3 Maccabees

Introduction to the Third Book of Maccabees

§ 1. Contents and Main Conclusions.

THE scene of 3 Maccabees is placed in the reign of Ptolemy IV (Philopator) at the time of the battle of Raphia (217 B.C.). It narrates an attempt made by the king to enter the Temple at Jerusalem, and his miraculous repulse. In consequence he determines to wreak his vengeance on the Jews of Alexandria, and of Egypt as a whole, first by interfering with their religion, and altering their political status, and afterwards by letting loose drunken elephants to trample them to death in the Hippodrome of Alexandria. After his purpose has been several times providentially delayed, it is finally foiled by a vision of angels which turns the elephants upon the persecutors. The king repents and becomes the patron of the Jews, who return in safety and rejoicing to their homes. The

story as it stands is full of impossibilities and bombastic exaggerations, but each one of the incidents taken singly may well rest on some basis of fact, though they certainly did not all take place in the same reign. The general accuracy of the technical and official language of the book is confirmed by a comparison with Ptolemaic Papyri, and the book as a whole has striking points of contact with 2 Maccabees and the Letter of Aristeas. It would seem to have been written in Alexandria at about the same time as these books, not far from 100 B.C., a date which is confirmed by indications drawn from Papyri. The writer apparently used the lost memoirs of the reign of Philopator, written by Ptolemy Megalopolitanus shortly after his death. He seems to have combined a narrative of Philopator’s attempt to enter the Temple with a later story, preserved in another form by Josephus, of a persecution of Egyptian Jews by Physcon.

§ 2. Title.

Maccabees is really a misnomer, unless with Fritzsche we consider the book to be part of a prolegomen a to a complete history of the Maccabees. Πτολεμαικά (see below, § 9) would be more accurate. Syncellus (I. 516) cites the Letter of Aristeas as πτολεμαικά. It is probable that the present title is not original. It may easily have arisen from its collocation with the other books of Maccabees in the MSS.

§ 3. MSS. and Versions.

The book is found in A and V (=Holmes and Parsons 23), and in many cursives; see Fritzsche, Libr. Apocr. Graece, Ὁ. xx, and Swete, Iutr. to the O.T. in Greek, pp. 148 ff.; 19, 62, 64, 93 agree continually and give a Lucianic Text. It is not in the Vulgate, but is found in the Syriac Peshitta, the text of which represents a free and expanded rendering, sometimes agreeing with the Lucianic Text. There is also an Armenian version, which is probably to be dated A.D. 400-600, in the golden age of Armenian literature. It is a loose, but very literary, translation in the style of the fifth-century historian, Faustus of Byzant, and is found in most MSS. of the Armenian Bible.¹

The text is generally well preserved and presents as a whole no serious problems.

variations of reading seldom affect the sense, and usually arise from the desire to substitute for the forced phraseology of the writer a simpler and more familiar expression. Even in cases where

* the MSS. seem to be corrupt, the general meaning is clear, and the confusion always appears to be’ due to the difficulties raised by the verbose and obscure style of the book. Emendation is very uncertain, as the ordinary canons of language and grammar can hardly be applied. There are

§ 4. Date and Origin.

The date must be determined by internal considerations. There is no early attestation to the existence of the book (see below, § 9), but it cannot have been written after the destruction of the temple. It clearly belongs to the Jewish apologetic literature which sprang into being in the second century B.C. and continued to be popular for some time. It has points of contact with Esther and *udith on the one hand, though unlike them it has no hero, and with Sivach, Wisdom, and 4 Maccabees on the other. But the connexion is specially close with 2 Maccabees and the Letter of Aristeas. ay are

(a) Relation to 2 Maccabees. (a) Many of the leading ideas and incidents are the same:—The repulse of Heliodorus (2 Macc. iii. 22-31), and the punishment of Antiochus (ix. 4 ff., cf. 3 Macc. ii. 21-4); miraculous visions (iii. 25, x. 29, xi. 8; cf. 3 Macc. vi. 18); stress on the sanctity of the temple and prayers for its defence (iii. 15-22, viii. 2-4, xiv. 34-6; cf. 3 Macc. i. τι tats ii. 1 ff.); attacks on religion (vi. 9, &c.; cf. 3 Macc. ii. 27 ff, iii. 21); attempts to enforce an alien citizenship (iv. 9: cf. 3 Macc. ib.); stress laid on memorial feasts (x. 0, xv. 96; cf. 3 Macc. vi. 30-6. An aged and pious Eleazar appears in both books (vi. 18; cf. 3 Macc. vi. 1); official letters are included (ix. 18 ff., xi. 16 ff.; cf. 3 Macc. 111, 12 ff, vii. 1 ff.); the picture of the general horror in iii. 15 ff. is like that in 3 Macc. i. 16 ff., iv. 3-8.

(3) There is a strong resemblance in style and language. Both books present the same type of literary, or pseudo-classical, Greek. Crasis of the definite article, and various classical syntactical forms, are common to the two books and found nowhere else in the LXX!; both show the same fondness for connecting sentences with δές The following words found in both occur nowhere else in the LXX:—:

ἢ διακομίζω 1. 2 IV. 5, ix. 29 in passive. μιᾶς ὑπὸ καιρὸν ἡμέρας iv. τᾳ: vii. 20.

δοριάλωτος 1. 5; V. 11. ἐλεφαντάρχης Vv. 4, KC.; ΧΙν. 12.

ἀντίπαλοι 1. 5 3 XIV. 17. μεγαλομερῶς vi. 33 [adj. Vv. 8]; iv. 22, 49.

εὐταξία i, 10; iv. 37. προσημαίνω V. 13, 47; IV. 23.

παραναγιγνώσκω 1, 12; viii. 23. ἀθέμιτος V. 203 vi. 5, vii. 1, X. 34.

φρυάσσομαι ii. 2; vii. 34 [cf. Acts iv. 25]. ὁ ἐπιφανὴς Κύριος ν. 35 3 XV. 34.

κραδαίνω 1. 21. χἱ. 8. ἀλογιστία ν. 42 xiv. 8.

ἀὠντιλήμψεως τεύξασθαι 11. 33; xv. 7 [the same peculiar ἰσόπεδος v. 43;; viii. a. IX, 1.

form of the Aorist; see Thackeray, 0. ¢., p. 287]. ἄτρωτος V. 47; 3 viii. 36, x. 30 [in classical sense = unἀλιτήριοι 111. 16; xii. 23, xiii. 4, XIV. 42. wounded |.

ὑψαυχενῶν lil. 19 3 xv. 6. καταστέλλω vi. I 3 iv. 31.

ὑφορώμενος ill, 233 vii. 24. τερατοποιός [of God] vi. 32; xv. 21.

πρὸ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν λαμβάνειν iv. 43 viii. 17. οἰωνόβρωτος vi. 34; ix. 15.

ὁμοεθνής IV. 12, vii. 14; iv. 2.

The following words are found in both books, and are rare otherwise:—

κατάκλειστος 1.18; ill. το {in both cases with παρθένοι]; ἀπήμαντος vi. 6; xii. 25; Wisd. vii. 22.

Wisd. xviii. 4. ἀδιαλείπτως vi. 333 11], 26, &c.; 1 Mace. xii. 11.

ayepwyia, τὸς 1. 25; ll. ἜΦΗ ix, 73 Wisd. 11. 9. ξενίζων [as adj. vii. 3; ix, 6; Esther 11]. 13.

ἀπροσδεής [of God] ii. 9; xiv. 35; 1 Macc. xii. 9 [not εὐσταθεῖν vii. 4; xii. 2, xiv. 25; Jer. xxx. 9.

of God]. ἄδεια vii. 12 3 ΧΙ. 20; Wisd. xii. 11.

ἐπόπτης [of God] ii. 21; ili. 39, vii. 35; Ad. Esth. v. 1. καθιδρεύειν vii. 20; iv. 12; Ep. Jer. 17.

ἀνίκητος iv. 21; xl. 133 4 Macc: ΚΥ. προειρημένος five times in 3 Macc.; six times in 2 Macc.; ἀπεχθής, τως ill. 4, V. 33 V. 233; Wisd. xix. 15. 1 Esdras vi. 32 [A].

The similarity of phrase in the following cases is noticeable:—

χειρονομία 1. 5; 3 ἐν χειρῶν νομαῖς V. 14. πασῆς δυνάμεως δυναστεύων ν. 7 [cf. δυνάστης Ve 5 1: κισσόφυλλον il. 293; κισσοί vi, 7 and reference to πασῆς ἐξουσίας δυνάστης 111. 24 [all of God].

Dionysiac worship. βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων V. 35; 8. βασιλέων xiii. 4 [both χείριστος μόρος ili. I 3 οἴκτιστος μόρος Ιχ. 28. of God].

ἀποτυμπανίζω 111. 27 5 τύμπανον vi. 19, 28. Scythian ὦ cruelty vii. 5; iv. 47-

Add also the idea of the ἐπιφάνεια of God, and the use of τόπος for the temple, which are frequent in both books.

Though these resemblances are sufficiently striking, there are differences which prevent our ascribing the books to the same author. The style of 2 Maccabees is much better than that of 3 Maccabees; it is less involved and exaggerated, and more akin to the style of Polybius. Nor Δ See Thackeray, Gr. O.T7. in Greek, pp. 138, 248. 279.

* In each verse the reference to 3 Macc. is given first.

is it easy to establish a direct literary dependence on either side.² The impression left is that both books belong to the same school of thought, and probably to the same period.

(6) Relation to the Letter of Aristeas. (a) There is a general similarity in the idea and purpose of the books. Both aim at glorifying the Jew in his own eyes and in the eyes of the Greek world; stress is laid on the importance of his position, and his fidelity to the Ptolemies (Aristeas, 36, &c.).2. A Ptolemy is the central figure in each book, and he is represented as acknow-lodging the protection of the God of the Jews (16, 19, 37; cf. 3 Macc. iii. 21, v. 31, vi. 24 ff, vii. 6 ff.). Much is made of the inviolability and beauty of the temple (83 ff.) and the overwhelming a we inspired by it (99); the latter would seem to be a simpler expression of the physical terror and helplessness which in 3 Macc. ii, 21 overtakes Philopator; cf. also the punishments of those who profaned the secrecy of the text of the law (313 ff.). Other points of contact are the discussion of Jewish separateness in food and life (128 ff.; cf. 3 Macc. iii. 3 ff.), the place played in each story by the repeated royal feasts (187 &c., 3 Macc. iv. 16, v, vi), the inclusion of official letters, and the position of the typical priest Eleazar (22, 29, 33, 41; cf. 3 Macc. iii, 12, vii. 1; 33, 41, δι. vi. 1).

(8) Style and language. The most striking resemblances are found in the official letters, or decrees:-— *

χαίρειν καὶ ἐρρῶσθαι ill. 12, vii. 1; 353 Cf. 41. Cf. also iii. 25 with 25 [διειλήφαμεν γάρ, &c.]; and προστετάχαμεν 111. 25, VI. 8; 24. ὑπομαστιαίων in ill. 27 With ἐπιμαστιδίων in 27.

μηνύειν τὸν βουλόμενον ἐφ᾽ ᾧ . 11]. 28; τὸν βουλόμενον ὁ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς τύπος οὕτως ἐγέγραπτο ili. 30 3 ἐπιστολὴ τὸν προσαγγέλλειν περὶ τῶν ἀπειθησάντων ἐφ᾽ @... 25 τύπον ἔχουσα τοῦτον 54.

[reward follows in each case}. καθ᾽ ὁντινοῦν τρόπον vii. 7; 24.

Remarkable words or phrases common to both books include the following:— 4

of the first century B.C. and onwards have πλεῖστα χαίρειν. Cf. especially P. στη, ii. 36 (95 B.C.) and P. Lips. 104 (c. 96 B.C.), where the resemblance to 3 Maccabees is peculiarly close.

λαογραφία (ii, 28),! which had been supposed to point to the Roman period, has been proved to be entirely in place in the Ptolemaic age; and again the dating by Egyptian months alone (vi. 38), in which Willrich⁷ finds a sign of late date, occurs much earlier, the equalizing of the Egyptian and Macedonian months having taken place in the reign of Euergetes II (Physcon).⁸

In Zebt. P. 5 (an official document of the beginning of the same reign) we find of ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων (cf. 3 Macc. vi. 30); of τεταγμένοι ἐπὶ πραγμάτων [χρειῶν] (cf. vii. 1, v. 14); καθ᾽ ὁντινοῦν τρόπον (cf. vii. 7 and Letter of Aristeas, 24). In Louvre P. 63 (an official letter of Philometor’s reign) occur the words τιθηνεῖσθαι (cf. iii. 15), σκεπάζειν (Cf. iii. 27), εὐχρηστία (cf. ii. 22) ἀσχολία (cf. v. 34), the first two words being used in the same technical sense. καταχωρίζω (= enroll, ii. 29; Aristeas 36) occurs in the Canopus and Rosetta inscriptions, and frequently in Papyri; the same inscriptions speak of records on a στήλη (ii. 27, vii. 20), and afford evidence of the popularity of commemorative feasts (vi. 36, vii. 19). μηνύειν τὸν βουλόμενον (111. 28),* παρουσία ὅ (iii. 17, of a royal visit), φιλανθρωπία (of royal clemency, iii, 15-18), ἐντυγχάνω (= petition, vi. 37-40), are all familiar in Papyri. γραφικοὶ κάλαμοι (a hitherto unparalleled phrase, iv. 20) occurs in Grenfell P., ii, 38 (first century B.C.); οἰκετικός (ii. 28) in B. AL. P. cocci (c. 116 B.C.); κακοτεχνεῖν (vii. 9) in P. Eleph. 1 (311 B.C.); θεωρία (v. 24) in P. Tedbt. 33 (112 B.C.); σκυλμός (iii, 25 metaphorically) in 2. 7 00t. 41 (119 B:C.).

(2) We have therefore converging lines of evidence. There are good reasons for connecting 2 Maccabees with Alexandria;⁹ Jason is probably to be placed between 130 and Ioo B.C., and 2 Maccabees not much later. The Letter of Aristeas is certainly Alexandrian and of the same

period.’ Indications derived from the papyri (the nature of the official language, the greetings in the letters, and the use of the forms οὐθείς and μηθείς) suggest a date somewhere about 100 B.C. As we regard the connexion between 3 Maccabees and the other books as one of school and thought, and not of direct literary indebtedness, it may possibly have been written shortly before them. [15 superior limit is fixed by the apparent quotation in 6° from The Song of the Three Children (LXX), which probably dates from the last quarter of the second century B.C.

Mahaffy ὃ points out that polemical tracts for and against the Jews came into vogue during the reign of Physcon (146-117 b.C.), and they certainly continued to be the fashion. Our book clearly belongs to this class of literature. It was apparently written primarily for Jews to encourage and confirm their faith in themselves and their destiny,’ but it was certainly meant to be read by the outside world as well. It is an apology, representing the Jew as the Ptolemies’ most loyal supporter, just as later apologists represented the Christian as the Emperors’ best citizen. There is also, not far below the surface, the further suggestion that it is not prudent to interfere too far with him or his religion. The book is further a tract on the orthodox side, supporting the strict view of the Hasidim, as against the laxer Hellenizing section,’¹⁰ which must have been even stronger in Egypt than in Palestine. There is, however, little evidence that this polemic was specially directed against a Samaritan element, or even very definitely against the Onias temple.

(6) The chief alternative date is that suggested by Ewald." He connects the book with the attempt of Caligula to place his image in the temple, and with the persecutions of the Alexandrian Jews which took place in his reign. Philo tells the story in the adv. Flaccum, and the Legatio ad Caium."* Certain points are found in his story and in 3 Maccabees as well, e.g. the injustice of the persecution, the loyalty of the Jews, the punishment of the persecutor. But these are commonplaces. We miss the characteristic features of the Caligula story, the attempt to force the Emperor’s image into the temple and the synagogues of Alexandria, the attacks on the synagogues, and Caligula’s claim to divine honours; 15 since the Ptolemies were θεοί, this feature could have been easily transferred. Further, in Philo the hostility comes first from the populace, the outbreaks in Alexandria precede the events in Jerusalem, and the Jews in fact suffer severely. Those who accept this date are therefore forced to hold with Grimm that the author was afraid to work out his parallel too closely. But the tone of 3 Maccabees is not that of a period of oppression and martyrdom; it belongs Ε΄ And tempting though Ewald’s suggestion appears at first sight, it cannot outweigh the positive indications of an earlier date which we have gained from other sources.

Attempts have also been made to find the occasion for the writing of the book in Pompey’s attack on the Temple in 64 B.C., or in the incidents narrated of Herod (Josephus, Ant. XVII. vi. 5) or Pilate (ib. XVIII. iii. 1). But the resemblances in these cases are still slighter, and could only be seriously considered if there were independent grounds for ascribing the book to the Roman period.

§ 5. Historical Basis.

(a) Relation to Polybius. Generally speaking the account of the battle of Raphia, and the picture of Philopator’s character, agree with Polybius v. But there are important differences in detail, for which there is no obvious reason; see notes on ch. i. Now there was a certain Ptolemy of Megalopolis (a fellow-townsman of Polybius), who is mentioned by him as governor of Cyprus (xviii. 55. 6, &c.), and who wrote an anecdotic account of the reign of Philopator, giving a very unfavourable picture of the king.! Scala shows that he was one of the sources used by Polybius, particularly in the story of Agathocles (xv. 25-33); the comment which he appends to that story (xv. 34. 1) probably refers to Ptolemy’s history. ‘I am quite aware of the miraculous occurrences and embellishments which the chroniclers of this event have added to their narrative with a view of producing a striking effect upon their hearers, making more of their comments on the story than of the story itself and the main incidents. Some ascribe it entirely to Fortune, and take the opportunity of expatiating on her fickleness, and the difficulty of being on one’s guard against her. Others dwell on the unexpectedness of the event and try to assign its causes and probabilities.’ * Mahaffy? apparently independently, also arrives at the conclusion that this Ptolemy is the authority for the Agathocles section, and is ‘probably the source which has blackened the name of Philopator’. Now on the other hand it has been recognized that the author of 3 Maccabees apparently used some good authority, other than Polybius, for his account of Raphia and the character of Philopator.° Can we not then identify this unknown source with the lost history of Ptolemy Megalopolitanus? The characteristics which Polybius ascribes to him, love of ‘miraculous occurrences and embellishments’, and the fondness for tracing out causes, are exactly those of 3 Maccabees, and would make him a congenial pattern for the author of the latter book. It is noticeable that in one of his extant fragments * he speaks of Philopator’s boon companions, of whom we hear so much in 3 J/accabees. There are again many features in the Agathocles section which remind us of the Jewish story, e. g. the stress laid on the popularity of Arsinoe (cf. 3 Macc. i. 4 ff.), the picture of the confusion in the streets of Alexandria, the debaucheries, the cruelties, the unexpected escape of Moeragenes. These are sufficient to show that the sort of story told in 3 Maccabees is just that which was narrated by Ptolemy in his anecdotes. I would suggest then that the narrative of the opening verses of 3 Maccabees may be derived directly from him, and that amongst the stories which he told of Philopator were some which a pious Jew could adapt for the glorification of his own nation.

(2) Relation to Fosephus. Inc. Ap. ii. 5 there is a story which is certainly in some way connected with that of 3 Maccabees. After the death of Philometor the Alexandrian Jews supported Cleopatra against his brother Physcon (Ptolemy IX, 146-117 Β. 6). The latter in revenge exposed the Jews and their families to drunken elephants, which, however, turned on Physcon’s followers and slew many of them. A phantom also appeared to the king, preventing him from further attempts to injure them. But the parallel does not stop here. Earlier in the chapter Josephus mentions a visit of Ptolemy Euergetes I to Jerusalem to offer thankofferings after a victory; stress is laid on the services of Onias and Dositheus, Jewish generals; and reference is made to the intercession of Ithaca, or Irene, Physcon’s concubine, on behalf of the Jews, as well as to a memorial feast kept by the Alexandrian Jews on the day of their deliverance. It is at once obvious that Josephus’ version is far more probable than the exaggerated and sensational narrative of 3 Maccabees. The mention of the festival in both suggests that some historical incident lies 1 See Müller, Frag. Hist, Graec. iii, p. 66. 2 Studien des Polybius, pp. 58-60, 263-7.

8 Also in the character of Philopator, xiv. 11, 12; Cleino, his cup-bearer, mentioned there, is also mentioned in one of the extant fragments of Ptolemy.

* Shuckburgh’s translation. 5 Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 272, τι. 1; Ptolemaic Dynasty, pp. 143 fi.

6 e.g. by Mahaffy eve Pt., p. 267); Willrich (AZo, vii, p. 293); Büchler Tobirxden und Oniaden, p. 174).

7 apud Athen. vi, p. 246

* 8 There is no striking aden in the language, which is that of Polybius himself; but ἀμετάθετος and παραδειγματίζειν, which occur in 3 Mace. v. 1, 12, iv. 11, and nowhere else in LXX, are found in this section (32. 7, 32. 5); also Cf. 31. 5 (χωρήσαντες εἰς τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς διάθεσιν) with i ii. 28, 29.

* Josephus clearly did not know, or at any rate care to use, 3 Maccabees.

behind the legends, and there is indeed no a priori reason for doubting this. But is Josephus right in placing it in Physcon’s reign? The evidence of the papyri tends to show that the Jews as a whole were well treated by this king, and this fact has led Mahaffy and others to reject Josephus’ setting of the incident.’ But the evidence is somewhat scanty and refers to the latter part of the reign. Josephus places the persecution at the very beginning, and implies, as does the author of 3 Maccabees even more clearly, that the persecutor afterwards became a protector of the Jews. In neither story is there any question of a long continued oppression, but only of a single abortive attempt at vengeance. Further, in the troubles which broke out on the death of Philometor, it is in every way probable that his widow Cleopatra and her infant son were supported by Onias and the loyal Jews of Leontopolis;¹²;2 it is equally probable that in the reprisals with which Physcon signalized his success * he may have attempted to punish the Jews. Such a view agrees with the impression left by 3 Maccabees that the main attack was made on Fayum Jews brought to Alexandria for the purpose.¹³ Again, the fact that in Justin 38. 8 we may have ‘traces of an edict [of Physcon] by which Egyptians and Syrians (Jews) were granted the privileges of Alexandrian citizenship ἢ harmonizes exactly with 3 Macc. ii. 30, iii. 21.

On the other hand the Jerusalem incident is probably rightly placed by the writer of 3 Maccabees in the reign of Philopator. In his triumphal progress after Raphia the king would not be likely to leave out the Jewish capital.6 With his love of architecture and interest in religion he would certainly wish to enter the Temple. The Jews would no less certainly have tried to prevent him, and his superstitious fears may well have been worked on in some such manner as to give rise to the highly coloured narrative of our book.’ It is even possible that the story may have been taken in substance from the memoirs of Ptolemy Megalopolitanus.

The hypothesis that two independent stories have been united in 3 Maccabees is confirmed by an examination of the book itself. The connexion between the Jerusalem episode and the subsequent persecution in Egypt is very artificial. No doubt it is difficult to set bounds to the ἀλογιστία of a despot, but it is not very probable that Philopator should have wished to destroy the innocent and loyal Jews of Egypt merely on account of an insult offered by their fellow-countrymen in Jerusalem, and the narrative itself in its references to taxation and local religious differences affords a far more reasonable explanation of the origin of the persecution.

It would seem, then, that the writer of 3 Maccabees has combined the Physcon and Philopator stories, transferring the former to the earlier reign. There was an obvious advantage in doing so, since in the original narrative as preserved by Josephus the position of the Jews was a little ambiguous. It is true they had been loyal to Cleopatra, but they had unfortunately sided with the defeated party, and from the point of view of the conqueror they could be regarded as rebels. No such objection attached to the representation in 3 Maccabees. The writer has also, by the way, worked in a reference to another story glorifying the Jew. Dositheus is mentioned in the Physcon story side by side with Onias as a Jewish general who did good service to the Ptolemies. In the Hibeh P. go and elsewhere a Dositheus son of Drimylus is found as an Alexander priest of 222 B.C. The writer in i. 3 apparently identifies the two, and turns the son of Drimylus into a renegade Jew. At the same time he makes him play the réle of a Mordecai and save the king’s life.¹⁴ It is possible that the reference to Arsinoe in i. 1, 4 may be explained on similar lines. She plays no further part in the story and her introduction seems quite pointless. But the writer may have intended that she should play the réle which Ithaca plays in Josephus, and intercede for the Jews; for some reason he dropped this feature, but omitted to expunge the earlier references to her. On the other hand the episode may have been taken directly from Ptolemy Megalopolitanus, in whose narrative she seems to have figured prominently. In that case she is simply part of the historical setting of the picture, and her introduction was never intended to have any further significance.

It is at any rate clear that the aim of the writer was to combine in a single picture as many features as possible, all tending to the glorification of the faithful Jew. We thus have brought together in a single canvas the frustrated attempt to enter the Temple, the saving of the king’s life by a Jew, the attacks on religion and attempts to hellenize, affecting both the Jews in Alexandria and in Egypt as a whole, the testimonies to their great influence and unswerving loyalty, the marvels of divine intervention, and the vengeance on renegades. The result is not very convincing artistically or historically. But on the other hand each feature, taken by itself and stripped of its sensational colouring, is entirely credible and probably has some foundation in fact. Our knowledge of the history of the Jews in Egypt under the Ptolemies is too fragmentary to justify us in denying the possibility of sporadic outbreaks of anti-Semitism in the second and third centuries B.C. As we have seen, the papyri confirm in various ways the general accuracy of the writer, and we shall probably be justified in giving his work a somewhat higher historical value than has usually been assigned to it.

On one point all are agreed. The character of Philopator is in full accordance with the picture which history had come to form of him. ‘Noctes in stupris, dies in conviviis consumit.’¹⁷ Whether the picture is quite a fair one is another question. It may be due to the bias of Ptolemy Megalopolitanus, and inscriptions suggest that there was something to be said on his side.¹⁸. At any rate they prove an interest in architecture and religion, and a ready liberality to cities and temples, which agree with the statements of 3 Maccabees.

§ 6. Integrity of the Book.

It is sometimes held that the book is only a fragment of a larger work (Ewald, Fritzsche), or that at any rate the opening has been lost (Grimm). The arguments for this view are found in the abruptness of the introduction,¹⁹ the reference to the plot of Theodotus in i. 2 as though it were well known, and to the ‘before-mentioned companions’ in ii. 25, who have not in fact been introduced previously. But if we accept the hypothesis of the writer's dependence on Ptolemy Megalopolitanus, it will be more reasonable to suppose that these are slips, due to a careless reproduction of the source. In i. 2 we have ‘a certain Theodotus’, as though from the writer’s standpoint he was being mentioned for the first time, while the following words imply a previous reference to his treachery. The source is evidently only imperfectly adapted; the τις shows that Theodotus cannot have been already named in a lost opening of the book itself.

Biichler,²⁰ on the other hand, argues that 3 Maccabees, as it stands, has been drastically edited, and contains copious interpolations which have introduced confusion into the story. He points out that in the concluding chapters the Alexandrian Jews are hardly mentioned; they deal solely with the return of country Jews to Moeris and the Arsinoite nome. He suggests that the original narrative dealt with a persecution of Fayim Jews, who had refused to join in a birthday feast to Dionysus on some occasion when Philopator attempted to establish his cult at Bakchis and Dionysias on the banks of Moeris. The references to renegades point to a Samaritan element which was ready to fall in with a lax syncretism. In accordance with this theory he makes very considerable excisions in the book. There are no grounds for doing this, and it is more probable that the writer himself combined various stories and is responsible for the resultant confusion. At the same time Büchler’s hypothesis as to the reasons which led to the persecution of the Fayim Jews is probable enough, and may well indicate one of the historical elements in the story.

§ 7. Style.

The book is a product of Alexandrian literature, exemplifying in its extremest form the pseudo-Classicalism of the Atticists. It would, however, be misleading to speak of it as written in the most literary style, since its artificiality and extravagance make it hardly worthy of the name of literature. Particularly when the writer attempts in descriptions to introduce purple passages, he succeeds only in being obscure and bombastic: e.g. i. 16 ff., iv, v. 6 ff. His sentences are full of repetitions and awkwardly constructed, and for all their attempt at rhetoric are marked by an excessive use of the weak introductory particle δέ; e.g. of the first 11 verses, 10 begin with it. The vocabulary is varied; Swete²¹ gives a selection of 32 words not found elsewhere in the LXX, but in fact the list can be extended to over 100; its character may be judged from the fact that it includes 20 adjectives compounded with a privative; many again are poetical, such as πανόδυρτος, Or πολύδακρυς. There are also about 14 words not found elsewhere in Greek literature, verbs such as ψυχουλκεῖν, προσυστέλλειν, and compound adjectives of the type of βυθοτρεφής, μισούβρις, μυροβρεχής, ποντόβροχος, φοβεροειδής, πυρόπνους.

Among the Classical forms, unique or unusual in the LXX, which mark the writer as an Atticist, cels if

are the following 1 ---τέλεον, τελέως͵ δεσμά, ἴστε, διηρπάσθην, καθειστάντες, ᾧκτειρα, and the use of crasis with the definite article (τοὐνάντιον, τἀληθές).

At the same time the writer shows the influence of the κοινή in such forms as τεύξασθαι, κατεσχέθη, ἠνέῳξα, εἰάσθησαν, θεέ, τετάρτη (for rérpas). In iv. 19 there is an interesting example of a superfluous ἐν with dative after χρᾶσθαι."

§ 8. Theology.

The book represents the most orthodox type of old-fashioned Judaism, with its devotion to the temple, the law, and the peculiar position of the chosen people. The business of God is to act as their champion; there is no trace of universalism, or even any desire for proselytes; Philopator is forced to respect God, but he does not worship Him, as does Nebuchadnezzar, nor is there any of the syncretism which we find in the Letter of Aristeas. At the same time, side by side with the tone of somewhat arrogant self-satisfaction and narrow materialism, there is a real piety and an absolute faith in the power of prayer. There are no references to the Messianic hope, or apocalyptic ideas, or the future life. An angel vision terrifies Ptolemy and his followers, but it is not seen by the Jews; there is no sign of the desire to interpose intermediaries between God and man, nor is He described by periphrases; e.g. His πρόνοια is mentioned, but in no way personified (iv. 21, v. 30). He is addressed directly, and the variety and number of the attributes ascribed to Him is remarkable. The heaping up of such attributes in prayer was a feature of Hellenistic Judaism (ii. 2 ff., 21, v. 7, vi. 2-9, 18, 28; cf. 2 Macc. i. 24, Pr. Man. 1-4). Among the titles of God not found elsewhere in the LXX are the following:--- μόναρχος (ii. 2), προπάτωρ (ii. 21), μεγαλοκράτωρ (vi. 2), μισούβρις (vi. 9), ἔντιμος (vi. 13), μεγαλόδοξος (vi. 18), as well as several phrases of the type of πάσης δυνάμεως δυναστεύων. ἢ Unusual titles are πάντων ἐπόπτης (ii. 21), ἅγιε ἐν ἁγίοις (ii. 2, 21), 6 ἐπιφανὴς Κύριος (v. 35), τερατοποιός (vi. 32), ῥύστης Ἰσραήλ (vii. 23).

From the theological standpoint, therefore, the book seems to belong to the strict and conservative school of the Hasidim, devoted to the law, and finding its inspiration in the lessons of the national history (ii. 2-20, vi. 1-15). It expresses a bitter opposition to the attempts at hellenizing, which so nearly overwhelmed Judaism in the second century B.C.,and shows no sympathy with the developments of thought and doctrine, which at that time were growing up within the Jewish Church. Though it belongs to Alexandria, it shows no trace of the influence of the typical Alexandrian ideas.® The keenest heresy-hunter could have found no fault with its uncompromising orthodoxy.

§ 9. Use of the Book.

The references to 3 Maccabees are very few, and entirely confined to Christian writers. They include Afost. Canons 85, the Stichometry of Nicephorus, Synopsis Athanasii, Eus. Chron. ii. 122. The Stichometry of Codex Claromontanus implies a knowledge of the book, by mentioning the fourth book of Maccabees. In the Synopsis Athanasit we find Μακκαβαικὰ βιβλία 8 Πτολεμαικά, where Credner’s emendation of καί for 6 is usually followed; Zahn’s πολεμικά has found little support. Theodoret of Antioch summarizes the book and treats it as historical (ad Dan. xi), and Swete calls attention to an interesting combination of Isa. lvii. 15 with 3 Macc. ii.2 in the Liturgy of St. Clement. It will be seen that the attestation is entirely Eastern; the book was not accepted in the Western Church and does not appear in the Vulgate.

§ 10. Bibliography.

Ὁ These examples are collected from Thackeray, Gr. O.7. in Greek; the references will be readily found in the

index to that book. 2 Cf. Moulton, Grammar of N.T. Greek, pp. 75, 104. 5 Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 297 ff. ‘v. 7, 28, 51, vi. 2, vii. 9; cf. 2 Macc. iii. 34; Esther viii. 13; Wisd. xiv. 3. δ The attempts made to find characteristic features of Philonian thought are very unconvincing. δ Intr. O.T. in Greek, p. 472.

Notes

1. For these facts, and for the readings from the Armenian version in the critical notes, I am indebted to the ready help of Mr. F. C. Conybeare. tévrvyia [technically of a petition] vi. go: 1. Τάπταιστος vi. 39 3 187. Ἠαἀπόλυσις vi. 37, 403; 16. τραπῆναι εἰς [πρὸς] εὐφροσύνην ν. 36; 202, 294. 6 πάντων ἐπόπτης θεύς Il. 21; τό. ἀπροσδεής Ἰ1. 9; 211. ὁλοσχερής ν. 31; 27 [-as]. ἀλόγιστος V. 42, vi. 12; 213. ἀλόγως vi. 25 3 24, 107. εὐστάθεια ill. 26, vi. 28; 217, 261. θεωρία ν. 243 31. Ῥκατευφημεῖν vii. 133 217. καταχωρίζω [technically ii. 29; 36. Ῥάνέφικτος 11. 15 3 223, 283. παραναγιγνώσκω 1. 12; 42. ἐμεγαλομερής ν. 8; 226, 319. ἀδιάλειπτος, τως vi. 33 3 86, 92, 294. ἐπιφάνεια [of God] v. 8; 264. Τέως [dawn] v. 46; 88. ἐνέργεια [of God] iv. 21, v. 12; 266. ἰδιότης vii. 17; 3 97. Τἄληκτος iv. 2 [Vv]: 260. παρὰ πόδας ὁρῶντες, OF ἔχοντες iv. 8, Vv. 8; 135. ἐπιείκεια καὶ φιλανθρωπία [ἴῃ technical sense, of king] δυναστεύων [of God] v. 7; 168, 195. iii. 15; 290. As with 2 Maccabees, the connexion seems to be of school and date. The similarity in the use of technical and official language is specially remarkable; as we shall see in the next paragraph, this language was that actually in use in documents of the Ptolemaic period. (c) Relation to Papyri. The evidence of the papyri confirms the general accuracy of the official and technical language of the book, and suggests that it belongs to the Ptolemaic period, not the Roman. Applying Thackeray’s test® of οὐθείς (μηθείς) as against οὐδείς (μηδείς), we find the 6 form in i. 13 (A), ii. 28 (V), vii. 8 (A), as against six times where the MSS. agree with the spelling with 6. The fluctuation is much the same as in Wisdom (see Introd. to Wisdom zz doc. in this volume), and both books are probably to be referred to the ‘period of transition’ 132 B.C. to 100 B.C., or rather later. Again, the formula χαίρειν καὶ ἐρρῶσθαι κτλ. (iii. 12, vii. 1), which it will be remembered is found in the Letter of Aristeas, seems ‘to point to a date at the end of the second or the beginning of the first century B.C.’° Earlier papyri usually have a conditional sentence; papyri of the end
2. It is usually assumed without any serious attempt at proof that the writer of 37 Maccabees used 2 Maccabees. Willrich argues, on the other hand, that the reverse is true (/wdaica, pp. 163 ff.).
3. The references are to Wendland’s paragraphs, as printed in Mr. Thackeray’s edition in Swete’s Zutr. to the O.T. in Greek*®. The English translation with critical and exegetical notes will be found in vol. ii of this work.
4. Thackeray has already called attention to some of these in Swete, 0. ¢., Pp. 502, ἢ. 3. As before, the reference to 3 Macc. is in each case given first.
5. Those marked with + do not occur elsewhere in the LXX.
6. Grammar O.T. in Greek, pp. 58 ff. For the facts and references in this paragraph I am indebted to information kindly placed at my disposal by Mr. Thackeray in a private letter. rather to a time when the nation is prosperous, and its position has been triumphantly vindicated. See note on ii. 28. 2 Judaica, p. 166. 5. Mahaffy, The Ptolemaic Dynasty, p. 205.
7. Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 343. 5 Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, pp. 372 ff.
8. 5. B., art. 2 Maccabees. 7 Wendland and Thackeray, 100-80 B.C.
9. Emp. Ptol., p. 390.
10. It may also have been intended to be read publicly on the occasion of the festivals commemorating the deliverances (vi. 36, vii. 19), j ὁ Cf. ii. 31, vii. 10. 0 Hist. Isr. v, pp. 468 ff. 12 See also Josephus, Ant. XVIII. viii.
11. See Schürer, G. 7. V. (1909), ii, iii, pp. 493 a pp Josephus,
12. Ptolemaic Dynasty, pp. 192 ff.; Willrich, Juden und Griechen, pp. 151 ff.
13. Mahaffy, ib., p. 183. 5 e.g. the massacre of Cyrenaeans, Diod. xxxiii. 13.
14. Mahaffy, ib., p. 190. 6 Ib. p. 134. The Letter of Aristeas 99 speaks of the ἔκπληξις and θαυμασμὸς ἀδιήγητος inspired by the Temple; Stanley compares se story of Ibrahim Pacha struck down on attempting to enter the shrine of Isaac (Hist. J. Ch, iii D210, 0. 1).
15. See Willrich, A/zo, vii (1907), p. 293 f. The same writer in /udaica, p. 19 ἵν, and Hermes, xxxix. 244 ff., calls attention to the undoubtedly curious coincidence that in Ad. Esth. xii. 1 Tharra the Eunuch slain by Mordecai is called, in Lagarde’s a text, Thedeutos or Theudetos, while Josephus (Aw. XI. vi. 4) calls him Theodosites, or in Anz. XI. vi. 10 Theodestes; cf. the Theodotus of 3 Macc. i. 2. Again in Ad. Esth. xi. 1 Dositheus a priest and Levite is named as the bearer of the book to Egypt. But his elaborate attempt to reduce all these narratives to versions of a single legend can hardly be followed; it involves a theory of Esther which ‘has found no favour thus far among critics’ (Paton, Esther [in Lt. Crit. Com.], p. 77).
16. Justinus xxx. 1. 8; his nickname was Τρύφων.
17. Mahaffy, Zap. Pol, pp. 270 fi.
18. Xenophon’s Oecon. and Josephus’ Zife also begin with a δέ clause, but apparently in neither case were they meant to be regarded as independent works.
19. Intr. O.T. in Greek, p. 312.

By Cyril W. Emmet