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.
566 Gary Morrison
1. The Literary topos
With this in mind, let us examine a literary construct readily identifiable
in the text that will not only allow us tentatively to suggest sections of the text
written by the same hand, but also provide an insight into the relationship
between the Jews and other peoples (in particular the Greeks). To the topos
itself: In short, it seems our author is prone to use exaggeration or an unlikely
scenario to emphasise a point. Consider the account of how Menelaus had
instigated plunder, sacrilege and a riot in Jerusalem (2 Macc 4,39-42); and
then how the king after listening to the complaints as laid out by three
members of the Jewish senate (gerousiva) both acquits Menelaus (primarily
owing to the interference of Ptolemaeus) and condemns to death his accusers
(2 Macc 4,43-50). These are men, we are so eloquently informed, whom even
the Scythians (understand: those most uncivilised of peoples) would have
acquitted (2 Macc 4,47). Our author is clearly disgusted at the execution of
the Jews (and perhaps the inequality of Seleucid [Hellenic] justice) and
emphasises this point by using support from an unlikely group: the Scythians:
a people that are both (1) distant from the Jews in a geographic sense — at
the edge of the world (a topos in its own right); and (2) are recognised by the
Hellenes as symbolic of the unsophisticated ‘other’, a point made very clear
in Hartog’s analysis of Herodotus’ Histories (9). This is an assessment that our
author would have been all too aware of considering the ease with which he
made use of Hellenic idioms.
It appears, therefore, that the disgust at the turn of events, specifically the
execution of three Jews, is highlighted by the unlikely or unexpected. In terms
of the literary construct itself the description of what occurred and the
statement of exaggeration (that provides emphasis) is, in this example, linked
by kaiv translated as ‘even’. Hence: even those most uncivilised of peoples,
the Scythians, would have acquitted them. The contempt our author has for
Seleucid officials is thus brought to the fore.
This is not the only time that our author uses this rhetorical figure
together with the device of the emphatic kaiv. Earlier in Chapter 4, for
example, representatives from Jerusalem were sent to Tyre as part of the
quinquennial games celebration:
“When the quinquennial games were being held at Tyre in the
presence of the king, the villainous Jason sent, as envoys to represent
Jerusalem, Antiochenes bearing three hundred drachmas in silver for
the sacrifice to Herakles. Yet, even the bearers (ie. the Antiochenes)
thought that this money ought not to be used for a sacrifice, as it
was improper, but (felt) that it should be devoted to some other
expenseâ€(10).
(9) F. HARTOG, Mirror of Herodotus. Representations of the Other in the writing of
History (Berkeley, CA 1988). On Herodotus and the ‘other’ more generally, see also P.
CARTLEDGE, “Herodotus and ‘The Other’: A Meditation on Empireâ€, Echos du Monde
Classique/Classical Views XXXIV, N.S. 9 (1990) 27-40; J. REDFIELD “Herodotus The
Touristâ€, CP 80 (1985) 97-118; J. MARINCOLA, Greek Historians (Greece and Rome: New
Surveys in the Classics 31; Oxford 2001) 19-60; V.J. GRAY, “Herodotus and the Rhetoric
of ‘Otherness’â€, AJPh 116 (1985) 185-211.
(10) 2 Macc 4,18-20, emphasis added.