APOT: 1 Maccabees

The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (1913), Part 3

1 Maccabees (editor: Rev. W.O.E. Oesterley)

Definitely one of the most important books of the Apocrypha, the text known to us as "First Maccabees" is the major historical source used to reconstruct the Maccabean Revolt (167-160 BCE), in which Jewish nationalist rebels overthrew the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes and ushered in the Hasmonean Dynasty. This brought independence to Judea for the first time since the exile, but it only lasted less than 100 years. When Pompey invaded in 63 BCE, Judea once again became a client state, this time under Roman rule. We all know how that turned out.

It is simply taken for granted by Bible scholars that 1 Maccabees is a history book, and secular historians follow their lead. One would search in vain for any history of Israel covering this period, or of Hellenistic Judaism, that doesn't rely heavily on the testimony of 1 Maccabees. The set of assumptions guiding scholarship on this book include the following:

1. 1 Maccabees was in the Septuagint.
2. 1 Mac was originally written in Hebrew.
3. 1 Mac was written before 63 BCE.
4. 1 Mac used eyewitness testimony.
5. 1 Mac's epistles are probably authentic.
6. 1 Mac was written/translated by a Hellenistic Jew for nationalistic purposes.
7. 1 Mac was used by Josephus as a source, not the other way around.

(* Oesterley, following R.H. Charles and the other editors of APOT, goes so far as asserting which sect the author belonged to, in this case, the Sadducees. Such bold claims have been reigned back in by contemporary scholars.)

The assumptions must be offset by several problematic considerations, though few, if any, scholars actually do. 

1. We do not have a copy of the Septuagint.

2. The earliest copies of 1 Mac exist in fourth century CE Christian Bibles,    Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus. The text was unknown to Hebrew-language Jewish scholars for hundreds of years.

3. No copy of 1 Mac or its theoretical source text was found at Qumran.

4. The earliest copies of 1 Mac are in Greek with some Hebraic idioms; there is no textual evidence it was entirely composed in a Semitic language.

5. There is no reason to believe 1 Mac relies on eyewitness testimony.

6. There is no reason to believe 1 Mac's epistles are authentic.
7. The author awkwardly refers to "The Jews" and "their" customs, etc., like Josephus as well as later Christian writers.
8. The narrative is broken up seven times by unexpected clusters of verses gathered at random (from the Septuagint, not the Tanakh) that have nothing to do with the Maccabean revolt. This is very similar to the way Christian theologians of the first and second century composed texts. 

Rev. Oesterley, of course, cannot be faulted for not considering Qumran evidence that didn't begin surfacing until decades after he wrote. I mention it here because most recent commentators have acted as though nothing has changed since 1913, and the lack of any source text for 1 Mac at Qumran shouldn't cause a ripple to the traditional view. Negative evidence rarely affects Biblical studies, but nevertheless is eagerly seized upon by scholars and pastors when it suits them in other areas. 

What follows is a slightly edited version of Rev. Oesterley's introduction to 1 Maccabees. Like Charles, Oesterley is not concerned with assessing the book objectively and dispassionately; instead, strategies must be developed to establish the book's authenticity and early date to protect it against non-traditional perspectives. This approach is apologetic, not scholarly.

 I've bolded the assertions that are, in my opinion, questionable. We will return to these later, as we examine 1 Mac in greater detail.

                                         "Maccabees," by Wojciech Stattler.

§1. Title

The Greek title takes its origin from the surname applied, in the first instance, to Judas, but later on to all the members of the family and their followers. The title is transliterated by Origen (Eusebius,  Hist. Eccl.  vi. 25. 3), Σαρβηθ Σαβαναι, the  book of the house of the Hasmoneans; but this title is Aramaic, and is not likely to have stood at the head of a book written in Hebrew (see §6); it was, therefore, probably, the title of an Aramaic translation of the original Hebrew. What the actual title of the book in its original form was, is not known.

§2. Contents

The book is a sober and, on the whole, trustworthy account of the Jewish struggle for religious liberty and political independence during the years 175-135 BC, i.e. from the accession of Antiochus Epiphanes to the death of Simon the Maccabee. The narrative is, with few exceptions, written in chronological order, and is concerned almost wholly with military events. The main part of the book deals with the exploits of Judas Maccabaeus, who is regarded as the central figure in the whole struggle. The divisions of the book are clearly marked, and are as follows:

1:1-9. A brief introduction in which reference is made to the conquests of Alexander the Great, and the division of his kingdom. 

1:10-64. The original cause of the Maccabaean struggle.

2:1-70. The beginning of the struggle, under the leadership of Mattathias.

3:1-9:22. The account of the events during the leadership of Judas.  The purification of the Temple and re-dedication of the altar. The acquisition of religious liberty.

9:23-12:53. The leadership of Jonathan; the establishment of the Hasmonaean high-priesthood.

13:1-16:24. The leadership of Simon; political independence secured. A brief reference to the rule of John Hyrcanus.

                                                       Hasmonean coins. 


§3. The Author

There are no direct indications in the book as to who the author was, nor is anything to be gathered elsewhere regarding him; but some points concerning him may be inferred from certain data in his book. It is clear that he was a rigid adherent of orthodox Judaism, and his patriotism is everywhere evident. That he was a native of Palestine is equally clear, for he manifests an intimate, and even minute knowledge, both of the geography and topography of the land. There are grounds for believing that he belonged to the circle of the Sadducees; although a loyal upholder of the Law, his zeal is not characterized by any approach to Pharisaic fanaticism; his sympathy for the Jewish high-priesthood is frequently manifested; his tolerant attitude towards the profaning of the Sabbath (2:41; 9:43 ff.) is very different from that which would have been adopted by a Pharisee; there is not the slightest hint of a belief in the life after death, see 2:52 ff., where a reference to this would have been eminently appropriate, had it been believed in. These reasons go far in justifying the opinion that the author was a Sadducee.

§4. Date of the Book

The passages which throw light on the date of the composition of the book are:

(a)  In reference to the sepulchre which Simon the Maccabee built for his parents and his four brothers at Modin, the writer says in 13:30:  ‘This is the sepulchre which he made at Modin, and it is there unto this day.’ The sepulchre in question was an elaborate one, as is clear from the description given (13:27-29); it consisted of seven pyramids with 'great pillars' around them ; when, therefore, it is spoken of as being in existence 'unto this day', it must have been standing for some considerable time when the author wrote this book. The building of this sepulchre is described as having taken place immediately after the death of Jonathan (13:25), i.e. in 143 B.C., and Simon was murdered in 135 B.C. When the writer, therefore, speaks of the sepulchre standing 'unto this day', we must allow at the least the lapse of about thirty years, probably more, from the time the year 143 B.C. to the time when the writer made this statement. That would make the earliest possible date of the book about 110 B. C.

(b) But in 16:23,24 we have the following: 'And the rest of the acts of John, and of his wars... behold, they are written in the chronicles of his high-priesthood, from the time that he was made high-priest after his father'; the formula here used is very frequent in the O.T., but it is invariably employed in reference to a ruler whose reign has been concluded.  These chronicles, that is to say, took up the narrative at which our author ceased his account; therefore he was writing at a period subsequent to the time at which the chronicles of John's high-priesthood had been compiled. Now John (Hyrcanus) died in 105 B.C., so that even if the records of his doings were being kept from year to year during his rule, they were not finished until the year 105 B.C., and therefore the writer of 1 Macc. did not begin his work until, at the earliest, after this year. 

On the other hand, the book cannot have been written after the year 63 B. C, for it was in the autumn of this year that  Pompey took Jerusalem, and desecrated the Temple by entering into the  Holy of Holies (cp. Josephus, AJ.  XIV.4.2-4, JW I.7.3-6); it is inconceivable that the book would have contained no reference to this, had it been written after this calamity had taken place. Cf. the references to the faithfulness of the Romans as allies (8:1, 12, 7:1, 14:40). Roughly speaking, therefore, the book must have been finished some time between the years 100-70 B. C, nearer the former than the latter date. But this does not mean to say that the writer did not  begin  his work at an earlier period; for, although, the author made use of certain documents (see below), which implies, of course, that he was writing some time subsequent to the events recorded, there are passages which certainly give the impression that he wrote as a contemporary of those who took the leading part in those events; such a passage, e.g. as 14:4-15, in which the details of Simon's reign are described, reads like the account of an eye-witness; it was a period of peace (‘And the land had rest all the days of Simon’), and therefore conducive to literary work.  There seems to be nothing that can be urged against the belief that the writer began his work during the reign of Simon; the looking-up of records, and the compiling of a book which is, upon the face of it, a very careful piece of work, must have taken some time to complete. The conclusion, therefore, is that the gathering of materials began as early as the time of Simon (142-135 B. C), but that the completed work must be dated some time later.  We cannot be far wrong in assigning the work in its final form to somewhere during the last quarter of the second century B.C.

§5. Literary and Religious Characteristics.

Although a translation, the literary style of the book is admirable; the narrative is written in a simple, straightforward manner, with an entire absence of anything artificial; the reader's interest is engaged throughout, both on account of the easy flow in the style of writing, as well as on account of the graphic way in which the details are presented. The author writes as a historian, whose duty it is to record the facts without colouring them with personal observations; he is impartial, but this does not prevent him from sometimes bursting out into a poetical strain. While, as might be expected, there are frequent reminiscences of the language of the Old Testament, the author in no wise imitates this, his writing being marked throughout by his own individual style. On the other hand, there are not infrequent exaggerations, especially in point of numbers; and considerable freedom is observable in the way in which discourses are put into the mouths of important persons; but in these things the author only shows himself to be the child of his age; his substantial accuracy and trustworthiness are not affected thereby.

From the religious standpoint the book is likewise marked by special characteristics; these are to be explained partly by the writer's sober and matter-of-fact way of looking at things, and partly by the somewhat altered religious outlook of the age as compared with earlier times. The most striking, characteristics here are (i) that the direct divine intervention in the nation's affairs is not nearly so prominently expressed as in the books of the Old Testament; and (ii) that God is not mentioned by name in the whole book. The writer is very far from being wanting in religious belief and feeling; his conviction of the existence of an all-seeing Providence who helps those who are worthy comes out strongly in such passages as 2:61, 3:18  ff.,  4:10 ff., 9: 46, 12:15 ; but he evidently has an almost equally strong belief in the truth expressed in the modern proverb, that ‘God helps those who help themselves’. This very sensible religious attitude, which is as far removed from scepticism as it is from fatalism, fully corresponds to the writer's sober impartiality as a historian. But his attitude was, doubtless, also due to the influence of certain tendencies which were beginning to assert themselves. These centred round the Jewish doctrine of God. Just as there was a disinclination, on account of its transcendent holiness, to utter the name of God, and instead, to substitute paraphrases for it, so there arose also a disinclination to ascribe action among men directly to God, because of His inexpressible majesty. One result of this was the further tendency to emphasize and extend the scope of human free-will. These tendencies were only beginning to exert their influence, but they largely explain the religious characteristics of the book.

                                  Judah Maccabee preparing to kick Seleucid ass.

§6. Original Language

In his Prologus Galeatus, Jerome distinctly states that Hebrew was the language in which the book was written: ‘Machabaeorum primum librum hebraicum repperi’ (cp. also the title given by Origen, see §1 above). The question arises, nevertheless, as to whether Hebrew proper or Palestinian Aramaic is meant; two considerations, however, make it almost certain that it was Hebrew. In the first place, the writer clearly takes as his pattern the ancient inspired Scriptures, so that the obvious presumption is that he would have written in the holy tongue. And, secondly, there are many indications in the book itself that it was translated from Hebrew rather than from Aramaic, many of these will be found in the commentary; in some cases, mistakes in translation are most easily and naturally accounted for on the supposition that they were translated from Hebrew, e.g. 1:28: this presupposes an original [Hebrew letters] which was translated 'against' instead of 'because of'; it can mean either of these, according to the context; other examples are found in 9:24, 14:38, see notes in commentary. There are, furthermore, many examples of Hebrew idiomatic phrases translated literally into Greek. There can, therefore, be no reasonable doubt that the book was originally written in Hebrew. But it seems clear that this original Hebrew text was little used, and disappeared altogether at a very early period; the reasons which lead to this supposition are firstly that not even does Josephus show any signs of having used it, and secondly, as Torrey points out: ‘There is no evidence of correction from the Hebrew, either in the Greek, or in any other of the versions  ...  on the contrary, our Greek version is plainly seen to be the result of a single translation from a Hebrew manuscript which was not free from faults.’

§7.  The Sources of the Book.

One of the chief sources of information utilized by the writer of 1 Macc. seems to have been the accounts given to him by eye-witnesses of many of the events recorded; one is led to this conviction by considering the wonderfully graphic descriptions of certain episodes (cp., e. g., 4:1-24, 6:28-54, 7:26-50, 9:1-22, 32-53, 10:59-66, &c.), the sober presentation of the facts, and the frequent mention of details obviously given for no other reason than that they actually occurred. That the writer had also written sources to draw from is to be presumed from such passages as 9:22 : 'And the rest of the acts of Judas, and his wars, and the valiant deeds which he did, and his greatness, they are not written,' the implication being that in part these acts had been written (cp. 11:37, 14:18, 27, 48, 49), and 16: 23, 24: ‘And the rest of the acts of John . . . behold, they are written in the chronicles of his high-priesthood. . . .’

Besides these sources, there are a certain number of documents which have been incorporated in the book : the genuineness, or otherwise, of these requires some more detailed consideration. They all into three groups; but for reasons which will become apparent the documents belonging to each group respectively cannot in every case be kept separate.

1. Letters of Jewish Origin
2. Letters from the Suzerain power (Syrian kings) to Jewish leaders
3. Letters from the rulers of foreign kingdoms

1. Letters of Jewish origin. 

(a) The letter from the Jews in Gilead asking Judas to send them help because they were being attacked by the Gentiles (v. 10-13). This purports to contain the very words which were written; but it is probably merely a summary of what the author of the book had derived from some well-informed source; that it represents, however, in brief, the contents of some written document, and 
was not simply a verbal message, may be assumed, as it stands in contrast to what is said to have been a verbal message in v. 15. 

(b) The letter from Jonathan to the Spartans (12:6-18). Concerning this it must be said that the artificial way in which it has been pressed into the text is sufficient to arouse suspicion. In 12:1 we are told of an embassy being sent to Rome; the narrative is broken by v. 1 which refers to a letter which was sent to the Spartans, and 'to other places'; in v. 3, which comes naturally after v. 1, 
the thread of the narrative is taken up again. Then in v. 5, where one might reasonably have expected further details about the embassy to Rome, it goes on to say : 'And this is the copy of the letter which Jonathan wrote to the Spartans.' The copy of this letter then follows; but the main subject with which the chapter began, obviously a more important one, is left without further 
mention. On considering the letter itself, it must strike one that it is not easy to understand what the purpose of it was. In v. 10 the purpose is stated to be the renewing of brotherhood and friendship ; but in the same breath, as it were, it is said that the Jews needed none of these things, 'having for our encouragement the holy books which are in our hands.' Then, again, in v. 13, after reference 
has been made to the afflictions which the Jews had endured, the letter continues (vv. 14, 15): 'We were not mindful, therefore, to be troublesome unto you . . . for we have the help which is from heaven to help us. . . .' Thus, in the same letter, brotherhood and friendship are desired, on the one hand, while on the other it is said that this is not required. The object of the letter is, therefore, not apparent; nor can it be said that it reads like a genuine document. That a relationship of some kind existed between the Jews and the Spartans need not be doubted; the letter probably reflects the fact of this relationship, which the writer of this book, or more probably a later editor, desired to place on record, while not wishing to make it appear that his people had any need to depend upon foreign help in struggling with their enemies. In connexion with this letter the following one must be considered.

(c) The letter from Areios, king of the Spartans, to Onias the high-priest (12:20-23). This owes its presence here to the fact that in the letter just dealt with Jonathan cites the existence of former friendship between the Jews and the Spartans as a reason for renewing the same (12:7-9); it is added as an appendix to Jonathan's letter. The original of this document must have been written 
about 150 to 200 years earlier than that in which it is incorporated. It is only of indirect importance in the present connexion as it does not bear on the history of the Maccabaean struggle. But the fact of a letter written so long before this period being quoted here shows with what care such documents were preserved, and thus tends to inspire confidence in the general historicity of our book, since it is clear that the writer (or, as in this case, probably a later editor) had recourse to the national archives for information ; for even if, as some commentators rightly believe, this letter was added by a later editor, it is equally true that he depended on ancient documents for his additions. 

(d) In 14:27-47 we have a source of an entirely different character. This passage contains a panegyric on Simon, together with a resume of his prosperous reign. It is stated to have been engraved on tables of brass, and to have been set up in a conspicuous place within the precincts of the sanctuary; copies of it are also said to have been deposited in the treasury (cp. vv. 27, 48, 49). On comparing the details of Simon's reign given in this section with those in chaps. 11-13, however, it will be found that there are several chronological discrepancies. The course of the history, as given in the book itself, is acknowledged on all hands to be, on the whole, of a thoroughly trustworthy character; but if the passage in question be really the copy of an official document, as it purports to be, the accuracy of other portions of the book is, to some extent, impugned. It is difficult to suppose that one and the same author would write the historical account of Simon's reign in chaps. 11-13, and then in the very next chapter give a resume of what had preceded differing from it in a number of particulars. The suggested explanation of the difficulty is as follows: The original writer of the 
book gave in chaps, 11-13 a substantially correct account of the period of history in question, but was inaccurate in the sequence of events; a later editor added a copy of the document under consideration, to which the original author of the book, for some reason or other, did not have access or perhaps he gathered his materials from different eye-witnesses of the events recorded, and therefore saw no purpose in utilizing this document. The later editor was not concerned with the discrepancy between the written history and the copy of the document which he added, because he saw that, in the main, they were in agreement. If this solution be the correct one it will follow that for the historical period in question we have two independent accounts as far as the main history is concerned. 

2. Letters from the Suzerain powers (Syrian kings) to Jewish leaders. 

(a) The letter from Alexander Balas to Jonathan (10:18-20). There can scarcely be two opinions regarding this document; it is not a copy of the letter, but merely its purport which our author has woven into his narrative, much after the same manner in which he incorporates the general sense of the various speeches he records. It is far too short and abrupt to be the actual letter of one 
who was seeking the help and alliance of the Jewish leader, and for whose friendship this aspirant to the Syrian throne was bidding. The author of our book, moreover, adds some words of his own in the middle of the letter, a thing he is scarcely likely to have done had he been quoting the actual words of the letter itself. On the other hand, there is not the slightest reason to doubt that a genuine document has been made use of here. 

(b) The letter from Demetrius I to the nation of the Jews (10:25-45). This was written for the purpose of out-bidding Alexander Balas in promises of favour, remitting of taxes, and conferring of privileges, &c., on the Jews in return for their support in his struggle to retain his throne. While it must be admitted that the letter is based upon an original document -- all the probabilities go to support this -- there are two reasons for questioning the accuracy of the details. The promises and concessions made to the Jews are of such an exaggerated character that, had they really been made, they would have defeated their object by arousing suspicions among the Jews regarding the writer's sincerity; this, indeed, was actually the case (see v. 46), but the reason of Jonathan's incredulity is not the character of the promises, but the fact that Demetrius had before done 'great evil in Israel,' and 'had afflicted them very sore'; that does not tally with the contents of the letter as given. If one compares the sober contents of another letter from Demetrius on the same subject, not actually quoted, but incorporated in the narrative (10:3-6), the document under consideration must strike one as untrustworthy as regards details. Then, in the second place, a number of the things actually promised in the letter correspond so exactly with the highest aspirations of the Jews at this time, that they suggest rather the expression of Jewish ideals than actual promises; such are, the promise that Jerusalem is to be 'holy and free' (v. 31), a thing which would have been impossible for the Syrian king to grant if he was to have any real hold upon this part of his kingdom, a Syrian garrison in Jerusalem being essential to his overlordship; the promise to permit the full observance of all the ancient feasts and holy-days, together with 'immunity and release' for all Jews during these periods, as well as during three days before and after each (vv. 34, 35); this would have meant an end to the hellenization of Jewry which the Syrian kings had always regarded as indispensable if the Jews were to be their genuine subjects; the promise that the Jews were to have their own laws (v. 37), a thing which would have meant an imperium in imperio, a dangerous state of affairs from the Syrian point of view; and finally, the promise to remit a large amount of taxation, and to give princely gifts to the sanctuary (vv. 39 ff.) ; this would have meant considerable loss to the royal coffers at a time when there was the highest need of increasing monetary supplies. For these reasons, the letter we are considering must be regarded as ungenuine so far as most of its details are concerned. 

(c) The letter from Demetrius II to Jonathan, enclosing one to Lasthenes (11:30-37). Most of what has been said regarding (b) applies to this document as well. It represents an original letter, the contents of which were utilized by the author of 1 Macc., and elaborated in accordance with his ideas of things. 

(d) The letter from Antiochus VI to Jonathan (11:57). This is clearly a succinct summing-up of the contents of the original letter; its extreme shortness and the absence of salutation show that, although written in the first person, it does not profess to do more than to give the general sense of the original. 

(e) The letter from Demetrius II to Simon (xiii. 36-40). This letter, in which the Syrian king acknowledges receipt of certain presents from the Jewish high-priest, and confirms earlier privileges, is stamped with the mark of genuineness; it reads like an original, and is doubtless a copy of this. 

(f) The letter from Antiochus VII to Simon (xv. 2-9). To some extent what was said in reference to (b) and (c) applies also to this letter; it is probably not a verbatim copy of the original, but represents in part the contents of this; on the other hand, there are elements in it which are the expression of ardent desires rather than the actual facts of the case. 

3. Letters from the rulers of foreign kingdoms.

(a) The document containing the treaty of alliance between the Romans and the Jews (13:23-32). In vv. 24 ff. it is stated, as one of the articles of the treaty, that if the Romans are attacked, the Jews must not lender the enemy any help, whether of 'food, arms, money, or ships' (v. 26); this mention of ships is held by several commentators to be a proof that this document belongs to a later date 
than the time of Judas, when the Jews were not in possession of any ships, and that therefore the whole section is a later interpolation. But it is quite possible that the foresight of the Romans sufficiently explains this mention of ships; they might, indeed, very naturally have assumed the possession of ships by the Jews, as they must have been aware of the long stretch of coast-land which 
belonged to Palestine. It was, as a matter of fact, not long after the time of Judas that the Jews acquired a harbour: 'And amid all his glory he (i. e. Simon) took Joppa for a haven, and made it an entrance for the isles of the sea ' (14:5), cp. also 13:29. There seems no sufficient reason to doubt that the author of 1 Macc. made use here of the actual document in question, though it may be that he gives only its general contents, and not a verbatim copy. 

(d) The letter from the Spartans to Simon (14:20-22). We are confronted here with the same difficulty which occurs in the letter from Jonathan to the Spartans (12:6-18, see i. (b) above). The section opens (v. 16) with the words : 'And it was heard at Rome that Jonathan was dead, and even unto Sparta, and they were exceedingly sorry;' it then goes on to say that the Romans wrote to 
Simon (who had succeeded his brother) on tables of brass to renew 'the friendship and the confederacy' (v. 18) ; but then, instead of giving a copy of this letter, as might reasonably have been expected, it goes on to say: 'And this is a copy of the letter which the Spartans sent.' In this letter it is stated that the two Jewish ambassadors who were the bearers of it were Numenius, the son of 
Antiochus, and Antipater, the son of Jason. But then the narrative (in v. 24) goes on : 'After this Simon sent Numenius to Rome with a great shield of gold of a thousand pound weight, in order to confirm the confederacy with them.' On the previous occasion on which mention is made of a rapprochment between the Jews and the Romans on the one hand, and the Spartans on the other, the same two ambassadors were sent, first to the Romans and then to the Spartans, on the same journey (see 12:16, 17); on the present occasion it is to be presumed, for the text implies it, that this was also done ; but if so, how is one to account for the fact that in the letter to the Spartans these ambassadors are said to be the bearers of it, while immediately after (v. 24) it is said that Numenius started on his journey? Then there is this further difficulty; is it likely, as stated in the text, that on the death of Jonathan the Romans would have taken the initiative in renewing the treaty with the Jews? This seems to be directly contradicted by v. 24. It seems probable that vv. 17-23 are 
an interpolation added later; this would also e.xplain the otherwise unaccountable words 'and even unto Sparta' in v. 16, which was presumably put in because of the interpolation; the text of this verse, as it stands, cannot fail to strike one as suspicious: (Greek text reproduced here). The contents of the letter read like an official document; the probability seems to be that use has been made of some genuine record which, as already remarked, was interpolated at a later period. 

(c) The letter from Lucius, the Roman consul, to Ptolemy Euergetes II, king of Egypt (15:16-21). This is the copy of a circular letter written in the name of 

'Lucius the consul', and brought back by Numenius. In it the friendship between the Romans and the Jews is proclaimed; copies of it are sent not only to the kings of Egypt and Syria, but also to a number of small separate States which enjoyed complete independence. Now Josephus (AJ 14.8.5) mentions a letter from the Roman Senate, written in the name of the praetor Lucius Valerius in reply to a message brought by a Jewish embassy; as in the case just referred to, Numenius, the son of Antiochus, is one of the ambassadors, and he brings a gift of a golden shield; the contents of the letter are similar, and it is, 
likewise, sent to a number of independent petty States. But, according to Josephus, this happened in the ninth year of Hyrcanus II, who reigned 63-40 B.C. Now if, as is maintained by some, Josephus is right here, the passage in question is an interpolation, and must have been added shortly before the beginning of the Christian era. Mommsen has proved that Josephus is recording genuine history in saying that the praetor Lucius Valerius sent a letter to the Jews, with the contents as given, during the reign of Hyrcanus II. But this does not constitute an insuperable difficulty, for one of the consuls in 139 B.C. was named Lucius Calpurnius Piso, and the 'Consult Lucius' spoken of in the text (15:16) could quite well refer to him. What is more difficult is the fact of the great similarity in the contents between the letter as given in 1 Macc. and that given in Josephus; Mommsen maintains that they are not identical, which would mitigate the difficulty; but the mention of Numenius, the son of Antiochus, in both documents is more serious; the explanation given by Torrey that Josephus "omitted the portion of 1 Macc. containing the mention of Numenius and the golden shield, but took occasion to introduce this important name, and the most interesting details, at the next opportunity," is not very illuminating. Probably Willrich is right in regarding the passage as a later interpolation, added because it seemed appropriate in a place where Simon's treaty with Rome was mentioned; this conclusion was arrived at independently by the present writer, on the following grounds : Numenius is mentioned in 1 Macc. in connexion with an embassy to Rome in 12:16, in the letter of Jonathan to the Spartans, which, as we have already seen reasons to believe, is a later interpolation; he is also referred to incidentally in a similar connexion in the time of Simon 14:34, cp. 15:15. But a Numenius, in all respects identical, so far as description and name are concerned, is mentioned by Josephus as taking part in an embassy to the Romans, and having presented a shield of gold of a thousand pounds' weight, in the reign of Hyrcanus II; it seems, on the face of it, highly improbable that both references can be correct; cither the episode of the shield in connexion with Numenius took place in the reign of Simon, or in that of Hyrcamis II. The account given by Josephus, and the letter as quoted by him (AJ 14.8.5), appear to be undoubtedly genuine; it follows that 1 Macc. 15:15-24 is due to an interpolator ; there are also independent reasons for regarding this passage as an interpolation, since it breaks the narrative in a very obvious and awkward manner. The interpolator, knowing that negotiations had actually taken place between Simon and the Romans, has transferred an incident describing a Jewish embassy to Rome, which belongs to a later period, to the time of Simon. Josephus, in his edition of 1 Macc. did not read the section 15:15-34 as we have it (see AJ 13.8.3); he does, however, follow 1 Macc. 12:16 ff. (see AJ 8.5.8) in associating Numenius, the son of Antiochus, and Antipater, the son of Jason, with an embassy sent to Rome in the reign of Jonathan; but we have already seen that the whole of this letter in 1 Macc. is a later interpolation; it follows, therefore, that Josephus had this interpolation in his copy of 1 Macc. though the Lucius letter (15:6-24) seems to have been absent from the text he used. 

§8. The Greek Manuscripts. 

The most important of these are the three uncials Cod. Sinaiticus, Cod. Alexandrinus, Cod. Veuetus, the latter belonging to the eighth or ninth century. Cod. Vaticanus does not contain the books of the Maccabees. The text represented in Sinaiticus is, on the whole, better than that represented in Alexandrinus; but all three are undoubtedly the offspring of a single Greek MS. 
Whether, however, it can be said that all our texts, as well as the Versions, come from one Greek MS. (Torrey) is not so certain; for there are isolated readings (small in number, it is true) in some of the cursives which presuppose a better text in the passages in question than that represented in the three uncials; in some cases these readings are supported by one or other of the Versions ...

------

To briefly summarize:

Research on 1 Mac began “as early as the time of Simon (142-135 BC),” i.e. contemporaneous to the period described in the book, and reached its final form between 100 and 70 BC. “The book cannot have been written after 63 BC,” Oesterley insists, “for it was in the autumn of this year that Pompey took Jerusalem, and desecrated the Temple by entering into the Holy of Holies; it is inconceivable that the book would have contained no reference to this had it been written after this calamity had taken place.” [Emphasis mine.]

This is simply begging the question. Most Christian documents are written after the destruction of the temple, yet they do not mention that event. 

We are also told that “one of the chief sources of information utilized by the writer seems to have been the accounts given him by eyewitnesses of many of the events recorded.” How do we know this? Because of the “wonderfully graphic descriptions of certain episodes,” “the sober presentation of the facts,” and “the frequent mention of details obviously given for no other reason than that they actually occurred.”

Question begging, part two. Ancient theologians apparently had no imagination, and simply could not have made these things up. They could not have written hundreds of years after the events described. Homer must have been an eyewitness to the Trojan War. 

Ancient historians and theologians freely invented letters and correspondence (Jesus's letter to King of Edessa, anyone?), but of course this cannot be the case with 1 Mac according to Oesterley, who frequently makes baseless assertions like "there seems no sufficient reason to doubt that the author of 1 Mac made use here of the actual document in question" and "there is not the slightest reason to doubt that a genuine document has been made use of here." 

"I can't think of a reason to doubt it, and I'm an expert, so it must be authentic" still passes for an argument in Biblical studies these days.

I will be examining these supposedly authentic letters in greater detail, but right now one is worth singling out. At 1 Mac15:16-21, the author presents a letter from Lucius, a Roman consul, to Ptolemy Euergetes II, king of Egypt from 145 to 116, brought back by Numenius, son of Antiochus, proclaming the friendship of Romans and Jews. This letter is very similar to the letter found in Josephus from Lucian (a praetor, not consul) in reply to the Jewish embassy; Numenius is one of the ambassadors. But, according to Josephus, this occurred in the ninth year of Hyrcanus II (54 BCE) – 62 years after the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes II. Oesterley recognizes this is a serious problem – after all, he has just stated that it's "inconceivable" that the book was written after 63 BCE, and there's no possible way he could be relying on Josephus. But modern theologians have a "get out of jail free" card called "interpolation." 

 "This passage is an interpolation," Oesterley writes, "and must have been added shortly before the beginning of the Christian era," i.e, in the mid-first century. Why would the interpolater do this? "Because it seemed appropriate in a place where Simon's treaty with Rome was mentioned," Oesterley says. Problem solved.

1 Maccabees, as well as 2-4 Maccabees, will be examined in greater detail in future blog posts.

Date: Between 100 and 70 BCE, though based on contemporaneous eyewitness accounts and authentic second-century epistles. 

Part of Septuagint? Yes.

Christian Interpolations? No. 

Relation to Josephus: Josephus derivative; Josephus is the earliest witness to book.

Andrew Brown