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.
The Composition of II Maccabees 567
The key to unravelling this passage is in understanding our author’s
opinion of the Antiochenes. This is provided earlier in the chapter, where we
have an account of how Jason procured through bribery the priesthood (2
Macc 4,7-8), then introduced societal changes into Jerusalem (such as a
gymnasium and an ephebic education) and registered ‘those who were
Antiochenes in Jeruselem’ (2 Macc 4,7-17); presumably he drew up a list of
those who were to be awarded this new status (11). What is important is that
our author reacts negatively to these changes. They are described as
undermining the priests’ desire to preform their religious duties and
influencing them to discard traditional Jewish laws and customs. The result is
summed up in the clearest terms: to transgress in such a way, acting profanely
against God’s laws, would have consequences: the Lord would discipline His
people (12).We must incorporate this understanding to our interpretation of
events in Tyre: The impropriety of Jason’s offering is emphasised in that the
Antiochenes — a group central to the problematic societal changes in
Jerusalem — even they question whether it is right to give 300 drachmas as a
sacrifice to Herakles. Support from an unlikely group (in this case the
Antiochenes, previously the Scythians) is used to emphasise a point: here,
disgust at idol worship.
The topos, therefore, is relatively simple and tends to turn on the
emphatic kaiv. Nevertheless there are layers of complexity. First, not every use
of the emphatic kaiv marks our topos (13), and conversely (as will become
apparent) the emphasis of a point through the development of an improbable
scenario does not depend on the presence of the emphatic kaiv; albeit that the
comparative emphasis inherent to the term ‘even’ remains. Second, context
is demonstratively important: our author’s opinion of the Antiochenes
(above) makes the topos apparent, and without that understanding the passage
can be read in an entirely different way. This recognition is brought into sharp
focus when considering some of the other uses our author makes of this
construction: recognising the topos changes a commonly accepted inter-
pretation of several passages. Consider the description of the murder of
(11) There is considerable debate as to who the Antiochenes were and what our author
actually means here; see e.g. J. GOLDSTEIN, I Maccabees (AB 41; Garden City, NY 1976)
110-122; GOLDSTEIN, II Maccabees, 227; V.A. TCHERIKOVER, Hellenistic Civilisation and
the Jews (Philadelphia, PA 1959) 161-163, 404-409; SCHÜRER, History of the Jewish
People I, 148. Regardless, what we are concerned with is our author’s opinion of this group:
what they are responsible for makes his hostility clear.
(12) Note 2 Macc 4,17 and the description of events following which fulfil the promise
made here. The authorial insertion at 2 Macc 6,12-17 is also of interest.
(13) In part this could be due to individual interpretation in translations, e.g. compare
Goldstein and NRSV versions of 2 Macc 6,23; or it could be due to our author copying a
section into the text and not editing it — such as a story, again cf. 2 Macc 6,23 (“The
martyrdom of Eleazarâ€: 2 Macc 6,18-31). A sophisticated author will also use language to
his best advantage, so a specific literary construction (our topos) may not be appropriate
every time an identified term (i.e. emphatic kaiv) appears; or the construct may be uncertain.
So 2 Macc 4,3: “When his hatred progressed to such a degree that even murders were
committed by one of Simon’s approved agents†th'" de; e[cqra" ejpi; tosou'ton probainouvsh"
w{ste kai; diav tino" tw'n uJpo; tou' Simwno" dedokimasmevnwn fovnou" suntelei'sqai. Were the
murders committed or are they a stereotypical exaggeration to further condemn Simon’s
character? Either way, to foreshadow a later discussion, the same hand that developed our
topos is likely responsible for this phrase as there is similarity in construction.