David Szárász, responding to a recent video on 2 Maccabees 12, asked:
1. What is the significance of all this "issue". Or why would that matter if 12:43-45 was not Jasonic? Or how does this undermine anyhow anything in regards to purgatory?
2. What is the evidence that 12:43-45 is not Jasonic if we don't have Jason's 5-Volume work?
For context, these are the related videos in reverse chronological order:
1. Explaining the Source Critical (and Text Critical) Issue at 2 Maccabees 12:43-45
September 16, 2024
2. The Great Purgatory Debate | William Albrecht vs. TurretinFan - Is Purgatory Biblical & Ancient?
September 14, 2024
3. Further Thoughts on 2 Maccabees 12 September 14, 2024 (very shortly before the debate)
4. How does 2 Maccabees 12 undermine Purgatory? August 6, 2024
David's comment is on the most recent video (i.e. video 1 in the above list). I appreciate this thoughtful comment, which asks several important questions.
The main issue identified in video 1 is a question of source criticism, namely a question of how the final form of the Greek text came into existence based on a variety of sources. There is also an ancillary issue of a notable textual variant in which the Latin version departs from the Greek.
Source Issues
The book of 2 Maccabees explicitly relies on at least one pre-existing source. For example, 2 Maccabees 2:23 (NETS) states: "all this, which has been set forth by Jason of Cyrene in five volumes, we shall attempt to condense into a single book." This preface concludes at 2 Maccabees 2:32 (NETS) "At this point, therefore, let us begin our narrative, while adding just this to what has already been said; for it would be foolish to lengthen the preface while cutting short the narrative itself." Indeed, the preface acknowledges that editorial task was laborious (2 Maccabees 2:26 (NETS) "For us who have undertaken the toil of abbreviating, it is no light matter but calls for sweat and loss of sleep") and that various liberties were taken (2 Maccabees 2:32 (NETS) "but the one who recasts the narrative should be allowed to strive for brevity of expression and to forego exhaustive treatment.").
Likewise, 2 Maccabees 15:37-38 (NETS) states:
37 This is how it went with Nicanor, and from that time the city has been ruled by the Hebrews. So I myself will here bring my story to a halt. 38 If it is well written and elegantly dispositioned, that is what I myself desired; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that was all I could manage.
The unknown author who writes the "preface" in chapter 2 and the conclusion at the end of chapter 15 is necessarily not Jason. We refer to this person as the epitomizer.
It appears that the epitomizer's work begins at 2 Maccabees 2:19 (NETS) "The story of Ioudas Makkabaios and his brothers and the purification of the greatest temple and the dedication of the altar ... ."
The work of the epitomizer is presented as an attachment to a letter described as being "The people of Hierosolyma and of Judea and the senate and Ioudas, to Aristobulus, who is of the family of the anointed priests, teacher of King Ptolemy, and to the Judeans in Egypt, greetings and good health" (NETS 2 Maccabees 1:10b) Moreover, that letter together with the work of the epitomizer is presented as attachments to a letter that introduces the book: "The fellow Judeans in Hierosolyma and those in the land of Judea, to their Judean brothers in Egypt, greetings and true peace." (NETS 2 Maccabees 1:1)
There is some speculation that the letter purporting to be from Ioudas is effectively a forgery by the author of the letter from the Judeans. In terms of source criticism, it's simpler to consider that the two letters have the same author, although being more generous to the book, they would have two different authors.
Taking the simpler assumption we have:
- Jason of Cyrene
- The Epitomizer
- The Author of the Letters
We assume for simplicity that Jason composed his account as an original work. Then, the epitomizer summarized Jason's work, perhaps adding his own editorial thoughts at various points and perhaps adding information from other sources. Finally, the Jerusalem Judeans who wrote the letter may have made edits of their own when adapting the underlying work to their purpose.
In the introduction to the NETS edition of 2 Maccabees, Joachim Schaper explains (as I discussed in video 1):
Any critical edition of 2 Makkabees relies mainly on two famous Greek uncial manuscripts: the Codex Alexandrinus (fifth century) and the Codex Venetus (eighth century). There is also a rich tradition of Greek minuscule manuscripts, as well as manuscript witnesses to Syriac, Armenian and Latin transla- tions. There also is a Coptic fragment of some passages from 2 Makk 5-6. [FN 1] Hanhart's edition is based mainly on Alexandrinus and on minuscules 55, 347 and 771.
The body of the text of 2 Makkabees, that is, 3.1-15.36, is a literary creation in its own right without a Hebrew parent text. It is an epitome drawn from the five-volume work of Jason of Cyrene produced by an epitomator who introduces the results of his labors in the prooemium found in 2.19-32. In 1.1-10a and 1.10b-2.18 two letters referring to the feast of Succoth in the month of Kislev are made to introduce the main part. The letters most likely are translations of Hebrew or Aramaic originals, but the parent texts are not known. An epilogue, which was produced by the epitomator, follows in 15.37-39.
The main body of the text (3.1-15.36) goes back to Jason of Cyrene, the author whose five-volume history was abbreviated (or "epitomised"). However, Jason could not possibly have produced some passages: 4.17; 5.17-20; and 6.12-17. The epitomator authored them. The whole of chapter 7, 12.43-45 and 14.37-46 also seem alien in the context of Jason's history.[FN 2] Furthermore, two versions of the Heliodorus narrative exist side by side in chapter 3. Version A, as identified by E. Bickerman (3.24, 25, 27, 28, 30),[FN 3] must have been produced by a post-Jasonic author.[FN 4]
As this section notes, one of the places where the final form of the work appears to depart from Jason's work is at 12:43-45. Specifically:
43He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Hierosolyma to provide for a sin offering.
In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. 44For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead so that they might be delivered from their sin.
The first level of indent seems to be Jason's original report. It has an essentially neutral tone, and merely reports what happens. The second level of indent seems to attempt to justify/explain the behavior described by Jason.
The most natural explanation of the sin offering (ignoring the explanation from 43b onward) is that the intent was to remove corporate guilt for the sin of the idolatrous soldiers. It seems that the epitomizer (or perhaps the Judeans) has a more individualist understanding of sin, such that it does not cross their mind that the offering is for corporate guilt. This person finds an offering for the sins of dead people an oddity. Nevertheless, the person comes up with a possible justification for the action based on belief in the resurrection of the righteous. This explanation is one that is consistent with Pharisee theology, though not with Sadducee theology.
As noted above, one of the parts of 2 Maccabees that seems foreign to Jason is the entirety of chapter 7. This chapter contains another theological statement about resurrection in the mouth of one of the martyrs:
2 Maccabees 7:13-14 (NETS)
13 After he too had died, they maltreated and tortured the fourth in the same way. 14When he was near death, he said, “It is desirable that those who die at the hands of human beings should cherish the hope God gives of being raised again by him. But for you there will be no resurrection to life!”
Assuming that whoever included 2 Maccabees 7:14 also included 12:43-45, then the motive for the offering takes on a specific meaning. According to 2 Maccabees 7:14, the resurrection to life is not for everyone. Thus, the motive for the sin offering is to make sure that the idolatrous soldiers can join in the resurrection to life.
However, under the Roman Catholic conception of Purgatory, everyone who is in Purgatory is already guaranteed participation in the resurrection to life.
The further undermining of Purgatory is that the epitomizer does not even think of the possibility of Purgatory in explaining the offering. According to the text, if there were no resurrection, this would be a pointless sacrifice. However, in Roman Catholic theology souls can escape from Purgatory before the resurrection. Thus, even if there were no resurrection, there could be benefit. In short, the author's argument depends on being unaware of Purgatory as such.
Text Issues
As mentioned in the video, there is also a further issue that the Vulgate Latin does not fully align to the Greek text and accordingly does not accurately render the text.
Thus, the Douay-Rheims English has:
43-46 (1889 ed.) And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.
43-46 (1610 ed.) And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachmes of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for sin, well and religiously thinking of the resurrection. (For unless he hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it should seem superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.) And because he considered that they, which had taken their sleep with godliness, had very good grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy, and healthful cogitation to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.
By contrast, translations based on the Greek have (note that the versification is different):
(NETS) 43-45 He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Hierosolyma to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead so that they might be delivered from their sin.
(Ehorn) 43-45 And after making a collection from every man, he sent about two thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem to offer a sacrifice concerning sins, acting very rightly and honorably, considering the resurrection. For, if he were not expecting those who had fallen to rise, it [would be] superfluous and frivolous to pray for the dead. And if [he was] looking to a most splendid reward for those who fell asleep in godliness, the thought was holy and pious. Therefore, he made atonement for the dead to release [them] from sin.
(Doran) 43-45 Consequently, he made a collection from each man, and he sent about 2,000 silver drachmas to Jerusalem to bring a sacrifice for sin. He acted very correctly and honorably as he considered the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that the fallen would rise, [it would have been] superfluous and silly to pray on behalf of the dead. If he was looking at the most noble reciprocation placed for those who fall asleep piously, the thought was holy and pious. Wherefore, concerning the dead he made atonement to be absolved from the sin.
(Schwartz) 43-45 After making a collection for each man, totaling around 2000 silver drachmas, he sent it to Jerusalem for the bringing of a sin-offering – doing very properly and honorably in taking account of resurrection, for had he not expected that the fallen would be resurrected, it would have been pointless and silly to pray for the dead – and having in view the most beautiful reward that awaits those who lie down in piety – a holy and pious notion. Therefore he did atonement for the dead, in order that they be released from the sin.
(NEB) 43-45 He levied a contribution from each man, and sent the total of two thousand silver drachmas to Jerusalem for a sin-offering - a fit and proper act in which he took due account of the resurrection. For if he had not been expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been foolish and superfluous to pray for the dead. But since he had in view the wonderful reward reserved for those who die a godly death, his purpose was a holy and pious one. And this was why he offered an atoning sacrifice to free the dead from their sin.
(RSV) 43-35 He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.
(Brenton's) 43-45 43 And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection: for if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
(KJV 1611) 43-45 And when he had made a gathering throughout the company, to the sum of two thousand drachmes of siluer, hee sent it to Ierusalem to offer a sinne offering, doing therein very well, and honestly, in that he was mindfull of the resurrection. (For if he had not hoped that they that were slaine should haue risen againe, it had bin superfluous and vaine, to pray for the dead.) And also in that he perceiued that there was great fauour layed vp for those that died godly. (It was an holy, and good thought) wherupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be deliuered from sinne.
In at least some of the videos, I mention the Peshitta version of 2 Maccabees. While one often finds folks trying to argue for Aramaic primacy, the Aramaic is a translation of Greek. For example, in his introduction to, "The Antioch Bible: The Syriac Peshitta Bible with English Translation," Philip Michael Forness states:
The four books of Maccabees likewise were not part of the original Peshiṭta translation of the Old Testament.
The Second Book of Maccabees was written in Greek and contains a compilation of texts from the second century BCE. One of the texts was likely written in Aramaic originally, but it was translated into Greek in the final form of this work.
...
The Peshiṭta Syriac translation (= P) of the Second Book of Maccabees is based on the Lucianic recension of the Septuagint Greek text (= LXX). Many differences between the versions attest to the translators’ efforts to make the content intelligible in Syriac while freely rendering the Greek. A close comparison of the Peshiṭta and Septuagint versions of this work reveal differences due to the free style of translation: additions to lists of items or actions, specifications or omissions of names, transformations of subordinate clauses in Greek into separate sentences in Syriac, etc. Yet, some of these differences reflect the basic features of translation criticism: mistranslation, inner-Syriac corruptions, and deliberate changes.
"Appendix 2: Variant Readings" provides the following for 12:43
Finally, here is the (at least a little dynamic) translation of the Peshitta version:
43 He made the whole nation donate silver, collecting three thousand[FN 1] pieces of silver.[FN2] He sent them to Jerusalem so that they might make offerings for their sake. He acted justly and righteously for the hope of the resurrection from the dead. 44 For if he were not waiting and expecting the resurrection from the dead, this would be foolishness and folly that someone would pray and make offerings on behalf of the dead. 45 He was looking for and waiting for the wages, hope, and rest that is prepared for those who fall asleep in righteousness. 46 For this reason, he sent for them to make atonement for the sins of those who had fallen asleep.
[FN1] ‘three thousand’ reflects the Lucianic recension.
[FN2] ‘pieces of silver’: lit. ‘silver’.
Notice the seeming attempted correction of two thousand to three thousand (because Judas Maccabeus had three columns of troops). Notice also that while the Peshitta likewise moves from tentative endorsement to endorsement of Judas' acts, though without the broader endorsement of the entire category of prayer for the dead.
Finally, I should add (for the sake of being thorough), that we lack any early attestation of 2 Maccabees 12:43-45. I believe that the first manuscript evidence (for that passage) is the fourth century and there do not seem to be any Jewish or Christian quotations of that portion of the text before Augustine. Could this be an early Christian interpolation to the text? I think it would be hard to prove that it was not such an interpolation. That said, I think it would be absurd to insist that it must be a Christian interpolation, or even to suggest that the probabilities favor such a conclusion. At most, for now, it seems it remains a hypothetical possibility.
David Szárász's Questions Answered
Returning to David Szárász's questions:
What is the significance of all this "issue".
As to the question, I suppose that there may be two answers: one from William's perspective (who made it a focus of cross-examination) and one from my perspective.
From William's perspective, I'm not sure. I don't know why it matters to William whether the text was Jasonic, the work of the epitomizer, or the work of the Judeans at Jerusalem. Presumably, it is the final form of the text that William thinks is authoritative, and (aside from rejecting the Latin corruptions) I don't dispute what the final form of the text is.
From my perspective, it's valuable background for understanding the motivation of the text - the formation of the final form of the text explains the significance of the text to the author. Understanding the author's intent helps us rightly interpret the words that are used.
Nevertheless, if I were to conclude that Jason himself wrote 12:43-46, my analysis would not be significantly different. The author is questioning why Judas Maccabeus did what he did, and attempting to find a reasonable explanation for it. The focus on the resurrection as the reason would suggest that Jason had proto-Pharisaic (as opposed to proto-Sadducean) theological tendencies. Nevertheless, under either explanation the author seems puzzled by the sacrifice, tries to provide an explanation for it, and arrives at an explanation that is resurrection-focused. This means that the author not only wasn't writing about Purgatory, but did not even have Purgatory in mind as a possible reason for why the sacrifice was to be offered.
Returning to David Szárász's questions:
Or why would that matter if 12:43-45 was not Jasonic?
If we think that the epitomizer added his comment at this portion, it explains the reason that a sacrifice is treated as a category of "prayer." Diaspora Jews did not have regular access to the temple sacrificial system, so their worship primarily consisted of prayer. I don't think this explanation has enormous bearing on the points raised above, for the reasons already explained above.
If we think that the Judeans of Jerusalem added their comment at this portion, it explains the very large cost of the sacrifice. The Judeans of Jerusalem are also more likely to be interested in the debate over the resurrection, and particularly more interested in treating Judas Maccabeus as though he were a proto-Pharisee. There is some puzzling misquotation (or misinterpretation) of the Old Testament in the letters that the Judeans added:
2 Maccabees 2:11 (NETS) And Moyses said, “They were eaten up because the sin offering had not been eaten.”
2 Maccabees 2:11 (KJV) And Moses said, Because the sin offering was not to be eaten, it was consumed.
There does not seem to be any such statement in the Torah. There were offerings that were not to be eaten (see Leviticus 6:23&30 for example), but that does not seem to be the explanation provided at Leviticus 9:22-24, describing the event to which the Judeans' letter seems to be referring. It seems to be some kind of conflation of that account with the account of Leviticus 10:16-20 (or perhaps something else - the reference is very unclear).
Given such conflation, it is possible that the Judeans were not highly precise in their understanding of the Torah, and consequently did not understand the real reason (i.e. corporate guilt) for which Judas Maccabeus offered the atonement offering. This then explains their need to provide the explanation we see.
Nevertheless, whether it is the epitomizer or the Judeans (or some other editor), I don't think it substantially affects the underlying point that the person who wrote this did not even think of Purgatory, much less intend the text to have some reference to Purgatory.
Returning to David Szárász's questions:
Or how does this undermine anyhow anything in regards to purgatory?
In itself, I don't think it does. The problem is approximately the same regardless of who composed the final form of 2 Maccabees 12:43-45.
I suppose that on the hypothesis that it did, in fact, teach purgatory, having it be Jasonic would make it a very slightly older testimony. It's believed that Jason wrote close to the events, that the epitomizer epitomized not long after Jason wrote, and that the Judeans adopted the epitome within a matter of decades (as opposed to centuries).
By contrast, therefore, because the text shows no knowledge of Purgatory (and is contradictory to Purgatory), I suppose it is very slightly more significant that this edit may have been made as late as the Judeans' letter (or potentially even later, though I must emphasize that I'm merely mentioning this for the sake of being thorough, not because I think we should assume subsequent editing).
Returning to David Szárász's questions:
2. What is the evidence that 12:43-45 is not Jasonic if we don't have Jason's 5-Volume work?
It's important to distinguish between evidence and proof. As far as we know, Jason's work is lost. Therefore, proving that something is not Jasonic is a challenge. When the NETS introduction argues that our passage seems foreign to Jason, it provides footnote:
2 See the arguments put forward by C. Habicht, 2. Makkabäerbuch (Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit I/3; Gütersloh: G. Mohn, 21979 [1976]) 171.
It might be valuable to consider those arguments. For myself, I find Schwartz's arguments convincing. For example, at p. 24 in the introduction of his commentary, Schwartz states:
Our conclusion is that the two martyrologies of 6:18–7:42, although originating in a source or sources different from that which supplied the rest of the book, were inserted into it by whoever put the book into its present form – more particularly, by whoever undertook to speak with an authorial first-person voice in the three sets of reflections at 4:16–17, 5:17–20 and 6:12–17.
Who in fact speaks as an author in those sets of reflections – Jason or the epitomator? It seems clear that we must assume, as is usual, that it is the epitomator, i.e. he who speaks to us in 2:19–32 and 15:37–39. This results, first and foremost, from the use of the first person in 6:12, 15–16 – just as it is used by the epitomator in 2:19–32 and 15:37–38. Having used the first person to introduce himself as an epitomator in Chapter 2, it would be dishonest, if not impossible, for that writer to pass on someone else’s first person in Chapter 6.
Schwartz then goes on to provide a number of detailed arguments in support of his point. At p. 25, Schwartz transitions:
At this point, having traced 3:1–6:17 (apart from the Heliodorus story and the authorial reflections at 4:16–17, 5:17–20 and 6:12–17) along with Chapters 8, 14–15 to the basic work (Jason), 6:18–7:42 to a separate source incorporated by the author, and 10:1–8 to the Jerusalemites who turned the book to their own purposes (and added in the two opening epistles), we must turn to Chapters 9–13. These chapters constitute, from the point of view of the historical narrative, the roughest part of the book.
A lot of Schwartz's arguments are focused on trying to unravel multiple issues in the flow of the text in terms of itself and in terms of the parallel accounts in 1 Maccabees. By page 30, he writes:
Having discussed the original order of Chapters 13, 12, 9, we must now turn to Chapters 10–11. These two chapters, even apart from 10:1–8 (which we have attributed to post-authorial Jerusalemite editing), are quite different from those around them.
At p. 443, Schwartz analyzing the words of the text writes:
a holy and pious notion ([Greek text]). These words constitute a note within a note and sound secondary (esp. in light of the similar comment in v. 43); for the suggestion that they have been added from some marginal note, see G. C. Cobet, Variae lectiones (Lugduni-Batavorum: Brill, 18732) 480, who compares a similar comment frequently excised by editors of Plato’s Republic 504E. See also Niese, Kritik, 110, n. 3 and Katz, “Text,” 20–21.
Doran in his commentary, 2 Maccabees, p. 246, discussing 43b-45a, wrote:
This section has been the subject of much discussion. ... Elmer O'Brien[FN61] and Abel see these two sentences as the result of several glosses made to an original text and follow the Latin text of LAᴸ: "because [reading ὄτι instead of εἰ μὴ γάρ he hoped that the fallen would rise (superfluous and silly to pray for the dead), considering that the best reward was reserved for those who die piously (a holy and pious thought)." The phrases in parenthesis would have been made by later editors, the first by a skeptical reader, the second by someone who believes in the resurrection. However, I have chosen to follow the text as found in Hanhart's critical edition and see the two conditional sentences balancing one another. As in previous reflections, the author counters opposing positions, as in 5:18 and 6:12-13. Here the author first refutes the opinion that it is pointless to pray for the dead and then encourages people to live and die piously.
[FN 61 Elmer O'Brien, "The Scriptural Proof for the Existence of Purgatory from 2 Machabees 12:43-45," Sciences ecclésiastiques 2 (1949) 80-108.
In his introduction, p. 3, Doran notes: "As Schwartz has noted, there is little evidence that the work was known by Philo, Josephus, or the rabbinic tradition." Doran cites pp. 85-90 of Schwartz. The cited section is Section VI "Reception and Text." That section begins thus (pp. 85-86 footnote omitted):
1. Who Read 2 Maccabees? 2 Maccabees was written with Jewish readers in mind, and although we may occasionally discern hints that the author – if not some copyist – took non-Jewish readers into account, it is not at all surprising that prior to the rise of Christianity there is no evidence for non-Jewish readers. After all, “the fact … is that the translation of the Holy Scriptures into Greek made no impression whatever in the Greek world, since in the whole of Greek literature there is no indication that the Greeks read the Bible before the Christian period.” But there is not much evidence for Jewish readers either. True, the book was transmitted as part of the Septuagint, and the letters appended to its beginning indicate that official Jerusalem, of the Hasmonean period, encouraged the Jews of the Diaspora to read it.196 Nevertheless, until the late first century C.E. (at the earliest) we know for sure of only one Jewish reader of our book: the author of 4 Maccabees, who retells at length the martyrdom stories of 2 Maccabees and also includes a version of the Heliodorus story. Philological comparison leaves virtually no room for doubt about its use of our book.
As for other possible Jewish readers, there is not much to discuss. In all of Philo’s corpus there is, it seems, only one passage which might indicate knowledge of 2 Maccabees, and even that passage (That Every Good Man is Free, 89), which alludes to cruelty and torments, lacks any very specific pointers to our book. Josephus seems clearly – given both what his books do include and what they do not include – not to have known 2 Maccabees. True, there are a few tantalizing points at which he agrees with its story, even against his major source (1 Maccabees), but in the absence of common errors or the like there is little reason to suppose that he got his material from our book in particular. Growing up in Jerusalem he could have learned details of the Jewish side of the story (such as the fact that those who fled to caves were burned [6:11]) from any number of sources, and as for details of Seleucid history (such as the fact that Demetrius arrived in Syria specifically at Tripoli [14:1]), we know that he had access to detailed material on that dynasty and its history. As for 3 Maccabees, here the picture is less clear, for it has much in common with 2 Maccabees, beginning with numerous words and including Temple-invasion stories (2 Macc 3//3 Macc 1–2) that are quite similar one to another. Nevertheless, given the fact that it tells a different story even in this case it is difficult to infer dependence, and since although 3 Maccabees is a later book its Temple-invasion story appears to be simpler (= more original?) than that of 2 Maccabees, it seems wiser to ascribe the similarities to a common cultural background, and perhaps to common traditions, than to literary dependence.
Schwartz goes on to speculate regarding why the Jewish usage of the book seems to be so little. He then turns to Christian usage, which is focused on the accounts found in chapters 5-7. Finally, returning to Rabbinic literature, at p. 90 Schwartz writes:
Rabbinic literature and medieval Jewish literature, in contrast, show next to no interest in our book (as most of apocryphal literature). True, the story of the mother and her seven sons may be found in several works, but – as we have seen even with regard to 2 Maccabees itself (above, pp. 19–20) – it had a life of its own, so there is no need to trace Jewish retellings of the story to our book, especially given the fact that it was in Greek and they were in Hebrew. Josippon, a tenth-century Jewish version of Josephus which quite obviously used some version of 2 Maccabees, is a striking exception.
All of this to suggest that if there was any tinkering with the text after what I've been referring to as the final form (presumably in the 2nd century BC), then the most likely culprits would be Christian copyists.
As with much source criticism, the evidence is not strong enough to rise to the level of definitive proof, at least from what I've seen. Perhaps Elmer O'Brien has more to say on the subject, but I have not (as of my initial publication of this blog post) looked deeper into the subject.
The passage (43b-45a) stands out like a sore thumb in comparison to the neutral reporting that seems to characterize most of the material apparently epitomized from Jason. Although defensive of Judas' actions, it does not seem to a reflect a first-hand understanding of the actions.
Appendix: New American Bible, Revised Edition (link to source)
The New American Bible, Revised Edition has the following text (versification aligning to the Vulgate):
43 He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection in mind; 44 for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45 But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. 46 Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be absolved from their sin.
The NABRE includes footnote (g):
12:42–45 This is the earliest statement of the doctrine that prayers (v. 42) and sacrifices (v. 43) for the dead are efficacious. Judas probably intended his purification offering to ward off punishment from the living. The author, however, uses the story to demonstrate belief in the resurrection of the just (7:9, 14, 23, 36), and in the possibility of expiation for the sins of otherwise good people who have died. This belief is similar to, but not quite the same as, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory.
Note that the NABRE was a publication of Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Inc., which is an affiliate of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. So, this is not some Protestant take on the subject.
I tend to agree with the point that Judas intended the sacrifice for the living, but that the author (whether that be the epitomizer, the Judeans of Jerusalem, or whomever) has reinterpreted it as beneficial for the dead. The important difference from RC doctrine, however, is that this is to allow the people to achieve the resurrection to life.
Daniel J. Harrington, in his commentary on the NABRE text, First and Second Maccabees, makes much the same point (p. 144):
In the Old Testament context one would assume that Judas and his men were concerned with the collective guilt that might adhere to the living soldiers, and that their prayers and sacrifices were intended to render the surviving soldiers spiritually ready for battle again.
The author of 2 Maccabees, however, gives these actions a different interpretation. In 12:43b-46, he takes as his starting point his firm belief in the resurrection of the dead (see 1 Macc 7) and explains the prayers and sacrifices as having atoning or expiatory value for the dead sinners so that they too might fully participate in the resurrection of the dead. The Catholic practice of prayers for the dead finds some of its Old Testament roots in this author's interpretation of Judas' actions on behalf of his dead soldiers.
Incidentally, the collective guilt interpretation finds further support in the fact that the cost of this sacrifice was shared by the entire group, rather than (for example) by the sale of the possessions of the dead men, or from Judas' personal money. As another aside, I suspect that "1 Macc 7" in Harrington is a typo for 2 Macc 7, as the 2 Maccabees 7:14 refers to the resurrection to life, but there does not seem to be any similar discussion in 1 Macc 7.
*** Update from the same publication day. ***
David Szárász, in a further comment that I hadn't initially seen, added:
I looked up Gallagher´s "The Seventy" and by scholarly consensus 2 Maccabees was written in the 2nd century BC, and let me quote Gallagher here: "2 Maccabees: Palestine; late II BCE"
So even if 12:43-45 is not Jasonic (which I think cannot be conclusively proven), still, 2 Maccabees is pre-Christian.
And the fact that Paul quotes 2 Maccabees chapter 7 (the marytrs) in Hebrew 11:35b (which is acknowledged by scholarly consensus as well), just demonstrates that EVEN if 2 Maccabees chapter 7 would not be Jasonic, it was still an authentic part of 2 Maccabees. It really doesn´t matter whether its Jasonic or not. But as I said, anyone claiming it isn´t, has the burden of proof.
Burdens of proof are not always what they are cracked up to be.
First, I tend to agree with the date of composition that Schwartz offers, which is earlier than the scholarly consensus. His argument that was most persuasive to me was that Nicanor's defeat was only significant until it wasn't significant any more, and that decline in significance happened fairly shortly after the end of what is reported in 2 Maccabees.
Second, there is an important difference between the book as such being pre-Christian and some specific short passage being pre-Christian. In other words, just as "and within three days another will arise without hands" is a Christian interpolation at Mark 13:2, it is not crazy to suggest that there may be Christian interpolations in 2 Maccabees. More on this in a moment.
Third, it is widely thought that the author of Hebrews is referring to the subject matter found in 2 Maccabees 7. Schwartz, for example, at p. 88 writes:
Within the New Testament canon it is generally recognized that the Epistle to the Hebrews shows knowledge of it. For when we read at Hebrews 11:35–36 that “Women received their dead by resurrection (Ἔλαβον γυναῖκες ἐξ ἀναστάσεως), others were tortured on the torture-wheel (ἐτυμπανίσθησαν) … and yet others suffered mocking (ἐμπαιγμῶν) …” it is all but impossible not to see here allusions to 2 Maccabees 6:19, 28 (τὸ τύμπανον) and the story of Chapter 7, including the ἐμπαιγμὸς of 7:7 and the mother’s prayer at 7:29 to receive her children back at the resurrection (7:29); similarly, the reference in Hebrews 11:38, to those forced to take refuge in the deserts and mountains and caves, points straight to our 10:6.
While David Szárász is imprecise in saying "quotes," the underlying idea that there is a cross-reference here is widely accepted.
This, of course, has very little to do with 12:43b-45a, which is not referenced (not alluded to) by the NT or other early Christian writers. Augustine, engaging the Latin version, becomes the earliest example that has been brought to my attention (I'm reluctant to dogmatically insist that it was not mentioned by anyone before that, as his disputant seems to have raised the issue).
I suspect that David Szárász's interest is more in the question of whether Hebrews references 2 Macabees than whether 2 Maccabees 12:43b-45a is pre-Christian.
As to the cross-reference question, the problem is two-fold. First, the story found in 2 Maccabees 6 is also found in 4 Maccabees, and the date of composition of 4 Maccabees is potentially earlier than the date of composition of Hebrews. Thus, if we were to assume that the author of Hebrews was using a source, and were referring to the events described in both books, we could not readily determine which source the author of Hebrews had in mind.
Normally, people focus on the link to 2 Maccabees because 4 Maccabees itself draws from 2 Maccabees. It is not an independent witness to the accounts it describes. So, there is a scholarly preference to show the link back to the earliest source we can identify. Additionally, while the subject matter of chapter 6 is found in 4 Maccabees, the less clear allusions may not have some similar parallel.
That said, if we take 2 Maccabees at face value, 2 Maccabees is itself an epitome of Jason's five-volume work. While scholars have questioned whether that source or another source was used for chapters 6-7, still it is beyond doubt that the author of 2 Maccabees derived the account from another source. We cannot rule out that the author of Hebrews had access to that source directly, rather than mediated by 2 Maccabees or 4 Maccabees (or both).
In short, those seeking to prove that Hebrews was reliant on 2 Maccabees, as distinct from the source or sources of 2 Maccabees, cannot do so. The author of Hebrews does not identify his source.
No comments:
Post a Comment