eb. idioms and OT phrases (1% 2* etc.), as well as the whole structure of the sentences, precludes the idea of its having been written originally in Greek. There are also in the Greek text many obscurities, due in all probability to mistaken renderings from the Hebrew (28 6! 118 145). More- over, at this period no Palestinian Jew seems to have written in Greek. A more plausible case might be made out in favour of an Aramaic original, although it is practically certain that the author wrote in classical Hebrew, which was still the language of the learned, and above all of sacred literature.
4. The Author.—The name of the author is unknown. It is, however, quite clear from his warm sympathy with the Maccabean movement, as well as from his minute knowledge of Palestine, that he was an orthodox Jew of that country. Nor can we tell who was the translator. In spite of its Hebraistic character, his Greek is not diffi- cult to read, and is marked even by a certain fluency. His translation was probably executed somewhere about the middle of the lst cent. B.c., and certainly not later than the time of Josephus, who seems to have been acquainted with it.
5. The Date.—As to the date of the original work, it is clear from 16% that it was not com- posed until after the death of John Hyrcanus (B.C. 105). Ewald’s opinion, however, that our author wrote immediately thereafter, is not borne out by the nature of the reference to the annals of that prince as an already well-known work. On the other hand, in view of the writer’s friendly tone towards the Romans (ch. 8), the time of com- position cannot have been later than B.c. 64, the year prior to Pompey’s entrance into Jerusalem. At some point between these two limits the work must have been produced, but the exact year cannot be determined. The likelihood is, how- ever, that it belongs to the first or second decade of the lst cent. B.Cc., for as there is no allusicn to anything later than the death of Hyrcanus, it seems best not to separate the composition of the book by too long an interval from that event.
6. Sore here can be little doubt that the author drew to a certain extent upon existing written sources. Even if an old man at the beginning of the Ist cent. B.c., his own recol- lections could extend to only a part of the period with which he deals. There is, of course, to be kept in mind the possibility of his having gathered Ἐν τσ ῆνς from older men, as well as the fact that he had doubtless at command a body of tradition singularly fresh, living, and distinct. But the narrative is so well informed, includes such a mass of detail, and is in general so accurate and precise, that we must suppose him to have had access to certain written notices of the Mac- cabeean struggle, and of the three brothers with whose names it is specially identified. Otherwise, no one living in the second generation after could Kurzgef. Exeget. Handb. p. xvii; Keil, Comm. p. 22; Bissell in Lange-Schaff’s Comm. re 475) are based upon the reading Sarbeth Sarbane El (Σαρβὴθ Σαρβανὶ "Ελ), adopted by Stephanus, and accepted even by Fritzsche (Schenkel’s Bib.-Lex. under ‘Makkabier’), rec by far the best attested reading, and according to Schiirer (HJP m. iii. 9) ‘ the only reading that can claim to be recognized,’ is that given above. It may possibly be transcribed 5x ΤΟΣ m2 Ww (sar bayith shebbanah el), i.e. ‘the prince of the house which God hath built up.’ In any case
the title is Semitic, and points to a Heb. original of our book.
MACCABEES, BOOKS OF
MACCABEES, BOOKS OF 189
have produced such a work. The use of written sources seems to be implied in 9”, but the passage throws no light upon their origin or nature.
Some of the official documents which, as in the Book of Ezra, are incorporated with the narrative, the author states to be ‘ copies’ (853 12° 19 142. 27), and these may perhaps for the most part be accepted as genuine,—or at least as fairly accurate Heb. translations,—as may also some of the letters from the Syrian kings. Yet in not a few cases (cf. esp. τοῦ χοῦ, 1450::8. 1516) we have probably oul an attempt on the part of the writer or his authority to give a free version of the lost originals.* He evidently did not hesitate to deal in a free and manner with such docu- mentary materials as lay to his hand. In sub- stance, however, these ely oflicial records Se gute apposite to the historical relations of the
eriod.
2 ἡ. Historicity.—In spite of the clever attempt made by the brothers Εἰ, F. and G. Wernsdorf about the middle of the 18th cent. to discredit 1 Mac as a historical work, there is but one verdict among modern critics with regard to its general trust- worthiness. The writer's habit of dating the chief events according to a fixed era (the Seleucid era of B.C. 312), the general agreement of his chron- ology with that of Greek and Roman authors, and with the data furnished by extant coins of the period, the frankness and self-restraint shown by him in chronicling victory or defeat on the part of the Jews, and in speaking of their adver- saries, the absence from his pages of tawdr ornamentation and weak supernaturalism,—a. combine to give to his work the stamp of authentic history. Occasional errors occur, as in 1°, which represents Alexander the Great as dividing his kingdom among his generals; in 8°, where the author overstates the number of elephants em- ployed at the battle of Magnesia (cf. Livy, xxxvii. 39); in 8, where mistakes are made in several particnlers regarding the Romans; in 12°, where 1e speaks of the Spartans as racially akin to the Jews; and in 14}, where he is at variance with other writers as to the time when Tryphon murdered Antiochus vI. But these are mostly blemishes due to his limited knowledge of the world outside of Judea, and do not seriously affect the value of the book as a contribution to Jewish history. The one criticism which may with justice be offered in this connexion is that the writer sometimes undoubtedly exaggerates in oint of numbers (5% 6-87 1147), but even this ault is to some extent condoned by the prevailing custom of that age.