Orientation to Maccabean Literature

(avg. read time: 17–35 mins.)

Today, I would like to provide something of a taste test for work that I hope to return to in more depth, if the Lord is willing, in 2024 (I already have another idea for the larger project of 2023). That is, I want to provide readers of the Bible with orientations to the various works of Second Temple Judaism that can be helpful for illuminating the context and reception of the Bible (depending on what part of the Bible we are referring to). The taste test will be provided by an orientation to Maccabean literature.

Of course, there are some extra layers of challenge in this project because not all canons match in what is included in the OT. This is well illustrated by our subject today, as all four Maccabean books do not appear in Protestant Bibles as part of the canon, because the Protestants follow the Hebrew canon in this regard. 1 and 2 Maccabees are regarded as canonical among Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and most Oriental Orthodox. 3 Maccabees is regarded as canonical among the Eastern Orthodox and Armenian Orthodox. 4 Maccabees has been printed in Greek and Georgian Orthodox Bibles but has not necessarily been regarded as canonical. But whether or not one belongs to a tradition that considers any of these books part of the biblical canon, they are, in any case, illuminating for the contexts of Second Temple Judaism, which are in turn illuminating for the reception of the OT and the background of the NT.

Overviews of Maccabean Literature

1 Maccabees

1 Maccabees is concerned with the origins and continuation of the Maccabean Revolt, the Jewish war of independence from their Greek Seleucid rulers. After Judea, Samaria, and Galilee had been conquered by Alexander the Great in 332/331 BCE, it ultimately went to the dynasty of Ptolemy I Soter, one of Alexander’s generals, in the wars that followed Alexander’s death. The Ptolemaic rulers generally practiced a policy of religious toleration towards the Jews in this land. When Antiochus III conquered the land for the Seleucids, he initially promised to continue the policy and to lower the tax burden. He even decreed that foreigners should not enter the temple and no unclean animal should be allowed in Jerusalem. But these policies that curried favor with the Jews were ultimately abandoned after Antiochus’s disastrous loss to Rome at the Battle of Magnesia in 190 BCE. To pay the enormous costs he incurred (15,000 talents), he increased the general tax burden, and he specifically exacted funds from holy places in his empire, which led to his assassination in Susa in 187 BCE.

After the intervening reign of Seleucus IV (all he is really known for in Maccabean literature is the story related in 2 Macc 3), Antiochus IV Epiphanes came to power in 175 BCE and came to be known as the prime example of a Hellenizer among the Jews. That is, he was the chief figure associated with the idea of making Jews less Jewish and more Greek. Since Alexander the Great, Greek had become the lingua franca of the Macedonian empire and its successor subdivisions, Greek education spread throughout the provinces, Greek culture (history, political structures, material, literature, art/entertainment, athletics, and so on) was propagated in other nations to an unprecedented extent, non-Greek cultures received a new level of exposure to Greek ideas and philosophy, Greek religion assimilated or otherwise combined with many local religions, and, as with the Persians, the Greeks established a singular coinage for the empires. The socioeconomic elites of each area were enticed to integrate with and maintain this social order in which they had the force of the Greek rulers behind them. Of course, as noted, there was initially less pressure on Jews in the former land of Israel to follow the religious praxis of the Greeks, as their ancient traditions were generally given leave to continue as they had been. But Antiochus IV is associated with a time in which Hellenization became more pronounced in the land.

Although John Barclay’s analysis focused on Diaspora Jews, his excellent Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora provides helpful ways of thinking about the dynamics of Hellenization for the Jews. As he notes, it is not a dichotomous question as to whether the Jews experienced Hellenization or not, but it is a question of the scale with which they interacted with the Greek world surrounding them. It is helpful to distinguish between “assimilation” and “acculturation”: “‘Assimilation’ may be taken to refer to social integration (becoming ‘similar’ to one’s neighbours): it concerns social contacts, social interaction and social practices. By contrast, ‘acculturation’ is here used to refer to the linguistic, educational and ideological aspects of a given cultural matrix.… In general, a minority ethnic group is far more threatened by assimilation than acculturation, since the former subverts the basis of its existence.”¹ He describes the scale of assimilation in terms of five levels: 1) some Jews had their social lives confined to the Jewish community; 2) some Jews were commercially employed with non-Jews and so came into more contact with Hellenistic culture that way; 3) some Jews attended Greek athletic events or plays at the theatre as a way of participating in cultural entertainment; 4) some Jews spent even more time at the gymnasium in Greek education; 5) some Jews became so Greek that they abandoned their key Jewish social distinctives.² Likewise, the scale of acculturation, mainly in terms of language/education, can be broken down into four levels: 1) some Jews had no facility in Greek; 2) some Jews knew enough about Hellenistic culture to have acquaintance with common moral values that may be emphasized to help one get along in the world ruled by Greeks; 3) some Jews drank more deeply at the well of Greek culture and developed familiarity with literature, rhetoric, philosophy, and theology; 4) some Jews (Philo being the most obvious example) had acquired scholarly expertise in Greek, its literature, its history, and so on.³

Higher up on these scales were powerful individuals like Jason, the high priest Antiochus appointed due to bribery, whose disposition is signified by the fact that he changed his name from Yeshua and its Greek equivalent of Jesus to the more pronouncedly Greek Jason (Josephus, Ant. 12.237–239). According to 2 Macc 3, the earliest source of information on Jason, it was presumably on his initiative of request that the gymnasium mentioned in 1 Maccabees 1:14–15 was built in Jerusalem, and Antiochus granted his request. Participation in gymnasium life, where men would be naked, was at least one impetus for the action of reversing circumcision, lest one be marked out and “othered” in that crowd. Jason himself was removed from the high priesthood after Menelaus (another particularly Greek name) bribed Antiochus more for the position than Jason did and promised increased tribute (equivalent to three years’ worth of taxes). In any case, after Antiochus returned from a successful campaign against Egypt in 169 BCE, he took what amounted to 1,800 talents of plunder from the temple, his first strike against this holiest of places and symbols for the Jews. While Antiochus was away on another campaign against the Ptolemies in Egypt, a rumor spread that Antiochus had died and Jason came to Jerusalem with a small army to slaughter his enemies. Meanwhile, the Romans intervened in the conflict in Egypt and forced Antiochus to cease his campaign. When he returned to Jerusalem in 168 BCE, he slaughtered many in retaliation for what had happened in his absence and plundered it. As he faced a rebellious populace, Antiochus adopted a more aggressive Hellenization policy in erecting altars to other gods—including an altar in the Jerusalem temple—insulting the Jews by sacrificing pigs on these altars, and forbidding Jewish distinctives, such as circumcision and observance of the Sabbath. Although questions remain about what exactly was part of Antiochus’s decree (as opposed to what the Maccabean rhetoric said) and what exactly his motivation was, his actions were received as striking at the heart of Jewish identity.

The perpetuation of these policies led to the Maccabean Revolt beginning in 167 BCE. It is named “Maccabean” after the nickname of Judas Maccabeus (meaning “The Hammer”), which may be in reference to battle (his prowess or his weapon), his piety, or belief in his election as “God’s hammer.” But whatever the case may be, the family he came from was the Hasmoneans, a once lowly priestly family (1 Macc 2:1; 1 Chron 24:7; Neh 11:10; 12:6, 19). Their patriarch at the time was Mattathias and his sons who won renown were John, Simon, Judas, Eleazar, and Jonathan. Perhaps not coincidentally, some form of these six names became six of the nine most popular male names by the time of Jesus.⁴

According to 1 Maccabees, the revolt began with Mattathias violently resisting one of the sacrifices of pork offered according to Antiochus’s decree. When Mattathias dies and charges his sons to continue the revolt, the message maintained that the Maccabees/Hasmoneans were making a stand for the covenant and inheritance of their ancestors over against the gentiles (1 Macc 2:19–20, 27, 50–51, 54; 4:9–10; 10:52, 55; 15:33–34). Jewish tradition and the distinctive marks thereof not only had to be maintained by personal observance (as, e.g., in the case of the Jews who refused to deal with Antiochus’s armies because of their observance of the Sabbath in 2:29–41), but by protection at all costs through warfare. Through guerrilla warfare, Judas Maccabeus and his small armies ultimately achieved the liberation of the temple, which was followed by cleansing and dedication with a new altar, which was completed on the 25th of Chislev in 164 BCE, three years after the temple’s defiling that sparked the revolt. From this event comes the holiday of Hanukkah.

Of course, the story of 1 Maccabees does not end with this event, as that gets us only to the end of ch. 4. The rest of 1 Maccabees concerns the leadership and exploits in battle of Judas (5:1–9:22), Jonathan (9:23–13:30), and Simon (13:31–16:17) (John Hyrcanus I takes up the last verses, but little is said about him, unlike in Josephus).

Of all the Maccabean literature, this is the one that best fits the name with its extended focus on the Hasmonean/Maccabean family from the start of the Maccabean Revolt to the death of Simon, the last living son of Mattathias. It is also the one that is closest to a Greek history (while not being terribly dissimilar from OT historical works like Kings and Chronicles), including in the muted role of God in the narrative framework. It is not that God is absent from the perspective of the narrator, but he is never named as such (there are multiple indirect references through “heaven” in 3:18–19, 50, 60; 4:10, 24, 40, 55; 5:31; 9:46; 12:15; 16:3). While it is often theorized that the book was originally written in Hebrew in Palestine, it is extant in Greek. These features again illustrate the complicated dynamics of Hellenism and other types of cultural assimilation or acculturation, as this book presents Hellenization in the land as something in violation of Jewish traditions and cultural identity, but it is at least presented in high-level Greek (if not originally written in it, as it is not clearly translation Greek), and it ultimately must reckon with the fact that Judas, the great liberator, got his people into an entangling alliance with Rome (8; cf. 12:1, 3–4; 14:24; 15:15–24). Of course, if this text was written in the last third of the second century BCE or the beginning of the first century BCE, as seems likely, even the author did not yet realize the full weight of consequence this move would have. Still, it exemplifies the central dynamic that defines Maccabean literature in terms of faithfulness to Jewish tradition, even in the face of suffering or war. However, as we will see especially in 4 Maccabees, it is not always Hellenism or Hellenization as such that is presented as the enemy.

2 Maccabees

2 Maccabees is notably less “Maccabean” than 1 Maccabees, as the text features several important characters who are not of the Hasmonean family, and Judas’s brothers are only briefly referenced, while Mattathias is not mentioned at all. It does, however, give more focus to Judas in the latter half of the book acting as God’s deliverer from the previous persecution (highlighted by the famous story of the mother and her seven sons in ch. 7 and given more space in the text and build up to it in chs. 3–5). It is, in fact, because of the focus put on persecution and martyrdom for much of the text that scholars often suggest that 2 Maccabees is a product of Judaism of the Diaspora, while 1 Maccabees is a product of Judaism of Palestine.

However, this argument for a Diaspora provenance (which may be likely on other grounds) does not work. After all, the Dead Sea Scrolls, which feature such themes in relation to the suffering of God’s elect, are not of the Diaspora. Other texts that may well have been written in Palestine that feature these themes include Jubilees, Martyrdom of Isaiah, and Lives of the Prophets. It is also difficult to say that this text is defined by the interests of Diaspora Judaism as opposed to Palestinian Judaism in light of the fact that much is made of the celebration of “Nicanor’s Day” (15:36) on the 13th of Adar, the day before Purim. Unlike Purim, we have no clear indication that this day was celebrated outside of Palestine.

Given where the book ends and the exalted view it has of the significance of Nicanor’s Day and of the eventually alienated Onias IV, it seems likely that this work was written before 1 Maccabees, maybe sometime in the late 140s BCE (while 1 Maccabees could not have been completed prior to 135/134 BCE). It is noted early in the book that this volume is an epitome of a now-lost five-volume work by Jason of Cyrene (2:23). But in its function as an epitome, it represents a remarkable fusion of Jewish theology with Greek expression, as God is invoked much more explicitly than in 1 Maccabees, and quite frequently at that.

Although I have not read this proposal elsewhere, I would suggest that 2 Maccabees exemplifies an attempt at a “pan-Judaic” perspective. Like 1 Maccabees, it defines what is Jewish in contradistinction to what is Greek, but it appropriates Greek frames of reference, including sophisticated and difficult Greek language, in order to convey the distinctives of Judaism to the audience. As Tyler Stewart observes, the purpose statement in 2:25 fits with a pattern of communicating a Jewish paideia (in this case, the simplest equivalent is “education”) that competes with Greek paideia: “we have aimed for persuasion for those who want to read, ease for those who are inclined to commit to memory, and advantage for all who encounter it.”⁵

Prayer is made a frequent motif, as Jewish prayers—always being addressed to only one God—are distinct from the expressions of Greek religion, even if the language used can be reminiscent of Greek ways of thinking. The book is also keen to note what sets Jews apart and what drives their persecution in terms of their observance of the holy days (1:9, 18; 2:12; 5:25; 6:6, 11; 8:26; 10:1–8; 12:32, 38; 15:4, 36) and the food laws (6:18; 7:1). In fact, 2 Maccabees supplies the earliest extant example of the term “Judaism” (Ἰουδαϊσμός; 2:21; 8:1; 14:38), which the author uses as a contrast for Greek culture/Hellenism (4:13, 15; 6:24). Such a contrast fits with what we have seen already in 1 Maccabees, and it would fit in any setting of Palestine or the Diaspora.

One other respect in which 2 Maccabees represents a pan-Judaic approach is in its treatment of two forms of resistance to Hellenism. 1 Maccabees only briefly describes those who were martyred in resistance to Antiochus’s program, even after the first blood shed in resistance, but the focus of the whole is clearly on those who resisted violently, drove the Greek armies out, and continued in intermittent war for decades thereafter. 4 Maccabees pays no attention to the violent resistors, but only describes the martyrs as exemplars, but we will get to that book later. By contrast, 2 Maccabees makes prominent both martyrs and violent resistors, albeit not in the same fashion. As Willibaldo Neto observed, martyrdom is what ultimately bridges God’s wrath and God’s mercy, per the theological comments we see in 6:12–16; 7:31–33, 37–38 (cf. Isa 53), which places this form of resistance above armed resistance in importance.⁶ This framework thus presents Judas Maccabeus as God’s deliverer raised up in response to the martyrdom (8:2–5).

Judas is presented as an inspiring speaker here as he is in 1 Maccabees, but he is also presented more explicitly as invoking God and the precedent of God’s deliverance of Israel from gentile enemies (8:16–20, 23 [cf. 1 Macc 3:48]; 15:12–16). Furthermore, in direct contrast to 1 Maccabees, Judas is presented as a pious observer of the Sabbath and provider for the suffering (8:26–28; cf. 12:38; 15:3–5). More generally, he is presented as a strict observer of the Torah (5:27 [cf. 6:21]; 10:26; 12:40, 43; 15:9), in opposition to Mattathias’s approach in 1 Maccabees of breaking the Sabbath to protect the Sabbath. In the remarkable ritual Judas undertakes to make atonement for the dead, he is once again fulfilling his role as the delivering leader of God’s people, showing his piety in a way that is both unprecedented and faithful to Torah (12:39–45). He is also never shown to lose a battle in 2 Maccabees, while 1 Maccabees records both wins and losses, including in the battle that killed him. He is thus presented more like a judge of old. He reappears after each new enemy/trouble is introduced. Even after Hanukkah, Timothy, Lysias, and Nicanor all rise against Judas, and they all fall before him. These points fit with the more overtly theological agenda of 2 Maccabees, wherein Judas is God’s deliverer, every victory is attributed to God, and no cause is presented for a change in course for God supporting Judas.

3 Maccabees

While there is significant overlap in events addressed in 1 and 2 Maccabees and significant overlap in stories covered in 2 and 4 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees has no such overlap with the rest of Maccabean literature. It does not feature any of the Maccabean/Hasmonean family. It does not even take place in and around Jerusalem, nor does it take place at the same time. Rather, it is set in Egypt during the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator (221–204 BCE), thereby more distinctly reflecting a perspective of Jews from the Diaspora, particularly in Alexandria, which for centuries had one of the largest Jewish communities (if not the largest) in the Diaspora. There is thus little doubt that it was originally written in Greek in either the first century BCE or the first century CE. Indeed, its style seems to reflect Greek romances that embellish something about an actual historical figure. Like the other Maccabean writers, our author has a more sophisticated knowledge of Greek than one might expect in light of the Jewish-Greek opposition set up in this book.

Where it does overlap with the rest of Maccabean literature is in the central concern of preserving the Jewish way of life in the face of external pressure to abandon it. In line with 2 Maccabees, it focuses on perseverance in persecution, but—in contrast to 2 Maccabees—not on martyrdom. The Jews in the story are arrested and gathered together for mass execution, but the execution is miraculously thwarted multiple times, and the Jews are released.

The reason for the setting is unclear, as there is no other clear record of Ptolemy IV treating Jews in this fashion. Josephus tells of a later Ptolemy (Ptolemy IX Physcon, 146–117 BCE) doing what this account attributes to Philopator (Ag. Ap. 2.53–55). However, it is not clear that Josephus is more accurate in this case. It could be that 3 Maccabees is in fact correct in attributing the action to Philopator, or it could be that this action was done by one of the Ptolemies and it is simply no longer clear which one it was. If the author of 3 Maccabees does happen to be inaccurate in this attribution, his characterization of Philopator nevertheless fits with what is known of him from Polybius (Hist. 5.34; 14.12). Nor is it clear why, if the story was composed in response to some purportedly analogous situation—like Caligula’s treatment of the Jews near the end of his reign as he sought divine honors and to erect a statue of himself in the Jerusalem temple (most extensively, see Philo, Embassy; cf. Philo, Flaccus)—either the resemblance to that situation or the actual characteristics of that situation are not more pronounced in the narrative (Philopator does not demand divine honors for himself or attempt to desecrate the temple in the fashion of Caligula). However much it resembles an actual series of historical events and whenever those events took place, the book still resonates as exemplifying the crises Diaspora Jews could, at various times, be subjected to, as well as the responses to the same.

The book opens with recounting Philopator’s victory at the Battle of Raphia. One of the things he is said to have done in celebration of this was to go to the Jerusalem temple, where he offered a sacrifice. He was so taken with what he saw at the temple that he sought to enter the Holy of Holies, as he had been allowed to enter the sanctuary at every other temple he had visited. But here he encountered the unique character of Jewish piety associated with the temple, as they insisted only the high priest could enter there, and that once a year (1:10–14). Philopator remained insistent on entering, but the priests and people prayed (as well as responding resistantly in other ways) and Philopator eventually had to vacate the premises. His wrathful response was to gather up the Jews in his own region and execute them. He seeks in multiple ways to execute them, but is thwarted each time, most notably in the case of the 500 elephants who were to be made drunk with wine and drugged with incense to trample the multitude, only for them to turn on those who unleashed them (5:1–13). After the failed attempts at executing the Jews, Philopator relents and acknowledges God as their deliverer. He even gives them leave to execute the apostates who had given up their Jewish traditions due to outside pressure throughout the story (7:10–14). The Jews’ return to their homes is then described in terms reminiscent of the exodus and, no doubt, in anticipation of the end of the state of exile as the proper goal of God’s delivering action (7:15–23).

4 Maccabees

4 Maccabees is only slightly more appropriately titled a work of “Maccabees” than 3 Maccabees in that it relates stories told in other Maccabean literature (namely, 2 Maccabees), but it does not actually feature any of the Maccabees/Hasmoneans. What ultimately unites this text with the rest of Maccabean literature, beyond the overlap with some content of 2 Maccabees, is that central concern with perseverance in the face of external pressure to abandon Jewish tradition. Of course, the dynamics involved in expressing this theme are quite different in this book, as it is the most Hellenistic of the Maccabean literature in the categories used to frame its subject matter, in its many resemblances to Greek philosophical literature, and in its similarities specifically with Greek works on ethics. From its opening it refers to reason as the master of the passions and cites the martyrs whose stories are told herein as exemplars of this exercise of reason (1:1–13). The rest of the first chapter continues with this Greek philosophical framework in its definitions of reason and wisdom (vv. 15–16), relating the law with wisdom and reason (v. 17; cf. 2; 5:23–24; 7:16–23; 8–12), outlining the four Aristotelian virtues (v. 18), describing the passions (vv. 20–28), and reiterating the theme of the mastery of reason (vv. 29–35; cf. 13:1–5; 15:1; 16:1–4; 18:1–2).

This thoroughly Greek framing is a companion illustration to what Barclay says of Philo:

a Diaspora Jew could be, in certain respects, Jewish to the core and Hellenized to the same core. Philo’s faith in God as Creator was strengthened by his reading of Plato, not diluted by such Hellenistic education. His conviction that God exercised providential care for humanity was supported and explained by his Stoic theology…. Yet Philo was so scandalized by the notion that a Jew might be so Hellenized as to cease to observe the Sabbath or to respect the Jerusalem temple (Migr Abr 89–93).⁷

Indeed, for all the Greek framing, this work is written in honor of Jewish martyrs dedicated to a Jewish way of living and maintaining Jewish traditions against Hellenizing pressures to abandon them. Namely, the stories at the center of this reflection are those of Eleazar and the mother with her seven sons from 2 Macc 6–7 (recounted now with much more details added about the methods of torture and execution). Like Philo, the author seems to take inspiration from Stoicism, but for the purpose of articulating Jewish values and Jewish beliefs. Another reason this is an apt comparison is that our author may well have been writing at the same time as Philo, in a time when Syria and Silicia formed a single territory (4:2), and thus in the first half of the first century CE.

Resonances with the OT and NT

With those introductions outlined, what can be said about the resonances of these texts with the OT and NT? The most obvious resonances with the OT come from the Jewish identity markers, such as keeping the Sabbath, observing the food laws, and circumcision, all of which come from the Torah in the OT. Each of these were important ways by which Jews distinguished themselves from gentiles (whether neighbors, rulers, or enemies), but the Sabbath also had another level of significance for Jews after the exile, as failure to observe Sabbath and Sabbatical years were linked to the cause of the exile (2 Chron 36:21; Neh 13:15–22; Jer 17:19–27; 34:13–22; Ezek 20:12–24; 22:8, 26; 23:28). Another Jewish distinctive that appears regularly in 1 and 2 Maccabees is the celebration of the holy days, such as Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles, all of which come from the Torah, along with Purim, and the additions to these days made with the institution of Hanukkah and, on a minor note, Nicanor’s Day (also note the sabbatical year in 1 Macc 6:49).

Likewise, the aforementioned law noted in 3 Maccabees concerning who may enter the Holy of Holies that distinguished Jews from other peoples Philopator visited came from the Torah concerning the Day of Atonement. Psalm 79:2–3 is quoted in 1 Macc 7:17. Deuteronomy 32:36 is quoted in 2 Macc 7:6 (not coincidentally, both of these texts are connected to contexts of resurrection belief). A certain description of a time of peace and stability in the Hasmonean era in 1 Macc 14:12—“All the people sat under their own vines and fig trees, and there was none to make them afraid”—is drawn from texts such as Lev 26:4; 1 Kgs 4:25; Ezek 36:33–36; Mic 4:4; and Zech 8:4. 2 Maccabees also makes connections between the events of the story and key figures from the OT, including Nehemiah, Jeremiah, Solomon, and Moses (1:18–2:15), and Jeremiah appears in a dream to Judas in the final episode of the narrative in 15:12–16. In both 1 and 2 Maccabees, the particular story of the angel slaying the 185,000 Assyrians when they sought to conquer Jerusalem is invoked as a precedent of the kind of miraculous deliverance God has provided before (1 Macc 7:41; 2 Macc 15:22). The Scriptures are also referenced more generally in 1 Macc 1:56–57; 3:48, 56; 2 Macc 8:23; and 4 Macc 18:10–19. The Maccabean literature also features summaries of the story of Israel drawing on Scripture (1 Macc 2:50–68; 3 Macc 2:1–20; 6:3–8), which I will return to for another series.

The Maccabean literature, especially 1 and 2 Maccabees, has also regularly been noted for its connections to the Book of Daniel. The connections are too complex to get into for my purposes here, but I might return to this subject in much greater detail if I see that this post has garnered significant interest. What I will say for now is that the Maccabean Revolt and the events leading up to it are often correlated with parts of the latter half of Daniel, especially the reference to the desolating sacrilege in ch. 9 and the review of history in ch. 11. However, these connections are not as straightforward as often presented and require more detailed examination for a proper analysis of their relationship to the events of this time. Furthermore, the motif of the suffering (and dying in the latter half of the book) faithful is obviously a similarity Daniel shares with Maccabean literature. And in that Daniel presents God’s demonstration of ultimate faithful love to his people in vindication of the suffering faithful involves resurrection, the text obviously resonates with 2 Macc 7. Although, again, the precise relationship between these texts requires further examination than I can engage in here, except to say that the earlier Daniel likely helped shape 2 Maccabees on this point.

2 and 4 Maccabees also have a particular affinity with Isa 53 (or rather, the fourth Servant Song of Isa 52:13–53:12) and its presentation of the servant’s vicarious suffering. In that 2 Maccabees portrays the persecutions as God’s discipline for the people (6:12–16), it is notable that the martyrs are thus portrayed as the ones who ultimately bridge God’s wrath and God’s mercy. The last son in the story of 2 Macc 7 describes his own role in terms reminiscent of the servant. Although his and his brothers’ own sins are thought to play a part in what is happening to them (though this could be “our” in the sense of the Hebrews, and not these brothers specifically), their suffering is ultimately purposed for bringing reconciliation between God and his servants (7:31–33, 37–38). Like the servant (in some sense), the brothers and other martyrs represent Israel, taking on the consequences of the people’s sins, and in doing so seek to effect reconciliation/atonement in their faithfulness unto death for the sake of the covenant and the covenant people. 4 Maccabees carries on this conception of the martyrs and their role vis-à-vis relations between God and God’s people in various places as well (6:28–29; 9:24; 17:21–22). If anything, the author of 4 Maccabees makes this connection more explicit than the author of 2 Maccabees. (This notion applied to a group of persevering faithful in general also appears in the self-conception of the community of Qumran in 1QS VIII, 3–4, 10; IX, 3–6.)

More generally, points of theology that connect this literature to both the OT and NT manifest in references to God as Creator and King (2 Macc 1:24; 7:23, 28; 13:14; 3 Macc 2:2–3, 9; 5:7–8, 51; 6:2; 4 Macc 5:25; 11:5). These invocations are made—as part of a trend we will examine another time—not only as statements of fundamental points of faith, but as bases for hopes of God’s mercy in deliverance (cf. 1 Macc 3:44; 13:46; 16:3; 2 Macc 1:24; 2:7, 18; 6:16; 7:6, 23, 29, 37; 8:3, 5, 27, 29; 9:13; 11:9–10; 13:12; 3 Macc 2:19–20; 5:7–8, 51; 6:2; 4 Macc 12:17–18). Especially notable in this regard is how the mother of the seven sons in 2 Macc 7 invokes belief in creation ex nihilo as a basis for hope in resurrection (7:28–29).

Another precedent for hope that is invoked is the exodus (1 Macc 4:9; 3 Macc 2:6–8; 6:4). As we have already explored in a series, the exodus was often referenced as the foundational and constitutive salvific event for Israel. Another reason why references to it occur in so many texts is to stress the expectation that the same God who brought Israel up out of Egypt will be faithfully loving in delivering his people, even to the point of bringing about a new exodus patterned after the old one. I leave that particular rendition of exodus theology for further exploration another time, but for now it is worth noting how an exodus framework is presented for the hope of Israel. On the one hand, 2 Macc 2:7–8 invokes the Shekinah descending on both the tabernacle in the exodus and on the temple in Solomon’s reign to describe the prophesied hope of Israel for YHWH’s return and restoration of the nation in realization of the communion promised in the exodus of “You will be my people, and I will be your God.” On the other hand, we see in the ending of 3 Maccabees a sort of lesser exodus, an anticipatory kind of return foreshadowing the greater one that is yet hoped for (7:15–23).

One aspect of 1 Maccabees helps to bridge the early story of the OT with the reception of the same in the time of the NT. Namely, the quality of “zeal for the law” is linked to Phinehas (2:26–28, 50, 54; cf. 4 Macc 18:12) and Elijah (2:58). Paul describes himself in these terms when describing his former life in Acts 22:3 and Phil 3:6. The terms for “zeal” (such as ζήλος and ζηλόω) also have the sense of “emulation,” which in these contexts would mean that the conduct is worthy of emulation. It is a quality inspired especially by seeing fellow Jews disregarding the covenant and the identifying markers of keeping the covenant, but the response made typically manifests in violence in order to “protect” Israel’s holiness from enemies both inside and outside the people of Israel.

This quality of “zeal” being considered worthy of “emulation” in this Second Temple Jewish context is but one part of a much larger reality that also shapes the Jewish context of the NT. The Maccabean literature in general represents three broad responses to Hellenization (which could be further subdivided along axes like those illustrated by Barclay’s scales). One, there are those who become deeply assimilated into the surrounding Hellenistic culture, even to the point of abandoning their identity markers as Jews, for the benefits derived from becoming more adaptable to one’s environment, and thus are regarded by more traditional Jews as “apostates.” Two, there are those who are inspired by this sense of “zeal” for the Torah and the traditions of the ancestors towards violent resistance against pressure to assimilate and become more like the gentiles. Three, there are those who resist nonviolently, being willing in the worst of times to give their lives in faithfulness unto death for what God has given them, even in hopes that their death may effect atonement and reconciliation between God and God’s people. These three broad responses are still present in the times of the NT and they shape intra-Jewish relations, especially in the land where Jesus walked.

On the other hand, 1 Maccabees also shows how another key player in the social, political, and religious struggles of assimilation vs. allegiance came into the picture. After all, the book is set in a time when the Romans were on their ascendance, having conquered Carthage in the epoch-shaping Second Punic War and then turning to dominate the Greeks. And while Judas is presented as a stout resistor of the Greeks in war, he invites Rome’s help by forming an alliance with them (8; 12:1, 3–4; 14:24; 15:15–24). This alliance thus drew Rome’s interest in the affairs of the region (though, given the land’s importance for trade, they would have inevitably turned their attention there in some fashion), and would ultimately lead to conquest by Pompey a century later, and all the twists and turns in Jewish-Roman relations that followed thereafter.

2 Maccabees in particular also illustrates some of the key history in how priests (especially the high priest) had developed a strained relationship with the people, so that the latter may defer to the former because of their station, but did not necessarily trust them or admire them for their piety. After all, it was high priests who accelerated Hellenization in the time of Antiochus IV. And their collaboration with the Greek officials went further in that these outside powers appointed them because of favor (at times, as in this story, because of bribery). (I have not even mentioned Alcimus, who has a significant role as an antagonist in 1 and 2 Maccabees.) The fact that Jonathan took on the role of both ruler and high priest after Judas’s death did not help matters (1 Macc 10:18–21), as this only inspired more political corruption in the Hasmonean dynasty. By the time of Jesus, the high priest’s political entanglements with Rome were all too obvious, especially as the Romans designated themselves the authority to remove and instate high priests according to their own will (Josephus, Ant. 14.72–73, 192–195; 17.164–167, 339–341; 19.313–316; 20.16, 103, 179, 196–203, 223).

A few other resonances with the NT are at the more general or minor levels. First, of course, the central concern of perseverance of the faithful is a recurrent theme in the NT, especially in Revelation, but this is a point to which we will need to return in more detail another time. This is not a point on which the Maccabean literature has demonstrably shaped the NT, but it shows how these texts come from a common background (commonly shaped by the OT, especially books like Daniel) in which such themes were theologically and ethically crucial. Second, Heb 11:35 arguably alludes to such stories as those presented in 2 Macc 6–7, especially since suffering torture for faithfulness is linked to the eschatological resurrection. This is a point I will return to below. Third, 1 Macc 7:37 describes the temple as the house that God made to be “for your people a house of prayer and supplication.” Given the context of the war for this statement, it is notable that this is different from Isa 56:7, which declares the temple a house of prayer for all peoples/nations. Indeed, Jesus quotes this text in the midst of his own action against the temple that served as a catalyst for his death (Matt 21:13 // Mark 11:17 // Luke 19:46). Fourth, 4 Macc 13:14–15 bears a resemblance to Matt 10:28, but they clearly operate in different frameworks. The latter does not have a notion that the one who kills the body only “thinks” he is killing the person in question (cf. 4 Macc 10:4 in some manuscripts), and the contrast is not with eternal torment of the soul, but destruction of the body and the life in hell (i.e., annihilation).

That leads us to the last element of resonance we will note, which concerns matters of eschatology about afterlife beliefs and judgment. 1 and 3 Maccabees have nothing to say on this subject. Both texts are rather concerned with resolutions to problems within this life and this world as such. Nothing more can be said with confidence beyond this. But 2 and 4 Maccabees present a remarkable contrast in what they each say of what to expect after death, a contrast that well illustrates something of the variety of views on this subject in the Second Temple era (especially later in that era). 2 Macc 7 is one of the most frequently mentioned Jewish resurrection texts, all the more notable for its connection to vindicating the faithful martyrs, direct connection to belief in God as Creator and King (and thus of resurrection with new creation), and broader linkage of resurrection to judgment (7:9, 11, 14, 23, 29). This notion also appears again in the martyrdom of Razis (14:46) and in the ritual of making atonement for the dead in anticipation of the resurrection (12:43–45). 4 Maccabees works with a different vision of judgment and everlasting life/immortality, which nearly every indication is that of an everlasting disembodied afterlife for the soul (9:9, 22; 10:4; 13:15; 14:5–6; 16:13; 17:12, 18; 18:23). Indeed, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob exemplify this afterlife, for it is in this sense that they are described as living (7:19; 16:25) and greeting the faithful after death (13:17). What requires some further consideration, though, which I plan engage in another time, is the use of OT resurrection texts in this context in 18:17–19. Are these cases where resurrection itself is reinterpreted? Are these instances of resurrection texts being reapplied to another form of hope? Are these hints of resurrection belief as the ultimate conclusion to disembodied afterlife? Or is something else going on here? We will have to explore this matter another time.

1. John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE – 117 CE) (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 92.

2. Barclay, Jews, 93.

3. Barclay, Jews, 95.

4. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 71–78, 85–92.

5. “The author thus has a twofold aim: he seeks to engage his audience in maintaining their ancestral traditions, and, at the same time, he insists that Jews can live in peace with local Gentile communities and with an imperial power” (Robert Doran, 2 Maccabees: A Critical Commentary, Hermeneia [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012], 14).

6. Willibaldo Ruppenthal Neto, “Martírio e resistência em 2 Macabeus,” Estudos de Religião 33 (2019): 231–52.

7. Barclay, Jews, 91.