Gary Morrison, «The Composition of II Maccabees: Insights Provided by a Literary topos», Vol. 90 (2009) 564-572
II Maccabees is an unusual text, its composition and content are topics of extensive discussion. This paper identifies a literary construct that we attribute to the epitomiser. Its identification allows us to assign various parts of the text to the same hand giving us more insight into both the text’s composition and the epitomiser’s ability as an historian and writer. Furthermore, the identified literary topos suggests that recent attempts to minimise the extent to which II Maccabees represents any conflict between the Greeks and the Jews, Judaism and Hellenism may need to be reconsidered, some apparent instances of favourable relations between the Jews and other nations (in particular the Hellenes) are not what they seem.
The Composition of II Maccabees 571
Antiochus’ letter, like the Scythians and Greeks previously, serve a literary
role by emphasising the improbable, exaggerating Antiochus’ repentance and
confirming his lack of comprehension regarding what the Jews actually want
(or don’t want). This suggests that the letter’s author also wrote or at all
events reworked Chapter 9 to make it and the letter fit (24). Moreover, the
author of Chapter 9 is the same hand responsible for similar patterning
elsewhere in the text, specifically significant sections of Chapters 3 and 4. Not
only do all these chapters contain examples of our literary topos, each
discussed example relates to key events in the Chapter. In other words, our
literary topos is not an ad hoc addition to these chapters; rather it suggests the
same (sophisticated) hand was at work through all. In addition at least two
other sections in II Maccabees follow the basic structure of our topos and / or
have similarities to the passages cited that would also assign them to the one
author, specifically: the account of Jason’s demise in Sparta (2 Macc 5,5-10)
and the friendship between Judas and Nicanor (2 Macc 14,20-22.25). The
latter account seems to mirror that of Onias and Seleucus, supposed
friendship and subsequent hostility; while Jason’s death in Sparta at least
mirrors Antiochus’ death in that they share the same topos of dying in a
distant, foreign land. Both also present improbable scenarios to emphasise
characteristics or develop the narrative, which are indicative of our literary
topos. The absence of the emphatic kaiv does not discredit the association,
rather we have an indication of the complex and subtle ways our author could
employ exaggeration.
Two hands emerge as possible candidates for the development of the
literary construction and, correspondingly, the sections of text identified:
There is Jason himself or the epitomiser. While a choice must remain
speculative, it has been shown elsewhere that the epitomiser is responsible for
extensively reworking the text. We have shown that the hand that used our
literary topos wrote significant parts of Chapters 3 and 4, possibly sections of
Chapters 5 and 14, as well as Chapter 9 and forged the letter therein. It seems
appropriate to assign this work to the epitomiser, although all that can be
suggested as support at this point are the identified links between chapters
which supports a single hand undertaking widespread revision; and that
Chapters 3 and 4 are near the start of the book proper — that is after the
prefixed letters — a place we might expect some sort of introductory
summation.
Still, if we are correct then we are further enhancing the growing
reputation of the epitomiser as an historian in his own right. He was
demonstrably in control of his material, making skilful use of literary
constructions and rewriting significant portions of the text to emphasise what
was important to him (25). The undervaluing of the text by some twentieth
century scholars can no longer be substantiated. Be that as it may, our
conclusion also presents problems and questions. Specifically: (1) The forger
(24) PARKER, Letters, 390-397, 400-401, also suggests that the hand that wrote the letter
was the same as that responsible for Chapter 9.
(25) If we are wrong then Jason’s ability needs to be recognised and we can credit the
epitomiser with not revising important and at times subtle literary constructs. Either way
the value of the text is enhanced: it was penned by an author with some ability.