3. Historical Character of the the parenetic design of the book made the writer so modify and embellish the facts which he records as to render them most subservient to his object, yet the assertion of Dr. Davidson, that the narra tive appears to be nothing but an absurd Jewish fable' (Introduction to the O. T., iii. p. 454), is far too sweeping. That the ground-work of it is true, as Prideaux rightly remarks ( The O. and N. T. con nected, part ii. book ii., anno 216), is attested by collateral history. I. The account it gives of Ptolemy's expedition to Ccele-Syria, and his vic tory over Antiochus at Raphia (i. 1-7) is corrobo rated both by Polybius (v. 4o; 58-71; 79-87) and Justin (xxx. I). 2. The character which it ascribes to Ptolemy—that he was cruel, vicious, and given to the orgies and mysteries of Bacchus—is literally confirmed both by Plutarch, who in his essay How to distinguish Flatterers from Friends, says, such praise was the ruin of Egypt, because it called the effeminacy of Ptolemy, his wild extravagances, loud prayers, his marking with an ivy leaf (Kpinn), and his drums, piety' (cap. xii., comp. also In Cleomene, cap. xxxiii. and xxxvi.), and by the author of the Greek Etymolog-icon, who tells us that Philopator was called Callus, because he was marked with the leaf of an ivy, like the priests called Galli ; for in all the Bacchanalian solemnities they were crowned with ivy (P.IXXos ii OiXorarcop aroXegaios Sid ra 06XXa Klo-croir xaracrr(xbat its of PdXXoL, etc.) 3. Josephus's deviating account (cont. Ap.suppi.,ii. 5) of the events here recorded, which shows that he has derived his information from an independent source, proves that something of the sort did actu ally take place. 4. The statement in vi. 36, that they instituted an annual festival to commemorate the day of their deliverance, to be celebrated in all future time, the fact that this festival was actu ally kept in the days of Josephus (comp. ibid. ii. 5), and the consecration of a pillar and synagogue at Ptolemais (vii. 20), are utterly unaccountable on the supposition that this deliverance was never wrought. The doubts which De Wette (Einleitzeng, sec. 305), Ewald (Geschichte d. V. I., iv. 535, ff.), Grimm (Comment. p. 217), and Davidson (Introd., iii• 455), raise against the historic ground-work of this narrative, are chiefly based upon the fact that Dan. xi. s 1, etc., does not allude to it. Those critics therefore submit that the book typically portrays Caligula, who commanded that his own statue should be placed in the temple, in a current tradition respecting the murderous commands of Ptolemy VII. Physcon against the Jews, which it transferred by mistake to Ptolemy Philopator.
4. Author, Origi nal Language, Integrity, and Date of the is generally admitted that the author of this book was an Alexandrian Jew, and that he wrote in Greek. This, indeed, is evident from its ornate, pompous, and fluent style. as well as from the copious command of expression which the writer possessed. Though this book resembles 2 Maccab. in the use of certain expressions (e.g., 3 Maccab. i. 25 • ii. 3, with 2 Maccab. ix. 7) in the employment of purely Greek proper names to im part a Greek garb to Jewish things and ideas (3 Maccab. v. 20, 42 ; vii. K, with 2 Maccab. iv. 47), etc., yet is the style of the two books so different, that it is impossible to claim for them the same author. The author of this book sur passes 2 Maccab. in offensively seeking after artificial, and hence very frequently obscure, phrases (e. g, i. 9, 14, 17, ii. 31 ; iii. 2 iv. 5, II; v. 17; vii. 5), in poetic expression and ornamental turns (i. 8 ; ii. 19, 31 ; iii. 15 ; iv. 8 ; v. 26, 31, 47 ; vi. 4, 8, 20), in bombastic sentences to designate very simple ideas (e. g., cruvf,:rrna
9.at = rpixetv,t. 19 ; wpccrpckp rip i7Xuc1ap XeXo-y x6s, vi. I), in using rare words or such as occur nowhere else (e. g., i. 20; ii. 29; iv. 20; V. 25; vL 4, or using ordinary words in strange senses (e. 3, 5; hi. 14; iv. 5; vii. 8; comp. Grimm, Casement., p. 214). There is also an abruptness about the book (e. g., its beginning with 6 be 7rdrusp, it refers, in rap 7rpoaraeSeryuevwp, ii. 25, to some passage not contained in the present narra tive), which has led to the supposition that it is either a mere fragment of a larger work (Ewald, Davidson, etc.), or that the beginning only has been lost a (Grimm, Keil, etc.) Against this, how ever, Graetz rightly urges, that it most thoroughly and in a most complete manner carries through its design. All the attempts to determine the age of the book are based upon pure conjecture, and entirely depend upon the view entertained about its contents, as may be seen from the two extremes between which its date has been placed. Thus Allin (Judgment of the 7ewish Church, p. 67) will have it that a it was written by a Jew of Egypt, under Ptolemy Philopator, i. e., about 200 B. C. ;' whilst Grimm places it about 39 or 40 A. D.
5. Canonicity of the Book.-Like the other Apo crypha, this book was never part of the Jewish canon. In the Apostolic canons, however, which are assigned to the 3d century, it is considered as sacred writing (Can. 85) ; Theodoret, too (died circa A.D. 457), quotes it as such (in Dan. xi. 7). Still it was never accepted in the Western Churches, formed no part of the Roman Vulgate, and was therefore not received into the canon of the Catholic Church, nor inserted as a rubric in the Apocrypha contained in the translations of the Bible made by the Reformers.
6. Versions and Literature.-The Greek is con tained in the Alexandrian and Vatican MSS., and is given in Valpy's' ed. of the Sept. The oldest version of it is the Syriac, which is very free, and full of mistakes ; it is given in the London ?oly glott, and has lately been published by De Lagarde, Libri Veteris Testamenti Apocryphi, London 1861. The first Latin version of it is given in the Complu tensian Polyglott ; another Latin version, by F. No bilius, is given in the London Polyglott ; the first German translation, as far as we can trace it, is given in the Zurich Bible printed by Froschover, 1531 ; another, by Joach. Ciremberger, appeared in Wittenberg 1554; De Wette in the first edition of his translation of the Bible, made conjointly with Augusti (1809.14), also gave a version of this book, which is now excluded from his Bible ; and an other German version is given in Gutmann's trans lation of the Apocrypha, Altona 1841. The first English version was put forth by Walter Lynne in 155o, which was appended, with some few altera tions, to the Bible printed by John Daye, 1551 ; and reprinted separately in 1563; a new and better version, with some notes, was published by Whis ton, Authentic Records, London 1727, vol. i., p. 162-208; a third version, made by Crutwell, is the Bible with Bp. Wilson's notes, Bath 1785 ; and a fourth version, with brief but useful notes, was made by Cotton, The Five Books of Maccabees, Ox ford 1832. Of exegetical helps are to be men tinned, Eichhorn, Einleitung in d. apokr. Schriften d. A. T., Leipzig 1795, p. 278.289 ; Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, voL iv., p. 535, ff. ; Herzfeld, Gesc/eichte d. Volkes Israel, vol. i., p. 457, etc.; Graetz, Geschichte der yuden, vol. al ed., Leipzig 1863, p. 444, etc. ; Gaab, Hand buch zion philologischsn Verstehen der apokty phischen Schrefien d. A. T., vol. ii., Tiibingen 1818, p. 614, ff. ; and especially Grimm, Kurzge fasstes exegetisches Hana'buch an den Apokryphese d. A. T., Leipzig 1857, p. 213, ff.-C. D. G.