MACCABEES, BOOKS OF 195
and seeks to show that only through obedience ta its precepts can the Stoic ideal of humanity be realized. In the concrete examples of endurance unto death furnished by the Maccabean martyrs he sees the perfection of piety (12 1517), and a conclusive proof that in virtue’s cause the Hebrews alone are invincible (915).
The writer's own standpoint is formally in- fluenced Ly (ireek philosophy, especially by Stoi- cism, which placed the passions under the sover- eignty of reason, so providing him with his central idea, as well as with the postulate of four cardinal virtues. In his division and description of the affections, however, he does not so much adopt the position of any of the current Greek philosophies as give to his own treatment a philo- sophie cast. And if he writes from the stand- point of Stoicism, he is none the less true to that of legal Judaism. Wisdom, of which the four cardinal virtues are forms (ἰδέαι), cannot be attained apart from the Mosaic law (1*%"-). It is not reason as such, but pious reason (ὁ εὐσεβὴς λογισμός), i.e. reason regulating itself by the divine law (15), that he exalts as ruler over the passions. So literal, indeed, is his conception of the Mosaiclaw, that some* on this account maintain the Pales- tinian origin of the book. His philosophy certainly resembles Pharisaism in its advocacy of rigorous legalism, and of ing piety into every relation of life (181). In his doctrine of the resurrection, however, it is not the Pharisaic but the Alex- andrian position that is reflected. The writer believes, not in a bodily resurrection confined to the Jews, but in the immortality of all souls, the pious entering into blessedness (9° 1718), and the wicked into torment (9° 12" etc.), upon the death of the body. It is also noticeable that he regards the sufferings of the martyrs as a vicarious atone- ment for the sins of the people (6% 17%), and that a Pelagianistic spirit underlies the book in so far as no account is taken of the influence of divine grace upon human reason.
5. MSS and Versions.—The Gr. text has come down (1) in some Scripture MSS, including A and ἐξ ; (2) in MSS of Josephus; and has been printed under both categories. The best recensionsare those of Fritzsche in his edition of the Libri Apoc. Vet. Test. Greece, 1871, and Swete in the Camb. Septuagint, 1894, 2nd ed. 1899. There is an old Syriac version,
ublished by Ceriani in his photo-lithographed Pacaimnile of the Milan Peshitta manuscript of the OT (1876-83). An English translation by Cotton (The Five Books of Maccabees in English) was pub- lished at Oxford in 1832.
Another Fourth Book of Maccabees is mentioned by Sixtus Senensis (Bibliotheca Sancta, i. p. 39) as still extant in manuscript when he wrote (1566). He himself saw it at Lyons, in the library of Santes Pagninus, which soon afterwards perished by fire. It was written in Hebraistic Greek, and began with the words, ‘ After the murder of Simon, John his son became high priest in his stead.’ Sixtus thinks it may have been a Greek translation of the ‘chronicles’ of the reign of John Hyrcanus referred to in 1 Mac 16"; but, in view of the state- ment he makes as to its contents, it is more likely that the book was ‘simply a reproduction of Josephus, the style being changed perhaps for a purpose’ (Schiirer, HJP I. ili. p. 14).
i V MaccaBeEEs.—This is the title given to an Arabic ‘Book of Maccabees’ printed in the Paris and London Polyglotts, the Arabic text being in both cases accompanied by the Latin translation of Gabriel Sionita. Cotton’s English version is a literal rendering of the Latin. The book purports to be a history of the Jews from the time of Heliodorus (B.C. 186) to the last years of Herod
* Langen, Judenthum in Paldstina, p. 80.
196 MACEDONIA
MACHAERUS
(B.c. 6-42). It is merely a Hellenistic compila- tion, not always accurate, from 1 and 2 Mac and the writings of Josephus, and is in no sense an independent history. In ch. 12, the only passage which does not directly depend upon these works, the author shows himself singularly ill-informed with regard to certain well-known facts of Roman history. He evidently wrote after the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 (ef. 95 21% 22° 538). In point of language the book is decidedly Hebraistic, even after being twice translated, although this does not prove that it was originally written in Hebrew. The religious standpoint of the compiler merely reflects that of his authorities.
There is also another so-called ‘Fifth Book of Maccabees’ in the great Ambrosian Peshitta, but it is nothing else than a translation of the sixth book of Josephus’ de Bello Judaico.
LireratcR#.—The principal authorities upon points of literary and textual criticism have been named in the body of the article. Among older commentaries may be mentioned those of Drusius on 1 Mac, and of Grotius on 1, 2, and 8 Mac in Critici Sacri ; and that of Michaelis on 1 Mac (Uebersetzung der 1 Mace.-B.'’s mit Anmerk., Gotting. ἃ. Leipz. 1778). The most complete modern comm. is that of Grimm on 1, 2, 3, and 4 Mac in the Kurzgef. Exeget. Handb. series, 1853-57. Since that date there have appeared commentaries by Keil on 1 and 2 Mac, 1875; Bissell on 1, 2, and 3 Mac in Lange-Schaffs Commentary, 1880; Rawlinson on 1 and 2 Mac in the S; er's Comm. 1888 ; Zockler on 1, 2, and 8 Mac in his Die Apokryphen des Alten Testaments, 1891; Fairweather and Black on 1 Mac in the Cambridge Bible for Schools, 1897; Kautzsch on 1 and 8 Mac, and Kamphausen on 2 Mac in Die Apokr. u. Pseudepigr. des AT, 1898. W. FAIRWEATHER.