I. Historiography

I. HISTORIOGRAPHY
1. The First Book of Maccabees
Short notices of the Maccabaean rising and of the brothers Judas Jonathan and Simon Maccabaeus who played so prominent a part in it must have been committed to writing shortly after the events themselves. For it is simply impossible that any writer living two generations after could have been so well informed with regard to those events as we find the author of the First Book of Maccabees to be unless he had been able to avail himself of existing written sources.[2371] Those sources of the First Book of Maccabees—though we know nothing further of their origin and nature—are therefore entitled to foremost mention in any complete list of the historical literature of our period.
[2371] We have probably an allusion to those sources in 1Ma_9:22 : καὶ τὰ περισσὰ τῶν λόγων Ἰούδα καὶ τῶν πολέμων καὶ τῶν ἀνδραγαθιῶν ὦν ἐποίησε καὶ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης αὐτοῦ οὐ κατεγράφη πολλὰ γὰρ ἦν σφόδρα. After οὐ κατεγράφη we may suppose either “in this book” or “in the existing literature” to be understood. Probably the latter sense should be preferred see Grimm Exeget. Handbuch zu 1 Makk. p. 22 sq. The use of written sources in the First Book of Maccabees is also admitted for example by Nöldeke (Die alttestamentliche Literatur p. 67) and Mendelssohn (Acta societatis phil. Lips. ed. Ritschelius vol. v. 1875 p. 99).
Our First Book of Maccabees itself gives a connected minute and graphic narrative of the events that led to the Maccabaean rising then of the course of the rising itself particularly of the exploits and fortunes of Judas Maccabaeus. It then proceeds to give the further history of the patriotic enterprises of the Jews under the leadership of Jonathan the brother of Judas and of the institution of the Hasmonaean high priesthood and the founding of Jewish independence by the former. Then lastly we have an account of Simon Jonathan’s brother and successor who by establishing the combined office of priest and prince and making it hereditary in the family of the Hasmonaeans on the one hand and by the complete emancipation of the Jewish people from Syrian supremacy on the other completed on both its sides the work undertaken by Jonathan. The narrative is brought down to the death of Simon so that altogether it embraces a period of forty years (175-135 B.C.). The standpoint of the author is that of orthodox rigidly legal Judaism. But yet it is somewhat remarkable that the successes with which the Maccabaean enterprises were crowned are almost nowhere attributed to any immediate supernatural intervention on the part of God but are represented throughout as the result of the military skill and political wisdom of the Maccabaean princes. Of course those princes always act with an unshaken trust in the powerful protection and help of God. It would therefore be a mistake to suppose that the author is not animated by a religious spirit. But still his way of putting things is at the same time rather different from that of the earlier historical works of the Old Testament. His style is the plain narrative style being similar to that adopted in Old Testament historiography. The author has at his disposal such a fund of details that it is impossible to entertain any doubt as to the credibility of his narrative as a whole. His book is one of the most valuable sources we possess for the history of the Jewish people. Nor is its value in this respect in any way affected by the fact that the author shows himself to be very imperfectly informed with regard to the state of things among foreign nations. We see in this only the simple standpoint of the observer who following his sources confines his view exclusively to the circle of Jewish affairs. Again the freedom with which numbers are dealt with and discourses put in the mouths of leading personages can scarcely be regarded as telling against the author. In matters of this sort ancient historians generally were never particularly scrupulous. It is a singularly fortunate circumstance that the dates of all the more important events are duly fixed in accordance with a definite era namely the Seleucidian era of the year 312 B.C. (on the question as to whether in the present instance this era was made to date from the usual starting-point or from another somewhat different from it see § 3). As regards the date of composition it is admitted on all hands that this work must have been written previous to the Roman conquest and therefore previous to the year 63 B.C. For as yet the Romans are known to the author merely as friends and protectors of the Jewish people in contrast to the Syrian kings. On the other hand he is already acquainted with a chronicle referring to the history of John Hyrcanus so that he must have written at the soonest toward the close of that prince’s reign probably not till after its close. According to this the work would be composed during the first decades of the first century before Christ. It was written originally in Hebrew (or Aramaic) as may be confidently Inferred from its grammatical peculiarities and as is further confirmed by the testimony of Origen and Jerome. The Hebrew (or Aramaic) title Σαρβὴθ Σαβαναιέλ handed down by Origen still continues to be as much as ever an unsolved enigma. The work has come down to us only in the form of a Greek translation which was probably in existence as early as the time of Josephus. That it is still extant is due to the circumstance of its having been incorporated with the Greek Bible and as forming part of this latter read in the Christian Church.
At the close of his account of the Hebrew canon Origen adds (as quoted in Euseb. Hist. eccl. vi. 25. 2): Ἔξω δὲ τούτων ἐστὶ τὰ Μακκαβαϊκὰ ἅπερ ἐπιγέγραπται Σαρβὴθ Σαβαναιέλ. Consequently he was acquainted with the First Book of Maccabees (for unquestionably it is it that is meant) in its Hebrew form but as not belonging to the Hebrew canon. Jerome Prologus galeatus to the Books of Samuel (Opp. ed. Vallarsi ix. 459 sq.): Machabaeorum primum librum Hebraicum reperi. Secundus Graecus est quod ex ipsa quoque φράσει probari potest. An endless variety of hypotheses have been advanced with the view of explaining the meaning of the title mentioned by Origen (see Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. graec. iii. 745; Grimm Exeget. Handbuch to 1 Macc. p. xvii.; Keil Commentar über die Bücher der Makkabäer p. 22; Curtiss The Name Machabee 1876 p. 30; and the general literature mentioned below). But nearly all of them are based upon the reading Σαρβὴθ Σαρβανεέλ so generally adopted since Stephanus whereas according to the testimony of the manuscripts the only reading that can claim to be recognised is Σαρβὴθ Σαβαναιέλ (so also Josephus the Christian Hypomnest. c. xxv. in Fabricius’ Codex pseudepigr. Vet. Test. vol. ii. p. 48 of Appendix).
The acquaintance of Josephus with the First Book of Maccabees is generally regarded as beyond a doubt; his acquaintance on the other hand with our Greek text has been questioned. In his German translation of 1 Maccabees (1778) Michaelis has propounded the view that Josephus made use of the Hebrew text. His arguments however are not of a cogent nature. The conjecture has recently been hazarded by Destinon (Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus 1882 pp. 60-91) that Josephus (or rather as Destinon thinks the anonymous writer whose work Josephus has merely remodelled) had an older redaction of 1 Maccabees before him which on the one hand was in regard to many points rather fuller than our book while on the other it wanted as yet the whole of the last section chaps. xiv.-xvi. which is to be regarded as a subsequent addition. But the first point cannot be sufficiently substantiated; for the extra matters found in Josephus were either drawn from other sources or had their origin in the historian’s own imagination. As for the other question again whether Josephus was acq uainted with the concluding section of the book it is one that of course deserves consideration in view of the singular brevity with which the historian disposes of the reign of Simon. As favouring the view that Josephus was acquainted with our Greek text see Grimm Exeget. Handbuch to 1 Macc. p. xxviii. Bloch Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus 1879 pp. 80-90.
In the Christian Church our book has been read from the very first. See Tertullian Adv. Judaeos c. iv.: Nam et temporibus Maccabaeorum sabbatis pugnando fortiter fecerunt etc. (comp. 1Ma_2:41 sqq.). Hippolytus in narrating the history of the Maccabean rising in his Comment. in Daniel c. xxxi.-xxxii. (Opp. ed. Lagarde p. 163) adheres closely to our book quoting 1Ma_2:33 sqq. almost word for word. Origen (besides the passage in Euseb. Hist. eccl. vi. 25. 2 already mentioned) particularly Comment. in epist. ad Rom. book viii. chap. i. (in Lommatzsch vii. 193): Sicut Mathathias de quo in primo libro Machabaeorum scriptum est quia “zelatus est in lege Dei” etc. (1Ma_2:24). Observe the designation of our book as the First Book of Maccabees precisely as in the case of Jerome in the passage already quoted and in that of Ensebius Demonstr. evang. viii. 2. 72 ed. Gaisford. Cyprian quotes several passages from the book in his Testimonia and always with the formula in Machabaeis (Testimon. iii. 4 15 53). For the further history of the book in the Christian Church see the various works and dissertations on the history of the Old Testament canon also Jahn’s Einleitung in die göttl. Bücher des Alten Bundes 2nd ed. Part ii. § 3 and 4 (1803) 1st and 2nd supplements and likewise my article “Apokryphen des A. T.” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. i. 485-489. As is well known it has been the practice in the Protestant Church to follow Jerome in applying the designation “Apocrypha” to such books as are not included in the Hebrew canon and it so happens that our book is one of them.
From the history of the book just given it will be seen that the Greek text has been transmitted to us only through the manuscripts of the Greek Bible. The Books of Maccabees being omitted in Codex Vaticanus 1209 the most important manuscripts here are the Codex Sinaiticus (quoted in Fritzsche’s edition of the Apocrypha as x.) and the Codex Alexandrinus (known in Fritzsche as in Holmes and Parsons before him as No. iii.); next to these comes a Codex Venetus (known in the critical apparatuses as No. 23). All the other manuscripts are minusculi. For more precise information on this point see my article “Apocrypha” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. i. pp. 489-491. The text of our book in common with that of the so-called Apocrypha generally is to be found in the majority of the editions of the Septuagint. The received text is borrowed from the Sixtine edition (Vetus Testamentum juxla Septuaginta ex auctoritate Sixti v. Pont. Max. editum Romae 1587). The most copious critical apparatus we have is to be found in the Vetus Testamentum Graecum edd. Holmes et Parsons 5 vols. Oxonii 1798-1827 (the whole of the Apocrypha are given together in the fifth volume). We have a handy portable edition in the shape of the Vetus Testamentum Graece juxta LXX. interpretes ed. Tischendorf 2 vols. Leipz. 1850 (6th ed. 1880). Tischendorf as well as Holmes and Parsons follow the Sixtine text. Among the separate editions of the Apocrypha we may mention the Libri Vet. Test. Ap cryphi textum graecum recognorit Augusti Lips. 1804 and the Libri Vet. Test. apocryphi graece accurats recognitos ed. Apel Lips. 1837. The latest and best of such editions although even it fails as yet to satisfy every requirement is the Libri apocryphi Veteris Testamenti graece recensuit et cum eommentario critico edidit Fritzsche Lips. 1871 (Fritzsche gives a recension of his own based upon the materials furnished by Holmes and Parsons and upon the recently acquired Codex Sinaiticus as well as the fragments in the Codex Ephraemi). So far as some of the books are concerned Fritzsche had not as yet collated them with the most important of the manuscripts the Codex Vaticanus there being no complete collation in Holmes and Parsons. It is true no doubt that this manuscript had been already made use of for the Sixtine edition so that so far it helped to shape the received text. But the text of the Vaticanus could not be said to be known to any trustworthy extent till the issue of the new Roman edition (Bibliorum Sacrorum Graecus Codex Vaticanus edd. Vercellone et Cozza 6 vols. Rome 1868-1881; comp. Theol. Litztg. 1882 p. 121). The edition of Mai (Vetus et Novum Testamentum ex antiquissimo codice Vaticano 5 vols. Rome 1857) is unreliable. Nestle has added to the latest edition of Tischendorf’s Septuagint a collation based upon the edition of Vercellone and Cozza (also published separately under the title Veteris Testamenti codices Vaticanus et Sinaiticus cum textu recepto collati ab E. Nestle Lips. 1880).[2372] For more on the editions see Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. vol. i. 494 sq.
[2372] The above observations on the Codex Vaticanus are made merely with the view of indicating on what side Fritzsche’s edition of the Apocrypha generally stands in need of revision and greater completeness. The First Book of Maccabees is precisely that portion of the Apocrypha to which those observations do not apply for the simple reason that it is not found in that codex.
Of the early translations the following are of interest in connection with the history of the transmission of the text: (1) The Latin of which there are two (a) the one that was incorporated with the Vulgate and (b) another which as far as chap. xiii. has been preserved in a Codex Sangermanensis both being given in Sabatier Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae vol. ii. Remis 1743. (2) The Syriac in the Peshito (separate edition Libri Vet. Test. apocryphi Syriace ed. Lagarde Lips. 1861). In the great Peshito manuscript of Milan reproduced in photo-lithograph by Ceriani (Translatio Syra Pescitto Veteris Testamenti ex codice Ambrosiano ed. Ceriani 2 vols. Milan 1876-1883) we have as far as chap. xiv. a Syriac translation which deviates from the printed received text; see Ceriani’s prolegomena; and Nestle Theol. Literaturztg. 1884 col. 28. For more on the early translations see Herzog’s Real-Enc. i. 491-494. Also the texts in the London Polyglot vol. iv.
Exegetical Aids. (1) Special lexicon: Wahl Clavis librorum Veteris Testamenti apocryphorum philologica Lips. 1853. (2) Modern versions: the German translations of De Wette (Die heil. Schrift des A. und N. T.’s übersetzt 4th ed. 1858) and of Holtzmann (in Bunsen’s Bibelwerk für die Gemeinde vol. vii. Leipzig 1869) the latter with short notes. Versions in other modern languages: Dijserinck De apocriefe boeken des ouden verbonds uit het grieksch opnieuw vertaald en met opschriften en eenige aanteekeningen voorzien Haarlem 1874. Reuss La Bible traduction nouvelle avec introductions et commentaires Ancien Testament VIe partie Philosophie religieuss et morale des Hebreux Paris 1879 (containing among others Sirach Wisdom Tobit the appendices to Daniel Baruch the Prayer of Manasseh); VIIe partie of the same work Literature politique et polemique Paris 1879 (containing among others the Books of Maccabees Judith Bel and the Dragon Epistle of Jeremiah). Bissell The Apocrypha of the Old Testament with historical introductions a revised translation and notes critical and explanatory New York 1880. On Luther’s translation see Grimm Luthers Uebersetzung der ATl. Apokr. (Stud. u. Krit. 1883 pp. 375-400). (3) Commentaries: J. D. Michaelis Deutsche Uebersetzung des ersten Buchs der Maccabäer mit Anmerkungen 1778. Grimm Das erste Buch der Maccabäer erklärt (Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des A. T.’s 3 parts) Leipzig 1853 (by far the most sterling work on the subject which we possess). Keil Commentar über die Bücher der Maccabäer Leipzig 1875. For additional exegetical literature see Grimm p. xxxiv. sq. Fürst Bibliotheca Judaica ii. 317 sq. and Herzog’s Real-Enc. vol. i. 496.
Works of critical inquiry: Frölich Annales compendiarii regum et rerum Syriae Viennae 1744. E. F. Wernsdorf De fontibus historiae Syriae in libris Maccabaeorum prolusio Lips. 1746. Frölich. De fontibus historiae Syriae in libris Maccabaeorum prolusio Lipsiae edita in examen vocata Viennae 1746. Gottl. Wernsdorf Commentatio historico-critica de fule historica librorum Maccabaicorum Wratislav. 1747. (Khell) Auctoritas utriusque libri Maccabaici canonico-historica adserta Viennae 1749. Rosenthal Das erste Maccabäerbuch Leipzig 1867. Schnedermann Ueber das Judenthum der beiden ersten Maccabäerbücher (Zeitschr. für kirchl. Wissensch. und kirchl. Leben 1884 pp. 78-100). Critical material is also to be found in the early and the more recent polemical treatises on the value of the Apocrypha by Rainold Keerl Stier Hengstenberg Vincenzi and others; see Herzog’s Real-Enc. i. p. 489.
For the circumstances under which our book and the Apocrypha generally were written see Jahn Einleitung in die göttl Bücher des A. B. 2nd ed. second part 3rd and 4th secs. Wien 1803. Eichhorn Einleitung in die apokryphischen Schriften des A. T. Leipzig 1795. Bertholdt Historisch-kritische Einl. in die sämtl. kanon. und apokr. Schriften des A. und N. T.’s 6 vols. Erlangen 1812-1819. Welte Specielle Einleitung in die deutero-kanonischen Bücher des A. T.’s Freiburg 1844 (also under the title Einl. in die heil. Schriften des A. T.’s von Herbst 2 parts 3 divisions). Scholz Einleitung in die heil. Schriften des A. und N. T.’s 3 vols. Köln 1845-1848. Nöldeke Die Alttestamentltche Literatur in einer Reihe von Aufsätzen dargestellt Leipzig 1868. De Wette Lehrbuch der hist.-krit. Einleitung in die kanonischen und apokryphischen Bücher des A. T.’s 8th ed. bearb. von Schrader Berlin 1869. Reusch Lehrb. der Einl. in das A. T. 4th ed. Freiburg 1870. Keil Lehrb. der hist.-krit. Einleitung in die kanon. und apokryph. Schriften des A. T.’s 3rd ed. 1873. Kaulen Einleitung in dis heil. Schrift A. und N. T.’s 2 divisions 1st part Besondere Einl. in das A. T. Freiburg 1881. Kleinert Abriss der Einkitung zum A. T. in Tabellenform Berlin 1878. Reuss Geschichte der heil. Schriften Alten Testaments Brauntohweig 1881. Geiger Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel 1857 p. 200 sqq. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel iv. 602 sqq. Fritzsche in Schenkel’s Bibellex. iv. 89 sqq.
2. The History of John Hyrcanus
We have probably a work similar to that of the First Book of Maccabees in the History of John Hyrcanus to which reference is made at the close of the former where it is said 1Ma_16:23-24 : καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν λόγων Ἰωάννου καὶ τῶν πολέμων αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν ἀνδραγαθιῶν αὐτοῦ ὧν ἠνδραγάθησε καὶ τῆς οἰκοδομῆς τῶν τειχέων ὧν ᾠκοδόμησε καὶ τῶν πράξεων αὐτοῦ ἰδοὺ ταῦτα γέγραπται ἐπὶ βιβλίῳ ἡμερῶν ἀρχιερωσύνης αὐτοῦ ἀφʼ οὗ ἐγενήθη ἀρχιερεὺς μετὰ τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ. Apart from this notice we have no further information regarding this work. As the reign of John Hyrcanus did not possess the same interest for subsequent generations as the epoch in which Jewish independence was established through the achievements of the Maccabees the book would have but a limited circulation and could not fail soon to be lost altogether. It is evident that Josephus knew nothing of it in his time for the supposition that he made use of it in his Antiquities[2373] is more than improbable. What few notices he has regarding the reign of John Hyrcanus at all are either borrowed in so far as they refer to external political history from Greek historians or in so far as they refer to internal affairs are of a purely legendary character. No trace can be detected of the use of any contemporary Jewish source. Considering then at how early a period the history of Hyrcanus dropped out of sight it is inconceivable that it should still have existed in manuscript in the sixteenth century as following Sixtus Senensis many have assumed.
[2373] So Bloch Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus (1879) pp. 90-94.
In his Bibliotheca sancta (Venetiis 1566) Sixtus Senensis gives an account at p. 61 sq. of a Fourth Book of Maccabees which he saw in the library of Santes Pagninus at Lyons and which began as follows: Καὶ μετὰ τὸ ἀποκτανθῆναι τὸν Σίμωνα ἐγενήθη Ἰωάννης υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἀρχιερεὺς ἀντ αὐτοῦ. Judging from the enumeration of the contents as given by Sixtes this book simply narrates the history of John-Hyrcanus and that precisely as in Josephus (the same facts and in the same order). With regard to this he himself observes: Historiae series et narratio eadem fere est quae apud Josephum libro Antiquitatum decimo tertio; sed stylus hebraicis idiotismis abundans longe dispar. Consequently he ventures to conjecture that it may have been a Greek translation of the history of Hyrcanus mentioned at the end of the First Book of Maccabees. Many modern writers have concurred in this conjecture and hence their regret that the manuscript should have perished soon after when the library just mentioned was destroyed by fire (see Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. graeca iii 748. Grimm Exeget. Handbuch note on 1Ma_16:24). But in view of the enumeration of the contents given by Sixtus it seems to me there can hardly be a doubt that the book was simply a reproduction of Josephus the style being changed perhaps for a purpose.
3. Josephus’ History of the Jewish War
In post-Hasmonaean times the fondness for writing histories seems to have died away. At least we nowhere come across any hint to the effect that the writing of anything like connected historical narratives had been undertaken by any one.[2374] It was not till the important events of the war extending from the year 66 to 70 B.C. that the occasion for such histories once more presented itself. The Jewish priest Joseph son of Matthias better known under the name of Flavius Josephus wrote the history of this war of which he himself had personal knowledge whether as a passive observer or as playing an active part in it. He composed the work in his own vernacular therefore in the Aramaic tongue and intended it chiefly for the benefit of the ἄνω βάρβαροι i.e. the Jews of Mesopotamia and Babylon. Of this work we know nothing beyond what he himself mentions in his Greek version of the history of the Jewish war Bell. Jud. prooem. 1 where he says: προυθέμην ἐγὼ τοῖς κατὰ τὴν Ῥωμαίων ἡγεμονίαν Ἑλλάδι γλώσσῃ μεταβαλών ἃ τοῖς ἄνω βαρβάροις τῇ πατρίῳ συντάξας ἀνέπεμψα πρότερον ἀφηγήσασθαι. The Greek version of this work in common with the extant works of Josephus generally belongs to the department of Hellenistico-Jewish literature and will therefore fall to be mentioned in the next section.
[2374] We know of but two classes of historical documents of any kind belonging to that period: (1) Family registers the preservation and continuation of which were matters of consequence for religious reasons (on these registers see vol. i. pp. 210 and 212). (2) The Calendar of Fasts Megillath Taanith i.e. a list of the days on which owing to some happy event being commemorated there was to be no fasting (for details see § 3). But neither class of writings although historical documents can be said to belong to the catesory of historical literature.