in. Historical Character. — Though the parrenetic de- sign of the book made the writer so modify and embel- lish the facts which he records as to render them most subservient to his object, yet the assertion of Dr. David- son, that " the narrative appears to be nothing but an absurd Jewish fable" (^Introduction to the 0. T. iii, 454), is far too sweeping. That the groundwork of it is true, as PrideaiLx rightly remarks (The 0. and N. Test, con- nected, part ii, book ii, anno 21G), is attested by collateral history. 1. The accoiuit it gives of Ptolemy's expedi- tion to Coele-Syria, and his victory over Antiochus at Kaphia (i, 1-7), is corroborated both by Polybius (v, 40, 58-71, 79-87) and Justin (xxx, 1). 2. The character vifhich it ascribes to Ptolemj' — that he was cruel, vicious, and given to the orgies and mysteries of Bacchus — is literally confirmed both by Plutarch, who, in his essay IIoic to dislinf/uish Flatterers from Friends, says, " Such ])raise was the ruin of ICgypt, because it called the ef- feminacy of Ptolemy, his wild extravagances, loud pray- ers, his marking with an ivy leaf (x-piroiv), and his drums, piety" (cap. xii ; compare also In Cleomene, cap. xxxiii and xxxvi), and by the author of the Greek Ety- niolofjicon, who tells us that Pliilopator was called (ud- I'lS because he was marked witli the leaf of an ivy, like the priests called Galli, for in all the Bacchanalian so- kaniilies they were crowned with ivy (rciXXof 6 (pt\o- Trdraip HroXf/jaloe cia ro i^vWa Kirraov KaTarrrix^ni U)Q ot PaXXoi, etc.). 3. Josephus's deviating account (Apion, ii, 5) of the events liere recorded', which shows tliat he has derived his information from an independent source, proves that something of the sort did actually take place, although at a different time, namely, in the
reign of Ptolemy YH (Physcon). " The king," as he says, "exasperated by the opposition which Onias, the Jewish general of the royal army, made to his usurpa- tion, seized all the Jews in Alexantlria, with their wives and children, and exposed them to intoxicated ele- phants. But the animals turned upon the kuig's friends, and forthwith the king saw a terrible visage which for- bade him to injure the Jews. On this he yielded to the prayers of his mistress, and repented of his attempt; and the Alexandrine Jews observed the day of their de- liverance as a festival." The essential points of the story are the same as those in the second part of 3 Mac- cabees, and there can be but little doubt that Josephus has preserved the events which the writer adapted to his narrative. 4. The statement in vi, 36, that they in- stituted an annual festival to commemorate the day of their deliverance, to be celebrated in all future time, the fact that tills festival was actually kept in the days of Josephus (comp. ib. ii, 5), and the consecration of a pil- lar and synagogue at Ptolcmais (vii, 20), are utterly un- accountable on the supposition that this deliverance was never wrought. The doubts which De Wette (Einlei- tung, sec. 305),Ewald (Gesch.d.V. I. iv, 535 sq.), Grimm (Comment, p. 217), and Davidson (Introd. iii, 455) raise against the historic groundwork of this narrative, are chiefly based upon the fact that Dan. xi, 11, etc., does not aUude to it. Those critics, therefore, submit that the book typically portrays Caligula, who commanded that his own statue should be placed in the Temple, mi- der the guise of a current tradition respecting the mur- derous commands of Ptolemy VII (Physcon) against the Jews, transferred by mistake to Ptolemy Philopator. If it be true that Ptolemy Philopator attempted to enter the Temple at Jerusalem, and was frustrated in his design — a supposition which is open to no reasonable objec- tion— it is easily conceivable that tradition may have assigned to him the impious design of his successor, or the author of 3 Maccabees may have combined the two events for the sake of effect. The writer, in his zeal to bring out the action of Providence, has colored his his- tory, so that it has lost all semblance of truth. In this respect the book offers an instructive contrast to the book of Esther, with which it is closely connected both in its purpose and in the general character of its inci- dents. In both a terrible calamity is averted by faith- ful prayer ; royal anger is changed to royal favor, and the punishment designed for the innocent is directed to the guilty. But here the likeness ends. The divine re- serve, which is the peculiar characteristic of Estlier, is exchanged in 3 Maccabees for rhetorical exaggeration, and once again the words of inspiration stand ennobled by the presence of their later counterpart.
IV. Author, Orifiinal Language, Integrity, and Date. — ■ It is generally admitted that the author of this book was an Alexandrian Jew, and that he wrote in Greek. This, indeed, is evident from its ornate, pompous, and fluent stj-le, as well as from the copious command of ex- pression which the writer possessed. Though this book resembles 2 Maccabees in the use of certain expressions (e. g, ayicnoxoq, 3 IMacc. i, 25 ; ii, 3, comp. with 2 Mace, ix, 7) in the employment of purely Greek proper names to impart a Greek garb to Jewish things and ideas (3 IMacc. V, 20, 42 ; vii, 5, comp. with 2 ftlacc. iv, 47), etc., yet the style of the two books is so diflcrcnt that it is impossible to claim for them the same author. The au- thor of this book surpasses 2 Maccabees iu offensively seeking after artificial, and hence very frequently ob- scure phrases (e. g. i, 9, 14, 17, 1!) ; ii, 31 ; iii, 2 ; iv, 5, 11 ; v, 17 ; vii. 5), in jioetic expression and ornamental turns (i,8; ii. 19,31; iii, 15; iv,8; v, 20,31,47; vi,4,8,20), in bombastic sentences to designate very simple ideas (e. g. dpojiov avv'ic-aa^ai^TQix^'-'^i h 19 » *'' irpinjiiiii) T)]v iiXiKiav XfXoyYciJc, vi, 1), in using rare words or such as occur nowhere else (e. g. i, 20 ; ii, 29 ; iv, 20 ; v, 25 ; vi, 4, 20), or using ordinary words in strange senses (e. g. i, 3, 5; iii, 14; iv, 5; vii, 8; compare Grimm, (7oot- 7/ie7it, p. 214). There is also an abruptness about the