ave been more in place in the first part of his work. In 17-18? the author sets down his final impressions regarding the character and signifi- cance of the martyrdoms described by him. The closing section (18***) ap beats to be an appendix by a Jater hand, but the nature of it indicates that it must have been added at no great interval from the composition of the book itself. Fritzsche and Freudenthal regard the spurious addition as limited to 18°,
4 Mac possesses no value as history. The writer merely appropriates certain incidents from 2 Mae 618-745 by way of illustrating his fundamental pro-
osition regarding the supremacy of pious reason. His delineation of the tortures to which the ‘Maccabean martyrs’ were subjected is even more gruesomely realistic than that of 2 Mac, although the detailed description of the inhumanity of the persecutors serves, of course, to bring out more emphatically the steadfast patience of their victims. He may have had sources of information other than 2 Mac, but there is no evidence that he used as an authority the five books of Jason of Cyrene (2 Mac 27). While the work does not aim at being a history, it hus nevertheless an importance of its own as a unique example of the way in which Jewish history was turned to account for didactic and homiletie purposes.
2. Language and Style.—The Greek of 4 Mac, although rather laboured, is not so involved or so rhetorical as that of 3 Mac. Owing to the uniformity of the style, which is clear, correct, and genuinely Greek, the work has more of real individuality about it than either 2 or 3 Mac. Lavish use is made of metaphor and declamation, yet the writer can deftly change his style to
* So the Alexandrian MSS. Nand V read: ‘intelligence accom
panied by accurate insight (and) choosing the life of wisdom.’ t A has the later form ἀνδοΐω.
MACCABEES, BOOKS OF
suit his subject. Considerable fondness is shown for words and expressions of a rare, novel, or poetical description. Frequent use is also made of prepositional compounds, 6.9. ἐπιρωγολογεῖσθαι (2°), ἀντιπολιτεύομαι (41), ἐξευμενίζειν (411); and com- pounds with πᾶν, e.g. πάνσοφος (113), mavyéwpyos (159), πάνδεινος (3.5), πανάγιος (7* 147). Short as it is, quite a number of words seem to be peculiar to the book, e.g. αὐτοδέσποτος (14), μονοφαγία (1537), ἀρχιερᾶσθαι (415), ἀποξαίνειν (6°), ἐμπυριστής (7), μισάρετος (114), κηρογονία (14), ἑπταμήτωρ (167). With the exception of Jerusalem (Ἱεροσόλυμα) and Eleazar (’EAedfapos), the proper names are written according to the Heb. form, although Hebraistic expressions scarcely occur (cf., however, 1.32 δύξαν διδόναι). Only in a very few passages (2°! 171%) is use made of the LXX.
3. Authorship and Date.—Eusebius (HE m1. x. 6) refers to our book under the title περὶ αὐτοκράτορος λογισμοῦ, and ascribes it to Josephus. In this he is followed by Jerome (de Viris Illustr. ¢. xiii., ὁ. Pelag. ii. 6), Suidas (Lex. s.v. ᾿Ιῴσηπος), and others ; and indeed for long it seems to have been regarded as settled that Josephus was the author. In the editions of his works it occupies the last place, and is inscribed Aa. ᾿Ιωσήπου els Μακκαβαίους λόγος ἢ περὶ αὐτοκράτορος λογισμοῦ. But it exists also in important Scripture MSS of the LXX, and both A and κα call it simply ‘the fourth of Maccabees’ (Maxxafalwy 6’). by wkd of Nazianzus quotes from it without naming Josephus or any one as the author. Its ascription to the Jewish historian must either have been a pure guess, or the result of confusion between him and some other ᾿Ιώσηπος, whom tradition named as its author, for the testi- mony of Eusebius is quite overborne by the in- ternalevidence. The language and style are utterly
different from those of Josephus ; the latter was
unacquainted with 2 Mac, while 4 Mac is almost wholly based upon it; the grossly unhistorical statements of 41° 38 5! 17% are inexplicable on the hypothesis that the work was penned by Josephus ; finally, there is about it a flavour of Jewish- Alexandrian puilneaphy, and an enthusiasm for the heroic, which we do not naturally associate with that writer.
While the exact date of the book cannot be determined, it seems certain that it must have been written after 2 Mac, from which it borrows, and before the destruction of Jerus., of which it makes no mention. Grimm would infer from the statement of 41 that Onias was holding the priest- hood for life (διὰ βίου) that the author wrote after the overthrow of the Hasmonwan dynasty, when the life-tenure had been abolished, and from the horror-stricken concern of the Egyptian Jews on hearing of the sufferings endured by the Maccabzean martyrs (14°) that the former were themselves at the time exempt from persecution. This would pare to a date prior to their experiences under
aligula (A.D. 40). Schiirer (H/F 0. iii. 246), on the other hand, accepts as the date of composition the first century after Christ.
4. Aim and Standpoint.—The aim of 4 Mac is by demonstrating the supremacy of pious reason to exhort the Jews steadfastly to adhere to the Mosaic law, and not allow themselves in any particular to depart from it (18), either through fear of suffer- ings or through the subtle attractions of Hellenistic culture. As an educated Jew acquainted with the exacting demands of philosophic paganism, the writer seeks to show his countrymen how to main- tain their Judaism intact. aunts about the fatuity of their ceremonial law were levelled at the Jews by the persecutor (5°), and doubtless Ὁ the philosopher as well; but our author reminds his co-religionists of the essential reasonableness of the law even in regard to ritual commands (6555),