1 Maccabees (Jewish Encyclopedia)
From BibleWiki
Contents |
I Maccabees
The First Book of the Maccabees covers the period of forty years from the accession of Antiochus (175 B.C.) to the death of Simon the Maccabee (135 B.C.). Its contents are as follows: Ch. i. 1-9 is a brief historical introduction; i. 10-ii. 70 treats of the rise of the Maccabean Revolt; iii. 1-ix. 22 is devoted to the Maccabean struggle under Judas; ix. 23-xii. 53, to the fortunes of Israel under Jonathan; xiii. 1-xvi. 24, to the administration of Simon. The events are followed with intense interest and sympathy. At times the enthusiasm of the writer rises to a high pitch and breaks out into poetry of a genuine Semitic character (comp. iii. 3-9). The style is simple, terse, restrained, and objective, modeled throughout on that of the historical books of the Old Testament. The fact that just proportions are observed in treating the different parts of the narrative proves the author to have been a writer of considerable skill. He dates all events in terms of the Seleucid era.
Original Language.
It is clear from the Semitic idioms which occur throughout the work that it was composed in a Semitic language (see, for example, ii. 40, iv. 2), and certain passages indicate with great clearness that the original language was Hebrew (see ii. 39, iii. 19). To this fact Origen and Jerome also bear testimony, though it is possible that the version or paraphrase known to them was Aramaic.
The Hebrew original seems not to have borne the name "Maccabees," though it is not known what was its real designation. Eusebius ("Hist. Eccl." vi. 25) quotes Origen as authority for the name Σαρβηθ Σαβαναι, a name which has been explained in many different ways. For some of these see Grimm ("Das Erste Buch der Makkabäer," p. xvii.). Dalman ("Grammar," p. 6), whom Torrey (Cheyne and Black, "Encyc. Bibl.") follows, takes the name as a corruption of (image) (= "Book of the Hasmoneans"). If this be the correct interpretation, an Aramaic translation of the book must have been made at an early time, and it was this translation which was known to Origen and Jerome—a view which does not seem improbable. Be this as it may, the Hebrew was translated very early into Greek, and the Greek only has survived. The Greek version seems to be a literal one, often preserving the Semitic, and sometimes even the Hebrew, idiom; but it is clear, and probably it is, on the whole, a satisfactory translation. It is transmitted in three uncial manuscripts of the Septuagint—the Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Alexandrinus, and the Codex Venetus—as well as in several cursives.
Author.
Concerning the author no information is obtainable beyond that which may be inferred from the book itself. He was a devout and patriotic Jew who lived and wrote in Palestine. This latter fact is proved by his intimate and exact geographical knowledge of the Holy Land (comp. iii. 24; vii. 19; ix. 2-4, 33, 34, 43; xii. 36-40; xiii. 22, 23; xvi. 5, 6) and by his lack of accurate knowledge of any of the foreign countries which he mentions. The author was also a loyal admirer of the Hasmonean family; he believed that to it Israel owed her deliverance and existence. He admired not only the military deeds of Judas (comp. v. 63), but also those of Jonathan (comp. x. 15-21) and Simon (comp. xiv. 4-15). The narrative is told not as though deliverance came by miracle, but as though it was due to the military genius of these men, exercised under the favoring guidance of God (i. 64, iii. 8). Curiously enough the word "God" does not appear in the work, nor does the word "Lord." The idea is not lacking, however, as in the Book of Esther, but is represented by "Heaven," or by the pronoun "He." The author was a deeply religious man in spite of this mannerism. He was very zealous for the Law and for the national religious institutions (see i. 11, 15, 43; ii. 20-22; iii. 21), for the Scriptures (i. 56, iii. 48), and for the Temple (i. 21, 39; iii. 43).
Date.
It should be noted, also, that throughout the work the priesthood is represented in a favorable light. The renegade priests Jason and Menelaus are not mentioned - a fact in striking contrast with the treatment which the Second Book of the Maccabees accords them. From these facts Geiger conjectured that the author was a Sadducee, and most recent writers follow him in this opinion, although they consider him wrong in calling the First Book of the Maccabees a partizan document; its temperate and just tone certainly redeems it from such a stricture. The terminus a quo of the work is found in the fact that John Hyreanus I., who began to reign in 135 B.C., is mentioned at the close of the book (xvi. 21-24). As the Romans are throughout spoken of in terms of respect and friendliness, it is clear that the terminus ad quem must be sought at some time before the conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey in 63 B.C. As to whether the date can be more nearly determined scholars are not agreed. The determining fact is held by most to be the statement in xvi. 23, 24, that the "rest of the acts of John . . . are written in the chronicles of his high-priesthood." It is thought by many that this implies that John had died and that a sufficient time had elapsed since his death to permit the circulation of the chronicles. Bissell (Lange's "Commentary," p. 479) thinks that not more than a score or two of years had passed, while Schürer ("Hist. of the Jewish People," div. ii., vol. iii., p. 8) and Fairweather (in "Cambridge Bible" and Hastings, "Dict. Bible") think that not more than a decade or two had elapsed, and date the work in the first or second decade of the first century B.C. Torrey, on the other hand, thinks ("Encyc. Bibl.") that this reference to the chronicle of the priesthood is an imitation of well-known passages in the Books of Kings, that it was intended solely as a compliment to John, and that the work was composed early in his reign (i.e., soon after 135 B.C.) by one who had been an interested spectator of the whole Maccabean movement. The vivid character of the narrative and the fact that it closes so abruptly after the death of Simon make this a very plausible view.
Sources and Integrity.
Those who maintain the later date of the work are obliged to account for the vivid details which it contains by supposing that the writer employed older sources, such as letters and memoranda. In Torrey's view no such sources are needed, as the author, where he did not have personal knowledge, could have talked with participants or eye-witnesses of the events. In either case the First Book of the Maccabees is one of the best sources known for the history of the Jews.
J. D. Michaelis held that Josephus used the Hebrew original of the book, which differed in some important particulars from the present text. Destinon ("Die Quellen des Josephus," 1882) revived this theory and endeavored to prove (pp. 80 et seq.) that ch. xiv.-xvi. were not contained in the edition used by Josephus. Destinon bases his argument on the fact that Josephus treats this portion very scantily in comparison with his treatment of the other material of the book, although these chapters contain quite as much and as interesting material. He has been followed by Wellhausen ("I. J. G." pp. 222 et seq.). But Torrey (in "Encyc. Bibl."), by utilizing the investigations of Mommsen, has shown that Josephus actually knew some of this material and introduced it at a later point in his work ("Ant." xiv. 8, § 5), in describing the history of Hyrcanus II. In all probability, therefore, the First Book of the Maccabees has retained its original form.
Jewish Standpoint
I Maccabees, now extant only in Greek, was originally composed in Hebrew or Aramaic, most probably the former; but the original can not have been long in circulation. The fragment of a Hebrew text of I Maccabees published by Chwolson (1896) and again by Schweizer (1901) is not part of the original; and it may well be that even Origen knew only an Aramaic translation and not the original. He calls (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." vi. 25) I Maccabees Σαρβηθ Σα(ρ)βαναιελ, a title which has given rise to much conjecture. Only two suggestions need be named: Derenbourg's (image) ("Book of the Family of the Chief of the People of God"), given in his "Essai sur l'Histoire et la Géographie de la Palestine" (p. 450, Paris, 1867), and Dalman's (image) , in his "Grammatik des Jüdisch-Palästinischen Aramäisch" (p. 6, Leipsic, 1894). Of the name "Maccabees" it may be mentioned that in a text of the Megillat Anteyukas ("J. Q. R." xi. 291 et seq.) the reading is (image) (= "the zealot"), which would be very acceptable were it better attested.
As to the date of the book, much turns on the meaning of the last two verses. Some critics, indeed, doubt the authenticity of the whole of the last section (xiv. 16-xvi. 24), but the trend of opinion is in favor of the integrity of the book. Schürer and Niese (in "Kritik der Beiden Makkabäerbücher," Berlin, 1900) maintain that the last verses imply that I Maccabees was written after the death of John Hyrcanus (105 B.C.), but there is good reason for holding that the reference is to the beginning (135 B.C.) and not to the end of Hyrcanus' reign (see "J. Q. R." xiii. 512 et seq.).
Critics are practically unanimous in attaching great value to I Maccabees as a historical record. "On the whole, the book must be pronounced a work of the highest value, comparing favorably, in point of trustworthiness, with the best Greek and Roman histories" (Torrey). This is high praise; but it is fully deserved (comp. Schürer, "Gesch." iii. 141). Niese (l.c.) has done good service in vindicating the authenticity of Judas' embassy to Rome; and it is no peculiar demerit in I Maccabees that in the reports of the numbers engaged in battle, of speeches, and even of documents, its account is inexact and sometimes quite incredible. Such defects are shared by Thucydides and Livy. The substance, not the exact form, of documents was given by ancient historians. On the other hand, it differs somewhat from the Biblical histories in its standpoint. The divine element is not wanting, and success is ultimately traced (as in Mattathias' deathbed utterances) to God. Judas invariably sings psalms of thanksgiving for victory, and the key-note of the revolt is "Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us,but unto thy name give glory" (Ps. cxv. 1). The period also, as many hold, gave rise to numerous new psalms. But in I Maccabees, nevertheless, history is written from the human standpoint. Victory is earned by endeavor as well as bestowed by grace. Partly because of this phenomenon, it was urged by Geiger ("Urschrift," 1857, pp. 200-230) that one may detect a dynastic purpose in the book and that its author was a Sadducean apologist for the Hasmoneans.
It is certainly true that the author is silent concerning the worst excesses of the (Sadducean) high priests, and attaches primary importance to the founder of the dynasty, Mattathias. Mattathias is unknown to II Maccabees, though the latter is supposed by Geiger to be a Pharisaic counterblast to the Sadducean I Maccabees. Yet, strangely enough, in the Pharisaic tradition of the Talmud and Synagogue Mattathias plays a large part, so large that Judas is thrown into the background.
On one important point some modern writers are unfair to the book. God is not "named" in it; the term "heaven" replaces the divine name. From this the inference has been drawn that "God was absolutely conceived as reigning in the remote heaven, and no longer as dwelling among the people by the Shekinah" (Fairweather and Black, "I Maccabees," Introduction, p. 47). This is as false an inference as would be a similar conclusion from the opening words of the Lord's Prayer, "Our Father who art in Heaven." God is not "named" throughout the Lord's Prayer. In I Maccabees the personal pronoun is most significantly used (iii. 22, 51; iv. 10, 55) with relation to the term "heaven"; and, more remarkable still, the pronoun is sometimes used (ii. 61) without any noun at all: "And thus consider ye from generation to generation, that none that put their trust in him shall want for strength." That there grew up a disinclination to "name" God is undoubted; but whatever the origin of this scrupulosity, it was not any sense of the remoteness of God (see discussion by Benjacob, "Im Namen Gottes," p. 164, Berlin, 1903). From the Maccabean period onward God becomes ever nearer to Israel. If there was a fault at all, it was not that God became too transcendent; the tendency was rather in the direction of overfamiliarity than of undue aloofness.
Bibliography: Grimm, Das Erste Buch der Makkabäer, in Kurzgefasstes Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen, 1853; Wace, Apocrypha; Bissell, Apocrypha, in Lange's Commentary; Fairweather and Black, First Book of Maccabees, in Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges; Kautzsch, Apokryphen; Torrey, Schweizer's Hebrew Text of I Maccabees, in Jour. Bib. Lit. xxii. 51-59.
