— In Rabbinical Literature:
The Talmud speaks only of the menorah made by Bezaleel for the Tabernacle in the time of Moses (Ex. xxxvii. 17 et seq.), which was later placed in the Temple(Tosef., Sotah, xiii., beginning), between the ten menorot made by Hiram for Solomon's Temple (I Kings vii. 49). Each of these menorot was one denarius in excess of the required weight ("kikkar") of the Mosaic menorah (Men. 29a).
The Mosaic menorah, according to the Talmud, stood 18 "tefahim" (1 tefah = 4 inches), or 72 inches, high, divided as follows: 3 tefahim for the tripod, including a "perah" (blossom in relief); 2 tefahim space; 1 tefah for a "gebia'" (cup or vase), "kaftor" (knob), and perah; 2 tefahim space; 1 tefah for a kaftor and branch on each side of the center shaft and a kaftor above the joint; 1 tefah space; 1 tefah for a kaftor and branch on each side and a kaftor above; 1 tefah space; 1 tefah for a kaftor and branch on each side and a kaftor above; 2 tefahim space; 3 tefahim for a cluster of three gebi'ot, a kaftor, and a perah on each of the branches and the center shaft (Men. 28b).
(see image) A Modern Menorah.(In the possession of Maurice Herrmann, New York.)
The gebia' is described as resembling an Alexandrian cup; the kaftor resembled the half of an apple; the perah resembled a blossom carved on pillars. Altogether there were 22 gebi'im, 11 kaftorim, and 9 perahim (ib.; see accompanying illustration). Maimonides further explains that the gebia' was broad at the top and narrow at the bottom (probably in the style of a flower-vase); the kaftor was somewhat egg-shaped with pointed tops; the perah looked like a dish with the brim doubled outward ("Yad," Bet ha-Behirah, iii. 1-11). The spread of the branches was 9 tefahim (36 inches), and there was the same measure for the tripod ("Shilte ha-Gibborim," ch. xxxi.).
Position.
The branches of the lamps had the apertures in which the wicks were placed turned toward the center lamp, which was known as "Ner ha-Ma'arabi" (= "the Western Lamp") because it was next to the branches on the east side (Rashi on Shab. 22b). For, according to the Talmud, the menorah was so placed that its two branches pointed toward the east and west respectively. A similar rule applied to all vessels in the Temple (Men. xi. 7), except the Ark. Maimonides, however, holds the opinion, also expressed in the Talmud, that the menorah, like the Ark, was placed at right angles to the length of the Temple, i.e., pointing north and south and facing east and west. But this theory appears to be untenable. It was opposed by Abraham ibn Daud (RaBaD) and was strongly attacked in "Shilte ha-Gibborim" (xxxi. 26b).
The cleaning and refilling of the lamps, except the two most easterly, were performed by a priest every morning. If the priest found them extinguished, he relighted them. The two eastern lamps were left burning till after the morning service, and were then cleaned and refilled (Tamid iii. 9; Yoma 33a). The Ner ha-Ma'arabi, also called "Ner Elohim" (I Sam. iii. 3), was left burning all day and was refilled in the evening. It served to light all the lamps. The Ner ha-Ma'arabi contained no more oil than the other lamps, a half-log measure (1 log contains the liquid of six eggs), sufficient to last during the longest winter night (Men. 89a); yet by a miracle that lamp regularly burned till the following evening (ib. 86b). This miracle, however, ceased after the death of Simeon the Righteous, who was high priest forty years before the destruction of the Temple (Yoma 39b).
There was a ladder of three steps 9 tefahim high and 9 tefahim wide in front of the menorah. On the second step were placed the tongs, shovels, dishes, and oil. This ladder or stool was made by Bezaleel out of shittim-wood; but in Solomon's Temple it was made of marble. The priest ascended the steps to fix and light the lamps (Men. and Tamid l.c.).
The menorah depicted on Titus' arch is probably a representation of one of Solomon's menorot, but not of the Mosaic menorah, which was concealed by the priests prior to the destruction of the First Temple and of which all trace has since disappeared.
Symbolic Significance.
Symbolically the menorah represented the creation of the universe in seven days, the center light symbolizing the Sabbath. The seven branches are the seven continents of the earth and the seven heavens, guided by the light of God. The Zohar says: "These lamps, like the planets above, receive their light from the sun" ("Beha'aloteka," beginning).
The design of the menorah is used for a Mizrah picture. The seven words of Ps. cxiii. 3 respectively designate the seven branches. Some derive the design of the branches from a seven-verse chapter in the Psalms, or from the seven-verse prayer of R. Nehunya ben ha-Kanah beginning with "Anna, bekoah gedulot." A tablet with such a design is sometimes placed in front of the prayer-desk, while others use the figure of the menorah as adecoration for the Ark. Others again, in writing amulets, arrange a formula of seven letters and seven verses in the form of a menorah; and it was employed also on tombs. See Amulet (illustration); Art in the Synagogue; Candlestick; Mizrah.
See Hanukah
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Friday, October 09, 2009
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Menorah Stained Glass Sun Catcher
Menorah Stained Glass Sun Panel - Jewish Sun catcher Design
9 1/2" X 12 1/2" ....A striking design. Menorah Stained Glass Sun-Catcher. Each piece of high quality, American made glass has been carefully hand cut, wrapped in copper foil and beautifully hand soldered. An exquisite piece.
Jewish Design
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Stain Glass Menorah
Origins
Hanukkah celebrates the rededication of the Temple after the successful Jewish revolt against the Seleucid monarchy. The Jews found only enough ritually pure olive oil to light the menorah for one day, but the supply miraculously lasted eight days until a new supply could be obtained. In celebration of this miracle, the chanukkiyah has eight branches for eight candles or oil lamps, none higher than any other, except for one higher branch for the auxiliary candle, or shamash, which guards against secular use of the other lights and is also used to light them.
The common reason for the number of the candles is that they symbolize the eight days of the miracle. Each night an additional light is kindled – one on the first night, two on the second night; and so on – until on the eighth night of Hanukkah all eight lights, plus the shamash, are lit. This is the teaching of the House of Hillel. The House of Shammai teaches to light eight candles the first night, seven the second night, six the third night, and so on all eight nights.
Another possible reason for the eight branches of the Chanukah menorah, as opposed to the seven in the traditional menorah in the temple, may be because according to halakha, it is forbidden to make a menorah similar to the one in the temple because of its sanctity.
Another interpretation for the eight-day ceremony is that it commemorates the story of Hannah and her seven sons. The story depicted in the Talmud and in the Book of Maccabees accounts how Hannah's seven sons were tortured and executed according to Antiochus' policy when they refused to bow to a statue and to taste pork. Hannah herself committed suicide after the death of her sons.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
"Hanukiah" or "Menorah"? Are they the same thing?
"Hanukiah" or "Menorah"? Are they the same thing? by Rabbi Simcha Bart
Menorah is the Hebrew term for any manmade light source such as a candelabrum, for example. When Modern Hebrew came about, the term Menorah was used for any light source including electric room lighting. So the term Hanukiah was invented to differentiate between a common household electric lamp and the Chanukah Menorah.
In the Diaspora, where Hebrew isn’t the vernacular and this isn't an issue, the word Menorah is used almost exclusively to describe The Temple Candelabrum of seven branches, and the eight-branch one we light on Chanukah.
Menorah is the Hebrew term for any manmade light source such as a candelabrum, for example. When Modern Hebrew came about, the term Menorah was used for any light source including electric room lighting. So the term Hanukiah was invented to differentiate between a common household electric lamp and the Chanukah Menorah.
In the Diaspora, where Hebrew isn’t the vernacular and this isn't an issue, the word Menorah is used almost exclusively to describe The Temple Candelabrum of seven branches, and the eight-branch one we light on Chanukah.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Hanukiah
Hanukiah, is a nine branched candelabra lit during eight-day holiday of Hanukkah. The name that was common for this holy Jewish object outside Israel was "The menorah of Hanukkah" or just menorah. The name "hanukiah" was given only in the end of the 19th century in Jerusalem by Eliezer Ben Yehuda, the reviver of the Hebrew language. Hanukkah celebrates the rededication of the Temple after the successful Jewish revolt against the Seleucid monarchy. According to the Talmud, the victorious Jews found only enough ritually pure olive oil to light the menorah for one day, but the supply miraculously lasted eight days until a new supply could be obtained. In celebration of this miracle The hanukiah has eight branches for eight candles, and another branch for the auxiliary candle, or shamash, which guards against secular use of the other lights and is also used to light them. The common reason for the number of the candles is that they symbolize the eight days of the miracle. Each night an additional light is kindled - one on the first night, two on the second night, and so on - until on the eighth night of Hanukkah all eight lights, plus the shamash, are lit.Hanukiah, Chănukkiyah (Hebrew: חַנֻכִּיָּה)
Friday, September 15, 2006
Judaica - Menorahs
|
|
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
History of Menorah
Sponsored Results: Menorah
Best Deals found at:
- Mile Chai Menorahs
Online Jewish Catalog for Judaica, Menorah, Jewish Books, Jewish Jewelry, Jewish Ritual Items, Jewish gifts Jewish music, Passover Seder Plates, Matzah Covers, and much more....
http://www.milechai.com/judaica/menorahs.html
The menorah (Hebrew: מנורה) is a seven branched candelabrum lit by olive oil in the Tabernacle and the Temple in Jerusalem. The menorah is one of the oldest symbols of the Jewish people. It is said to symbolize the burning bush as seen by Moses on Mount Sinai (Exodus 25).Ancient use
According to the Bible, a menorah was used in the Tabernacle (the portable sanctuary used by the Jews) and later in its successor, the Temple in Jerusalem. It was one of the three chief furnishings of the Temple. It was beaten from a single piece of gold. A lamp burning olive oil was located at the end of each of the seven branches. Since the destruction of the Temple ground, the seven-branched menorah has had no formal role in Jewish worship. Because of the sanctity of the Temple and its appointments, some authorities forbid the manufacture of menorah resembling the one used there.
According to the Bible, a menorah was used in the Tabernacle (the portable sanctuary used by the Jews) and later in its successor, the Temple in Jerusalem. It was one of the three chief furnishings of the Temple. It was beaten from a single piece of gold. A lamp burning olive oil was located at the end of each of the seven branches. Since the destruction of the Temple ground, the seven-branched menorah has had no formal role in Jewish worship. Because of the sanctity of the Temple and its appointments, some authorities forbid the manufacture of menorah resembling the one used there.
A coin issued by Mattathias Antigonus, c. 40 BCE
The bible (Exodus 25, 31:40) lists the instructions for the construction of the menorah used in the temple:
31 And thou shalt make a candlestick of pure gold: of beaten work shall the candlestick be made, even its base, and its shaft; its cups, its knops, and its flowers, shall be of one piece with it. 32 And there shall be six branches going out of the sides thereof: three branches of the candlestick out of the one side thereof, and three branches of the candle-stick out of the other side thereof; 33 three cups made like almond-blossoms in one branch, a knop and a flower; and three cups made like almond-blossoms in the other branch, a knop and a flower; so for the six branches going out of the candlestick. 34 And in the candlestick four cups made like almond-blossoms, the knops thereof, and the flowers thereof. 35 And a knop under two branches of one piece with it, and a knop under two branches of one piece with it, and a knop under two branches of one piece with it, for the six branches going out of the candlestick. 36 Their knops and their branches shall be of one piece with it; the whole of it one beaten work of pure gold. 37 And thou shalt make the lamps thereof, seven; and they shall light the lamps thereof, to give light over against it. 38 And the tongs thereof, and the snuff dishes thereof, shall be of pure gold. 39 Of a talent of pure gold shall it be made, with all these vessels. 40 And see that thou make them after their pattern, which is being shown thee in the mount.
The construction of the temple menorah was considered a religious order in Judaism.
Hanukkah
Main article: Hanukkah
The Menorah is also a symbol closely associated with the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah. According to the Talmud, after the desecration of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, there was only enough sealed (and therefore not desecrated by idolatry) consecrated olive oil left to fuel the eternal flame in the Temple for one day. Miraculously, the oil burned for eight days which was enough time to get new oil as well as finish rebuilding the Temple. The Hanukkah Menorah therefore has not seven, but nine candle holders. The four holders on either side are to represent the eight day celebration of the miracle of oil, while the one in the middle, called the Shamash, is used to light the others. While this type of menorah is technically called a Hanukiah, the "menorah of Hanukkah" is sometimes simply called a menorah.
Origin
The Torah states that God revealed the design for the menorah to Moses. A plant that grows in Israel called the moriah typically has seven branches and resembles a menorah, leading to the theory that it provided the inspiration for its design. According to some readings, Maimonides stated that the menorah in the Temple had straight branches, not rounded as is often depicted. Jewish depictions of the menorah dating back to Temple times, along with the depiction on the Arch of Titus showing the Romans taking the looted Menorah to Rome after the Temple's destruction, contradict this claim.
Depiction of the Menorah on the Arch of Titus
31 And thou shalt make a candlestick of pure gold: of beaten work shall the candlestick be made, even its base, and its shaft; its cups, its knops, and its flowers, shall be of one piece with it. 32 And there shall be six branches going out of the sides thereof: three branches of the candlestick out of the one side thereof, and three branches of the candle-stick out of the other side thereof; 33 three cups made like almond-blossoms in one branch, a knop and a flower; and three cups made like almond-blossoms in the other branch, a knop and a flower; so for the six branches going out of the candlestick. 34 And in the candlestick four cups made like almond-blossoms, the knops thereof, and the flowers thereof. 35 And a knop under two branches of one piece with it, and a knop under two branches of one piece with it, and a knop under two branches of one piece with it, for the six branches going out of the candlestick. 36 Their knops and their branches shall be of one piece with it; the whole of it one beaten work of pure gold. 37 And thou shalt make the lamps thereof, seven; and they shall light the lamps thereof, to give light over against it. 38 And the tongs thereof, and the snuff dishes thereof, shall be of pure gold. 39 Of a talent of pure gold shall it be made, with all these vessels. 40 And see that thou make them after their pattern, which is being shown thee in the mount.
The construction of the temple menorah was considered a religious order in Judaism.
Hanukkah
Main article: Hanukkah
The Menorah is also a symbol closely associated with the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah. According to the Talmud, after the desecration of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, there was only enough sealed (and therefore not desecrated by idolatry) consecrated olive oil left to fuel the eternal flame in the Temple for one day. Miraculously, the oil burned for eight days which was enough time to get new oil as well as finish rebuilding the Temple. The Hanukkah Menorah therefore has not seven, but nine candle holders. The four holders on either side are to represent the eight day celebration of the miracle of oil, while the one in the middle, called the Shamash, is used to light the others. While this type of menorah is technically called a Hanukiah, the "menorah of Hanukkah" is sometimes simply called a menorah.Origin
The Torah states that God revealed the design for the menorah to Moses. A plant that grows in Israel called the moriah typically has seven branches and resembles a menorah, leading to the theory that it provided the inspiration for its design. According to some readings, Maimonides stated that the menorah in the Temple had straight branches, not rounded as is often depicted. Jewish depictions of the menorah dating back to Temple times, along with the depiction on the Arch of Titus showing the Romans taking the looted Menorah to Rome after the Temple's destruction, contradict this claim.
Depiction of the Menorah on the Arch of TitusA second theory to the origin of the design of the menorah is based on what is known about ancient Hebrew cosmology. According to this theory, the seven branches represent the seven heavenly bodies known at the time, namely the sun and the moon, as well as Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. The Jewish historian Josephus alludes to this in the Third Book of his Antiquities of the Jews. In it, he identifies what he interprets as Egyptian and Greek pagan influences on the design of the Tabernacle and its contents. He writes:
"...for if any one do without prejudice, and with judgment, look upon these things, he will find that they were every one made in way of imitation and representation of the universe...and as to the seven lamps upon the candlesticks, they referred to the course of the planets, of which that is the number.... (Antiq. 3.6.7; 3.7.7)".
A third theory is that the menorah originated as the tree of life symbolizing the mother goddess Asherah. In the Pentateuch, it has been purged of all polytheistic symbolism.
Fate
"...for if any one do without prejudice, and with judgment, look upon these things, he will find that they were every one made in way of imitation and representation of the universe...and as to the seven lamps upon the candlesticks, they referred to the course of the planets, of which that is the number.... (Antiq. 3.6.7; 3.7.7)".
A third theory is that the menorah originated as the tree of life symbolizing the mother goddess Asherah. In the Pentateuch, it has been purged of all polytheistic symbolism.
Fate
The fate of the menorah used in the Second Temple is recorded by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who states that it was brought to Rome and carried along during the triumph of Vespasian and Titus. A depiction of this event is preserved on the Arch of Titus that still stands today in Rome.
The menorah probably remained in the Temple of Peace in Rome until the city was sacked by the Vandals in 455 CE, and was brought to their capital, Carthage. But the Byzantine army under General Belisarius took it back in 533 and brought it to Constantinople. According to Procopius, it was carried through the streets of Constantinople during Belisarius' triumphal procession. Procopius adds that the object was later sent back to Jerusalem. This may be a pious legend.
Modern use
Many synagogues display either a menorah or an artistic representation of a menorah. In addition, synagogues feature a continually-lit lamp in front of the Ark, where the Torah scroll is kept. Called the ner tamid, this lamp represents the continually-lit menorah used in Temple times. A menorah appears in the Coat of arms of the State of Israel.
The menorah probably remained in the Temple of Peace in Rome until the city was sacked by the Vandals in 455 CE, and was brought to their capital, Carthage. But the Byzantine army under General Belisarius took it back in 533 and brought it to Constantinople. According to Procopius, it was carried through the streets of Constantinople during Belisarius' triumphal procession. Procopius adds that the object was later sent back to Jerusalem. This may be a pious legend.
Modern use
Many synagogues display either a menorah or an artistic representation of a menorah. In addition, synagogues feature a continually-lit lamp in front of the Ark, where the Torah scroll is kept. Called the ner tamid, this lamp represents the continually-lit menorah used in Temple times. A menorah appears in the Coat of arms of the State of Israel.
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
It uses material from the Wikipedia article Menorah.
It uses material from the Wikipedia article Menorah.
History of Menorah Mile Chai Menorahs
Sunday, October 06, 2002
The Menorah (Hebrew: מְנוֹרָה)
The menorah (Hebrew: מְנוֹרָה), is a seven-branched candelabrum which has been a symbol of Judaism for almost 3000 years and is the emblem of Israel. It was used in the ancient Holy Temple in Jerusalem. Lit by olive oil in the Tabernacle and the Temple, the menorah is one of the oldest symbols of the Jewish people. It is said to symbolize the burning bush as seen by Moses on Mount Horeb (Exodus 3). see History Menorahs
(Parshat Terumah) Exodus 25:31-40 lists the instructions for the construction of the menorah used in the temple:
31 And thou shalt make a candlestick of pure gold: of beaten work shall the candlestick be made, even its base, and its shaft; its cups, its knops, and its flowers, shall be of one piece with it. 32 And there shall be six branches going out of the sides thereof: three branches of the candlestick out of the one side thereof, and three branches of the candle-stick out of the other side thereof; 33 three cups made like almond-blossoms in one branch, a knop and a flower; and three cups made like almond-blossoms in the other branch, a knop and a flower; so for the six branches going out of the candlestick. 34 And in the candlestick four cups made like almond-blossoms, the knops thereof, and the flowers thereof. 35 And a knop under two branches of one piece with it, and a knop under two branches of one piece with it, and a knop under two branches of one piece with it, for the six branches going out of the candlestick. 36 Their knops and their branches shall be of one piece with it; the whole of it one beaten work of pure gold. 37 And thou shalt make the lamps thereof, seven; and they shall light the lamps thereof, to give light over against it. 38 And the tongs thereof, and the snuffdishes thereof, shall be of pure gold. 39 Of a talent of pure gold shall it be made, with all these vessels. 40 And see that thou make them after their pattern, which is being shown thee in the mount.
The construction of the temple menorah was considered a religious order in Judaism.
Hanukkah
(Parshat Terumah) Exodus 25:31-40 lists the instructions for the construction of the menorah used in the temple:
31 And thou shalt make a candlestick of pure gold: of beaten work shall the candlestick be made, even its base, and its shaft; its cups, its knops, and its flowers, shall be of one piece with it. 32 And there shall be six branches going out of the sides thereof: three branches of the candlestick out of the one side thereof, and three branches of the candle-stick out of the other side thereof; 33 three cups made like almond-blossoms in one branch, a knop and a flower; and three cups made like almond-blossoms in the other branch, a knop and a flower; so for the six branches going out of the candlestick. 34 And in the candlestick four cups made like almond-blossoms, the knops thereof, and the flowers thereof. 35 And a knop under two branches of one piece with it, and a knop under two branches of one piece with it, and a knop under two branches of one piece with it, for the six branches going out of the candlestick. 36 Their knops and their branches shall be of one piece with it; the whole of it one beaten work of pure gold. 37 And thou shalt make the lamps thereof, seven; and they shall light the lamps thereof, to give light over against it. 38 And the tongs thereof, and the snuffdishes thereof, shall be of pure gold. 39 Of a talent of pure gold shall it be made, with all these vessels. 40 And see that thou make them after their pattern, which is being shown thee in the mount.
The construction of the temple menorah was considered a religious order in Judaism.
Hanukkah
Hanukkah
Hanukkah
Main articles: Hanukkah and The Menorah (Hanukkah)
The Menorah is also a symbol closely associated with the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah. According to the Talmud, after the desecration of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, there was only enough sealed (and therefore not desecrated) consecrated olive oil left to fuel the eternal flame in the Temple for one day. Miraculously, the oil burned for eight days which was enough time to make new pure oil. The Hanukkah menorah therefore has eight main branches, plus a ninth branch set apart for the Shamash (servant) light which is used to start the other lights. This type of menorah is called a hanukiah in Modern Hebrew.
Shape of Menorah
Main articles: Hanukkah and The Menorah (Hanukkah)
The Menorah is also a symbol closely associated with the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah. According to the Talmud, after the desecration of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, there was only enough sealed (and therefore not desecrated) consecrated olive oil left to fuel the eternal flame in the Temple for one day. Miraculously, the oil burned for eight days which was enough time to make new pure oil. The Hanukkah menorah therefore has eight main branches, plus a ninth branch set apart for the Shamash (servant) light which is used to start the other lights. This type of menorah is called a hanukiah in Modern Hebrew.
Shape of Menorah
Shape
Hanukkah
Shape of Menroah
The Torah states that God revealed the design for the menorah to Moses. The branches are often artistically depicted as semicircular, but Rashi and Maimonides (according to his son Avraham) held that they were straight; no other Jewish authority expresses an opinion on the subject. Archaeological evidence, however, including depictions by artists who had actually seen the menorah itself, indicates that they were neither straight nor semicircular but elliptical.
Fate of Menorah
Shape of Menroah
The Torah states that God revealed the design for the menorah to Moses. The branches are often artistically depicted as semicircular, but Rashi and Maimonides (according to his son Avraham) held that they were straight; no other Jewish authority expresses an opinion on the subject. Archaeological evidence, however, including depictions by artists who had actually seen the menorah itself, indicates that they were neither straight nor semicircular but elliptical.
Fate of Menorah
Fate of Menorah
Shape of Menorah
Fate of Menorah
The original menorah was made for the Tabernacle, and is recorded as being present until the Jordan was crossed.
When the Tabernacle is pitched in Shiloh (Joshua 18:1), it is safe to assume that the menorah was also present. However, no mention is made of it during the years that the ark of the covenant was moving about the land in the times of Samuel and Saul. Indeed, there is no further mention at all of the menorah, even in Solomon's temple, as he creates ten candlesticks (Chronicles&verse=4:7&src=! 2 Chronicles 4:7). These are definitely recorded as being taken away to Babylon by the invading armies under the general Nebuzar-Adan (Jeremiah 52:19) some centuries later.
During the restoration of worship after the captivity in Babylon, no mention is made of the return of the menorah or of any of Solomon's candlesticks, but only of "vessels" (Ezra 1:9-10). Since however the Temple was an enclosed place with no natural light, some means of illumination must have existed.
Although apocryphal, the Maccabees record that Antiochus Epiphanes took away the candlesticks (plural) when he invaded and robbed the temple as it was in those days (maccabees &verse=1:21&src=! 1 maccabees 1:21). The later record of the making of "new holy vessels" may refer to the manufacture of new candlesticks (maccabees &verse=4:49&src=! 1 maccabees 4:49). There is thereafter no Biblical track of the fate of the menorah.
The fate of the menorah used in the Second Temple is recorded by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who states that it was brought to Rome and carried along during the triumph of Vespasian and Titus. A depiction of this event is preserved on the Arch of Titus that still stands today in Rome. This frieze is the best known image of what the menorah in the Temple looked like. As such it is this depiction of the Menorah which appears on Israel's Coat of Arms.
Depiction of the Menorah on the Arch of Titus
The menorah probably remained in the Temple of Peace in Rome until the city was sacked. The first sacking was by the Visigoths under Alaric I in 410 CE.
Most likely, the menorah was looted by the Vandals in sacking of Rome in 455 CE, and taken to their capital, Carthage. The Byzantine army under General Belisarius might have removed it in 533 and brought it to Constantinople. According to Procopius, it was carried through the streets of Constantinople during Belisarius' triumphal procession. Procopius adds that the object was later sent back to Jerusalem where there is no record of it, although it could have been destroyed when Jerusalem was pillaged by the Persians in 614.
Fate of Menorah
The original menorah was made for the Tabernacle, and is recorded as being present until the Jordan was crossed.
During the restoration of worship after the captivity in Babylon, no mention is made of the return of the menorah or of any of Solomon's candlesticks, but only of "vessels" (Ezra 1:9-10). Since however the Temple was an enclosed place with no natural light, some means of illumination must have existed.
Although apocryphal, the Maccabees record that Antiochus Epiphanes took away the candlesticks (plural) when he invaded and robbed the temple as it was in those days (maccabees &verse=1:21&src=! 1 maccabees 1:21). The later record of the making of "new holy vessels" may refer to the manufacture of new candlesticks (maccabees &verse=4:49&src=! 1 maccabees 4:49). There is thereafter no Biblical track of the fate of the menorah.
The fate of the menorah used in the Second Temple is recorded by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who states that it was brought to Rome and carried along during the triumph of Vespasian and Titus. A depiction of this event is preserved on the Arch of Titus that still stands today in Rome. This frieze is the best known image of what the menorah in the Temple looked like. As such it is this depiction of the Menorah which appears on Israel's Coat of Arms.
Depiction of the Menorah on the Arch of Titus
The menorah probably remained in the Temple of Peace in Rome until the city was sacked. The first sacking was by the Visigoths under Alaric I in 410 CE.
Most likely, the menorah was looted by the Vandals in sacking of Rome in 455 CE, and taken to their capital, Carthage. The Byzantine army under General Belisarius might have removed it in 533 and brought it to Constantinople. According to Procopius, it was carried through the streets of Constantinople during Belisarius' triumphal procession. Procopius adds that the object was later sent back to Jerusalem where there is no record of it, although it could have been destroyed when Jerusalem was pillaged by the Persians in 614.
Wednesday, November 14, 2001
Mizrah
Hebrew term denoting the rising of the sun, the east (Num. xxi. 11; Ps. I. 1); also used to designate an ornamental picture hung on the eastern wall of the house, or in front of the readingdesk in the synagogue, and applied to the row of seats in the synagogue on either side of the Ark. The custom of turning toward the east while at prayer, observed by the Jews living west of Palestine, is of great antiquity (Dan. vi. 11; comp. I Kings viii. 38; Ber. 28b; see East). The Jews of Palestine prayed with their faces turned westward (Suk. 51b). In later times opinion varied on this subject. While some of the rabbis, claiming that the Divine Presence ("Shekinah") is everywhere, maintained that it makes little difference in which direction one's face is turned in prayer, others were of the opinion that the Divine Presence is especially located in the west, and that therefore one should turn westward. R. Sheshet positively objected to the custom of praying while facing the east because the Minim prayed in that direction (B. B. 25a). The custom, however, predominated and was formulated in a baraita reading as follows: "One who is outside of Palestine should turn toward Palestine; in Palestine, toward Jerusalem; in Jerusalem, toward the Temple; and in the Temple, toward the Holy of Holies" (Ber. 30a; Yer. Ber. iv. 5).
In accordance with this injunction, synagogues are so constructed that the Ark may be placed in the direction of Palestine, and that the people may turn toward it in prayer (Maimonides, "Yad," Tefillah, xi. 2; Shulhan 'Aruk, Orah hayyim, 94, 1-3). In places east of Palestine, the Ark is placed in the west and the door opposite to it in the east (Tosef., Meg. iii. 14; Rosh, ib. iii. 12; Ber. 6a; Tos. s.v. "Ahure"; "Yad," l.c.; comp. Orah hayyim, 150, 5 and Isserles' gloss; "hatam Sofer," ib. 27).
In spite of the objection of the medieval rabbis to the presence of any object of art in the synagogue, there were still some figures and pictures retained (see Art). In many synagogues and in almost every bet ha-midrash of modern times an ornamental picture, usually bearing the inscription "From the rising of the sun unto the setting thereof, the name of the Lord is praised" (Ps. cxiii. 3, Hebr.), is hung in front of the reading-desk, which latter is near the Ark. Many other passages, and even whole psalms, are added, and frequently are artistically strung together so as to form the likeness of the menorah or of some animal. One of the later authorities ("hatam Sofer," Yoreh De'ah, 127) forbids the engraving of the above-cited passage around a picture of the sun in one of the eastern windows of the synagogue (comp. "Sefer hasidim," ed. Wistinetzki, § 1625). No one, however, seems to raise any objection to the mizrah, which is found in synagogues and in many homes.
In accordance with this injunction, synagogues are so constructed that the Ark may be placed in the direction of Palestine, and that the people may turn toward it in prayer (Maimonides, "Yad," Tefillah, xi. 2; Shulhan 'Aruk, Orah hayyim, 94, 1-3). In places east of Palestine, the Ark is placed in the west and the door opposite to it in the east (Tosef., Meg. iii. 14; Rosh, ib. iii. 12; Ber. 6a; Tos. s.v. "Ahure"; "Yad," l.c.; comp. Orah hayyim, 150, 5 and Isserles' gloss; "hatam Sofer," ib. 27).
In spite of the objection of the medieval rabbis to the presence of any object of art in the synagogue, there were still some figures and pictures retained (see Art). In many synagogues and in almost every bet ha-midrash of modern times an ornamental picture, usually bearing the inscription "From the rising of the sun unto the setting thereof, the name of the Lord is praised" (Ps. cxiii. 3, Hebr.), is hung in front of the reading-desk, which latter is near the Ark. Many other passages, and even whole psalms, are added, and frequently are artistically strung together so as to form the likeness of the menorah or of some animal. One of the later authorities ("hatam Sofer," Yoreh De'ah, 127) forbids the engraving of the above-cited passage around a picture of the sun in one of the eastern windows of the synagogue (comp. "Sefer hasidim," ed. Wistinetzki, § 1625). No one, however, seems to raise any objection to the mizrah, which is found in synagogues and in many homes.
Tuesday, November 14, 2000
Hallel
HALLEL By : Cyrus Adler Lewis N. Dembitz Francis L. Cohen
ARTICLE HEADINGS:
Late Origin.
Benediction Preceding.
"His Mercy Endureth for Ever."
Musical Setting.
Spanish Tunes.
Festival Themes.
The name given in the Talmud and in rabbinical writings to Ps. cxiii.-cxviii. considered as a single composition, which they undoubtedly are. They are more distinctively known as the "Hallel of Egypt," as distinguished from Ps. cxxxvi., the "Great Hallel," and from Ps. cxlvi.-cxlviii. (in a baraita apparently designated as a kind of Hallel: Shab. 118b).
Late Origin.
These psalms were evidently written to be sung publicly on some day of thanksgiving, as appears from the verse: "This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it" (Ps. cxviii. 24). The Aramaic word "tagmulohi" would seem to indicate a late date; the thrice-repeated cry "I shall cut them down," with "the Lord hath chastened me sore," points to a bloody war, at first unsuccessful; the words "open to me the gates of righteousness" point to the recovery of the Temple: all these together make it probable that the "Hallel" psalms were written for the Feast of hanukkah, during which they are still recited every morning. Hallel is also recited on the night of the Passover as part of the family service, as it was in the days of the Temple (Pes. x. 4); on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread; on Pentecost; and on the Feast of Booths (see Suk. iv. 1). Of course, where the festival days are doubled, one night and three days are added (Ta'an. 28b), making (aside from the nights) twenty-one days on which Hallel is deemed obligatory. But a Palestinian of the first generation after the Mishnah speaks (Ber. 14a) of certain days on which the entire Hallel is not recited, and on which the recital is of lesser sanctity. These days are: (1) the days of Unleavened Bread after the first, or first and second; (2) all New-Moon days other than the New Moon of Tishri, which is kept as the Day of Memorial. On these days Ps. cxv. 1-11 and cxviii. 1-11 are omitted to show the later rise and the lesser sanctity of the custom of saying Hallel upon them.
Benediction Preceding.
The early sages boldly undertook to give this custom the force of Scriptural command by prefixing the benediction, "Blessed . . . who has sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to read the Hallel." This, at least in the German ritual, is the form used on all occasions, while with the Sephardim it is used only before the incomplete "half Hallel"; on the days of the "full Hallel" they bless Him "who commanded us to complete the Hallel." These benedictions were in general use during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and though both Rashi and Maimonides ("Yad," Megillah, iii. 7), the greatest authorities on Jewish law, protested against the use of such a benediction before half-Hallel as unauthorized, on the ground that the recital of Hallel on New Moons, etc., was not even a commandment of the scribes, the benediction has kept its place in the prayer-book.
Ps. cxviii. opens and ends with a much older verse: "O give thanks unto the Lord; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever." This verse dates back not only to the days of Ezra, but to the days of Jeremiah and to Solomon's Temple. It was well known even to those otherwise wholly ignorant of the sacred tongue. Hence it grew to be the custom when Hallel was recited in public for the people to repeat after the leader only the first verse, even when he gave out the second, third, and fourth—"Let the house of Israel," etc., "Let the house of Aaron," etc., "Let them now that fear," etc—and this usage is still in force (Suk. 88b).
"His Mercy Endureth for Ever."
Beginning with Ps. cxviii. 20, the reader gives out every verse to the end of the chapter, the congregation repeating it after him; but in countries where the Polish minhag is used every one says each of these verses twice. The verse "We beseech thee, O Lord, save now," etc. (Ps. cxviii. 25, Hebr.), is cut up into its hemistichs, each of which is given out separately.
On Sukkot the palm-branch is shaken in all directions while the first hemistich is chanted ("Hoshiahna").
Hallel is closed with this benediction: "O Lord, our God, may all Thy works praise Thee, and Thy saints who do Thy will, and all Thy people Israel, in glad song, bless and honor . . . Thy glorious name; for to thank Thee is proper, and pleasant isit to play melodies to Thy glorious name, for from everlasting to everlasting Thou art God: Blessed be Thou, O Lord, the King praised in hymns!" For the Hallel in the Passover night service see Haggadah.
Bibliography: Kohler, The Psalms and Their Place in the Liturgy, pp. 31 et seq. (Gratz College Publications, 1897);
Dembitz, Jewish Services, book ii., ch. 13;
Maimonides, Yad, Megillah, iii.;
Caro, Shulhan 'Aruk, Orah hayyim, 422, 488, 683.A. L. N. D.
Musical Setting.
All trace is lost of the chants to which the Hallel was intoned before a comparatively modern date. In consequence there is no general tradition: every composer of synagogue music offers his own setting. In the medieval period the folk-song of the day was reproduced in the Hallel, where the contemporary expression of joyousness always supplanted the older cantillatory intonations, as Ps. cxvii. and cxviii., at least, were approached. Many such melodies, often of marked beauty, have been preserved in the synagogues of the Sephardic ritual.
Spanish Tunes.
A rich store of them will be found in the collections of De Sola and Aguilar ("Ancient Melodies of the Liturgy of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews"), and Consolo ("Libro dei Canti d'Israel"). Typical, and of particular interest because of their use in many Ashkenazic and Reform synagogues, are the two well contrasted old melodies here presented (comp. De Sola and Aguilar, "Ancient Melodies," Nos. 42, 43; Salaman and Verrinder, "Music of the West London Synagogue of British Jews," i.; Cohen and Davis, "Voice of Prayer and Praise," Nos. 62, 63; Pauer and Cohen, "Traditional Hebrew Melodies," No. 12). The first of these is wide-spread among the northern Jews as a tune for table-hymns (see Zemirot).
The earlier part of the Hallel was rarely chanted at length, being usually read through in a rapid undertone. Where the chant took a definite form it was simple in outline and usually plaintive in character. A good traditional example is given in Cohen and Davis, "Voice of Prayer and Praise" (No. 57); it is reminiscent of the "Tonus Peregrinus" of the Church, the irregular chant which, utilized principally for Ps. cxiv., is believed to be of French origin and to date from about the ninth century.HALLEL (Sephardic)
(see image)
The chief hymn-tune of each festival has now become indissolubly associated with the first verses of Ps. cxviii., and is often finely worked into the choral setting of the preceding passages, as in the deservedly esteemed Hallel settings by J. L. Mombach (comp. Cohen and Davis, l.c. Nos. 64 [hanukkah], 147 [Passover], 153 and 154 [Pentecost]).
Festival Themes.
In the case of the Feast of Tabernacles the wavingof the palm-branch (see Lulab) is the most characteristic feature of the celebration of the festival; and consequently the chant associated with the ceremony has been taken as the "representative theme" for the festival. As such it is employed for the response Mi Kamoka (Ex. xv. 11, 18) in the evening service, which is also chanted to the "representative theme," according to the following general scheme for days on which the Hallel is sung:
New Moon (no general tradition).
Feast of Dedication (Ma'oz Zur).
Festival of Passover (Addir. Hu).
Festival of Pentecost (Akdamut).
Festival of Tabernacles (lulab chant).
The last has been handed down in two forms, a major and a minor, and exhibits traces of the intervals smaller than a semitone, which, with its mystical character, resulting from unenunciated vocalization between the syllables of the text, seem to point back to an original framework derived from the Orient. In most incongruous juxtaposition, several poor, jingling tunes are, in the North-German tradition, often associated with the majestic old theme (comp. Marksohn and Wolf, "Auswahl Alter Hebräischen Synagogal-Melodien," No. 3, and note; Baer, "Ba'al Tefillah," No. 816a, b, c, d). In the theme itself may be detected analogies with an old Provençal strain utilized by Bizet in his music to "L'Arlésienne," and with the melodies quoted in Jew. Encyc. s.v. Ashre ha-'Am and Geshem.HALLEL ("Lulab Chant")
(see image)
Among eminent modern composers, J. Meyerbeer and F. Halévy have contributed settings for the Hallel and other texts to S. Naumbourg's "Zemirot Israel," Paris, 1863. Halévy's Hallel has become so familiar to French Jews that it has furnished main themes for a set of quadrilles founded by Henri Cohen on festival melodies, and entitled "Zemannim le-Sason" ("Le Temps de Rejouissances," Paris, 1883). Similarly Mombach's fine adaptation of the Akdamut for the Pentecost Hallel found favor in England as a pianoforte duet.
ARTICLE HEADINGS:
Late Origin.
Benediction Preceding.
"His Mercy Endureth for Ever."
Musical Setting.
Spanish Tunes.
Festival Themes.
The name given in the Talmud and in rabbinical writings to Ps. cxiii.-cxviii. considered as a single composition, which they undoubtedly are. They are more distinctively known as the "Hallel of Egypt," as distinguished from Ps. cxxxvi., the "Great Hallel," and from Ps. cxlvi.-cxlviii. (in a baraita apparently designated as a kind of Hallel: Shab. 118b).
Late Origin.
These psalms were evidently written to be sung publicly on some day of thanksgiving, as appears from the verse: "This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it" (Ps. cxviii. 24). The Aramaic word "tagmulohi" would seem to indicate a late date; the thrice-repeated cry "I shall cut them down," with "the Lord hath chastened me sore," points to a bloody war, at first unsuccessful; the words "open to me the gates of righteousness" point to the recovery of the Temple: all these together make it probable that the "Hallel" psalms were written for the Feast of hanukkah, during which they are still recited every morning. Hallel is also recited on the night of the Passover as part of the family service, as it was in the days of the Temple (Pes. x. 4); on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread; on Pentecost; and on the Feast of Booths (see Suk. iv. 1). Of course, where the festival days are doubled, one night and three days are added (Ta'an. 28b), making (aside from the nights) twenty-one days on which Hallel is deemed obligatory. But a Palestinian of the first generation after the Mishnah speaks (Ber. 14a) of certain days on which the entire Hallel is not recited, and on which the recital is of lesser sanctity. These days are: (1) the days of Unleavened Bread after the first, or first and second; (2) all New-Moon days other than the New Moon of Tishri, which is kept as the Day of Memorial. On these days Ps. cxv. 1-11 and cxviii. 1-11 are omitted to show the later rise and the lesser sanctity of the custom of saying Hallel upon them.
Benediction Preceding.
The early sages boldly undertook to give this custom the force of Scriptural command by prefixing the benediction, "Blessed . . . who has sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to read the Hallel." This, at least in the German ritual, is the form used on all occasions, while with the Sephardim it is used only before the incomplete "half Hallel"; on the days of the "full Hallel" they bless Him "who commanded us to complete the Hallel." These benedictions were in general use during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and though both Rashi and Maimonides ("Yad," Megillah, iii. 7), the greatest authorities on Jewish law, protested against the use of such a benediction before half-Hallel as unauthorized, on the ground that the recital of Hallel on New Moons, etc., was not even a commandment of the scribes, the benediction has kept its place in the prayer-book.
Ps. cxviii. opens and ends with a much older verse: "O give thanks unto the Lord; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever." This verse dates back not only to the days of Ezra, but to the days of Jeremiah and to Solomon's Temple. It was well known even to those otherwise wholly ignorant of the sacred tongue. Hence it grew to be the custom when Hallel was recited in public for the people to repeat after the leader only the first verse, even when he gave out the second, third, and fourth—"Let the house of Israel," etc., "Let the house of Aaron," etc., "Let them now that fear," etc—and this usage is still in force (Suk. 88b).
"His Mercy Endureth for Ever."
Beginning with Ps. cxviii. 20, the reader gives out every verse to the end of the chapter, the congregation repeating it after him; but in countries where the Polish minhag is used every one says each of these verses twice. The verse "We beseech thee, O Lord, save now," etc. (Ps. cxviii. 25, Hebr.), is cut up into its hemistichs, each of which is given out separately.
On Sukkot the palm-branch is shaken in all directions while the first hemistich is chanted ("Hoshiahna").
Hallel is closed with this benediction: "O Lord, our God, may all Thy works praise Thee, and Thy saints who do Thy will, and all Thy people Israel, in glad song, bless and honor . . . Thy glorious name; for to thank Thee is proper, and pleasant isit to play melodies to Thy glorious name, for from everlasting to everlasting Thou art God: Blessed be Thou, O Lord, the King praised in hymns!" For the Hallel in the Passover night service see Haggadah.
Bibliography: Kohler, The Psalms and Their Place in the Liturgy, pp. 31 et seq. (Gratz College Publications, 1897);
Dembitz, Jewish Services, book ii., ch. 13;
Maimonides, Yad, Megillah, iii.;
Caro, Shulhan 'Aruk, Orah hayyim, 422, 488, 683.A. L. N. D.
Musical Setting.
All trace is lost of the chants to which the Hallel was intoned before a comparatively modern date. In consequence there is no general tradition: every composer of synagogue music offers his own setting. In the medieval period the folk-song of the day was reproduced in the Hallel, where the contemporary expression of joyousness always supplanted the older cantillatory intonations, as Ps. cxvii. and cxviii., at least, were approached. Many such melodies, often of marked beauty, have been preserved in the synagogues of the Sephardic ritual.
Spanish Tunes.
A rich store of them will be found in the collections of De Sola and Aguilar ("Ancient Melodies of the Liturgy of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews"), and Consolo ("Libro dei Canti d'Israel"). Typical, and of particular interest because of their use in many Ashkenazic and Reform synagogues, are the two well contrasted old melodies here presented (comp. De Sola and Aguilar, "Ancient Melodies," Nos. 42, 43; Salaman and Verrinder, "Music of the West London Synagogue of British Jews," i.; Cohen and Davis, "Voice of Prayer and Praise," Nos. 62, 63; Pauer and Cohen, "Traditional Hebrew Melodies," No. 12). The first of these is wide-spread among the northern Jews as a tune for table-hymns (see Zemirot).
The earlier part of the Hallel was rarely chanted at length, being usually read through in a rapid undertone. Where the chant took a definite form it was simple in outline and usually plaintive in character. A good traditional example is given in Cohen and Davis, "Voice of Prayer and Praise" (No. 57); it is reminiscent of the "Tonus Peregrinus" of the Church, the irregular chant which, utilized principally for Ps. cxiv., is believed to be of French origin and to date from about the ninth century.HALLEL (Sephardic)
(see image)
The chief hymn-tune of each festival has now become indissolubly associated with the first verses of Ps. cxviii., and is often finely worked into the choral setting of the preceding passages, as in the deservedly esteemed Hallel settings by J. L. Mombach (comp. Cohen and Davis, l.c. Nos. 64 [hanukkah], 147 [Passover], 153 and 154 [Pentecost]).
Festival Themes.
In the case of the Feast of Tabernacles the wavingof the palm-branch (see Lulab) is the most characteristic feature of the celebration of the festival; and consequently the chant associated with the ceremony has been taken as the "representative theme" for the festival. As such it is employed for the response Mi Kamoka (Ex. xv. 11, 18) in the evening service, which is also chanted to the "representative theme," according to the following general scheme for days on which the Hallel is sung:
New Moon (no general tradition).
Feast of Dedication (Ma'oz Zur).
Festival of Passover (Addir. Hu).
Festival of Pentecost (Akdamut).
Festival of Tabernacles (lulab chant).
The last has been handed down in two forms, a major and a minor, and exhibits traces of the intervals smaller than a semitone, which, with its mystical character, resulting from unenunciated vocalization between the syllables of the text, seem to point back to an original framework derived from the Orient. In most incongruous juxtaposition, several poor, jingling tunes are, in the North-German tradition, often associated with the majestic old theme (comp. Marksohn and Wolf, "Auswahl Alter Hebräischen Synagogal-Melodien," No. 3, and note; Baer, "Ba'al Tefillah," No. 816a, b, c, d). In the theme itself may be detected analogies with an old Provençal strain utilized by Bizet in his music to "L'Arlésienne," and with the melodies quoted in Jew. Encyc. s.v. Ashre ha-'Am and Geshem.HALLEL ("Lulab Chant")
(see image)
Among eminent modern composers, J. Meyerbeer and F. Halévy have contributed settings for the Hallel and other texts to S. Naumbourg's "Zemirot Israel," Paris, 1863. Halévy's Hallel has become so familiar to French Jews that it has furnished main themes for a set of quadrilles founded by Henri Cohen on festival melodies, and entitled "Zemannim le-Sason" ("Le Temps de Rejouissances," Paris, 1883). Similarly Mombach's fine adaptation of the Akdamut for the Pentecost Hallel found favor in England as a pianoforte duet.
Ma'oz Zur
MA'OZ ZUR By : Cyrus Adler Francis L. Cohen
ARTICLE HEADINGS: The Traditional Tune.
Commencement of the hymn originally sung only in the domestic circle, but now used also in the synagogue, after the kindling of the lights on the Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah). The acrostic signature is that of Mordecai. Zunz ("Literaturgesch." p. 580) is inclined to place the author of this hymn in the middle of the thirteenth century. He may have been the Mordecai ben Isaac ha-Levi who wrote the Sabbath table-hymn "Mah Yafit" (Majufes), or even the scholar referred to in Tos. to Niddah 36a. Or, to judge from the appeal in the closing verse, now generally suppressed, he may have been the Mordecai whose father-in-law was martyred at Mayence in 1096.
The Traditional Tune.
The bright and stirring tune now so generally associated with "Ma'oz Zur" serves as the "representative theme" in musical references to the feast (comp. Addir Hu; Aḳdamut; Hallel). Indeed, it has come to be regarded as the only Hanukkah melody, four other Hebrew hymns for the occasion being also sung to it (comp. Zunz, l.c. pp. 422, 429; D. Kaufmann, in "Ha-Asif," ii. 298), as well as G. Gottheil's paraphrase, "Rock of Ages," in the "Union Hymnal" (No. 107). It was originally sung for "Shene Zetim" ("Olives Twain"), the "Me'orah," or piyyut, next preceding the Shema 'in the Morning Service of the (first) Sabbath in the eight days of the Feast of Dedication. Curiously enough, "Shene Zetim" alone is now sometimes sung to a melody which two centuries ago was associated rather with "Ma'oz Zur." The latter is a Jewish-sounding air in the minor mode, and is found in BenedettoMarcello's "Estro Poetico Armonico," or "Parafrasi Sopra li Salmi" (Venice, 1724), quoted as a melody of the German Jews, and utilized by Marcello as the theme for his "Psalm XV." This air has been transcribed by Cantor Birnbaum of Königsberg in the "Israelitische Wochenschrift" (1878, No. 51)
The present melody for the Hanukkah hymn has been identified by Birnbaum as an adaptation from the old German folk-song "So weiss ich eins, dass mich erfreut, das pluemlein auff preiter heyde," given in Böhme's "Altdeutsches Liederbuch" (No. 635); it was widely spread among German Jews as early as 1450. By an interesting coincidence, this folk-melody was also the first utilized by Luther for his German chorals. He set it to his "Nun freut euch lieben Christen gmein" (comp. Julian, "Dictionary of Hymnology," s. v. "Sing praise to God who reigns above"). It is familiar among English-speaking people as the tune for a translation by F. E. Cox of the hymn "Sei lob und ehr dem höchsten gut," by J. J. Schütz (1640-1730). As such it is called "Erk" (after the German hymnologist), and, with harmonies by Bach, appears as No. 283 of "Hymns, Ancient and Modern" (London, 1875). The earliest transcription of the Jewish form of the tune is due to Isaac Nathan, who set it, very clumsily indeed, to the poem "On Jordan's Banks" in Byron's "Hebrew Melodies" (London, 1815). Later transcriptions have been numerous, and the air finds a place in every collection of Jewish melodies. It was modified to the form now favored by English Jews by the delicate liturgical taste of Mombach, to whom is due the modulation to the dominant in the repetition of the first strain, shown in the transcription above.
ARTICLE HEADINGS: The Traditional Tune.
Commencement of the hymn originally sung only in the domestic circle, but now used also in the synagogue, after the kindling of the lights on the Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah). The acrostic signature is that of Mordecai. Zunz ("Literaturgesch." p. 580) is inclined to place the author of this hymn in the middle of the thirteenth century. He may have been the Mordecai ben Isaac ha-Levi who wrote the Sabbath table-hymn "Mah Yafit" (Majufes), or even the scholar referred to in Tos. to Niddah 36a. Or, to judge from the appeal in the closing verse, now generally suppressed, he may have been the Mordecai whose father-in-law was martyred at Mayence in 1096.
The Traditional Tune.
The bright and stirring tune now so generally associated with "Ma'oz Zur" serves as the "representative theme" in musical references to the feast (comp. Addir Hu; Aḳdamut; Hallel). Indeed, it has come to be regarded as the only Hanukkah melody, four other Hebrew hymns for the occasion being also sung to it (comp. Zunz, l.c. pp. 422, 429; D. Kaufmann, in "Ha-Asif," ii. 298), as well as G. Gottheil's paraphrase, "Rock of Ages," in the "Union Hymnal" (No. 107). It was originally sung for "Shene Zetim" ("Olives Twain"), the "Me'orah," or piyyut, next preceding the Shema 'in the Morning Service of the (first) Sabbath in the eight days of the Feast of Dedication. Curiously enough, "Shene Zetim" alone is now sometimes sung to a melody which two centuries ago was associated rather with "Ma'oz Zur." The latter is a Jewish-sounding air in the minor mode, and is found in BenedettoMarcello's "Estro Poetico Armonico," or "Parafrasi Sopra li Salmi" (Venice, 1724), quoted as a melody of the German Jews, and utilized by Marcello as the theme for his "Psalm XV." This air has been transcribed by Cantor Birnbaum of Königsberg in the "Israelitische Wochenschrift" (1878, No. 51)
The present melody for the Hanukkah hymn has been identified by Birnbaum as an adaptation from the old German folk-song "So weiss ich eins, dass mich erfreut, das pluemlein auff preiter heyde," given in Böhme's "Altdeutsches Liederbuch" (No. 635); it was widely spread among German Jews as early as 1450. By an interesting coincidence, this folk-melody was also the first utilized by Luther for his German chorals. He set it to his "Nun freut euch lieben Christen gmein" (comp. Julian, "Dictionary of Hymnology," s. v. "Sing praise to God who reigns above"). It is familiar among English-speaking people as the tune for a translation by F. E. Cox of the hymn "Sei lob und ehr dem höchsten gut," by J. J. Schütz (1640-1730). As such it is called "Erk" (after the German hymnologist), and, with harmonies by Bach, appears as No. 283 of "Hymns, Ancient and Modern" (London, 1875). The earliest transcription of the Jewish form of the tune is due to Isaac Nathan, who set it, very clumsily indeed, to the poem "On Jordan's Banks" in Byron's "Hebrew Melodies" (London, 1815). Later transcriptions have been numerous, and the air finds a place in every collection of Jewish melodies. It was modified to the form now favored by English Jews by the delicate liturgical taste of Mombach, to whom is due the modulation to the dominant in the repetition of the first strain, shown in the transcription above.
Book of Judith
JUDITH, BOOK OF: By : Crawford Howell Toy Charles C. Torrey
ARTICLE HEADINGS:
Title.
General Character and Contents.
Historical Setting.
The City Bethulia.
Identity of Bethulia.
Literary and Religious Importance.
Original Language; Versions.
Author and Date.
Possible Date of Composition.
Title.
An Apocryphal book in sixteen chapters. The book receives its title from the name of its principal character, Judith ( = "Jewess"; in the Greek transliteration, Ἰουδείθ), a name found also in Gen. xxvi. 34 (comp. the corresponding masculine proper name in Jer. xxxvi. 14, 21, 23).
The Book of Judith is a story written for house-hold reading, While it may properly be classed as didactic, yet it is one of those popular tales in which the chief concern of the writer is with the telling of the story rather than with the pointing of a moral, and in which the wish to interest takes precedence even of the desire to instruct. What gained for the book its high esteem in early times, in both the Jewish and the Christian world, was its intrinsic merit as a story, rather than its religious teaching or its patriotism.
General Character and Contents.
It is, furthermore, a historical novel; that is, its scenes are definitely located as to place and time and connected with important personages of history, with the purpose of adding life to the narrative. This feature it has in common with such stories as those of Ruth, Esther, Daniel, and especially with the Book of Tobit, the work most nearly akin to it. But in Judith the names of persons and localities are introduced in such profusion and with such minuteness of detail as have no parallel in the other old Jewish compositions of this class.
The events of the narrative are represented as taking place on the occasion of the hostile advance of an "Assyrian" army into Palestine. The inhabitants of a certain Jewish city called "Bethulia," (properly "Betylua") can check the advance of the enemy, because their city occupies the narrow and important pass through which is the entrance into Judea (Judith iv. 7 et seq., viii. 21-24). But the Assyrians, instead of attempting to force the pass, blockade the city and cut off its water-supply. In the distress which follows, Judith, a woman of Bethulia, works deliverance for her city—and thus for all Judea and Jerusalem—by bewitching the Assyrian captain, Holofernes, and cutting off his head.
Historical Setting.
The book begins with a date, "the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar," and everything moves with the air of a precise account of actual events. But the way in which the narrative at once makes open sport of chronology and history is very striking. Nebuchadnezzar is the king of Assyria, and reigns in Nineveh(!). The Jews, who have "newly returned from the captivity" (iv. 3, v. 19), are in no sense his subjects; indeed, his chief captain has apparently never heard of them (v. 3). Yet the writer of this story was a well-informed man, familiar with foreign geography (i. 6-10, ii. 21-28), and well acquainted with the Hebrew Scriptures (i. 1; ii. 23; v. 6-19; viii. 1, 26; ix. 2 et seq.). It must therefore be concluded either that the principal names of the story are a mere disguise, or that they were chosen with a purely literary purpose, and with the intent to disclaim at the outset any historical verity for the tale. The former supposition is not rendered plausible by any consideration, and fails utterly to account for the peculiarities of the narrative; the latter, on the contrary, gives a satisfactory explanation of all the facts. That is, with the very first words of the tale, "In the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned over the Assyrians in Nineveh," the narrator gives his hearers a solemn wink. They are to understand that this is fiction, not history. It did not take place in this or that definite period of Jewish history, but simply "once upon a time," the real vagueness of the date being transparently disguised in the manner which has become familiar in the folk-tales of other parts of the world.
The City Bethulia.
Both the name and the site of the city in which the scene of the story is laid have been the subject of much debate. It is beyond all question that the narrator in describing Bethulia is describing a real place with which he is personally familiar. The plain requirements of the description are these: a large city in the hill-country of Samaria, on the direct road from Jezreel to Jerusalem, lying in the path of the enemy, at the head of an important pass, a few hours (vi. 11, vii. 1-3) south of Geba. This Geba is the of the Talmud, the modern Jeba', two or three hours northeast of Samaria, at the point where the ascent into the mountainous country begins. Between this point and the plain of Jezreel there is nothing resembling a pass. Holofernes, with the division of his army which had just chastised the coast cities (iii. 6 et seq.), was in the van. A considerable body now joined him from the east (Moab, Ammon, Edom, etc.; v. 2, vii. 8). The statement that his vast army "encamped between Geba and Seythopolis" (iii. 10) suits all the conditions perfectly.
Identity of Bethulia.
As Torrey first pointed out, in the "Journal of the American Oriental Society," xx. 160-172, there is one city, and only one, which perfectly satisfies all the above-mentioned requirements, namely, Shechem. A great army, with its baggage-trains, breaking camp at Geba in the morning (vii. 1), would arrive in the afternoon at the springs in the broad valley (ib. 3) just under Shechem. This, moreover, is the city which occupies the all-important pass on this route, the pass by which "was the entrance into Judea" (iv. 7). Furthermore, each one of the details of topography, which the writer introduces in great number, finds its unmistakable counterpart in the surroundings of Shechem. The valley below the city is on the west side (vii. 18; comp. ib. verses 13, 20). The "fountain of water in the camp" (xii. 7) is the modern Bait al-Ma, fifteen minutes from Shechem. The ascent to the city was through a narrowing valley (xiii. 10; comp. x. 10). Whether the words "for two men at the most" (iv. 7) are an exaggeration for the sake of the story, or whether they truly describe the old fortifications of the city, it is impossible to say with certainty. At the head of this ascent, a short distance back from the brow of the bill, stood the city (xiv. 11). Rising above it and overlooking it were mountains (vii. 13, 18; xv. 3). The "fountain" from which came thewater-supply of the city (vii. 12 et seq.) is the great spring Ras el-'Ain, in the valley (ἐν τῷ αὐλῶνι, ib. 17) just above Shechem, "at the foot" of Mount Gerizim. The abundant water-supply of the modern city is probably due to a system of ancient underground conduits from this one spring; see Robinson, "Physical Geography of the Holy Land," p. 247, and Guérin, "Samarie," i. 401 et seq. Further corroborative evidence is given by the account of the blockade of Bethulia in vii. 13-20. "Ekrebel" is 'Aḳrabah, three hours southeast of Shechem, on the road to the Jordan; "Chusi" is Ḳuza (so G. A. Smith and others), two hours south, on the road to Jerusalem. The identity of Bethulia with Shechem is thus beyond all question.
The reason for the pseudonym is obvious. Because of the feeling of the Jews toward the Samaritans, the name "Shechem" could not be repeatedly used in a popular tale of this character for the city whose people wrought deliverance for Jerusalem and for the sanctuary of the Jews. The original form of "Betylua" (Greek, Βαιτουλουα, etc.; Latin, "Bethulia," whence the modern usage) is quite uncertain. The favorite = "House of God," is not improbable.
Literary and Religious Importance.
Judith is certainly one of the very best extant specimens of old Jewish story-telling, and forms a worthy companion-piece to Tobit, which it surpasses in vividness of style. Its author introduces a considerable variety of material, but all in due proportion; everything is subordinated to the main action, and the interest never flags. The principal scenes are painted very vigorously, and a striking picture is often sketched in a few words (comp. x. 10, 18; xiii. 13; xiv. 6). The poem in the closing chapter is a fine composition, plainly the work of no ordinary writer.
The book has a distinctly religious trend, and is well calculated to inspire both patriotism and piety. For the history of the Jewish religion, however, it contributes little of importance. Views and doctrines which have nothing to do with the progress of the story are not introduced.
Original Language; Versions.
As most students of the book have recognized, it was originally written in Hebrew. The standard Greek version bears the unmistakable marks of a translation from this language. The idioms are those of classical Hebrew; and yet the dialect in which the book is composed is plainly a living one. The diction is fresh and vigorous, and not noticeably reminiscent of the canonical Old Testament.
The wide-spread popularity of the story is attested, as in the case of Tobit, by the existence of a number of separate recensions; these do not, however, diverge very widely from one another. Three Greek forms have been preserved: (1) the standard text, found in most manuscripts (including the principal uncials) and given in all the printed editions; in all probability the recension which most nearly represents the original form of the story; (2) a somewhat corrected and "improved" recension, represented by Codex 58 (Holmes and Parsons) and by the Old Latin and Syriac versions; and (3) a text closely related to the preceding, found in Codices 19 and 108. The Old Latin translation exists in several divergent forms. The Vulgate version was made by Jerome (according to his own testimony hastily and with considerable freedom) from an Aramaic text. It gives the narrative in a form which is both much abridged and plainly secondary.
The several Hebrew versions of Judith are all comparatively recent, and are quite worthless for the criticism of the book. Two of these are given in Jellinek, "B. H." i. 130-141, ii. 12-22; another is published by Gaster in "Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch." xvi. 156-163. These are all free adaptations of the story, very much abridged.
Author and Date.
The author of Judith beyond question lived and wrote in Palestine. He was a Jew, not a Samaritan, and probably dwelt near Shechem. From the manner and frequency of the mention of Dothan (iii. 9 [?]; "Dothaim," iv. 6; vii. 3, 18; viii. 3)—if the Greek text can be trusted—it might perhaps be conjectured that his home was there. From the prominence given in the book to the ceremonial law, many have drawn the conclusion that its author was a Pharisee; but this is hardly a safe conclusion. All that can be inferred with certainty is, that the punctilious performance of rites and ceremonies was popularly recognized at that time as characteristic of the extreme type of "holiness" demanded by the story for its heroine. There is nowhere in the story any hint that its writer would have recommended such punctiliousness as desirable for the Jews in general, any more than the admiring Christian biographers of Simeon Stylites appear to think that it would be well for the people to follow his example. As for the tale invented to deceive Holofernes (xi. 12-16), it is of course not necessary to suppose that even such a saint as Judith would have regarded this transgression of the Law, in a time of distress, as a grievous sin.
Possible Date of Composition.
The tale of Judith, as has already been observed, is not given any genuine historical setting; nor is it likely that its author himself connected it with any particular time. The names, Jewish and Persian, of his principal characters he selected with the freedom which belongs to any popular narrator. There is nothing in the book which gives any direct clew to its date, or any precise indication of the circumstances of the Jews at the time when it was written. The passage iii. 8 is plainly a reminiscence of the measures taken by Antiochus Epiphanes. It may also fairly be urged that the glorification of Shechem in this transparent way is much more easily conceivable after 120 B.C., when John Hyrcanus took and humbled the city, than before that date, when it was a perpetual thorn in the side of the Jews. On the other hand, the character of the Hebrew in which the book is written (see above) favors a comparatively early date. One would probably not be far out of the way in placing it near the beginning of the first century B.C. The book is first quoted by Clement of Rome (Ep. I. ad Corinth., c. 55), near the end of the first century of the common era.
ARTICLE HEADINGS:
Title.
General Character and Contents.
Historical Setting.
The City Bethulia.
Identity of Bethulia.
Literary and Religious Importance.
Original Language; Versions.
Author and Date.
Possible Date of Composition.
Title.
An Apocryphal book in sixteen chapters. The book receives its title from the name of its principal character, Judith ( = "Jewess"; in the Greek transliteration, Ἰουδείθ), a name found also in Gen. xxvi. 34 (comp. the corresponding masculine proper name in Jer. xxxvi. 14, 21, 23).
The Book of Judith is a story written for house-hold reading, While it may properly be classed as didactic, yet it is one of those popular tales in which the chief concern of the writer is with the telling of the story rather than with the pointing of a moral, and in which the wish to interest takes precedence even of the desire to instruct. What gained for the book its high esteem in early times, in both the Jewish and the Christian world, was its intrinsic merit as a story, rather than its religious teaching or its patriotism.
General Character and Contents.
It is, furthermore, a historical novel; that is, its scenes are definitely located as to place and time and connected with important personages of history, with the purpose of adding life to the narrative. This feature it has in common with such stories as those of Ruth, Esther, Daniel, and especially with the Book of Tobit, the work most nearly akin to it. But in Judith the names of persons and localities are introduced in such profusion and with such minuteness of detail as have no parallel in the other old Jewish compositions of this class.
The events of the narrative are represented as taking place on the occasion of the hostile advance of an "Assyrian" army into Palestine. The inhabitants of a certain Jewish city called "Bethulia," (properly "Betylua") can check the advance of the enemy, because their city occupies the narrow and important pass through which is the entrance into Judea (Judith iv. 7 et seq., viii. 21-24). But the Assyrians, instead of attempting to force the pass, blockade the city and cut off its water-supply. In the distress which follows, Judith, a woman of Bethulia, works deliverance for her city—and thus for all Judea and Jerusalem—by bewitching the Assyrian captain, Holofernes, and cutting off his head.
Historical Setting.
The book begins with a date, "the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar," and everything moves with the air of a precise account of actual events. But the way in which the narrative at once makes open sport of chronology and history is very striking. Nebuchadnezzar is the king of Assyria, and reigns in Nineveh(!). The Jews, who have "newly returned from the captivity" (iv. 3, v. 19), are in no sense his subjects; indeed, his chief captain has apparently never heard of them (v. 3). Yet the writer of this story was a well-informed man, familiar with foreign geography (i. 6-10, ii. 21-28), and well acquainted with the Hebrew Scriptures (i. 1; ii. 23; v. 6-19; viii. 1, 26; ix. 2 et seq.). It must therefore be concluded either that the principal names of the story are a mere disguise, or that they were chosen with a purely literary purpose, and with the intent to disclaim at the outset any historical verity for the tale. The former supposition is not rendered plausible by any consideration, and fails utterly to account for the peculiarities of the narrative; the latter, on the contrary, gives a satisfactory explanation of all the facts. That is, with the very first words of the tale, "In the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned over the Assyrians in Nineveh," the narrator gives his hearers a solemn wink. They are to understand that this is fiction, not history. It did not take place in this or that definite period of Jewish history, but simply "once upon a time," the real vagueness of the date being transparently disguised in the manner which has become familiar in the folk-tales of other parts of the world.
The City Bethulia.
Both the name and the site of the city in which the scene of the story is laid have been the subject of much debate. It is beyond all question that the narrator in describing Bethulia is describing a real place with which he is personally familiar. The plain requirements of the description are these: a large city in the hill-country of Samaria, on the direct road from Jezreel to Jerusalem, lying in the path of the enemy, at the head of an important pass, a few hours (vi. 11, vii. 1-3) south of Geba. This Geba is the of the Talmud, the modern Jeba', two or three hours northeast of Samaria, at the point where the ascent into the mountainous country begins. Between this point and the plain of Jezreel there is nothing resembling a pass. Holofernes, with the division of his army which had just chastised the coast cities (iii. 6 et seq.), was in the van. A considerable body now joined him from the east (Moab, Ammon, Edom, etc.; v. 2, vii. 8). The statement that his vast army "encamped between Geba and Seythopolis" (iii. 10) suits all the conditions perfectly.
Identity of Bethulia.
As Torrey first pointed out, in the "Journal of the American Oriental Society," xx. 160-172, there is one city, and only one, which perfectly satisfies all the above-mentioned requirements, namely, Shechem. A great army, with its baggage-trains, breaking camp at Geba in the morning (vii. 1), would arrive in the afternoon at the springs in the broad valley (ib. 3) just under Shechem. This, moreover, is the city which occupies the all-important pass on this route, the pass by which "was the entrance into Judea" (iv. 7). Furthermore, each one of the details of topography, which the writer introduces in great number, finds its unmistakable counterpart in the surroundings of Shechem. The valley below the city is on the west side (vii. 18; comp. ib. verses 13, 20). The "fountain of water in the camp" (xii. 7) is the modern Bait al-Ma, fifteen minutes from Shechem. The ascent to the city was through a narrowing valley (xiii. 10; comp. x. 10). Whether the words "for two men at the most" (iv. 7) are an exaggeration for the sake of the story, or whether they truly describe the old fortifications of the city, it is impossible to say with certainty. At the head of this ascent, a short distance back from the brow of the bill, stood the city (xiv. 11). Rising above it and overlooking it were mountains (vii. 13, 18; xv. 3). The "fountain" from which came thewater-supply of the city (vii. 12 et seq.) is the great spring Ras el-'Ain, in the valley (ἐν τῷ αὐλῶνι, ib. 17) just above Shechem, "at the foot" of Mount Gerizim. The abundant water-supply of the modern city is probably due to a system of ancient underground conduits from this one spring; see Robinson, "Physical Geography of the Holy Land," p. 247, and Guérin, "Samarie," i. 401 et seq. Further corroborative evidence is given by the account of the blockade of Bethulia in vii. 13-20. "Ekrebel" is 'Aḳrabah, three hours southeast of Shechem, on the road to the Jordan; "Chusi" is Ḳuza (so G. A. Smith and others), two hours south, on the road to Jerusalem. The identity of Bethulia with Shechem is thus beyond all question.
The reason for the pseudonym is obvious. Because of the feeling of the Jews toward the Samaritans, the name "Shechem" could not be repeatedly used in a popular tale of this character for the city whose people wrought deliverance for Jerusalem and for the sanctuary of the Jews. The original form of "Betylua" (Greek, Βαιτουλουα, etc.; Latin, "Bethulia," whence the modern usage) is quite uncertain. The favorite = "House of God," is not improbable.
Literary and Religious Importance.
Judith is certainly one of the very best extant specimens of old Jewish story-telling, and forms a worthy companion-piece to Tobit, which it surpasses in vividness of style. Its author introduces a considerable variety of material, but all in due proportion; everything is subordinated to the main action, and the interest never flags. The principal scenes are painted very vigorously, and a striking picture is often sketched in a few words (comp. x. 10, 18; xiii. 13; xiv. 6). The poem in the closing chapter is a fine composition, plainly the work of no ordinary writer.
The book has a distinctly religious trend, and is well calculated to inspire both patriotism and piety. For the history of the Jewish religion, however, it contributes little of importance. Views and doctrines which have nothing to do with the progress of the story are not introduced.
Original Language; Versions.
As most students of the book have recognized, it was originally written in Hebrew. The standard Greek version bears the unmistakable marks of a translation from this language. The idioms are those of classical Hebrew; and yet the dialect in which the book is composed is plainly a living one. The diction is fresh and vigorous, and not noticeably reminiscent of the canonical Old Testament.
The wide-spread popularity of the story is attested, as in the case of Tobit, by the existence of a number of separate recensions; these do not, however, diverge very widely from one another. Three Greek forms have been preserved: (1) the standard text, found in most manuscripts (including the principal uncials) and given in all the printed editions; in all probability the recension which most nearly represents the original form of the story; (2) a somewhat corrected and "improved" recension, represented by Codex 58 (Holmes and Parsons) and by the Old Latin and Syriac versions; and (3) a text closely related to the preceding, found in Codices 19 and 108. The Old Latin translation exists in several divergent forms. The Vulgate version was made by Jerome (according to his own testimony hastily and with considerable freedom) from an Aramaic text. It gives the narrative in a form which is both much abridged and plainly secondary.
The several Hebrew versions of Judith are all comparatively recent, and are quite worthless for the criticism of the book. Two of these are given in Jellinek, "B. H." i. 130-141, ii. 12-22; another is published by Gaster in "Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch." xvi. 156-163. These are all free adaptations of the story, very much abridged.
Author and Date.
The author of Judith beyond question lived and wrote in Palestine. He was a Jew, not a Samaritan, and probably dwelt near Shechem. From the manner and frequency of the mention of Dothan (iii. 9 [?]; "Dothaim," iv. 6; vii. 3, 18; viii. 3)—if the Greek text can be trusted—it might perhaps be conjectured that his home was there. From the prominence given in the book to the ceremonial law, many have drawn the conclusion that its author was a Pharisee; but this is hardly a safe conclusion. All that can be inferred with certainty is, that the punctilious performance of rites and ceremonies was popularly recognized at that time as characteristic of the extreme type of "holiness" demanded by the story for its heroine. There is nowhere in the story any hint that its writer would have recommended such punctiliousness as desirable for the Jews in general, any more than the admiring Christian biographers of Simeon Stylites appear to think that it would be well for the people to follow his example. As for the tale invented to deceive Holofernes (xi. 12-16), it is of course not necessary to suppose that even such a saint as Judith would have regarded this transgression of the Law, in a time of distress, as a grievous sin.
Possible Date of Composition.
The tale of Judith, as has already been observed, is not given any genuine historical setting; nor is it likely that its author himself connected it with any particular time. The names, Jewish and Persian, of his principal characters he selected with the freedom which belongs to any popular narrator. There is nothing in the book which gives any direct clew to its date, or any precise indication of the circumstances of the Jews at the time when it was written. The passage iii. 8 is plainly a reminiscence of the measures taken by Antiochus Epiphanes. It may also fairly be urged that the glorification of Shechem in this transparent way is much more easily conceivable after 120 B.C., when John Hyrcanus took and humbled the city, than before that date, when it was a perpetual thorn in the side of the Jews. On the other hand, the character of the Hebrew in which the book is written (see above) favors a comparatively early date. One would probably not be far out of the way in placing it near the beginning of the first century B.C. The book is first quoted by Clement of Rome (Ep. I. ad Corinth., c. 55), near the end of the first century of the common era.
Books of Maccabees
MACCABEES, BOOKS OF: By : Crawford Howell Toy
ARTICLE HEADINGS:
I.
Original Language.
Author.
Date.
Sources and Integrity.
Historical and Religious Character.
Sources.
The Letters.
Authorship and Character.
Integrity and Character.
Author and Date.
Eschatology.
II.A second article on the Book of Maccabees is inserted as treating the subject from a Jewish standpoint.—J.
I Maccabees.
II Maccabees.
III Maccabees.
IV Maccabees.
V Maccabees.
I.
There are four books which pass under this name—I, II, III, and IV Maccabees. The first of these is the only one of the four which can be regarded as a reliable historical source.
I Maccabees: The First Book of the Maccabees covers the period of forty years from the accession of Antiochus (175 B.C.) to the death of Simon the Maccabee (135 B.C.). Its contents are as follows: Ch. i. 1-9 is a brief historical introduction; i. 10-ii. 70 treats of the rise of the Maccabean revolt; iii. 1-ix. 22 is devoted to the Maccabean struggle under Judas; ix. 23-xii. 53, to the fortunes of Israel under Jonathan; xiii. 1-xvi. 24, to the administration of Simon. The events are followed with intense interest and sympathy. At times the enthusiasm of the writer rises to a high pitch and breaks out into poetry of a genuine Semitic character (comp. iii. 3-9). The style is simple, terse, restrained, and objective, modeled throughout on that of the historical books of the Old Testament. The fact that just proportions are observed in treating the different parts of the narrative proves the author to have been a writer of considerable skill. He dates all events in terms of the Seleucid era.
Original Language.
It is clear from the Semitic idioms which occur throughout the work that it was composed in a Semitic language (see, for example, ii. 40, iv. 2), and certain passages indicate with great clearness that the original language was Hebrew (see ii. 39, iii. 19). To this fact Origen and Jerome also bear testimony, though it is possible that the version or paraphrase known to them was Aramaic.
The Hebrew original seems not to have borne the name "Maccabees," though it is not known what was its real designation. Eusebius ("Hist. Eccl." vi. 25) quotes Origen as authority for the name Σαρβηθ Σαβαναι, a name which has been explained in many different ways. For some of these see Grimm ("Das Erste Buch der Makkabäer," p. xvii.). Dalman ("Grammar," p. 6), whom Torrey (Cheyne and Black, "Encyc. Bibl.") follows, takes the name as a corruption of (= "Book of the Hasmoneans"). If this be the correct interpretation, an Aramaic translation of the book must have been made at an early time, and it was this translation which was known to Origen and Jerome—a view which does not seem improbable. Be this as it may, the Hebrew was translated very early into Greek, and the Greek only has survived. The Greek version seems to be a literal one, often preserving the Semitic, and sometimes even the Hebrew, idiom; but it is clear, and probably it is, on the whole, a satisfactory translation. It is transmitted in three uncial manuscripts of the Septuagint—the Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Alexandrinus, and the Codex Venetus—as well as in several cursives.
Author.
Concerning the author no information is obtainable beyond that which may be inferred from the book itself. He was a devout and patriotic Jew who lived and wrote in Palestine. This latter fact is proved by his intimate and exact geographical knowledge of the Holy Land (comp. iii. 24; vii. 19; ix. 2-4, 33, 34, 43; xii. 36-40; xiii. 22, 23; xvi. 5, 6) and by his lack of accurate knowledge of any of the foreign countries which he mentions. The author was also a loyal admirer of the Hasmonean family; he believed that to it Israel owed her deliverance and existence. He admired not only the military deeds of Judas (comp. v. 63), but also those of Jonathan (comp. x. 15-21) and Simon (comp. xiv. 4-15). The narrative is told not as though deliverance came by miracle, but as though it was due to the military genius of these men, exercised under the favoring guidance of God (i. 64, iii. 8). Curiously enough the word "God" does not appear in the work, nor does the word "Lord." The idea is not lacking, however, as in the Book of Esther, but is represented by "Heaven," or by the pronoun "He." The author was a deeply religious man in spite of this mannerism. He was very zealous for the Law and for the national religious institutions (see i. 11, 15, 43; ii. 20-22; iii. 21), for the Scriptures (i. 56, iii. 48), and for the Temple (i. 21, 39; iii. 43).
Date.
It should be noted, also, that throughout the work the priesthood is represented in a favorable light. The renegade priests Jason and Menelaus are not mentioned—a fact in striking contrast with the treatment which the Second Book of the Maccabeesaccords them. From these facts Geiger conjectured that the author was a Sadducee, and most recent writers follow him in this opinion, although they consider him wrong in calling the First Book of the Maccabees a partizan document; its temperate and just tone certainly redeems it from such a stricture. The terminus a quo of the work is found in the fact that John Hyreanus I., who began to reign in 135 B.C., is mentioned at the close of the book (xvi. 21-24). As the Romans are throughout spoken of in terms of respect and friendliness, it is clear that the terminus ad quem must be sought at some time before the conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey in 63 B.C. As to whether the date can be more nearly determined scholars are not agreed. The determining fact is held by most to be the statement in xvi. 23, 24, that the "rest of the acts of John . . . are written in the chronicles of his high-priesthood." It is thought by many that this implies that John had died and that a sufficient time had elapsed since his death to permit the circulation of the chronicles. Bissell (Lange's "Commentary," p. 479) thinks that not more than a score or two of years had passed, while Schürer ("Hist. of the Jewish People," div. ii., vol. iii., p. 8) and Fairweather (in "Cambridge Bible" and Hastings, "Dict. Bible") think that not more than a decade or two had elapsed, and date the work in the first or second decade of the first century B.C. Torrey, on the other hand, thinks ("Encyc. Bibl.") that this reference to the chronicle of the priesthood is an imitation of well-known passages in the Books of Kings, that it was intended solely as a compliment to John, and that the work was composed early in his reign (i.e., soon after 135 B.C.) by one who had been an interested spectator of the whole Maccabean movement. The vivid character of the narrative and the fact that it closes so abruptly after the death of Simon make this a very plausible view.
Sources and Integrity.
Those who maintain the later date of the work are obliged to account for the vivid details which it contains by supposing that the writer employed older sources, such as letters and memoranda. In Torrey's view no such sources are needed, as the author, where he did not have personal knowledge, could have talked with participants or eye-witnesses of the events. In either case the First Book of the Maccabees is one of the best sources known for the history of the Jews.
J. D. Michaelis held that Josephus used the Hebrew original of the book, which differed in some important particulars from the present text. Destinon ("Die Quellen des Josephus," 1882) revived this theory and endeavored to prove (pp. 80 et seq.) that ch. xiv.-xvi. were not contained in the edition used by Josephus. Destinon bases his argument on the fact that Josephus treats this portion very scantily in comparison with his treatment of the other material of the book, although these chapters contain quite as much and as interesting material. He has been followed by Wellhausen ("I. J. G." pp. 222 et seq.). But Torrey (in "Encyc. Bibl."), by utilizing the investigations of Mommsen, has shown that Josephus actually knew some of this material and introduced it at a later point in his work ("Ant." xiv. 8, § 5), in describing the history of Hyrcanus II. In all probability, therefore, the First Book of the Maccabees has retained its original form.
Bibliography: Grimm, Das Erste Buch der Makkabäer, in Kurzgefasstes Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen, 1853;
Wace, Apocrypha;
Bissell, Apocrypha, in Lange's Commentary;
Fairweather and Black, First Book of Maccabees, in Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges;
Kautzsch, Apokryphen; Torrey, Schweizer's Hebrew Text of I Maccabees, in Jour. Bib. Lit. xxii. 51-59.
II Maccabees: The Second Book of the Maccabees opens with two letters written by Jews resident in Palestine to brethren dwelling in Egypt. The first letter occupies ch. i. 1-10a; the second, ch. i. 10b-ii. 18. These letters, it is thought by some, formed no part of the original work. The preface is found in ch. ii. 19-32, and states that Jason of Cyrene had composed five books on the Maccabean revolt, which the writer undertakes to epitomize for his readers. Ch. iii. relates how the attempt of Heliodorus to plunder the Temple was miraculously thwarted; ch. iv. narrates the wickedness of the high priests Jason and Menelaus, and of Simon, the Temple overseer; ch. v., how Antiochus began the persecution of the Jews; ch. vi. and vii., the story of the martyrdom of Eleazar and the seven young men and their mother; while ch. viii.-xv. are occupied with the history of the wars of Judas Maccabeus.
Historical and Religious Character.
The time covered by this material is barely fifteen years, from the very end of the reign of Seleucus IV., whose servant was Heliodorus, to the victory of Judas over Nicanor (175-160 B.C.). The reason why the book terminates here is to be found in its aim, which was to set before the Jews of the Diaspora the importance of observing the two Maccabean feasts—the Feast of the Dedication and the Feast of Nicanor. In no other way, the writer believed, could they share in the glory and the fruits of the great struggle for liberty. The author is so intent on this that though he has lauded Judas as a splendid example of religious patriotism he passes in silence over his death. The writer further takes occasion often to impress upon his readers the sacred character of the Temple at Jerusalem, which the Diaspora might easily undervalue. In contrast with I Maccabees, the language of II Maccabees is highly religious. God appears as the great "Sovereign" who miraculously delivers His people (see iii. 24 and, perhaps, ii. 21). The author is a religious teacher (see iii. 1 et seq., iv. 15-17, v. 17-20, et al.); he did not write for the sake of the history as such. This places his work in a very different class from that of I Maccabees. In the earlier part he supplies some welcome information not contained in I Maccabees, and in nearly every chapter are interesting facts—some of them confirmed by Josephus—which may, with caution, be used. But his purpose, style, and temperament are such that, since the time of Ewald, it has been recognized that the work is not a sober and restrained history like I Maccabees, but is rhetorical and bombastic.
Sources.
One important fact to be noted is the writer's belief in the bodily resurrection of the dead (see vii. 9, 11, 14, 36; xiv. 16; and especially xii. 43-45). This, together with his attitude toward the priesthood asshown in his lifting the veil which I Maccabees had drawn over Jason and Menelaus, led Bertholdt and Geiger to regard the author as a Pharisee and the work as a Pharisaic party document. This much, at least, is true—the writer's sympathies were with the Pharisees. The author claims that he epitomized the work of Jason of Cyrene (ii. 23), which seems to have been his only source, unless he himself prefixed the two letters to his work. Jason is thought by Schürer (l.c. p. 212) to have compiled his work from hearsay shortly after 160 B.C. at Cyrene. If this is true, the work of Jason, like II Maccabees, concluded with the victory over Nicanor. There can be no doubt that both the work of Jason and that of his epitomizer (i.e., the author of II Maccabees) were written in Greek, and that the latter was a Hellenistic Jew.
There is a reference in ch. xv. 37 to the Book of Esther, which would preclude any earlier date of authorship than about 130 B.C. (see Cornill, "Einleitung," p. 252). On the other hand, II Maccabees was known to the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (see Peak, in "The Century Bible," p. 223) and to Philo (see Schürer, l.c. p. 214). The work, therefore, must have been composed about the beginning of the common era.
The Letters.
The two letters prefixed to II Maccabees have excited much discussion. Some scholars regard them as the basis of the author's work, which he himself prefixed to it because they treat of the topics of which he wished to speak—the Temple at Jerusalem and the importance of observing its feasts. Others hold that the letters were placed in their present position by a later hand, while some believe them to be fabricated. There is in the letters nothing which is inconsistent with their belonging to the time from which they profess to come, and there seems to be no good reason for doubting that it was the epitomist himself who prefixed them to the book. For details see the works mentioned below.
Bibliography: Grimm, Zweites, Drittes, und Viertes Bücher der Makkabäer, in Kurzgefasstes Exegetisches Handbuch zu den, Apokryphen;
Wace, Apocrypha;
Kautzsch, Apokryphen;
Bruston, Trois Lettres des Juifs de Palestine, in Stade's Zeitschrift, 1890, x. 110 et seq.;
Torrey, Die Briefe 2 Makkabäer, i. 1-ii. 18, ib. 1900, xx. 225 et seq.;
Herkenne, Die Briefe zu Beginn des Zweiten Makkabäerbuches, 1904.
III Maccabees: The Third Book of the Maccabees has in reality nothing to do either with the Maccabees or with their times. It received its name probably because it is a fiction concerning the persecution of the Jews by a foreign king; that king was Ptolemy Philopator (222-205 B.C.). The story runs as follows: After Ptolemy's defeat of Antiochus III. in 217 B.C., at the battle of Raphia, the former visited Jerusalem and tried to enter the Temple, but was miraculously prevented (i. 1-ii. 24). Returning to Alexandria, he assembled the Jews in the hippodrome to be massacred, but the necessity of writing down their names exhausted the paper in Egypt, so that they escaped (ii. 25-iv. 21). Next the king devised a plan for having the Jews trampled to death by elephants; this also was frustrated in various improbable ways (v. 1-vi. 21). The king then underwent a change of heart and bestowed great favor on the Jews, and the day on which this occurred was ever after celebrated as a festival in memory of the deliverance (vi. 22-vii. 23).
Authorship and Character.
The author of this fiction was certainly an Alexandrian Jew who wrote in Greek, for its style is even more rhetorical and bombastic than that of II Maccabees. The work begins abruptly and is thought to be but a fragment of a once larger whole. Whether there is any foundation for the story concerning Philopator with which the writer begins there is no means of knowing. If true, it is one of a very few grains of fact in the whole account. Josephus ("Contra Ap." ii. 5) tells how Ptolemy Physco (146-117 B.C.) cast the Jews of Alexandria, who, as adherents of Cleopatra, were his political opponents, to intoxicated elephants. When the elephants turned on his own people the king saw a sudden apparition and gave up his purpose. The Jews, it is added, celebrate the day of their deliverance. It would seem that the author of III Maccabees, anxious to connect this celebration with Jerusalem, has transferred it to an earlier Ptolemy and given it an entirely unhistorical setting. His narrative can not be regarded as a successful fiction, as it abounds in psychological as well as historical improbabilities.
This work was written later than II Maccabees, for its author made use of that book (see ii. 9; comp. II Macc. vi. 18 et seq. and xiv. 35 with III Macc. iii. 25-33; see also Grimm, l.c. p. 220). He can not have written earlier, therefore, than the end of the first century B.C. On the other hand, he can not have written later than the first century C.E. or his work would not have been used by Christians. Ewald regarded this work as a polemic against Caligula and dated it accordingly about 40 C.E.; this view has been abandoned by more recent writers, since Philopator is not represented as claiming divine honors.
Bibliography: In addition to the works cited in the bibliography to the second part of this article: Deissmann, Bible Studies, 1901, pp. 341-345;
I. Abrahams, in J. Q. R. 1896-97, ix. 39 et seq.;
Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, iv. 611-614.
IV Maccabees: The Fourth Book of the Maccabees, so called, is a semiphilosophic discourse, or sermon, on the "supremacy of the pious reason" (ch. i. 1). It consists of a prologue (i. 1-12) and of two principal parts. The first of these (i. 13-iii. 18) is devoted to the elucidation of the author's philosophical thesis, and the second (iii. 19-xviii. 24) to the illustration of the thesis by examples drawn from II Maccabees. In the latter portion of the work there is, first (iii. 19-iv. 26), a brief review of the sufferings of the Jews under Seleucus and his son(?) Antiochus Epiphanes; the conquering power of reason is illustrated (v. 1-vii. 23) by the example of Eleazar, drawn from II Macc. v. 18-31; by that of the seven brethren (vii. 24-xiv. 10), drawn from II Macc. vii. 1-23; and by that of their mother (xiv. 11-xvi. 25), taken from II Macc. vii. 25 et seq. In ch. xvii. and xviii. the author expresses his impressions with reference to these martyrdoms.
It appears, therefore, that the only connection this work has with the Maccabees is in the fact that the author's illustrations are drawn from the Second Book of the Maccabees.
Integrity and Character.
Ch. xviii. 3-24 has been thought by several scholars to be the work of a later hand, but the opinion does not appear to be well founded. Ch. xvii. 2 would form a weak ending to the book, while xviii. 20-24 suits well the style of the author of the earlier parts, and the apparent incongruity of xviii. 6-19 would seem to be designed in this hortatory composition to make a strong impression on its hearers. This latter view is strengthened if it be remembered that the work is throughout a discourse addressed directly to listeners (comp. i. 1, 7; ii. 13; xiii. 19; xviii. 1). Ewald and Freudenthal called it a sermon and held that it is an example of Alexandrian synagogue preaching, but this view is now abandoned, for even in the Diaspora the sermon of the synagogue was usually founded on a passage from the Bible. This discourse, also, is too abstruse for an ordinary congregation; it is an address to a more select circle.
Its style is oratorical and ornate, though not so extravagant as that of III Maccabees. It contains a large philosophic element of the Stoic type, though its author possessed a taste for philosophy rather than real philosophical insight. It contains also a core of Judaism. The writer was a Jew who could clothe his religion in a philosophic garb in accordance with the tendency of the times. The Hellenic and the Jewish elements in his work both appear at their best and in a combination almost without a parallel; the nearest example is the New Testament Epistle to the Hebrews.
Author and Date.
It is probable, therefore, that the author of IV Maccabees was an Alexandrian Jew. Eusebius ("Hist. Eccl." iii. 10) and Jerome ("De Viris Illustribus," xiii.) ascribe the work to Josephus—an opinion which was for a long time followed, and which has caused the text of IV Maccabees to be included in many editions of the works of Josephus. But the language and style of the work differ so radically from those of the writings of Josephus that it is clear that this is a mistaken opinion. Of some of its historical combinations, as in iv. 5 and v. 1, Josephus could hardly have been guilty. The writer of IV Maccabees had certainly come under the influence of the culture of Alexandria, even if he lived and wrote in some other city. As to the time when the book was written, the data for an opinion are the same as in the case of III Maccabees: it was written probably at the close of the last century B.C. or during the first century C.E., and before the time of Caligula, for the Jews seem to have been at peace at the time.
Eschatology.
The writer is a strong believer in immortality, but he has abandoned the Pharisaic standpoint of II Maccabees, which recognizes a bodily resurrection, and holds to the view that all souls exist forever, the good being together in a state of happiness (xvii. 18), with the Patriarchs (v. 37) and with God (ix. 8 and xvii. 18). These views are the more striking as they are entwined with the same narratives which in II Maccabees express the more materialistic view. The writer holds, also, that the suffering of the martyrs was vicarious; by it they wrought deliverance for their nation (comp. i. 11, xvii. 19-23, xviii. 24).
Bibliography: For the Greek text of IV Maccabees, as well as of the other books, see Swete, The Old Testament in Greek, vol. iii., 1894;
for the translation, see Kautzsch, Apokryphen, ii. 152 et seq.;
for introductions, see Bissell in Lange's Commentary, and Schürer, History of the Jewish People;
see also Bensly, The Fourth Book of Maccabees in Syriac, 1895.T. G. A. B.
II.A second article on the Book of Maccabees is inserted as treating the subject from a Jewish standpoint.—J.
I Maccabees.
I Maccabees, now extant only in Greek, was originally composed in Hebrew or Aramaic, most probably the former; but the original can not have been long in circulation. The fragment of a Hebrew text of I Maccabees published by Chwolson (1896) and again by Schweizer (1901) is not part of the original; and it may well be that even Origen knew only an Aramaic translation and not the original. He calls (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." vi. 25) I Maccabees Σαρβηθ Σα(ρ)βαναιελ, a title which has given rise to much conjecture. Only two suggestions need be named: Derenbourg's ("Book of the Family of the Chief of the People of God"), given in his "Essai sur l'Histoire et la Géographie de la Palestine" (p. 450, Paris, 1867), and Dalman's , in his "Grammatik des Jüdisch-Palästinischen Aramäisch" (p. 6, Leipsic, 1894). Of the name "Maccabees" it may be mentioned that in a text of the Megillat Anteyukas ("J. Q. R." xi. 291 et seq.) the reading is (= "the zealot"), which would be very acceptable were it better attested.
As to the date of the book, much turns on the meaning of the last two verses. Some critics, indeed, doubt the authenticity of the whole of the last section (xiv. 16-xvi. 24), but the trend of opinion is in favor of the integrity of the book. Schürer and Niese (in "Kritik der Beiden Makkabäerbücher," Berlin, 1900) maintain that the last verses imply that I Maccabees was written after the death of John Hyrcanus (105 B.C.), but there is good reason for holding that the reference is to the beginning (135 B.C.) and not to the end of Hyrcanus' reign (see "J. Q. R." xiii. 512 et seq.).
Critics are practically unanimous in attaching great value to I Maccabees as a historical record. "On the whole, the book must be pronounced a work of the highest value, comparing favorably, in point of trustworthiness, with the best Greek and Roman histories" (Torrey). This is high praise; but it is fully deserved (comp. Schürer, "Gesch." iii. 141). Niese (l.c.) has done good service in vindicating the authenticity of Judas' embassy to Rome; and it is no peculiar demerit in I Maccabees that in the reports of the numbers engaged in battle, of speeches, and even of documents, its account is inexact and sometimes quite incredible. Such defects are shared by Thucydides and Livy. The substance, not the exact form, of documents was given by ancient historians. On the other hand, it differs somewhat from the Biblical histories in its standpoint. The divine element is not wanting, and success is ultimately traced (as in Mattathias' deathbed utterances) to God. Judas invariably sings psalms of thanksgiving for victory, and the key-note of the revolt is "Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us,but unto thy name give glory" (Ps. cxv. 1). The period also, as many hold, gave rise to numerous new psalms. But in I Maccabees, nevertheless, history is written from the human standpoint. Victory is earned by endeavor as well as bestowed by grace. Partly because of this phenomenon, it was urged by Geiger ("Urschrift," 1857, pp. 200-230) that one may detect a dynastic purpose in the book and that its author was a Sadducean apologist for the Hasmoneans.
It is certainly true that the author is silent concerning the worst excesses of the (Sadducean) high priests, and attaches primary importance to the founder of the dynasty, Mattathias. Mattathias is unknown to II Maccabees, though the latter is supposed by Geiger to be a Pharisaic counterblast to the Sadducean I Maccabees. Yet, strangely enough, in the Pharisaic tradition of the Talmud and Synagogue Mattathias plays a large part, so large that Judas is thrown into the background.
On one important point some modern writers are unfair to the book. God is not "named" in it; the term "heaven" replaces the divine name. From this the inference has been drawn that "God was absolutely conceived as reigning in the remote heaven, and no longer as dwelling among the people by the Shekinah" (Fairweather and Black, "I Maccabees," Introduction, p. 47). This is as false an inference as would be a similar conclusion from the opening words of the Lord's Prayer, "Our Father who art in Heaven." God is not "named" throughout the Lord's Prayer. In I Maccabees the personal pronoun is most significantly used (iii. 22, 51; iv. 10, 55) with relation to the term "heaven"; and, more remarkable still, the pronoun is sometimes used (ii. 61) without any noun at all: "And thus consider ye from generation to generation, that none that put their trust in him shall want for strength." That there grew up a disinclination to "name" God is undoubted; but whatever the origin of this scrupulosity, it was not any sense of the remoteness of God (see discussion by Benjacob, "Im Namen Gottes," p. 164, Berlin, 1903). From the Maccabean period onward God becomes ever nearer to Israel. If there was a fault at all, it was not that God became too transcendent; the tendency was rather in the direction of overfamiliarity than of undue aloofness.
II Maccabees.
Unlike I Maccabees, the book known as II Maccabees was written in Greek. For the history of the war it is of less value than I Maccabees, though some recent writers (in particular Niese) have maintained the opposite opinion. It adds, however, important particulars regarding the events that led up to the Maccabean revolt. Besides this, II Maccabees, written quite independently of I Maccabees, is a strong support of the general truth of the familiar story of the revolt, though II Maccabees is embellished with angelical and miraculous ornament foreign to the first book. Its style is rhetorical, its purpose didactic. It emanated from Alexandria and was addressed to the Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora. It was designed to impress on them the unity of Judaism, the importance of Jerusalem as the center of religious life, and the duty of observing the two feasts of Ḥanukkah and Nicanor's Day (nullsee Nicanor). That the book has a Pharisaic color is undoubted, but not in the sense of being a partizan pamphlet in reply to I Maccabees, which, indeed, the author of II Maccabees most probably did not know. Moreover, II Maccabees takes no account of Mattathias, nor, indeed, of any of the band of heroes except Judas; and this is not easily forced into evidence of Pharisaic partizanship. On the other hand, in II Macc. xiv. 6 Judas is represented as the leader of the Hasidtæans, who have many points in common with the Pharisees, and from whom the Hasmoneans were soon alienated.
Of specifically non-Sadducean doctrines, II Maccabees has a very clear expression of belief in the resurrection. Death is a "short pain that bringeth everlasting life" (II Macc. vii. 36; comp. other passages in the same chapter and xiv. 46). Judas is represented (II Macc. xii. 43 et seq.) as making offerings for the dead because "he took thought of the resurrection." The reference to such offerings is, however, without parallel in Jewish literature, and nothing is otherwise known of such offerings being made at the Temple in Jerusalem (see Israel Lévi, "La Commemoration des Ames dans le Judaïsime," in "R. E. J." xxix. 48).
The book is usually held to belong to the latter part of the first century B.C.; Jason (of whose work it purports to be an epitome) wrote at least a century earlier. Niese places II Maccabees at the date 125-124 B.C., thus regarding it as older than, as well as superior to, I Maccabees. In this preference of the second to the first book, Niese stands practically alone, but he has done great service in vindicating the importance and value of the former (comp. also Sluys, "De Maccabæorum Libris I et II Quæstiones," Amsterdam, 1904). It remains to add that the authenticity of the letters prefixed to II Maccabees has been fiercely assailed. Yet it is coming to be recognized that the letters have a clear bearing on the design of the book, as explained above, and it is quite conceivable, though very improbable, that they were part of the original work of Jason. On these letters see, besides earlier literature, Herkenne, "Die Briefe zu Beginn des Zweiten Makkabäerbuchs," Freiburg, 1904.
One point remains. The martyrdoms described in II Maccabees, especially of the mother and her seven sons, have given the book undying value as an inspiration and encouragement to the faithful of all ages and creeds. As will be seen below (in connection with IV Maccabees), this feature of the Maccabean heroism made a special appeal to the Christianity of the first four centuries. "The figure of the martyr, as the Church knows it, dates from the persecution of Antiochus; all subsequent martyrologies derive from the Jewish books which recorded the sufferings of those who in that day were strong and did exploits" (E. Bevan, "House of Seleucus," 1902, ii. 175).
III Maccabees.
III Maccabees purports to record a persecution of the Jews in Alexandria during the reign of Ptolemy (IV.) Philopator (222-204 B.C.). The Jews are assembled in the hippodrome, and 500 infuriated elephants are to be let loose upon them. In the event the elephants turned against the persecutors, and the Jews not only escaped, but were treated with muchhonor by the king. That there is much of the fabulous in this story is obvious, and it may well be that the similar story told in Josephus ("Contra Ap." ii. 5) concerning Ptolemy (VII.) Physcon is, as most assume, the original of III Maccabees. The book would thus belong at the latest to the first century C.E.; at the earliest to the last century B.C. Recently important new light has been thrown on the book by the discovery of early Jewish settlements in the Fayum. On independent gounds, the present writer ("J. Q. R." ix. 39) and Prof. A. Büchler ("Tobiaden und Oniaden," pp. 172 et seq., Vienna, 1899) have put forward the theory that the book refers to a persecution in the Fayum. Certainly, the rapid transference of Jewish allegiance from Egyptian to Syrian hegemony about 200 B.C. finds its explanation if the Jews of Egypt were then undergoing persecution. That the author was an Alexandrian is unquestionable. On the other hand, Willrich ("Hermes," 1904, xxxix. 244) disputes the Fayum theory and supports the view that the book is best explained as referring to Caligula.
IV Maccabees.
The beautiful work known as IV Maccabees is a homily, not a history. As Freudenthal was the first to show, it is a sermon addressed to a Greekspeaking audience, and delivered probably on Ḥanukkah ("Die Flavius Josephus Beigelegte Schrift über die Herrschaft der Vernunft [IV Makkabäerbuch]," Breslau, 1869), the thesis being that, reason (religion) can control the passions; the author illustrates this from many examples, especially from the story of the Maccabean martyrdoms as related in II Macc. vi., vii. A very noble level of eloquence is reached by the writer, and the book is in many ways one of the best products of the syncretism of Hebraic and Greek thought.
The authorship of IV Maccabees was at one time ascribed (as by Eusebius, Jerome, and other authorities) to Josephus, but this is clearly wrong. Nothing can with definiteness be asserted as to the date of the book; it belongs probably to the period shortly before the fall of Jerusalem. In its present form it contains possibly some Christian interpolations (e.g., vii. 19, xiii. 17, xvi. 25), but they are certainly very few and insignificant. Later on, Christian homilists used the same topic, the martyrdoms, as the theme for sermons; the Church maintained a Maccabean feast (though not on the same date as the Jews) for at least four centuries. Homilies by Gregory Nazienzen and Chrysostom for the festival of Aug. 1 (the "Birthday of the Maccabees") are extant on this subject. On the "Maccabees as Christian Saints" see Maas in "Monatsschrift," xliv. 145 et seq.
V Maccabees.
V Maccabees, so called by Cotton ("Five Books of Maccabees," 1832), is known also as the Arabic II Maccabees. It is included in the Paris and London Polyglots. It has clear relations to II Maccabees, the Arabic "Yosippus," and the Hebrew "Yosippon." Late in origin and without historical value, the book is, however, of considerable importance from other points of view.
ARTICLE HEADINGS:
I.
Original Language.
Author.
Date.
Sources and Integrity.
Historical and Religious Character.
Sources.
The Letters.
Authorship and Character.
Integrity and Character.
Author and Date.
Eschatology.
II.A second article on the Book of Maccabees is inserted as treating the subject from a Jewish standpoint.—J.
I Maccabees.
II Maccabees.
III Maccabees.
IV Maccabees.
V Maccabees.
I.
There are four books which pass under this name—I, II, III, and IV Maccabees. The first of these is the only one of the four which can be regarded as a reliable historical source.
I Maccabees: The First Book of the Maccabees covers the period of forty years from the accession of Antiochus (175 B.C.) to the death of Simon the Maccabee (135 B.C.). Its contents are as follows: Ch. i. 1-9 is a brief historical introduction; i. 10-ii. 70 treats of the rise of the Maccabean revolt; iii. 1-ix. 22 is devoted to the Maccabean struggle under Judas; ix. 23-xii. 53, to the fortunes of Israel under Jonathan; xiii. 1-xvi. 24, to the administration of Simon. The events are followed with intense interest and sympathy. At times the enthusiasm of the writer rises to a high pitch and breaks out into poetry of a genuine Semitic character (comp. iii. 3-9). The style is simple, terse, restrained, and objective, modeled throughout on that of the historical books of the Old Testament. The fact that just proportions are observed in treating the different parts of the narrative proves the author to have been a writer of considerable skill. He dates all events in terms of the Seleucid era.
Original Language.
It is clear from the Semitic idioms which occur throughout the work that it was composed in a Semitic language (see, for example, ii. 40, iv. 2), and certain passages indicate with great clearness that the original language was Hebrew (see ii. 39, iii. 19). To this fact Origen and Jerome also bear testimony, though it is possible that the version or paraphrase known to them was Aramaic.
The Hebrew original seems not to have borne the name "Maccabees," though it is not known what was its real designation. Eusebius ("Hist. Eccl." vi. 25) quotes Origen as authority for the name Σαρβηθ Σαβαναι, a name which has been explained in many different ways. For some of these see Grimm ("Das Erste Buch der Makkabäer," p. xvii.). Dalman ("Grammar," p. 6), whom Torrey (Cheyne and Black, "Encyc. Bibl.") follows, takes the name as a corruption of (= "Book of the Hasmoneans"). If this be the correct interpretation, an Aramaic translation of the book must have been made at an early time, and it was this translation which was known to Origen and Jerome—a view which does not seem improbable. Be this as it may, the Hebrew was translated very early into Greek, and the Greek only has survived. The Greek version seems to be a literal one, often preserving the Semitic, and sometimes even the Hebrew, idiom; but it is clear, and probably it is, on the whole, a satisfactory translation. It is transmitted in three uncial manuscripts of the Septuagint—the Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Alexandrinus, and the Codex Venetus—as well as in several cursives.
Author.
Concerning the author no information is obtainable beyond that which may be inferred from the book itself. He was a devout and patriotic Jew who lived and wrote in Palestine. This latter fact is proved by his intimate and exact geographical knowledge of the Holy Land (comp. iii. 24; vii. 19; ix. 2-4, 33, 34, 43; xii. 36-40; xiii. 22, 23; xvi. 5, 6) and by his lack of accurate knowledge of any of the foreign countries which he mentions. The author was also a loyal admirer of the Hasmonean family; he believed that to it Israel owed her deliverance and existence. He admired not only the military deeds of Judas (comp. v. 63), but also those of Jonathan (comp. x. 15-21) and Simon (comp. xiv. 4-15). The narrative is told not as though deliverance came by miracle, but as though it was due to the military genius of these men, exercised under the favoring guidance of God (i. 64, iii. 8). Curiously enough the word "God" does not appear in the work, nor does the word "Lord." The idea is not lacking, however, as in the Book of Esther, but is represented by "Heaven," or by the pronoun "He." The author was a deeply religious man in spite of this mannerism. He was very zealous for the Law and for the national religious institutions (see i. 11, 15, 43; ii. 20-22; iii. 21), for the Scriptures (i. 56, iii. 48), and for the Temple (i. 21, 39; iii. 43).
Date.
It should be noted, also, that throughout the work the priesthood is represented in a favorable light. The renegade priests Jason and Menelaus are not mentioned—a fact in striking contrast with the treatment which the Second Book of the Maccabeesaccords them. From these facts Geiger conjectured that the author was a Sadducee, and most recent writers follow him in this opinion, although they consider him wrong in calling the First Book of the Maccabees a partizan document; its temperate and just tone certainly redeems it from such a stricture. The terminus a quo of the work is found in the fact that John Hyreanus I., who began to reign in 135 B.C., is mentioned at the close of the book (xvi. 21-24). As the Romans are throughout spoken of in terms of respect and friendliness, it is clear that the terminus ad quem must be sought at some time before the conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey in 63 B.C. As to whether the date can be more nearly determined scholars are not agreed. The determining fact is held by most to be the statement in xvi. 23, 24, that the "rest of the acts of John . . . are written in the chronicles of his high-priesthood." It is thought by many that this implies that John had died and that a sufficient time had elapsed since his death to permit the circulation of the chronicles. Bissell (Lange's "Commentary," p. 479) thinks that not more than a score or two of years had passed, while Schürer ("Hist. of the Jewish People," div. ii., vol. iii., p. 8) and Fairweather (in "Cambridge Bible" and Hastings, "Dict. Bible") think that not more than a decade or two had elapsed, and date the work in the first or second decade of the first century B.C. Torrey, on the other hand, thinks ("Encyc. Bibl.") that this reference to the chronicle of the priesthood is an imitation of well-known passages in the Books of Kings, that it was intended solely as a compliment to John, and that the work was composed early in his reign (i.e., soon after 135 B.C.) by one who had been an interested spectator of the whole Maccabean movement. The vivid character of the narrative and the fact that it closes so abruptly after the death of Simon make this a very plausible view.
Sources and Integrity.
Those who maintain the later date of the work are obliged to account for the vivid details which it contains by supposing that the writer employed older sources, such as letters and memoranda. In Torrey's view no such sources are needed, as the author, where he did not have personal knowledge, could have talked with participants or eye-witnesses of the events. In either case the First Book of the Maccabees is one of the best sources known for the history of the Jews.
J. D. Michaelis held that Josephus used the Hebrew original of the book, which differed in some important particulars from the present text. Destinon ("Die Quellen des Josephus," 1882) revived this theory and endeavored to prove (pp. 80 et seq.) that ch. xiv.-xvi. were not contained in the edition used by Josephus. Destinon bases his argument on the fact that Josephus treats this portion very scantily in comparison with his treatment of the other material of the book, although these chapters contain quite as much and as interesting material. He has been followed by Wellhausen ("I. J. G." pp. 222 et seq.). But Torrey (in "Encyc. Bibl."), by utilizing the investigations of Mommsen, has shown that Josephus actually knew some of this material and introduced it at a later point in his work ("Ant." xiv. 8, § 5), in describing the history of Hyrcanus II. In all probability, therefore, the First Book of the Maccabees has retained its original form.
Bibliography: Grimm, Das Erste Buch der Makkabäer, in Kurzgefasstes Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen, 1853;
Wace, Apocrypha;
Bissell, Apocrypha, in Lange's Commentary;
Fairweather and Black, First Book of Maccabees, in Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges;
Kautzsch, Apokryphen; Torrey, Schweizer's Hebrew Text of I Maccabees, in Jour. Bib. Lit. xxii. 51-59.
II Maccabees: The Second Book of the Maccabees opens with two letters written by Jews resident in Palestine to brethren dwelling in Egypt. The first letter occupies ch. i. 1-10a; the second, ch. i. 10b-ii. 18. These letters, it is thought by some, formed no part of the original work. The preface is found in ch. ii. 19-32, and states that Jason of Cyrene had composed five books on the Maccabean revolt, which the writer undertakes to epitomize for his readers. Ch. iii. relates how the attempt of Heliodorus to plunder the Temple was miraculously thwarted; ch. iv. narrates the wickedness of the high priests Jason and Menelaus, and of Simon, the Temple overseer; ch. v., how Antiochus began the persecution of the Jews; ch. vi. and vii., the story of the martyrdom of Eleazar and the seven young men and their mother; while ch. viii.-xv. are occupied with the history of the wars of Judas Maccabeus.
Historical and Religious Character.
The time covered by this material is barely fifteen years, from the very end of the reign of Seleucus IV., whose servant was Heliodorus, to the victory of Judas over Nicanor (175-160 B.C.). The reason why the book terminates here is to be found in its aim, which was to set before the Jews of the Diaspora the importance of observing the two Maccabean feasts—the Feast of the Dedication and the Feast of Nicanor. In no other way, the writer believed, could they share in the glory and the fruits of the great struggle for liberty. The author is so intent on this that though he has lauded Judas as a splendid example of religious patriotism he passes in silence over his death. The writer further takes occasion often to impress upon his readers the sacred character of the Temple at Jerusalem, which the Diaspora might easily undervalue. In contrast with I Maccabees, the language of II Maccabees is highly religious. God appears as the great "Sovereign" who miraculously delivers His people (see iii. 24 and, perhaps, ii. 21). The author is a religious teacher (see iii. 1 et seq., iv. 15-17, v. 17-20, et al.); he did not write for the sake of the history as such. This places his work in a very different class from that of I Maccabees. In the earlier part he supplies some welcome information not contained in I Maccabees, and in nearly every chapter are interesting facts—some of them confirmed by Josephus—which may, with caution, be used. But his purpose, style, and temperament are such that, since the time of Ewald, it has been recognized that the work is not a sober and restrained history like I Maccabees, but is rhetorical and bombastic.
Sources.
One important fact to be noted is the writer's belief in the bodily resurrection of the dead (see vii. 9, 11, 14, 36; xiv. 16; and especially xii. 43-45). This, together with his attitude toward the priesthood asshown in his lifting the veil which I Maccabees had drawn over Jason and Menelaus, led Bertholdt and Geiger to regard the author as a Pharisee and the work as a Pharisaic party document. This much, at least, is true—the writer's sympathies were with the Pharisees. The author claims that he epitomized the work of Jason of Cyrene (ii. 23), which seems to have been his only source, unless he himself prefixed the two letters to his work. Jason is thought by Schürer (l.c. p. 212) to have compiled his work from hearsay shortly after 160 B.C. at Cyrene. If this is true, the work of Jason, like II Maccabees, concluded with the victory over Nicanor. There can be no doubt that both the work of Jason and that of his epitomizer (i.e., the author of II Maccabees) were written in Greek, and that the latter was a Hellenistic Jew.
There is a reference in ch. xv. 37 to the Book of Esther, which would preclude any earlier date of authorship than about 130 B.C. (see Cornill, "Einleitung," p. 252). On the other hand, II Maccabees was known to the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (see Peak, in "The Century Bible," p. 223) and to Philo (see Schürer, l.c. p. 214). The work, therefore, must have been composed about the beginning of the common era.
The Letters.
The two letters prefixed to II Maccabees have excited much discussion. Some scholars regard them as the basis of the author's work, which he himself prefixed to it because they treat of the topics of which he wished to speak—the Temple at Jerusalem and the importance of observing its feasts. Others hold that the letters were placed in their present position by a later hand, while some believe them to be fabricated. There is in the letters nothing which is inconsistent with their belonging to the time from which they profess to come, and there seems to be no good reason for doubting that it was the epitomist himself who prefixed them to the book. For details see the works mentioned below.
Bibliography: Grimm, Zweites, Drittes, und Viertes Bücher der Makkabäer, in Kurzgefasstes Exegetisches Handbuch zu den, Apokryphen;
Wace, Apocrypha;
Kautzsch, Apokryphen;
Bruston, Trois Lettres des Juifs de Palestine, in Stade's Zeitschrift, 1890, x. 110 et seq.;
Torrey, Die Briefe 2 Makkabäer, i. 1-ii. 18, ib. 1900, xx. 225 et seq.;
Herkenne, Die Briefe zu Beginn des Zweiten Makkabäerbuches, 1904.
III Maccabees: The Third Book of the Maccabees has in reality nothing to do either with the Maccabees or with their times. It received its name probably because it is a fiction concerning the persecution of the Jews by a foreign king; that king was Ptolemy Philopator (222-205 B.C.). The story runs as follows: After Ptolemy's defeat of Antiochus III. in 217 B.C., at the battle of Raphia, the former visited Jerusalem and tried to enter the Temple, but was miraculously prevented (i. 1-ii. 24). Returning to Alexandria, he assembled the Jews in the hippodrome to be massacred, but the necessity of writing down their names exhausted the paper in Egypt, so that they escaped (ii. 25-iv. 21). Next the king devised a plan for having the Jews trampled to death by elephants; this also was frustrated in various improbable ways (v. 1-vi. 21). The king then underwent a change of heart and bestowed great favor on the Jews, and the day on which this occurred was ever after celebrated as a festival in memory of the deliverance (vi. 22-vii. 23).
Authorship and Character.
The author of this fiction was certainly an Alexandrian Jew who wrote in Greek, for its style is even more rhetorical and bombastic than that of II Maccabees. The work begins abruptly and is thought to be but a fragment of a once larger whole. Whether there is any foundation for the story concerning Philopator with which the writer begins there is no means of knowing. If true, it is one of a very few grains of fact in the whole account. Josephus ("Contra Ap." ii. 5) tells how Ptolemy Physco (146-117 B.C.) cast the Jews of Alexandria, who, as adherents of Cleopatra, were his political opponents, to intoxicated elephants. When the elephants turned on his own people the king saw a sudden apparition and gave up his purpose. The Jews, it is added, celebrate the day of their deliverance. It would seem that the author of III Maccabees, anxious to connect this celebration with Jerusalem, has transferred it to an earlier Ptolemy and given it an entirely unhistorical setting. His narrative can not be regarded as a successful fiction, as it abounds in psychological as well as historical improbabilities.
This work was written later than II Maccabees, for its author made use of that book (see ii. 9; comp. II Macc. vi. 18 et seq. and xiv. 35 with III Macc. iii. 25-33; see also Grimm, l.c. p. 220). He can not have written earlier, therefore, than the end of the first century B.C. On the other hand, he can not have written later than the first century C.E. or his work would not have been used by Christians. Ewald regarded this work as a polemic against Caligula and dated it accordingly about 40 C.E.; this view has been abandoned by more recent writers, since Philopator is not represented as claiming divine honors.
Bibliography: In addition to the works cited in the bibliography to the second part of this article: Deissmann, Bible Studies, 1901, pp. 341-345;
I. Abrahams, in J. Q. R. 1896-97, ix. 39 et seq.;
Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, iv. 611-614.
IV Maccabees: The Fourth Book of the Maccabees, so called, is a semiphilosophic discourse, or sermon, on the "supremacy of the pious reason" (ch. i. 1). It consists of a prologue (i. 1-12) and of two principal parts. The first of these (i. 13-iii. 18) is devoted to the elucidation of the author's philosophical thesis, and the second (iii. 19-xviii. 24) to the illustration of the thesis by examples drawn from II Maccabees. In the latter portion of the work there is, first (iii. 19-iv. 26), a brief review of the sufferings of the Jews under Seleucus and his son(?) Antiochus Epiphanes; the conquering power of reason is illustrated (v. 1-vii. 23) by the example of Eleazar, drawn from II Macc. v. 18-31; by that of the seven brethren (vii. 24-xiv. 10), drawn from II Macc. vii. 1-23; and by that of their mother (xiv. 11-xvi. 25), taken from II Macc. vii. 25 et seq. In ch. xvii. and xviii. the author expresses his impressions with reference to these martyrdoms.
It appears, therefore, that the only connection this work has with the Maccabees is in the fact that the author's illustrations are drawn from the Second Book of the Maccabees.
Integrity and Character.
Ch. xviii. 3-24 has been thought by several scholars to be the work of a later hand, but the opinion does not appear to be well founded. Ch. xvii. 2 would form a weak ending to the book, while xviii. 20-24 suits well the style of the author of the earlier parts, and the apparent incongruity of xviii. 6-19 would seem to be designed in this hortatory composition to make a strong impression on its hearers. This latter view is strengthened if it be remembered that the work is throughout a discourse addressed directly to listeners (comp. i. 1, 7; ii. 13; xiii. 19; xviii. 1). Ewald and Freudenthal called it a sermon and held that it is an example of Alexandrian synagogue preaching, but this view is now abandoned, for even in the Diaspora the sermon of the synagogue was usually founded on a passage from the Bible. This discourse, also, is too abstruse for an ordinary congregation; it is an address to a more select circle.
Its style is oratorical and ornate, though not so extravagant as that of III Maccabees. It contains a large philosophic element of the Stoic type, though its author possessed a taste for philosophy rather than real philosophical insight. It contains also a core of Judaism. The writer was a Jew who could clothe his religion in a philosophic garb in accordance with the tendency of the times. The Hellenic and the Jewish elements in his work both appear at their best and in a combination almost without a parallel; the nearest example is the New Testament Epistle to the Hebrews.
Author and Date.
It is probable, therefore, that the author of IV Maccabees was an Alexandrian Jew. Eusebius ("Hist. Eccl." iii. 10) and Jerome ("De Viris Illustribus," xiii.) ascribe the work to Josephus—an opinion which was for a long time followed, and which has caused the text of IV Maccabees to be included in many editions of the works of Josephus. But the language and style of the work differ so radically from those of the writings of Josephus that it is clear that this is a mistaken opinion. Of some of its historical combinations, as in iv. 5 and v. 1, Josephus could hardly have been guilty. The writer of IV Maccabees had certainly come under the influence of the culture of Alexandria, even if he lived and wrote in some other city. As to the time when the book was written, the data for an opinion are the same as in the case of III Maccabees: it was written probably at the close of the last century B.C. or during the first century C.E., and before the time of Caligula, for the Jews seem to have been at peace at the time.
Eschatology.
The writer is a strong believer in immortality, but he has abandoned the Pharisaic standpoint of II Maccabees, which recognizes a bodily resurrection, and holds to the view that all souls exist forever, the good being together in a state of happiness (xvii. 18), with the Patriarchs (v. 37) and with God (ix. 8 and xvii. 18). These views are the more striking as they are entwined with the same narratives which in II Maccabees express the more materialistic view. The writer holds, also, that the suffering of the martyrs was vicarious; by it they wrought deliverance for their nation (comp. i. 11, xvii. 19-23, xviii. 24).
Bibliography: For the Greek text of IV Maccabees, as well as of the other books, see Swete, The Old Testament in Greek, vol. iii., 1894;
for the translation, see Kautzsch, Apokryphen, ii. 152 et seq.;
for introductions, see Bissell in Lange's Commentary, and Schürer, History of the Jewish People;
see also Bensly, The Fourth Book of Maccabees in Syriac, 1895.T. G. A. B.
II.A second article on the Book of Maccabees is inserted as treating the subject from a Jewish standpoint.—J.
I Maccabees.
I Maccabees, now extant only in Greek, was originally composed in Hebrew or Aramaic, most probably the former; but the original can not have been long in circulation. The fragment of a Hebrew text of I Maccabees published by Chwolson (1896) and again by Schweizer (1901) is not part of the original; and it may well be that even Origen knew only an Aramaic translation and not the original. He calls (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." vi. 25) I Maccabees Σαρβηθ Σα(ρ)βαναιελ, a title which has given rise to much conjecture. Only two suggestions need be named: Derenbourg's ("Book of the Family of the Chief of the People of God"), given in his "Essai sur l'Histoire et la Géographie de la Palestine" (p. 450, Paris, 1867), and Dalman's , in his "Grammatik des Jüdisch-Palästinischen Aramäisch" (p. 6, Leipsic, 1894). Of the name "Maccabees" it may be mentioned that in a text of the Megillat Anteyukas ("J. Q. R." xi. 291 et seq.) the reading is (= "the zealot"), which would be very acceptable were it better attested.
As to the date of the book, much turns on the meaning of the last two verses. Some critics, indeed, doubt the authenticity of the whole of the last section (xiv. 16-xvi. 24), but the trend of opinion is in favor of the integrity of the book. Schürer and Niese (in "Kritik der Beiden Makkabäerbücher," Berlin, 1900) maintain that the last verses imply that I Maccabees was written after the death of John Hyrcanus (105 B.C.), but there is good reason for holding that the reference is to the beginning (135 B.C.) and not to the end of Hyrcanus' reign (see "J. Q. R." xiii. 512 et seq.).
Critics are practically unanimous in attaching great value to I Maccabees as a historical record. "On the whole, the book must be pronounced a work of the highest value, comparing favorably, in point of trustworthiness, with the best Greek and Roman histories" (Torrey). This is high praise; but it is fully deserved (comp. Schürer, "Gesch." iii. 141). Niese (l.c.) has done good service in vindicating the authenticity of Judas' embassy to Rome; and it is no peculiar demerit in I Maccabees that in the reports of the numbers engaged in battle, of speeches, and even of documents, its account is inexact and sometimes quite incredible. Such defects are shared by Thucydides and Livy. The substance, not the exact form, of documents was given by ancient historians. On the other hand, it differs somewhat from the Biblical histories in its standpoint. The divine element is not wanting, and success is ultimately traced (as in Mattathias' deathbed utterances) to God. Judas invariably sings psalms of thanksgiving for victory, and the key-note of the revolt is "Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us,but unto thy name give glory" (Ps. cxv. 1). The period also, as many hold, gave rise to numerous new psalms. But in I Maccabees, nevertheless, history is written from the human standpoint. Victory is earned by endeavor as well as bestowed by grace. Partly because of this phenomenon, it was urged by Geiger ("Urschrift," 1857, pp. 200-230) that one may detect a dynastic purpose in the book and that its author was a Sadducean apologist for the Hasmoneans.
It is certainly true that the author is silent concerning the worst excesses of the (Sadducean) high priests, and attaches primary importance to the founder of the dynasty, Mattathias. Mattathias is unknown to II Maccabees, though the latter is supposed by Geiger to be a Pharisaic counterblast to the Sadducean I Maccabees. Yet, strangely enough, in the Pharisaic tradition of the Talmud and Synagogue Mattathias plays a large part, so large that Judas is thrown into the background.
On one important point some modern writers are unfair to the book. God is not "named" in it; the term "heaven" replaces the divine name. From this the inference has been drawn that "God was absolutely conceived as reigning in the remote heaven, and no longer as dwelling among the people by the Shekinah" (Fairweather and Black, "I Maccabees," Introduction, p. 47). This is as false an inference as would be a similar conclusion from the opening words of the Lord's Prayer, "Our Father who art in Heaven." God is not "named" throughout the Lord's Prayer. In I Maccabees the personal pronoun is most significantly used (iii. 22, 51; iv. 10, 55) with relation to the term "heaven"; and, more remarkable still, the pronoun is sometimes used (ii. 61) without any noun at all: "And thus consider ye from generation to generation, that none that put their trust in him shall want for strength." That there grew up a disinclination to "name" God is undoubted; but whatever the origin of this scrupulosity, it was not any sense of the remoteness of God (see discussion by Benjacob, "Im Namen Gottes," p. 164, Berlin, 1903). From the Maccabean period onward God becomes ever nearer to Israel. If there was a fault at all, it was not that God became too transcendent; the tendency was rather in the direction of overfamiliarity than of undue aloofness.
II Maccabees.
Unlike I Maccabees, the book known as II Maccabees was written in Greek. For the history of the war it is of less value than I Maccabees, though some recent writers (in particular Niese) have maintained the opposite opinion. It adds, however, important particulars regarding the events that led up to the Maccabean revolt. Besides this, II Maccabees, written quite independently of I Maccabees, is a strong support of the general truth of the familiar story of the revolt, though II Maccabees is embellished with angelical and miraculous ornament foreign to the first book. Its style is rhetorical, its purpose didactic. It emanated from Alexandria and was addressed to the Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora. It was designed to impress on them the unity of Judaism, the importance of Jerusalem as the center of religious life, and the duty of observing the two feasts of Ḥanukkah and Nicanor's Day (nullsee Nicanor). That the book has a Pharisaic color is undoubted, but not in the sense of being a partizan pamphlet in reply to I Maccabees, which, indeed, the author of II Maccabees most probably did not know. Moreover, II Maccabees takes no account of Mattathias, nor, indeed, of any of the band of heroes except Judas; and this is not easily forced into evidence of Pharisaic partizanship. On the other hand, in II Macc. xiv. 6 Judas is represented as the leader of the Hasidtæans, who have many points in common with the Pharisees, and from whom the Hasmoneans were soon alienated.
Of specifically non-Sadducean doctrines, II Maccabees has a very clear expression of belief in the resurrection. Death is a "short pain that bringeth everlasting life" (II Macc. vii. 36; comp. other passages in the same chapter and xiv. 46). Judas is represented (II Macc. xii. 43 et seq.) as making offerings for the dead because "he took thought of the resurrection." The reference to such offerings is, however, without parallel in Jewish literature, and nothing is otherwise known of such offerings being made at the Temple in Jerusalem (see Israel Lévi, "La Commemoration des Ames dans le Judaïsime," in "R. E. J." xxix. 48).
The book is usually held to belong to the latter part of the first century B.C.; Jason (of whose work it purports to be an epitome) wrote at least a century earlier. Niese places II Maccabees at the date 125-124 B.C., thus regarding it as older than, as well as superior to, I Maccabees. In this preference of the second to the first book, Niese stands practically alone, but he has done great service in vindicating the importance and value of the former (comp. also Sluys, "De Maccabæorum Libris I et II Quæstiones," Amsterdam, 1904). It remains to add that the authenticity of the letters prefixed to II Maccabees has been fiercely assailed. Yet it is coming to be recognized that the letters have a clear bearing on the design of the book, as explained above, and it is quite conceivable, though very improbable, that they were part of the original work of Jason. On these letters see, besides earlier literature, Herkenne, "Die Briefe zu Beginn des Zweiten Makkabäerbuchs," Freiburg, 1904.
One point remains. The martyrdoms described in II Maccabees, especially of the mother and her seven sons, have given the book undying value as an inspiration and encouragement to the faithful of all ages and creeds. As will be seen below (in connection with IV Maccabees), this feature of the Maccabean heroism made a special appeal to the Christianity of the first four centuries. "The figure of the martyr, as the Church knows it, dates from the persecution of Antiochus; all subsequent martyrologies derive from the Jewish books which recorded the sufferings of those who in that day were strong and did exploits" (E. Bevan, "House of Seleucus," 1902, ii. 175).
III Maccabees.
III Maccabees purports to record a persecution of the Jews in Alexandria during the reign of Ptolemy (IV.) Philopator (222-204 B.C.). The Jews are assembled in the hippodrome, and 500 infuriated elephants are to be let loose upon them. In the event the elephants turned against the persecutors, and the Jews not only escaped, but were treated with muchhonor by the king. That there is much of the fabulous in this story is obvious, and it may well be that the similar story told in Josephus ("Contra Ap." ii. 5) concerning Ptolemy (VII.) Physcon is, as most assume, the original of III Maccabees. The book would thus belong at the latest to the first century C.E.; at the earliest to the last century B.C. Recently important new light has been thrown on the book by the discovery of early Jewish settlements in the Fayum. On independent gounds, the present writer ("J. Q. R." ix. 39) and Prof. A. Büchler ("Tobiaden und Oniaden," pp. 172 et seq., Vienna, 1899) have put forward the theory that the book refers to a persecution in the Fayum. Certainly, the rapid transference of Jewish allegiance from Egyptian to Syrian hegemony about 200 B.C. finds its explanation if the Jews of Egypt were then undergoing persecution. That the author was an Alexandrian is unquestionable. On the other hand, Willrich ("Hermes," 1904, xxxix. 244) disputes the Fayum theory and supports the view that the book is best explained as referring to Caligula.
IV Maccabees.
The beautiful work known as IV Maccabees is a homily, not a history. As Freudenthal was the first to show, it is a sermon addressed to a Greekspeaking audience, and delivered probably on Ḥanukkah ("Die Flavius Josephus Beigelegte Schrift über die Herrschaft der Vernunft [IV Makkabäerbuch]," Breslau, 1869), the thesis being that, reason (religion) can control the passions; the author illustrates this from many examples, especially from the story of the Maccabean martyrdoms as related in II Macc. vi., vii. A very noble level of eloquence is reached by the writer, and the book is in many ways one of the best products of the syncretism of Hebraic and Greek thought.
The authorship of IV Maccabees was at one time ascribed (as by Eusebius, Jerome, and other authorities) to Josephus, but this is clearly wrong. Nothing can with definiteness be asserted as to the date of the book; it belongs probably to the period shortly before the fall of Jerusalem. In its present form it contains possibly some Christian interpolations (e.g., vii. 19, xiii. 17, xvi. 25), but they are certainly very few and insignificant. Later on, Christian homilists used the same topic, the martyrdoms, as the theme for sermons; the Church maintained a Maccabean feast (though not on the same date as the Jews) for at least four centuries. Homilies by Gregory Nazienzen and Chrysostom for the festival of Aug. 1 (the "Birthday of the Maccabees") are extant on this subject. On the "Maccabees as Christian Saints" see Maas in "Monatsschrift," xliv. 145 et seq.
V Maccabees.
V Maccabees, so called by Cotton ("Five Books of Maccabees," 1832), is known also as the Arabic II Maccabees. It is included in the Paris and London Polyglots. It has clear relations to II Maccabees, the Arabic "Yosippus," and the Hebrew "Yosippon." Late in origin and without historical value, the book is, however, of considerable importance from other points of view.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Jewish Links
