ICA0HABSE8
496
MA0HABF,F.8
Ib the structure of the sentences decidedly Hebrew (or
Aramaic), but manv words and exp^ressions occur
wlidch are literal renderings of Hebrew idioms (e. g., i,
4, 15, 16, 44; ii, 19, 42. 48; v, 37, 40; etc.). These
peculiarities can scarcely be explained by assuming
that the writer was little versed in Greek, for a number
of instances show that he was acquainted with the
niceties of the language. Besides, there are inexact
expressions and obscurities which can be explained
only in the supposition of an imperfect translation or a
misreading of a Hebrew original (e. g., i, 16, 28; iv, 19.
24; xi, 28; xiv, 5). The internal evidence is confirmea
by the testimony of St. Jerome and of Origen. The
former writes that he saw the book in Hebrew: " Machr
absBorum primiun librum Hebraicum repjeri" (Prol.
Galeat.) . As there is no ground for assuming that St.
Jerome refers to a translation, and as he is not likely
to have applied the term Hebrew to an Aramaic text,
his testimony tells strongly in favour of a Hebrew as
against an Aramaic original. Origen states (Eusebius,
" Hist. EccL", vi, 25) that the title of the book was
Sarbeth Sarbane el (Sap/3^ Xappavi A), or more cor-
rectly Sarbeth Sabanaiel (2. 2o/3a wiiA) . Though the
meaning of this title is uncertain (a number of differ-
ent explanations have been proposed, especially of the
first reading), it is plainly either Hebrew or Aramaic.
The fragment of a Hebrew text published by'Chwolson
in 1896, and later again by Schweitzer, has little claim
to be considered as part of the original.
Author and Date of Composition. — No data can be found eitlrer in the book itself or in later writers which would give us a clue as to the person of the author. Names have indeed been mentioned, but on ground- less conjecture. That he was a native of Palestine is evident from the language in which he wrote, and from the thorough knowledge of the geography of Palestine which he possessed. Although he rarely expresses his own sentiments, the spirit pervading his work is proof that he was deeply religious, zealous for the Law, and thoroughly in sympathy with the Mach- abean movement and its leaders. However, strange to say. he studiously avoids the use of the words " God '^ -and "Lord'^ (that is in the better Greek text; in the ordinary text "God" is found once, and "Lord" ihree times; in the Vulgate both occur re- peatedly); but this is probably due to reverence for the Divme names, Jahweh and Adonai, since he often uses the equivalents "heaven", "Thou", or "He". There is absolutely no ground for the opinion, main- tained by some modern scholars, that he was a Sad- ducee. He does not, it is true, mention the unworthy hi^-priests, Jason and Menelaus; but as he mentions the no less imworthy Alcimus, and that in the severest terms, it cannot be said that he wishes to spare the priestly class.
The last verses show that the book cannot have been written till some time after the beginning of the reign of John Hyrcanus (135-105 b. c), for they men- tion his accession and some of the acts of his adminis- tration. The latest possible date is genersdly ad- mitted to be prior to 63 b. c, the year of the occupation of Jerusalem by Pompey; but there is some difFerenqe in fixing the approximately exact date. Whether it can be placed as early as the reign of Hyrcanus de- pends on the meaning of the concluding verse, " Be- nbld these [the Acts of Hyrcanus] are written in the book of the days of his priesthood, from the time (^ oO, "ex quo") that he was made high priest after his father". Many understand it to indicate that Hyrcanus was then still alive, and this seems to be the more natural meaning. Others, however, take it to imply that Hyrcanus was already dead. In this latter supposition the composition of the work must have followed close upon the death of that ruler. For not only does the ^nvid character of the narrative sug- gest an early period after the events, but the absence of even the slightest allusion to events later than the
death of Hyrcanus, and, in particular, to the conduefc
of his two successors which aroused popular hatred
against the Machabees, makes a much later date im-
probable. The date would, therefore, in any case, be
within the last years of the second century b. c.
Historicity, — In the eighteenth century the two brothers E. F. and G. Wemsdorf made an attempt to discredit I Mach., but with little success. Mc^em scholars ol all schools, even the most extreme, admit that the book is a historical document of the highest value. "With regard to the historical value of I Blach.", says CormU (Einl., 3ni ed., 265), "there is but one voice; in it we possess a* source of the very first order, an absolutely reliable account of one of the most important epochs in the history of the Jewish people." The accuracy of a few minor details con- cerning fordgn nations has, however, been denied. The author is mistaken, it is said, when he states that Alexander the Great divided his empire among his generals (i, 7), or when he speaks of the Spartans as akin to the Jews (xii, 6, 7, 21); he is inexact in several particulars regarding the Romans (viii, 1 sq.); he exaggerates the numbers of elephants at the battle of Magnesia (viii, 6), and some other numbers (e. g., v, 34; vi, 30, 37; xi, 45, 48). But the author cannot be charged with whatever inaccuracies or exaggerations may be contained in viii, 1-16. He there merely sets down the reports, inexact and exaggerated, no doubt, in some particulars, which had reached Judas Macha- beus. The same is true with regard to the statement concerning the kinship of the Spartans with the Jews. The author merely reproduces the letter of Jonathan to the Spartans, and that written to the high-priest Onias I by Arius.
When a writer simply reports the words of others, an error can be laid to ms cnarge only when he repro- duces their statements inaccurately. TTie assertion that Alexander divided his empire among his generals {to be understood in the light of w. 9 and 10, where it is said that they " made fAemseZves kings . . . and put crowns on themselves after his death"), cannot be shown to be erroneous. Quintus Curtius, who is the authority for the contrary view, acknowledges that there were writers who believed that Alexander made a division of the provinces by his will. As the author of I Mach. is a careful historian and wrote about a century and a half before Q. Curtius, he would de- serve more credit than the latter, even if he were not supported by other writers. As to the exaggeration of numbers in some instances, in so far as they are not errors of copyists, it should be remembered that ancient authors, both sacred and profane, frequently do not give absolute figures, but estimated or popu- larly current numbers. Exact numbers cannot be rea- sonablv expected in an account of a popular insurrec- tion, like that of Antioch (xi,45,48), because they could not be ascertained. Now the same was often the case with regard to the strength of the enemy's forces and of the number of the enemy slain in battle. A modifying clause, such as "it is reported", must be supplied in these cases.
Sources. — ^That the author used written sources to a certain extent is witnessed by the documents which he cites (viii, 23-32; x, 3-6, 18-20, 25-45; xi, 30-37; xii, 6-23; etc.). But there is little doubt that he also derived most of the other matter from written records of the events, oral tradition being insufficient to ac- count for the many and minute detaib. There is every reason to beheve that such records existed for the Acts of Jonathan and Simon as well as for those of Judas (ix, 22), and of John Hyrcanus (xvi, 23-24). For the last part he may also liave relied on the re- miniscenses of older contemporaries, or even drawn upon his own.
Greek Text and Ancient Versions. — ^The Greek trans- lation was probably made soon after the book was written. The text is found in three uncial codices,
