yAOHABgWB 498 MAfiFABKKft
commentators maintain, is clear from the fact that his the events grouped together in chap, v took place in
death is related in connexion with the celebration of rapid succession; (3) The two accounts of the aeath of
the Feast of the Dedication, and that he is represented Antiochus Epiphanes differ, it is true, but l^ey fit very
as an enemy of the Jews, which is not true of Anti- well into one another. Omsidering the chiUBCter of
ochus III. Antiochus and the condition he was in at the time, it
' Original Language. — ^The two letters which were ad- is not at all improbable that he wrote a letter to the
dressed to the Jews of Eg^t. who knew little or no Jews; (4) There is no reason to doubt that in spite of
Hebrew or Aramaic, were m all probability written in the rhetorical form ihe story of the martyrdoms is
Greek. That the book itself was composed in the substantiallv correct. As the place where they oc-
same language, is evident from the style, as St. curred is unknown, it is hard to see on what nt>undtiie
Jerome already remarked (Prol. Gal.). Hebraisms presence of Antiochus is denied It should be noted,
are fewer than would be expected considering the sub- moreover, that the book betrays accurate knowl-
ject, whereas Greek id ioms and Greek constructions are edge in a multitude of small details, and that it is often
very numerous. Jason's Hellenistic origin, and the supported by Josephus, who was imacouainted with it.
absence in the epitome of all signs that would mark it Even its detractors admit that the earlier portion is of
as a translation, are sufficient to show that he also the greatest value, and that in all that relates to Syria
wrote in Greek. its knowledge is extensive and minute. Hence it is not
Historicity. — ^The Second Book of Machabees is likely that it would be guilty of the gross errors im-
much less thought of as a historical document by non- puted to it.
Catholic scholars than the First, though Niese has Authenticity of the Two Letters, — ^Although these let- recently come out strongly in its defence. The objec- ters have a clear bearing on the purpose of the book, tions brought against the two letters need not, how- they have been declared to be palpable forgeries, ever, concern us, except in so far as they affect their Nothing, however, justifies such an opinion. The glar- authenticity, of which nereafter. These letters are on ing contradiction in the first letter, which represents the same footing as the other documents cited in I and the climax of affliction as having been experienced II Mach.; the author is therefore not responsible for under Demetrius II, has no existence. The letter does the truth of their contents. We may, then, admit that not compare the sufferings under Demetrius with those the story of the sacred fire, as well as that of the hiding of the past, but speaks of the whole period of affliction of the tabernacle, etc., is a pure legend, and that the including the time of Demetrius. The legend of the account of the death of Antiochus as given in the sec- sacred fire etc., proves nothing against the genuine- ond letter is historically false; the author's credit as a ness of the second letter, imless it be shown that no historian will not in the least be diminished thereby, such legend existed at the time. The false account of Some recent Catholic scholars have thoueht that the death of Antiochus Epiphanes is rather a proof in errors could also be admitted in the book itself without favour of the authenticity of the letter. Such an ac- casting any discredit on the epitomizer, inasmuch as count would be quite natural if the letter was written the latter declines to assume responsibility for the soon after the first news, exaggerated and distorted as exact truth of all its contents. But though this view first news often is, had reached Jerusalem. There may find some support in the Vulgate (ii, 29), it is remains only the so-called blunder of attributing the hardly countenanced by the Greek text. Besides, building of the Temple to Nehemias. The very im- there is no need to have recourse to a theory which, probability of such a gross blunder on the part of an while absolving the author from formal error, would educated Jew (the supposed forger) should have made admit real inaccuracies in the book, and so lessen its the critics pause. Nenemias put the last touches to historical value. The difficulties urged against it are the Temple (II Esdr., ii, 8; Josephus, *' Antiq.", XI, v, not such as to defy satisfactory explanation. Some 6) which justifies the use of olicodofi^ffat. Codex 125 are based on a false interpretation of the text, as when, (Mosquensis) reads olKoyofii/j<rat "having ordered the for instance, it is credited with the statement that service of the temple and altar"; this would remove Demetrius landed in Syria with a mighty host and a all difficulty (cf. II Esdr., x, 32 sq.; xiii sqq.). fleet (xiv, 1), and is thus placed in opposition to I Greek Text and Versions. — ^The Greek text is usually Mach., vii, 1, where he is said to have landed with a found in the same MSS. as I Mach.; it is wanting, how- few men. Others are due to subjective impressions, ever, in the Cod. Sinaiticus. The Latin version in the as when the supernatural apparitions are called into Vulgate is that of the Itala. An older version was
Question. The exaggeration of numbers has been published by Peyron and again by Ceriani from the
ealt with in connexion with I Mach. Codex Ambrosianus. A third Latin text is found in
The following are the main objections with some real the Madrid MSS. which contains an old version of I
foimdation : (1) The campaign of Lysias, which I Mach., Mach. The Syriac version is often a paraphrase rather
iv, 26-34, places in the last year of Antiochus Epi- than a translation.
phanes, is transferred in II Mach., xi, to the reign of The Thibd and Fourth Books of Machabees.-;—
Antiochus Eupator; (2) The Jewish raids on neigh- III Mach. is the story of a persecution of the Jews in
bouring tribes and the expeditions into Galilee and Egypt under Ptolemy IV Philopator (222-205 b. c),
Galaadj represented in I Mach., v, as carried on in rapid and therefore has no right to its title. Though the
succession after the rededication of the temple, are work contains much that is historical, the story is a
separated in 1 1 Mach. and placed in a different histori- fiction. IV Mach. is a Jewish-Stoic philosophical
cal setting (viii, 30; x, 15-38; xii, 10-45); (3) The treatise on the supremacy of pious reason, that is reli-
account given in II Mach., ix, differs from that of I gious principles, over the passions. The martyrdom
l^ch., vi, regarding the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, of Eleazar and of the seven brothers (II Mach., vi, 18-
who is falsely declared to have written a letter to the vii) is introduced to illustrate the author's thesis.
Jews; (4) The picture of the martyrdoms in vi, 18-vii, Neither book has any claim to canonicity, though the
is highly coloured, and it is improbable that Antiochus furst for a while received favourable consideration in
was present at them. some Churches.
To these objections it may be briefly answered: q^^^ g^ec. Introd., I (New York. 1901). 365 sq.; Cornelt.
(1) The campaign spoken of m II Mach., xi, is not the Jntrod., II (Paris, 1897), i, 440 sq.; Knabenbaubr, Comm. in
same as that related in I Mach., iv; (2) The events ^. Mach. (Paris, 1907); Patrimi, De Conaenau Vtnuaq.Lib.
mentioned m ^hi,^^0 and x, 15 sq. are not nairated j^^ Mach. (Vienna. 1746); Khell. Auctontas UtnuJq. Lib.
la I Mach., v. Before the expedition into Galaad (XU, Mach. (Vienna, 1749); Herkknne, Die Briefe zu Beqinn dea
10 sq.) can be said to be out of its proper historical ^^,^,}f^^°^J^^^* (Freibure, 1904); Gillkt. ^fMa-
R/»ffin<y it wnnUl ImvA fr» h<» nrnvrvl fhnf T lUa^h cAofi^ers (Pans, 1880); BEURUERin K^. />ic<. rff?/a BiWf, I\ , 488
betting It ^on\<\ nave to De provou tnat l Macn. . LESfeTRE. Jntrod., II (Paris, 1890); Vigouroux. Man.
mvanably adheres to chronological order, and that BibL, II (Paris, 1899), 217 aq.; Idem, La BibU el la Critupf
