34. Nisan (which is Abib) This part of the text has several problems. The editors of the Greek text read ABIB instead of IB (= 12, according to the numerical value of the Greek letters). The Greek manuscripts and the other Versions (Ethiopic, Armenian, Slavic) differ on this point. If we keep the original Greek reading, the text is referring to the 12th of Nisan. The month of Nisan would recall the Passover to the original readers, and with the Passover the Exodus. Nisan is then the time when restoration and return of the people can occur. In the context of return, 12 fits perfectly since according to Ezra 8:31, the people return to Jerusalem \u201con the twelfth day of the first month\u201d (the first month = Nisan). Therefore, what God did in the past, he will do again in the present.
\n35. the city above, Jerusalem This expression clearly alludes to the heavenly Jerusalem. In early Judaism it was seen either as a real city built in the heavens that will descend to earth at the end-time, or as an eschatological place of salvation for the resurrected. Here, the author enters into the discussions of this period about the role of the Temple and Jerusalem for the future of Israel.
\n6:2\u20133. he found him in a tomb According to the time frame of Abimelech\u2019s narrative, this clause is strange because it implies that no time has passed by for Baruch. We have here a \u201cring-composition,\u201d a structure in which the narrative is enclosed between two instances of the same word (in this case, \u201ctomb\u201d). Time is used in a figurative way, and serves the author\u2019s plans and ideology.
\n3\u20134. when they saw each other, they \u2026 kissed each other The kiss is the normal sign of greeting and acquaintance in antiquity and appears as such in the Hebrew Bible.
\n6. a reward to those who love you Baruch has identified the figs as a symbol of salvation. The \u201creward\u201d (Gk. misthapodosia) he is referring to is the resurrection of the holy ones. The Greek word carries with it the idea that God is doing the rewarding. This word does not appear in the Septuagint but is used in the New Testament to refer to God\u2019s rewards to the righteous (Heb. 10:35).
\nthe Sufficient One In the Septuagint, the Gk. hikanos (literally, \u201csufficient, capable\u201d) translates the Heb. shaddai (powerful, mighty). The Greek translators seemed to understand shaddai as she-dai, \u201cone who is enough,\u201d that is, who is self-sufficient. This use of hikanos as a divine denomination does not appear outside of the Septuagint or Hellenistic Jewish literature.
\nand will deliver you in your tabernacle The text introduces again the theme of the resurrection. Some authors think that the Gk. air\u014d (to deliver, take out) here means \u201cto take away,\u201d regarding death; thus, God himself will preserve the righteous and faithful by raising them from the dead. Other authors think that the Greek verb refers to the transferal of the body to another place, that is, paradise. The word \u201ctabernacle,\u201d skenoma, often translated as \u201ctent,\u201d refers to the physical body.
\n9. the angel of righteousness That is, Michael; see also 4 Bar. 4:2 (and the comment on that verse); 9:5.
\n12\u201313. the elect light which comes forth from your mouth That is, God\u2019s word. Some authors view this as an indirect reference to God\u2019s Law, which is the light that illuminates the way out of captivity. The expression \u201cfrom your mouth\u201d states indirectly that it refers to the Law.
\n13. whose great name no one is able to know The expression \u201cgreat name\u201d is fairly common in the Hebrew Bible. Here its presence seems to mean that no one can know God\u2019s name. In the Jewish tradition, there was a prohibition against pronouncing God\u2019s name aloud, as attested in Jeremiah (44:26) and Philo (Moses 2.114). However, in Moses 1.74\u201375, Philo states that not even Moses knew God\u2019s name. This means that there were two different traditions about the nature of God\u2019s name in late antiquity: one of them viewed the name as \u201cinexpressible\u201d (Gk. arr\u0113tos); the second viewed it as \u201cunknowable\u201d (Gk. agn\u014dstos). Both traditions were likely related to the Jewish prohibition against swearing by the name of God; thus the Rabbinic principle of the \u201cfence around the Torah,\u201d (Avot 1.1) which made stricter rules so that true command could not be broken, would be here at work.
\n14. let knowledge come into our hearts The Gk. word gn\u014dsis (knowledge) does not mean here the special knowledge that was awarded only to a few, but rather the knowledge of what steps to take to ensure the people\u2019s return from exile.
\n15. Agent of the light The Gk. symboulos ph\u014dtos can also be translated as \u201ccounselor of the light.\u201d The author takes the traditional role of Baruch as Jeremiah\u2019s helper (cf. Jer. 36:6\u201318) and combines it with the image of the Law as light that has appeared several times in 4 Baruch, so in effect, Baruch is described here as \u201ccounselor of the Law.\u201d
\n17. He who is not separated from Babylon Here, the author launches a theological and ideological agenda that will be important from now on in 4 Baruch. Its exclusivity responds to the difficulties that the Jewish people had in his time, such as cultural assimilation, and differs thus from the biblical text of Jeremiah, which encourages people to settle down, build houses, plant gardens, and raise families during their exile (Jer. 29:5\u20136). The motif of the separation is related to the cultic orientation of 4 Baruch in general and to Jeremiah as priest in particular; separation is necessary for cultic cleanness.
\n19. the market of the Gentiles Although some scholars think this refers to the market of Mamre, a town near Jerusalem that was quite important in the 2nd century CE, more likely the author is setting a fictional stage for the action.
\nand wrote a letter as follows The structure of the \u201cletter\u201d in 4 Baruch is similar to that of the letter written by Jeremiah in Jer. 29:1\u201323, but its content is based on 2 Bar. 77:11\u201319. It is not a real letter, but a literary work that has an ideological and theological function.
\n21\u201322. which he established with our fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob Note the use of Hebrew Bible ideas and wording. The author refers to the first covenant (Exod. 2:24), which is connected with the promise of the land (Exod. 6:4; Ps. 105:8\u201311).
\n25. this is the sign of the great seal The term \u201cseal\u201d (Gk. sphragis) is used in Christian literature as a symbolic word for baptism. In Judaism it sometimes refers to circumcision, but here it means neither baptism nor circumcision. It seems to have an eschatological message; the period of salvation begins with the crossing of the Jordan, the great sign that marks the new time. In 4 Bar. 3:10, the text mentions the seven seals and the seven periods; here we have the same motif. Also, because the Jordan is linked with Joshua\u2019s leading the Israelites out of the wilderness (Josh. 3), the text of 4 Baruch creates a link between the end of the desert wandering and the end of the Babylonian exile, since crossing the Jordan provides a turning point in both narratives.
\n7:1. And Baruch got up and departed from the tomb This setting clearly points to the theme of resurrection and makes the literary transition to the new themes in chapter seven easier. The Gk. anist\u0113mi, \u201cto get up,\u201d means \u201cto resurrect\u201d as well.
\n2. the eagle said to him The eagle is a positive symbol; it is the royal bird (cf. 4 Bar. 7:7). The eagle is taken from 2 Bar. 77:20\u201326, but here has the added ability to speak. The possible background for its use in this context could be the eagle\u2019s role of messenger in Greco-Roman mythology. The positive characterization of the eagle appears also in the Bible. The eagle appeared in many synagogue doorways in the 2nd century CE.
\nsteward of the faith Gk. oikonomos t\u0113s piste\u014ds. This title is unusual; the expression could be translated as \u201cfaithful overseer.\u201d Baruch is characterized as the guardian of faith during the dire times of the exile.
\n12\u201313. outside the city in a desert place The desert, or wilderness, is the traditional place for the encounter between God and his people. The desert has several associations in the Hebrew Bible; it can be a place of refuge (Ps. 55:8\u20139; 78:52\u201353) or judgment (Ezek. 20:13, 21).
\n12\u201314. outside the city \u2026 a place where I may bury \u2026 my people According to Jewish custom, corpses must be buried outside the cities (see, e.g., M. BB 2:9; T. Neg. 6:2). By having Jeremiah and the people bring the body to where the eagle sits \u201coutside the city,\u201d the author shows that even in exile, the Jews adhere to their tradition, and he uses this message as a literary device to structure the narrative.
\n26. an only son Although the Gk. monogen\u0113s, \u201conly,\u201d is frequent in Christian literature (e.g., John 1:14; 3:16, 18), it comes from the Septuagint, where it translates the Heb. yahid (unique, incomparable). It is applied to Israel to describe its relationship to God in several Jewish texts from the Second Temple period. In late Greek sources it appears as a messianic title for Bar Kokhba, the leader of the second Jewish revolt.
\n29. I found some of the people hung up by King Nebuchadnezzar This part of 4 Baruch has no parallel in the book of Jeremiah. The Gk. kremannumi, \u201cto hang,\u201d was the standard word for crucifixion from the 2nd century on, so the readers had that image in mind when reading the text.
\nHave mercy on us, God-ZAR! The word zar is the Heb. zar (foreign) written in Greek characters; the expression thus means \u201cforeign god.\u201d The author makes a word play with it since in the following verses (30\u201331a) he speaks of the \u201cforeign God\u201d (Gk. theon allotrion) to whom the Jews pray.
\n33\u201334. Recite for us a song from the songs of Zion \u2026 How shall we sing for you since we are in a foreign land? Here we have a direct quotation of Ps. 137:3\u20134: NJPS has \u201c\u2019Sing us one of the songs of Zion.\u2019 \/ How can we sing a song of the LORD \/ on alien soil?\u201d Literal quotations are rare in early Jewish literature, so this passage may have been added later. The exilic setting of this chapter could have inspired the insertion of this quotation.
\n37. to abstain from the pollutions of the Gentiles of Babylon The word \u201cpollution\u201d (Gk. alisg\u0113ma) is unusual. It occurs only here and in Acts 15:20. The verb from which it is formed, \u201cto pollute\u201d (alisge\u014d), appears only in Jewish texts (e.g., Dan. 1:8, Let. Aris. 142). It refers here to cultic or ritual aspects of Babylonian behavior rather than ethical ones.
\n8:3. for the men who took wives from them and the women who took husbands from them Here the author states a problem of his own time. Note that the text mentions mixed marriages of men and women alike; this indicates that underlying the text is a Hellenistic Jewish society, where both men and women could divorce. The prohibition against mixed marriages appears in the Hebrew Bible (Ezra 9\u201310; Neh. 13:23\u201331) and is common in Jewish literature. The author of 4 Baruch uses this theme to explain the origin of the Samaritans. Both Josephus (Ant. 9.278\u201379) and 4 Baruch share several details about the Samaritans that depart from the biblical source (2 Kings 17:24\u201341). However, 4 Baruch does not show an anti-Samaritan bias, since it depicts the Samaritans as related to Israel.
\n9:2\u20133. But on the tenth, Jeremiah alone offered sacrifice \u2026 and prayed Refers to the holiday of Yom Kippur, which is observed on the 10th of Tishrei. On the surface of the text, Jeremiah is depicted as a high priest who brings the atonement sacrifice for the people on that day. However, the text\u2019s underlying message emphasizes the importance of prayer in light of Israel\u2019s circumstances after the destruction of the Second Temple.
\n3. Holy, holy, holy, fragrant aroma Jeremiah\u2019s prayer begins with the Trisagion (Isa. 6:3) and goes on with a list of divine names that link God with aspects of the Yom Kippur festival; thus the references to the aroma (thumiama, \u201cincense\u201d) recall Lev. 16:12\u201313 LXX, where God\u2019s presence is said to be in the smoke of the burning incense.
\n4. the sweet voice of the two seraphim In the biblical tradition the seraphim were winged serpents with some human characteristics. They appear frequently in the Pseudepigrapha and later Jewish literature as the guardians of the divine throne.
\n6. unbegotten and incomprehensible These adjectives describing God are unusual in Jewish writings. \u201cUnbegotten\u201d (Gk. agenn\u0113tos) is common in Christian literature from the 2nd century CE onward. Both adjectives seem to refer to a Hellenistic Jewish setting, as some texts from Philo seems to suggest (Fug. 141; Mut. 15; Alleg. Interp. 3:219) but they could be a Christian interpolation as well.
\n8. For our father Jeremiah has left us\u2014the priest of God has departed This was most likely the end of the Jewish version of 4 Baruch; the martyr story of 4 Bar. 9:10\u201332 was added by a Christian editor.
\n14. the son of God who awakens us\u2014messiah Jesus Several references make clear the Christian character of this part of the text. The mention of Jesus is the most obvious; note also the resurrection after three days and the title \u201cson of God.\u201d
\n15. there shall be 477 years This number is found neither in the Hebrew Bible nor in the New Testament. Scholars have put forth several interpretations of it, but none of them is convincing.
\n16. the tree of life planted in the midst of paradise This representation of Christ appears in Rev. 22:2, 14, 19. The Christian editor identifies Jesus with the tree of paradise, representing him as the ultimate source of eternal life.
\n17. he will cause them to be judged\u2014that firmly rooted tree! The Christian editor is warning of the end-time, when Jesus (the tree) will return as judge. Clearly, the Christian interpolation has apocalyptic overtones. The Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah also links Jesus\u2019s return with the final judgment.
\n20. twelve apostles to proclaim the news among the nations The Christian editor makes clear that right from the beginning, the apostles\u2019 mission was directed toward the Gentiles; this statement clearly reinterprets the historical data from a later point of view and in a context of increasing alienation between Christians and Jews.
\ncoming into the world on the Mount of Olives According to Christian tradition, this is the place of Jesus\u2019s ascension to heaven. Here, its importance is underlined by making it the place of his return as well. The Christian editor links Zech. 14:1, 4\u2014which associates the \u201cday of the LORD\u201d with the Mount of Olives\u2014to Jesus as the promised messiah. The Mount of Olives has a prominent role in both Jewish and Christian texts.
\n22. let us not kill him by the same sort of death with which we killed Isaiah This reference assumes that the readers knew the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah in its final Christianized form. In both texts the vision of Jesus as messiah triggers the execution of the prophets. Several traditions exist about Jeremiah\u2019s death; he is said to have died in Samaria (Cav. Tr. 50:24\u201327 and been buried in Jerusalem; according to other texts (Book of Adam 130:31\u201332; S. Olam Rab. 26), he died in Egypt, a version that is derived from Jer. 43:4\u20137.<\/p>\n
3 Maccabees<\/p>\n
Sara Raup Johnson<\/p>\n
3 Maccabees tells the dramatic tale of how God rescued his faithful people from persecution in the days of Ptolemy IV Philopator of Egypt, over 50 years before the Maccabean revolt. On the surface it is a simple, melodramatic historical account\u2014or fantasy\u2014but on closer inspection, it raises many puzzling problems of interpretation. Ultimately, however, the contradictions it contains are less important than the message it preaches with perfect consistency to its Greek-speaking Jewish audience: that participation in the wider world is attractive (and not without value) but must be pursued within limits; that apostasy comes at a price; and that fidelity to God\u2019s Law matters above all things.
\nAt first glance, the text presents a straightforward historical narrative with many seemingly accurate and plausible details, but it quickly veers into the world of legend. The story is set toward the end of the 3rd century BCE, when the Ptolemaic kings of Egypt still controlled the province of Palestine. The story centers around two crises, where everything that occurs in the first crisis (in Jerusalem) is repeated on a larger scale in the second (in Egypt). First, the cruel and tyrannical Philopator visits Jerusalem and attempts to enter the Temple even after the priests warn him that the Law forbids it; in answer to the prayers of the people and the high priest, God strikes the king down with a paralysis and forces him to withdraw. Philopator then takes out his anger out on the Jews of Egypt, threatening to have the entire people trampled to death by elephants in the hippodrome at Alexandria. Once again, in answer to the prayers of the people and their priest Eleazar, God intervenes with a spectacular miracle. The people are saved; Philopator repents and is reformed, henceforth becoming a protector of the Jewish people.
\nAlthough the story is straightforward, the genre of the work is quite hard to classify. The care taken to create the appearance of historical authenticity sits uncomfortably with the author\u2019s cheerful reporting of the most outrageous exaggerations and the most improbable scenarios. Stylistically, it may be closest to 2 Maccabees, a historical book that mixes factual reporting and the techniques of Hellenistic historiography with a strong taste for the miraculous, the sensational, and the pathetic. In its basic nature, however, the book is closer to the biblical book of Esther, a pseudo-historical fable which was most likely inspired by the need to explain the origin of a festival. Despite the illusion of historical authenticity, the author is much more concerned with instructing the reader how to live as a Jew in the Diaspora than he is with dry facts about the past.<\/p>\n
Authorship and History<\/p>\n
3 Maccabees is written in Greek, and is preserved in only one of the three major manuscripts of the Septuagint (LXX). Since the text was missing (along with 4 Maccabees) from the LXX manuscript used in the creation of the Vulgate, it did not become part of the Catholic Bible or the Protestant Apocrypha, but it is regarded as canonical by the Eastern Orthodox churches. It is printed for convenience in some modern editions of the Apocrypha along with 1 and 2 Maccabees. Although initially written for a Greek-speaking Jewish audience, it was never included in the Jewish Bible, and there is no direct evidence of it being read by Jews after the 2nd century CE. It remains, however, a significant text for our understanding of Second Temple Judaism.
\nThe title, 3 Maccabees, is a misnomer; unlike 1, 2, and 4 Maccabees, it does not deal directly with the Maccabees or their revolt in any way. It may have gotten the name simply by being grouped with the other books of Maccabees. However, there are important thematic similarities with these other books. Like them, 3 Maccabees deals with a persecution in the Hellenistic period, and the narrative reflects knowledge of the Maccabean revolt at several points. The author may be imaginatively recasting a persecution similar to Antiochus IV\u2019s persecution of Jerusalem in an Egyptian setting, just as the author of Judith seems to be reimagining the assault of Nebuchadnezzar on the First Temple in a Second Temple setting.
\nAlthough best read as a moral fable rather than as a reliable historical account, the author has drawn on numerous authentic historical sources to construct a plausible-sounding fiction. His account of the battle of Raphia closely resembles the account given by the Hellenistic historian Polybius (2nd century BCE), and he is very knowledgeable about the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator. As an historian, the author shows close affinities with the so-called pathetic school of history, of which 2 Maccabees is today the best surviving example.
\nThe date of the text remains somewhat controversial. It must have been written between approximately 100 BCE (since it seems to refer to the Greek translation of Daniel) and the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, but within those limits, there is disagreement over whether the text should be regarded as Hellenistic (predating the Roman conquest of Alexandria in 30 BCE) or Roman. The majority opinion, which views the composition as being relatively open in its attitude toward Gentiles, is inclined to date it to the Hellenistic period, but a strong minority view the text as more confrontational and thus are more inclined to locate it in the time of known crises under Augustus (31 BCE\u201314 CE) or Caligula (37\u201341 CE). Whether Hellenistic or Roman, there is no doubt that the author\u2019s chief interest lies with the Jews of Egypt, and the provenance\u2014the point of origin\u2014is assumed to be Egypt, most likely Alexandria.
\nThe author\u2019s name is unknown; given the assumed provenance of the text, he was most likely a Jew living in Alexandria. His first language was clearly Greek, and both his style and his knowledge of history and court protocol suggest a high level of education. If anything, the author tries too hard to impress; his style has variously been described as verbose, florid, pompous, and bombastic. The text does not seem to have changed over time; it is the product of a single author at a single time period, though, as noted above, there is some controversy about whether that time period is Hellenistic or Roman.<\/p>\n
Significance<\/p>\n
Scholarly opinions about the dating of 3 Maccabees have tended to significantly influence the interpretation of the text in its historical context. In the Ptolemaic period, incidents of persecution or conflict between the Jews of Egypt and their neighbors were relatively rare; some Jews held powerful positions in the Ptolemaic administration. Under Roman rule, the Jews came to occupy a less-privileged status, and conflict with the ruling authorities and with their Gentile neighbors became the rule rather than the exception. One of the first pogroms in recorded Jewish history took place in Alexandria (38 CE) under the emperor Caligula.
\nThe scholars who disagree about the dating of 3 Maccabees have thus read it in two very different ways. Those who see the text as Roman stress the elements in the story that depict the Jews as a persecuted minority, tormented by the cruel king, hated by their enemies, bitterly hostile toward apostates in their own community. Those who view the text as Hellenistic stress the possibilities for peaceful compromise found in the story; when the Jews prove themselves faithful, their enemies are confounded, the king is reformed, and the Jews are restored to favor. Both interpretations are possible, and ultimately readers must decide for themselves whether the text works more effectively as a model for life in a time of compromise, or life in a time of crisis and conflict. In either case, heavy stress is laid on the importance of maintaining a life of integrity and fidelity to God\u2019s Law.<\/p>\n
GUIDE TO READING<\/p>\n
There are a number of other Jewish texts (mostly late Hellenistic) with strong similarities to 3 Maccabees, both stylistic and thematic, and 3 Maccabees is best understood in comparison with them. It is generally not possible to establish with any certainty that one author used another directly, but the texts seem to emerge from a common thought world. 3 Maccabees is most often read in conjunction with the Letter of Aristeas, 2 Maccabees, and Esther (both Hebrew Esther and the Greek additions); Dan. 1\u20136, Judith, and the Jewish novel Joseph and Aseneth also provide instructive parallels.
\n3 Maccabees shares with these texts a number of important themes that would have been particularly relevant to Jews living under foreign rule during the Second Temple period. First and foremost, obedience to God\u2019s Law is paramount; as in 2 Maccabees, no compromise that involves direct disobedience to the Law can be tolerated. Apostasy is punished first by shunning and ultimately by death. As in the biblical book of Daniel, the author focuses on the two areas most difficult for Jews living in a Gentile society to maintain\u2014absolute separation in matters of food, and the refusal to bow down to other gods. Obedience to the Law in these things causes some to hate the Jews, but others to admire them. Because of their separatism, the Jews are suspected of being disloyal to the king, but ultimately the author shows that only the faithful Jew is capable of being truly loyal to the state. As in Esther, it is the enemies and the apostates who are shown to be disloyal and treacherous.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READINGS<\/p>\n
Anderson, Hugh. \u201c3 Maccabees.\u201d In The Old Testament Pseuepigrapha, 2:509\u201329. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Garden City NY: Doubleday, 1985.
\nBarclay, John M. G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE\u2013117 CE). Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996.
\nCollins, John J. Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2000.
\nCroy, N. Clayton. 3 Maccabees. Septuagint Commentary Series. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
\nHadas, Moses. The Third and Fourth Books of Maccabees. New York: Harper, 1953.
\nJohnson, Sara Raup. Historical Fictions and Hellenistic Jewish Identity: Third Maccabees in its Cultural Context. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004.
\nModrzejewski, Joseph Meleze. The Jews of Egypt: From Ramses II to Emperor Hadrian. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1995.
\nParente, Fausto. \u201cThe Third Book of Maccabees as Ideological Document and Historical Source.\u201d Henoch 10 (1988) 143\u2013182.
\nWills, Lawrence M. The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 1995.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
1:1\u20137 This initial passage is much more historical in style than the rest of the text. Since most ancient authors used the first few lines of a book to set the tone, this tells us that the author wanted to make his text sound like a typical work of Hellenistic history. The shift in style has led some scholars to speculate that the author was using or even copying directly from a different historical source for this part of the work, but this underestimates the creativity of the author, who proves himself capable elsewhere of mimicking a variety of styles (see esp. 3 Macc. 3:12\u201329 and 7:1\u20139).
\n1. Philopator \u2026 Antiochus \u2026 Arsinoe \u2026 Raphia The first verse contains several historical references that would have been familiar to educated Greek-speaking readers. Ptolemy IV Philopator was king of Egypt from 221 to 203 BCE. Arsinoe was his sister, who later became his wife (brother-sister marriage was commonly practiced by the Ptolemies beginning with the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, most likely in imitation of the practice of the Egyptian pharaohs). The dramatic date of the narrative is 217 BCE, just before the battle of Raphia. Philopator\u2019s victory at Raphia (near Gaza, on the border between Egypt and Palestine) concluded the Fourth Syrian War (219\u2013217 BCE) against Antiochus III, king of Syria from 223 to 187 BCE. Polybius regarded the battle of Raphia as a major historical event and devoted eight chapters of his history to it (History 5.79\u201386).
\nfrom those who returned The beginning of the narrative is abrupt, suggesting a story that is already in progress. Some scholars see this as evidence that the beginning of the text has been lost (see also 3 Macc. 2:25). However, we are not missing any information that we need to understand the main story. The author may simply be imitating the style of Hellenistic historians such as Polybius, attempting to give the impression of presenting an excerpt from a longer historical narrative. This story opening could also be an example of the technique of in medias res (beginning in the middle of the narrative), used to heighten suspense and excitement in fictional narratives (e.g., Homer\u2019s Odyssey, Heliodorus\u2019s Ethiopika).
\n2. a certain Theodotus This Theodotus was not an obscure person (Theodotus tis in Greek) but a famous general, Theodotus the Aetolian. He originally served under Philopator, but had deserted to Antiochus two years before the events referred to here (History 5.40.1\u20133, 61.3\u201362.3) together with the forces he commanded (cf. \u201cthe best of the Ptolemaic arms that had been previously issued to him\u201d). Polybius too (5.81) reports that Theodotus tried to assassinate Philopator before the battle of Raphia, but gives a different account of the plot (see below).
\n3. Dositheus, known as the son of Drimylus Not found in Polybius. In his History (5.81.7), Polybius reports that the plot was foiled not by the arrangements of an alert courtier, but because Theodotus, having left Philopator\u2019s service two years earlier, did not have the correct information about Philopator\u2019s sleeping habits. A Dositheus, son of Drimylus, is attested in at least two papyri as a priest of Alexander under Philopator in 222 BCE. The papyri do not say that Dositheus was Jewish by birth; if he was, the pagan priesthood would have marked him as an apostate (see below). Dositheus is a common Jewish name, but it was also used by non-Jews. The patronymic Drimylus is not common, making it unlikely that the appearance of the name in both the papyri and 3 Maccabees is a coincidence. Whether or not the historical Dositheus of the papyri was Jewish, it appears that the author of 3 Maccabees used him as a model for the character of Dositheus in his account.
\na Jew by birth who later changed his religion Introduces the theme of apostasy, which will later become important in the narrative. Here, Philopator\u2019s life is saved by an apostate; this contrasts with the much more negative portrayal of apostates later in the text. The reason for having an apostate play a \u201cheroic\u201d role at this point in the story is not clear. It may imply that an apostate merely saves the life of the wicked king without doing anything to change his character, while the unwillingness of the faithful Jews to compromise leads (with God\u2019s help) to the king\u2019s reformation in the end.
\na certain insignificant man According to Polybius, this man\u2014who was killed in the king\u2019s place\u2014was his physician, Andreas (History, 5.81.6). The author of 3 Maccabees changes a rather unexciting historical footnote into a dramatic story about a Jewish courtier who saves the life of his king by his quick thinking, like Mordecai in the story of Esther (Esther 2:21\u201323).
\n4. Arsinoe went to the troops Polybius (History 5.83.1\u201384.1) has a slightly different version, in which Arsinoe addresses the troops before battle, not during it, and the amount promised to the soldiers is lower. The version given by the author of 3 Maccabees exaggerates the drama of the scene, a mark of the \u201cpathetic\u201d school of Hellenistic historiography, which favored melodrama over the dry recital of fact (cf. endnote 4).
\n6. Ptolemy decided to visit the neighboring cities Such postvictory tours were standard Hellenistic practice. Polybius (History 5.86.7\u201311) reports the tour of the cities of Palestine (and comments cynically on the eagerness of the cities to welcome him), but does not mention Jerusalem. A contemporary reference to Philopator\u2019s victory tour can be found in the Pithom inscription.
\n9. the supreme God Gk. megistos theos, a favorite expression of the author; see also 3 Macc. 1:16; 3:11; 4:16; 5:25; 7:22.
\nthe place Gk. topos, not modified by any adjective, is a common way of referring to the Temple and its precinct in Hellenistic Jewish literature; see also 3 Macc. 2:9\u201310, 14, 16.
\n1:10\u20132:24 Philopator attempts to enter the Temple at Jerusalem. Stories of foreign rulers attempting to invade temples and being punished for it are widespread in Hellenistic Jewish literature. All of these were unsuccessful attacks on the Temple in Jerusalem, or on sanctuaries devoted to other gods. Regarding allusions to foreign assaults upon the Temple in Rabbinic literature, Sukkah 56B alludes to the entrance of the \u201cGreeks\u201d into the sanctuary (apparently a reference to the persecutions under Antiochus IV), and Taanit 29A describes how the Gentiles entered the First Temple and began to desecrate it on the seventh of Av, as a prelude to its complete destruction on the ninth of Av. The historical reliability of each account must be evaluated on its own merits, but in general, such accounts should be viewed with skepticism if not corroborated by outside evidence. The motif can be traced back to an old Near Eastern motif of the ruler who is punished for attempting to violate a temple. In its details, the story in 3 Maccabees most closely resembles the Heliodorus incident in 2 Maccabees. It is possible that the author of 3 Maccabees knew 2 Maccabees, but more likely that both are drawing independently on oral tradition. Scholars of oral transmission have shown that it is common for a story to reappear in different contexts with a similar narrative body (the \u201cfabula\u201d\u2014e.g., a ruler attempts to violate the Temple), but different historical details (the \u201cstoryline\u201d\u2014e.g., the identity of the ruler, the details of the assault). There is no corroborating evidence for an assault on the Temple in the time of Philopator, and it is likely that both its appearance here in 3 Maccabees and the Heliodorus incident are variants on the same fabula.
\n10. conceived a desire to enter the holy of holies Philopator\u2019s desire to enter the Temple is initially motivated by admiration.
\n11. high priest \u2026 once a year The priests point to the requirements of their own Law to explain why they cannot allow Philopator to enter the Temple (cf. Exod. 30:10; Lev. 16:2, 11\u201312, 15, 34). In an attempt to appease the king and soften their apparent disobedience, the priests point out that even they themselves are not allowed to enter, with the sole exception of the high priest on one day of the year.
\n16. the priests \u2026 prostrated themselves When reasoned argument with the king fails, the first recourse is to prayer and supplication.
\n17. those who remained behind in the city Nearly every category of the population of Jerusalem (unmarried women, brides, mothers, young men, old men) turns out in response to the outcry of the priests (3 Macc. 1:17\u201325). The emotional behavior of crowds who have a stake in the outcome of some public event is a common feature both of pathetic Hellenistic history and of the later Greek novels; in the latter case, however, the emotions of the crowd are usually focused on the misfortunes of a young couple in love.
\n22. the bolder of the citizens Most people join the priests in prayer and supplication (1:21, 24, 27), but a few advocate taking up arms; it is significant that their violent impulses are restrained by cooler heads among the elders (1:23). The author of 3 Maccabees, unlike the authors of 1 Maccabees (2:40; 3:21; 13:3\u20136) and 2 Maccabees (8:1\u20134, among others), does not approve of armed resistance to foreign oppression.
\n29. preferred death to the profanation of the place Although this is the only passage that explicitly says that death is preferable to disobedience to the law, the same attitude is implied throughout the text (cf. 3 Macc. 2:31\u201332; 7:10\u201311). Many Hellenistic Jewish accounts contain stories of individuals who were willing to suffer extreme consequences rather than obey an order they regarded as being in violation of Jewish law; to cite only a few examples, see Dan. 1, 3, and 6, and 2 Macc. 6\u20137. Accounts of active or violent resistance are more rare, though naturally found most often in a Maccabean context (e.g., 2 Macc. 8, 15). Views could differ on the subject of acceptable ways of passively avoiding apostasy; see further the comment on 2:32 below.
\n2:1. the high priest Simon Apparently Simon II, son of Onias II. For other references to this priest, usually identified as \u201cSimon the Just,\u201d see Sir. 50:1\u201321 and Ant. 12.224.
\nprayed as follows The prayer (3 Macc. 2:1\u201320) follows traditional Hellenistic Jewish liturgical forms, as does Eleazar\u2019s prayer in 6:1\u201315. These Hellenistic forms are in turn based on earlier Hebrew forms, several of which can be documented from the postexilic period. The prayer begins by praising God\u2019s manifold attributes (3 Macc. 2:2\u20133), recalls a litany of past deliverances (2:4\u201311), and then requests help in the present crisis (2:12\u201320).
\n2\u20133 The praise of God focuses on his sovereign might (v. 2) and his roles as creator, ruler, and judge (v. 3).
\n4\u201311 The litany of God\u2019s previous interventions in history here includes the Flood (3 Macc. 2:4, cf. Gen. 6\u20138), the destruction of Sodom (3 Macc. 2:5, cf. Gen. 19), and the humiliation of Pharaoh (3 Macc. 2:7\u20138, cf. Gen. 5\u201315); in each case, arrogant and violent offenders were humbled by God. Simon also recalls God\u2019s choice of Jerusalem for his city and his Temple (3 Macc. 2:9\u201311). Similar topoi appear in later Jewish selihot (penitential prayers recited on the days leading up to Yom Kippur).
\n4. giants Genesis 6:4\u20137; the mythology surrounding the giants is much more fully developed in postbiblical Jewish literature and in Qumran. The connection made between the giants and the Flood, in particular, is more prominent in postbiblical accounts (Wis. 14:6, 1 En. 7:1\u20136).
\n5. notorious for their vices The nature of Sodom\u2019s vices (alluded to at Gen. 13:13; 18:20; 19:13) is never specified in Genesis. Later Jewish tradition considered a variety of explanations. Appropriately for this context, Simon emphasizes the arrogance of the men of Sodom.
\n6. many and varied punishments The third example of an arrogant offender struck down by God is Pharaoh, who receives fuller treatment than the previous two examples. The \u201cmany and varied punishments\u201d are the Ten Plagues (Exod. 7\u201312).
\n7. pursued \u2026 overwhelmed Exod. 14:5\u201330. As Pharaoh was humbled, so will Philopator be\u2014both in Jerusalem (3 Macc. 2:21\u201324) and back in Alexandria (5:12, 30; 6:19\u201322).
\n8. they praised you Exod. 15:1\u201321. In 3 Maccabees, the Jews likewise respond to each deliverance with praise (cf. 5:13, 35; 6:32).
\n10. you promised \u2026 you would listen 1 Kings 8:33\u201334, 48\u201350. Simon invokes God\u2019s past promises (at the time of the dedication of the Temple) as another reason to intervene in history on this occasion.
\n12\u201320 Having established God\u2019s history of past intervention and promises of protection, Simon appeals to God to intervene to protect the Temple from violation. God\u2019s miraculous intervention in answer to prayer on this occasion might have been read by some as contrasting implicitly with the lack of any such intervention at the time of the plundering and later desecration of the Temple by Antiochus IV in 168 and 167 BCE.
\n13. because of our many and great sins In accordance with Deuteronomistic theology, Simon presumes that this crisis must have been precipitated by Israel\u2019s own sin.
\n17. lest the transgressors boast Simon is primarily concerned for God\u2019s reputation: if the Temple is seen to be dishonored, it will bring dishonor to God\u2019s name.
\n22. paralyzed Similar to the punishment of Heliodorus (2 Macc. 3:22\u201330) and Antiochus IV (9:4\u20138).
\n24. he by no means repented Philopator\u2019s response to being struck down by God is very different from Heliodorus\u2019s in 2 Maccabees (3:35\u201339). Whereas for Heliodorus it is a cue to repent, for Philopator it becomes (curiously) an excuse to persecute the Jews of Alexandria. In both cases, the king\u2019s response to divine punishment seems to be a free choice; we do not hear here, as in Exodus (4:21, e.g.), of God \u201chardening the king\u2019s heart.\u201d Why the author makes this connection between events in Palestine and events in Egypt is not entirely clear. If it was the author who joined originally independent traditions about crises in Palestine and Egypt, it would serve to establish a narrative connection between the two. Alternatively, it might be meant to exculpate the Jews of Egypt, presumably the main audience for the story, who did nothing to provoke the king\u2019s initial anger.
\n25. he increased in his deeds of malice The historical sources for the reign of Philopator are universally hostile, portraying his rule as tyrannical and debauched.
\npreviously mentioned drinking companions They have not, in fact, previously been mentioned. \u201cAforementioned\u201d (here Gk. proapodedeigmen\u014dn, along with other variations) is a favorite word of Polybius, so if this is not evidence of a lost beginning (see comment on 1:1), it may be a clumsy stylistic tribute. Philopator\u2019s drinking companions were notorious, and feature prominently in the historical accounts of his reign.
\n27. proposed to inflict public disgrace Philopator\u2019s sudden interest in registering the Jews is one of the many puzzling inconsistencies in the narrative. It is not immediately obvious why he visits his wrath for what happened at Jerusalem on the Jews of Alexandria. The plan to register the Jews of Alexandria then becomes further confused with Philopator\u2019s subsequent plan to execute all the Jews of Egypt. Philopator\u2019s actions are best explained not in terms of a rational governing policy, but in terms of their impact on the Jews; they are calculated by the author to place the Jews in an escalating series of predicaments that will force them to choose between the demands of the state and the demands of their faith.
\n28. None of those who do not sacrifice shall enter their sanctuaries This has no intelligible purpose except to force the Jews to sacrifice to pagan gods if they wish to continue practicing their own faith. It could also be interpreted as a slap at the Jews of Jerusalem, who refused Philopator entrance to their sanctuary. Philopator\u2019s behavior recalls the actions of Antiochus IV, who also imposed a set of regulations at Jerusalem whose sole purpose was to force Jews to violate portions of their law. Daniel (11:30) interpreted Antiochus\u2019s actions at Jerusalem as public retaliation for his humiliation at the hands of the Romans in Alexandria; here, Philopator retaliates against the Jews of Alexandria for his humiliation in Jerusalem.
\nregistration involving poll tax A controversial passage (Gk. eis laographian kai oiketik\u0113n diathesin), whose interpretation is far from clear. The term laographia is best attested in Roman times as a poll tax that was applied to the Egyptian populace, but not to Greek citizens. The use of the term here was once taken as an indication of a Roman date for 3 Maccabees, but the same term has now been found in the Ptolemaic papyri, where it probably has the same meaning: a tax that applies only to the laos (the Egyptian population). The Jews of Egypt were always anxious to be counted with the more-privileged Greeks rather than the less-privileged Egyptians (cf. 3 Macc. 2:30 and 3:8), and thus registration for the laographia would automatically be regarded as a reduction in status (oiketik\u0113n diathesin).
\n29. branded on their bodies Another strange provision, since registration for a poll tax would not ordinarily involve branding. Normally, only the adherents of a cult would be branded, and for them it would be a mark of honor, not disgrace. For a Jew, however, to be branded with the ivy leaf of Dionysus would certainly be a mark of apostasy. Again, the law has no purpose except to force the Jews into apostasy. Antiochus is said by the author of 2 Maccabees to have forced Dionysiac worship on the Jews of Jerusalem (2 Macc. 6:7).
\nDionysus Philopator was particularly devoted to the cult of Dionysus; the negative historical tradition criticized his excessive passion for the rites (cf. esp. Plutarch, Ag. Cleom. 33.1\u20132; Justin, Hist. Phil. 30.1). As a reform measure, he issued a decree governing the registration of the members of the cult. It is remotely possible that the Dionysiac decree was used as a model for Philopator\u2019s decree against the Jews, but the Dionysiac decree was not meant to punish anyone.
\n30. initiated into the mysteries The Jews can only escape apostasy through apostasy, by being formally initiated into the mysteries of Dionysus. Thus their choices are voluntary apostasy (initiation into the mysteries), involuntary apostasy (through registration and branding), or death (for those who resist registration).
\nequal citizenship Gk. toutous isopolitas Alexandreusin einai, lit. \u201cthey shall be isopolitai (\u2018equal citizens\u2019) to\/with the Alexandrians.\u201d There is a difference between being granted Greek citizenship outright (politai, politeia: citizens, citizenship) and being granted the right of isopoliteia, which entitles one to all the rights enjoyed by citizens. Equality with the Greek citizens of Alexandria is held out as a carrot to balance the stick. Josephus would later claim, probably through his own bias, that the Jews had always been citizens of Alexandria. Here, it is worth noting that the Jews are not offered citizenship as such, but isopoliteia, an equality of rights, which by definition could only be given to someone who did not already hold citizenship. Honorary grants of isopoliteia were common in the Hellenistic world.
\n31. readily gave themselves up \u2026 expected to enhance their reputation Some become apostates voluntarily, a choice the author clearly disapproves of. The apostates are motivated by hope of gain\u2014specifically, a higher social status at court\u2014as well as fear of punishment.
\n32. the majority acted firmly \u2026 paying money in exchange for life The majority, who are unwilling to violate their faith through initiation or through registration, seek other options short of open defiance, such as bribing officials not to register them. The author seems to regard this as a wholly acceptable alternative to apostasy. By contrast, during the persecution of the Christians in 250 CE, those who bribed officials to obtain a false certificate claiming they had sacrificed when they had not were known as libellatici and were regarded as a subcategory of lapsi, those who had \u201clapsed\u201d under pressure, only slightly less culpable than those who actually sacrificed (Cyprian, De Lapsis).
\n33. they abhorred those who separated themselves \u2026 considering them to be enemies The majority attitude toward apostates, which is uncompromisingly hostile, begins with shunning; it will become more violent before the story is over.
\n3:1. Alexandria \u2026 the countryside A distinction is made between the Jews of Alexandria and the Jews of the ch\u014dra, the territory of Egypt outside Alexandria; see also 3 Macc. 4:11\u201312. The administrative distinction between Alexandria and the ch\u014dra was standard in Hellenistic Egypt. The king\u2019s decision to shift from registering Jews to executing them is ascribed to his anger at discovering the attempts of the Jews to avoid registration, but again, it is not clear why he would extend his anger at the Jews of Alexandria to encompass all the Jews of Egypt. Like Antiochus\u2019s persecution of the Jews at Jerusalem, Philopator\u2019s actions appear to the reader to be simply cruel and irrational, escalating in severity without reason. Cf. Haman in the book of Esther (3:5\u20136), who became obsessed with destroying not only Mordecai but all the Jews simply because Mordecai refused to bow down to him.
\n2. hostile rumor The Jews have some enemies, who slander them. This motif appears frequently in Hellenistic Jewish texts, and even earlier. Cf, Ezra 4:6\u20137 (certainly pre-Hellenistic); Esther 3:8 (possibly pre-Hellenistic); Dan. 3:8; 6:4; and 2 Macc. 3:4\u20135; 4:1. Typically the enemies are outsiders (Gentiles, Samaritans), but in 2 Maccabees, we find rival factions among the Jews slandering each other to the ruling authority.
\nthey hindered others The slanderous allegations are consistent with anti-Jewish sentiments found elsewhere: the Jews are suspected of being hostile to their neighbors and disloyal to the state because they keep separate in matters of food and worship (cf. 3 Macc. 3:7, 22\u201324). This theme is paralleled in the book of Esther (Esther 3:8, e.g.). See further comments on 3 Macc. 3:4 and 3:24, below.
\n3. unswerving loyalty The loyalty of the Jews to the crown is emphasized throughout the text, even when the king least appears to deserve their loyalty; see also 1:8, 23; 5:31; 6:25\u201326; 7:11. This contrasts with the repeated assertion, placed in the mouth of the Jews\u2019 enemies, that the Jews are inherently disloyal (cf. 3:7, 24; 7:3\u20134).
\n4. separateness with respect to foods This author identifies keeping kosher as the primary mark of separation between Jews and Gentiles, and also identifies it (probably rightly) as one of the leading causes of anti-Jewish feeling. It is however a point on which there can be no compromise. The Letter of Aristeas devotes considerable energy to defending the rational justification for keeping the dietary laws (128\u2013166), and throughout the text, emphasis is placed upon the commitment to keeping this law (e.g., 181, where the king is careful to provide proper accommodations at the state dinner he hosts for the envoys). For texts which illustrate the impossibility of compromise on this point, see Dan. 1 or 2 Macc. 6\u20137.
\n5. good repute among all men The author goes out of his way to contrast the hostility of a few (3 Macc. 3:2, 4) with the goodwill of the majority. The Jews do have enemies, but their enemies are in the minority. A virtuous way of life earns the respect of most outsiders.
\n6. other races The identity of the allophyloi is not specified, but most likely refers to the Egyptians, in contrast with Greeks, who are specifically singled out in 3:8. In reality, ethnic lines in Hellenistic Alexandria were blurred: those referred to as \u201cGreeks\u201d would have included many Hellenized upper-class Egyptians, and those called \u201cEgyptian\u201d were heavily intermarried with Greeks and spoke mostly Greek. However, the perceived class distinction between higher-status \u201cGreeks\u201d and lower-status \u201cEgyptians\u201d is clear in the sources from the Hellenistic period on. Polybius harshly criticizes the behavior of the Alexandrian mob, whom he characterizes as more Egyptian than Greek. In Roman times Josephus and Philo identify the Alexandrian mob as primarily Egyptian and bitterly hostile to the Jews. They, like the author of 3 Maccabees in 3:8, are at pains to distinguish \u201cGreeks\u201d as a higher-status group who are more sympathetic to the Jews.
\n8. Greeks The Greek citizens of Alexandria were the social elite\u2014wealthy, enjoying strong legal protections, highly educated, and most likely to be associated with the court. The author distinguishes them from the hostile allophyloi and characterizes them as sympathetic to the Jews but unable to do anything to help (3:8\u201310; cf. Darius in Dan. 6 and the Greeks of Antioch in 2 Macc. 4:36).
\ntyranny Philopator\u2019s reign is represented as tyrannical by the historical sources (see comment on 3 Macc. 2:25). Here, the tyranny of his reign is a convenient excuse to explain why the sympathetic Greeks stand by and do nothing.
\n11. boastful of his \u2026 good fortune Cf. Nebuchadnezzar in Dan. 4:29\u201331. Like Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4:34\u201337), Philopator will learn his lesson (3 Macc. 7:2).
\n12\u201329. Philopator\u2019s first letter The citation of documents was popular in Hellenistic historiography, and is found also in many postbiblical and Hellenistic Jewish texts. The literary style of both this and Philopator\u2019s second letter (3 Macc. 7:1\u20139) is different from the rest of the narrative. The letters mimic the official style of the Ptolemaic bureaucracy, giving an illusion of authenticity. Both are however undoubtedly forgeries that faithfully mirror the events of the main narrative and develop the author\u2019s main themes. This practice is already found to a more limited extent in the biblical books of Ezra and Esther, and is significantly expanded in the Greek translation of Esther (Add. Esth. B and E, cited above).
\n12. King Ptolemy Philopator \u2026 greetings and good health A typical opening formula (cf. 7:1\u20132). However, official letters in Philopator\u2019s time (the late 3rd century BCE) did not use the king\u2019s royal epithet (in this case, Philopator), but usually began \u201cKing Ptolemy, to (addressee).\u201d They also did not use the formula \u201cgreetings and good health\u201d (chairein kai err\u014dsthai); a simple chairein, \u201cgreetings,\u201d was preferred. The use of the cognomen and the formula \u201cgreetings and good health\u201d are attested only during the 1st century BCE. It is likely that the author used the formula that was most familiar in his own time to give a (false) impression of authenticity.
\n15. benevolence Gr. philanthr\u014dpia, an essential quality for a Hellenistic king to display (cf. 3:18, 20).
\n16. wicked people The typical anti-Jewish slanders (see comment on 3:2) are placed in the king\u2019s mouth throughout this letter (cf. 3:18\u201320, 22\u201324).
\n18. they were spared The king omits to mention his paralysis (2:22\u201324), and claims to have spared the Jews of Jerusalem due to his philanthr\u014dpia (see comment on 3:15).
\n21. entrusted to them In the 2nd century BCE, many Jews occupied high positions in the Egyptian court and army. The narrative of 3 Maccabees reflects this reality (cf. 1:3; 6:25).
\ndeem them worthy The rewards held out for apostasy in 3 Macc. 2:28\u201330 are disingenuously represented as a benefaction, ungratefully spurned by the Jews.
\n23. abominate those few The shunning of the apostates is cited as further evidence of Jewish disloyalty.
\n24. behind our backs Kings from Pharaoh to Ahasuerus worried that the Jews, as a potentially disloyal element of the population, might rebel when the country was under attack from outside forces. Cf. Exod. 1:10; Esther 3:8, and see the expansion of the basic idea of Esther 3:8 in Add. Esth. C (13:3\u20136).
\n27. whoever shelters The penalties for sheltering a Jew (3 Macc. 3:27, 29) and the rewards for information (3:28) serve to involve the entire country in the persecution; cf. Esther 3:13, which charges the entire population (likewise by royal decree) with the duty of slaughtering the Jews on a given date.
\n4:1. shouts and gladness The most vivid portrait of Gentile (tois ethnesin) hostility toward the Jews. Cf. 3 Macc. 3:2, 4 for the enemies of the Jews, but 3:5, 8\u201310 and 4:4 for evidence of sympathy.
\n2. incessant mourning Public celebration is contrasted with public lamentation. As in 1:16\u201320, every category of society is represented among the Jews who publicly mourn their fate. The author dwells on the lurid details of their suffering (4:4\u201310) in the pathetic style (cf. 2 Macc. 2:21; 6:8\u201311; 7:1\u201342; 9:6).
\n11. hippodrome The hippodrome (stadium) was located near the east gate of the city. The author does not consider the question of how Philopator\u2019s forces proposed to fit all of the Jews of Egypt into one hippodrome, however sizeable.
\n12. compatriots from the city Why the Jews of Alexandria (as opposed to the ch\u014dra) are only now targeted (3 Macc. 4:13, contrary to what is implied at 3:1) is completely unclear. Again, the pattern seems to be one of escalating oppression, regardless of logic.
\n14. registered individually The registration continues, although there is no longer any reason for it. Registration was needed for the purpose of taxation, but not for the purpose of execution.
\n15. forty days A standard biblical measure for \u201ca very long time.\u201d This figure, along with 4:17 and 20, stresses the number of the Jews who were threatened, regardless of the fact that such numbers would make the proposed execution in the hippodrome logistically impossible.
\n20. paper and \u2026 pens Considering the extent of the Ptolemaic bureaucracy, this was an act of \u201cinvincible providence\u201d (4:21) indeed.
\n21. invincible providence At each step, the need for direct, miraculous divine intervention is stressed (cf. 2:21; 5:11, 28; 6:18).
\n5:2. five hundred An outrageously large number; like the number 40, it may be a convenient round number for \u201ca great many.\u201d Philopator had only 73 elephants at Raphia. The Seleucids at the end of the 4th century BCE had received 500 elephants as a gift from the Indian king Chandra-gupta. It is unlikely that Philopator captured virtually the entire elephant arsenal of the Seleucid Empire at Raphia, or that he would have loosed every elephant he owned upon the Jews\u2014even if they could all fit in one hippodrome.
\n3. returned to his feasting The king repeatedly (3 Macc. 4:16; 5:3, 16, 36) turns from ordering the destruction of the Jews to feasting with his friends, the portrait of a tyrant in both Jewish (cf. Esther 3:15; Dan. 5:1\u20134) and Greek (cf. 3 Macc. 5:20, 42) tradition. The ancient sources describe Philopator as both cruel and addicted to drinking parties.
\nespecially hostile toward the Jews The enemies of the Jews at court are equated with Philopator\u2019s notorious drinking companions (cf. 3 Macc. 2:25), who are harshly criticized in the historical sources on Philopator\u2019s reign. Those who wished to harm the Jews also had a corrupting influence on the king and the state.
\n7. praying At each stage of the crisis, the Jews call upon God in prayer (3 Macc. 5:7, 25; 5:50\u20136:15), and in each case their prayers are answered by divine intervention (5:11, 28; 6:18). The third and last stage of the persecution is the climax, closely paralleling events at Jerusalem (2:20\u201321).
\n8. glorious manifestation Gk. epiphaneias. In 2 Macc. 2:21, this word is used for God\u2019s repeated interventions in the wars of the Maccabees, contrasting pointedly with the claim of Antiochus IV to be Theos Epiphan\u0113s, God Manifest.
\n11. portion of sleep The king\u2019s oversleeping is explicitly identified as an act of God. The manner in which the Jews are spared at 3 Macc. 5:11 (the king oversleeps) and 5:28 (the king forgets his own orders) is somewhat comical, but appropriate for the historical Philopator, who was accused of being lazy and of neglecting state affairs for his drinking. Cf. the account of the Ahasuerus\u2019 insomnia in Esther 6:1, which prompts him to call for a reading of the royal annals and serves as the turning point in Mordecai\u2019s fortunes. See further on v. 28 below.
\n14. tenth hour The hours of the day were counted from sunrise, so the king slept until midafternoon.
\n20. Phalaris Tyrant of Agrigentum (ca. 570\u2013554 BCE), notorious for his cruelty (Polybius, History 12.25); cited again at 3 Macc. 5:42 (cf. 3:8). The author portrays Philopator (until his reform) as a Greek tyrant in the worst sense of the word: cruel to his subjects, capricious, and contemptuous of the rule of law. The allusions to Philopator as a Greek tyrant are paralleled by allusions to oppressive rulers in the biblical tradition; cf. Eleazar\u2019s prayer, 6:4\u20137.
\n24. crowds \u2026 assembled The repeated emphasis on public spectacle (cf., e.g., 1:16\u201329; 5:41, 46; 6:16\u201317) is a mark both of the pathetic school of history and of the later Greek novels.
\n28. act of God Again, the king\u2019s forgetfulness is explicitly identified as divine providence. This contrasts with the Hebrew book of Esther, where similar events (Esther 6:1, e.g.) are not explicitly marked but left open to the reader\u2019s interpretation. This is in keeping with the fact that the Hebrew book of Esther never explicitly mentions God. The Greek translation of Esther inserts references to the deliberate action of God at Esther 6:1 and other comparable points.
\n30. deranged It is when Philopator is deranged by God that he becomes most sane. Here the transformation is temporary; it will become permanent at 3 Macc. 6:22.
\n31. full and firm loyalty It is only while temporarily under God\u2019s influence that Philopator recognizes the true loyalty of his Jewish subjects; again, this realization will become permanent later (6:24\u201325; 7:7, 11\u201312).
\n37. How many times Philopator\u2019s capricious treatment of Hermon is comical, but also underlines his tyrannical character.
\n41. masses of people The author betrays his unconscious sympathy with the elite view of the Alexandrian populace as an unruly, dangerous mob, an attitude he shares with Polybius, Philo, and Josephus.
\n42. Phalaris \u2026 filled with madness The king\u2019s treatment of the Jews is explicitly marked as insane, as well as tyrannical; a legitimate ruler would not act so.
\n43. Judea The link with Jerusalem and the Temple, apparently forgotten since 2:24, resurfaces here. Events in Egypt can have repercussions for the Jews of Palestine, just as events in Jerusalem originally stirred up the king\u2019s anger against the Jews of Egypt. Cf. Dan. 11:30, where Antiochus IV (\u201cthe king of the north\u201d) is said to have vented his frustration at being turned away from Egypt by Rome (\u201cKittim\u201d) by desecrating the Temple at Jerusalem.
\nburning to the ground Philopator\u2019s threats recall Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s destruction of the First Temple (2 Kings 25:9) as well as Antiochus IV\u2019s desecration of the Second Temple (1 Macc. 1:54; 6:1\u20136).
\n49. giving way to lamentation The author elaborates upon the pitiful spectacle of the Jewish captives in the pathetic manner; see comment on 3 Macc. 4:2.
\n6:1. Eleazar At the climactic point of the persecution in Egypt, Eleazar offers a prayer closely parallel to that of the high priest, Simon, in Jerusalem (3 Macc. 2:1\u201320); this emphasizes the parallel course of events in Jerusalem and Egypt. Eleazar was a popular name in Hellenistic Jewish folklore, often borne by men of advanced age and great piety (cf. 4 Macc. 6:5); cf. the high priest in the Letter of Aristeas (par. 1, 41), and the scribe Eleazar who was martyred during the Maccabean revolt (2 Macc. 6:18\u201331, 4 Macc. 5:1\u20137:23).
\npriests of the country Many commentators see this as a reference to priests of the temple at Leontopolis, the only Jewish temple in Egypt. However, priests (kohanim) were to be found in many Jewish communities in the Diaspora, even those that lacked a temple. The temple at Leontopolis was indeed located in the ch\u014dra (cf. comment on 3 Macc. 3:1), but was not built until the 2nd century BCE\u2014anachronistic for the dramatic date of this story, although it would presumably have been in existence at the time when the book was composed.
\n2\u201315 Like Simon\u2019s prayer, Eleazar\u2019s prayer follows Jewish liturgical form: praise of God\u2019s attributes (6:2\u20133), invocation of God\u2019s past miracles (6:4\u20138), and a plea for renewed divine intervention (6:9\u201315). It probably reflects the liturgy of the synagogues of Hellenistic Egypt.
\n4. Pharaoh Cf. Exod. 5\u201315. In recalling a litany of God\u2019s past miracles, Eleazar picks up where Simon left off, with the archetypal persecutor, Pharaoh. He recites five miracles of deliverance: the destruction of Pharaoh\u2019s army (3 Macc 6:4), the frustration of Sennacherib\u2019s siege of Jerusalem (v. 5), the rescue of Daniel\u2019s three companions (v. 6; cf. Dan. 3), the rescue of Daniel himself from the lions (3 Macc. 6:7; cf. Dan. 6), and the rescue of Jonah from the whale (3 Macc. 6:8; cf. Jon. 2).
\n5. Sennacherib King of Assyria (705\u2013681 BCE), who unsuccessfully attempted to take Jerusalem by siege in 701 BCE (2 Kings 18\u201319; 2 Chron. 32; Isa. 36\u201337).
\n6. three companions Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 3).
\nmoistening \u2026 with dew Echoes the Greek translation of Daniel (Pr. Azar. 26\u201327 = Dan. 3:49\u201350 LXX), suggesting that the date of 3 Maccabees cannot be earlier than about 100 BCE, when the Greek translation of Daniel was probably made.
\n10. entangled in impieties As in Simon\u2019s prayer (3 Macc. 2:13, 17), Eleazar (in accordance with Deuteronomistic principles) acknowledges that the crisis may be the consequence of some sin, but nevertheless pleads for God to consider his own reputation and find some other way of punishing the Jews that will not allow their enemies to boast.
\n22. anger was turned to pity From this point on, Philopator is permanently transformed into a benevolent king who protects the Jews. The portrait of the reformed Philopator systematically inverts the portrayal of the tyrant Philopator. The tyrant Philopator was under the thumb of his wicked friends and persecuted the Jews; the reformed Philopator warmly defends the Jews and attacks his wicked friends. There are many similarities between the reformed (good) Philopator and the benevolent king in the Letter of Aristeas, Ptolemy II Philadelphus.
\n24. committing treason Earlier, the friends had encouraged Philopator to believe that the Jews were disloyal (3 Macc. 2:25\u201326; 3:7, 24); now Philopator turns on the friends and accuses them of disloyalty.
\nsurpassing tyrants Previously, Philopator\u2019s rule was described as cruel and tyrannical (3:8, and cf. 5:20, 42); now, Philopator accuses the friends of being cruel tyrants.
\n25. Who is it Disingenuously, the king is quick to disclaim any part in the persecution of the Jews (cf. also 7:3\u20135). His tendency to blame everything on others, to represent himself as purely benevolent, and to minimize his own responsibility is the one element of his character that remains constant throughout. A similar cynicism can be found in the portrait of Ahasuerus in Esther; it may reflect the attitudes of an audience that was basically accepting of foreign rule but nevertheless realistic about the limitations of their rulers.
\nfaithfully have held Philopator praises the steadfast loyalty of the Jews to the state, just as he did when he was temporarily under God\u2019s influence (5:31). This confirms the author\u2019s own claim (3:3) that the Jews had always been loyal to the state.
\n26. goodwill toward us Inverts the earlier claim that the Jews are inherently ill-disposed toward the state and toward other people (3:2, 7, 22\u201325).
\n28. almighty and living God Like other reformed persecutors (e.g., Nebuchadnezzar in Dan. 4:36), Philopator praises God for maintaining the stability of his own kingdom, in terms that would be more appropriate for a convert to Judaism (cf. 3 Macc. 6:33; 7:2, 9).
\n30. provide to the Jews Philopator now becomes a benefactor to the Jews, providing them with whatever they need (cf. 6:33, 40\u201341; 7:12, 18).
\n34. groaned The chagrin of the enemies of the Jews, and the complete reversal of their position, is reminiscent of that of Haman in Esther (Esther 6:11\u201312; 7:9\u201310).
\n36. ordained a public rite The feasting of the Jews upon their deliverance becomes the occasion for instituting an annual festival. Josephus\u2019s account of the elephant legend (Ag. Ap. 2.53\u201355) mentions the same festival, and it seems likely that the festival itself gave rise to the story of the Jews\u2019 deliverance. As in the case of Esther and the festival of Purim (where the story likewise may have arisen in order to explain the festival), it is not now possible to determine with any certainty how the festival itself came into existence, and the existence of divergent accounts in Josephus and 3 Maccabees suggests that the Alexandrians themselves did not know.
\nnot for drinking and gluttony May very well indicate that this festival was viewed as being in competition with Purim, a festival that was sometimes associated with drinking and gluttony. We know from the Greek translation of Esther (Add. Esth. F = Esther 11:1) that some in Jerusalem were actively promoting the celebration of Purim in Egypt in the late Hellenistic period.
\n7:1. greetings and good health See comment on 3 Macc. 3:12 for the greeting formula.
\n2. and our children An addition not found in the first letter (cf. 3:13). At the dramatic date of the letter (shortly after 217 BCE) Philopator was still unmarried, and indeed he never had more than one child. His son, who was born in 209 or 208 BCE, became Ptolemy V Epiphanes (203\u2013181 BCE). The reference to \u201cchildren\u201d is part of the portrait of Philopator as an ideal Hellenistic monarch; multiple heirs would assure an unbroken succession.
\ngreat God See comment on 6:28. Philopator now attributes the prosperity of his kingdom to God\u2019s guidance.
\n3. Certain of our friends Philopator publicly shifts all of the blame for the affair onto his friends; see comment on 6:25.
\n4. they declared The anti-Jewish slander that Philopator originally embraced (3:2, 7) and publicly endorsed in his first letter (3:22\u201324) is here put into the mouths of the friends and firmly rejected.
\n5. Scythian custom As in 6:24 (see comment), the accusation of cruelty is shifted from Philopator himself to his friends. As Phalaris was legendary in Greek tradition for tyrannical cruelty (5:20, 42), the Scythians were proverbial among the Greeks for their barbaric cruelty (Herodotus, Hist. 1.3; 4.65, 69; cf. 2 Macc. 4:47; 4 Macc. 10:7).
\n6. clemency In his first letter (3 Macc. 3:18, 20), Philopator dishonestly cited his benevolence (philanthr\u014dpia) as the sole reason why the Jews of Jerusalem were spared his wrath; now it is the friends who are out of Philopator\u2019s favor, and are spared only by his clemency (epieikeia). The wording of 7:6 (\u201cwhich we have toward all men\u201d) is almost identical to 3:18.
\nsurely defends the Jews Philopator endorses the Jewish view of God as a father and protector of the Jewish people, which is reflected in the prayers of Simon (2:2\u201320) and Eleazar (6:2\u201315); cf. also 6:28; 7:2, 9 for Philopator\u2019s acknowledgment of God\u2019s power and concern for the Jews.
\n7. friendly and firm goodwill The loyalty of the Jews toward the state, which the author has insisted upon (3:3) and which even Philopator has repeatedly acknowledged (3:21, 30; 6:25\u201326) is now publicly proclaimed, decisively refuting the slanderous claim of Jewish disloyalty.
\n10. requested of the king It is notable that the Jews officially ask permission before punishing the apostates, thus affirming their loyalty to the king. The petitioners make a direct connection between disloyalty toward God and disloyalty toward the state (7:11), and Philopator accepts their reasoning when he grants permission (v. 12). This directly refutes the common anti-Jewish claim (cf. esp. 3:7) that fidelity to Jewish Law was fundamentally incompatible with loyalty to the state. The rejection of apostates by the Jewish community, which was condemned as a mark of disloyalty in the king\u2019s first letter (3:23), now receives royal approval.
\n12. without royal authority or supervision Cf. the authorization granted the Jews in Esther 8:11 to defend themselves against Gentile aggression; the difference is that the Jews in 3 Maccabees are authorized to be the aggressors, and those targeted are not Gentiles but fellow Jews.
\n15. three hundred men A chilling figure; but cf. the 500 Gentiles killed by the Jews at Susa in Esther 9:11, and the 75,000 killed throughout the Persian empire (Esther 9:16).
\n21. greater prestige among their enemies So also in Esther; cf. Esther 8:17; 9:2\u20133.
\n23. Amen The last line of the book suggests that it was very likely read aloud in a liturgical context, perhaps annually on the date of the festival it commemorates, as in the case of Esther.<\/p>\n
Historical Writings Set in Post-Biblical Times<\/p>\n
The selections here are mixed in their aim and genre, as well as the manner in which they have come down to us, but all have been mined by historians for information about the Second Temple period. Except for 1 Maccabees, all were originally written in Greek. They put a distinctive spin on the part of Jewish history with which they are concerned. Some (e.g., Josephus\u2019s writings) have an apologetic component as well, directed at both Jewish and non-Jewish audiences, and portray through that history a particular view of Jews and Judaism that brings the faith into line with the best of Greco-Roman values.<\/p>\n
The Letter of Aristeas<\/p>\n
Erich S. Gruen<\/p>\n
The Letter of Aristeas (Let. Aris.) is no real letter. It purports to be a communication from a certain Aristeas to his brother Philocrates. The work professes to describe the events that led to the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, an episode of the highest consequence for Hellenistic Judaism\u2014and indeed for Christianity. The outcome of that endeavor, the Septuagint (LXX), became for Christians their \u201cOld Testament.\u201d Although his mouthpiece is Aristeas, presented as a pagan courtier and intellectual, the author himself is obviously a Jew with a decidedly Jewish agenda.<\/p>\n
Authorship and History<\/p>\n
Both writer and addressee ostensibly served in the court of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, ruler of Egypt in the first half of the 3rd century BCE, but neither may ever have existed. The unknown author simply employs Aristeas as a pseudonym. What kind of a work was this? Reference to the communication comes only at the beginning and at the end. And even there, Aristeas describes it as a di\u0113g\u0113sis, an unspecific and widely applicable term, signifying a literary prose narrative (par. 1, 8, 322). No ancient writer ever calls it a letter. Di\u0113g\u0113sis can encompass any number of genres and fits snugly into none; it could count as a piece of historical fiction, a monograph, or even a novella. The treatise as a whole is one of a kind, but different features have close affinities with a range of Hellenistic writings.
\nThe Letter bears little relation to historical events. Scholars have expended considerable energy in attempting to ascertain where the core elements of truth may lie in the text and what parts of it have a claim on historicity. But even those most inclined to find some reality behind the traditions of the translation acknowledge that the narrator has encased it with colorful inventions and embellishments. Few would endorse, for example, the legend of 72 translators completing their work in precisely 72 days, the high priest\u2019s lecture on Jewish practices to the envoys of Ptolemy, or the long and tedious interrogation of Jewish elders at a Greek symposium in Alexandria. But Aristeas does not aim for historical accuracy. Nor, on the other hand, does he set out to deceive readers with the pretense of a verifiable narrative. The author offers verisimilitude rather than history, employing known figures and plausible circumstances to present the portrait of mutual benefits enjoyed by Jewish learning and Hellenic patronage.
\nThe date of composition remains a matter of some dispute. That it did not occur at the time portrayed, the age of Ptolemy Philadelphus in the 3rd century BCE, is clear enough from some historical blunders and other slips (such as a reference to the regular practices of Ptolemaic \u201ckings,\u201d which would be an odd statement in the reign of Ptolemy II). Most scholars opt for a date around 200 BCE or a half century or so later. But no one can doubt that this narrative is the construct of a Jewish author, one clearly at home in Ptolemaic Alexandria, familiar with the protocols of the court, even with the formulas of diplomatic correspondence, yet also deeply committed to the principles of Judaism and the faith of the fathers. Hence, the text, whatever its historicity or lack thereof, is itself a document of historical importance. Its value lies not in extracting nuggets of fact from a largely fictional fa\u00e7ade, but rather in using the work as a window upon Jewish mentality in the circumstances of a Diaspora community.<\/p>\n
Contents and Structure<\/p>\n
The story of the translation provides a frame for the narrative, but only a frame. The author introduces at the outset the decision to produce a Greek rendition of the Hebrew Bible\u2014or rather of the Pentateuch. The initial impetus comes allegedly from Demetrius of Phalerum, chief librarian in Alexandria, who persuades King Ptolemy to authorize the addition of the \u201claws of the Jews\u201d to the shelves of the great Library. This requires translation, for the available Hebrew texts are carelessly and improperly drawn up. Ptolemy duly composes a letter to the high priest in Jerusalem, to be delivered in person by Aristeas and another courtier, seeking translators. The high priest Eleazar happily complies with the request (handsome gifts from Ptolemy help to facilitate matters) and selects 72 Jewish scholars, 6 from each tribe, experts in both languages, to do the job. And at the close of the treatise, Aristeas returns to the labors of the Jewish sages in Alexandria, who complete their task in precisely 72 days. Demetrius assembles the Jews of Alexandria and reads out to them the finished translation, which they receive with great applause. The priests and leaders of the Jewish community pronounce it a definitive version, not a line of it to be altered. Ptolemy joins them in admiration, pays reverence to the new Bible, and lavishes gifts upon the Jewish scholars.
\nTranslation of the Torah thus brackets the book. But much more transpires inside the brackets. In fact, the segments dealing with the process and results of the translation constitute only about one-sixth of the whole. The author plainly has more in mind than the tale of rendering the holy books into Greek. His narrative has significant implications for the place of Jewish intellectuals in the society of Ptolemaic Alexandria and, more broadly, in the culture of Hellenism. The story that it tells has traditionally served as the prime document of a harmonious and mutually beneficial interchange between Greek and Jew.
\nThe Letter offers a showcase for the familiarity of Jewish intellectuals with diverse features and forms of Greek literature. For example, the lengthy segment on Aristeas\u2019s visit to Jerusalem\u2014with its detailed description of the features of the landscape, the setting of the citadel, the terrain of the city, the geography of its surroundings, the appointments of the Temple, and the garb of the priests, much of it remote from reality\u2014evokes the geographical treatises and the utopian literature common in the Hellenistic era (par. 83\u2013120). Eleazar\u2019s explanation of peculiar Jewish customs in turn provides parallels to the ethnographic digressions that were equally common in literature of that period. The Letter frequently cites and quotes documents, whether royal decrees, memoranda, administrative reports, or letters, a practice regularly found in Greek historiography.
\nThe extended symposium that takes place in paragraphs 187\u2013294 is, of course, a thoroughly Hellenic institution, and most of the Jewish sages respond to the king\u2019s questions with answers drawn from Greek philosophy or political theory. The high priest, in recounting the significance of Jewish dietary prescriptions, explains them in good Greek style either as having a rational basis or as requiring allegorical interpretation (par. 128\u2013171). The author describes him, in fact, in terms befitting a Greek aristocrat, a man of kalokagathia (par. 3). The text includes learned allusions to Greek intellectuals like Menedemus, Hecataeus of Abdera, Theopompus, and Theodectes. Perhaps most striking is the process of translation itself as presented in the narrative. The project arises when the librarian finds Hebrew copies to be deficient and inadequate (par. 29\u201330). And the Jewish scholars, when they set about their task in comfortable quarters supplied by Ptolemy, do so by dividing labors, comparing drafts, and arriving at an agreed-upon text (par. 301\u2013312, 317\u2013321). This surely replicates, at least in principle, the type of subsidized scholarship promoted by the court and carried out by the Museum in Alexandria.<\/p>\n
Significance<\/p>\n
The author is plainly steeped in Greek literature. Adopting the pose of Aristeas comes naturally and easily for one conversant with the canons of Homeric scholarship. He begins with a notice that extant copies of the Hebrew Bible have been carelessly transcribed and ends with a definitive Greek text subject to no further revision (par. 9\u201330, 311), the new Scriptures for Diaspora Judaism. That implies a sanction of the LXX that supersedes the Hebrew original. The linkage of Jewish belief to Hellenic culture occurs most strikingly in what may be the Letter\u2019s most famous statement. Aristeas declares to Ptolemy that the Jews revere God, overseer and creator of all, who is worshiped by all including the Greeks, except that the Greeks give him a different name, Zeus (par. 16).
\nOn the face of it, the Letter might seem to be the ultimate document of cultural convergence. But that does not tell the whole tale. The author, while fully familiar with Hellenic literary genres and the Alexandrian scholarly scene, adapts that knowledge to advertise the advantages of Jewish tradition. The distinctiveness of the Jews is never in question. The god to whom all bear witness, even though the Greeks may call him Zeus, is the Jewish God. Eleazar the high priest happily sends Jewish scholars to Alexandria to render the Bible into Greek, but he reminds Aristeas of the superiority of Jewish monotheism, ridiculing those who worship idols of wood and stone fashioned by themselves, and he insists that Mosaic law has insulated the Hebrews from outside influences, erecting firm barriers to prevent the infiltration of tainted institutions (par. 134\u2013142).
\nThe seven-day symposium, in which the Jewish scholars are interrogated, may have been a fundamentally Hellenic practice, but the scholars answer every query put by the king with swift and pithy answers, adding a reference to God in each response They earn the admiration not only of Ptolemy and his courtiers, but of all the Greek philosophers in attendance, who acknowledged their inferiority to the sagacity of the guests (par. 200\u2013201, 235, 296). Demetrius of Phalerum declares the wisdom of the Pentateuch to be both holy and highly philosophical, citing other Greek intellectuals for confirmation (par. 312\u2013316). The king\u2019s deference to the Hebrew scrolls and the Jerusalemite sages underscores the superiority of Jewish tradition and learning. Further, it is the LORD of the Jews who guides the king\u2019s actions and keeps his kingdom secure so as to achieve his ends (par. 15\u201320, 37). And the high priest observes that the Jews offer sacrifices to God to insure the peace and renown of the Ptolemaic kingdom\u2014a neat reversal of the patron-client relationship (par. 45). In short, the Letter of Aristeas, that quintessential text of Jewish Hellenism, testifies most eloquently to the appropriation of Hellenistic culture to express the preeminence of Jewish values.
\nThe legend of the creation of the LXX has a long history. The Letter constitutes only its initial formulation. Philo has his own version, largely based on the Letter, but adding a few variants (particularly an emphasis on divine assistance, as manifested by each of the Jewish scholars independently arriving at the very same words for the translation) and omitting almost everything that does not deal with the translating process itself (Moses 2.25\u201344). Josephus offers a much fuller and closer paraphrase of the Letter. But he too omits some portions that do not relate directly to the appointment and work of the translators (like the descriptions of Jerusalem and the Temple, and the specifics of the symposium), and makes other minor alterations (Ant. 12.11\u2013118). Later versions proliferated. The LXX carried substantial significance for Diaspora Jewry, who relied upon the text; and the story of its creation fascinated the early Rabbis, who freely embellished the tale, stressing especially the miraculous nature of the translation (see B. Meg. 9a\u2013b).
\nLater Rabbinic writings made much less of it. As Greek became increasingly marginal in the world of the Palestinian and Babylonian Rabbis, the story lost its attraction, and the LXX itself took on a more negative character in their eyes. The church fathers, on the other hand, kept it very much alive. The legend of divine sanction for the Greek version also served Christians well in resisting the Rabbinic insistence on Hebrew as the only legitimate language of the Bible. The story of the LXX\u2019s composition thus appears with numerous variations in patristic sources, which laid the foundation for still further expansion within both medieval Christianity and Islam\u2014and beyond. The Letter of Aristeas (in one form or another) has enjoyed a remarkable durability.<\/p>\n
GUIDE TO READING<\/p>\n
The Letter has no straightforward or systematic organization. It falls generally into five parts. The first section (par. 1\u201330) introduces the motives for the translation, the setting of Ptolemy\u2019s court, the decision to summon sages from Jerusalem, the friendly exchange of letters between the king and the Jewish high priest, and the selection of the biblical scholars who would go to Alexandria. This opening emphasizes the harmonious relations between the Greek and Jewish cultures.
\nThe next section, a digression that falls into two parts, describes in extensive and vivid detail first the elaborate gifts that Ptolemy sends to Jerusalem (par. 51\u201382), and then the splendor of the Temple and its ministers, the layout of the city, and the virtues of the countryside (par. 83\u2013120). The first segment constitutes a deliberate imitation of the ekphrasis digression (i.e. a literary description of material objects or visual images), common in Greek literature from the time of Homer, and the second a clear echo of Utopian writings that became popular in the Hellenistic period. Aristeas here puts on display his command of Greek literary practices, evidently familiar also to his Jewish readership.
\nThe third section consists largely of a speech by Eleazer, in which he explains at length some of the more unusual customs of the Jews, setting them scornfully against the idolatry of the Greeks and stressing the distinctiveness and superiority of the Jews. Aristeas here subtly and perhaps mischievously subverts some of the impression given in the earlier sections about the convergence of the cultures.
\nThe fourth portion, the longest and thus evidently one to which readers are expected to pay special attention, is the description of the symposium (par. 172\u2013300). The description of the weeklong question- and-answer session features repetitive, clich\u00e9-ridden questions, numbing and gratuitous allusions to God, and the comical deference of the king, all of which exhibit the author\u2019s cynical manipulation of a standard Greek institution (the symposium).
\nThe final section (par. 300\u2013322) at last gets to the translation itself. Aristeas describes the deliberations of the scholars in a fashion reminiscent of the type of scholarship practiced in the Alexandrian Museum, again showing off his learning. And the conclusion of the treatise, with its stress on the definitive character of the translation and its warm welcome by the Jewish community of Alexandria, affirms the authority of the LXX for Diaspora Jews everywhere.
\nAristeas delivers his narrative in a sober and serious tone. Yet a closer reading can detect an undertone of oblique mockery and subversiveness. The portrait of Ptolemy II Philadelphus provides an example. Although the text stresses his munificence, his cultivated tastes, and his encouragement that made the whole enterprise possible, it also leaves a more cynical impression. The king\u2019s awestruck posture (bowing seven times to the scrolls of the Law, supplying extravagant gifts to the Temple, providing a kosher meal for the visitors, praising the answer of every Jewish scholar no matter how banal, and ordering an annual festival to commemorate the translation) borders on caricature. The author even injects a surprising number of subtle and indirect criticisms of Ptolemy, his extravagance, his acquisitiveness, his inconsistent attitudes, and his gullibility. The Letter exhibits nuanced angles, wide learning, and diverse objectives.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Barclay, J. M. G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE to 117 CE) Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996, 138\u201350.
\nBickerman, E. J. The Jews in the Greek Age. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1988, 101\u201316.
\nDines, J. M. The Septuagint. London: T. & T. Clark, 2004, 27\u201339.
\nGruen, E. S. Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998, 206\u201322.
\nHadas, M. Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter of Aristeas). New York: Harper Brothers, for the Dropsie College of Hebrew and Cognate Learning, 1951, 1\u201390.
\nHonigman, S. The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria: A Study in the Narrative of the Letter of Aristeas. London: Routledge, 2003.
\nJohnson, S. R. Historical Fictions and Hellenistic Jewish Identity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004, 11\u201313, 34\u201338.
\nSch\u00fcrer, E. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC to 135 AD). Revised edition, vol. 3, pt. 1, by G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986, 677\u201387.
\nWasserstein, A., and D. J. Wasserstein. The Legend of the Septuagint: From Classical Antiquity to Today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, 1\u201350.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
1. the account of our deputation The term for \u201caccount\u201d is di\u0113g\u0113sis, which simply refers to a literary prose narrative. Cf. 2 Macc. 2:32; Luke 1:1.
\nEleazar According to Josephus, in his Jewish Antiquities (12.43), Eleazar, who received the request from Ptolemy Philadelphus, had succeeded his brother Simon the Just as high priest because Simon\u2019s son Onias was too young. The author of the Letter may therefore have accurately identified the appropriate high priest of that period. More likely, however, Josephus simply made the inference on the basis of the high priest\u2019s name in the Letter. Hence to claim historicity on the basis of Josephus\u2019s statement constitutes circular reasoning. In any case, \u201cEleazar\u201d is a conventional name for Jewish spiritual leaders in Hellenistic literature. Cf. 2 Macc. 6:18; 3 Macc. 6:1.
\n2. \u201cever to add knowledge, ever to acquire it\u201d The quotation probably comes from a lost play of Sophocles, an indication of the author\u2019s literary pretensions.
\npiety, the greatest good of all The soul aiming for piety as its most sublime goal is not a specifically Jewish concept but a link to Greek philosophy.
\n3. worth and renown The description of Eleazar as a man of kalokagathia (honor and dignity) is a direct borrowing from the classical Hellenic concept of a noble aristocrat.
\ndivine Law This evidently signifies the Torah. There is no suggestion in the Letter that the translation involved the whole of the Hebrew Bible.
\nparchments in Hebrew characters The Mishnah (M. Meg. 2:1f) states that reading of the Law is only proper when it has \u201cAssyrian\u201d (Hebrew or Aramaic) letters on parchment and in ink.
\n4. transported to Egypt from Judaea by the king\u2019s father The author refers here to Ptolemy I Soter. Fuller details are given at paragraphs 12\u201327.
\nthe city Alexandria. Ptolemy took possession of it as satrap of Egypt after the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BCE; Arrian, Successors 1.5.
\n6. On a previous occasion \u2026 land of Egypt The author may be attempting here to identify his narrator \u201cAristeas\u201d with the Aristeas independently known to have written a work entitled On the Jews, of which only a fragment concerning Job survives; Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 9.24.1\u20134. Alternatively, he may refer to an otherwise unattested text. Or indeed this may be no more than an effort to establish the literary credentials of the narrator.
\n9. Demetrius of Phalerum He was a noted philosopher, pupil of Theophrastus (himself a pupil and successor of Aristotle), a patron of the arts, and a former ruler of Athens who fell from power in 307 BCE and sought refuge in Egypt. Whether he was ever head of the Library in Alexandria is questionable. Although protected by Ptolemy I, Demetrius fell out of favor with his successor, according to a later tradition, and was expelled from the court by Philadelphus shortly after his accession to the throne (Diogenes Laertius, Lives 5.78\u201379). Hence he could hardly have played the role assigned to him in the Letter. It does not follow that the author has deliberately designed to deceive. At the distance of a century or more, he could easily have confused the dates (and the ruler) of Demetrius\u2019s time at court. And, since Demetrius carried the reputation of a learned and distinguished intellectual, it was not implausible to see him in the post of Philadelphus\u2019s chief librarian. More probably, however, Aristeas has not made an inadvertent error but fastened on Demetrius as an appropriate figure for the narrative. Who would better suit the part of Ptolemy\u2019s leading adviser on cultural matters? Aristeas does not profess to be writing history. Demetrius also appears in a fragment of Aristobulus as connected with the translation of the Bible in the time of Philadelphus (Eusebius, Praep. ev. 13.12.1\u20132; Clement, Strom. 1.22.148\u2013150). Aristobulus may have drawn upon the same tradition as Aristeas\u2014or engaged in the same sort of reasoning. Aristobulus\u2019s evidence, whether or not it precedes the Letter, cannot count as independent testimony for the validity of the tale.
\ncollecting, if possible, all the books in the world That the Ptolemies were assiduous and aggressive in collecting books is illustrated by a famous anecdote that has Ptolemy III borrow precious manuscripts of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides from Athens on the pretext of wishing to copy them. He made the copies, which he then returned to the Athenians\u2014and kept the originals.
\n10. laws of the Jews Demetrius evidently thought of the Torah as essentially the repository of the Hebraic law code.
\n11. Translation is required The author here makes a clear distinction between \u201ctranslation\u201d (h\u0113rm\u0113neia) and transcription or copying (metagraph\u0113). See also paragraph 15, where the contrast is even more explicit.
\nSyrian This evidently means \u201cAramaic,\u201d a language widespread in the area, and previously the lingua franca of the Persian empire.
\n12. Sosibius of Tarentum and Andreas Both names are known in the Ptolemaic court at a later period. This suggests the author\u2019s familiarity with names that have connections to the crown. But it says nothing about the historicity of these individuals.
\nHe had overrun the whole of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia This refers to the area of Palestine. Ptolemy I Soter\u2019s victory referred to here probably came either in 312\u201311 or in 302\u20131 BCE, for we have independent testimony to his successes in the region in those years; see Diodorus, Library 19.85.5, 20.113.
\na hundred thousand persons A round figure, plainly exaggerated, with little claim on authenticity.
\n13. settled them in garrisons That Jews served in the Ptolemaic army is widely attested in the literary, epigraphical, and papyrological evidence.
\nwith the Persian The Persians ruled Egypt for close to two centuries after 525 BCE, and it is perfectly plausible that Jewish mercenaries served the Persian king in Egypt. A Jewish military colony at the island of Elephantine in Upper Egypt is known from numerous Aramaic papyri dating from the 5th century BCE.
\n14. he was overborne by his soldiers Aristeas here seeks to clean up Ptolemy Soter\u2019s reputation somewhat among his Jewish readers. The enslavement of Jewish captives is explained by pressure imposed by the king\u2019s troops who sought rewards for their campaigns. It is, in fact, hardly likely that Ptolemy would have been intimated by his soldiers.
\n15. not only to transcribe but also to translate The distinction is again underscored. See also comment on paragraph 11. Aristeas puts the rendering of the Hebrew Bible into Greek in a class by itself.
\nlaid down for all Jews It is part of the objective of the Letter to stress the unity of Jews everywhere, a linking of Palestine to the Diaspora, especially in Alexandria. This motif, of course, underpins the basic story line that has the high priest in Jerusalem send scholars to produce a new sacred text for the Jews of Alexandria.
\n16. God \u2026 whom they worship, is he whom all men worship, and we too Monotheism was no Jewish monopoly. Greek philosophers, most notably Plato, often expressed themselves as acknowledging a single deity. The passage should not be read as advocating syncretism or a bland universalism. Aristeas makes clear that the deity to whom he refers is fundamentally the God of the Jews. That is clear from the preceding sentence, which has God who gave laws to the Jews as protector also of Ptolemy himself. See also paragraph 45.
\n17. constrained to fulfill my petition The language is strong. Aristeas stresses the intervention of God in impelling the king to liberate Jewish slaves. This subtly diminishes Ptolemy\u2019s own generosity and initiative. Josephus evidently felt some discomfort here and omitted the passage (Ant. 12.23).
\n19. honored by him who rules all things The author has other pagan figures reiterate the point that Ptolemy\u2019s reputation and distinction derive from God\u2019s favor. The innate qualities of the king play a secondary role. And the magnanimous gesture of emancipating over 100,000 Jews takes the form of a thank offering to the Jewish deity (\u201cGod the Greatest\u201d).
\n20. twenty drachmas This seems quite a low sum for each slave (equivalent to less than a month\u2019s wages for a laborer). Slave prices in Ptolemaic documents are generally much higher. Josephus may have felt this discrepancy, and gives the figure as 120 drachmas (Ant. 12.25).
\nconstrained him to liberate Reiteration of the idea of divine compulsion is striking and unmistakable. Josephus leaves this out as well. He prefers an unconstrained royal initiative (Ant. 12.26). Cf. God\u2019s hardening of Pharaoh\u2019s heart in Exodus.
\n21. text of the decree The Greek term antigraphon generally means \u201ccopy.\u201d Aristeas implies that he is delivering the wording of an official document. A preserved Ptolemaic decree on papyrus regarding the liberation of slaves shows some striking similarities to the text given here (see SB 8008). This does not prove that the Letter preserved an authentic document, but it does show that its author had a close familiarity with the language of the royal chancellery. That familiarity has the important consequence of indicating that a Jewish intellectual could gain insider status in the Ptolemaic court.
\nwhom God enabled The verb strictly means \u201cempowered.\u201d Aristeas thus reaffirms once again that God effects the result through the agency of the king.
\n22. Syria and Phoenicia Use of this title for the region, which Aristeas elsewhere designates as \u201cCoele-Syria,\u201d may indicate that he has here adopted official terminology.
\nin the country previously or introduced subsequently The author presumes enslavement of Jews in Egypt apart from those captured in war. They may have fallen into this state through debt or through purchase in the slave trade.
\n23. wholly inequitable The text once more has Ptolemy Philadelphus absolve his father Soter of primary responsibility for the oppression of Jews in his reign by pinning the blame on greedy soldiers who despoiled the land and insisted upon war captives as personal slaves. This may save Soter\u2019s reputation for humaneness but only at the expense of having his troops run roughshod over him. It is most unlikely that such statements would have been included in an official document, but they may well represent a sly innuendo by the author.
\n24. within three days This is an absurdly short time for all owners of Jewish slaves (especially if the numbers exceeded 100,000!) from everywhere in the realm to register and deliver up their human property. Even as round numbers they can hardly be taken seriously. The hand of the author is readily detectable.
\n25. Any who wish may give information This encouragement of informers does not reflect well on Philadelphus. Josephus noticeably omits the clause that would have the informer acquire the recalcitrant offender as a slave (Ant. 12.31), and nothing comparable exists in any documentary evidence. This is plainly an insertion by the author\u2014and a slight diminution of Philadelphus.
\n27. went into force in seven days The Greek verb indicates \u201cimplemented\u201d or \u201cexecuted.\u201d This timing too requires a most implausible, even ludicrous, scenario.
\n28. These kings used to administer The author lets slip, perhaps inadvertently, that he can hardly be a contemporary of Ptolemy II. Allusion to long-standing practices and use of the plural in referring to kings indicate that procedures under Ptolemaic governance have a substantial history.
\nI have therefore put on record The assertion that genuine documents are being transmitted does not constitute deception on the part of Aristeas. The claim of veracity appears commonly in Hellenistic (including Jewish) narratives, as do ostensible documents like letters, decrees, and memoranda. They may be found, for instance, in the Additions to the Book of Esther and in the fanciful tale of 3 Maccabees. The fa\u00e7ade of realism would be understood by a sophisticated ancient readership that did not draw the sharp boundaries fixed by present-day readers between fact and fiction.
\n29. those in disrepair Demetrius includes in his charge not only the addition of missing books to the library, but also the repair of those in need of further work.
\ncommitted to writing somewhat carelessly and not adequately The Hebrew books, it appears, fall under both of the categories noted in the previous sentence, that is, both defective in available versions and unavailable in translation. Demetrius expresses himself rather obscurely here, leading to considerable debate among scholars as to his meaning. Reference to \u201cHebrew characters\u201d and the \u201cHebrew tongue\u201d imply that Demetrius is speaking not about faulty translations but inadequate or erroneous transcriptions of the Hebrew. This is the first (and only) time that we hear of Hebrew manuscripts already in the possession of the library. Whatever the truth of the matter, the mention of careless and unreliable editions that need improvement has less to do with the Hebrew Bible than with the working methods of Alexandrian scholars heavily engaged in establishing authoritative texts of Greek classics, especially Homer.
\n31. in an emended form This again alludes to emendations and corrections that will lead to a reliable text along the lines of Homeric scholarship in the Alexandrian Museum. But the analogy is forced, for the learned men who would come from Jerusalem concentrated on translation, not on the establishment of a definitive Hebrew text.
\nmost philosophical and flawless, inasmuch as it is divine Demetrius justifies the project by blending the sacred character of Jewish writings with their philosophical import, a combination that would appeal to the Jews of Alexandria faithful to the laws of the Torah but steeped in Greek intellectual traditions\u2014as was the author of the Letter.
\nabstained from mentioning these aforesaid books Aristeas elaborates on this point\u2014that the awesome character of the Scriptures has prevented earlier pagans from engaging with them\u2014at the end of the work; see paragraphs 312\u2013316.
\nHecataeus of Abdera A Greek historian writing around the end of the 4th century BCE who, among other things, composed a work on Egyptian history and \u2018culture that included extended remarks on the Jews, referred to misleadingly by Josephus as a volume on the Jews (Ag. Ap. 1.183). It is not certain whether this quotation comes from Hecataeus himself or from the later Jewish author who used \u201cHecataeus\u201d as a pseudonym.
\n32. have led exemplary lives and are expert in their own law The qualifications for the Jewish elders include not only deep knowledge of their own traditions, but also commitment to an ethical lifestyle, a blend naturally presumed by a Hellenistic Jewish author.
\nsix from each tribe Reference to the 12 tribes of Israel is altogether anachronistic in this period but lends an aura of ancient sanctity to the enterprise.
\nFare well forever This is a standard Hellenistic formula in closing a letter from a subordinate to a superior, another sign that the author was familiar with court protocol.
\n33. construction of bowls and flagons The gifts are described in great detail below, paragraphs 51\u201382.
\n35. greeting and good health This is standard salutation in letters exchanged among leaders of Hellenistic states.
\nremoved from Jerusalem by the Persians The notice of a forcible removal of Jews from Jerusalem by Persians is nowhere else attested, nor is a migration to Egypt as a consequence. The Persian king Artaxerxes III in the mid-4th century BCE is said (but only by late and unreliable sources) to have deported Jews from Judaea to Babylonia. It is conceivable (though highly unlikely) that Aristeas here delivers a confused version of that report. More probably, he has Philadelphus mitigate his father\u2019s responsibility for Jewish enslavement in Egypt by fabricating Persian involvement in that process.
\n36. he gave them fortresses There is no reason to question the employment of Jews by the Ptolemies both in the regular armies and as garrison troops in Egypt, a practice confirmed by other testimony (e.g., Ag. Ap. 2.44)\u2014although Philadephus, of course, puts the most positive spin upon it.
\n37. the impulses of the mob Philadelphus deflects blame for mistreatment of the Jews onto undifferentiated popular passions. This vague formulation could refer to hostility among Egyptians, or simply represent deliberate ambiguity to soften criticism of Soter or of his soldiers. Josephus omits the sentence (Ant. 12.47).
\nwho has preserved our kingdom in tranquility The author has Ptolemy himself acknowledge that the successes of his reign are due to the workings of the Jewish God.
\nwe have assigned offices of state That Philadelphus assigned Jews to high-level posts in his court may be questioned. There is some evidence for this practice among the Ptolemies in the 2nd century (2 Macc. 1:10; Ag. Ap. 2.49). And it is attested even with regard to the Seleucids (1 Macc. 10:37). The author\u2019s statement may well be an anachronism.
\n38. favor to these and to all the Jews in the world It is noteworthy that the described motive for the translation involves not just a desire to add to the shelves of the library, but also to perform a service for the Jews. That provides an important hint of the advantages that Jews, not simply the royal court, would gain from such a translation.
\n39. wherein the majority agree The process is envisaged from the outset as a collaborative effort in which the scholars will debate with one another about appropriate renderings of passages into Greek.
\n41. Arsinoe She had a checkered and prominent career in the age of Alexander the Great\u2019s successors. Daughter of Ptolemy I Soter and his mistress Berenice, she first married Lysimachus, former general of Alexander and ruler of Thrace; then her half-brother Ptolemy Ceraunus, a claimant to the Macedonian throne; and eventually her full brother Ptolemy II Philadephus. As Arsinoe II she exercised wide influence in her husband-brother\u2019s reign, in both internal and external affairs, until her death around 270 BCE and subsequently became deified in the double cult of the Theoi Adelphoi (\u201cBrother and Sister Gods\u201d). The author does not blanch at this incestuous marriage, a well-established tradition among the Ptolemies by the time of the composition of the Letter.
\n42. we assembled our entire people The enthusiasm of the Jerusalemites for an enterprise that would benefit the Jews of Alexandrian reiterates the author\u2019s belief in a close bond between Palestinian and Diaspora Jews.
\nthe piety you cherish for our God Eleazar here makes explicit what had been readily inferred before: Ptolemy\u2019s homage to the deity is to the Jewish God.
\n43. true gentlemen both The use of standard Greek language, kaloi kai agathoi, for the aristocratic elite, with reference also to their paideia (cultivated education) points further to the thorough Hellenization of the author. See above on 3.
\n44. even if it be contrary to nature The statement is strange and surprising. It goes well beyond mere courtesy. Does Eleazar hint that translation of Holy Scripture into another language constitutes an act contrary to nature? That seems improbable in view of the high priest\u2019s ready and eager compliance with the request, and would be at variance with the whole tenor of the treatise. Or is there a touch of irony in the hyperbolic character of the expression?
\n45. might preserve your kingdom The motif of the Jewish God\u2019s responsibility for the security of Ptolemy\u2019s kingdom recurs once again.
\n46. may be restored to us again in safety This is not conventional phrasing in an exchange of letters. Eleazar here hints that Ptolemy might wish to retain the Jewish scholars at his court and for his own purposes, a possible allusion to the acquisitiveness and authoritarianism of the king. Josephus adds a request that the Torah be returned, as well as the translators (Ant. 12.56).
\n47. Their names The names are preponderantly Hebrew. Several of them were carried by members of the Hasmonean dynasty who ruled Palestine in the 2nd century BCE (Mattathias, Judah, Jonathan, Simeon), which may give a clue to the treatise\u2019s date. Other names, like Jason, Dositheus, Theophilus, and Theodotus, became more common for Jews in the Hellenistic period.
\n50. In all, seventy-two The total of 72 largely disappears from the record after the Letter. Philo provides no number. Even Josephus, who faithfully follows the Letter in recording six from each tribe, ignores his own figures and has a total of 70. Subsequent traditions generally give the figure of 70 (hence the term \u201cSeptuagint\u201d), perhaps inspired by the 70 elders who were with Moses on Mt. Sinai (Exod. 24:1, 9), or perhaps simply as a convenient round number.
\n51. detailed description of the works of art The author adapts a well-established Greek literary form, the ekphrasis: a full-scale description of a work of art, real or imagined. The practice can be traced back as far as Homer\u2019s description of Achilles\u2019s shield in the Iliad, 478\u2013607, or indeed the account of the Tabernacle in Exodus.
\nthe table Reference is to the table of the show-bread. See Exod. 25:23\u201330; 37:10\u201316.
\n52. colossal dimensions The inclination of Philadelphus to build on a lavish and extravagant scale is known from other texts and other circumstances outside the Jewish context. The contemporary Alexandrian poet Posidippus spoke of a massive couch or table (Milan Papyrus, 3.22\u201323). And the grand procession of Philadelphus in Alexandria that exhibited his opulence included a tent with 130 gold couches (Athenaeus, Deipnosophistai [The Learned Banqueteers] 5.197A).
\n53. on a larger scale Ptolemy took the trouble to inquire about appropriate dimensions, but still pressed for a table of yet grander proportions. It is difficult to avoid the impression that Aristeas cynically calls attention to the king\u2019s insatiable drive for extravagance.
\nuseless for priestly ministrations Ptolemy seeks a fivefold increase in the table\u2019s dimensions, then suddenly wonders whether this gargantuan size might make it unserviceable for purposes of the cult. The author appears to be mocking the royal pretentiousness.
\n54. upon the furniture which he had provided Philadelphus\u2019s generosity evidently stems from desire to put his own luxury on show.
\n55. there would have been no skimping The king ultimately yields on the matter of maintaining traditional proportions, but only after insisting that, if he had had leeway, he would have spared no expense. The emphasis on self-promotion and ostentatious flamboyance indicates a rather less-than-flattering portrait.
\n56. conceptions were majestic Aristeas acknowledges the king\u2019s good eye for beauty in material objects but also his penchant for grandiosity.
\n57. And so they fashioned a table The lengthy description that follows is a substantial elaboration upon the texts of Exod. 25:23\u201330 and 37:10\u201316. Insofar as the author draws upon the Exodus passages, his linguistic usage and style show that he is using the LXX version. This makes it clear, if there were any doubt, that the Letter postdates by some time the composition of the LXX, and hence cannot be contemporary with the events of Ptolemy II\u2019s reign that it purports to describe.
\n\u201cof pure gold\u201d and solid on every side This introduces the extensive and intricate depiction of the fine workmanship of the table. Despite the ostensibly precise specifications, however, it remains difficult to visualize the actual particulars of the object. The author, in any case, is clearly intent upon underlining the king\u2019s close attention to detail, the great expense to which he went, and the lavishness and display to which he was committed.
\n68. The legs As Aristeas proceeds to provide every particular, even of the table\u2019s legs (which Exodus mercifully spares the reader), one begins to wonder whether he may not be deliberately pushing the ekphrasis genre to its outer limits as a form of burlesque.
\n69. the character of a shoe Is the author being a bit playful here? Josephus omits that image (Ant. 12.74).
\n70. if a breath of wind blew, the leaves stirred in their place Aristeas surely intends to jostle the reader here. Josephus, more soberly, tries to explain that the decorations on the legs are so light and delicately wrought that they can actually move in the wind (Ant. 12.75). Aristeas prefers to have his readers make their own inferences.
\n72. he devoted to greater elaboration Having been thwarted in his hope of producing an enormously large object, Philadelphus makes up for it by spending the same sum on the sumptuous decorations. The author misses no opportunity to allude to his immoderate expenditures.
\n73. Of the bowls The descriptions of the bowls and then of the flagons are a good deal briefer, but also rather more intelligible, than that of the table. Whether the author had before him the description of Ptolemy II\u2019s procession, given at length by Callixinus of Rhodes (Athenaeus, Deipnosophistai 5.197C\u2013203B) and which also included a display of goblets and golden cups, remains speculative. Parallels between the descriptions, in any case, reinforce the notion that Ptolemy placed a high premium upon showcasing his wealth and his artistic taste.
\n76. twenty gallons each The size of these bowls, obviously designed to awe spectators rather than for purposes of utility, calls attention once more to the king\u2019s extravagance. This may not be an altogether guileless statement by Aristeas.
\n77. so dazzling and entrancing was the sight The author underscores with repetition the character of these gifts as affording a spectacle for dazed onlookers. Philadelphus displays not only his generosity but his vast resources. Demonstration of the king\u2019s grandeur takes top priority.
\n79. correspond to the majesty of the king\u2019s renown Aristeas here puts the matter quite bluntly.
\n80. the like of these works in costliness and artistic scale Similarly, the description of Ptolemy\u2019s procession by Callixinus emphasizes the ostentatious exhibit of splendor that marked the pageant (Athenaeus, Deipnosophistai 5.197C\u2013203B). The tribute to Philadelphus composed by the contemporary poet Theocritus further highlights the king\u2019s wealth, in which he exceeds all other monarchs, and his lavish generosity (Idylls 17.95\u2013111).
\n81. worthy at once of the king Ptolemy did have a deserved reputation as a patron of the arts. He was, for instance, a strong sponsor of the guild of Dionysiac dramatic artists.
\n82. five-fold the value of the gold The author\u2019s quantification of Ptolemy\u2019s expenditures once again suggests a disproportionate extravagance. Josephus, perhaps preferring not to inject a critical tone, omits this passage (Ant. 12.84).
\n83. the position of the whole country The extensive description of Jerusalem and the Temple that follows reflects the author\u2019s familiarity with yet another genre of Hellenistic literature: the travelogues and geographical treatises that proliferated in this era. Enthusiasm for this form of writing stemmed from Alexander the Great\u2019s expedition into lands barely, if at all, in the consciousness of the Greeks. The discovery of new and strange regions fired the imaginations of writers, resulting in tracts that, in many cases, bore little relation to reality and were more a form of utopian geography. Only fragments remain now of such works. These include Iambulus\u2019s fantastic tale about an island in the Indian Ocean where all the inhabitants lived without illness to be 150 years old and then committed suicide (Diodorus, Library 2.55\u201360). A comparable utopia was constructed by Euhemerus, who wrote about a sacred island off the coast of Arabia headed by a priestly caste where the sanctuary of Zeus stood on a very high hill (Library, 5.41\u201346, 6.1). The digression of Aristeas on Jerusalem and the Temple plainly belongs in this category. Josephus omits the entire segment, probably as an unnecessary diversion.
\nsituated in the center of all Judaea The author, of course, does not concern himself with geographical accuracy here. The symbolic significance counts for more. The concept has analogy with the Greek notion of the omphalos, the navel of the earth (cf. Plato, Leg., 745a). But it appears also in Hebrew texts like Jubilees, which speaks of Mt. Zion as the earth\u2019s navel (1:28, 4:25\u201326, 8:19). The motif appears also in the Bible; see Ezek. 38:12.
\nupon a mountain which rises to a lofty height In fact, Jerusalem rests on a relatively modest ridge. Aristeas prefers a utopian image, suggesting the vertical heights of Near Eastern shrines. But there is scriptural authority for this vision of the Temple as resting on a mountain that towers over all other mountains (Isa. 2:2; Mic. 4:1). The Rabbis acknowledged this fact and based it on Deut. 33:12; see B. Zev. 54b.
\n84. Upon its crest stood the Temple Pseudo-Hecataeus, a Jewish Hellenistic writer who adopted the pseudonymous designation of Hecataeus of Abdera, places the Temple near the center of the city (Ag. Ap. 1.198).
\n85. no expense had been spared Aristeas affords the Temple a stature comparable to anything Ptolemy\u2019s money could have bought.
\n87. in keeping with the size of the place Pseudo-Hecataeus speaks of a square altar whose dimensions are 20 cubits on each side, with a height of 10 cubits (Ag. Ap. 1.198). His numbers correspond with those given for Solomon\u2019s bronze altar (2 Chron. 4:1). But Aristeas refrains from giving any dimensions for the altar. The Rabbinic altar was much larger. See M. Mid. 3:1.
\n89. water supply is inexhaustible Cf. the statement in Aristotle\u2019s description of the ideal city, which also stresses the importance of a plentiful and natural supply of water (Politics 7.1330b). Aristeas could well have been familiar with that treatise.
\n92. the ministration of the priests could in no way be surpassed Aristeas to some degree drops his mask in discussing the priests\u2019 activities. A Gentile would not normally be able to witness such activities without explicit permission from the high priest, as Aristeas himself acknowledges a few paragraphs later (Let. Aris. 103). Theoretically, he could have composed his description on the basis of what the priests told him, without being present in person. But there is no hint of that in the text. Aristeas leaves the distinct impression that he was an eyewitness.
\n93. they never fail of placing the victim correctly The vivid depiction of priests who possess both unusual physical strength and uncanny precision reinforces the utopian character of this digression.
\n95. great multitude of persons Obviously the author is not describing the normal daily sacrifices but a major annual festival that draws pilgrims from all parts of the Jewish world. This suggests composition in a period when the Jewish Diaspora was extensive and allegiance to the Temple remained powerful.
\n96. his apparel Aristeas\u2019s description of the high priest\u2019s garments constitutes an abbreviation and adaptation of the account in Exod. 28:2\u201329:6. Since the author\u2019s vocabulary at many points follows the LXX version, it is clear that he worked with that text and could not have been a contemporary of Ptolemy Philadelphus.
\n97. the \u201coracle\u201d The term logion in classical Greek usually refers to an oracle. The LXX employs it for the high priest\u2019s breastplate (Exod. 28:30), followed here by Aristeas.
\n98. the name of God Inscription of God\u2019s name in \u201csacred letters\u201d evidently refers to the Tetragrammaton. Its appearance in gold plate on the mitre of the high priest is given also by Philo, Moses 2.114\u2013115. And Josephus\u2019s tale of Alexander the Great being awestruck by the high priest\u2019s garments mentions the mitre, the gold plate, and the inscription as well (Ant. 11.331). Cf. the version in Sir. 45:12, following Exod. 29:6.
\n100. situated on a very lofty spot This statement and other testimony within the author\u2019s description of the citadel have served to generate controversy about the date of the Letter. The structure, according to Aristeas, overlooked the Temple and served to protect it (Let. Aris. 103\u2013104). Antiochus IV built a fortress to tower over the Temple after he occupied the city, according to Josephus (Ant. 12.252). But he located it in the City of David south of the Temple; see 1 Macc. 7:32. Aristeas evidently describes a structure north of the Temple, perhaps the fortress already in existence in the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 2:8; 7:2), later rebuilt by the Hasmoneans, the site on which Herod constructed his Antonia (Ant. 15.403, 15.409, 18.91). The fact that Jews were in full control of the citadel in the author\u2019s narrative (Let. Aris. 102) suggests that he refers to the Hasmonean period, not to a time when Ptolemies or Seleucids ruled or when a Roman garrison stood in the Antonia. This would put the Letter sometime in the mid- or later 2nd century BCE.
\n101. in case of any attack or revolution This signals a concern about internal as well as external resistance, a feature not uncommon in the era of Hasmonean ascendancy.
\n103. an order from their leader The text indicates that the high priest exercised political as well as religious control (see also par. 122). This would fit suitably in the Hasmonean era, from the time of Jonathan when secular and sacral authority was combined in a single figure (1 Macc. 10:18\u201321).
\n104. he that founded it The reference here remains uncertain. An allusion to Nehemiah? Cf. Neh. 3; 6:15\u201316; 7:1\u20133; 12:27\u201344. More likely, a Hasmonean ruler.
\n105. forty stades Approximately 41\/2 miles. Pseudo-Hecataeus gives a figure of 50 (Ag. Ap. 1.197). Josephus, speaking of the time of Herod Agrippa in the mid-1st century CE, offers a figure of 33 stades (J.W. 5.159). It is unlikely that the city had shrunk in the interim. The number given by Aristeas may well be an exaggeration. The reference to a \u201cmoderate\u201d size is doubtless (and properly) by comparison with Alexandria.
\n106. may touch nothing improper On avoidance of contact with the impure, see Lev. 15.
\n107. Samaria \u2026 Idumaeans\u2019 country Samaria and Idumaea came under control of the Jews through the conquests of John Hyrcanus in the later 2nd century BCE (Ant. 13.254\u2013258, 13.275\u2013281). This has led some to conclude that the Letter must have been composed earlier than the time of Hyrcanus. But there is no reason why the author could not have referred to the regions in this way, whatever the political circumstances.
\n109. reduced agriculture to a sorry pass This can hardly have happened by the time of Ptolemy II Philadelphus. Hence the passage supplies another clue that the treatise belongs in a later period.
\n111. judges \u2026 in every district The Aristotelian Constitution of Athens, 16.3\u20135, provides a striking precedent for this text, noting that Peisistratus, tyrant of Athens in the late 6th century, organized and oversaw judicial decisions in the Attic countryside in order to keep people on their farms rather than losing them to the city. It does not follow that the Letter here directly echoes Aristotle. The Rabbinic system of courts adopted this model as well; see M. Sanh. 16, based on Deut. 16:18. See further B. Sanh. 56b. The contrast between the virtuous life on the land and the wickedness of the city was an ancient clich\u00e9.
\n112. admirable exposition \u2026 received from Eleazar Just what the author means here is unclear. The \u201cdigression\u201d ostensibly refers to the contrast of city and country just discussed. He would hardly attribute this to Eleazar, since much of it deals with Alexandria rather than Jerusalem. Or does he credit Eleazar with the whole digression that preceded on the Temple, the priests, and the city? He had given no hint of that, indeed presented the data as if drawn from personal observation. That he refers only to paragraph 107, as some have suggested, seems most implausible. That brief statement would hardly require apology for a digression. The matter must be left unsettled.
\n113. they laid the city and the villages out in proportion A somewhat comparable statement appears in Pseudo-Hecataeus (Ag. Ap. 1.197).
\n114. rich in crafts and lacks none of the things imported by sea The idea of Jerusalem as a significant commercial and manufacturing center is patently overblown. This is part of the author\u2019s effort to give the city a stature comparable to Alexandria.
\n115. harbors well situated to supply its needs \u2026 Ascalon, Joppa, and Gaza, and likewise Ptolemais Economic association between Jerusalem and these coastal cities did not entail political control by the Jews\u2014even though the author may seek to leave that impression. Hence efforts to identify a period when all were subject to Judaea in order to date the treatise are pointless. Aristeas\u2019s claim of the centrality of Jerusalem accords with his utopian picture.
\n116. Around it flows the river called Jordan This image of the Jordan encircling the land abandons any pretense of presenting an actual description. The author may have drawn inspiration from the utopian image of Ezek. 47.
\nsix million aroura The aroura is an Egyptian measure approximating two-thirds of an acre (cf. Herodotus, Hist. 2.168). The figure of 6 million, based on lots of 100 aroura each for 600,000 men, owes more to the number given for the exodus of Israelites from Egypt (Exod. 12:37; Num. 11:21) than to any genuine calculation. Pseudo-Hecataeus gives a figure of 3 million arourai (Ag. Ap. 1.195).
\nrises, like the Nile The somewhat strained comparison furthers Aristeas\u2019s agenda in seeking parallels between Judaea and Egypt. Scriptural testimony for the rising of the Jordan at harvest time occurs in Josh. 3:15.
\n117. flows into the sea This imaginary scenario bears no relation to reality. The Jordan does not, of course, connect with the Mediterranean.
\n118. encircled by natural defenses There are mountain ranges in various parts of Palestine, but not remotely sufficient to make the land of Israel impregnable.
\n119. mines of copper and iron This may allude to the biblical description of the Promised Land; see Deut. 8:9. A location in the mountains of Arabia is deliberately vague.
\nthose in charge at the time The entire passage remains largely impenetrable. It is quite uncertain whether \u201cthose in charge\u201d are Persians or Judaeans or indeed Arabs. Nor is there any clarity about who would benefit from preventing exploitation of the mines.
\n121. proficiency in the literature of the Jews \u2026 that of the Greeks also The number of scholars with this double proficiency in Palestine in the time of Philadelphus is questionable. But the command of both literatures by learned Jews is a central ingredient in the author\u2019s conception and purpose.
\n122. well qualified to be sent on embassies Such embassies to Hellenistic courts and even to Sparta and Rome begin to be attested in the mid-2nd century BCE (e.g. 1 Macc. 8:17\u201320; 12:1\u20133). They are less likely for the previous century, when Judaea did not have an independent diplomatic status.
\ncultivated the quality of the mean This is an ideology familiar from Aristotle (e.g., Eth. nic. 1105b\u20131107a).
\n124. to summon him to himself The Greek verb here implies a command rather than a request, thus hinting at Ptolemy\u2019s authoritarianism. This is reflected also in a much later story of Ptolemy\u2019s sending for the renowned Athenian comic dramatist Menander to join his court, an invitation which Menander declined, a story recorded by the 3rd-century CE writer Alciphron (Letters 4.18). The desire to have learned men about him was evidently part of Philadelphus\u2019s reputation. Eleazar may have had good reason to worry about the return of his scholars.
\n126. common benefit of all his countrymen The reiteration of Eleazar\u2019s reluctance to send the learned men except for a compelling public reason underscores the anxiety about Ptolemy\u2019s cultural acquisitiveness.
\n128. most men feel some curiosity It is by no means obvious that most Gentiles or even that a substantial number of Alexandrian Greeks were eager to inquire about the details of Jewish food laws and dietary restrictions. But the author furthers his own goal of establishing both the overlap between the cultures and the advantages of Jewish tradition.
\n131. piety and justice These are fundamental Jewish values, but they parallel Hellenic ideals as well. Eleazar thus begins by expounding aims shared by Jewish and Greek thinkers.
\n132. that God is one The unity of God is not a strictly Hebrew idea. Greek philosophers like Plato and the Stoics had comparable notions. Eleazar\u2019s other points, with regard to God\u2019s omnipotence and omniscience, would be less familiar and less acceptable to pagans.
\n134. all other men except ourselves This introduces a segment in which the author most strenuously insists upon the distinctiveness (and superiority) of Jewish beliefs and practices. It is precisely because Eleazar in the narrative is so cooperative with and accommodating to the Gentile ruler that makes it all the more important for him to express the distinguishing character of Judaism in no uncertain terms.
\n135. They make idols of stone and wood \u2026 though their senselessness is obvious Rejection of idolatry is a fundamental tenet, recurrent in the Bible and common also in Jewish literature of the Hellenistic and Roman periods. See, for example, the story of Bel and the Dragon in the Greek additions to Daniel, and the novella Joseph and Asenath. Criticism of pagans who carve figures of wood and then worship is still more biting and cynical in the Wisdom of Solomon, 13:10\u201319.
\n136. That anyone should be made a god \u2026 is altogether foolish Eleazar\u2019s language is harsh and unequivocal. The notion that the gods were once especially accomplished human beings deified by men derives from the utopian novel of Euhemerus of Messene composed in the early 3rd century BCE (Diodorus, Library 6.1).
\n137. consider that they are the wisest of the Greeks Eleazar\u2019s sarcasm is here patent. Most Greeks would not find this amusing. It suggests that the author looked primarily to a different readership.
\n138. Egyptians and their like Eleazar is even more dismissive of Egyptians and more fiercely scornful. On this he would find some company among cultivated Alexandrian Greeks. But the purpose of the posture is to underscore the singular qualities of the Jews.
\n139. with impregnable palisades and with walls of iron This is a remarkable statement in a treatise whose main thrust points to convergences between Judaism and Hellenism\u2014at least among its intellectual leadership. But it is not to be discounted or explained away. Set in the mouth of the deeply respected high priest and conveyed, evidently without complaint, by the postulated pagan spokesman Aristeas, the assertion carries considerable significance. It reaffirms the special character of Jewish faith and practice, even in a context of the most cordial and collaborative relations between Jew and Gentile. The passage does not stand in flagrant contradiction to Aristeas\u2019s earlier declaration that Greeks and Jews worship the same God, though by different names (Let. Aris. 16). But it reaffirms that that deity is the Jewish God, that Jews stand apart in their devotion to him, and that idolators misconceive altogether the relationship between humans and the Divine.
\n140. named us \u201cmen of God\u201d Cf. Wis. 18:13, where the Egyptians, after the deaths of their firstborn, acknowledge the Hebrew nation as the child of God. By ascribing this view to Egyptian priests, the author has even those who are most distant from Jewish practices concede the superiority of the Jews.
\n142. we should be polluted by none nor be infected with perversions Hecataeus of Abdera (not Pseudo-Hecataeus) had also noted the somewhat antisocial and xenophobic lifestyle of the Jews (Diodorus, Library 40.3.4). Cf. 3 Macc. 3:4. For the author of the Letter, however, this is a decidedly positive trait.
\n143. profound logic Eleazar now proposes to address Gentile perceptions of the peculiarity of Jewish dietary codes by maintaining that they possess a fundamentally rational basis. Hence, not content with simply declaring their distinctive character, he intends to demonstrate their advantage in Hellenic terms.
\n144. Do not accept the expoded [discredited] idea Eleazar implies that Jews had received criticism or at least puzzled questions about food laws that reckoned mice and weasels as unclean animals; cf. Lev. 11:29. But this is plainly a rhetorical contrivance by the author. Numerous texts reveal pagan puzzlement or amusement at Jewish abstention from pork (e.g. Petronius, frag. 37; Plutarch, Quaest. conv. 669E\u2013671C; Juvenal, Satires, 6.159\u2013160). That practice was quite notorious. There is, however, little or no likelihood that Gentiles even knew about Jewish antipathy to mice and weasels, let alone that they made an issue of it. The author simply seeks to set up a situation in which Eleazar can propound Jewish ethical principles in Hellenic terms. He argues that Moses\u2019s laws on the subject aim not to spare the animals, but to promote justice, ethical behavior, and pious contemplation.
\n145. winged creatures Eleazar expands his list to include birds and fowl, thus to make a broader distinction between the tame and the wild, and to claim that Jews consumed the first because these were gentle, clean, and herbivorous, while abstaining from the others because these were carnivorous predators. This goes well beyond the scriptural basis in Deut. 14:19\u201320. The Rabbis simply adopt the scriptural prohibitions as divine, without adding an ethical element.
\n147. a symbol that those \u2026 must practice righteousness in spirit The high priest justifies the distinctions as allegorical representations, symbols that express commitment to justice and reject oppression. The embrace of allegory signals the author\u2019s appeal to Hellenic reasoning.
\n150. \u201cparting of the hoof\u201d and the \u201ccloven foot\u201d Permission to consume such animals is accorded in Lev. 11:2\u20138 and Deut. 14:6\u20138, with certain exceptions. But the Bible does not give the explanations offered by Eleazar.
\n151. we are set apart from all men Although Eleazar has hitherto had recourse to allegory in Hellenic fashion to explain Jewish practices, he here reaffirms a general adherence to principles that sets Jews above all other peoples.
\n152. promiscuous unions The attack on illicit intercourse and on homosexuality, thus to claim that Jews hold higher standards in sexual practices than almost all other peoples, reappears in closely comparable form in the third Sibylline Oracle, a Jewish composition perhaps nearly contemporaneous with the Letter (Sib. Or. 3:594\u2013600).
\n153. clearly signifies memory This allegorical interpretation of chewing the cud, that it signifies rumination and recall, is elaborated by Philo, Spec. Laws 4.106\u2013108; Agriculture 131\u2013135.
\n155. admonish us through Scripture The term graph\u0113 for \u201cScripture\u201d appears here for the first time anywhere in our evidence. The quotations from the LXX version of Deut. 7:18 and 10:21 suggest that the Greek translation of the Pentateuch was already established canon for Diaspora Jews at the time of the Letter. See comment above on paragraph 96.
\n157. preserved in their ordering by divine power Eleazar here shifts from the special favor of God to the Jews to the universal benefits of divine authority. But he moves back almost immediately. The overlapping of these concepts stands at the center of Aristeas\u2019s complex message.
\n158. mark of remembrance in our clothing Eleazar now reverts to distinctive Jewish practices. The reference is to the fringes that the Israelites were commanded to attach to the four corners of their garments; see Num. 15:38; Deut. 22:12.
\nchapters The Greek is ta logia, which the author uses also for the inscription on the high priest\u2019s breastplate (Let. Aris. 97). The fact that they are to be \u201cplaced,\u201d not simply written, suggests something more tangible like the mezuzah.
\n159. \u201cbind them for a sign upon the hands\u201d Once again a tangible token, evidently the tefillin, or phylacteries, prescribed in Deut. 6:8.
\n161. right reason Eleazar once more underlines Jewish adherence to proper reasoning (orthos logos), a link to Greek philosophic ideals.
\n165. give birth through the mouth Bizarre ideas of this sort did make the rounds in the Greek world; see Aristotle, Generation of Animals 3.6.5. It was no invention out of whole cloth by Aristeas.
\n166. putting such persons to death The execution of informers by Philadelphus (or any other Ptolemy) is nowhere else attested. Indeed the treatise at an earlier point suggests that informers were encouraged by Philadelphus (Let. Aris. 25). What truth, if any, lies behind this is difficult to discern. The statement, in any case, indicates that Eleazar sought to link his ethical pronouncements with Ptolemaic policy.
\n168. forbids us to injure anyone Eleazar restates the common ground between scriptural pronouncements and the stern actions of the king against informers.
\nthe spirit of myth Use of the word mythodos, a term that can have various meanings, may be a subtle criticism of Hellenic poetry that treats ethical matters through mythological fantasies.
\njustice toward all men Aristeas reverts here to a more universalist vision. The shifts between particularity and an all-encompassing ideal, as we have seen, are a marked feature of the whole treatise.
\n169. All that is said of food \u2026 is directed toward justice This encapsulates Eleazar\u2019s stance that Jewish dietary laws are not capricious or arbitrary but calculated to signal (in allegorical and symbolic fashion) a commitment to righteousness.
\n170. to make a defense Aristeas, with the verb apologeisthai, characterizes Eleazar\u2019s lengthy speech as an apologia. This need not be taken, however, to signify a defense against hostile charges leveled at the Jews. The introduction to the speech indicates only that it was a response to inquiries by Gentiles about the meaning of Jewish dietary practices and attitudes toward unclean animals (Let. Aris. 128\u2013129).
\nmust sacrifice tame animals and nothing wild This applies the same distinction to animals chosen for sacrifice as was applied to those for the Jewish diet. Tame and gentle creatures signify righteous living and are thus suitable; wild ones are unsuitable. The symbolic and allegorical character of the practice governed by Jewish law constitutes the central feature of Eleazar\u2019s representation, thus to underscore its special nature while expressing it in Hellenic mode.
\n171. inherent character of the law The phrase physik\u0113n dianoian tou nomou is a peculiar one. It would seem to signify the \u201cnatural meaning\u201d or perhaps the \u201cdeeper meaning.\u201d In any case, it doubtless alludes to the allegorical interpretation that discloses the basic intent of the law.
\n172. many gifts for the king None of these is described, by striking contrast with the elaborate description of Ptolemy\u2019s gifts to the Jews. This corresponds to the orientation of the author, who places emphasis upon the king\u2019s respect for and homage to the Jewish religious and intellectual leadership. It may also subtly suggest the difference between the extravagance of the royal court and the modesty of Jewish demeanor.
\n175. it was the custom The author signals here that he was conversant with the protocols and conventions of the court, an important clue that at least a select number of Jews gained access to the inner circles of the regime.
\nworthy of higher honor The exaggeration is patent. That Ptolemy would put a delegation from Jerusalem ahead of all business of the realm and accord them signal privileges constitutes the fantasy of the author. Further, it sets the stage for his portrait of an excessively deferential monarch.
\n176. inscribed in Jewish letters The text evidently uses \u201cJewish letters\u201d and \u201cHebrew letters\u201d interchangeably (Let. Aris. 3, 121).
\nwriting of gold This may well be a concoction by Aristeas. Cf. BT Soferim, 1:7\u20138. However, BT Soferim 1:9 records a tradition that the names of God were written in gold letters in Alexandrian Torah scrolls.
\n177. bowing deeply some seven times The reverential posture seems beyond the bounds of courtesy, and even propriety. Use of the term proskyn\u0113sis may be a telling indicator. To a Greek ear, it signified the undignified prostration that courtiers and others paid to the Persian king. When Alexander the Great sought to introduce it, he encountered resistance from his own friends, soldiers, and others who induced him to drop the idea (e.g., Arrian, Anabasis, 4.5\u201312). By having Philadelphus perform this type of abject obeisance no fewer than seven times, the author does more than point to the awesome character of the holy books. He creates an altogether fanciful situation that renders the king somewhat ridiculous. Josephus noticeably omits the proskyn\u0113sis (Ant. 12.89\u201390).
\n178. he was moved to tears Aristeas here too ascribes a rather undignified behavior to Philadelphus. It is difficult to imagine the king giving way to this demeanor in public\u2014let alone that he felt such emotion at the sight of Hebrew scrolls. Note, however, that Josephus does see fit to reproduce this (Ant. 12.91).
\n180. each year \u2026 it shall be held in high esteem Philo records the existence of an annual festival to commemorate the completion of the translation on the island of Pharos (Moses 2.31). But Philadelphus here proclaims the establishment of an annual ceremony simply upon the arrival of the translators\u2014which seems a bit premature.
\nthe day of our victory over Antigonus Which victory this was remains a question. Antigonus Gonatas, ruler of Macedon, and Ptolemy Philadelphus clashed in a naval battle at Cos, but Antigonus was the victor. Another naval contest at Andros, either earlier or later, ended with an uncertain result, and may be the one referred to by the author. Precise dates of both are unknown, and Aristeas may have confused the circumstances or even the parties involved. But he evidently possessed some information on political and military history in the 3rd century. More interesting, however, is Philadelphus\u2019s coupling of a naval success with the arrival of the Jewish scholars as the occasion for an annual festival. It oddly diminishes the special significance of each. Perhaps the author engaged in a bit of whimsy here.
\n182. you may observe in use even now The author once again lets slip, perhaps inadvertently, that a substantial distance separates him from the era of Ptolemy Philadelphus.
\nwhenever guests visited This is another indication that Aristeas was an insider at the Ptolemaic court. He explains the preparation of kosher meals for his Jewish guests as in keeping with common practices of Ptolemaic hospitality rather than (as he might have) a special favor for these visitors.
\n183. as the king had bidden The author furthers his portrait of Ptolemy as meticulously involved in every detail of the process.
\n184. eldest of the priests The Greek does not necessarily mean that all of the translators were priests. They are all \u201celders\u201d (Let. Aris. 46). But the text\u2019s description of their character and qualifications does not include the priesthood (121\u2013122).
\n185. May Almighty God fill Your Majesty full of the good things It is noteworthy that this prayer does not serve as a blessing over the food but reinforces the notion that the king\u2019s prosperity is due to the favor of God. An interesting parallel exists in ancient Egypt where the high priest prays for health and other benefactions to be bestowed upon the king if he acts justly toward his subjects (Diodorus, Library, 1.70.5, a section derived from Hecataeus of Abdera).
\n187. the king asked the man Here opens the symposium segment of the treatise, in which the king asks each of the 72 Jewish elders in turn a question, receives a reply, and praises the speaker. This portion constitutes a full third of the whole, evidently something to which the author wishes to draw particular attention. It has nothing whatever to do with the translation of the Bible, any more than do the extended ekphrasis and Eleazar\u2019s lengthy speech about Jewish dietary practices. Josephus alludes to the question- and-answer discussion but leaves out all the particulars (Ant. 12.99). The symposium could constitute a separate entity in itself, although there is no good reason to believe that it was composed independently and inserted into the treatise. It forms part of the author\u2019s larger purpose to develop a frame within which to demonstrate Jewish command of Hellenic practices. The symposium itself is a quintessentially Greek institution, familiar from the Symposium of Plato, and the format of a king asking questions of sages appears in Plutarch\u2019s Symposium of the Seven Wise Men (Septem sapientum convivium). One can perhaps find a Jewish analogy in the banquet hosted by John Hyrcanus where discussions about the quality of his reign took place among the Pharisees and other guests (Ant. 13.288\u2013292), or the Talmud\u2019s description of the meeting between Alexander and the sages of the south in B. Tam. 31b\u201332a. But the model for this segment is clearly a Greek one. A large proportion of the questions involve the proper means for a monarch to govern his realm, thus putting this segment in a genre similar to that of Hellenistic treatises on kingship. And a substantial number of the responses stem from Greek philosophy or political theory. But they also incorporate important elements of Jewish tradition, in addition to the fact that each answer includes a reference to God. The pattern varies and the eclectic material speaks to the author\u2019s complex aims, but the consistent and repetitive allusions to God, often when barely appropriate, may suggest that Aristeas is engaging in some drollery of his own.
\nhow he might preserve his kingdom The opening questions involve means by which the king might best govern his realm, along the lines of Hellenistic tracts on kingship (peri basileias).
\n188. more gently than they deserve The recommendation of patience and clemency is at odds with Eleazar\u2019s earlier praise of Philadelphus for executing informers (Let. Aris. 166). It has close affinity, however, with Hecataeus of Abdera\u2019s account of the Egyptian priest who praises the king for punishing crimes less harshly than they deserve (Diodorus, Library 1.70.6).
\n189. justice to all men Does to dikaion allude here to the Greek notion of \u201cjustice\u201d or the more biblical connotation of \u201crighteousness\u201d? The author mingles or blends these concepts in various ways. When Aristeas advises the king to liberate Jewish slaves, he uses the same language of showing justice to all men (Let. Aris. 24). But Eleazar also couples the exercise of justice by Jews with their fear of God (159).
\n190. noticing how God acts beneficently The reference to euergesia (beneficence) resonates with a cardinal ideal for Hellenistic kings, mentioned repeatedly in Greek inscriptions.
\n192. he uses forbearance The Greek term epieikeia usually signifies reasonableness, fairness, or equity, a good Hellenic notion applied here to the Jewish God.
\n193. not place his trust in numbers \u2026 but called always upon God The answer is hardly one that would be found in Greek political philosophy. It comes strictly from Jewish tradition (e.g., Ps. 20:8\u20139). Nor would Ptolemy follow advice that had him go to the battlefield with prayers rather than arms. And the notion that he praises the speaker for this recommendation borders on the ludicrous.
\n194. God \u2026 implants awe into every mind The Jewish sage here acknowledges that armed forces might be of some use\u2014but not for long. Only God would overawe the enemy. This too is not advice that Ptolemy would be likely to welcome. The ready complaisance that Aristeas ascribes to him already begins to strain credulity.
\n195. highest good for his life This question relates not to kingly responsibilities but to the broader ethical issue of the loftiest aim to which to aspire. The answer, however, is curiously irrelevant. The sage\u2019s rote response that God guides all men\u2019s actions to the best achievements hardly speaks to the matter. But Ptolemy commends him in routine fashion.
\n196. preserve all his status intact and \u2026 transmit it unaltered to his descendants Philadelphus now asks a more pointed question pertinent to the maintenance of all his holdings and their transmission to his descendants. But the Jewish elder, in effect, ignores the central issue of monarchic and dynastic rule. Instead he recommends prayer to God, who bestows these worldly goods in the first place. This is unlikely to be the answer that Ptolemy was looking for\u2014but he praises the speaker just the same. This may be another jab at Ptolemy.
\n197. endure \u2026 with equanimity The Greek term is metrios. The need to react to adverse circumstances in a moderate or temperate fashion is a common Hellenic motif. But only a Jew would add that God grants the ability to do this.
\n199. \u201cWhat is the goal of courage?\u201d This again is a general question, not confined to the king\u2019s role. But the Jewish interlocutor turns it around to Ptolemy himself and assures him that his deliberations are bound to be sound since God guides them to the king\u2019s advantage. This offers another disconnect between question and answer to which Ptolemy is quite oblivious.
\n200. the philosophers, of whom not a few were present The presence of Greek philosophers at the banquet is no random fact. The author introduces them here to validate the sagacity of the Jewish elders. Indeed, by having eminent Greek intellectuals praise the brief, rather repetitious, and not particularly profound comments of the Jews, he casts a less-than-flattering light upon the philosophers.
\n201. Menedemus of Eretria He gained repute as a significant philosopher in the early 3rd century (BCE?), and served at the court of Antigonus Gonatas (Diogenes Laertius, Lives 2.125\u2013144). Both his dates and his service with the Macedonian king make it somewhat improbable that he would become a confidant of Philadelphus in Alexandria. Aristeas may have imported him into the text simply as a philosopher of some renown. Menedemus\u2019s solicited approbation of the Jews and the king\u2019s immediate assent to his remarks imply a staged event, an implication that the author perhaps mischievously advances.
\n204. how he might remain rich Not a question that casts the king in a particularly favorable light.
\n205. if he did nothing unworthy of his rule The respondent offers no real answer to the query. The closest he comes is to advise the king to avoid unnecessary expenses\u2014which is hard to take seriously.
\nGod is the author of blessings Reference to God seems simply tacked on here. It has little pertinence to the issue.
\n206. how he might observe truth Sincerity is a virtue valued by Greek and Jew alike. It does not have a peculiar cultural significance. That the king himself has a particular obligation to hold to the truth is expressed also by the historian Arrian (2nd century CE) in the preface to his history of Alexander the Great, where he discusses Ptolemy I (Anabasis, Second Preface).
\nGod is a lover of truth The sentiment has little to do with addressing the king\u2019s query. It is another instance of the author having a Jewish respondent bring God into the answer in a mechanical fashion.
\n207. Just as you do not wish evils to befall you A version of the Golden Rule, most famously expressed in Matt. 7:12 and Luke 6:31. It also has Greek parallels; e.g., Isocrates, Nicocles 61. Cf. Lev. 19:18; Philo, in Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica 8.7.6. For a Rabbinic allusion, see B. Shab. 31a.
\nGod deals with all men with gentleness God once more comes in as an afterthought. God\u2019s epieikeia has already been noted (Let. Aris. 192).
\n208. how he might be humane The virtue of philanthr\u014dpia (benevolence) occurs with frequency in Greek literature and philosophy; it appears too in Jewish Hellenistic writings (e.g., Wis. 12:19). Aristeas, however, makes it equivalent to \u201cmercy.\u201d The equation of human and divine mercy accords with the expression of Sir. 18:11\u201314.
\n209. to honor justice \u2026 for God too is a lover of righteousness The author here conjoins the Greek and biblical notions of justice (dikaiosyn\u0113).
\n210. \u201cWherein does piety consist?\u201d The answer offered by the Jewish sage does not bear much relation to the thrust of this question. Indeed, by reminding the king that no act of injustice escapes God\u2019s notice, he recommends wariness rather than piety. Of course, the compliant Ptolemy nonetheless praises him like all the others.
\nknowledge of all things at all times Eleazar has made the same observation (Let. Aris. 132).
\n211. \u201cWhat is the essence of kingship?\u201d The questions directed to matters of kingship and rule and those that concern broader ethical issues, such as the nature of piety, are interspersed with no pattern or discernible sequence.
\nGod to whom nothing is needful, is also gentle Once more the allusion to God intrudes rather than provides a logical connection. The reference to his gentleness (epieikeia) is repetitive (cf. Let. Aris. 192, 207).
\n212. constantly set justice before him The issue of justice recurs, without much application to the query about how to think the best thoughts. Aristeas seems almost deliberately to call attention to the repetitiousness\u2014which Ptolemy fails to notice.
\n213. how he might be undisturbed in his sleep This evokes an unusually long answer, most of which constitutes one of the more flagrant examples of non sequiturs in the symposium. Philadelphus\u2019s question is a somewhat trivial one in the context of this interrogation, amounting to little more than a request to cure insomnia. The Jewish elder\u2019s rambling response is only marginally pertinent.
\n215. make piety the objective Piety reenters the discussion, but with little relation to the matter being discussed.
\n216. he who has his every thought \u2026 set toward the best This is the only reply to omit an explicit reference to God, thus leading some scholars (perhaps rightly) to emend the text and insert theos to have God direct the thoughts.
\n218. look to your own fame and eminence These are strictly Hellenic aims. The sage\u2019s counsel, not an altogether noble one, bids Ptolemy look to his own public image.
\n219. not to show yourself inferior to the actors The comparison alone is somewhat demeaning, since actors held a rather low status in society. Perhaps a tongue-in-cheek comparison. Ptolemy, as usual, applauds the remarks unstintingly.
\nGod having granted you the leadership God\u2019s role in this regard is quite irrelevant to the point.
\n222. To rule oneself and not to be carried away by passions This is standard Stoic ideology, referring to personal self-control and restraint. An earlier interlocutor had said much the same thing (Let. Aris. 211). But the king\u2019s question was of a rather different variety (\u201cWhat is the highest rule?\u201d), inquiring about public power. There is certainly no consistent relationship between query and response in the interrogation process.
\n223. acquisition of territory and extent of fame Here the respondent does address the public position of the king. But his comment has a somewhat subversive tone. Philadelphus prided himself upon and was lauded by the poets for the vast imperial holdings he had brought under his sway (Theocritus, Idylls 17.82\u201394; Posidippus, Epigrams, 45.1; 46.2; 47.5; 54.3; Athenaeus, Deipnosophistai 5.197B\u2013203B). Hence, allusion to the acquisitiveness of kings and the need for moderation would seem to have a critical edge. Cf. B. Avot 4:1.
\n224. no one is king by his own power The idea that God is the source of royal authority has a sound biblical basis, best illustrated by David\u2019s acknowledgment (1 Chron. 29:12; cf. Prov. 8:15), and it recurs in Jewish Hellenistic literature (e.g., Wis. 6:3; Sir. 10:4). There is no need to see here a glance at Hellenistic ruler cult.
\n225. a good gift from God God is once more added on to an answer that was quite adequate without him.
\n226. how he might retain his renown Reaching after renown is an admirable and desirable virtue among Greeks. And the reply that stresses liberality and generosity is also characteristically Hellenic.
\ncall always upon God God, as often, enters only as a tagline.
\n227. one must entreat God The same feature recurs here. The Jewish elder drags in God at the conclusion of a response that has already addressed the question.
\n228. God has given the greatest commandment concerning honor to parents This evidently cites the fifth commandment. (Exod. 20:12).
\nfriend the equal of a man\u2019s soul The phrase derives from the LXX version of Deut. 13:7. See also Sir. 6:11.
\n229. its power is love The word agap\u0113 for \u201clove,\u201d a common expression in the New Testament, appears nowhere in classical Greek. Although the LXX employs it with some frequency, it does not occur in the Greek Pentateuch.
\n230. For you it is not possible to fail The flattery here is excessive, and unnecessary in the context. Perhaps the author hints at the sycophancy that is encouraged at the court of Philadelphus.
\n231. gift of God Once again the speaker attaches a superfluous mention of God.
\n232. following righteousness Dikaiosyn\u0113 has the more biblical sense of \u201crighteousness\u201d here.
\n233. one must supplicate God Prayers to God to avoid unforeseen blows have nothing whatever to do with the question of how to manage grief. The affixing of this line is transparently artificial.
\n234. To honor God The response essentially bypasses altogether the query about what is the greatest glory. To describe honoring God as the \u201cgreatest glory\u201d is hardly pertinent. In this case, the speaker does not haul in God as an annex to an otherwise perfectly sufficient answer, but cites honoring God as the reply in itself\u2014though without addressing the question.
\nnot by offerings and sacrifices The sentiment appears most forcefully in Isa. 1:11\u201317. See also Ps. 50:8\u201315.
\n235. especially the philosophers This is no innocent statement. By having the Greek philosophers lead the applause for the sages, Aristeas, of course, reinforces the notion that Jewish learning outstrips that of the Greeks. More mischievously, however, he presents the reader with an amusing portrait of philosophers, prompted by the king, acknowledging their own inferiority through what were doubtless clenched teeth.
\n236. \u201cCan wisdom be taught?\u201d The Greek phron\u0113sis refers to \u201cpractical wisdom\u201d or \u201cprudence,\u201d not philosophical wisdom. The reply is ambiguous. If the soul\u2019s receptivity to all that is good is guided by divine power, this would hardly amount to being taught.
\n237. Temperance Temperance (s\u014dphrosyn\u0113) is among the preeminent Greek virtues. The addition of God as conditioning the mind to it is mechanical.
\n238. render due thanks to parents Philadelphus plainly does not refer to his own parents, who were already dead. The question has a more general application, as do the immediately preceding ones.
\n240. in the mind of the lawgivers It is noteworthy that the learned Jew uses the plural here. He provides an indirect reference not just to Moses, but presumably also to celebrated Greek lawgivers like Solon, Lycurgus, and Zaleucus, thus implicitly putting Moses in their company (or them in his) and appropriating the Greek notion of divine inspiration for lawgivers to God\u2019s stimulus for Moses. The context here too is a general one, not necessarily a subtle reminder to this king to adhere to the law.
\n241. the advantage of kinship \u201cKinship\u201d here should be taken as a genuine reference to blood ties, not to the broader connotation of the term that can sometimes include close adherents of Hellenistic courts.
\n242. supplicate God Yet another gratuitous reference without relevance to the point at hand.
\n243. \u201cHow is fearlessness attained?\u201d Among Hellenistic philosophies, both Stoics and Epicureans shared this goal. The consciousness of having done no evil was not a distinctively Jewish feature, and God appears, as usual, as an addendum. Cf. B. Avot 4:1.
\n244. right reason always at hand The aim evokes Greek philosophical thinking. God\u2019s removal of prosperity for some and advancement of others is a commonplace in both Hebrew and Hellenic tradition.
\n245. avoid turning either to ease or pleasure The exchange offers a slight variation on the usual formula. The king\u2019s inquiry evidently directs itself to the general issue of avoiding lapses into a life of pleasure, a matter regularly discussed in Greek philosophy. But the reply focuses solely on Ptolemy\u2019s special responsibilities as king, with emphasis upon concern for the welfare of his subjects. The point has already been made more than once in the symposium (Let. Aris. 190, 208).
\n246. exceed the limits of propriety in congratulations The author once again draws attention to the (perhaps pervasive) practice of flattery and sycophancy at the Ptolemaic court. By placing it in the context of a question on guile and deceit, he offers a still darker image of court demeanor.
\n248. that children be imbued with temperance By making temperance or self-control (s\u014dphrosyn\u0113) the cardinal advantage to be had from education, the author promotes a fundamentally Greek concept. See also Let. Aris. 237.
\n249. good to live and die in one\u2019s country On the face of it, the contrast drawn between the satisfaction of living in one\u2019s native land and the ignominy of dwelling abroad could be seen as a critique of the Jewish Diaspora. But in a work that speaks to Alexandrian Jews and hails the circumstances of life in their adopted city, this would make little sense. Indeed the exchange here is strained and awkward. That Ptolemy\u2019s bestowal of benefits upon all men shows him to be a lover of his own country carries little logic.
\n250. how he might live amicably with his wife Does the author inject this frivolous interchange in order to break the tedium of monotonous and repetitive dialogues? None of this segment can be taken seriously. The author is indulging in some fun here. Philadelphus\u2019s question suggests problems in his marital situation\u2014which no king would have put out to public scrutiny. Arsinoe II was a notoriously powerful woman, involved even in Ptolemaic foreign policy decisions. Aristeas may very well be alluding to this.
\nfickle through fallacious reasoning The exaggeration of conventional slurs about women continues the tongue-in-cheek presentation, and the advice is altogether banal. The idea that Ptolemy would seek counsel from guests about his marital problems is preposterous.
\n251. by invoking God life has a pilot always This is among the most flagrant disconnects between the insertion of God and the subject under discussion, perhaps a deliberate move by the author to underscore the absurdity of this section.
\n252. By acting always with gravity and deliberation The text switches abruptly back to a sober and serious exchange. Aristeas appears to be toying with his readership by alternating the earnest with the comic.
\n253. grievous thing if he deprived many of life because his power was paramount One is tempted to see here a reflection upon (and even a concern about) the absolute authority of Ptolemy. The very fact that the author sees a need to warn Ptolemy against committing large-scale executions is most suggestive.
\n254. his example \u2026 you must follow The Jewish scholar follows an admonition with a directive. The language is unusually strong. He asserts that the king must (anankaion) adhere to the example of God\u2019s kindliness. That is a bold pronouncement by the author\u2014and conveys the idea that Ptolemy requires this reminder.
\n255. by God\u2019s sovereignty As so often, the addendum is irrelevant and superfluous, attached to a piece of advice that is itself rather commonplace.
\n256. \u201cWhat is philosophy?\u201d This is the only time that the term philosophia appears in the Letter. The question would seem to be a grave and grand one. In fact, it receives a response little different from those delivered several times in various forms by the guests: to deliberate with reason and resist passions, the standard line.
\n257. By becoming everyone\u2019s equal The advice is rather puzzling. Not only does the sage recommend behavior as an equal in the first clause of a sentence and as an inferior in the next, but the recommendation itself is at odds with several of the other responses that urge the king to spread benefactions (euergesia) and to take care of his subjects. There may be a message in the fact that Aristeas has Philadelphus give unstinting praise to every reply with little concern for consistency.
\n258. make his structures great and majestic This sage, by stark contrast with his predecessor, exhorts Ptolemy to build structures of impressive size and magnificence. This accords with the public exhibit of wealth and power that Ptolemy prided himself upon, as demonstrated by the poets and by the grand procession in Alexandria. But it sits ill with the immediately preceding advice. The recommendations move abruptly from humility to lavish display. And the king embraces both without hesitation.
\n259. render due reward for laborious toil The counsel to provide fair wages and good labor conditions has only the most peripheral connection with the king\u2019s query\u2014not that he notices.
\n260. no wrong-doing, and to lead one\u2019s life in sincerity These are variants on earlier pronouncements and call attention to the repetitiveness of the exchanges.
\n263. God humbles the proud, and the gentle and humble he exalts The sentiments expressed here largely duplicate what had been said before in different contexts. So, for example, the reminder to Ptolemy that he is a man (Let. Aris. 211), God\u2019s taking away of prosperity from some and exalting others (244), and the exhortation that the king hold himself as an equal among men (257). The author continues to recycle his ideas.
\n264. Those who have been proven in many affairs The response is hackneyed and obvious, and the annexing of God to it is transparently specious.
\n265. Indulgence and love to his subjects This point too has been made before (cf. Let. Aris. 190, 245). With 72 speakers\u2019 comments to record, the author cannot find enough diverse answers. And Ptolemy\u2019s applause for each becomes increasingly staged.
\n266. \u201cWhat is the goal of discourse?\u201d The term logos here seems to suggest rhetorical discourse. The reply of the sage, in any case, offers advice relevant to persuading an interlocutor in a debate. The concoction is strained. One cannot readily imagine a circumstance in which Philadelphus would engage in debate with a subject.
\n267. the proper role for each The advice becomes still more unrealistic, or indeed empty. How would the king manage to put on shifting postures for each of the different peoples of his realm, while adhering to the guidelines of justice?
\n268. \u201cWhat are the proper objects of grief?\u201d The issue of grief and how to overcome it has been raised before (Let. Aris. 232). At that point the Jewish sage had recommended righteousness and supplication to God, not altogether helpful. Here the response is more pragmatic\u2014and more cynical, namely that one should not grieve for the dead since that only constitutes self-indulgence. That hard line concurs with Stoic thinking.
\n269. How does ill repute arise? Concern for reputation was a powerful motive in the Greek world. The response comes on a narrow front, involved only with excessive pride, a matter already raised in the Letter (262). The suggestion that \u201cGod as LORD of all reputation\u201d determines the outcome as He wishes seems at odds with the sage\u2019s initial words.
\n270. To those who attend upon you because of good will The answer here largely replicates that to a very similar query about selecting proper counselors, and the term for good will (eunoia) is the same in both (264). The advice is self-evident, and the addition of God again contributes nothing to the point.
\n271. Care and watchfulness \u2026 over the people More repetitiousness here (cf. 190, 208, 245, 265). The tedium of the responses increases, a fact that, as the author must have known, would not be lost on his readership.
\n272. virtue is the consummation of good works This too is philosophical convention, not particularly specific or profound.
\n273. peaceable in soul even during war The question exercised Stoics and Epicureans alike, perhaps most famously addressed (much later) in Marcus Aurelius\u2019s Meditations (e.g., 4.39, 8.34, 8.37).
\nin return for benefits received The euergesia (beneficence) of the ruler\u2014a clich\u00e9 in the Hellenistic period\u2014holds central place, as so often in the Letter (cf. 190, 205, 210, 259).
\ntheir dependents are in your tutelage More literally, \u201cyou are the caretaker of their lives\u201d\u2014which seems to refer to their subsequent maintenance.
\n275. how he could avoid being deceived The question itself suggests a ruler anxious about intrigue and opposition within his own ranks, thus implying the existence of dissent, something that few kings would wish to disclose in public. The author had previously alluded to excessive flattery of the king by courtiers whose sincerity might be suspect (230, 246). Raising of the issue also evokes the earlier mentions of informers and their treatment (25, 166).
\n276. By scrutinizing the speaker It is interesting that the Jewish scholar does not deny, but rather assumes the presence of deceit among Ptolemy\u2019s courtiers. His advice about persistent interrogation hardly casts a positive light upon relations within the king\u2019s inner circle.
\n277. all men are by nature intemperate The human propensity for self-indulgence is good biblical doctrine, leading to more than one calamity. But the elder\u2019s response follows closely along the lines of Stoic and other Greek philosophic teachings.
\n279. The guidance of the laws This corresponds to Hellenistic political theory on kingship. It may also represent an admonition to Ptolemy. Aristeas had already called attention to the king\u2019s absolute authority and control over the life and death of his subjects (166\u2013167, 253).
\n280. chief magistrates The Greek term strat\u0113goi originally denoted \u201cgenerals.\u201d In the Hellenistic period it carried wider meaning, usually designating regional governors. In this instance the civil functions of the appointees stand at the forefront.
\npossess good repute always The striving for reputation held high importance for Greeks. This is not the first time it has appeared in the symposium (cf. 269).
\n281. more concerned to save their men The speaker had answered with standard Hellenic virtues, courage and justice, and then adds a caveat that the commander should avoid rash actions that could needlessly cost lives\u2014not part of the usual Greek litany.
\nas God benefits all men This tagline, like so many others in the banquet, is wholly irrelevant to the issue at hand.
\n282. \u201cWhat man is worthy of admiration?\u201d The response, with reference to reputation, wealth, power, and the importance of acting on a level of equality with everyone, has all been said before (cf. 257, 263).
\n283. such as are drawn up for the use of kings The author here drops another hint of his familiarity with royal practices. A later text ascribes this same advice to the king to Demetrius of Phalerum (Plutarch, Sayings of Kings and Commanders, 189D\u2013E).
\n284. To watch plays performed with propriety For a Jewish sage to recommend attendance at the theater should not surprise us. Philo frequently attended dramatic performances in Alexandria, and he was certainly not the only Jew there (Philo, Good Person 141; Drunkenness 177). The sage\u2019s emphasis, however, rests upon the importance of enforcing modesty and decorum in these performances, perhaps an indirect hit at what normally occurred in the productions staged for the king\u2014and at the king\u2019s own taste.
\n286. \u201cHow ought one conduct himself in banquets?\u201d Since this question comes almost at the very end of seven consecutive days of banqueting, one can hardly miss the irony.
\ninvite lovers of learning The philosopher Epicurus, most interestingly, did not believe that symposia were fit occasions for philosophic discourse, and admonished kings for inviting intellectuals and having learned discussions in such a setting (Plutarch, Moralia 1095C). Is the author of the Letter reacting against such sentiments\u2014or is he indulging in irony?
\n288. a commoner \u2026 or a king of royal descent? Ptolemy raises the issue of dynastic rule; here, he inquires as to its desirability, although earlier he had asked how he could preserve it intact for his descendants (cf. Let. Aris. 196). The interlocutor, like his compatriot on the previous occasion, avoids a direct answer.
\nThe noblest by nature A good philosophic response. But in a realm where hereditary monarchy had taken root, it could have a subversive tinge.
\n289. kings sprung of kings who prove cruel and harsh The statement is a general one and meant to be understood as such. Yet by placing the remark in the ostensible context of Philadelphus\u2019s court (where the interrogator was the only example of a king sprung from a king), the author must have expected his readers to draw a conclusion about that ruler.
\n290. gentleness and humanity The terms reappear (epieikeia and philanthr\u014dpia), and the repetitiveness is patent.
\n291. always in a state of peace This is a noble sentiment, not usually at the head of a list of the principal aims for a Hellenistic monarch. And there is no reason to doubt that the author holds it as a genuine conviction. But it hardly corresponds to the realities of Ptolemaic rule, as the readership of the Letter will have known.
\n292. counts it important to save a man\u2019s life A previous respondent had linked this also to the criteria for a worthy general (Let. Aris. 281). The author plainly reckons it as a matter of high importance. Whether it actually applies to Philadelphus is more questionable.
\na mind pure and untainted by any evil This summary statement by the last of the Jewish speakers is transparently excessive\u2014and perhaps deliberately so.
\n294. I have profited greatly \u2026 with reference to kingship In fact, many of the questions asked were of a general variety, not related exclusively to kingship. And indeed a good number that did involve kingship got evasive or irrelevant answers. So, the king\u2019s pleasure at having received such valuable advice raises questions about his own discernment.
\n295. If I have been tedious The admission of tedium can only cause amusement. The symposium has occupied one third of the treatise, riddled with repetition, delivering inadequate or irrelevant answers to questions, forced allusions to God in every response, and indiscriminate congratulations to each speaker by the king. The tedium itself counts as an integral part of \u201cAristeas\u2019s\u201d picture, not an accidental or thoughtless by-product.
\nadmired \u2026 responses which required long meditation Since all were brief and a substantial number were banal, this is hardly meant as a serious justification.
\n296. carefully pondered each question This description contrasts sharply with most of the questions themselves, as the author surely knew. That indeed was the point.
\nespecially to the philosophers Singling out the philosophers as especially admiring of the Jewish scholars (to their own detriment) gives a satiric edge to the comment. The author painted the same scenario earlier (Let. Aris. 200\u2013201).
\neveryone \u2026 will find it incredible Aristeas not only acknowledges the tedium but he grants the implausibility of his narrative of the symposium. The lengthy defense of its historicity that follows does not so much eradicate doubts as adopt the conventional mode employed by historians in antiquity to recount their research methods. This has less to do with persuading readers (few would care) than with setting the treatise in the genre of Hellenic historiography.
\n297. procure particulars from those persons who transcribe the proceedings Aristeas\u2019s claim that he secured documentary testimony echoes his earlier assertion that he transcribed official memoranda, letters, and inventory (Let. Aris. 28). This was the proper posture for the historian, whatever its credibility.
\n298. it is the custom \u2026 to record in writing everything The author once more presents himself as an insider with full knowledge of procedures at the court (cf. Let. Aris. 175, 182, 283)\u2014which he may well have had. The details conveyed here are unlikely to have been invented.
\n300. accurate information on all particulars from the archives Whether Aristeas actually had access to the royal archives may be doubted. The claim was part of his self-presentation as a direct authority on the subject. Cultivated readers would understand the convention.
\n301. the island Unidentified here, but evidently Pharos, as is indicated by Philo, who attests to an annual festival celebrating the occasion (Moses 2.35, 2.41).
\n302. by mutual comparisons This mode of procedure had already been anticipated when Demetrius of Phalerum initially recommended the summoning of the Jewish elders: they would seek majority consensus in order to obtain an accurate translation (Let. Aris. 32). The description here, brief though it be, doubtless reflects the working methods of Alexandrian editors in the Museum who labored to establish texts of Homer and other Greek authors, methods obviously familiar to Aristeas. It may well be part of his general effort to set the creation of the LXX into the context of Hellenic learning. His account differs radically from the more celebrated one of Philo, for whom each of the Jewish scholars arrived independently at precisely the same translation under divine inspiration (Moses 2.37\u201340). Philo\u2019s version proved to be more congenial to the Rabbis.
\n305. interpretation and clarification The meanings of the Greek terms (anagn\u014dsis and diasaph\u0113sis) are difficult and disputed. But they appear to signify a double process of reading aloud and analyzing each passage, which probably approximates the working manner of Alexandrian scholars.
\n306. symbols of righteousness and truth Aristeas reverts here to a form of allegorical explanation that he had earlier put in the mouth of Eleazar. He underscores both the nobility and the piety of the translators (kalos and hosios), blending Greek and Hebrew notions.
\n307. seventy-two days The author does not stress divine intervention, as does Philo in his version of the scholars producing identical translations. But he does ascribe the coincidence of the numbers to a premeditated design.
\n308. great ovation from the community The Jewish community in Alexandria appears here for the first time in the treatise. The author\u2019s emphasis upon the king\u2019s cultural interests and the role of Jewish learning in the broader Hellenic intellectual scene leaves little room for the interests of Alexandrian Jews. But they emerge here in conspicuous form. And the event discloses, perhaps inadvertently, that the translation had as much to do with the needs of the Diaspora community as with the designs of Ptolemy Philadelphus (indeed much more). The description here also demonstrates the common goals and harmony between the Jews of Palestine and those in Alexandria, an important message of the Letter.
\n309. a transcription \u2026 to present it to their rulers This reinforces the significance of the translation for Alexandrian Jewry.
\n310. priests and the elders of the translators and some of the corporate body and the leaders of the people It is notoriously difficult to identify the individuals and groups referred to in this passage. The existence of an organized corporate body (politeuma) of Jews in Alexandria is now rendered much more probable by the discovery of a comparable body, with that designation, in Heracleopolis in Middle Egypt (P. Polit. Iud. in Papyrologica Coloniensia 19). How the members of that entity who were present differed from the leaders of the people cannot be sorted out. Nor is it obvious whether the priests were those who held that status among the translators or those who ministered to the Alexandrian Jews. In any case, the passage attests to a structured organization (or more than one) of Jews in the city. Something like it is recorded also by the Greek geographer Strabo (Ant. 14.117).
\nwell and piously made and is in every respect accurate The author puts heavy stress upon the precision of the translation, thereby rendering the Septuagint as holy a document as the Hebrew Bible. The solemnity of the process echoes what is said in Let. Aris. 306. Since the Greek Bible became indeed the holy book of the Jewish Diaspora, this emphasis by Aristeas is perfectly understandable. Philo makes an even stronger point about the absolute accuracy of the translation, the identity of the two Bibles, and the reverence in which both were held (Moses 38\u201340).
\n311. so that the work might be preserved imperishable and unchanged always The act reinforces the unchallengeable sanctity of the Greek version. Cf. Moses\u2019s injunction at Deut. 4:2 and 13:1, plainly a model for this passage. Josephus, interestingly, does not quite share the sentiment. He acknowledges the possibility of corrections being made to the text (Ant. 12.109).
\n312. How has it not occurred to any of the historians or poets Josephus addresses much the same question in his Against Apion, seeking, at least ostensibly, to account for the relative absence of testimony about Jews among Greek writers (Ag. Ap. 1.60\u201368).
\n313. Because the Law is holy Demetrius reasserts the sanctity of the new translation. And his argument, that its awesome character prevented certain Greek writers from making use of its contents, hearkens back to the earlier assertion that the author ascribes to Hecataeus of Abdera (Let. Aris. 31).
\n314. Theopompus A major Greek historian of the 4th century BCE whose name would certainly have had resonance among cultivated circles in Alexandria.
\nmatter which had previously been translated from the Law The implication that earlier translations (of at least some parts of the Bible) existed, prior to the time of Philadelphus, is at odds with the whole thrust of the Letter, and has little historical plausibility. (The allusion to earlier versions in Let. Aris. 30 refers to Hebrew texts). The author endeavors to underscore the divine sanction of the holy books that rendered them resistant to any usage by pagan writers, even eminent intellectuals like Theopompus, who lacked the piety of the translators and their patrons. The tale of Theopompus\u2019s temporary mental seizure is transparent fiction.
\n316. Theodectes A prominent 4th-century tragic dramatist and orator whose works gained wide renown among contemporaries, although none has survived. The story that he was afflicted with a sudden bout of cataracts when he endeavored to introduce biblical matter into one of his plays serves the same purpose as that regarding Theopompus\u2014and carries no more plausibility.
\nthe Book This is the first extant use of the term biblos for holy Scripture.
\n317. he bowed deeply This is the second time that Aristeas has the king perform proskyn\u0113sis (cf. Let. Aris. 177), an undignified posture for a ruler, as the treatise\u2019s readers would know. It may demonstrate his reverence for the sacred scrolls (the point that Aristeas wishes to make). Such a scene, however, would not endear him to his Greek or Egyptian subjects, and we can be confident that he would avoid any action of this kind in public.
\n319. treating the men munificently The stress on Ptolemy\u2019s generosity persists\u2014as does the impression of his excessive display of wealth.
\n321. urging that \u2026 Eleazar might not prevent The author once again hints at concern about the acquisitiveness of Ptolemy, who might hijack learned visitors for his own cultural purposes (cf. Let. Aris. 124, 126).
\n322. greater pleasure than the books of the romancers Aristeas makes it a point to contrast his narrative (di\u0113g\u0113sis) with the works of \u201cmythographers.\u201d Hence he reaffirms its authority as a serious text that pleases because of its reliability. This is the conventional affectation of Greek historians. It reflects an unspoken understanding between writer and reader who knew the difference between historical plausibility and literal truth. See comment on paragraph 28, I have therefore put on record.<\/p>\n
1 Maccabees<\/p>\n
Lawrence H. Schiffman<\/p>\n
The book 1 Maccabees presents an account of the history of Judea from 175 to 134 BCE. It describes the background of the Maccabean revolt, the revolt itself, the exploits of Judah the Maccabee (in Greek, Judas Maccabeus), and the efforts of his brothers Jonathan and Simon to permanently reestablish Jewish nationalism and religious practice.
\nThe author is clearly a believing Jew, who emphasizes the piety of Judah\u2019s family, the Hasmoneans, and their trust in God. At the same time, he gives full credit for their success to their own sagacity and tenaciousness. The author seeks to highlight the excellence of the Hasmonean dynasty and in this respect may be seen as an official historian of this dynasty. He sees the Maccabees as emulating various biblical figures and presents a defense for the charismatic leadership the Hasmoneans provided. Judah\u2019s piety is especially emphasized in the prayers and speeches attributed to him. The author sees this family as selected by God to bring about the deliverance of Israel from the empire of the Seleucid kings.
\nOver and over the author emphasizes the antinomian character of the Jewish opponents of the Maccabees\u2014they are \u201clawless men.\u201d All opponents of the Hasmoneans are seen as motivated only by the basest of motives and allied against the way of God\u2019s Torah.<\/p>\n
Authorship and History<\/p>\n
It is generally agreed that 1 Maccabees was originally written in Hebrew. Even though no manuscripts or fragments still exist in Hebrew, the Greek text of 1 Maccabees has the unmistakable style of a rather literal translation from the Hebrew. Moreover, the church father Origen (3rd century CE) claimed that the Hebrew title of 1 Maccabees was Sarbethsabaniel. This puzzling title is difficult to interpret but may be a somewhat corrupt rendering of Hebrew sar bet El (\u201cPrince of the House of God\u201d), or sfar bet sarbanai\u2019e (\u201cBook of the House of the Resisters of God\u201d). Most Greek manuscripts simply term the books of 1 and 2 Maccabees Makkabaion A and Makkabaion B. By the 2nd century CE, Ta Makkabaika (\u201cThe Things Maccabean\u201d or \u201cMaccabean Histories\u201d) was the designation for both 1 and 2 Maccabees. Early church father Clement of Alexandria (2nd century CE) termed 1 Maccabees to Biblion ton Makkabaikon (\u201cThe Book of Things Maccabean\u201d) and 2 Maccabees he ton Makkabaikon epitome (\u201cThe Epitome of Things Maccabean\u201d). Although \u201cMaccabee\u201d (meaning \u201chammer\u201d) was originally the nickname of the hero Judah, the use of the title \u201cMaccabean Histories\u201d led to the custom of referring to all of the heroes of the book as \u201cMaccabees.\u201d
\nVirtually all scholars take the view that the book must have been written before the Roman conquest of Judea in 63 BCE, since the Romans are presented in 1 Maccabees as friends and allies of the Hasmoneans. The author\u2019s knowledge of the period of John Hyrcanus requires that he wrote not much before John\u2019s death in 104 BCE. The most probable date for the composition of 1 Maccabees, therefore, is the first decades of the 1st century BCE. Goldstein dates the composition to the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (103\u201376 BCE), but not later than 90 BCE.
\nNumerous historical documents are included in this work to prove the legitimacy of Hasmonean rule within the context of the Seleucid Empire and contemporary international law. In addition, the author has included various poetic extracts that must come from poems that circulated in that period. Beyond this, the various theories regarding the sources of 1 Maccabees are speculative.<\/p>\n
Significance<\/p>\n
Not only was 1 Maccabees composed in Hebrew, but it was also written in a style imitating that of biblical historiography. Translated into Greek, 1 Maccabees was known to the 1st-century CE Jewish historian Josephus, who used it as the basis of his account in Jewish Antiquities. It is possible that the last two chapters of 1 Maccabees were not available to Josephus, since he seems to lack adequate sources for the reign of Simon. The Greek translation was included in the Hellenistic biblical canon of the Greek-speaking Jews and was therefore preserved in the canon of the Christian church. Knowledge of this book was widespread among the church fathers. Yet the contents of 1 Maccabees began to circulate among Jews only in the Middle Ages, indirectly through a Latin translation. 1 Maccabees, like 2 Maccabees, must be sharply distinguished from the medieval Jewish composition Scroll of Antiochus or Scroll of the Hasmoneans, first mentioned by the Jewish scholar Saadia Gaon (882\u2013942 CE).
\nThe author of 1 Maccabees was certainly influenced by the style of the biblical historiographical books, especially the books of 1 and 2 Samuel. Judah\u2019s accomplishments are often described in ways evocative of the triumphs of Saul, Jonathan, and David. Like the historiographical books of the Bible, 1 Maccabees has a prominent chronologic framework, though the dates are given in accordance with the Seleucid Era, which began with the capture of Babylon in 312 BCE by the former general of Alexander the Great, Seleucus 1. As a source for reconstructing the events of the period, historians have generally held 1 Maccabees in high regard, considering it to be earlier and more trustworthy than 2 Maccabees. In certain respects, however, the evidence and approach of 2 Maccabees must be preferred. Specific instances will be discussed throughout the commentary. The author of 1 Maccabees appears to be quite familiar with the practices of the Seleucid Empire. On the other hand, he seems to exaggerate numbers greatly and takes the opportunity, like all historians of his period, to place speeches of his own composition in the mouths of his heroes.<\/p>\n
GUIDE TO READING<\/p>\n
1 Maccabees tells the story of the leadership of Mattathias and three of his five sons in turn:<\/p>\n
1:1\u201364. Background of the Revolt
\n2:1\u201369. Mattathias\u2019s Revolt
\n3:1\u20139:22. Judah\u2019s Struggle for Liberation
\n9:23\u201312:53. The Leadership of Jonathan
\n13:1\u201316:24. The Rule of Simon<\/p>\n
The author brings his account to an end with the accession of Simon\u2019s son, John Hyrcanus, and the beginnings of the rule of the next generation.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Bar-Kochva, B. Judas Maccabaeus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
\nBickerman, E. J. The God of the Maccabees. Translated by H. Moehring. Leiden: Brill, 1979.
\nGoldstein, J. A. 1 Maccabees. Anchor Bible 41. Garden City: Doubleday, 1983.
\nHengel, M. Judaism and Hellenism. Translated by J. Bowden. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974.
\nSchalit, A., ed. The Hellenistic Age. New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1972.
\nTcherikover, V. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Translated by S. Applebaum. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1966.
\nTedesche, S., and S. Zeitlin. The First Book of Maccabees. New York: Harper, 1950.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
1:1\u20134 This section briefly sets the scene by tracing the origins of Hellenistic rule over the Near East. Alexander the Great (356\u2013324 BCE) conquered Darius III of Persia (reigned 336\u2013331 BCE) twice, first at Isus in 333 BCE and then two years later at Gaugamela. He became \u201cthe first to rule over the Hellenistic empire\u201d (Goldstein), setting out from Pella, Macedonia, on his series of conquests beginning in 334 BCE. By 332 BCE he had taken Palestine.
\n1. Kittim This term here refers to Macedonia; it originally referred either to Kition on Cyprus or to the entire island. By this time, however, it designated the islands and most of the coastline of the Mediterranean, and even Rome. The author of the Qumran War Scroll designated the chief enemies of Israel as the Kittim.
\n5\u20139 Alexander died in Babylon on 10 June 323 BCE, having left no instructions for his succession. Struggles between rivals resulted in the dismemberment of the empire. The emblem of kingship was a white diadem. This symbol was assumed in 306 BCE by Antigonus and Demetrius, who ruled Greece, Asia Minor, and Syria. In 305 BCE Ptolemy and Seleucus also established their royal titles.
\n10. Antiochus Epiphanes Antiochus (IV) Epiphanes (\u201cgod manifest,\u201d or \u201cfamous\u201d) was taken as a hostage by Rome in the aftermath of the defeat of his father, Antiochus III the Great, at the battle of Magnesia in 189 BCE. Antiochus III died in 187 BCE and was succeeded by Seleucus IV. In 176 BCE. Antiochus IV was released by the Romans. After the death of Seleucus IV in 175 BCE, and the short reign of his infant son, Antiochus IV took power. The date of SE (Seleucid Era) 137 would require that Antiochus began his reign within several weeks of the death of Seleucus IV. It is therefore probable that his rule actually began in SE 136 but that his regnal counting ignored the brief reign of his infant nephew.
\n11\u201313 This brief section describes the beginnings of the movement that we know from other sources as the Hellenistic reform. A much more thorough account of these events is found in 2 Macc. 4:7\u201311, which tells us that Jason went to the king to get permission to turn Jerusalem into a Hellenistic polis to be called Antioch and to register the citizens in it. Part of the motivation must have been the economic opportunities it held out.
\n14\u201315. gymnasium \u2026 circumcision The gymnasium was the central institution of Greek civilization. It was the place of education as well as physical activity and recreation. Circumcision was known throughout the ancient world as the sign of the Jew. Nonetheless, because Greek athletics were performed in the nude, some Hellenistic Jews underwent epispasm, a procedure to reverse the appearance of circumcision, \u201cthe holy covenant\u201d (RSV).
\n16\u201319 Despite the account in 1 Maccabees, the war between Antiochus IV and Ptolemy VI Philometor resulted from a Ptolemaic attempt to reconquer Syria and Palestine. In 170 BCE Antiochus routed the Egyptians. By 169 BCE Egypt was overrun, and Ptolemy VI taken captive. He was, however, put back into power by Antiochus IV.
\n20\u201324 Verses 20\u201364 describe Antiochus\u2019s assault on Jerusalem and the persecutions he put into effect. 1 Maccabees says nothing of the inner struggle between the Hellenists and more traditional Jews that actually provoked the struggle, according to 2 Macc. 3\u20135. In September or October of 169 BCE Antiochus IV sacked Jerusalem (cf. 2 Macc. 5:1, 11\u201326). He entered those areas of the Temple restricted to Israelites and plundered the Temple furnishings. He also took treasures that had been deposited in the Temple for safekeeping by individuals and carried out a great massacre (cf. 2 Macc. 5:12\u201314).
\n22. the curtain, the crowns The \u201ccurtain\u201d is probably that separating the Holy of Holies from the sanctuary. The \u201ccrowns\u201d of RSV should probably be translated \u201ccornices\u201d (Goldstein).
\n25\u201328. Israel \u2026 shame This is the first of a series of poetic dirges included in the book, also found in 1:36\u201340; 2:7\u201313; 3:45, 50\u201353; 7:17; 9:21.
\n29. a chief collector of tribute In about April of 167 BCE a chief tax collector, known from 2 Macc. 5:24 to be Apollonius, \u201ccaptain of the Mysians\u201d (RSV), was sent to Judea (Judah) by Antiochus. He took Jerusalem by force and then established the Akra, the Hellenistic citadel that dominated Jerusalem, the exact location of which is a subject of debate. This citadel was colonized by Hellenized Jews, \u201cmen who were transgressors against the law\u201d (Tedesche).
\n36\u201340. It became \u2026 mourning This is the second dirge (see comment on 1:25\u201328).
\n41\u201353 Goldstein suggests that this passage be understood as pluperfect, since these events took place shortly after Antiochus\u2019s accession. The motivation for these decrees is explained as part of an overall policy to impose uniformity on his kingdom. Certain Jewish practices that served to separate the Jew from his pagan surroundings were proscribed as punishable by death. While some Jews acquiesced, others sought refuge. This account completely ignores the internal Jewish unrest over the issue of Hellenism, described in 2 Maccabees, which seems to have led to Antiochus\u2019s decrees.
\n54\u201364 Antiochus went so far as to have an idol installed in the Temple, according to this account, on the 15th of Kislev, 5 December 167 BCE. The 25th of Kislev, given in Ant. 12.5.4 [248] and 2 Macc. 1:18 and 10:5, is probably an attempt to synchronize the defilement with the rededication. Illicit sacrifices were to be offered throughout the land. The Torah, itself considered the cause of the Jewish resistance, was not to be read, and its scrolls were to be destroyed. Despite horrible tortures, Jews continued circumcision and the eating of exclusively kosher food. The mention of monthly offerings on the 25th of the month probably refers to observance of the king\u2019s birthday.
\n61. their families Goldstein translates, \u201ctheir husbands,\u201d following Rabbinic Hebrew usage.
\n2:1\u20135 This section introduces us to the Hasmonean family. Mattathias and his family were among the lower clergy, priests of the clan of Joarib. As the process of Hellenization advanced, they left Jerusalem and relocated in Modein (cf. 1:53). This town, 12 kilometers east of Lydda in the Judean mountains, was probably the ancestral home of the family. The most likely derivation for the name Maccabee is Heb. makevet, \u201chammer.\u201d
\n7\u201313 The author puts his third dirge (cf. 1:25\u201328, 36\u201340) into the mouth of Mattathias, describing the reaction of Mattathias and his sons to Antiochus\u2019s decrees.
\n14. rent their clothes, put on sackcloth This describes the family of Mattathias as observing the traditional mourning rites. Cf. Esther 4:1.
\n15\u201318 This passage expands upon the theme of 1:51\u201353. When the \u201cenforcers\u201d arrive in Modein, even the Hasmonean family gathers among the crowd. Our author here accents the importance of Mattathias, placing him immediately at center stage. He and his sons are offered the status of \u201cfriends of the king\u201d and the attendant riches in return for his participation in pagan sacrifice. The friends of the king were granted special status at court and wore special purple hats and robes.
\n23\u201325 Facing the possibility that a fellow Jew might sacrifice on the altar of the pagans, Mattathias kills him. With this act of zeal and rage, the rebellion begins. Again, our author neglects to tell of the earlier stirrings of revolt among the masses that followed immediately after the Hellenistic reform and that were actually the cause of Antiochus\u2019s decrees. This event is foreshadowed in 1:51, 54\u201355.
\n26. Phinehas The author describes Mattathias as a latter-day Phinehas, reflecting the account of Num. 25:1\u201315, in which Phinehas kills Zimri and Cozbi in the midst of their idolatrous sexual rites.
\n28. fled to the hills Mattathias and his sons flee into the mountains bordering on Samaria (cf. 2 Macc. 15:1).
\n29. many who were seeking righteousness and justice A group separate from the Hasmoneans who also left their homes.
\n31. the city of David The command post for Antiochus\u2019s persecution was the Akra in Jerusalem, termed here \u201cthe city of David\u201d (cf. 1:33).
\n34. profane the Sabbath day The martyrs refuse to leave their dwelling places on the Sabbath, in accordance with the literalist interpretation of Exod. 16:29, nor would they fight on the holy day, even to defend themselves.
\n41. So they made this decision The Hasmoneans emphatically decide that defensive warfare should be permitted on the Sabbath. This ruling, despite the opposition of various circles in Second Temple times, became the normative view of Jewish law. Jub. 50:12\u201313, reflecting the original law, prohibits killing and warfare on the Sabbath. The Rabbis permit violating Shabbat in order to save one\u2019s life.
\n42. Hasideans Among those who joined the Hasmoneans in the early days of the revolt were a group of Hasidim (Hasideans), \u201cpious ones.\u201d Various attempts have been made to claim that these were an organized sect, perhaps connected with those who gave their lives in 2:38, precursors of either the Pharisees or the Essenes. None of these theories can be proved. It is best to take \u201cHasidim\u201d as a loose term for individuals of great piety, who \u201cvolunteered in defense of the Torah\u201d (Goldstein).
\n44\u201348 The initial operations of the Hasmoneans are directed against Hellenizing Jews. The altars erected for their use are destroyed, and they are forced to maintain the law of circumcision.
\n49\u201368 This poem is a \u201ctestament of Mattathias,\u201d put into his mouth by our author. Mattathias recalls how the LORD stood by the great heroes of Israel, calling on his sons, in dramatic foreshadowing, to be willing to sacrifice their lives for the covenant. He passes on the leadership of the family to Simeon, while acknowledging Judah (Judas) as the military chief.
\n57. David Goldstein suggests that the author seeks in this verse to carefully avoid the attribution of eternal kingship to the Davidic house, in order to make possible the legitimacy of the Hasmonean dynasty.
\n70. in the one hundred and forty-sixth year Mattathias dies in April of 165 BCE (Goldstein).
\n3:1. took command in his place Judah succeeds his father Mattathias (cf. 2:66).
\n3\u20139 The poem tells us that Judah\u2019s earliest operations are mounted against Hellenizing Jews. Only when attacked by Apollonius (v. 10) does he begin to do battle with the Seleucid forces.
\n8. he turned away wrath from Israel Comparing Judah with Phinehas (Num. 25:11), as did 2:26 for Mattathias.
\n10. Apollonius Josephus (Ant. 12.7.1 [287]) suggests that Apollonius was governor of Samaria. He may be the collector of tribute of 1 Macc. 1:29, named as Apollonius in 2 Macc. 5:24. His force would not have contained Samaritans, as none inhabited the city itself at this time (Goldstein).
\n11. he went out to meet him This is Judah\u2019s first battle with the Seleucids.
\n15. a strong army of ungodly men Seron, commander of Syria, decides to try his luck against Judah. He is joined by Hellenizing Jews who seek to avenge Judah\u2019s earlier campaigns against them.
\n16\u201322 There were two more villages, upper Beth-horon (to the southeast) and lower Beth-horon (to the northwest) on the road from Jerusalem to Lydda, on the Jerusalem side of Modein. The pass between them was extremely narrow (B. Sanh. 32b). Despite the fact that Judah\u2019s men are holding the higher position, they still despair at the sight of the larger enemy forces, especially since this is only their second engagement with the Seleucids and since they lack adequate provisions. Judah encourages his men, reminding them that their lives, the lives of their wives and children, and their way of life are all at stake.
\n24. eight hundred of them fell Josephus (Ant. 12.7.1 [292]) even reports that Seron was killed. The number of casualties reported here is perfectly plausible.
\n31. determined to go to Persia Our author explains Antiochus\u2019s eastern campaign as resulting from the need to finance his actions against Judah\u2019s revolt. No doubt the real motivation for this campaign was to bring the eastern satrapies under control.
\n32. Lysias, a distinguished man of royal lineage Antiochus probably established a co-regency with his young son Antiochus V Eupator, appointing Lysias as guardian. Antiochus probably marched from Antioch in late May or early June 165 BCE. For RSV \u201ca distinguished man of royal lineage,\u201d describing Lysias, Goldstein translates, \u201ca nobleman who bore the title of Kinsman of the King,\u201d which was a title above that of \u201cfriend of the king\u201d (cf. 2:18; see comment on 2:15\u201318). Lysias\u2019s orders are to crush the rebels. For this purpose, extensive forces are deployed, although the claim that half the Persian armed forces were to be dedicated to crushing Judah\u2019s insurrection at this early stage seems exaggerated.
\n38. Lysias chose Ptolemy the son of Dorymenes, Nicanor, and Gorgias are sent by Lysias, according to this verse. Yet 2 Macc. 8:8\u20139 has Ptolemy as the one who sends Gorgias and Nicanor.
\n39. forty thousand infantry and seven thousand cavalry These three \u201cfriends of the king\u201d (v. 38) are provided with large armies. The number of soldiers here is probably derived from that attributed to David in 1 Chron. 19:18, and the 20,000 soldiers of 2 Macc. 8:9 comes from 1 Chron. 18:4, both of which refer to Aram (Syria).
\n40. Emmaus Emmaus commanded several routes from Jerusalem to the coastal plain, yet it was exposed from the south.
\n41. traders of the region Expecting the immediate rout of Judah\u2019s forces, slave traders join the camp of the Seleucid army.
\nforces from Syria Goldstein\u2019s emendation of Syria to Idumaea is most probable.
\n45 Our author inserts his third dirge. Cf. 1:25\u201328.
\n46. Mizpah Judah\u2019s forces assemble at Mizpah, an ancient place of prayer, where they mourn and fast and read from the Torah. The exact location of Mizpah cannot be determined. It was the site of Samuel\u2019s prayer to God to enable Israel to be victorious over the Philistines (1 Sam. 7:2\u201314).
\n49\u201351 Even without a Temple, they put on priestly garments and offer firstfruits, yet they are unable to complete the rites of Nazirites, since the offerings had to be performed in the Jerusalem Temple. (The translation \u201cstirred up\u201d in v. 49 must be set aside. Tedesche takes it as \u201cshaved,\u201d a part of the ritual of the Nazirite; Num. 6:18.)
\n54. sounded the trumpets Cf. Num. 10:9.
\n56. according to the law Judah organizes his army on the biblical model and then discharges the requirements of Deut. 20:1\u20139, the law of conscription. Similar rites are required in the Qumran War Scroll (1QM 10:5\u20136), although only exemptions for the faint of heart are mentioned there explicitly. Rabbinic law, on the other hand, limits the discharges of Deut. 20:1\u20139 to optional wars of expansion but allows for no exemptions in obligatory wars within Israel or for self-defense (M. Sot. 8:7; J. Sot. 8:6, 22b; B. Sot. 44b).
\n59. to die in battle Judah repeats his father\u2019s message (2:50) that they have to be ready to sacrifice their lives if necessary.
\n4:1\u20137 Gorgias intends to outnumber Judah\u2019s 3,000 men and to take them by surprise. For this reason he has to employ Hellenized Jews, as they know the terrain well enough to guide his troops by night. Informed of this plan, Judah slips away and positions his under-equipped army to attack the larger and better fortified main camp of the Seleucids.
\n8\u201311 Judah\u2019s words, no doubt put in his mouth by the author, recall Exod. 14:10\u201313.
\n14. fled into the plain Judah\u2019s forces apparently command the high ground, and the Seleucids flee toward the plain as their guard posts fail to withstand the descending army of Judah (B. Bar Kochva).
\n15 Gazara is Gezer, where there may already have been a Seleucid stronghold, to which the soldiers flee. Azotus is Ashdod, and Jamnia is Yavneh. A tongue of Idumean territory may have separated Judea from the Philistine towns of Azotus and Jamnia (Goldstein), or we may read Judea for Idumea with some manuscripts (Tedesche). The territory of ancient Philistia was occupied by pagans in the Hellenistic period.
\n24. sang hymns and praises Judah\u2019s men celebrate their victory with praise of God, reciting psalms such as 106, 107, 118, 136, and 1 Chron. 16:8\u201336 (cf. 2 Chron. 20:21).
\n26\u201329 When his men report their failure, Lysias prepares to mount an even greater offensive. The defeat of Nicanor and Gorgias probably took place in summer or autumn of 165 BCE. Lysia\u2019s campaign ended in failure by late winter of 164 BCE. The dangers of an insurgency so close to the borders of the Ptolemaic Empire made it worth the risk of a winter campaign. One of the reasons for advancing from the south may have been the desire to avoid the rains. At the same time, the approach from Idumea afforded Lysias a friendly base, since the Idumeans had no sympathy for the Hasmoneans. Beth-zur was in southern Judea. Lysias chose this location because it afforded him the high ground. Judah was outnumbered even though his army had grown substantially since the defeat of Nicanor and Gorgias.
\n30. he prayed Facing overwhelming odds, Judah prays to God that the Seleucids be delivered into the hands of his army, just as Goliath had been handed over to David, and the Philistines to Jonathan. He begins his prayer with the benediction formula \u201cBlessed are You,\u201d which was widespread in Second Temple literature and which forms the basis of the Jewish liturgical system.
\n35. he departed to Antioch The battle results in a resounding defeat for Lysias. His decision to return home may have resulted from the news of the death of Antiochus IV and the appointment of Philip as regent for his son Antiochus V.
\n38. the sanctuary desolate The defeat of Lysias left the Hellenizers and Seleucids in the Akra isolated. When Judah and his men go up to the Temple, they find it abandoned; the Hellenized priests probably fled to the Akra or left the city.
\n41. those in the citadel The troops in the Akra.
\n42. blameless priests Only priests unblemished according to the law of Lev. 21:17\u201323 participate in the cleansing of the sanctuary.
\n44\u201351 Regarding the altar, Goldstein suggests that Judah faces a dilemma, since Deut. 12:2\u20134 commands the destruction of idolatrous altars, but at the same time prohibits the destruction of God\u2019s altar. What is to be done in a case in which God\u2019s altar has been defiled by idolatrous worship? Accordingly, the altar is replaced with a new one (built of unhewn stones in accordance with Exod. 20:22 and Deut. 27:6), but the stones of the old altar are hidden away (M. Mid. 1:6 details where the stones were stored). The vessels, lampstand (menorah), and incense altar have to be restored, since Antiochus carried them away when he first entered Jerusalem (1 Macc. 1:21, 23). The burning of incense and the setting out of the loaves render the Temple fit for the renewal of sacrifice.
\n52\u201359 The first sacrificial offering is brought on the 25th of Kislev, 164 BCE. The notion that the rededication took place on the anniversary of the day on which the Temple was defiled has given rise to the emendation of 1:54 (see comment on 1:54). The cornices and decorations are replaced, as they had been taken by Antiochus (1:22). The gates and doors had been burned (4:38). It is decreed that the festival of Hanukkah (\u201cdedication\u201d) be celebrated annually as an eight-day festival. While these verses connect the celebration with the rededication of the Temple, the prayer Al ha-Nisim also emphasizes the military victories of the Hasmoneans. B. Shabbat 21b and the Scholion to Megillat Ta\u2019anit (the Scroll of Fasting), on the other hand, relate the miracle of the cruse of oil as the origin of the festival. Living long after the corruption and decline of the Hasmonean dynasty and the loss of political independence, the Hasmonean victory was no longer a sufficient reason to maintain the celebration. The Temple dedication, therefore, became the focus of the celebration and was even further glorified through the miracle of the oil.
\n60. Mount Zion The Temple Mount, which needed to be fortified against the troops in the nearby Akra.
\n5:1\u20138 The author describes Judah\u2019s early attempts to extend his territory and punish the enemies of Israel as defensive operations.
\n3. Akrabattene A district in southern Samaria populated by Idumeans.
\n4. sons of Baean The Baeanites may be the people of the city referred to in Num. 32:3, located in Transjordan.
\n6. Timothy Timothy here is the one known as the phylarch, a local leader, who appears also in 2 Macc. 10:24\u201337. He is probably to be distinguished from the strategos, a high official of the Seleucid Empire, mentioned in 1 Macc. 5:11\u201344 and 2 Macc. 12:2, 10\u201331.
\n9. Gilead The land east of the Jordan between the Yarmuk River to the north and the Arnon to the south.
\n9. Dathema Location unknown.
\n11. Timothy The Timothy who besieged the Gileadite Jews was the strategos by that name (see comment on 5:6).
\n13. who were in the land of Tob The words en tois Toubiou have been variously understood. For the RSV translation here, cf. Judg. 11:3. Tedesche has \u201cwho were in the village of Toubias,\u201d which his note seems to indicate is to be identified with the land of Tob. Goldstein has \u201cwho were members of Tubias\u2019 troop,\u201d pertaining to a military unit under the leadership of one of the Tobiad family. (The Tobiads were a family of Hellenized Jews.) If so, it would show that even Hellenized Jews were under attack.
\n19. do not engage in battle Judah commands those left in Judea not to do battle with the enemy; he is concerned about the risk entailed in deploying substantial forces outside of Judea.
\n22. Ptolemais Akko on the Mediterranean, north of Haifa.
\n23. Arbatta Unknown. Goldstein suggests emendation to Narbata, a town and a toparchy known from Josephus (J.W. 2.12.5 [291], 18.10 [509]).
\n24\u201354 The longer account of Judah\u2019s exploits results from his being the central hero. Indeed, verse 43 emphasizes the personal bravery of Judah. Verse 53 speaks of his kindness and concern for stragglers. We see him attempting to avoid armed confrontation with the people of Ephron (vv. 46\u201348), following the laws of Deut. 20:10\u201315. The exact location of most of the cities mentioned cannot be established. Carnaim, known as Ashteroth-karnaim in Gen. 14:5, is north of Edrei in Transjordan. The temple there must have been to Astarte. Raphon is in the vicinity. Ephron is eight miles east of the Jordan, opposite Beth-shan. Judah also had to evacuate the Jews from Transjordan, since it would have been impossible to hold on to such far-flung territory. The triumphant entry of these Jews into Jerusalem described in verse 54 echoes Isa. 35:10.
\n55\u201368 Joseph and Azariah, left to command the troops in Judea, violate their instructions (v. 19) and march against Jamnia (Yavneh on the Mediterranean shore). Gorgias, probably the same one mentioned in 3:38\u20134:25, routs their army. Our author gives two reasons for the rout: disobedience of commands and not being of the Hasmonean house. Here the author is emphasizing his view that the Hasmoneans were divinely chosen legitimate rulers. The Hasmonean brothers themselves continue to attain victories and to command popular support. Judah\u2019s destruction of pagan cult sites was part of the general Hasmonean approach to extirpating paganism from the Land of Israel.
\n6:1. King Antiochus This section picks up the narrative of 3:37.
\nupper provinces Mesopotamia and Iran.
\nElymais The region known in the Bible as Elam. No city of that name is known, and it is likely that if Susa were intended it would have been mentioned by name.
\n4. and they withstood him in battle Goldstein: \u201cWhen they stood against him for battle.\u201d Goldstein\u2019s translation allows him to conclude that no actual battle took place, but Antiochus gave up when he saw that the inhabitants would resist.
\n5\u20137 The text describes an envoy who relates to Antiochus the events of 3:38\u20134:61.
\n8. When the king heard this news This account attributes the king\u2019s death to the news of the defeat in Judea. Such a sequence of events is extremely unlikely, even though Antiochus\u2019s death did occur a short time after the rededication of the Temple. Indeed, in Kislev (November\/December) of 164 BCE the news of Antiochus\u2019s death became known in Babylonia, according to a cuneiform source. It is therefore not probable that events of that same month in Judea could have been known to Antiochus before he died. It is likely, therefore, that our author has presented his own interpretation of events and that the messenger is fictitious, as suggested by Goldstein.
\n10. friends The \u201cfriends of the king\u201d are a group of courtiers (see comment on 2:15\u201328).
\n13. because of this Our author has Antiochus blame his death on his despoiling of the Temple (cf. 1:20\u201324) and his attacks on Judea. Polybius 31:9 attributes Antiochus\u2019s death to his desire to plunder the Temple of Artemis in Persia, to which Josephus (Ant. 12.9.1 [358\u201359]) responds with the view of 1 Maccabees.
\n14\u201317 The king designates Philip as regent for his young son Antiochus, electing him to bring (so Goldstein) Antiochus the diadem, robe, and signet ring that symbolize the royal power. In so doing he displaces Lysias, with whom he had entrusted the government in his absence (3:32\u201336). Antiochus then dies, in early winter of 164 BCE. Lysias proves no easy match. Before Philip can assert his power, Lysias, to cement his own power over the Seleucid realm, sets up nine-year-old Antiochus V as king, giving him the title Eupator, meaning \u201cborn of a noble sire\u201d (Goldstein).
\n18\u201327 In 163\/162 BCE, about a year after the death of Antiochus IV, spurred on perhaps by the instability attending the succession and regency of the Seleucid Empire (see the previous note), Judah besieges the Akra. A group of pagans and Hellenized Jews manage to elude the siege and approach the king, arguing that the attack on the symbol of Seleucid hegemony over Judea and the fortification of the Temple and Beth-zur constitute an act of rebellion.
\n28\u201333 The young king is pictured as controlling affairs, although the real power was concentrated in the hands of the regent, Lysias. The size of the forces is no doubt exaggerated here. Again the approach to Beth-zur was through Idumea (cf. 4:29). After defending the fortress, Judah suddenly withdrew his men to Beth-zechariah where he was soon met by the enemy. The author\u2019s description of the valiant defense by the Jews in verse 31 leads us to believe that actually they withdrew because they were unable to withstand the Seleucid pressure.
\n34. elephants Goldstein suggests that the author took the description of the elephants from a military manual. The juice, in his view, stimulated the animals because of its color and taste.
\n37. four Based on emendation. More probable is \u201ctwo,\u201d as in Tedesche and Zeitlin, based on a reconstructed Heb. original shene shalishim, \u201ctwo riding warriors,\u201d which was easily misread as shenayim u-sheloshim, \u201cthirty two,\u201d the reading of most Greek manuscripts.
\n41. the army was very large and strong The detailed account here of the overwhelming forces of the enemy is intended to show that it was not Judah\u2019s fault that he lost this battle.
\n47. they turned away in flight After an initial success, the battle quickly goes against Judah\u2019s army. Judah\u2019s brother Eleazar, surnamed Avaran (or Auaran), dies in battle. This tragedy may have contributed to the demoralization that caused Judah to withdraw his army.
\n49. sabbatical year for the land The king is greatly aided in conquering Beth-zur by the fact that Jews were prohibited from farming the Land of Israel during the sabbatical year (Exod. 23:11; Lev. 25:3\u20137). This likely means that it was the year after the sabbatical year, in which the lack of the previous year\u2019s produce would be felt. The same problem afflicted those Jews who sought to defend the Temple against the army of Antiochus V (v. 53).
\n55\u201356. Philip \u2026 had returned Lysias\u2019s control over the young Antiochus V is challenged by Philip; after all, it was Philip who had actually been appointed regent by Antiochus IV on his deathbed (v. 15). Lysias decides that he had better commit his troops to the struggle against Philip for control over the empire. For this reason, he seeks peace in Judea.
\n58. make peace with them Lysias\u2019s speech is no doubt a composition of the author. In it Lysias asserts that there is no sense in continuing the war and that the only reason the Judeans opposed the Seleucids was because the latter had prohibited the practice of Judaism. Lysias, according to our author, deliberately conceals the true reason for his desire to return to Antioch, the presence there of Philip. A parallel in 2 Macc. 11:13 has Lysias decide to make peace because he realized that God was on the side of the Hebrews.
\n61. their oath These verses describe the legal preceding wherein the two sides exchange oaths. We can imagine that this was a solemn occasion in which specific military norms were followed. Cf. the parallel description in 2 Macc. 11:13\u201321, 27\u201333, in which the agreements take the form of a series of letters. The king\u2019s acceptance of Lysias\u2019s proposal here is paralleled in a letter in 2 Macc. 11:22\u201326, in which Antiochus V proposes that the Jews be allowed to live according to their own laws. Only after all arrangements are concluded do the defenders of the Temple (termed Mount Zion in v. 62) withdraw from their positions.
\n63. he departed Antiochus V\u2019s withdrawal from Jerusalem was probably sometime in the winter of 162 BCE.
\n7:1. Demetrius Having overcome the challenge of Philip, Antiochus V and Lysias now face a more formidable opponent in Demetrius I Soter (ruled 162\u2013150 BCE) son of Seleucus IV Philopator. Demetrius had been a hostage in Rome, from which he managed to escape after the death of his uncle, Antiochus IV. After establishing himself at Tripolis, in Phoenicia (Josephus, Ant. 12.10.1 [389]; 2 Macc. 14:1), he takes Antioch, and Antiochus V and Lysias are put to death. His accession was probably in October of 168 BCE (Goldstein).
\n5. lawless and ungodly men of Israel The party of moderate Hellenizers. According to 2 Macc. 14:3, Alcimus (Jakim) had earlier been designated high priest. Josephus (Ant. 12.9.7 [385] and Ant. 20.10.1 [235\u201336]) relates that he was appointed by Lysias after the execution of Menelaus. Perhaps our passage refers to his seeking confirmation from the new ruler. Alcimus and his supporters argue that Judah and his followers had made life impossible in Judea for the supporters of the Seleucid Empire.
\n8. Bacchides One of the \u201cfriends\u201d of King Antiochus IV (Josephus, Ant. 12.10.2 [393]), who must have been led to support Demetrius as a result of conditions under Antiochus V and Lysias.
\nprovince Beyond the River Coele-Syria and Phoenicia.
\n9. he sent him Demetrius\u2019s own involvement in pacifying the eastern part of his empire leads him to put so distinguished a leader as Bacchides in charge of affairs in Judea. Alcimus, confirmed as high priest, is sent with Bacchides.
\n16. they trusted him Although the Hasmoneans under Judah realize the purposes of the large expeditionary force sent with Bacchides, some of the Hasideans who did not share the Hasmonean insistence on Jewish independence, but who were concerned only for religious freedom, are lulled into Bacchides\u2019s trap. Probably the presence of the priest Alcimus convinces them that the Seleucids can be trusted.
\n17. \u201cThe flesh \u2026 bury them\u201d An adaptation of Ps. 79:2\u20133 and Jer. 14:16. (Goldstein\u2019s claim that this psalm was authored by Alcimus cannot be accepted.) The story of the execution of the Hasideans is not found in 2 Macc. 14.
\n19. Beth-zaith About six kilometers north of Beth-zur on the road to Jerusalem.
\nkilled them Here again Bacchides commits atrocities, again denying the corpses burial (cf. v. 17). Manuscripts are divided as to whether he killed his own men who had deserted from him or some Jews who had deserted to him. If the latter, he would have killed them out of fear that they were disloyal.
\n25. Alcimus \u2026 returned to the king Despite the support Alcimus receives from the Seleucid army and from the Hellenizing Jews, he is unable to stabilize his power as high priest in the face of the opposition of Judah and his men.
\n26. Nicanor In response to the appeals of Alcimus (v. 25), Nicanor is dispatched to assist him.
\n27. peaceable message The account in 2 Macc. 14:18\u201330 would lead to the possibility that there was a period of friendship between Nicanor and Judah. When Nicanor turns against him, Judah escapes.
\n31. Caphar-salama \u201cVillage of peace.\u201d No convincing identification has yet been made for this site.
\n32. the army of Nicanor fell This verse is somewhat ambiguous. The version in Josephus (Ant. 12.10.4 [402\u2013405]) to the effect that Nicanor was victorious and that Judah\u2019s men fled to the Akra is mistaken. The correct interpretation is that Judah was victorious and that Nicanor\u2019s men were sent scampering back to their fortress in the City of David. Otherwise, the oath of verse 35 would make no sense.
\n33. burnt offering From the Persian period on, offerings had been made on behalf of the king as a sign of loyalty. This token fails to convince Nicanor that the priests are loyal to the Seleucid Empire. From the prayer that the priests recite in verses 37\u201338, it seems that he was correct.
\n37. Thou didst choose this house This verse is influenced by 1 Kings 8:29\u201330, 43; 9:3.
\n39. Beth-horon A strategic high point.
\n40. Adasa Khirbet Adaseh, a village on the road from Jerusalem to Beth-horon, some seven miles before Beth-horon. By blocking the road, Judah intends to stop Nicanor from fulfilling the oath of verse 35 (Goldstein).
\n41. Assyrians In his prayer, Judah recalls the destruction of Sennacherib\u2019s army described in 2 Kings 19:35. Cf. 2 Macc. 15:22\u201324.
\n43. thirteenth day of the month of Adar The battle took place in March of 161 BCE Josephus (Ant. 12.10.5 [409]) places the death of Nicanor further on in the battle, as does the Talmud (J. Ta\u2019an. 2:12, 66a).
\n45. from Adasa as far as Gazara The enemy is pursued westward, toward Gazara (Gezer).
\nsounding the battle call The blowing of the trumpets is intended to signal the surrounding villagers to block the path of escape of the Seleucid army so that the rout could continue.
\n47. right hand which he so arrogantly stretched out The cutting off of Nicanor\u2019s right hand was intended as retribution for his having raised it in taking the oath of verse 35. According to 2 Macc. 15:32, it was punishment for having raised his hand against the Temple. Nicanor\u2019s limbs were displayed just outside Jerusalem and were not brought into the city in order not to bring corpse impurity into Jerusalem\u2019s walls (see M. Kelim 1:7). The Scholion to Megillat Ta\u2019anit and Rabbinic texts similarly relate that the Hasmoneans cut off Nicanor\u2019s limbs to avenge the arrogant waving of his hand to threaten Jerusalem. His remains were then hung upon one of the gates of the Temple, giving it the name Nicanor\u2019s Gate.
\n49. thirteenth of Adar The Day of Nicanor was celebrated as a minor Jewish holiday as late as the end of the 1st century CE. Fasting and mourning were forbidden on this and many other such days, according to Megillat Ta\u2019anit. The Rabbis abolished these minor commemorations in favor of Hanukkah and Purim, which remained as festivals of national deliverance.
\n8:1. the fame of the Romans This account of the greatness of Rome is actually a collection by the pro-Roman author of information and even misinformation about the power and glory of Rome. This material is intended to justify Judah\u2019s having allied himself with this foreign nation. The author accepts the tendentious claims of the Romans that those whom they had conquered had undertaken aggression against Rome (Goldstein).
\nall who made an alliance with them Goldstein, apparently following a different text, translates, \u201call who wished to join them.\u201d
\n2\u20133. the Gauls Either the Gauls of Northern Italy defeated in 190 BCE or the Galatians of Asia Minor conquered in 189 BCE. The Carthaginian colonies in Spain were conquered in the Second Punic War (218\u2013201 BCE).
\n5. Philip, and Perseus king of the Macedonians Philip was defeated in 197 BCE, and his son Perseus, last king of Macedonia, was defeated in 168 BCE.
\n6. Antiochus the Great, king of Asia Antiochus (III) the Great was defeated by the Romans at Magnesia in 190 or 189 BCE. He was not made a prisoner, but was forced to accept the terms of the Romans.
\n8. India and Media and Lydia India was never conquered by Antiochus III, yet he did march toward it and was widely reported to have had elephants in his forces. Media was retained by him, but Lydia had to be surrendered to the Romans along with other parts of Asia Minor, most of which were then given to Eumenes II of Pergamum.
\n9\u201311 Probably an anachronistic description of the war with the Achaean League in 146 BCE.
\n15. senate chamber The Roman Senate did not meet daily, but usually three times each month and on festivals. It began with 120 members, and it gradually increased to approximately 300, until it was further enlarged to 600 in 81 BCE.
\n16. one man The author apparently did not realize that there were two consuls, rather than one ruler.
\nno envy or jealousy The allusion to harmony means that our passage was written before the Roman civil wars.
\n17. Eupolemus the son of John Eupolemus was the son of the same John who according to 2 Macc. 4:11 secured royal concessions for the Jews from Antiochus III. He is probably to be identified with the author of the Greek work On the Kings in Judea.
\nson of Accos Goldstein\u2019s \u201cof the clan of Hakkoz\u201d is to be preferred to RSV \u201cson of Accos.\u201d On this priestly clan, see Ezra 2:61; Neh. 7:63; cf. 1 Chron. 4:8.
\nJason the son of Eleazar Otherwise unknown.
\n18. to free themselves from the yoke The Jews continued to be taxed by the Seleucid kingdom, even after the victory of Judah over Nicanor. Further, Alcimus still remained high priest, supported by the Seleucids. It was this yoke of slavery that Judah sought to cast off by entering an alliance with the Romans.
\n19. entered the senate chamber and spoke As was usual at that time, these emissaries were invited to address the Senate.
\n22. sent to Jerusalem The claim that the Romans sent a bronze copy of the treaty to Jerusalem was doubted by Josephus (Ant. 12.10.6 [416]), in light of the usual Roman practice of depositing such bronze copies in the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.
\n23\u201332 The text of the treaty that is given here generally follows Roman usage except that the form had to be somewhat modified, since the other party was \u201cJudas [Judah] \u2026 his brothers and the people of the Jews\u201d (v. 20), not a sovereign kingdom. (For a complete comparison, see Goldstein.) If the document is indeed authentic, as most historians argue, some difficulties in legal terminology result from the translation of the original text from Latin into Hebrew and then in turn into the Greek translation of 1 Maccabees. Each side promises to aid the other if attacked and not to aid the enemies of the other. Some scholars take the postscript on Demetrius (vv. 31\u201332) to be a later addition to the text (Josephus omits it). On Demetrius I, see comment on 7:1.
\n9:1. a second time Bacchides and Alcimus, the pretender to the high priesthood, had fought in Judea already, according to 7:5\u201325. After the failure of Nicanor, Demetrius I again sends Bacchides accompanied by Alcimus to Judea, this time with the right half of his phalanx.
\n2. Gilgal \u2026 Mesaloth \u2026 Arbela Goldstein emends \u201cGilgal\u201d to \u201cGalilee\u201d (so Ant. 12.11.1 [421]), as there is an Arbela in Galilee. Mesaloth probably derives from Heb. mesillot, \u201csteps,\u201d a name given to the village because of the shape of the cliffs. Yet it is difficult to see why the Seleucids would have entered Galilee and attacked one obscure village that was in difficult terrain.
\n3. first month of the one hundred and fifty-second year Nisan (March\u2014April) of 161 BCE.
\n4. Berea Probably the modern El-Bireh, opposite Ramallah, ten miles north of Jerusalem.
\n5. Elasa Probably Khirbet el-Assi, located off the Jerusalem-Nablus road, near Ramallah, across a valley from El-Bireh, Bacchides\u2019s position. It may also be identified with Khirbet Il\u2019asa which is between Upper and Lower Beth-horon, but Goldstein sees this as unlikely, since it is some 15 kilometers from El-Bireh. Indeed, the fright and desertion of so many of Judah\u2019s soldiers (v. 6) presumes that the camps were located close to one another.
\n11 This verse is ambiguous. Tedesche translates literally, \u201cThe army set out from the camp and stood in battle line against them.\u201d Josephus took \u201cthe army\u201d to be that of Bacchides, which stood in battle formation arrayed against the Jews (Ant. 12.11.2 [426]). The second half of the verse does indeed describe a large army such as that of Bacchides, not a small band such as that which remained with Judah.
\n15. as far as Mount Azotus Tedesche follows Michaelis in seeing this phrase as a corruption of Heb. ad ashdot ha-har, \u201cto the slopes of the mountain.\u201d Less certain of the restoration, Goldstein translates, \u201cas far as \u2026\u201d (the ellipses are his).
\n19. Jonathan and Simon took Judas Josephus suggests that a truce allowed Jonathan and Simon to recover the body of Judah and bury it at Modein (Ant. 12.11.2 [432]). Goldstein suggests that this truce may have resulted from the brothers\u2019 agreeing to call off their resistance to Alcimus.
\n21. How is the mighty fallen This verse is influenced by 2 Sam. 1:19.
\n22. Now the rest of the acts of Judas This verse is an imitation of the style of royal chronicles preserved in the book of Kings (e.g., 1 Kings 11:41).
\n23. lawless emerged \u2026 doers of injustice appeared Allusions to Ps. 92:8 (Goldstein).
\n33. wilderness of Tekoa Tekoa is about five miles southeast of Bethlehem, and the wilderness extended from Tekoa toward the Dead Sea.
\npool of Asphar The pool may be the modern Bir ez-Za\u2019feran, about three miles south of Tekoa, although other possibilities can be suggested. The presence of a well must have been one of the main reasons for taking refuge in this place.
\n34 Zeitlin and Goldstein both suggest that this verse is out of place. Zeitlin\u2019s suggestion that it be placed before verse 43 would yield a repetitive and awkward text. Goldstein\u2019s view is that it was originally a gloss on verse 43 that crept into the text. (The gloss would indicate that Bacchides had actually only learned of Jonathan\u2019s flight on Friday evening, and by Saturday afternoon he had already caught up to him. See v. 43.) It is difficult to sustain the text as is, since verse 34 is at best a doublet (alternative version) for verse 43.
\n35. the Nabateans Jonathan sends John (v. 36) to the Nabateans to ask if they will store his \u201ccumbersome household goods\u201d (Goldstein). The phrase hegoumenon tou ochlou, literally, \u201cat the head<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
34. Nisan (which is Abib) This part of the text has several problems. The editors of the Greek text read ABIB instead of IB (= 12, according to the numerical value of the Greek letters). The Greek manuscripts and the other Versions (Ethiopic, Armenian, Slavic) differ on this point. If we keep the original Greek … <\/p>\n