Gary Morrison, «The Composition of II Maccabees: Insights Provided by a Literary topos», Vol. 90 (2009) 564-572
II Maccabees is an unusual text, its composition and content are topics of extensive discussion. This paper identifies a literary construct that we attribute to the epitomiser. Its identification allows us to assign various parts of the text to the same hand giving us more insight into both the text’s composition and the epitomiser’s ability as an historian and writer. Furthermore, the identified literary topos suggests that recent attempts to minimise the extent to which II Maccabees represents any conflict between the Greeks and the Jews, Judaism and Hellenism may need to be reconsidered, some apparent instances of favourable relations between the Jews and other nations (in particular the Hellenes) are not what they seem.
570 Gary Morrison
2. Interpreting the topos
If we are right then two comments can be made. First, a more subtle
analysis of the text brings into question widely accepted instances of friendly
relations between Jews and Gentiles, in particular Hellenes. This has
ramifications for the current trend in scholarship to minimise any
representation of hostility in II Maccabees between the Greeks and the Jews,
Judaism and Hellenism (20). We should not forget that II Maccabees describes
a rebellion by the Jews against the Seleucid overlords; hostility is to be
expected, not excluded. In this, our literary construction is more consistent
with the wider context of events described, be it in terms of the Book as a
whole or the narrative surrounding our examples. This does not mean that our
author always portrays other nations in a negative way, rather it seems
friendly relations are the exception. So, for example, the actions of the Jews
of Scythopolis are noteworthy as an oddity, although it is perhaps significant
that this episode can also show Judas in a magnanimous light (21). In short, our
author does not tend to have a positive impression of outside groups (the
“otherâ€), which he seems to perceive as a threat to Judaism (22).
The second observation brings us back to points raised at the start of this
paper, to those likely involved in the formation of the text as we have it. The
development of the literary construction we have discussed may provide
some insight, especially when we consider what we already know about the
text. Chapter 9, it seems is pivotal. It has been shown elsewhere that the letter
in Chapter 9 was probably not genuine, and I suspect the author also
constructed the account of Antiochus IV’s death; they are a perfect fit (23)
Furthermore, the letter, standing where it is after the account of Antiochus’
illness and repentance, follows the same pattern as our literary topos.
(20) This is a central theme in the analysis of I and II Maccabees. For recent comments
and an indication of current trends see (e.g.) E. GRUEN, Heritage and Hellenism. The
Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley, CA 1998); J. GOLDSTEIN, “Jewish Acceptance
and Rejection of Hellenismâ€, Jewish and Christian Self Definition (eds. E.P. SANDERS –
A.I. BAUMGARTEN – A. MENDELSON) (London 1981) II, 64-87, 318-326. More informative
is T. RAJAK, “The Hasmoneans and the Uses of Hellenismâ€, A Tribute to Geza Vermes.
Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature (eds. P.R. DAVIES – R.T. WHITE) (JSOT.S 100;
Sheffield 1990) 261-280, who recognises the complexities involved.
(21) 2 Macc 12,29-31. The leniency here contrasts with actions taken at other cities
(compare e.g. 2 Macc 12,3; 12,16; etc.), perhaps to create “depth†to Judas’ character.
(22) That our author can oppose the Greeks and Hellenism (at least when Judaism is
perceived to be threatened) and at the same time embrace some Hellenic constructs (i.e.
writing in Greek) is not the contradiction it at first appears. Greek customs, modes,
manners, etc. can be taken over in time in a way that minimises any Hellenic associations;
while conscious use of Hellenic institutions for (say) political purposes is an entirely
different scenario. See RAJAK, “Hasmoneansâ€, 261-280; U. RAPPAPORT, “The Hellenization
of the Hasmoneansâ€, Jewish Assimilation, Acculturation and Accommodation. Past
Traditions, Current Issues and Future Prospects (ed. M. MOR) (Lanham 1992) 1-13; and
G.L. MORRISON, Second Maccabees and Jewish Society. Representations of Jewishness,
Hellenism and the Interaction between the Greeks and the Jews (unpublished diss.
University of Canterbury 2005).
(23) PARKER, Letters, 390-397, 400-401, demonstrates that the whole letter is a forgery,
not just the greeting as is noted elsewhere; see comments by (e.g.) E.J. BICKERMANN, “Une
question d’authenticité: les privileges juifsâ€, Studies in Jewish and Christian History
(Leiden 1976-1986) II, 35; C. HABICHT, “Royal Documents in Maccabees IIâ€, HSCP 80
(1976) 1-18, esp. 6.