Maccabees

MACCABEES (Greek Μακκαβαῖοι, Vulgate Machabaei). -
With the nickname "Maccabeus" given to Judas,
the principal hero of the Jewish revolt against the yoke
of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, from the 2nd century onward
all the members of the family of the priest Mattathias
(John, Simon, Judas, Eleazar and Jonathan) were designated by
ecclesiastical writers, as well as their partisans,
who began and carried through the insurrection
called "Maccabean," whose history is narrated in books
I and II of Maccabees.

The etymology and even the spelling of the name are uncertain.
It is commonly derived from magābāhāh (and marrello) to
indicate the strength of Judas in striking the enemy; but more
probably it is an abbreviation of magābāhāhāh ("designated by Yahweh") with reference to Is. 62, 2.

I. THE HISTORY OF THE MACCABEES

The oppressive measures of Antiochus IV Epiphanes against Yahwism: the prohibition, under penalty of death, of the observance of the Sabbath, of circumcision, and of the legal abstinences; the abolition of the legitimate cult and the profanation of the altar of holocausts with the offering of sacrifices to Olympian Zeus (I Mach. 1, 29-51; II Mach. 6, 1-7), determined the revolt.

Many Jews, especially from the cities, bowed and apostatized, but in the steppes and villages the reaction arose. A priest of Modin (v.; today el-Midjjeh), MATTATHIAS, of the class of Jehoiarib (I Par. 24, 7), was its initiator. When the executor of the royal orders came to the small village to erect there an altar for the foreign cult, he killed an apostate Jew who was about to sacrifice, then the royal envoy, destroyed the altar and, having called the faithful together, betook himself with his sons to the mountain, beginning the guerrilla warfare against the renegade Jews and against the Syrian troops (I Mach. 2, 1-48). Dying, a year after the uprising (166-165 B.C.), he entrusted to his sons the task of carrying on the enterprise, giving to the third-born, Judas, the direction of the war, and to Simon the office of administrator. Mattathias was buried at Modin (ibid. 2, 49-70; 3, 1-9).

With the young leader JUDAS (166-160 B.C.) the struggle took a more decisive course. The first victory was in the mountains of Ephraim, against the general Apollonius who was coming from Samaria to the aid of Philip, commander of the Acra (ibid. 3, 10-12). When the general Seron hastened from Coele-Syria to repair the defeat, Judas beat him in the narrow gorge of Beth-horon (Bejt 'Ur el-Foqā; ibid. 3, 13-26). Antiochus, who was preparing to set out to war against the Parthians, informed of the Jewish situation, ordered his lieutenant Lysias to restore order and put an end to the rebellion (ibid. 3, 27-37).

An army of 40,000 foot soldiers and 7,000 horsemen, according to I Mach. 3, 39 (only 20,000 according to II Mach. 8, 9) under the command of Nicanor, to whom Gorgias had been added as an expert military man, encamped at Emmaus ('Amwās) in the Shephelah. Judas, having gathered his men at Maspha (Tell en-Nasbeh), fell suddenly upon the enemy camp, throwing it into panic. Nicanor, deprived of his best forces, which during the night had gone with Gorgias onto the mountain to surprise Judas, took to flight, pursued as far as Gezer, Azotus and Jamnia. Judas then turned back to prepare to face Gorgias, who however refused battle and withdrew into Philistia (I Mach. 3, 38-4, 25; II Mach. 8, 8-29; 34-36). Lysias then intervened directly at the head of a great army and, following the coast, sought, through a friendly country, to reach the heights that dominate Hebron and Jerusalem, encamping at Beth-zur (Hirbet et-Tabejghah, 28 km. south of Jerusalem). The clash with the 10,000 men of Judas was harsh, but not decisive (I Mach. 4, 26-34; II Mach. 11, 1-12). Lysias, now convinced that he could not succeed in forcing the Jews, "resolute as they were to live or die nobly" (I Mach. 4, 35), to accept the laws of Antiochus, sought to open negotiations for an armistice, whose documents, reported in II Mach. 11, 13, are by historical and literary criticism detached from their immediate context. The memorial transmitted by Judas to the regent and by the latter to the King (ibid. 11, 14-21) was favorably received, and by a royal rescript of the 15th of Xanthicus of 148 (= 15 Apr. 164 B.C.) all the oppressive measures that had kindled the revolt were revoked (ibid. 11, 27-33). In consequence of this Judas re-entered Jerusalem and restored the Temple to the Yahwistic cult, and on the 25th of Kislev, exactly three years after its profanation (I Mach. 1, 59), the perpetual sacrifice was resumed on the altar of holocausts. To commemorate the event the feast of Hanukkah was instituted (v. DEDICATION), to be celebrated annually for eight days, beginning from the 25th of Kislev.

Having thus obtained what had been the first objective of the revolt, Judas, assisted by his brother Simon, sought to liberate the Jewish brethren of the neighboring countries oppressed by the pagans. Having succeeded in the attempt he returned to Jerusalem, welcomed triumphantly by the whole population, on the feast of Pentecost (ibid. 5, 45-46). Meanwhile his brother Simon had won equal victories in Galilee (ibid. 5, 21-23) while Joseph, son of Zechariah, and Azariah had fared badly in the war against Gorgias at Jamnia (ibid. 5, 55-62).

When Epiphanes died (164-163 B.C.) and his minor son Antiochus V Eupator succeeded him on the throne, under the regency of Lysias, Judas, taking advantage of the difficulties that arose in the royal successions, attempted to complete his work, with the occupation of the Acra. Informed of this and summoned by the Hellenizing Jews, Lysias with the young King again took the road with the army for Hebron, besieging the fortress of Beth-zur, which knew how to defend itself thanks to the military preparations that recent excavations have brought to light. Judas, hastening to the aid of the besieged, was defeated at Beth-zacharia. During the fighting there also fell the son of Mattathias, Eleazar, who was crushed by an elephant that he himself had killed in order to put to death the King whom he erroneously believed to be upon the elephant (I Mach. 6, 28-47; II Mach. 13, 1. 2. 9-17). But the victory did not bring Lysias its fruits, because he was forced to abandon the region to return to Syria, where the pretender Philip had arrived from the east. Lysias deemed it more prudent to make peace with Judas, and a royal decree, in the form of a letter to Lysias, granted full religious peace to the Jews (II Mach. 11, 22-26). The Hellenizing Jews were displeased at this, especially the high priest Menelaus, whom Lysias had killed to thwart his intrigues; then he returned to Antioch, driving out Philip, who took refuge in Egypt (I Mach. 6, 63; II Mach. 9, 29).

Of the new and more serious troubles through which the kingdom of Syria was passing, Judas took advantage to obtain, now that religious peace was re-established, full national independence. When the young king Antiochus V was killed at Antioch together with his regent Lysias, and Demetrius I, son of Seleucus IV, ascended the throne, the Hellenizing party of Judea together with the high priest Joakim, elected by Lysias and who because of his Hellenistic sentiments had called himself Alcimus, asked Demetrius for help to regain all the privileges and to fight Judas. But the army sent by Demetrius, commanded first by Bacchides and then by Nicanor, was beaten by Judas at Adazer (Hirbet 'Adazeh, 8 km. north of Jerusalem). For a long time the anniversary of this victory (13th of Adar of 161 B.C.) was celebrated by the Jews, under the name of "day of Nicanor," as a great feast (I Mach. 7, 39-50; II Mach. 15, 1-17). Despite this success, Judas, feeling that his position was becoming ever more critical, thought to make it more secure with a pact of alliance with the Romans. But Demetrius, informed, sent against him an army commanded by Bacchides and accompanied by Alcimus.

In the month of Nisan 152 of the Seleucids (= Apr. 160 B.C.) the Syrian army, having arrived at Jerusalem, directed itself into Gophnitide, to Birzeit (20 km. north of Jerusalem), where Judas had encamped. With his customary courage, Judas threw himself into the fray and succeeded in breaking through the enemy's right wing and pursuing it for a long time; but a concentric turning of the left wing took him from behind and with many other warriors he remained dead on the field, while the remnants of his troops scattered (I Mach. 9, 1-22).

After Judas disappeared, the victors sought to annihilate the opposing party, resorting to denunciations, espionage, and imprisonments. Bacchides dominated from the Acra, Alcimus from the Temple, and both seized the occasion of a severe famine that had arisen to favor only those who were or pretended to be Hellenists. The nationalists returned once again to the steppes, to the desert of Thecua near Bethlehem. JONATHAN (160-142 B.C.), the fifth son of Mattathias, recognized as leader, ordered the cistern of Asphar (Hirbet Bir ez-Za'ferân, 5 km south of Bethlehem) to be the rallying point.

Jonathan sought to secure the families and the baggage, entrusting them to his brother John so that he might take them to the Nabateans. The caravan, surprised by the sons of Jambri near Madaba, was plundered and John was killed. The crime was immediately avenged by Jonathan who, having crossed the Jordan, suddenly fell upon Madabath (Hirbet et-Tejm, 2 km south of Madaba) during a wedding feast (1 Macc. 9:32, 35-42). On the return, after a brief clash with the troops of Bacchides, who had come to await him at the fords of the Jordan, he made his escape by swimming across the river together with his men and dispersing once again into the desert (ibid. 9:45-49), where he set about organizing a new army.

Serious internal dissensions induced the Hellenists to recall Bacchides, on the pretext that Jonathan was attempting a conspiracy. Jonathan, informed of the intentions of his adversaries, made a sortie from the desert, killing about fifty of the chief agitators (ibid. 9:57-61), and then withdrew to the fortress of Bethbesse (Hirbet Bejt Başşah southeast of Bethlehem), which withstood the assaults of Bacchides. The latter, indignant against those who had invited him, made a massacre of them and decided to return to Antioch. But before his departure, Jonathan sent him a delegation to negotiate the return of the prisoners and a general settlement. Bacchides accepted, and so Jonathan was able to establish himself freely at Machmas (Muhmâs, 15 km north of Jerusalem), fortifying himself there and settling in as master (ibid. 9:62-73).

In the struggle between the claimants to the throne of Syria, Alexander Balas, supported by the Romans, and Demetrius I, Jonathan sought to obtain honors and concessions from both. From Alexander he obtained the dignity of high priest with the right to wear a purple tunic and a golden crown, and in the month of Tishri 152, amid the enthusiasm of the entire population, he officiated for the first time in the Temple (ibid. 10).

He remained faithful to Alexander even when Demetrius tried to outbid him in concessions and honors, and so, after Alexander prevailed definitively, on the occasion of the latter's marriage to Cleopatra, daughter of Ptolemy Philometor, he was received at Ptolemais with every honor and recognized as civil and military governor of all Judea (ibid. 10:51-66).

When Demetrius II, son of Demetrius I, arose as a claimant to the throne, Jonathan fought against Apollonius, a friend of Demetrius, and Alexander rewarded him once again, naming him "kinsman of the king" and granting him the city of Accaron as his personal property (ibid. 10:78-89). After the defeat and death of Alexander, abandoned by all but Jonathan, the latter sided with Demetrius II, obtaining from him extensions of territory, concessions, and exemptions (ibid. 11:20-37). Subsequently, Demetrius found himself in danger because a certain Diodotus, called Tryphon, general of Alexander Balas, had risen against him, supporting as claimant to the throne Antiochus VI, the minor son of Alexander, and induced Jonathan, with the promise of withdrawing the troops from the Acra, to aid him militarily (ibid. 11:38-50); but, having defeated Antiochus, he did not keep his promises, whereupon Jonathan went over to the side of Antiochus and renewed the alliance with the Romans (ibid. 11:60-73; 12:1-23).

The prestige and power that Jonathan acquired in the eyes of Antiochus VI cast a shadow over Tryphon, who, as soon as he was free from the danger of Demetrius, planned to rid himself of the boy king in order to take his succession. To eliminate a likely opponent to his usurpation, Tryphon lured Jonathan to Ptolemais with peaceful offers; but as soon as he arrived there he was taken prisoner, and his men were slaughtered (ibid. 12:39-53).

When news of the capture and death of Jonathan spread, his brother SIMON (142-134 B.C.), who was at the fortress of Adiada, immediately went to Jerusalem and, having assumed command, provided for the defense of the city and the occupation of Joppa, a strategic port on the route of invasions (ibid. 13:1-11).

Tryphon moved against him, but not wishing to risk battle, preferred to negotiate, promising Simon the liberation of Jonathan in exchange for the payment of a sum and the handing over of Jonathan's sons as hostages. The conditions were accepted; but Jonathan, instead of being liberated, was killed (ibid. 13:20-24). His mortal remains were buried at Modin, where his brother Simon had a great pyramid-shaped monument erected (ibid. 13:25-30), which could be seen from the sea and was still recognizable in the 4th century; traces of it still exist in the Muslim sanctuary of Selj el-Garbevi.

Tryphon, having returned to Antioch and put to death the young king Antiochus VI, had crowned himself with the royal diadem, taking the title of "autocrat" (142 B.C.). His criminal usurpation was the signal for numerous revolts. Simon knew how to profit from it to have Jewish independence recognized. He sided with Demetrius II, who, happy to gain an ally, granted a general amnesty, perpetual exemption from every tribute, and legitimate possession of the occupied strongholds, finally proclaiming religious peace (ibid. 13:33-40). Thus, in the year 170 of the Seleucids (142 B.C.), according to rabbinic tradition "the yoke of the nations was removed from Israel," and with this year begins the dating of the principate of Simon "high priest, strategos and hegumen of the Jews" (ibid. 13:41).

The first result of the treaty was, on Simon's part, the conquest of the stronghold of Gazara (Gezer, where excavations have brought to light the fortress built by Simon) and the siege of the powerful fortress of the Acra, which capitulated on the 23rd of the second month of 171 (June 141 B.C.). The Jews entered it with palms of victory and the singing of hymns (ibid. 13:49-52), and the conquest was celebrated with great festivity for many years. To secure and render more stable the privileges acquired, Simon renewed the alliance with the Romans and with the Spartans (ibid. 14:18-24; 15:15-24). His national merits were recognized by the people, who, following Hellenistic custom, in an assembly held in the month of Elul (= Aug.-Sept.) had all his deeds inscribed on bronze and named him high priest, supreme commander of the army, and founder of a new dynasty (ibid. 14:25-49), that of the Hasmoneans (v.).

It is very probable that from that time Simon minted his own coinage. His last years were troubled by new struggles with the kings of Syria. When Demetrius II fell prisoner to the Parthians (138 B.C.), his brother Antiochus VII Sidetes wrote from Rhodes to Simon and to the Jewish nation to obtain their help in the struggle he wished to undertake against Tryphon, confirming all the privileges they enjoyed, such as that of minting coinage (ibid. 15:1-9). But after Sidetes had defeated Tryphon, he changed policy, demanding from Simon the surrender of the strongholds of Gaza, Joppa, and the Acra, or else the payment of 1000 talents, conditions rejected by Simon (ibid. 15:32-36), who offered a tenth of the sum demanded. Antiochus VII then sent an army under the command of Cendebeus against Simon, but in the battle of Kedron (Qatrah, 6 km southeast of Iamnia) the general was defeated by Judas and John, the sons of Simon (ibid. 16:1-10).

This was the last victory for the aged Simon. In February 134 B.C., during a tour of inspection of the fortresses and the troops together with his sons Judas and Mattathias, he was treacherously killed at a banquet offered to him by his son-in-law Ptolemy, son of Abubus, in the fortress of Dök (Gebel Qarantal), whose name survives in the spring of 'Ajn Dûq. His two sons, together with their mother, were held prisoner.

Con Simone si estinsero i figli di Mattatia e al trono successe il figlio scampato dal complotto di Tolomeo (ibid. 16, 11-24) che prese il nome di Giovanni Ircano (v.).

II. THE BOOKS OF THE MACCABEES

There are two "deuterocanonical" books of the Old Testament, which narrate the revolt led principally by Judas Maccabeus. Each book is an original work; although they have their subject matter in common, they are distinct in author, language, purpose and especially in their chronological data. I Maccabees indeed covers a period of about 41 years, from the beginning of the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-63 B.C.) up to the killing of Simon, leader of the new Jewish State (135 B.C.). II Maccabees, beginning from the last times of Seleucus Philopator, predecessor of Antiochus Epiphanes, stops at the death of Judas Maccabeus (161), thus comprising a span of about 14 years.
I Maccabees. - The narrative, after setting out the causes that gave rise to the revolt (I Mach., 1:1-2:70), is divided into three parts according to the three brothers who directed it and carried it through: Judas (ibid. 3:1-9:22), Jonathan (ibid. 9:23-12:54), Simon (ibid. 13:1-19:22). The epilogue recounts the beginning of the government of John Hyrcanus (ibid. 22-24).

The author, unknown, appears as a pious and fervent Jew of Jerusalem, thoroughly versed in the Hebrew language of the Holy Scriptures, acquainted with the terrain of Palestine, a convinced partisan of the Hasmoneans and in contact with the leaders of politics and business.

The book was written in Hebrew, as the testimonies of certain Fathers indicate (St. Jerome in the Prologus Galeatus and Origen [in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VI, 25, 3], who preserves the title of the work, so variously interpreted, of σαφβυθ σαβανωις). Sepher Bèth Halmānō, "Book of the house of Sabanaiei"²). But the original text was very soon lost, and only a very ancient Greek version remains. The style, which imitates that of the historical books of the Old Testament, is simple and concise, clear and orderly; but it easily passes from the narrative tone to the poetic and enthusiastic one.

The whole book is animated by a religious breath of attachment to the religion of the fathers and to the observance of the Law of God. The successes and failures of Israel have their reason in the observance of the Law and in the departure from it. Out of religious respect for the august name, instead of "God of heaven" one always finds "Heaven." The author, a fervent nationalist, who regards the renegade Jews as gōlim or pagans, shows complete adherence to the Hasmoneans and finds it right that, along with the supreme priestly dignity, they also assumed royal authority: through them Israel has preserved the right to observe its own religion.

The exactness of the topographical and chronological data and the vividness of certain details seem to attest that the author was a contemporary or very close to the time of the events narrated, and that he could also have had access to the archives of the high priest, probably the library of Nehemiah, where, according to II Mach. 3:13, the letters of the kings of Persia were kept, and from which he may have drawn the eleven official documents that he inserts into the narrative: letters between heads of state (I Mach. 12:5; 14:20), edicts of kings (ibid. 10:17; 11:30; 13:36; 15:2), treaties of alliance (ibid. 8:22; 15:16), plebiscites (ibid. 14:27). The integrity of the book is by now beyond doubt. The last three chapters are the narrative and the normal continuation of the book. If Flavius Josephus preferred, in this case, to follow Nicolaus of Damascus, it does not follow that the text of the M. was unknown to him. The praise of the Romans contained in the book shows that it was written before 63, when, with the capture of Jerusalem, Pompey drew upon himself the hatred of all the Jews; on the other hand, the epilogue suggests that the author wrote after the government of John Hyrcanus; therefore the composition is dated to ca. 100 B.C.
II Maccabees. - It presents itself (II Macc. 2:23) as a summary of the larger work, in five books, of a certain Jason, a man of letters and historian of the flourishing diaspora of Cyrenaica. As far as can be gathered from the faithful summary of the book, whose author is unknown, Jason shows that he had collected the information on the history of the Seleucids from official documents or from careful witnesses, proving himself well informed about the administration, the titles and the offices.

The content of the book concerns mainly the glorious deeds of Judas from the beginning up to the defeat of Nicanor (ibid. 8:1-15:37), preceded by a long presentation of the circumstances that determined the uprising (ibid. 3:1-7:42). At the beginning of the book are inserted two or three letters from the Jews of Jerusalem to those of Egypt, recommending that they celebrate the feast of the Dedication (ibid. 1:1-2:32).

Jason and the abbreviator wrote in Greek, but the book stands apart from common biblical Greek, both because it is not a version and because Jason intended to produce a literary work. The style is oratorical: bombastic speeches, exaggeration in numbers, seeking after effect, a pronounced taste for prodigies, and many times the substitution of rhetoric for technical description, according to the taste of his time. The literary method takes nothing away from its great historical value. The differences with I Maccabees are undeniable, but of the two books a synoptic table can be drawn up in which, in the independence of the composition, the substantial agreement in the history of events can be recognized.

In the prehistory of the insurrection many details unknown to I Maccabees are reported; they come from Jason, who gives assurance of being a conscientious historian. The seven letters are of certain authenticity; the first two were drawn up in Aramaic and translated into Greek, probably by the abbreviator, and inserted into the book by another hand.

The author presents the enemies as instruments of divine justice, the sufferings of the martyrs as means of reconciliation, the victories of Judas as a sign of God's mercy. With words of deep emotion are taught the resurrection of bodies (II Macc. 7:11; 12:43-44; 14:46), the efficacy of prayer and sacrifice for the dead and of the prayer of the saints for those who are still on earth (ibid. 13:43-44; 15:12-16), the existence of the angels and their intervention, even with miraculous effects, in aid of the people in the most critical moments. But beyond the purpose of edifying the Jews and making known the doctrines dear to the Pharisees, one notices in II Maccabees a constant care to group all the events around the Temple. Quite cold toward the Hasmoneans, it shows itself enthusiastic about Judas, who prevented Nicanor from destroying the Temple. The wars and the victories are considered not as a means of expanding the territory, but as successive stages for the liberation of the Temple.

If Jason had his information by word of mouth, one cannot suppose a great distance of time between the events he recounts and the narrative. The last event took place in the year 151 of the Seleucid era; Jason would therefore have written shortly after 160 B.C. The epitomator, perhaps an Alexandrian doctor, would have composed the work between 161 B.C. and A.D. 70, probably around 100 B.C.

III. BOOK III OF THE MACCABEES

An apocryphon of the Old Testament, which has nothing to do with the M. apart from the analogy of a persecution of the Jews and their liberation through miraculous divine interventions.

It narrates that Ptolemy IV Philopator, after the victory of Raphia (217 B.C.), goes up to Jerusalem and wishes to enter the Sanctuary. God punishes the intruder by striking him with paralysis. Having returned to Egypt, Ptolemy in revenge persecutes the Jews and in the end orders them to be gathered from all Egypt into the hippodrome of Alexandria to be crushed there by 500 elephants, specially excited to fury. Everything is ready, but God intervenes: first by plunging Ptolemy into a deep sleep; then by making him lose the memory of what he has ordered; finally, when the massacre is to begin, by sending two angels to terrify the King and his counsellors, while the elephants turn against the Egyptian soldiers and slaughter them. Ptolemy then decrees the liberation of the Jews; gives them a lavish banquet, and grants them permission to kill their apostate coreligionists. Before returning to their own homes, the Jews erect a monument and institute an annual feast.

It is a narrative with an edifying purpose, full of exaggerations and psychological implausibilities, in an bombastic and emphatic style. There is no trace whatsoever of such a persecution on the part of Ptolemy Philopator. Flavius Josephus (Contra Apionem, II, 5) narrates something similar of Ptolemy VII Physcon (170-164 and then 145-117): the Jews of Alexandria are shut up in the hippodrome, but the elephants do them no harm; they kill instead several of the king's friends; the annual feast is instituted to commemorate that liberation. It seems therefore that a historical nucleus served as the basis for this legend, which in Flavius Josephus is in a simpler and more ancient form.

The author's purpose was to console and encourage the Jews of Alexandria in particularly difficult circumstances. Many critics think of the persecution of Caligula (cf. Philo, In Flaccum, 53-96). Sufficient references are lacking, however. The composition is to be placed between the 1st century B.C. and the 1st century A.D.; but before the destruction of the Temple. The author knows the deuterocanonical parts of Daniel (cf. 6, 6). It was written in Greek, at Alexandria. Besides the original text, there are the Syriac and Armenian versions.

IV. BOOK IV OF THE MACCABEES

A didactic apocryphon of the Old Testament. In elegant parenetic form, the submission of all the soul's impulses to the empire of sound reason, or of reason informed by piety, defined as "the mistress of the instincts" (1:1), is inculcated. The author, who addresses the Jews (18:1) and is influenced by Stoicism, develops his theme first with philosophical arguments (1:13-3:18) and then with examples taken from Jewish history, precisely from II M.: the piety of Onias, of Eleazar, of the seven brothers with their mother, who all, by resisting the passions and the tyrants, even to martyrdom, merited eternal praise by preserving their faith intact (3:19-18:24).

It is not a synagogue homily (J. Freudenthal), because the subject is philosophical and does not have its starting point in Sacred Scripture. Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, 10, 6), followed by St. Jerome (De viris ill., 13), attributes it to Flavius Josephus. It is only a hypothesis, because the book is anonymous in several manuscripts; moreover, it is in clear conflict with the style of Flavius Josephus and especially with the fact that in the Antiq. lud. he never uses II M., on which the present apocryphon instead depends. It was written in Greek shortly before or shortly after Christ, while the Jews were enjoying a period of calm (14:9); but before the destruction of the Temple, by a Hellenistic Jew. It is not possible to speak of numerous Christian interpolations (J. Freudenthal); one can only debate 7:19 and 16:25 in relation to Mc. 12:26 and Rom. 6:10 (J. B. Frey). The text is preserved in 3 manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint version (S, A, V); there is a Syriac version and a Latin one.