references to the Romans. If 2 Mac was known to Philo (see below), this would fix the inferior limit of its composition at about A.D. 40.
5. Relation to 1 Mac.—2 Mac contains much that is special to itself, but where it evidently covers the same ground as 1 Mac it does so with many divergences of detail. It is not, of course, sur- rae that between two independent narratives
ealing with the same events there should be many points of difference. Our two books are, however, so different in genius, form, and contents, that strict comparison is impossible. In_ historical credibility and value 2 Mac is admittedly inferior to the First Book, the authority of which must therefore be preferred in the case of irreconcilable discrepancies. Of such it may suffice to enumerate the following :—(1) The campaign of Lysias, as- scribed in 1 Mac 4 to the year before the death of Antiochus tv. (Epiphanes), is transferred in 2 Mac 11 to the reign of Antiochus v. (Eupator) ; (2) the Jewish raids on neighbouring tribes, and campaigns in Gilead and Galilee, represented in 1 Mae 5 as carried on in rapid succession between the rededica- tion of the altar and the concession of religious liberty, are separately placed in different historical settings (830 10 16:88. 12*=5) ; (3) the account given in ch. 9 differs in several particulars from that of 1 Mac 6 regarding the death of Antiochus Iv. (Epiphanes), who it is falsely declared wrote a letter to the Jews; (4) the statement in 9” that after the death of Antiochus, Philip fled to Egypt, is at variance with that of 1 Mac 6®-®; (5) in 14! Demetrius I. is said to have landed in Syria ‘ with a mighty host and a fleet,’ in 1 Mac 7! ‘ with a few men’; (6) Nicanor’s personal liking for Judas, 14%, is an incredible circumstance, and contrary to the whole trend of 1 Mac; (7) according to 15% the Acra was in the possession of the Jews at the time of Nicanor’s death, whereas according to 1 Mac 13° it was captured by Simon only in B.C. 142. Other lemme disfigure the work, e.g. the absurd exaggerations in the numbers of the slain (8% 1058. 9111") ; the highly coloured picture of the martyrdoms in 6'*-7, and the representa- tion that Epiphanes witnessed them in person ; the erroneous particulars as to the place and manner of death ef that monarch (9); and the extraordinary details respecting the suicide of Razis (14°7"-), Yet with all its defects 2 Mac is by no means historically worthless. The earlier portion of the narrative (3'-4*) is of the greatest value, and there is no reason to doubt its sub- stantial truthfulness. There are indeed many important particulars in which the book agrees with 1 Mac (cf. 4-6 with 1 Mac 1%). It is also in accord with Josephus, who was unacquainted with it, in regard to several events about which 1 Mac is silent (ef. 4. 6? 1358. 14! with Jos. Ant. xu. v. 1, v. 5, ix. 7, x. 1). Vain attempts have been made to reconcile discrepancies between 1 and 2 Mac on the theory that the writers followed a different chronology. In all probability both adopted the Seleucid’ era, which began in Oct. B.c. 312. On the relation of this era to dates B.C., see Schiirer, HJP Li. p. 36 th, I. ii, Appen-
dix v. p. 393. ἄντ 6. Religious Character.— As to ‘ts religious character, 2 Mac presents a strong contrast te
the First Book. In 1 Mac the name of God re- mains unuttered, in 2 Mac it is freely used; in the former frequent reference is made to the OT, here it is but seldom alluded to (7° 8” 15"); in the one, great reserve is shown in the expression of theocratic feeling, in the other the reverse is the case. Again, instead of a simple objective narra tive in which the facts are allowed to make their own impression, we have a highly coloured rhetorical composition with a running commentary upon the
192 MACCABEES, BOOKS OF
events recorded (41% 591. 17f @12f 96.18 ete,), The writer aims at the glorification of Judaism, and selects and modifies is historical material with a view to homiletic ends. In particular, it seems to have been the chief design of the compilation in its present form—and in this respect the two introductory letters are certainly significant—to magnify the temple (2 3? 916 13%), to exalt the importance of the two national festivals connected with the re-establishment of the legal worship and the death of Nicanor, and to encourage, admonish, and edify the Jews of the Dispersion. The work can searcely be termed a history in the ordinary sense, its aul material being grouped around the temple and the two great festivals, without regard to strict chronological sequence. £.g. the institu- tion of the Feast of the Dedication is placed after the account of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes (cf. 10° with 1 Mac 456) for the sake of effect, and the circumstances connected with the death of Judas are passed over, apparently in order that the previous engagement in which Nicanor lost his life, and its commemorative festival, might stand out in bolder relief. Owing perhaps to an inclination on the part of the Egyptian Jews to set increasing store by their own temple at Leon- topolis, the writer seems to represent the temple at Jerus. as the only legitimate sanctuary. It is the headquarters of the Jewish worship (2.9 δ1 14° etc.), and honoured even by heathen kings (3* 13%). The Almighty had often interposed to protect it, and had severely punished its desecrators (3% 13°8 1492 1582). There are constant references to heavenly manifestations (ἐπιφάνειαι, 274) on behalf of the defenders of Judaism (3345: 1059: 1165. 12"), The history is only seen as it were through a coloured spectrum of portents (54), dreams (15!'), and visions (33), The Lord is conceived ag the wonder-worker (τερατοποιός) who in answer to prayer sends ‘a good angel to save Israel’ (11° 15),