V. Canonicity. — Though portions of this book are in- corporated in the Jewish writings, and foi'm a part of the ritual, viz., the martyrdom of the seven brothers and their mother (ch. vi, 1-42), which is not only men- tioned in the Talmud {Giltiii, 57, b), the Midrash of the ten commandments (ed. Jellinek, JBeth Ha-Midrash, i,
MACCABEES, BOOKS OF 611 MACCABEES, BOOKS OF
70. etc.), Midrash Jalkut {On Deut. section N^H, 301, b), etc., but is interwoven in the service for the Feast of Dedication (compare The Jozer, TSSN ''D ~^^X); the martyrdom of Eleazar (ch. vi, 18-31), also embodied in the same service, and described by Josippon, who also speaks of the wonderful appearance of tlie horsemen, and other circumstances narrated in 2 Mace, (compare Josippon, lib. ii, c. ii-iv, ed. Breithaupt, p. 172 sq.), yet the book was never part of the Jewish canon. Hence, even if it could be shown more unquestionabh' that the apparent parallels between 2 Mace, and diverse passages in the N. T. (compare 2 Mace, i, 4, with Acts xvi, 14 ; 2 Mace, v, 19, with Mark ii, 27 ; 2 Mace, vi, 19 ; vii, 2, etc., with Heb. xi, 35 ; 2 Mace, vii, 14, with John v, 29 ; 2 Mace, vii, 22, etc. ; xiv, 46, with Acts xvii, 24-26 ; 2 Mace, vii, 36, with Eev. vi, 9 ; 2 Mace, viii, 2, with Luke xxi, 24 ; Rev. xi, 2 ; 2 Mace, x, 7, with llev. vii, 9 ; 2 Mace. XV, 8-5, with Eph. vi, 9) are actual quotations, it would only prove that the apostles, like the rest of their Jewish brethren, alluded to the incidents recorded in this book without regarding the book itself as canoni- cal. The only references, however, to be found in the A. V. are from Heb. xi, 35, 36, to 2 Mace, vi, 18, 19 ; vii, 7, etc. ; and vii, 1-7 ; but even these are disputed, and it is quite possible that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews refers to the sufferings of the Essenes (compare Ginsburg, The Essenes, etc., Longman, 1864, p. 36). In harmony with the decisions of the Jewish Church, this book is excluded from the canon of sacred books in the catalogues of Melito, Origen, the Council of Laodicea, St. Cyril, St. Hilary, etc. (compare Du Pin, History of the Canon, London, 1699, i, 12). Jerome em- phatically declares : " Maccahceorum libros ler/it quidem ecclesia, sed eos inter canonicas scripturas non recipit" (PrcpJ'. in Prov.) ; and Augustine, though stating that this book, like 1 ]\Iacc., was regarded by the Christians as not unuseful, yet expressly states that the Jews did not receive it into the canon {Contra ep. Gaudent. i, 31), and draws a distinction between it and the canonical Scriptures {De Civ. Dei, xviii, 36). The Council of Trent, however, has settled (April 8, 1546) the canon- icity of it for the Eoman Church. The Protestant Church generally agrees with Luther, who remarks, '•We tolerate it because of the beautiful historj' of the Maccabajan seven martyrs and their mother, and oth- er pieces. It is evident, however, that the writer was no great master, but produced a patchwork of various books; he has likewise a perplexing knot in ch. xiv, in Kazis, who committed suicide, which was also trouble- some to Augustine and other fathers. For such exam- ple is of no use, and is not to be commended, thougli it may be tolerated and charitably explained. It also de- scribes the death of Antiochus, in ch. i, differently from 1 Mace. To sum it all up : Just as 1 Mace, deserves to be adopted in the number of sacred Scriptures, so 2 Mace, deserves to be thrown out, though there is some- thing good in it" {Vorrede aiifdas Zweife Buck Macca- bcE07-um, in the German Bible, ed. 1536).
VI. Versions and Literature. — There are two ancient versions of this book, a Latin and a Syriae. The Latin, ^vhich ivas current before Jerome, and does not always follow closely the Greek, is now incorporated in the Eo- man Vulgate, while the Syriae, which is still less literal, is given both in vol. iv of the London Polyglot and by De Lagarde, Z.i&?-i Veteris Testamenti Apocryphi Si/riace (Lond. 1861). The Arabic so-called version of 2 Mace, is really an independent work. See Maccabees, Fifth Book oi*.
01 commentaries and exegetical helps, we may men- tion Whitaker, A Disputation on Iloh/ ,Scripture,'Fa.rkeT Society (Cambridge, 1849), p. 93-102; Whiston, .4 Col- lection of A uthentick Records (London, 1727), i, 200-232 ; Hasse, Das and. Buck der Makk. nen iibers. m. Anmerk. (Jena, 1786); 'E\ch\\OTn,Einleitung in die apok. Schriften d.Alten Test. (Leipzig, 1795), p. 249-278; Bertheau, De Secundo Maccabceor. libro (Gotting. 1829); Cotton, The
Five Books of Maccabees (Oxford, 1832), p. 148-217 ; Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, iv, 530 sq. ; Schliin- kes, Ejnstolce que Secundo Maccab. libro, cap. i-ii, 9, kyi- tur exjjlicatio, comnientat. crit. (Colon. 1854) ; Herzfekl, Geschichte des Volkes Israel (Nordhausen, 1854), i, 443- 456 ; Patritius, De Consensu utriusque lihri Maccabceor. (Rom. 1856); G^iger, Urschrift laid Uebersetzungen der Bibel (Breslau, 1857), p. 219-230 ; and, above all, the val- uable work of Grimm, Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Iland- buch zu d.Apokryphen d.Alten Testaments, pt. iv (Leipz. 1857). See Apocrypha.
MACCABEES, The THIRD Book of, not given in the Romish Vulgate, the Apocrypha of the A. V., nor in Protestant versions generally, but still read in the Greek Church.