Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 9.djvu/540

 MAOHABCTft 497 MAOHABXIS

namely the Sinaiticus, the Alexandrinus, and the events of the period with which he is dealing. He Venetus, and in sixteen cursive MSS. The iexttia recep^ writes history with a view to instruction and edifica* tus is that of the Sixtine edition, derived from the Co- tion. His first object is to exalt the Temple of Jeni- dex Venetus and some cursives. The best editions are salem as the centre of Jewish worship. Tnis appears those of Fritzsche (" Libri Apocryphi V. T.", Leipzig, from the pains he takes to extol on every occasion its 1871, 203 sq.) and of Swete ("O. T. in Greek", Cam- dignity and sanctity. It is "the great temple" (ii. bridge, 1905, IIL 694 sq.), both based on the Cod. 20), "the most renowned" and "the most holv in all Alexandrinus. The old Latin version in the Vulgate the world" (ii, 23; v, 15), "the great and holy tern- is that of the Itala, probably unretouched by St. pie" (xiv, 31); even heathen princes esteemed it Jerome. Part of a still older version, or rather recen- worthy of honour and glorified it with great gifts (iii, sion (chap, i-xiii), was published by Sabatier (Biblior. 2-3; v, 16; xiii, 23) ; the concern of the Jews in time Sacror. lAtinse Versiones Antique, II, 1017 sq.), the of danger was more for the holiness of the Temple than complete text of which was recently discovered in a for their wives and children (xv, 18) ; God protects it MSo. at Madrid. Two ^yriac versions are extant: by miraculous interp>o8itions (iii, xiv, 31 scj.), and that of the Peshitto, which follows the Greek text of punishes those guilty of sacrilege against it (iii, 24 sq.: the Lucian recension, and another published by Cer- ix, 16; xiii, 6-8; xiv, 31 sq.; xv, 32) ; if He has allowed iani ("Translatio Syra photolithographice edita", it to be profaned, it was because of the sins of the Milan, 1876, 592-615), which reproduces the ordinary Jews (v, 17-20). It is, no doubt, with this design that Greek text. the two letters, which otherwise have no connexion

The Second Book of Machabees (Mo/c/cojSatlwi' B; with the book, were prefixed to it. The author appar-

Liber Secundus Machabseorum). — Contents, — The ently intended his work specially for the Jews of the

Second Book of Machabees is not, as the name Dispersion, and more particularly for those of Egypt,

might suggest, a continuation of the First, but coy- where a schismatical temple had been erected at Leon-

ers part of the same ground. The book proper (ii, topolis about 160 b.c. The second object of the author

20-xv, 40) is preceded by two letters of the Jews of is to exhort the Jews to faithfulness to the Law, by

Jerusalem to tneir Egyptian coreligionists (i, 1-ii, 19). impressing upon them that God is still mindful of His

The first (i, 1-lOa), dated in the year 188 of the Seleu- covenant, and that He does not abandon them unless

cid era (i. e. 124 b. c), beyond expressions of good- they first abandon Him; the tribulations they endure

will and an allusion to a former letter, contains noth- are a punishment for their unfaithfulness, and will

ing but an invitation to the Jews of Egypt to celebrate cease when they repent (iv, 17; v, 17, 19; vi, 13, 15,

the feast of the Dedication of the Temple (instituted 16; vii, 32, 33, 37, 38; viii, 5, 36; xiv, 15; xv, 23, 24).

to commemorate its rededication, I Mach., iv, 59; II To the difference of object corresponds a difference in

Mach., X, 8). The second (i, lOb-ii, 19), whicn is un- tone and method. The author is not satisfied with

dated, is from the " senate" (yepovala) and Judas (Mach- merely relating facts, but freely comments on persons

abeus) to Aristobulus, the preceptor or counsellor of and acts, distributing praise or blame as they may

Ptolemy (D.V.Ptolemee)(Philometor), and to the Jews* deserve when judged from the standpoint of a true

in Egypt. It informs the Eg^'ptian Jews of the death Israelite. Supernatural intervention m favour of the

of Ant iochus ( Epiphanes) while attempting to rob the Jews is em phasized. The style is rhetorical, the dates are

temple of Nanea^ and invites them to join their Pales- comparatively few. As has been remarked, the chron*

tinian brethren in celebrating the feasts of the Dedi- ology of II Mach. slightly differs from that of I Mach.

cation and of the Recovery of the Sacred Fire. The Author and Date. — II Mach. is, as has been said, an

story of the recovery of the sacred fire is then told, and epitome of a larger work by a certain Jason of Cyrene.

in connexion with it the story of the hiding bv the Nothing further is known of this Jason except that,

Prophet Jeremias of the tabernacle, the ark and the al- judging from his exact geographical knowledge, he

tar of incense. After an offer to send copies of the books must have lived for some time in Palestine. The

which Judas had collected after the example of Nehe- author of the epitome is unknown. From the promi-

mias, it repeats the invitation to celebrate the two nence which he gives to the doctrine of the resurreo-

feasts, and concludes with the hope that the dispersed tion of the dead, it has been inferred that he was a

of Israel might soon be gathered together in the Holy Pharisee. Some have even maintained that his book

Land. was a Pharisaical partisan writing. This last, at ilnv

The book itself begins with an elaborate preface rate, is a baseless assertion. II Mach. does not spetuc

(ii, 20-33) in which the author after mentioning that his more severely of Alcimus than I Mach., and the fact

work is an epitome of the larger history in five books of that it mentions the high-priests, Jason and Menelaus,

Jason of Cyrene states his motive in writing the book, by name no more proves it to be a Pharisaic partisan

and comments on the respective duties of the historian writing, than the omission of their names in I Mach.

and of the epitomizer. The first part of the book (iii- proves that to be a Sadducee production. Jason must

iv, 6) relates the attempt of Heliodorus, prime minis- nave finished his work shortly after the death of Ni«

ter of Seleucus IV (187-175 b. c), to rob the treasures canor, and before disaster overtook Judas Machabeus,

of the Temple at the instigation of a certain Simon, as he not only omits to allude to that hero's death, but

and the troubles caused by this latter individual makes the statement, which would be palpably false if

to Onias III. The rest of the book is the history he had written later, that after the death of Nicanor

of the Machabean rebellion down to the death of Jerusalem always remained in the possession of the

Nicanor (161 b. c), and therefore corresponds to I Jews (xv, 38). The epitome cannot have been written

Mach.^ i, 11-vii, 50. Section iv, 7-x, 9, deals with earlier than the date of the first letter, that is 124 B.C.

the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (I Mach., i, 11-vi, As to the exact date there is great divergence. In the

16), while section x, 10-xv, 37, records the events of very probable supposition that the first letter was sent

the reigns of Antiochus Eupator and Demetrius I with a copy of the book, the latter would be of about

(I Mach., vi, 17- vii, 50). II Mach. thus covers a the same date. It cannot in any case be very much

period of only fifteen years, from 176 to 161 B. c. But later, since the demand for an abridged form of Jason'i

while the field is narrower, the narrative is much more history, to which the author alludes in the preface (ii,

copious in details than I Mach., and furnishes many. 25-26), must have arisen within a reasonably short

particulars, for instance, names of persons, which are time after the publication of that work. The second

not found in the first book. ^ letter must have been written soon after the death of

Object and Character. — On comparing the two Books Antiochus, before the exact circumstances concerning

of Machabees it is plainly seen tiiat the author of the it had become known in Jerusalem, therefore about

Second does not, like the author of the First, write 163 b. c. That the Antiochus there mentioned ia

history merely to acquaint his readers with the stining Antiochus IV and not Antiochus II I « as msja.^ C^^k^sScaL

IX.--32