1. Contents and Historicity.—In its present form 2 Mac begins with two letters in which the Pales- tinian Jews urgently invite their kinsmen in Egypt to take part in the Feast of the Dedication (1-2"), whether in Egypt or in Jerusalem is not quite clear, although the latter supposition has the greater probability. Then follows the writer’s own preface, in which he remarks upon the source, scope, and design of his work (9158, After this comes the main narrative (3-15), which is an abridgment (ἐπιτομή, 27°: 38) of a larger history in five books by one Jason of Cyrene, a Hellen- istic Jew. The first part of the abridgment (34°) tells of a futile attempt by Heliodorus, prime minister of Seleucus Iv., to rob the temple, and of the traitorous and slanderous policy pursued by a certain Simon against the good high-priest Onias. From 47-7“ the narrative is practicall an expanded version of 1 Mac 14, setting forth with great fulness of detail the religious persecution under Antiochus Iv. (Epiphanes), and exhibiting at once the lamentable apostasy of one section of the Jews and the immovable faithfulness of others, even to the point of martyrdom. The remainder of the work (8-15) corresponds broadly to 1 Mac 3-7, and describes the rise and progress of the Maccabean insurrection down to the crushing defeat of the Syrian general Nicanor by Judas.* The epitomizer concludes with some characteristic remarks regard- ing his own work (15%7-*’),
The first letter (11-9), which is dated from the year 188 of the Seleucid era (B.C. 124), refers to a letter written by the Palestinian Jews to their brethren in Egypt during ‘the tribulation and extremity’ induced by the apostasy of Jason the high priestunder Demetrius I1., and asks them to re- pest the sympathy apparently shown to them then
keeping ‘ the feast of tabernacles of the month Chislev’ (.e. the Feast of the Dedication) now that the temple service was happily restored. The second letter (1!°-2'8), which bears no date, pur- ports to be addressed by the Jews of Palestine, the senate (γερουσία), and Judas to the priest Aris- tobulus, king Ptolemy’s teacher (διδάσκαλος), and to the Egyptian Jews. After telling how their oppressor Antiochus Iv. (Epiphanes) had perished while attempting to rob the temple of Nana (14-17), and intimating their intention of celebrat- ing the Feast of the Dedication and commemorating the recovery of the sacred fire under Nehemiah, they invite their kinsmen in Feypt to take part in the festival (118). There follow legendary stories of the manner in which the holy fire was preserved and found again (113-88), and of the hiding by the prophet Jeremiah, in a cave-dwelling, of the taber- nacle, the ark, and the altar of incense until God should again smile upon His people (21-8). A miracle similar to that associated with Nehemiah had ἜΒΗ taken place at the dedication of the temple by Solomon, who ‘kept the eight days’ (2%), Judas Maccabzeus is also represented as having meritoriously followed the example of Nehemiah in making a collection of national records and sacred books (28-15), The letter closes with another invitation to keep the feast, and with the hope that God may speedily gather the dispersed Israel- ites into the holy land (21°18),
The two letters prefixed to the book have in reality no connexion either with it or with one
* Some prefer to divide the book into five sections, of which the respective entlings (340 742 109 1326 1537) are supposed to be coincident with the close of the several volumes of Jason.
another, except in so far as they both aim at com- mending to the Egyptian Jews the Feast of the
Dedication. The particle (δέ) by which they are linked on to the ‘epitome’ does not necessarily imply any prior narrative. Schiirer correctly holds that ‘they are evidently originally independent ieces of writing, afterwards combined by a later and, but not that of the epitomizer, with this Second Book of Maccabees’ (HJP I. iii. p. 218). The glaring contradictions of 1’, which represents the climax of affliction as having been experienced under Demetrius 11. Nikator, and 1657 which states that from the time of Nicanor’s death (B.c. 161) the Holy City had been held by the Hebrews, and of 178 and ch. 9 with respect to the death of Epiphanes, render impossible the view that these letters were indited by the epitomizer. Besides, they are written in a simpler and less rhetorical style than the main narrative, their proper chrono- logical position in which would be after 10!°.* Both letters are palpable forgeries. In B.c. 144, when the first was written, ‘the extremity’ (17) was certainly past, and it seems incredible that the second, which, among other blunders, ascribes to Nehemiah the rebuilding of the temple and the altar (118), should have emanated from the Jewish senate. Such blemishes unmistakably stamp both epistles as apocryphal products of a later time.
Of Jason or of his history nothing is known beyond what is conveyed in2 Mac. That he was identical with the ambassador of 1 Mac 8” is a pure conjecture. Although a Jew ‘of Cyrene’ he shows more acquaintance with Syria than with Egypt and Palestine. In all that relates to the former kingdom his knowledge is extensive and minute. The names and rank of Syrian officers (41 54 12? 1419), as well as the identity of minor personages (4% 8°? 10%), are familiar to him. On the other hand, his knowledge of Palestine and even of Egypt is geographically defective, and is limited to outstanding events and personages. All this