Biblical Interpretation in 1 Maccabees: The Anachronism of a Bible for the Second-Temple Period

by Sara Parks Ricker PhD 2 Faculty of Religious Studies McGill University phone: (514) 845-8342 email: sparks1@po-box.mcgill.ca

2 Introduction: The Anachronism of a Bible for the Second-Temple Period A foreigner to the discipline of canon studies might expect it to be a stagnant field in the 21st century, everything having been said already that could possibly be said. Yet nothing could be further from the current situation. Shifts in paradigms surrounding Second-Temple Judaisms,1 and a methodological re-working of our approaches to canon in the Second-Temple period2 have created a burgeoning research area. A wealth of ancient texts both nearly forgotten and newly discovered presents itself for study. Some books once thought to be the writings of fringe groups and little-respected extremists are being reconsidered, as evidence suggests their once-high status.3 Other texts, whose canonical status was previously beyond dispute, are turning out to have been in flux longer or written later than previously expected. 4 Themes once
1

I.e. biblical diversity is so strong that it has given rise to many differing groups and institutions within both Judaism and Christianity that, often for the sake of coherence, are strongly opposed to one another. So characteristic is this situation that using Judaism or Christianity in the singular is hardly defensible. W. A. Kort, Take, Read: Scripture, Textuality, and Cultural Practice (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996), 8. The importance of this newer approach to Judaism as having a diverse and organic history, especially during post-biblical times must not be underestimated. As Neusner has consistently asserted, there never has been a single, orthodox, unitary and harmonious Judaism, against which all heterodox or heretical Judaisms have to be judged, calling upon scholars to describe each evidenced Judaism in its own terms. J. Neusner, Introduction to Rabbinic Literature (ABRL; N.Y.: Doubleday, 1994), 6. 2 See the comprehensive recent collection of essays on canonization: L.M. McDonald and J.A. Sanders, eds. The Canon Debate: Current Issues on the Origins of the Bible. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002. 3 See, e.g., R. Beckwiths conclusion that the most ancient Ethiopian canon most likely included Jubilees, but did not include Chronicles, Esther, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, or Song of Songs. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 494-505. See also Flints deduction from Dead Sea findings that both 1 Enoch and Jubilees had scriptural status at Qumran. P. W. Flint, Noncanonical Writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in The Bible at Qumran (ed. P. W. Flint; SDSRL 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 121. 4 For the dismantling of the Jamnia/Yavneh myth specifically, see Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 274-77; S.Z. Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence (Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 47; Hamden: Archon, 1976), 120-124; and J.P. Lewis, What Do We Mean by Jabneh? JBR 32 (1964): 125-32. VanderKam refers to the above three authors as having pulverized the thesis that a council of Jamnia/Yavneh closed the third and final division of the canon! J. VanderKam, From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 11. Further: With the failure of the three-stage canonization theory, at least in its traditional form, the origin and meaning of the tripartite division of the Hebrew Bible remain very open questions. E.E. Ellis, The Old Testament Canon in the Early Church in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. M. J. Mulder; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1990), 685.

3 oversimplified and harmonized are being re-examined in an attempt to let evidence speak.5 At a more theoretical level across several disciplines, the very concepts of scripture, revelation, and canon are needing to be redefined with greater precision and sensitivity to evidence (and lack of it), and this with no small amount of debate and without consensus as yet.6 Using the apocryphal Hasmonean work 1 Maccabees, this paper will discuss the honing of our methods for dealing with the concepts canonical and non-canonical in Second-Temple literature. It will argue that the author of 1 Maccabees was doing more than using an existing scriptural tradition to prop up his views, but was (in his selfunderstanding) adding to that scriptural tradition a possibility not previously allowed him due to popular (and even scholarly) misunderstanding of how closed the canon was in his time, or even of how applicable the term canon is at all for the Hasmonean period. It may come as a surprise to some that the distinction canonical versus noncanonical may very well be an anachronistic set of binoculars through which to view Second-Temple Jewish literature. However, consensus increasingly warns that when discussing the use of the Bible in the Second-Temple era, one must be careful to work within parameters contemporaneous to the texts in question.7 In the interests of advancing
5

See, for example, McGill Professor Dr. Gerbern Oegemas exhaustive re-visiting of the previously oversimplified messiah concept in his The Anointed and his People: Messianic Expectations from Maccabees to Bar Kochba (JSOTP Sup 27; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998). 6 VanderKams recent studies of the concept of revelation in the Second-Temple era are one example of this redefinition process. See especially VanderKam, Revealed Literature in the Second Temple Period, in From Revelation to Canon, 1-30. 7 Although making its way into the foreground, this problem is by no means resolved. See G.W.E. Nickelsburgs important recent essay, Why Study Extra-Canonical Literature? A Historical and Theological Essay, in George W.E. Nickelsburg in Perspective: An Ongoing Dialogue of Learning (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 687-713. E.g.: Although the past forty-five years have seen a great deal published on the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Qumran Scrolls a broad and concerted effort to understand and interpret the history of Israelite religion in the Greco-Roman period has been hindered because most scholars with an interest in ancient Israel focus their attention on the literature that has been canonized by

4 our knowledge of the diverse Jewish self-understandings in the Greco-Roman era, there is no advantage in retrojecting centuries-later definitions of canon onto Second-Temple writings. Although we are now careful not to put, for instance, patristic Christology into the mouths of ancient Jewish prophets, or to blame ancient authors for not advancing 20thcentury feminism, our discourse on Scripture often lags behind these developments. While there is no longer a monolithic Judaism in the Second-Temple period nor a monolithic Christianity in the first centuries of the Common Era, there is still a monolithic Old Testament/Hebrew Bible coming into play earlier than evidence necessarily warrants. James VanderKam cautions that, in Jewish or Christian writings of the second-temple period, the word canon is not used in its later technical sense of a set list of authoritative writings. The term for a list of normative books is of Christian coinage () Since the specialized use of the term originated among patristic writers, it cannot serve as a useful point of entry into (second-temple Judaism). There appears to be no single word in Jewish texts of the second-temple age that expresses this specific sense of canon.8 VanderKams three caveats are also worth summarizing: 1) 2) We cannot assume, when a text treats another text as authoritative, that all Jewish groups at the time in question would agree. We cannot assume that all books considered authoritative were considered to be equally authoritative.

the Jewish and Christian communities. Students of the Tanakh/Old Testament view the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Qumran Scrolls, and the writings of Philo and Josephus as post-biblical. Scholars of the New Testament study the Jewish texts for the light they may shed on the second half of the Christian canon, and many still tend to read the evidence within the framework of long-established Christian presuppositions and to organize it according to Christian theological categories. Thus, the ongoing history of Israelite religion in the Greco-Roman period is given short shrift and is often studied in terms that are alien to it, 688-689. 8 VanderKam, From Revelation to Canon, 2. Vanderkams introductory chapter to this monograph is a most helpful and concise look at the problems involved in anachronistic usage of the canon concept when dealing with Second-Temple writings. He gives an overview of some recent approaches that extrapolate more than is reasonable from our existing data, and also offers a modest interpretation of what the data can suggest.

5 3) We cannot assume that we have enough data to definitively comprehend canonical developments in the Second-Temple period.9

I should make it clear that, in highlighting Vanderkams (and others) caution, I am not condoning the so-called minimalists, some of whom posit that not even a nucleus of certain books and collections were viewed as authoritative until what I would consider absurdly late.10 Early scriptural commentaries like the pesharim of Qumran and the exegetical midrashim indicate the contrary. Conventional citation formulae11 point to the existence of collections of writings obviously understood as being somehow imbued with special authority. It is not the early beginning of canon that I wish to dispute at all; only its early ending! There is an increasing amount of evidence that fluidity and diversity of opinion about which books were to be considered normative for Jews lasted until well into the fourth century C.E.12 It may, then, be more helpful to think of Jewish and Christian literature in terms of a spectrum, rather than a strict canonical-versus-noncanonical divide.13 We risk approaching Second-Temple literature inappropriately when we dismiss it as non-canonical without investigation. Specifically, we do the corpora labelled Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha an unacceptable injustice when we do not
9

Abridged from the introduction to his From Revelation to Canon, 3-4. By disallowing any and all textual evidence and relying solely on archaeological facts, some Tubingen minimalists, for clearly biased reasons, have attempted to prove that not only can the Hebrew Bible be dated to last Tuesday, but that no ancient Israel existed and that anyone who attempts to use existing evidence to prove otherwise is hopelessly confessional and unscholarly! See V. P. Long, D. W. Baker, and G. J. Wenham, eds., Windows Into Old Testament History: Evidence, Argument, and the Crisis of Biblical Israel for refutations of minimalist claims, both specific and methodological. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.) 11 Examples of citation formulae include things like Baruch 2:20s kaqa,per evla,lhsaj evn ceiri. tw/n pai,dwn sou tw/n profhtw/n le,gwn = as you declared by your servants the prophets, saying before citing Jeremiah 27:11-12, or Luke 4:4s ge,graptai = it is written before citing Deuteronomy 8:3. For discussion of so-called citation formulae, see inter alia K. L. Spawn, As It Is Written and Other Citation Formulae in the Old Testament (BZAW 311; N.Y.: de Gruyter, 2002). 12 See Lee Martin McDonalds The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon (Nashville: Abingdon, 1988), for a user-friendly collection of evidence and arguments for a later-than-once-thought closing of the canon. 13 See, e.g., the approach one recent volume took when discussing ancient Judeo-Christian written material: The category of scripture is deployed between the contraries of writing and canon. Take, Read, 8.
10

6 allow their authors the possibility of adding to the continuum of writings considered to be biblical, at least in their own (or in a communitys) self-understanding. Dimant: Categories for Ancient Interpretation and Usage Devorah Dimant has begun work toward clarifying this. She has found it useful to divide ancient usages of Scripture into two broad types: expositional and compositional.14 By expositional, she means explicit quotations or explicit references to Scriptural events and characters, which are then exegeted or explained. By compositional, she means implicit allusions, where a biblical world is certainly evoked, but is interwoven with the text in such a way as to create a new work similar in style to existing Scripture. In her preliminary foray into how these usages stack up in Second-Temple Jewish writings, she found rabbinic writings and Qumran writings to fall more often into the former category, while the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha fell largely into the latter.15 She concludes that authors employing biblical elements in this (latter, compositional) way aim at re-creating the biblical models and atmosphere, and identify themselves with the biblical authors.16 Further, authors employing a more compositional use of Scripture create a new and independent text. Biblical material becomes part of their own texture.17 In other words (broadly speaking), the rabbis and Qumran authors were attempting to comment on Scripture, while the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal authors were attempting to participate in it.

14

Devorah Dimant, Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Mikra: Text, Translation, 379-420. 15 In the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha the genres evincing (implicit/compositional) use predominate; and this is why biblical elements used in an expositional way are scarce in these works. Dimant, Use and Interpretation, 383. 16 Dimant, Use and Interpretation, 419. 17 Dimant, Use and Interpretation, 384.

7 To me, this should be taken as an indicator of the possibility that the authors of those texts known as Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha18 may have considered their work to have an authority on the same level as that of those works that came to be canonized. (For that matter, one cannot rule out the possibility that some authors even saw their work as rivalling or criticizing previous works.19) For this reason, any study of biblical interpretation in a Second-Temple context must use caution in its use of potential anachronism, paying special attention to the dating of the works,20 allowing for various possibilities until all extant evidence has been studied, and maintaining an awareness of our knowledge (and lack of knowledge) of the history of canonization. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Apocrypha or Deuterocanon remain to be systematically examined with this kind of historically sensitive and open paradigm. This paper represents an attempt to implement such an approach in a small textual study. The text under examination is the apocryphal work 1st Maccabees. I examined the text for its usage and interpretation of existing writings, bearing in mind Dimants distinctions. Definition of Terms: Four Categories It is essential to provide here a brief definition of the terms that are employed. There are various ways in which a text can perform biblical interpretation. I have chosen to divide these into four groups:
18

There are various reasons why this nomenclature is unfortunate, but, until something better is suggested and agreed-upon, we must continue to use these terms for the sake of convenience. 19 See Nickelsburgs various publications on the pseudepigraphal collection 1 Enoch as a rival Pentateuch, also having a 5-book format and explaining human origins, yet with a deliberate downplaying of Moses role. 20 i.e. a works date in relation to existing texts. One cannot assume, for instance, when comparing two ancient writings, that one is older just because it is now canonical to one or more groups.

8 1. Quotation indicates a verbatim or nearly verbatim citation of the source text, longer than a single word or phrase, sometimes accompanied by a citation formula. 2. An Explicit Reference refers to a clear mention of previous literary events or heroes, such as just as Daniel braved the lions, so Mattathias stood up to the Seleucids. 3. An Implicit Reference refers to places in the literature where similarities to earlier events and people seem deliberate, yet are left to the reader to be inferred. Another word for this sort of usage might be allusion. Allusions might include passages that are in a biblical style or generally modelled after Scriptural narratives, yet are not taken from any single character or event, but rather from the biblical realm in general. 4. Biblical Language indicates places similar to the above, but restricted to single words or phrases, too small to be considered quotations or even allusions. This could include phrases such as the edge of the sword that appear frequently in earlier texts now considered canonical.21 Because the first two categories are (as Dimant predicted) relatively scarce in 1 Maccabees, and because my time is limited, I will not focus on either quotations or explicit references here. These occur, as one might imagine, to draw favourable comparisons between the Maccabean warriors and earlier biblical heroes. It is the latter two categories, which appear extensively, upon which I will concentrate. 1 Maccabees and the Four Categories It is clear that, in all four categories, the pre-existing texts that are referenced are seen as having some measure of authority, and thus seem to have been cited in order to

21

Of course, these four categories are not always conveniently isolated one from another, but they function with some utility for this project.

9 lend prestige to the Maccabean cause. In other words, the usage is positive, rather than critical or polemical. But what is the nature of this positive usage? 1. Quotation: A few direct quotations occur, as might be expected. In the interest of brevity, I will name just one example: 1 Macc 9:21 (How is the mighty fallen, the saviour of Israel!) in the context of mourning for Judas Maccabees death, cites 2 Sam 1:19. The Greek in the Maccabean version is singular: pw/j e;pesen dunato.j, and the 2 Sam (LXX 2 Kings) version is plural: pw/j e;pesan dunatoi,, the former possibly modified in preparation for the immediately-following assertion that it is Judas alone who is mighty in this case, and is the saviour of Israel (sw,|zwn to.n Israhl). 2. Explicit References: As well as the use of direct quotation, we also see direct references to previous biblical heroes or events without verbatim quotes. These, too, seem to be rhetorical devices used to elevate the Maccabean warriors to biblical status by drawing favourable comparisons. One such instance is 1 Macc 4:8-11. It specifically mentions the Red Sea crossing and the defeat of the pharaoh, in the context of a rallying speech by Judas. He implies that the same God and the same covenant will bring them the same victorious outcome. A similar explicit reference is found in 1 Macc 4:30-33, where David and the Philistines and Jonathan are specifically mentioned, this time in a rallying prayer that recalls past victory. In 1 Macc 7:41-42, previous victory is again evoked, this time over the Assyrians, in the context of an impending battle against Nicanor. 3. Implicit References: More subtle than the ordinary quotation or explicit reference is the implicit reference, which occurs when no single biblical passage or

10 character is evoked, but rather biblical passages in general are imitated in style and content in an amalgamatory way. These are the usages Dimant calls compositional rather than expositional, and this usage is, by far, the most common in 1 Maccabees. Sometimes the rhetorical effect is much the same as the quotations and explicit references listed above: to compare the Maccabean heroes and events with the heroes and events of Israels past. However, when the writing not only mentions and argues from, but also imitates biblical texts, scholars must be alert to the possibility that the new author could understand him/herself as continuing scriptural tradition. In 1 Macc 5:48, we read, Judas sent them this friendly message, Let us pass through your land to get to our land. No one will do you harm; we will simply pass by on foot. But they refused to open to him. The return of Judas Maccabeus with the Jews of Gilead is here echoing the words of Numbers 20:14-21,22 21:22-23,23 and Judges 11:172024 (which depict the patriarchs and ancient Israelites asking permission to pass through foreign lands). There are no explicit quotations, but the narrative is similar enough to be considered an implicit reference. Talmon calls this verse a non-explicit quotation compounded from several parallel biblical texts, and argues that the analogy between

22

Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom, Thus says your brother Israel: You know all the adversity that has befallen us: how our fathers went down to Egypt Now let us pass through your land. We will not pass through field or vineyard, neither will we drink water from a well; we will go along the Kings Highway, we will not turn aside to the right hand or to the left, until we have passed through your territory. But Edom said to him, You shall not pass through, lest I come out with the sword against you. Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his territory. 23 Let me pass through your land; we will not turn aside into field or vineyard; we will not drink the water of a well But Sihon would not allow Israel to pass through his territory. 24 Israel then sent messengers to the king of Edom, saying, Let us pass, we pray, through your land; but the king of Edom would not listen. And they sent also to the king of Moab, but he would not consent. Israel then sent messengers to King Sihon of the Amorites, king of Heshbon; and Israel said to him Let us pass, we pray, through your land to our country. But Sihon did not trust Israel to pass through his territory...

11 Judas Maccabeus return and the Israelites approach to the land of Israel is certainly deliberate.25 We could also compare 1 Macc 7:37 with the likes of 1 Kgs 8:29, 43. The Maccabean passage reads: Thou didst choose this house to be called by thy name, and to be for thy people a house of prayer and supplication. This connection between the name and the dwelling place evokes the same connection made in passages from 1 Kings such as that thy eyes may be open night and day toward this house, the place of which thou hast said, My name shall be there, that thou mayest hearken to the prayer which thy servant offers toward this place (8:29) and hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place that they may know that this house which I have built is called by thy name (8:43). 1 Macc 1:11, too, sounds like many previous episodes in Israels history: In those days lawless men came forth from Israel, and misled many, saying, Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles round about us, for since we separated from them many evils have come upon us. They thereupon gain permission from the king to build the offensive gymnasium and remove the marks of circumcision, (v. 15) which is interpreted by the author as abandoning the holy covenant and joining with the Gentiles, selling themselves to do evil (1 Macc 1:14-15). One cannot help but think of the many biblical cases where separateness from Gentiles was not kept and disaster ensued exemplified, for instance, in the Golden Calf episode; symbolized in Ezekiel 23s declaration that God is married to two whores (Jerusalem and Samaria); and dramatically re-enacted in Hoseas performance-art marriage to a prostitute.

25

S. Talmon. Jewish Civilization in the Hellenistic-Roman Period (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1995), 79.

12 Further language used to describe rival groups of Jews unfavourably is seen in 1 Macc 10:59-64, where certain pestilent men from Israel, lawless men attempt to destroy Jonathans reputation in the eyes of King Alexander. However, Jonathan (as in the cases of Joseph, Mordecai, and Daniel) ends up elaborately heaped with honour by the foreign king in front of his enemies. Another biblical motif permeating 1 Maccabees is that battles are not won by human strength, but by God, as seen in 1 Macc 3:16-23 and 4:8-11. In Judas words, It is easy for many to be hemmed in by few, for in the sight of Heaven there is no difference between saving by many or by few. It is not on the size of the army that victory in battle depends, but strength comes from Heaven (3:18,19), He himself will crush them before us (3:22), and let us cry to Heaven, to see whether he will crush this army before us today (4:10). These examples evoke numerous biblical accounts. 2 Chron 20:15, for instance, has Zechariah assuring the people that the battle is not yours but Gods and to take your position, stand still, and see the victory of the LORD on your behalf (20:17). In Zech 4:6, it is not by might, nor by power, but by (Gods) spirit that the mountain is to be removed. When the scrawny David faces the giant Goliath, in 1 Sam 17 he announces that the LORD saves not with sword and spear; for the battle is the LORDs and he will give you into our hand (v. 47). There are also the many other scenes where weak was victorious over strong because of Gods help, like the scenes depicting Joshua at Jericho, Gideons deliberately shrunken army, and even the speech-impeded Moses vs. the great Pharaoh of Egypt.26 It should also be mentioned that both 1 and 2 Maccabees are

26

This notion is seen in 2 Maccabees as well, in, e.g., 15:21: it is not by arms, but as the Lord decides, that he gains the victory for those who deserve it.

13 careful to place elaborate prayers in Judas Maccabeus mouth before each victorious battle, reminding the reader of the divine source of Judas victories. The notion of deliverance through divinely elected deliverers (such as Moses or David) is another biblical idea that is echoed in 1 Maccabees. When, in 1 Macc 5:55-62, some Jews who are not of Hasmonean lineage decide to try their hand at fighting the Hellenists, they meet with destruction, just as the Israelites who decided to go against Moses met with a plague of snakes in Numbers 21, or when Korah, Dathan, and other dissidents who challenged Moses authority were swallowed by the ground when they decided to take matters into their own hands in Numbers 16:31-33. When some Israelites complained about the harshness of Korah and Dathans demise, they, too, fell victim to an instant and mysterious plague which only Gods chosen (Moses and Aaron) could stop (Num 16:41-50). Even Miriam was temporarily smitten with a disgusting skin disease when she spoke jealously against Moses (Num 12). In case the point is missed, 1 Macc 5:62 specifies that the other anti-Hellenistic campaigns failed because they did not belong to the family of those men through whom deliverance was given to Israel. Furthermore, the author makes it appear that Mattathias defiant act arose spontaneously ex nihilo, downplaying (or, rather, not mentioning at all) the escalating events leading up to Antiochus persecution in the first place, presumably in order to link deliverance specifically to the Hasmonean line.27 The fact that Mattathias calls Phinehas our father (Fineej o` path.r h`mw/n) in 2:54 even suggests an attempt to link the Hasmoneans with Phinehas perpetual priestly covenant.
27

The author makes no mention whatsoever of the brewing civil war and escalating hasidic revolt that led to Antiochus proscription of the practice of Judaism Rather, he makes it appear that Mattathias was the first to raise the standard of revolt against the Syrian crown. Salvation began in the house of the Hasmoneans. G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 and 2 Maccabees Same Story, Different Meaning, in George W.E. Nickelsburg in Perspective: An Ongoing Dialogue of Learning. (vol. 2; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 663.

14 4. Biblical Language: In addition to the many implicit allusions, biblical language also appears often in the text of First Maccabees, in the form of single words and phrases that evoke the biblical world of the Israelites. These are too small to be considered quotations or allusions, but seem too biblical in nature not to be connected with a previous theological and/or literary heritage. The use of the term root to refer to family lineage in 1:10 finds parallels in Isaiah 11:10 and 14:29, Daniel 11:7, Hosea 9:16, and many other places. The use of sinful people in 1:34 (like the term lawless ones) is biblical language for Jews in a state of disobedience (e.g. Isaiah 1:4).28 The word remnant (to katalei,mma) in 1 Macc 3:35 recalls the notion of a righteous few, found in texts like 2 Kgs 19:4, 31. The term great deliverance (swthri,a mega,lh) is particularly compelling (4:25). It appears in Judges 15:18, I Chronicles 11:14, and Psalm 17:51 LXX (//MT 18:50). In this latter, we read megalu,nwn ta.j swthri,aj tou/ basile,wj auvtou/ a fitting comparison if we see it in 1 Maccabees 4 depicting Judas as a great leader in the style of Israels kings.29 Also convincing is the recurring phrase by the edge of the sword (e.g. 5:28, 51). The Hebrew original is br<x'(-ypil.. This very common phrase (in the MT) is translated alternately throughout the LXX as evn sto,mati r`omfai,aj (e.g. Josh 8:24, Judges 18:27, 21:10) and evn sto,mati xi,fouj (e.g. Josh 10:28, 30, 32, 35, 37, 39). The verbal echo here is an obvious implicit connection between Gods fight on the side of Joshua and Gods fight on the side of Judas and his brothers.30
28 29

Suggested by the editors of the New Oxford Annotated NRSV with Apocrypha, 1994. This example was suggested to me by my colleague, Aaron Ricker Parks. 30 I thank Aaron Ricker Parks for this instance of biblical language.

15 The phrase the rest of the acts, appearing in 1 Macc 9:22 and 16:23 imitates the style of Hebrew chronicles, as in 1 Kings 11:41.31 One recurring metaphor that also evokes numerous biblical passages is the use of yoke to describe oppression (e.g. 1 Macc 13:41, where the yoke of the Gentiles (o` zugo.j tw/n evqnw/n) was removed from Israel.) The device in the Hebrew Bible/LXX is strongly connected with Gentile oppressors. Examples from Isaiah alone include 14:25, where the yoke of Assyria is removed; 10:27, where Assyrias yoke is destroyed from Israels necks; 47:6, where God allows Chaldea to place their heavy yoke on Israel; 58:6, where every yoke will one day be broken; and 58:9, where the people are told to stop placing yokes on each other. The term is also common throughout Jeremiah. The yoke of the king of Babylon is spoken of, as it is being broken off Israels neck. In Nahum 1:13, Ninevahs yoke is broken off, and in Ezekiel 34:27, 28, Israels yoke is broken so they will no longer be plunder for the nations. This list is not exhaustive, but the point is that the metaphor is certainly biblical, especially among the prophetic writings.32 Finally, the linked use of trumpets and shouting in connection with divinelyassisted military victory is also an obvious biblical echo. It appears in 1 Maccabees 3:54, 4:12, and 5:31, and suggests passages in: Judges 7, Num 10:9, 1 Kgs 1:34, 39, 2 Kings 9:13, 2 Chron 15:12-14, and Neh 4:20.

31 32

As indicated by the editors of the New Oxford Annotated NRSV with Apocrypha, 1994. A. Ricker Parks reminded me of the biblical yoke metaphor and its connection with Gentile oppressors.

16 1 Maccabees as Scripture: Secondary Scholarship Although the idea is not widespread, I am not the first to suggest that an extracanonical work may have been considered sacred Scripture by its author. Nickelsburg depicts the author(s) of 1 Enoch as claiming to present divine revelation.33 Goldstein repeatedly insists (in the case of 1 Maccabees) that (The author) probably intended to add his work to the sacred Scriptures of the Jews,34 since the book follows the model of the biblical histories of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah,35 especially the books of Samuel.36 Just as the books of Samuel proved the legitimacy of the Davidic dynasty and became scripture, so our author hoped First Maccabees would serve to prove Hasmonaean legitimacy.37 In addition to the various references given above to the way that biblical language and allusion were woven implicitly and extensively throughout the text of 1 Maccabees, we must also consider the fact that the original language of authorship was probably (as far as philology can tell) Hebrew.38 This does not seem to have been the norm. Goldstein calls the linguistic undertaking of 1 Maccabees a presumptuous work and a stylistic tour de force, and writes:

33 34

Nickelsburg, Why Study The Extra-Canonical Literature? 698. J. Goldstein, 1 Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; Garden City: Doubleday, 1976), 26. 35 Goldstein, 1 Maccabees, 21. 36 Goldstein, 1 Maccabees, 21. 37 Goldstein, 1 Maccabees, 77-78. 38 Our author wrote his book in elegant biblical Hebrew, taking as his model the historical books of the Bible. The original Hebrew text has long since perished, but the character of the Greek translation through which the book survives is such that the original can be proved to have been Hebrew. Not only is the Greek extremely literal translatese of the type used by the translators of the Hebrew Bible, but on occasion the translator has construed an ambiguous Hebrew expression so as to produce an incongruous text which no Greek original could have contained. Goldstein, 1 Maccabees, 15. Goldstein then cites Origens list of Jewish Scriptures with their Hebrew and corresponding Greek titles as solid evidence for the existence of 1 Maccabees Hebrew original in his time. After this list, Origen adds, Outside these there is the Maccabaean History, which bears the title Sarbethsabanaiel. Ibid.

17 So eager was our author to prove the divinely ordered legitimacy of the Hasmonaean dynasty that he cast his book in the impressive Hebrew diction of the books of Samuel. As far as we know, contemporary prose writers made no such efforts to write in Biblical Hebrew. Even the poetry of Ben Sira and the Qumran writers is hardly Biblical, much less their prose. Just as clearly non-Biblical is the Hebrew of Daniel 8-12.39 However, it is not enough to say that 1 Maccabees considered itself sacred history just because it sounded like previous sacred history. There is also the important element of innovation. Nickelsburg shows that there was considerable overlap and relationship between those who studied older traditions and those who wrote new texts and the process of studying and interpreting Israels earlier sacred traditions produced new writings the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Qumran Scrolls.40 The caretakers of sacred scrolls during the Second-Temple period (according to the meagre evidence we have) were also very much interpreters and innovators. Let us examine just one aspect of 1 Maccabees that represents innovation: both on the part of the characters in the text, as well as on behalf of the author for having framed the events in a certain way: In books like Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Chronicles we find the idea that (to quote Goldstein) God himself had set over them foreign rulers and would punish them severely if they rebelled. Accordingly, Jews for centuries were loyal to their pagan kings.41 However, post-exilic events like Antiochus sacking of the re-established temple and his decree that the Jews be forced to observe the cult of Zeus seemed to go

39 40

Goldstein, 1 Maccabees, 77-78. Nickelsburg, Why Study The Extra-Canonical Literature? 693. 41 Goldstein, Biblical Promises and 1 and 2 Maccabees in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (ed. J. Neusner; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 71.

18 too far, especially given certain promises like Jeremiah 32:37-4442 and Isaiah 51:7-8.43 Short of abandoning these prophetic promises altogether, there seem to have been three main approaches a pious adherent could take: First, one could assume that one was living in the Last Days (as the apocalypses of Daniel and 1 Enoch seem to do). A second attitude is shown in 2nd Maccabees, the author of which, rather than completely abandoning the idea of Gods justice, decided that it would have to take place in a resurrected afterlife since it wasnt taking place on earth.44 (See verses like 2 Macc 7:9: You dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws.)45 The third approach is found in 1 Maccabees, the author of which (along with Mattathias himself) seems to have concluded that the call to heed foreign rulers and let the Lord decide the time for deliverance was no longer valid because the atrocities of Antiochus had gone too far. In their view, the Maccabean revolt was not following Scripture it was making Scripture.

42

Behold, I will gather them from all the countries to which I drove them in my anger and my wrath and in great indignation; I will bring them back to this place, and I will make them dwell in safety. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for their own good and the good of their children after them. I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them; and I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul. For thus says the LORD: Just as I have brought all this great evil upon this people, so I will bring upon them all the good that I promise them. Fields shall be bought in this land of which you are saying, it is given into the hands of the Chaldeans. Fields shall be bought in the land of Benjamin, in the places around Jerusalem for I will restore their fortunes, says the LORD. 43 fear not the reproach of men, and be not dismayed at their revilings. For the moth will eat them up like a garment, and the worm will eat them like wool; but my deliverance will be forever, and my salvation to all generations. 44 For the history of the development of this idea, see George W.E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (HTS XXVI; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972). Eg.: At some time between the writing of Second Isaiah and the time of Antiochus, civil persecution of the Jews fostered an interpretation of Isaiah 52-53 as a scene of the post-mortem exaltation of the persecuted one and the judgment of their persecutors, 81. 45 This allows for the interesting addition (and innovation?) of prayer for the dead, put into the mouth of Judas Maccabeus in 2 Macc 12:43-45, where Judas presents an atoning sin offering for those who have died.

19 No law or prophecy was extant that justified the rebellion against Antiochus (if there had been such a law, it would have been helpful to the author of 1st Maccabees to quote it).46 Instead, the author chooses to connect Mattathias innovative and zealous act with that of Phinehas in Numbers. 1 Maccabees 2:26 equates Mattathias with Phinehas explicitly, stating that he burned with zeal for the law, just as Phinehas did against Zimri. Just as Phineas in Num 25:7 saw that nothing was being done about the mixed marriage that had angered God and rose and left the congregation, so Mattathias saw the apostasy in Judah and Jerusalem and rose and left Jerusalem for Modein Just as Phineas showed zeal and acted on behalf of the anger of the Lord (Num 25:11) and stabbed the sinful couple in their illicit bedchamber, the place of their sin so Mattathias was filled with zeal and anger and slew the idolater on the altar, the place of his sin. the author lets his Jewish reader draw the inference: as Phineas was rewarded by being made the founder of the high priestly line (Num 25:12-13), so will Mattathias be rewarded.47 When Phinehas (Aarons grandson) sees a man bringing one of the foreign women into his tent, he is kindled with zealous rage and rushes in and stabs them both to death, stopping the plague and receiving a perpetual priestly covenant for his spontaneous deed (Num 25). Like Phinehas, Mattathias is not depicted as having been commanded by God or by sacred writings to perform his innovative act. Yet both were depicted as having done the right thing and being divinely rewarded. Perhaps it is the presence of some kind of innovation i.e. authority or divine inspiration or revelation (words connected in discussions of canon to this day) that marks Mattathias acts and 1 Maccabees accounts of them off as sacred history most distinctly.

46 47

Goldstein, Biblical Promises, 79. Goldstein, 1 Maccabees, 6,7.

20 Finally, one might also mention the books attempts to authorize or legitimize religious festivals, a task often taken up in Scripture (such as the biblical mandates to celebrate Passover or, for that matter, the Sabbath). In 1 Macc 4:59, we find the tale of the first Hannukah and the directive to continue its celebration. In 1 Macc 7:47-49, another religious holiday celebrating Nicanors downfall is decreed, and in 1 Macc 51-52, we read: On the twenty-third day of the second month, in the one hundred seventy-first year, the Jews entered (the citadel) with praise and palm branches, and with harps and cymbals and stringed instruments, and with hymns and songs, because a great enemy had been crushed and removed from Israel. Simon decreed that every year they should celebrate this day with rejoicing In this case of providing the aetiology of religious festivals, the book also appears to be taking up a somewhat scriptural mandate. 1 Maccabees as Scripture: A Springboard to Other Non-canonical Texts? So far, we have not examined instances where 1 Maccabees quotes or alludes to texts that did not end up included in modern canons. These instances do exist, however. Known extra-canonical works that are referenced include the Testament of Moses and 1 Enoch.48 Further, 1 Macc 1:24-28 and 3:3-9 represent direct quotations of (otherwise unknown) contemporary poetry.49 The mere fact that a literary work has been referenced does not by any means constitute proof that it was considered sacred or even liturgical. At best, it proves that the work, or a version of it, was known, and might be able to help with dating. However, it is also difficult to prove that a cited work was not considered sacred or authoritative by

48 49

Goldstein, 1 Maccabees, 41. According to the editors of the New Oxford Annotated NRSV with Apocrypha, 1994.

21 some group, in some sense. Judgement in either direction must be reserved for want of clear evidence, but the potential that it may have been considered Scripture must be allowed. So not only does 1 Maccabees use (now) canonized texts as its model, causing us to re-evaluate 1 Maccabees own status, but its use of non-canonized texts must bring their status to re-evaluation as well! This brings us to the last pieces of data to be examined in this paper: the internal clues to contemporaneous notions of holy writing at the time in question. A few signs as to the status of the proto-canon can be found within our text itself. 1 Macc 1:56-57 refers to both ta. bibli,a tou/ no,mou and bibli,on diaqh,khj in the same sentence. Are we to infer that these are two separate collections? If so, what did they entail? 1 Macc 3:48 also mentions this book of the law. Furthermore, there is a curious discussion of documents in 1 Macc 12, where Jonathan is portrayed as entering into written correspondence with the Spartans. In verse 7, he states that the high priest Onias had previously received a letter from the Spartan king. In verse 9, Jonathan states (to the Spartans) that they have no need of copies of these letters because of the holy books that are in (his) hands. He states again in verse 21 that it has been found in writing concerning the Jews that they are brothers (of the Spartans) and are of the family of Abraham. Since nothing that can demonstrably link Jews to Spartans exists within the Hebrew Bible, one suspects that the holy books Jonathan mentions in verse 9 are now lost or considered extra-canonical! Questions arise. What did the category holy books mean to the author? Were there clear categories of holy documents, or was there a more fluid spectrum? What are the chronicles of

22 (Johns) high priesthood in 1 Macc 16:24? Clearly, the ancient documents we do have access to are only the tip of an immense iceberg. One thing is plain: the notion of collecting important writings was a living issue in the Hasmonean period. Further and more systematic study of extra-canonical SecondTemple literature, specifically for internal hints about holy writings and documents seems crucial. Summary The starting-point for this paper was the assumption that a cautious approach that avoids anachronism is of vital importance to Biblical Studies as it pertains to SecondTemple Judaisms and to their views of authoritative text collections. The apocryphal book 1 Maccabees was then examined thematically (although not exhaustively) alongside its Hebrew Bible/LXX counterparts as well as its fellow Apocryphal/Pseudepigraphal writings. The themes included the use of scripture to borrow prestige or precedent (including quotations, explicit/implicit allusions, and biblical language), various reasons why 1 Maccabees author might or might not have understood his work as sacred scripture, various usages of extra-canonical literature in 1 Maccabees, and various internal clues about the state of the canon in the Hasmonean period. 1 Maccabees was shown to view various previous writings in a positive light, mainly using them to lend divine authority to Hasmonean characters and events. While it made some use of quotation and explicit reference, it is allusion that dominates the style of usage. Dimants categories of expositional versus compositional uses of Scripture were proven useful, and it was shown that 1 Maccabees made extensive use of compositional referencing. (That is, rather than explaining Scripture, it attempted to

23 advance it.) These implicit references tended to result in biblical-sounding writing. It was also noted that extra-canonical Second-Temple texts can offer hints about other documents (both extant and otherwise) and about contemporary opinions about these documents. Textual evidence seems to suggest that modern concepts of canonicity simply cannot be forced upon Second-Temple Judaisms (including, of course, early Christianity). As Nickelsburg says (with typical caution): some of the texts of the GrecoRoman period indicate that sages, scribes, and teachers in this period saw less of a distinction between their activity and that of the prophets than conventional scholarly opinion has sometimes posited.50 Conclusions Much work remains to be done surrounding the self-understanding of Jewish authors in the Second-temple period. General observations about biblical interpretation trends within a literary corpus (such as Qumran) have been made, but never comprehensively. More specific instances of biblical interpretation within single works also remain scarce. Methodological criteria for what constitutes biblical interpretation, usage, allusion, etc., still need to be solidified. Once these studies go forward, I believe we will find that the ways in which various Second-Temple groups used biblical works in their own writings is not only a

50

Nickelsburg, Why Study The Extra-Canonical Literature? 696. See also: The Torah and the Prophets were revered as authoritative and were interpreted for new times. Some of this interpretation was considered to be itself inspired and authoritative (ben Sira and the Teacher of Righteousness), and in some cases it was presented in the pseudonymous guise of the original author (Moses) or of an ancient or more recent sage (Enoch or Daniel). Not only Daniel, but also the Enochic corpus and the Book of Jubilees were considered inspired and authoritative in some circles (e.g., at Qumran). Thus, as historians we should not confuse what the subsequent Jewish and Christian communities judged to be inspired and authoritative with what the authors and some of their contemporaries considered to have this status. The question needs further study, 699.

24 window into the diversity of Judaisms in the Greco-Roman period, but is also a window (through which scholars have not dared or bothered to peer for many centuries) into the concept of canon itself.

25 Bibliography Beckwith, R. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985. Dimant, Devorah. Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Pages 379-420 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Martin Jan Mulder. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1990. Ellis, E.E. The Old Testament Canon in the Early Church in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Martin Jan Mulder. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1990. Flint, Peter W. Noncanonical Writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Pages 80-126 in The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation. Edited by P. W. Flint. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Goldstein, Jonathan. Biblical Promises and 1 and 2 Maccabees. Pages 74-88 in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Edited by Jacob Neusner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. ---------- 1 Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible. Garden City: Doubleday, 1976. Kort, Wesley A. Take, Read: Scripture, Textuality, and Cultural Practice. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996. Leiman, S.Z. The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence. Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 47. Hamden: Archon, 1976. Lewis, J.P. What Do We Mean by Jabneh? Journal of Bible and Religion 32 (1964): 125-32. Long, V. Philips, Baker, David W., and Wenham, Gordon J. eds. Windows Into Old Testament History: Evidence, Argument, and the Crisis of Biblical Israel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. McDonald, L.M. and Sanders, J.A. eds. The Canon Debate: Current Issues on the Origins of the Bible. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002. McDonald, L.M. The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon. Nashville: Abingdon, 1988. Neusner, J. Introduction to Rabbinic Literature. Anchor Bible Reference Library. N.Y.: Doubleday, 1994. Nickelsburg, George W.E. 1 and 2 Maccabees Same Story, Different Meaning. Pages 659-674 in George W.E. Nickelsburg in Perspective: An Ongoing Dialogue of Learning. Vol. 2. Leiden: Brill, 2003. ---------- Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism. Harvard Theological Studies XXVI. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972. ---------- Why Study Extra-Canonical Literature? A Historical and Theological Essay. Pages 687-713 in George W.E. Nickelsburg in Perspective: An Ongoing Dialogue of Learning. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

26 Oegema, Gerbern. The Anointed and his People: Messianic Expectations from Maccabees to Bar Kochba. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplements 27. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Spawn, Kevin L. As It Is Written and Other Citation Formulae in the Old Testament: Their Use, Development, Syntax, and Significance. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 311. N.Y.: de Gruyter, 2002. Talmon, Shemaryahu. Jewish Civilization in the Hellenistic-Roman Period. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1995. VanderKam, James C. From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature. Leiden: Brill, 2002.

English scriptural quotations, when not translated by the author, are taken from the RSV. Cross-referencing between Maccabees and the Hebrew Bible/OT, when not original, was suggested in the New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha, and is so noted. Greek is from Rahlfs Septuaginta.