jud. 1. v. 1), solely the acquisition of temporal advantage. ees ἢ} since we separated ourselves .. . The reference here cannot be to any particular time, for the observance ¢
the Mosaic Law was the cause of this separation; it had always been intended to be the means of keeping Israelite)
free from the contamination of the Gentiles. many evils have come upon us. Lit. ‘have found us’, thoroughly Hebraic, cp. e.g. Deut. xxxi, 21 $mi3n myn... JNYon.
12. appeared good. Cp. the Hebr. phrase, ‘to do what is pleasing in the eyes of’; 3 JA ΠΝ which is ¢ frequent occurrence in the O.T. ;
13. and he gave them authority. Cp. 2 Macc. iv. 9.
14. And they built a gymnasium. Cp. Josephus (Aig. XII. v. 1), 2 Macc. iv. 9, 12.
15. They also submitted . . . See the rendering of the Syriac in the critical note ; cp. 1 Cor. vii. 18. Those why submitted to this operation were called AZeshukim (from a root meaning ‘to draw back’), according to the Romaj — name, Aecutitz (Grimm, 27 /oc.).
repudiated the holy covenant. Since circumcision was the covenant-mark (Gen. xvii. 1 1), its obliteration wa ipso facto the repudiation of the covenant. sold themselves to do evil. Hebraism, cp. 1 Kings xxi. 20: Y10 nivyS srzonn.
16. the kingdom . . . established. Hebraism, cp. 1 Kings ii. 12: inadp jp. two kingdoms. i.e. Syria and Egypt. x 17. with an immense force. Lit. ‘a heavy force’; Hebrew usage, cp. TaD DY3; cp. Dan, xi. 22-24.
3and horsemen‘, together with a great fleet. And he waged war against Ptolemy, the king of Egypt. And Ptolemy turned back* from before him, and fled; Yand there fell many woundedY?. ) And they® captured the fortified cities in Egypt”; and he took the spoils from the land® of Egypt.
I. 20-28. The Desecration of the Temple; slaughter of the Fews.
>» And Antiochus, after he had smitten Egypt, returned in the one hundred and eee year, t and went up against Israel and‘ Jerusalem with a great army. And in (his) arrogance he entered into the sanctuary, and took the golden altar, °and the candlestick for the light®, and all its acces- Ὁ sories, and the table of the shewbread, and the cups, and the bowls, and the golden censersf, and the veil, and the crowns, and the golden adornment on the facade of the Temple, and he scaled it all off. 3 Moreover, he took the silver, and the gold, and the choice vessels ; he also took the hidden treasures + which he found. And having taken everything, he returned§ to his own land®.
“|; ‘And there was great mourning in Israel‘ in every place ; |) And* the rulers and elders groaned ;
Virgins and young men languished,
And the beauty of the women faded away ;
Every bridegroom took up (his) lament,
She that sat in the bridal-chamber mourned},
And the land was moved for her inhabitants,
And all ™the house of™ Jacob was clothed with shame.’
I. 29-40. Ferusalem occupied by Apollonius; massacre of the people; desecration of the Sanctuary.
After the lapse of two years the king” sent a chief collector of tribute to the cities of Judah; and he came to Jerusalem with a great host. And he spoke unto them peaceful words in subtilty, so that they had confidence in him; but he fell upon the city suddenly, and smote it with a grievous stroke, and destroyed much people in Israel. And he took °the spoils of the city®, and burned it with fire, and pulled down the houses thereof and the walls thereof? round about. And they led captive the women and the children, and “took possession of the cattle. And they fortified the city of David with a great and strong wall with strong towers, so that it was made into a citadel ἴοι /them. /And they placed there a sinful nation, lawless men; and they strengthened themselves ‘therein. And they stored up (there) arms and provisions, and collecting together the spoils of Jerusalem, they laid them up there. And it became a sore menace, for it was a place to lie in wait in against the sanctuary, and an evil adversary to Israel continually.
'> 64 uwith great pomp S XN; everoarn7 AN? V (= iL!) II> Se fled N were slain S!ve the Soi! >the land of Egypt A V 93 ¢> land NV 4+ went up against Slue 1? 1.1 ee>V fthe -instruments of the sacrifices and offerings Sle Scarried (them) V h + And he (A they) made a great slaughter
and he (A they) spake with great arrogancy; a// authorities (exc $8); + and he made a great slaughter 38, (omitting the rest. The words have probably got out of place, and should come after v.21. +Jerusalem 64 k Therefore 9 IN 5 eyevero ev πενθει A V exevOnoe Luc me OS n Antiochus the king Luc °-°much spoil 3 Pof Jerusalem S 9-4 >N; + for themselves N°-* Luc Sve
18. Ptolemy. The sixth of the name, Philometor, 181-146 B.C.; he was only sixteen years old at this time. there fell many wounded. The Hebrew equivalent 0°27 pon 15% would imply that they were wounded to
death (cp. R.V.), but in Greek the word has not this intensive force.
20. went up against ... Jerusalem. Cp. 2 Macc. v. 11 ff.
21. the golden altar. Cp. Exod. xxx. I-6.
the candlestick. Cp. Exod. xxv. 31-9.
22. the table of the shewbread. Cp. Exod. xxv. 23-30; cp. Josephus, Avféig. III. vi. 6.
23. the hidden treasures. Cp. 2 Macc. iii. 10-12; Josephus, Bed/. Jud. 11. ix. 4.
25-8. This lament was probably originally in poetical form, and is largely made up from the language of the O.T. poetical books. Cp. for some verses cast in a somewhat similar mode 2 (4) Esdras x. 22. 25. great mourning. Cp. Job xxx. 31.
faded away. Cp. Sept. of Ps. cviii. 24, ἠλλοιώθη (εἶχ. 24 in Hebr.).
27. took up (his) lament. Cp. Sept. of Lam. v. 13 κλαυθμὸν ἀνέλαβον (the Heb. reads differently). 28. clothed with shame. Cp. Job. viii. 22; Ps. xxxv. 26, cxxxii. 18. 29. a chief collector of tribute. i.e. Apollonius, according to 2 Macc. v. 24. f
After the lapse of two years. Lit. ‘ After two years of days’; Heb. D2) OWI 722, cp. Gen. xli. 1. _ 30. he spoke peaceful words. A Hebrew idiom: pide 1127 WON. Cp. Deut. ii. 26.
he fell upon . . - suddenly. Cp. 2 Macc. v. 24 ff. 33. into a citadel. εἰς ἄκραν, i.e. Acra.
5] And they shed innocent blood on every side of the sanctuary, And they defiled the sanctuary". 38 And because of them the inhabitants of Jerusalem fled, And she became a dwelling for strangers, Being herself estranged to her offspring, And her children forsook her. 39 Her sanctuary became desolate as a wilderness, ®Her feasts were turned into mourning®, Her sabbaths tinto shame”, Her honour'* into contempt. ; 40 According as her glory’ (had been) “so was (now) her dishonour increased’, And her high estate was turned to mourning?.
I. 41-53. Ldict of Antiochus, forbidding Fewish Worship.
And the king? wrote unto his whole kingdom, that all should be one people, and that every one |
should give up his [religious] usages. And all °the nations* acquiesced* in accordance with the com- | 43 mand of the king. And many in Israel took delight in *his (form of) worship®, and they began |
44 sacrificing to idols, and profaned the sabbath’. Furthermore, the king sent letters® by the hand of messengers to Jerusalem and to the cities of Judah (to the effect that) they should practise customs |
45 » foreign! to (the traditions of) the land*, and that they should cease the (sacrificing of) whole burnt | offerings, and sacrifices, and drink offerings in the sanctuary, and that they should profane the sabbaths |
46, 47 and feasts, and pollute the sanctuary and ‘those who had been sanctified*; that they should (more- - over) build high places, and sacred groves, and 'shrines for idols!, and that they should sacrifice .
48 swine and (other) unclean™ animals; and that they should leave their sons uncircumcized, and make ἡ
49 themselves abominable by means of (practising) everything that was unclean and profane, so that
50 they might forget the Law, and change all the (traditional) ordinances. And whosoever should not |
51 act according to the word of the king, should die. In this manner did he write unto the whole? of
his kingdom; and he appointed overseers° over all the people ; and he commanded the cities of Judah”
52 to sacrifice, every one of them. And many of the people joined themselves unto them, all? those |
53 [namely] who had forsaken the Law; these did evil’ in the land, and caused Israel to hide in all’ manner of hiding-places.
I. 54-64. Idolatry forced upon the people of Fudah ; destruction of copies of the Scriptures αὶ massacre of [sraclites.
54 And on the fifteenth™ day® of Chislev in the one hundred and forty-fifth* year they set up upon the) altar an ‘abomination of desolation’, and in the cities of Judah on every side they established high-.
+ of the Lord V ESS S> ECs tt > but added by δὰ 9:8 uhumiliation 19 xplur. in 858 3.1 yher children N* 2-2the land was filled with shame δὲ *humiliation 64 Slue b+ Antiochus 3» c> 88 43. €-ethe worship of the king 5 fsanctuary A® sabbath A* 8> 64 93 h-bof the Gentiles in the land & i193) k-k the holy things ὁ #1? Mlidols AV? 5X mall δὲ ἢ (unclean N*-2) ΑΝ °+ over all his kingdom and $8 Pall 33 3.1 4much evil 64 93 "twenty-fifth S$ 8+ in the month Luc tforty-fifth A
37-40. Another lament in poetical form originally, the language of which is again largely borrowed from that of the O.T. poetical books. ͵ 37. they shed innocent blood. Cp. Ps. Ixxix. 3. they defiled the sanctuary. Cp. Ps. Ixxix. 1. 38. a dwelling for strangers. Cp. Ps. liv. 3; Lam. v. 2. Being herself estranged. Cp. Lam. i. 1. her children forsook her. Cp. Lam. i. 5.
39. Her feasts ... Cp. Amos viii. Io.
Her sabbaths into shame. Cp. Lam. ii. 6. 40. And her high estate ... Cp. Lam. ii. 9, ro. 41. one people. i.e. as regards religious practice.
44. letters. βιβλία, Heb, DDD.
47. swine and unclean animals. i.e. animals holy to heathen gods and goddesses; the pig and the hare wert holy to Astarte, and as holy animals occupied an important place in the religions of Greece and Asia Minor. 51. appointed overseers. Cp. 2 Macc. v. 22. Ϊ _54. the fifteenth day of Chislevy. We should read here with ὧδ ‘the twenty-fifth day’, see τ. 59. Chislev is th ninth month of the Hebrew calendar (= December approximately). - ] the one hundred and forty-fifth year. i.e. 168 B.C.
an abomination of desolation. Cp. Dan. xi. 31, xii. 11; ie. the abomination which brought about profanatio) —
(= desolation) ; it was a small heathen altar which was set up on the altar of burnt-offering, see v. 59.
5459 places ; and “they offered sacrifice" at the doors of the houses and in the streets. And the books of 1:7 the Law which they found they *rent in pieces, and* burned them inthe fire. And with whomsoever was found a book of the covenant, and if he was (found) consenting unto the Law, such an one was, 58 according to the king’s sentence’, condemned to death. Thus did they in their might to the Israelites 39 who were found* month by month in their* cities. And on the twenty-fifth day of the month they _ jo sacrificed upon the altar which was upon the altar of burnt-offering. And, according to the decree”, ot they put to death the women who had circumcised their children, hanging their babes round their (mothers’) necks, and they put to death their (entire) families®, together with those who had circum- »2cised them. Nevertheless many in Israel stood firm’ and determined in their hearts® that they would 3 not eat unclean things, and chose rather to die so that they might not be defiled with meats, thereby “4 profaning the holy covenant’; and they did die. And exceeding great wrath came upon Israel.
MATTATHIAS. II. 1-70. II. 1-5. The Genealogy of the Maccabees.
1 Inthose days rose up Mattathias, the son of John, the son of Simeon, a priest of the sons of 2 Joarib, from Jerusalem; and he dwelt at Modin. And he had five sons: John, who was surnamed 5 Gaddis; Simon, who was called Thassis; Judas, who was called Maccabaeus; Eleazar, who was called Auaran; and Jonathan, who was called Aphphus.
II. 6-14. A Dirge over the desecration of the Holy City.
; And he saw the blasphemous things that were done in Judah and in Jerusalem, and said, ‘ Woe is _ me, why was I born to behold the ruin of my people and the ruin* of the holy city, and to sit still | there while it was being given into the hand of enemies, and the sanctuary into the hand of strangers?’
Her house‘ is become like (that of) a man dishonoured °°;
‘Her glorious vessels are carried away captive ;
Her infants have been slain in her streets,
Her young men with the sword of the enemy.
What nation hath the kingdom not taken possession of,
(Of what nation) hath it not seized the spoils ?
Her adornment hath all been taken away,
SInstead of a free woman she is become a slave’.
And, behold, our holy things, and our beauty, and our glory have been laid waste,
And the heathen have profaned them! To what purpose should we continue to live ?
And Mattathias and his sons rent their garments, and covered themselves with sackcloth, and _ mourned greatly.
- “they burned incense and offered sacrifice 3.1} they burned incense 1? ΣΧ 5 Yedict 3.2 z+ and they
led them away by force 38 aV; the NA &c. >the command of the king S the command of king Antiochus #?
_ chouses δὲ V their entire houses 1 ($8 = A) + and plundered Ne-# Slue dwere hanged A 19 BSS ie) Eee the holy Law of God #2
Mein 19 93 Sle 2.3 bher sanctified ones $8 + were delivered $8 c-eT_.R.#* ; Her temple was like an illustrious man NAV Sc, They did clothe her temple with glory as a man (15 clothed) 33 = 4 people 93. δι" f+ And now Luc 88 Her freedom is become bondage S!¢
55. at the doors of the houses. The reference is to sacrifices offered to the ‘deities of the street’, i.e. images of Greek gods which stood in the porches of houses.
56. the books of the Law. i.e. rolls of the Pentateuch.
58. to the Israelites who were found. A literal translation of the Hebrew D'NSDI7 Ssnund.
63. and chose rather to die. Cp. 2 Mace. vi, vii.
Ul. 1. Inthose days... Cp. Josephus, Az/ig. XII. vi. 1. the son of Simeon. Josephus adds τοῦ ᾿Ασαμωναίου, from whom the adjectival form of the family name, Asmo- ᾿ naean or Hasmonaean, was derived; the name does not occur in the books of the Maccabees, though Josephus often uses it, and it is found in the Mishnah (J/zddo¢h i. 6), and frequently in the Gemara (e.g. Shabbath 21}, Baba Kama ' 82), where the name Hasmonaeans is always used for Maccabaeans, the sons of Joarib. Cp. 1 Chron. xxiv. 7 ff. Modin. Cp. v. 70, xiii. 25. The present El-Medije, east of Lydda. 4. Maccabaeus. See Introduction. 8-12. Another dirge in poetical form. ἢ 14. rent cal garments ... The usual signs of mourning in the East, see further Nowack, Hedriaische Archio-
Il. 15-28. The commencement of the Maccabacan Revolt.
15 And the king’s officers who were enforcing the apostasy came to the city of Modin to make them 16 sacrifice®, And many from Israel went unto them ; but Mattathias and his sons* gathered themselves 17 together. Then the king’s officers answered and spake unto Mattathias, saying: * A ruler art thou, 18 and illustrious and great in this city, and upheld by sons and brothers. Do thou, ὉΠΈΡΕΙΙΕΕΙ come first, and carry out the king’s command, as all the nations have done, and all the people* of Judah, and they that have remained in Jerusalem; then shalt thou! and ™thy house™ be (numbered among) the friends of the king, and thou and thy sons shall be honoured with silver and gold, and with many το gilts.’ Thereupon Mattathias answered and said with a loud voice: ‘If all the nations: that are within the king’s dominions obey him by forsaking, "every one of them®, the worship of their fathers, _ 20 and have chosen for themselves to follow his commands, yet will I and my sons and my brethren 21 walk in the covenant of our fathers. Heaven forbid that we should forsake the Law and the ordi- 22 nances; (but) the law® of the king we will not obey by departing from our worship either to the 23 tight hand or to the left.’ And as he? ceased speaking ‘these words", a Jew came forward in the 24 Sight of all to sacrifice’ upon the altar in Modin in accordance with the king’s command. And when Mattathias saw it, Shis zeal was kindled’, and his heart quivered (with wrath) ; and his indig- 25 nation burst forth for judgement, so that he ran and slew him on the altar; and tat the same time 26 he [also] killed the king’s officer who had come to enforce the sacrificing, pulled down the altar, and [thus] showed forth his zeal for the Law, just as Phinehas had done in the case of Zimri the son of 27 Salom. And Mattathias cried out with a loud voice in the city, saying, ‘Let everyone that is 28 zealous for the Law and that would maintain the covenant come forth after me!’ And he and his sons fled unto the mountains, and left all that they possessed in the city.
11. 29-38. A strict observance of the Sabbath results in the massacre of a thousand Fewish people.
29 At that time many who were seeking righteousness and judgement went down to the wilderness to 30 abide there, they and their sons, and their wives, and their cattle; for misfortunes "fell hardly" upon 31 them. And it was reported to the king’s officers and to the troops that were in Jerusalem, the city of David, that men who had set at nought the king’s command* had gone down into hiding-places
2 in the wilderness. And many ran after them, and having overtaken them, Ythey encamped against
b—hto sacrifice 64 %*; + and burn incense and forsake the Law of God 30} ithey that were with him 64 93 krulers 8 V 14 and thy sons V 64 m—w and thy sons N°2# SH nn > Zlue °the word δὲ V Luc P Mattathias 64 93 94 > N (λαό N°») ‘to burn incense A 538 8-8 SE places this after quivered tt au u~a + and were multiplied δὲ ἢ N¢-* were multiplied V *counsel δὲ y-Y > Sluc 3.1
18. the friends of the king. There were, according to Polybius (xxxi. 3. 7), two orders of royal favourites under the Graeco-Syrian kings, viz. those of the ‘Companions’ and the ‘ Friends’; these occupied the position of a military aristocracy. Cp. x. 65, xi. 27; 2 Macc. viil. 9.
19. the king’s dominions. ἐν οἴκῳ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ βασιλέως, cp. Amos vii. 13 οἶκος βασιλείας, nadnn ΤΌΞΙ, rol reference to Bethel.
have chosen for themselves. Cp. 2 Chron. xxix. 11 (Sept.).
21. Heaven forbid. ἵλεως = ndvdn, cp. 2 Sam. xx. 20. 22. either to the right hand or to the left. Cp. 2 Sam. xiv. 19.
24. his heart. Lit. ‘his kidneys’, the seat of the emotions and affections, cp. Ps. Ixxiii. 21 }.NWN sny5n, ‘for
my kidneys were in a ferment.’ for judgement. Heb. 0522; what, according to the statute, he was bound to do. and slew him. Cp. Deut. xiii. 9; 2 Chron. xxx. 16.
26. as Phineas had done ... Cp. Num. xxv. 7, 8.
_ 27. Let everyone ... come forth after me. Grimm quotes (from Livy xxii. 53) the cry of the Roman patriots in time of danger: Quiz rempublicam salvam volunt me sequantur.
28. fled unto the mountains. This would enable him, with a comparatively small number of followers, to defy almost any force that might be brought against him, an attacking party being always at a great disadvantage in mountain warfare.
29. righteousness and judgement. Cp. Ps. Ixxxix. 14, xcvii. 2; righteousness (ΠΡῚΝ) ethical right-doing ; judgement (Daw) sense of justice; the technical terms are ‘to do (A¥Y) righteousness’, and ‘to keep (Ὁ) judgement’, cp. Isa. lvi. 1; the terms are generally used in the reverse order, and rightly so as the more logical; the ner pense of justice has as its result outward acts of righteousness; this is also borne out by the verbs used, ‘to <eep, ‘to do.’
the wilderness. i.e. the wilderness of Judaea, west of the Dead Sea; it was called Jeshimon, cp. 1 Sam. xxiii. 19, 24, Xxvi. 13, meaning ‘ desolation ’.
30. their cattle. In the wilderness of Tekoa, which lay to the north of the district just mentioned, there was sufficient vegetation to support cattle, cp. Amos i. 1, vii. 14. f
31. hiding-places in the wilderness. Cp. 1 Sam. xxiv. 3; Isa. xlii. 22.
33 them, and’ set the battle in array against them on the Sabbath day. And they said unto them: “Let it suffice now’; come forth, and do according to the command of the king, and ye shall live.’
34 And they answered, ‘ We will not come forth, nor will we do according to the command of the king,
, 36 and thereby profane the Sabbath day. Thereupon they immediately attacked them. But they
- 37 answered them not, nor did they cast a stone at them, nor even block up their hiding-places, saying, ‘Let us all die in our innocency ; Heaven and earth bear us witness that ye destroy us wrongfully’*.
38 And they attacked them on the Sabbath; and they died, they and their wives, and their children, and their cattle, about a thousand souls.
11. 39-48. Mattathias, supported by the Chasidim, continues the war with success.
,40 And when Mattathias and his friends knew” it they mourned greatly for them. And one said to another, ‘If we all do as our brethren have done, and do not fight against the Gentiles for our lives and our ordinances, they will soon destroy us from off the earth. And they took counsel on that day, saying, ‘ Whosoever attacketh us on the Sabbath day, let us fight against him, that we may not in 42 any case all die, as our brethren died in their hiding-places.’ Then were there gathered unto them
“a company of the Chasidim’, mighty men of Israel who willingly offered themselves for the Law,
2-2Do ye resist still even now? & *uncharitably $8 Yheard Slue ¢~ethe whole company of Jews 8 V
32. on the Sabbath day. From the words in v. 33 it is evident that the enemy had no desire of taking a mean advantage by fighting on a day on which they knew the Jews would make no resistance.
34. and thereby profane the Sabbath day. The profanation of the Sabbath would, according to the preceding words, consist in coming forth and doing according to the command of the king; i.e. the command of the king was that they should come forth and submit themselves. This the Jews would not have done at any time, but to do so on the Sabbath would have been an aggravation of the offence, since, apart from the act of renegades which submission would, under the circumstances, have implied, the coming forth with their belongings would, in itself, have constituted a breaking of the Sabbath.
36. nor did they cast a stone. i.e. there was not even the semblance of resistance.
37. in our innocency. ἐν τῇ ἁπλύτητι ἡμῶν, i.e. ‘in our integrity’ (ON); cp. Ps. xxvi. 1, 11, xxv. 21, xli. 13.
wrongfully. Cp. xv. 33 where R.V. renders ἀκρίτως ‘wrongfully’; this is a better rendering than ‘ without trial’ as R.V. translates here, for the revolt having been entered upon by the events recorded in vv. 15-28, the idea of a trial is out of the question. Cp. Ps. lxix. 4, ‘They that would cut me off, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty.’
38. they attacked them. This hardly bears out the statement of Josephus: ‘they burned them as they were in the caves without resistance, and without so much as stopping up the entrances of the caves’ (Av¢zg. XII. vi. 2).
and they died . . . about a thousand souls. Josephus adds: ‘ But many of those that escaped joined them-
selves to Mattathias, and appointed him to be their ruler, who taught them to fight, even on the Sabbath day’ (Ζόζα.),
39. they mourned greatly for them. ἕως σφύδρα -- INDY; ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς, the verb bax (‘to mourn’) is usually
followed by by (‘upon’ or ‘ over’).
40. and one said to another. καὶ εἶπεν ἀνὴρ πρὸς τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ is another Hebraism: ΠΡ το ΣΝ WAN ON”.
41. and they took counsel... Cp. ix. 44 ff., xi. 34, 43 ff.; the counsel (‘Whosoever attacks . . .’) taken was a modification of the Law; but, as a matter of fact, the Written Law did not forbid necessary labour on the Sabbath. What we have here is an ordinance of the Oral Law, framed by the rigid legalists as the interpretation of the Written Law. The mention of the Chaszdim in the next verse is significant, as they were responsible, in large measure, for the strict interpretation of the Written Law. The passage shows that the party of the Chasz¢dimz was already in existence, and was not created by the persecution under Antiochus ; see next note.
42. acompany of the Chasidim. The ᾿Ασιδαῖοι (= O'DN) are here referred to as though well known, a fact which further substantiates what was said in the preceding note. The Chasidim (‘ pious’) were those, frequently referred to in some of the later Psalms (6. g. xii. 2, XXX. 4, XXXI. 23, xxxvil. 28, cxlix. 1-9), who remained true to the traditions and customs of their fathers when, in the third century B.C. and onwards, the Jews of the Dispersion, and also of Palestine, were becoming lax in their observance of orthodox Judaism owing to the rise of the Hellenistic spirit. They were animated by a hatred of everything and everyone that savoured of Hellenism, for, according to them, this implied unfaithfulness to the God of Israel. Although in existence beforehand, it was only during the Maccabaean struggle that they commenced to play an important role in the political life of the nation. In 1, 2 Macc. they are referred to three times; the data regarding their characteristics seem, at first sight, to be conflicting. In 1 Macc. ii. 43, 44 they are described as warlike; in vii. 12-14 they appear as the peaceful party, while in 2 Macc. xiv. 6 they are said to ‘keep up war, and are seditious, not suffering the kingdom to find tranquillity’. It is probable that these descriptions both witness to the true facts of the case; the natural inclination of these strict observers of the Law would obviously be in the direction of peace ; but as soon as they realized that the cherished object of their existence was imperilled, it behoved them to be up and doing. This is borne out by what we read in the Psalms concerning them, for at one time they are spoken of as peaceful worshippers (xxx. 4), and as the lovers of the Lord (xxxi. 23, xxxvil. 28) ; while at another time they are represented as warriors zealous for the honour of God, and fighting His enemies (cxlix. 6-9). It is not without significance that after the Maccabaean struggle, when the victory for orthodox Judaism had been won, nothing further is heard of the Chasidim. They seem to have gradually developed into the Pharisaic party, which was nn by the same zeal for the Law (cp. Moritz Friedlander, Geschichte der Jiidischen Apologetik, pp. 316 ff.,
mighty men of Israel. Cp. 1 Chron. vil. 2, 7 (Sept.).
43 every one of them. And all they that fled from the evils were added unto them, and reinforced
44 them. And they mustered a host, and smote sinners in their anger, and lawless men τ their wrath ;
45 and the rest fled to the Gentiles to save themselves. And Mattathias and his friends* went round
46 about®, and pulled down altars‘, and they circumcised by force the children that were uncircumcised,
47 as many as they$ found "within the borders" of Israel. And they pursued after the sons of pride,
48 and the! work prospered in their hand. And they rescued* the Law out of the hand of the Gentiles, and ‘out of the hand! of the™ kings, neither suffered they the sinner to triumph.
11. 49-70. The last words of Mattathias ; his death.
49 And the days drew near that Mattathias should die, and he said unto his sons: ‘ Now have pride 50 and rebuke" gotten strength and a season of destruction and wrath of indignation. And now (my) 51 children, be zealous for the Law, and give your lives for the covenant of your® fatherst. PAnd call
to mind the deeds of the’ fathers*? which they did in* their generations4; "that ye may receive" 52 great glory and an everlasting name. Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was 53 reckoned unto him for* righteousness? Joseph, in the time of his distress, kept the commandment, 54 and became lord of Egypt. Phinehas, our father, for that he was zealous exceedingly, obtained the 55 covenant of an everlasting’ priesthood. Joshua, for fulfilling the word*, became a judge in Israel. 57 Caleb, for bearing witness in’ the congregation, obtained ‘land (as) an heritage®. David, for being 58 merciful, inherited the throne of? a °kingdom for ever and ever®. Elijah, for that he was exceeding 59 zealous for the Law, was taken up into heaven’. Hananiah, Azariah (and) Mishael, believing (in 60 God)’, were saved from the flame. Daniel, for his innocency, was delivered from the mouth of the 61 lions®. And thus consider ye ‘from generation to generation?;—all who hope in Him shall want for 62 nothing. And* be not afraid of the words of a sinful man, for his glory [shall be]! dung and worms”. 63 To-day he shall be lifted up, and to-morrow” he shall in no wise be found, because he is returned 64 unto his dust, and his thought is perished. °And ye®, (my) children, be strong and show yourselves 65 men Pon behalf of the’ Law”; for therein shall ye obtain glory. And behold Simeon your‘ brother, 66 I know that he is a man of counsel*; give ear unto him alway‘; he shall be a father unto you. And
dsons A; they that were with him 968 commanded δὲ ftheir altars A V 8he AV h-hamong the sons δὲ {their 19 ktook Ss NSS 64 m their N°? 64 93 nfamine S& Sour A P-P> Ἰὰς 4.4 71 Tour A Sfirst ones 3% BSS JN uvand ye shall receive #4 35> A Ythe lot of acovenantS “*holyA > 71 awords Luc. + of the Lord it b> A c¢the heritage δὲ Z' a heritage of land Va land of heritage S!uc d-d> 71 &ean everlasting kingdom A 71 fverses 59-63 are omitted by 71 sil hlion δὲ 64 i according to generation A Ee ius 1Luc Ma worm 19 Slve 2,1 n>A o> N (hab 8°) P-P> 71 dyour A ‘our 93 good counsel %? counsel and intelligence $ t> i
44. sinners ... lawless men. i.e. the renegade Israelites.
46. the children . . . Israel. An eloquent witness to the way in which the Hellenistic spirit had influenced the Jews. The same applies to the mention of altars (i.e. idol-altars), for these verses evidently refer to Jews, cp. the words of Josephus: ‘. . . and overthrew their idol-altars, and slew those that broke the laws, even all that he could bring under his power, for many of them were dispersed among the nations round about them for fear of him (i.e. Mattathias).’
47. sons of pride. Hebraism, cp. ‘sons of tumult’ (jINt’ 23) Jer. xlviii. 45; the reference is to the Syrians ;
48. neither suffered they the sinner to triumph. οὐκ ἔδωκαν κέρας τῷ ἁμαρτωλῴ, Hebraism; cp. Ps. xxv. 5, ‘Lift not up your horn on high’; a frequent O.T. figure for strength.
49. And the days drew near... A frequent O.T. phrase, cp. Gen. xlvii. 29; 1 Kings ii. 1.
50 ff. With this enumeration of the deeds of the fathers, cp. Ecclus. xliv-xlix.
51. an everlasting name. On the ideas connected with this cp. the writers Zzfe, Death, and Immortality ; Studies in the Psalms, Lecture 111.
52....intemptation. Cp. Gen. xxii. 1.
reckoned unto... Cp. Gen. xv. 6.
53. kept the commandment. Cp. Gen. xxxix. 9.
54. was zealous exceedingly. Cp. Num. xxv. 7, 13.
55. ajudge. O5t’ in the sense of ‘ruler’, cp. Mic. iv. 14.
56. for bearing witness ... Cp. Num. xiii. 31, xiv. 24; Joshua xiv. 14.
57. the throne of akingdom. Cp. 2 Sam. vii. 16.
58. exceeding zealous ... Cp. 1 Kings xviii. 40, xix. Io.
was takenup... Cp. 2 Kings ii. 11.
believing. Cp. Dan. iii. 17.
61. shall want for nothing. Cp. Ps. xxxiv. Io.
Judas Maccabaeus, he" hath been strong and mighty’ “from his youth; he shall be your captain and 67 shall fight* the battle” of the people. And ye, take you unto you all those who observe the Law,
68 and avenge the wrong of your people. *Render a recompense to the Gentiles, and take heed to the commandments of the Law.’
),7° And he blessed them, and was gathered unto his” fathers. °*And he died in the one hundred and forty-sixth® year'®; Sand his sons buried him "in the sepulchres' of his fathers" at Modin; Fand all Israel made great lamentation for him*.
JUDAS MACCABAEUS. III. 1—IX. 22.
III. 1-9. A Song of praise in honour of Fudas Maccabaeus.
"1,2. And his son Judas, 'who was called’ Maccabaeus, rose up in his stead. if And all his brethren helped him,
And all they that clave unto™ his father,
And they fought with gladness the battle of Israel.
3 And he” extended the glory °of his people®, And put on a breastplate as a giant, And girt on his weapons of war.
? He set battles in array, He protected “the army with the sword Ὁ. 4 And he was like a lion in his" deeds :
And as a lion’s whelp roaring for prey, He pursued the lawless, seeking them out, And burnt up those that troubled ‘his people*.
6 And the lawless lost heart for fear of him, And all the workers of lawlessness were sore troubled ; tAnd deliverance prospered in his hand.
, And he angered many” kings, And made Jacob* glad with his acts. And his memorial is blessed for ever.
8 And he went about among the cities of Judah, And destroyed the ungodly’ thereout?, And turned away wrath from Israel.
9 And he was renowned unto the utmost part of the earth, And gathered together *those who were perishing?.
III. 10-26. Victories of Fudas Maccabaeus over Apollonius and Seron.
to And Apollonius gathered” the Gentiles® together, and? a great host from Samaria, to fight 11 against Israel. And Judas perceived it, and went forth to meet him, and smote him, and slew him ;
u>NLuc VYinmightA πὶ yeshallfight A Ybattles Luc forthe people712'S > this v.71 Dtheir N* (his 8&4) CRS σὴν 4Mattathias Luc forty-eighthN S™¢ + ofthe kingdom Luc 8 She was buried 8 71 3.1 h-h> 71 isepulchre Luc EkS 71
III. 1 > Slue ™followed 64 nJudas Luc 3.5 °-oby his word V P-P So that they fell in the battle ; and he raised up shields against the fortresses S$ 4-4 with his sword in battle V ceN) SOS lak abe 5 4>093 S58 <*IsraelLuc Ykings64 thereonA **Apollonius (as sudject)V* ὕπνο ὁ»ο ἃ» Ss
68. Render a recompense. Cp. Ps. cxxxvi. 11 (Sept.). ᾿ ie 69. and was gathered ... A regular O.T. phrase, cp. e.g. Gen. xxv. 8; Deut. xxxil. 50, cp. also Acts xiii. 36. 70. in the one hundred and forty-sixth year. i.e. 167-166 B.C. III. 1. Judas. Hebr. 771. re who was called Maccabaeus. Cp. ii. 4, 66, v.24; 2 Macc. ii. 19, vill. I. 3-9. In his panegyric on Judas Maccabaeus the author adopts a poetical form. 3. giant. γίγας is not a good rendering of 1123, which means ‘hero’; for the Sept. usage see, e.g., Gen. x. 9, Isa. iii. 2,
weapons of war. τὰ σκεύη τὰ πολεμικά = mond 5, cp. I Sam. viil. 12,
5. burnt up. Better ‘exterminated’, according to the sense of 1Y2 in 2 Sam. iv. 11; unless it is meant literally cp. vv. 5, 44, 2 Macc. viii. 33; this was regarded as the most degrading death, cp. Lev. xx. 14, xxi. 9; Deut. xxi. 23;
7. his memorial... Cp. Prov. x. 7. με
1ο. Apollonius. Cp. 1. 29 and 2 Macc. ν. 24; Josephus, Am/zg. XII. ν. 5, vil. 1.
12 and many fell wounded to death, and the rest fled. And they® took their spoils‘; and Judas took the sword of Apollonius, and therewith fought he all (his) days. ; 13 And Seron, the commander of the host of Syria, heard that Judas had gathered *a gathering ands | 14 a congregation of faithful men with him, "andi of such as went out to war"; and he said: ‘I will make a name for myself, and get me glory in the kingdom; and I will fight against Judas* and them that 15 are with him, that! set at nought the word of the king.’ ™And he went up again™; and there went up 16 with him a mighty army of the ungodly to help him, to take vengeance on the children of Israel. And he® came near to the ascent of Bethhoron ; and Judas°® went forth to meet him? with a small 17 company. But “when they" saw the army coming to meet them", they said unto Judas: ‘What ?* shall we be able, being a small company, to fight against so great “and strong" a multitude ? And we, for 18 our part, are faint, having tasted no food this day.’ And Judas said: ‘It is an easy thing for many to be shut up in the hands of a few, and there is no difference ‘in the sight οἵ" Heaven” to save by το many or by few; for victory in battle standeth not in the multitude of an host, but strength is from 20 Heaven®. They come unto us in’ fulness of insolence and lawlessness, “to destroy us and our wives 22 and our children, for* to spoil us*; but we fight for our lives and our laws. And He Himself? will 23 discomfit them before our face ; but as for you, be ye not afraid of them.’ Now when he® had left off speaking, he* leapt suddenly upon them, and Seron and his army were discomfited *before him®. 24 And they pursued them! at the descent of Bethhoron unto the plain; and there fell of them about eight hundred men ; and the rest fled into £the land of® the Philistines. 25 Then began the fear of Judas "and of his brethren*, and the dread (of them) fell upon the nations? 26 round about them. And his name came near even unto the king; and Fevery nation* told of the battles! of Judas.
III. 27-37. Lystas 15 commissioned to continue the war against the Fews during the absence of Antiochus in Persia.
27 But when Antiochus the king™ heard these words he was full of indignation; and he sent and 28 gathered together all the forces "of his kingdom®, °an exceeding strong army®. And he opened his treasury and gave his forces pay for a? year, and commanded them to be ready for every need’. 29 And he saw that the money failed from his treasures, and that the tributes of the country were small, because of the dissension and harm which he had brought upon the land (in seeking) to take 3° away the laws which had been (in vogue) from the earliest times; and he feared (therefore) that he would not have (enough), as (he had had) at other times, for the charges and the gifts which he gave
ehe 19 farms (122. vessels) A 8-B> Slue bok i> Luc k + the son land those that A
mm Reading καὶ tpoaebero του avaBnvat cmydyd 5D") ; and he prepared himself @! > 55 athey V Luc She $8 Pthem V 64 q4>71 r+ that were with him Luc Shim A V# (them V) t How 71 WSS ἃ τευ ῆρυ: (ἃ “Zt. before “the God of Heaven 8 V_ him that dwelleth in Heaven $8 the Heavenly One 19 64 »Α 2-2.ὄ Se aand 71 Slue 3. bthe Lord Luc Slue ¢Judas Luc Ithey $8 e-&> 93 fhim δὰ se>V hh>19 iallthe nations £' -kthe nations δὲ 64 93 lacts 93 S BSS EHS TNS HE 00> N* (hab Noa) Pthe A 9+for a year A rall things 1?
15. and he went up again. See critical note.
16. the ascent of Bethhoron. About five hours’ journey north-west of Jerusalem. ‘From a military point of view Bethhoron was an important outpost, and to an invading force from the maritime plain the key to Jerusalem; cp. Joshua x. 16-26’ (Fairweather and Black, zz Zoc.).
18. to save by many or by few. Cp. 1 Sam. xiv. 6.
22. He Himself. Thus avoiding the mention of the name of God; this is characteristic of later usage ; cp. ii. 61.
23. were discomfited. συντρίβειν has a stronger meaning, ‘ were utterly crushed ’.
28. pay for a year. This suggests that his forces could not always be relied upon. The extravagance of Antiochus Epiphanes (cp. v. 30) and the way in which he squandered money on public displays, games, and the like, must have often made it difficult to find the wherewithal to pay his soldiers, in consequence of which discontent would have manifested itself. The Jews had a great advantage here, since, in fighting, they were actuated solely by patriotic motives. According to Josephus (Ze//. Jud. I. ii. 5) the Jews never employed mercenary troops until the time of
_to be ready for every need. The meaning is, presumably, that they were not necessarily to be employed against the Jews only, but that they were to be prepared to go anywhere; this provision was necessary, for with his Egyptian campaigns Antiochus was always in need of soldiers. In 2 Macc. v. 5-11, e. g., we are told that he was hurriedly called back from an Egyptian campaign in order to quell an outbreak in Judaea under Jason.
30. the gifts which ... with a liberal hand. Cp. the words of Polybius (xxvi. I): ‘Rational people were at a loss what to think about him. Some regarded him as a simple and homely man, others looked upon him as crazed. . . . To some he gave bone dice, to others dates, to others gold. But if perchance he should meet anyone whom he had never seen before, he would give him unexpected presents’ (quoted by Fairweather and Black, zz Zoc.). Grimm mentions that in one of his Egyptian campaigns Antiochus gave a piece of gold to every Greek in Naukratis (Polybius, xxviil. 17. 11) ; ep. also Dan. xi. 24, ‘In time of security shall he come even upon the fattest places of the
31 aforetime with a liberal hand,—‘and he was more lavish than the kings that were before him’. He was (therefore) exceedingly perplexed in his mind ; so het determined to go to Persia, and to take
| 32 tributes of the countries", and (thus) to gather much money. And he left’ Lysias, an honourable } man, and “one of the seed royal, (to be) over the affairs of the king from the river Euphrates unto 34 the borders of Egypt, and to bring up his son Antiochus until he should return. And he delivered unto
| him the half of the forces, and the elephants, and gave him charge over all the things that he would 35 have done and concerning them* ¥that dwell in Judaea and Jerusalem, (namely) that he should send a host Z7against them? to root out* and destroy the strength” of Israel and® the remnant of Jerusalem, 36 and “to take away’ their® memorial from the place ; and that he should make strangers to dwell in 37 all their borders, and that he should ‘divide their land by lot’. And the king took the half that remained of the forces, and removed from Antioch, $from his royal city, i(in) the one hundred and forty-seventh year‘; and he passed over the river Euphrates, and went through the upper countries.
ss>A tthey ἃ Antiochus Luc "country Sluve Ysent N* (left N°-*) w-why race (belonging) to the king Slac .. . the kingdom $8 ... the country 3» Xall them A 5 7» 93 z-a> Ss ato drive out AV 64 93 bname 38 ὁ “το take away Luc d-d>tLuc its A fftake possession of their land A take possession of their land and divide it by lot # ee>i1 tthe Se its 71
province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers’ fathers ; he shall scatter among them prey, and spoil, and substance.’
31. Persia, and to take... countries. i.e. the countries east of the Euphrates under the rule of the Seleucidae ; cp. vi. 56, where the reference is to Media and Persia.
to gather much money. ‘The temples of the Asiatics had hitherto been for the most part respected by their
European conquerors, and large stores of the precious metals were accumulated in them. Epiphanes saw in these hoards the means of relieving his own necessities, and determined to seize and confiscate them. Besides plundering the temple of Jehovah at Jerusalem (see i. 21-23), he made a journey into the south-eastern portion of his empire, about 165 B.C., for the express purpose of conducting in person the collection of the sacred treasures. It was while he was engaged in this unpopular work that a spirit of disaffection showed itself; the East took arms no less than the West; and in Persia, or upon its borders, the avaricious monarch was forced to retire before the opposition which his illjudged measures had provoked, and to allow one of the doomed temples to escape him’ (cp. vi. 1-4), Rawlinson, 7he Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, p. 5.
32. Lysias. For the part played by this general during the Maccabaean struggle, see, besides this passage, iv. I ff., 28 ff., vi. 5 ff., 28 ff., 51 ff.; he was put to death at the accession of Demetrius I, in 162 B.C. (vil. 1-4); see also 2 Macc. x. 11 ff., xi-xii. I, xiii. I-xiv. 2; the two accounts are not always in agreement.
one of the seed royal. Axbnn y(n] as in 1 Kings i. 46; Jer. xli. 1; Dan. i. 3, or M2507 Yr as in 2 Kings the affairs of the king. For the phrase cp. 2 Macc. viii. 8, x. 11, xi. I.
33. his son Antiochus. The future Antiochus V, surnamed Eupator (cp. vi. 17), ‘on account of the virtues of his father,’ according to Appian (quoted by G. A. Smith in £2 187); he was murdered, after two years’ reign, together with Lysias (see vil. 1-4; 2 Macc. xiv. 2).
34. elephants. The Persians were the first to use elephants in warfare, as far as is known; they are first mentioned in this connexion as having been used in the army of Darius at the battle of Arbela, in 331 B.C. They are referred to several times in this book ; vi. 34 ff., where they are described as being furnished with towers of wood, and as being driven by an Indian (cp. 2 Macc. xiv. 12) ; see also viii. 6, xi. 56; 2 Macc. xi. 4, xili. 15.
35. to root out. τοῦ ἐκτρίψαι ; Cod. A has the milder word τοῦ ἐκρῖψαι, ‘to drive out.’
the strength. The Syriac Version reads ‘the name’, which in the Old Testament is not infrequently used as equivalent to ‘seed’, Num. xxvii. 4; Deut. xxv. 6; Ruth iv. 5, 10; 1 Sam. xxiv. 22; Isa. xiv. 22, &c.
36. strangers. υἱοὺς ἀλλοτρίους is a Hebraism, 13) 323. ᾿ divide their land by lot. i.e. apportion it to others, cp. Ps. Ixxvili. 55; this is the reading of δὲ κατακληρο-
οτῆσαι.
37. Antioch. Not, of course, the Pisidian Antioch, though this, too, was founded by the Seleucid kings about 300 B.C.; but the Syrian Antioch, built (300 B.C.) by Seleucus Nicator on the left bank of the Orontes. It was situated just where the Libanus range joins the Taurus range. ‘Holm has summed up in a striking sentence the historical position of Antioch under the Seleucid kings. Although close to the sea (ἀνάπλους αὐθημερόν, Strabo, p. 751), it was yet no seaport; on the borders of the desert, it was yet something more than a centre for the caravan trade between the East and the West. The city reflected the character of the kingdom of which it was the capital, a kingdom which itself also was neither a genuine naval nor a genuine land power. Antioch was a Greek city, just as the Seleucid kingdom was an attempt to impose upen the Orient the political ideas and forms of Hellas. Yet, in the capital, as in the kingdom at large, there was no true Hellenism ; the commingling of Oriental and Western elements resulted in the perpetuation of the worst features of both races, and the moral worthlessness of the Syrian found in the brilliance and artistic temperament of the Greek merely the means of concealing the crudities of his own life. The characteristic failing of the Greek also was exhibited on a great scale. A third element, and that the one most important for biblical history, was provided by the Jews. The colony was in fact coeval with the city, for it dated from the time of Seleucus Nicator, who gave the Jews the same privileges as he gave the Greeks (Josephus, Av/zg. XII. iii. 1). For this connexion with the Syrian kings see 1 Macc. xi. 42 ff’ (EB 185.)
the one hundred and forty-seventh year. 166-165 B.C. ; the upper countries. Cp. vi. 1,2 Macc. ix. 25. Grimm quotes Polybius (v. 40. 5) and Arrian (iii. 6. 12) as referring in similar terms to Persia and Media,
Ie MACCABEES Ὁ: 38-47
III. 38-60. Lysias dispatches an army into the land of Fudah under Ptolemy, Nicanor, and Gorgias. Fudas Maccabaeus prepares for the coming struggle.
38 And Lysias chose * Ptolemy the son of* Dorymenes, and Nicanor, and Gorgias, mighty men of the 39 king’s friends ; and with them he sent forty’ thousand footmen, and seven thousand horse, to go into 40 the land of Judah, and to destroy it, according to the king’s command. And they™ removed with 41 all their host, and came and pitched near Emmaus in the plain country. And the merchants of the country heard tell of them, and took silver and gold exceeding much, together with fetters", and came into the camp, to take the children of Israel as slaves. And there were added unto them _ troops from Syria and from the land of the Philistines. 42 And Judas and his brethren saw that evils were multiplied, and that the forces (of the enemy) were encamping? in their borders ; and they? took knowledge of the king’s* commands which he had 43 put forth (with a view) to bring about the destruction and annihilation of the people. So they said, each man to his neighbour: ‘ Let us raise up the ruin’ of our people, ‘and let us fight for our people 44 and the Holy Place.’ And the" congregation was gathered together, so as to be ready for battle, and to pray and to ask for mercy and compassion. 45 And Jerusalem was uninhabited like a wilderness, There was none of her offspring that went in Yor went out’. And the Sanctuary was trodden down, And the sons of strangers (dwelt) in the citadel, A lodging-place for Gentiles (it became) ; And joy “was taken away™ from Jacob, And the pipe and the harp ceased. 46 And they gathered themselves together, and came to Mizpeh*, over against Jerusalem; for in 47 Mizpeh there had been aforetime a place of prayer for Israel. And they fasted that day, and put on
κεν lfiftyV ten S ™ + who were round about Ptolemy Luc nbands and fetters S$; servants (παιδας for πεδας) (τ (= HL); ‘fetters’ Josephus °S; “zt. strangers GW Phad surrounded $8 dhe 38 royal A Skingdom i? SUS JAA, tall the V σεν: Ν᾿ χα πο 7 ΤῈ W-wwas brought to an end 64 *Massepha &&
38 ff. With this section cp. 2 Macc. viii. 8-22; Josephus, 4z/ig. XII. vii. 3. Ptolemy the son of Dorymenes. Cp. 2 Macc. iv. 45, viii. 3, x. 12, in this last passage he has the surname Macron, and is described as being friendly disposed to the Jews; he committed suicide by taking poison because he was regarded as a traitor for abandoning Cyprus. This is the only mention of him in 1 Macc. Nicanor. Cp. vii. 26-50; 2 Macc. viii. 9, xiv, xv. forty thousand. See critical note. In 2 Macc. viii. 9 the number is 20,000, no mention being made of horsemen. to destroy it. Better ‘to lay it waste’.
40. Emmaus. Not the Emmaus of Luke xxiv. 13, but a city in the plain into which the mountains of Judaea slope down ; it is twenty-two Roman miles from Jerusalem on the road to Joppa; the modern Amwas. It was fortified by Bacchides, cp. ix. 50.
41. the merchants of the country. In earlier days the Edomites are mentioned as slave-dealers (cp. Amos i. 6, 9); in Ezek. xxvii. 13 Javan (Greeks), Tubal, and Meshech (probably peoples of Asia Minor) are said to have traded with ‘the persons of men’; from the fifth century B.C. onwards Syrian slaves, among whom Jews were reckoned, were in great demand in Greece (cp. Robertson Smith, in the Ecyc/. Brit. xiii. 705). The Phoenicians played a leading réle in the slave-market; Rawlinson (Hist. of Phoenicia, Ρ- 296) says: ‘The traffic in slaves was one in which the Phoenicians engaged from very early times. They were not above kidnapping men, women, and children in one country and selling them in another ; besides which they seem to have frequented regularly the principal slave-marts
of the time. They bought such Jews as were taken captive and sold into slavery by the neighbouring nations.’ See further 2 Macc. viii. 11, 34.
fetters. See critical note.
troops from Syria . .. According to Josephus these were ‘auxiliaries (σύμμαχοι) out of Syria and the country round about, as also some of the renegade Jews’ (ἀμφ. XII. vii. 3), 1. €. presumably volunteers who joined either from
the love of fighting, or from the hope of plunder, or possibly out of sheer hatred of the Jews. Philistines. See critical note.
43. each man to his neighbour. See note on ii. 40.
45. This verse was probably in poetical form in the original ; it is full of O.T. thoughts and expressions. there was none of her offspring. Cp. Jer. xxxiii. 10. that went in or went out. Cp. Jer. xxxvii. 4; Zech. viii. 10.
the Sanctuary... Cp. Ps. Ixxix. 1. the sons of strangers. See note on y. 36. A lodging-place ... Cp. Isa. i. 8. joy was taken away. Cp. Lam. v. 1 158. χεὶν ΤῊ; ΠΌΘΟΣ: the pipe . . . ceased. Cop. Isa. xiv. 11, xxiv. 8. 46. aforetime a place of prayer. Cp. 1 Sam. vii. 6-9.
48 sackcloth, and put’ ashes upon their heads’, and rent their clothes. And they spread out the roll of the Law, (one of those) concerning which the Gentiles were wont to make search *” in order to depict | 49 upon them? likenesses of their idols’. And they brought the priestly garments, and the firstfruits, and | 50 the tithes ; and they shaved® the Nazirites who had accomplished their days. And they cried aloud4 toward heaven, saying: ‘ What shall we do with these men, and whither shall we carry them away ? | 51 For® thy Holy Place is trodden down and defiled, and thy priests are in heaviness and brought low. | 52 And, behold, the Gentiles are gathered together against us to destroy us; thou knowest what things , 54 they imagine against us. How shall we be able to stand before them unless thou help us?’ And they sounded with the trumpets‘, and cried with a loud voice®. 55 And after this Judas appointed leaders of the people, captains of thousands, and captains of 56 hundreds, »and captains of fifties", and captains of tens. And he said to them that were building houses, and were betrothing wives, and were planting vineyards, and were fearful, that they should 57 return, each man to his own house, according to the Law’, And the army removed, and encamped* 58 on the south of Emmaus. And Judas said: ‘Gird yourselves, !and be! valiant men; and be ready on the morrow to fight against these Gentiles that are assembled together against us to destroy us, 59 and our Holy Place; for it is better for us to die ™in battle™ than to look upon the evils (that have | 60 come) upon our nation and the Holy Place. Nevertheless, as may be the will in heaven, "so shall he do.’
IV. 1-25. Victory of Fudas over Gorgias.
1 And Gorgias took five thousand (foot-) men, and a thousand chosen horse; and the* army moved 2 by night so that it might fall upon the army of the Jews” and smite them suddenly ; and (certain)° 3 men from the citadel were his* guides. And Judas heard thereof, and he removed, he and the valiant 4 men, that he might smite the king’s host, which was at Emmaus, while as yet the forces were 5 dispersed from the camp. And Gorgias came into the camp of Judas by night®, and found no man ; 6 and he sought them in the mountains, for he said: ‘ These men flee from us.’ And as soon as it was
day, Judas appeared in the plain witht three thousand men; howbeit, they had not armour nor 7 swords as they would have wished (to have had). And they saw the camp of the Gentiles strong 8 (and) fortified, and horsemen compassing it round about ; and these were experienced in war. And
Judas® said to the men that were with him: ‘ Fear ye not their multitude, neither "be ye afraid οὐ" 9 their onset. Remember how our fathers! were saved in the Red Sea, when Pharaoh pursued them 10 with a host*. And now, let us cry! unto heaven™, “if he will have mercy upon us”, °and? will
Y> (ἃ (exc 55); Slee 3.1 supply the verb zhead δ V Luc a-a> (ἃ (exc 55 71) b-band mourned before the Holy One concerning the Gentiles, because they forced them to imitate their ways Sle Craised up (ἃ (eac 55) 477, with a voice; with a great voice 93 eAnd & > 38 f+fortitrZ' 8585» 91 b-h> δ ἢ (hab δὰ 5:8) SB i+of Moses it kassembled #1 TENS OG} ἔπεσον ΟΣ n-ngso be it done 3 S8
IV. *his 19 93 Ste => Judah Sle +bynight19 93 Se ctheA ‘tothem Sue e> Suc f+only 3.1
She Slue b-b> 71 ibrethren 31 Ka great host Suc 3}, lwe will cry δὲ ™the Lord 71 our Lord &! nn Several cursives 38H; if he will have us NA V CDS fit p+the Lord Slve
48. they spread out ... In order that the roll of the Law might bear witness before God against the blasphemous proceeding of the Gentiles. Ff ‘
49. and they brought... All these acts were intended to witness against the evils which the Gentiles had
wrought, and thus call down upon them the divine wrath. 54. they sourded with the trumpets. Cp. Num. x. τ ff. be ready on the morrow. Cp. Exod. xxxiv. 2, xix. 15. 60. so shall he do. Another instance of the way in which the mention of the name of God is avoided in this book.
IV. With wv. 1-25 cp. Josephus, Avzig. XII. vii. 4.
1. Gorgias ... The non-mention of Nicanor, the commander-in-chief (cp. 2 Macc. viil. 23, 24), does not necessarily imply that he was not the guiding spirit; the writer is giving the details of one episode in the campaign, in which Gorgias is the leading figure ; he is, therefore, not concerned with the question as to under whose orders Gorgias was acting. That there was not one in chief command responsible for the general conduct of the operations, is difficult to believe. Cp. Josephus: ‘But when the enemy sent Gorgias . . .’
2. men from the citadel. οἱ υἱοὶ τῆς ἄκρας, Hebraism. Josephus speaks of them as ‘renegade Jews’.
3. Emmaus. See note on iii. 4o.
5. and he sought them in the mountains. i.e. in the mountainous district south and east of Emmaus ; Judas was thus drawing this detachment of the enemy further and further away from the main body with which he intended to deal (see v.13) ; cp. Josephus: ‘And he resolved to fall upon those enemies that were in their camp, now that their forces were divided.’
6. three thousand men. So, too, according to Josephus; in 2 Macc. viii. 16 the number is given as 6,000,
ἡ. experienced in war. διδακτοὶ πολέμου, Hebraism, cp. Song of Songs 11]. ὃ mend sadn.
11 remember “the covenant of the’ fathers, and destroy this army before our® face to-day°; and (then) 12 all the Gentiles will know that there is one who redeemeth tand saveth* Israel.’ And the strangers® 13 lifted up their eyes and saw them coming against them, and they went out of {πε camp τ ἀθ 14 And they that were with Judas sounded the trumpets, ἀπά joined battle’, Yand the Gentiles 15 were discomfited, and fled unto the plain. And all* the hindmost fell by the sword ; and they pursued them unto Gazera, and unto the plains of Idumaea’ and? Azotus and Jamnia; and there fell of them about three thousand men. : ὃ 17 And Judas and (his)* host returned from pursuing after them”; and he® said cake the people: 18 ‘Be not greedy of the spoils, for (another)? battle is before us, and Gorgias and (his)* host are nigh unto us‘in the mountain’. #But stand ye now against our enemies®, and fight (against) them, and 19 afterwards take the spoils with boldness.’ While Judas was yet saying” these things, there appeared a 20 part of them peering out from the mountain ; and they saw that (their POS) had been put to flight, and that (the Jews)! were burning the* camp,—for the smoke 'that was seen’ made manifest what had 21 been done. And when they perceived these things they were sore afraid; and perceiving also the 23 army of Judas ™in the plain™ ready for battle, they” all fled into the land of the Philistines®. And Judas returned to the spoil of the camp, and took much gold and silver, and blue?, and ‘sea-purple‘, 24 and great riches. And as they returned they sang a song of thanksgiving, and blessed **(God*, looking up) to heaven’, (and saying) : ; ‘Good (is the Lord), for his mercy endureth for ever. * 25 And Israel had a great" deliverance that day.
IV. 26-35. Victory of Fudas over Lysias.
26 But as many of the Gentiles’ as had been saved came and reported to Lysias all that had happened.
27 And when he had heard all” he was confounded *and discouraged*, both because it had not happened unto Israel as he had wished, and because the things which the king had commanded him’ had not come about.
28 And in the next year he* gathered together sixty thousand chosen |foot-]men, and five thousand
29 horse, to make war upon them*. And they came into Judaea”, and encamped at Bethsura, and Judas
9-4 the first covenant S$ Your, several cursives “your 64 t—-t> N* (Aad N°-2) | “Uthe Greeks ὧν VV> 38 Wwith them Luc *>%8 YJudeaAVig #+unto Luc #1993 Se >>>! ¢JudasLuc 4Luc Se 264 93
τ» δα £8>03 T.R. SU; Ut. fillngupNAV &c., reading ΝΟ for bb ithey that were with Judas Luc k their Luc 1 5 Ὁ me SS ES nand they S!v¢ °S; dt. strangers (ἃ P precious hyacinth
stones Sluc 4-4 purple and sea A rr>71 Possibly ηὐλόγουν εἰς οὐρανόν here and in v.55 ones yon (cf. 1 Chron. xxix. 20 for construction) where, therefore, οὐρανός θεός. Hence ‘they blessed Heaven; for He is good, ἄς. [Gen. Editor] ®‘the Lord thatisinthe heavensS ΤΙΝ. "%>Luc τἀ strangers Ur; the Greeks 38 WSN Vi SS WV Y>19 93 Sue 2 Lysias T-R. 4Tsrael Luc DN; B reads Ἰδουμαίαν
12. and the strangers lifted up their... From vv. 3, 4. Judas evidently intended a surprise attack, but this verse shows that his intention was frustrated. On the other hand, Josephus definitely states that the enemy’s defeat was due to Judas’s unexpected attack ; ‘so he commanded the trumpeters to sound for the battle ; and by thus falling upon the enemies when they did not expect it, and thereby astonishing and disturbing their minds, he slew many of those that resisted him.’
15. Gazera. The ancient Gezer, cp. Joshua x. 33, xii. 12, xvi. 3, &c. ; see further the note on xiii. 43. Azotus. Ashdod, cp. Joshua xi. 22; 1 Sam. v. 5; 2 Chron. xxvi. 6, &c., the modern Asdud. Jamnia. Jabneel, cp. Joshua xv. 11, called Jabneh in 2 Chron. xxvi. 6. the plains of Idumaea. This reading cannot be right, for the border of Idumaea lay at least two days’ journey
to the south-east of the scene of the battle, and the next day was the Sabbath, cp. 2 Macc. viii. 26, 27; in the next verses Judas and his army are described as being near the mountainous region again; had four days intervened some mention would assuredly have been made of it. Moreover, the three places ‘Gazera, Azotus, and Jamnia’ lie close together, and the mention of Idumaea in such a connexion is quite out of place. The reading ‘plains of Judaea’ is equally strange, for Judaea lay behind the pursuers where the country was mountainous. It is possible that ‘Emmaus’ stood here originally (cp. iii. 4o ‘Emmaus in the plain country’), the reference being to the plain in which Emmaus stood.
23. blue and sea-purple. nbsn ‘violet stuff’, cp. Ezek. xxiii. 6, xxvii. 7; used in reference to the Temple hangings 2 Chron. ii. 6, 13, 14; }!229N ‘purple-red cloth’, generally mentioned with the former ; ‘sea-purple’ refers to the fact that the colour was not a manufactured dye, but that it was the slimy substance from a sea-shell (Murex trunculus) found in great quantities on the Phoenician coast ; the slime from these shells is white, but becomes gradually darker when exposed to the rays of the sun, until it assumes a deep red, or a deep blue-red colour which never fades. Immense numbers of these shells have been found on the site of an ancient dye-factory near Tyre. According to Judges viii. 26 it would appear that the Midian kings wore a purple garment when going into battle.
24. for his mercy ... Cp. Ps. cxviii. 1-4, and the oft-repeated refrain in Ps. cxxxvi.
29. Judaea. This is what Josephus reads, as well as 2 Macc. xi. 5 (the parallel passage), see note v. 15.
Bethsura. ‘The house of rock’ (cp. Joshua xv. 58), in southern Judaea; ‘Bethsuron’ in 2 Macc. xi. 5.
| 30 met them with ten thousand men. And he saw that the army® was strong, and he prayed, and said :
‘Blessed art thou’, O Saviour “οἵ Israel*, who didst bring to nought the onslaught of the giant* by the hand of thy servant’ David, and didst deliver the army of the Philistines into the hands of Jonathan 31 4the son of Saul and of his armour-bearer*. Shut up! this army in the hands of thy people Israel, 32 that with their host and their horsemen they may be put toshame. *Give them fearfulness of heart, i and cause the boldness of their strength to melt away, and let them quake at! their destruction*. [33 Cast them down with the sword of them that love thee, ™and let all that know" thy name praise | thee with songs of thanksgiving™.’
134 And they joined battle ; and there fell of the army of Lysias about five thousand men, and° they [35 fell down over against them. But when Lysias? saw that his array had been put to flight, and the boldness‘ that had come upon them that were with Judas, "and how ready they were either to live or die nobly", he removed to Antioch, ‘and gathered together mercenary troops, that he might come again into Judaea with an even greater (army)*. a
IV. 36-61. The Purification and Re-dedication of the Temple ; the fortification of the Temple-Mount and Bethsura.
36 But Judas and his brethren said: ‘Behold, our enemies are discomfited ; let us go up to cleanse 37 the Holy Place, and re-dedicate" it. And all the army was gathered together, and they’ went unto »38 mount Sion. And they saw our™ sanctuary laid desolate, and the altar profaned*, and the gates¥
burned up, “and shrubs growing in the courts as in a forest or upon one of the mountains, and the 39 chambers? (of the priests) pulled down”*; ‘and they rent their garments*, and made great lamenta- 40 tion, and put ashes on their heads*; and they fell on their faces to the ground, ®and they *%blew _41 the solemn blasts* upon the trumpets, and cried unto heaven®®. Then? Judas appointed (a certain number of) men to fight against those (that were) in the citadel, until he should have cleansed 42 the Holy Place. And he chose blameless priests, such as had delight in the Law; and they* 4. 44 cleansed the Holy Place, and! bare out the stones of defilement™ into an unclean place. And they
© +of them that were opposed Luc d+Lord καὶ 658. Gi f7Zit, mighty man, +Goliath 71 &s>71 h-h > 71 i4Lord 3» kK-k> 71 lin 19 93 Sluc mM > 71 nthat have seen A OSS ety Phe 71 4 +and steadfastness i! τ 71 ss the MSS. and Versions vary here considerably; but the general sense is clear, and in accordance with the text above tthat we may cleanse δὲ ὁ: Luc uthat we may re-dedicate δὲ &® Luc that we may renew it Slve Vhe 93 *the X V X waste 93 Slue ¥Y doors δὶ ἈΠΞ ἘΠ adornments 38 Ῥ disruta et detracta 1 c-0 Ss places these words after heads d-d > N 19 93 ®-@et clamaverunt ad caelum in tubis signorum i" Co 8-8 blew with glorious horns S!"° hthe Lord 71 iand S$ Khe Luc $8
14they Luc $8 ™-+and placed them $8 +and cast them Sve
30-32. In 2 Macc. xi. 6-8 this prayer is only referred to, not quoted ; but instead, mention is made of ‘ one on horseback in white apparel, brandishing weapons of gold’, who appeared at the head of the Jewish army, and led them on to victory. This fantastic elaboration is perhaps based on the two stories of David (1 Sam. xvii. 40-54) and Jonathan (1 Sam. xiv. 1-16) ; in each case a champion came forth and delivered Israel.
34. they fell down over against them. i.e. they were struck down and fell at the feet of each individual Jewish warrior, so fierce was the onslaught of the Jews.
36. cleanse. 0 is used of cleansing the Temple from unclean things in 2 Chron. xxix. 15, 16, 18, and from the pollution of idolatrous images in 2 Chron. xxxiv. 3, 5, 8.
re-dedicate. The ritual of cleansing and re-dedicating is detailed in the verses which follow. The Hebrew word for ‘dedicate’ (72M) means lit. ‘ to train up a child’ (Prov. xxii. 6); it is used in the sense of dedicating a house in Deut. xx. 5, of the Temple in 1 Kings viii. 63 (= 2 Chron. vii. 5).
38. the gates burned up. We have but scanty details of Zerubbabel’s temple ; mention is made of the Miphkad Gate (Neh. iii. 31) and of the Prison Gate (Neh. xii. 39); in Josephus (Contra AZ. i. 22, quoting Hecataeus) there is a reference to ‘double gates’ in the Temple, but this seems only to refer to one of the ordinary gates. These are the only gates of which mention is made in the O.T., but there must certainly have been others, as there were in the first temple.
the chambers (of the priests). τὰ παστοφόρια, cp. Ezra vili. 28, x. 6; Neh. iii. 30, x. 37 ff, xii. 44, xili. 5 ff. ; Josephus An/zg. XI. iv. 7, XIV. xvi. 2. ΕΟ solemn blasts upon the trumpets. The reference is to the long drawn-out blasts on the ram’s-horns. Cp.
41. in the citadel. Cp. i. 33 ff.
42. blameless. ἀμώμους, lit. ‘ without blemish ’, i.e. Levitical purity ; used originally in reference to physical blemish, but later the idea of innocence and integrity is included, cp. Prov. i.12, where the word (oN) is used for soundness in health ; see Deut. xviii. 13, where it occurs in the figurative sense, cp. Ps. cxxxii. 9,16. That a physical blemish was, also in later times, an obstacle to the performing of the priestly office may be gathered from Josephus, 477g. ILI. xii. 2: ‘ He ordered that the priest who had any blemish should have his portion indeed among the priests, but he forbad him to ascend the altar, or to enter into the holy house.’ In the Talmud no less than 147 physical blemishes are enumerated which make a man unfit to perform ministerial duties, cp. Krauss Ta/mudische Archdologie, i, p. 250.
43. the stones of defilement. Cp. i. 54.
an unclean place. What is meant can be seen by a reference to Deut. xxiii. 12-14.
took counsel concerning the altar of burnt offerings, which had been profaned, what they should do with | 45 it. And a good idea occurred to them™ (namely) to pull it down, lest it should be a reproach unto — 46 them, because the Gentiles had defiled it ; so they pulled down the altar, and laid down the stones in the mountain of the House, in a convenient place, until a prophet should come and decide® (as to 47 what should be done) concerning them. And they? took whole stones according to the Law, and 48 built a new® altar after the fashion of the former (one) ; *and they built the Holy Place, and the 49 inner parts of the house, and hallowed®* the courts. And they made the holy t vessels new’, and they brought the candlestick, and the altar of burnt offerings and of incense, and the table, into the — so temple. And they burned incense upon the altar, and they lighted the lamps that were upon the 51 candlestick “in order to give light’ in the temple". And they set loaves upon the table, and hung up 52 the veils, and finished all “the works which they had undertaken. And they rose up early in the morning *on the twenty-fifth (day) of the ninth’ month, which is the month Chislev, in the 7one hundred 53 and” forty-eighth* year*», and® offered sacrifice, according to the Law, ‘upon the new altar of burnt 54 Offerings which they had made*. At® the corresponding time (of the month) and on the (corresponding) day on which the Gentiles had profaned it, on that day‘ was it dedicated afresh, with songs 55 “and harps£and lutes, and with cymbals. And all "the people” fell upon their faces, and worshipped‘, 56 and gave praise, (looking up) unto heaven, to him who had prospered them. And they celebrated the dedication of the altar for eight days, and offered burnt offerings * with gladness*, ‘and sacrificed _ 57 a sacrifice of deliverance ™and praise™'. And they decked the forefront of the temple with crowns — of gold” and small shields, and dedicated° afresh the gates and the chambers (of the priests), ?and 58 furnished them with doors’. 4And there was exceeding great gladness among the people, and the 59 reproach of the Gentiles was turned away*. And Judas and his brethren and the whole congregation of Israel ordained, that the days of the dedication of the altar should be kept ‘in their seasons year by year for eight days, from the twenty-fifth (day) of the month Chislev, with gladness and joy". 60 And ‘at that season‘ they built high walls" and strong’ towers around mount Sion, lest haply the 61 Gentiles should come and tread them down, *as they had done aforetime®. And he set there¥ a force to keep it’, and they fortified Bethsura “to keep it*, that the people might have a stronghold over against Idumaea.
V. 1-8. Victories of Fudas over the Edomites, Baeanites, and Ammonites.
σι And it came to pass, when the Gentiles round about heard that the altar? had been built® and the * sanctuary dedicated", “45 aforetime®, that they were exceeding wroth. And they determined‘ to
ohim Slue speak S answer 3» Phe AV a> Sine SS ὅλ She hallowed A V t> 93 uu> 71 Y to be visible Luc ww > Sluc xX>71 y>N =5> 64 @ninth $8 b>N_ +0f the kingdom Luc c> 28 dd 71 ®AndatNV f>A &8>Luc hh>71 i+God71 ΚΑ» 71 land a sacrifice of deliverance 1? mm > 71 "> N* (lab δὲ 58) Phe dedicated A P-P> Se aay 7] rr>7I 8 great joy 11 LASS oii wa high wall Luc Vhigh &* (strong δὲ 9:8) Vit δὲ 8 93 RSS
V. P house $8 70 ας i? “e>71 fwere wroth δὲ (determined N¢-2)
46. the mountain of the House. Cp. Mich. iii. 12; Jer. xvi. 18 (M297). a prophet should come . . . The reference is probably to Deut. xviii. 18, which is not a ‘ Messianic’ passage, however it may have been interpreted subsequently. 47. according to the Law. Cp. Exod. xx. 25; Deut. xxvii. 6. 49. the candlestick .. . the altar . .. and the table. These had been taken away by Antiochus Epiphanes, see 1, 21, 22; the three are again specifically mentioned in the two next verses. 52 ff. The inauguration of the feast of Chanukah, which has been observed ever since by the Jews. The month Chislev corresponds to December. Ewald (Geschichte des Volkes Israel iv. 407 [3rd ed.]), followed by Wellhausen (lsraelitische und Jiidische Geschichte, p. 210), believes that on the 25th Chislev a winter solstice feast had been celebrated long before this time, and that this was adapted and turned into the historical feast of Chanukkah. This feast was early known as the Feast of Lights (ora in Josephus, Anzig. XII. vii. 7); two methods were in vogue regarding the lighting of the lamps; the followers of Shammai lit eight lamps on the first day of the festival, and one less on each succeeding day until the end of the feast; the Hillelites lit one lamp on the first day of the feast, and added one on each succeeding day, so that on the last day eight lamps were lit. ‘The Talmudic sources . . . ascribe the origin of the eight days’ festival, with its custom of illuminating the houses, to the miracle said to have occurred at the dedication of the purified Temple. This was that the one small cruse of consecrated oil found unpolluted by the Hasmonean priests when they entered the Temple, it having been sealed and hidden away, lasted for eight days,
until new oil could be prepared for the lamps of the hol candlestick’ (Jew. oy i, 2 somewhat similar character see 2 Macc. i. 18 ai 15. ὑτρε να οδν ggg περ αὶ 324.4). Kor a leeeudag
57. crowns of gold and small shields. Perhaps wreaths of gold, which with the small shields, were temporary ornaments, cf. 1 Kings x. 17. i
60. strong towers. Cp. i. 31. V. 1-8. Cf. Josephus, Awtzg. XII. viii. 1.
| destroy (those of) the race* of Jacob "that were in the midst of them}, and they began ‘to slay and |3 to destroy among the people’. And Judas fought against the children of Esau in Idumaea* at _ Akrabattine, because they annoyed Israel’ by their attacks; and he smote them with a great 4 slaughter, ™and humbled” them™, and took spoils from them. And he remembered the malice of the children of Baean, who were unto the people® a snare and a stumbling-block, !ying in wait for 5 them Pin the ways’. And they were shut up by him in the towers; and he encamped against them, *and utterly destroyed them’, and burned® ‘with firet "the towers of the place’", with all that 6 were™ therein. Then he* passed over to the children of Ammon, and found (there) a mighty band, »7 and much people’, and Timotheus (who was) their leader. And he fought many battles with them, 8 and they were discomfited before him, “and he smote them**; and he gat possession of Jazer and the villages” thereof, and returned® again into Judaea“.
V. 9-68. Victories of Simon in Galilee, and of Fudas in Gilead.
‘9 And the Gentiles that were in Gilead gathered themselves together against the Israelites that -o were on their borders, to destroy them ; and they fled unto the stronghold of Dathema®. And they
sent letters unto Judas and his brethren, saying: ‘The Gentiles that are round about us are gathered 1 together ‘against us’ Sto destroy us; and they are preparing to come and get possession of the .2 stronghold® whereunto we? have fled for refuge ; and Timotheus is leading their host. Now, there- 3 fore, ‘come and deliver us from their hand, for a number of us are fallen, and all our brethren: that | were in the (parts) of Tubias have been put to death, and they have carried into captivity their wives -4and their children and their* belongings, and have destroyed there about a thousand men.’ While
the! letters were yet being read, behold, there came other messengers from Galilee with their 5 garments rent, bringing a report to the following effect, saying™: ‘There be gathered together
against them (men) from Ptolemais, and Tyre "and Sidon”, and all Galilee of the Gentiles, to
&seed Luc hh 71 1-1 to persecute and to kill them i" kJudaea A 1 Amalek N* (Israel δὲ 9:8) mm > 30} Ὁ scattered S& ° + of Israel 38 PP> 38 4 cast aside A ae ΡῈ Sthey burned Sluc tt>V uu their towers 1 viit. thereof > Sluc W dwelt N° 55 x Judas 64 93 3! Y+anda mighty band δὲ V Luc 2-8 > LS 1100) > Zit, daughters °they returned N Judas ret. 64 93 4Tdumaea V Slue ®Ramoth $8 Letty 8 and have carried us off and are occupying the stronghold 1! hthey N* (we δ 98) fF i> 71 k> Zlue Ithese 55 Sluc ™ The words which follow are in direct narration in 38, but in oblique narration in &H% = 2 > Sluc
2. (those of) the race of Jacob. The reading ‘seed of J.’, though not well attested, is more likely to be correct, being more in accordance with O.T. usage, cp. Ps. xxil. 23, Isa. xlv. 19, Jer. xxxiii. 26, ἄς. 3. the children of Esau. Cp. Gen. xxxvi. Io, 19.
Akrabattine. Cp. Ὁ ΡΝ nbyn (Joshua xv. 3, Judges i. 36); a spot in the hill-country in the south-west of Palestine, which formed the boundary of Judaea, cp. Num. xxxiv. 4.
and he smote them with a great slaughter. A characteristic Hebrew phrase : bya ADD ons as
humbled them and... For the phraseology cp. Deut. xxviii. 29.
4. the children of Baean. This name does not occur elsewhere ; Blau (quoted by Bissell, zz /oc.) says: ‘The region in which the event described in 1 Macc. v. 1-6 took place is the same as that which the table by Karnack calls Bajaa, near Kapharbaruk, east from Hebron, where in the time of the Maccabees Idumaeans settled. In my opinion, PA 323 signifies simply the inhabitants of the place Bajjan.’. Grimm holds that Baean can only refer to the ancestor of a tribe, on the analogy of ‘the children of Esau’.
a snare and a stumbling-block. Cp. Ps. lxviii. 23 (Sept.), = Ixix. 22 (E.V.). 5. utterly destroyed. ἀναθεματίζω -- ὩΣ ἽΠΠ - cp. 1 Sam. xv. 8. burned .. . the towers. Cp. Judges ix. 49. 6. the children of Ammon. Like the Edomites, traditional enemies of Israel, cp. Judges xi. 4,12; 2 Sam. x. 6-14. a mighty band. Lit. ‘a mighty hand’; a Hebraism, 7PM 1°, used in Num. xx. 20 of the fighting power of the Edomites. Timotheus . . . their leader. Probably an Ammonite who had assumed a Greek name, in accordance with a frequent custom in those times.
7. and he smote them. Cp. note on v. 3.
8. he gat possession. προκαταλαμβάνεσθαι implies a sudden taking possession.
Jazer. A place on the east of Jordan occupied by the Amorites originally (Num. xxi. 32), later by the tribe of
the villages thereof. Lit. the ‘daughters thereof’, a Hebraism; the ‘land of Jazer’ was a fertile region with villages dependent upon the city; see Num, xxxii. 1; Isa. xvi. 8; Jer. xlviil. 32.
9. Gilead. The reference here is to the ‘land of Gilead’, i.e. the mountainous district on the east of Jordan between the Yarmuk in the north, and the Arnon in the south; the river Jabbok cuts this region into two parts (cf. Num. XXxil. 29; Joshua xxii. 9 ; Judges x. 8, xx. 1).
Dathema. This place has not been identified. On the letter contained in vv. 10-13 see 7,27. § 7. 1 (a).
13. Tubias. Cp. 2 Macc. xii.17; ‘the land of Tob’ (Judges xi. 3, 5 ; 2 Sam. x. 6, 8), twelve miles south-east of the Sea of Galilee.
15. Ptolemais. The Accho or Akka of the O.T., cp. Judges i. 31; Joshua xix. 24-31. It is uncertain when this name was changed to Ptolemais ; the city had already received it for some time by the end of the third century B.C.
5 5 τ ν when Judas and® the people? heard these words, there assembled together ‘ sprog τος to ae what they ἀπ πα do “for their brethren who were in tribulation and 17 being attacked by the enemy™*. And Judas said unto Simon his brother: ‘Choose out men for
thyself, and go and deliver thy® brethren in Galilee, while 1 and Jonathan my brother will go into 18 Gilead.’ And he left Joseph the son of Zacharias, and Azarias, as JES of the people, with the — 1g rest of the army, in Judaea, to guard it. And the commanded them, saying : ‘Take ye the charge of © 20 this people, and engage not in battle with the Gentiles until we return. And three τ men were allotted unto Simon to go into Galilee, and eight thousand men" unto Judas (to go)” into Gilead. >, And Simon went into Galilee, and engaged in many™ battles with the Gentiles, and the Gentiles 55 were discomfited before him. And he pursued them unto the gate* of Ptolemais ; and there fell of a3 the Gentiles’ about three thousand men, and he took their spoils. And Ποῦ took athose (that were)® — in? Galilee and Arbatta with (their) wives and children, and brought* them? into Judaea °with great ἡ σ Sie 24 Cage Maccabaeus‘ and his brother Jonathan passed over Jordan, and went three days’ 25 journey in the wilderness ; and they fell in with the Nabataeans, and these met them in a peaceable 26 manner, and recounted to them all things that had befallen their brethren in Gilead ; and how that many of them were shut up in Bosora, and Bosor, and Alema, Casphor, Maked, and Carnaim,—all” 27 these cities (being) strong and great ; ‘and how that they were shut up in the rest* of the cities of Gilead‘, and that on the morrow (the enemies) had planned ε to encamp ™against the stronghold™™, 28 and to take (it)°, and to destroy all those? (who were in it) in one day. And Judas and his army turned suddenly “by the way οὔ the wilderness unto Bosora™; and he took* the city, and slew all the — malest "with the edge of the sword", and took all their spoils, and burned’ it (i.e. the city)” with fire. 30 And he* removed thence’ by night, and went on? until (he reached) the stronghold. And when it was morning they lifted up their eyes*, and behold (there was) a great multitude Pwhich could not be numbered?, bearing ladders and engines (of war), to take the stronghold‘; and they were fighting against them (that were in the stronghold). And when Judas saw that the battle had begun, and that the cry of the city’ went up to® heaven, with trumpets and ‘a great sound’, he® said unto the men of his host: ‘Fight this day for your" brethren.’ And he! went forth behind them in three companies, and they* sounded with trumpets, and cried out in prayer. And the army of Timotheus perceived that it was Maccabaeus, and they fled from before him ; and he’ smote them with a great™
WwW wo Ww ew Ne
he said unto them 71 OSS σὴ ἢ V this is expressed in Sv w>V Xcities A gates55 > 1971 93 Se : ¥+ in that day 55 zSimon Luc **themA PZ. from ¢they brought AV all as many as lintended to attack (422. to trouble) 64 ™™>093 “plur. GSU; but see next note and note® below them 19 64 +and the rest of the cities of Gilead 71 P>Slue a ato55 +a journey (22. a way) of three days 55 8 fell upon Slue ὁ + thereof55 %"t>71 ‘YtheyburnedN να SH *Judas6493 %Y>71I *they went on N 6493 ®+and saw SlucH1 bb >N* (λαό 9.) οϑήμγι τὸ ‘battle 3} unto (cos for ets) A 55 ( Sl) ff>71 +from the city! 8Judass55 6493 ®ourN®PAV ijudas 64 93 khe A Ithey 3} eS yi!
Ptolemy Lagi destroyed it in B.C. 312 when it was still called Akka; very possibly the renovated city which subsequently arose took its name from him; but as he only had possession of it for a very short time, it seems more likely that it was named after Ptolemy II, who conquered the whole of Phoenicia, and retained possession of it. For the history of the city during the Maccabaean struggle see 1 Macc. x. 1, 39, 48-66, xii. 45 ff.; Josephus, Azézg. XII. viii. 1, all Galilee of the Gentiles. i.e. Upper Galilee with its mixed Gentile population; cp. Isa. viii. 23, ix. I. 18. Joseph ... and Azarias. See vv. 56-62; they are not mentioned otherwise. 23. Arbatta. Probably Arvada, i.e. the valley of the Dead Sea (cp. Deut. i. 7; Joshua xi. 16, xii. 8, xviii. 18). 25. the Nabataeans. The Ishmaelite tribe of Nebaioth of the O.T. (Gen. xxv. 13), according to Josephus (Azfézg. [. xil. 4); Petra, their capital, became a great commercial centre in later days. G.A.Smith (A7istorical Geography of Palestine, p. 547) says: ‘ Their inscriptions are scattered all over eastern Palestine, where they had many settlements, and in Arabia, but have even been discovered in Italy, proving the extent of their trade.’ in a peaceable manner. Cp. ix. 35. 26. Bosora. i.e. Bozrah in Moab (cp. Jer. xlviii. 24), not the Bozrah in Edom (Isa. Ixiii. 1). Bosor. i.e. most likely Bezer ‘in the wilderness’, in the inheritance of the Reubenites (Deut. iv. 43, Joshua xx. 8, xxi. 36) ; mentioned also on the Moabite Stone. Alema, Casphor, Maked. These places are not otherwise mentioned ; they cannot be identified further than that they were cities of Gilead, see v. 36. 29. the stronghold. i.e. Dathema. 33- And he went forth ... Cp. Judges vii. 16.
cried out in prayer. i.e. a battle-cry which was also a prayer, cp. Judges, vii. 18, where the cry is: ‘For the Lord and for Gideon,’ which was also preceded by the blowing of trumpets. Cp. the battle-cry, ‘ Allah, Allah!’ of the Turks (Grimm), and ‘ For God and St. George!’ of the English.
5 slaughter ; and there fell of them "on that day" about eight thousand men. And he? turned aside? \| ἴο Mizpeh and fought against it, 4and took it4, and slew’ all the males thereof, and took* the spoils 6 thereof*, and burned it with fire. From thence he" removed, and took Casphor, Maked, Bosor, and | the other cities ‘of Gilead’. 7 Now after these things Timotheus gathered another army, and encamped over against Raphon, 38 beyond the brook. And Judas sent (men) to espy the army*; and they reported to him, saying’: | ‘All the Gentiles *that are round about us** are gathered together unto them”, an exceeding® great 39 host ; and they have hired Arabians to help them, and are “encamping beyond the brook‘, ready to 40 come against thee® to battle. And Judas went to meet them. And Timotheus said unto the captains of his host, when Judas ‘and his army‘ drew nigh unto the brook of water: ‘If he pass over 41 unto us first, Swe shall not be able to withstand him®, for® ‘he will mightily prevail against us‘; but ἘΠῚ he be afraid, and* encamp beyond the river, we will cross over ‘unto him!, ™and prevail against 42 him™".’ Now when Judas came nigh unto the brook °of water®, he placed the officers” of the people “by the brook4, and *commanded them, saying": δ΄ Suffer no man to encamp’, but let allt come to 43 the battle. And he crossed over first against them, and all" his’ people after* him; and 4115 the Gentiles were discomfited before his¥ face, and cast away their* arms, and fled unto *the temple of* 44 Carnaim. And they” took the city®, and burned the temple® with fire, together with all that were° therein. ‘And Carnaim was subdued‘; neither could they# stand any longer before the face of Judas. 45 And Judas gathered together all Israel, them that were in Gilead, "from the least unto the greatest", and their ‘wives, and their‘ children, and their belongings, an exceeding great army, that 46 they might come into the land of Judah. And they came as far as Ephron; and this was a large city at* (the entrance of) the pass, exceeding strong; it was not (possible) to turn aside ‘from it! 47 either to the right or the left, but (one had) to go through the midst of it. And they of the city shut 48 them out, and stopped up the gates with stones. And Judas sent ™unto them™ with words of peace, saying: ‘We™ would pass through® thy? land to go into our own land; and none shall harm you, [49 We will only pass by on our feet.’ But they would not open unto him’. And Judas "commanded proclamation to be made? in the army, that each man should encamp in the place where he was. 50 And the men of the host* encamped’; and they" fought against the city all that day and all that
m2 >7I °JudasLuc — Penclosed #1 a-a> Slue —_ r they slew Slue 8 they took Sluc Powe “Judas Luc WV SS EIS Win frontofX® at 3} the land S$ y>71 ΖΔ 71 ayou A bhim SZ Ss 70 dd > 71 Opie ἐπῦ τ cs | rs SF ft hbefore the face ofhim 55 Se ii> Ht FED 71
11> 71 unto them 38 SL SSN them $8 L? CISA P Zit, scribes 4-α 71 ΤΟΥ said 71 8-sleave no man behind i! > σὴν Sari VSI Ws W before A =>N 19 93 Sluc Y their δὶ 3. all their A Deseise slp Ὁ +that were round about Judas Luc_ he $s i? © + of Carnaim 55 4the place 3"
mm>Ze "A1964 1°intoA Pyour 532 athem N* (him N!) Sc Tproclaimed 72 ‘**>71 tcity A the®
35. Mizpeh in Gilead ; cp. Judges xi. 29.
36. Casphor ... See notes on v. 26.
37. Raphon. According to Pliny (quoted by Grimm) this was one of the cities of ‘ Decapolis’; Josephus (Aztig XII. viii. 4) speaks of it as a ‘ city’.
the brook. χειμάρρους = bn, ‘a torrent’ of water in a narrow channel; cp. Judges v. 21, &c.
jo. For he will mightily prevail against us. Grimm aptly refers to 2 Chron. xxxii. 13 (Sept.) = 29 D2» 55»,
42. officers. τοὺς γραμματεῖς -- ὩΣ). Cp. Deut. xx. 5 ff. (Kautzsch).
43. and he crossed over first. That no attempt was made by Timotheus to oppose the Jews during this crossing shows extraordinary ineptitude; bad leadership on the part of the enemy must evidently have had much to do with many of their defeats during the Maccabaean struggle. ’ ,
the temple. τέμενος is the entire piece of consecrated ground in which a temple stands ; regarding this temple of Carnaim cp. 2 Macc. xil. 26.
45. from the least unto the greatest. A characteristic O.T. expression, Syaayy jOpr. ;
46. Ephron. According to Kautzsch, identical with the Teppovs or Γεφροῦν, mentioned by Polybius V. Ixx. 12, as having been conquered by Antiochus the Great. From wv’. 43, 52 (cp. 2 Macc. xii, 27f.) it must have lain in the stretch of land between Ashtaroth and the Jordan, opposite Scythopolis or Beth-Shan (Grimm). The situation of the city explains why it was not possible ‘ to turn aside from it either to the right or the left’, i.e. the land was precipitous on either side. f :
48. we would pass through ... Cp. the similar request preferred by Moses to the king of Edom (Num. xx, 17) and to the king of the Amorites (Num, xxi. 22).
we will only pass by on our feet. Cp. the Hebrew phrase ΠΝ dana " let me pass through with my feet’ (Num. xx. 19), the idea being that of rapidly passing through ; cp. Ps. ciil. 16. ἢ
49. each man should encamp... In view of what is said in the next v., that they fought ‘al! that day’, it can
only be a temporary halt that is here referred to, not an encampment proper.
51 night; and ‘the cityy was delivered into his” hands ; and he* destroyed all the males’ with the edge of the sword, and rased? the city, and took* the spoils thereof”, and passed ° through the city over 52 them that were slain. And they? went over Jordan into the great plain over against Bethshan. 53 °And Judas gathered together those that lagged behind, and encouraged the people all the way 54 through until® he came into the land of Judah. And they went up to mount Sion τ gladness and joy, and offered whole burnt offerings, because not so much as one of them was slain ‘until they — returned in peace’. f Bt a 55 And in ihe days when Judas and Jonathan® were in the land® of Gilead, and Simon *his brothert | 56 in Galilee *before Ptolemais*, Joseph! the son of Zacharias, and Azarias, leaders™ of the armies” (in 57 Judaea), heard of their exploits and of the war,—°what things they had done®; and they said: ‘ Let us? also make a name for ourselves, and “let us go‘ fight" against the Gentiles that are round about 58 us.’ *And they gave charge unto the (men) of the host* that was with them*, and went toward 60 Jamnia. And Gorgias and his men came out of the city "to meet them” in battle. And Joseph and Azarias were put to flight, “and were pursued* unto the borders of Judaea™ ; and there fell on that 61 day "οἵ the people* of Israel about two thousand men. And there was a great overthrow among 62 the people’, because they hearkened not unto Judas “and his brethren, thinking to do some exploit*?. 63 But they were not of the seed of those men, by whose hand deliverance was given unto Israel. But — the man® Judas and his brethren were glorified exceedingly in the sight of all Israel, and of 411“ the 64 Gentiles, wheresoever® their name was heard of®; ‘and’ (men) gathered unto them, acclaiming 65 a Judas and his brethren went forth, and fought against the children of Esau in the land toward — the south ; and he smote Hebron and the villages‘ thereof*, and pulled down the strongholds! thereof™, — 66 and burned the towers thereof round about. ®And he® removed” to go into the land of the Philis- 67 tines”, and he went through Marisa‘. In that day (certain) priests fell in battle, desiring* themselves® 68 to do exploits, in that they* went out to the war unadvisedly. And Judas turned aside to Azotus, to — the land of the Philistines, and pulled" down their altars, and burned the carved images of their gods”, _ and took the spoil of their cities, and returned into “the land of” Judah. “a
ΧΕΙ W their V 55 they 55 93 Υ +thereof Luc 55 #they rasedigS™¢ — they took 19 Slue bof the city A ¢they passed 19 Sve The Ss ΞΘ 55 Fi ΓΕ 71 & +his brother 19 93 Sluce n> A ἴα: γα ἘΠΕ 71 1 Josephus Luc τὰ 712. rulers army δὲ V °° which Judas had waged (2. done) Luc > Sle P +we 55 4.4.» 71 τον let us fight 71 SSS σὴ tS u—tand | they stood before him V TAS Se ἘῺΝ w Tdumaea 19 (dt wrongly spelt) S'° SS WV yy>71 in Israel N°2 among them 93 28> 71 ®+him (52ε) ἃ +they also Luc sss Fil ce> luc d> SE ©and wheresoever 38 SSS ii & > 38 making one sentence with the foregoing 64 him 93 it, daughters k>7I losing. A NS Git n-» And Judas removed from thence Luc °they 38 P (zt,
strangers aH? Samaria (ἃ SH (see note below) Treading βουλευομενοι with N* Syeading αὐτοι with 55 *yeading αὐτοὺς with T.R. “this and the following verbs in the plur. 3° v +in fire NX T.R. werk
50. the city was delivered. For the expression cp. Gen. xiv. 20; Deut. iii. 3; Judges xi. 21; the idea was that the Lord of hosts (1.6. of the Israelite hosts) brought this about ; cp. 2 Macc. xii. 36.
52. the great plain. i.e. the plain of Esdraelon, between the Jordan and mount Gilboa; Kautzsch suggests that it was called the ‘ great’ plain because it was here much broader than the continuation of it east of Jordan.
Bethshan. Beth-Shean; called Scythopolis in Judges i. 27 (Sept.) ; 2 Macc. xii. 29; Josephus, A7/ézg. XII. viii. 5, XIII. vi. 1; Δεῖ, Iud. 111. ix. 7; one of the cities of the Decapolis, the only one of the ten lying on the west of Jordan; the modern Bezsan.
58. Jamnia. See note on iv. 15.
59. Gorgias. Cp. ili. 38 ; 2 Macc. viii. 9, ‘a captain and one that had experience in matters of war.’
61. because they hearkened not . . . i.e. to the command given to them by Judas in v. 19. Josephus (Azztig. XII. vili. 6) says concerning this: ‘ For besides the rest of Judas’ sagacious counsels, one may well wonder at this concerning the misfortune that befel the forces commanded by Joseph and Azarias, which he understood would happen, if they broke any of the injunctions he had given them.’
62. But they were not of the seed . . ._ i.e. not Hasmonaeans; the writer apparently resents the idea that any not belonging to the Hasmonaeans should take part in the national deliverance ; cp. note on ili, 28.
63. the man Judas. Cp. Exod. xi. 3, xxxii. 1; Num. xii. 3.
65. Hebron. The ancient Kirjath-Arba (Judges i. 10).
the villages thereof. Cp. note on v. 8. the strongholds. Cod. A reads ‘stronghold’, i.e. the citadel.
66. Marisa. i.e. Mareshah in the plain of Judaea. The reading of all authorities, excepting %* and Josephus, Antig. XII. viii. 6), viz. ‘Samaria’ cannot be right, for to go from Hebron to Philistia via Samaria without very special reasons is unthinkable; no reasons are given, but they certainly would have been given by the intelligent and careful author of this book if this enormous dour had been undertaken.
67. Inthat day ... This episode is not mentioned by Josephus; but in 2 Macc. xii. 38-40, where, however, no mention of priests is made, these men are said to have fallen because under their garments were found ‘ consecrated tokens of the idols of Jamnia’. Ι
68. Azotus. See note on iy. 15.
pulled down their altars ... Cp. x. 84.
VI. 1-17. Death of Antiochus Epiphanes, and accession of his son, Antiochus Eupator.
1 And king Antiochus was journeying through the upper countries; and he heard that Elymais®, in 2 Persia, was” a city “renowned for riches, for silver and gold°, and that the temple which was in it (was) rich exceedingly, and that therein (were) golden shields, and breastplates, and arms, which Alexander, son of Philip", the Macedonian® king, who reigned first among ‘the Greeks‘, had left 3 behind there. So he came and sought to take the city, Sand to pillage it; but he was not able (to 4 do so) because the thing had become known to them of the city. And they rose up” against him to battle'; and he fled, and removed* thence with great heaviness, to return to Babylon. 5 And 'there came one bringing him tidings! into Persia™ that "the armies, which went against 6 °the land οἵ Judah”, had been put to flight ; and that Lysias had gone forth at the head of a strong army, and had been put to shame before them; Pand that they had waxed strong by reason of arms and power, and with store of spoils‘, which they took from the armies that they had cut offt?’; 7 and that they had pulled down tthe abomination which he had built" upon the altar that was in Jerusalem‘; and that they had compassed about the sanctuary” with high walls, Yas (had been the g case) formerly”, and Bethsura, “his city*. And it came to pass, when the king heard these words, he was struck with amazement and greatly moved ; and he laid him down upon (his) bed, and fell g sick for grief, because it had not befallen him as he had looked for. And he was there many days, to because greatY grief was renewed upon him ; and he’ reckoned that he was about to die. And he called for all his Friends, and said unto them: ‘ Sleep departeth from mine eyes, and (my)* heart τα faileth for care’, °And I said in (my) heart®, Unto what tribulation am I come, and how great | 12 a flood is it wherein I now am! _ For I was gracious and beloved in my power. But now I remember the evils which I did at Jerusalem, and that I took 411“ the vessels “οὐ silver and gold that were 13 therein, and sent forth (armies) to destroy the’ inhabitants® of Judah without a cause. I perceive that on this account these evils are come upon me, and, behold, I perish through great grief’ in 14 a strange land.’ And he® called for Philip, ‘one of his Friends*‘, and set him over all his kingdom, 15 and gave him (his) diadem, and his robe, and (his) signet-ring, το the end that he should educate!
VI. *evAupats δὲ V (ev eXvpats 55) eAvpes A Dhad δὶ ο΄ glorious, and full of riches, possessing gold and silver #?! ἃ". 71 OSGi ffthem δὶ 5.6» 88 h withstood 5.1 i> 93 k> 3. I there came (men) bringing tidings to him Slue τὰ το Antiochus 19 93 Slue n 1 the encampments in the land of Judah 3. ΘΟ ΑΝ PEP 7.1 ρα; AN r-rthe encampments i} Ssmitten Luc t tthe execrable thing, the monstrous thing which they had built in Jerusalem 2! had been built 19 93 Sle Y¥>71 the altar and the sanctuary 38 WM 5: 7. X“ZX>N_ their city 19 93 Sle Y> Ἰὰς 2 Antiochus 64 93 219 93 Blue friend #? Kservants V ‘to bring them to Luc $
VI. 1. Elymais. See critical note. Most commentators take Elymais as the name of a province (Elam of the O.T. lying between Media and the Persian Gulf), and retain the ἐν, because a city of this name is unknown; but the preposition does not belong to the original text, and the whole context necessitates our regarding Elymais as a city, and not asa province. Josephus (Avézg. XII. ix. 1) speaks of ‘a very rich city in Persia, called Elymais’, and says that Antiochus ‘ went in haste to Elymais, and assaulted it, and besieged it’, Elymais is mentioned in Tobit ii. 10, where, however, it is thought of as a province ; but it is possible, and even probable, that the text in this passage is based on a misunderstanding of an original Semitic form (see Dillon in the Contemporary Review, March, 1898, referred to in EZ col. 1284). See next note.
2. the temple which was in it. Cp. 2 Macc. i. 12-17, where this episode is clearly referred to; here this temple is spoken of as that of Nanaea, one of the primeval Babylonian deities, = Innanaea, called in later times Nana, and identified with Ishtar ; she is spoken of as the ‘goddess of the world’, and also as the ‘ goddess of war’ (see further Jastrow, Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens, i. 76f.). The chief centre of the cult of this goddess was the city of Erech, and continued so to the very end of the Assyrian Empire. There is, therefore, the possibility that in the name Elymais there lurks a corruption of some form of the name of Erech in the original Hebrew text.
had left behind there. i.e. as votive offerings.
5. the armies . . . had been put to flight. i.e. those of Seron (iii. 23), Nicanor (iv. 14), and Gorgias (iv. 22).
7. the abomination ... Cp. i. 54.
10. Sleep ... Cp. Gen. xxxi. 4o (Sept.). With this and the following vv. cp. 2 Macc. ix. 12-17; in Josephus (Antig. XII. ix. 1) this speech is merely summarized.
13. these evils are come upon me. According to Polybius (xxxi. 11), who is, however, only repeating a tradition (ὡς ἔνιοί φασιν), ‘these evils’ constituted a species of madness, for he died δαιμονήσας . . . διὰ τὸ γενέσθαι τινὰς ἐπιση- μασίας τοῦ δαιμονίου κατὰ τὴν περὶ TO προειρημένον ἱερὸν παρανομίαν. The author of I Macc. is evidently preserving some tradition based on fact, though he assigns the cause of Antiochus’ disorder to his desecration of the temple at Jerusalem, while Polybius traces it to strange apparitions seen during his attempt to rob the temple in Elymais. Cp. the argument in Josephus (Avézg. XII. ix. 1) who certainly does of take the will for the deed!
in a strange land. This is a natural addition by a Jew who wishes to represent things as bad as possible for the arch-enemy of his race, cp. for the conception Amos vii, 17. Antiochus the Great was killed while plundering the temple at Elymais. . Σ
15. signet-ring. Cp. Gen. xli. 42; Esther ili. 10, viii. 2. ΤΑΣ :
that he should educate ... This duty had been assigned to Lysias (ill. 32-4); the reason for the change is
6 Antiochus his son, ™and bring him up to be king™. And king Antiochus died there °in t
τῇ hundred and forty-ninth year’. And when Lysias knew that the king was dead, he set up Antiochus his (i.e. the king’s) son to reign’, whom he had nourished up while yet young, and he called his name Eupator.
VI. 18-54. The struggle between Fudas and the forces under Lysias and Eupator for the possession of Ferusalem and Bethsura.
18 And they that were in the citadel kept enclosing Israel round about the sanctuary, and continually 19 sought their hurt, 4and (acted as) a support to the Gentiles1. And Judas* purposed to destroy 20 them, and called 811" the people together to besiege them. *And they were gathered together, and besieged them in "the one hundred and fiftieth year"; and he” constructed siege-towers” against >1 them, and engines (of war). And there came forth some *of them* that were shut up, and: unto 22 them were joined certain ungodly men of Israel. And they went unto the king and said: How 23 long wilt thou not execute judgement, and (when wilt thou) avenge our brethren? We were willing 24 to serve thy father, and to walk after his words, “and to follow his commandments*. _?* For this cause® the children of our people “besieged it (i.e. the citadel)*”, and were alienated from us, and‘ £as 25 many of us as they could light on® they killed", ‘and they spoiled* our inheritances’. And not 26 against us only did they stretch out their hand, but also against all their! borderlands. And, behold, they are encamped this day against the citadel in Jerusalem with the object of capturing’ it, and 27 they have fortified the sanctuary™ and Bethsura. And if thou art not” beforehand with them quickly they will do greater things than these, and thou wilt ποῖ be able to control them.’ — ! 2g And the king was angry when he heard (this) ; and? he gathered together all his Friends, (who 29 were) the leaders of his host, and them that were over the horse’. And there came unto him* from 30 other kingdoms*, and from ‘the isles of the sea‘, bands of mercenaries. And the number of his forces was a hundred thousand footmen, and twenty thousand horsemen, and thirty-two elephants trained 31 for war. And they went through Idumaea, and encamped against Bethsura, and fought against (it) many days, and made engines (of war); but "they (that were besieged)" came out and burned them 32 With fire, and fought manfully. And Judas removed from the citadel, and encamped at Beth- 33 zacharias, over against the king’s camp. And the king rose early in the morning, and removed the army in its eagerness Yalong the road to Beth-zacharias’; and his forces prepared themselves” for 34 the battle, and sounded with trumpets. And they showed the elephants the blood of grapes and 35 mulberries, that they might prepare them for the battle. And they divided the beasts among the phalanxes*, and they set by each elephant a thousand men armed with coats of mail, and helmets
mm that he should reign Luc n> 38 ΦΞ ἘΞ Hitt Ρ +in his stead A V 19 64 S& a4>71 28 "> 38 70 tt > ΝῈ (λαό δ 9.2) Α 71 Wo Ythey 1S ¥ turrets to fight (from) S x * thereof A Σ Jerusalem δὲ 2 +to the king 1! SOS 7 DSS σα e¢¢and 8 V ἀπ Ἄ ον ΘΠ το fbut A V
the fortress #' with high walls 55 Dye be not 8 V 55 64 Slue °ye will not Sluc P +he sent and 55 (tribute 55 chariots SH ‘them Ss i? Skings A V t-t many isles Sluc uuthe children of Israel 55
LMS 5 w +in order that they might be ready 55 *defiles A 71
not given; cp. Josephus (Az/ig. XII. ix. 2), who adds: ‘ But it was Lysias that declared his death to the multitude, and appointed his son Antiochus to be king, of whom at present he had the care, and called him Eupator.’ The appointment of Philip was fraught with evil consequences, see vv. 55-63. 16. one hundred and forty-ninth year. 163 B.C. 17. while yet young. Appian (.Sy7. xlvi) says he was: ἐνναετὲς παιδίον. and he called his name. A very frequent O.T. phrase 1DW"NN N-P. Eupator. Appian (cdid.) says: προσέθηκαν ὄνομα Ἐὐπάτωρ οἱ Sipor διὰ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς ἀρετήν. 18. kept enclosing ... This is explained by Josephus (Amdéig. XII. ix. 3): ‘For the soldiers that were in that
garrison rushed out suddenly, and destroyed such as were going up to the temple in order to offer their sacrifices ; for this citadel adjoined to, and overlooked the temple.’
20. the one hundred and fiftieth year. 162 B.C.
21. ungodly men of Israel. Cp. i. 11.
30. a hundred thousand footmen ... These numbers, which are also given by Josephus, are probably exaggerated ; in 2 Macc. xiii. 2, the number of horsemen given is still larger, but the other forces are smaller, though there are added, ‘three hundred chariots armed with scythes.’
32. Beth-zacharias. A place between Jerusalem and Beth-zur, an hour’s walk to the south of Bethlehem ; the present Beth-zacharieh.
34. they showed the elephants... Grimm refers to Aelian, De Anzimai. xiii. 8 in support of the fact that spirituous liquors were given to elephants in order to excite them. In the present case the liquor was only shown to them, for had they drunk of it they would have got out of control. Josephus omits all reference to this. In 3 Macc. v. I, 2 there is an account of the intention to give unmixed wine to elephants, and, when thoroughly maddened, to drive them into an enclosure full of Jews, in order that the latter might be trampled upon.
| 36 of brass Yon their heads’ ; and for each beast were appointed five hundred chosen horsemen. These | had previously been (with the beasts) *wherever a beast was*; *and whithersoever it went, ?they 37 went together with (it)”; they did not leave it*. And towers of wood (were) upon them, strong 38 (and) covered, (one) upon each beast, girt fast “tupon them with? (special) contrivances*; and upon each were }thirty-°twof men®, fighting ‘from them‘, and (each beast had) its Indians. And the residue of the horsemen he placed on this side and that side, on either wing of the army, ‘(thus) 39 striking terror (into the enemy, while) covering the phalanxes'®. Now when the sun shone upon the 40 shields of gold ‘and brass*,.the mountains shone therewith, and blazed like torches !of fire. And a part! of the king’s™ army !was spread! upon the high” mountains, and some on the °low ground®, 41 and they went on Psafely4 and in order’. And all that™ heard the noise of their multitude, Sand of the marching of the multitude, and the rattling of the arms*, did quake; for the army was exceeding*t 42 “great and™ strong. And Judas and his army drew near for battle, and there fell of the king’s army six hundred men. 43 And Eleazar Avaran saw one of the beasts armed with royal breastplates, and he was higher than 44 all the (other) beasts, so that it appeared as though the king were upon it; and he gave himself to 45 deliver his people and to acquire an everlasting name; and he ran upon it courageously into the midst of the phalanx’, and slew on the right hand and on the left, and they parted asunder “from 46 him on this side and on that ; and he crept under the elephant, *and¥ thrust him from beneath*, 47 and slew it ; and it fell to the earth upon him, and he died there. And when they” saw the strength of the royal* (army), and the fierce onslaught” of the hosts, they® turned away from them. 48 ‘But they? of the king’s army went up to Jerusalem to meet them, and the king encamped toward 49 Judaea, and toward mount Sion. And he made peace® with them of Bethsura ; for! they’ came out of the city, because they had no food there" to be shut up therein (any longer), ‘because it was 50 a sabbath to the land. And the king took Bethsura, and appointed* a garrison there to keep it. | 51 And he encamped against the sanctuary many days, and set there siege-towers!, and engines (of war), 52 and instruments for casting fire ™and stones™, and pieces to cast darts and slings. And they (who 53 were besieged) also made engines against their engines, and fought for many" days. But there were no victuals in the store-chambers® ? because it was the seventh year?, and they that had fled for 54 safety “to Judaea‘ from the Gentiles had eaten up the residue of the store; and there were (but) a few men left in the sanctuary, because the famine prevailed against them, and they were scattered, each man to his own place.
VI. 55-63. <Az abortive treaty of peace.
155 And Lysias heard that Philip, whom Antiochus the king'—while he was yet alive—appointed to 56 nourish up his son Antiochus* that he might be king, had returned from Persia tand Media‘, and
yY> S88 22> 50 which joins the preceding sentence to this verse CO Sail elise le COS τη d-dunder it > S8 ®-e men of strength NV > two 19 55 64 !fagainst them [2. 6. the foes] A 8 &>71 WAS oA Ὁ istriking with weapons $8 moving together in close order in legions #2 ΕΚ A 55 71 ΤΙΝ (λαὸ κὰ 9:3) ταῦ» GES WINS {2.77} δ ΘΚ} °-°low mountains Sle PP cautiously #? 4 with confidence S r + inhabited the earth 1? SS oi t>V wus Sg Y defile A 71 wow > 64 xx> i Υ tthe sword 19 64 2 Judas Luc ἃ 22}. of the kingdom bplur. A © Judas Luc d-dand some A Sluc e>A ' Zit. and She; but the sense of the passage shows that this is wrong h> 93 Slue i> i k smote A lturrets to fight (from) $ SSW GAL 2>NV °oT.R. V sanctuary NA &c.. DPS 7 a-a> Slue
r> Sluc s> Sluc peu 71
37. thirty-two. This is, of course, an impossible number; Grimm, following Michaelis, suggests in the original the reading py whe (‘ two (or) three’) which, through a copyist’s error, became ὩΣ) onde ( thirty-two’); Fairweather and Black offer the ingenious suggestion that ‘ possibly the original text may have read myiouy (‘picked warriors”), the term used in Exod. xiv. 7, xv. 4 of the picked men in Pharaoh’s chariots, which the translator mistook for ον (‘‘ thirty”)? ; some Greek MSS. read ‘thirty’, and δὲ V read ‘thirty men οὗ strength’. The usual number of warriors on an elephant was three or four. ;
its Indian. This name came to be applied to the driver whether an Indian or not.
39. the shields of gold ... This is merely a rhetorical picture.
43. Eleazar Avaran. Cp. ii. 5. J
45. they parted asunder from him. i.e. they could not withstand his onslaught. ;
47. they turned away from them. An instance of the general trustworthiness of the writer, who does not conceal the fact of defeat; that he does not enlarge upon it is very excusable; cp. Josephus, Bed/. Jud. 1.1.5. In 2 Macc. xill. 22, 23 the Jewish defeat is represented as a victory. He
49. it was a sabbath to the land. i.e. a Sabbatical year, cp. Exod. Xxili. 10, IL; Lev. xxv. 2-73 cp. v.53.
51. pieces. iz. ‘little scorpions,’ so called because part of the ‘ piece’, or instrument, resembled the uplifted tail of ascorpion. The Hebrew word 0°27py occurs in 1 Kings xii. II, 14; 2 Chron. xX. ΤΙΣ ΤῊΣ
53. they that had fled for safety ... i.e. those from Gilead and Galilee, see v. 23, 45.
with him the forces that went with" the king, and that he was seeking to take unto him the govern- — -. ment’. And he¥ made haste, and gave consent to depart ; and he* said ‘to the king and’ to the ”" leaders of the host and to the* men: ‘*We languish daily*, and our food is scant, and the place which — xg we are besieging is strong”, and the affairs of the ado lie upon us ; now Bee o τ us give . το tight hand to these men, and make peace ‘with them’, ¢and with all their nation*; and let us settle with them that they (be permitted) to walk after their own laws, as aforetime ; for because of their 60 laws which we abolished were they angered, and did all these things. _And the saying pleased the 61 king and the leaders, and he sent unto them to make peace® ; and they accepted thereof. And τς y king ¢and the leaders* sware unto them in accordance with these (conditions) ; (thereupon) they™ — 62 came forth from the stronghold, and the king entered into mount Sion. But (when) he saw the strength of the place, he set at nought the oath ‘which he had sworn, and gave commandment’ to 63 pull down* the wall round about. And he! removed in haste, and returned unto Antioch, and found Philip master of the city; and he fought against him, and took the city iD yatOLces
VII. 1-20. Demetrius becomes king of Syria; Bacchides and Alchimus sent against the Fews.
7 Inthe one hundred and fifty-first* year Demetrius the son of Seleucus came forth from Rome, and 2 went up with a few men Punto a city® by the sea”, and reigned there. And “it came to pass", when he had formed the purpose of entering into the house of the kingdom of his fathers, that the soldiery® 3 laid hands on Antiochus and Lysias, to bring them unto him. ‘And when the thing was made known 4 to him, he said: ‘Show me not their faces.’ And the soldiery slew them. And Demetrius sat 5 upon the throne of his kingdom. And there came unto him all the lawless and ungodly men o 6 Israel; and Alcimus® led them, desiring to be (high): priest. And they accused the people unto the king, saying: ‘Judas and his brethren have destroyed all thy Friends, and have scattered us from z our* land. Now therefore send a man whom thou trustest, and let him go and see ™all the havock which he hath made of us and of the king’s country™, and “let him punish” them and all that° helped U>A55 i Yregni negotia #? the affairs of the kingdom Sle Wthey A x Lysias Luc Υ 1}
2 +oreat 6493 5.511 [5 8}} πρ Πετα S$ _ Pis firm and strongly fortified S'e cco>Né d-d> 71 ® + with them Luc fhe A 8.8.» 71 bhe A TES Fil k and they (he 64 71) pulled down A Luc Ithey A
m-m> Sey 4
VII. “fiftieth $8 >->toabideinacity#' ¢plur, Sue dd>71 ethe captains of the forces fand . when they had been brought, Demetrius #' ΞΘ h +their leader 8 τ Kk their 38 1 +and from ἷ our people 55 τὰ ταὶ these things 71 Ἀπ δα: NAV &c. he hath punished ° those that 71
59. to walk after their laws. To achieve this was the one object, originally at any rate, of the Maccabaean struggle. au 63. returned unto Antioch. See the further details given by Josephus (Az7zg. XII. ix. 7); cp.also2 Mace. xiii. 4-7.
VII. 1. the one hundred and fifty-first year. 162-161 B.C.
Demetrius the son of Seleucus. The first of the name, called also Soter, on account of his having delivered the Babylonians from the satrap Heraclides; he reigned 162-150 B.c. His father was Seleucus IV, surnamed Philopator.
ane forth from Rome. i.e. he escaped from Rome, mainly through the help of Polybius the historian, where he was as a boy sent as a hostage in place of Antiochus Epiphanes, his uncle. He escaped to Tripolis, the ‘ city by the sea’ (cp. 2 Macc. xiv. 1; Josephus, Azfzg. XII. x. 1).
afew men. According to Polybius, five men and three boys; in 2 Macc. xiv. 1 he is said to have arrived in Tripolis ‘ with a mighty host and a fleet *:
and reigned there. Rather, proclaimed himself king there, cp. x. 1, xi. 54; Josephus (Aw¢ig. XII. x. 1) says: ‘and set the diadem on his own head.’ Polybius (xxxi. 20. 4 f.) says that while Demetrius was yet in Rome his guardian Diodorus brought him the news from Syria that distrust had arisen between Lysias and the Syrians, in consequence of which there was much turmoil in the land of his fathers. It was owing to the advice of Diodorus, who assured him that he would be welcomed in Syria, that he determined to escape. The event proved that he was well advised.
2. the house of the kingdom. i.e. Antioch, the royal city, cp. Dan. iv. (27) 29. the soldiery. The Syriac rendering is probably more strictly correct, ‘the captains of the forces.’ 3. And when the thing was made known to him. See critical note.
Show me not their faces. A hint that they should be put away; Josephus says they were ‘ immediately put to
death by the command of Demetrius’. 4. the throne of his kingdom. He was the rightful heir. 5. the lawless and ungodly men. i.e. those who did not obey the Law (Torah), the Hellenizing element.
Alcimus. According to Josephus "Idceruos, a graecized form of DO’. abbreviated from DPS (= Eliakim), cp. 2 Kings xviii. 18, &c., another form of the name is Jehoiakim. τι
desiring to be (high-) priest. According to 2 Macc. xiv. 7 he had already been high-priest, but had ‘laid aside’ his ‘ancestral glory,’ meaning the high-priesthood. Josephus (Antig. XII. x. 1) speaks of him as ‘high-priest’, and makes no mention of his now desiring to be so; and, again, in XX.x. 1 he says: ‘Antiochus (Eupator) and Lysias, the general of his army, deprived Onias, who was also called Menelaus, of the high-priesthood, and slew him at Beraea, and put Jacimus into the place of the high-priest, one that was indeed of the stock of Aaron, but not of this
house’ (i.e. of Onias). The words before us are, therefore, not strictly correct, and must be understood in the sense of desiring to be confirmed in the office by the new king, cp. v. 9.
PVWACCABEES 7.7825
gthem.’ And the king chose Bacchides, (one) of the king’s friends”, who was ruler in the country g beyond the river,4and was a great man in the kingdom, and faithful to the king. And he sent him® and the ungodly Alcimus, and made" sure to him the (high-) priesthood*; and he commanded him to take vengeance upon the children of Israe!. | yo And they* removed, "and came" with a great host into ‘the land of Judah’; and he* sent _ 11 messengers to Judas and his brethren with words of peace, deceitfully. But they gave ποῦ heed to ΕΞ their words ; for they saw that they were come’ with a great host. And there was gathered together 13 unto Alcimus and Bacchides a company of scribes, to seek for justice. And the Chassidim were the 14 first among “the children of* Israel that sought peace of them ; for they said: ‘One that is a priest 15 of the seed of Aaron is come ?with the forces, and he® will do us no wrong’. And he spake with them words of peace, and sware unto them, saying: ‘ We will seek the hurt neither of you nor of your τό friends.’ And they believed him; and he laid hands on threescore men of them, and slew them in one day, according to the “words which (the psalmist)* wrote: 1 The flesh of thy saints and their blood They poured out around Jerusalem ; And there was no man to bury them. 18 And the fear ‘and the dread‘ of them fell upon all the people, for they said: ‘ There is neither truth 19 nor judgement in them ; for they have broken the covenant and the oath which they sware.’ And Bacchides removed from Jerusalem, and encamped in Bezeth; and he sent® and took many? of the ‘deserters that were with* him, and certain of the people, and slew them, (and cast them) into the 20 great pit. And he delivered the land to Alcimus, and left with him a force to aid him; and Bacchides went away unto the king.
VII. 21-50. Fudas takes vengeance on the deserters; his victories over Nicanor.
22 And Alcimus strove for the high-priesthood'. And there were gathered unto him all they that troubled their people, and they got the mastery of the land of Judah, and did™ great hurt in Israel. 23 And Judas saw all the mischief that Alcimus and his company had wrought among the children of 24 Israel, worse than (that of) the Gentiles ; and he went out into all the coasts of Judaea™ round about, and took vengeance on °the men? that had deserted from him®, and they were restrained from going 25 forth into the? country. But when Alcimus saw” that Judas and his company waxed strong, and
Pthe king’s Friend V ana ἢ ‘they made ἂν Shigh priesthood V theA %*%>71 v-v Judaea V Judah 6493 δ» *they S° y>Luc 24+againstthem Luc S™¢ ὅταν" 8 > -btous®! cthey Slve adword which the prophet spoke S word of Asaph the prophet 55 #1 ®the prophet N° Luc 3 Asaph the prophet 55 ἘΣ Slue 3.5 8 +the judgement and 19 93 S!ve i> 28 USS Eee k from Luc ' priesthoodN 55 >93 ™he did Suc u+andA °° the children of the deserters iL! P +and (on those) A 4their $8 Theard 3.5
8. Bacchides. Cp. Josephus (4v7¢ig. XII. x. 2), who speaks of him as ‘a friend of Antiochus Epiphanes, a good
man (a reading which Grimm disputes), and one that had been entrusted with all Mesopotamia.’ the river. i.e. the Euphrates, cp. Isa. viii. 7; Zech. ix. 10.
13. the Chassidim. See note on il. 42. ἢ γὼ»
14. one that is a priest. ἄνθρωπος ἱερεύς, a Hebraism [13 WN, cp. Lev. xxi. 9.
16. which (the psalmist) wrote. In different MSS. the subject (‘the psalmist’) varies; ‘the prophet’, ‘ David’, ‘ Asaph’ occur.
17. The flesh ... A shortened form of Ps. Ixxix. 2, 3.
thy saints. 7)DM, i.e. Chassidim, cp. v. 13; this word was most probably the reason for which the writer quoted the passage, for the circumstances of the Psalm are not analogous to the occurrence here described.
18. the fear and the dread of them. Cp. Isa. viii. 13.
neither truth nor judgement. Cp. Ps. exi. 7.
they have broken the covenant. παρέβησαν τὴν στάσιν, lit. ‘they have transgressed the statute’; in the O.T. the usual phrase is MANN Ay (Joshua vii. 11, &c.), but M7, ‘covenant’, is not infrequently = to Pn (ΠΡΠῚ, ‘statute’
the oath which they sware. See τ΄. 15.
19. Bezeth. Josephus (Avg. XII. x. 2, xi. 1), ‘the village called Bethzetha’ (= Βηθζαιθά, ‘the house of the olive’, cp. Judith v. 2), Hebr. NY ΓΞ ; in Bed/, Jud. V.iv. 2 Josephus speaks of Bezetha as the new quarter of Jerusalem (καινὴ πόλις). Probably the place is to be identified with this.
the deserters that were with him. i.e. that had been with him (Bacchides). Judas did likewise, see τ΄. 24. the great pit. φρέαρ, 127. ‘well’ or ‘cistern’ (= ἽΝ 3) ; the use of the definite article shows it was well known.
21. strove for... Cp. note on v. 5; the meaning is that he strove to retain the office he already possessed, cp. Josephus (Amdig. XII. x. 3). 2
24. into all the coasts. i.e. the whole border of, cp. Judges xxix. 19. Semen 5ya3 552.
they were restrained ... i.e. they were besieged in their fenced cities.
25. But when Alcimus ... ἴῃ 2 Macc. xiv. 26 the return of Alcimus is stated to be the understanding that had
been arrived at between Judas and Nicanor; the account in Josephus (Awéig. XII. x. 3, 4) does not agree with this.
knew that he was ποῖ" able to withstand them*, he returned to the king", and brought evil accusations — against them’, ; ᾿ ἷ ny »6 And the king’ sent Nicanor, *one of his honourable princes, a man that hated Israel and was their 27 enemy*, and commanded him to destroy the people. And Nicanor came to Jerusalem with a great 28 host; and he sent unto Judas and his brethren deceitfully” with words of peace, saying : ‘ Let there be no battle between me and you”; I* will come with a few men, that I may see your faces? in 29 peace.’ And he* ‘came to Judas‘, and they saluted one another peaceably®. But the enemies were ready to take away Judas by violence. And the thing became known to Judas, (namely) that he τ came unto him with deceit ; and he was sore afraid of him, and would see his face no more. And (when) Nicanor knew that his purpose was discovered, he went out to meet Judas fin battle’ beside 32 Capharsalama ; and there fell of those (that were) with Nicanor about five hundred® men, and they fled into the city of David*. | ; 33 And iafter these things’ Nicanor went up to mount Sion; and there came some of the priests out of the sanctuary, and some of the elders of the people, to salute him peaceably, and to show him the 34 whole burnt sacrifice that was being offered for the king; but he mocked them, and laughed at them, 35 and polluted them, and spake haughtily, and sware in a rage, saying: ‘Unless Judas and his army be now delivered into my hands, it shall be that, if I come again in safety, I will burn up this house.’ 36 And he went forth with great* wrath. And the priests entered in, and stood before the altar and 37 the temple}, and wept and said: ‘Thou™ didst choose this house to be called by thy name, to be a 38 house of prayer “and supplication® for thy people ; take vengeance on this man and his army, and
let them °fall by the sword®; remember their blasphemies, and suffer them not to live any longer.’ 39 And Nicanor went forth from Jerusalem, and encamped in Bethhoron, and there met him the host 40 of Syria. And Judas encamped in Adasa with three thousand men; and Judas prayed, and said: 41 ‘When they that came from the king blasphemed, thine angel went out and smote among them one 42 hundred and eighty-five thousand. Even so crush? this army before us to-day ; and let all the rest know that he hath spoken wickedly against thy sanctuary ; and judge him® according to his wicked- 3 ness.’ And the armies joined battle ‘on the thirteenth (day) of the month Adar*™; and Nicanor’s 44 army was discomfited, ‘and he himself was the first to fall in the battle’. Now when his army saw 45 that Nicanor was fallen, they cast away their arms, and fled. And they* pursued after them a day’s journey from Adasa until thou comest to Gazara, and they sounded an alarm after them "with the
5ΞΡΙΑ thim 38 “to them 3. Vhim 93 w + Demetrius 64 93 x-x that was Israel’s enemy 71 Y>Se thee $8 and 1 19 93 Sue b-bthy face $8 they Suc d-Ajudascametohim 8 °>71 ΕΙΣ A Luc &thousand A V h Judah 71 tS Fit k>A lthe steps of the altar (κατάστρωμα, cp. Joel ii. 17) Se + and called upon God 55 m™ +O Lord 55 71 i! on> 71 i ©-o all fall by the mouth of the sword 55 Phe crushed A “them Lue 55 RS Uk BBS Τὴ: t +that were with Judas 64 93
26. Nicanor. Cp. iii. 38; Josephus (4. c.) speaks of Nicanor as ‘the most kind and most faithful of all his (Demetrius’) friends; for he it was who fled away with him from the city of Rome’; Polybius (xxxi. 22. 4) also speaks of him as one of Demetrius’ intimate friends in Rome. ἢ
28. that I may see your faces in peace. i.e. that I may have friendly intercourse with you; it is a Hebraism (D5 MIS); but it is also used of simply appearing before someone, e.g. Exod. x. 28, and cp. v. 30.
31. he went out to meet Judas in battle. A Hebrew phrase, cp. Num. xx. 18 ἽΠΝ ΡΟ NYN DANITD, ‘lest with the sword I go forth to meet thee.’
_ Capharsalama. Called ‘a village’ by Josephus; possibly to be identified with the modern Salame, a village distant from Jaffa about an hour’s walk (Kautzsch),.
32. and there fell .. . According to Josephus, Nicanor ‘beat Judas, and forced him to fly to that citadel which was in Jerusalem’; an obvious error since the citade! (‘Akra’) was in the hands of the enemy !
33. there came .. . out of the sanctuary. i.e. the outer court; they came from the inner court into which Nicanor, as a Gentile, was not permitted to enter.
offered for the king. Cp. Jer. xxix; Ezra vi. 10; Josephus, Be//. /ud. 11. xvii. 2.
34. polluted them. Most probably by spitting on them; this was, according to the Rabbis, one way whereby
Levitical purity was lost (cp. Krauss, 7adm. Arch., i, pp. 251, 704).
35. unless. ἐὰν μή = δὲ ON; the threat is conditional on his winning the victory. 37. to be called by thy name ... Cp. with this verse 1 Kings viii. 38, 43. 39. Bethhoron. See note on iii. 16. 40. Adasa. An hour and a half north-east of Bethhoron; Josephus (Avéig. XII. x. 5) speaks of it as ‘a village which was thirty furlongs distant from Bethhoron’? 41. when they that came from the king ... The reference is to Sennacherib, see 2 Kings xviii. 22 ff. one hundred ... Cp. 2 Kings xix. 35; reference to the same event is made in Ecclus. xviii. 21. 43. Adar. The twelfth month of the Jewish ecclesiastical year, corresponding roughly to March; in leap-years there is what is called Adar Sheni (the ‘Second Adar’), which is then the thirteenth month. 45. aday’s journey. From Adasa to Gazara is about fifteen miles. Gazara. See note on iv. 15.
46 solemn trumpets". And they came forth out of all the villages of Judaea round about’, “and closed | them in’; and these turned back on those (behind), and they all fell by the sword, and there was | 47 not one of them left. And they took the spoils and the booty, and they smote off Nicanor’s head, | *and his right hand, which he stretched out so haughtily, and brought them*, and hanged them up¥ 48 near Jerusalem. And the people was exceeding glad, “and they kept that day as a day of great | 49 gladness*. And they ordained that this day should be observed year by year (on) the thirteenth | 50 (day) of Adar. And the land of** Judah had rest »”a little while”.
VIII. 1-32. Fudas concludes a treaty with the Romans, after having heard of their power ana rule.
δι And Judas heard of the fame of the Romans, that they were valiant men, and that they were friendly disposed towards all who attached themselves to them, and that they offered friendship* to 2 as many as came unto them, Pand that they were valiant men’. And they told him about their wars and exploits which they had done among the Galatians, and “how they had ‘conquered them4, 3 and brought them under tribute ; and (they told him also of) what things they had done in the land 4 of Spain’, how they had acquired *the mines of silver and gold there®; ‘and how that by their policy and persistence’ they had conquered the whole® land (and the land was exceeding far ifrom them'); also (they told) of the kings that had come against them from the uttermost part of the earth, until they had discomfited them‘, and smitten them very sore ; and how the rest had given 5 them tribute year by year. Furthermore, (they told) of how they had discomfited in battle ‘Philip,
v> Sluc w-w /7¢, outflanked them > 71 S23 So UF ¥ Zt. stretched them out ΠΣ ΣΙ in that day DL} aa-aa > VV bb-bb 774, a few days. VIII. ®+and to as many as held to them A b-b> Slue GO SSG At 4-d won their land 2} e-e The
mountains from whence silver and goldare sought out $8 ff>71 S8wisdom@' b> Ss iis ge k-k > Se
the solemn trumpets. 77, ‘the trumpets of signals’, i.e, to give a signal to their friends in the villages round about, see next verse. 46. closed them in. ὑπερεκέρων αὐτούς, ‘outflanked them’, thanks to the alarm given by the signal trumpets. stretched out... hanged them up. ἐξέτεινεν. . . ἐξέτειναν, a word-play quite after the Hebrew fashion. 49... . the thirteenth (day) of Adar. This festival was originally called ‘ Nicanor Day’, but it was displaced (when, is not known) by the Fast of Esther, which was kept on this day in memory of Esther’s fasting, mentioned in Esther ix. 31 (cp. Esther iv. 3, 16); this fast was a preparation for the feast of Purim, which occurs on the fourteenth of Adar. ‘Nicanor Day’ is mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud (J/eg7//ah, ii. 66 a), where it is spoken of as a semifestival. 50. the land ... had rest. Cp. ix. 57, xiv. 4, and for the Hebrew ΝΠ ΠΡ cp. Joshua xi. 23. a little while. Zz. ‘a few days’, i.e. about a month, cp. ix. 3.
VIII. 1-32. ‘The details of this narrative have been called in question by many critics, although the fact of a treaty having been concluded between the Jews and the Romans has been generally admitted. Wellhausen, e.g., while asserting that the journey to Rome, the negotiations with the Senate, and the return to Jerusalem, could not have been accomplished in a single month, goes on to say: ‘‘ This would be decisive, only Iam not convinced that the usual assumption is correct. For the festival of Nicanor’s day is unintelligible, if the sensation of victory had been forthwith effaced through a reverse of the worst description. It is not maintained that the statement of 1 Macc. viii. 17 (2 Macc. iv. 11) is drawn purely from the imagination” (157. und Jiid. Gesch., p. 250, note 3). That the narrative does contain inaccuracies (vv. 8, 15, 16) is not to be denied. These, however, may be accounted for by the defective means of international communication in those days, and still more by the fact that the interests of the Jews were practically confined to agriculture and their ancestral religion. The writer’s graphic picture is, upon the whole, “not unfaithful” (Rawlinson), and has “‘ quite the character of that atve¢é and candour with which intelligence of that sort is propagated in the mouth of the common people” (Grimm). In spite of what is said in v. 13, he is apparently blind as to the dangers attending negotiations with Rome’ (Fairweather and Black, p. 157).
1. all who attached themselves to them. Rawlinson points out that ‘the Romans had received into alliance Attalus of Pergamus, Ariarathes of Cappadocia, Ptolemy Philometor, and the Rhodians.’
2. the Galatians. Kautzsch thinks it improbable that the reference is to the Gauls in Asia Minor who were conquered by Manlius Vulso, 189 B.c.; he thinks, with Mommsen and others, that the Gauls of Upper Italy are meant; these were subjugated by the Romans in 190 B.C., and laid under tribute.
3. the land of Spain. This came under the Roman dominion in 201 B.C., though only that portion of it which had belonged to the Carthaginians; it was not until nearly two centuries later that the whole country became incorporated into the Roman Empire.
the mines of silver and gold there. Pliny (Hist. Naturalis, xxxiii. 4, §§ 21, 23) speaks of the gold and silver found in Spain, the former in the shape of gold-dust in the bed of the Tagus; Diodorus Siculus (v. 35, § 1) says: ‘Spain has the best and most plentiful silver from mines of all the world’ (cp. Rawlinson, Ast. of Phoenicia,
4. the whole land. τόπος is used here of the whole country as in 1 Sam. xii. 8 (Sept.) ; Jer. xvi. 2, 3 (Sept.); the Hebrew word (D)p) is used in the same way in these passages. The statement here is an exaggeration, see note on v. 3.
5. Philip. i.e. Philip V, King of Macedonia, 220-179 B.C.; he was finally defeated at the battle of Cynoscephalae in Thessaly (197 B.C.) by T. Quinctius Flaminius.
land¥ Perseus!, king of Chittim, and them that lifted themselves up against them, and had conquered
6 them; Antiochus also, the great™ king of Asia, who had come against them to battle, having a hundred and twenty elephants, with cavalry, and chariots, and an exceeding great host,—he had
. also been discomfited by them”, and they had taken him alive, and had appointed that both he and " such as reigned after him should give them a great tribute® and should give hostages, and a ‘ tract’ (of land), (namely) the country of India, and Media, and Lydia, and of the goodliest of their
ὁ countries; and how they had taken them from him, and had given them to king Eumenes. Also τὸ (they told of) how they of Greece had purposed to come and destroy them, and the thing had become known to them, and they had sent against them a captain, and had fought against them, and many of them had fallen,’ wounded to death? ; and (of how) they had made captive their wives and their children, “and had spoiled them and conquered their land, and had pulled down their 11 strongholds*, and had brought them into bondage unto this day. And (they told of) how they had destroyed the residue of the kingdoms ‘and of the isles*, as many as had risen up against them ', and 12 had made them their servants ; but that with their friends and such as relied upon them they kept amity ; and (of) how they had conquered the kingdoms" that were nigh and those that were far off, 13 and that all who heard of their fame were afraid of them. Moreover (they told) that whomsoever they will to succour and to make kings, become kings’; and that whomsoever they will, do they 14 depose ; and they are exalted exceedingly ; and that for all this none of them did ever put on 15 a diadem, “neither did they clothe themselves with purple, to be magnified* thereby’.~ (They told) also how they had made for themselves a senate house, and how day by day three hundred “and
l1> 19 93 BS Git nhim Luc ° +year by year Luc LS I aol r+and spoiled them & &c. 5:8.» 3.1 the rest of the isles Sve t+and had plundered them Luc +and had plundered them and taken them captive $e ukings N V 19 93 Slue Y will become kings A WATS 8 X> Ν (hab κὰ 6:8) ¥ τὸ exalt themselves (272: the sense of assuming too much power) 38 Fea SE
Perseus. The illegitimate son and successor of Philip; he was conquered by L. Aemilius Paullus at the battle of Pydna (168 Β. 6.), whereby the Macedonian kingdom was brought to an end.
Chittim. See note oni. 1.
and them that lifted ... Probably the reference is to those who sent reinforcements to Perseus, viz. the Epirots, Thessalians, and Thracians (Grimm).
6. Antiochus also... i.e. Antiochus III, the Great, King of Syria 223-187 B.C., son of Seleucus Callinicus.
Asia. See note on xi. 13.
discomfited. At the battle of Magnesia, 190 B.C., by Scipio Africanus (Polybius, ili. 3. 4).
7. taken him alive. ‘Here the author has been misled by a false report. According to the unanimous testimony of the classical writers, Antiochus succeeded in making his escape’ (Fairweather and Black); Kautzsch suggests that possibly the author has mixed up Antiochus with Perseus here.
such as reigned after him. Seleucus IV, Philopator (187-176 8. C.),and Antiochus IV, Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.), with whom the tribute ceased.
a great tribute. According to Polybius, xxi. 14. 3-6, 15,000 Euboic talents, 500 of which had to be paid at the conclusion of the negotiations, 2,500 when peace was ratified, and 1,000 a year for the next twelve years (quoted by Knabenbauer, p. 152).
hostages. See note on i. Io.
a tract. διαστολή, the word is apparently used in the same sense as in Rom, iii. 22, a ‘distinction’, i.e. the land in question was to be distinguished in the future from the rest of his possessions by being assigned to the Romans.
8. India. This never belonged to Antiochus, so he could not have ceded it to Rome.
Media. According to Livy xxxvii. 56, xxxviii. 38 it was only his possessions on this side of the Taurus (i.e. on the west) that Antiochus was forced to give up. We must probably see here, as elsewhere in this section, a rhetorical exaggeration. The ingenious attempts which have been made to emend to the text, and read ‘Ionia and Asia’, or * Mysia’, may or may not be justified, but they have absolutely no support either from MSS. or Versions.
...toking Eumenes. Eumenes II, king of Pergamos (197-158 Β. 6.), and son of Attalus 1; these territories were given to him by the Romans in recognition of the help rendered during the war with Syria, and especially at the battle of Magnesia (see further, Smith’s Dict. of Class. Biog. s.v.).
g. Also... What this all refers to is not known. Kautzsch thinks that very probably the reference may be to the Roman victory over the forces of the Achaean Alliance (147-146 B.C., i.e. fifteen years after the death of Judas Maccabaeus) ; in this case the ‘captain’, mentioned in v. 10, would be L. Mummius. The war, which was short and decisive, resulted in the subjugation of the whole of Greece, which was reduced to the status of a Roman province, under the name of Achaia.
11. the isles. i.e. Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica, together with the isles of the Grecian Archipelago.
12. In this and the next few verses the subjects of vv. 1 ff. are again reverted to.
with their friends ... they kept amity. This is not in accordance with the facts; the statement is, no doubt, due to insufficient knowledge.
_15. and how day by day... As Fairweather and Black point out, ‘this is quite a mistake. The regular sittings of the Senate were confined to the Kalends, Nones, Ides, and Festivals. In case of emergency, however, it could be summoned in a moment, as its members were not allowed to leave Rome for more than a day, and only a few of them ata time. In the later days of the Republic the Senate sat on all lawful days in February to receive foreign ambassadors, but there is no evidence that the practice was as old as the time of the Maccabees. If it was,
the writer’s mistake is easily explained’ The reference to three hundred and twenty members of the Senate is also a mistake, it never reached more than three hundred.
I"MACCABEES 8. τς 28
twenty” men sat in council, consulting alway for the people, to the end that they* might be well 16 ordered ; and how they committed their government to one man year by year, that he should be over | them, and be lord over all> their country ; and that all are obedient to this one, and that there is neither envy nor emulation among them. τῇ And Judas chose Eupolemus, the son of John, the son of Accos, and Jason, the son of Eleazar, and ᾿ 18 sent them to Rome, to makea league of amity and confederacy ‘with them’, and that they should | take the yoke from“ them, when they saw that the kingdom of the Greeks did keep Israel in | 19 bondage. And they® went to Rome, ‘and the way was exceeding long’; and they entered into the | 20 Senate house, Sand answered and said”: ‘ Judas, who is also (called) Maccabaeus, and his brethren, and the whole people of the Jews, have sent us unto you, to make a confederacy and peace with you, 21 and that we might be registered (as) your confederates and friends.’ And the thing was well-pleasing 22 in their sight. And this is the copy of the writing? which they wrote back again on tablets of brass, and sent to Jerusalem, ‘that it might be with them there* for a memorial of peace and confederacy : 23 ‘Good success be to the Romans, and to the nation of the Jews, by sea and by land for ever ; the 24 sword also and the enemy be far from them. But if war arise for Rome! first, ™or for any of their 25 confederates in all their dominion™, the nation of the Jews shall help them as confederates as the occasion 26 shall prescribe "to them”, with all their heart ; and unto °them that make war° they (i.e. the Jews) »shall not give”, neither supply, food, arms, money, or ships, as it hath seemed good unto Rome; and they (i. 6. the Jews) shall observe their obligations, receiving nothing (in the way of a bribe). “In the 27 same manner“, moreover, if war come first" upon the nation of the Jews, the Romans shall help them 28 as confederates with all their soul, as the occasion shall prescribe to them; and to them that are confederates‘ there shall not be given corn, arms, money, ‘or ships’, as it hath seemed good unto
ἃ the reflex pron., AV suggesting that the Senate was looking after its own interests LSI crc Ne (hab νὰ 9:8) q>A 9 +that were with Eupolemus Luc atl 12 5.6.» i! nob A iletter δὶ SSS ee Ithe Romans Slve % eS it DENS ole BW 90S in (ἃ the reference seems to be to the Romans PP > ΝῈ (hab κὰ 9:3) 93 4.4. ο1υς r> 28 Sthat make war 55 2? ti TAL
16. one man. Another instance of inadequate knowledge; there were, of course, two consuls.
neither envy ... This also is contrary to fact; on this, however, Grimm remarks that ‘it is psychologically very comprehensible that, having regard to the assistance to be looked for by an alliance with Rome, the darker side of the conditions which obtained in the Roman State, of which the writer might have been cognisant, were naturally overlooked or left unnoticed.’ At any rate, it is not to be expected that the writer should have had much intimate acquaintance with the internal affairs of Rome; and even if he had, his knowledge of the deplorable conditions in his own country would unconsciously tend to make him take a bright view of all that concerned the powerful people from whom so much was hoped.
17. Eupolemus. ‘Perhaps identical with that Eupolemus who is known to us as a Hellenistic writer’ (Schiirer, The Jewish People .. ., Div. I, vol. i, p. 231, see also Div. II, vol. ili, pp. 203 ff.); he was a Palestinian Jew who wrote about 158-157 B.C. or shortly afterwards.
the son of John. See 2 Mace. iv. 11. : eeceee More correctly Hakkoz, cp. 1 Chron. xxiv.10; Ezra ii. 61; Neh. iil. 4, 21, vil. 63, belonging to a priestly amily.
Jason the son of Eleazar. Perhaps the same Jason who is mentioned as the father of Antipater in xii. 16,
18. the yoke. i.e. the Syrian yoke; this implies either that the victory over Nicanor, recorded in ch. vii, had not yet taken place, or else that it was, after all, not of a wholly decisive character ; Schtrer thinks that ‘from the general drift of the First Book of Maccabees, it may be assumed that Judas had first arranged the embassy after the victory over Nicanor’ (op. cit. Div. I, vol. i, p. 232 note).
22. tablets of brass. Theusual way of preserving documents of this kind; Grimm quotes Polybius, iii. 26. 1, who says, in reference to the treaties between Rome and Carthage, that they were preserved in this way, and that they were kept in the Capitol. Josephus (Awtig. XII. x. 6) says regarding this treaty that the Romans ‘also made a decree concerning it, and sent a copy of it into Judaea; it was also laid up in the Capitol, and engraven in brass.’
23. Good success be to the Romans. The equivalent, as Grimm points out, of the usual Roman formula: Quod bonum, faustum felixque stt populo Romano...
26. unto them that make war ... ships. Kautzsch sees in this mention of ships, which at this time (161 B.C.) the Jews could not have supplied, one of the reasons for regarding this whole section (vv. 22-32) as having been added later, whether in the Hebrew original or when the translation was made; but there is much in Grimms contention that the mention of ships shows the far-seeing character of Roman policy, especially as not long after this the Jews got possession of a harbour (cp. xiv. 5). At the same time, it is worth while noting that in Josephus’ account the ships are not spoken of in reference to the Jews; in Amdézg. XII. x. 6 the decree runs: ‘It shall not be lawful for any that are subject to the Romans to make war with the nation of the Jews, nor to assist those that do so, either by sending them corn, or ships, or money’; this is the only mention of ships. It is, therefore, just possible that the form of the decree in 1 Macc. is due to a misunderstanding of the original Roman form of it.
as it hath seemed good unto Rome. This, together with the phrase in vv. 25, 27, ‘as the occasion shall prescribe to them’, made the treaty far more advantageous to the Romans than to the Jews; see also the same words in v.28. It is true that in v. 30 there is a roviso that modifications might be made by either party by mutual consent, but this does not appear to be part of the actual treaty, the words of which clearly stop at the end of 7. 28.
29 Rome"; and they shall observe these obligations, and that without deceit. *According to these — 30 words have the Romans made (a treaty) with the people of the Jews. But if hereafter the one
party Yor* the other’ shall determine to add or to diminish anything, they shall do it at their 31 pleasure, and whatsoever they shall add or take away shall be established. oud as touching the ” evils which king** Demetrius doeth ’?unto you””**, we have written “to him ® saying“: ‘ Wherefore hast 32 thou made thy yoke heavy upon our friends (and) ** confederates the Jews? If, therefore, they plead
any more against thee, we will do them justice™, and fight thee by sea and by land.
IX. 1-22. Death of Fudas Maccabaeus.
9; And when Demetrius had heard that Nicanor *was fallen® with his forces in battle®, he sent Bacchides and Alcimus again into the land of Judah ba second time”, and the right wing (of his army)
2 with them. And they® went by way of Gilgal‘4, and encamped against Mesaloth, which is in Arbela, 3°and gat possession of it®, and destroyed* much people. And Sin the first month of the one
4 hundred and fifty second year* they encamped against Jerusalem. And they removed and went
5 unto Berea, with twenty thousand footmen and two thousand horse. And Judas was encamped at
“the Romans δὲ Sve Τ᾿ x +thus Luc y-y + Sluc zand AV Luc Sle & aa > N* (hab κὰ “-8) bb-bb > Ψ', eethem δὲ (wot δὲ 6:3) A Luc 9 dd-dd and sent unto him S!ue eethus Ss ff + our Luc Βα vengeance 55 vengeance and justice S!v°
IX. 2-#had waged battle A bb> Ss ¢ 4+ that were with Bacchides Luc 4 Gilead Luc Slue ee> Se and occupied it #? fhe destroyed A V 5.86.» 71
31. we have written to him... But, as Schiirer truly points out, this came too late, for through the energetic action of Demetrius the overthrow of Judaea had already been completed before there was any possibility of interference on the part of the Romans (cp. ix. I-21).
wherefore hast thou made thy yoke heavy. A Hebraism by 337 (cp. 2 Chron. x. 10, 14).
32. we will do them justice. Another Hebrew phrase David ney (‘to do justice’, lit. ‘judgement ’), Deut. x. 18, &c.
IX. 1. that Nicanor was fallen. Cp. vil. 43, 44. ’ he sent ...asecondtime. προσέθετο... ἀποστεῖλαι, ‘he added to send’, a Hebrew phrase προ AD. the right wing. The Jews faced eastwards so that from their point of view the right would be the Syrian troops in the south, but the actual right wing of the Syrian army was that part of it stationed towards the north; see next note, Bacchides probably came from the north, Josephus directly states that he ‘marched out of Antioch’ (Anzzg.
2. ging ...Mesaloth ...Arbela. The identification of the place which ‘ Gilgal’ represents is extremely difficult, perhaps impossible. The best attested reading is Τάλγαλα Gilgal; but there are at least three places of this name mentioned in the O.T.; Joshua’s Gilgal, the Gilgal by Bethel, and the Gilgal by Mount Gerizim (on this see G. A. Smith in ZB 1729 ff.). Some MSS., followed by the Lucianic Syriac, read Γαλαάδ Gilead ; and Josephus has Va\tAaiay Galilee. Assuming, as is permissible, that the two last readings are to be rejected, and that ‘ Gilgal’ is the right reading, it seems upon the whole best to identify this with the Gilgal by Mount Gerizim; ‘if’, says G. A. Smith (ZB 291 f.), ‘ Bacchides wished to avoid the road which had proved so fatal to Nicanor, he may have taken the road from Esdraelon south through Samaria. . . . On this route Masaloth might be Meselieh or Meithalun, respectively 5 or 8 miles south of Jenin, each of them a natural point at which to resist an invader. A greater difficulty is presented by ἐν ᾿Αρβήλοις. The plural form evidently signifies a considerable district. Now, Eusebius (OS®) ᾿Αρβηλά) notes the name as extant in his day, on Esdraelon, 9 Roman miles from Lejjun, while the entrances from Esdraelon on Meselieh and Meithalin are 94 Roman miles from Lejjin. It is therefore possible that the name ᾿Αρβηλά covered in earlier days the whole of this district. The suggestion is, however, far from being capable of proof. The chief points in its favour are the straight road from the north, which was regarded as a natural line of invasion, and the existence along the road of a Jiljuljeh [ Gilgal], a Meselieh, and a Meithalun.’
3. the first month. If, as there is every reason to suppose (cp. i. 54, vii. 43), it is the Jewish first month that is meant, it is the month Nisan, corresponding roughly to April. This would mean that only six or seven weeks had elapsed since the defeat of Nicanor on the 13th of Adar (= March); that does not allow much time for the news of Nicanor’s defeat to have reached Demetrius in Antioch, and for the latter to dispatch the reinforcements under Bacchides, especially as some time must have been taken up in encamping against Mesaloth, and getting possession of it, and destroying much people (see v. 2), on the way to Jerusalem. This feat is not impossible, but rather improbable, unless we suppose (with Michaelis, quoted by Grimm) that it was leap-year, in which the month Adar Sheni with its twenty-nine days came between Adar and Nisan. Otherwise the most obvious explanation is that the writer has made a mistake of about a month.
__ they encamped against Jerusalem. Presumably Bacchides thought Judas was in Jerusalem ; otherwise it is difficult to understand why he should have encamped here. It is surprising how badly Bacchides must have been informed about the movements of his opponents; bad generalship and an inefficient intelligence department on the part of the Syrians, both of which are several times unconsciously implied by the writer of this book, must evidently have had much to do with the success of the Maccabees against overwhelming odds. In this particular case the disparity was so great that even bad generalship could not save the Jews from disaster.
4. they removed ... unto Berea. They had scarcely settled themselves down before Jerusalem before they had to break up the camp again. It is not known where Berea was.
5. Judas was encamped at Elasa. This place is also unknown ; Josephus says that ‘Judas pitched his camp at a certain village whose name was Bethzetha’ (Avfig. XII. xi. 1).
6 Elasa, and three thousand chosen men with him. And (when) they saw the multitude "of the
forces», that they! were many *, they feared exceedingly ; and many slipped away from the army ; 7 there were not left ‘of them! more than eight hundred men. And (when) Judas saw that his army
slipped away, “and that (nevertheless) the battle was imminent for him™, he was sore troubled in
8 heart, for that he had no time to gather them together. "And he became desperate”, and said to | them that were left: ‘Let us arise and go up against our adversaries, if peradventure we may be able ‘|g to fight against them.’ And they turned from him, saying: ‘ We shall in no wise be able °(to withstand them)°; but let us rather save our lives now”; let us return (later on) with our brethren, and -o fight “against them“; we are (now too) few.’ Then Judas said: ‘Far be it ‘from me" to do this thing, to flee from them! *And if* our time is come’, let us die manfully“ for our brethren’s sake }1 Yand not leave a cause (of reproach) against our glory’. And the (Syrian) host removed from the camp, and (the Jews) stood to encounter them ; and the horse was divided into two companies, and the slingers and the archers went before the host together with “all the mighty men that fought in 1:2 the front (of the line of battle)¥. But Bacchides was on the right wing; and the phalanx drew near from both sides, and they blew with their trumpets, and the men of *Judas’ side* also blew ¥with |:3 their trumpets’; and the earth shook *with the shout” of the* armies. And the battle was joined, 14 (and continued) from morning until evening. And (when) Judas saw that Bacchides and the main | strength of (his) army were on the right wing, his followers concentrated their whole attention (upon Πτρ them)”, and the right wing® was discomfited by them, and they pursued after them unto the mount τό Azotus*. And (when) they that were on the left wing® saw that the right wing® was discomfited, τ they turned (and followed) upon the footsteps of Judas and those that were with him. And the [18 battle waxed sore, and many‘ “on either side® fell "wounded to death*. And Judas fell, and the rg rest fled. And Jonathan and Simon ‘took Judas their brother, and! buried him in the sepulchre of }20 his* fathers at Modin. And they bewailed him!', and all Israel ™made great lamentation for him and™ mourned" many days, °and said°® : 21 ‘?How is the mighty one fallen, the saviour of Israel !”’ [22 And the rest of the acts of Judas, and (his) wars”, and the valiant deeds “which he did®, ?and his greatness?,—they are not written ; for they were exceeding many.
bh> 71 i + who were opposed (to them) Luc eet au πη Se EEN SS G7 ὌΝΩΙ» ΤῚ 3 °° to fight against them δὲ V 55 P> 28 i aa> “6 rT >NV SS oir t>A ws 3. TY Sagi w-W all the men who are skilled in war & x XJudah 8 V Yo > 71 2-2 because of (2. from) A “their A b-b Slue and there went with him all that were brave in heart & 58 © part δὶ τὸ 93 ἃ Gazara 3»
three thousand chosen men. It is strange that so many of these ‘chosen men’ should have ‘ slipped away’ at the critical moment ; Josephus gives their number as only one thousand, but this is obviously a mistake, as he says that ‘ they all fled away, excepting eight hundred’! 8. he became desperate. Cp. Deut. xx. 3 (Sept.). 10, far be it from me to do this thing. My μοι γένοιτο ποιῆσαι τὸ πρᾶγμα τοῦτο, a very Hebraic phrase: nxt ΓΝ % abbr (cp. xiii. 5), see Gen. xliv. 7, 17; Joshua xxii. 29, xxiv. 16; 1 Kings xxi. 3. 13. the earth shook. Cp. 2 Sam. xxii. 8. from morning until evening. Josephus says the battle continued ‘till sun-set’, but does not mention when it began; the statement in the text is probably a rhetorical exaggeration ; eight hundred against twenty-two thousand, holding out all day, can scarcely be literally true, especially as no hint is given that the smaller number occupied any advantageous position; from the account in the text, as well as in Josephus, the two armies met on equal terms as far as position was concerned. 15. the mount Azotus. Josephus, ‘a mountain called Eza’ (or Aza); no such mountain is known; the text is clearly corrupt. 17. and the battle waxed sore. καὶ ἐβαρύνθη ὁ πόλεμος, a Hebrew phrase manbon MAIN; Cp. I Sam, xx. 3/5 19... . took Judas their brother. According to Josephus (4vtig. XII. xi. 2) they ‘received his dead body by a treaty from the enemy’; this is more likely to be correct, for it is hardly to be expected that the Syrians would have treated the body of the Jewish rebel chief, as they regarded him, with more respect than that which the Jews accorded to the body of the Syrian general Nicanor (see vii. 47), unless there were special reasons for this. Josephus does not mention the terms of this ‘treaty’. 20. great lamentation. Cp. xiil. 26. the saviour of Israel. Cp. Judges iii. 9; 2 Kings xiil. 5. 22. And the rest of the acts ... For the phraseology cp. xvi. 23; it occurs often in the Books of the Kings. they are not written. This statement implies that for this part of the narrative (i.e. the ‘rest of the acts’) no documents were available; which, on the other hand, implies that what is recorded in our book was based on extant documents. ‘With the overthrow of Judas’, says Schiirer (of. cit., 1. i, p. 233), ‘it was finally and definitely proved that it
PL MAGCCABEES 9723-33 j
JONATHAN MaccaBaEvs. IX. 23—XII. 53.
IX. 23-31. Fonathan succeeds Fudas.
23 And it came to pass after the death of Judas that the lawless put forth their heads in all the 24 borders of Israel, and all they that wrought iniquity rose up ; in those days *there arose exceeding 25 great murmuring that the land made peace with them’. And Bacchides chose out the ungodly men, 26 and made them lords of the country. And they sought out and searched for the friends of Judas, and brought them to Bacchides, and he took vengeance on them, *and treated them with mockery*. 27 And there was great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the time that a prophet appeared 28 unto them‘. And all the friends of Judas were gathered together, and they said unto Jonathan : 29 ‘Since thy brother Judas hath died, we have no man like him to go forth" against our enemies and 30 Bacchides, Yand against them of our nation that are inimical (to us)". Now therefore we have © chosen thee this day to be our ruler and leader *in his stead*, ¥that thou mayest fight our battles.’ 31 And Jonathan took® ?the leadership upon him at that time”, and rose up in the stead of his brother Judas?. IX. 32-73. Fonathan’s struggle with Bacchides.
,33 And (when) Bacchides knew it, he sought to slay him. But (when) Jonathan, Cand Simon his Ϊ
“brother, 4and all that were with him‘*, knew it, they fled into the wilderness of Tekoah, and —
y-yfor battle @' %-# And they chose Jonathan as leader in place of his brother Judas £1 chose τὸ SE b b> ye
was a vain endeavour on the part of the Jewish nationalists to measure swords with the mighty forces of Syria. Brilliant as the earlier achievements of Judas had been, he was largely indebted to the recklessness and selfconfidence of his opponents. Continuous military success was not to be thought of if only the Syrian authorities seriously roused themselves to the conflict. The following age cannot show even one conspicuous victory of the kind by which Judas had won renown. What the Maccabaean party finally reached, it won through voluntary concessions of claimants to the Syrian throne contending with one another, and generally in consequence of internal dissensions in the Syrian Empire.’ put forth... rose up. Cp. Ps. xcii. 7 (Sept. xci. 8). ᾿ , 24. murmuring. Prof. Torrey (2 2859) thinks the rendering λιμός is due to a misreading of the original Hebrew which had DY (‘murmuring’), not IY (‘famine’); this, if correct, would certainly make the next clause less difficult. that the land made peace with them. καὶ αὐτομόλησεν ἡ χώρα per αὐτῶν. The verb with pera only occurs
once in the Septuagint, 2 Sam. x. 19, where the Hebrew has Syren wren, (‘and they made peace with Israel’). If we are to be guided by this, the passage before us must mean (if we accept ‘famine’ as the right reading) that owing to the famine, the land, by which here can only be meant the followers of Judas, made peace with them, i.e. the ‘lawless’. This must, however, be rejected ; firstly, because ‘the land’ cannot be restricted in this way, and, secondly, because the sequel shows that there was no peace between the followers of Judas and the ‘lawless’. Fairweather and Black take ‘the land’ to mean ‘the country in general, as distinguished from staunch patriots’; but the text gives no justification for this distinction; for the writer of 1 Macc. there are only two parties in the Jewish State, the Maccabaean party and the ‘lawless’. Grimm holds that the real meaning of the passage is shown by the paraphrastic rendering of the Syriac Version: ‘And the land too has become corrupt with them’; i.e. the land, through the famine, had, as it were, joined hands with the apostates in antagonism against the faithful. This is in accordance with Josephus (Av/zg. XII. i. 1). Kautzsch concurs in this: ‘The land, otherwise so fruitful, seemed to have allied itself with the lawless for the purpose of destroying the godly’; and he renders: ‘So that (in the same way) the land fell off (or “‘ deserted”) with them, i.e. the lawless.’ Against this it is to be urged that the Septuagint nowhere uses the verb in question in this sense (1 Sam. xx. 30, where the participle is used in the sense of ‘ rebellious’ is not @ propos). If, now, we follow Torrey in regarding ‘famine’ as a mistake for ‘murmuring’ (in the sense of indignation), and interpret the verb in the sense in which it is used in 2 Sam. x. 19 (see above), its only other occurrence with μετά, we get: ‘there arose exceeding great murmuring (i.e. on the part of the faithful) that the land made peace with them,’ 1. 6. the enemy, as the next verse goes on to show; indeed, the verses that follow seem thoroughly to justify this rendering, as offering further grounds for the ‘murmuring’. By ‘the land’ is meant everyone excepting the faithful, who were now obviously in a minority ; it must also be remembered that the author of 1 Macc. writes as one of the faithful.
26. took vengeance on them. ἐξεδίκα αὐτούς, for which T.R. reads ἐξεδίκει ἐν αὐτοῖς, cp. Jer. v. 9, 29 (Sept.) = 3 Dp3nn τ Sam. xviii. 25; 2 DP) Judges xv. 7 (Grimm).
treated them with mockery. The reference must be to their religious practices; Josephus, however, says : ‘tortured and tormented them.’
27. since the time that a prophet appeared unto them. That the writer implies the prophet Malachi here (so Grimm, Bissell, Fairweather and Black, Knabenbauer) is not necessarily certain; we have in the O.T. fragments of the writings of prophets who lived later than the time of Malachi (some short time before 450 B.C.) ; if they are anonymous, ‘Malachi’ is pseudonymous ; the former may have exercised as great an influence as the latter, although their names have not come down to.us. Josephus makes no reference to a prophet, but says: ‘ They had never experience of the like since their return out of Babylon.’ In either case it is a rhetorical exaggeration.
33. the wilderness of Tekqah. The wilderness got its name from the city six miles south of Bethlehem, on the borders of the wilderness; the name still exists, Ze/za; the site of the ancient city lies on the top of a hill with
34 encamped by the water “οἵ the pool Asphar®. ‘And Bacchides got to know of this on the Sabbath | day, and he came, he and all his army, over Jordan‘.
35 And (Jonathan) sent his brother, a leader of the multitude, and besought his friends, the Nabath- 36 aeans, that they might leave with them their baggage, which was much. But the children of Ambri 37 came out of Medaba, and took John, and all that he had, and went their way "with it®. iBut after these things! they brought word to Jonathan ‘and Simoni his brother, that the children of Ambri were making a great marriage, and were bringing the bride from Nadabath with a great train, 8 a daughter of one of the great nobles of Canaan. And they remembered* John their! brother, and 39 went up, and hid themselves under the covert of the mountain ; ™and they lifted up their eyes™, and saw, and behold, a great ado and much baggage; and the bridegroom came forth, and his friends and his brethren to meet them (i.e. those forming the bridal procession) with timbrels, and minstrels, |,o and "many°® weapons". And they rose up ?from their ambush? against them, and slew them; and many fell wounded to death, and the rest fled into the mountain; and they took all their spoils*. 41 And the marriage was turned into mourning, and the voice of their’ minstrels into lamentation. 42 aS (thus) they avenged fully the blood of their brother ; and they turned back to the marsh-land® of Jordan.
13 And (when) Bacchidest heard it", he came on the Sabbath day unto the banks of the Jordan 44 With a great host. And Jonathan said unto his brethren’: ‘Let us arise now and fight “for our
45 lives; for it is not (with us) to-day, as yesterday and the day before. For, behold, the battle is | before us and behind us’ ; moreover, the water of the Jordan is on this side and on that side, and (this 46 is) marsh-* and wood-land, and there is no place to turn aside. Now, therefore, cry unto heaven, 47 that ye may be delivered out of the hand of your’ enemies. And the battle was joined, and 48 Jonathan stretched forth his hand to smite Bacchides, and he turned away back from him. And Jonathan, and they that were with him’, leapt into the 7Jordan, and swam over to the other side ;
eh 301 ff B, and all his army crossed the Jordan on the Sabbath day #1 8 T.R. hh> 7.1 i> 71 k + the blood of δαὶ $8 %#? And Jonathan remembered Slv¢ This N* (their δὲ 6:8) g3 Sluc mam 71 m1 much peoples55164) | oS 71 PaPi> 19 4 vessels A ‘the 19 8 mountainous-land AV 55 71 bank 3981 ford Slue τ» Slu uthat Jonathan had returned Luc S¢ (with slight variations) VYthem that were with him 8 V ww>7I xX > Sluc Your A 2+ behind Luc aa>s SB
sloping sides; the top is of considerable extent, and is covered with ruins spread over four or five acres of ground
the pool Asphar. ‘The Be’er Asphar is probably the modern Azv-Se/hib, a considerable reservoir in the wilderness, six miles WSW. of Engedi, and near the junction of several ancient roads; the hills around still bear the name Sa/ra, an equivalent of Asphar’ (G. A. Smith, £4 343).
34. This verse, which is a variant of v. 43, has got out of place; it should be deleted.
the Nabathaeans. See note on v,§25.
36. the children of Ambri. The reading Ἰαμβρεί is probably due to dittography, the « of the preceding υἱοί having been repeated by mistake (Kautzsch). Cheyne, however, thinks that the form Jambri (or Jamri) is correct, as the name 1D)" has been found on an Aramaic inscription at U7 ev-Resas, about twelve miles SSE. of Medeba (ZB 2317). The name is not otherwise met with; but, as the text shows, they belonged to an Arab clan of this name living at or near Medeba. Josephus has οἱ ᾿Αμαραίοι παΐδες, i.e. Amorites; cp. Num. xxi, 29-31, where Medeba is spoken of as a city of the Amorites.
Medaba. Mentioned on the Moabite Stone: ‘... Now Omri annexed the (land) of Medeba, and dwelt therein’ (Il. 7, 8). It was situated on the high land of Moab to the south of Heshbon; cp. Joshua xiii. 9,16. The ruins still survive and are called Medaba (see the Quarterly Statement of the Pal. Expl. Fund, July 1895 and July 1901).
37. they brought word. Presumably some escaped.
Nadabath. Possibly Nebo; Clermont-Ganneau (Journal of the American Ortental Soc., 1891, pp. 541 ff.) thinks it is a mistake for Rabatha Rabbath Ammon, twenty-two miles east of Jordan, on the river Jabbok (cp. 2 Sam. xii. 26-28) ; the modern “Amman.
39. his friends. Cp. Judges xiv. 11.
42. the marsh-land. τὸ Nos ; at the present day the ford nearest the Dead Sea is called οὐ He/u; it is no doubt owing to this that the Syriac Version reads ‘the ford’! (cp. Grimm).
44. for it is not... 1. 6. the state of affairs is more desperate than hitherto on account of the hopeless position they are in, as described in the next verse.
45. on this side and on that side. i.e. they were caught in a bend of the river.
47. and he turned... The exact meaning here is not quite clear; in view of the words: ‘ The battle was joined,’ it is probable that the reference is not to a personal conflict between Jonathan and Bacchides, but that their names here refer to their respective parties. In this case, the meaning of vv. 47, 48 would be that Jonathan and his followers made such a vigorous onslaught upon the enemy that the latter gave way temporarily; Jonathan, thereupon, seeing the indecision of the enemy, took advantage of the momentary respite, and plunged into the river, followed by his men. That he gained some advantage at the commencement of the battle seems evident from the fact that Bacchides is afraid to pursue; he is, presumably, deterred by the courage of despair which had been evinced by his opponents. The mention of the loss of a thousand Syrians also points to a conflict which at the start, at all events, was not one-sided.
_ 63 ness, and he built up ‘that which had been pulled down thereof‘, and made® it strong. And »(when)
49 and they (i.e. Bacchides and his followers) did not pass over* Jordan against them. And there fell” eof Bacchides’ company® “that day’ about a thousand® men. And they‘ returned to Jerusalem ; and they built strong cities in Judaea, Game) the stronghold that is in Jericho, and Emmaus, and Bethhoron, and Bethel, and Tinmath , Pharathon, and 51 Tephon, with high walls, and gates and bars*. And they! set garrisons™ in them to vex Israel. 52 And they® fortified °the city Bethsura®, and Gazara, and the citadel; Pand they® put forces in them, 53 and store of victuals’. And they" took the sons® of the chief men of the country for hostages, and »" putt them in ward in the citadel at Jerusalem. ᾿ ; 54 Now in the one hundred and fifty-third year, “in the second month", Alcimus commanded to pull down the wall of the inner court “of the sanctuary", (in so doing) he pulled down” also the works of — 55 the prophets. "And (when) he began to pull down”, at that (very) time, Alcimus was stricken, and "his works were hindered; and his mouth was stopped, and he became palsied, "and he could no more 56 speak anything, (nor) give order concerning his house". And Alcimus® died at that time with great 57 torment. And (when) Bacchides saw that Alcimus was dead, he returned to the king. And the land of Judah had rest two years. f eg And a the lawless men took counsel, saying: ‘ Behold, Jonathan, and they of his part are dwelling ” at peace, (and) in security ; *let us therefore now bring* Bacchides, and he will lay hands on them 6ο 8117 in one night.’ And they went and consulted with him. And. he* removed, and came with a great host, and sent letters privily to all his confederates that were in Judaea, that they should lay hands on Jonathan, and (on) them that were with him; but they were®* not able (to do so), because 6x their plan became known to them”. And they (that were of Jonathan's part) laid hands on ‘about 62 fifty men¢ of the country that were the ringleaders in the wickedness, and slew them. And Jonathan, and Simon, and they that were with him, gat them away® to Bethbasi, which is in the wilder-
Bacchides knew it", he gathered together 411} his multitude, and sent word to them that were in Judaea. 64 And he *went and* encamped against Bethbasi, and fought against it ‘many days, and made* 65 engines! (of war). And Jonathan left his brother Simon in the city, and went forth into the country ;
> there went through A c-e by the side of BacchidesA 44> 71 ¢three thousandNV55 8. fheNV Luch & + Bacchides 64 93 bhenc® i+andrAV ἘΠ» 71 The mV only nhe 8 V oS; Bethsura δὶ 64 93 the city and Bethsura A the city near (222. in) Bethsura V DS 51 Ghe 8 V Luc #
‘*heN%VHZ_ Bacchides 64 93 8 + of Israel 55 the put δὲ V 164 93 ὙΌΣ clestnoyediay w> Ss x x V4 only we will bring 8 A V* let us lead Luc y> 19 64 i! 2 Bacchides Luc 2he was not A b>N himS& ¢°¢>N dheslewNAHZ! ¢&+fromthemX ‘ft>71 & they made δὶ 3) T.R. hh> 3.1 1S) Bee kK K> 71 1 with engines 71
50. they. i.e. the Syrians; cp. critical note.
the stronghold that is in Jericho. Grimm refers to the two citadels by Jericho mentioned by Strabo as having been destroyed by Pompey, namely Taurus and Thrax ; the reference here must be to one of these.
Emmaus. See note on iii. 40.
Bethhoron. See note on iii. 16.
Bethel. About ten miles north of Jerusalem, the modern Lectin, nearly 3,000 ft. above the sea-level.
Timnath. Several places of this name are mentioned in the O.T.; the one here must be either the Timnath- Serah in Mount Ephraim, where Joshua was buried (Joshua xix. 50, xxiv. 30; Judges ii. 9), or the Timna (called also Timnatha) in Danite territory about fifteen miles to the west of Jerusalem ; the latter is, perhaps, the more likely.
Pharathon. The Syriac and O.L. versions, like Josephus, omit ‘and’. This place is the Pirathon of the O.T. (Judges xii. 13, 15), in Ephraimite territory (but cp. xi. 34), the modern Ferata, about six or seven miles south-west of Nablous, the ancient Sichem.
Tephon. Probably a corruption of Tappuach, also in the inheritance of Ephraim (Joshua xvi. 8).
52. Bethsura, and Gazara. See notes on iv. 29. 15.
the citadel. Cp. i. 33, and the note on v. 53.
54. the one hundred and fifty-third year. i.e. 159 B.C.
the second month. [yar in the Jewish calendar.
the wall of the inner court. The inner court was restricted to Israelites, so that the pulling down of its wall implied the obliteration of all religious difference between Israelites and Gentiles ; this was to undo the work of the prophets whose aim was to keep the Israelites distinct from their idolatrous neighbours.
56. Alcimus died. Josephus places the death of Alcimus earlier, before the death of Judas, see Amtig. XII. x. 6; he says that Alcimus was ‘smitten suddenly by God’.
57. he returned to the king. Assuming, no doubt, that the country had now been subjugated ; but, as the sequel shows, the period of rest which the land had enjoyed, was utilized by the national party to good purpose.
62. Bethbasi, which is in the wilderness. G. A. Smith says that ‘in the wilderness of Judaea, east of Tekoa, there is a Wady e/-Bassah, which name as it stands means ‘marsh’, an impossible term, and therefore probably an echo of an ancient name’ (£4 550); possibly Bethbasi is to be identified with this.
65. and went forth into the country, For the purpose of creating diversions, and to come to the relief of his brother at the right moment.
[6 and he went with a (small) number. And he smote Odomera and his brethren, and the children of p7 Phasiron in their tents. And he™ began to smite (them) and to go up with (his) troops. Then Simon aps and they that were with him went out of the city and set on fire the engines (of war); and they | fought against Bacchides, and he was discomfited by them, and they afflicted him sore, "for his plan 9 and his attack had been in vain™. And they® were very wroth with the lawless men that gave him counsel to come into the country, and they slew many of them, And he determined to depart into 70 his own land. And (when) Jonathan had knowledge (thereof), he sent ambassadors Punto him?, to the end that they should make peace with him, and that he should restore unto them‘ the captives. τι And he* accepted (the thing), Sand did according to his words’, and sware unto him that he would 72 not seek his hurt all the days of his life. And he restored unto him the captives which he had taken captive aforetime out of 'the land οἵ" Judah ; and he" returned and departed into his own land, and 3 came” not any more into their borders. And the sword ceased from Israel. And Jonathan dwelt Bt oe And Jonathan began to judge the people”; and he destroyed the ungodly out of srael*,
X. 1-66. Fonathan supports Alexander Balas in his struggle with Demetrius 7.
rt In*the one hundred and sixtieth year Alexander ?Epiphanes, the son of Antiochus”, went up 2 and took possession of Ptolemais, and they® received him, and he reigned there’, And (when) king
Demetrius heard (thereof), he gathered together exceeding great forces, and went forth to meet him 3 in battle. And Demetrius sent letters unto Jonathan with words of peace, so as to magnify him. - 4 For he said: ‘ Let us be beforehand to make peace with them, ere he make peace with Alexander 5 against us. For he will remember all the evils which we have done ®unto him®, and unto his 6 brethren and unto his nation'.’ And he gave him authority to gather together forces, and to provide
arms, and to be his confederate ; and he commanded that they should deliver up to him the hostages - 7 that were in the citadel. And Jonathan came to Jerusalem, and read the letters 4in the ears of all”
™ they 8 V 64 93 BS kt °he N°®V_ Bacchides 19 93 Slve PPunto them 93 ἘΝ 4Ghim 55 3 Ss " Bacchides Luc CASS Gt tt>N Ss ἃ Bacchides 19 93 Slve Vlooked Luc w +of Israel 19 93 Slue of it Sluc
X. ®And in & HL Sluc >-b the son of Antiochus Epiphanes S$!™¢ > Antiochus &
Cit Ag3 δὲ ὁ:8 4 (over)
with a (small) number. ἀριθμῷ, cp. Isa. x. 19 (Sept.). 66. Odomera. Another reading is Odoarres ; presumably the name of the head of some Bedouin clan; this applies also to Phasiron. and to go up with (his) troops. i.e. to lead his troops against the enemy ; for the Hebrew phrase ‘to go up’
(by πον) for the purpose of fighting cp. I Sam. xiv. 10; Judg. vi. 3, xv. 10, xviii. 9, ἄς.
70. the captives. i.e. those who had been taken captive aforetime (see v. 72).
73. And the sword ceased ... ‘With this laconic notice the First Book of Maccabees passes over the following five years. This can only mean that Jonathan, while the official Sanhedrim of Jerusalem was still filled by those friendly to the Greeks, established at Michmash a sort of rival government, which gradually won the position of main influence in the country, so that it was able even to drive out (ἀφανίζειν) the ungodly, that is, the Hellenizing party. The Hellenistic or Greek-favouring party had no root among the people. The great mass of the Jews had still the distinct consciousness that Hellenism, even if it should tolerate the religion of Israel, was irreconcilable with the religion of the scribes. So soon, then, as pressure from above was removed, the great majority of the people gave themselves heart and soul to the national Jewish movement. The Maccabees, therefore, had the people soon again at their back. And this is the explanation of the fact that during the struggles for the Syrian throne now beginning, the claimants contended with one another in endeavouring to secure to themselves the goodwill of the Maccabees’
Michmash. Nine miles north of Jerusalem, the modern J/u£hmas. and he destroyed ... This shows how the power of the national party had been consolidated.
X. 1. In the one hundred and sixtieth year. 153 8.c.; the last date given was 159 B.C. (see ix. 54), and in vw. 57 we are told that the land had rest for two years; seven years have, therefore, elapsed since the time that Bacchides thought the land was subjugated (see note on ix. 57); and during this interval nothing is recorded save an abortive attempt on the part of Bacchides to subdue Jonathan (ix. 58-73).
Alexander Epiphanes.. Alexander Balas was a low-born native of Smyrna who, owing to his resemblance to Antiochus Eupator, gave himself out to be the son of Antiochus Epiphanes. He was taken up by Attalus II, King of Pergamum, from whom he received the name of Alexander, and who supported his claims to the kingdom of Syria against Demetrius. Although, according to Polybius (xxxiii. 14. 6), it was well known that the claims of Alexander were without justification, he was, nevertheless, recognized by the Roman Senate, who promised to support him. His success was largely due to the fact that Demetrius was hated by his own people (see Josephus, Av¢ig. XIII. ii. 1) on account of his ‘insolence and difficulty of access’, and because he was ‘ slothful and negligent about the public affairs’.
Ptolemais. See note on v. 15, and cp. Josephus, /. c.
2. went forth to meet ... See note on vii. 31.
3. with words of peace. See note on i. 30.
7. in the ears of all the people. Cp. Isa. xxxvi. 2 DYT ΣΝ 3.
8 le, and of them that were in the citadel’; and they were sore afraid when they heard that 9 ce ae had given himi authority to gather together forces. _And they kof the citadel* eles: up το the hostages unto Jonathan, and he? restored them to their parents. And Jonathan dwelt™ in 11 Jerusalem, and began to build "and renew” the city. And °he? commanded them that did the work to build® the walls and the mount Sion round about with square® stones for defence ; and they* did
. 15 80. And the strangers, that were in the strongholds that Bacchides had built, fled away; ‘and
14 each man left his place’, and departed into his own land. Only in Bethsura were there left certain of those that had forsaken the Law, ‘and the commandments ; for it was a place of refuge unto
is told him of the battles and the valiant deeds twhich he and his brethren had done, “and of the toils
16 which they had endured*"; and he said: ‘ Shall we find another such man? And now “let us make”
17 him our Friend Wand confederate’.’ And he wrote letters, *”and sent (them) unto him’, according to
19 these words, saying*: ‘King Alexander to his brother Jonathan, greeting’ ! We have heard
20 concerning thee, that thou art a mighty* man of valour, and meet to be our Friend”. And now we have appointed thee °this day°(to be) high-priest of thy nation, and (it is our will) that thou shouldest be called the king’s Friend ’—and he? sent unto him a purple robe and a crown® of gold‘—‘and that
21 thou shouldest take our part,and keep friendship with us.’ And Jonathan put on the holy garment hin the seventh month of the one hundred and sixtieth year", at the feast of Tabernacles, and he gathered together forces, and provided arms in abundance. pen "“
23 And (when) Demetrius heard ‘these things', he was grieved, and said: ‘Why have we permitted
this to be done, that Alexander hath been beforehand ‘with us in establishing friendship with the
4 Jews*, to strengthen himself? I also will write unto them words of encouragement, land of honour,
5 and gifts, that they may be with me for (my) aid.’ And he sent unto them according to these words?:
6 ‘King Demetrius unto the nation of the Jews, greeting! Forasmuch as ye have kept covenant with
us, and have continued in our friendship, ™and have not joined yourselves to our enemies, we, (who)
27 have heard (hereof), rejoice. And now continue ye still™ to keep faith with us, and we will recom-
28 pense unto you "good things” °in return for what ye do in our behalf? ; and we will grant you many
29 immunities, and will give you gifts. ?And now I (herewith) free you, and release all the Jews from
30 the tributes”, and from the custom on salt, and from (the presenting of)4 the crowns; and instead of πε αὶ ἘΞ theysAS ) ™heardyAs 2 7 OOS i P Jonathan 64 93 4four-foot 8 V 55 rhev Vi! Soi et > τ uu glue v-V we will make δὲ V 19 64 WES Oi ΣΤ unto him 71 y-y¥> Luc => ἃ σοῦ A DSSS τος τὴ (they Α &a royal crown S$ f+and saying 8&4 ΒΕ plur. δὲ Luc bebe 7 tal σα bE Vi lit msm 7i1 nu> $s 0-0 > 71 P-P And now I release all Jews from tribute Z* 4the custom of 55
to NN
8. they were sore afraid. ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν, cp. Luke ii. 9.
11. square stones. Cp. 1 Kings vi. 36, vii. 9; Isa. 1x. 9; called in Hebrew ΤΠ} 1338; not ayn 3 Ν (‘hewn stones’), which were smaller, and not necessarily ‘ square *.
14. Bethsura. See note on iv. 29.
16. Friend. See note on ii. 18. τ :
18. King... greeting! A Greek formula which often occurs in 1-2 Macc.; the Hebrew equivalent for ‘ greeting’ would be nidy’ ‘Peace’.
19. a mighty man of valour. A very frequent O.T. expression, ben “33, 20. high-priest. This office had been vacant for seven years, i.e. since the death of Alcimus. a purple robe and a crown of gold. Cp. xi. 58, xix. 43; Esther viii. 15; Dan. v. 7.
21. the holy garment. i.e. the specific high-priestly robe (Sy) ; the ‘robe of righteousness’ (Isa. Ixi. 10). the seventh month. Tishri, corresponding roughly to October. the feast of Tabernacles. Called Swkkoth (‘ Booths’); the feast began on the 15th of Tishri, and lasted seven days (Lev. xxiii. 34) ; nowadays it lasts nine days, and is called ‘ the season of Rejoicing’; cp. Josephus, 4v¢zg. VIII. iv. 1. he gathered together forces . . . Jonathan evidently thought it wisest, in the long run, to trust to himself only. 27. we will recompense ... These promises were of such an extravagant character that Jonathan would in any case have regarded them with suspicion; but he evidently knew the real state of affairs, and foresaw that the doom of Demetrius was sealed. 29. the tributes. This was the principal burden laid upon the people, the poll-tax; ‘it was, strictly speaking, a kind of trade-tax, a percentage that varied according to the nature of the work and the means of the individual, not a personal tax, uniform and unchanging’ (ZB 4909, after Aristotle, Oeconom. ii. 1. 4). the custom on salt. A very large quantity of salt is deposited upon the marshy land around the Dead Sea when the annual spring floods, which cause the sea-level to rise several feet, subside. The tax on this was called ἡ ἁλική ; the very words here used, ἀπὸ... τῆς τιμῆς τοῦ ἁλός, have been found on an Egyptian ostrakon. See further on the noe subject of salt-taxes in Palestine under the Seleucidae, Wilcken, Griechische Ostraka aus Aegypten _ and from ... crowns. These were originally voluntary gifts given to the sovereign, but afterwards exacted as ofright. For another instance of the remission of taxes to the Jews see Josephus, Atig. XII. iii. 3, where we are told of ‘ poll-money, and the crown tax, and other taxes’ being remitted.
“νυν
- And king Alexander heard all the promises which Demetrius had sent unto Jonathan; and they
EMACCABEES 10: 20-41
the third part of the seed, and instead of *the half of* the fruit of the trees, which falleth to me to receive, I release (them) from this day and henceforth, so that I will not take (them) from the land of Judah, and from the three governments which are added thereunto from the country of 31 Samaria and Galilee, *from this day forth and for all time*, And ‘let Jerusalem be* holy and 32 free, "together with the outlying districts, (regarding)” the tenths and the tolls. WI yield up also my authority over" the citadel which is at Jerusalem, and give (it) to the high-priest*, that
3 he may appoint in it (such) men as he shall choose, to keep it. And every soul of the Jews that hath been carried away captive from the land of Judah into any part of my kingdom, I set at 134 liberty ’without price’ ; and let all remit the tributes of their cattle also. And all the feasts, and the Sabbaths, and new moons, and appointed days, and three days before a feast, and three days after a feast”, *let them all be days of immunity and release for all the Jews ?that are in my king- 35 dom*”; and no man shall have authority to exact (anything) from any of them, or to trouble them 36 concerning any matter. And let there be enrolled among the king’s forces about thirty® thousand men 37 of the Jews, and pay shall be given unto them, as belongeth to all‘ the king’s forces. °!And of them some shall be placed in the king’s® great strongholds, and some of them shall be placed over the affairs of the kingdom®, which are of trust ; and let those that are over them, and their rulers, be from among themselves, and let them walk after their own laws, even as the king hath commanded |38 in the land of Judah. And the three governments that have been added to Judaea from the country of Samaria» ‘let them be added to Judaea, *that they may be reckonedi* to be under one (man), 39 that they obey not any other authority than that of the high-priest’. As for Ptolemais,and the land pertaining thereto, I have given (it 145) a gift! to ™the sanctuary that is at™ Jerusalem, for the 40 expenses "that befit™ the sanctuary. And I (undertake to) give every year fifteen thousand shekels 41 of silver ° from the king’s revenues ὃ, Ρ from the places which are (most) convenient”. Ὁ And ali the
rr> Slue SOS Gh UY Sembee ye | wee {1 YandIremitAVi19gS$ wow >A 19:71 (ὁ to the holy house S% yY> 71 SS γῆς Εἰ: ἃ -ἃ paraphrased in 55 Passe three Slue a> Sluc es> Ne ti 75 8 of the king Slve h + and Galilee Luc ii let them be reckoned with Judaea $8 i? rk > ΤῸ sluc 11> Slue mS St ea SS EEC °-°> 71 from the king’s treasury $8 from the treasury 2? Devers uc 4-4 All that is owing to me S!vc eb Ὶ
30. the seed. Josephus (4mtig. XIII. ii. 3): ‘the fruits (of the field), cp. ra σπειρόμενα, XIV. x. 6. half of the fruit ... A larger proportion of this was appropriated because the produce involved less labour. the three governments. Cp. x1. 28, 34, called ‘toparchies’. and Galilee. This is an erroneous addition; the three toparchies mentioned belonged to Samaria, cp. xi. 34; in τῳ. 38 of this chapter a similar error is made in some MSS., see critical note there. and for alltime. Cp. xi. 36.
31. let J. be holy. What is meant is made very clear by referring to a rescript of Antiochus III, the Great, quoted by Josephus (Azfzg. XII. iii. 4): ‘It shall be lawful for no foreigner to come within the limits of the Temple round about ; which thing is forbidden also to the Jews, unless to those who, according to their own custom, have purified themselves. . . . Let them only be permitted to use the sacrifices derived from their forefathers, with which they have been obliged to make acceptable atonements to God. And he that transgresseth any of these orders, let him pay to the priests three thousand drachmae of silver.
free, . . . the tenths and the tolls. The reference is to the tithes, and the tax on the revenues of the Temple, which had been exacted by the Syrian rulers; Josephus makes this clear (Av/ig. XIII. 11. 3): ‘I also release to you those ten thousand drachmae which the kings received from the Temple, because they appertain to the priests that minister in that Temple’ (cp. also 2 Macc. xi. 3). The Temple dues which were thus taxed were: (1) ‘the third part of a shekel for the service of the house of our God’ (Neh. x. 32), which every Israelite of twenty years and upwards had
22-24; see also Josephus, Azézg. IV. iv. 4) = 0°73; and (3) the free-will offerings (M1373). On the whole subject of these offerings see the Mishnic tractate Shehkalim.
33. and let all remit. The ‘all’ must refer to the king’s officials, ‘ their cattle’ to the property of Jews ; what is meant is explained by Josephus (4z#zg. XIII. ii. 3) : ‘I also give order that the beasts belonging to the Jews be not pressed for our service.’
34. days of immunity ... i.e.,as the next verse shows, on these days the Jews were to be left unmolested, whether as regards the payment of taxes or debts (cp. v. 43) or as regards service for the king.
36. And let there be enrolled ... This would give a status to the Jews which they had not hitherto enjoyed ; but Demetrius’ main object was to increase his forces in order to withstand Alexander.
pay. &ma= the clothing, food, and pay given to mercenary troops. ᾿
37. and some of them shall be placed ... Josephus (Awtig. XIV. 11. 3) says: ‘And some of them I will place in my garrisons, and some as guards about mine own body, and as rulers over those that are in my court ;’ cp. Anzig. alors Ὁ.
38. the three governments. See note on v. 30. ᾿
39. As for Ptolemais ... As Alexander had taken possession of this (see v. 1), the promise was merely a bribe to induce Jonathan to attack the rival of Demetrius. τρὶς.
40. from the ρίαςεβ... convenient. i.e. those which could best afford it ; the clause is omitted by the Lucianic Syriac, and Josephus makes no reference to it. Ae
41. all the overplus. Fairweather and Black are probably right in understanding this to refer to the additional
overplus“% which the officials paid not in—as (has been done) in former years*—they shall from 42 henceforth give towards the works of the* house*. And “beside this", the five thousand shekels of silver, which they used to take from the dues of the sanctuary” “ out of the income’ year by 43 year, ἘΣ this also is released, because it appertaineth * to the priests that minister. ind whosoever shall flee unto the temple that is in Jerusalem, and in all the precincts thereof, (because) he oweth money to the king, or for any other reason, let (such) go free, together with all, whatsoever they possess, 44 in my kingdom. And for the building and renewing of the works of the sanctuary the expense 45 shall be given also out of the king’s revenue. *And for the building of the walls of Jerusalem, and the fortifying thereof round about, *shall the expense be given also out of the king’s revenue”, and for the building of the walls (of other cities) in Judaea δ. 46 Now when Jonathan and the people heard these words, they gave no credence unto them‘, nor received they (them), because they remembered the great evil that he had done in Israel“, and that 47 he had afflicted them very sore. And (moreover) they were well pleased with Alexander, because he was the first that spake 5 words of peace® unto them, and they remained confederate with him always. 48 ‘And king Alexander gathered together ‘great forces’, and encamped over against Demetrius. 49 And the two kings joined battle, and the army of Alexander® fled, and Demetrius” followed after 50 him‘, and prevailed against them. And he continued the battle * obstinately until the sun went το down ; and Demetrius fell that day. 51 And Alexander! sent ambassadors to Ptolemy, king of Egypt, ™according to these words™, 52 saying: ‘Forasmuch as I am returned to my kingdom, and am set on the throne of my fathers, and have gotten the dominion, and have overthrown Demetrius, "and have gotten possession of our 53 country "—yea, I joined battle with him, and he and his army were discomfited by us, and we°® sat 54 upon the throne of his kingdom,—let us now establish amity ? one with the other’; and give me now ὁ thy daughter to wife ; and I will make affinity with thee, and will give both thee and her gifts 55 worthy of thee.’ And Ptolemy the king answered, saying": ‘ Happy is the day wherein thou didst 56 return into the land of thy fathers, and didst sit upon the throne of their kingdom. And now will I do to thee (according to) the things which thou hast written. But meet (me)* at Ptolemais, that 57 we may sce one another ; and I will make affinity with thee teven as thou hast said*.” And Ptolemy went out of Egypt, he and Cleopatra his daughter, “and came unto Ptolemais, in the one hundred 58 and sixty-second year"; and he bestowed on him his daughter Cleopatra, and celebrated her marriage at Ptolemais with great pomp, as the manner of kings is. 59,60 And king’ Alexander wrote unto Jonathan, that he should come to meet him. And he’ went
Snations Luc 3. tthisLuc "%">71 ‘°+asinformeryearsAV557152% Ww>Sluec xx>Se yy>71I
1-2. Se a-a> 64 » house 19 93 Slve Chim Sle > 71 ἃ Jerusalem 64 cre ΓΤ f-fall the forces N +and many 19 93 8 Demetrius N&*,¢> V 19 64 h Alexander δὲ σὰ V 19 64 ithem N¢-2 τὸ Slue k $8 ts wanting from here to year in v. 67 1+in that day Luc Sluc nem i BSS Fil oy; Lue PP with him A with them δὲ I>N 10 71 93 SeH Sah 8 expressed In S°* 19 93 ἘΣ 7
πα iF SS Fil w Jonathan Luc
yearly subsidy granted for the Temple service out of State funds, and regularly paid (‘as in former years’) under the Persians, Ptolemies, and Seleucidae, prior to Antiochus Epiphanes. the works of the house. i.e. the affairs of the Temple, see preceding note.
42. the five thousand shekels of silver, which ... This item has already been dealt with in v. 31.
dues. Text reads ypey =%3¥, corrupt for 5} [Gen. Editor].
43. Shall flee unto the temple. Jewish law granted the right of asylum only to those who had committed murder ecnidentally. ie places of asylum were the altar in the Temple, and the six cities of refuge (cp. Exod. xxi. 14; .1 Kings
44. for the building ... Cp. Ezra vi. 8, vii. 20.
46. they gave no credence. The promises were far too extravagant to inspire confidence.
47. the first. dpynyds, i.e. he took a higher place in their estimation.
49, 50. This laconic account can only be understood by the aid of Josephus, who says (Av/éig. XIII. ii. 4): ‘And when it was come to a battle, the left wing of Demetrius put those who opposed them to flight, and pursued them a great way, and slew many of them, and spoiled their camp. But the right wing, where Demetrius happened to be, was beaten; and as for all the rest, they ran away. But Demetrius fought courageously, and slew a great many of the enemy; but as he was in pursuit of the rest, his horse carried him into a deep bog, where it was hard to get out, and there it happened, that upon his horse’s falling down, he could not escape being killed; for when his enemies saw what had befallen him, they returned back, and encompassed Demetrius round, and they all threw their darts at him; but he being now on foot, fought bravely ; but at length he received so many wounds that he was not able to bear up any longer, and fell.’
51. Ptolemy. The sixth of the name, surnamed Philometor ; he reigned 180-146 B.C., first under the guardianship of his mother, Cleopatra, and jointly with his brother until 170, when he became sole king of Egypt.
52. I am returned to my kingdom .. . This insolent falsehood had been so sedulously propagated that many believed Alexander to be the rightful heir ; presumably the author of 1 Macc. also believed this.
54. thy daughter. Cleopatra, the issue of the incestuous union between Ptolemy and his sister, Cleopatra.
with pomp to Ptolemais*, and met the two kings, and gave them and their Friends silver and 1 gold, and many” gifts; and he found favour in their sight. And there were gathered together against him “ (certain) pestilent fellows out of Israel*, men that were transgressors of the Law, to 62 complain against him ; but the king *gave no heedtothem. And the king * commanded », and they ¢ 63 took off Jonathan’s garments, and clothed him in purple; “even sodid they do“. And the king® made him sit with him, and said unto his princes: ‘Go forth with him into the midst of the city, and make proclamation, that no man complain against him ‘ concerning any matter’, and let no man trouble 64 him for any manner of cause.’ And £it came to pass %, when they that complained against him! saw his glory ‘according as (the herald) made proclamation’, and (saw) him clothed in purple *, that they 65 all fled away. !And the king showed him honour, and wrote™ him among his Chief Friends, and 66 made him a captain, and governor of a province'. And Jonathan returned "to Jerusalem” with peace °and gladness °.
X. 67-89. Victory of Fonathan over Apollonius, the general of Demetrius IT ; he is rewarded by Alexander.
6; And in the one hundred and sixty-fifth year came Demetrius, the son of Demetrius, out of Crete 68 into the land of his fathers. And (when) king Alexander heard (thereof) he? was grieved exceed- ‘69 ingly, and returned® unto Antioch. And Demetrius appointed Apollonius, "who was" over
Coelesyria ‘, (captain); and he gathered together a great host, and encamped in Jamnia, and sent 70 unto Jonathan the high-priest, saying: ‘ Thou alone liftest up thyself against us; but I am had in
derision and in reproach because of thee. *And why dost thou vaunt thy power against us in the 71 mountains?‘ Now therefore, if thou trustest in thy forces, come down to us in the plain, and there 72 let us try conclusions with one another, for with me is the power of the cities". Ask and learn who I am, “and the rest ἡ (of those) that help us; and they (will) say, Your* foot cannot stand before -73 our face; for thy fathers have been twice put to flight in their own land. And now thou wilt not
8-8 > 71 Slue h Jonathan Luc ii 7i0 k linen A 7a ™ appointed 55 nu>N 0-0 > 71 Pthe king δὲ dsent 19 rrleader 55 #' defender $8 8 Syria Sluc SS fi uwars 64 i ΥΩ, v> Sluc x Thy Ss
60. and he found favour in their sight. A Hebrew expression (°},Y2 {7 NS!) which frequently occurs in the
61. pestilent fellows. ἄνδρες λοιμοί, cp. 1 Sam. xxx, 22 (Sept.) ἀνὴρ λοιμός ;Σ 1 Sam. xxv. 25 . =. τὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν λοιμόν. « . (ODA WAN).
62. clothed him in purple. ‘It is still the custom of oriental kings to bestow upon State officials, vassals, governors, ambassadors, and scholars, as a mark of honour, not, it is true, purple, but a costly garment, called Azz/a
. . and especially also those whom they wish publicly and solemnly to declare innocent of some charge do they clothe in gorgeous apparel, and cause them to be led through the royal city’ (Grimm) ; references to the accounts of travellers are given. Cf. Gen. xli. 43; Esther vi. 11.
65. Chief Friends. There were evidently different grades among the King’s Friends, just as in an aristocracy ; Jonathan had already been made a Friend of the King (see v. 16).
a captain, and governor ofa province. “στρατηγός and μεριδάρχης may be taken as equivalent to military and civil governor. ... It specially deserves notice, that, in spite of Jonathan’s appointment as στρατηγός, a Syrian governor still continued to occupy the citadel of Jerusalem’ (Schiirer).
66. with peace and gladness. The rebuff which the Hellenistic Jews had received, and the honours which had been heaped upon Jonathan, occasioned him outward and inward peace.
67. the one hundred and sixty-fifth year. 147 B.C.
Demetrius. The second, surnamed Nicator. Josephus (Az/ig. XIII. iv. 2) adds further that he came with a large number of mercenary troops, brought to him by Lasthenes, a Cretan, and sailed to Cilicia. He had been living in exile in Crete since the war between his father and Alexander began.
68. returned unto Antioch. i.e. from Ptolemais.
69. Apollonius. According to Polybius (xxxi. 21. 2), the foster-brother (σύντροφος) of Demetrius I. Josephus (Antig. XIII. iv. 2) calls him ‘Apollonius Daus’, i.e. belonging to the Dahae, a great Scythian people who led a nomad life over a large tract of country east of the Caspian Sea, still called Daghestan.
Coelesyria. i.e. ‘hollow (κοίλη) Syria’, so called because it included, and was originally restricted to, the depression between the two Lebanons (cp. Joshua xi. 17 fi2an nya, ‘the valley of Lebanon’); but in the Greek period it included the whole of eastern Palestine ; Josephus (Avg. XIV. iv. 5) says that it stretched from ‘as far as the river Euphrates and Egypt’; it is in this extended sense in which the name is here used. It occurs for the first time in 1 Esdras ii. 17. In the Roman period Coelesyria was again used in the restricted sense, as it was made a separate
province. Jamnia. See note on iv. 15. 72. for thy fathers ... As Apollonius is writing from Jamnia (Jabneel), i.e. from what was formerly Philistine
territory, he is probably referring to Israelite defeats at the hands of the Philistines; the two most signal instances were the battle of Aphek, at which the Philistines captured the Ark (1 Sam. iv. 1-11), and the battle of Mount Gilboa,
be able to withstand the horse and such an host as this in the plain, where there is neither stone 74 nor flint’, nor (any) place” to flee unto’.’ Now when Jonathan heard the words of Apollonius, he was *moved in his mind®; and he chose out ten thousand men, and went forth from Jerusalem ; 75 and Simon his brother met him for to help him, And he encamped against Noyes ; and they of the city shut him ® out, because Apollonius (had) a garrison “in Joppa"; and they ® fought against it. 76 And they of the city, being afraid, opened (the gates)", and Jonathan became master of Joppa. 77 And (when) Apollonius heard (of this), he gathered * an army of three thousand horse, and a great host, and went to Azotus as though (intending) to journey on, but Bat the same time ® moved 78 forward! into the plain, because he had a multitude of horse, and relied on this. And he* pursued 79 after him! to Azotus, and the armies joined battle™. Now Apollonius had left a thousand horse 80 "behind him®, hidden®; but Jonathan realized that there was an ambushment ἢ behind him’. And they surrounded his army, and cast (their)* darts at the people from morning until ‘late in {πε 81 afternoon"; but the people stood still, as Jonathan (had) commanded, while the (enemy’s) horses 82 were wearying (themselves), And Simon drew forth his host, and joined battle with the phalanx— 83 for the horsemen * were spent—and they were discomfited by him, ‘and fled. And the horsemen * were scattered in the plain*; and they fled to Azotus, and entered into Beth-dagon, their idol’s tem- 84 ple", to save themselves. And Jonathan burned Azotus, and the cities round about it, and took 85 their spoils; Yand the temple of Dagon, “and them that fled into it, he burned with fire’. And they that had fallen * by the sword *, with them that were burned, were about eight thousand men. 86 And from thence Jonathan removed, and encamped against Askalon, and they of the city came forth 87 to meet him with great pomp. And Jonathan, with them that were on his side, returned to Jerusalem, 88 having many spoils. And ¥it came to pass’, when king Alexander heard these things, he honoured 89 Jonathan yet more; and he sent unto him a buckle of gold, as the use is to give to such as are of the kindred of the kings ; moreover, he gave him Ekron and all the borders thereof for a possession.
Ὁ» Κ, 2 + whither A a-a enraged and moved 38 DW Sp ett CN* V Sluc i! ake this refer to the city ἃ “ἃ therein Sluc e&he 58 ff And they were afraid and departed from the city 351 8 interposed 93 Slue SES ELL iled forward A 55 k Jonathan T.R. S$ 1 + for battle 8 V ™ +after him (τ (eve. Luc) S$ 3. NS Tit ° in a hiding-place T.R. 1 a) 4 expressed in 19 93 * evening T.R. the sinking (of the
when king Saul was slain (1 Sam. xxxi. I-7). These were by no means, however, the only occasions on which the Israelites were defeated by the Philistines, and perhaps for this reason Josephus (Antzg. XIII. iv. 3) says that ‘ these are the very men who a/ways conquered thy progenitors’, though this, again, is a gross exaggeration, cp. e.g. 2 Sam. v. 17-21, when David defeated them at the battle of Baal-perazim (2 Sam. vili. 1; 1 Chron. xviii. 1, &c.). 73. neither stone nor flint. An exaggeration, to emphasize the contrast between the mountainous country and the plain. fe Joppa. The modern Jaffa, 3} miles from Jamnia; its chief importance lay in its harbour, which was the best, though not an ideal one, on the coast of Palestine; cp. 1 Macc. xii. 33, 34, Xill. II, Xlv. 5, 34, xv. 28-30, 35; 2 Macc. 77- Azotus. See note on iv. 15. but . . . moved forward. With the purpose of enticing Jonathan out. 79. hidden. Lit. ‘in secret’, Josephus, more explicitly, ‘in a gully.’ 80. realized. Lit. ‘knew’, presumably by means of spies. cast (their) darts. ‘Shot their arrows’ (Hebr. ΚΠ 17’, as in, e.g. 1 Sam. xx. 36). 81. but the people stood stili. This is explained by Josephus, who says that Jonathan commanded his army ‘ to stand in a square battle array’; they covered themselves with their shields, against which the enemy hurled their missiles in vain. 82. Simon drew forth his host. Evidently having been held in reserve all this time. 83. Beth-dagon. Dagon was one of the chief gods of the Philistines (cp. Judges xvi. 23, 24; 1 Sam. v. 1-5), whose worship they took over when they first entered into the land; his name occurs on the Tell-el-Amarna tablets, and has also been found inscribed on the walls of the temple of Mukair in southern Babylonia. Although it cannot be proved that Dagon was a fish-god, it is probable that this was the case, though Philo Byblius speaks of him as a corn-god (deriving the name from 7 ‘corn’, instead of 37 ‘ fish iw) 84. the cities . . . Josephus, more correctly, ‘the villages about it.’ 66. Askalon. One of the five chief cities of the Philistines (Joshua xiii. 3), lying on the coast between Ashdod and Gaza; the modern Askalin. 88. he honoured ... yet more. προσέθετο δοξάσαι, a Hebraism 6 5D"). 89. a buckle of gold. Cp. xi. 58, xiv. 44; the golden buckle and the purple robe (see v. 21) were only worn by the most distinguished men of the kingdom, or by ‘ the kindred of the kings’. Ekron. The most northerly of the chief Philistine cities; it lay between Ashdod and Jamnia towards the east > the modern Akir.
XI. 1-19. Alliance between Ptolemy VI and Demetrius I, resulting in the downfall of Alexander Balas. Demetrius becomes king of Syria.
L1 And® the king of Egypt gathered together "great forces”, as the sand which is by the sea shore (for multitude), "and many ships‘, and sought to make himself master of Alexander’s kingdom by 2 deceit, and to add it to his own kingdom. And he went forth into Syria with* words of peace; and they of the cities opened unto him (the gates), and met him, and king Alexander’s command was 3 that they should meet him, because he was his father-in-law. Now when °Ptolemy entered into the 4 cities®, he placed in each city’ his forces (5 [01] a garrison*. And when he came near to Azotus, they showed him the temple of Dagon (which had been) burned with fire, "and Azotus, (which) together with the suburbs thereof, had been pulled down, and the bodies scattered about, and them that had been burned, ‘whom he had burned Fin the war*, for they had made heaps of them in his way». 5 And they told the king what things Jonathan had done, in order to cast blame on him; and the 6 king! held his peace. And Jonathan met the king™ "with pomp” at Joppa, and they saluted one 7 another, and they slept there. °And Jonathan went with the king® as far as the river that is called” Eleutherus, and returned to Jerusalem. 8. But king Ptolemy made himself master of the cities upon the sea coast, unto Seleucia 4which is by g the sea‘, and he devised evil devices concerning Alexander. And he sent ambassadors unto king Demetrius, saying: ‘Let us make a covenant with one another, and I will give thee (to wife) my 10 daughter whom Alexander hath, and thou shalt reign over thy father’s kingdom; for I have repented 11 that I gave my daughter unto him, for he sought to slay me.’ *But he cast blame on him (thus), 12 because he coveted his kingdom’. And taking his daughter (from Alexander), he gave her to 13 Demetrius, and ‘was estranged from Alexander’, and their enmity became manifest. And Ptolemy
XI. ἃ + Ptolemy 71 b-ban army #1 csc 401 ἃ speaking δὶ 8:9 he entered into the cities of Ptolemais A VN f of them Slve £- to guard (22) N°>V 55 h-h> 71 i-i who had been killed #1 k-k with fire S$ 14went forth and 55 -+when he heard it S!ue mhim 71 ἈΠ» 71 °-o And they went 71 P-P> 19 q-a> 51 rT and to obtain my kingdom 3» ss T.R.; Alexander changed his face ἃ it became known unto Alexander δὲ
XI. 1. the king of Egypt. Ptolemy VI, Philometer, cp. x. 51. as the sand... For this frequently used O.T. metaphor cp. Joshua xi. 4; Judges xvii. 12; 1 Sam. xiii. 5, by deceit. Cp., on the other hand, Josephus (4g. XIII. iv. 1), according to whose account Ptolemy came in perfect good faith.
4. the suburbs thereof. Cp. xi. 61.
5. held his peace. So as not to commit himself either for or against Jonathan.
6. met the king. Cp. x. 86, where συνάντησις is used in the sense of a meeting for the purpose of submitting oneself (Kautzsch) ; the verb here used is συναντᾶν, cp. Gen. xlvi. 28 (Sept.) where this verb is used in the sense of meeting some one with the purpose of showing honour to him (Jacob sending Judah to Joseph).
7. Eleutherus. The modern Wahy al-Kedir, the most important river in Phoenicia; it rises in the Lebanon and reaches the sea a little north of Arka; Jonathan therefore accompanied Ptolemy for a considerable distance. Burckardt (Zravels in Syria and the Holy Land, p. 161) says: ‘It is a large torrent, dangerous at this period of the year (March) from its rapidity. The Hamah caravans have been known to remain encamped on its banks for weeks together, without being able to cross it.’
8. Seleucia which is by the sea. Five miles north of the spot where the Orontes flows into the sea; one of the four most important cities of northern Syria; the port of Antioch, which was sixteen miles distant ; it was founded by Seleucus I Nicator (reigned 312-280 B.C.), the founder of many cities. Mentioned in connexion with the missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas, Acts xiii. 4.
g. sent ... unto king Demetrius. He was presumably in Cilicia; cp. x. 67, and v. 14, where it is said that the people of Cilicia had revolted against Alexander.
10. for he sought to slay me. The occasion of this is not mentioned in our book; the author was biassed in favour of Alexander because of the friendship between him and Jonathan; but Diodorus does not refer to it either, he says that Ptolemy only turned against Alexander when he realized what a hopeless weakling he was (cp. Grimm). On the other hand, Josephus refers to the occurrence in a circumstantial manner (Azzzg. XIII. ἵν. 6): ‘But as Ptolemy was at Ptolemais, he was very near to a most unexpected destruction, for a treacherous design was laid for his life by Alexander, by means of Ammonius, who was his friend; and as the treachery was very plain, Ptolemy wrote to Alexander, and required of him that he should bring Ammonius to condign punishment, informing him what snares had been laid for him by Ammonius, and desiring that he might be accordingly punished for it. But when Alexander did not comply with his demands, he perceived that it was he himself who had laid the design.’ It is difficult to believe that there was not some truth in Ptolemy’s allegation.
11. because he coveted ... This can scarcely have been the case originally, otherwise why should he have given his daughter in marriage to Alexander? A pretext for quarrelling could easily have been found if, in the first instance, Ptolemy had intended to seize the kingdom. It seems more likely that it was the proof of Alexander's enmity which was the reason of Ptolemy’s determination to wrest the kingdom from him.
entered into Antioch, and put on himself the diadem of Asia; so he (now) had put two diadems_ upon his head, the diadem of Egypt and that of Asia. 2 14 . But king Alexander was in Cilicia at that season, ‘because they of those parts THES τα revole é 1; And Alexander heard of it, and he came against him in war; and Ptolemy led forth (his host) ,and , τὸ met him with a strong force,and put him to flight. And Alexander fled into Arabia, “that he might / 17 be sheltered there; but king Ptolemy was exalted". And Zabdiel the Arabian took off Alexander's 18 head, and sent it to Ptolemy. And king Ptolemy died the third day (after); and they that were in 19 his strongholds were slain *by them that dwelt in the strongholds*. And Demetrius became king in the one hundred and sixty-seventh year.
XI. 20-37. Fonathan secures the favour of Demetrius 77.
so In those days Jonathan gathered together *them of Judaea’ to take the citadel that was in 21 Jerusalem; and he made many engines (of war) against it. And “certain ones that hated their* own nation%, men that transgressed the Law, went unto the king, and reported unto him? that Jonathan 22 was besieging the citadel. And (when) he heard it he was angered ; but immediately °on hearing it® he set forth, and came to Ptolemais, and wrote unto Jonathan that he should not besiege it, and that 23 he should meet him and speak with him at Ptolemais with all speed. But when Jonathan heard (this), he commanded (that the citadel should continue) to be besieged ; and he chose (certain) of the elders of Israel and of the priests* and put himself in peril, and taking silver and gold and raiment, and divers presents besides, went to Ptolemais unto the king. And he found favour in his sight. And certain lawless men of them that were of the nation made complaints against him ; but the king did unto him even as his predecessors had done unto him‘, and exalted him in the sight of all his Friends, 27 and confirmed him in the high-priesthood, and whatsoever other honours he had before”, and gave
2g him pre-eminence among his Chief Friends. And Jonathan requested of the king, that he would make Judaeai and the three provinces of the country of Samaria free from tribute ; and he* promised him
29 'three hundred! talents. And the king consented, and wrote letters unto Jonathan concerning all these things after this manner :
30,31 ‘King Demetrius unto (his) brother Jonathan and unto the nation of the Jews, greeting ; The copy of the letter which we wrote unto Lasthenes our™ kinsman concerning you, we have written also unto
2, 33 you, that ye may see (it). King Demetrius unto Lasthenes (his) father, greeting ; We have determined
UTS 1 ἃ went forth 55 Slve VY expressed in S°-* Luc VENTS Fit =o 8 2S! yy Israel “631 Z2> 71 ἃ our N* ἘΣ ταν Ie ὐπὸ: 7] 4 the citadel δὲ :8 Luc ®JewsN > 38 f + and glorified him with great glory 55 Zenemies i! 4h +and exaited him 19 93 Sluc iTdumaea 64 J Reading, with Grimm, τῆς Σαμαρείτιδος for καὶ τὴν Σαμαρίτην Kk they A ll thirty 55 τὰ your N* A
13... . entered into Antioch. Cp. Diodorus (quoted by Knabenbauer), who says that Hierax and Diodotus, who had been left in charge of Antioch by Alexander, gave up his cause as hopeless, and induced the people of Antioch to offer the crown and kingdom to Ptolemy.
Asia. Not the Roman province of this name, which was formed in 133 B.C., and included Mysia, Lysia, Caria, the western part of Phrygia, together with the Dorian, Ionian, and Aeolian coast-cities, with the islands lying off the coast (Ramsay, in 74, s.v.); nor the continent; but the Asia as understood after it had been reduced about 285 B.C., and when the name Asia was ‘ restricted to the coast-cities and the lower valleys of the Maeander, Cayster, Hermus, and Caicus’ (Ramsay).
15. and met him. According to Strabo, Ptolemy attacked Alexander at the river Oenoparas, on the plains of Antioch (Schiirer, of. cit. 1. 1, p. 244). Josephus says that Ptolemy was accompanied by Demetrius.
17. Zabdiel. ‘A prince among the Arabians’ (Josephus). The name occurs on a Palmyrene inscription (A.D. 155) in the form Zabd-ila (Waddington, /yscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie 2590; cp. ἃ. A. Cooke, North Semitic Inscriptions, p. 272).
18... . died the third day (after). Josephus (Azztig. XIII. iv. 8) says that Ptolemy was thrown from his horse in the battle, and wounded in the head by his enemies; he was unconscious for four days, but partially recovered on the fifth, and died ‘a little while after’.
they that were in his strongholds. Cp. v. 3.
19. the one hundred and sixty-seventh year. i.e. 145 B.C.
21. men that transgressed ... As on several other occasions, it was the renegades of their own race who were the worst enemies of the Jewish leaders.
24. he found favour in his sight. For the Greek phrase cp. Sept. of Gen. vi. 8, xviii. 3, xxx. 27.
27. confirmed him in the high priesthood. Cp. x. 20.
28. the three provinces ... Cp. x. 30, and especially xi. 34; these provinces had been taken from Samaria ; the reading καὶ τὴν Σαμαρίτην, though supported by all MSS. and Versions, cannot be right, see crit. note.
29. after this manner. With the Greek cp. 2 Macc. i. 24.
31. Lasthenes our kinsman. Cp. Josephus (Av/ig. XIII. iv. 3), where it is said that it was Lasthenes, the Cretan, who brought a great number of mercenary soldiers to Demetrius. ‘Kinsman’, like ‘brother’ in v. 30, is a title of honour ; the same is the case with ‘father’ in the next verse; cp. Av/zg. XII. iii. 4, where Antiochus III addresses Zeuxis, the general of his forces and his ‘intimate friend’, as ‘ father’.
YMACCABEES 11, 33-42
| to do good to the nation of the Jews, who are our friends, and observe what is just toward us, because | 34 of their good will toward us. We have confirmed unto them, therefore, the districts of Judaea, and the three governments of Aphaerema”, and Lydda, and Ramathaim—(these) were added unto Judaea from the country of Samaria—and all things appertaining unto them, for all such as do sacrifice in Jerusalem, instead of the king’s® dues which the king received of them yearly aforetime from the 35 produce of the land and the fruits of trees. And as for the other things which appertain unto us, ®4from henceforth“, of the tenths and the tolls "that appertain to us", πα the saltpits, and the crowns 36 that appertain to us?, all these we will bestow upon them’. ‘And not one of these things shall be 37 annulled' from this time forth and for ever. Now therefore be careful to make a copy of these things, and let it be given unto Jonathan, and let it be set upon the holy mount in a fitting "and conspicuous place’.’
XI. 38-53. Sonathan assists Demetrius in opposing Tryphon.
| 38 And (when) king Demetrius saw that the land was quiet before him, Yand that no resistance was made to him”, he sent away all his forces, each man to his own place,—except the “foreign forces”, which he had raised from the isles of the Gentiles—and (therefore) all the forces *of his fathers* } 39 were inimically disposed towards him. Now Tryphon was of those who aforetime had been of Alexander’s part, and he saw that all the forces murmured against Demetrius, and he went to 40 ImalkueY the Arabian, who was nourishing up Antiochus, the young child “οὗ Alexander’, *and pressed sore upon him that he should deliver him unto him*, that he might reign” in his father’s stead; and he® told him all that Demetrius had done. and the hatred wherewith his forces hated him ; and he abode there many days. 41 And Jonathan sent? unto king Demetrius, that he should cast out of Jerusalem them of the citadel, 42 and them that were in the strongholds ; for they fought against Israel continually®*. And Demetrius
1Ephraim S > i! o> Ss 101 Da Se 71 q-a> Slue rr> Slue SS we remit unto them & tet τ ESS σὴ EES VS ai TW Ss EG XX>71 ¥ Malchus 3.5 $3 = Josephus z2z> Ss aasSyN » make him king Luc Cthey A 4 + letters 71 OS Ele
34. Aphaerema. i.e. Ephraim (2 Sam. xiii. 23), or Ephron (2 Chron. xiii. 9); according to Josephus (ed/. Jud. IV. ix. 9) it lay not far from Bethel, ‘. . . he took Bethel and Ephraim, two small cities.’ Cp. also John xi. 54 (see further, Robinson, Researches in Palestine, iii, pp. 67 ft.).
Lydda. Zod in Hebr., afterwards called Diospolis, the modern Ludd; between Joppa and Jerusalem ; one of the toparchies of Judaea, according to Josephus (Bed/. /id. 11. xx. 4).
Ramathaim. Cp. 1 Sam. i. 1, where it is called Ramathaim Zophim (but see Driver, Votes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Sam, in loc.), and located on Mount Ephraim; the usual form of the name is a-Ramah (‘the height’), which is, however, to be differentiated from the Ramah belonging to the tribe of Benjamin, nearer Jerusalem. It is probably to be identified with the modern Bez¢ Rima, north-east of Lydda, in the neighbourhood of Thamna; this agrees with the accounts of Eusebius and Jerome (see Schiirer, of. cz¢. i. 1, p. 246).
from the country of Samaria. Cp. x. 30, xi. 28.
as do sacrifice in .. . 1.6. the privilege is for the orthodox Jews ; the ‘transgressors of the Law’, as well as the Samaritans living in the three provinces, are excluded.
instead of ... The text is clearly not in order, something having dropped out ; in Josephus (47z¢g. XIII. iv. 9) it says: ‘I remit to them the three provinces .. . as also what the kings, my predecessors, received from those that offered sacrifices in Jerusalem, and what are due from the fruits of the earth, and of the trees, and whatever else
all these ... It is noteworthy that there is no mention about the siege of the citadel in Jerusalem (vv. 20-23) ; presumably the siege was raised in consideration of all these concessions ; the Syrian garrison, therefore, still remained in possession.
37. acopy. On tables of brass, cp. vill. 22.
38. the foreign forces ... from... From Crete and from the other islands (Josephus), i.e. of the Grecian Archipelago.
were inimically disposed. The real reason for this was their loss of pay ; Josephus (1222. XIII. iv. 9) says that the kings before this used to give pay to the soldiers in time of peace, ‘that they might have their goodwill, and that they might be fully prepared to undergo the difficulties of war, when any occasion should require it.’ This short-sightedness of Demetrius is only to be explained by the natural slothfulness which seems to have been characteristic of him ; cp. Justin. xxxvi. I. 1, 9, referred to by Grimm.
39. Tryphon. ‘Diodotus, who was also called Trypho, an Apamaean by birth, a commander of Alexander’s forces’ (Josephus).
Imalkue the Arabian. On a Palmyrene inscription (A.D. 162) the name AZalihu abn) occurs (de Vogiié, Za Syrie Centrale, 9); on another of later date (A.D. 242) we have Zaddila the son of Maliku, the son of MJaltku, cp. v.17 (Vogiié, 15; cp. G. A. Cooke, of. cit., pp. 276, 278). In Josephus the form is Malchus, so also the Syriac and one Latin Version. Schiirer (of. cit. i. 1. 247) refers to Ndldeke, in Euting’s Madataische Lnschriften, p. 74, where
a Palmyrene inscription is given in which the name ΔΌΣ (= Imalku) occurs; Diodorus gives Iamblichus, which also is nothing else than 12D", ᾿ 41. ... that he should cast out ... Nothing could better illustrate the broken power of the Seleucidae, and
the way in which Jonathan was able, in consequence, to draw advantage from it.
onathan, saying : ‘I will not only do this for thee and thy nation, but I will greatly honour 43 a rae tee nation’, it land favourable ΣΝ Now therefore thou shalt do well, if thou send me 44 men who shall fight for me; for all my forces are revolted.’ And Jonathan sent him# three thousand) valiant men unto Antioch. And they came unto the king; and the king® was glad at their coming. 45 And they of the city gathered themselves together ‘into the midst of the city’, to the number of a 46 hundred and twenty thousand men; and they were minded to slay the king. And the king fled into the palace, and they *of the city* seized !the thoroughfares of the city’, and began to fight. 47 And the king called the Jews to (his) aid™, and they were gathered together unto him “all at once®;
and they dispersed themselves °in the city°®; and they slew that day to the number of a hundred ©
49 thousand. And they set the city on fire,and got many spoils ? that day ?, and saved the king. And (when) they of the city saw that the Jews had made themselves masters of the city 1*as they would 4, 59 they waxed faint in their hearts", and cried out to the king with® supplication, saying: ‘ Give us (thy) 51 right hand, and let the Jews cease from fighting against us and the city.’ And they cast away their arms‘, and made peace. And the Jews "were glorified in the sight of the king, and before all that 52 were in his kingdom*"; and they™ returned to Jerusalem, having many spoils. And (when) king * 53 Demetrius was seated on his throne of his kingdom (again), and the land was quiet before him, he lied in all that he had spoken, and estranged himself from Jonathan and recompensed (him) not
(¥ according to)* the benefits with which he (had promised to) recompense him*; but he afflicted him sore.
XI. 54-74. Friendship between Fonathan and Antiochus V1.
4 Now after this Tryphon returned, and with him the young child Antiochus ; and he reigned, and 55 put ona diadem. And there were gathered unto him all the forces which Demetrius had sent away 56 in disgrace; and they fought against him, and he? fled, and was° put to rout’. ?And Tryphon 57 took the elephants’, and became master of Antioch. And the young Antiochus wrote unto Jonathan, saying: ‘I confirm unto thee the high-priesthood, and appoint thee over the four govern- 58 ments, and to be one of the king’s Friends. And he sent unto him golden vessels and furniture for the table, and gave him leave to drink in golden vessels, and to be clothed in purple, and to have 59 a golden buckle. And his brother Simon he made governor (over the district) from the Ladder of 60 Tyre unto the borders of Egypt. And Jonathan went forth, and took his journey beyond the river, and through the cities; and all the forces of Syria gathered themselves unto him for to be his 61 confederates. And he came to Askalon, and they of the city met him honourably. And he departed thence to Gaza, and they of Gaza shut him out; and he lay siege unto it, °and burned the 62 suburbs thereof with fire *, and spoiled them. And they of Gaza made request unto Jonathan, and he gave them his right hand, and took the sons of their princes for hostages, and sent them away to Jerusalem. And he passed through the country as far as Damascus. 63 And Jonathan heard‘ that Demetrius’ princes were come to Kedesh, which is in Galilee, with
ὧι O1 Or
™ palace 1? Spit ἢ Ge τ OO 53 σὴν Boe PP>7I 14> δ (ab NA) JSS iG, 5. + much 64 *+and gave him their right hand Sue u u>7yr _¥ + and they were named in his kingdom 8 %! the Jews 71 > 71 i} ΣΟΥ» δὶ 93 2 expressed in V ἃ Demetrius 64 93 D1) > SLR ‘they were N © ce Se ®-® and they burned it $8 f saw iW!
43. all my forces are revolted. According to Josephus (Am¢ig. XIII. v. 3), the inhabitants of Antioch revolted, but all the troops which Demetrius had not dismissed (see v. 38) remained faithful to him; ‘he took the mercenary soldiers which he had with him . . . and assaulted the Antiochians.’
45. a hundred and... This is an evident exaggeration, so too the number of the slain, v. 47.
48. they set the city on fire. Josephus adds that the houses were close together, and mostly built of wood.
49. they waxed faint in their hearts. For the Greek cp. Isa. vii. 4, Sept. (Grimm).
53. afflicted him sore. Josephus, more specifically, says that ‘he threatened that he would make war upon him unless he would pay all the tribute which the Jewish nation owed to the first kings’ (i.e. of Syria).
57. the four governments. i.e. Judaea and the three governments mentioned in 7. 34.
58. clothed in purple, . . . golden buckle. See notes on x. 20, 62, 89.
é 59. the Ladder of Tyre. Cp. Josephus (ει. ud. 11. x. 2), who says it is a high hill, a hundred stadia north of tolemais.
60. beyond the river. πέραν τοῦ ποταμοῦ -- 1737 J, i.e. the territory this side of the Euphrates from the point of view of the Israelites, that side of the Euphrates from the point of view of the Babylonians (cp. 1 Kings v. 4); the reference here is, therefore, to Syria; cp. the words in this verse, ‘ail the forces of Syria gathered themselves unto him.’
Askalon. See note on x. 86. 61. Gaza. The southernmost of the five chief Philistine cities, the modern Ghuzzeh.
62. Damascus. The modern £s/-Sham ; it lies 120 miles north-east of Jerusalem, and 200 miles south of Antioch.
63. Kedesh. Cp. Joshua xxi. 32; Judges iv. 6, 11; situated on the northern frontier of Palestine, among the mountains of Naphtali. Josephus speaks of it as belonging to the Tyrians (Bell, Lud. 11. xviii. 1, 1V. ii. 3); it still retains its ancient name.
11το
64 a great host, with the object of hindering him from his purpose; and he went to meet them, but 65 Simon his brother he left in the country. And Simon encamped against* Bethsura, and fought 66 against it many days, and shut it" up; and they made request to him that he would give them his right hand, and he gave it to them; but he put them out from thence, and took possession of the 67 city, and set a garrison over it. And Jonathan and his army encamped at the water ‘of Gennesar ‘, 68 and early in the morning they got them to the plain of Hazor®. And, behold, an army of strangers met him!’ in the plain, and they laid an ambush for him ™in the mountains, but they themselves met 69 (him)” face to face. But they that lay in ambush ™ rose out of their places, and joined battle; and zo all they that were of Jonathan’s side fled; not one of them was left, except Mattathias the son of 71 Absalom, and Judas the son of Chalphi, captains of the forces. And Jonathan rent his clothes, and 72 put earth upon his head, and prayed. And he turned again unto them in battle, and put them to 73 rout, and they fled. And (when) they of his side who were fleeing saw it, they returned unto him, 74 and pursued (them) with him unto Kedesh to their camp; and they encamped there. And there fell of the strangers °on that day°® about three thousand men. And Jonathan returned unto
XII. 1-38. Fonathan renews his alliance with Rome, and enters into a league with the Spartans. He defeats the followers of Demetrius.
12: And Jonathan saw that the time served him, and he chose men, and sent them to Rome, to confirm 2 and renew the friendship that they had with them. *And to the Spartans, and to other places, he
3 sent letters after the same manner®. And they ’ went unto Rome, and” entered into the senate house, and said: ‘Jonathan the high-priest, and the nation of the Jews, have sent us, to renew for
4 them the friendship and the confederacy, as in former time®.’ And they gave them letters unto (the governors) of every place, that they should bring them on their way to the land of Judah in peace.
5, 6 And this is the copy of the letter which Jonathan wrote to the Spartans: ‘ Jonathan the high-priest 4, and the Council ὃ οἵ the nation ®, and the priests, and the rest of the people of the Jews, unto their
7 brethren the Spartans, greeting! Even before this time were letters sent unto Onias the high-priest from Areios‘, who was reigning among you, (to the effect) that ye are our brethren, as the copy
8 (here) underwritten showeth. And Onias treated honourably * the man that was sent £,and received "
9 the letters, wherein declaration was made of confederacy and friendship. Therefore we also—albeit
Sin A 64 Slue them Luc i! Sluc ii>V k Nazor A V 55 64 Ithem 55 S$ eo SS δι D expressed in 55 o-o> i}
GU EOS: A b-b > i} ¢ +and they that were in Rome welcomed them 19 93 Slve 4 +of the nation A O-OS> INE ἘΞ. = Josephus ; αὐ other authorities read Dareios 8-8 those who were sent #1! h gave 71
his purpose. i.e. of helping Antiochus. 65. Bethsura. See note on iv. 29. 67. the water of Gennesar. i.e. the lake of Gennesareth ; the name occurs here for the first time. the plain of Hazor. Cp. Joshua xi. 1, xii. 19, xix. 36; Judges iv. 2; I Sam. xil.9; 1 Kings ix. 15; Josephus (Antig. V. v. 1) says it was near the lake Semechonitis, or Merom; it lay, therefore, right in the north of Palestine. 74. three thousand. Josephus says two thousand (.1γἼφ. XIII. v. 8).
XII. 1. he chose men. i.e. Numenius and Antipater, see v. 16, xiv. 22.
to confirm ... Cp. viii. 17 ff.
2. and to other places. It is not specified either in this book or in Josephus what these ‘ other places’ were.
6. the Council of the nation. This Gerowsza is mentioned as being already in existence in the time of Antiochus the Great (cp. Josephus, Av¢7g. XII. iii. 3); the earliest reference to it is, however, 2 Chron. xix. 8. It developed later into the Sanhedrin, a name which occurs for the first time in the reign of Hyrcanus II (cp. Avtig. XIV. ix. 4). The head of this Council was the high-priest, as the head also of the State; it exercised judicial and administrative functions (cp. 1 Macc. xiv. 20). The measure of its authority varied according to the amount of autonomy granted by the suzerain power; but its moral influence over the Jews, whether in the Dispersion or in Palestine, was always very considerable.
the rest of the people. ὁ λοιπὸς δῆμος ; Grimm pointedly remarks that it is probably not without a purpose that the Greek translator of this book almost invariably restricts the use of the word δῆμος to documents sent to or received from a foreign nation (viii. 29, xiv. 20, 25, xv. 17); his object in doing so is to place on record the fact that the Jewish people is one that is free and independent. .
7. Onias. The first of the name, son of Jaddus (Av/ig. XI. viii. 7) or Jaddua (Neh. xii. 11), father of the high-priest Simon I, the Just. There is great uncertainty as to his date, some scholars putting it at about 320-300 B.C., while others contend for some fifty years later; others, again, place it between these two extremes.
Areios. The first of the name, who reigned over the Spartans 309-265 B.C. This is the correct form of the name Areus. All Greek MSS. wrongly read Dareios (see crit. note). That Areios is the right reading is evident from Josephus ; the form Oniares occurs in v. 20; Cod δ reads there ονιααρης (= ᾽Ονίᾳ "Αρης). The Old Latin Version alone has preserved the right reading.
8. the man that was sent. Named Demoteles, according to Josephus (Avtig. XIII. v. 8).
το ‘we need none of? these things, having for our comfort the holy books which are in our hands—have assayed to send that we might renew our brotherhood * and friendship with you, to the end that we should not become estranged from you altogether ; for long time 15 passed since ye sent unto us, 11! We therefore at all times without ceasing, both at our feasts, and on other convenient days, do remember you in the sacrifices which we offer, and in our prayers, as it 1s right and meet to be 13 mindful of brethren; and, moreover, we are glad for your glory 1, But as for ourselves, many m afflictions and many wars™ have encompassed us, "and the kings that are round about us have 14 fought against us". We were not minded, however, to be troublesome to you, or to the rest of our nie confederates ° and friends, in these wars ; for we have the help that is from heaven ? to help us”, and 16 we have been delivered from our enemies, and ‘our enemies* have been humiliated. We chose, therefore, Numenius the son of Antiochus, and Antipater the son of Jason, and have sent (them) unto the Romans, to renew the friendship that we had ‘with them’, Sand the former * confederacy *. 17 We commanded them, therefore, to go also unto you, and to salute you, and to deliver you our letters 18 concerning the renewing " (of friendship) and * of our’ brotherhood. And now ye shall doW well if 19 ye give us an answer thereto.’ And this is the copy of the letters *which they sent * to Onias : 21 ‘ Areios 5, king of the Spartans, to Onias, the chief priest, greeting! *It hath been found in writing, concerning the Spartans and the Jews, that they are brethren, and that they are ἢ of the stock” of 22 Abraham ; and now, since these things have come to our knowledge, ye shall do well to write unto us 23 of your prosperity. And we, moreover, do write on our part to you®, that your cattle and goods are ours, “ἈΠΕ ours are yours. We do command, therefore, that they* make report unto you on 24 And Jonathan heard that Demetrius’ princes were returned to fight against him with a greater 25 force than afore, so he removed from Jerusalem, and met them in the country of Hamath; for he 26 gave them no respite to set foot in his country. And he sent spies into their® camp; and they returned, and reported unto him that in such and such a way they had planned to fall upon him by night. But as soon as the sun was down, Jonathan commanded his men to watch, and to be in arms, that all the night long they might be ready for battle ; and he sent forth sentinels (and placed them) 28 round about the camp. But (when) the adversaries heard that Jonathan and his men‘ were ready for battle, they were afraid and trembled in their heart; and they kindled fires in their camp, Sand 29 departed. But Jonathan and his men knew it not till morning; for they saw the fires burning. 30 And Jonathan" pursued after them, but did not overtake them ; ‘for they had gone over the river 31 Eleutherus. And Jonathan turned aside (and fought) against the Arabians, who are called Gaba-> 32 daeans, and smote them’, and took their spoils. And he set out from thence, and came to Damascus. * and took his journey through all the country. 533 And Simon went forth*, and took his journey as far as Askalon, and the strongholds that were
i-i we do not put our trust in $8 kE>7I JSS Gil mm > V n> 71 9. +and brethren $2 Pp>71 #1 a 4they that are beforeusLuc71 **>88 *s8>77 t> Slue Wass calito silt V your φὰς command anything we will readily fulfil it 71 dwe Sz i? ehis Gr (exc. Luc) Sue > Ss ffathers δὲ #-£ Luc $ only (= Josephus) b> A aS Fl kk> Se
21. concerning the Spartans and the Jews... ‘The fiction of a relationship between the Jews and the Spartans, which constituted the motive for the Spartans to write their letter (1 Macc. xii. 6, 7, 21, cp. 2 Macc. v. 9), was not unheara of during the era of Hellenism, Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor, p. 29, note, refers in illustration and for proof to Stephen of Byzantium under the word Ιουδαία... ὡς Κλαύδιος ᾿Ιούλιος ἀπὸ Οὐδαίου Σπάρτων ἑνὸς ἐκ Θήβης μετὰ Διονύσου ἐστρατευκότος. Ina decree of the Pergamenes (Josephus, 4¢ig. X1V. xviii. 22) there is also mention of a relation between the Jews and the Pergamenes’ (Schiirer, of. cé¢. i. 1. 251). On the other hand, as 8. A. Cook and W. J. Woodhouse (ZZ 4744) contend: ‘ There is no reason to doubt the fact of diplomatic relations with Sparta having been set on foot by Jonathan. For Sparta was too obscure at the time to have suggested itself to a forger eager to magnify his hero by inventions of the kind. Again, the incident leads to no result in the sequel ; the reverse would have tended to throw doubt upon the entire episode.’ The probability is that while the details can scarcely be regarded as historical, the broad fact of diplomatic relations of some kind between the Jews and the Spartans is to be accepted as true (see further, Zz¢7.§ 7). The Greek legend of the Spartans having been descended from the Phoenicians may not have been without influence upon the subject (see, further, Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii, pp. 372 f.). Grimm's important pages (187-191) should, however, also be consulted; while not prepared to accept the copy in 1 Macc. as representing the original document, he holds that since diplomatic relationships were in existence between the two nations, documents of some kind must have been exchanged.
24. And Jonathan heard... The narrative, interrupted by vv. 1-23, is now taken up from xi. 74.
25. Hamath. On the Orontes; the modern Hamah. Cp. Num. xiii. 21; 1 Kings viii. 65.
30. Eleutherus. See note on xi. 7.
31. Gabadaeans. Probably the small tract of land, about eight miles north of Damascus, now called Zabdznz. G, 2, S read ‘Zabadaeans’. 33. Askalon ... Joppa. See notes on x. 75, 86.
PeVENeC BEES) 1234-53
|¢near unto it. And he turned aside to Joppa, and took possession of it, for he had heard that they were minded to deliver the stronghold unto the men of Demetrius ; and he placed a garrison there to keep it. And Jonathan returned, and called the elders of the people together; and he took counsel with 6 them to build strongholds in Judaea, and to make the walls of Jerusalem higher, and to raise a great mound between the citadel and the city, !for to separate it from the city', ™so that it might be 7 isolated™, "that they (within it) might neither buy nor (they without) sell". And they were gathered together to build (the city)°; and (a part of) the wall by the brook that is on the east side 8 had fallen down, and ” he repaired that which is called Chaphenatha®. And Simon also built Adida in the plain country, and made it 4 strong, "and set up gates ‘and bars*®.
HI ne
XII. 39-53. The capture of Fonathan through treachery.
39 And Tryphon sought to reign over Asia and to put on himself the diadem, and to stretch forth \yo his hand against Antiochus the king*. And he was afraid Jest haply Jonathan should not suffer him (to do so), “and lest he should fight against him"; so he ‘sought a way” how” to take him, 41 * that he might destroy him*. And he Yremoved, and came’ to Bethshan. *And Jonathan came 42 forth? *to meet him®* with forty thousand men chosen for battle, and came to Bethshan. And (when) Tryphon saw that he came with a great host, he was afraid to stretch forth his hand against 143 him; and he received him honourably, and commended him unto all his Friends, »°¢and gave him gifts?, and commanded his Friends’ and his forces to be obedient unto him, °as unto himself °. }44 And he said unto Jonathan: ‘ Why hast thou put all this people to trouble, seeing there is no war 45 betwixt us? And now, send them away to their homes, but choose for thyself a few men who shall be with thee, and come thou with me to Ptolemais, and I will give it up to thee, ‘and the rest £ of the strongholds and the rest of the forces, and all the (king’s) officers; then I will return and depart ; for, 46 for this cause did I come‘. And he trusted him and did even as he said, and» sent away his 47 forces, and they departed into the land of Judah. But he reserved to himself three thousand men, 48 two thousand ‘of whom: he left in Galilee, but one thousand went with him. But when Jonathan had entered into Ptolemais, * they of Ptolemais shut the gates, and* took him; and all they that . 49 had come with him they slew with the sword. And Tryphon sent forces and horsemen into Galilee, | 50'and™ into the great plain’, to destroy all Jonathan’s men. And they perceived that he was taken and had perished, and they that were with him ; nevertheless they encouraged one another, and went 51 on their way close together, ready for war. And (when) they that were following (upon them) saw 52 that they were ready (to fight) for their lives, they turned back again. And they all came in peace to the land of Judah, and they mourned for Jonathan and them that were with him, "and they were 53 sore afraid. And all°® Israel mourned" with a great mourning. And all the Gentiles that were round about them sought to destroy them utterly, for they said: ‘ They have not Pa man? (that is) leader and (who will) help (them) ; “now therefore let us fight against them“, and take away their memorial from among men.’
11> ΝῈ (λαό καὶ 5:3) Sn SS BS n> N* (hab NC) ο expressed in cities V P Phe pulled down the mound which is called Chesphonitho 5 a>A 2S ἋΣ PBS 55 ΞΕ tthe younger S$ ἀντί τς σὴ v-Y was desirous # ΣΝ ΣΉ ΣΙ bl y-Y came stealthily V tA (ΟΕ a2) 162193 baba (hab ἃν C29 Fil d-d> 3s ¢ likewise A ft> 71 $many A h + Jonathan δὲ &* 19 93 Slue ijiabout NA k-k > Slue 11> 71 n>A mn > 71 o> A οὗ iS hy WV ESS ot
37. the brook that . .. i.e. the Kidron.
Chaphenatha. The meaning of this word is unknown; it does not occur elsewhere: Josephus does not mention it.
38. Adida. The Chadid of Ezra ii. 33; Neh. vii. 37, xi. 34, four miles east of Lydda ; Josephus (4tzg. XIII. vi. 5) says it is ‘upon an hill, and beneath it lie the plains of Judaea’. The modern e/-Chadite.
the plain country. Σεφηλά = the lowland region west of the mountainous country of Judaea.
40. Bethshan. See note on v. 52.
41. with forty thousand men. The number shows how Jonathan’s power and influence had increased ; it was not without reason that Tryphon recognized Jonathan’s power to hinder him in his designs (cp. τ. 40). Josephus (Antig. XIII. vi. 1) says that the reason why Jonathan came with such a large army was because he expected to be attacked by Tryphon.
43. commended. For this sense of συνίστημι cp. 2 Macc. iv. 24; Wisd. vil. 14; Rom. xvi. 1; 2 Cor. x. 18; for further references see Schleusner s.v.
49. the great plain. See note on v. 52.
50. had perished. But see xiii. 23, though it was natural to suppose that he had been murdered.
52. they mourned ... Cp. ix. 20, xiii. 26; ἐπένθησεν... πένθος μέγα, a Hebraism.
53. They have not ... Both the rival kings were now at enmity with the Jews ; hitherto the Jewish leader had always managed to have the support of one or other of the claimants to the throne.
let us fight against them. This intention does not appear to have been carried out. . .. take away their memorial... Cp. iii. 35, Ecclus. x. 17.
13. And Simon heard that Tryphon had gathered together a numerous * host to come into the land of ©
. 14 Jonathan was with him in ward. But Simon encamped at Adida, tover against the plaint. And
SIMON MACCABAEUS XIII. 1—XVI. 24. XIII. 1-11. Szsnon elected leader.
2 Judah, and destroy it utterly. And he saw that the people were troubled > and (were) in great fear?; 3 so he went up to Jerusalem, and gathered the people together, and encouraged them, and said unto — them: ‘Ye yourselves know what things I, and my brethren, and my father s house, have ὃ done for 4 the “laws and the sanctuary 4, and the battles °and the distresses ° * which we have seen‘; by reason 5 whereof all my brethren have perished for Israel's sake, and 1 alone am left. And now be it far from me that I should spare my own life in any time of affliction ; 5 for I am not better than my brethren’. 6 Howbeit I will take vengeance for my nation, and for the sanctuary, and for our "wives and ἢ children ; ; because all‘ the Gentiles are gathered together to destroy us ‘of very hatred*.’ And the spirit of 8 the people, !as soon as! they heard these™ words, revived. "And they answered with a loud voice, 9 saying™: ‘Thou art our leader instead of Judas and Jonathan thy brethren®. Fight thou ? our war?, το and all that thou shalt say unto us, that will we do.’ And he“ gathered together all the men of war, 11 and made haste to finish the walls of Jerusalem, and fortified it round about. And he sent Jonathan the son of Absalom, and with him a great host, to Joppa; and he cast out them that were therein, and abode there’ ‘in it ®.
XIII, 12-24. Simon defeats Tryphon.
12 And Tryphon removed from Ptolemais with a mighty host to enter into the land of Judah; and
(when) Tryphon knew that Simon was risen up instead of his brother Jonathan", and meant to join 15 battle with him, he sent ambassadors unto him, saying: ‘It is for the money which Jonathan thy brother owed unto the king’s treasure, ἡ“ by reason of the offices which he had τ, that we hold him fast. 16 And now send a hundred talents of silver, and two of his sons (as) hostages, that when he is set at 17 liberty he may not revolt from us,—and we will set him at liberty.’ And Simon knew that they spake * unto him * deceitfully, but sent the money and the children, Jest peradventure he should bring — 18 upon himself great hatred on the part of the people’, (in that they should be) saying: ‘ Because I sent. το him not the money and the children **he perished>.’ ° And he sent the children 5 5 and the hundred 20 talents ; and* he® dealt falsely, and did not set Jonathan at liberty. And ° after this ® Tryphon came to invade the land‘, and destroy it, and he went round about by the way (that leadeth) to Adora;
XIII. ἃ great S$ DDS τ e+allNV d-d the holy laws L e-e > δὲ ἢ (hab 8°) V 71 f& TR. Nob 88> 71 BSS το 1> 38 kkKE> 71 ll αὐτου (for aya tov) 771 reference to people mhis 19 93 Slue nn And they said 3" O55 Sluc; brother & LH Ρ-Ρ»θᾳϑ, 4 Simon 64 93 τ» Ν (λαό N&4) V SS s-8> Sluc ZH, tin the sight of the temple # u>7I MNT G/N Ww knew not V 55 x= > 70
YIsrael 55 Sie +Israel Luc 252» δ aa> Se Ὁ δε 64 coc 7 4 Tryphon Luc ee> 7 "city Α +of Judah Luc
XIII. 1. Simon. The last survivor of the five Maccabaean brothers. He completed the work so brilliantly carried out by Jonathan, and made his people entirely independent of the Syrian kings. 3. which we have seen. i.e. experienced ; ἰδεῖν is used in this sense like MN7, see Jer. v. 12, xiv. 13, &c. 4. my brethren have perished. According to the general belief Jonathan had been murdered, but he was still alive at this time, see vv. 12, 23. Ialone am left. Cp. the words of Elijah, 1 Kings xviii. 22. 5. Lam not better ... Cp. the similar words of Elijah, 1 Kings xix. 4. 7. the spirit . . . revived. Cp. Gen. xlv. 27 ἀνεζωπύρησε τὸ πνεῦμα ᾿Ιακώβ. 10. to finish the walls ... This work had been begun by Jonathan, see xii. 36, 37. __ ++: to Joppa... Cp. xii. 33, according to which Joppa was already in possession of the Jews ; Josephus (Avtig. XIII. vi. 4) makes the matter clear: ‘And sent... Jonathan the son of Absalom, to Joppa, and gave him command to cast out the inhabitants out of the city, for he was afraid lest they should deliver up the city to Trypho.’ 13. Adida. See note on xii. 38. the plain. πεδίον here, in xii. 38 σεφηλά. 14. to join battle with him. For the Greek phrase cp. Deut. 11. 14 (Sept.). 15. the king’s treasure. i.e. the royal treasury, cp. 2 Macc. iii. 13. the offices which ... Cp. x. 65, xi. 63. 20. he went round about by the way. Cp. 1 Kings iii, 9 (Sept.); κυκλοῦν ὁδόν = ΠῚ 2D (Grimm), ie. he purposely made a détour by way of Adora. ἣν Adora. Adoraim in the O.T., cp. 2 Chron
: : . X1. 9, one of the cities fortified by Rehoboam, the modern Diva (Josephus calls it Dora, Aztig. XIII. vii. 2)
, five miles south-west of Hebron.
[τ and Simon and his army marched over against him to whatsoever place he went. Now they of the | citadel sent * unto Tryphon 8 ambassadors, hastening him to come ἢ unto them through the wilderness, }2 and to send them victuals". And Tryphon made ready all his horse to come; and in that night
there fell ia great quantity of snow, and he did not (find it possible to) come because of the snow ; 3 so he removed, and came into the country of Gilead. But when he came near to Bascama, he slew 4 Jonathan, and he was buried there. And Tryphon returned, and went away into his own land.
XIII. 25-30. Fonathan’s sepulchre at Modin.
5 And Simon sent, and took the bones of Jonathan his brother, and buried him * at Modin, the city '6 of his fathers. And ‘all Israel! made great™ lamentation over him, "and mourned for him many 7 days". And Simon built (a monument) upon the sepulchre of his father and of his brethren, and raised it aloft, °so that it could be seen ὃ (from afar); (he built it) with polished stone behind and 18 before. And he set up” seven pyramids, ‘one over against another, for (his) father, and mother, and [9 four brethren’, And *for these* he made cunning devices, setting about them® great pillars, and upon the pillars he fashioned “all manner of arms" for a perpetual memory, and beside "the oarms" ‘carved ships’, that they should be seen of all that sail on the sea. This is the sepulchre which he made at Modin, (and it is there) unto this day.
XIII. 31-42. Murder of Antiochus. Treaty between Simon and Demetrius 77)
}2 Now Tryphon dealt deceitfully with the young” king * Antiochus, and slew him, and reigned in his stead, and put on himself the diadem of Asia, and brought great calamity upon the land.
P +upon it 55 Luc angio 1 7,1 εν Eee 84 four L 55 τ uu panoplies ΟΖ. propitiatory offerings 958 (?) ΥΟῪ various carved things A +he set up Sve W great 64 93 x> Se
marched over against him. i.e. marched parallel with him, Simon in the mountain country and Tryphon in the plain.
21. hastening. For the Greek κατασπεύδειν cp. Sept. of Exod. v. 13 (‘ And the taskmasters were urgent . . .’).
22. because of the snow. It is but rarely that snow falls south of Hebron, though it is not altogether unknown even so low down south as that; see further, Nowack, Hebr. Archdologie, i. 49.
23. Bascama. This place is not mentioned elsewhere, its position is quite uncertain ; see, further, Buhl, Geographie des alten Palastina, p. 241.
25. Modin. See note on ii. 1.
26. great lamentation. Cp. ii. 70, ix. 20.
27. the sepulchre ... ‘Ever since, in the fourth century B.C., Artemisia, widow of Mausolus, King of Caria, erected at Halicarnassus a stately monument to his memory—hence the word sazsoleum—the custom of building similar sepulchred edifices had been spreading in the East’ (Fairweather and Black, of. cit¢., p. 230).
28. seven pyramids. Josephus (Av/zg. XIII. vi. 6) says that these had ‘ been preserved to this day’; he seems to be referring to some additional source of knowledge in adding: ‘And we know that it was Simon who bestowed so much zeal about the burial of Jonathan, and the building of these monuments for his relations ;’ cp. in v. 30 the words ‘unto this day’. The seventh pyramid Simon presumably set up for himself.
29. carved ships. Josephus makes no mention of these.
30. unto this day. Concerning the bearing of this on the date of the book see 7727. ὃ 4. Grimm quotes Eusebius, who says in his Onomasticon: ‘Modeim ... unde fuerunt Maccabaei, quorum hodieque ibidem sepulchra monstrantur.’
31. and slew him, and reigned in his stead. ‘There are coins of Antiochus VI from 167 to 170 of the Seleucid era, or from 146-145 to 143-142 B.c. Coins of Trypho bear the number of the years III and IV, Josephus assigns to the reign of Antiochus VI a period of four years, and to Trypho a period of three years (Av/zg. XIII. vii. 1, 2). This is in agreement with the statement of Porphyry, who gives to Demetrius, before his imprisonment, only a three years’ reign to Olympiad 160. 3, or 138-137 B.C. Porphyry evidently reckons the reign of Demetrius as beginning with the displacement by conquest or murder of Antiochus VI. In thorough accord with this, too, is the chronology of I Macc. xiii. 31-41, which unhesitatingly assigns the murder of Antiochus by Trypho to the Seleucid year 170, or 143-142 B.C. Finally, it is no serious discrepancy when, in 1 Macc. xiv. 1 the Parthian campaign of Demetrius is dated from the Seleucid year 172, or 141-140 B.C.; while Porphyry, on the other hand, assigns it to Olympiad 160. 2, Or 139-138 B.c. In direct contradiction, however, with the foregoing, stands the statement made by many writers (Josephus, An/ig. XIII. v. 11, vii.1; Appian, Sy7.67, 68; Justin. xxxvi. 1), that Antiochus was not murdered by Trypho before the time of the Parthian campaign by Demetrius, and indeed not till after Demetrius had been taken prisoner. This, however, is in opposition not only to the chronology of 1 Macc., but also to the circumstance that then there is not left a three or four years’ reign for Trypho, which yet, according to Josephus and the coins, must be admitted. Then Trypho’s death occurs almost contemporaneously with the seizure of Demetrius by the Parthians in 138 B.C... . It therefore seems to me hazardous to assume, with many modern critics, that the last-named authorities should have precedence over 1 Macc.’ (Schiirer, of. ci¢. i. 1, pp. 176f.). Regarding the death of Antiochus, Grimm quotes Livy (Zpct. 55) to the effect that ‘Alexandri filius, rex Syriae, decem annos admodum habens, a Diodoto, qui Tryphon cognominabatur, tutore suo, per fraudem occisus est, corruptis medicis, qui eum calculi dolore consumi ad populum mentiti, dum secant, occiderunt.’
32. Asia. See note on xi. 13.
33. And Simon built the strongholds’ of Judaea, and fenced (them) about with high towers, and great : 34 νν8}15 5, ἀπ gates, and bars; and he laid up victuals in the strongholds. , And σῖτος chose men, and sent to king Demetrius, to the end he should give the country an immunity, because all that 35 Tryphon did was to plunder*. And king Demetrius sent unto him according to these words, and 36 answered him, and wrote a letter unto him, after this manner ἢ: ‘King Beets unto Simon the 37 high-priest and Friend of kings *,4and unto the elders and nation of the Jews“, greeting. The golden” crown, and the palm-branch®, which ye sent, we have received; and we are ready to conclude © 38 a lasting peace with you, and to write to the officers to grant iieveommases unto you. * And whatsoever things we (have now) confirmed unto you, they are confirmed*; and the strongholds which ye have 39 builded, ® let them be your own, "As for any oversights and faults (committed) unto this day, we forgive (them')"; and the crown which ye owed* (we remit); and if there were any other toll 40 exacted in Jerusalem, ‘let it no longer be exacted!. And if (there be) some of you meet to ΕΝ enrolled among those round about us, let them be enrolled ; and (thus) let there be peace betwixt 41 us.” ™In the one hundred and seventieth year (therefore) was the yoke of the heathen taken away Ἱ 42 from Israel™. And the people of Israel” began to write in their instruments and contracts: °° In the first year° of Simon the great high-priest and captain? and leader of the Jews.
XIII. 43-53. Stmon captures Gasara and the citadel of Ferusalem.
43 In those days he 4 encamped against Gazara*, and compassed it round about * with armies; and he 44 made ‘an engine of siege *, and brought it up ® to the city, and smote one tower, and took it®. Α And they that were in the engine of siege leaped forth into the city; and there was a great uproar in the — 45 city; and they of the city rent their clothes, and went up ἡ on the wall” with their wives and children, 46 and cried with a loud voice, making request to Simon to give them right hands. And they said : 47 ‘Deal not with us according to our wickednesses, but according to thy mercy. And Simon was reconciled unto them, and did not fight against them; but he drove them out of the city, and cleansed the houses wherein the idols were, and so entered into it with *singing and giving of praise*¥. 48 And he put all uncleanness out of it*, and caused to dwell in it men who observed the Law; and he made it stronger (than it was before), and he built therein a dwelling-place for himself. : 49 But they of the citadel of Jerusalem were hindered from going forth, *?and from going * into the country’, “and from buying and selling°; and they hungered exceedingly, and many of them 50 perished through famine. And they cried out to Simon “to take right hands; which thing he granted them’; but he cast them out from thence; and he cleansed the citadel from pollutions.
7 stronghold A 2 +and towers A Sap b-b And he sent unto him a writing thus 71 © of the king Slue t4@>71 ©palm-branched 8 embassy 93 so probably Ze ΝΠ Προ (‘robe’) being a mistake for xmimdes (‘ embassy’) CUS oft HL 4Simon T.R. Twith Josephus, Antig. XIII. vi. 7; Bell. Jud. 1. ἢ. 2; Gaza all the MSS. and Versions, wrongly ss>71 ΤΌΣΑ a strong wooden tower S!"¢ ; 77 $8 the Gk. ἐς transliterated the city Suc VV> 19 93 Sluc Wthen $8 Κ', ΠΡΟΣ ΣΡ ¥+to God V 3» CS aa ἈΠ 5 Ss Es CSS it | CSS
33. And Simon built ... Simon was not slow to utilize the opportunity for strengthening his own position which
the struggle for the Syrian throne afforded him. 34. And Simon chose men ... This is not mentioned by Josephus. 36. King Demetrius ... On this letter see Zwtr. § 7. ii. (e). the elders. See note on xii. 6.
37. the palm-branch. So critical note. The reading βάϊν is to be preferred, βαϊνήν of Cod. δὲ being most likely - due to the following ἥν, cp. 2 Macc. xiv. 4, where it is said that ‘a chaplet of gold and a palm’ (φοίνικα) were presented to Demetrius. The reference here is most likely to a sceptre the top of which was shaped into palm-leaves. In the O.T. the palm-tree is referred to as a symbol of prosperity (cp. Ps. xcii. 12); it is with this signification that it is depicted on some Jewish coins, see De Saulcy, Numismatique Juive, P\.1, fig. 6; Madden, Coins of the Jews, p. 71.
to grant immunities ... Cp. x. 28-35.
41. In the one hundred and seventieth year. i.e. 143-142 B.C. 42. And the people of Israel began to write ... On the importance of the study of numismatics in connexion
with this statement see Schiirer, of. εἶδ. i. 1, pp. 257 ff., and his Appendix IV. 43. Gazara. See critical note. For the correctness of this reading see v. 53; xiv. 7, 34; xv. 28; xvi. I. On Gazara see note on iv. 15. On the situation of Gazara, Eusebius, Ovom., ed. Lagarde, p. 244 (quoted by Schiirer, op. cit.i. 1, p. 261), remarks: καὶ νῦν καλεῖται Γάζαρα κώμη Νικοπόλεως ἀπέχουσα σημείοις δ᾽ ἐν βορείοις. It is the modern Tell-Jezer discovered by Clermont-Ganneau in 1873, and excavated by the Pal. Explor. Fund during the years 1902-9 ; see the ‘Quarterly Statement’ for these years. an engine of siege. ἑλέπολις (see critical note); on this machine see Smith’s Dict. of Class. Antig., 5. ν. 46. Deal not withus ... Cp. Isa. i. 16 (Sept.); Jer. xxxiii. 5.
τ And he® entered into it f on the three and twentieth day of the second" month, in the one hundred | and seventy-first year*, with praise, and palm-branches, ‘and with harps and with cymbals, * and with viols, and with hymns *, and with songs'; because a great! enemy had been destroyed out of jz Israel™, And he ordained that they should keep that day every year ™ with gladness". ὁ And the | hill of the temple that was by the citadel he made stronger (than it was before) ; and he dwelt there, 3 (both) he and his men®. And Simon saw that John his son was (grown to be) a man, and he made him leader of all his forces; and he dwelt at Gazara.
XIV. 1-3. Demetrius [1 imprisoned by Arsaces, king of Persia.
1 Inthe one hundred and seventy-second year Demetrius the king gathered his forces together, and 2 went into Media, to get him help, that he might fight against Tryphon. And (when) Arsaces, the king of Persia >and Media®, heard that Demetrius was come into his borders, he sent one of his leaders 3 to take him alive; and he went and smote the army of Demetrius, and took him, and brought him to Arsaces; °and he put him in ward”.
XIV. 4-15. Simon's beneficent rule; an ode in his honour.
4 And the land® had rest all the days of Simon; and he sought the good of his nation; and his 5 authority 4and his glory was well-pleasing to them “all his days’. And ‘in addition to all his (other) glory (was this that) he took Joppa for a haven, and made it a place of entry for the ships ° of the sea. 6 And he enlarged the borders of his nation, * And ruled over the land‘. 7. And he gathered together 8 many that had been in captivity °, And he ruled over Gazara, and Bethsura, ‘and the citadel. And he took away uncleannesses therefrom ἢ", . And there was none that could resist him. 8 And they tilled their land in peace ; And the land gave her increase, And the trees of the plains their fruit. 9 Old men sat in the streets }, k All spoke together of the (common) weal *, And the young men put on glorious and! warlike apparel.
™ Jerusalem V +and no enemy rose up any more to fight Luc Sue ls Js WAS σὴ]
SING SASF)! b-b> B® (hab NC) C+ofJudahNVig55SH 4:4». γ1] ®Luc 35; isles αἱ other authorities tt 71 8-ὃ much treasure S$ h from them 64 93 iassemblies δὲ (streets δὲ 6:8) ΚΕ» 71
1+not Luc 38
51. the three and twentieth day... The 23rd of Iyyar ( Ziv in O.T., cp. 1 Kings vi. 1) 171 the 23rd May
palm-branches. Cp. 2 Macc. x. 7; John xii. 13.
with harps... Cp. iv. 54.
52. And he ordained... This feast is referred to in Megillath Ta‘anith (‘The scroll of Fasting’, so called because fasting is forbidden on the days enumerated), ch. ii, which enumerates thirty-five days of joy in Jewish history which were kept as feast-days; it was compiled about the beginning of the Christian era. Possibly this feast is included in the words contained in Judith viii. 6, but it has long ceased to be celebrated,
And the hill of the temple . . . On this statement, and that of Josephus (Awéig. XIII. vi. 7), that Simon had the hill on which the citadel stood removed, in order that the Temple might stand higher than any other building in Jerusalem, see Schiirer, of. czz, i. 1, p. 263.
53. John. i.e. John Hyrcanus I.
XIV. 1. one hundred and seventy-second year. On the Parthian expedition see note on xiii. 31. 2. Arsaces. i.e. Mithridates I, king of the Parthians. The name Arsaces was assumed by all the kings of Parthia after the founder of the Empire of this name.
8. they tilled ... Cp. Lev. xxvi. 4; Ezek. xxxiv. 27.
the land gave ... Cp. Zech. vill. 12.
the trees... Cp. Deut. viii. 8; Hag. ii. 19.
το For the cities he provided victuals, m And furnished® them with defensive works, Until his glorious name was proclaimed to the end of the earth. tr He made peace in the land, And Israel rejoiced with great joy. 12 And each sat under his vine ° and his fig tree®, And there was none to make them afraid™ ; 13 And no one was left in the land to fight them P And the% kings were discomfited in those days. 14 And he strengthened all that were brought low of his people ; He sought out the Law, And put away the lawless and wicked. * He glorified the sanctuary ἢ, And multiplied τ the® vessels of the Temple.
XIV. 16-24. Renewal of the alliance with Rome.
16 And (when) tit was heard* in Rome that Jonathan was dead, “and” (even) unto Sparta”, they 17 were exceeding sorry. But as soon as they heard that his brother Simon was made high-priest "in 18 his stead, and ruled the country, and the cities therein ἃ, they wrote unto him on tablets of brass, to
renew with him the friendship and the confederacy which they had established with "Judas ἀπά ας 20 Jonathan “his brethren"; and they were read before the congregation in Jerusalem. And thisis the —
copy of the letter which the Spartans sent : ‘ The rulers and the city‘Y of the Spartans, unto Simon the” high-priest, and unto the elders, “and the priests, and the rest of the people of the Jews, (who are) 1 brethren", greeting ; "The ambassadors that were sent unto our people made report to us of your * 2 glory and honour ; and" we were glad for their coming. And we did register the things that were spoken by them in the public records, after this manner: Numenius, son of Antiochus, and Antipator, son of Jason, the Jews’ ambassadors, came unto us to renew the friendship they had with us. 23 And it pleased the people to receive the men honourably, and to place the copy of their words among the public records, to the end that the people of the Spartans might have a memorial thereof.’ 24 Moreover they ¥ wrote a copy of these things unto Simon the high-priest. After this Simon sent Numenius to Rome having a great shield of gold of a thousand pound weight’, in order to confirm the confederacy with them,
XIV. 25-49. The hereditary High-priesthood conferred upon Simon; a memorial tablet to Simon and the Maccabaeans is set up in the Temple.
25 But when the people heard these things, they said: ‘ What thanks shall we give to Simon * and his 26sons? For he, and his brethren, and his father’s house have » made themselves strong”, and have chased away in fight the enemies® of Israel from them, “and established liberty for it*’ And they 27 wrote on tablets of brass, and set them upon a pillar ° in mount Zion. ‘And this is the copy of the writing : ‘On the eighteenth day of Elul, in the one hundred and seventy-second year—that is the
m-m > 71 2 strengthened Sluc o-O>N P-P>7I 4 their A ΣΕΥ τς 53 And the δὶ tt he heard A they heard Luc 55 71 Ba SS Fil Vv +it was heard Luc YY cities 3.1 Sluc Ww +great Luc 55 * peace and yourLuc YweV93 4%>S8 ®-+thehigh priest Se > Pacted valiantly Sue Cthesons64 4 4and they gave the inheritance to Simon and established (him) Luc, making ‘the people’ in v. 25 the subject © pillars 8 V ft 71 Ξ
12. each sat under... Cp.1 Kings iv. 25; Mic. iv. 4; Zech. iii. τὸ; And there was none... Cp. Deut. xxviii. 26; Jer. vii. 33; Zech. i. 21. 14. allthat were brought low. πάντας τοὺς ταπεινούς ; cp. Ps. xvii. 28; Isa. xiv. 32; Amos ii. 7 (all in Sept.). He sought out the Law. Cp. Ps. civ. 45 (Sept.). 18. the friendship and the confederacy ... Cp. viii. 17-30, xii. 1-4. 20. The rulers and... On this letter see Ztr. § 7. iii. (ὁ). The rulers were the Zfxors ever since the year 192 B.C., when Nabis, the last of the ‘tyrants’, was murdered. 22. Numenius. Cp. xii. 16. a thousand pound weight. An obvious exaggeration, cp. xv. 18. 27. Elul. The sixth month in the sacred year ( September approximately) ; cp. Neh. vi. 15. the one hundred and seventy-second year 141 B.C.
8 third year of Simon § the ἢ high-priest *, ‘and the prince of the people of God‘—in a great congregation of priests and people and princes of the nation, and of the elders of the country, * (the following)
g was promulgated by us *; Forasmuch as oftentimes there have been wars in the country ‘, Simon the son of Mattathias, ‘the son of the children of Joarib ‘, and his brethren, put themselves in jeopardy, and withstood the enemies of their nation, that their sanctuary and the Law might be upheld; and o they glorified their nation with great glory. 'And Jonathan assembled their™ nation together!, and 1 became high-priest to them ; and he was gathered to his people. Then their enemies determined to invade their country, "that they might destroy their country utterly", and stretch forth their hands )2 against their sanctuary. Then rose up Simon and fought for his nation; and he spent much of his own .3 substance, and armed the° valiant men of his nation, and gave them wages. And he fortified the cities of Judaea, and Bethsura (that lieth) upon the borders of Judaea, where the arms of the enemies were ,4 aforetime, and set there a garrison of Jews. ” And he fortified Joppa which is by the sea, and Gazara which is upon the borders of Azotus, wherein the enemies dwelt aforetime ; and he placed Jews there”, ἢ) 5 and whatsoever things were needful for the sustenance of these he put in them. And (when) the people saw the faith * of Simon, and the glory which he sought to bring unto his nation, they made him their leader ?and high-priest, because he had done all these things, and because of the justice and the 36 faith which he kept to his nation, and because he sought by all means to exalt his people”. And in his days things prospered in his hands’, so that the Gentiles were taken away out of their (the Jews’) country ; and they also that were in the city of David, they that were in Jerusalem, who had made themselves a citadel, out of which they issued, and polluted all things round about the sanc- 37 tuary, and did great hurt unto its purity (these did he expel)'; and he made Jews to dwell therein, and fortified it for the safety of the country and of the city; and he made high the walls of Jeru- 38 salem. And king Demetrius confirmed him in the high-priesthood "in consequence of these things ", 610 and made him one of his Friends, Yand honoured him with great honour’. For “he had heard τ | that the Jews had been proclaimed by the Romans friends, and confederates, Yand brethren’, and 41 that they had met the ambassadors of Simon honourably. And* the Jews and the priests were well pleased that Simon should be their leader and high-priest ἡ for ever, until a faithful prophet should
5.8.» Sluc h +oreat δ V Luc 55 τὴ Asaramel (Saramel A by py 2) G the prince of Israel S kk he made known tous N A V ἅς. we made known to you Luc S'"¢ these things were made known & ( Yin) Tele NTT mhis V Sluc 7.1 n-2 > N* (fab N°) V Chis δὲ DEP 71 4 nourishment and sustenance Slue Tdeeds Suc #1 +deeds V 8 +and fortified Jerusalem 71 ao Ak uu /7¢, according to these things; > 71 Slue ES ol w-w it had been heard A Luc 71 *71; all other authorities add that
the third year... Cp. xiii. 42.
28. the prince of the people of God. Greek ἐν Σαραμέλ, see critical note, where, however, the meaning of this expression given does not account for the ἐν; Schiirer thinks that this represents the remains of ceyey (= Δ, the It seems more natural to follow Wernsdorf (quoted by Grimm and Kautzsch) and see in capapeA the transliteration of
bx Dy “Ww, ‘ Prince of the people of God’; the translator, assuming that this was the name of a place, would then have inserted ἐν. The difficulty here is the mention of God, which is uniformly avoided in this book; it may,
therefore, be that the Syriac Version has retained the original reading, ‘a prince of Israel,’ Sy Ww); the Hebrew script in use before the square characters were introduced might easily account for reading an m (!9) for the second s (Ὁ); the translator, who was obviously puzzled, may also have taken exception, through ignorance, to the repeated "Ww. was promulgated by us. See critical note. Gazara ... upon the borders of Azotus. Cp. xili. 43-8. This is a mistake as Gazara was 17 miles distant from Ashdod; Grimm thinks the error is due to the translator. wherein. <7... ἐκεῖ, α Hebraism; cp. e.g. Deut. iv. 5. 14, 26, ἡ γῆ εἰς ἣν ὑμεῖς εἰσπορεύεσθε ἐκεῖ; and often. ν 35. they made him... But cp. xiii. ὃ ff.; on the chronological discrepancies between the details given in this 40. and brethren. σύμμαχοι is the more usual expression, cp. v. 18, vill, 20, xv. 17; ἀδελφοί is scarcely original. 41. leader and high-priest. Simon has three official titles: ἀρχιερεύς, as spiritual ruler; orparnyds, as military chief; and ἐθνάρχης, as civil governor ; see xiii. 42, and τ. 47 of this chap., cp. also xv. 1, 2. for ever. i.e. that it should be hereditary in his family. ; ΠΝ ‘ until a faithful prophet ... By this is meant that ‘this popular decree should remain in force until an authentic communication from God should make some other enactment. . . . The significance of this popular resolution lies not so much in the fact that it conveyed to him (Simon) any new dignity, but rather in this, that it legitimized and pronounced hereditary those dignities which he already had. In this way a new high-priestly and princely dignity was founded, that of the Asmoneans’ (Schiirer, of. c7¢. i. 1, p. 265).
42 arise’; and that he should be a captain over them’, to set them over their works, and over the country, 43 and over the arms, and over the strongholds, and that he should take charge of the sanctuary, and that he should be obeyed by all, and that all instruments in the country should be written in his 44 name’, and that he should be clothed in purple, and wear gold; and that it should not be lawful for anyone among the people or among the priests to set at nought any of these things, or to gainsay the things spoken by him, or to gather an assembly * in the country ἡ without him, or that any (other) 45 should be clothed in purple, or wear a buckle of gold ; **but that whosoever should do otherwise, 46 or set at nought any of these things, should be liable to punishment**. And all the people con- 47 sented to ordain »» for Simon that it should be done according to these words. And Simon accepted (hereof), and consented to fill the office of high-priest, and to be captain and governor of the Jews 1 and of the priests, and to preside over all matters **.’ 48 And they commanded to put this writing on tablets of brass, and to set them up within ° the 49 precinct of © the sanctuary in a conspicuous “" place ; and copies of this (they caused) to be placed in the treasury, to the end that Simon and his sons might have them.
XV. 1-9. Antiochus VII (Sidetes) seeks the throne, and solicits the help of Simon.
15:1 And Antiochus, son of Demetrius the king, sent letters from the isles of the sea unto Simon the 2 priest * and governor of the Jews, and to all the nation’; “and the contents thereof were after this manner °:
‘King Antiochus to Simon the high-priest and governor, and to the nation of the Jews, greeting :
3 Forasmuch as pestilent fellows have made themselves masters of the kingdom of our 4 fathers, and my
purpose is to claim the kingdom, that I may restore it “as before,—I have, moreover, raised a mul-
4 titude of foreign soldiers, and have prepared ships of war °, and I have determined to land in the country,
that I may punish them that have devastated our country, and them that have made many cities in the ὃ
5 kingdom desolate,—I therefore (herewith) confirm ‘unto thee‘ (the release from) all the exactions which
6 the kings that were before me remitted unto thee, °and whatsoever gifts® besides they remitted unto
7 thee; "and I give thee leave» ‘to coin money * for thy country * with thine own stamp‘. And Jeru-
salem and the sanctuary shall be free ; *and all the arms which thou hast prepared °, and the strongholds
8 which thou hast built, which thou hast in thy possession °, let them remain unto thee. And everything
owing to the king, and the things that shall be owing to the king, let them be remitted unto thee
9 from now and unto all time’. Moreover, when we shall have established™ our kingdom, we will
glorify thee and thy nation and "the Temple with great glory*,so that your glory shall be made manifest in all the earth.’
XV. 10-14. Antiochus VII besieges Tryphon in Dor.
ro In the one hundred and seventy-fourth year Antiochus went forth into the land of his fathers;
tr and all the forces came together unto him, so that there were (but) few men® with Tryphon. And
12 king Antiochus pursued him, and in fleeing he? came to Dor, which is by the sea; for he perceived
13 that 4 troubles were come upon him, and that his forces had forsaken him. And Antiochus encamped against Dor, and with him a hundred and twenty thousand men of war, and eight thousand horse.
14 And he compassed the city round about, * and the ships joined in the attack from the sea; and he pressed the city sore* by land *and 568 ", and suffered no man to go gut or in.
¥ +and should take charge of the sanctuary &@ Sue W145 ¢hese words have crept into the text by mistake, they occur
again in the next verse 17:5» Sue COBB SS Fil bb + these things 64 93 COGBS> She dd safe A XV. *high-priest 5564 Ρ +of the Jews 71 O58 Ss Git dmy 55 Sluc ®my 8 V Ua Se S/he # exactions ANY nS α **to make laws and to put forth decrees according to thine own will $uec k-k > Sluc > 71 ™ obtained 3.1 ἈΠῸ our Temple 55 ° + that were left T.R. P Tryphon 64 93 4 + all Luc r-I>N 88> Sluc i 43. . . . clothed in purple, and wear gold. Cp. viii. 14, x. 20, 89, and v. 44 of this chap.
XV. 1. Antiochus. Called Side¢es on account of his having been brought up in the city of Séde in Pamphylia (cp. v.23). According to Josephus (Avtzg. XIII. viii. 2), he was also called the ‘ Pious’ (Εὐσεβής), because of ‘ the great zeal he had concerning religion’. He was the seventh of the name; son of Demetrius I, and brother of Demetrius II.
from the isles of the sea. Schiirer quotes Appian, Sy7. c. 68, to the effect that while at Rhodes Antiochus learned of his brother's captivity (πυθόμενος ἐν Ῥόδῳ περὶ τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας).
2. the contents thereof... On this letter see Zzér. ὃ γε 11: (7):
6. to coin money ... See Schiirer, of. ci. i. I, pp. 257-60.
1o. In the one hundred and seventy-fourth year. 1.€. 139-138 B.C.
Ἑ 11. Dor. Cp. Joshua xi. 2, xii. 23, xvii. 11; Judges i. 27; an ancient Phoenician town on the Mediterranean coast, about nine miles north of Caesarea; the modern 7antura.
XV. 15-24. The return of the Fewish envoys from Rome.
5 And Numenius and his company came from Rome, having letters to the kings, and to the countries, wherein were written these things : 67 ‘Lucius, consul of the Romans, unto king Ptolemy, greeting: The Jews’ ambassadors came unto __us (as) our friends and confederates, to renew the old friendship and confederacy, being sent from 8 Simon the high-priest, ‘and from the people of the Jews*; moreover, they brought a shield of gold ὁ of a thousand" pound’. It pleased us, therefore, to write unto the kings and unto the countries, “that they should not seek their hurt, nor fight against them”, * and their cities, and their country’, »o nor be confederates with such as fight against them*. And it seemed good to us to accept the εἰ Shield from them. If, therefore, any pestilent fellows should have fled from their country unto you, deliver them unto Simon the high-priest, that he may take vengeance on them according to their law.’ 22 And the same things wrote he to Demetrius the king, and to Attalus, and to Ariarathes%, and to 3 Arsaces, and unto all the countries, and to Sampsames*, and to the Spartans, and unto Delos, and unto Myndos, and unto Sicyon, and unto Caria”, and unto Samos, and unto Pamphylia, and unto Lycia, and unto Halicarnassus, and unto Rhodes, and unto Phaselis, and unto Cos, and unto Side, and 24 unto Aradus, and Gortyna, and Cnidus, and Cyprusand Cyrene*®. And a copy hereof they wrote to Simon the high-priest.
XV. 25-41. Antiochus VII breaks his covenant with Simon.
25 And Antiochus the king encamped against Dor the second (day)4, bringing his forces up to it 26 continually, and making engines (of war); and he shut up Tryphon® from going in or out. And Simon sent him two thousand chosen men to fight for him, and silver and gold, and instruments (of 27 war) in abundance. But he would not receive them, ‘but set at nought everything that he had 28 previously covenanted 5 with him*'; "and he was estranged from him". And he sent unto him Athenobius, one of his Friends, to commune with him, saying; ‘Ye hold possession of Joppa and 29 Gazara, and the citadel that is in Jerusalem, ‘cities of my kingdom. The borders thereof have ye wasted, and done great hurt in the land‘, and have got the dominion of many places in my kingdom. bo Now, therefore, deliver up the cities which ye have taken, ‘and the tributes of the places whereof ye 31 have gotten dominion outside of the borders of Judaea'; or else give me for them five hundred talents | of silver; and for the harm that ye have done, and the tributes of the cities, other five hundred 32 talents ; otherwise we‘ will come and make war upon you.’ And (when) Athenobius, the king’s Friend, came to Jerusalem, and saw the glory of Simon, and the* cabinet with gold and silver vessels,
33 and his great attendance, !he was amazed!, and reported to him™ the king’s words. And Simon “answered, and” said unto him: ‘ We have neither taken other men’s land, nor have we possession of that which appertaineth to others, but of the inheritance of our fathers ; "howbeit, it was had in 34 possession of our enemies wrongfully for a certain time™. But we, having (taken) the opportunity,
USS oil ἃ five thousand A 55 Ytalents 55 Wow > N (200 N°) 55 xX >7I J countries A.93 Slvc 31
2 Arathes A 55 71 @Sampsaces A S't¢ Lampsacus i > Caris A © Smyrna V ἃ expressed only in N*® Luc © +from all sides Sluc ESS Fat Be > Slve Was 55 ithey A k + golden Luc Slve 1" Sluc mthem A Simon Luc a-u> 71
Ptolemy. ‘The seventh of the name; Euergetes II, Physcon; he reigned jointly with his brother, Ptolemy VI,
22. Attalus. King of Pergamum, but uncertain whether the first or second of the name (Grimm). Ariarathes. The fifth of the name, king of Cappadocia, 162-130 B.C. - Arsaces. Mithridates I, king of Parthia; see note on xiv. 2. 23. Sampsames. Possibly the harbour on the Black Sea between Sinope and Trebizond, but uncertain.
Delos. This and Samos are islands in the Archipelago. ;
Myndos. Like Halicarnassus and Cnidus, in Caria, the country on the south-west coast of Asia Minor.
Sicyon. On the north coast of the Peloponnesus, west of Corinth. ; at
Pamphylia. The country on the coast of Asia Minor between Lycia and Cilicia; Side is a sea-port of Pamphylia.
Rhodes. The island lying south off the coast of Caria.
Phaselis. A city on the coast of Lycia.
Cos. An island lying off the coast of Caria. {
Aradus. An island close to the Phoenician coast, nearly opposite the mouth of the Eleutherus (see xi. 7).
Gortyna. A town on the island of Crete.
Cyrene. The capital of Libya, the country lying to the west of Egypt. τ
The disordered enumeration of all these shows that the writer’s knowledge of their geographical positions was extremely meagre.
35 hold fast ° the inheritance ° of our fathers. Nevertheless, as touching Joppa and Gazara which thou demandest,—(though it was) they that did great harm among the people and in our land "—we will 36 give a hundred talents for them.’ And he? answered him not a word, but returned in a rage to them king, and reported unto him these words, ® and the glory of Simon, and all things whatsoever he had seen"; and the king was exceeding wroth. ; 37,38 But Tryphon embarked on board a ship, and fled to Orthosia, And the king appointed Cende- 39 baeus chief captain of the sea-coast, and gave him forces of foot “and horse4; and he commanded him to encamp before Judaea ; also *he commanded him” to build up Kedron, rand to fortify ® the 40 gates**, and that he should fight against the people; but the king pursued _Tryphon. And Cendebaeus came to Jamnia, *and began to provoke the people’, and to invade Judaea, and to take “the 41 people* captive and to slay them. And he" built Kedron, and set horsemen there, and forces of foot, to the end that, ’ issuing out, they might make outroads upon the ways of Judaea ‘, according as the king had commanded him.
XVI. 1-10. Fudas and Fohn, the sons of Simon, defeat Cendebacus. =
16 1,2 And John went up from Gazara, and told Simon, his father, what Cendebaeus was doing. And Simon called his two eldest ¥ sons, Judas and John, and said unto them: ‘I and my brethren and my
5 father’s house have fought the battles of Israel * from our youth, even unto this very day* ; and things 3 have prospered in our hands, *(so that we were able) to deliver Israel oftentimes*. But now I am old, and ye moreover, * by (God’s)¥ mercy®, are of sufficient age* ; be ye (then) instead of me *and
my brother, and go forth* and fight for our nation ; *and let the help that is from Heaven be with
4 you*.’ And he** chose * out of the country ® twenty thousand men of war and horsemen ; and they
5 went against Cendebaeus, and rested at Modin. And rising up in the morning, they went into the plain, and, behold, a great host came to meet them, of footmen and horsemen; and there was
6 a brook betwixt them. And he encamped over against them, *he and his people; and he saw that
°-° our inheritance and (that) A P Athenobius T.R. στα ΟΣ Vos rer 71 Sto build up N t cities A ἃ Cendebaeus Luc Y VY they might fight Judaea 71
Ws 2 SS Δ] x => 71 Vexpressed in SBS 2> Zluc) | a8 John Luc bb-bb > V 71
37. Orthosia. A town on the Phoenician coast, north of Tripolis; the name is preserved to the present day, the ruins of the ancient town being still called Arthzsz.
38. Cendebaeus. According to Schiirer (of. cit. i. 1, p. 270) a name derived from Κάνδυβα, a town in Lycia, cp. Sidetes, from Side (see v. 1). 4 ‘
39. Kedron. Probably identical with Gederoth (Joshua xv. 41), the present Katra, south-west of Ekron, near Modin, according to xvi. 4 ff.
40. Jamnia. See note on iv. 15.
XVI. 2. his two eldest sons. A third, Mattathias, is mentioned in v. 14. things have prospered in our hands. Cp. the Hebr. phrase J 7° YIN ‘to gain success for’. 3. Tam old. Cp. Joshua xxiii. 2 ΠΡ. by (God’s) mercy. ἐν τῷ ἐλέει, again the avoidance of the divine name which is characteristic of this book; cp. ‘the help that is from Heaven’ further on in this verse. of sufficient age. Lit. ‘sufficient in years’. go forth and fight. According to Josephus (Azézg. XIII. vii. 3), Simon himself took the lead: ‘... Taking a resolution brisker than his age could well bear, he went like a young man to act as general of his army .. .’ ; this is also borne out by the wv. that follow here, in spite of ‘ be ye instead of me’ in this verse. 4. he chose. Logically ‘Simon’ is the sub
: ject; ‘John’ of the Lucianic MSS, (see critical note) was presumably inserted because of the words, ‘I amold .. .’.
out of the country. The point of these words is not quite clear (see critical note); the Jews had not yet had any idea of employing mercenaries, so that the words cannot be supposed to imply native-born soldiers as distinct from foreigners ; nor could they have been new recruits, since they were ‘men of war’, The MSS. which omit the words are perhaps justified in doing 50.
horsemen. This is the first time mention is made of the Maccabees using horsemen, though their use in warfare was not new to the Jews (cp. Isa. xxxi. 1, xxxvi. 9; Hos. i. 7; Neh. ii. 9, &c.); that more use had not been made of them during the Maccabaean war was due to the method of warfare on the part of the Maccabaeans; it was more advantageous for them to adopt mountain warfare. :
rested. Lit. ‘slept’, = ‘ passed the night’, the Hebr. nd.
Modin. See note on ii. 1.
5. they went into the plain. Cp. Job xxxix. τὸ (Sept.). a great host. δύναμις πολλή, cp. Ps. Ixxvii. 12 (Sept.).
to meet them. εἰς συνάντησιν αὐτοῖς, cp. the same phrase in Gen. xiv. 17 (Sept.), a brook. See note on v. 37.
6. he encamped. See notes on vv. 3, 4.
his people. ads is used in the sense of an army in Joshua x. 5 (Sept.) for the Hebrew 73ND.
| the people were afraid to pass over the brook, so he passed over first *; and (when) the men saw him
7 (doing this), they passed over after him. And he divided the people, ° and (set) the horsemen in the 8 midst of the footmen, for the enemies horsemen were exceedingly numerous®. And they sounded with the 4 trumpets ; and Cendebaeus and his army were put to the rout, and there fell of them ° Ὁ many wounded to death; and they that were left fled to the stronghold. At that time was Judas, | John’s brother, wounded ; but John pursued after them, till he came to Kedron, * which [Cendebaeus]* τὸ had built *f. And they fled unto the towers that are in the fields of Azotus; and he burned it with fire; and there fell of them about a thousand”? men. And he returned to Judaea in peace.
XVI. 11-24. Mzrder of Simon and his two sons, Mattathias and Fudas, by Ptolemy ; Fohn Hyrcanus escapes.
1r And Ptolemy the son of Abubus had been appointed captain “for the plain of Jericho; and he [213 had much silver and gold, for he was the high “-priest’s son-in-law.‘ And his heart was lifted up *,
and he was minded to make himself master of the country ; and he took counsel deceitfully against 14 Simon and his sons, to make away with them. Now Simon was visiting the cities that were in the
country, and taking care for the good ordering of them. And he went down to Jericho, he himself
and Mattathias and Judas, “his sons4, °in the one hundred and seventy-seventh year, in the eleventh 15 month, the same is the month Sebat®, And the son of Abubus received them deceitfully into the little stronghold that is called Dok, ® which he had built®; and he made them a great banquet ; and 16 he hid men there. And when Simon and his sons had drunk freely‘, Ptolemy and they that were with him rose up, and took their arms, and came upon Simon ὃ into the banqueting hall®, and slew 7 him and his two sons, and certain of his servants. “πα he committed (thus) a great act of 18 treachery ὃ ὃ, and recompensed evil for good. And Ptolemy wrote these things, and sent to the king, that he should send him forces to aid (him), and that he should deliver to him their™ country and the 10 cities. Andhe sent others to Gazara to make away with John; °and unto the captains of thousands 20 he sent letters to come unto him that he might give them silver and gold and gifts®. And others he 21 sent to take possession of Jerusalem, °and of the mount of the Temple®. And one? ran * before to Gazara, and told* John ° that his father and brethren had perished, ‘ and’, (said he), ‘ he hath sent to
co-ce > 71 dd +holy V T.R. eeit A (tx reference to the army) > 71 ee 7 4 they Luc Sluc b two thousand δὲ V 71 three thousand Luc Sle ¢>V55 d-d his brother N* (his sons N 6:8) OOS ΤΥ f 4+and were merry Slue £a godless act A hthe Luc 71 i> A 71 93 Siu kk 27, 93 Siue
7. the horsemen in the midst ... An unusual proceeding; Grimm cites an instance of the Romans having
done so. The object here was two-fold; to accustom the horsemen to their new duties, and to avoid their meeting the full force of the enemy’s cavalry, which was numerically superior.
8. they sounded with ... Cp. Num. x. 8; the addition of ἱεραῖς in some MSS. is probably due to the mention of the priests in Num. x. ὃ, from which the phrase here seems to be borrowed ; οἱ ἱερεῖς σαλπιοῦσιν ἐν ταῖς σάλπιγξιν,
the stronghold. i.e. Kedron, see xv. 39-41.
10. they fled. i.e. those of the enemy who had not been able to get into Kedron, and who had, therefore, been
forced to continue their flight.
the fields of Azotus. i.e. the open country round the city. The ‘towers’ (55319) were used both for the defence of cities and for the protection of flocks; for the former use cp. 2 Kings xvii. 19, xviii. 8.
he burned it with fire. i.e. the city of Azotus; Jonathan had done this to Azotus ten years before (see x. 84), but it is not necessary to suppose that either then, or on this occasion, the city was wholly obliterated.
about athousand men. See critical note.
11. Ptolemy the son of Abubus. He was the son-in-law of Simon, see below.
the plain of Jericho. 1M) ΤῚΣ) Joshua v. 10, see also Sept. of this. The plain was ‘seventy furlongs long, and twenty broad; wherein it (i.e. the fountain near Jericho) affords nourishment to those most excellent gardens that are thick set with trees’ (Josephus, Bed/. Jud. IV. viii. 3).
12. the high-priest’s son-in-law. See further Josephus (4v¢ig. XIII, vii. 4, viii. 1).
13. his heart was lifted up. See note on i. 3.
14. went down to Jericho. For the phrase cp. Luke x. 30.
the one hundred and seventy-seventh year. i.e. 135 B.C.
the month Sebat. Properly Shebat (paw); cp. Zech. i. 7. It corresponds approximately to February; the fifth civil and eleventh ecclesiastical month in the Jewish Calendar; the month, according to Jewish tradition, in which demons prevail.
15. Dok. Δώκ, Josephus (Antig. XIII. viii. 1; Bell. Lud. 1. ii. 3) calls it Aayay. ‘The name is still retained in that of the fountain “Azz ed-Duk, north of Jericho, on the border of the mountain land, in a position very suitable as the site of a fortress’ (Schiirer, of. c?#. p. 271). Grimm says that Dws is mentioned as a mountain fortress lying between Jericho and Bethel, and belonging to the Templars ; this was still standing in the thirteenth century.
16. had drunk freely. ἐμεθύσθη means that Simon was intoxicated cp. the murder of king Elah by Zimri under similar circumstances (1 Kings xvi. 9, 10).
17. act of treachery. See critical note. Cp. 2 Macc. xv. Io,
22 Slay theealso®*.’ And when he? heard (it), he was sore amazed ; and he laid hands on the men ™ that came to destroy "him ™, and slew” them ; ° for he perceived that they were seeking to destroy him®.
23 And the rest of the acts of John, and of his wars, and of his valiant deeds °which he did°, and of
24 the building of the walls which he built, and of his (other) deeds, behold they are written in the chronicles of his high-priesthood, from the time that he was made high-priest after his father.
23. acts. Lit. ‘words’, but the Hebr. word 127 means ‘act’ as well; cp. 2 Sam. xi. 18 ἀπήγγειλε τῷ βασιλεῖ Δαβὶδ
πάντας τοὺς λύγους τοῦ πολέμου. ' f :
the building of the walls. i.e. the walls of Jerusalem which had been broken down by Antiochus VII Sidetes (Josephus, Az/7g. XIII. viii. 3).
24. in the chronicles. ἐπὶ βιβλίου ἡμερῶν ; cp. the Hebrew name of the Books of Chronicles, O%'7 737, lit. ‘the acts of the days’.
Grimm mentions that ‘Sixtus Senensis (4/ddéotheca sancta, lib. i, p. 39) declares that he saw in the library of Santes Pagninus in Lyons the manuscript of a very hebraic Greek book of the Maccabees, which embraced the history of thirty-one years (according to Josephus, Av/7g. XIII. x. 7, Hyrcanus reigned this number of years), and — which began with the words, καὶ pera τὸ ἀποκτανθῆναι τὸν Σίμωνα ἐγενήθη ᾿Ιωάννης ὁ vids αὐτοῦ ἱερεὺς ἀντ᾽ αὐτοῦ ; a book which, according to this description, must either have contained the chronicles here mentioned, or have been, at any rate, one which contained their substance. Unfortunately, soon after Sixtus Senensis had given this news to the world, the library in question was destroyed by fire’. Schiirer (of. cét. ii. 3, p. 14) says regarding this manuscript : ‘Judging from the enumeration of the contents as given by Sixtus, this book simply narrates the history of John Hyrcanus, and precisely as in Josephus (the same facts and in the same order). With regard to this he himself observes: “ Hisforiae series et narratio eadem fere est quae apud Iosephum libro Antiquitatum decimo tertio; sed Stylus, hebraicis idiotismis abundans, longe dispar.” Consequently he ventures to conjecture that it may have been a Greek translation of the history of Hyrcanus mentioned at the end of the First Book of the Maccabees. Many modern writers have concurred in this conjecture. . . . But in view of the enumeration of the contents given by Sixtus, it seems to me there can hardly be a doubt that the book was simply a reproduction of Josephus, the style — being changed perhaps for a purpose.’
Vie sEe@NDEBOOK OF MACCABEES
§ 1. CONTENTS AND CHARACTERISTICS.
2 MACCABEES is the anonymous ἐπιτομή (ii.26,28) or digest of an earlier Maccabaean history which had been composed by a Hellenistic Jew called Jason of Cyrene. The writer condensed Jason’s five books into one. It is unnecessary to hold that his statements to this effect are simply a literary device, as though he were a Jewish Defoe who thus attempted to gain the fictitious authority of age for his own composition (so e.g. Kosters in Theolog. Tiydschrift, 1878, 491 f., and Kamphausen). Had this been the case, the contents would have been more of a unity than they are, and the lacunae would have been fewer. Besides, more than once, the style (e. g. in xiii. 22 f.) suddenly corresponds to that of an historian who is hurriedly compressing as well as popularizing some earlier source. Upon the whole the materials, the contents, and the style of the book answer fairly to the writer’s account of his own method and aims (in ii. 19-32, vi. 12-17, xv. 37-9). His work is an abridgement and at the same time more than an abridgement. He must have omitted large sections of Jason’s treatise and summarized even what he took over, but, instead of preserving invariably either the language or the shape of his selections, he embellished the former to suit the popular taste and enlarged the latter, for the sake of edification, with pious amplifications of the miraculous element.
The outline of the epitome is thus characterized by a unity of religious feeling, rather than by any historical sequence. The introductory documents of i. 1-ii. 18, containing two letters, are followed by a naive preface (ii. 19-32), after which the epitome proper begins, with five successive pauses (ili. 40, vii. 42, x. 9, xiii. 26, xv. 37, perhaps after Jason). The only formal interruption is a short passage upon the doctrine of retribution as the clue to Jewish history (vi. 12-17). Judas Maccabaeus comes on the scene in v. 27, and, once his story is resumed (in viii. 1 f.), it runs on to the end, the only digression being the highly-coloured tale of Antiochus’ death (ix. 1-29 ; x. 1-8 resumes the narrative dropped at viii. 33). The epilogue (xv. 37-9) echoes the prologue. Indeed the aim of even the prefixed letters corresponds to the general purpose of the book, which is to magnify the two festivals of the Hanukka and Nicanor’s day,' as the ceremonial glories which recall the heroism of Judas Maccabaeus.?
2 Maccabees is nota sequel to 1 Maccabees. It is, in Luther’s words,’ @ second book upon the Maccabaean struggle, not zie second book. As the period of its narrative (175-161 B.C.) coincides with part of 1 Maccabees, a comparison of the two books might be expected therefore to clear up the problem of their relative value, and furnish a standard for valuating the second. To some extent this expectation is realized. But critical opinion has swayed curiously between an undue deprecia- , tion of 2 Maccabees as an historical document and an exaggerated claim on its behalf. The former tendency is represented by modern critics like Willrich and (especially) Kosters ; the latter by Niese (Kritik der beiden Makkabaerbiicher, 1900), who not only succeeds in vindicating the trustworthiness of the book at several points, but attempts to prove that it is older and more authentic than 1 Maccabees—an attempt which has failed to carry conviction (cp. e.g. the articles of Lévi in Revue des études juives, 1901, 222-30, Abrahams in Few2sh Quarterly Review, 1901, 508-19, Kamphausen in Theolog. Literaturzettung, 1901, 287-g0, and Wellhausen in Nachrichten der kgl. Gesellsch. d. Wiss. zu Gottingen, 1905, pp. 117-63). The parallel narratives of the two books are as follow :—
1 On the improbability of any connexion between the Purim festival of the book of Esther and Nicanor’s day see L. B. Paton’s ‘Esther’ (Zztern. Crit. Comm.), pp. 78 f. 2 Cp. Hochfeld in ZA TW, 1902, pp. 264-84, who emphasizes, after Geiger, the Pharisaic interests and methods of the writer. 8 ‘Man wolt es denn heissen ein anders buch und nicht das ander buch Maccabeorum, alium vel alienum scilicet non secundum,’
1 MACCABEES
1 Macc. Accession of Antiochus Epiphanes : i. ro.
Gymnasium, &c., introduced in Jerusalem : i, 11- 15.
Expedition of Antiochus against Egypt : 1. 16-19.
Antiochus plunders Jerusalem: i. 20-8.
His royal commissioner completes secularization of Jerusalem: 1. 29 f. ἧς
The Maccabees leave Jerusalem: 11. τ f.
Hellenizing decree of Antiochus brought by messengers to Jerusalem: temple profaned and pagan customs established: i. 41-59. ;
Jewish mothers and their children? killed: 1. 60-1.
Jews massacred for keeping sabbath: 1. 29-38. ἣ
Jews martyred for refusing to eat swine’s flesh: 1.
Mattathias and his sons refuse to sacrifice: 11. 15--26. Mattathias organizes a revolt: 11. 27 f.
Judas Maccabaeus succeeds Mattathias : ii. 49-70. Successful revolt of Judas: ili. 1-9.
He defeats Apollonius and Seron: ii. 10-26.
Lysias commissioned by Antiochus to exterminate the Jews : iil. 27 f. ἢ Lysias commissions Ptolemaeus, Nicanor, and Gorgias
to devastate Judaea: ii. 38 f. Slave-dealers join expedition : iii. 41. Mustering of Jews : iil. 42-60. Withdrawal of some: ill. 55-6. Defeat of Gorgias: iv. 1-25.
Defeat of Lysias*: iv. 26-35. Entry into Jerusalem : iv. 36-7.
Purification of temple: iv. 38-51. Celebration of Hanukka-feast : iv. 52-61.
Judas subdues Idumaeans, Baeanites, Ammonites under Timotheus: v. 1-8.
Judas subdues pagans under Timotheus in Gilead,
Gorgias defeats Joseph and Azarias outside Jamnia :
2 Macc.
iv. 7: accession of Antiochus Epiphanes,
iv. 7-8: sacerdotal intrigues of Jason.
iv. 9-17: gymnasium, &c., introduced in Jerusalem. iv. 18-22: fresh intrigues of Jason.
ν. 23-50: high-priesthood of Menelaus.
vy. 1: expedition’ of Antiochus against Egypt.
ν. 2-10: intrigues and death of Jason.
y. 11-21: Antiochus plunders Jerusalem.
y. 22 f.: Apollonius, his deputy, completes the work.
ν. 27: Judas Maccabaeus and his followers leave
vi. 1-9: Athenian commissioner of Antiochus has temple profaned and pagan customs established.
vi. 10: two Jewish mothers and their children* killed.
vi. 11: Jews burnt for keeping sabbath. ~
vi. 18-31: Eleazar martyred for refusing to eat swine’s flesh.
vii. 1-42: mother and seven sons martyred for refusing to eat swine’s flesh.’
viii. 1-7 : successful revolt of Judas.
viii. 8 f.: Ptolemaeus, Nicanor, and Gorgias commissioned to devastate Judaea.
Vili. 10-11: slave-dealers join expedition.
Vili. 12-23@: mustering of Jews.
viii. 12 f.: withdrawal of some.
viii. 234-29: defeat of Nicanor. viii. 30: defeat of Timotheus and Bacchides.
viil. 31 f.: entry into Jerusalem.
ix. 1-28: miserable death of Antiochus.
x. I-5: purification of temple.
.5f.: celebration of Hanukka-feast.
. 9-11: accession of Antiochus Eupator.
15f.: Judas® defeats Idumaeans, Timotheus, &c.
ΚΕ ΕΣ
1 This invasion of Egypt by Antiochus is not ‘second’ to the preliminary march south in iv. 21 (Bevan, House of Seleucus, ii. 297-8), but the second of the campaigns against Egypt (cp. Dan. xi. 25 f., which agrees better with 1 Maccabees), the first of which (170 B.C.) was really followed by the attack upon Jerusalem.
2 The question of circumcision.
The earliest martyrology— an important tradition preserved by Jason, though the presence of the king at the tortures, even if the scene is transferred from Jerusalem to Antioch, is dramatic rather than historical. 4 The epitomist (xi. I-12) not only transfers this to the next reign but embellishes it in order to glorify the
success of Judas.
On the other hand, he dates the death of Antiochus too early. Whether the one error led to the
other, and, if so, which was primary, it is impossible to determine. ° These wars on the neighbours of the Jews may have lasted longer than 1 Maccabees implies, and it is even probable that some details which the epitomist has supplied in xii. 1 f. are to be credited, but Niese (pp. 55-60) is not
justified in proceeding to set aside the fact that they began before the death of Antiochus.
At his death the king had
only heard (1 Macc. vi..5-8) of the Jewish rebellion as recorded up to iv. 61, but this does not imply that the Jews
had not already embroiled themselves with the surrounding tribes. of these tribes 15 perfectly natural, and is not to be explained as a mere unhistorical echo of Neh. iv. 1.
The motive assigned in 1 Macc. v. 1 for the rising
1 Macc. 2 Macc.
Judas subdues Edomites and Philistines : v. 63-8. Miserable death of Antiochus: vi. 1-16. Accession of Antiochus Eupator: vi: 17: Judas attacks citadel of Jerusalem: vi. 18 f. xl. 1-12: defeat of Lysias. xi. 13 f.: Lysias arranges terms of peace. xi. rf.: Judas punishes Joppa and Jamnia, &c., defeats pagans under Timotheus' in Gilead, &c.
Lysias and Eupator invade Judaea: vi. 28-54. xii. tf. : Lysias and Eupator invade Judaea.?
Lysias concludes a treaty of peace: vi. 55-63. xill. 22 f.: treaty of peace.
Accession of Demetrius I: vii. 1-4. xiv. r-2: accession of Demetrius I.
Alcimus installed high-priest by Bacchides: vil. 5—22. | xiv. 3f.: Alcimus to be re-instated high-priest by Nicanor.®
Nicanor’s mission, attempt to seize Judas by treachery, | xiv. 15—xv. 35: Nicanor’s mission, friendliness to
threats against temple, defeat and death : vii. 23—47. Judas, attempt to seize him, threats against temple,
defeat and death.
Institution of feast: vil. 48-50. xv. 36: institution of feast.
A broad survey of the two documents puts it beyond reasonable doubt that upon religious questions like the resurrection of the body (e.g. vii. 11, xiv. 46) and the prohibition of warfare on the sabbath (viii. 27, xv. 1 ἢ), 1 Maccabees is decidedly more primitive than 2 Maccabees. It is probably the latter interest, among other things, which led the anti-Hasmonean epitomist to omit all reference to Mattathias (cp. 1 Macc. ii. 39 f.; also ii. 49 with its absence of any allusion to the resurrection). Niese (pp. 45 f.) attempts to turn the force of this argument against the accuracy and impartiality of 2 Maccabees by ascribing the introduction and prominence of Mattathias in 1 Maccabees to tendency—i.e. to the desire of glorifying the later Hasmoneans through Simon his son. But the probabilities are against this theory. It is incredible that Jewish traditions went wrong in glorifying the rdle of Mattathias; ‘the Rabbinic tradition (which is independent of both books of the Maccabees) recognized Mattathias as the principal figure in the struggle for religious liberty’ (Abrahams, of. c7¢. 516), and this consideration corroborates the impression that it is the omission of Mattathias in the epitome, not his rdle in 1 Maccabees, which is secondary.
The chronological disorder of 2 Maccabees, as has been already noted, further tells against the hypothesis of its superiority to 1 Maccabees. The first part of the epitome closes with the feast of the purification (x. 1-8), the second with the feast of Nicanor’s day (xv. 36). The former feast is apparently ὁ dated after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes; but there is really no sound reason for doubting that 1 Maccabees has preserved the correct tradition in the reverse order of these events (iv. 36 f., vi. 1 f.) as well as in its description of the manner in which Antiochus died, while the entire account of Lysias’ subsequent actions (in 2 Macc. xi. 1 f.) shows that the writer, or the sources on which he relied, must have confused the two defeats of Lysias. It is not possible, with Niese, to establish the historical inferiority of 1 Maccabees on the basis of these incidents.
The historicity of the Roman correspondence in xi. 34 f. is also supposed to be corroborated not only by the fact that, in keeping with contemporary usage, the cognomen is omitted (Niese, 31), but by the likelihood that the Romans would no more hesitate to negotiate with the Jews against Demetrius at this juncture than they hesitated to deal with Timarchus who was in arms against the same opponent (Diod. Sic. xxxi. 27 a; cp. Niese 63 f., 88 f., and, for a more cautious statement, Laqueur, op. cit., pp. 30f.). Still, these considerations do not amount to more than the possibility that such documents (as e.g. the letters from Antiochus III in Josephus, Av/ig. XII. iii) were composed at an early period by some Alexandrian writer who possessed good knowledge of the situation. At most they may reflect an historical nucleus, but in their present form the epistles of xi. 16 f. are almost certainly manufactured documents, like those in i-ii.
Here, as elsewhere, Niese’s arguments and researches prove that the sources (i. 6. especially Jason) used by the epitomist evince a knowledge of the age which is hardly likely to have been possessed
1 An instance of the compiler’s carelessness: he had already killed Timotheus (x. 37).
2 Even Niese (pp. 76 f.) admits that 1 Maccabees at this point is plainly superior to the self-contradictions and patriotic evasions of 2 Maccabees. It is the inferior character of xi1 f. which has led some critics (from Grotius onwards) to suspect that Jason is no longer used.
3 2 Maccabees, fusing the missions of Bacchides and Nicanor, obliterates the real course of events, but gives a not incredible account of the latter’s policy and temper. ;
4 Laqueur (Kritische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Makkabderbuch, 1904, pp. 30f.), arguing that the Antiochus of xi. 22 f. was originally Antiochus Epiphanes, not Antiochus V, proposes to transfer x. 1-8 and xi to their true position before viii. 30f. But this is a tows de force of criticism.
1 MACCABEES
by a Jewish writer after the second century B.C. There are vivid touches which are more than circumstantial, and independent notices which point upon the whole to the information of eyewitnesses and contemporaries behind some of Jason’s narratives. Upon the other hand, 2 Maccabees exaggerates numbers generally (cp. e. g. xiv. 1 with 1 Macc. vii. 1) and horrors invariably, abounds in confused and contradictory notices (cp. e.g. on i. 17, ix. 18, xi. 5.) ΧΗ. 23), and is repeatedly unhistorical (see on iv. 21, ix. 2, 9, X. 11, xiii. 22, xv. 33), besides containing some references (e. g. to the vicarious suffering of the martyrs, vi. 28, and to sacrifices for the dead, xii. 43) which at any rate suggest that it is less primitive than its predecessor.!| The result is that Niese must be pronounced more successful in establishing afresh the historicity of some details which are peculiar to 2 Maccabees, in opposition to ultra-scepticism, than in depreciating 1 Maccabees in favour of the general trustworthiness of the epitome. The epitomist, in fact, has the artistic temperament as well as the pious aim of edification ; on both grounds he is naturally careless of the exact accuracy which an historian pursues, and satisfied if he can produce his effects in a picturesque manner. The relative position of the two Maccabaean books may be, therefore, summed up in Wellhausen’s verdict (Geschichte*, p. 246): ‘ Niese’s criticism of the two Maccabean books has taught me a great deal, but it has not convinced me that the second book is older than the first and that it deserves preference. ... We must not indeed look at everything through the spectacles of the first book. Nevertheless we have no alternative but to make it our basis.’
§ 2. MSS. AND VERSIONS.
Second ? Maccabees (Μακκαβαίων B, Machabaeorum liber secundus), like 1 Maccabees, is preserved in A and V, as well as in a number of minuscules. Probably owing to the influence of Athanasius, who objected to the Maccabaean books, it was omitted from the Ethiopic version (Rahlfs, ZA7 IV, 1908, pp. 63-4). The Syriac version is paraphrastic and of less value than in the case of 1 Maccabees. On the other hand, in addition to the pre-Hieronymian Old Latin or Vulgate version, there is a version reproduced in Codex Ambrosianus E 76 inf. (cp. A. Peyron’s Ciceronis orationum pro Scauro, pro Tullio et in Clodium fragmenta inedita, 1824, pp. 73-117), and yet another in Codex Complutensis (cp. 5. Berger’s Notices et Extraits de la Bibliotheque Nationale, 1895, pp. 147-52). Four fragments 1902, 184-211, ‘Frammenti Urbinati d’ un’ antica versione latina del libro Π de’ Maccabei editi ed illustrati’) seem to be connected with the Peyron-text ; iii. 13-iv. 4 and iv. 10-14, which also occur in a fragmentary Breslau MS. (eighth or ninth century), are now published by W. Molsdorf in ZA TW (1904, pp. 240-50). It is thus from the Latin versions, as representing varied types, that most help is to be gained in the determination of the text. Still, the extant Greek text has been so badly preserved at certain points, that neither the aid of the versions nor of conjecture is sufficient to yield any sure confidence that we can have a text before us which approximates to the original.
The date of the epitome, and inferentially of Jason, cannot be fixed except within approximate limits. It has indeed been argued by Niese (see below) that, as i. 1-ii. 18 represent a composition of the author in 125-124 B.C. (i. 7, 10a), this will date the entire epitome. But the integrity of the introductory section must be abandoned (see below) ; i. 10 a only dates (or professes to date) the particular letter to which it is appended; and, even on Niese’s showing, the loose connexion between the introduction and ii. 19 f. would invalidate any argument from the date of the former to that of the latter. Furthermore, even supposing that 1 Macc. xvi. 23-4 formed part of the original work, these verses do not necessarily presuppose a date subsequent to the death of Hyrcanus (cp. Torrey in Ency. Bib. 2859 f., as against Niese on the one hand and Destinon, Wellhausen, and Abrahams on the other), so that 1 Maccabees need not be assigned to a period (after 104 B.C.) subsequent to the supposed date of the epitome (when the latter, or its source, is placed shortly after the last event which it records). The utmost that can be said, with any degree of certainty, as opposed to Niese on the one hand and to Willrich (¥zdazca, 1900, pp- 131 f.) on the other, is that the zerminus ad quem is fixed by the use of 2 Maccabees not only in Fourth Maccabees and the Epistle to the Hebrews (especially xi. 35 6) but in Philo (quod omnis probus liber, § τ 3), while the zerminus a quo for its source is 161 B.C., the date of Nicanor’s defeat by Judas (xv. 1-36)—although, if xv. 36 is an
Lee arisaic < I τ δὰ" - - The Pharisaic author of 2 Maccabees may scatter angel appearances and surprising wonders over his romantic
work. But the pious contemporaries . . . of the Maccabean brethren were content with the providential wonders of history’ (Cheyne, Origin of Psalter, 344 f.).
The first occurrence of the title is in Eus. Praep. Euangel, viii. 9 ἡ δευτέρα τῶν Μακκαβαίων.
allusion to the book of Esther (ix. 21), the source of the epitome can hardly have been written earlier than c. 130 B.C., while the epitome itself must be later than 125 B.C. Jason’s work may be dated, therefore, roughly after 130 B. C.; the epitome probably falls not later than the first half of the first century B.C. The internal evidence, as compared with that of 1 Maccabees, offers remarkably few reliable clues to its distance from the period of its subject. The predilection for the supernatural in the shape of apparitions (ἐπιφάνειαι, ii. 21), prodigies, and visions, vouchsafed from heaven to its favourites in need, is neither unexampled in Greek historians—indeed the apparition of the two youths (iii. 6 f.) recalls the cult of the Dioscuri—nor is it necessarily any proof of late composition. Legends spring up early on such soil, especially at some distance from the scene, and popular tales of the miraculous (so far as they go back to the sources) may be contemporaneous in the main with the events which they embellish (cp. Niese, pp. 34f.). But the matter-of-fact air which pervades 1 Maccabees, in spite of its tendencies and omissions, invests it with superiority as an historical document to 2 Maccabees, and superiority here is practically equivalent to priority.
There is no obvious reason for conjecturing (so e.g. Kosters recently) that the latter is deliberately and primarily an attack on the former, although there is perhaps as little for suspecting that the epitomist (not Jason) was not familiar with the earlier document.! In any case, he had a fine, if uncritical, enthusiasm for the heroes (private as well as public) and the principles of the Maccabaean rising; more specifically, as his pages prove, he was an Alexandrian Jew, a rhetorical adherent of the Pharisees, who wrote, probably during the third or fourth generation afterwards, in order to foster reverence for the temple in Jerusalem and also strictness in the observance of the Maccabaean festivals as a bond of union between the Jews of Palestine and Egypt. If the anti-Hasmonean bias of the book is emphasized, a more precise ferminus a quo for its composition might be found ς. 106 B.C., when the Pharisees broke with the Hasmoneans (so Hochfeld). But this is not inevitable; 2 Maccabees might have been compiled shortly before that date, under stress of the growing antagonism, as naturally as after it.
§ 4. INTEGRITY AND COMPOSITE NATURE OF THE TEXT.
5 Maccabees, says Luther in his brief preface, appears to be ‘zusammen geflickt aus vielen biichern’. This is evident (a) in i. 1-ii. 18, where some critics, like Gratz (‘Das Sendschreiben der Palastiner an die agyptisch-judaéischen Gemeinden wegen der Feier der Tempelweihe’, in Monatsschrift fiir Geschichte und Wiss. des Fudentums, 1877, pp. 1-16, 49-72), N. Briill (‘ Das Sendschreiben der Palastiner an die Alexandriner’, in Yakrbiicher fiir jiidische Geschichte und Literatur, 1887, pp. 30-40), and B. Niese (of. cz¢. pp. 1of.), have contended that there is only one letter, opening properly at i. 10 after the introductory preface of i. 1-9, while others, e.g. Bruston (Zeitschrift fiir die alttest. Wissenschaft, 1890, pp. 110 f.), Willrich (Fuden und Griechen vor der makkab. Erhebung, 1895, pp. 76f.),and Laqueur (of. cit. pp. 52 f.), have detected no fewer than three (in i. 1-7 a, 7 b-10a, 10b-ii. 18) ; the majority, however, rightly distinguish only two, in i, 1--ἸῸ ἃ and i. 10 b-ii. 18, although opinion is still seriously divided upon the precise extent, date, and trustworthiness of both (cp. generally the older pamphlets by F. Schliinkes: /frstezlae quae secundo Machabaeorum libro cap. 7. vv 1-9 legitur explicatio, 1844, Difficiliorum epistulae quae 77 Mach, 1. 10 ad 77]. 18 legitur locorum explicatio, 1847, with Kosters’ essay in Zheol. Tijdschrift, 1898, 68 f., C. Torrey’s article in Zeztschrift fiir die alttestam. Wissenschaft, 1900, pp. 225-42, and H. Herkenne’s full monograph, in Bardenhewer’s Biblische Studien, viii. 4,0n Die Briefe zu Beginn des Zweiten Makkabéerbuches, 1904). It is fair to start from the likelihood that, just as in xi. 21, 33. 38, the date of the first letter is placed at the end (i. 10a). The date in ver. 6 (i. 6. 144-143 B.C.) refers to a previous communication, to which the writer (or editor) awkwardly refers in order to lend verisimilitude to his present production as one item of a correspondence between the Palestinian and Egyptian Jews. The date assigned to this later epistle is 124 B.C. Those who join i. 10a to the following letter are involved in the double awkwardness not only of beginning the letter with the date but of placing a full stop after ὑμῖν in i. 7 (so Torrey), or else (cp. D. M. Sluys, De AZacchabaeorum libris I et 77 quaestiones, 1904, pp. 1-79) of taking i. 2-6 as aninterpolation. The second letter apparently comes from a different source; it is undated, except generally after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, and the writers precede the receivers in the address (i. 10 b,c). But the object is the same (i. 18a, ii. 16f. =i. g)—to bring out the historical and religious significance of the Maccabaean feast of the Hanukka. Both epistles, as they stand, are specimens of the Alexandrian epistolography which was fond of producing such documents for purpose of edification. At the same time, the language of i. 18 ἃ (μέλλοντες ἄγειν κτλ) and of ii, 16 (μέλλοντες οὖν ἄγειν κτλ) is
1 So e.g. Montet (Zssad sur les Origines des Partis Saducéen et Pharisien, 1883, pp. 13 f.).
a watermark of interpolation, the intervening paragraphs being a legendary insertion based on the ©
tradition of x. 3 and perhaps on Epist. Jerem. 4-6. The retrospective allusion to Judas in ii. 14 is incompatible with the position assigned him in i. 10b, but it fits in with the aim of setting Judas within the great succession of Moses, Solomon, Jeremiah, and Nehemiah ; he ranks with Nehemiah as a collector of the sacred scriptures, and with the others as a transmitter of the holy fire which was essential to the sacrifices of the temple.
Whether authentic or not, these letters did not belong to the Jason-source, as the position of the preface (ii. 19-32) and the discrepancy between the two accounts of the death of Antiochus (i. 12 ἢ, and ix. rf.) are enough to show, but there is scarcely sufficient evidence to indicate decisively whether both came from the same pen, and if so, whether it was the pen of the epitomist or of another. As the insertion (i. 18 b—ii. 15) is in all likelihood his own work, the two letters which form the framework may have been found by him in some other source and prefixed to his abridgement proper, instead of being placed chronologically in the narrative. It isa further question whether he translated one (the second, according to Ewald’s History of the Fews, Eng. Tr. v, pp. 467 f.; the first, according to Schliinkes) or both (so e.g. Gratz, Brill, and Torrey) from the original Hebrew (Aramaic). Upon the whole, it seems difficult to give a satisfactory answer in the negative, with any positive evidence, to such a query, although the rest of the book was undoubtedly written in Greek (‘Machabacorum .. . secundus Graecus est; quod ex ipsa quoque φράσει probari potest’, Jerome’s Prologus Galeatus).
(2) This opens up the intricate problem of the sources which lay before the epitomist. Without refusing to deny that he had access to a Jason-source, we may conjecture that not only in i. 1—-ii. 18 but in the body of the epitome (e.g. x. 32 f. and xii. 2 f.) he occasionally employed traditions and even documents from other quarters,’ e.g. (i. 10) from the famous Alexandrian Jew Aristobulus (cp. Schiirer’s Geschichte, iii, pp. 512 f.). The conjecture, however, cannot be worked out with any approach to definiteness. Biichler, in his important Dze Tobiaden uw. die Oniaden im Il Makkabéerbuche, &c. (1899), pp. 277 f., 396-8, and Laqueur (of. cit. pp. 72-87) have recently elaborated precise theories of the use made respectively of Jason and of a supposed second source, involving frequent transpositions of material. The patent variations of style may lend some colour to the hypothesis that Jason is specially employed e.g. in viii. 1 f., and that throughout the writer is often an interpolator (e.g. in iii—v, cf. Biichler, pp. 277 f.) as well as an epitomizer. But as the available data (even e. g. in iv. 5-6 and viii. 20) are purely internal, they seldom enable us to check such theories, and the possibility—amounting to a probability—that Jason’s large work already contained a variety of oral traditions counterbalances any attempt to run literary analysis into a confident scheme of results. Unfortunately we possess no independent clue to the character and scope of Jason’s treatise. While the second book of τὰ Μακκαβαϊκά is an abridgement, it is not on the same footing as e.g. the feriochae of the lost books of Livy. 2 Maccabees is neither a bare synopsis nor the summary of a summary; it is a literary composition, whose materials were selected from the original work of Jason. The latter’s work has not survived, however, and even his personality is in dispute. He has been precariously identified (Herzfeld: Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 1855, 445 f.) with the Jason of 1 Macc. viii. 17 (= the Judas* of 2 Macc. i. 10, ii. 14), and even more arbitrarily his Jewish nature has been denied (Sluys, of. c¢¢. pp. 74f.). The name (lacwy Κυρηναιος) has been found in an Egyptian temple of Thothmes III (cp. Sayce in Revue des études grecques, 1894, p. 297), apparently dating from the third century B.C., but, while this does not necessarily tell against a Jew, the individual need not, on the other hand, be the author of the epitomist’s source. His connexion with Cyrene would suggest a more accurate knowledge of Palestinian sites and affairs than the epitome reveals ; its references to the latter are less reliable than in the case of the Syrian realm.
§ 5. AUTHORSHIP. While the relation of the book to 1 Maccabees resembles on the whole that of the books
of Chronicles to the books of Kings, in so far as a definitely religious pragmatism controls the
epitomist, the affinities of the latter are with the Pharisaic type of Jewish piety. He lays emphasis e.g. upon legal praxis, the divine providence, recompense, the temple cultus, the sabbath, angels, and the resurrection. The last-named feature is bound up with the martyr-stories (cpp. vi—vii) which have floated the book into wide popularity throughout Christianity as well as throughout Judaism. They are told with a detailed ghastliness which jars on modern taste. Probably ‘the
3 It is impossible to ascertain whether an extra-Biblical touch like viii. 19 f. was due to the author or to Jason. 2. Attempts have often been made to identify this Judas not with Judas Maccabaeus but with some other Judas (so e.g. Ewald and Niese), or to emend the text into τῶν Ἰουδαίων or Ἰουδαίας (Syr., so e.g. Torrey), or Ἰούδας Ἀριστόβουλος ‘Ovia (Sluys), but in vain (cp. Grimm 36-7, Herkenne 65).
stories had already clothed themselves for the writer in a halo of legend, and he tricks them out in that poor rhetoric, that stifled literary jargon, which was the curse of third-rate authors in the Hellenistic world ; but if you can penetrate through this repellent medium, you can still touch an anguish that was once real and quivering’ (E. Bevan, Ferusalem under the High Priests, 1904, p. 83). The anonymous author belongs to Alexandrian rather than to Palestinian Judaism, but beyond this general inference it is not possible to pass with any confidence to theories, for example, like the ingenious but unconvincing guess of Biichler (of. c7¢, pp. 396 f.), that the author or final editor was a Hellenistic Jew who reversed the polemic of the original (written by a Samaritan in Egypt) against the temple in Jerusalem.
§ 6, INFLUENCE ON LATER LITERATURE.
(a) The use of 2 Maccabees in Philo’ and in 4 Maccabees (see above, § 3) is clearer than the evidence for Josephus’ acquaintance with it; none of the latter's relevant passages (Av‘ig. XII. v. 1 makes such a conjecture necessary. More is to be said for the hypothesis that the epitome is narratives of the martyrs in especial led to haggadic developments in Jewish literature (cp. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vortrage der Fuden, pp. 130 f.), and also (4) in early Christianity where the Maccabaean martyrs were eventually canonized? and accorded a yearly festival (August Ist) in the Greek and Latin churches (cp. Maas in Wonatsschrift fiir Geschichte u. Wiss. des Fudenthums, 1900, pp. 145-56). This tallies with the early and widespread diffusion of the book, from the period of the epistle to the Hebrews down to Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Origen, Chrysostom, and Jerome. Portions of it are read in the Roman Breviary (for October).
The later popularity of 2 Maccabees is due as much to the support found in it by the Roman Church for dogmas like prayers for the dead (xii. 43, 45) and the intercession of the saints (xv. 11-16) as to the martyr-stories or the miraculous and legendary incidents (ἐπιφάνειαι). Otherwise,* the theological ideas resemble those of the Pharisaic school during the latter half of the second century B.C. The doctrine of retribution and chastening is naturally worked out with particular care (vi. 12-17). The worst punishment is to be left severely alone by God, as is the case with pagan nations ; the Jews, on the contrary, are chastened and thus prevented from lapsing into the excesses of sin which draw down upon their neighbours (individuals as well as nations) the shattering penalties of God even in this life (cp. e.g. iv. 38, v. 9-10, ix. 5-6, xiii. 4f., xv. 32f). The sufferings of the martyrs, again, although due to the sins of their nation, avail to expiate God’s just anger (vii. 33-8) on their fellows. After death, only the righteous rise, and rise with their bodies (vii. 11, 22 f., xiv. 46) to life eternal, i.e. apparently to participation in the messianic kingdom (vii. 29, 33, 37, xiv. 15) on earth. The similarity of this conception to that of Eth. En. lxxxiii—xc, where the scene of the messianic kingdom is also on earth, suggests that 2 Maccabees, in its eschatological outlook — at this point, ‘belongs essentially to the second century’ (R. H. Charles, Eschatology, 1899, p. 230). The outlook on the future, as might be expected from the nature of the subject, has nothing of the catholic hope which dominated the best of the O.T. prophets.
§ 8. SPECIAL LITERATURE.
In addition to essays and monographs already cited: (a) critical editions of text in editions of LXX by Holmes and Parsons (Vetus Testamentum Graece, v, 1827), Fritzsche (Librz Apocryphi Vet. Testam. Graece, 1871), Tischendorf (Vet. Zest. Graece, 6th ed., 1880), and H. B. Swete (Zhe Old Testament in Greek, iii, 1894); (4) annotated editions by Grotius (Axnotationes in Vet. Testamentum, 1644), Grimm (Kurzgefasstes exeget. Handbuch zu den Apocryphen des AT, 1857), Keil (Leipzig, 1857), Reuss (La Bzb/e, vii, 1879), E. C. Bissell (The Apocrypha of the O.T., 1880, New York, pp. 550-614), W. R. Churton (Canon. and Uncan. Scriptures, pp. 481 f.), Rawlinson (Speaker's Comm., 1888, London), Kamphausen (Kautzsch’s Afokryphen u. Pseudepigraphen des AT, 1901), and Knabenbauer (in Cursus sacr. s. Comment. in Vet. Test., 1908); (c) general literature, Westcott in Smith’s Dic¢. of Bible (ii. 174-8), Welte in Wetzer und Weilte’s Kirchenlexicon (viii. 418-22), André’s Les Apocryphes de ? Ancien Testament (Florence, 1903, pp. 86-115), Schiirer’s Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes* (iii, 1909, pp. 482-9), Fairweather in Hastings’ Dict. of Bible (iii. 189-92), Torrey in Encycl. Biblica (2869-79), C. F. Kent in Lsvael’s Historical and Biographical Narratives (pp. 38 f., 387 f.), Bertholet in Budde’s Geschichte d. althebriischen Literatur (pp. 345-50), and F. Bechtel in Catholic Encyclopaedia (ix. 497-8).
1 Cp. Lucius, Der Essentsmus (1881), pp. 36-9. 2 Cp. the Acts of the Christian Felicitas and her Seven Sons, a variation of the same theme. The scene of the Maccabaean martyrdom was transferred from Jerusalem to Antioch, where a basilica was erected in their honour. 5 The book’s angelology is allied to a belief in dreams (xv. 11).
THE SECOND. BOOK OF MACCABEES
J. 1-10a. Furst document.
1x To the brethren, the Jews in Egypt, greeting. The brethren, the Jews in Jerusalem and
2 throughout the land of Judaea, wish you perfect peace; yea, may God do good unto you, and
3 remember his covenant with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, his faithful servants; may he give you
4 all a heart to worship him and do his pleasure with hearty courage and a willing soul; may he give
5 you an open heart for his law and for his statutes, and make peace, and hearken to your supplica-
6 tions; may he be reconciled to you, and not forsake you in time of evil. Such, then, are our
7 prayers for you in this place. In the reign of Demetrius, in the hundred threescore and ninth year,
we the Jews have already written unto you in the extreme tribulation that came upon us during
these years, from the time that Jason and his company revolted from the holy land and the kingdom,
8 setting the porch on fire and shedding innocent blood: but we besought the Lord, and were heard ;
we offered sacrifice and made the meal offering, we lighted the lamps, and set forth the shewbread.
9.10 See that ye keep the days of the feast of tabernacles in the month Chislev. Written in the hundred fourscore and eighth year.
I. 1ob—II. 18. Second document.
They that are in Jerusalem and they that are in Judaea and the senate and Judas, unto Aristobulus, king Ptolemy’s teacher, who is also of the stock of the anointed priests, and unto the
11 Jews that are in Egypt, send greeting and health. Having been saved by God out of great perils, 12 we render great thanks, as befits us to thank One who arrayeth himself against a king. For He 13 flung away into Persia those who had arrayed themselves against the holy city. For when the leader arrived, with a force that seemed irresistible, they were cut to pieces in the temple of Nanaea by 14 the treachery of Nanaea’s priests. Antiochus, on the pretext of marrying her, came into the place, he and his Friends who were with him, that they might take a great part of the treasures by way 15 of dowry; but when the priests of the Nanaeon had set the treasures forth, and he had passed with a small company inside the wall of the precincts, they shut to the temple when Antiochus had 16 entered: then opening the secret door in the panelled ceiling, they threw stones and struck down 17 the leader, and hewing the company in pieces threw their heads to those who were outside. Blessed 18 for all things be our God who gave the impious doers for a prey. Whereas we are now about to celebrate the purification of the temple in the month Chislev, on the five and twentieth day, we
I. 7. already written, i.e. referring to some previous communication. The alternative (see J7trod. § 4) is to take the perfect (γεγράφαμεν) in the sense of the epistolary aorist (ἐγράψαμεν, ii. 16), and render: we wrzte, as if the ~ context dated the present letter.
extreme tribulation (ἐν τῇ θλίψει καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀκμῇ), i.e. that under Demetrius (see 1 Mace. xi. 53). The hendiadys et the exaggeration is too obvious to justify Herkenne’s (pp. 42-4) conjecture of ἀλκῇ (= warlike attack) for ἀκμῇ
the kingdom, i.e. the theocracy; Jason’s apostasy is described in iv. 13 f. The following words are a loose summary of the outrages subsequent to Jason’s movement, and of the restoration under Judas (1 Macc. iv. 38, 50 f.).
9. see that ye keep: i.e. in Egypt, as we do in the Holy Land; or, by sending representatives to Jerusalem. The Maccabaean festival of the temple’s reconsecration was called either τὰ ἐγκαίνια (cp. John x. 22) or 7) oxnvornyta (John vii. 2) τοῦ Χασελεύ, being celebrated for the same time and almost on the same lines (cp. 2 Macc. x. 6-7) as the feast of tabernacles, only during Chislev (December) instead of during Tisri (October).
11. arrayeth himself. Reading, with Bruston and Herkenne, παρατασσομένῳ (cp. Zech. xiv. 3, LXX) for παρατασσό- μενοι.
13. in the temple of Nanaea. i.e. the temple in Elymais of Artemis or Aphrodité (cp. Polyb. xxxi. 2 ; Josephus, Fs ix. I, and Appian. Sy7. 66) as identified with the Persian goddess Anaea (Anaitis), or of the Babylonian
ana.
14. take ... by way of dowry. For this diplomatic trick see Seneca’s Ovat. Swas. 1, where Antony agrees to marry Athené at Athens for a dowry of a thousand talents. Antiochus is said to have tried a similar device at Hierapolis in Syria.
17. gave the impious doers for a prey. In 187 B.C. Antiochus III lost his life in an attempt to plunder a shrine of Bel in the Elymaean hills, and Antiochus VII (Sidetes) perished, in 129 B.c., in battle against the Parthians ; ἡσσώμενος ἑαυτὸν ἔκτεινεν (Appian. Sy. 68). The writer of the letter may have been so barren in imagination as to have embellished the death of this king (so recently Torrey and Niese) with legendary traits drawn from the fate of Antiochus Epiphanes, but it is the latter who is (erroneously) meant.
IP MACCABEES) 1? 18—2. ἃ
deem it our duty to inform you, that you too may keep the feast of tabernacles.—Now (concerning) the fire, on the occasion of Nehemiah offering sacrifices, after he had built both the temple and the g altar (, you must know that) when our fathers were to be led into the land of Persia, the godly priests | of that time took some of the fire of the altar, and hid it secretly in the hollow of a sort of empty Jo cistern, wherein they made it sure, so that the place was unknown to all men. Well, after many | years, when it pleased God, Nehemiah was sent on a mission by the king of Persia, and he sent in quest of the fire the descendants of the priests who had hid it. When they announced that they had |: found no fire, but thick liquid, he commanded them to draw out some and bring it to him: and when | the sacrifices had been duly placed (on the altar), Nehemiah commanded the priests to sprinkle the }2 liquid both on the wood and on the sacrifices. When this was done, after some time had elapsed and the sun, formerly hidden in clouds, had shone out, there was kindled a great blaze, so that all men marvelled. And the priests offered prayer, while the sacrifice was being consumed,—priests 4. and all, Jonathan leading and the rest saying it after him,as did Nehemiah. The following was the | prayer: O Lord, Lord God, the creator of all things, who art terrible and strong and righteous and 5 merciful, who alone art King and gracious, who alone suppliest every need, who alone art righteous and almighty and eternal, thou that savest Israel out of all evil, who madest the fathers thine elect, 16 and didst sanctify them: accept this sacrifice for all thy people Israel, guard thine own Portion, }7 and consecrate it. Gather together our dispersion, set at liberty them that are in bondage among the heathen, look upon them that are despised and abhorred, and let the heathen know that thou 8/9 art our God. Torment them that oppress us and in arrogancy shamefully treat us. Plant thy | 1 people in thy holy place, even as Moses said. Then the priests sang the hymns. Now as soon as | the sacrifice was consumed, Nehemiah ordered the rest of the liquid to be poured on large stones. [2 And when this was done, a flame was kindled ; but, when the light from the altar shone over against |3it, it was extinguished. And when the matter became known, and it was told the king of the | Persians, that, in the place where the captive priests had hid the fire, there had appeared the liquid with ‘4 which Nehemiah and his company purified the sacrifice, then the king, after verifying the matter, 55 had the place made a sacred enclosure. And the king exchanged gifts with those in his favour. },6 Nehemiah and his company called this thing Nephthar, which is by interpretation, Cleansing ; but most people call it Nephthai.
1 It is also found in the records, that Jeremiah the prophet commanded them that were carried ' 2 away to take some of the fire, as has been already noted: and how that the prophet charged them | that were carried away, after giving them the law, that they should not forget the statutes of the Lord, neither be led astray in their minds, when they saw images of gold and silver, and the adorn- |} 3 ment thereof. And with other such words exhorted he them, that the law should not depart from
\4 their heart. This also was in the writing, that the prophet, being warned by God, commanded the | tabernacle and ark to accompany him, and that he went away to the mountain which Moses had
18. the feast of tabernacles. Several critics (from Schliinkes and Grimm to Kosters and Kamphausen) supply τὰς ἡμέρας before τῆς σκηνοπηγίας, while Herkenne adds rd. Something like τοῦ ἀνευρεθέντος or δοθέντος or φανέντος is usually supposed, also, to have dropped out after πυρός. But if (as the Syriac version suggests) περί is read for kat, the text may be rendered as above (so Torrey). Here the long interpolation (i. 18 b—ii. 15) begins.
built. The v. Δ οἰκονομήσας (125, so Herkenne) for οἰκοδομήσας is an attempt to get rid of the unhistorical statement about Nehemiah, whose prestige is exaggerated in another direction in 11. 13.
20. announced. The meaningless ἡμῖν (¢o ws) between διεσάφησαν and μή is rightly omitted by Rawlinson (with 64, 93, Sy7.) as the result of dittography (ησαν repeated from διεσάφησαν and then amended into ἡμῖν).
26. thine own Portion. Deut. xxxii. 9.
31. to be poured on. This involves the reading of καταχεῖν (A, vg.) for κατέχειν or κατασχεῖν, and either the addition of ἐπί (or εἰς) before λίθους or the construction of καταχεῖν with a double accusative, but there is no more satisfactory explanation of a corrupt and obscure passage.
33-5. The writer appeals to the testimony of the pagan monarch, whose respectful attitude to the phenomenon of the fire—as befitted a Persian—adds glory to this Jewish portent.
35. exchanged gifts, &c. Reading, with V, ἐχαρίζετο after ois—a naive Oriental method of expressing pleasure at some happy occurrence (cp. Esth. ix. 19, 22; Apoc. John xi. 10).
36. Nephthai. An inflammable oil, like the modern naphtha, is in the writer’s mind, but the etymology of the word is beyond recovery. The writer equates N. with καθαρισμός, and this is the point of the legend, which connects the discovery of the fiery liquid with the purification of the temple (v.18). The least improbable line of explanation ‘is that which connects the word with the Persian afar; naptar apanm was a Zend epithet for the sacred elemental water (arvduzsur), which possessed purifying qualities (cp. Benfey and Stern’s Veber die Monatsnamen einiger alter
II. 1. Legend had no scruple in transforming a prophet who was radically indifferent, if not hostile, to the ritual of the temple into a pious conservative (cp. further, xv. 14).
5 climbed to view the inheritance of God. On reaching it Jeremiah found a cavernous chamber, in “ which he placed the tabernacle, and the ark, and the altar of incense ; and he made fast the door. 6, 7 And some of his followers drew near in order to mark the road, but they could not find it. ‘ Now when Jeremiah came to know this, he blamed them, saying, Unknown shall the spot be until God 8 gather the people again together, and mercy come ; then indeed shall the Lord disclose these things, and the glory of the Lord shall be seen, even the Cloud, as in the days of Moses it was visible, and g as when Solomon prayed that the Place might be consecrated with solemn splendour. It was also τὸ narrated how he, in his wisdom, sacrificed at the consecration and completion of the temple; as Moses prayed to the Lord, and fire descended from heaven to consume the sacrifice, so Solomon also 11 prayed, and the fire descended and burned up the holocaust; [and Moses said, Because the sin 12 offering had not been eaten, it was consumed in like manner with the rest ;] and Solomon kept the eight days. : Ἶ ol These things were narrated also in the archives or memoirs of Nehemiah; as well as how he founded a library and collected the books about the kings and the prophets, and the books of David, 14 and letters of kings about sacred gifts. Even so did Judas collect for us all the writings which had 15 been scattered owing to the outbreak of war. They are still with us. So, if you need them, send , ~ some messengers to fetch them for you. 16 Seeing therefore that we are about to keep the purification, we write thus to you. You will do well, 17 then, to keep the days (of the festival). Now God, who saved all his people, and restored to all the 18 heritage, and the kingdom, and the priesthood, and the hallowing, even as he promised through the law,—in God have we hope, that he will speedily have mercy upon us, and gather us together from under the (wide) heaven to the holy place: for he did deliver us out of great evils, and did purify the place.
II. 19-32. The preface of the epitomist.
19 Now the things concerning Judas Maccabaeus and his brothers, and the purification of the great 20 temple, and the dedication of the altar, and further the wars against Antiochus Epiphanes and 21 Eupator his son, and the heavenly apparitions vouchsafed to those that vied with one another in manful deeds for the religion of the Jews—so that, in spite of their small numbers, they plundered 22 the whole country, and routed the barbarian hordes, and regained the temple renowned all the world over, and freed the city, and restored the laws which were on the verge of abolition, since the Lord 23 showed favour graciously to them: (all) this, recounted by Jason in five books, we will try to compress | 24 into asingle volume. For, in view of the flood of statistics and the difficulties presented by the mass 25 of material to those who desire to go into the narratives of the history, we have aimed at attracting those who are fond of reading, at smoothing the path for those who like to memorize their facts, and 26 at being of some service to our readers in general. As for ourselves, we have not found this selfimposed task of abridging to be a light business. On the contrary, we have sweated and sat up late 7 Over it—just as there is no lack of work for any one who has to superintend a banquet and look after the interests of others. Still, to reap the gratitude of many, we will cheerfully undertake this 28 toilsome labour; leaving the historian to investigate details, we will exert ourselves to prepare 29 an epitome upon the usual lines. For as the masterbuilder of a new house has to look after the entire edifice, while the decorator who undertakes to inlay and paint it has only to look out 30 What is suitable for embellishing the house, so, methinks, is it with us. To enter into details and 31 general discussions and elaborate researches is the business of the original historian ; on the other hand, any one who simply recasts the material must be allowed to aim at conciseness of expression and to eschew any thoroughgoing treatment of the subject. 32. Well now, let us begin the story. We have no more to add, by way of preface ; for it is truly stupid to expatiate in introducing a history and then cut short the history itself.
10. fire descended . . . sacrifice. A midrashic expansion of Lev. ix. 23-4. The Solomonic legend follows the
midrash of 2 Chron. vii. 1 in preference to 1 Kings viii. 62 f., and a precedent for the Maccabaean ceremonial is artificially found in the tradition of 1 Kings viii. 66 (2 Chron. vii. 8). The origin of the incoherent touch in verse II must have been also a midrashic paraphrase of Lev. x. 16 f. _ 13. about sacred gifts, i.e. about presents made to the temple. A specimen is preserved in Ezra vii. 12. The interest of 2 Maccabees in the temple comes out incidentally even in this allusion ; such letters are ranked alongside of the sacred scriptures in Nehemiah’s library. The next verse reflects the companion interest in the prestige of Judas Maccabaeus.
εἰ Πρ άοτεά the whole country. In the sense in which Cromwell’s troops swept over England during the
ivil War. |
27. Superintend a banquet. For the duties of the ἀρχιτρίκλινος (Ὁ) see Sir. xxii. 1-2; John ii. 8-9. |
28. exert ourselves. Reading διαπονοῦντες for ἀτονοῦντες.
Il MAGCABEES. 3. 1-25
Ill. 1-39. The miraculous discompiture of Seleucus and Heliodorus in their attack apon the temple at Ferusalem.
τι When the holy city was inhabited in unbroken peace, and the laws were kept right strictly, | 2 owing to the godliness of Onias the high-priest and his hatred of wickedness, it came to pass that | even kings themselves did honour the Place and glorify the temple with the noblest presents ; | 3so much so that Seleucus the king of Asia actually defrayed, out of his own revenues, all the expenses ᾿ 4 connected with the ritual of the sacrifices. But a certain Benjamite, Simon, who had been appointed 5 warden of the temple, fell out with the high-priest over the management of the city-market. Unable to get the better of Onias, he betook himself to Apollonius of Tarsus, then governor of Coelesyria | 6and Phoenicia, and informed him that the treasury in Jerusalem was full of such untold sums of money that the wealth of the funds was past counting; they did not belong, he said, to the 7 accounts of the sacrifices, and they could be got into the hands of the king. So when Apollonius met the king, he informed him of the money which had been mentioned to him, and the king chose his chancellor, Heliodorus, and dispatched him with orders to carry out the removal of Ἢ the aforesaid money. Heliodorus at once started on his journey, giving out that he intended to visit the cities of Coelesyria and Phoenicia, though his real object was to execute the king’s design. g On reaching Jerusalem, where he was courteously welcomed by the high-priest and the city, he submitted the information which had been given him, and explained why he had come, inquiring yo further if this information was really true. The high-priest pointed out to him that there were στ deposits belonging to widows and orphans, besides monies belonging to Hyrcanus, the son of Tobias, a man of extremely high position (by no means what that impious Simon had alleged), and that in 12 all there were four hundred talents of silver and two hundred of gold; it was utterly impossible, he added, that injury should be inflicted on those who had put their trust in the sacredness of the Place 13 and in the majesty and inviolable sanctity of the temple, honoured over all the world. Heliodorus | had his orders from the king, however, and he replied that in any case these monies must be confiscated for the king’s treasury. 4 So, having appointed a day, he went in to superintend the investigation of the treasure. And 5 there was no small distress throughout the whole city. The priests, arrayed in their priestly robes, + flung themselves before the altar,and called to heaven on him who had appointed the law regarding 16 deposits, beseeching him to preserve these treasures safe for the depositors. And no one could look at the mien of the high-priest without feeling a pang of heart. His countenance and changed colour }17 betrayed the anguish of his soul. For terror and a shuddering of the body had come over the 18 man, which plainly showed to the onlookers the grief that was at his heart. As for the people in | the houses, they flocked out with a rush to join in common supplication that the Place should not be [το dishonoured. The married women, girt under their breasts with sackcloth, thronged the streets, while the maidens who were kept in ward ran together, some to the porticoes, others to the walls, and 20 Others to look out at the windows; but all, stretching forth their hands toward heaven, made their 21 solemn supplication. One could not but pity the populace all prostrate with one accord, and the |} anxiety of the high-priest in his sore distress. |22 Meantime, however, as they were invoking the all-powerful Lord to keep the deposits safe and 3/24 sure for the depositors, Heliodorus proceeded to execute his orders. But when he and his guards |} had got as far as the front of the treasury, the Sovereign of spirits and of all authority prepared a great apparition, so that all who had presumed to enter were stricken with dismay at the power 25 of God and fainted with sheer terror. For there appeared to them a horse with a terrible rider, and
III. 4. warden of the temple. Whether this office corresponded to that of the ségan (or στρατηγὺς τοῦ ἱεροῦ) or of the γαζοφύλαξ (Josephus, Azzig. XX. iii. 11, &c.) depends largely on the meaning assigned to τῆς κατὰ τὴν πόλιν ἀγορανομίας (the v. 2. παρανομίας being an attempt to smooth out the difficulty). According to Bichler (of. cit. pp. 33 f.; cp. Bevan, House of Seleucus, 11. 163) Simon the Tobiad, as στρατηγός, was also ἀρχιερεύς in the sense that he exercised a certain political control of the temple affairs. This identification of Simon with the Simon of Josephus, Avzztiy. XII. iv. 10, is preferable to the alternative identification of Onias II (Azzzg. XII. iv. 1-10) with the Onias of 2 Macc. iii (so e.g. Schlatter, Willrich, and Guthe in Ezcycl. Biblica, 3504 f.).
5. of Tarsus. Adopting Hort’s convincing conjecture of Θαρσέα for the Θρασαίου of the MSS.
7. Heliodorus. Probably the Heliodorus of the Delian inscriptions (cp. Deissmann’s Bzéle Studies, pp. 303-7). The payment of the annual instalment of the war indemnity to Rome was one of the causes which made the government press for money in any likely quarter. Simon’s information suggested a welcome and unexpected source of revenue.
9. and. Inserting καὶ (V) after ἀρχιερέως.
11. Hyrcanus. Perhaps the Jewish Alcibiades of Josephus, Azézg. XII. iv. 2-11, whom Wellhausen sees behind
24. Sovereign of spirits. This is the same expression as Lord of spirits in I Enoch xxxvii. 2, &c.
presumed to enter. The implied insolence (cp. v. 15) is described in 1 Macc. i. 21. In the following account, the first horseman (ver. 25) seems to belong to a different tradition from that of the other two (26 f.). The latter do all the work. Similar traces of fusion occur in ix. 6f., as if the author had embroidered his source with outside matter.
it was decked in magnificent trappings, and rushing fiercely forward it struck at Heliodorus with its 26 forefect. And the rider seemed to be armed with a golden panoply. Two youths also appeared — before Heliodorus, remarkable for their strength, gloriously handsome, and splendidly arrayed, who 27 stood by him on either side, and scourged him unceasingly, inflicting on him many sore stripes. He dropped suddenly to the ground, and thick darkness wrapped him round, but (his guards) caught him 28 up and put him into a litter, and carried him away—carried him who had just entered the aforesaid treasury with a large retinue and all his guard, but who was now absolutely helpless—recognizing _ 29 Clearly the sovereign might of God. And so he had been laid prostrate, deprived of speech owing to 30 God’s strong hand, bereft of all hope and succour. But the Jews blessed the Lord who had done marvellous honour to his own place; and the temple, which a little before had been full of terror and alarm, was filled with joy and gladness, thanks to the manifestation of the all-powerful Lord. 31 Now some of Heliodorus’ intimate friends at once besought Onias to call upon the Most High, 32 and so grant life to him, as he lay quite at the last gasp. The high-priest suspected that the king might imagine the Jews had perpetrated some foul play against Heliodorus, and he offered a sacrifice 33 for the recovery of the man. But as the high-priest was offering the sacrifice of propitiation, the same young men appeared again to Heliodorus, arrayed in the same robes ; and they stood and said, Give Onias the high-priest hearty thanks, since it is for his sake that the Lord has granted thee thy life; 34 and do thou, since thou hast been scourged from heaven, publish abroad to all men the sovereign 35 majesty of God. And when they had spoken these words, they vanished out of sight. So Heliodorus offered sacrifice to the Lord and vowed very great vows to him who had preserved his life, and, after 36 taking a friendly farewell of Onias, he returned with his army to the king, testifying to all men the 37 deeds of the supreme God which he had witnessed with his own eyes. And when the king asked Heliodorus what sort of person would be suitable for another mission to Jerusalem, he said, If thou 38 hast any enemy or conspirator against the state, send him thither, and thou shalt get him back well scourged—supposing he escapes with his life ; for the Place is really haunted by some power of God. | — 39 He who dwells in heaven above has his eye upon that Place and defends it, smiting and destroying | those who approach it for ili ends. ;
III. 40o—IV. 22. Lntrigues of Simon and Fason over the high-priesthood.
42 Such was the history of Heliodorus and the preservation of the treasury. But the aforesaid | 4 ; Simon, who had informed about the money and betrayed his country, proceeded to slander Onias, | alleging that it was he who had maltreated Heliodorus and who had contrived the whole mischief. He dared to accuse of conspiracy the very man who had proved the benefactor of the city, and the guardian of his fellow-countrymen, and a zealot for the laws! And when the feud between them 3 went to such a pitch that one of Simon’s trusted followers actually committed several murders, Onias,
4 recognizing the danger of the contention, and observing that Apollonius, the son of Menestheus, as
5 governor of Coelesyria and Phoenicia, was fanning Simon’s malice, betook himself to the king—not
that he went about to accuse his fellow-citizens, but simply with a view to the good of all the people,
6 both public and private ; for he saw that, unless the king intervened and interested himself, it was
impossible for the State to be at peace, nor would Simon abandon his insensate attempt.
7 But when Seleucus died, and Antiochus, who was called Epiphanes, succeeded to the kingdom,»
8 Jason the brother of Onias supplanted his brother in the high-priesthood, promising in a petition to
9 the king three hundred and threescore talents of silver, besides eighty talents from another fund ; in
addition to which he undertook to pay a hundred and fifty more, if he was commissioned to set up, το ἃ gymnasium and ephebeum and to register the Jerusalemites as citizens of Antioch. And when the king had given his assent, Jason at once exercised his influence in order to bring over his fellow-
11 countrymen to Greek ways of life. Setting aside the royal ordinances of special favour to the Jews, obtained by John the father of Eupolemus who had gone as envoy to the Romans to secure their friendship and alliance, and seeking to overthrow the lawful modes of life, he introduced new customs }
12 forbidden by the law: he deliberately established a gymnasium under the citadel itself, and made |
ἘΣ λον.»
28. recognizing. Reading ἐπεγνωκότες, with the majority of MSS., instead of ἐπεγνωκότα.
IV. 4. Menestheus. Reading Μενεσθέως, Hort’s certain emendation of μαίνεσθαι ἕως or ὡς, Cp. ii. 21; Apollonius was naturally exasperated at the miscarriage of his little plot.
7, 8. Jason... promising, ἃς, If Josephus is correct, however, the charge of simony is undeserved ; Jason succeeded to his brother’s position, as Onias died leaving only an infant son (cp. Azéig, XII. v. 1). 9. to register . . . as citizens of Antioch. The coveted title of ‘ Antiochenes’ (cp. Schiirer, Gesch. jiid. Volkes*,
11. 166-7), i.e. ‘loyalists’ (to the Seleucid dynasty and policy), carried with it-certain privileges (cp. ver. 19). The copnaty promise (1x. 15) to confer on the Jews\the privileges of Athenian citizens is true to the Hellenistic and Athenian proclivities of Antiochus (Niese, pp. 29-30), who probably tried to atticize his Antiochene subjects.
IE MACCABEES 4. 13-35
τ the noblest of the young men wear the petasus. And to such a height did the passion for Greek | fashions rise, and the influx of foreign customs, thanks to the surpassing impiety of that godless \14 Jason—no high-priest he !—that the priests were no longer interested in the services of the altar, but despising the sanctuary, and neglecting the sacrifices, they hurried to take part in the unlawful [δ displays held in the palaestra after the quoit-throwing had been announced—thus setting at naught (6 what their fathers honoured and esteeming the glories of the Greeks above all else. Hence sore | distress befell them; the very men for whose customs they were so keen and whom they desired \17 to be like in every detail, became their foes and punished them. For it is no light matter to act impiously against the laws of God ; time will show that. 18 Now games, held every five years, were being celebrated at Tyre, in the presence of the king, 19 and the vile Jason sent sacred envoys who were citizens of Antioch to represent Jerusalem, with three hundred drachmas of silver for the sacrifice of Heracles. The very bearers, however, judged j20 that the money ought not to be spent on a sacrifice, but devoted to some other purpose, and, thanks to them, it went to fit out the triremes. 21 Now when Apollonius the son of Menestheus was sent to Egypt to attend the enthronement of king Ptolemy Philometor, Antiochus, on learning that the latter was ill-disposed to him, proceeded 22 to take precautions for the security of his realm. Thus he visited Joppa, and travelled on to Jerusalem, where he had a splendid reception from Jason and the city, and was brought in with blazing torches and acclamation. Thereafter, he and his army marched down into Phoenicia.
IV. 23-50. Jutrigues of Menelaus.
23 Nowafter a space of three years Jason sent Menelaus, the aforesaid Simon’s brother, to convey the 24 money to the king and to remind him of some matters which required attention. But Menelaus got | into favour with the king, whom he extolled with an air of impressive authority, and secured the high- 25 priesthood for himself, outbidding Jason by three hundred talents of silver. On receiving the royal mandate, he appeared in Jerusalem, possessed of no quality which entitled him to the high-priesthood, 26 but with the passions of a cruel tyrant and the rage οἵ ἃ wild beast. So Jason, who had supplanted his brother, was in turn supplanted by another man, and driven as a fugitive into the country of the }27 Ammonites. Menelaus secured the position, but he failed to pay any of the money which he had 28 promised to the king, although Sostratus the governor of the citadel demanded it. As the latter [29 was responsible for collecting the revenue, the king summoned both men before him; Menelaus left his brother Lysimachus to act as his deputy in the high-priesthood, while Sostratus left (as his deputy) Crates, the viceroy of Cyprus. 30 At this juncture, it came to pass that the citizens of Tarsus and Mallus raised an insurrection, }31 because they were to be assigned as a present to Antiochis, the king’s mistress; so the king went | off hurriedly (to Cilicia) to settle matters, leaving Andronicus, a man of high rank, to act as his 132 deputy. Then Menelaus supposed he had got a favourable opportunity, so he presented Andronicus with some golden vessels which he had stolen from the temple ;—others he had already sold to Tyre }33 and the surrounding cities. On ascertaining the truth of this, Onias sharply censured him, withdrawing 34 for safety into the sanctuary of Daphne, close to Antioch. Whereupon Menelaus took Andronicus aside and exhorted him to kill Onias. So Andronicus went to Onias, gave him pledges by guile and | also his right hand with oaths (of friendship), and persuaded him, despite his suspicions, to come out of 35 the sanctuary. He then killed him at once, regardless of justice. This made not only the Jews but
12. the petasus, i.e. a broad-brimmed felt hat, which, as the mark of Hermes, was the badge of the falaestra. The otiose ὑποτάσσων of V probably arose from dittography with the following ὑπὸ πέτασον.
16. For this idea of the punishment fitting the crime see ver. 38 (= Herod. iii. 64), v. 9-10, viii. 33, ix. 6, xiii. 8,
18. The celebration of games, in imitation of the Olympic festival and the Panathenaea, was an important part of the Hellenizing policy (cp. vi. 7). For the games held by Alexander the Great at Tyre see Arrian ii. 24. 6, iil. 6. τ.
20. thanks tothem. Reading, with V, τῶν παρακομιζόντων, instead of τῶν παρόντων.
21. Antiochus, on learning that the latter was ill-disposed, &c. Apollonius, the representative of Antiochus at the enthronement (πρωτοκλισία or πρωτοκλησία = the ἀνακλητήρια of Polybius xxvill. 12. 8, τὰ νομιζόμενα γίνεσθαι τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν ὅταν eis ἡλικίαν ἔλθωσιν) of the young Ptolemy, evidently reported to his master that a move was on foot to regain Coelesyria for Egypt. Antiochus took the initiative by concentrating his forces in Phoenicia. The writer, however, merely narrates the episode for the purpose of branding Jason’s servility. In the following episode (30-8), either he or his source must be assumed to have coloured and shaped the death of Onias from the story of prince Seleucus’ murder at the hands of Andronicus (so Willrich’s /uden und Griechen, pp. 86 f., 120f., and Wellhausen’s Geschichte’, pp. 243 f.), even though the murder of Onias is taken (as e.g. by Niese and Guthe) to be historical.
29. deputy. In the semi-technical sense of διάδοχος, the Egyptian court-title (cp. ver. 31 and xiv. 26). As Cyprus belonged to the Ptolemies, Crates can only have been viceroy of the island during the later and brief occupation by Antiochus. The phrase is therefore proleptic.
34. pledges. Reading πίστεις (62, 50 Niese) for πεισθείς, with δεξιὰς θεὶς μεθ᾽ ὅρκων, and ἀπέκτεινεν (so Niese after vg. and 3S) for παρέκλεισεν.
36 many people of other nationalities indignant and angry over the unjust murder of the man. So when the king returned from the regions of Cilicia, the Jews of the capital (with the support of the
37 Greeks who also detested the crime) complained to him about the illegal murder of Onias. Antiochus was heartily sorry about it, and was moved to pity and tears for the dead man's sober and well-
38 ordered life ; inflamed with passion, he at once had Andronicus stripped of his purple robe, and led, with rent under-garments, all round the city to the very spot where he had committed the outrage upon Onias; there he had the murderer dispatched, the Lord rendering to him the punishment he had deserved. ᾿ : ;
39 Now when many acts of sacrilege had been committed in the city by Lysimachus, with the connivance of Menelaus, the report of these spread abroad throughout the country, till the people rose against Lysimachus; for by this time a large number of gold vessels had been sold in all directions.
40 But when the people rose in a frenzy of rage, Lysimachus armed about three thousand men and took the offensive with a bold charge, led by a certain Auranus, a man well up in mad folly no less than
41 in years. On realizing that Lysimachus was attacking them, however, some of the people caught up stones, others logs of wood, and some snatched handfuls of ashes that lay near, flinging them all
42 pell-mell upon Lysimachus and his troops. In this way they wounded many, felled some to the ground, and routed the whole band, slaying the sacrilegious robber himself beside the treasury.
43,44 In connexion with this affair, proceedings were taken against Menelaus, and when the king
45 reached Tyre, three men sent by the senate laid their accusation before him. Menelaus felt that all was now over with him, but he promised a large sum of money to Ptolemy the son of Dorymenes,
46 in order to get the king talked over. So Ptolemy took the king aside into a gallery, as though to
47 get some fresh air, and induced him to change his mind, the result being that he acquitted Menelaus, who was responsible for all the trouble, and condemned to death the hapless trio, who would have
48 been discharged as innocent, even had they pled before Scythians. This unjust punishment was
49 inflicted instantly upon these spokesmen for Israel’s city and folk and sacred vessels; which moved
50 some Tyrians, who hated the crime, to provide magnificent obsequies for them. Menelaus, however, still remained in power, thanks to the covetousness of the authorities, and, waxing more and more vicious, he proved a great plotter against his fellow-citizens.
V. 1-27. Profanation of temple and oppression of Fews by Antiochus Epiphanes. —
51,2 Now about this time Antiochus made his second inroad into Egypt. And it so befell that throughout all the city of Jerusalem for almost forty days horsemen were seen charging in mid-air, 3 wearing robes inwrought with gold, armed with lances, and arrayed in troops: swords flashing, squadrons of horse in array, assaults and charges repeated from one side and another, shields shaken, spears massed together, darts hurtling to and fro, the sheen of golden trappings, and corselets of all 4 kinds. Which made all men pray that the apparition might betoken good. 5 Now a false rumour got abroad that Antiochus had died. Whereupon Jason took not less than a thousand men, and made a sudden attack on the city; the troops stationed on the walls were 6 routed, and, as the city was now practically captured, Menelaus took refuge in the citadel, while Jason proceeded to slaughter his fellow-citizens without mercy, reckless of the fact that to get any advantage over kinsfolk is the worst kind of disadvantage, and imagining to himself that he was winning 7 trophies from foes and not from fellow-countrymen. He failed to secure the place of power, however; and in the end he reaped only shame from his conspiracy, and had to pass over again as g a fugitive into the country of the Ammonites. As for the end of his wretched career—imprisoned under Aretas the Arabian prince, flying from city to city, pursued by all men, hated as an apostate from the laws, and loathed as a butcher of his country and his fellow-citizens, he was expelled into 9 Egypt. He who had driven so many into exile, died himself in exile, crossing over to the Lacedaemonians, with the idea of finding shelter there among kinsfolk. He who had flung out many
40. Auranus. The variant reading ‘Tyrannus’ (Τυράννου, V; cp. Acts xix. 9) is more likely to have arisen from 2 the uncommon Αὐράνου (A, 55, 74, 106) than vice versa. The latter, even when read as Αὐὑράνου, cannot mean ‘homo in Auranitide’, which would be Αὐρανίτιος or Αὐρανιτίτης. Nor is there any connexion between this assassin’s | name and Eleazar’s title of Avaran (Avapay) or the ‘stabber’ (?) in 1 Macc. ii. 5. s
Ν. 8. imprisoned. Owing to the compressed style of this passage, which recapitulates generally the closing adventures of Jason, the conjectural reading ἐγκληθείς (= arraigned ; so read many editors from Luther and Grotius to Grimm), instead of ἐγκλεισθείς (cp. Nestle’s Septuaginta-Studien, iv, p. 22), is plausible, but the lack of connexion in | the epitome here is enough to explain how Jason could be described as fleeing from city to city after being a prisoner. | Probably ἔτυχεν goes with ἐγκλεισθείς (cp. iv. 32), and πέρας with κακῆς ἀναστροφῆς. The easier v. ὦ. ἔλαβεν (V) enables | mepas to be taken not in an absolute construction but in close connexion with the verb. |
9. kinsfolk. Cp. 1 Macc. xii.21; Josephus, Wars, i.26.1. On the origin of the legend see Biichler, of. c7¢., pp. 126 f.
H. Winckler (A/torient. Forschungen, ii. 3. 565.) takes the Maccabaean references as editorial additions based on a misunderstanding of the original D'N2.
II MACCABEES 5. 1to—6. το
a corpse to lie unburied had none to mourn for him, nor had he a funeral of any kind or place in the j11 sepulchre of his fathers. Now when tidings of what had happened reached the king, he thought 12 Judaea was in revolt. He therefore started from Egypt in a fury, stormed the city, and commanded his soldiers to cut down without mercy any one they met, and to slay those who sheltered in their [1 houses. So there was a massacre of young and old, an extermination of boys, women, and children, [14 a slaughter of virgins and infants. In the short space of three days eighty thousand were destroyed, |15 forty thousand of them in close combat, and as many again were sold into slavery. Not content with this, he dared to enter the most holy temple on earth, under the guidance of Menelaus, who τό proved himself a traitor both to the laws and to his country ; he laid polluted hands on the sacred vessels, and swept off with his profane hands what other kings had dedicated to enhance the glory and }17 honour of the Place. Uplifted in spirit, Antiochus did not consider that it was on account of the sins of those who dwelt in the city that the Sovereign Lord was provoked to anger for a little while ; hence {18 His indifference to the Place. Had they not been involved in so many sins, this fellow would have fared like Heliodorus, who was sent by king Seleucus to pry into the treasury—he would have been 19 scourged as soon as he pressed forward, and turned back from his presumption. But the Lord did not 20 choose the nation for the sake of the Place; he chose the Place for the sake of the nation. And so | the Place, after partaking in the calamities that befell the nation, shared afterwards in its prosperity ; forsaken in the wrath of the Almighty, it was restored again in full glory when the great Sovereign became reconciled. 2: Antiochus, then, carried off from the temple eighteen hundred talents and hurried away to Antioch, thinking in his arrogance to make the land navigable and the sea passable by foot—so 22 uplifted was he in heart. He also left governors behind him to ill-treat the Jewish people: at Jerusalem, Philip, a Phrygian by race, whose disposition was more barbarous than that of his [23 master; at Gerizim, Andronicus; and, besides these, Menelaus, who lorded it worst of them all [24 over the citizens. And in malice against the Jews he sent the Mysian commander Apollonius with an | army of two and twenty thousand, under orders to slay all those that were of full age and to sell 25 the women and the younger men. This fellow, on reaching Jerusalem, played the réle of a man of peace, waiting till the holy day of the sabbath; then, finding the Jews at rest from work, he com- [26 manded his men to parade in arms, put to the sword all who came to see what was going on, and 27 rushing into the city with the armed men killed great numbers. Judas Maccabaeus, however, with | about nine others got away, and kept himself and his companions alive in the mountains, as wild beasts do, feeding on herbs, in order that they might not be polluted like the rest.
VI. 1-31.. Enforced Hellenization of the Fewws.
δὲ Shortly after this the king sent an old Athenian to compel the Jews to depart from the laws | 2 οὗ their fathers, and to cease living by the laws of God; further, the sanctuary in Jerusalem was to
be polluted and called after Zeus Olympius, while the sanctuary at Gerizim was also to be called 3 after Zeus Xenius, in keeping with the hospitable character of the inhabitants. Now this proved a sore 4 and altogether crushing visitation of evil. For the heathen filled the temple with riot and revelling,
dallying with harlots and lying with women inside the sacred precincts, besides bringing in what 5 was forbidden, while the altar was filled with abominable sacrifices which the law prohibited. And 6a man could neither keep the sabbath, nor celebrate the feasts of the fathers, nor so much as 7 confess himself to be a Jew. On the king’s birthday every month they were taken—bitter was the
necessity—to share in the sacrifice, and when the festival of the Dionysia came round they were 8 compelled to wear ivy wreaths for the procession in honour of Dionysus. On the suggestion of
Ptolemy, an edict was also issued to the neighbouring Greek cities, ordering them to treat the Jews gin the same way and force them to share in the sacrifices, slaying any who refused to adopt to Greek ways. Thus any one could see the distressful state of affairs. Two women, for example, were brought up for having circumcised their children; they were paraded round the city, with
23. And in malice against the Jews. Omitting (with V) πολίτας in ver. 23, and taking ἔχων... ἀπεχθὴ with what follows (so Grimm, and R.V. margin).
24. the Mysian commander. τὸν μυσάρχην may be either a derogatory epithet or an official title ; probably it is both. The Mysians (Μυσοί, cp. Polyb. xxxi. 3. 3) formed a special division or guard in the Seleucid armies, and the unique formation Μυσάρχης means ‘commander of the Mysians’ (cp. Κυπριάρχης, Xil. 2 = ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν Κυπρίων, for the form, though μυσιάρχης would mean ‘governor of Mysia’). But the ill-repute of the Mysians (Μυσῶν ἔσχατος, a scoundrel) suggested a play on the term, as if it meant * detestable ringleader’.
VI. 2. Zeus Xenius. i.e. the protector of strangers or guests.
7. the king’s birthday every month. For the monthly celebration of a royal birthday see the evidence from Egypt, Commagene, and Pergamum, collected by Schiirer in Preuschen’s Zeztschrift fiir die neutestamentliche Wissen-
11 their babies hanging at their breasts, and then flung from the top of the wall. Some others, who had taken refuge in the adjoining caves in order to keep the seventh day secretly, were betrayed to Philip and all burnt together, since they scrupled to defend themselves, out of regard to the honour of that most solemn day.
12 Now I beseech the readers of this book not to be discouraged by such calamities, but to reflect
13 that our people were being punished by way of chastening and not for their destruction. For indeed it is a. mark of great kindness when the impious are not let alone for a long time, but
14 punished at once. In the case of other nations, the Sovereign Lord in his forbearance refrains from punishing them till they have filled up their sins to the full, but in our case he has deter-
15 mined otherwise, that his vengeance may not fall on us in after-days when our sins have reached
16 their height. Wherefore he never withdraweth his mercy from us; and though he chasteneth his
17 own people with calamity, he forsaketh them not. So much by way of a reminder to ourselves ; after these few words we must come back to our story.
18. Eleazar, one of the principal scribes, a man already well stricken in years and of a noble counten-
19 ance, was compelled to eat swine’s flesh. But he, welcoming death with renown rather than life
20 with pollution, advanced of his own accord to the instrument of torture, affording an example of how men should come forward who have the courage to put from them food which, even for the
21 natural love of life, they dare not taste. Now those in charge of that forbidden sacrificial feast took the man aside, for the sake of old acquaintance, and privately urged him to bring some flesh of his own providing, such as he was lawfully allowed to use, and to pretend he was really eating of the
22 sacrifice which the king had ordered, so that in this way he might escape death and be kindly treated
23 for the sake of their old friendship. But he with a high resolve, worthy of his years and of the dignity of his descent and of his grey hair reached with honour and of his noble life from childhood _ and, still more, of the holy laws divinely ordained, spoke his mind accordingly, telling them to
24 dispatch him to Hades at once. ‘It ill becomes our years to dissemble,’ said he, ‘and thus lead many younger persons to imagine that Eleazar in his nineticth year has gone over to a heathenish
25 religion. I should lead them astray by my dissimulation, for the mere sake of enjoying this brief
26 and momentary life, and I should bring stain and foul disgrace on my own old age. Even were I for the moment to evade the punishment of men, I should not escape the hands of the Almighty in
24 life or in death. Wherefore, by manfully parting with my life now, I will show myself worthy of my —_
28 old age, and leave behind me a noble example to the young of how to die willingly and nobly
29 on behalf of our reverend and holy laws. With these words he stepped forward at once to the instrument of torture, while those who a moment before had been friendly turned against him,
30 deeming his language to be that of a sheer madman. Now, just as he was expiring under the strokes of torture, he groaned out, The Lord, who hath holy knowledge, understandeth that, — although I might have been freed from death, I endure cruel pains in my body from scourging and
31 suffer this gladly in my soul, because I fear him.’ Thus he too died, leaving his death as an
example of nobility and a memorial of virtue, not only to the young but also to the great body of his nation.
VII. 1-42. Wartyrdom of seven brothers and their mother. a7
71 It also came to pass that seven brothers and their mother were arrested and shamefully lashed © with whips and scourges, by the king’s orders, that they might be forced to taste the abominable 2 swine’s flesh. But one of them spoke up for the others and said, Why question us? What wouldst 3 thou learn from us? We are prepared to die sooner than transgress the laws of our fathers. Then 4 the king, in his exasperation, ordered pans and cauldrons to be heated, and, when they were heated immediately, ordered the tongue of the speaker to be torn out, had him scalped and mutilated 5 before the eyes of his brothers and mother, and then had him put on the fire, all maimed and crippled as he was, but still alive, and set to fry inthe pan. And as the vapour from the pan spread
18. of a noble countenance, was compelled. Reading κάλλιστος τυγχάνων ἠναγκάζετο (19, 52, 62, 93, Syr.; V om. Ἴ ἀναχαίνων) with Niese and Nestle (Seft.-Studien, iv. 20).
20. affording an example. For προπτύσας δέ (= but spat out the flesh first), which comes in awkwardly, read προτυπώσας (SO One minuscule: Nestle, pp. 20-1) as above, which tallies with 27-8 better than πρωτεύσας (V2). The less natural alternative is to omit δὲ (with Niese) and read τόπον (so Grotius) for τρύπον.
23. descent. For γήρους (A) or γήρως (V) read, with Niese, γένους. The two considerations of age and race are developed in the following clauses, where ἀναστροφῆς (R.V. margin, so A, 52, 55, 62) is preferable to ἀνατροφῆς (R.V. text).
26. Cp. Heb. x. 31, xi. 35 ; also. vv. 19 and 30 with Heb. xi. 35 (ἄλλοι δὲ ἐτυμπανίσθησαν), and vii. 28 with Heb. xi. 3.
VII. 4, scalped. πΠερισκυθίσαντας refers to the practice of the Scythians, the typical savages (see above, iv. 47) and Red Indians of the ancient East, who flayed and scalped their victims (Herod. iv. 64). ;
Le MACCABEES 7. 6=36
6 abroad, they and their mother exhorted one another to die nobly, uttering these words: The Lord God beholdeth this, and truly hath compassion on us, even as Moses declared in his Song which testifieth against them to their face, saying,
And he shall have compassion on his servants.
ἡ And when the first had died after this manner, they brought the second to the shameful torture, tearing off the skin of his head with the hair and asking him, Wilt thou eat, before we punish thy
8 body limb by limb? But he answered in the language of his fathers and said to them, No. So he
g too underwent the rest of the torture, as the first had done. And when he was at the last gasp, he said, Thou cursed miscreant! Thou dost dispatch us from this life, but the King of the world shall raise
zo us up, who have died for his laws, and revive us to life everlasting. And after him the third was made
a mocking-stock. And when he was told to put out his tongue, he did so at once, stretching forth
τι his hands courageously, with the noble words, These I had from heaven; for His name’s sake
121 count them naught; from Him I hope to get them back again. So much so that the king
himself and his company were astounded at the spirit of the youth, for he thought nothing of his
13 sufferings. And when he too was dead, they tortured the fourth in the same shameful fashion.
14 And when he was near his end, he said: ’Tis meet for those who perish at men’s hands to cherish
hope divine that they shall be raised up by God again; but thou—thou shalt have no resur-
16 rection to life. Next they brought the fifth and handled him shamefully. But he looked at the
king and said, Holding authority among men, thou doest what thou wilt, poor mortal; but dream
17 not that God hath forsaken our race. Go on, and thou shalt find how His sovereign power will
18 torture thee and thy seed! And after him they brought the sixth. And when he was at the point
of death he said, Deceive not thyself in vain! We are suffering this on our own account, for sins
19 against our own God. That is why these awful horrors have befallen us. But think not thou shalt
20 go unpunished for daring to fight against God! The mother, however, was a perfect wonder ; she
| deserves to be held in glorious memory, for, thanks to her hope in God, she bravely bore the sight
21 of seven sons dying ina single day. Full of noble spirit and nerving her weak woman’s heart with
the courage of a man, she exhorted each of them in the language of their fathers, saying, How you
| 22 were ever conceived in my womb, 1 cannot tell! "T'was not I who gave you the breath of life or
23 fashioned the elements of each! *Twas the Creator of the world who fashioneth men and deviseth
the generating of all things, and he it is who in mercy will restore to you the breath of life even
24 as you now count yourselves naught for his laws’ sake. Now Antiochus feit that he was being
humiliated, but, overlooking the taunt of her words, he made an appeal to the youngest brother, who still survived, and even promised on oath to make him rich and happy and a Friend and
25 a trusted official of State, if he would give up his fathers’ laws. As the young man paid no atten-
26 tion to him, he summoned his mother and exhorted her to counsel the lad to save himself. So,
27 after he had exhorted her at length, she agreed to persuade her son. She leant over to him and,
befooling the cruel tyrant, spoke thus in her fathers’ tongue: My son, have pity on me. Nine months I carried thee in my womb, three years I suckled thee; I reared thee and brought thee up | 28 to this age of thy life. Child, I beseech thee, lift thine eyes to heaven and earth, look at all that is therein, and know that God did not make them out of the things that existed. So is the race of
29 men created. Fear not this butcher, but show thyself worthy of thy brothers, and accept thy death,
30 that by God’s mercy I may receive thee again together with thy brothers. Ere she had finished, the
young man cried, What are you waiting for? 1 will not obey the king’s command, I will obey the
31 command of the law given by Moses to our fathers. But thou, who hast devised all manner of evil
32 against the Hebrews, thou shalt not escape the hands of God. We are suffering for our own sins,
33 and though our living Lord is angry for a little, in order to rebuke and chasten us, he will again be
34 reconciled to his own servants. But thou, thou impious wretch, vilest of all men, be not vainly
35 uplifted with thy proud, uncertain hopes, raising thy hand against the heavenly children ; thou hast
| 36 not yet escaped the judgement of the Almighty God who seeth all. These our brothers, after
6. Song which testifieth . . . face. This sententious description of the Song (Deut. xxxii. 36) is not only out of keeping with the mdse en scene, but far-fetched ; the testimony of the Song in question was borne against faithless Israel, not against outside oppressors.
18. Some MSS. insert διό before, or γάρ after, ἄξια. Niese, reading the latter, and following V® (ἄξιοι) and V (γεγόναμεν), conjectures κολασμοῦ for θαυμασμοῦ (i.e. and have deserved punishment), But the above reading, though characteristically abrupt, yields a good sense.
23. men. For ἀνθρώπου γένεσιν read with Niese ἄνθρωπον (or ἀνθρώπους), the first γένεσιν being repeated fer ¢xcuriant from the second.
24. overlooking. For ὑφορώμενος (‘suspecting’) read ὑπερορώμενος (Vg. = exprobrantis uoce despecta) with Kamphausen. For the promised rank of Friend (i. 14, vill. 29, 1 Macc. i1. 18, &c.) see Deissmann’s L74/e-Studies,
ΤΟΤΕ ΝΜ 7 eave thee. Omitting (with 71, Vg, S$) the anticlimax of καὶ τροφοφορήσασαν (= and sustained thee, lit. nursed).
enduring a brief pain, have now drunk of everflowing life, in terms of God’s covenant, but thou shalt — 37 receive by God’s judgement the just penalty of thine arrogance. I, like my brothers, give up body ~
and soul for our fathers’ laws, calling on God to show favour to our nation soon, and to make thee 58 acknowledge, in torment and plagues, that he alone is God, and to let the Almighty’s wrath, justly 39 fallen on the whole of our nation, end in me and in my brothers. Then the king fell into a passion — yo and had him handled worse than the others, so exasperated was he at being mocked. Thus he also 41 died unpolluted, trusting absolutely in the Lord. Finally after her sons the mother also perished. 42 Let this suffice for the enforced sacrifices and the excesses of barbarity.
VIII. 1-36. Revolt and early successes of Fudas Maccabaeus.
81 But Judas, who is also called Maccabaeus, together with his companions, went round the
villages by stealth, summoning their kinsfolk and mustering those who had adhered to Judaism, till
> they collected as many as six thousand. And they invoked the Lord to look upon the people whom
3 all men oppressed, to have compassion on the sanctuary which the godless had profaned, and also
to pity the ruined city which was on the point of being levelled with the ground, to hearken to the
4 blood that cried to him, to remember the impious massacre of the innocent babes and the blasphemies
; committed against his name, and to manifest his hatred of evil. Now as soon as Maccabaeus had
got his company together, the heathen found him irresistible, for the Lord’s anger was now turned
6 into mercy. He would surprise and burn both towns and villages, gaining possession of strategic 7 positions and routing large numbers of the enemy. He took special advantage of the night for such
attacks. And the whole country echoed with the fame of his valour.
s So when Philip saw that the man was gaining ground inch by inch and adding daily to his
successes, he wrote to Ptolemy, the governor of Coelesyria and Phoenicia, for support in maintaining
9 the king’s cause. The latter lost no time in selecting Nicanor, the son of Patroclus, one of the fore- \ most among the king’s Friends, whom he dispatched at the head of no fewer than twenty thousand troops of all nationalities to exterminate the entire population of Judaea; and with him there was associated Gorgias, a military commander who had considerable experience of active service. το Nicanor, however, determined to sell the Jews into slavery, and so to make up the sum of two 11 thousand talents which the king owed by way of tribute to the Romans. He therefore sent at once to the maritime towns, inviting them to purchase Jewish slaves, whom he promised to sell at the rate of ninety a talent—little imagining the judgement that was to overtake him from the Almighty. “ 12 Now when Judas was informed of Nicanor’s inroad, and when he told his followers about the 13 arrival of the host, those who were cowardlyand sceptical about God’s judgement ran off and decamped, 14 while others sold all their remaining possessions and withal besought the Lord to deliver those 5 whom the impious Nicanor had already sold before the battle ; and this, if not for their own sakes, at least for the sake of the covenants made with their fathers and for the sake of His reverend and 16 glorious name, by which they were called. But when Maccabaeus had got his men together, six thousand in number, he bade them have no fear of chains and slavery and no dread of the vast 17 number of the heathen who had attacked them wrongfully ; let them fight nobly, keeping before their eyes the wanton and lawless outrage of the heathen upon the holy place, the shocking and despiteful 18 violence done to the city, and further the overthrow of their ancestral polity. They trust to arms and daring deeds, he said, but we rely upon the Almighty God, who by a nod can lay low our 19 enemies, aye and the whole world. Then he rehearsed to them the aid repeatedly vouchsafed in the days of their ancestors, as in the days of Sennacherib, when a hundred and eighty-five thousand 20 perished, and as at the battle fought against the Galatians in Babylonia, where only eight thousand
36. drunk. Hort’s conjecture, πεπώκασι, for the MSS. πεπτώκασι, restores the original sense of the passage.
VIII: 4. massacre of the innocent babes. Cp. above, vi. 10, and 1 Macc. i. 61. _6. villages. κώμας (‘villages’) is to be read for χώρας.
routing ...enemy. Cp. Heb. xi. 34. 13. God’s judgment. i.e. on their foes (cp. ver. 11). Contrast the account of 1 Macc. ili. 56. 14. those whom . . . sold before the battle. i.e. not stray captives picked up by the way but the speakers
themselves, whom Nicanor had sold in advance. 16. six thousand in number. But this was the original number of the army (ver. 1) ! slavery. For τοὺς πολεμίους (V) or τοῖς πολεμίοις read τοῖς δεσμοῖς, which has been altered in A into τοῖς δεσμίοις» as the variant (19, 62) τοῖς πολέμοις has been altered into τοῖς πολεμίοις. and the whole world. For the turn of expression see I John ii. 2.
20. the battle ...in Babylonia. Nothing is known of the engagement which forms the subject of this exaggerated boast. The eight thousand, who are obviously Jews, may have been fighting either under Antiochus the Great against a body of Gallic mercenaries under Molon, the rebellious satrap of Media (221-220 B.C.), or, earlier, in the ranks of Antiochus Soter (281-261 B.C.), who is said to have won his title (Appian, Sy7. 66) from his efforts against the Gallic raiders in Asia Minor. ὃ
II MACCABEES δὲ 20—9. 4
men, together with four thousand Macedonians, took the field, and where, after the Macedonians were hard pressed, the eight thousand slew the hundred and twenty thousand, owing to the aid vouchsafed 21 them from heaven, and won rich booty. With these words he inspirited them and got them ready 22 to die for the laws and for their country. He then divided his army into four, and put his brothers at the head of the various divisions, Simon, Joseph, and Jonathan each being in command of fifteen 23 hundred men; he also made Eleazar read aloud the holy Book, and taking ‘God’s Help’ as a watch- 24 word put himself at the head of the first division, ‘and engaged Nicanor. And, since the Almighty fought on their side, they slew over nine thousand of the enemy, wounded and disabled the greater 25 part of Nicanor’s army, and forced them all to flee. They also secured the very money of those who 26 had arrived for the purpose of buying them. Then, after pursuing them for some distance, they were obliged to turn back on account of time ; it was the day before the sabbath, and therefore they made 27 no effort to follow them up. So, after collecting the arms of the enemy, and stripping them of their spoils, they attended to the duties of the sabbath, loudly blessing and praising the Lord who had 28 preserved them unto this day and thus begun to show them mercy ; after the sabbath, when they had apportioned part of the spoils to their own wounded and to the widows and orphans, they 29 shared the remainder among themselves and their children. This done, they united in supplication, beseeching the Lord of mercy to be fully reconciled to his servants. 30 ©Inan encounter with the forces of Timotheus and Bacchides, they also killed over twenty thousand and got possession of some extremely high strongholds, securing a large quantity of plunder which they distributed equally with themselves not only among the wounded, the orphans, and the widows, 31 but also among the older people. Then, after collecting the arms of the enemy, they stored them all 32 carefully in the most important forts, conveying the rest of the spoils to Jerusalem. They also slew Phylarches, who belonged to Timotheus’ forces, a most impious scoundrel who had inflicted serious 33 injuries on the Jews. And while they were celebrating the victory in the city of their fathers, they burned Callisthenes and some others, who had set fire to the sacred gates, and who had taken refuge 34.in a small house; thus did these men receive the due reward of their impiety. As for the thrice- 35 accursed Nicanor, who had brought the thousand merchants to buy the Jews for slaves, those whom he reckoned of no account humbled him by the help of the Lord ; doffing his splendid uniform, he had to make his way alone, like a runaway slave, straight across country to Antioch, having fared 36 disastrously in his expedition and having left his army annihilated. So the man who undertook to secure tribute for the Romans by selling the Jerusalemites into captivity, proved the means of showing that the Jews had a Champion and that they were invulnerable since they followed the laws which He enacted.
IX. 1-29. The miserable death of Antiochus Epiphanes.
); Now about that time it happened that Antiochus had to beat a disorderly retreat from the region 2 οἵ Persia. He had entered the city called Persepolis and tried to rob temples and get hold of the city; whereupon the people flew to arms and routed him, with the result that Antiochus was put to 3 flight by the people of the country and broke up his camp in disgrace. And while he was at 4 Ecbatana, news reached him of what had happened to Nicanor and the forces of Timotheus. So, in
22. Joseph, here and in x. 19, is an error of the author or of a copyist for John (cp. : Macc. ix. 36 f.}.
23. made Eleazar read aloud. Reading (Vg, 3, 19, 62, 64, 93, so Grimm, Rawlinson, and Kamphausen) παραγνῶναι for mapavayvous (A.V. Fritzsche, Swete). ‘God’s Help’ is a play on the name of Eleazar.
26, 27. The real reason was not sabbatarian strictness (cp. 1 Macc. iv. 17f.), and the spoiling of the enemy is ante-dated (cp. 1 Macc. iv. 18, 23). On the Sabbatarianism see above, vi. 11, and Jub. 7. 6-13.
27. after collecting the arms. Here, though not in ver. 31, ὁπλολογήσαντες αὐτούς might also be rendered, ‘ having piled their arms’ (contrast 1 Macc. iv. 6).
thus begun to show them mercy. The pretty reading, στάξαντος (‘distilled’), is less well supported than τάξαντος (as above, cp. ver. 5) or τάξαντι (62). Niese, reading the latter, with καί after αὐτούς, renders, ‘to him who had preserved them and appointed this day to be the beginning of mercy for them.’
29. to be fully reconciled. i.e. to show the permanence of his favour by continuing to crown their efforts with success. Grimm quotes a similar phrase from Euseb. 1. £. viii. 16. 2 (τῆς θείας προνοίας... τῷ μὲν αὐτῆς καταλλατ- τομένης λαῷ, of the cessation of persecution).
33. a small house. The point of mentioning the smallness of the house (οἰκίδιον, a real diminutive) is obviously to contrast the number who took refuge in it. This tells, together with the position of ὑφῆψαν after Καλλισθένην, in favour of πεφευγότας instead of πεφευγότα (as if Callisthenes was the only incendiary who hid himself in the hut or cottage), οἵ καί τινας ἄλλους after Καλλισθένην, and of ἐκομίσαντο for ἐκομίσατο.
reward of their impiety. For the phrase cp. 2 Pet. ii. 13.
35. fared disastrously. Reading ὑπεράγαν δυσημερηκώς.
IX. 2. Persepolis was not in Elymais; consequently, unless ‘ Elymais’ in 1 Macc. i. 6 is a corruption (cp. Cheyne in Encyclopaedia Biblica, 1284, 3660), there is a geographical contradiction between the two narratives. See i. 12 f. tried successfully, according to Appian (Sy7. 66). 3. Ecbatana, the capital of Media, was not near the route of his flight to Babylon (1 Mace. vi. 4).
a transport of rage, he determined to wreak vengeance on the Jews for the defeat which he had suffered at the hands of those who had forced him to fly, and ordered his charioteer to drive — on without halting till the journey was ended. Verily the judgement of heaven upon him was imminent! For thus he spoke in his arrogance: When I reach Jerusalem, I will make it a common 5 sepulchre of Jews. But the all-seeing Lord, the God of Israel, smote him with a fatal and unseen stroke; the words were no sooner out of his mouth than he was seized with an incurable pain in 6 the bowels, and his internal organs gave him cruel torture—a right proper punishment for one who 7 had tortured the bowels of other people with many an exquisite pang. He did not cease from his wild insolence, however, but waxed more arrogant than ever, breathing fire and fury against the Jews, and giving orders to hurry on with the journey. And it came to pass that he dropped from his 8 chariot as it whirled along, so that the bad fall racked every limb of his body. ἃ Thus he who in his overweening haughtiness had supposed the waves of the sea were at his bidding and imagined he could weigh the high mountains in his scales, was now prostrate, carried along ina litter—a manifest 9 token to all men of the power of God. Worms actually swarmed from the impious creature's body ; his flesh fell off, while he was still alive in pain and anguish; and the stench of his corruption turned τὸ the whole army from him with loathing. A man who shortly before had thought he could touch ir the stars of heaven, none could now endure to carry, such was his intolerable stench. Then it was that, broken in spirit, he began to abate his arrogance, for the most part, and to arrive at some knowledge of the truth. For, as he suffered more and more anguish under the scourge of God, unable 12 even to bear his own stench, he said: Right is it that mortal man should be subject to God, and not 13 deem himself God’s equal. The vile wretch also made a vow to the Lord (who would not now 14 have pity on him), promising that he would proclaim the holy city free—the city which he was 15 hurrying to lay level with the ground and to make a common sepulchre—that he would make all the Jews equal to citizens of Athens—the Jews whom he had determined to throw out with their 16 children to the beasts, for the birds to devour, as unworthy even to be buried—that he would adorn with magnificent offerings the holy sanctuary which he had formerly rifled, restoring all the sacred vessels many times over, and defraying from his own revenue the expense of the sacrifices ; 17 furthermore, that he would even become a Jew and travel over the inhabited worid to publish abroad 18 the might of God. But when his sufferings did not cease by any means (for God’s judgement had justly come upon him), he gave up all hope of himself and wrote the following letter, with its humble supplication, to the Jews : 19 To his citizens, the loyal Jews, Antiochus their king and general wisheth great joy and health 20 and prosperity. If you and your children fare well and your affairs are to your mind, I give thanks 21 to God, as my hope is in heaven. As for myself, I am sick. Your esteem and goodwill I bear in loving memory. On my way back from Persia I have fallen seriously ill, and I think it needful to 22 take into consideration the common safety of all my subjects—not that I despair of myself (for, 23 on the contrary, I have good hopes of recovery), but in view of the fact that when my father marched 24 into the upper country, he appointed his successor, in order that, in the event of anything un-
9. worms, &c. A conventional doom for blasphemous persecutors (cp. Acts xii. 23). The narrative of Jason probably described the disease as a result of the fall from the chariot. The epitomist not only puts in the supernatural touch of ver. 5, but some of the high colouring in the edifying sequel.
11. broken in spirit. V's reading (imoreOpavopevos) may mean either that he grew steadily worse (Bissell) or that he was suffering severely (an instance of meiosis, so Grimm and Kamphausen) ; but the variant of A (τεθραυσμένος, so Fritzsche, Rawlinson, &c.) gives a better sense, and Niese’s conjecture that κατὰ στιγμήν has arisen by dittography from μάστιγι (cp. 62, μάστιγμην) is very plausible. ‘Ferner muss man mit 19, 62, 64, 93 lesen: καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἔρχεσθαι ἀληθείας" θείᾳ yap μάστιγι ἐπιτεινόμενος ταῖς ἀλγηδύσι καὶ μηδὲ τῆς ὀσμῆς δυνάμενος ἀνέχεσθαι Ktr” (Kritik, p. 113). In ver. 12 ὑπερήφανα (A, 55, 71, 74, 106, 243) is probably (so Grimm, Bissell, Kamphausen) a gloss upon ἰσόθεα
17. become a Jew, &c. The narrative makes Antiochus outdo even Nebuchadrezzar (Dan. iv. 37) in the way of abject penance, or at least of promises.
18. the following letter, with its humble supplication. The letter does not answer to this description, and, as addressed to Judas and his party, is entirely out of keeping with the facts of the situation. Bevan (Howse of Seleucus, ii. 177, 298), like Niese (30), defends it by supposing that it was originally meant for the Hellenizing Jewish community of Jerusalem, which Antiochus affected to regard as the genuine article. He calls them χρηστοί in the sense in which the Cavaliers in seventeenth-century England were called the ‘honest’ party (cp. e.g. Aristoph. Frogs 783 ὀλίγον τὸ χρηστόν ἐστιν), and describes himself as their στρατηγός (general) by way of flattery, implying that he was proud to be strategos in Jerusalem no less than in Athens. Had the author, or Jason, composed the letter, he would probably have coloured and shaped it to fit the context. Its very discrepancies with the present setting tell in favour of the hypothesis that it reflects some authentic document.
21. lam sick. Your esteem, ἄς. The asyndeton is awkward, but it is more awkward to insert εἰ μή before ἀσθενῶς or ἄλλως yap before ὑμῶν, and translate (with Rawlinson): ‘I am sick, otherwise I would have remembered, ἃς, (retaining the ἄν before ἐμνημόνευον, which probably arose from the last syllable of the preceding εὔνοιαν).
23. marched into the upper country. Cp. 1 Macc. iii. 37.
24. anything unexpected. A euphemism for the king’s death, like ‘the coming event ’ (ver. 25).
II MACCABEES 9. 24—10. τό
expected occurring or any unwelcome news arriving, the residents at home might know whom the }5 State had been entrusted to, and so be spared any disturbance. Besides these considerations, as I have noticed how the princes on the borders and the neighbours of my kingdom are on the alert for any opportunity and anticipate the coming event, I have appointed my son Antiochus to be king. | I have often committed and commended him to most of you, when I hurried to the upper provinces. 61 have also written to him what I have written below. I therefore exhort and implore you to | remember the public and private benefits you have received and to preserve, each of you, your [ἡ present goodwill toward me and my son. For I am convinced that with mildness and kindness he | will adhere to my policy and continue on good terms with you.
+8 So this murderer and blasphemer, after terrible suffering such as he had inflicted on other people, }9 ended his life most miserably among the mountains in a foreign land. His bosom-friend Philip brought the corpse home; and then, fearing the son of Antiochus, he betook himself to Ptolemy Philometor in Egypt.
X. 1-8. The temple purified and the feast of dedication instituted.
11 Now Maccabaeus and his followers, under the leadership of the Lord, recaptured the temple and 2 the city, and pulled down the altars erected by the aliens in the market-place, as well as the sacred 3inclosures. After cleansing the sanctuary, they erected another altar of sacrifice, and striking fire out of flints they offered sacrifices after a lapse of two years, with incense, lamps, and the presentation of 4 the shew-bread. This done, they fell prostrate before the Lord with entreaties that they might never again incur such disasters, but that, if ever they should sin, he would chasten them with forbearance, 5 instead of handing them over to blasphemous and barbarous pagans. Nowit so happened that the cleansing of the sanctuary took place on the very day on which it had been profaned by aliens, on 6 the twenty-fifth day of the same month, which is Chislev. And they celebrated it for eight days with gladness like a feast of tabernacles, remembering how, not long before, during the feast of 7 tabernacles they had been wandering like wild beasts in the mountains and the caves. So, bearing wands wreathed with leaves and fair boughs and palms, they offered hymns of praise to him who had 8 prospered the cleansing of his own place, and also passed a public order and decree that all the Jewish nation should keep these ten days every year.
X. 9-38. Hurther campaigns of Fudas.
‘© Such was the end of Antiochus, who was called Epiphanes. We will now explain what occurred under Antiochus Eupator, the son of that godless man, summarizing the calamities of the wars. ‘t When he succeeded to the throne, he appointed a certain Lysias as his chancellor and as supreme ‘2 governor of Coelesyria and Phoenicia. For Ptolemy, who was called Macron, had set an example of justice to the Jews in righting wrongs done to them, and had endeavoured to deal amicably “τ with them. For this he was arraigned before Eupator by the king’s Friends ; on every side he heard himself called a traitor for having abandoned the island of Cyprus which Philometor had entrusted to him, and for having sided with Antiochus Epiphanes: so, feeling unable to maintain the prestige of his position, he took poison in a fit of despair and made away with himself. jt4 But when Gorgias became governor of this district, he maintained a force of mercenaries and kept {5 up war with the Jews at every turn. Besides that, the Idumaeans, who were in possession of important strongholds, harassed the Jews and did their utmost tc keep the feud going by welcoming the refugees τό from Jerusalem. But Maccabaeus and his men, after solemnly imploring and beseeching God to
_ 29. bosom-friend. A Hellenistic court title (cp. Frankel in A/ferthiimer von Pergamon, Vili. 1, pp. 111 f.) here as in Acts xiii. 1 and in the inscription of Delos (see above, on iii. 7) which assigns it to Heliodorus.
X. 3. striking fire out of flints. According to the ancient view that only fire obtained thus fresh from nature, i.e. struck from flints or otherwise (cp. i. 22 f.), could be used to rekindle altar-fires. ‘Two’ years is a mistake for
11. a certain Lysias. The off-hand allusion to Lysias (τινά) is on a par with the unhistorical conception of the regent’s position (cp. 1 Mace. ili. 32, vi. 17, &c.).
12. For gives the reason why Lysias was made governor of Coelesyria and Phoenicia, which Ptolemy (cp. viii. 8) had hitherto ruled. The boy-king must have been a puppet in the hands of Lysias ; the latter was responsible for the impeachment of Ptolemy, who was evidently suspected by the anti-Semites on much the same flimsy pretext as Desdemona (‘She did deceive her father, marrying you. And.. .’).
13. the king’s Friends. This title was revived by the phalanx of political mercenaries in the eighteenth century who intrigued for George III. As though, said Junius, the mass of Englishmen were enemies of the king !
prestige. Grimm’s conjecture, εὐγενίσας, for the textual variants (εὐγενναίσας, evyevvacias, εὐγεννασίαν, &c.) gives an excellent sense, but the words ὑπ᾽ ἀθυμίας (56), though poorly supported by MS. evidence, are too vivid and essential to be a gloss.
15. the refugees. i.e. Hellenistic Jews expelled by Judas.
17 fight on their side, rushed at the strongholds of the Idumaeans and, after a vigorous assault, captured the positions, beating off those who manned the walls, slaying any whom they came across, and 1g slaughtering no fewer than twenty thousand. No less than nine thousand took refuge in two 19 extremely strong towers, which were well equipped to stand a siege ; so Maccabaeus left Simon and Joseph, together with Zacchaeus and his division, as a force adequate for the siege, and went off — 20 in person to various places where he was needed. But the covetous retinue of Simon allowed themselves to be bribed by some of those inside the towers, and let some of them slip out, on payment of 21 seventy thousand drachmas. When Maccabaeus learned of what had occurred, he summoned the — leaders of the nation and accused them of selling their brethren for money, by setting their enemies — 22 free to fight against them; then he slew these men for having turned traitors and instantly stormed 23 the two towers. Successful in every feat of arms which he undertook, he destroyed in the two strongholds more than twenty thousand men. 24 Now Timotheus, who had been previously defeated by the Jews, mustered a foreign force of vast size, and raised a large detachment of Asiatic cavalry, and arrived in Judaea as though he meant 55 to capture it by force of arms. But on his approach Maccabaeus and his men sprinkled earth upon 6 their heads and girded their loins with sackcloth, in supplication to God, and falling down upon the step in front of the altar besought Him to show favour graciously to them, to be the enemy of their 27 enemies, and the adversary of their adversaries, as the law affirmeth. Then rising from prayer they took up their arms and advanced some distance from the city, halting when they drew near to the 28 enemy. And when the dawn came, the two armies joined battle; one had a pledge of success and victory, not only in their valour but in their appeal to the Lord, while the other side were impelled 29 to the struggle by their own passions. And as the fight waxed fierce, the enemy saw five resplendent 30 men from heaven on horses with golden bridles, who led on the Jews and took Maccabaeus between them, sheltering him with their armour and preserving him scatheless ; they also showered arrows and thunderbolts on the enemy till, blinded and disordered, they were utterly bewildered and cut to
, 32 pieces. Twenty thousand five hundred were slain, with six hundred horsemen, and Timotheus
himself took refuge in a stronghold called Gazara, which was very strongly fortified under command 33 of Chaereas. The troops of Maccabaeus laid eager siege to this fort for twenty-four days, during 34 which time the besieged, who relied on the strength of the place, blasphemed furiously and gave 35 vent toimpious cries. But, as the twenty-fifth day dawned, twenty youths from the Maccabaean army, ~ burning with anger at all this blasphemy, stormed the wall like men, and in a wild fury of passion 36 proceeded to cut down every one they met. Meantime others had followed them up by a wheel movement and had set fire to the towers, kindling fires and burning the blasphemers alive, while 37 some burst the gates open and admitted the rest of the band. So they captured the city, and killed Timotheus, who had concealed himself in a cistern, and his brother Chaereas, and Apollophanes. 38 Having accomplished this feat, they sang hymns of thanksgiving, blessing the Lord who rendereth great services to Israel and giveth them the victory.
XI. 1-38. Defeat of Lysias, and terms of peace arranged.
Quite soon after this, Lysias, the king’s guardian and kinsman and chancellor, who was seriously annoyed at what had taken place, collected about eighty thousand infantry with all his cavalry and marched against the Jews, intending to make the city a residence for Greeks, to levy tribute on the temple as on the other sacred places of the nations, and to put up the high-priesthood for sale 4 every year; for he never reckoned with the might of God, but was puffed up with his own myriads
wn =
19. Zacchaeus (cp. viil. 22) is otherwise unknown, unless his name is explained from 1 Macc. v. 56. Thus Grotius conjectured that the original reading here was καὶ τὸν τοῦ Zaxyaiov.
21. Selling their brethren for money. i.e. betraying the wider interests of the nation for the sake of pecuniary advantage to themselves.
24. Asiatic cavalry. The Iranian cavalry were a famous item in the Seleucid armies; but if ἵππους here is equivalent to horses, probably Media is intended specially.
25. sprinkled earth upon their heads. See xiv.15 and 1 Macc. xi. 71.
26. as the law affirmeth. Cp. Exod. xxiii. 22.
28. came. Literally ‘succeeded the night’ (διαδεχομένης as in Wisd. vii. 30).
30. led on the Jews, ἄς, Reading Ιουδαίων, of καὶ κτλ. (instead of Ιουδαίων of δύο καὶ κτλ.). Avo is the gloss of a scribe who wished to emphasize that Judas was escorted by two of the angels, one on each side (so Grimm). _ 32. Gazara. Gezer was really captured by Simon (1 Macc. xiii. 43 f.), but, in this extract, the credit of the exploit is assigned to the troops of Judas, the only Maccabee in whom the book is interested, and the story is retold in order to bring out the religious fanaticism of the Jewish army (cp. Kosters in 7heolog. Tijdschrift, 1878, pp. 519 f.). This strong post, on a ridge of the Shephelah, was ‘virtually the key of Judaea at a time when Judaea’s foes came down the coast from the north’ (G. A. Smith, Hzs¢. Geogr. of Holy Land, pp.215f.). But, if the story is taken as an independent narrative, Gazara must be identified with Jazer (1 Macc. v. 8) in Gilead.
PeVNCCABEES Lf, 5-33
5 of infantry and thousands of cavalry and eighty elephants. On entering Judaea, he came up to 6 Bethsuron, a strong fort about five leagues from Jerusalem, and pressed it hard. Now when Maccabaeus | and his men learned that he was besieging the strongholds, they and all the people wailed and wept, [7 beseeching the Lord to send a good angel to save Israel. Maccabaeus himself was the first to take
} up arms, and he urged the others to join him at the hazard of their lives, in order to succour their [8 brethren. So they sallied forth, all together, right willingly. And ere ever they had left Jerusalem, [9 a rider appeared at their head, in white apparel, brandishing weapons of gold; and they joined in | blessing God the merciful and were still more encouraged ; ready now to break through not only }o men but ferocious beasts and walls of iron, they advanced in array with their heavenly ally—for the ‘|x Lord had mercy on them. And leaping like lions upon the foe, they slew eleven thousand of | }2 their infantry, and sixteen hundred of their cavalry, and forced all the rest to flee. The majority only escaped with wounds and the loss of their arms, while Lysias himself had to save his life by [3 a disgraceful flight. Now Lysias was no fool. Thinking over the defeat he had sustained, and 4 recognizing that the Hebrews were invincible, thanks to the mighty God who was their ally, he sent to persuade them to agree to a fair and comprehensive settlement, undertaking that he would even }5 induce the king to become their friend. Maccabaeus agreed to all the terms proposed by Lysias, | thereby showing a sagacious regard for the interests of the people, since the king did grant all the [6 written demands which Maccabaeus made to Lysias on behalf of the Jews. Now the letter addressed by Lysias to the Jews was to this effect :
Lysias to the people of the Jews, greeting. Your envoys, John and Absalom, have presented the |g appended petition and asked for a decision upon its contents. I have therefore informed the king ᾿ 9 of whatever had to be laid before him, and he has agreed to all that could be granted. If you will fo maintain your goodwill toward the State, I will endeavour in future to promote your interests, and, { as for this particular business, I have instructed your representatives and my own to confer with fix you. Fare ye well. Written in the hundred and forty-eighth year, on the four and twentieth day | of the month Dioscurus.
j:2 The king’s letter ran as follows:
"3 King Antiochus to his brother Lysias, greeting. Now that our father hath passed over to the | gods, it is our pleasure that the subjects of the realm should live undisturbed and attend to their own j:4 concerns. As for our Jewish subjects, we understand that they object to our father’s. project of bringing them over to Hellenism, preferring their own ways of life and asking permission to follow 5 their own customs. It is our will therefore that this nation also shall not be disturbed, and we have decided to give them back their temple and to permit them to live after the manner of their 26 ancestors. Thou wilt do well therefore to send messengers to them and give them the right hand of fellowship, that they may know our purpose and be of good heart and cheerfully settle down to their own business.
[27 The king’s letter to the nation was as follows:
28 King Antiochus to the senate of the Jews and to the rest of the Jews, greeting. If you fane well, \29 it is as we wish; we too are in good health. Menelaus has informed us of your desire to return 30 home and attend to your own affairs. Those Jews then who return home up to the thirtieth day of 51 Xanthicus shall have our friendship, with full permission to use their own food and to observe their 4 it own laws as of yore; none of them shall be molested in any way for any unwitting offence. More- }33 Over, I have sent Menelaus to reassure you. Fare ye well. Written in the hundred and forty-eighth year, on the fifteenth day of Xanthicus.
XI. 5. Bethsuron (Βεθσούρων, gen. after συνεγγίσας as in 1 Mace. xi. 4, xiii. 3, &c.) in 1 Macc. iv. 29 is the strategic fort of Beth-zur, commanding the highroad from Jerusalem to Hebron. The v. Δ σχοίνους (σχοῖνος = thirty stadii) for σταδίους is probably an attempt to correct the error of placing B. so near to Jerusalem, unless the writer (or his source) confused the place with another of the same name in the vicinity of the capital, e. g. Bét Sahtr (Grimm), or Kefr-et-Tar (on the Mount of Olives, cp. Schick in Palest. Explor. Fund Quarterly, 1895, Ρ. 37). The oxoivovs-reckoning, which brings up its distance to 150 stadii, would almost harmonize with the statement of Eusebius that Beth-zur lay 160 stadii from Jerusalem, but this reckoning never occurs elsewhere in 2 Maccabees (cp. xii. 9, &c.).
6. a good angel. Cp. xv. 23; Tobit v.21. He came in white apparel, the conventional guise of angels.
14. induce the king. Text corrupt. Translation omits ἀναγκάζειν.
16. to this effect. For an analogous expression see Acts xxiii. 25.
people. πλῆθος here, as in I Macc. viii. 20, &c., is used in its official and political sense of δῆμος (see below, ver. 34).
17. Absalom. Possibly the same as the Absalom of 1 Macc. xili. 11.
21. the month Dioscurus. The Διοσκορινθίου of A, ἅς. (cp. the Διοσκορίδου of V in ver. 28) is either a corruption of Avorpov (read by some MSS. in Tobit ii. 12; Addit. Esth. xiii. 6, as an equivalent for Adar), or some intercalary month between Dystrus and Xanthicus (cp. below, vers. 33 and 38), or, most probably, an error for Διοσκυροῦ (i.e. the third month of the Cretan calendar). When Διὸς Κορινθίου is read, the first month of the Macedonian calendar is perhaps meant (Atos = Marcheshvan, the Μαρσουάνης of Josephus, Avéig. I. iii. 3, &c.), and the name betrays the king’s love of introducing Hellenic novelties into the very calendar of the East.
29. to return home. Literally ‘to go down’ (i.e. from Jerusalem to the country-districts).
34 The Romans also sent them a letter to this effect : Ouintus Memmius and Titus Manlius, ambassadors of the Romans, to the nation of the Jews, 35 greeting. With reference to what Lysias, the king’s kinsman, has granted you, we hereby give our 36 consent. As for the points which he decided were to be referred to the king, send some one at once 37 to advise on them, that we may act in your interests. We are off to Antioch; make haste, then, to 38 send some of your number, that we may know what your mind is. Fare ye well. Written in the — hundred and forty-eighth year, on the fifteenth day of Xanthicus.
XII. 1-45. Fresh campaigns of Fudas.
12: After these agreements had been concluded, Lysias went away to the king, while the Jews 2 devoted themselves to husbandry. But some of the local governors, Timotheus and Apollonius,
the son of Gennaeus, with Hieronymus and Demophon, and also Nicanor, the governor of Cyprus, — 3 would not let them alone or leave them at peace. Some inhabitants of Joppa also perpetrated the following crime: they invited the Jewish residents to embark, with their wives and children, in boats which they provided, as if they meant no harm at all but were simply acting according to the public
4 regulations of the town. The Jews agreed to go, since they wished to be peaceable and had πὸ
suspicions ; but, when they were out at sea, the men of Joppa drowned no fewer than two hundred ~
5 of them. Now when Judas heard of this brutal cruelty to his fellow-countrymen, he summoned his | 6 men, called on God the righteous Judge, and attacked the murderers of his brethren, setting fire to 7 the haven by night, burning the boats, and putting to the sword those who had fled thither. Then, as the town was shut against him, he retired, intending to come back and extirpate the entire 8 community of Joppa. And on learning that the inhabitants of Jamnia meant to carry out the same
9 kind of plot against the local Jews, he attacked them also by night, and set fire to the haven and ~ the fleet, so that the glare of the light was seen at Jerusalem, two hundred and forty furlongs distant. 1o Nowwhen they had drawn off nine furlongs from thence, on their march against Timotheus, they
11 were attacked by no fewer than five thousand Arabs, with five hundred horsemen, and a stiff fight —
was waged in which, by God’s help, Judas and his men won the victory. The vanquished nomads ~ besought Judas to be their friend, promising to give him cattle and to be of service in other ways,
12 and Judas, with the idea that they would really be of use in a number of ways, agreed to keep —
peace with them ; whereupon, after pledging friendship, they departed to their tents.
13 Healso fell upon a town which was strongly fortified with earthworks and walls, and inhabited 14 by a mixed population; its name was Caspin. The inhabitants, relying on the strength of their — walls and their ample provisions, scoffed insolently at Judas and his men, and, more than that, 15 blasphemed and uttered cries of impiety ; but Judas and his men, invoking the great Sovereign of the world, who without rams and instruments of war had laid Jericho low in the days of Joshua, 16 made a furious attack on the walls, and, capturing the town by the will of God, they massacred an unspeakable number, so much so that the adjoining lake, which was two furlongs broad, looked as
though it were filled with the deluge of blood. 17 Drawing off seven hundred and fifty furlongs from thence, they made their way to Charax, to the 18 Jews who are styled Tubieni. Timotheus they did not find in that locality ; he had gone off without 19 achieving any success, and left behind him in a certain post an extremely strong garrison. But Dositheus and Sosipater, captains of Maccabaeus, sallied out and destroyed the troops left by 20 Timotheus in the stronghold, over ten thousand men. Whereupon Maccabaeus, arranging his men in divisions, set a leader over each division, and hurried after Timotheus, who had with him
34. Titus Manlius. In 163 B.C., two years later than the date of this letter, a certain Manius Sergius was one of the envoys to Antiochus Epiphanes (Polybius, xxxi. 9. 6), and in 164 B.c. T. Manlius Torquatus went on a mission to Egypt (Livy, xliii. 11), but there is no record of any Roman envoys to Syria bearing the names of Q. Memmius and T. Manius (or Manlius). Niese (72 f.), in his desire to identify one of them, emends the reading of V (Mavos Epmos) into Μάνιος Σέργιος, and takes Τίτος as the corruption of a name ending in -tius. But this is too heavy a price to pay 4
for vindicating the historicity of the passage. For πρεσβύτης (senex) == πρεσβευτής (/egatus) see 1 Macc. xiv. 22, xv. 17, Philemon 9. 4
XII. 6. thither. i.e. to the coast, where refugees from the interior were trying to escape by sea. 2 _13. earthworks. For yepupoiv (om. V, Syr., &c.) read γεφύραις (55, Vg. = firmam pontibus) with Grimm and ii Kamphausen, in sense of ‘embankments’ or ‘earthworks’. In 1 Macc. v. 26-36 Judas, during his raid into Gilead, ; captures Casphor among other towns, and subsequently (46 f.) storms Ephron, an ‘extremely strong’ town. When | Gephyrun’ is retained here, it may be identified with this Ephron, as the ‘Gephyrus’ of Polyb. v. 70. 12, or with | Heshbon, which had a large reservoir adjacent (ver. 16). Otherwise the town’s name, Caspin (or Caspis), must be | connected with Casphor, i.e. the modern el-Muzeirit, ‘the great station on the Hajj road’ (so G. A. Smith, Ezcycl. Liblica, i. 707-8, who pronounces Furrer’s identification of Casphon with Chisfin as ‘ philologically improbable’). 20. over each division. Reading τούς, Grimm’s conjecture for the MSS. αὐτούς.
IPMACCABEES: 12: 21-42
τ ἃ hundred and twenty thousand infantry and two thousand five hundred cavalry. Now as soon as | Timotheus heard of the onset of Judas, he sent forward the women and children and also the baggage into a place called Carnaim, which was hard to besiege and difficult of access owing to its 2 Narrow approaches on all sides. But when the first division of Judas appeared in sight, panic seized | the enemy, who were terrified by the manifestation of Him who beholdeth all things ; they took | to flight in all directions, so that many got hurt by their own men and wounded by the points of 3 one another's swords, while Judas kept up a hot pursuit, putting the wicked wretches to the sword, ¢ and destroying as many as thirty thousand men. Timotheus himself fell into the hands of Dositheus / and Sosipater, whom he adjured with plenty of specious guile to spare him and let him go, on the ground that he had the parents of many and the brothers of some in his power, and that (if he were |5 not released) it would be the worse for them. So, to save their brethren, they let him go, after he 5 Πα4 solemnly pledged himself with many an oath to restore them unhurt. Then Judas attacked 7 Carnaim and the temple of Atergatis, massacring twenty-five thousand persons, and after this rout and slaughter he made war against Ephron, a strong city, where Lysias had a residence and where the inhabitants came from all nationalities. Stalwart young men drawn up in front of the ΙΒ walls offered a resolute defence, and the place held ample stores of military engines and darts, but the Jews invoked the Sovereign who crusheth forcibly the strength of his enemies, and got the city g into their hands, destroying as many as twenty-five thousand of the inhabitants. Setting out from thence they marched in haste against Scythopolis, which is six hundred furlongs from Jerusalem, o but since the local Jews testified to the goodwill shown them by the Scythopolitans and to their 1 humane conduct during periods of misfortune, they simply thanked them and enjoined them to continue well-disposed to their race in future. Then they marched up to Jerusalem, as the feast of weeks was close at hand. 3 After the feast called Pentecost they hurried against Gorgias, the governor of Jamnia, who came 4 out to meet them with three thousagd foot soldiers and four hundred cavalry. And when they 5 joined battle, it came to pass that a few of the Jews fell. But a man Dositheus, belonging to the Tubieni, who was a powerful horseman, caught hold of Gorgias and, gripping his mantle, dragged him off by main force, meaning to capture the accursed wretch alive. A Thracian horseman bore 6 down on him, however, and disabled his arm, so that Gorgias managed to escape to Marisa. And as Esdris and his men were now exhausted by the long fight, Judas called upon the Lord to '7 show he was their ally and leader in the fight; then, raising the war-cry and songs of praise in the language of the fathers, he made an unexpected rush against the troops of Gorgias and routed them. 8 And Judas took his army to the town of Adullam, where, as the seventh day was coming on, they 9 purified themselves according to custom and kept the sabbath. Next day, when the troops of Judas went—as it was high time they did—to pick up the corpses of the slain, in order to bring them }o home to lie with their kinsfolk in their fathers’ sepulchres, they discovered under the shirts of every one of the dead men amulets of the idols of Jamnia—a practice forbidden the Jews by law. All saw at once that this was why they had perished, and, blessing the (dealings) of the Lord, the just Judge who revealeth what is secret, all betook themselves to supplication, beseeching that the sin committed might be wholly blotted out ; and the noble-hearted Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, after what they had seen with their own eyes as the result of sin committed by those
21. Carnaim. The Carnaim of 1 Macc. v. 26, 43, where Derkéto, the fish-goddess (cp. W. R. Smith’s Religion of Semites*, pp. 171 f.; Cheyne in Excycl. Biblica, i. 379), was worshipped as Atargatis (see below, ver. 26).
26. Then, ἅς. Resuming the narrative of ver. 23, after the interlude of vv. 24-25.
29. Scythopolis, the Bethshan of 1 Macc. v. 52, is so named in Judith 111. 10 and Polybius v. 70. 4 (cp. Rix, Zent ee Testament, pp. 152f.). Though a Hellenistic town under the Syrian power, it was not bitterly anti-Semitic at this period.
32. Jamnia. The change (Grotius) of ᾿Ιδουμαίας into ᾿Ιαμνείας brings the narrative more into line with ver. 40, I Mace. v. 58-9, and Josephus, Az. XII. viii. 6 (where Gorgias is called ᾿Ιαμνείας στρατηγός).
35. Dositheus. Evidently a different man from the Dositheus of vv. 19 and 24. For τοῦ Βακήνορος read (with 19, 62, 64, 93; so Niese) τῶν Τουβιηνῶν (Τωβιηνῶν). Dositheus belonged to the Tubieni Jews of ver. 17.
36. Esdris. The Γοργίαν of A 44, 64, &c., is more probably a correction of ᾿Εσδρίν, due to the feeling that Esdris (for the name cp. 1 Chron. xxvii. 26) has not hitherto been mentioned, than of "Εσδραν (i.e. priests called after Ezra, Ewald). The epitomist, with characteristic carelessness, has forgotten to transcribe from Jason any previous allusion to this Jewish captain ; hence the abruptness of his introduction. ‘The earlier part of the engagement seems to have aoa costly and doubtful (for the reason assigned in ver. 40), but Judas as usual, with divine aid, proves successful in
e end. ae the town of Adullam. Not far from Marisa (the Mareshah of 1 Macc. v. 66); cp. Micah i. 15; 2 Chron. xi.7 ;
purified themselves. i.e. from the stains of recent contact with pagans as well as of bloodshed.
40. a practice forbidden. Deut. vii. 26, ἅς. These ἱερώματα were small portable idols, worn as amulets (see
W. Robertson Smith, Religion of Semites*, pp. 208-9, and L. Blau, Das altjiid. Zauberwesen, pp. 86-7).
43 who had fallen. He then collected from them, man by man, the sum of two thousand drachmas of silver, which he forwarded to Jerusalem for a sin-offering. In this he acted quite rightly and
44 properly, bearing in mind the resurrection—for if he had not expected the fallen to rise again, it
45 would have been superfluous and silly to pray for the dead—and having regard to the splendour of the gracious reward which is reserved for those who have fallen asleep in godliness—a holy and pious consideration! Hence he made propitiation for the dead, that they might be released from
their sin. XIII. 1-26. Lysias and Eupator forced to make terms with Fews.
13: Inthe hundred and forty-ninth year tidings were brought to Judas and his men that Antiochus 2 Eupator was marching with large troops against Judaea, accompanied by Lysias his guardian and chancellor, each commanding a Greek force consisting of a hundred and ten thousand foot-soldiers, five thousand three hundred cavalry, twenty-two elephants, and three hundred chariots armed with —
3 scythes. Menelaus also attached himself to them and, making loud pretences of patriotism, abetted Antiochus—not that he cared for the safety of the fatherland, but because he thought he would — 4be appointed to office. But the King of kings stirred the anger of Antiochus against the scoundrel, and, learning from Lysias that he was responsible for all the troubles, he ordered him to ~ 5 be taken to Beroea and put to death there in the local fashion. For at Beroea there is a tower, fifty cubits high, filled with (hot) ashes, and a revolving contrivance which drops the victim sheer into the ashes. To this they bring any one who is guilty of sacrilege or other heinous crimes, and they all _ 7 push him on, to meet his doom. By such a fate it befell that Menelaus, the law-breaker, died, 8 not even getting a grave in earth. And this was perfectly just. Many a sin had he committed —
against the altar, whose fire and ashes were holy ; by ashes, then, he got his death.
9 Now the king was coming in hot indignation to inflict on the Jews the very sorest of the sufferings —
10 that had befallen them in his father’s time. But when Judas heard this, he bade the people call day and night on the Lord, that he would succour them, now if ever, as they were on the point of losing — 11 the Law, their country, and the holy temple, and that he would not allow the people, after their brief 12 and recent revival, to fall into the hands of profane pagans. Now when they had all done so with one accord, and implored the merciful Lord for three days without ceasing, weeping and fasting and — 13 lying prostrate, Judas addressed them and ordered them to get ready. After consulting privately with the elders, he determined that, before the king could throw his army into Judaea and master 14 the city, they would march out and decide the issue by the help of God. So, committing the outcome of it to the Creator of the world, and charging his men to fight stoutly, even to death, for . 15 laws, temple, city, country, and polity, he pitched his camp near Modin, and, giving his troops the — watchword of VICTORY IS GOD’s, he and a picked body of his bravest young men made an onset by night upon the royal tent and slew as many as two thousand men within the camp; they also — 16 stabbed the chief elephant and his mahout, and finally, after filling the camp with panic and 17 confusion, got away triumphantly, just as the day began to dawn. This was due to the help of God’s protection. ᾿ 18,19 After this taste of the Jews’ prowess the king used stratagem in attacking their positions. Thus | he moved upon Beth-sura, a strong fortress of the Jews, was routed, dashed at it (again), was worsted. 20, 21 Judas got the necessaries of life conveyed to those inside. But Rhodocus, a Jewish soldier, betrayed the secrets of the Jews to the enemy ; search was made for him, he was arrested and imprisoned. 22 Again the king made overtures to the residents in Beth-sura, pledged his right hand, took theirs,
43. man by man. κατ᾽ ἀνδρολογεῖον (Swete) or kar’ ἀνδραλογίαν (V, 74, Fritzsche) is a corruption of κατ᾽ ἄνδρα λογίαν (44, 71, cp. Deissmann’s Bzble-Studies, pp. 219-20) or Noyeiav. The following κατασκευάσματα is to be omitted (with 52, 55, 74, 106, 243) asa gloss. The sacrifice for the dead is recounted in such a way as to suggest that the writer anticipated, not unnaturally, objections to it on the score of novelty. It is, from the religious standpoint, one of the remarkable contributions made by this book to our knowledge of contemporary Judaism.
XIII. 2. elephants. The elephants and their mahouts (ver. 15) were imported by the Seleucid monarchs from India. The ‘futile device’ of the scythed chariot (ἅρμα δρεπανηφόρον, currus falceatus) was usec. as late as the battle of Magnesia (cp. Livy xxxvii. 40-1), ‘but it may be questioned whether after the experience of that day they were used again’ (Bevan, House of Seleucits, ii. 290).
5. Nothing otherwise is known of this local custom at Beroea (the modern Aleppo), ‘ but suffocation in a pit full of ashes was a recognized Persian punishment, and one frequently inflicted upon offenders of a high class’ (Rawlinson).
6. they bring. Reading ἄραντες (Niese) for the unintelligible ἅπαντες of the MSS., and προωθοῦσιν below (‘push on’) for the προσωθοῦσιν of the MSS. With 7-8 cp. iv. 26, ix. 5—6, Wisd. xvi. I. é
15. stabbed. Reading συνεκέντησε (cp. xii. 23), Grimm’s ingenious correction of the meaningless συνέθηκεν of the MSS.
17. just as... dawn. This. Omitting (with V) the δέ after ὑποφαινούσης and adding (with V, so Niese) δέ after τοῦτο. Judas still believed in night-attacks (viii. 7).
21. Rhodocus apparently was more leniently treated than the earlier traitors (x. 22).
22. pledged his right hand, took theirs, &c. See xii.12. The writer, or the source which he is hurriedly recapitu-
|, departed, attacked the forces of Judas, was defeated, heard that Philip who had been left as | chancellor in Antioch had become desperate, was confounded by the news, proposed peace to the | Jews, submitted with an oath to all their equitable conditions, came to terms with them and offered ‘sacrifice, honoured the sanctuary and the sacred Place, behaved humanely, took gracious farewell + of Maccabaeus, left Hegemonides in command from Ptolemais to Gerar, went to Ptolemais. The
men of Ptolemais felt sore over the treaty; they were excessively indignant with the Jews and } wanted to annul the articles of the agreement. Lysias advanced to the béma, defended it as well as possible, convinced them, pacified and won them over, departed to Antioch. Such was the course - of the king’s inroad and retreat.
XIV. 1-46. Jntrigues and threats of Nicanor.
4: Now after the space of three years Judas and his men learned that Demetrius the son of Seleucus 12 had sailed into the haven of Tripolis with a powerful army and fleet, and had seized the country, 13 after making away with Antiochus and Lysias his guardian. And Alcimus, a former high-priest, who had voluntarily polluted himself in days when there was no trafficking (with the Gentiles), and who therefore judged he was no longer safe and that he was now debarred entirely from the holy 4 altar, came to king Demetrius in the hundred and fifty-first year with the present of a golden crown and palm, and, in addition to these customary gifts, some of the olive-branches from the temple. 5 The first day he said nothing. But when he did get a chance of furthering his infatuated enterprise, on being summoned to confer with Demetrius and being asked about the temper and aims of the 6 Jews, he replied: It is the Jews called Hasidaeans, led by Judas Maccabaeus, who are keeping up the 7 feud and stirring sedition; they will not let the kingdom settle down in peace. Wherefore, deprived of 8 my ancestral glory—-I mean, the high-priesthood—I have now come hither, primarily from a sincere concern for the king’s interests, and secondly from anxiety on behalf of my own fellow-citizens ; for [9 the recklessness of the aforesaid party has involved our nation in no small misfortune. Acquaint | thyself, O king, with the details of this business, and take measures on behalf of our country and our ὁ sorely tried nation, according to the gracious kindness which thou showest to all. For as long as τ Judas is alive, it is impossible for the State to be at peace. When he said this, the rest of the king’s Friends, who cherished ill will against Judas, hastened to inflame Demetrius still further against him, 2and, after instantly summoning Nicanor, formerly master of the elephants, and appointing him 3 governor of Judaea, he dispatched him with written instructions to make away with Judas and to 4 scatter his troops and to set up Alcimus as high-priest of the great temple. Now all the heathen throughout Judaea, whom Judas had driven to flight, flocked to join Nicanor, anticipating that the -5 misfortunes and calamities of the Jews would mean gain to them. But when the Jews heard of Nicanor’s inroad and the onset of the heathen, they sprinkled earth upon their heads and solemnly invoked Him who had established his own people to all eternity and who ever upholds those who [6 are his Portion with visible aid. Then, by order of their leader, they at once started out and joined ΤΠ battle with them at a village called Lessau. Now Simon, the brother of Judas, had already -| encountered Nicanor and, thrown suddenly into consternation by the foe, had sustained a temporary 18 check. Nevertheless, Nicanor shrank from deciding the issue at the sword’s point, as he had heard of the manliness and the courage shown by the troops of Judas in fighting for their country. τὸ He therefore sent Posidonius and Theodotus and Mattathias to give and receive pledges of friendjzoship. After full consideration, when the proposals were laid by the general before the troops, and 21 it appeared they were all of one mind, the compact was agreed to, and a day was fixed for the two
lating, glosses over the fact that the fortress was starved into surrender (1 Macc. vi. 49-50), and that Judas was routed (cp. Josephus, Amz. XII. ix. 5).
23. Cp. v. 22, ix. 29, where a different tradition emerges. It was really Lysias, not the king, who was upset by the news of Philip’s move (cp. 1 Macc, vi. 55 f.).
24. Hegemonides. If ἡγεμονίδην is equivalent to ἡγεμόνα, the story is guilty of another historical error in making Lysias appoint Judas as governor. But the word is more probably a proper name, formed on the analogy of ᾿Ηγεμόνιος, especially as στρατηγόν would otherwise be superfluous.
Gerar. For Γερρηνῶν (V), ‘the inhabitants of Gerrha’, read Γεραρηνῶν (Γεραρήρων 55) Gerar, SE. of Gaza (so Ewald), or Garar (Syr.), i.e. Gezer (Gazara) near Lydda (1 Macc. xv. 28,35). The phrase means ‘from Ptolemais on the north to G. on the south’. Gerrha (Gerra), between Rhinocura and Pelusium, belonged at this time to Egypt. Hence, unless the writer is held guilty of a serious error, the other reading is preferable.
XIV. 3. voluntarily polluted himself, &c. The Hellenistic proclivities of Alcimus were aggravated, to the writer’s mind, by their gratuitousness ; he had not been forced to adopt Syro-Greek customs, and he had not the excuse of any syncretisfic current during his high-priesthood (cp. ver. 38).
14. whom Judas had driven to flight. A solecism (πεφυγαδευκότες τὸν ᾿Ιούδαν) apparently based on the analogous uses of φεύγειν τινά = ‘to fly from one’ (e.g. Herod. v. 62).
16. Lessau. The v. /. Δεεσαού is connected by Ewald with the Adasa of 1 Macc. vii. 40, 45; otherwise neither Lessau nor Dessau can be identified.
17. atemporary check. Reading βραχέως (V) instead of βραδέως (A, 19, 44, 62, Kc.).
22 leaders to meet by themselves. A litter was carried forward from each army; chairs of state were placed ; Judas stationed armed men ready in suitable positions, lest the enemy should spring any 23 treacherous attack ; they carricd through the conference duly. Nicanor stayed a while in Jerusalem 24 and did nothing amiss; he even disbanded the hordes who had flocked to join his standard ; 25 he kept Judas always beside him; he had become heartily attached to the man, urged him to — marry and beget children. He did marry, settled down, and enjoyed lifes 26 But when Alcimus saw their mutual goodwill, he got hold of the treaty which had been concluded ' and went to Demetrius, alleging that Nicanor was ill affected toward the State, since he had 24 appointed that conspirator Judas to be his successor. At this the king fell into a passion — and, exasperated by the calumnies of the scoundrel, wrote to Nicanor that he was displeased at the compact, and ordered him to send Maccabaeus instantly as a prisoner to Antioch, 28 Nicanor was confounded by this news and sadly vexed at the thought of annulling the terms 29 arranged, as the man had done no wrong. However, as the king could not be gainsaid, he bided 30 his time to carry out the business by a stratagem. But Maccabaeus noticed that Nicanor was treating him with less friendliness and behaving more rudely than was his wont ; so, reckoning this harshness was of a sinister character, he gathered a considerable number of his men and hid from 31 Nicanor. The latter, conscious that he had been pluckily outwitted by Judas, went to the great and holy temple, while the priests were offering the usual sacrifices, and commanded them to deliver up
2, 33 the man. And when they swore they did not know where the man was whom he sought, he
stretched forth his right hand toward the sanctuary, and swore this oath: Unless you hand over Judas as my prisoner, I will raze this shrine of God to the ground, and break down the altar, and 34 erect on this spot a temple of Dionysus for all to see. With these words he went away. But the priests stretched forth their hands to heaven, invoking Him who ever fighteth for our nation, thus: 35 O Lord, who hast no need of aught, as it hath pleased thee to have among us a sanctuary where thou 36 dwellest, so now, O holy Lord, from whom is all hallowing, keep free from defilement for evermore this house so lately cleansed, and shut every impious mouth. 31 Now information was laid before Nicanor against a Jerusalemite elder called Razis, a patriot who was very highly esteemed, and addressed as Father of the Jews on account of his benevolence. For 38 in bygone days, when there was no trafficking (with the Gentiles), he had been accused of Judaism, 39 and had most resolutely risked body and life for Judaism. So Nicanor, with the intention of 40 showing his hostility to the Jews, sent over five hundred soldiers to arrest him. For he meant to 41 strike a blow at the Jews by this arrest. But when the troops were on the point of capturing the tower, forcing the outer door of the courtyard and calling for fire to set light to the doors, he fell 42 upon his sword, seeing he was surrounded on every side; he preferred to die a noble death rather 43 than fall into the scoundrels’ hands and suffer outrages unworthy of his noble character. Owing to the hurry of the struggle, however, he missed his stroke, and, as a crowd of men was now pouring through the door, he pluckily ran up to the wall and threw himself bravely down among the crowds. 45 They drew back at once, so that he fell between them on the open street. Still alive, however, he got up in a fury of anger and ran, with blood pouring from him, sore wounded as he was, right 46 through the crowds ; then, standing on a steep rock, his blood now drained from him, he tore out his bowels, taking both his hands to them, and flung them at the crowds. So he died, calling on Him who is lord of life and spirit to restore them to him again.
XV. 1-36. Attack, defeat, and death of Nicanor.
151 Now, learning that Judas and his men were in the region of Samaria, Nicanor determined to
2 attack them without any risk upon the day of rest. And when the Jews who were forced to accompany him said, Destroy them not so savagely and barbarously, but show honour to the day which
3 He who beholdeth all things hath hallowed in his holiness, the thrice-accursed wretch asked them
4 if there was a Sovereign in heaven who had ordered the observance of the sabbath day. And when they declared, There is the living Lord, himself a Sovereign in heaven, who bade us observe the
5 seventh day, he replied, I too am a sovereign on earth, and my orders are to take arms and execute the king’s business. Nevertheless he did not succeed in executing his shocking purpose.
6 Now Nicanor, in the height of his overweening pride, had determined to erect a public trophy of
7 victory over Judas and his men ; but Maccabaeus still ceased not to trust with absolute confidence
24. the hordes, i.e. the supporters mentioned in ver. 14. 36. and shut every impious mouth. So 19, 62, φράξον δὲ πᾶν στόμα ἄνομον (φράξεις . . . ἄδικον, 64, 93a), and S. 42. A higher motive for suicide than in the case of Ptolemy Macron (x. 13).
_ XV. 5. he did not succeed, ἄς. The writer gives no account of what transpired. The purpose of the excerpt is simply to exalt, in ultra-Pharisaic and unhistorical fashion (cp. 1 Macc. ii. 41), the rigid sabbatarianism of the ἡ Maccabaean army.
ἢ that he would obtain help from the Lord, and exhorted his company not to dread the onset of the
| heathen, but to keep in mind all the help they had formerly received from heaven and to expect at
|) the present hour the victory which would be theirs from the Almighty ; and comforting them out
‘| of the law and the prophets, as well as recalling the struggles they had endured, he made them }) more eager (for the fray). Then, after rousing their spirits, he issued his orders, and at the same time
τ pointed out the heathen’s perfidy and breach of their oaths. He armed each man, not so much with
| confidence in shields and spears as with the heartening which comes from apt words, and also
. cheered them all by recounting a reliable dream, a sort of vision. This was what he had seen: Onias, the former high priest, a good and great man, of stately bearing yet gracious in manner, well-spoken and trained from childhood in all points of virtue—Onias with outstretched hands invoking blessings
; on the whole body of the Jews; then another man in the same attitude, conspicuous by his grey
| hairs and splendour, and invested with marvellous, majestic dignity. This, Onias explained to him, is the lover of the brethren, who prayeth fervently for the people and the holy city, Jeremiah the
|; prophet of God. And Jeremiah held out his right hand to present Judas with a golden sword, and as he gave it he addressed him thus: Take this holy sword as a gift from God, and with it thou shalt crush the foe.
1 So, encouraged by these truly heroic words of Judas, which had the power of rousing young souls to valour and stirring them to manliness, they determined not to pitch camp but manfully to set upon the foe and, by engaging them right valiantly hand to hand, to decide the issue, since the city
3nd the sanctuary and the temple were in danger. For their anxiety about wives and children, as
| well as about brethren and kinsfolk, weighed less with them than their supreme and chief anxiety |) about the consecrated sanctuary. Whereas those left behind in the city were uneasy about the
}> encounter in the open country, and suffered no slight anguish. All were now waiting for the critical
moment, the enemy had now united their forces and drawn up their line of battle, the elephants
τ were arranged for easy action, and the cavalry stationed on the wings, when Maccabacus, surveying
the hordes in front of him, with their varied weapons and fierce elephants, held up his hands to
| heaven and called upon the Lord, the worker of wonders, for he knew that victory is not decided |: by weapons but won by the Lord for such as He judgeth to deserve it. And his prayer was in these terms: Thou, Sovereign Lord, didst send thine angel in the days of Hezekiah king of Judaea, and
3 he slew as many as a hundred and eighty-five thousand of Sennacherib’s host ; so now, O heavenly
‘|t Sovereign, send a good angel before us to scare and terrify'the foe; by the great strength of thine 3 arm may those who have blasphemously assailed thy holy sanctuary be utterly dismayed. And as
}5 he ended with these words, Nicanor and his men advanced with trumpets and paeans. But Judas
7 and his men joined battle with the enemy, calling upon God and praying ; and so fighting with their
hands, while they prayed to God with their hearts, they slew no fewer than thirty-five thousand men,
3 mightily cheered by the manifest help of God. The battle over, they were returning with joy, when
) they recognized Nicanor lying dead in full armour; a shout of excitement arose, they blessed the
5 Sovereign Lord in the language of their fathers, and he who was ever in body and soul the protagonist
of his fellow-citizens, he who retained through life his youthful patriotism, ordered Nicanor’s head
1 and arm to be cut off and carried to Jerusalem. When he arrived there, and had called his country-
2 men together and set the priests before the altar, he sent for the garrison of the citadel, showed them
the vile Nicanor’s head and the impious creature’s hand which he had stretched out vauntingly
3 against the holy house of the Almighty ; then, cutting out the impious Nicanor’s tongue, he said he
would throw it piecemeal to the birds and hang up the rewards of his insensate folly opposite the
4sanctuary. And they all lifted to heaven their cry of blessing to the Lord who had manifested
[5 himself, saying, Blessed be He who hath preserved his own Place undefiled. And he hung Nicanor’s
6 head from the citadel, a clear and conspicuous token to all of the Lord’s help. And all decided, by
public decree, never to let this day pass uncelebrated, but to celebrate the thirteenth day of the
twelfth month—called Adar in Syriac—the day before the day of Mordecai.
11. a sort of vision. Reading ὕπαρ τι for ὑπέρ τι. This intercessory function of the saints is denied in Slav. En.
20. united their forces. Reading συμμιξάντων (V) for προσμιξάντων (A).
21. and fierce elephants. Omitting, with V, ἐπὶ μέρος εὔκαιρον.
24. sanctuary. Reading ναόν (V) for λαόν (A). Cp. xiv. 33.
33. the rewards of his insensate folly. i.e. the mutilated head and hand (cp. 1 Macc. vii. 47), which were the miserable recompense of his insensate attack on the Jews. The citadel was not in the hands of the Jews at this period, however, but held by a Syrian garrison.
( 35. Cp. 1 Sam. xxxi. 10, Judith xiv. 1. For ‘head’ (as a rendering of προτομήν) R. V. prefers ‘head and shoulder’
XV. 37-39. Epilogue of the epitomist. -
37 Such was the history of Nicanor; and as the city was held from that period by the Hebrews, 38 I will make this the end of my story. If it has been well told, if it has been skilfully arranged, such 39 was my desire ; but if it is poor and indifferent, that was all I could manage. For just as it is bad to drink wine alone or again to drink water alone, whereas wine mixed with water proves at once wholesome and delightful, so the skill with which a book is composed is a delight to the taste of readers. : And here shall be the end.
37. the city was held from that period. A pious exaggeration; the citadel was not captured by the Jews till 142-141 B.C., and Antiochus Sidetes recaptured the city in 133 B.C. - ἢ
39. This verse carries on the thought of the first part of the preceding verse; it has nothing to do with the second. part. The writer expresses himself obscurely, although the obscurity may be due to some corruption of the text, but it is clear that he is not comparing graphic and prosaic passages in his narrative to wine and water, as if defending the blend of the two. He did his best, he pleads, to be pointed. For good style, blended with sound matter, adds to the reader’s profit and pleasure ; facts alone, and style alone, are alike inferior to this combination of history and literature,
ΠΕ BOOK OF MACCABEES
δι. CONTENTS AND MAIN CONCLUSIONS.
THE scene of 3 Maccabees is placed in the reign of Ptolemy IV (Philopator) at the time of the battle of Raphia (217 B.C.). It narrates an attempt made by the king to enter the Temple at Jerusalem, and his miraculous repulse. In consequence he determines to wreak his vengeance on the Jews of Alexandria, and of Egypt as a whole, first by interfering with their religion, and altering their political status, and afterwards by letting loose drunken elephants to trample them to death in the Hippodrome of Alexandria. After his purpose has been several times providentially delayed, it is finally foiled by a vision of angels which turns the elephants upon the persecutors. The king repents and becomes the patron of the Jews, who return in safety and rejoicing to their homes. The story as it stands is full of impossibilities and bombastic exaggerations, but each one of the incidents taken singly may well rest on some basis of fact, though they certainly did not all take place in the same reign. The general accuracy of the technical and official language of the book is confirmed by a comparison with Ptolemaic Papyri, and the book as a whole has striking points of contact with 2 Maccabees and the Letter of Aristeas. It would seem to have been written in Alexandria at about the same time as these books, not far from 100 B.C., a date which is confirmed by indications drawn from Papyri. The writer apparently used the lost memoirs of the reign of Philopator, written by Ptolemy Megalopolitanus shortly after his death. He seems to have combined a narrative of Philopator’s attempt to enter the Temple with a later story, preserved in another form by Josephus, of a persecution of Egyptian Jews by Physcon.
25 DICE:
Maccabees is really a misnomer, unless with Fritzsche we consider the book to be part of a prolegomena to a complete history of the Maccabees. Πτολεμαικά (see below, § 9) would be more accurate. Syncellus (I. 516) cites the Letter of Aristeas as πτολεμαικά. It is probable that the present title is not original. It may easily have arisen from its collocation with the other books of Maccabees
in the MSS. § 3. MSS. AND VERSIONS.
The book is found in A and V (=Holmes and Parsons 23), and in many cursives ; see Fritzsche, Libr. Apocr. Graece, Ὁ. xx, and Swete, 7γέγ. to the O.T. in Greek, pp. 148 ff.; το, 62, 64, 93 agree continually and give a Lucianic Text. It is not in the Vulgate, but is found in the Syriac Peshitta, the text of which represents a free and expanded rendering, sometimes agreeing with the Lucianic Text. There is also an Armenian version, which is probably to be dated A.D. 400-600, in the golden age of Armenian literature. It is a loose, but very literary, translation in the style of the fifth-century historian, Faustus of Byzant, and is found in most MSS. of the Armenian Bible.!
The text is generally well preserved and presents as a whole no serious problems. The variations of reading seldom affect the sense, and usually arise from the desire to substitute for the forced phraseology of the writer a simpler and more familiar expression. Even in cases where the MSS. seem to be corrupt, the general meaning is clear, and the confusion always appears to be due to the difficulties raised by the verbose and obscure style of the book. Emendation is very uncertain, as the ordinary canons of language and grammar can hardly be applied. There are interesting examples of probable conflation, e.g. in ii. 6, 24, v. 43.
1 For these facts, and for the readings from the Armenian version in the critical notes, I am indebted to the ready help of Mr. F. C. Conybeare.
§ 4. DATE AND ORIGIN. 1
The date must be determined by internal considerations. There is no early attestation to the | existence of the book (see below, § 9), but it cannot have been written after the destruction of the temple. It clearly belongs to the Jewish apologetic literature which sprang into being in the | second century B.C. and continued to be popular for some time. It has points of contact with © Esther and ¥udith on the one hand, though unlike them it has no hero, and with Stvach, Wisdom,
and 4 Maccabees on the other. But the connexion is specially close with 2 Maccabees and the Letter
of Aristeas.
(a) Relation to 2 Maccabees. The repulse of Heliodorus (2 Macc. 1] 3 Mace. ii. 21-4); miraculous visions (iii. 25, of the temple and prayers for its ii. 1 ff.); attacks on religion (vi. alien citizenship (iv. 9; cf. 3 Macc. ib.) ; vi. 30-6. An aged and pious letters are included (ix. 18 ff., xi. 16 ff. ;
(8) There is a strong resemblance in of literary, or pseudo-classical, Greek.
defence (iii. 15-22, vill. G, Gee Co 3 Mace. ii. 27 ff., iii. 21); attempts to enforce an stress laid on memorial feasts (x. 6, xv. 36; cf. 3 Mace. Eleazar appears in both books (vi. 18; cf. 3 Macc. vi. 1); official — cf. 3 Macc. iii. 12 ff, vii. 1 ff.); the picture of the general ~ horror in iii. 15 ff. is like that in 3 Macc. i. τό ff, iv. 3-8.
style and language. Crasis of the definite article, and various classical syn- —
(a) Many of the leading ideas and incidents are the same :— iii. 22-31), and the punishment of Antiochus (ix. 4 ff, cf. x. 29, xi. 8; cf. 3 Macc. vi. 18); stress on the sanctity
Both books present the same type —
tactical forms, are common to the two books and found nowhere else in the LXX!; both show
the same fondness for connecting sentences with δέ.
nowhere else in the LXX :—
δοριάλωτος 1. 5 3 V. II.
παραναγιγνώσκω 1. 12 ; Vill. 23.
φρυάσσομαι ii, 2 ; vii. 34 [cf. Acts iv. 25]:
κραδαίνω Il, 21; ΧΙ.
ἀντιλήμψεως τεύξασθαι il. 33; xv. 7 [the same peculiar form of the Aorist ; see Thackeray, ὁ. ¢., p. 287].
ὑψαυχενῶν 111. τῷ ; Xv. 6.
πρὸ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν λαμβάνειν iv. 43 Vill. 17.
3 διακομίζω i. 2 ;
The following words are found in both books,
κατάκλειστος i. 18; iii. 19 [in both cases with παρθένοι] ; Wisd. xviii. 4.
ἀπροσδεής [of God] ii. 9; xiv. 35; 1 Macc. xii. 9 [not of God
The similarity of phrase in the following cases
χειρονομία 1. 5 ; ἐν χειρῶν νομαῖς V. 14.
κισσόφυλλον il. 29; κισσοί vi. 7 and reference to Dionysiac worship.
χείριστος μόρος ili. I ; οἴκτιστος μόρος ix. 28.
The following words found in both occur
μιᾶς ὑπὸ καιρὸν ἡμέρας ἵν. 14 ; Vil. 20.
ἐλεφαντάρχης ν. 4, &C. ; XIV. 12.
ὁ ἐπιφανὴς Κύριος ν. 35 3 XV- 34.
ἀλογιστία ν. 42; χῖν. 8.
ἄτρωτος ν. 47; Vill. 36, x. 30 [in classical sense = unwounded |.
καταστέλλω Vi. I; 1V. 31.
τερατοποιύς [of God] vi. 32; Xv. 21.
and are rare otherwise :—
ἀπήμαντος Vi. 6; xii. 25; Wisd. vil. 22.
ξενίζων [as adj.] vii. 3; ix. 6; Esther ii. 13.
εὐσταθεῖν Vil. 43 Xil. 2, Xiv. 253 Jer. XXX. 9.
καθιδρεύειν vil. 20; iv. 12; Ep. Jer. 17.
προειρημένος five times in 3 Macc.; six times in 2 Macc.; τ Esdras vi. 32 [A].
is noticeable :—
πασῆς δυνάμεως δυναστεύων VY. 7 [cf. δυνάστης V. Sus πασῆς ἐξουσίας δυνάστης iii. 24 [all of God].
βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων Y. 35°; B. βασιλέων ΧΙ]. 4 [ both of God].
‘Scythian’ cruelty vii. 5; iv. 47-
Add also the idea of the ἐπιφάνεια of God, and the use of τόπος for the temple, which are frequent
in both books.
Though these resemblances are sufficiently striking, there are differences which prevent our
ascribing the books to the same author.
00k The style of 2 Maccabees is much better than that of 3 Maccabees; it is less involved and exaggerated, and more akin to the style of Polybius.
In each verse the reference to 3 Macc. is given first.
is it easy to establish a direct literary dependence on either side.1 The impression left is that both books belong to the same school of thought, and probably to the same period.
(ὁ) Relation to the Letter of Aristeas. (a) There is a general similarity in the idea and purpose of the books. Both aim at glorifying the Jew in his own eyes and in the eyes of the | Greek world ; stress is laid on the importance of his position, and his fidelity to the Ptolemies | (Aristeas, 36, &c.).2 A Ptolemy is the central figure in each book, and he is represented as acknowledging the protection of the God of the Jews (τό, 19, 37 ; cf. 3 Macc. iii. 21, v. 31, vi. 24 ff, vii. 6 ff.). Much is made of the inviolability and beauty of the temple (83 ff.) and the overwhelming awe inspired by it (99); the latter would seem to be a simpler expression of the physical terror and helplessness which in 3 Macc. ii. 21 overtakes Philopator; cf. also the punishments of those who profaned the secrecy of the text of the law (313 ff.). Other points of contact are the discussion of Jewish separateness in food and life (128 ff.; cf. 3 Macc. iii. 3 ff.), the place played in each story by the repeated royal feasts (187 &c., 3 Macc. iv. 16, v, vi), the inclusion of official letters, and the position of the typical priest Eleazar (22, 29, 33, 41; cf. 3 Macc. iii, 12, vii. 1; 33, 41, Ὅσοι ΣΝ]. τὴ:
(8) Style and language. The most striking resemblances are found in the official letters, or decrees :—
χαίρειν καὶ ἐρρῶσθαι 111. 12, vil. 1; 353 cf. 41. Cf. also iii. 25 with 25 [διειλήφαμεν γάρ, &c.]; and προστετάχαμεν 111. 25, vil. 8; 24. ὑπομαστιαίων In ili. 27 with ἐπιμαστιδίων in 27. μηνύειν τὸν βουλόμενον ἐφ᾽ ᾧ . . . ili. 28; τὸν βουλόμενον ὁ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς τύπος οὕτως ἐγέγραπτο ili. 30 ; ἐπιστολὴ τὸν προσαγγέλλειν περὶ τῶν ἀπειθησάντων ἐφ᾽ ᾧ. . .. 25 τύπον ἔχουσα τοῦτον 34. [reward follows in each case]. καθ᾽ ὁντινοῦν τρόπον Vil. 7; 24.
Remarkable words or phrases common to both books include the following :— +
Τέντυχία [technically of a petition] vi. 40: 1. Τάἄπταιστος Vi. 39 ; 187.
Τἀπόλυσις Vi. 37, 40; τό. τραπῆναι εἰς [pds | εὐφροσύνην ν. 36; 202, 294. 6 πάντων ἐπόπτης θεός il. 21; τό. ἀπροσδεήῆς 11. 9; 211.
παραναγιγνώσκω 1s 12; 42. tpeyadopepns Vv. 8; 226, 319.
παρὰ πόδας ὁρῶντες, Or ἔχοντες iv. 8, ν. 8; 135. ἐπιείκεια καὶ φιλανθρωπία [in technical sense, of king]
As with 2 Maccabees, the connexion seems to be of school and date. The similarity in the use of technical and official language is specially remarkable; as we shall see in the next paragraph, this language was that actually in use in documents of the Ptolemaic period.
(c) Relation to Papyri. The evidence of the papyri confirms the general accuracy of the official and technical language of the book, and suggests that it belongs to the Ptolemaic period, not the Roman.
Applying Thackeray’s test® of οὐθείς (μηθείς) as against οὐδείς (μηδείς), we find the @ form in i. 13 (A), ii. 28 (V), vii. 8 (A), as against six times where the MSS. agree with the spelling with 6. The fluctuation is much the same as in Wisdom (see Introd. to Wisdom zz /oc. in this volume), and both books are probably to be referred to the ‘ period of transition’ 132 B.C. to 100 B.C., or rather later.
Again, the formula χαίρειν καὶ ἐρρῶσθαι κτλ. (iii. 12, vii. 1), which it will be remembered is found in the Letter of Aristeas, seems ‘to point to a date at the end of the second or the beginning of the first century B.c.’° Earlier papyri usually have a conditional sentence ; papyri of the end
1 It is usually assumed without any serious attempt at proof that the writer of 3 A/accabees used 2 Maccadees. Willrich argues, on the other hand, that the reverse is true (Judaica, pp. 163 ff.). rte
The references are to Wendland’s paragraphs, as printed in Mr. Thackeray’s edition in Swete’s Ltr. to the O.T. in Greek*®, The English translation with critical and exegetical notes will be found in vol. ii of this work.
3 Thackeray has already called attention to some of these in Swete, ὁ. ¢., p. 502, ἢ. 3. As before, the reference to 3 Macc. is in each case given first.
4 Those marked with + do not occur elsewhere in the LX X.
5 Grammar O.T. in Greek, pp. 58 ff. :
® For the facts and references in this paragraph I am indebted to information kindly placed at my disposal by Mr. Thackeray in a private letter.
of the first century B.C. and onwards have πλεῖστα χαίρειν. Cf. especially P. Grenf. ii. 36 (95 B.C.) and P. Lips. 104 (c. 96 B.C.), where the resemblance to 3 Maccabees is peculiarly close. ; λαογραφία (ii, 28), which had been supposed to point to the Roman period, has been proved — to be entirely in place in the Ptolemaic age; and again the dating by Egyptian months alone (vi. 38), in which Willrich? finds a sign of late date, occurs much earlier, the equalizing a the Egyptian and Macedonian months having taken place in the reign of Euergetes II (Physcon). a “In Tebt. P. 5 (an official document of the beginning of the same reign) we find οἱ ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων (cf. 3 Macc. vi. 30) ; οἱ τεταγμένοι ἐπὶ πραγμάτων [χρειῶν] (cf. vii. τ, v. 14): καθ ὁντινοῦν τρόπον (cf. vii. 7 and Letter of Aristeas, 24). In Louvre P. 63 (an official letter of Philometor’s reign) occur the words τιθηνεῖσθαι (cf. iii. 15), σκεπάζειν (cf. 1{|: 27))). εὐχρηστία (ch 11: 25} ἀσχολία (cf. v. 34), the first two words being used in the same technical sense. καταχωρίζω ( enroll, ii. 29 ; Aristeas 36) occurs in the Canopus and Rosetta inscriptions, and frequently in Papyri; the same inscriptions speak of records on a στήλη (ii. 27, vii. 20), and afford evidence οἱ the popularity of commemorative feasts (vi. 36, vii. 19). μηνύειν τὸν βουλόμενον (iii. 28),* παρουσία ὃ (iii, 17, of a royal visit), φιλανθρωπία (of royal clemency, iii, 15-1 8), ἐντυγχάνω ( petition, vi. 37-49), are) Vall familiar in Papyri. γραφικοὶ κάλαμοι (a hitherto unparalleled phrase, iv. 20) occurs in Grenfell P., ii. 38 (first century B.C.) ; οἰκετικός (ii. 28) in B.M.P. cecci (c. 116 8. C.)5_ κακοτεχνεῖν (vii. 9) in (d) We have therefore converging lines of evidence. There are good reasons for connecting Maccabees with Alexandria; Jason is probably to be placed between 130 and Ioo B.C., and Maccabees not much later. The Letter of Aristeas is certainly Alexandrian and of the same period.’ Indications derived from the papyri (the nature of the official language, the greetings in the letters, and the use of the forms οὐθείς and μηθείς) suggest a date somewhere about 100 B.C. As we regard the connexion between 3 Maccabees and the other books as one of school and thought, and not of direct literary indebtedness, it may possibly have been written shortly before them. Its superior limit is fixed by the apparent quotation in 6° from The Song of the Three Children (LXX), which probably dates from the last quarter of the second century B.C. Mahaffy ὃ points out that polemical tracts for and against the Jews came into vogue during the reign of Physcon (146-117 B.C.), and they certainly continued to be the fashion. Our book clearly belongs to this class of literature. It was apparently written primarily for Jews to encourage and confirm their faith in themselves and their destiny,” but it was certainly meant to be read by the outside world as well. It is an apology, representing the Jew as the Ptolemies’ most loyal supporter, just as later apologists represented the Christian as the Emperors’ best citizen. There is also, not far below the surface, the further suggestion that it is not prudent to interfere too far with him or his religion. The book is further a tract on the orthodox side, supporting the strict view of the Hasidim, as against the laxer Hellenizing section,!? which must have been even stronger in Egypt than in Palestine. There is, however, little evidence that this polemic was specially directed against a Samaritan element, or even very definitely against the Onias temple. (ὁ) The chief alternative date is that suggested by Ewald."! He connects the book with the attempt of Caligula to place his image in the temple, and with the persecutions of the Alexandrian Jews which took place in his reign. Philo tells the story in the adv. Flaccum, and the Legatio ad Caium.* Certain points are found in his story and in 3 JZaccabees as well, e.g. the injustice of the persecution, the loyalty of the Jews, the punishment of the persecutor. But these are commonplaces. We miss the characteristic features of the Caligula story, the attempt to force the Emperor’s image into the temple and the synagogues of Alexandria, the attacks on the synagogues, and Caligula’s claim to divine honours ; 15. since the Ptolemies were θεοί, this feature could have been easily transferred. Further, in Philo the hostility comes first from the populace, the outbreaks in Alexandria precede the events in Jerusalem, and the Jews in fact suffer severely. Those who accept this date are therefore forced to hold with Grimm that the author was afraid to work out his parallel too closely. But the tone of 3 Maccabees is not that of a period of oppression and martyrdom ; it belongs rather to a time when the nation is prosperous, and its position has been triumphantly vindicated.
by Ὁ
Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 343. 5 Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, pp. 372 ff. £. B., art. 2 Maccabees. 7 Wendland and Thackeray, 100-80 B.C.
_* It may also have been intended to be read publicly on the occasion of the festivals commemorating the deliverances (vi. 36, vii. 19).
ΟΡ τ 91. Vil 1Ο. "Hist. Isr. v, pp. 468 ff. 15. See also Josephus, 47¢. XVIII. viii.
: See note on ii. 28. 2. Judaica, p. 166. 5. Mahaffy, Zhe Ptolemaic Dynasty, p. 205.
And tempting though Ewald’s suggestion appears at first sight, it cannot outweigh the positive indications of an earlier date which we have gained from other sources.
Attempts have also been made to find the occasion for the writing of the book in Pompey’s attack on the Temple in 64 B.C., or in the incidents narrated of Herod (Josephus, Av¢. XVII. vi. 5) or Pilate (ib. XVIII. iii. 1). But the resemblances in these cases are still slighter, and could only be seriously considered if there were independent grounds for ascribing the book to the Roman period.
δ 5. HISTORICAL BASIS.
(a) Relation to Polybius. Generally speaking the account of the battle of Raphia, and the picture of Philopator’s character, agree with Polybius v. But there are important differences in detail, for which there is no obvious reason ; see notes on ch. i. Now there was a certain Ptolemy of Megalopolis (a fellow-townsman of Polybius), who is mentioned by him as governor of Cyprus (xviii. 55. 6, &c.), and who wrote an anecdotic account of the reign of Philopator, giving a very unfavourable picture of the king.! Scala* shows that he was one of the sources used by Polybius, particularly in the story of Agathocles (xv. 25-33) ;* the comment which he appends to that story (xv. 34. 1) probably refers to Ptolemy’s history. ‘Iam quite aware of the miraculous occurrences and embellishments which the chroniclers of this event have added to their narrative with a view of producing a striking effect upon their hearers, making more of their comments on the story than of the story itself and the main incidents. Some ascribe it entirely to Fortune, and take the opportunity of expatiating on her fickleness, and the difficulty of being on one’s guard against her. Others dwell on the unexpectedness of the event and try to assign its causes and probabilities.’ + Mahaffy$ apparently independently, also arrives at the conclusion that this Ptolemy is the authority for the Agathocles section, and is ‘ probably the source which has blackened the name of Philopator’. Now on the other hand it has been recognized that the author of 3 J7accabees apparently used some good authority, other than Polybius. for his account of Raphia and the character of Philopator.° Can we not then identify this unknown source with the lost history of Ptolemy Megalopolitanus? The characteristics which Polybius ascribes to him, love of ‘ miraculous occurrences and embellishments ’, and the fondness for tracing out causes, are exactly those of 3 JZaccabees, and would make him a congenial pattern for the author of the latter book. It is noticeable that in one of his extant fragments’ he speaks of Philopator’s boon companions, of whom we hear so much in 3 Maccabees. There are again many features in the Agathocles section which remind us of the Jewish story, e. g. the stress laid on the popularity of Arsinoe (cf. 3 Macc. i. 4 ff.), the picture of the confusion in the streets of Alexandria, the debaucheries, the cruelties, the unexpected escape of Moeragenes.* These are sufficient to show that the sort of story told in 3 Maccabees is just that which was narrated by Ptolemy in his anecdotes. I would suggest then that the narrative of the opening verses of 3 Maccabees may be derived directly from him, and that amongst the stories which he told of Philopator were some which a pious Jew could adapt for the glorification of his own nation.
(ὁ) Relation to Fosephus. In c. Ap. ii. 5 there is a story which is certainly in some way connected with that of 3 MJaccabees. After the death of Philometor the Alexandrian Jews supported Cleopatra against his brother Physcon (Ptolemy IX, 146-117 B.c.). The latter in revenge exposed the Jews and their families to drunken elephants, which, however, turned on Physcon’s followers and slew many of them. A phantom also appeared to the king, preventing him from further attempts to injure them. But the parallel does not stop here. Earlier in the chapter Josephus mentions a visit of Ptolemy Euergetes I to Jerusalem to offer thankofferings after a victory ; stress is laid on the services of Onias and Dosztheus, Jewish generals; and reference is made to the intercession of Ithaca, or Irene, Physcon’s concubine, on behalf of the Jews, as well as to a memorial feast kept by the Alexandrian Jews on the day of their deliverance. It is at once obvious that Josephus’ version is far more probable than the exaggerated and sensational narrative of 3 Maccabees.’ The mention of the festival in both suggests that some historical incident lies
’ See Miiller, vag. Hist. Graec. iii, p. 66. ἡ Studien des Polybius, pp. 58-60, 263-7.
5. Also in the character of Philopator, xiv. 11, 12; Cleino, his cup-bearer, mentioned there, is also mentioned in one of the extant fragments of Ptolemy.
Shuckburgh’s translation. 5 Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 272, τ. 1; Ptolemaic Dynasty, pp. 143 ft.
δ e.g. by Mahaffy (Ef. Pz., p. 267); Willrich (A/a, vii, p. 293); Biichler (Zodcaden und Oniaden, p. 174).
τ apud Athen. vi, p. 246 Ὁ.
There is no striking resemblance in the language, which is that of Polybius himself ; but ἀμετάθετος and παραδει- γματίζειν, which occur in 3 Macc. v. 1, 12, iv. 11, and nowhere else in LXX, are found in this section (32. 7, 32.5); also cf. 31. 5 (χωρήσαντες cis τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς διάθεσιν) with ii. 28, 29.
Josephus clearly did not know, or at any rate care to use, 3 MWaccadees.
behind the legends, and there is indeed no a priori reason for doubting this. But is Josephus right in placing it in Physcon’s reign? The evidence of the papyri tends to show that the Jews as — a whole were well treated by this king, and this fact has led Mahaffy and others to reject Josephus’ setting of the incident.' But the evidence is somewhat scanty and refers to the latter part of the | reign. Josephus places the persecution at the very beginning, and implies, as does the author οἵ 3 Maccabees even more clearly, that the persecutor afterwards became a protector of the Jews. In neither story is there any question of a long continued oppression, but only of a single abortive attempt at vengeance. Further, in the troubles which broke out on the death of Philometor, it is in every way probable that his widow Cleopatra and her infant son were supported by Onias and the loyal Jews of Leontopolis ;* it is equally probable that in the reprisals with which Physcon signalized his success ἢ he may have attempted to punish the Jews. Such a view agrees with the impression left by 3 Maccabees that the main attack was made on Faytim Jews brought to Alexandria for the purpose.t Again, the fact that in Justin 38. 8 we may have ‘traces of an edict [of Physcon] by which Egyptians and Syrians (Jews) were granted the privileges of Alexandrian citizenship *® harmonizes exactly with 3 Macc. ii. 30, ili. 21.
On the other hand the Jerusalem incident is probably rightly placed by the writer of 3 Maccabees in the reign of Philopator. In his triumphal progress after Raphia the king would not be likely to leave out the Jewish capital.© With his love of architecture and interest in religion he would certainly wish to enter the Temple. The Jews would no less certainly have tried to prevent him, and his superstitious fears may well have been worked on in some such manner as to give rise to the highly coloured narrative of our book.’ It is even possible that the story may have been taken in substance from the memoirs of Ptolemy Megalopolitanus.
The hypothesis that two independent stories have been united in 3 AZaccabees is confirmed by an examination of the book itself. The connexion between the Jerusalem episode and the subsequent persecution in Egypt is very artificial. No doubt it is difficult to set bounds to the ἀλογιστία of a despot, but it is not very probable that Philopator should have wished to destroy the innocent and loyal Jews of Egypt merely on account of an insult offered by their fellow-countrymen in Jerusalem, and the narrative itself in its references to taxation and local religious differences affords a far more reasonable explanation of the origin of the persecution. Ρ
It would seem, then, that the writer of 3 Maccabees has combined the Physcon and Philopator stories, transferring the former to the earlier reign. There was an obvious advantage in doing so, since in the original narrative as preserved by Josephus the position of the Jews was a little ambiguous. It is true they had been loyal to Cleopatra, but they had unfortunately sided with the defeated party, and from the point of view of the conqueror they could be regarded as rebels. No such objection attached to the representation in 3 AZaccabees. The writer has also, by the way, worked in a reference to another story glorifying the Jew. Dositheus is mentioned in the Physcon story side by side with Onias as a Jewish general who did good service to the Ptolemies. In the Hibeh P. 90 and elsewhere a Dositheus sox of Drimylus is found as an Alexander priest of 222 B.C. The writer in i. 3 apparently identifies the two, and turns the son of Drimylus into a renegade Jew. At the same time he makes him play the réle of a Mordecai and save the king’s life.’ It is possible that the reference to Arsinoe in i. I, 4 may be explained on similar lines. She plays no further part in the story and her introduction seems quite pointless. But the writer may have intended that she should play the rdle which Ithaca plays in Josephus, and intercede for the Jews; for some reason he dropped this feature, but omitted to expunge the earlier references to her. On the other hand the episode may have been taken directly from Ptolemy Megalopolitanus, in whose narrative she seems to have figured prominently. In that case she is simply part of the historical setting of the picture, and her introduction was never intended to have any further significance.
It is at any rate clear that the aim of the writer was to combine in a single picture as many
Ptolemaic Dynasty, pp. 192 ff.; Willrich, Juden und Griechen, pp. 151 ff.
Mahaffy, ib., p. 183. * e.g. the massacre of Cyrenaeans, Diod. xxxiii. 13.
v. inf. καὶ 6, and cf. Abrahams, J. Q. R. ix, pp. 39 ff.
7 The Letter of Aristeas 99 speaks of the ἔκπληξις and θαυμασμὸς ἀδιήγητος inspired by the Temple; Stanley epapates Ἦ story of Ibrahim Pacha struck down on attempting to enter the shrine of Isaac (27251 7. Ch. iil,
® See Willrich, AZo, vii (1907), p. 293f. The same writer in Ludaica, p. το f., and Hermes, xxxix. 244 ff., calls attention to the undoubtedly curious coincidence that in Ad. Esth. xii. 1 Tharra the Eunuch slain by Mordecai is called, in Lagarde’s a text, Thedeutos or Theudetos, while Josephus (Av¢. XI. vi. 4) calls him Theodosites, or in Ant. XI. vi. 10 Theodestes ; cf. the Theodotus of 3 Macc. i. 2. Again in Ad. Esth. xi. 1 Dosztheuws a priest and Levite is named as the bearer of the book to Egypt. But his elaborate attempt to reduce all these narratives to versions of a single legend can hardly be followed; it involves a theory of Esther which ‘has found no favour thus far among critics’ (Paton, Esther [in Int. Crit. Com.], p- 77).
features as possible, all tending to the glorification of the faithful Jew. We thus have brought together in a single canvas the frustrated attempt to enter the Temple, the saving of the king’s life by a Jew, the attacks on religion and attempts to hellenize, affecting both the Jews in Alexandria and in Egypt as a whole, the testimonies to their great influence and unswerving loyalty, the marvels of divine intervention, and the vengeance on renegades. The result is not very convincing artistically or historically. But on the other hand each feature, taken by itself and stripped of its sensational colouring, is entirely credible and probably has some foundation in fact. Our knowledge of the history of the Jews in Egypt under the Ptolemies is too fragmentary to justify us in denying the possibility of sporadic outbreaks of anti-Semitism in the second and third centuries B.c. As we have seen, the papyri confirm in various ways the general accuracy of the writer, and we shall probably be justified in giving his work a somewhat higher historical value than has usually been assigned to it.
On one point all are agreed. The character of Philopator is in full accordance with the picture which history had come to form of him. ‘ Noctes in stupris, dies in conviviis consumit.’1 Whether the picture is quite a fair one is another question. It may be due to the bias of Ptolemy Megalopolitanus, and inscriptions suggest that there was something to be said on his side.* At any rate they prove an interest in architecture and religion, and a ready liberality to cities and temples, which agree with the statements of 3 Maccabees.
$6. INTEGRITY OF THE BOOK.
It is sometimes held that the book is only a fragment of a larger work (Ewald, Fritzsche), or that at any rate the opening has been lost (Grimm). The arguments for this view are found in the ~abruptness of the introduction,® the reference to the plot of Theodotus in i. 2 as though it were well known, and to the ‘ before-mentioned companions’ in ii. 25, who have not in fact been introduced previously. But if we accept the hypothesis of the writer’s dependence on Ptolemy Megalopolitanus, it will be more reasonable to suppose that these are slips, due to a careless reproduction of the source. Ini. 2 we have ‘a certain Theodotus’,as though from the writer's standpoint he was being mentioned for the first time, while the following words imply a previous reference to his treachery. The source is evidently only imperfectly adapted; the τις shows that Theodotus cannot have been already named in a lost opening of the book itself.
Biichler,* on the other hand, argues that 3 Maccadees, as it stands, has been drastically edited, and contains copious interpolations which have introduced confusion into the story. He points out that in the concluding chapters the Alexandrian Jews are hardly mentioned ; they deal solely with the return of country Jews to Moeris and the Arsinoite nome. He suggests that the original narrative dealt with a persecution of Fayim Jews, who had refused to join in a birthday feast to Dionysus on some occasion when Philopator attempted to establish his cult at Bakchis and Dionysias on the banks of Moeris. The references to renegades point to a Samaritan element which was ready to fall in with a lax syncretism. In accordance with this theory he makes very considerable excisions in the book. There are no grounds for doing this, and it is more probable that the writer himself combined various stories and is responsible for the resultant confusion. At the same time Biichler’s hypothesis as to the reasons which led to the persecution of the Fayim Jews is probable enough, and may well indicate one of the historical elements in the story.
ὃ 7. STYLE.
The book is a product of Alexandrian literature, exemplifying in its extremest form the pseudo- Classicalism of the Atticists. It would, however, be misleading to speak of it as written in the most literary style, since its artificiality and extravagance make it hardly worthy of the name of literature. Particularly when the writer attempts in descriptions to introduce purple passages, he succeeds only in being obscure and bombastic: e.g. i. τό ff., iv, v. 6 ff. His sentences are full of repetitions and awkwardly constructed, and for all their attempt at rhetoric are marked by an excessive use of the weak introductory particle δέ; e.g. of the first 11 verses, 10 begin with it. The vocabulary is varied ; Swete® gives a selection of 32 words not found elsewhere in the LX X, but in fact the list can be extended to over 100; its character may be judged from the fact that it includes 20 adjectives compounded with a privative; many again are poetical, such as πανόδυρτος, or πολύδακρυς. There are also about 14 words not found elsewhere in Greek literature, verbs such as ψυχουλκεῖν, tpoov- στέλλειν, and compound adjectives of the type of βυθοτρεφής, μισούβρις, μυροβρεχής, πουτόβροχος, φοβεροειδής, πυρόπνους.
Among the Classical forms, unique or unusual in the 1, ΧΧ, which mark the writer as an Atticist,
1 Justinus xxx. 1. 8; his nickname was Τρύφων. 2 Mahaffy, Emp. Pol., pp. 270 ff. 3 Xenophon’s Oecov. and Josephus’ Zzfe also begin with a δέ clause, but apparently in neither case were they meant to be regarded as independent works. * Tobiaden und Oniaden, pp. 172 ff. 5 Intr. O.T. in Greek, p. 312.
are the following ! :—rédcov, τελέως, δεσμά, ἴστε, διηρπάσθην, καθειστάντες, ᾧκτειρα, and the use of crasis _ with the definite article (τοὐνάντιον, τἀληθές). i νὰ
At the same time the writer shows the influence of the κοινή in such forms as τεύξασθαι κατεσχέθη, ἠνέῳξα, εἰάσθησαν, θεέ, τετάρτη (for rérpas). In iv. 19 there is an interesting example of a superfluous ἐν with dative after xpao@a.
The book represents the most orthodox type of old-fashioned Judaism, with its devotion to the temple, the law, and the peculiar position of the chosen people. The business of God is to act as their champion; there is no trace of universalism, or even any desire for proselytes ; Philopator is forced to respect God, but he does not worship Him, as does Nebuchadnezzar, nor is there any of the syncretism which we find in the Letéer of Artsteas. At the same time, side by side with the tone of somewhat arrogant self-satisfaction and narrow materialism, there is a real piety and an absolute faith in the power of prayer. There are no references to the Messianic hope, or apocalyptic ideas, or the future life. An angel vision terrifies Ptolemy and his followers, but it is not seen by the Jews; there is no sign of the desire to interpose intermediaries between God and man, nor is He described by periphrases; e.g. His πρόνοια is mentioned, but in no way personified (iv. 21, v. 30). He is addressed directly, and the variety and number of the attributes ascribed to Him is remarkable. The heaping up of such attributes in prayer was a feature of Hellenistic Judaism ® (ii. 2 ff., 21, v. 7, vi. 2-9, 18, 28 ; cf. 2 Macc. i. 24, Pr. Man. 1-4). Among the titles of God not found elsewhere in the LXX are the following :--- μόναρχος (ii. 2), προπάτωρ (ii. 21), μεγαλοκράτωρ (vi. 2), μισούβρις (vi. 9), ἔντιμος (vi. 13), weyadddogos (vi. 18), as well as several phrases of the type of πάσης δυνάμεως δυναστεύων." Unusual titles are πάντων ἐπόπτης (ii. 21), ἅγιε ἐν ἁγίοις (ii. 2, 21), ὁ ἐπιφανὴς Κύριος (v. 35), τερατοποιός (vi. 32), ῥύστης Ἰσραήλ (vii. 23).
From the theological standpoint, therefore, the book seems to belong to the strict and con- — servative school of the Hasidim, devoted to the law, and finding its inspiration in the lessons of the national history (ii. 2-20, vi. I-15). It expresses a bitter opposition to the attempts at hellenizing, which so nearly overwhelmed Judaism in the second century B.C.,and shows no sympathy with the developments of thought and doctrine, which at that time were growing up within the Jewish Church. Though it belongs to Alexandria, it shows no trace of the influence of the typical Alexandrian ideas.° The keenest heresy-hunter could have found no fault with its uncompromising orthodoxy.
$9. USE OF THE BOOK.
The references to 3 Maccabees are very few, and entirely confined to Christian writers. They include Afost. Canons 85, the Stichometry of Nicephorus, Synopsis Athanasit, Eus. Chron. ii. 122. The Stichometry of Codex Claromontanus implies a knowledge of the book, by mentioning the fourth book of Maccabees. In the Syxopsis Athanasii we find Μακκαβαικὰ βιβλία δ΄ Πτολεμαικά, where Credner’s emendation of καί for δ΄ is usually followed; Zahn’s πολεμικά has found little support. Theodoret of Antioch summarizes the book and treats it as historical (ad Dan. xi), and Swete ὃ calls attention to an interesting combination of Isa. lvii. 15 with 3 Macc. ii. 2 in the Liturgy of St. Clement. It will be seen that the attestation is entirely Eastern; the book was not accepted in the Western Church and does not appear in the Vulgate.
§ Io. BIBLIOGRAPHY.
The translation which follows is based to some extent upon Churton’s, but is practicallya new one. The attempt has been made to give an idea of the characteristics of the Greek by preserving the complexity of the sentences, and the
i . A smoother and more literary rendering would have given a wrong impression of the book. In the notes Gr. and Α΄. refer to the editions of Grimm and Kautzsch.
1 These examples are collected from Thackeray, Gr. O.7. 7 Greek; the references will be readily found in the
index to that book. 2 Cf. Moulton, Grammar of N.T. Greek IO.
5 Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 297 ff. ‘ : 7 ἷ EPS ae The attempts made to find characteristic features of Philonian thought are very unconvincing.
lation BOOK OF MACCABEES
»t Now when Philopator had learned from those who had returned of the capture by Antiochus of the _ places which had been held by him, he issued orders to all his forces, foot and horse, and taking with him his sister Arsinoe, marched to the district over against Raphia, where the army of Antiochus /2was encamped. But a certain Theodotus, determining to carry out his plot, took with him the bravest of the soldiers of Ptolemy who had been previously assigned to him, and went by night to | 3 the tent of Ptolemy, intending to kill him single-handed, and thereby put an end to the war. But Dositheus, called the son of Drimylus, who was by birth a Jew, but had subsequently abandoned the observance of the law, and renounced his ancestral faith, had conveyed Ptolemy away, and put some obscure person to sleep in the tent ; and so it happened that on this man fell the vengeance ᾿ 4intended for the other. And when a fierce battle had begun, and things were favouring Antiochus,
Arsinoe went frequently up and down the ranks, and her hair dishevelled, exhorted them with
lamentation and tears to fight manfully for themselves, their children, and their wives, promising to 5 give them if they conquered two minae of gold each. And thus it came about that their adversaries 6 were destroyed in the encounter, and that many were also taken captive. So Ptolemy, having , ctushed the attack, determined to visit the neighbouring cities, and encourage them. And having 8 done this, and given gifts to their shrines, he inspired his subjects with confidence. And when the
Jews had sent to him some of the senate and elders to greet him, and bring him gifts, and con-
gratulate him on what had happened, he became the more eager to visit them as quickly as possible. 9 And when he had come to Jerusalem he sacrificed to the Most High God and offered thankofferings,
acting in some measure according to what was suitable to the place. And entering into the oly το place, and being struck by the care dzsplayed, and the beauty, and admiring also the good order of 11 the temple, it came into his mind to purpose to enter into the sanctuary. And when they said that this was not allowed, since not even members of their own nation could enter, or all the priests, but 12 only the high-priest who was chief of all, and he once a year, he was by no means convinced. And when the law had been read out to him, not even then did he desist from his claim that he himself 13 should enter, saying, Even if they are deprived of this honour, I must not be so. And he asked 14 why, when he entered into every shrine, none of those present hindered him? And some one
I. 9. μεγιστω] mora A των eEns τι] wv εξεστι 64: mepirrov τι, or εξοχον τι Arm
I. 1. The opening describes the relations between Ptolemy IV, Philopator (222-204 B.C.), and Antiochus III, the Great (224-187 B.C.), immediately before the battle of Raphia, which took place in the spring of 217; Antiochus had captured Seleukeia, and occupied Syria and Palestine. See Pol. v. 40 ff.; 82 ff.; Mahaffy, Zypire of the Ptolemies, ch. vii. The story of Raphia is in substantial agreement with the account of Polybius, but there are certain divergences ; (a) in Polybius the two armies reach Raphia at about the same time; (ὁ) Arsinoe encourages the army in concert with Philopator defore the battle ; Antiochus is at first victorious on the right wing, but at the crisis it is the king himself who changes the fortune of the day; (c) Polybius refers to the ready submission of Coele-Syria and to Ptolemy’s visits to its cities, but he lays stress on their gifts and homage to him, not on his to them, as in 3 Macc.i. 6,7. On the significance of these differences see Intr. ὃ 5 a; see also § 6 for the abruptness of the opening, and § 5 ὁ for character of Philopator. Raphia is referred to in Dn. xi. 11, 12.
his sister Arsinoe. This is correct at the date of Raphia; subsequently, according to Egyptian custom, she became Ptolemy’s wife ; Livy (xxxvii. 4) calls her Cleopatra ; Justinus (xxx. 1.7) Eurydice. On the significance of her mention here see Intr. § 5 ὁ.
2. This Theodotus was a deserter from Ptolemy, who had been of great service to Antiochus (Pol. v. 40, 46, 61). His attempt is narrated ib. 81; there he takes two men with him, Dositheus is not mentioned, Ptolemy is saved because he did not sleep in his official tent, and Theodotus wounds two men and kills Andreas the king’s physician (? = the ἄσημός τις of ν᾿). See further Intr. § 5 ὁ.
ὅπλων Πτολεμαικῶν τὰ κράτιστα. The translation given above is that of most Edd., and κράτιστα makes it probable. But the reference may be toarms and equipment which were Πτολεμαικά, and therefore not noticed (n. b. ὡς μόνος κτεῖναι). Polybius remarks that the varieties of dress in the two armies prevented discovery.
3. Dositheus, see Intr. ὃ 5 ὁ. ;
4. The promise seems impossibly extravagant, but it must be remembered that Egyptian queens had large private property, and Abrahams suggests that the promise was only made to the Greek mercenaries.
_ 5. According to Polybius, Antiochus lost nearly 10,000 infantry, 300 cavalry, and 4,000 prisoners; Ptolemy 1,500 infantry and 700 cavalry.
9. πόπος the temple, as regularly in 2, 3 Macc. and elsewhere. ;
13. πᾶν τέμενος. Gr. and K. (with hesitation) understand this of the Jewish temple, as though it were πᾶν τὸ τέμενος ; why had he been allowed to enter at all, if he might not penetrate into the inmost shrine? But the argument is weak even for a despot, and the translation given above is more pointed.
1s answered thoughtlessly that he did wrong to make this boast. But since this is so, he said, why 16 should I not enter in any case, whether they wish it or not? Then the priests in all their robes fell down, and besought the Most High God to aid them in that which had come upon them, and to turn the violence of him who was making this wicked attack, filling the temple with lamentation 17 and tears; and those who were left in the city hurried forth in confusion, concluding that something 18 strange was happening. The virgins who had been shut up in their chambers rushed forth with their mothers, and covering their hair with dust and ashes, filled the streets with groanings and 19 lamentations. And those who had been lately married, leaving the chambers prepared for wedded 20 intercourse and forgetting their proper modesty, ran about in confusion through the city. And as for the new-born children, the mothers and nurses who had charge of them left them here and there, in the houses or in the streets without care,and came in crowds to the temple which is high above all. © 21 And manifold were the supplications of those gathered here because of the impious enterprise of the 22 king. And with them the bolder from among the citizens would not endure his carrying the matter 23 to an extremity, or his determination to complete his project; but calling oz one another to rush to arms, and to die bravely for the law of their fathers, they made great confusion in the place, and being with difficulty turned from their purpose by the elders and the priests, they joined in , 25 supplication with them. And the multitude continued meanwhile praying as before. But the elders who were with the king tried in many ways to turn his haughty mind from the purpose he 26 had conceived. But being emboldened and now setting them all aside, he was even beginning to 27 approach, thinking that he would complete the des7gu aforesaid. Therefore those who were with him seeing this, joined with our own people in beseeching him who has all power to defend them in 28 their present need, and not to disregard the lawless and insolent deed. So incessant and vehement 29 was the united cry of the multitude that an indescribable uproar arose. For it might have been thought that not only the people, but even the walls and the whole pavement were crying out, since all preferred death to the profanation of the λον place. tr Then the High-Priest Simon bowing his knees before the holy place, and spreading out his hands 2 in calm reverence, prayed after this manner: Lord, Lord, king of the heavens, and sovereign of all creation, holy among the holy ones, only ruler, almighty, give ear to us who are grievously troubled 3 by one wicked and profane, made wanton in insolence and might. For thou who hast created all things, and governest the whole world, art a righteous ruler, and judgest those who do aught in 4 violence and arrogance. Thou didst destroy those who aforetime did iniquity, among whom were 5 giants trusting in their strength and boldness, bringing upon them a boundless flood of water. Thou didst burn up with fire and brimstone the men of Sodom, workers of arrogance, who had become known of all for their crimes, and didst make them an example to those who should come after. 6 Thou didst try with manifold and grievous punishments the insolent Pharaoh when he enslaved thy 7 holy people Israel, and didst make known thy mighty power. And when he pursued with chariots and a multitude of peoples thou didst overwhelm him in the depth of the sea, but those who trusted 8 in thee, the ruler of all creation, thou didst bring safely through. And they seeing the works of thy 9 hands did praise thee, the almighty. Thou, O King, when thou didst create the boundless and
15. παντως] παντων A; παντες V 16. macas ταις εσθησεσιν] A V 44, 55, 74: Tas ays εσθ. al; πασαῖις ταις yoor τε al. 19. τοὺς πρὸς ἀπαντησιν διατεταγμενοὺυς παστους] τοὺς πρὸς amav vuy διατεταγμενους (A -nv) A V 553 aravras 44, 74, with further variations in cursives; ‘were sitting veiled (07 curtained off) and prepared’ Arm. The parallel in iv. 6 confirms παστούς, and διατεταγμένην in A suggests that ἀπάντησιν is the original reading. 23. τερεων] Luc text, Syr; γεραιων A Arm al; γερεων V 28. cuvayopuerns| -ων Syr Arm and Edd
Il. τὸ AV 55,71 > whole verse; καὶ εἰπὸν ὁμοθυμαδὸν 44,74; ‘they began to pray and said’ Arm 6. δοκι- μασας τιμώριαις ἐγνώρισας TO peya Gov κρατος] V; + (after eyvwpicas) τὴν σὴν δυναμιν ed ats εγνωρισας A Arm and most
cursives with variations ; a conflate reading δοκιμασας] «5. A; δαμασας Luc text 9. nytagas ... σοι] +(before got) εἰς cov ονομα A Arm; ets ovopa σου (> cot) V
15. Text and grammar are in some confusion, but the general meaning is clear. 18,19. The same remark applies ; cf. 2 Macc. iii. 19 for the general picture. mpocapriws is not found elsewhere ; L. and S. ‘lately’; Edd. ‘completely’. ἐσταλμέναι. There is no parallel for the meaning ‘married’, which is required by the verse. Gr. and K.
suggest ‘secluded’, others vestem (sc. nuptialem) indutae. Arm. translates ‘who had just then only been newly introduced’, which is probably right.
II. 1. Simon II, son of Onias II (219-199 B.c.). Perhaps referred to in Sir. 1. 1, but it is doubtful whether Simon the Just is to be identified with Simon I or II.
2. This heaping up of the attributes of God is characteristic of Hellenistic Judaism; see Intr. ὃ 8, ἅγιε ἐν ἁγίοις
eed ΤῊΝ 188, Ivii. 14; see Intr. § 9 for the liturgical use of the phrase. μόναρχος occurs in Eus. and later writers as a title of God.
᾿ς, 4. For giants cf. Judith xvi. 7 ; Sir. xvi. 7; Wisd. xiv. 6; Enoch vii. 2, ix. 9, xv. 8; Jubilees v. 7. See also 2 Pet. ll. 5-6, where we have azgels, the flood, and Sodom.
measureless earth, didst choose this city and sanctify this place [for thy name] for thyself, who hast need of nothing, and didst glorify it by a splendid manifestation, establishing it to the glory of thy τὸ great and honourable name. And loving the house of Israel, thou didst promise that if there should be a falling away, and distress should overtake us, and we should come to this place and make our ‘2 supplication, thou wouldst hear our prayer. And indeed thou art faithful and true. And seeing } that oftentimes when our fathers were afflicted thou didst succour them in their humiliation, and 113 didst deliver them from great evils, behold now, Ὁ holy king, for our many great sins we are |κ4 grievously troubled and put into subjection to our foes, and faint in ow weakness. In our low ᾿ς estate this insolent and profane man seeketh’ to do violence to the holy place which is consecrated δ upon earth to the name of thy glory. For man cannot reach thy dwelling place, the heaven of [τό heavens. But since thy good pleasure was in thy glory amongst thy people Israel, thou didst πῇ hallow this place. Punish us not by the uncleanness of these men, neither chastise us by their profane doings, lest the transgressors boast in their wrath or exult in the insolence of their tongue, _|t8 saying, We have trodden down the house of the sanctuary as the houses of the abominations are τὸ trodden down. Blot out our sins and scatter abroad our offences and manifest thy mercy at this 20 hour. Let thy compassion speedily overtake us, and put praises in the mouth of the fallen and broken in heart, granting us peace. 2t Then the God who beholds all, the Father of all holy among the holy ones, hearing the supplication spoken according to the law, scourged him who was greatly uplifted in violence and inso- 22 lence, shaking him to and fro as a reed by the wind, so that lying on the ground powerless and 23 paralysed in body he could not so much as speak, being smitten by a righteous judgement. Whereupon his friends and body-guard, seeing that the chastisement which had overtaken him was swift, and fearing lest he should even die, speedily drew him out, being overwhelmed by an exceeding great 24 fear. But having after some time recovered himself, he by no means came to repentance though he had been thus punished, but departed with bitter threats. 25 900, arriving in Egypt, and going on further in his wickedness, through his boon companions and 26 associates, who have been already mentioned, utter strangers to all justice, he was not content with his countless excesses, but even reached such a pitch of insolence that he raised evil reports in those parts, and many of his friends watching carefully the royal purpose, themselves also followed his 27 will. He purposed publicly to inflict a disgrace upon the Jewish nation, and erected a pillar on the 28 tower in the palace with the inscription, That none who did not sacrifice should be allowed to enter their temples ; and that all Jews should be degraded to the rank of natives and the condition of 29 serfs, and that those who spoke against it should be taken by force and put to death; and that those who were registered should even be branded on their bodies with an ivy-leaf, the emblem of
24. απειλας Se πικρὰς θεμενος] V Luc text; μετα απειλης de mxpas al; pera απειλης δὲ mikpas θεμενος A*(a clearly conflate reading)
Io. I Kings viii. 33.
18. abominations is of course a slip from the standpoint of the supposed heathen speaker.
21. πάντων ἐπόπτης, cf. 2 Macc. vii. 35, ix. 5; Ad. Esth. xv. 2; Letter of Aristeas, 16; see Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 429.
ἔνθεσμος expressing the law; cf. v. 10. For the incident cf. the repulse of Heliodorus in 2 Macc. iii. 22-30, where the resemblance in language is great, and the punishment of Antiochus ib. ix. 4 ff.
25. already mentioned ; either a slip from a careless use of a source (see Intr. § 6), or a reference to the supposed lost beginning of the book.
26. evil reports—whether against himself, or the Jews, is not clear. ἢ
28. i.e. the Jews might only enjoy their own worship if they also conformed to the official cult ; cf. Josephus, «4.12. XIL iii. 2; cAZ.ii.6. No other example of the word λαογραφία was known till the discovery of the Papyri. Grenfell and Hunt (7eé¢. P. [1902] pp. 445-8) discuss this passage with reference to Wilcken’s view that the word implies the “poll-tax’ of the Roman period, and is therefore an anachronism in a decree ascribed to Philopator, and in fact proves that the book dates from the Roman period. They show that the word does occur in Ptolemaic papyri, but not in its fully developed technical sense; it means not a tax, but ‘a taxing list of persons, most, or all, of whom were native Egyptians’. ads is the technical term for Egyptians as contrasted with Greeks (ib. p. 552). This exactly fits the context here.
διάθεσις is freq. in Polybius = condition ; cf. esp. xv. 31. 5 χωρήσαντες εἰς τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς 6. For the idea cf. Philo, Leg. ad Cai. 17. ae.
29. Ewald finds here an allusion to the vine as ‘the symbol and arms of Jerusalem’ ; i.e. it is maliciously suggested that the Jews have been worshippers of Dionysus all along. This, however, is rather far-fetched. There is good evidence that Bacchus was the family god of the Ptolemies (vide Satyrus af. Theophr. ad Autolyc. ii, p.94). Philopator apparently allowed himself to be branded (Γάλλος, ὁ Φιλοπάτωρ Πτολεμαῖος διὰ τὸ φύλλα κισσοῦ κατεστίχθαι ws οἱ Τάλλοι, Steph. Thes. 5. “.}; cf. also Biichler, Zvd. τι. On. pp. 197 ff., for traces of the cult in Egypt during this period. In 2 Macc. vi. 1 Antiochus introduces the worship of Bacchus into Jerusalem. Η
For branded cf. Philo, De 727ο7ι. i. 8 (Jews who allowed themselves to be branded), and Isa. xliv. 5 (a probable reference to branding the name of J” on the hand).
30 Dionysus, and be reduced to their former limited status. But that he might not appear an enemy — to all, he added: But if any of therh prefer to join those who are initiated into the mysteries, they shall have equal rights with the citizens of Alexandria. | oe ; er
31 Some tobviously hating the price paid for the religion of their city} readily gave themselves up,
32 expecting to gain great glory from their association with the king. But the greater part stood firm with a noble courage, and departed not from their religion ; and paying money as a ransom for
33 their lives fearlessly attempted to save themselves from the registration. And they remained of — good hope that they should find help, and abhorred those who parted from them, accounting them © as enemies of their nation, and excluding them from social intercourse and the rendering of any service,
31 The impious ing perceiving this was so greatly enraged that he was not only wroth with those ’ who dwelt at Alexandria, but was even more bitterly hostile to those in the country, and ordered
that they should all be speedily gathered together, and put an end to by the most cruel death.
While this was being arranged a malicious report was noised abroad against the Yezw7shk nation on
the part of men who agreed together to do them hurt, an occasion being afforded for representing
3 that they hindered them from the observance of the laws. But the Jews continued to maintain
4 their goodwill towards the kings and their unswerving fidelity. Yet worshipping God, and living
according to his law, they held themselves apart in the matter of food; and for this reason they —
5 were disliked by some; but adorning their conversation by the good practice of righteousness they
6 were established in the good report of all. But of this good practice, which was the common talk ;
7 of all men with regard to the nation, the foreigners took no account ; but they talked continually of the difference they made with regard to worship and food, alleging that they were friendly neither to the king nor his army, but ill-disposed, and bitterly hostile to his interests; thus they cast no
8 small opprobrium upon them. But the Greeks in the city having been in no way injured by them, —
9 seeing the unexpected disturbance about them, and the unlooked-for concourse, were not able to
help them—for they lived under a tyranny—but tried to comfort them and were indignant, expecting that this affair would take a change for the better ; for so great a community could not be thus
ro allowed to perish when it had committed no fault. And already some of their neighbours and friends and business associates, taking aside some of the Fews secretly, gave pledges of their protection and earnest endeavours for their assistance.
11 So ¢he king, puffed up by his present prosperity, and regarding not the power of the most high God, but supposing that he himself would always hold firmly to the same purpose, wrote this letter
31. επιπολαιως] V* Arm; επιπολείως A; ἐπὶ πολεως V* αἴ τα (τας A!) της πολεως ευσεβειας ἐπιβαθρα A; τας . . . ἐπιβαθρας V a/, with numerous variations of εὐσεβους, ἐπιβαθροις, and alterations of order στυγουντες] -at A; στοιχουντες Arm Luc text (with variations of spelling)
III. 4. emt τω κατα τας τροφας] V 62, 64: emt τω καταστροφας A; ent τινων καὶ καταστροφας al ενιοις}] τοι A
29. καταχωρίζω is technical = ‘enrol’ or ‘enter’; cf. papyri, Letter of Aristeas, 36, Canopus and Rosetta inscriptions. The latter also speak of records set up on a stelé (v. 27).
30. The question of Alexandrian citizenship and its different grades is complicated; cf. Mahaffy, Pfo/. Dyn., Ὁ. 58. According to the repeated statements of Josephus (Av¢. XII. i; XIX. v. 2, &c.) the Jews already possessed a full citizenship. But there is no doubt that whatever such privileges they had at this period they enjoyed as individuals and not as a nation, and very little is known of citizenship outside Alexandria. There was therefore room for such a grant as this; and there are in fact independent traces of it in Physcon’s reign (Intr. § 54). Abrahams suggests that Alexandrian citizenship was offered to the Fayiim Jews in order to simplify organization or taxation. Cf. 2 Macc. iv. 9 for attempt to impose Antiochene citizenship on the Jerusalem Jews, and Josephus (Av, XII. iii. 2) for close connexion of citizenship with religion.
31. The first part of the verse is very obscure. K., ‘who on account of the citizenship in a city hated the approaches to the city of piety’. Gr. takes ἐπὶ πόλεως, ‘some who were over a district, or community, in Alexandria,’ and the last part is translated by some ‘ hated the advances of the religion of the city’. I suggest with hesitation the translation given above, which keeps the best attested reading. ἐπιπόλαιος in Aristotle frequently means ‘evident’ or ‘obvious’. ἐπίβαθρον means ‘a fare’, or more generally ‘price paid’; cf. Plut. 2. 727 f, where the stork by its destruction of snakes pays ἐπίβαθρόν τι γῆς.
The reference would be to the heavy demands made by the Jewish law, or more specifically to the Temple tax, and it is possible, as Biichler suggests, that the renegades may be Samaritans; at any rate they are the lax, Hellenizing section of the Egyptian Jews (cf. Kennett, Schweich Lectures [1909], Lect. III). The Arm. gives a similar sense: * Many of them, shallow-witted people [taking ἐπιπολαίως as meaning “ superficially Ἢ who aforetime indeed were irresolute in the ancient law,’
If ‘ city of piety’ be the right translation, it confirms Prof. Burkitt’s emendation of 70M for DIN in Isa. xix. 18, though there the reference is not to Jerusalem. ¥
III. 4. On the unpopularity caused by Jewish peculiarities see an exhaustive study by Dobschiitz, Amer. 7. Theol. 1904, pp. 728 ff. ; cf. the defence in Letter of Aristeas, 128 ff. For the hostility of the populace see Philo’s account of the violence of the Alexandrian mob in the outbreak under Caligula.
8. The Greeks are the better-class Macedonian element. There is evidence that their position too was attacked by Physcon (Mahaffy, Zi. Ptol., p. 388).
2 against them. King Ptolemy Philopator to his generals and soldiers in Egypt and every place 1:4 greeting and prosperity. I myself and our affairs prosper. Our expedition into Asia, of which you yourselves are aware, having been brought to an expected conclusion by the help of the Gods | 5 granted us deliberately, we thought, not by force of arms, but by kindness and much benevolence | to foster the peoples of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, bestowing benefits upon them with all readiness. 16 And having granted large revenues to the temples in the cities, we came to Jerusalem as well, going up thither to show honour to the temple of the accursed people who never cease from their folly. }:7 Seemingly they welcomed our presence, but their welcome was insincere; for when we were eager 18 to enter their shrine and to honour it with magnificent and beautiful offerings, carried away by their | ancient pride they prevented us from going in, being left unhurt by our power on account of the τὸ benevolence we have to all. /But they show plainly their ill-will towards us, and standing alone | among nations in their stiff-necked resistance to kings and their own benefactors, they refuse to take 20 anything in a proper spirit. We accommodated ourselves to their folly, and returning victoriously }21 to Egypt, and treating all nations with kindness, have acted as was right. And under these circumstances, making known to all our ready forgiveness of their fellow-countrymen, on account of their alliance, and the numerous matters which have been freely entrusted to them from of old, we have ventured to make a change, and have made up our mind to hold them worthy even of Alex- [5 andrian citizenship, and to give them a share in our religious rites from time to time. But they taking this in the opposite spirit and rejecting the good offer with their inborn ill-feeling, and 23 continually inclining to evil, not only refused the invaluable citizenship, but also show their contempt silently and by words for the few among them who behave properly towards us, in every case secretly expecting that through their infamous behaviour we should speedily alter our 24 policy. Therefore having good proof for our persuasion that they are evilly disposed towards us in every way, and taking precautions lest when some sudden tumult is raised against us hereafter }25 we should have these impious people behind our backs as traitors and barbarous foes, we give order | that, as soon as this epistle reaches you, you shall at once send to us with harsh and violent treat- | ment those who dwell among you with women and children, binding them fast in every way with 26 iron chains, to meet a terrible and ignominious death, as befits traitors. For we believe that when - they have been punished together, our estate will be established for the future in the surest and 27 best condition. And whoever shall harbour any Jew, old man or child or very suckling, shall with 28 all his house be tortured to death with the most horrible torments. Information may be given by any one; ¢he informer to receive the estate of the guilty party, with two thousand drachmae from [29 the royal treasury, and to be honoured with freedom. And every place where a Jew shall be | detected at all in concealment shall be made a waste and burnt with fire, and shall become entirely _ }30 useless to any mortal creature for all time. Thus ran the letter. | ἴῃ every place where this decree reached, a feast at the public charges was made for the heathen with exultation and joy, the hatred which had long before become inveterate in their hearts being now 2 freely displayed. But among the Jews there was unceasing grief and a lamentable crying with tears, their heart being all aflame with their groanings, as they bewailed the unlooked-for destruction 3 which had been suddenly decreed against them. What district or city or what habitable place at
14. +(after cuppayia) και ἡμετερα Se ρωμὴ inferior cursives 21. και peroyous ... kataotnoa|] > V 62, 64 Arm 25. ἐννεμομενους] ενσημαινομενους Luc text, Syr; εἐμμαινομενους Arm (ut videtur) 28. της ελευθεριας στεφανωθησεται)] Α V 55,74; + (after ed.) τευξεται και a/; ‘honoured with a crown of freedom’ Arm
IV, 2. adnkrov] V 44, 55, 74 (cf. Letter of Artsteas, 269); adextov A; ἀνηκεστον al 3. otxnros| οἰκτιστοο A V3; unparalleled ‘habitable’, in 2 Macc. ix. 28 pitiable
13. On the papyri evidence for the technical terms in this letter see Intr. ὃ 4c; on the parallels with similar official documents in the Letter of Aristeas see § 46.
21. For the confidence reposed in Jews see vi. 25, vii. 7; Avisteas, 36, and the Josephus passages quoted on ii. 30, The Elephantine Papyri show that as early as the fifth century B.C. Jewish garrisons had been established by the Persians at Elephantine and Assuan to guard the southern frontier of Egypt.
τῶν ἀεὶ ἱερέων, Edd. tr. ‘eternal religious rites’. Mahaffy emends to ἱερειῶν, which he translates by ‘ priesthood’ = ἱερωσυνῶν (Emp. Ptol., p. 268,n. 2). But with this reading, the translation of the text seems better, giving ἀεί its idiomatic classical meaning ; for the meaning of ἱερειῶν cf. 2 Kings x. 20.
28. The shorter reading, omitting τεύξεται καί, is to be preferred. Deissmann (6. S., p. 341) emends further to ἐλευθερίᾳ (cf. the reading of the Arm.), the s being due to the following στεφανωθήσεται. He gives examples from Polyb. xii. 9. 5 and the papyri of the use of στεφανοῦν in the metaphorical sense of ‘reward’. Freedom is opposed to the practical slavery with which the Jews were threatened ; cf. ἐλεύθεροι in vii. 20. But it is not probable that the Jews themselves should be expected to be the only informers. Accepting his emendation, it would be better to see a reference to native-born Egyptians, who were practically serfs, and more likely to be specially hostile to the Jews (cf. Avdsteas, 36), in contrast to the Greeks who favoured them (iii. 8). But much is to be said for the emendation τοῖς ἐλευθερίοις (‘at the Eleutheria’); ἐλευθερεύς and ἐλεύθερος were names of Dionysus, and the Eleutheria sometimes meant a festival of Dionysus (v. Steph. Thes.s.v.). Though there is no evidence of the Eleutheria in Egypt under the Ptolemies, there is abundant evidence of the cult of Dionysus at this period.
4 all or what streets were not filled with wailing and lamentation for them? For in such manner with harshness and pitiless heart were they sent away with one accord by the generals in the cities, that
at the sight of their unusual sufferings even some of their enemies, with common pity before their
away a multitude of old men, covered with their wealth of grey hairs, forcing to a swift journey
their feet bent and sluggish from old age under the violence of their rough driving which knew no
6shame. And the young women who had but lately entered the marriage chamber for the society of wedded life, with lamentations instead of joy, and with their perfumed locks covered with dust, were carried away unveiled, and with one accord sang a dirge in place of the wedding hymn, scarred by
7 the cruel treatment of the heathen; and as prisoners exposed to public gaze they were dragged
g along with violence until they were embarked on board. And their consorts, with ropes on their necks instead of garlands, in the flower of their youthful age, spent the remainder of the days of their marriage feast in dirges instead of mirth and youthful ease, seeing the grave already yawning at their
9 feet. And they were brought on board driven like wild beasts under the constraint of iron bonds ; some were fastened by the neck to the benches of the ships; others had their feet secured in the
το strongest fetters ; and further they were shut off from the light by the thick planks above, that in entire darkness they might be treated as traitors throughout the whole voyage.
11 When they had been brought to the place called Schedia, and the voyage was completed as determined by the king, he ordered them to be imprisoned in the hippodrome that was before the city, a place of immense circuit and very suitable for making them a gazing stock to all who entered the city, and to those of the inhabitants (?) who went into the country to sojourn, so that they might
12 neither communicate with his army, or in any way claim protection of the walls. But after this had been done, hearing that their fellow-countrymen in the city often went out in secret and bewailed the
13 shameful fate of their brethren, he was enraged and ordered that they should be treated in exactly
14 the same way as the others, receiving in no respect a lesser punishment. And he commanded that the whole race should be registered by name, not for the wearisome service of labour which was briefly described before, but that they should be tortured with the torments to which he had sentenced
15 them, and finally be made an end of in the space of a single day. The registration therefore was carried on with bitter haste and zealous diligence from sunrise to sunset, coming to an end after forty days but still uncompleted.
16 But the king was greatly and continually filled with joy, ordering feasts in the temples of his idols, with a heart far astray from the truth and profane lips, praising dumb zdo/s which could not speak
17 to them or help, and uttering words which were not fitting against the most high God. But after the aforesaid space of time the scribes reported to the king that they were no longer able to continue
18 the registration of the Jews on account of their incalculable number ; although the greater number of them were still in the country, some still remaining in their homes and others on the journey, it
19 was impossible for all the generals in Egypt. And after he had threatened them fiercely as having
20 been bribed to contrive their escape, he was at length clearly convinced on this point, when they told him and proved that even the paper manufactory and the pens which they used for writing had
21 already given out. But this was the working of the invincible providence of him who was aiding the
Jews from heaven.
5. γεραιων πληθος πολια πεπυκασμενων] V αἴ, with variations ; γερων mAnpys πολιας πεπυκασμενων A 10. τὸ φεγγος αποκλειομενοι] > A V Luc text, Arm; but the phrase is necessary to the grammar and sense, and is hardly a glossator’s 11. τοις ek tovrwy| This can hardly mean ‘ those of the inhabitants’. For rovrwy read ταύτης : ‘those who set out from it to the country’ (R. H.C.) περιβολων] V al; τω A; του Luc text 16. εἰς δε τὸν μεγιστον cov] > τὸν peyotov θεον A 55, 64, 93; > whole concluding clause V 18. κατα tov πορον] Luc text ; κατα τὸν τόπον A; kara τρόπον V ; kata τόπον al ; Kautzsch suggests a lacuna at the end of the verse, ‘to gather them all together’
uae es is obscure and probably corrupt, but the general sense is clear. 2 Chor tei 11. Schedia was three miles from Alexandria (Strabo xvii, p. 800) ; probably a landing-place nearer the city is here intended. The Hippodrome was before the east gate of the city (ib. p. 795). καταξιῶσαι περιβόλων. Edd. supply αὐτούς as object, ‘honour them with the protection of walls’. But this is very
awkward grammatically, since it is the subject of the previous clause. For meaning of καταξιοῦν as given in the translation adopted cf. 2 Macc. xiii. 12.
14. See ii. 28 (condition of serfs).
20. χαρτηρία is not found elsewhere; cf. Pliny, 1. 27. xviii. 10 Chartariae officinae. For γραφικοὶ κάλαμοι cf. Grenfell, P. ii. 38. Philo, c. /7. 6, gives the number of Jews in Egypt as a million, but it is impossible to defend the bombastic exaggerations of this chapter. There are also some inconsistencies; vv. 12 ff. seem to imply that the Jews in Alexandria had not yet been interfered with, and according to v. 18 many of the country Jews are still at large; contrast ii. 27 ff.,
iv. I ff.
eyes, remembering the uncertain issue of life, wept at their hapless departure. For there was carried — 4
ἊΣ ΨΎΡΨΟΙ
1 Then he called Hermon who was in charge of the elephants, and filled with bitter anger and 2 wrath, and altogether inflexible, ordered him for the next day to drug all the elephants—in number five hundred—with copious handfuls of frankincense, and abundance of unmixed wine, and then when they were maddened by the plentiful supply of drink to bring them in to compass the fate of the Jews. 3 And giving this order he turned to his feasting, having gathered together those of his friends and 14 army who were most hostile to the Jews, while [Hermon] the ruler of the elephants attended to the } 5 injunction with all care. And the servants who were in charge of the Jews went out in the evening and bound the hands of the hapless wretches, taking all other precautions to keep them safe through the 6 night, imagining that the nation would at one blow meet its final destruction. But the Jews who | seemed to the heathen to be destitute of all protection, on account of the constraint and bonds |7 which encompassed them on every side, with crying that would not be silenced, all called with tears “gon the almighty Lord and ruler of all power, their merciful God and father, beseeching him to frustrate the wicked design against them and to deliver them by a glorious manifestation from the | 9 fate yawning ready before them. So their prayer ascended fervently to heaven; but Hermon, “τὸ having given the pitiless elephants drink till they were filled with the plenteous supply of wine and | sated with frankincense, came early in the morning to the palace to report to the king about this. τα But the good creature, bestowed night and day from the beginning of time by him who gives the 12 portion of sleep to all, evez to whomsoever he will, ¢4zs he sent upon the king ; and he was over- | borne by a sweet and heavy s/mber by the operation of the Lord, thus being greatly foiled in his |t3 lawless purpose, and utterly disappointed in his unchangeable design. But the Jews having escaped _| the appointed hour praised their holy God, and again besought him who is ready to forgive to 14 manifest the might of his all-powerful hand before the proud eyes of the heathen. But when the | middle of the tenth hour had nearly come he who was in charge of the invitations, seeing the guests ΠΡ assembled, went to the king and shook him. And having woken him up with difficulty, he pointed out 16 that the hour for the banquet was already passing, reminding him of the circumstances. And the | king considering these, betook himself to his cups and ordered those who had come for the banquet |17 to take their places over against him. And when this had been done he called on them to give themselves up to revelry, and counting themselves highly honoured to reckon as a joy the feast, late as it 18 was. And when the entertainment had gone on for some time, the king called Hermon and asked with 19 fierce threats why the Jews had been allowed to survive that day. But when he pointed out that he 20 had completely carried out the order overnight, and his friends confirmed him, the king with a rage more fierce than Phalaris, said that the Fews might thank his sleep for the respite of the day; but, he added, make ready the elephants in the same manner without further delay for the following day 21 to destroy utterly the accursed Jews. When the king had’ spoken, all who were present readily 22 assented with joy with one accord, and each one departed to his own house. But they did not spend the night season in sleep, so much as in devising all manner of cruel insults for those whom they thought to be in such wretched plight. 23 So as soon as the cock had crowed in the morning, Hermon harnessed the beasts and began to 24 put them in motion in the great colonnade. And the multitudes in the city assembled for the 25 piteous spectacle, eagerly looking for the break of day. But the Jews drawing their last breath for ‘| but a brief moment more, with tearful supplications and strains of woe, raising their hands to heaven, 26 besought the most high God again to help them speedily. The rays of the sun were not yet scattered abroad, and the king was receiving his friends, when Hermon came to his side and invited him to go 27 forth, explaining that the desire of the king was ready to be fulfilled. When the king understood him, he was astonished at the unusual szszmons to go forth, having been overwhelmed with complete 28 ignorance, and asked +what was the matter on account of which this had been so zealously completedf. But this was the operation of God the ruler of all, who had put in his mind forgetfulness of his former 29 devices. But Hermon and all his friends pointed to the beasts and the army ; It is prepared, O king,
V. 4. Ἑρμων] τω Ἑρμωνι Luc text, Syr, reading ἀραρότως as a proper name, apopwr. But H. is the ἐλεφαντάρχης ; the position suggests the name is a gloss; Arm > 12. κατεσχεθη) A V al; κατασχεθεις ὑπνω aro εἐσπερας ews evvaTns Luc text, Syr 17. To παρῶρον τῆς συμποσιας .. . εἰς εὐφροσυνης (την V) καταθεσθαι pepos] V Luc text, Arm; ro mapoy .. . εἰς εὐφροσυνὴν A al 27. τι τὸ mpaypa εᾧ ov TovTO avTw μετα σπουδὴς τετελεσται] οτι TO διασαφουμενον ετι αὐτῶ εἰ μετα σπουδης τετελεσται A 19, 93 (A > εἰ); ort τὸ διμαφουν.. . . τετελεσθαι V ; apparently a primitive corruption, though the general sense is clear :
V. 2. Philadelphus had 300 elephants; Philopator had 73 at Raphia. 5. The mention of the binding has been supposed to be inconsistent with iil. 25, iv. 9; but it is to be presumed that once the Jews were safe in the hippodrome, their fetters were taken off. 14. i.€. 3.30 p.m., the Babylonian reckoning being in use in Egypt. 20. Phalaris—the tyrant of Agrigentum in the sixth century B. C., whose cruelty had become proverbial (Polyb. xii.
30 according to thine eager purpose. But he was filled with fierce anger at the words, because by the ἡ providence of God he had entirely lost his wits on this matter, and looking on him said threaten- 31 ingly, If thy parents or offspring were here, I would have furnished them as this rich banquet for the _
fierce beasts in place of the Jews against whom I have no charge and who have shown in a pre-
32 eminent degree a full and unshaken loyalty to my ancestors. And indeed, if it were not for the
33 affection kzndled by our life together and thy service, thou shouldst have died instead of these. So
34 Hermon met with an unexpected and dangerous threat, and his eyes and countenance fell. And
the king’s friends, slinking away sullenly one by one, sent away the assembled crowds, each to his
35 own business. And the Jews hearing the words of the king, praised the Lord God who had manifested his glory, the king of kings, having obtained this help also from him.
36 But the king, having arranged the banquet once more in the same way, ordered them to turn to
37 their pleasures. And calling Hermon he said threateningly, How often, thou wretched creature,
38 must I give thee orders about these very things? Even now make ready the elephants for the
39 morrow to destroy the Jews. But his kinsmen who sat at table with him wondered at his shifting
40 purpose, and remonstrated, How long, O King, dost thou make trial of us as though we were fools,
now for the third time giving orders for their destruction, and once more when the matter is in
41 hand changing and cancelling thy decree? Wherefore the city is in a tumult through its expecta-
tion, and being crowded with throngs of people has now been several times in danger of being put
42 to plunder. On this the king, a Phalaris in all things, was filled with madness, and, reckoning
nothing of the changes of mind which had been wrought in him for the protection of the Jews,
swore strongly a fruitless oath that he would without delay send to the grave the Jews mangled by
43 the knees and feet of the beasts, and would march against Judaea and quickly level it to the ground
with fire and sword, jand burning to the earth their temple which we might not enter would quickly
44 make it empty for all time of those who sacrificed therein}. Then his friends and kinsmen went
away joyfully with good confidence, and ordered the army to the most convenient places of the city
45 to keep guard. And the ruler of the elephants, having driven the beasts into a state almost, one
might say, of madness by fragrant draughts of wine mingled with frankincense, and having fitted
46 them in a fearful guise with implements, at dawn, the city being now filled with countless multitudes
thronging towards the hippodrome, entered the palace and urged on the king to the business that
47 lay before him. And he, his impious heart filled with fierce anger, started forth with all his force
with the beasts, determined with an unfeeling heart and his own eyes to gaze on the grievous and
48 piteous destruction of the afore-mentioned ews. And when they saw the dust raised by the
elephants going out at the gate, and the armed force accompanying them, and the movement of the
49 crowd, and heard the far-sounding tumult, thinking that the last crisis of their life had come and the
end of their miserable suspense, they betook themselves to lamentation and groans, and kissed one
another, embracing their relatives and falling on their necks, parents and children, mothers and
50 daughters ; and others with new-born babes at their breast drawing their last milk. But none the
less, reflecting on their former deliverances sent from heaven, with one accord they threw them-
51 selves on their faces, and took the babes from their breasts, and cried out with an exceeding loud
voice, beseeching the ruler of all power by a manifestation to show pity upon them now that they
were come to the gates of death. 61 But a certain Eleazar, a man of note among the priests of the country, whose years had already
29. At the end of this verse 64 has a long addition (14 lines in Holmes and Parsons), according to which the king is inclined to spare the Jews ; his friends, including Hermon (who is mentioned as though for the first time), remind him
of his decree, and the dangerous character of the Jews 30. pera απειλης] + εἰς τον Ερμωνα και δυσμενεσι λογοις λοιδορησας Luc text 31. εσκευασα αν] 62; eoxevacay A V 40. ws adoyous] V al; > 19,93; >adoyous A; ‘in thy mind’ Arm 42. Padapis] σφαλερος Arm (a tempting variant, but cf. v.20) 43. πυρι πρήνεα εν τάχει και τῶν
συντελουντων εκει θυσιας ερημὸν Tov ἀπᾶαντὰα χρονον καταστησειν] πυρι mpnv A V > » και AV al; > ερημον AV Arm al; + εἰς (before τον) A V al; Arm paraphrases freely. The verse is in confusion, and we seem to have a conflate reading (n.b. repetition of πυρί, στήσεσθαι---καταστήσειν, διὰ τάχους --ἐν τάχει). Swete emends πρὴν to πρησαντα, but the verse remains unintelligible with the omission of καί and ἔρημον in the Uncials. Perhaps πυρι πρὴην conceals some adj. governing τῶν συντελούντων. Or a tempting emendation would be mupay, which a scribe might have altered to zupnv, hesitating as to the form, πυρὰν mupny giving rise to πυρὶ mpnv: ‘make [the temple] the funeral pyre of those who sacrifice there.’ The objection is that it becomes necessary to omit τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον.
VI. τ. tepewr] Ιουδαίων A, evidently objecting to the presence of Jewish priests in Alexandria
31. The first part of the verse is an iambic, apparently an unidentified quotation from a poet. 39. kinsmen—the συγγενής was the regular term for the higher officials at the Ptolemaic court. 43. we—from the king's point of view, as though the clause was in oraézo recta. 45. 1. e. scythes, knives, &c. were attached to the elephants. VI. 1. Eleazar is the typical old man of piety and faith; cf. 2 Macc. vi. 18; 4 Mace. vi. 5, vii. 1, and Letter of Aristeas, 41, &c. priests: vil. 13 shows that this reading is right. They are the priests of the temple at Leontopolis and the fact
| reached old age, and who was adorned with every virtue of life, made the elders who were round
__}2 him cease from calling on the holy God, and prayed thus: King of great power, most high, almighty ΕΒ God, who governest all creation with loving-kindness, look upon the seed of Abraham, the children | of Jacob thy sanctified one, the people of thy sanctified inheritance, who are unjustly perishing, \4 strangers in a strange land. O Father, thou didst destroy Pharaoh, the former ruler of this Egypt, τ with his multitude of chariots, when he was lifted high in his lawless insolence and a tongue speaking great things, drowning him together with his proud host, and didst cause the light of thy [5 mercy to shine upon the race of Israel. Thou, when Sennacherib, the cruel king of the Assyrians, was puffed up by his countless hosts, after he had taken the whole earth captive by his sword, and was lifted up against thy holy city speaking grievous words of boasting and insolence, thou, Lord, }6didst break him in pieces, making manifest thy power to many nations. Thou, when the three | friends in Babylonia freely gave their life to the flames that they should not serve vain things, didst make as dew the fiery furnace, and deliver them unharmed even to the hair of their head, turning the |7 flame upon all their adversaries. Thou, when Daniel was cast through the slanders of envy to the 8 lions beneath the ground as food for wild beasts, didst bring him up to the light unhurt. And when ; Jonah was languishing unpitied in the belly of the sea-born monster, thou didst restore him,
of all, quickly manifest thyself to the saints of Israel’s line, in their insolent oppression by the }oabominable and lawless heathen. And if our life has been ensnared in impious deeds during our | sojourning, save us from the hand of the enemy, and destroy us, Ὁ Lord, by whatever fate thou I choosest. Let not the men whose thoughts are vanity bless their vain gods for the destruction of 2thy beloved, saying, Neither has their God delivered them. Thou who hast all might and all | power, the Eternal, look now upon us; pity us who by the mad insolence of lawless men are 13 being sent to death as traitors; and let the heathen to-day fear thy invincible might, thou glorious |} 4 one, who hast mighty works for the salvation of the race of Israel. The whole multitude of babes [δ with their parents beseecheth thee with tears. Let it be shown to all heathen that thou art with us, O Lord, and hast not turned thy face away from us; but as thou hast said, Not even when they | were in the land of their enemies have I forgotten them, even so bring it to pass, O Lord. [6 And when Eleazar was even now ending his prayer, the king with the beasts and the whole }7 insolent array of his army came to the hippodrome. And the Jews beholding it raised a great cry to heaven, so that now the surrounding valleys re-echoed it, and caused in all the hosts an incon- 8 trollable trembling. Then the greatly glorious, almighty, and true God, making manifest his holy face, opened the gates of heaven, from which two glorious angels of terrible aspect descended, visible to gall but the Jews, and withstood them and filled the army of the adversaries with confusion and -foterror, and bound them with immovable fetters. And a great horror seized on the body of the -)1king as well, and his fierce insolence was forgotten. And the beasts turned round against the armed hosts that followed them and began to tread them under foot and destroy them. }:2 And the king’s wrath was turned to pity and tears on account of that which he had devised 3 before. For hearing the outcry and seeing them all prostrate to meet their death, he wept and 14. angrily threatened his friends, saying, Ye usurp the kingly power, surpassing even tyrants in your cruelty ; and me myself, who am your benefactor, ye plot to deprive of my dominion and my life, 5 devising secretly things that are unprofitable to the kingdom. Who hath driven each one from his | home the men who have faithfully held the fortresses of our country, and gathered them here without
8. apedas] -ων 55; αφιδων A; αφελων V; επιδων Luc text 9. σκεπαστα] δικαστα A αγιοις] avo V 17. πτοην] A, Τὰς text (ποίην 62); οἰμωγὴν al; > V 55
that the writer recognizes them shows that the bias against the Onias temple, which Willrich and others have found in the book, is not very marked.
6. Cf. Dn. iil. 50 (LXX) ἐποίησεν τὸ μέσον τῆς καμίνου ὡσεὶ πνεῦμα δρόσου διασυρίζον ; and iii. 94 (Heb. iii. 27) for ‘hair of the head’.
8. The restoration of Jonah to his home is not mentioned in the O.T., but is easily inferred.
18. greatly glorious. Cf. 1 Enoch xiv. 20; T. Lev. iii. 4, where God is called ‘the Great Glory’. For the relation to the narrative of Josephus see Intr. ὃ 5%. For the terror inspired by visions cf. 2 Macc. ili. 24 ff., x. 29; Wisd. xvii. 3, 15, xvili. 17, the repulse of Heliodorus in the first passage being the nearest parallel. Similar ideas meet us in Greek history, e.g. the apparitions at Marathon and Salamis. The peculiar feature here is that the vision is not seen by the Jews themselves. The suggestion that they were already sufficiently terrified is not «very convincing. Possibly the current Jewish version of the story ascribed the fright of the elephants to some other cause. But it is noticeable that there are no other references to angels in the book, even in the reference to Sennacherib in vi. 5 ; the writer did not belong to the school which delighted in them, and he makes as little of their appearance as he can.
25. For the services of the Jews cf. passages quoted on iii. 21.
26 reason? Who hath thus lawlessly overwhelmed with indignities those who from the beginning have been in all things conspicuous beyond all nations in their goodwill towards us, and have ofttimes — 27 encountered the worst dangers man can wndergo? Loose, yea loose, their unjust bonds; send — 28 them to their homes in peace, asking pardon for what has been already done. Set free the sons of — the almighty living God of Heaven, who from the days of our ancestors until now hath granted an ~ 29 unimpaired stability and glory to our estate. Thus he spake; and they, having been set free in ᾿ a moment, praised the holy God their saviour, having but now escaped death. — (30) Then the king returning to the city called the officer who was over the revenues, and ordered him ~ “Ao supply to the Jews for a space of seven days wines and all else necessary for a feast, decreeing
that they should keep a festival of deliverance with all manner of rejoicing in the very place in ἫΝ
31 which they had thought to meet their fate. Then those who before were reviled and nigh to the grave, or rather had already one foot therein, instead of a bitter and most lamentable death, held —
a banquet to celebrate their deliverance, and full of joy they portioned between their companies the 32 place which had been prepared for their destruction and grave. And ceasing the piteous strain of © dirges, they took up the song of their fathers, praising God the saviour of Israel and doer of wonders ; — and laying aside all wailing and lamentation they formed dances in token of joy for their safe — 33 deliverance. And likewise the king too convening a great banquet in celebration of this, unceasingly — 34 gave thanks in exalted terms to heaven for their unexpected deliverance. And those who before supposed that they (the Jews) were doomed to destruction and to be food for birds, and had joyfully carried out the registration, groaned at finding themselves covered with confusion and their fiery blast
35 of insolence quenched ingloriously. And the Jews, as we have already said, formed the dance which - 36 we have before described, and spent their time in feasting with joyful thanksgiving and psalms. And establishing a public ordinance about this, to be observed for all their sojourning from generation to
generation, they appointed the days mentioned to be kept as a festival, not for the sake of drinking ο
37 or gluttony, but in memory of the salvation granted them by God. And they petitioned the king, \desiring to depart to their home. 38/ Now they were registering them from the twenty-fifth day of Pachon to the fourth of Epiphi, for forty days; and they were appointing their destruction from the fifth of Epiphis to the seventh, 39 three days. And on these did the ruler of all with great glory manifest his mercy and deliver them 40 one and all unhurt. And they feasted, provided with all things by the king, till the fourteenth day on which they also made petition for their return. 41 And the king granting their request wrote for them the following letter to the generals in the cities, generously declaring his purpose. 1 King Ptolomaeus Philopator to the generals in Egypt and to all set over his affairs greeting and 2 prosperity. We ourselves and our children prosper, the great God directing our estate as we will. 3 Certain of our friends with evil heart by frequently urging the matter upon us persuaded us to gather — together in a body the Jews in the kingdom, and to inflict upon them extraordinary punishments as 4 traitors, urging that our state would never be firmly established, on account of the enmity which 5 they have to all nations, until this was done. And they, bringing them bound with harsh treatment as slaves, or rather traitors, without any inquiry or examination, attempted to put them to death. 6 girding themselves with a cruelty fiercer than Scythian customs. But we severely threatened them for this, and of the clemency which we have to all men scarcely granted them their lives; and knowing that the God of heaven surely protects the Jews, fighting on their side continually as a
26. entdederypevous] A V 55, 93; emOedeypevous al 31. δυσαιακτου] δυσατακτου A V (?a vox nihili); δυσαχθους Luc _
VII. 2. mpaypata] προσταγματα A
31. companies (κλισίας) : cf. Luke ix. 14. 36. Cf. Jos. c. AZ. ii. 6. The institution of festivals is a common feature at this period; cf. Esth. ix. 15; 1 Macc.
iv. 56, vii. 59, xiii. 50; 2 Macc. x, 6, xv. 36; Judith xvi. 25 (Vulg.). The Canopus stone shows that they were equally popular outside Jewish circles.
37: ἐντυγχάνω, technical of a petition to a king, &c. (οἴ, evruxia, v. 40) ; see Intr. ὃ 4c. Ε 38. Pachon, April 26-May 25; Epiphi (in Papyri, Epeiph), June 25—July 24. The names are Egyptian. The Maceonian and Egyptian calendars were combined towards the end of the second century B.c. Accordingly the dropping of the older double dating by months of both systems does not prove that this book belongs to the Roman period. VII. 1. On the official language of the letter see ii. 12.
For ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν πραγμάτων (cf. 2 Macc. iii. 7) see Deissmann, B.S., p. 306. In inscriptions it is technical, as here, first minister ', but in Polybius and Josephus it stands for the viceroy of an absent king. Zi Ea epator had no legitimate son till 208 B.c. ‘or this and the following verses cf. Letter of Avisteas 71 5. Cf. 2 Macc. iv. 47 for Scythian cruelty. "30 f
| father for his children, and taking into account the goodwill as of a friend which they have shown | unswervingly to us and our ancestors, we have rightly absolved them from all blame on whatsoever };account. And we have ordered them each to return to his own home, and that no one in any place ἢ should injure them at all or reproach them for their unreasonable sufferings. For know well that | if we devise any evil against them, or harm them in any way, we shall have not man but the ruler of all power, the most high God as an adversary to avenge what is done, avd ¢haz in every way and at all time without being able to escape him. Fare ye well. |, The Fews receiving this epistle did not at once make haste to prepare for their departure, but desired further of the king that those of the Jewish race who had of their own will transgressed against the holy God [and the law of God] should receive at their hand fitting punishment, τ urging that those who for their belly’s sake had transgressed against the divine commands would 2 never be well disposed to the king’s commands either. And he acknowledging the truth of what they said and praising them, gave them full indemnity to destroy in every place in his dominions those who had transgressed against the law of God, axd this with all freedom without any }3 further authority or inquiry from the king. Then having received his words with applause, as was |, fitting, their priests and the whole multitude with shouts of hallelujah departed in joy. So as they | went on their way they slew whomsoever they met of their countrymen who had been defiled, and |5 put them to death with ignominy. And on that day they slew over three hundred men, and they [6 kept it as a joyful festival, having destroyed the impious. But they themselves who had held fast | to God even unto death, and had entered into the full enjoyment of their safe delivery, departed from the city crowned with all manner of fragrant flowers and with cries of joy, in praises and melodious hymns giving thanks to the God of their fathers, the eternal saviour of Israel.
And when they had reached Ptolemais, called on account of the peculiarity of the place, The 8 rose-bearing, the fleet according to their general wish waited for them seven days, and they held | there a banquet to celebrate their deliverance, the king having generously provided for them all ! things for their journey until each one had come to his own home. MHaving reached the end of | their voyage in peace with befitting thanksgivings, there too in like manner they determined to jo observe these days as well as a festival during the time of their sojourning; and having inscribed | them as holy on a pillar, and having dedicated a place of prayer on the spot where they had
held their festival, they departed unharmed, free, and full of joy, being brought safely on their journey by land and sea and river according to the king’s command, each to his own country, τ Πανίηρ even greater authority than before in the eyes of their enemies with glory and respect, _}2and being despoiled by no one at all of their goods. And they all recovered the whole of their property according to the registration, so that those who held any of it returned it with great fear, the great God having perfectly wrought great things for their salvation. 23 Blessed be the deliverer of Israel for ever and ever. Amen.
10, καὶ tov θεου τὸν νομον] > και AV; και tov tov θεου νομὸν Luc text. The omission of καί and the variation in order shows that the words are a gloss 16. σωτηριας απολαυσιν] σωτηρίαν αἀπολυσιν αὶ awe] V al; ayw A 44, 74 20. προσευχὴν] 19, 93; -7 62; -ns AV al (due to the attraction of τύπον) 20, 21. εἰς τὴν ἰδίαν και πλειστὴν ἡ ἐεμπροσθεν] >idav...7A; > V; V is clearly right, the homoioteleuton in εἰς τὴν and πλειστην explaining A’s omission Μακκαβαιων y’ A V
17. Ptolemais—not the famous city in Upper Egypt, but ‘ Ptolemais at the harbour’, on the widening of the canal, 12 miles SW. of Cairo. See Grenfell and Hunt, Hayum P., pp. 12 ff. The epithet ῥοδόφορος is not found elsewhere.
20. sea has been criticized as a gross error, but Abrahams refers it to Lake Moeris, a view which Wilbrich questions (Hermes, xxxix, p. 244). We may compare the use of θάλασσα for the Lake of Galilee. But the choice of the word is probably due to the writer’s love of rhetoric. On any view of the book it comes from Alexandria, and shows considerable local knowledge. It is therefore beside the point to attempt to convict the writer of a childish geographical error.
In 767. P. 86 (second century B.C.) we find a Jewish προσευχή at Arsinoe.
22. Nothing was said of any confiscation of property connected with the registration, unless the reference is to cases where informers had received a reward (iii. 28). More probably we have here a reminiscence of some occasion on which there was some general attempt at confiscation ; the feature of the book is its combination of a variety of attacks on the Jews (Intr. § 64).
THE BOOK ‘OF OBER
δι. SHORT ACCOUNT OF THE BOOK.
Tus book, composed, possibly in Aramaic, in the last quarter of the third century B.C, 1) | probably emanated from orthodox circles in Egypt. It therefore throws considerable light upon _ the religious and ethical conditions of the Diaspora in that country some 150 years after the date of — | the recently discovered Aramaic papyri. ; on ' : Mt
The evidences of its popularity, almost from the moment of its composition until the eighteenth | or nineteenth century of our era, in themselves constitute a long and interesting history. Its influence is apparent alike in Jewish writings, in the New Testament, in the early Church and in mediaeval art. Carefully revised by A.D. 150 in Jewish circles into the form most common to-day, but almost } immediately translated into Aramaic from the first Greek version and later, and more than once, into — Hebrew, and yet again revised in Greek in Christian circles, it remained on the one hand a favourite _ Jewish work, and on the other hand, translated into various languages, it followed the spread of the τ Christian religion to Edessa in the East, to Rome and Africa in the West, and Ethiopia in the | South. a ἢ
Its religious and moral outlook, with a delightful mixture of real piety and Oriental superstition, is still refreshing to the modern reader. The author's chief merit, however, lies not so much in the — originality of his conceptions as in his artistic genius and inimitable art in combining, and working — up, strong priestly and prophetic tendencies, distinct pagan and Jewish sources, various written and oral information, definite religious and moral precepts, into a work of singular aesthetic beauty and remarkably liberal sympathies. ‘Is it history?’ wrote Luther. ‘Then is it a holy history. Is it fiction? Then is it a truly beautiful, wholesome, and profitable fiction, the performance of a gifted poet.’
SOR aban,
The original Greek title was Βίβλος λόγων Τωβείθ which was only modified in RY in the spelling of the last word—Twfir Cod. Vat.—eir Cod. Al! The title is not extant in R°. For the other versions see critical synopsis. j
§ 3. GREEK MSS. AND PAPYRUS.
These fall into three groups, representative, along with the versions mentioned in § 4, of three distinct recensions. Their interrelation constitutes a problem of such extreme intricacy and length as to preclude little more than a bare statement of the main conclusion to which the present writer has come. A full statement of his reasons and further details, with a részmé of the modern treatment of the problem, he is therefore compelled to publish elsewhere.”
Muller supposes that father and son were originally the same individual, whom some editor, later than the author, artificially separated into two when he re-wrote the work in its present form, since in the later portion of the book Sarah appears as a parallel figure to Tobias, but in the earlier portion remnants still remain, e. g. iii. 16, 17, of her original connexion with Tobit. This hypothesis is connected with Miiller’s theory that the author of Tobit was not a Jew, and that 7617 was a foreign name of which 7od¢ah was a welcome variation. But no relics of undigested paganism remain in the work. The forms Τωβείθ (RS) and Τωβείτ (chiefly RY, R°) are Semitic names in Greek dress. Ρεννησαρέθ and Ναζαρέθ with their by-forms Γεννησαρέτ and Ναζαρέτ are quite analogous.
The evidence, however, derived from the literary and linguistic characteristics of the respective recensions, is overwhelming. That from the covfents of the book is equally strong, since it demonstrates that the redaction we shall call RY is a modification of R* inasmuch as it reflects (1) the general presuppositions and ideas, (2) the historical
conditions, and (3) the religious characteristics and theological developments of an age long subsequent to that in which ΑΚ was written.
i. CODEX SINAITICUs (δ). This MS. presents the longest and clearest text, with only two lacunae of great importance’ and eight slight and practically unimportant ones,? a comparatively trustworthy orthography of proper names,’ only one or two additions to the original text,t and only a few—mostly natural—cases of internal textual corruption.? All the evidence, as will be seen, points to the comparative originality of the recension of Tobit contained in x, which stands in a few cases alone, but is supported especially by the Old Latin, very frequently by the Aramaic, often by the Miinster Hebrew, and—by no means rarely—by the recension of the Greek which we shall term R°. Some of those scholars, who regard δὲ as only secondary, have described it as ¢he B zext, or simply B, a nomenclature which, apart from prejudging the problem, at least introduces considerable confusion since B is universally recognized as the symbol for Codex Vaticanus, which, according to these scholars, along with Cod. Alex., represents the A ¢ext.6 In the following pages, therefore, we have avoided this begging of the question and much confusion by referring to the text of δὲ and its auxiliaries not as 216 A 2εχέ (as we believe it to be) but as RS, i.e. the Sinaitic recension, the nearest approach which can be made to the original text whether the latter jirst appeared in Greek or in a Semitic language. It is this text which has been translated and commented upon in the following pages.’ The corrector denoted by 8“ began to emend the first scribe’s text of x, but seems to have recognized that it was essentially divergent from the later one better known in his time and abandoned the task.
il. CODEX VATICANUS (B) AND CODEX ALEXANDRINUS (A) give the second type of text. It is accepted in some quarters as more original than x. In the following pages it is referred to as RY, i.e. the recension best preserved in Cod. Vat. A number of minuscules* belong to this class, but their practical unimportance, except in one or two isolated cases,’ is admitted by all scholars. The differences between Codd. A and B are comparatively few,!° and the Syriac, when it follows RY, follows it practically unerringly and continuously, as do some other versions mentioned below." On the other hand, the differences between RY as a whole and R° in its original form are extraordinarily numerous and important in spite of the number of points in which they agree. When RS faithfully records an incident in detail, RY summarizes; when RS retains the poetic and aesthetic beauty of the original, RY ruthlessly substitutes a brief prosaic narrative. That the text of RY was finally settled in the reign of Antoninus Pius, not in Christian but in Jewish circles of the Diaspora in touch with the official heads of the Jewish Church in Palestine, is more than sufficiently proved by its general presuppositions and ideas, historical background, and its religious and theological developments in comparison with RS. RY, moreover, in spite of its own internal solidity, presents a much corrupted text with the proper names badly written, its grammar that of the vernacular and its style
1 viz. iv. 6>-19%; xiii. 6Ὁ-- τοῦ, They are peculiar to this MS., not derived from its archetype, not destructive of its reputation for general reliability, and easily explicable; see notes ad doc.
viz. 1. 2, 4,5; li. 2,8; ix. 5; xi. 12,13; xiii. 11, chiefly single words, at times only the copula and a conjunction.
4 xi. 15, due simply to dittography ; xii. 9 (merely a gloss).
5 ii. I (case ending), 12; iv. 19% (owing to the omission in verses 62-19%); v. 6 (already mentioned in previous note) ; vi. 13 (12); viii. 3, 15; xi. I (?), 4; xiii. 16; exclusive of xiv. 4 where the textual corruption δὲ shares with all extant MSS. and versions is outweighed by its unique preservation of the original Vahum.
Miiller’s © for RS and 35 for RY avoid this difficulty, but lay too much stress on the comparative length of the two recensions to the exclusion of more important and characteristic differences.
7 The text of δὲ is printed by Swete below that of B in vol. ii of Ze Old Testament in Greek with the variations of A noted at the bottom of each page, an arrangement which, in addition to the premium it allows B, has led, as Nestle, Septwagintastudien, iii, 1899, has shown, to some slight confusion in the critical apparatus. This text has, however, been used for the present translation. Swete’s verse-numbering of δὲ has also been adopted, that of the Revised English Version appearing in brackets wherever it differs from Swete’s. In Fritzsche’s Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen, 1853, the readings of the Alexandrine and Sinaitic are at times interchanged! In La Sainte Bible Polyglotte, Ancien Testament, vol. iii, 1902, edited by F. Vigouroux, B appears on the extreme left, next to it N, on the right-hand page the Vulgate and a French translation. This work is therefore more convenient to consult, but is not ideal, since its critical apparatus notices only a minimum of variants of δὲ, B, A, P* (= Holmes 243), P® (a hitherto uncollated MS. identical, it is claimed, with Holmes 106), and makes no comparative collation of any of the other MSS. and versions. As long ago as 1870 Fr. H. Reusch published an emended text of δὲ with a carefully constructed synopsis of the various readings of the Old Latin MSS. in his Lzde//us Todit 6 codice Sinattico editus et recensitus—a work, to which the present writer is much indebted, though it presents no Bopsis at all of the various recensions of RY and ἘΞ nor even of the more important translations other than the Old
atin,
Their variations are noted by Fritzsche in most cases, but only a few instances, e.g. in ch. vi, appear in our critical synopsis.
9 e.g. xiv. 15; cf. note ad loc. ξ
10. Cod. A is not, however, quite unimportant since it frequently inclines to RS, thus showing the antiquity of this latter redaction and its refusal to be ousted entirely by RY. For the relation of these two MSS. to each other, see Schulte, Biblische Zeitschr., 1908, pp. 262-5.
1 The solidity of RY is naturally no guarantee of its antiquity.
abrupt. A minute analysis of these and many other indications of its inferiority as compared with — RS can be seen in the critical apparatus (or, as it might be better described, synopsis) of the differ- 4 ences in the case of each verse and often each word which is printed below the translation of RS in the following pages."
iii. Between vi. 7 (8) and xiii. 8 THE MINUSCULES 44 (CITTAVIENSIS) 106 (FERRARIENSIS) a
and 107 (FERRARIENSIS, written c. 1337, agreeing almost entirely with 106), furnish a fragment of a third type of text.2 Before vi. 7 (8) and after xiii. 8 these cursives follow RY, but it has now been demonstrated by the discovery of the OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRUS No. 1076 * that R° commenced at any rate as early as ch. ii* R° presents a few characteristics avowedly late, and it is noteworthy that we have no contemporary evidence for the use of a single reading peculiar to it prior to 2 Clem. ad Cor. xvi. τό, which presupposes the recension of R° in Tob. xii. 8. Dr. Rendel Harris ὃ has argued that, since this admittedly finer version—at least from the Christian standpoint—of R® in xii. 8 was known to the author of 2 Clem., it is consequently the original text, though differing from both RS and RY. But, if any argument as to the date or originality of the verse can be based on 2 Clem., it is surely that its use in 2 Clem. is evidence for its existence not at an early time but at a period later than RS, even if it was more or less contemporary with RY. Moreover, at Alexandria RY was still in use in the time of Clement of Alexandria, and it is not till the sixth century ὅ that the Oxyrhynchus papyrus witnesses definitely to the existence of R° in Egypt. On the other hand, individual readings in R°, not now extant in 8 or BA, may conceivably go back to a considerably earlier date, if not to the original writing, if they are supported by a version which is either itself admittedly ancient or known to contain a text which—on independent grounds— follows R$ in the great majority of cases. Accordingly in ii. 8 it has been possible to restore the original reading of RS from R© as preserved in the papyrus, owing to its agreement with the invaluable Old Latin MSS. a and f which so constantly, if not invariably, attest x’s general trustworthiness. ΚΟ in fact is a mediating redaction, representing a compromise between R$ and RY. A sentence is preserved in part as it appears in the former, and in part recast in the mould of the latter. It would appear that RY was in general vogue at the time when R° arose, but, while the brevity and other characteristics of RY appealed to its readers, the extent and character of its deviations from RS precluded its complete popularity everywhere. RC° is therefore an attempt to combine the improvements of RY with the ancient and well-established R°.
§ 4. NON-GREEK VERSIONS.
These are indispensable for a critical investigation of the text (a) as showing the form in which the book was read in various quarters of the world in several different languages ; (4) as being by no means insignificant aids to the recovery of the true text of the various chief recensions (RS, RY, R°) to which they belong; (c) as conceivably containing among their unique readings a few potentially original ones. Consequently the older versions appear in the critical synopsis below the new translation of RS‘ in the following pages. The less ancient and less literal, with the exception of Fagius’ Hebrew, have not been taken into account there owing to the lack of space in the present volume and their comparative unimportance. A few of their more important readings are enumerated by Marshall, HDB, art. ‘ Tobit.’
A. Aramaic.
The Aramaic version of our book demands our careful attention. This is the case not simply because, as a result of the pronouncements of Neubauer and Bickell,’ it has been popularly regarded
" A less exact idea of the relations of RS and RY may be obtained by comparing this translation of RS with that of the Revised English Version, which, presenting RY, follows chiefly the readings of Cod. Alex. against Cod. Vat. when the former is supported by the majority of the minuscules. See also C. J. Ball, Variorum Apocrypha, 1892.
‘ 4 Printed in full by Fritzsche with a collation of the majority of the variants of 44, 106, 107, to which the present writer is chiefly indebted. Vigouroux claims that his P* (‘supplément grec 609’), hitherto uncollated, is identical with 106. He prints it in full where its variants from ΚΞ and RY are very numerous. He holds that this revision was made at the commencement of the fourth century by Hesychius.
See A. 5. Hunt, Oxyrhynchus Papyri, viii, 1911. No. 1076 (9:5 x 13-9 cm.) is the lower part of a vellum leaf, the text being written in two columns, and one side of the leaf has shrivelled so that the letters were considerably larger originally.
See il. 2-4, 5, 8, note ad /oc. That this fragment belongs to ΚΞ has been proved beyond dispute by Dr. Hunt, op. cit., pp. 6-9 ; see further notes to ii. 2-8 on pp. 205 f. below.
This is the date assigned to 1076 by Dr. Hunt in view of its carefully formed, large round uncials, the similarity to other papyri of the same date, and the brown colour ink commonly found in the Byzantine period.
Zeitschr. 7. kathol. Theol. ii, pp. 216 ff., 764 ff.
as one of the most genuine representatives of the original form of the book, and is still supposed by some scholars to be the ‘ Chaldee’ text used by Jerome,’ but also on account of the problem of the Aramaic dialect in which it appears, and finally on account of the subsidiary evidence it supplies in favour of the antiquity and originality of RS. It was first published by Neubauer in 1875, being the fifth part of a MS. in the Bodleian Library, and is headed 9295 ΠΕ Ἢ Ὁ’ ὙἼΩ3 AND NIN. This Midrash Rabbah of Rabbah is identified by Neubauer with the B’reshith Rabbah major of Martini, which in turn is identified by Zunz,? but not by Neubauer, with the Bereshith Rabbah of R. Moses had- Darshan.
The linguistic characteristics of this version were first subjected by Noldeke to a scientific criticism and treatment in the appendix to his epoch-making essay, to which we shall have reason constantly to refer. His investigations at once showed how optimistic was the supposition of Neubauer and Bickell * that it usually represents the oldest and most genuine form of the original work even when it differs from RS and RY. Noldeke, on the contrary, came to the conclusion that its dialect was Palestinian, and intermediate between the so-called Babylonian Targums and the more modern Palestinian dialect of the Palestinian Talmud, Midrashim, and Targums, and that consequently this extant form of the Aramaic goes back only to c. A. Ὁ. 300.
Noldeke himself, in framing this hypothesis, recognized many of its difficulties, and endeavoured to explain them by the supposition that the text has suffered considerably from errors, mutilations, and grammatical and syntactical alterations of ‘ignorant and careless’ copyists who had no knowledge whatsoever of the influence of grammatical rules, dialectic variations, or the earlier and later forms of the language other than their own vernacular.
May not many of these characteristics that Noldeke regards as secondary and scribal corruptions be as primary as those he regards as the most original? Are they not too numerous to allow of the supposition that they are less characteristic than those of the earlier dialects which also survive? Dalman, in fact, is probably correct in his supposition that the linguistic peculiarities in our MS. did not appear earlier than the seventh century in circles which were influenced by both Talmuds and by the more ancient Targums.
THE SOURCE OF Ar. The extant Aramaic text goes back to an earlier Aramaic version,* but the question still remains as to whether—through that earlier Aramaic text—it is to be regarded as a translation and redaction from a Semitic or a Greek original. In Neubauer’s judgement ‘the pure Semitic idiom of the Chaldee text does not admit fora moment the possibility of its being a translation from a non-Semitic text. Dalman writes: ‘ Poss7bly a source in the style of the Targum of Onkelos might have been utilized and might have been the text known by Jerome, but it is also probable that the Aramaic text is a translation from the Latin.’7 Ndldeke, on the other hand, rightly argues that the language of Ar. certainly does not prevent the recognition, in parts of it, of even a fairly literal, though never a slavish, rendering of the Greek B (RS).’ Thus, in spite of Bickell’s explanations,’ the forms ΘΝ Ἢ (WNIT, wNNIn, WI) WIT presuppose the translation from the Greek ‘Payots or ‘Payais, whereas a Semitic original would have resulted in the appearance of or δ. Similarly Dn is a transcription of ExBardvois,!” whereas a Semitic original would have known the Hebrew form xnonx. For δ see note to vi. 2 (1). %2 represents the dative Τωβεί. Ws i. 2 in Μ ’Aconp (’Acodp?), whereas a Semitic original would have preserved the correct Wyn, just as xwy’AoufA, which in LXX regularly represents bs*ym. Supposed misreadings in Ar, of a Semitic original and the absence of the dog in Av. and M'! are equally futile (see notes to vi. 3, 16) as evidence of the translation of Av. and M from a non-Greek original. The forms and partial omissions of Ahikar in Av. and M are also emphatically in favour of a Greek original.
TyPE OF Ar.’s TEXT. In Neubauer’s judgement Ar. ‘agrees for the greater part with the Sinaitic text, and consequently with the Itala. However, the Chaldee text has sentences which are to be found sometimes in one, sometimes in another.’ Nd6ldeke, as mentioned above, believes that the original Aramaic was a translation from a Greek MS. of RS. Ar. is, therefore, a not unimportant witness to RS as the most original text extant, while to some small extent it illustrates among Aramaic-speaking peoples a gradual evolution of the text on lines somewhat
2 This MS., containing a collection of smaller and larger Midrashim, is written in Greek-Rabbinical characters and dates from the fifteenth century.
Die Gottesdienstlichen Vortriige der Juden, 1832, pp. 287 fe.
Zeitschr. f. kathol. Theol. ii, pp. 216 Εἴ, 764 ff.
See Minster Hebrew below. 5 The same view is taken by Bickell, Zezéschr. f. kathol. Theol. ii, pp. 764 ff. 10 For g k cf. DIPTIN ἔκδικος.
THE BOOK OFsTOBIG
parallel to those which culminated in the publication of RY. On the other hand, the fact that it” was translated from a Greek MS. is far from supporting the theory that the book was originally — written in Hebrew or Aramaic (see § 6). The use of the third person throughout is paralleled in the Vulgate.
B. Latin Versions. I. OLD LATIN VERSIONS! AND QUOTATIONS.
The old Latin MSS. with which we are chiefly concerned? are: 1, Codex Regius, No. 3564, in Paris ( a); 2. Codex, No. 4, in the Library of ἃ. Germain ( β); 3. Codex Sangermaneasis, No. 15 (y); 4. Codex Vaticanus, No. 7 (6), which once belonged to Christina of Sweden. The four were collated and edited by P. Sabatier.* Joseph Blanchini* produced a more exact edition of 8 than Sabatier’s, while Neubauer included in his Book of Tobit a carefully corrected text of Sabatier’s edition of aPy.
αβ are probably to be traced back to a common ancestor, from which Sabatier thought they were transcribed in the ninth century, while y, in most of its deviations from af, represents a later and slight redaction of one of their ancestors, and texts in which it agrees with a8 therefore go back to a still earlier period and one much closer to the time of translation from R*. ὃ, on the other hand, was transcribed about the tenth century,’ and up to vi. 12 (11) ὃ contains either an independent and somewhat free translation of RS, or, in view of its close approximation to R© in vi. 7(6)-11(10), a fair example of the existence of R© in the Western Church.
Most of the Latin patristic quotations? agree more or less closely with aBy. While the fragments of Tobit which appear in the Mozarabic Breviary * also mostly follow aBy or ὃ, S. Augustine’s Speculum ® presupposes a third Latin text differing both from afy and 6.
The Old Latin with its three types of text is thus one of the most important versions. One type, ay, is almost as constant a representative of R* as is x, and through Reusch’s careful handling and analysis the Old Latin versions and patristic quotations have become a primary authority for the original text. In the critical synopsis beneath the accompanying translation, therefore, the readings of the various MSS, are given where they are of moment instead of the less detailed Z denoting the Old Latin as a whole. In a few cases the original reading, lost in X,
Ὁ ὙΠΠΘΑΠΕ Ὁ
This is 5. Jerome’s translation. His own explanation of its origin he gives in his Preface ™ to the book. Neubauer has argued that his Ay. ‘in a more complete form was the original from which the translation of the Vulgate was made’, This supposition is not supported by the evidence derived from a comparison of the two texts.
Noldeke’s strictures upon S. Jerome’s accuracy and possibly upon his truthfulness are therefore more or less justifiable. Somewhat but not essentially different is Schulte’s hypothesis ® that the saint (i) actually used ‘a Chaldee’, i.e. an Aramaic text, presumably the parent of Av., but (ii) with constant reference to 7}, and (iii) with considerable freedom in the insertion of his own sentiments.
C. Hebrew Versions. I. THE MUNSTER HEBREW.) Neubauer’s Book of Tobit contains a collation of Miinster’s text with (1) No. 1251 of the
1 — & in following pages.
Mate For further MSS. see Berger, Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits de la Bibliotheque Nationale et autres
Bibliothéques, xxxiv. 2, 1893, p. 142. 5 Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiguae, Paris, 1751. : Vindiciae Canonicarum Scripturarum, Rome, 1740. ὃ Bien, oP ee p. Cili. ° From this point it has the text of D. ai he more ἜΠΗ ny quotations are enumerated by Reusch, and are noticed frequently in our critical apparatus. See Migne, P. Z. Ixxxvi. 151. ® Spicilegium, ix, edited by Angelus Maius.
15 = Pin the following pages. Cf. Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate pe 2S premiers siec a
ν (alien fall by σὸς of fg ste de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siécles du moyen age, 1893. * Die aramidische Bearbettung iichleins Tobias verelt 7 -
x sae ae aische Bearbeitung des Biichleins Tobias verglichen mit dem Vulgatatext (Theol. Quartalschr., 1908, 1’ = M in the following pages.
Hebrew MSS. in the National Library in Paris’; (2) the Persian translation of M,? made in the Pehlewi idiom, written in Hebrew characters, No. 130 of the Hebrew MSS. in the National Library, dating from A.D. 1400°; (3) No. 194 of De Rossi’s Catalogue,t which agrees closely
Purpose of M. The circle in which M flourished was Jewish and orthodox, with its thoughts directed to the Torah and its hopes centred on the rise of still another generation of ‘children busied with the Torah, for whose edification the translation of its Hebrew may have been made. Its reverence for the Deity is expressed by its use of the periphrasis ‘the Holy One blessed, be he’; its angelological development is exemplified by the application of the title mixann-by m7 ὝΦΠ to Raphael. For the omission of Noah and the dog and the stress on the later procedure in marriage contracts see p. 184, zzfra. Ginsburg surmises that M dates from the fifth century A.D. Ndéldeke points out that the language is not the owsn pw, but an imitation of the Biblical language, not, however, entirely uninfluenced by the former,® though considerably more ancient than F.
M’s Source. Jt was at one time natural to regard M as a redaction based on a translation of RS, and usually of that form of RS extant in the Old Latin rather than that ins. The grounds for this supposition are best stated by H. Sengelmann, Das Buch Tobit, 1857, pp. 61-3. Its usefulness as a quite subsidiary, but not as an independent, witness to the comparative originality of RS was even then of some small moment. But the evidence thus collected for the closeness of M’s agreement with RS became of more vital importance for the solution of the interrelation of RS and RY after the discovery of Av. Ar. and M are closely and essentially connected (4) in phraseology and vocabulary,’ (4) in the sequence and displacements,* (c) in contents’ and point of view.1° They are a unity as distinct from RY and a clearly deliberate redaction of R*.™ But M, having been subjected to changes as a result of the special circumstances and point of view outlined above,!* is a less perfect representative of this redaction than Av. But while Av. is therefore not derived from M, the latter is evidently not derived from the extant form of the Aramaic. This is shown by a comparison of M and “417., e.g. in i. 16 (where Az. omits yt), 18 (where M retains part of the blasphemy charge omitted by 47.), iii. 3, 5 (where Av. but not M has small omissions), as well as by the abbreviations at the beginning of the book, the avoidance of Raphael’s ascension, and the use of the third person throughout the book. We must, therefore, conclude with Noldeke that Ar. and M go back to a common Aramaic ancestor, which was a translation from R$ (cf. p. 177, supra). Thus, in spite of its comparatively modern date and secondary character, M’s agreement in many important points with RS adds considerable weight to the great mass of evidence in favour of the antiquity and originality of R*.
2, FAGIUS’ HEBREW. 15
This is a translation based chiefly on RY, and is usually regarded as dating from the twelfth century. This late date naturally robs the version of much of the critical value it would otherwise possess, and it has not therefore been necessary to tabulate the minutiae of its readings in full detail. Still it is not without considerable importance. It is an excellent illustration of the type of text in use in Western Europe * amongst the Jews of that period. From the literary point of view F is of
1 Neubauer uses the sign P, while additions peculiar to it are enclosed in square brackets [ ]. These signs have been retained in the following pages.
2 — Pr. in Neub. and the following pages.
Some of the errors of this translation are due to the translators’ ignorance and literalness, see Neub. p. xiii, footnote 2; others form an interesting parallel to F’s treatment of proper names, e.g.
4 = II in Neub. and following pages.
δ Neub.’s brackets ( ) are retained, signifying passages appearing in M and II but not in P.
® Note the presence of a few Syan forms; ἸΠῚΝ once as a demonstrative ; wd and yo; w on and vw ΠΡ beside O40 and Ὁ".
Teg, parmmaa ὙΥῚΣ = ΝΡ ΝΘ. na, iii. 8.
10 e.g. ‘king of the demons’ as a title of Asmodaeus, ἅς.
1 Theories of mistranslation or mis-reading of a common original as explanations of the deviations of 47. and M from RS are as inadequate as they are in the case of the differences of RS and RY. See note to vi. 16 and pp. 181 f.
12 Noldeke further emphasizes the paraphrase of xi. 2 end in M as compared with A7.’s literal translation of R*, the abridgement in i. 16 f. (see note ad Zoc.), x. 1-7, the expansion in i. 19, the reconstruction of the prayer in viii. 5.
8 — F in following pages.
4 This is probably the reason for his interpretation of the reference to Elymais which he understands as Germany, ii. 10. In vi. 2 (1) he is usually supposed to refer to Laodicea but the reference may be to some otherwise
THE BOOK OF FLOBID
interest as showing a still further development than appears in ΝΥ, and even Ay, and M, to introduce biblical phraseology and texts, e.g. iii. 5f.; iv. 13, and passim. It belongs to a strict legal circle which sought for precision in matters of the cultus, e.g. i. 4, current commercial terms, e.g. ili. 17; vii. 10 (9): ν- 14 (13), and liturgical formulae, e.g. ill. 16 and passim. Special impel ane was attached to the hope for the rebuilding of the Temple, i. 8. Moreover, in contrast with RS, RY, and R¢ it insists on the importance of the Halachah as well as the Torah, vii. 12 (13), and consequently describes the marriage rite in the terms of contemporary usage, vil. 13. An element of speculative philosophy, if not of Kabbalistic lore, appears in its insistence upon the Divine foreknowledge of the marriage of Tobias and Sarah on the sixth day of creation, vi. 17 (16). Stress is laid upon the Fatherhood of the transcendent God, who himself hearkens to mortals’ prayers, iii. τό. It reflects the point of view of a period in which Noah’s reputation had recovered from the stigma which attached to it in the time of the common ancestor of Av. and M (see p. 184). : Unlike the original author, he believes in a judgement beyond the grave, a judgement of Gehenna, iv. 11, and speaks of ‘the eternal home’, iii. 8. The fragmentary character of ch. xiv is probably due to accidents of transmission. 3. THE LONDON HEBREW.
This text was found by Gaster in the British Museum. It is ddd. 11639. It is of little critical value, but is interesting as showing the culmination of the tendency, observable in germ in RY and active in F, to approximate to biblical phraseology. The problem of the close interrelation of this version and the Vulgate is probably to be settled in favour of the priority of the latter and the indebtedness of the former to it in some way which is not at present clear.’ See further, Gaster,
4. THE GASTER HEBREW.
This version was taken by Gaster from a Midrash on the Pentateuch. The tendency to abbreviate the original story reaches its culmination in this version. Its affinities are closest with Ar. See Gaster, PSBA, vol. xix, pp. 33f.
D. Two Syriac Versions.
1. The first, commencing at i. 1, and extending to vii. 11, is a close translation of RY. Nestle supposes that this text was once complete, and that all the extant MSS. are descended from one of early date which had been accidentally mutilated.2 This version, moreover, represents, as Noldeke thinks, the work of Paul of Tella, and therefore dates from the beginning of the seventh century.
2. The second has ousted the first and taken its place from vii. 11° to the end of the book. It belongs almost entirely to R°, though at times it shows even greater reverence for RS than usually characterizes R°.
E. Ethiopic Version.
This is based on RY. Abbreviations and errors in translation are numerous.
$5. ORIGINAL LANGUAGE.
A. The only exéernal evidence is supplied by Origen* and Jerome,® and, on the whole, leaves the question quite open.
B. A priori considerations. From the Yeb papyri it can be seen that while the proper names of their period were mostly Hebrew, the colony employed Aramaic for literary purposes. Thus c. 200 b.C, it is far more likely that a popular work such as Tobit would be written in Aramaic
unknown locality near his own home. The change of Media to Midian, i. 14, is due on the other hand to his extreme subservience to Biblical Janguage and scenery.
Hence Gaster was too optimistic in his belief in its close relationship to Jerome’s ‘ Chaldee’.
For details see Néldeke, of. cit., p. 46, footnote 1.
δ That the text after vii. 11 is a remnant of a version entirely distinct from that before this verse is apparent not only from the transference of allegiance from RY to Rat this point, but from differing orthography in ii. 10, xiv. 10 (Ahikar), vii. 2, 13 (14) (Edna), iv. 1, 20, ix. 2 (Raga). One MS., moreover, in the British Museum, which extends only to v. 14 (13), contains the earlier text, while another in the same collection like the three MSS. at Paris and the one at Oxford (Payne-Smith, Ca/. Co/. 18) contains i. 1-vii. 11, and from that point gives the other Syrian text. It is noteworthy that the Syriac glosses mentioned by Masius in his Syrorum Peculium agree with this Syriac version and do not extend beyond ch. vii. ἢ
Origen remarks in 42. ad Afric. ch. xiii, with reference to Tobit: περὶ οὗ ἡμᾶς ἔχρην ἐγνωκέναι ὅτι Ἑβραῖοι τῷ Τωβίᾳ οὐ χρῶνται οὐδὲ τῇ ᾿Ιουδήθ. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἔχουσιν αὐτὰ καὶ ἐν ἀποκρύφοις ἑβραϊστί, ὡς ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν μαθόντες ἐγνώκαμεν.
rather than Hebrew, especially if written in Egypt. In Palestine, it must be remembered, Hebrew remained the sacred language, as is shown by Daniel and many Maccabean Psalms, and also the official language of the nation, as can be seen on the coins. Greek, on the other hand, was making headway about this time, particularly in Egypt. Moreover, in the century in which our book was written, the Pentateuch was probably translated into Greek, and in the next century still more of the Scriptures, including Ben-Sirach, also appeared in Greek at Alexandria.
C. The zzternal evidence should be dealt with in four departments:
1, Evidence favouring a Greek original—
(a) Greek sentences and verbal combinations such as cozld not result at least from literal translation appear in i. 6 ff.. iii, 8, iv. 6, vii. 7, xii. 7. Their importance for the problem is emphasized by Noldeke and André. On the other hand, it is conceivable that the Greek idiom is due either to a translator’s conscious attempt to render the original into good Greek or to later correction.
(δ) It is at least evident that the forms of the proper names in i. 1f. are the proper and usual Greek equivalents of Hebrew names, not the unfortunate results of misreadings of a Semitic script. See notes ad loc.
(c) Néldeke points out (of. cé¢., p. 60) that there is a considerable difference between the Greek style of our book and that of the translations of Judith and 1 Maccabees. Noldeke, however, bases his arguments on RY instead of the original RS‘, to which this objection does not apply to the -same extent.
2. Evidence slightly in favour of a Semitic original, but not necessarily so if a Greek original is presupposed ; some few at least of these words and phrases belong as much to the κοινή as to the vocabulary of a Greek-speaking Jew. If on the other hand there is independent evidence pointing to a Semitic original, most of them, not being characteristic of the κοινή, will be explicable as literal translations of that Semitic original, and wi!l thus afford subsidiary proof of its existence.
(a) The etymological value of names such as Raphael,! Azariah,? Ananiah,? though known sufficiently to be appreciated both by a Greek-writing Jewish author and by his Greek-reading Jewish public, would be the more appropriate if the book was written in a Semitic language.
(ὁ) The list Miiller gives,t though not complete, is sufficiently illustrative of the vocabulary, style, and phraseology which should be included under this section. It is, however, especially in this sphere, that the minor changes of RY are important. RY tends to remove them, thus reflecting a consciousness of their non-Greek character.
3. Evidence pointing more or less definitely to a Semitic original—
(z) A few constructions remain which, unlike the preceding, seem to demand for their explanation not simply a Jew who wrote in Greek as their author, but one who thought and wrote in Hebrew or Aramaic.®
(ὁ) The hypothesis of independent translation from a Hebrew or Aramaic original in the various recensions and translations is frequently resorted to, not only to explain the divergences of R°‘, RY, and R°,and even of each of the versions (e.g. 8, Av., M, ΕἼ, but also to prove the existence of a Hebrew or Aramaic original. Various scholars have thrown out suggestions,’ but Dr. Marshall ὃ presents it in its most attractive and logical form. Even if, however, no other solution of the divergences of RS and RY existed, it must be confessed that Dr. Marshall’s hypothesis would have
1 “God heals.’ 2 *Jahveh helps.’ * *Jahveh has compassion.’
® e.g. (i) In iv. 18 the Greek presupposes Sy wa or Sy apa. (ii) v. 19 (18), see note ad /oc. (iii) Cases such as καὶ θάψω, ii. 43 Kai εὐφρᾶναι, xiii. 10; καὶ ἀπέθανεν (cf. Judges ii. 21), i. ὃ. (iv) v. 19 (18) and xiii. 3, see notes ad loc. and Miiller, of. czt., p. 32 f. (v) εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ ἔτι in xiii. 18 seems to presuppose immediate translation of TY) Ὁ yd, cf. LXX Exod. xv. 18, Theod. in Dan. xii. 3, Aq. Theod. Sym. Ps. xxi. 5. Similarly ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ καιρῷ, ili. 14, 16, might be a literal translation. (vi) ἡμέραι τοῦ γάμου ἃς ὥμοσεν ποιῆσαι τῇ θυγατρὶ αὐτοῦ, x. 7, might possibly point to a Hebrew or Aramaic original if ποιῆσαι should be taken in the sense of ‘spend’. But see Barton, Eccles. (Lnter. Crét. Comm.), Ῥ. xxiii and note to Eccles. vi. 12. (vii) προσηλύτοις τοῖς προσκειμένοις in i. 8 may be a doublet translation of ἢ or the participle of 2. πρόσκειμαι -- W in Lev. xvii. 8. On the LXX’s equivalents to this Hebrew root see W. C. Allen,
® So precarious and unscientific has this method proved in the past in the exegetical (see notes to 11. 10, lv. 17, xlv. 4) and other spheres (see notes to v. 3, vi. 3, viil. 3, xii. 6), that it would be beside the point even to allude to it here were it not so intimately bound up with the problem of the original language of the book and consequently to some extent with those of the place and date of composition (see § 6, 7) and the sources of the various non-Greek versions (see above).
7 Cf. Fuller, of. cit., Excursus I, pp. 164-8. :
_ ὃ ADB, vol. iii, sub ‘ Tobit’, where he employs the results of his investigations as an argument for an Aramaic original.
THE BOOK OF ΘΕΙ͂Ν
to be pronounced untenable for reasons of which the following are only the more important, and are only stated here in outline form:—(i) At the outset it is clear that, to use Dr. Plummer’s words with reference to Dr. Marshall’s attempt to explain certain divergences in the Synoptic Gospels bya — similar hypothesis of independent translation from the Aramaic,’ ‘these possibilities seem to be too — isolated and sporadic to be of great value in accounting for differences’.’ (ii) It is almost incon- — ceivable—both on the analogy of other books and from the evidence we possess of the derivation — of Ar. and M from RS, and of 9 and F, &c., in part from RY and in part from R°—that each and every secondary translator or redactor in turn had recourse—and that, too, independently of all the others—to this hypothetical Aramaic original, safely preserved and handed down apparently for the sole purpose that they might independently consult it! (iii) Before such a hypothesis could be accepted as a working basis for further research, the independent evidence for the composition of the book in Aramaic would have to be much stronger and certain than it is at present. (iv) Most of the instances Marshall adduces are far more easily and rightly explicable in other ways,®
while in some cases the reasoning is purely subjective* and in others self-evidently weak τ
and erroneous in its premises.° (v) If attempts such as Marshall’s and Resch’s more laborious studies ® are rightly passed over, along with the oral hypothesis of Gieseler and Dr. A. Wright, by New Testament scholars as being inadequate and useless contributions to the solution of the Synoptic Problem, hypotheses such as this of Marshall’s and Bickell’s* must also fail in the case of Tobit, and for the same fundamental reason. In the case of RS and RY especially, and also in that of non-Greek versions of Tobit, as in the Synoptic Gospels, the problem to be solved is not simply that of the causes for the existence of numerous and important divergences, bui along with, and in spite of, these divergences the reason for the far more numerous and unobtrusive sections, verses, and words, exactly alike iz themselves and in their order in the various recensions, and particularly in the Greek of RS and RY. Thus the hypothesis of independent translation is neither adequate nor needed for the solution of the problem of the interrelation of RS, RY,and R°. At the most the mere possibility can be admitted that in a few cases R$ (cf. p. 181, footnote 5) and B (see e.g. xi. 18, note) contain an instance or two of translations suggestive of their Semitic origin, if indeed the latter can first be shown to have existed, while other versions (see — e.g. vi. 16, note) may contain a few readings due ultimately, but not directly, to a recollection— i.e. in an oral, not written manner—of a different or corrupt form of the text in existence in Semitic circles. But this is not evidence that the or¢gzzal tongue was Semitic. (vi) Finally it will suffice here to observe that granted the Greek text preserved in RS was translated—as it must have been if it is indeed a translation—very soon after the original Semitic work was composed, corruptions in the Hebrew would at that time naturally be very few. And only a very few even of these select cases can bear the test of an unbiased examination.’ Even in some passages of real difficulty the true explanation often lies elsewhere,? and the possibility of intentional corruption must be taken into account.!°
4. Evidence pointing to an Aramaic rather than a Hebrew original, e.g. the forms ᾿Αθήρ and ᾿Αθουρειάς in xiv. 4,15. Even these Aramaisms, pronounced as they are, do not, however, settle the question."' The possibility will always remain that these two words are an early scribal error,” or are even due to the Aramaic environment in which the earlier Greek writers among the Jews found themselves.
It must be admitted that the evidence in favour of a Semitic original is not strong enough to put the matter beyond controversy.
Expositor, April and Noy., 1891. His arguments were refuted by W. C. Allen in the £xfosior, vol. xvii, 1803, pp- 386-400, 454~70, the prefatory note on the linguistic issue by Professor Driver on pp. 386 f. being specially pertinent in connexion with Tobit as well as with the Synoptists.
i €.8- NNN in i. 13 night equally weil be said to be an internal cortuption of NNW, itself a translation of pop ἣν -
i Caen ἵν. 9. see note ad Loc.
᾿ Agrapha in Texte und Untersuch., v, Heft 4, 1889, and Awssercanon. Paralleltexte, x, Heft 1 and 3, 1893-5.
_ .” According to this scholar R® was a revision made from the original translation with the assistance of the Hebrew original. Noldeke’s reply (οὔ. cit., p. 50) to Bickell applies with even more force to Marshall.
a See Ed. Meyer, Der Papyrusfund von Elephantine, 1912, p. 108. i. eee Copyists’ variations of the Aramaic quotations in the Greek MSS. of the New Testament, δ. g-
§ 6. DATE OF COMPOSITION.
That 7odzt is not an autobiography ! written in the seventh century B.C., is evident from the writer's historical inaccuracies, 6. g. i. 15, chronological blunders, e. g. i. 4 as compared with i. 15-22 and xiv. 1, and knowledge of events long subsequent to 722 B.C., e.g. xiv. 4f.,15. He differentiates between the return from the Babylonian exile, which has therefore taken place already, and the promise of a further return and the dawn of a still more*glorious era, xiv. 5. He betrays a religious as well as literary dependence on the latest portions of the Pentateuch.? Similarly a date at the very earliest a little subsequent to the rise and establishment of Judaism is necessitated by his religious and moral teaching (see § 10): The same ¢erminus a quo is favoured by the author’s general outlook, developed style, and artistic composition, the product of an age accustomed to the chronicling of singular experiences, xii. 20, as well as to the somewhat formal drawing up of marriage contracts, vii. 13 (14). Financial and commercial relations had superseded purely agricultural and pastoral pursuits, and the writer and his contemporaries had grown more or less accustomed to the foreign domination.
The terminus ad quem is more debatable, but the book is certainly pre-Maccabean. While the author has some knowledge, derived from the historical books of O.T., of historical events prior to, and including, the Return, and reflects the general religious point of view of the period subsequent to Ezra, he reveals no’ knowledge of the stirring historical crises of the later Greek domination and the Hasmonean period, and lacks the intense hatred of the heathen they inspired. Not only does he not accept, but in most cases he shows no knowledge of those explicit dogmas of Judaism which first came into prominence at or after the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, such as advanced apocalyptic expectations, formulated doctrines of a personified and hypostatized Wisdom, stereotyped descriptions of the Messianic age, explicit belief in a resurrection and immortality. He knows practically nothing of the problem Job was the first to raise, the Hellenizing apostasy, the Essenes’ self-abnegation, or the long fight of Pharisaic progressiveness against Sadducean conservatism.? The comparatively early date of the book, as it appears in the earliest form known to us, R*, is perhaps most clearly demonstrated by comparison with RY, which dates from the second century of the Christian era (see § 3).
There are, too, certain other features which also point more or less definitely to this pre- Maccabean period, though some are much less significant than is usually allowed. To this latter class belongs xiv. 4-6, once a mainstay alike of the more conservative critics * in their defence of the book’s pre-Herodian date, and also of extremists, like Hitzig,° to whom it presents equally circumstantial evidence of composition after the destruction of Herod’s Temple in 70 A.D. But while the words καὶ οὐχ ὡς τὸν πρῶτον must certainly have been written before that event, they are quite as likely in the mouth of a pious contemporary of Christ, scandalized by the paganizing tendencies of Herod’s Temple architecture and the spiritual unreality of its services, as in the mouth of fainthearted worshippers in Zerubbabel’s Temple (cf. Hag, ii. 3)! It is equally unfortunate that Tobit’s scrupulous care for the burial of the dead has been exalted to a position of primary importance for the settlement of the date, e.g. by Graetz, who consequently assigns the book to the reign of Hadrian; by Kohut, who dates it c. A.D. 226; and by W. R. Smith and Riggs, who, comparing 2 Macc. v. 10, refer it to the Maccabean revolt. This trait is ultimately due, so far as the author, not later redactors, is concerned, not to contemporary political troubles, but, in the case of Tobit’s own action in chs. i, 11, chiefly to his literary dependence on The Grateful Dead,’ and, in the case of advice to the same effect, to the influence of Ahikar7 and especially to the book of Genesis and its traditional exegesis ὃ, Again the stress which, it is usually alleced, is laid by the author on the agnatic or consanguineous marriages led Graetz® to suppose that he endeavoured to inculcate the /azzy’s observances of the (late) Talmudic regulation !° which was originally intended to regulate only Prdes¢s’ marriages.
' The historicity of the book is still defended by F. Vigouroux (Les Livres Saints et ia critique rationaliste, fifth edition, 1901, p. 551 ff.). On the other hand, as Cosquin (Revue Bibligue, vol. viii, 1899, p. 82) points out, several Roman Catholics—Jahn, Dereser, Movers, and Antoine Scholtz—have held that the book is not a history but either an allegory or homiletic treatise. Moreover, the Council of Trent in affirming its canonicity made no pronouncement as to its historicity.
The hypothesis that the book was written by a Sadducee might account for such silence, but is inadmissible in view of the nascent angelology and the childlike belief in Providence it inculcates—both, in their full growth, leading dogmas of the Pharisees’ creed and the butt of the Sadducees’ cold logic.
e.g. Fuller, W. R. Smith, Riggs, André.
Monatsschrift f. Gesch. a. Judentums, 1879, pp. 509-13. 0 Kiddushin, 76°.
THE, BOOK OF ΘΙ͂Ν
The author himself appeals to the Pentateuch (vi. 13; vii. 12)! Kohut’s explanation ὦ that it is due to Zoroastrian influence, is open to the same objection, as well as being contradicted, as Gutberlet 2 first pointed out, by Kohut’s own theory, that the book is a protest against Zoroastrianism. To Rosenmann® belongs the distinction of having first partially unravelled this problem of the agnatic marriages, while Miiller has advanced a stage nearer the true solution. The former scholar has demonstrated that the Talmud nowhere insists on its actual observance by any generation except that of the wilderness wanderings, that even before the destruction of the Temple, A. D. 70, an annual festival on the 15th of Ab had been instituted in celebration of the abolition of the custom, that it had never been recognized by the Pharisaic party, and that ‘therefore in practice agnatic marriage was no longer known to the first pre-Christian century’, Thus also Rosenthal’s theory that Zodit emanated from the School of Rabbi Akiba is bereft of the support it claims from this quarter. In Rosenmann’s judgement the author wrote in order ‘to break a lance on behalf of agnatic marriage which was already in a moribund condition’. If, however, the author's main interest, as seems to be the case ὅ, was in Jewish as opposed to international marriage, and his references to agnatic unions were only subsidiary to that and primarily the result of his close dependence on his chief sources, he must have lived in an earlier period, the pre-Maccabean, when agnatic marriages were still to some extent in vogue even in the Diaspora, where the most pressing danger of the day was that of international marriage.
With equal clearness Rosenmann® has disproved the inferences which have been drawn frém vii. 11-13 (14) in favour of a late date.’ The ceremony described in these verses differs only from those of the O.T. in its mention of ‘an instrument of cohabitation’. Graetz, followed by Rosenthal, understands this συγγραφή as the Greek equivalent to the technical 72:n3 which appears in Ar. and M, and which, he supposes, was first coined in the reign of Queen Salome by Simon ben Shetah But the 73)n> was in existence before that time, for Simon did not invent it; he only modified the details of its working. To identify, however, this 73:n2 with the συγγραφή of the present passage is to remove from the narrative all mention of betrothal or marriage-rite. Moreover, the usual Greek equivalent of myn} was φερνή or ἀντιφέρνη which also represent 77 in LXX of Ex. 22. 15 f., the passage from which the Talmudic rite of the 42:n} and its amount are derived. The term συγγραφή, on the contrary, is the usual equivalent of pore Sv sow or prea by sow. Tob. vii. 11-13 (14) therefore casts an interesting side-light on the early forms of the procedure before it had assumed the stereotyped character of the Talmudic age. Here the father prepares and signs the συγγραφή ; in the fully developed Talmudic ceremony it should be done by the bridegroom.’ Here the marriage is consummated the same night; in Talmudic times a virgin could not be married until twelve months, and a widow till one month, after this solemn betrothal.!°
Finally the references to the dog (vi. 2 (1), xi. 5),1! the number (seven) of Sarah’s husbands, vi. 14 (13), vii. 1, and the statement that Noah, like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, was a prophet and a ‘father’ of the nation who contracted an agnatic marriage, contribute additional evidence of the comparatively early origin of the book. In the Talmudic period it was prescribed that no one should keep a dog unless it was led by a chain ;!2 no woman might marry again whom death had already bereft of ¢ree husbands in succession;1° and admiration for Noah, displayed e.g. in Jub., ch. xxv (where the very features of his life appear to which Zodz¢ alludes) * gave way to the view that Noah was saved not by his own good works—which did not exist—but by. the grace of — God. So well known and widely accepted, in later times, were these specifically Rabbinical points of view, that in Av. and M, the common Aramaic ancestor of which dates from this period, the dog was not mentioned ; in the Addition to the Midrash Tanhuma,! asin the oy wyw 12D,!" Sarah’s seven husbands were reduced to three; and in M no reference at all was made to Noah.'
Is it possible to define the date more closely? Ewald favoured 350 B.C., but a number of
3 Geiger's Zeitschrift, vol. x, p. 61 f. * Das Buch Tobias, Minster, 1877, p. 47. Studien zum Buche Tobit, Berlin, 1894, pp. 1-7.
” Even if RY
were the more original text, its καὶ εὐλόγησεν αὐτούς (vii. 12) is based on Gen. xxiv. 60, and does not therefore necessarily presuppose the Talmudic formula of the Ὁ ΠΠ ΓΘ (Kethubhoth 8*), as Rosenthal, of. cit., p. 132, note 1, urges in his attempt to prove the late origin of the book.
® Kethubhoth το.
See Qiddushim οὗ, 10 Kethubhoth 57. 1 See § 9.
Cf. also Sir. xliv. 17 for an appreciation of Noah’s righteousness. Sanhedrin 108, Midrash Rabba to Genesis, § 29. © Neub., of. cét., p. 36.
"δ The author's explanation of the term Pentecost (ii. 1, see note ad oc.) and other details all point to a comparatively early date, but are quite subsidiary to the more important points already mentioned.
History of Israel, vol. v, p. 209 ff.
considerations, more or less cogent, point to a date much closer to 170 B.C. The period subsequent to Alexander the Great seems to be demanded by the use of the Greek drachma, v. 15 (14), the Greek name of the month, ii. 12, the wide extent of the Diaspora which the author presupposes, and by the fact that Rages, iv. 1, &c., probably the Ragha of the Avesta,' was comparatively unknown before it was rebuilt by Seleucus Nicator, 321-281 B.C.2 The second tithe, i. 7 (still less the third of RY,i. 8), was still unknown to the Chronicler (c. 300 B.C.), though it appears in Jubilees and in the LXX of Deut. If the author wrote in Egypt, his enthusiastic description of Tobit’s marriage to the beautiful Jewess, his relative Sarah, is probably an attempt to substitute a more edifying story for the scandal, still fresh in his own and his readers’ minds, of that apostate descendant of another Tobias, Joseph the notorious tax-collector.* This did not take place before 230 B.c.+ Further, the author’s affinities—in thought and point of view—with Sirach certainly lead one to suppose that they belonged to the same tendency and type of thought within the pre-Maccabean period. Unfortunately they are far from being sufficiently close, immediate or numerous as to warrant the assumption that either writer was dependent on the other.°
To sum up, Zodz¢ was written at the very earliest, c. 350 B.C.; at the latest,c. 170 B.C., probably much nearer the latter than the former date.®
§ 7. PLACE OF COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE.
The nameless author of 7odz¢ was not a Palestinian Jew.’ The characters of his book, as well as the geographical setting, belong to the Diaspora; his readers are in exile (xiii. 3), and he counts himself among them (xiii. 6), while distance lends enchantment to Jerusalem, the goal of all his hopes (i. 4—9, xii. 7-18). Moreover, his staunch adhesion to Judaism is accompanied by a belief in demons and magic, side by side with a breadth of culture and a liberal outlook on life unequalled by any Palestinian writer whose work has survived. The widespread use of the Greek Verss., the scarcity and comparative lateness of the oriental Verss., and the almost complete ignorance of the book in the Syrian Church, do not favour theories such as Ewald’s of the Far East, Kohut’s of Persia, or Vetter’s of Assyria or Babylonia, or Professor J. H. Moulton’s of Media. The internal evidence is in fact antagonistic to any such hypothesis. Such surmises are, at the outset, negatived by the author’s ignorance of Eastern geography and his acceptance of the ordinary standards of Greek and Roman geographies. That the Tigris flowed. between Nineveh and Media was an idea common among the Greeks ; that Ecbatana was situated in a plain was a constant Western fallacy, and is repeated in Diod. ii. 13. 6 ina passage dependent on Ctesias.
The hypothesis that Egypt was the place of composition alone serves to explain all the phenomena, and, at the same time, raises no additional difficulties, and encounters no legitimate objections on the part of the upholders of the Palestinian or Eastern origin of the work. This happy solution of the problem was first stated by Noldeke, and has been accepted by Lohr, W. R. Smith, André, and others. It has lately received additional support from the discovery of the actual sources upon which the author depended for the plot, outline, literary allusions, and the non-Jewish stratum of his religious and speculative materials. Only Egyptian Jews could need an antidote to the Zractate of Khons. No trace can be found in Palestinian literature of any acquaintance with the Hable of the Grateful Dead. Only in Egypt, sg far as is known, did either Jews or pagans read Ahikar’s fortunes at.the Assyrian court 27 exactly the chronological order in which they
1 Vendidad, i. 16; Yasna, xix. 18 ; cf. Marquardt, Evarahr, pp. 122 ff.
Josephus, 4vzzg. xii. 4.6. Joseph had sought a /éa/son with a dancing-girl of the Egyptian Court and had only been saved from it by the crafty action of his brother Solymius, who substituted his own daughter. Possibly a covert reference to him is to be found in v. 14, ‘Semelias the great.’
‘ The date cannot be fixed definitely and many of the details are fictitious and self-contradictory, see Bevan, 7e House of Seleucus, vol. ii, Ὁ. 168, note 1; Schiirer, G/V, fourth edition, i. 183, 195 f.; ii. 99 f. To his credit, Joseph, too drunk at first to notice the deception, afterwards became attached to his niece, and a son, Hyrcanus, was born of the agnatic marriage. :
δ Since the foregoing was written, Professor J. H. Moulton has very kindly pointed out to me that the comparatively early date for which I have argued is supported by the fact that, while the book reflects many of the most significant points of ancient Magianism, 22 betrays no knowledge of the newer Zoroastrianism, much less of the still later fusion of those two mighty currents of Persian thought. The importance of this significant argument, for which I am entirely indebted to him, is self-evident in the light of the new and fuller information about Zoroastrianism contained in his Hibdert Lectures (see § 8, v, below).
1 Miller, in spite of his theory that between the present Jewish work of Tobit and the ultimate sources stands a pagan Tobit, holds the view that the Jewish author or redactor lived in Palestine. How the Jewish writer living in Palestine could obtain the pagan original or, if it was well known in Palestine, dared to adapt it, retain the Jagax title, and yet publish it as a genuine autobiography of a seventh-century sazz¢, Miller does not explain.
ὃ Even RY still insists that Rages was near Ecbatana.
appear in Zodit.! The author’s environment in Egypt fostered Magian presuppositions * and allusions which would be incredible in an author writing in an eastern land such as Persia or Media, where Semitic and Iranian elements first met in deadly antagonism,” and highly improbable in Palestine. It was in Egypt, too, that the Jews especially indulged in demonological speculations and practices. Moreover, while the fish, vi. 2 (1)-9 (8), primarily mythological and probably inspired by the details of 716 Grateful Dead, symbolizes’ the pagan empire endeavouring to seize what portions it could of the pious Diaspora, the fact, on the other hand, that its inner organs are subsequently employed for medicinal and magical purposes suggests that the author, perhaps unconsciously, identified it with the crocodile of the Nile, on the banks of which he lived. This conjecture is raised almost to certainty when we read in Kazwini i. 132 that the smell of the smoke of a crocodile’s liver cures epilepsy, and that its dung and gall cure leucoma, which was the cause of Tobit’s blindness.° Very similar statements as to the medicinal virtues of the crocodile occur in Greek and Latin writers.’ Again, the binding of Asmodeus in Upper Egypt, though mythological in its origin (viii. 3, cf. zo¢e ad doc.), expresses the author's conviction that Egypt, where he was compelled to live in exile, was the veritable dumping-ground of wickedness and sin, exactly as Zechariah regarded Babylon, the land of exile he knew best, whence some of his hearers had just returned and where exiles still lived, as the goal of the flying Ephah, wherein Wickedness was imprisoned, Zech. v. 5-11. Consequently our author excludes all unnecessary references to the specifically Egyptian life around him.’ His heroes are made to live out their lives in that distant part of the Diaspora, where Ahikar, like Nehemiah, had held important positions at court. The rustic simplicity and idyllic life of the patriarchs® fill in the details of the pictures. This, too, is the motive for the author’s careful substitution of Elymais in ii. 10 for Egypt, which appears in Ahikar as the country whither the sage journeyed to demonstrate his wisdom; he felt that Ahikar was too good and noble a Jew ever to have been domiciled in Egypt or compelled to participate in the deliberations of the Egyptian court.’
The writer does not, however, forget the practical needs of his readers. The present book, as already pointed out, was a reply to the tractate of the priests of Khons, and was designed to dissuade his co-religionists from apostasy, and convert if possible any pagan who might read it. It is still more pointed in its warning against marriages with non-Jews, and incidentally condemns imitation of the immorality and apostasy of Joseph, the son of another Tobias, an allusion not without point in Egypt, where the scandal had occurred. While the major portion of the Jews in Egypt were probably never deeply influenced by Greek Philosophy, and many of them remained unaffected by the rising tide of Hellenism,'® the writer, aware of these nascent dangers, makes the pertinent and emphatic statement of iv. 19.
Lastly, our hypothesis illustrates and gives point to the author’s position with regard to sacrificial and legalistic religion. The fortunes and religious life of the Jewish exiles in Egypt were
The hypothesis of Media as the writer's home is, however, mest unlikely on other and independent grounds. It involves the following highly improbable suppositions: (i) that our author was a descendant of such of the ten tribes as were deported to Media in 722 B.c. (see 2 Kings xvii. 6); (ii) that the tribe or family to which our author belonged not only preserved the purer religion of Jahveh, but also by some inexplicable means advanced from that comparatively undeveloped faith to the fuller and richer Judaism of the early post-exilic period (see ὃ 10), along the lines laid down by Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Deutero-Isaiah, and even knew almost immediately and accepted unreservedly the zewly-introduced Law Code of Ezra as well as the presupposition of Jerusalem’s unique sanctity, of which his forefathers had naturally known nothing: (iii) that the book, when written, by some equally inexplicable means not only found its way to Jerusalem in the pre-Christian period, but was received with applause by the — confessedly narrow-minded religious leaders of the post-exilic community !
See Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, second edition, 1911, pp. 306 ff.
° This symbolism need not have been based on that of the whale (= the Babylonian Empire) in Jonah, but may, like Jonah, have originated through an allegorical treatment of Jer. li. 34-6.
° W. R. Smith, art. ‘Tobit’, in Excy. Brit. ?
7 Maspero and Spiegelberg (see Budde, Das Hohelied, p. xvi f.) have shown the application of the term s7sfer to — a wife (Tobit v. 21 (20); vil. 15 (16); viii. 4, 7) was common in the old Egyptian songs. Our author, however, had no need to avoid the term on account of its Egyptian associations as it was also genuinely Hebrew: see Gen. xx. 12;
Or possibly in the version of Ahikar in use among his co-religionists in Egypt this motive had already eliminated the reference to Egypt. It is, therefore, probably more than a mere coincidence that, as Sachau (of. ci¢., p. xxii) points out, in the Aramaic papyri, which retail the history of Ahikar, ‘there is no trace of the Egyptian episode’. But see Ed. Meyer, Der Papyrus/und von Elephantine, 1912, pp. 11of.
Miller (of. cé¢., pp. 23 f.), however, seems to deny even the possibility of a single Jew resident in Egypt being unaffected by Hellenism in the pre-Maccabean period, the sole but ‘decisive’ argument, in his judgement, against Tobit’s composition in Egypt! And yet he himself (p. 20) sees in iy. 19 so clear and definite a refutation ‘of the well-known pre-Maccabean efforts in the direction of Hellenism and culture’ as to be able to use, and quite rightly, this as an argument in favour of a pre-Maccabean date for the book!
till lately almost unknown to us. But from the papyri we now know, for instance, that, even before the Exile, Jews had migrated to Egypt, become mercenaries in the Egyptian army, and formed a colony as a permanent garrison at Yeb, where they built a temple to Jahveh; that this temple survived the destruction of the Egyptian ones by Cambyses, but towards the close of the fifth century B.C. was destroyed at the instigation of the priests of Chnum, the ram-headed god of the island ; and that an appeal was made to Bagoas, the governor of Judaea. It is not clear, however, whether the temple was rebuilt or not. But two important inferences in connexion with the religious evolution of the Jews in Egypt at the time of this catastrophe seem to Sachau to be justified". On the one hand, neither Monotheism nor the Law had there undergone the full development which had resulted from Ezra’s establishment of Judaism and the Law some few years before at Jerusalem. On the other hand, even before the catastrophe, reforms in the interests of Judaism, as established at Jerusalem by the priestly school, may have been initiated at Yeb by a party powerful enough at any rate to enforce the principle, if not the details, of the High-priesthood and the imposition of a tax of two shekels of silver in imitation of Ezra and Nehemiah’s innovation2 If it had been possible for his book to have been written so early, and if he had modelled his work on some tractate of Chnum instead of Khons, our author might well have been one of these pioneers of progressive, and therefore living, though legal, religion in Egypt. But teaching such as our author’s with regard to the duty of Egyptian Jews to the Law and the temple must have been needed still more in later days in that part of the Diaspora. A need of that kind must necessarily have produced efforts like the present one to inculcate such principles. This explains the purity of his moral outlook, the true spirituality of his religion, and the depth and reality of his adhesion, to the Law. His struggle in Egypt for religious expansion and broad-minded progressiveness, hand in hand with its practical application for the actual lives of his co-religionists, antedated a somewhat different fight in Palestine by only a few years. Because our author’s was less sharp than the latter, it left him without much of the rich theology the Hasidim’s plight evoked. But, because its objective was primarily the establishment of a progressive Judaism and only secondarily the preservation of religion against pagan encroachments and was still less in opposition to a Hellenizing liberalism, it left him fortunately without the Hasidim’s narrow bigotry. ' ς ἶ $8. SOURCES.
Popular religious and magical speculations, current mythology and demonology, ethical and moral maxims of his day, traditional folklore and romantic legend, all contributed their quota to the education of the author. They widened his outlook on life without vitiating the spirituality of his religion or the reality of his adhesion to Judaism. They endowed him with the culture necessary to a writer whose appeal was probably directed to the educated pagan as well as the enlightened Jew of the Diaspora in its early days. They did this without loosening his grip on his own countrymen’s practical difficulties of everyday life, and without stultifying the real usefulness of his literary work with the veneer of a superficial philosophy.’ But to the following four sources— partly literary, partly oral—he was especially indebted in writing the present work.
i. Lhe Tractate of Khons.
A copy of this tractate, designed for the propagation® of the cult of the Egyptian God Khons of Thebes, has been preserved on the Bentres Stele, which dates from about 500 B.c. In a town called chin (= Ecbatana?) there lived a princess possessed by a demon. ‘Khons, the beautifully resting one’, the God of Thebes, despatched ‘ Khons, the executor of plans’, to her assistance ; the demon was expelled and the princess was healed. It is probable that, conscious of the baneful tendency of this and similar propaganda of Egyptian paganism to encourage apostasy
τ The line of argument pursued above is, of course, quite independent of Sayce’s deductions (‘The Jews and their
Temple in Elephantine’) in the Eafositor, Nov., 1911.
A long tax list containing more than a hundred names survives, while the personal names in the papyri belong on the whole to the type in vogue at Jerusalem in the later period. 5. His high ideals for reunion with Jerusalem were in turn destined to receive a set-back, when in the time of
_ Antiochus V Eupator (164-162 B.C.), Onias 1V went to Egypt and established the temple at Leontopolis ‘in the province
; 4 This would naturally commend the book to the notice of the authorities at Jerusalem. Moreover, the fact that the book is also an abridgement of the main features of Ahikar's history and maxims would win for it an enthusiastic, unanimous, and early reception in Palestine. Thus its wide acceptance there and elsewhere cannot be adduced as an objection to the hypothesis of its composition in Egypt.
See jab 186: ® Naville, Ze Old Egyptian Faith, 1909, p. 257, terms it ‘a puff advertisement for the God Khons’. On Khons, or Chunsu, see further, Wiedemann, art. ‘ Religion of Egypt’, in HDZ, Extra vol., p. 185.
THE BOOK OF JOB
among his fellow exiles in Egypt, our author conceived the idea of writing a rival tractate to illustrate Jahveh’s sole sovereignty over supernatural as well as human beings, and His ability to protect and assist in dangers, sickness, and exile all who fulfilled his moral and ceremonial requirements. H. Schneider! has endeavoured to prove that Yodz¢ is a direct ‘remodelling οἵ this tractate. The author seems at least dependent upon it for one place-name and for the ideas of demon-possession, supernatural assistance sent from afar to relieve the maiden of high position, the father’s unwillingness to allow the instruments of his daughter's deliverance to depart from his roof, his loading them with riches, if not also for the mention of Egypt in connexion with the expulsion of the demon. Such borrowing from a pagan source, with a view to disprove a pagan god’s pretensions by ascribing his attributes and work to Jahveh, is more than paralleled among the Jews in Babylon, e.g. by P’s use of the Babylonian Tablets of Creation in praise of Marduk in order to work up their contents into a dogmatic statement of Monotheism, of Jahveh s creation of the world, and of the duty of Sabbath observance in Gen. i-i. 4". But our author’s work is more complex than the Zractate of Khons in the weaving and working out of its plot, and richer in details, while he abandoned many of the detailed characteristics ? of the Egyptian story in favour of other sources equally well known to pagan and Jew, but less subversive of the Jewish Faith.
ii. The fable of the Grateful Dead.
It was more probably this cycle of stories—either written or oral—which provided the author with the major portion of the general outline of his story, infused the romantic interest, and furnished several of the most exciting crises in the plot—a fact denied by only a very few scholars.? The corpse of a debtor, the outline of the fable runs, was rescued from his murderers and buried at great personal self-sacrifice by a traveller or itinerant merchant, whom the dead man’s spirit, appearing in human form, afterwards delivered from mortal peril, bestowing on him a bride and rescuing him from death by drowning; the supernatural being only revealed his own identity at the end of the series of adventures to the surprise alike of the merchant and of the reader. Such legends might well be as widespread in antiquity as at the present day and would be speedily assimilated and conformed by the Jews to their own peculiar religious and aesthetic tendencies: finally only an artistic mind such as our author’s would be required to transform one or more of these fables into the Apocryphal story of Tobit. Simrock in his collection of seventeen variants of the fable,* was the first to point out their importance in relation to Zodz¢. Mostly indigenous in their present form to Germany, they have parallels in Holland, France, and Italy. Andersen’s Retsercamarad witnesses to the existence in Denmark of a recension closely akin to No. 10 in Simrock, while Cicero, De Divinatione, i. 27, proves that the kernel of the fable was already in existence in his day. Further parallels are given by Benfey in Pantschatantra and Pfeiffer’s Germania xii. Considerably closer parallels to 7odzt appear in the Armenian ὃ and Ry¥ssian ὅ forms of the fable.
Though the parallels are numerous, there are a nugaber of significant differences both in outline and detail. The pertinent question is therefore raised by Schurer’ as to whether, quite apart from the uncertainty as to the antiquity of the fable, these differences are so vital as to make the hypothesis of our author’s dependence on the fable improbable.
In the first place, however, it is likely that the primitive story from which all the modern forms of it are ex hypothesi derived, underwent considerable changes in outline as well as in detail between the date of our author’s use of it and the moment when these modern variants branched off from the main stock. Fortunately Simrock’s seventeen versions, though they all assumed their present literary form in one country and at the same time, themselves provide an excellent example of this peculiar adaptability of the fable to transformations and modifications.
Secondly, not a few of the important traits peculiar to 7odc¢ and contradictory of all the extant forms of the fable, are explicable as deliberate modifications by the author of Zoéct in conscious deference to his own aesthetic tendencies, his Jewish prejudices, his readers’ edification, or his desire at the moment to utilize some other source or copy some other pattern.®
Kultur und Denken der Babylonier und Juden, Leipzig, 1910, pp- 638 ἢ.
2. See Naville’s description, of. cit., pp. 249-58.
e.g. Preiss, ZWT, 1885, pp. 24-51 (in reply to Linschmann) ; Geiger, Katholik, 1904, vol. i, pp. 367-77 (in reply to Plath), but accepted e.g. by Sepp., Kirchliche Reformentwiirfe, 1870, pp. 27-45, and Altbayerischer Sagenschatz, und Krit., 1901, pp. 402-14 (especially valuable) ; Joh. Miiller, Leihefte zur ZA TW, xiii, 1908, pp. 2-10. \Y
Published under the title Der gute Gerhard und die dankbaren Toten, Bonn, 1856. ce in Haxthausen’s 7vanskawkasia, 1856, i, pp. 333 f., reprinted in Pfeiffer’s Germania. iii, 1858, pp. 202 [ΠῚ \
y Konter. i ; ὁ Schiefner, Orient und Occident, ii, 186. 174 Ff. "Gis ili, p. : * See Plath, of. cz¢., pp. 404-6. eee See ee * The various differences are minutely traced to these causes by Plath, of. cét., pp. 4¢8-14.
a eae
ili. Zhe story and wisdom of Ahikar.
A. Antiquity of Ahikar.—G. Hoffmann” was the first scholar to point out the striking resemblances between this work and our book. To-day its value as a primary source of a portion at least of Tobit, as well as the multiplicity of problems it raises on its own account and in relation to the Jewish colony at Yeb, is generally recognized. Still read in the Arabian Nights and Aesop's Fables, it was widespread in the ancient world. Quite apart from the numerous versions which survive, it has left an indelible impression on the literature and thought of the past. It was well known to the Greeks and Romans, and it has been argued that this is proved apart from its appearance in Aesop's Fables, by numerous parallels in the fragments of Menander,® 5. Clement of Alexandria’s reference + to its alleged use by Democritus,’ as well as by the statement of Diogenes Laertius (v. 30) that Theophrastes (371-264 B.C.) composed a work entitled ’Axiyapos, and the allusion of Strabo ° to ᾿Αχαΐκαρος. The use of Ahikar is unmistakable in the Qoran.?. The Talmud 8 is not entirely free from its influence, and some Christian writers knew it at second hand.2 At the beginning of the Christian era Ahikar was still somewhat popular in Palestine: this much is clear from the New Testament.!° It is consequently by no means surprising that certain of the latter parts of the Old Testament itself are to some extent dependent upon Ahikar. Dr. Rendel Harris points out the parallels in thought and language between Ahikar, e.g. in Ps. exli. 4, 5, 10 (in both the Massoretic text and the LXX), in Dan. ii. 2, 11; iv. 10; v. 7, 16. Inthe case of Sirach, with which Tobit is intimately connected in sentiments and date (see iv. below), the dependence on Ahikar is beyond dispute.!! Thus before the beginning of the second century B.c.—how much earlier we cannot tell—Ahikar must have been reverenced in Palestine, and even regarded there as sacred if not actually inspired, and its vogue had declined considerably before New Testament times on account of its partial incorporation in Tobit. In Egypt, however, we have contemporary evidence from the Elephantine papyri'* that between the fifth and sixth centuries B.C. the Jewish community there read, in Aramaic, some portions at least both of the history (see p. 186, foot-note g) and of the parables and fables. Consequently Hoffmann’s supposition that an author later than Tobit wrote the legend to explain the references to Ahikar in Tobit, and Mr. E. H. Dillon’s that
1 For the Greek, Armenian, Syriac, and Arabic texts, and an English translation of these, and of Jagié’s German rendering of the Slavonic, with an Introduction (including an examination of the relation of Zod¢¢ to AAzkar), see (in addition to vol. ii of this work) Zhe Story of Ahikar, Cambridge, 1898, by F. C. Conybeare, J. Rendel Harris, and Agnes Smith Lewis. More recent works are: Alter und Herkunft des Achikar-Romans und sein Verhaltnis zu Aesop, by Rudolph Smend, being the second part of Bethefte zur Ζ. ΤΊ, xiii, 1908 ; and Histotre et Sagesse a’ Ahikar ? Assyrien, 1909, by F. Nau, containing a full history of the criticism of Ahikar, an up-to-date bibliography (especially with regard to works on the Syriac, Ethiopic, Slavonic, Roumanian, and Greek versions), with indispensable concordances of the relative order of the sayings and proverbs in the various versions ; Benfey, in Avs/and, 1859, pp. 457 ff., 511 ff., demonstrated the existence of the legend among the Hindus. For further articles and works see below.
2 Abhandlungen fiir Kunde des Morgenlands, vol. viii, 1880, p. 182 f. 3 Nau, of. cit., pp. 41-6.
Stromata, 1. 15, in Mzgne, p. 772; see H. Diels, /ragmente der Vorsokrattker, p. 439.
® Rendel Harris, in vol. ii Story of Ahikar, Introd. ὃ 3a; Nau, of. cit., pp. 35-41. Sachau, however, confesses himself unable to find any connexion between the proverbs of Ahikar and those of Democritus, whether Democritus or a pseudo-Democritus, and attaches but little importance to the evidence quoted above.
® XVI. ii. 39. The pertinence of this allusion remains unaffected whether παρὰ δὲ τοῖς Βυσπορηνοῖς is understood with Reinach (Revue des Etudes juives, xxxvili, 1899, pp. 1-13) as pointing to Borsippa in Babylonia, or with Halévy (Revue Sémitigue, 1900, p. 44) to Bostra in Syria.
7 Especially in the 31st Sura entitled Lofmaz, Rendel Harris, of. cz/., Ixxiif. Nau, of. cit., pp. 68-70.
ϑ e.g. S. Clement of Alexandria (referred to above). For Origen see Rendel Harris in 7he Story of Ahikar, Cambridge, 1898, p. xliv.
10 While Vetter, Ginzburg, and Nau, in opposition to Dr. Harris and Halévy, may possibly seek unduly to minimize Ahikar’s influence upon the New Testament, the extent of the latter's immediate dependence upon the former is certainly exaggerated if passages such as Matt. iii. 10 (Luke iii. 9); Luke vil. 39; 1 Cor. 1. 27, v. 11; 2 Tim. iv. 17 be included. It may be presumptuous to inquire whether it was the History of Ahikar or Tobit’s reference to Ahikar which was present to the mind of our Lord when he uttered the parable of the Wicked Servant recorded in Q (especially Matt. xxiv. 48-51; Luke xii. 14, 15), and whether the Wisdom of Ahikar is the background of the parable of the Barren Fig-tree (Luke xiii. 6-9). The details, or at least the literary presentation, of the death of Judas may have been influenced quite as much by the book of Tobit as by the Story of Ahikar. The latter certainly moulded the thought of 2 Pet. ii. 22. But, in view of the extent of the evidence—afforded especially by the papyri and Sirach—of the popularity of Ahikar in early post-exilic days as compared with the paucity of definite evidence for its use the nearer the Christian era is approached, it may not be too bold to assume that Ahikar’s vogue had at least taken second place to Tobit before New Testament times (see p. 198 f.). This is not without importance in connexion with the questions of the date of the book, the integrity of the text, and the priority of R°.
Χχχ, 17; xli. 16, 27; xlii. 1, all demand careful examination in this connexion.
15 See Eduard Sachau, Aramédische Papyrus und Ostraka aus Elephantine, 1911, Tafel, 40-50, and Arthur Ungnad, Avamaische Papyrus aus Elephantine, 1911, pp. 62-82.
THE BOOK OF sfORIE
Ahikar, though earlier than Tobit, was only composed in the third century B.C., are Jinally disproved. The interpolatory hypotheses (see § 9) are seen to be almost as unjustified as Ginzburg’s scepticism as to the identity of the Ahikar of Tobit with the Ahikar of this legend or Plath’s doubts (of. ciz., p. 391) as to whether our author had written or only oral acquaintance with Ahikar.
The further problems of Ahikar’s exact date and place of composition concern us in so far as it is of interest to discover whether or not this source of Tobit was written in some non-Semitic language and by an author of non-Jewish nationality and religion.?, The fact that the Assyrian kings are alluded to by name but in a somewhat impersonal and general manner, as well as the absence of all indications that the Assyrian empire was still in existence, points to a date of composition subsequent to 608 B.C. The proper names, on the other hand—even to some extent those in the latest forms of Ahikar—preserve their genuine Assyrian form to a greater extent than the same and similar words have done within the Old Testament Canon. The author is acquainted with official titles (e.g. 8°39, 83), which might have been no longer understood if the Assyrian empire had long since passed away, while the Persian names, even in the later strata, are very few. Still it is probable that even if the name Ahikar is a very ancient Babylonian one,® an author writ-— ing under Cyrus would borrow the name of a person famous for wisdom in the ancient days of Babylon. These considerations lead Sachau to suppose that it cannot have been composed earlier than the last decades of the Babylonian empire, and finally he decides that ‘in its present form the book of Ahikar may have been composed somewhere between 550-450 B.C.’.4 Its author would therefore be a contemporary of Deutero-Isaiah and Jonah. Though Halévy and Dr. Rendel Harris have endeavoured to show that on internal grounds the hypothesis of a Babylonian and pagan original cannot be maintained, in Bousset’s judgement ‘there can scarcely be any doubt as to the legend being heathen in origin’. Sachau finds nothing specifically Hebrew in the book of Ahilar and surmises ‘ that such a work, possibly resting on a more ancient Babylonian pattern, might perhaps have arisen in the circle of the priests of Nebo’, a cult which ‘was one of the most extensive in those days’ (of. c7¢., p. xxiii). Reinach, too, urged that the original author was a pagan, and the work, which was polytheistic ὃ with a mythological mo/¢z/,’ was translated and expurgated theologically and ethically by the Jews before our author’s use of it. Nor is it quite improbable that a polytheistic work of this kind composed in Babylon would so quickly find its way to Egypt and having so quickly lost its polytheistic tendency, become a sacred book of the Jews at Yeb. Thus the papyri may fail both to favour and to disprove the hypothesis of a Jewish not a pagan author. The fact that they are written in Aramaic equally fails to solve the problem of the rival claims of Hebrew and Aramaic to be the language of the original work.
B. Alleged divergence in detail—The Aramaic papyri of Ahikar, in addition to the undeniably complete proof they afford of the use of Ahikar among the Jews prior to the composition of Tobit, are equally useful in removing at least one of the alleged differences between the references to Ahikar in Tobit and the history of Ahikar as it was formerly known to us only from
1 The weakness of Hoffmann’s position was pointed out by G. Bickell in the Athenaeum, ii, 1890, p. 170. The priority of the composition of Ahikar to that of Tobit has also been maintained by Bruno Meissner (so far only as the end of the history is concerned) in Zeztschr. d. Morgeni. Gesellschaft, x\viii, 1894, pp. 171-97; by M. Lidzbarski (in reply to certain statements by Meissner) in the same magazine, pp. 671-5; by E. J. Dillon in the Contemporary Review, March, 1898, pp. 362-86; by E. Cosquin, Revue Bibligue, viii, 1899, p. 30 ff.; Th. Reinach, Revue des Etudes juives, xxxvili, 1899, pp. 1-13; J. Halévy, Revue Sémitigue, 1900, p. 23; by M. Plath in the 7heologische Studien und Kritiken, Gotha, 1901, pp. 377-414, as well as by Rendel Harris, of. ci¢., and in ‘The Double Text of Tobit’ in the American Journal of Theology, ii, pp. 541-54.
Nau (of. ci¢., p. 35) stands practically alone in his belief in the genuineness and authenticity of AZé£ar, though he admits that the story has undergone several redactions.
Ungnad and Ed. Meyer (Der Papyrusfund von Elephantine, 1912, p. 109) regard it as an Assyrio-Babylonian name Az jakar, ‘the brother is dear’, probably to be vocalized "PMS in ancient Aramaic. In Sachau’s estimation, too, the name Ahikar is Babylonian and belongs to a much more ancient period of Babylonian history than that of the later Babylonian or Persian empire (of. ci¢., p. xxiii). If it was pronounced Ahikar, it would be interpreted in
Syriac ΤῊΝ EN ‘brother of honour’ (of. cz#., p. 148). It ‘belongs to the numerous western Semitic names which the Amorites of the First Dynasty of Babylon brought to Babylonia, and at this time is quite frequent’, Ed. Meyer, Der Papyrusfund von Elephantine, 1912, p. 119.
_ ἢ Die Religion des Judentums, second edition, 1906, p. 565. Cf. the same writer in Beitrige sur Achikarlegende
€.g. in the Armenian version Ahikar’s prayer is addressed to the gods BelXim, Simil, and Samin. The various adaptations, versions, and MSS. naturally differ very considerably in details, and even in more important features of the legend. For example, the MS. B of the Syriac gives two invocations, one to the idols and one to the true God, whereas L and C record only the latter, and the Armenian version, with its usual retention of the earlier form of the legend, only the former. i
7 Ahikar in the Armenian employs magic and astrology and has sixty wives and sixty palaces, corresponding to the sixty solar houses and the sixty degrees of the primitive division of the celestial phenomena.
the MSS. of the various versions. In the latter Ahikar lives in the reign of Sennaherib, who is represented as the son and successor of Esarhaddon, whereas in Tobit the inverse and correct order appears and the accuracy of RS is incidentally vindicated. Schiirer! has already pointed out that in the papyri? we read ‘the history of Ahikar under Sennaherib and Esarhaddon in this correct sequence, not the reverse as in our MSS,’ of Ahikar. The papyri, moreover, present in ~ general an earlier form of the text than even those versions and redactions of Ahikar in which the hero is an idolater and only worships the true God when the idols fail to hear him. Still the presentation of Ahikar in our book as a Jew and a nephew of Tobit, may be due to our author’s desire to enhance the fame of Tobit by making so famous a man his relative (Smend, p. 63). The same motive probably dictated the description of Ahikar as a friend and benefactor of Tobit, though in his own legend Ahikar appears simply as a shrewd man. In Ahikar the hero is delivered - from prison because he is righteous ; in Tobit because he has done alms (Tobit xiv. 10). Doubtless, even if Dr. Rendel Harris’s arguments* with regard to the Syriac in this connexion do not entirely commend themselves to all scholars, the transition from the idea of righteousness to that of almsgiving was easy if not unconscious in view of the widespread expression of the two ideas by one Hebrew word (ap ys) at the time when Tobit was written. For the true explanation of the transformation of Ahikar’s journey to Egypt into one to Elymais (Tobit ii. 10) see p. 186 and note ad loc.
C. Lxtent of dependence—(1) He borrowed directly from the history of Ahikar in i. 21 f.; ii. 10; xi. 18; xiv. 10. 15.6 The principal textual divergences and corruptions in the tradition of the proper names are referred to elsewhere (see notes ad loc). Nau (of. cét. p. 11) gives the following table of consanguinity as that presupposed by these references.
TOBIEL
Anaél Tobit Anne Tobias Ahikar Esfagni Ahikar’s sister
Nadan Nabouzardan.
In iv. to ‘suffereth not to come into darkness’ is a pertinent reference to Ahilkar’s unhappy plight in prison and Nadan’s ultimate fate mentioned more clearly in xiv. 10; it is still more generalized in Sir. xxix. 12. Especially noteworthy is the juxtaposition of the terms Assyria and Nineveh in the earliest recension of Tobit in xiv. 4 as well as in xiv. 15, proving conclusively the immediate dependence of Tobit upon the legend of Ahikar where this curious double description of the empire is used.6 It would appear that the legend lay before him in a written form.
(2) The legend of Ahikar seems to have supplied our author with several literary and structural models. With the title i. 1. cf. the Syriac C ‘I write the proverbs, to wit, the story of Ahikar’ and the Armenian ‘the maxims and wisdom of Khikar’. As far as iii. 67 our author followed the example set him by Ahikar of representing the hero as recounting his own history. Tobit, too, like Ahikar, gives a brief summary of his previous fortunes (i. 3 ff.). Moreover, in addressing two series of exhortations to his son (iv. 3 ff., xiv. 3 ff.) and two prayers to God (iii. 2 ff., xiii) he is surely imitating the legend of Ahikar, which, though the details are different, is constructed according to this plan.
(3) Our author has assimilated a not inconsiderable amount of Ahilkar’s parenetic sections. The prologue (Tobit iv. 5) and the epilogue (iv. 19) to the ‘teaching’ of Tobit find their prototype in the prologue in the Syriac to Ahikar’s teaching: ‘ My son, listen to my speech, follow my opinion, and keep my words in remembrance’, and in the Arabic, ‘O my son, hear my speech and follow my advice and remember what I say’, and in the epilogue to the same in the Armenian, ‘Son, receive into thy mind my precepts, and forget them not’. As iv. 12 finds a place within ¢h7s
3. Camb. ed., pp. xlviii-l, Ixxxii-Ixxxvi. Cf. Nau, of. cit., p. 59, footnote 2.
4 See Rendel Harris, of. cit., xlixf.; A.J.7h., p. 548; cf. the various readings in Matt. vi. 1, and the modern charity as opposed to the original meaning of εαγίζας.
7 Where he was compelled to abandon the direct narration, see p. 195.
‘teaching’, so the same thought appears in the same discourse of Ahikar.1 With iv. 15 cf App. ii. τοῦ; with iv. 18 cf. Camb. ed., p. 61, No. 12 (iii. 16 in Nau). In the case of several! other verses in ch. iv a less verbal dependence on Ahikar can be established as the latter appears, for — 5 cf. Nos. 20, 39, 60. Moreover, azless immediate dependence on Alukar is presupposed, a few obscure passages cannot be elucidated. Of this iv. 17 (see note ad loc.) is an excellent example. , Its meaning and phrasing are clear when read in conjunction with Ahikar's, My son, pour out thy — wine on the graves of the righteous, and drink it not with evil men 2 Again, in iv. 14b the precept to be πεπαιδευμένος ὃ finds its original context in Sachau’s Aramaic Papyrus 53 (Tafel 44) line 2. Ὁ Papbsna xmas owny ‘apn tym t x12 = ‘the son who is trained and disciplined and at whose feet... is laid’. The importance Tobit attaches to the burial of the dead (e.g. i. 20, 11. 3-9, iv. 3, 5. xiv. 12) also finds a prototype in Ahikar.° Finally, as Ahikar orders his last discourses to Nadan to be written down, so Raphael bids Tobit write the record of his acts and maxims iv. The Old Testament and Apocrypha.
The author, as a devout Jew, was naturally well versed in the sacred writings of his own people and religion. They served as a source of the truest inspiration—historical, literary, and religious— and as a standard of orthodoxy by which he might test and repudiate all that was essendzally alien to Judaism as he wrote this tractate, which, as shown above, was parallel but in opposition to that — propagated by the priests of the god Khons, not uninfluenced by echoes of Zoroastrianism and dependent upon the pagan fable of Te Grateful Dead and upon Afzkar, which at the best was not specifically Jewish or deeply religious.
His style, phraseology, religious conceptions, and moral advice are fundamentally influenced by the Pentateuchal narratives and legislation in all their various strata.° The literary affinities with Genesis are of more than passing interest, for they illustrate the peculiar indebtedness of the author to that book. It was the source from which he derived not only his idea of writing a new patriarchal history, but also the materials with which he paints with consummate art the more important scenes.’ Above all, the author was most deeply influenced by the fact that in Genesis ‘there are more references to the duty of burial of the dead than in any other Scriptural book’8 Gen. xlvii. 49 is decisive, where Rashi, following the Midrash Rabda, annotates ‘the kindness that a man shows the dead is Aéndness of truth for the doer has no hope of (receiving) a reward (from the corpse)’. Accordingly, the somewhat frequent references to the burial of the dead are properly and fully explained not only by the influence exerted upon the author by Ze Grateful Dead and the parallels in Ahikar, but also by his close dependence upon Genesis, resulting in his belief that he could thus best inculcate disinterested charity such as Providence only can reward.
For his knowledge of the periods and scenery which he chose as the background of his story and his vaticiniam post eventum he was dependent upon the historical books of the O.T.
' Camb. ed., p.60, No.6; in Nau’s translation, iii. 9.
2 Cf. Camb. ed., p. 61, No. 10; in Nau, iii. 13. The Arabic texts agree with the Syriac’s retention of ‘on the graves of the righteous’, which is omitted by the Armenian.
’ By Lévi wrongly supposed to prove dependence on Sirach; see p. 193, footnote 3, zfra. ;
Possibly to be punctuated IDA} (Sachau) or BA}, instead of the more regular 15%}, for which it may be a scribal error or a passive with assimilated ἢ. Ungnad compares the Arabic z¢¢asada for wéasa/a, and the Assyrian ittasab for zwtasab. Put in any case it is 1D° in Hebrew.
closely imitated in RY in which a point of contact with Gen. xxix. 27 is also introduced in xii. I (xi. 19) ; viii. 6 (Gen. Code of the Covenant in i. 6 (Exod. xxii. 29); and J.’s counterpart in ii. 1 (Exod. xxxiv. 22); while an approximation to the code itself (1 χοά. xx. 12) was introduced by RY in iv. 3. (c) D.’s legislative kernel in i. 6-8 (Deut. xii. 6, xvill. 4, (Deut. iv. 40); the hortatory additions in iii. 4 (Deut. xxvili. 37); xiii. 5 (Deut. xxx. 3); and the song of Moses in
7 e.g. Tobit calls Tobias to hear, as it seemed to him, his last injunctions in ch. iv, and his grandchildren in ch. xiv, Just as Jacob had done (Gen. xlix); Raphael performs the part angels played in the lives of the Patriarchs, and like them returns to heaven when his work is accomplished. Again, the story of Joseph and his Egyptian wife encouraged a romantic treatment, lending colour and interest to the inculcation of purely Jewish marriage, and even, by way of antithesis, suggesting agnatic ones, such as non-canonical writings attributed to the earlier patriarchs; the journey culminating in the discovery of a wife for Tobias has its counterpart in the journey of Eliezer to find in Rebecca
a wife for Isaac, as RY recognized and therefore made the author’s reference more explicit in vii. 1.
EE δὲ ee eee
It would be, however, an injustice to our author if we were to suppose that, while he knew the historical books well in the uncritical manner of his age and knew the minutiae of the legal system, he did not study the non-legalistic and prophetic writings in existence in his time.!
With some of the latest books of the O.T. not yet in existence, e.g. Daniel, many Maccabean Psalms, late portions of Proverbs, and other books or sections only composed after his time, he was necessarily unacquainted.
The question of Tobit’s dependence upon Sirach cannot be dismissed so summarily. If literary dependence upon the Greek of Sirach were properly and thoroughly substantiated, it might seriously complicate or facilitate the solution of the problem of the date of Tobit’s composition. In Fuller’s judgement ‘the general impression will probably be that Tobit is more precise and definite than Ecclesiasticus ; and this would indicate that of the two Ecclesiasticus is the older book’, but he does not deduce from this that Tobit exhibits any literary dependence upon any form of the text of Sirach. Israél Lévi,? however, has endeavoured to produce evidence from the text not only of our author’s similarity of expression, but also of his use and misunderstanding of the text of Sirach. Granted Lévi were correct—and well-authenticated misreadings of the text would be a strong confirmation—it would be possible to fix exactly the date of Tobit. The evidence in favour of the pre-Maccabean date would not be weakened, for his arguments are based on supposed misreadings, not of the Greek translation of Sirach (c. 132 B.C.), but of the Hebrew original (c. 190-180 B.C.) ; Tobit must, then, have been written between 190-170 B.C. Lévi, however, brings forward only two passages in confirmation of this theory of textual dependence and misunderstanding, and in neither case can his reasoning be pronounced sound or his conclusions be accepted.’ Moreover, if the parallels appear ‘more precise and definite’ (Fuller) in Tobit than in Sirach, it is just because in the former they present themselves in more of the original freshness of their ultimate sources.
ve Magan Influences.
It cannot any longer be alleged either that the author was influenced by the Zoroastrian religious system, or that he necessarily borrowed, as has been argued by W. R. Smith* and Prof. J. H. Moulton, from z7z¢¢ex Iranian sources, and lived in Media to do so, as Prof. J. H. Moulton formerly ὃ suggested.®
For a complete refutation of the supposition of his indebtedness to Zoroaster we are indebted to Professor J. H. Moulton’s recent researches.’ /¢ was non-Zoroastrian Magianism which influenced the author of Tobit. There are numerous parallels between Tobit and ‘ the most important factors in Magianism as distinguished from the other strata in complete Avestan Parsaism’. Professor Moulten, for instance, points out the parallels in the use made of the fish’s heart, the stress laid on burial, the consanguineous marriages, the unnecessary appearance of the dog, and the demon Asmodeus, whose name finds its exact counterpart in the later Avestan AZSma dacva. On the other hand, the absence of any eschatology in Tobit would be inexplicable if the author had been acquainted with the system of Zarathushtra, who ‘enlarged and enhanced’ the eschatology of ‘the earliest Iranian stratum ’, writes Professor Moulton, ‘till it becamethe very centre of the Religion’. Again, the seven angels of Tobit xii. 15 need not point back to the Amesha Spenta, since the latter in Zoroaster’s own system were six. The later substitution of seve was probably under Semitic influence ; and of the two alternative additions, that of the Deity is expressly excluded by the text of Tobit /c., while that of Sraosha has’no claim to antiquity.
1 He quotes Amos viii. 10 ἴῃ ii. 5. His text may be reminiscent of Amos v. 15 and Jonah iii. 9 in xiii. 6; of Mic. iv. 2, Zech. viii. 22 in xiii. 112; of Mic. ii. 3 in xiv. 4 (see note ad Joc.) ; of Isa. ii. 18 (cf. Mic. v. 13) in xiv. 6; of the Tritofor the verification of his vaticinium post eventum in xiv. 4 (cf. Nahum iii. 7 for its fulfilment in xiv. 15). He utilizes pce. ii. 3 in xiv. 5. He bases his description of the glorious future on prophetic passages such as Jer. xxxi. I-14;
Revue des Etudes juives, vol. xliv, No. 88, April-June, 1902.
5 In the case of Tobit iv. 3 and Sir. ili. 12, it is noteworthy that (1) ΖΝ) twice, but AYY never, in LXX is thus translated ; (2) ὑπερίδης would not naturally represent either in this connexion; (3) RY, which Lévi follows, is certainly inferior to RS here. In the case of Sir. xxxi. 19, (1) according to Strack [22 not j)33 is correct, (2) πεπαιδευμένος in Tobit iv. 14 is a reminiscence of Ahikar (cf. p. 192 supra).
Encyc. Brit2, art. ‘Tobit’.
5. ‘The Iranian Background of Tobit’, published in the Lxfos. Times, vol. xi, pp. 257-60.
τ Hibbert Lectures (New Series), 1912, delivered in Manchester College, Oxford, and in the University of London. His Excursus, Magianism and the Book of Tobit, attached to Lecture II, containing an interesting conjectural restoration of a supposed Magian archetype of our book, entirely supersedes his earlier essay in the Lxfos. Times. | am indebted to Professor Moulton for allowing me to read and make several quotations from this Excursus before its publication.
It was in Egypt, and practically in Egypt alone,’ that an author such as ours could have made the use he has of those ‘ most important factors in Magianism’. The recent discoveries of papyri in Egypt 2 have thrown new light upon the conditions of the Jews there. The Jews in Egypt would look with the less suspicion upon Persian ideas and customs inasmuch as the Persian empire, under Cambyses, had spared their temple on the island of Elephantine. Many of the worshippers at that
shrine had once been mercenaries in the employ of the Egyptian military authorities. Inthecourse
of time Persian officers had been appointed over them, Persian soldiers quartered in Syene, and, towards the end of the fifth century B.C., a Persian, by name Vidarna, had been in command of the entire garrison of the southern border. The descendants of these Jewish soldiers became military colonists, farmers, and ordinary burghers. But their environment for long remained partly Persian, for business was transacted with Persian weights and measures, and dates were reckoned according to the reigns of the various Persian kings. Thus we have a glimpse into the life of the Jew in Egypt, for the general conditions were probably much the same throughout the country, In some such environment the author of Tobit lived.* \ Possibly he knew but little of Magianism as a system of thought—in this book he is certainly not waging a polemic against it* or against Zoroastrianism— but was fairly well acquainted with the popular stories and legends Persians—soldiers and others— had introduced into the circles in which he moved. In our story, for instance, prefaced as it is by ἃ reference to the careful burial of the dead, which is further inculcated in the body of the narrative, the surprising references® to the dog as the companion of the wayfarers (vi. 2 (1), xi. 5) may well be due to a confused recollection of fables originally of Magian tendency,® which emphasized, like the Vendidad, the importance of properly building ‘the tower of silence’ for the dead, and recorded Parsi funerals in which ‘a dog (with certain spots) is brought in to look at the corpse and so exorcise the Vas’. But the dog is no longer a companion of Tobit and a participant in the funeral rites ; he simply accompanies the travellers. Similarly, the consanguineous marriages only form a subsidiary part of his argument and the particular form and motive of their introduction, as already shown, are determined by other considerations. So too the name Asmodeus comes ultimately from Media but the meaning of the name cannot be pressed
δ. INTEGRITY.
The integrity, unity and originality of the book as a whole have not remained unchallenged. As early as A. Ὁ. 1800 Ilgen endeavoured to prove that while i. 1-iii. 6 was written by Tobit himself (c. 689 B.C.) in Assyria, iii. 7—-xii. 22 were not composed till c. 280 B.C. in Palestine, and xiii was only inserted c. 10 B.C. But the book is characterized throughout by a unity of purpose well conceived _ in its plan and natural and simple in its development, the work in short of a single author of more than average taste and ability. In spite, however, of Plath’s unanswerable demonstration—with one possible exception—of the integrity of the book, the allusions to Ahikar as well as the didactic sections (especially iv, xii), the superficial contradictions, the use of the first person in i. 1-iii.6 and the supposed irrelevancy of portions of xiv have been utilized, in the most radical manner by Erbt, to prove that 7odt in its present form is the result of a lengthy process of accretion, elaboration and chance conglomeration, and that a number of interpolations must first be removed and certain further redactional features (inserted, according to Erbt, as late as the second century A.D.) must be discarded before it is possible to make a conjectural reconstruction of the original story such as he himself attempts. Others, less radical than Erbt, find difficulties in only one or two of the following problems.
Allusions to Ahikar's history. Are these original? The discovery at Elephantine of A/zkar papyri earlier than 400 B.c. has removed the a priori objection that A/zkar is later than Tobit. On the contrary, if our author wrote in Egypt where Ahkikar was so popular, even supposing it was not elsewhere quite so well known a legend as R. Harris, Cosquin and others suppose, he might even
? See above, p. 186, footnote 3. * See especially Eduard Sachau, of. εἶδ, pp. xili-xxvil.
With Professor J. H. Moulton’s permission I quote the following extract from one of his letters to me on the subject: ‘My earlier suggestion that the Jewish adaptation of a Median folk-story was actually made in Media by a Jew living there is not in the least necessary to my theory. Provided that a Jew in Egypt or elsewhere was able to get hold of this story, in oral or written form, all that I postulate is fully met. Indeed, your theory that Persian soldiers of Cambyses may have brought the story into Egypt suits admirably my argument that Zoroaster’s Reform oe not ee into the religion of the Achaemenian Kings before Darius, and it was a good deal later that it reached
e people.
As Kohut, dating the work in the third century A.D., has argued.
5 See p. 195 for their genuineness.
5 Erbt (Z4, col. 5128), however, traces the dog not to Zoroastrian influence, but to ‘one of the variations of the tales of the spirit’ of Ze Grateful Dead which occasionally appears in animal form. Rosenmann refers it to the
influence of Greek customs and literature, e.g. the Homeric poems (Odys. xvii. 29 ff., where the dog plays a similar role), which he thinks were not unknown to the Jews.
be expected to introduce some references to the fortunes of that hero and sage, especially in view of the non-Jewish background and models of his work and of the great use he has made of Ahikar’s wisdom. But i.21f.; ii. 10; xi. 18; xiv. 10, are all rejected by Erbt, Riggs, Miiller, Smend, Toy. xiv. Io, however, is certainly essential to the climax of the author’s argument since it serves as a celebrated example of his dictum that divine justice always triumphs. That much is admitted by Reinach, who, unlike Ilgen, regards all the other allusions as spurious and supposes that the story of Ahikar was originally a Babylonian solar myth of essentially polytheistic colouring. Moreover, Miiller and Smend, who like Ilgen, and in opposition to Reinach, find most difficulty in xiv. 10, admit that all the passages, though interpolations, were very early accretions to the text, in fact pre-Christian. It is only the earliest versions and recensions which preserve the tradition, the later ones tending more and more to misunderstand, confuse or omit the names. Thus R° is clearest (as Erbt acknowledges more than once); RY has partly lost the point of the references, conjectured Haman and preserved a somewhat corrupt text; dv M. omitted it altogether; S has suffered textual corruption; F has conjectured Aaron. BD, avowedly useless for textual criticism, so far supports the interpolatory theory (except in xi. 20 1) that Erbt yields to the temptation to gain support for his hypothesis by entering a special plea on behalf of Jerome’s superiority to the uncials in this particular!
The Didactic Sections. Erbt and Riggs, consistently with their rejection of the allusions to the history of Ahilsar, endeavour to set aside also the allusions to the z7zsdom of Ahikar, particularly iv.6b-19a. Toy holds that both iv and xii are the insertions of the late editor. But δ΄ 5 omission of iv. 6b-19a, to which Erbt appeals, does not support the interpolatory hypothesis (see note ad loc.). Moreover, the parenetic contents of these verses, to which Erbt demurs as unsuitable to and disturbing the context, are justified by the situation—Tobit believes himself to be dying and desires to communicate to his son the wisdom he himself has acquired that it may help Tobias on his journey to Media and throughout his life. Verses 12 and 13 have special reference to the immediate problems of that journey, and are therefore carefully marked off from the rest by a freer rhythm.
The Dog. That the references to this animal as the companion of the wayfarers were made by the author, not by an interpolator, is attested not simply by their presence in RS, but also from their vicissitudes in the various recensions and versions. vi. 2 (1) is possibly the allusion to which suspicion might most easily attach itself, for RY omitted it. He did so, however, simply because the sentence seemed tautologous. He introduces it without prejudice in v.17 (16) and xi. 4. In the latter case an original ky ( κύων) preserved in 3.8 version of R* has accidentally become ks ( Κύριος) in δ, whereas Semitic prejudice and Jewish legalism reasserted itself in Av. followed by M, though in F the ancient tradition returned. That RY copied from RS and not R$ from RY is shown conclusively in xi. 4, where the former retained the συνῆλθεν, though he omitted its complement αὐτοῖς. Β΄“ removed the clause back to 11* (?), made the dog run defore the party (cf e¢ guasi nuntius adveniens ἘΠ), and reintroduced him, v. 9, where blandimento suae caudae gaudebat was added inv. Were Lohr? right in regarding τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτῆς of δὰ as a corrupt anticipatory dittography from v. 5 and in reading αὐτῶν for αὐτοῦ καί, RS would still be prior to RY. But even if RY were the earlier, the dog could only be the work of the author, not an interpolator.
Internal Contradictions and Signs of Non-unity. (1) In the Introduction (i. 3-iii. 17) and Conclusion certain difficulties of this nature have led to the denial of the originality or genuineness of these sections either as a whole or in part. The change, however, from the narration in the first person in i. I-iii. 6 to that in the third in the subsequent chapters is not inexplicable. It was necessitated by the summary of Sarah’s previous history (iii. 7-15) and the author’s desire to paint in his own inimitable manner the contrast between the reader on the one hand, who has been initiated into the intentions of the merciful Providence (iii. 16 f.), and the heroes of the story on the other hand, who can only ‘walk by faith’. The author has lessened the harshness of the transition by the insertion of Tobit’s preparatory prayer (iii. 1-6). Moreover, Plath quite pertinently* points to similar alternations of third and first persons in the Aramaic Azar and the Acts of the Apostles. Again, if i. 6 seems to contradict i. 14 it is only because ‘the individual interest is stronger than the interest in the harmony of the parts’ (Plath), while the contradictions between i. 20 and ii. I f. are merely superficial. Nor is there any internal contradiction in either R$ or RY as to the duration of Tobit’s blindness. Finally, the style of xiv is in no way different from that of the preceding chapters, and its thought and contents (including v. 10) are sufficiently akin to the rest of the book to allow of its originality, unless indeed @ priori presuppositions of the way in which the book should end are allowed undue weight. From the fact that two proper names of an Aramaic form (xtv. 10)
. 1 Dr. Marshall regards this as an interpolation. * In spite of Erbt’s strictures, £2, col. 5117. 4 The two years of ii. 1o appearing in καὶ" not in RY, and the eight years of xiv. 2 in RY not R*.
THE, BOOK Or, fOnin
point to an Aramaic original, it cannot be logically argued, as is done in the Lucy. Brit.™, that the chapter is /a¢er than the rest of the book! True, Av. and M betray no knowledge of it, but that is due to intentional and conscious omission in their common ancestor, the purpose of which is as clear as_ their dogmatic modifications of ch. xiii. ἢ ᾿ ; ἱ (2) In the central portion of the book. The inconsistency of vi. 17 (16) and v. 13 (12) is due to
Raphael’s increasing anxiety for the consummation of the marriage in reaction from Tobit’s dis- — inclination to espouse Sarah. Miiller, who supposes that the exorcism of the demon by prayer (viii, 4-8) is a later feature of the story than that by magic, has examined the alleged contradictions — involved in the various references to the fatal results of Sarah’s previous espousals. If Raguel had
acted illegally in giving his daughter successively to seven men on whom he had no right to bestow her, Raguel himself should have paid the penalty, vi. 13 (12), whereas Raguel himself survived, but the seven were slain in satisfaction not of Jahveh’s just wrath but of a demon’s lust. Raguel anticipated that the same fate awaited Tobias, though he was confessedly the preordained husband for Sarah.
Raphael, like Tobias, foresaw danger only to Tobias, not to Raguel, since if the latter alone had a
been expected to suffer, Sarah and Tobias would have escaped and inherited Raguel’s fortune at
once. These inconsistencies after all are only superficial and result from the author’s attempt—on
the whole admirably carried out—to utilize demon-possession, like other ideas he had derived from his
sources, in order to inculcate the importance of obeying the law and preserving the purity of Jewish
marriages. It is in this connexion, however, that Miiller? discusses another problem which has a more serious bearing upon the purpose and date of the book (see pp. 183 f.) as well as upon its integrity. In iii. 17 Sarah states that her father has no near relative whose offspring she is bound to marry, but in vii. 2-9 her parents have not forgotten Tobit’s existence. Tobit has no premonition of the happy duty of marrying his relative Sarah in store for Tobias, contenting himself with the general statement of iv. 12, whereas in vi. 10 (g)-18 (17) Raphael is aware not only of the relationship but of Sarah’s legal obligations to marry Tobias, and the latter shows no surprise, if he is not in fact already as well aware of it as Raphael, and only shrinks from the dangers it involves to his own person. There is the further difficulty that, in spite of vi. 13 (12), vii. 12 (13), Holy Writ nowhere commands ‘agnatic’ marriages, i.e. marriages within the particular family or tribe of the contracting parties as opposed to inter-tribal unions. The case is not covered by Num. xxvii. I-11, xxxvi, which at the best was only theoretical and dealt only with the case of heiresses owning landed property in Palestine. Even Tobit’s reference to the patriarch’s action (iv. 12) rests not upon Genesis but on traditions in vogue in the earlier post-exilic period such as Fubilees has preserved. Miiller therefore supposes—and it is an exceedingly happy supposition—that the author sought to inculcate not tribal as opposed to inter-tribal, but Fewish as opposed to Fewish-pagan marriages. Sarah’s seven former husbands were slain because they were pagans, but Tobias had a right superior to that of any other possible suitor at the moment, because he was the only Jew in the neighbourhood. Thus ἀδελφός in this book properly means a brother Jew, ἀδελφή a term of endearment for the only legal wife a Jew may have, i.e. a Jewess,” vii. 15 (16), viii. 4, γένος kindred, not in the narrower sense of tribal relationship but with the wider connotation of the Jewish nation, e.g. in i. 17, twa τῶν ἐκ τοῦ ἔθνους μου can only be intended as a synonym for, not as an antithesis to, rots ἐκ τοῦ γένους μου in v.16. The example of the patriarchs is quoted iniv.12 — not to inculcate their marriage with near relatives as such, but to exemplify by the fact that their wives were near relatives how careful to avoid marriage with non-Jewesses were these patriarchs, the ‘fathers of old time’ (iv. 12) of the whole Hebrew race. Attractive as Miiller’s theory is, and though successfully explaining the apparent contradictions of the story, it is not entirely supported by any version or recension. Miiller falls back on an eclectic text, the result of the rejection of all readings of R*, RY, and R° which militate against his theory. This procedure presupposes that each and all of these revisions embodies an attempt (only partially successful in each case) to transform a story, originally inculcating only Jewish marriages, into one advocating agnatic marriages. But could all these revisions possibly have shared this purpose in common? Certainly they could have done if— an impossible condition—they could αὐ be proved to have been made éefore the irksome duty of agnatic marriage was annulled in the first century B.C. Whereas those revisions which were made after that date—i. e. at least two of them (irrespective of the rival merits of RS and RY)—if they made any alterations at all, would tend to obscure and remove the agnatic motif; Miiller (p. 7, note 4). admits that R° actually did so in vi. 16 in deference to RS. Hence the agnatic interest must have — figured to some extent in the original story, probably, however, only in the half-hearted way in which it appears in R®. The author’s advice might be summed up: At all costs marry Jewesses of the purest possible descent, like the patriarchs; marry your own sisters or cousins, if no other Jewesses are available. hs
ᾧ το. RELIGIOUS AND MORAL TEACHING.
The theological, religious, and moral outlook of our author is far from unimportant. Unfortunately the comparatively lengthy treatment which the other problems of the book have claimed allows only of a very brief résame.
A. The author’s—as opposed to the later redactors—religious presuppositions are those of the popular mind tinged with the point of view of the newest developments of the official and orthodox leaders of the post-exilic period, in its earlier rather than its later phases. This is amply justified by the following considerations :—
(1) Doctrine of God. The full Monotheism of the post- -exilic period is presupposed.1. The descriptions of Jahveh’s qualities are manifold.* Since He is a transcendental Deity, He hears men’s prayers through angelic mediation. The tendency to distinguish between Jahveh, the invisible and ineffable, and His personified self-manifestation and revelation also appears, but only in the two
(2) Angelology.2—The angelology of the author as compared with that of Jubilees, 1 Enoch and RY, is at a somewhat embryonic stage of its evolution. As compared, on the other hand, with that of the Old Testament as a whole, it seems to stand well within the threshold of the subsequent period. It is especially noticeable that Raphael here represents in germ the ideas which afterwards crystallized in the fully developed doctrine of Michael, with whose functions Raphael’s should therefore be carefully compared.
Chapter xii is without parallel in the extant literature of Judaism. The whole story illustrates ‘the free, untutored, and vigorous type of speculation existent a little before the rise of Pharisaic regulations of the dogma. This belief in the angel’s intervention, moreover, always remained essentially characteristic of the people’s religion as opposed to that of the learned and cultured.® With iii. 16 f., xii. 12, 15 (14), cf. Jub. xxx. 20, Testaments of Dan vi, of Asher vi, of Levi v.
(3) Eschatology. The author shows no advance upon the pre-exilic period in his conceptions
of death and its consequences. The grave is external in its annihilating effects, iii. 6, 10, cf. iv. 10, xii. 9. In relation to the nation, however, he stands possibly almost on a threshold of the Apocalyptic tendency. He has worked out for himself a crude and simple, but yet unmistakable, philosophy of the future. Jerusalem at the end of a given period will be rebuilt and the Temple sumptuously restored, the scattered tribes reunited, and—to his credit—the heathen will worship the God of Israel, xiii. 7-18 a, xiv. 4-6. See further, Charles, Eschatology, 1899, pp. 165 f.
Beets τη the practical Sphere that our author's religious and moral outlook find their fullest expression. His hero is a rare instance of an almost perfect combination and realization, in actual life, of the priestly and prophetic ideals.
(1) The cultus,° as practised at Jerusalem, the precepts of the /aw (tithes, marriage,’ purity, &c.) and Ferusalem itself, are primary factors in the author’s life, i. 3-13; ii. 1-9, and their future perfection is painted in glowing colours, xiii. 7-18 a, xiv. 4-7.
(2) The ‘ Three Pillars of Judaism’, prayer, almsgiving, and fasting are inculcated. Fasting (ii. 4) has not reached the culmination of its oe ear 8 Almsgiving, however, as in Sirach,° ranks high among the non-sacrificial duties of Judaism, ΤΟΣ 1 ΠΑ ivan ἢ. tte, τό, ἘΠῚ: gf., XIV. 9, is the szve gua non of a long and prosperous life, a Ἢ ΝΣ to be practised by the richest, i. 16 f,, ii. 10, and the poorest, ii. 14, and occupies a prominent position in the ‘teaching’ both of Tobit, iv. 3-19, and of Raphael, xii. 8. ‘Righteousness’ is thus already tending to take the lower level and become synonymous to some extent with almsgiving, 1 but devotion to the cultus and legalism do not result in this book in hypocrisy or externalism, since the whole is pervaded with a mysticism oe finds its highest expression in heart-felt prayer as the immediate means of communion with
_ This is evident not simply from the number and length of the prayers which are quoted, but from the care which has been devoted to their position, structural arrangement, and contents.”
The demonology and magical elements are relics of the author’s sources and Jewish- Egyptian environment and not belong to the circle of his own constructive ideas, and are therefore not dealt with here. i 2 * See Wilhelm Lueken, Michael, 1898. Ὁ Cf. W. Bousset, Dae Religion des Judentums, eecoud edition, p. 379.
® Note the addition in x. ΠΏ RY:
“For the seth place of prayer and its function in this connexion in Judaism, see Communion with God, n, PP 106-13, by Dr. Darwell Stone and the present writer.
THE BOOK OR ἼΓΟΥ ΠΕ
Tobit’s (iii. 16 f.) and Sarah’s (iii. 10-15) prayers, uttered with face turned to Jerusalem, and the immediate answer to them in iii. 16, 17, are the climax to the Introduction (i. 3-iii. 17). Both are probably typical of the form in which prayers were cast in the writer’s day. | Each contains an invocation, followed by an act of adoration (iii. 2, 11),and the specific supplication with a lengthy retrospective explanation. Both are of almost equal length, in spite of Sarah's preliminary history — (iii. 7-15) being otherwise much briefer than Tobit’s (i. 3-iii. 6). Sarah’s is the more concrete and — individualistic, Tobit’s the wider in its outlook and the more intercessory. The same structural arrangement characterizes viii. 5-7, 16f. and the frequent thanksgivings. The liturgical Amen appears in viii. 8.2 Finally, Raphael sets prayer in its rightful position in xii. 8 and asserts its efficacy in xii. 12, which is followed by the exile’s prayer of exhortation and consolation, xiii. 1-6. In none of them, however, is there a single petition for the conversion of the non-Jewish world.
(3) Morality and ethics are inculcated in all departments of life, e. g. piety towards parents, the duty of Jewish marriage, the purity of wedlock, and in matters of everyday life,* from a standpoint as high as, if not higher than, Ahikar’s. It was such moralizing precepts as these, rather than theological dogmas, which did most to regulate and direct contemporary life—both Jewish and
agan. (4) A special plea scems to be entered in relation to contemporary conduct towards the dead. Though from a literary point of view our author is dependent upon Ahikar directly for iv. 17, yet it is quite clear that he is inculcating an actual religious practice. In fact, at the time our author lived, it would appear to have been a subject of considerable dispute as to whether such offerings were right and proper and a matter of duty (cf. Sir. vii. 33 ; Job iv. 17) or whether they — were definitely to be excluded by Judaism® and its adherents (Sir. xxx. 18, 19; Ep. Jer. 31, 32; Wisdom xiv. 15, xix. 3; Sibyl. Or. viii. 382-4). At the time when Jubilees xxii. 17 was written they were apparently regarded as characteristic of the Gentiles. See, further, Charles, of. cit,
§ 11. INFLUENCE OF THE ΒΟΟΚ ON LATER LITERATURE. :
A. Fewish. There is considerable evidence to show that Tobit was held in high repute alike by early and by later Judaism. (a) There are possibly traces of its use in Daniel, in the later Psalms, in the book of Jubilees (v. note iv. 16, 18, 21f.; x. 4-6), the Test. of Job, &c. (6) While the references to it in New Testament (v. zzfra) exemplify its use by the Jews of our Lord’s day, RY is the best evidence of its extraordinary popularity between c. 200 B.C. and ς. A.D. 150. (c) In M an example survives of its use among pious orthodox Jews. (d) The fact that the latter found a place in the Midrash Rabba de Rabbah together with the passage contained in the addition to the Midrash Tanchuma; illustrates best of all how thoroughly our story permeated the thought of later Judaism. (2) Finally in F as also in Gaster’s Hebrew, if not also in the London Hebrew, we have an unmistakable example of Jewish interest in the book in the Middle Ages.
B. Christian’ Interest in the question of the presence in the New Testament of allusions to Tobit and of passages tinged whether directly or indirectly with a recollection of Tobit’s history or maxims, has been damped in the past by the credence which the theories of Graetz, Kohut and others once unfortunately gained. More lately the field has been occupied by the attempts of students of Ahikar to find traces of the use of that legend in the New Testament, instead of admitting that the probabilities may point to the latter’s comparative supersession by Tobit, into which, as already stated, its most permanent features had by now ὃ been merged. .
Christianity appealed, at least at the outset, to the very classes to whom Tobit would be especially dear with its simple but sympathetic narrative of the fortunes of Jews of previous days who had lived under the yoke of a foreign domination—classes, too, who would give an equally enthusiastic welcome to the most crudely painted Apocalyptic. The fact that our book, though never in the Jewish Canon, survived the shock of this religious revolution and found a still more honourable position in the Bible of the new community than it had ever done under the old Covenant,
*Lord’ in Tobit’s own, ‘Lord my God? in Sarah’s.
᾿ Printed and translated by Neub., of. cit. See Noldeke, of. ci¢., p. 63.
: It Should be remembered that this holds good even if the parallels to Ahikar be regarded as interpolations,
sinpes τ ae Miller and Smend frankly admit Ahikar’s presence in the text of Tobit prior to the Christian era.
speaks volumes for its intrinsic charm and adaptability for the spiritual requirements of the new religion.
τ In the New Testament. It has already been hinted (p. 189, footnote 10) that, instead of Ahikar directly, it might be right to see a reference to Ahikar only as mediated through Tobit in the Parables of the Wicked Servant and the Barren Fig-tree. Thus Tobit would stand in the same relation to these parables as Isa. v. 1-7 to the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen. Again, to insist that Ahikar itself, not Ahikar as abridged in Tobit, influenced the diction of the Biblical as well as the non-Biblical stories of Judas’ death is to come very near denying even the general historicity of the kernel of the story in order to find its kernel in Ahikar. In the case of our Lord's words, which were uttered in Aramaic, verbal, as distinct from literary, coincidence with the Greek must be expected generally only in so far as the evangelists have modelled their Greek on that of the LXX. The following parallels, however, even if only accidental, are noteworthy: xi. οἱ and Luke xv. 20; xii. 8 and Matt. vi. 1-18; a materialistic interpretation of iv. 9 condemned in Matt. vi. 20f.; iv. 15 remarkable parallels to the commission and Ascension of Raphael which are collected in the note to xii. 16-22 fall into the same category? Do their completeness and detail suggest that our book exercised a direct and important formative, if not creative, influence upon the expression of the truths of the Transfiguration, Resurrection, and Ascension of our Lord? Or are we to suppose both only represent the popular vocabulary in which such events were wont to be related? True, angels ascended in the Old Testament; the Ascension of Isaiah and Assumption of Moses must once have related something similar, but nowhere is there so exact a coincidence of religious presupposition, literary expression and dramatic climax as in Tobit xii. 16-22.
S. Paul is possibly conscious of his indebtedness to Tobit, ‘which must certainly have been a part of his library’. With iv. 12 acf.1 Thess. iv. 3; xii. 10 cf. Rom. vi. 23; iv. 8 cf. 1 Cor. xvi 2 and 2 Cor. viii. 12; iv. 7,16 cf. 2 Cor.ix7a%, R. Harris ® has already pointed out the use 5. Paul made of Tobit iv. 10 in Gal. vi. 10.
In the third group of Pauline Epistles, Eph. v. 18, though expressed in the language of Prov. xxiii. 31 in LXX, recalls the advice of Tobit iv. 15 b.
Still more important are the alleged parallels between Tobit and the Pastoral Epistles. The uncommon phrase βασιλεὺς τῶν αἰώνων occurs in Tobit xiii. 6 and 1 Tim. i. 17, in both cases in an ascription of praise. Withiv. ἡ οἴ, τ Tim. vi. 19; Tobit iv.21 cf.1 Tim. vi. 6. The form of address ‘my child Timothy ᾿ reminds us of Tobit’s recurring formula. Is it possible to go further? What abuses or heresies was the writer of the Pastorals combating? Are we quite sure that there is no alternative to the rival claims of Rabbinism and Gnosticism ? Granted undue reverence for tractates of mythological, demonologicai and useless—non-religious, though moral—proverbial tendencies, such as we meet with in Tobit; granted, too, possibly the presence to some small extent of the numerous speculations and vicious by-products of a debased Apocalyptic—is it not probable that the writer of the Pastorals had ample justification for the remarks upon which the theories of Gnostic or Rabbinic polemics are based ?
It only remains to mention two other points of contact between Tobit and the New Testament. The ethical and moral point of view and forms of literary self-expression in vogue among the circles which produced the early chapters of Acts were similar in some respects to Tobit’s—on the positive and gocd side of the latter. With Tobit 1. 3 cf. Acts ix. 36b; Tobit ii. 1 cf. Acts ii. 1 (Pentecost) ; Tobit iii. 16 with Acts ix. 18 ; xi. 12,13 (13); and Tobit xii. 12 with Acts x. 4. Lastly—apart from the parallelism of demonological technicality in Tobit viii. 3 and Rev. xx. 2 independently borrowed from current formulae— Rev. xxi. 10-21 is as much dependent on Tobit xiii. τό and Rev. xix. I-7 on Tobit xiii. 18 as upon other Old Testament and Apocryphal literary models of this type.
(ii) Zn post-Apostolic Christian Writers Tobit is quite unmistakably placed on as high a pedestal as the other books of the Apocrypha not known at the time to have been written in Hebrew, and most often it was even venerated as highly as any other Scriptures—a fact well illustrated by Clem, Alex’s. quotation? of iv. 16 as ἡ γραφή. For numerous other Patristic quotations, decisions of Church Councils, and use and influence in the Anglican Church, see Fuller of. cvt. Marshall, of. c7¢., and cf. p. 178, supra, footnote 7.
? A closer parallel at any rate, in thought and language, than Gen. xlvi. 29. Tee
3 The scriptural antiquity of which is vouched for by οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ νόμος καὶ of προφῆται. Hillel, like Tobit, expressed himself only negatively, see Taylor, Pirge Adoth, 37. ΤΕ
3. τὰ ἐνόντω hus been rendered more or less in conformity with Tobit by guae sunt (Ὁ ἃ g), ex his guae habetis ([), guod superest (Vulg.), ea quae penes vos sunt (Beza), guantum potestis (Grotius); cf. Luther’s voz dem, das da ist. See Plummer, S. Luke, Int. Crit. Comment., ad loc.
® Just as 7b is a quotation from Prov. xxii. 8, LXX. 5 op. cit., p. 545. 7 Strom. ii. 23, ὃ 139
§ 12. BIBLIOGRAPHY.
(a) CHIEF EDITIONS OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS. Greek MSS. and Papyrus. } , Reusch, Libellus Tobit e codice Sinattico editus et recensttus, 1870. τι ae Fritzsche, Die Biicher Tobia und Judith erklart (Exeget. Hanabuch zu den Apokryphen, 11), Leipzig, 1853. Tischendorf, Vetus Testamentum Gracce iuxta LXX interpretes, 2 vols., 1850. Swete, Zhe Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint, vol. ti, 1891. Vigouroux, La Sainte Bible Polyglotte, Ancien Testament, vol. 111, 1902. Hunt, Oryrhynchus Papyrt, viii, 1911, No. 1076. Aramaic Version. Neubauer, Ze Book of Tobit, a Chaldee Text, &c., Oxford, 1878.
Old Latin Versions. ν ᾿ . Sabatier, Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae, Paris, 1751. Blanchini, Viniiciae Canonicarum Scripturarum, Rome, 1749. Neubauer, Zhe Book of Tobit, a Chaldee Text, &c., Oxford, 1878.
Hebrew Versions. . 1. The Miinster Hebrew (first printed in Constantinople, 1516). Sebastian Minster, 1542. Neubauer, of. c¢7., supra. . Fagius’ Hebrew. Walton’s Polyglot. 3. The London Hebrew. 4. The Gaster Hebrew. Gaster, P.SBA, vol. xix, pp. 33 f. Syriac Versions. Walton’s Polyglot. Lagarde, Libri apocryph. Syriace. x Ceriani, Le edizioni e i manoscritti delle versioni siriache del Vecchio Testamento, 1870, p. 22; and Rahlfs in Lagarde, Bibliotheca Syriaca, 1892, pp. 32 b-321. Ethiopic Version. Dillmann, Biblia Veteris Testamenti aethiopica, ν, 1894.
(0) CHIEF CRITICAL INQUIRIES.
Ilgen, Die Geschichte Tobi’s nach drey verschiedenen Originalen, &c., Jena, 1800.
Steinschneider, Catalogus librorum Hebraeorum in Bibliotheca Bodletana, 1852-60.
Fritzsche, Die Biicher Tobit unt Judith erklart (Exeget. Handbuch zu den Apokryphen, ii), Leipzig, 1853.
Reusch, Das Buch Tobias iibersetzt und erklart, Freiburg, 1857.
Sengelmann, Das Buch Tobit erklart, Hamburg, 1857. Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Kecord, iv, 1857.
Hitzig, Zettschr. fiir wissenschaftl. Theol., 1860.
Hilgenfeld, Zettschr. fiir wissenschaftl. Theol., 1862.
Reusch, Libellus Tobit e codice Sinattico editus et recensitus, Bonnae, 1870.
Kohut, E¢qwas iiber die Moral und die Abfassungszeit d. δ. Tobias in Geiger’s Jiidische Zettschr. f. Wissenschaft — u. Leben, x, 1872; also separate.
Gutberlet, Das Buch Tobias tibersetzt und erklart, Minster, 1877.
Neubauer, of. cit., supra.
Bickell, Zettschr. f. kathol. Theol., 1878.
E. Schurer, 7heol. Literaturzeit., 1878.
Noldeke, Monatsberichte der Berliner Akadentie, 1879.
Gritz, Monatsschr. f. Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth., 1879.
Grimm, Zeitschr. fiir wissenschaftl. Theol., 1881.
Linschmann, Zez/schr. f. wissenschaftl. Theol., 1882.
Preiss, Zeitschr. fiir wissenschaftl. Theol., 1885.
Rosenthal, Vier apokryphische Biicher aus der Zeit und Schule R. Akiba’s, 1885.
Hilgenfeld, Zectschr. fiir wissenschaftl. Theol., 1886.
Fuller, in Wace’s Afacrypha, London, 1888.
W. R. Smith, art. ‘ Tobit’ in πιο, Brit., ninth edition, 1888.
Scholz, Commentar sum Buche Tobias, 1889.
Nestle, Marginalien und Materialien, 1893.
Dalman, Grammatik des jiidisch-palistinischen Aramdisch, 1894.
Rosenmann, Studien zum Buche Tobit, 1894.
Dillmann, Siblia Veteris Testamenté aethiopica, v, 1894.
Gaster, Two unknown Hebrew versions of the Tobit Legend (Proceedings of the Society of Bibl. Archaeol.,
I. Abrahams, Jewish Quarterly Review, 1898, p. 348. Kohler, K/leznere Schriften zur Marchenforschung, 18098.
Nestle, Septwagintastudien, iii, Maulbronn, Progr., 1899; iv, 1903.
Rendel Harris, American Journal of Theology, iii, 1899, pp- 541-54: also The Story of Ahikar, Cambridge, mite} (by F. C. Conybeare, J. Rendel Harris, and Agnes Smith Lewis). tn Ἂ
Cosquin, Revue bibligue, 1899, pp. 513-20.
Lohr, Zettschr. fiir die alttest. Wissensch., xx, 1900.
Simonsen, Zodit-Aphorismen (Gedenkbuch sur Erinnerung an David Kaufmann herausg. von Brann und Rosenthal, 1900).
Plath, Theol. Stud. und Krtt., 1901.
Marshall, art. ‘Tobit’, Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, vol. iv, 1902, pp. 788 ff.
Lévi, Revue des Etudes Juzves, xliv, 1902, pp. 288-91.
Erbt, art. ‘ Tobit’ in & ncyclopaedia Biblica, iv, 1903.
André, Les Apocryphes de lA. T., 1903.
Sieger, Das Buch Tobias und das "Marchen vom dankbaren Toten (Katholik, 1904).
Vetter, Theol. Quartalschrift, 1904.
Nestle, Zettschr. fiir die alttest. Wissensch., xxv, 1905.
Miller, Beitrdge zur Erklairung und Kritik des Buches Tobit, Gottingen, Diss., 1907; also in Beihefte zur Zeitschr. f. ad. alttest. Wissensch., xiii, 1908.
Schulte, Zheol. Quartalschr., 1908, and Biblische Zeitschr., 1908.
Miller and Smend, Bezhefte zur Zeitschr. f. die alttest. Wissensch., xiii, 1908.
Schiirer, G/V’*, vol. iii, 1909.
Ed. Sachau, Aramiiische Papyrus und Ostraka aus Elephantine, 1911 (small edition by A. Ungnad, 1911).
Ed. Meyer, Der Papyrusfund von Elephantine, 1912.
1. H. Moulton, Zoroastrianism, Hibbert Lectures, 1912 (in the press), especially Lecture II and the excursus on Magianism and the Book of Tobit.
(c) CHIEF EDITIONS OF THE BOOK.
Fuller in Wace’s Afocrypha, vol. i, 1898. C. J. Ball, Variorum Apocrypha, 1892,. Lohr, Das Buch Tovit in Kautzsch’s UVbersetzung der Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen, 1900.
§ 13. CHIEF ABBREVIATIONS.
R* = Sinaitic and most original form of text
RY Recension best preserved in Cod. Vat. See § 3. R° Third recension
Ox Oxyrhynchus Papyrus, No. 1076 Ar. Extant Aramaic text
M = Minster Hebrew
[ΜΠ | varieties of Miinster Hebrew (see p. 179,
# Old Latin, of which aByé are MSS. S Syriac Versions F Fagius’ Hebrew D Vulgate
καὶ OCs — kat, ἅς, ἀδελ., ἄς, ἀδελφός, &c. 19, «2°, x.8°, &c. first, second, third occurrence of καί, &c., in a verse.
LOBIs
1: The book of the words of Tobit, the son of Tobiel, the son of Hananiel, the son of Aduel, the
son of Gabael, the son of Raphael, the son of Raguel, of the seed of Asicl, of the tribe of Naphtali ;
2 who in the days of Shalmaneser king of the Assyrians was carried away captive out of Thisbe,
which is on the right hand of Kedesh Naphtali in upper Galilee above Asser, behind the < road > leading west, on the left of Phogor.
INTRODUCTION, i. 3-iii. 17. A. Topit’s EARLIER HISTORY, i. 3-iii. 6.
i. Tobit’s Previous Fortunes, i. 3-22.
3 I Tobit walked in the ways of truth and in acts of righteousness all the days of my life, and I did many almsdeeds to my brethren and my nation, who went with me in the captive band into 4 the land of the Assyrians, to Nineveh. And when I was in mine own country, in the land of Israel, and when I was young, all the tribe of Naphtali my father fell away from the house of David my father and from Jerusalem, the city which < was chosen> out of all the tribes of Israel for all the tribes of Israel to sacrifice there, and wherein the temple of the habitation of God was hallowed and
I. τ. B. λογ.] MA NII Ar ἼΒΟ Π MF Τωβειθ] -«r B wA Thobisa8 Tobis γὸ pesol Ξ Ὁ Ar ΠῚ Ε 27. Ow NWoN INI Ar Τωβηλ] Nea S >F Ανανιηλ) > Ar Αδουηλ | Navn A Nulor? S > LAr (ss) Ms TaBayA] Tap. A > Ar Ona F τ᾿ Ραφαηλ] > BAS # Ar MF ae Ραγουηλ] > BAS # Ay MF ex τ. σπ. Ασιηλ] filii Asihel (+f. Gadalel, f. Arabei) > Ar Sypy 12 Cynaa 13 ΝΜ φυλ.] 27. τ. BA 2. os] pr. (ΠΌΝ 13 perm 2 andan awe abun py prow nbn ws) M ταις] > BA post Θισβης F Evepecoapov | ον SU Ar MF τ. ἈΑσσυριων] Ασσ. ΒΑ Lsohts S Wnt Ar WN MF εκ θισβης] εκ OBnsA woos S Bihel civitate* Nn ap avnaan Am Ar tawny a NM vy M ‘awino F ἢ €. ἐκ δεξ.] > ArMF Κυδιως] -ovA wa oS Edisse civitaisi > dArMF et... Φογωρ] > ArF av TadeX.] Ταλιλ. ΒΑ ἴῃ superioribus Ga8% in superiore G y super G...am8 ΝΟΌΣ 4rM Shan aun 55 ὃν F ureparw | ὑπερίανω Β΄ υπερα]νω ΒΡ ὑπερ (sed vide annot.) δ ἢ conta »Μ Ασσηρ] Ασηρ BA wal? S Νδδββου 3 > M on. δυσ. ηλι.] > BAS post viam quae ducit in occidentem aB y quae est ad occidentem solem ὃ 73 yaa by M εξ apior. boy.| > BASM Φογ.] Raphain © 3. Eyo Τι} Ὁ Sy mad mds Ὁ anor “Ὃ ae Meer. pers. ubique Ar αληθ.] DOM M επορ.] + spd M ev δικαιοσυναις) -vy Β -νη ASaBy > 84r maa npyM Fo Go. | > Ar erot. | Τῶν M μου} > B πορευθ.] mporop. B συνπορευομ. A nn Ar >M per’ ew. | > M εν τ. alyp. vewtepov μου ovros BA S inter omnes iunior 3» wn ArF “y) ‘nya Ar η] »ΒΑ Ne®. | pr. του BA τ. mar. pov] > Ar M aneotycay| -τεστη BA IND Ar M > F απὸ τ. otk. | xmabna Ar Δ. τ. πατ. pl. κ᾿ aro | > BA D.et ab aByS ἽΝ] Ar MF Ἱερουσαλημ] Ἱεροσολυμων ΒΑ aa pond {D721 W319) ArM
πολι = aovos | ΣΣ NG πολεως της] τ. ἐεκλεγεισης BAS + civitate quae est electa + "N32 IWS MF pr. wipn F ex] avo BA φυλων] pr. tov BA εἰς τ᾿ Ovo... Ke NY «+e Ke OK. os. εἰς πασ. τ. γεν. T. αἰωνος]
ubi altare constitutum est... quod sanctificatum est in saecula. Tunc, cum... aedificatum esset .. . ut sacrificaret in ipso omnis progenies in aeternum et 3» mbynd nana a » Sony Δ᾽ paw 535 wnpan» nan avn
I. 1. Ραγουήλ Seay as Φογώρ (v. 2) WYD (cf. Τέμορρα -- ΠΝ), and other transliterations of hard )).
2. Ἔνεμεσ. Ball conjectures that ‘yi was misread 3), but even if this was the ultimate cause of the form, Ἔνεμεσ. was well known as a recognized Greek equivalent of ‘Le since all the Vss, translating from the Greek, were able to substitute Shal. for it; therefore the mistake of “39 for "oy, if that be the correct explanation, had probably taken place before Tobit was Written. Κυδιώς probably Kadesh. Cod. 248 and the Complut. have κυριῶς, hence A.V. ‘which is properly called N.’ In the crit. appar. Swete has been followed. Nestle (Sef/wag. ili, p. 23), however, urges that Swete is wrong in his reference to the last three letters of ὑπεράνω ; it was the avw before Tad. which a secondary hand cancelled by placing dots above it. ᾿Ασσήρ Hazor. After ὀπίσω insert ὁδοῦ in δὲ with af y (conjectured by Reusch, accepted by Miiller), cf. wav NBD FAT ANN, Deut. xi. 30.
_ 4. Restore in δὲ τ. ἐκλεγ. (omitted through haplography of ex) after πόλεως (which RY in turn omitted) and in v. 5 insert καί before ἐπί.
5 built for all ages. All my brethren and the house of Nephtalim my father, they sacrificed to the | 6 calf, which Jeroboam the king of Israel made, in Dan <and> on all the mountains of Galilee. And Τ alone used often to journey to Jerusalem at the feasts, as it hath been ordained in all Israel by an everlasting decree. I used to go to Jerusalem with the firstfruits and the firstlings and the tenths of 7 the cattle and the first shearings of the sheep, and give them to the priests, the sons of Aaron, for (7) the altar, and the tenth of the corn and the wine and oil and pomegranates and the rest of the fruits to the sons of Levi, who ministered at Jerusalem. And the second tenth I tithed in money for g the six years, and went and spent it each year at Jerusalem: and gave it unto the orphans and the widows and the proselytes who attached themselves to the children of Israel; I brought it and gave it unto them in the third year, and we did eat it according to the decree which was decreed concerning it in the book of Moses and according to the commands which Deborah, the mother of | 9 Hananiel our father commanded, because my father left me an orphan when he died. And when I became a man, I took a wife of the seed of our own family, and of her I begat a son and called his }10 name Tobias. After the carrying away captive to Assyria when I was carried away captive, I came to Nineveh, and all my brethren and those that were of my kindred did eat of the bread of the
ἜΞ a 7 ὧν.
mwa “opp “ow Ὁ onder mby M (f- F) πασ. φυλαις] mac. τ. -λας ΒᾺ omn. nationibus y (0. tribubus a δ) salem 30 5. παν. οἱ aded. μου (ov N* p superscr. NX] x. (> S) πασ. ae φυλ. (+ Lage 3) συναποστασ. BAS (GB) > Ar k.l°... mar. μ.] post δαμαλ. δα ὁ ἃ 110 BAS (fF) > Ar na) ΠῸ Μ᾽ omnisque (et y) domus gc. a B yd Ned. | pr. tov A εθυσιαζ.] εθυον NOAM BA 4 midyyn ona M ojywapy F ἐκεῖνοι τ᾿ μοσχῳ] τη Baad τη δαμαλει δὲ ὁ ἃ 0 ΒΑ 5. vitulo aureo® shays Ar ann ΡΜ δον) ΠΝῚ odyan ΠΝ F ov emo... - Ταλειλ.)} > BASF Iepo8.] +033 13 M. ev Δαν] post εθυσιαζον © pr. Ss maa 4γΜ Tl. Γαλ.} > Ay M_ et omnibus altissimis montibus G.a8 cum omnibus superioribus partibus G.y εἴ in excelso
omnium gentium. G. ὃ 6. Kayo | kK. ἐγω A sm (ef ubique) Ar poverar. | pos BAS >M +A Any F πολλακις}) πλεονακ. ΒᾺ aliquotiesaBy aliquotiens6 > ArMF εἰς IepogoAvpal® δὰ Bab A] ev -οἱς Bee evi? § Bab A] > Be vid ev2° | > BA εν π. 1σρ.] >ArM ‘wy by M παντι] +r. BA προστ. at. | mvot ΝΙΝ waa 4,7, nana M (+) F τ. πρωτογεν. κι] > BAaBy Spec. 59 MF anmwnaas Ar tT. bex.| > 8 κτηνων] γενηματ. BAS armentorum (-ti y argenti Spec.) et pecorum (-odum y) aBy Spec. pecorums’ > 47γ͵)ἉΆΜΕ πρωτοκουρας] τ. προκουριας B (post τας seg ras in B: w Β ὃ mg δἰ ιδῖγ) το πρωτοκυριας A >é6dAr ΧΙ Μ τ. mpoBarov| > BA 6 dr MF exor | bay sim Ar amerpex. εἰς Iep.] > BAL M wond 4,7, altler F 7. κι 65.| > M aura] αὐτὰς Β ἀπε ἐχω Lh > M τὸ uu. A... . Iepovo.t?| mS int own ἽΠῚ ἽΠ 555 sxnd5y 47 Ααρων] Ap. A mp. τ. θυσ.] + marr. των yeyne. NC®M™I BAA των γεν. ΒΞ adaramédé >aBy Spec. MF x.2° 7, Sexatny| τ. δεκατὴν εδιδουν BA Set quod moris erat de tritico aBy εἰ decimam frumenti 6 et secundum morem legis de trit. Spe. > M+ punn F TOW τς - axpod.| > BASF τ. ow. κι τ. σιτ.] τ. σιτ. κι τ. ow. ἃ ἃ de tritico vino aBy ἐλαιων N* | του NC®aB y Spec. x. ροων] +x. τ. συκων NCA™MITI M et (de) ficu malorum granatorum af yé Spec. axpodp. δὰ ὁ ἃ] κροδρ. X* τ. θεραπουσιν]) τ. -evov. ΒΑ qnamatso9 S οἷ servientibus Domino, qui praesto erant 35 (cf M) ρώη. F ev? |
εἰς Β >A δεκ. τ΄ devr.usgue ad vop. Moc. (v. 8)] δ ἼΒΟΞ INDI no 553 JAY Say ΠῚΠ Ny ΝΘ Ψ)ΟῚ NIN Nw mvs Ar » myn (155 abs 55 py noe maw daa snadm) ΠΟΟΟΝΟῚ mined ud wendy ‘or vw “01 Maer. τ. eal ᾿ Oeur. dex. BA amebex. apyupiw | ἀπεπρατιζομὴν BAS commutans in pecunia (vide Reusch) α β τ. εξ eT@v
> BASF Tepovoadnp2” | Ἱεροσολύμοις BA (+a) in loco sancto aBy Spec. > ὃ 8. «Od. aura... εἰσεῴερ. k. εδιδ. autos εν τ. τριτ. ετ.] τ. τριτην εδιδ. BA S (CK M supra) F tertii ad decimationem ferebam ... et dabam illis in tertio annoaf8 decimationem dabam ... in Israel y tertia autem decima dab... . et dabam dc. ὃ ita ut Tertii anni decemationem darem ... in Isr. Spec. τ᾿ opav. . . . vious Iop. | os (Bb M4 τοις B*) καθηκει BAS proselytis et orph. et viduis (et v. > 6) aBy8 Sgec. mean pub F τοις προσκ. τ. ut. 1σρ.] faciens omnia quae pracepta sunt (+a Domino Sfec.) in Isr. a8y Spec. adpositis in Isr. ὃ τ. wots] pr. εδιδουν καὶ ὁ ἃ υἱά x. ησθ. π΄ Νωση κι] > BASF ησθ.] manducabam 3, κατα τ. εντολ. ας] καθως BAS > ArF GSEKETA as « anelay.| NWP NINA MNITIN NM MAW NNN pI Ar Δεββ.] AewB. A Av. τ᾿ war. ημ.] τ. war. μου BAS ΜῈ pawis mei Thobihel matri meae et patrimeoaf8 Daniheld > y ort] διοτι BA opavov
«ἀπεθ.} -vos κατελειῴθην ὑπὸ τ. matpos μου (+ ΝΣ MF) BAS M 9. ἐγεθην N*] εἐγενηθ. δὰ ὁ ἃ — eyevouny BA γυν.}] pr. Ανναν ΒΑ 3. δ uxorem nomine Annam af (A. > γ) ext. om. ... ἡμων] amy Αγ Μ -Ἐ ΠῚ mn Ar M eyyer. εξ avr. | m navy ArMF viov, . . Ὄνομα avr. | SA TOs, evar. i. ῃχμαλωτισθην |
k. ore nx... σθην (-ημεν BF -- ἜΣ ΚΝ Μὴ BASy Ar MF εἴ postquam in captivitatem deveni ad Assyrios af
5. τῇ Baad (RY) is an imitation of LXX, e.g. 4 Kings xxiii. 5 (cf. the papyrus fragment of the Ascension of Isaiah, ii. 12), not an andrygonous deity (Baudissen, Herzcg’s RE. sub Baal, Astarte) or a corruption of Bethel (Graetz, Neub.) ; ΖΝ ΓΞ in Av, however, is a mistake, reproduced in M, for Syoa.
6. The non-classical word γένημα, common in LXX, is found in papyri, Mayser, Gramm. d. griech. Pap. aus a. Ptol.-zeit, p.214. Deissm. B.S., pp. 109 ff. ἐν Ἵερ. (Cod. Vat.) after a verb of motion belongs to the distinctly vernacular style of the RY text, cf. v. 5, vi. 6, 1x. 2, while the form ‘lepoodAvpa (RY ἱερὸς Σόλυμοι ?) is Hellenistic.
7-9. See Miller, of. cit., pp. 37-48, for minute textual criticism of 2%.
THE BOOK OF TOBIT AS 16-13
11, 12 Gentiles. But I kept myself from eating of the bread of the Gentiles; and, when I remembered my 13 God with all my soul, the Most High gave me grace and favour in the sight of Shalmaneser and 141 used to buy for him all things for his use, and go into Media and buy for him thence, until he
died. And I left purses in trust with Gabael the brother of Gabri in the land of Media, ten talents
of silver. 15 And when Shalmaneser was dead and Sennacherib his son reigned in his stead, the roads of 16 Media were unsafe, and I could no more go into Media. In the days of Shalmaneser I did 17 many almsdeeds to my brethren who were of my kindred: I used to give my bread to the hungry, (17) and garments to the naked: and if I saw any of my nation dead, and cast forth behind the wall of 18 Nineveh, I buried him. And whomsoever Sennacherib slew, when he had come fleeing from Judaea in the days of the judgement which the King of heaven wrought upon him for the blasphemies wherewith he had blasphemed, I buried. For in his wrath he slew many of the children of Israel, and I stole away their bodies and buried them. And Sennacherib sought them and found them not.
(cum 8 cf. 8) αιχμαλ. Ν᾽] +pe NEO N.] +8na7 snp 47 M exop.| > BA S$a8F morarer ὃ Ar M
κι] > BAS pov] >B ησθ.] pr. pawar Pann nn Ar rr. ΝΠῸΝ 7 Smt ΠῚΠῚ Sas xb ΝἸΠῚ Ar © ANT ya On| ἘΌΝ) Nd sant M (cf F) ex τ᾿ apt. τ. εθν.] > BAS de escis (v. 10 panibus) illorum 35)
The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, volume I: Apocrypha, part 1 of 3. Oxford, 1913. Hermetic Cloud, https://hermeticcloud.com/library/charles-apocrypha-and-pseudepigrapha-1-part-1/. Public-domain text reproduced in full; markup only.
Machine-read text of the Internet Archive scan apocryphapseudep01charuoft; the reading is uncorrected apart from the removal of page numbers, running heads, line-end hyphens and the scan's own marks.