The Composition of II Maccabees 565 have only a loose connection with the text proper (4). Their removal would not affect the main narrative, although the person who added the second letter (or perhaps a later hand) has made adjustments to the main text crudely moving what we currently have as Chapter 9 from just before Chapter 10,9 (5). This introduces the possibility of several hands reworking the extant narrative; in fact three are generally accepted: The person who attached the letters and transposed Chapter 9; Jason of Cyrene who is the named original author; and the epitomiser, someone who is increasingly being accepted as an author in his own right and largely responsible for the extant form of the text. As we turn our attention to the composition of the narrative and literary patterns within it, our interest (at least initially) must be with this author. What we know of him or, at least, what is generally accepted is that he was a Jew who wrote his summary in Greek and was versed in Greek ideological concepts. He, for example, uses Hellenic idioms for his own purposes. Specifically, he is the first extant author to use the terms ‘Hellenism’ and ‘Judaism’, an adaptation of the Greek expression to ‘medise’ (6). This clear manipulation of the Greek language and Greek ideology demonstrates the ease in which our author could move through a Hellenic environment and possibly gives an indication of the control he had over his work. Even if we postulate that Jason coined the terms, our epitomiser at least knew enough to maintain them in his interpretation of the earlier work. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the summariser may have been responsible for including the letters in Chapter 11 and reworking the narrative to interpret them (albeit partially incorrectly) (7); while Erich Gruen even highlights the extent of humour in the text (8). Individual interpretations aside, all these studies suggest literary ability and control over the text: the summariser it seems is not a mere copyist, but an author in his own right. (4) These letters and their connection with the main text are the subject of much debate: See (e.g.) E. SCHÜRER, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (eds. G. VERMES – F. MILLAR – M. GOODMAN) (Edinburgh 1973-1987) III, 533-534; GOLDSTEIN, II Maccabees, 6, 25-27, 164-166, 540-545; DORAN, Temple Propaganda, 6-12; V. PARKER, “The Letters in II Maccabees: Reflexions on the book’s composition”, ZAW 119 (2007) 386-402, esp. 386-388 and notes therein. (5) This was done to ensure that both the letter and the text have Antiochus IV dying before the Temple is purified. Other inconsistencies between the letters and text are left suggesting that the ‘transposer’ could do little more than ‘cut and paste’. See GOLDSTEIN, II Maccabees, 345-347; V. PARKER, “The Campaigns of Lysias in Judaea: A Test of the Historical Worth of 2 Maccabees”, Grazer Beiträge 25 (2006) 153-179; PARKER, Letters, 386-402; Contra DORAN, Temple Propaganda, 61-62. (6) See Herodotus’ description of Greeks who supported the Persian or Median cause: Hdt. 4,144; 8,30; also Thuc. 3,62 etc. Note also GOLDSTEIN, II Maccabees , 230; Y. AMIR, “The term ΔIoudismov" (IOUDAISMOS). A Study in Jewish-Hellenic Self Identification”, Immanuel 14 (1982) 34-41. (7) PARKER, Campaigns, 153-179; PARKER, Letters, 386-402. We will conclude by noting that the hand responsible for reworking the letters in Chapter 11 may actually be different from the epitomiser, although in no way does this discredit the underlying point that our author (the epitomiser) is responsible for extensive reworking or writing of the extant text. (8) E. GRUEN, Diaspora (Harvard 2002) 176-180.