that the work in question was written either during the last years of that prince, or after his death, which took place in the year 106 B. C. The inconsiderable knowledge which it displays of the Romans, (in c. viii.), is at variance with a more modern date; for in the century immediately preceding the birth of Christ the Jews were much better acquainted with that nation. The author has left no vestige of himself. It is evident, however, from the declaration already mentioned relating to the actions of John Hyrcanus and from the remark made in ix. 21. (22.) in reference to those of Judas, (which, it is said, were not all written,) that he had drawn from annals contemporaneous with the events. The contents themselves present sufficient evidence that the author made an unexceptionable use of his authorities.

§ 259. Language of the First Book of Maccabees.

JEROME (Prolog. Galeat.) asserts that he found the first book of Maccabees in the Hebrew language, and Origen gives us, (as before stated, § 256.) the Hebrew or Chaldee title of the book. To this evidence for the Hebrew origin of the work it may be added, that the Greek text not only abounds with Hebraisms, but exhibits also some erroneous translations and various readings, which betray their origin from a Hebrew text. Compare vi. 1., Exuais ev en sgordi TONS, where Tos arises from the equivocal character of the word , which in Chaldee means a province, and in Syriac a city, in which last meaning the translator has improperly understood it; also xiv. 5., where the original Hebrew word "s, which ought to have

T.:

been rendered coasts, is explained by ταις νήσοις θαλασσης the islands of the sea. Very harsh Hebraisms occur also in i. 16. ii. 19, 42. iv. 19. v. 40, 53, 64. See Germ. Introd. p. 955, 956. [a]

[a) See also DE WETTE, Einleit. § 300, who agrees with Jahn, and gives additional examples of Hebraisms and mistakes of the Greek translator. Tr.]

§ 260.

Versions of the First Book of Maccabees.

The age of the Greek version of this book is unknown. But a work, the contents of which were so interesting to all the Jews, was no doubt soon translated into that language in which it could be read

by Hellenists. It is therefore in the highest degree probable, that this version was made before the commencement of the century immediately preceding the birth of Christ.-The Vulgate version was made before the time of Jerome, and from a Greek text. That the Syriac was translated immediately from the Hebrew is maintained with a multiplicity of arguments by JOHN DAVID MICHAELIS in his notes added to his German version of this book; but TRENDELENBURG, in EICHHORN'S Repertorium für Biblisch. und Morgen. Lit. xv. Th. S. 58. ff. has advanced some considerations against his hypothesis which are not to be disregarded. A more critical examination therefore is still necessary in order to settle this question.[a]

[a) EICHHORN, Allgem. deutsch. Bibl. Th. LI. S. 14. ff., and DE WETTE, 301, consider it as made from the Greek. Tr.]

$261. Contents of the Second Book of Maccabees.

The second book of Maccabees consists of three parts, which have no connexion with each other. 1) Chap. i. to the middle of the 10th verse contains a letter, addressed by the people of Jerusalem and of Judea to the Egyptian Hellenists, written in the year B. C. 123. and of the era of contracts 188. After mentioning a previous letter which had been sent, in the year 169 of the era of contracts (B. C. 143), relating to the calamities that had been undergone, it informs the Jews in Egypt that now the sacrifices had been restored and the feast of dedication was kept, and urges upon them the celebration of the same religious festival.- -2) From the middle of the tenth verse of the first chapter to the eighteenth of the second is contained another more ancient letter of the inhabitants of Judea, the elders, and Judas Maccabeus, to the priest Aristobulus, the instructer of king Ptolemy, and to the Egyptian Jews. From the mention of Judas Maccabeus, it is clear that this letter was written between the years of the era of contracts 149 and 153 (B. C. 163-159). It contains an account of the dangers with which the writers had been threatened by Antiochus Epiphanes, and of his death, and admonishes the Jews of Egypt to celebrate the feast of dedication and of the consecrated fire on the 25th of the month Casleu. Of this consecrated fire, and also of the ark of the covenant, the holy tabernacle, and the golden altar of in

cense, some extraordinary things are related.- -3) Then follows in ii. 19—32, a preface to the book, in which the author signifies his . intention of reducing the five books of Jason into an epitome. He relates some more ancient transactions which prepared the way for the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, c. iii-v. At last he recounts the exploits of Judas Maccabeus, and concludes the book with the defeat and slaughter of Nicanor, of which an account is also given in I Mac. vii.

The two books of Maccabees ought to be constantly compared together, as they serve for mutual illustration; and therefore in my German Archæology, II. Th. I. B. § 93–103. S. 402–476., I have given the corresponding places. The differences in the chronology of the books may be reconciled by reference to the different methods of commencing the year, the first book following that of the Babylonians, and reckoning from April, 311 B. C., while the second begins with October, 312 B. C. The objections which have been urged against this method of computing in these books, are answered in a work, which bears the title: Auctoritas utriusque libri Maccabæorum, Vienna Austria, 1749, p. 129-146.

§ 262. Difficulties in the Second Book of Maccabees.

Although this work supplies some deficiencies in the history in the first book of Maccabees, yet it labours under difficulties by no means inconsiderable.- -1) The letters prefixed to the book are in some respects repugnant to its contents. For instance, the second letter states that Antiochus Epiphanes was stoned and his body cut in pieces by the priests, in the temple of Nanæa in Persepolis ; but in c. ix. it is related, that this monarch was thrown out of his chariot as he was returning from Persia, attacked by a disease, and that his flesh putrified while he was yet alive. The other circumstances mentioned in this second letter, relating to the deportation of the Jews, i. 19., to the consecrated fire, i. 19-22. ii. 1, 4—8., and to the tabernacle of Moses, the golden altar of incense, and the ark of the covenant, ii. 4-8., are at variance with the history contained in other parts of the Bible. These letters do not appear to have been prefixed by the author, who could not so plainly contradict himself; they must have been added by some other person, like the epistle at the end of the book of Baruch. If it should be urged, that the words sa dɛ at the

commencement of the book in ii. 19., presumes that something has preceded them; this is readily answered: for in Jewish Greek the occurrence of ds in the beginning of a discourse is not a matter which need shock the reader or the particle de may have been introduced by the person who prefixed the letters.—2) The history of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes in c. ix. varies from that contained in I Mac. vi. 1-17. However, the discrepancy is not of much consequence, for the principal fact, the death of Antiochus in Persia while on a journey, is stated in both places.-3) The accounts of apparitions and prodigies which are given in iii. 25. s., 33, 34. v. 1—3. x. 29. s., xi. 8-10. xv. 11. ss., do not occur in the first book of Maccabees, and have the appearance of being additions to the true history. The author seems to refer to them when he says, in ii. 28. and xv. 38. that he had left the investigation of the several events and actions recounted, to the writer (Jason), and had confined himself to what had been written by him. But these adjectitious circumstances produce no change in the facts themselves. See SANDBUECHLER Erläuterungen der Biblischen Geschichte, 1794. I. Th. S. 426, 427.

§ 263.

Author and Age of the Second Book of Maccabees.

The conjectures which have been advanced respecting the author of this book are so unfounded, that it is best to confess our ignorance. The determination of its age is also involved in difficulties, since the author has not told us when Jason lived; doubtless, because at that time he was a writer well known. There is, however, abundant evidence, arising from the work itself, that it was written out of Syria, and some considerable time posterior to the transactions which it relates. We shall not therefore greatly err, if we place it before the middle of the century immediately preceding the Christian era. In a more modern age, a work of this kind would scarcely have obtained readers.

§ 264. Language and Versions of the Second Book of Maccabees.

JEROME has remarked (Prolog. Galeat.) that the second book of Maccabees was written in Greek, which, he adds, may be proved from its very phraseology.* The Greek of this work is pure, and occasion

* [Quod ex ipsa quoque phrasi probari potest.]

ally elegant, so that the Jew who composed it must have been well acquainted with that language.

The Latin Vulgate version is older than Jerome, and is a free translation from the Greek text.The age of the Syriac version in the London Polyglot is unknown. It was made immediately from the Greek, although it does not always faithfully adhere to the meaning of its original.The Arabic book of Maccabees is not a version, but an entirely different narrative; compiled from our books of Maccabees, and from Josephus, or from the treatise relating to the Maccabees which is appended to the work of Josephus.The Jews in China possess two books of Maccabees, but it is uncertain whether they are the same as ours; it is suspected by some that they are the fabulous work which the Jews at present read on the feast of dedication. See MICHAELIS alte orient. Biblioth. Th. V. S. 20.

ERASMUS FROELICH, formerly librarian in the Academy of Theresa at Vienna, published in 1744, Annales compendiarii regum et rerum Syriæ, nummis veterum illustrati, in folio. In this work he admirably illustrated the history of the Maccabees, and the books which we possess at present, and established the chronology and certainty of the accounts which they contain. He was opposed by ERN. FRED. WERNSDORF in his Prolusio de fontibus historiæ Syriæ in libris Maccabæorum, Lipsia, 1746, 4to., to whom Frölich replied in a book entitled, De fontibus historiæ Syriæ in libris Maccabæorum prolusio in examen vocata, Vindobona, 1746, 4to. This work was attacked by GOTTL. WERNSDORF, brother of the former, in his Commentatio historico-critica de fide historica Maccabæorum, 1747, Vratislavia, 4to. and was answered by an anonymous Jesuit in a work called, Authoritas utriusque libri Maccabæorum canonico-historica adserta, Vienna, 1749, 4to.