xx. 31; I Kiugs ii. 12: cis Seziftaov irompdv=inD6 i. 36; 4v rcjr IXIce airroi1=110113, ii. 57, with Jer. ii. 2; iii. 9; dm!, -ylvovs riz's panXelas=mv6nr) jran, iii. 32, with Jer. xli. 1), as well as from the difficulties in the Greek text, which disappear on the supposition of mis takes made by the translator (comp. teal lo-Eize3n &I robs nctromozIpras abrz)v=1, ruin mr,ra ;ram, i. 28; i-yivero d vas azirin 'Ws auk) aotos VIC e., 7123 er'N 8; see also ii. 34; Hi. 3; iv. 19, 24, etc.) The Hebrew of this book, however, like that of the later canonical writings of the 0. T., had a con siderable admixture of Aramaic expressions (comp.
i. 5 ; iv. 19 ; viii. 5 ; xi. 28; and Grimm's Comment. on these passages).
As to the Hebrew Megillath Antioch:es DZIn)IN) still existing, which was first published in the editions of the Pentateuch of 1491 and 1505 along with the other Megilloth ; is given in the SpanishandItalian Ritual for the Festivals of 1555-56, etc.; is inserted, with a Latin transla tion, in Bartolocci's Bibliotheca Magna Rabbinica, vol. i. p. 383 ; is printed separately, without the translation, Berlin 1766 ; and which has recently been republished by Jellinek in his Beth rash, i. 142-I46—this simply gives a few of the inci dents of the Maccabean wars, and makes John the high-priest, who it says slew Nicanor in the Temple, play the most conspicuous part. It tells us that Antiochus began persecuting the Jews in the 23d year of his reign and 2 uth after the build ing of the second Temple; and that the descendants of the Maccabees, who crushed the armies of this tyrant, ruled over Israel 206 years, thus following the chronology of the Talmud (comp. Avoda Zara 9, a; Seder Olauz Szdta; De Rossi, Meor Enajinz, c. xxvi ; Zunz, Gottesdienst. Vortriige, p. 134). That the Aramaic (Chaldee), which was for the first time published by Filipowski, together with the Hebrew and an English version (London 1851), is the original, and that the Hebrew is a transla tion, may be seen from a most cursory comparison of the two texts. The Hebrew version slavishly imitates the phrases of the Aramaic original instead of giving the Hebrew idioms. Thus, for instance, the Chaldee 14./11t, rIM is rendered in the Hebrew version by MT) MIN], instead of wirr rwn ; 1+5.1 by n5,6 ;15x, instead of rntt or Inin VN, etc. It is perfectly astonishing that this document—which was evidently got up about the 7th century of the Christian era, to be recited on the Feast of Dedication in commemora tion of the Maccabean victories over the enemies of Israel—should be regarded by Hengstenberg (Genuineness of Daniel, Eng. transl., p. 237) as the identical Clialdee copy of the first book of Maccabees to which Origen and Jerome refer.' Hengstenberg, moreover, most blunderingly calls the Hebrew version published by Bartolocci the ChaMa.
5. Canonicity and Importance of the Book.— This book never formed a part of the Jewish canon, and is excluded from the canon of sacred books in the catalogues of Melito, Origen, the Council of Laodicea, St. Cyril, St. Hilary, St. Athanasius, St. Jerome, etc. In the Chronicle of Eusebius it is put into the same category as the writings of Josephus and Africanus, so as to dis tinguish it from the inspired writings, with the remark, e What we have hitherto related concerning the annals of the Hebrews, is taken out of the Holy Scriptures; what follows is taken out of the books of the Maccabees, yonphies, and Africanus.' Still the book is cited with high respect, and as con ducive to the edification of the church at a very early period (August., De Civit. Dei, lib. xviii., c.
36). The councils at Hippo and Carthage (A. D. 393 and 397) first formally received it into the canon, and in modem times the Council of Trent has settled for the Catholic Church all disputes about its canonical authority, by putting it into the catalogue of inspired Scripture.
But though the Protestant Church rejects the decisions of these councils, and abides by the ancient Jewish Canon, yet both the leaders of the Reformation and modem expositors rightly attach great importance to this book. The great value of it will he duly appreciated when it is remem bered that it is one of the very few surviving records of the most important, but very obscure, period of the Jewish history, between the close of the O. T. and the beginning of the N. T. It is, therefore, not to be wondered at that the far-seeing Luther remarks, in his introduction to the translation of this book—` This is another of those books not in. eluded in the Hebrew Scriptures, although in its discourses and description it almost equals the other sacred books of Scripture, and would not have been unworthy to be reckoned among them, because it is a very necessary and useful book for the understanding of the prophet Daniel in the eleventh chapter' ( Vorrede air/ das erste Buck Ma.: cabeorum, German Bible, ed. 1536). It is rather surprising that the Anglican Church has not pre scribed any lessons to be read from this book. A reference to i Maccab. iv. 59, however, is to be found in the margin of the A. V., John x. 22.
6. Versions and Liter atzere.—The Greek version given in the editions of the Sept., which must have been made very shortly after the publication of the original Hebrew, since Josephus had already used it (comp. Antig. xii., xiii.), is easy, simple, and unaffected in style, and there can be little doubt that the translator was conversant with the Sept., and frequently used its phraseology and renderings (comp. i. 54 ; ri. 63 ; vii. 9, 23 ; xiv. 9, etc.) From it was made the old Latin version current before Jerome, which is now incorporated in the Romish Vulgate, and an earlier text of which, following more literally the Greek, and comprising ch. i.–xiv. I, was published by Sabatier from a very ancient MS. in the Library of St. Germain at Paris (St. Germain MS. 15). Angelo Mai has also pub lished a fragment of another Latin translation, comprising ch. ii. 49-64, which differs very mate rially from both texts (Specilegium Roznanorztm, vol. ix. p. 60, seg.) The old Syriac version given in the Paris and London Polyglotts, and by De Lagarde, Librz Veteris 2151ml:end Apoczyph, Syriace, London IS61, is, like the Latin, made I literally from the Greek. Of commentaries and exegetical helps, are to be mentioned the works of Drusius and Grotius, reprinted in the Critici Sacri ; Calmet, Commentaire Literal, etc., vol. viii., Paris 1724 ; Michaelis, Deutsche Uebersetzung des r cab. B.'s mit Amerkk., Gottingen tind Leipzig 1778 ; Eichhom, Einleitung in die apokryphischen Schriften d. A. T., Leipzig 1795, pp. 2 IS-24S ; Hengstenberg, Genuineness of Daniel, Eng. transl., Edinburgh 1847, pp. 235-239, 267-270 ; Cotton, The Five Books of Maccabees, Oxford 1832 ; Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. iv., p. 526, ff. ; the masterly work of Grimm, Xurzgefasstes extget isches Handbuch zi, den A,pokmbhen, Leipzig 1853 ; Geiger, Urschrift and Uebersctzung der Bibel, Breslau 1857, pp. 206.219.—C. D. G.