joints, perhaps, to his having been no longer resi- ent at Cyrene when his work was written.
2. Author.—The personality of the epitomizer is unknown. He was perhaps an Alexandrian Jew, although his work bears no trace of the Jewish- Alexandrian philosophy of religion, and contains nothing alien to the orthodox Palestinian Judaism of the period. His relation to Jason’s history is made quite clear by himself (2!-*); he expressly informs us that his work is only a condensed ver- sion of Jason’s. From the ‘painful labour’ involved, it is natural to suppose that his epitome covers the whole of the ground embraced in the five books of Jason. The latter was peobably, also the sole literary source from which he drew. It is un- warrantable to infer from the fact that in his general digest of the contents of Jason’s work he ails to mention that it included events within the reigns of both Seleucus Iv. and Demetrius 1., that it was therefore confined to the period during which Antiochus Ivy. (Epiphanes) and his son Eupator held the throne, and that he must have used other sources for those parts of his narrative which deal with events prior and subsequent to that period. According to Grotius only chs. 3-11, according to Bertholdt only chs. 4-11, are based upon Jason’s history. But it was enough that in his summary of contents the epitomizer should name the two kings with whom the narrative is chiefly concerned. Moreover, the way in which he disclaims originality and even responsibility for the historical accuracy of the facts embodied in his work (2%) seems to
* Fritzsche (in Schenkel’s Bibel-Lexicon), while agreeing that the epitomizer did not write these letters, thinks that he refixed them to the book because they were consonant to ΤῈ purpose. But even this is to rate his intelligence very low.
MACCABEES, BOOKS OF
MACCABEES, BOOKS OF 191
——— ee Eee
imply that had he made use of any other docn- mentary material he would certainly have specified it. No doubt he has given a certain colouring of his own to the book as we possess it. The ex- aggerations and florid rhetoric which characterize it are probably due to him, but ‘the manifestations that came from heaven’ on behalf of Judaism are mentioned as being treated of in the original work, to which also are undoubtedly to be attributed not a few of the inconsistencies found in the ‘epitome’ (cf. 9599 with 13% ete.). And it is to be remembered that the latter is probably quite as much of a selection from the original as a digest of it. To judge from the sample of ability and literary taste exhibited in the epitomizer’s prefatory and closing words, his share in the subject-matter must in any case have been slight.
3. Language. — Both Jason and his epitomizer must have originally written in Greek. Asa Jew of Cyrene, Jason would naturally make use of that language. That he did so is also suggested by the remarkably pure Greek of the epitome. The Hebraisms which might have been looked for in a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic are in general conspicuous by their absence. Jerusalem is always written ᾿Ιεροσόλυμα according to the Greek, never ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ according to the Heb. form. That the Greek text of the epitome is the original can be proved, as Jerome says, from its very style: *Secundus (Machabeorum) Grecus est, quod ex ipsa quoque φράσει probari potest.’ In this remark we have at once external evidence for a Gr. original, and the recognition of internal evidence pointing in the same direction. The style of the present work, although at times bald and rough (as e.g. in 13!%-*8), is on the whole fluent and unrestrained, and not seldom highly ornate. There is a certain straining aiter rare words and expressions, as: φιλοφρονεῖν els τι, 2%; ἀλλοφυλισμός, 418 6%; διεμπίμπλημι, 4%; θωρακισμός, 5°; ὁπλολογεῖν τινά, 827813 κατευθικτεῖν, 1433. Some words are employed in an unusual sense, e.g. εἰσκυκλεῖσθαι, 24; φροντίζειν τί, 2%; ψυχικῶς, 451 1454. δευτερολογεῖν, 1353, Several ἅπαξ λεγόμενα appear also to occur, 6.4. δυσπέτημα, 5°; ἀπευθανα- τίζειν, 6; δοξικός, 8%; πολεμοτροφεῖν, 104+; διά- σταλσις, 1335, The writer is fond of the allitera- tive use of words from the same root, e.g. ἄγειν ἀγῶνα, 418; ἀποδεχθείς. | . εἰσεδέχθη, 433; δεξιασθείς «oo δεξιάν, 4°45 εὐημερίαν δυσημερίαν, 5°; ἀποξενώσας ἐπὶ ξένης, δ᾽ ete. He is also partial to the use of ποιεῖσθαι with the accusative of the substantive necessary to complete the verbal idea, as in 2% etc. Clearly he had a large vocabulary at com- mand, and could write the Greek language with ease and mastery.
4. Sources and Date.—lIf, as is probable, Jason based his narrative on the oral accounts of con- temporaries who recited from memory the stirring events of those fifteen years, he must have written soon after B.C. 160. The mythical strain of chs. 6-7, which relate the martyrdom of Eleazar and the seven brethren, and of other parts of the narrative, does not preclude this view, as such myths require no long time for their formation, especially at some distance from the theatre of events. But the exact date of writing cannot be determined. The same is the case as regards the epitome. The curious statement of 15” might seem tosuggest the period immediately subsequent to Nicanor, but this is clearly out of the question. All that can be said with safety is that the work must have been written before the destruction of Jerus. in A.D. 70, since the existence of the city and the temple worship are presupposed. This is further apparent from the fact that 4 Mac, which is based on 2 Mac, was written prior to that event. That our book was composed later than 1 Mac may be inferred from the changed tone of the