Book One: On the Sacred and Apocryphal Books
Chapter Fifteen: On the Books of the Maccabees
The books of the Maccabees have a testimony in addition to the common testimonies, and are brought forward with honor by St. Cyprian in his book on Exhortation to Martyrdom ch.11, by St. Gregory Nazianzen in his oration on the Maccabees, by St. Ambrose in bk.2 on Jacob chs.10-‐12, and by others passim. The same books are called divine Scripture in expressive words by St. Cyprian bk.1 epist.3 to Cornelius, and by Isidore Etymologies bk.6 ch.1, and St. Augustine (to whom Calvin often attributes much authority) in City of God bk.18 ch.36 says, “The books of the Maccabees are held as canonical not by the Jews but by the Church”. And in bk.2 ch.23 Against the Epistles of Gaudentius he carefully defends the authority of the same books, calling them holy Scripture. But let us look at the arguments of the adversaries.
First Calvin objects Institutes bk.3 ch.5 sect.8 that the author of these books praises the preposterous zeal and superstitious deed of Judas Maccabaeus who ordered sacrificed to be offered for the dead, Maccabees bk.2 ch.12. For besides its being superstitious to pray for any of the dead, he adds also that those for whom Judas bids prayers to be said had died guilty of mortal crime, for whom not even Catholics say one should pray. And that they did thus die is plain for, as is said in the same place, there were found under the clothes of all the dead certain things from offerings to idols against the prohibition of the Lord that is contained in Deuteronomy 7.
I reply: to pray for the dead whom it is not certain are in heaven, or in hell, is pious and religious, as we will show in its place; now it is enough to oppose to Calvin Augustine who from this very place proves that it is pious to pray for the dead, in epist.61 to Dulcitius, bk.1 on the Morals of the Church ch.23, and in book for the Care of the Dead ch.1. Therefore there is so much difference between the spirit of Augustine and Calvin that Augustine, because he believes the books of the Maccabees to be canonical, collects therefrom that it is good to pray for the dead; while Calvin, because he thinks it evil to pray for the dead, deduces therefrom that the books of the Maccabees are not canonical. But as to the objection that is made I reply that Judas piously reckoned that they, in the moment of death, had conceived sorrow for their sin before God, and had found mercy with God, which is signified by the words, “Because he considered that those who had with piety accepted dormition, would have the best grace placed on them”.
Secondly Calvin objects in his Antidote to the Council that the author of this book cannot be held to be canonical, since in bk.2 last chapter he asks pardon for errors. Add that in ch.2 he says, “And for us ourselves, who undertook this work for the sake of brevity, have assumed no light labor, nay rather a business full of vigils and sweat”. By which words he indicates that he composed this book in the human manner. For authors truly sacred wrote not by their genius and labor but by the revelation of the Holy Spirit, as is plain from Jerome 36 on Jeremiah who dictated with very great ease to his secretary Baruch what things God was revealing to him, so that he seemed to be reading from some book.
I reply that God indeed is the author of all the divine Scriptures, but yet he is wont to be present in one way to Prophets, in another way to others, especially to historians. For to Prophets he revealed future things and he assisted them at the same time from adding anything false in their writing, and therefore Prophets had no other labor than that of writing or dictating; but to other writers God did not always reveal the things that they were to write, but excited them to write those things they had seen or heard which they remembered, and at the same time he assisted them from writing anything false; which assistance did not bring it about that they did not labor in thinking and seeking what and how they should write.
Wherefore St. Luke in his preface to the Gospel he wrote gives witness that he pursued all things diligently that pertained to the writing of the Gospel, and that from those who themselves heard and saw and were ministers of the word. But as to what concerns pardon, this author [of Maccabees] did not seek pardon for errors, since indeed he made none, but for the lack of polish of his words, the way that even Blessed Paul confesses, 2 Corinthians ch.11, that he is unskilled in speech.
A third objection from others is that in Maccabees bk.2 ch.1 it is said, “When our fathers were led away captive to Persia”, but it is certain that the Jews were not led captive to Persia but to Babylon; the author of this book therefore is not narrating a true history. There are some who labor mightily to show when the Jews were led captive to Persia, but I think the thing is very easy. For the author of this book calls Persia not only the region which is properly called Persia but also the other ones bordering on it; this is plain from Maccabees bk.1 ch.6 where a messenger, who came to Babylon to Antiochus, is said to have come to him in Persia. Nor is this way of speaking foreign to other writers, since Chrysostom Homily 6 on Matthew says that the Jews were liberated from the Persian captivity.
A fourth objection is that in Maccabees bk.2 ch.2 it is said that when Jerusalem and the temple were ransacked and burnt by the Chaldeans Jeremiah hid the tabernacle and the arc of the covenant in a certain cave on mount Nebo, and he said that the place would be hidden until God would again gather his people. But this contains two falsehoods. One that Jeremiah did it, for before the city was taken by the Chaldeans Jeremiah was always in prison and was hated by almost all in Jerusalem, as is said in Jeremiah chs.37-‐38, wherefore neither could he do it by himself or by others; but after the city was captured the Chaldeans broke up everything, as is said in 4 Kings last chapter, and therefore nothing remained for Jeremiah to be able to hide. The other falsehood is that when they returned from captivity they were to have the arc and the tabernacle; for they never had it afterwards.
I reply that it could very well have been done, and before the spoliation of the city and temple (as Epiphanius thinks in his Life of Jeremiah), and even afterwards, as others wish. Before indeed, not in the time of Zedekiah but in that of Joachim. For Nabuchodonosor came three times to Judea and took captive thence the king and the people. First in the time of Joachim, as is said in 2 Chronicles last chapter. Second in the time of Joachim, as is said in 4 Kings ch.24, and third in the time of Zedekiah, 4 Kings ch.25. But although at the time of Zedekiah Jeremiah was almost always in prison and hated by all, yet in the time of Joachim he was free and of great authority, so that it is credible that on his persuasion Joachim gave himself of his own accord to the king of Babylon. For it is clear that Jeremiah persuaded this, Jeremiah ch.27, and it is also clear that Joachim did it, Jeremiah ch.29. He could then, with the consent of the king, carry away the arc and the tabernacle. He could also have done it after the city was captured; for Jeremiah was made much of by Nabuchodonosor, as is plain in Jeremiah ch.39. But that the arc and the tabernacle were not taken away by the soldiers who pillaged the city of Jerusalem is sufficiently plain from Jeremiah ch.52, where are numbered all the things that the Chaldeans took away from the temple of the Lord, right up to the phials and the mortars; and no mention is made of the arc and the tabernacle. But neither is the other thing a falsehood that the arc was again to be found when the people were congregated again. For Jeremiah did not speak of the congregation that was at the time of Cyrus, but either of the very last time, which will next precede the day of judgment, as Epiphanius wishes in his Life of Jeremiah, or it is to be mystically understood, that the arc will reappear, that is, that Christ will come in the flesh in a new congregation of the people, as Rupert expounds bk.10 on the Victory of the Word ch.21.
A fifth objection is that in Maccabees bk.1 ch.1 Alexander the Great is said to have first ruled in Greece, and this seems false, since Alexander was not first but before him there were many kings of the Spartans, of the Macedonians, of the Corinthians, of the Athenians, etc., as is plain from the Chronicle of Eusebius. Besides it is said in the same place that Antiochus Epiphanes reigned in the 137th year of the kingdom of the Greeks, although however it is plain from the same Eusebius that Antiochus reigned in the 156th year. For so many are the years from the first year of the monarchy of the Greeks up to the Antiochus.
Finally in bk.1 ch.8 the Romans are said each year to commit their magistracy to one man, and that all obey one man; but this is false, for two consuls were created at that time.
I reply that when Scripture says that Alexander reigned first in Greece it is speaking not of any kingdom but of the monarchy of the Greeks; and when it says that Antiochus Epiphanes reigned in the 137th year of the reign of the Greeks, it is not numbering the years from Alexander but from Seleucus, who first reigned in Syria after Alexander, as Eusebius advises in his Chronicle. For because Judea was part of Syria, the Jews numbered the years from the first king of Syria, and from Seleucus to Antiochus there are 137 years, to which, if you add 19 years, which are from Alexander to Seleucus, there will be 156 years. But to the point about the Romans I reply that mention is made of only one consul, because it was the custom of the Romans that the consuls would command on alternate days. Evidence for this can be the unhappy result of the battle of Cannae, the cause of which was the rashness of the other consul, with whom on that day the command was. Therefore although there were two consuls, yet to one of them did the Republic seem to have been committed.
And this was instituted from the first beginning of the consular dignity, namely lest (as Livy says bk.2), if two consuls commanded at the same time, the expulsion of the kings would not seem to have removed terror but doubled it.
The sixth objection is that in Maccabees bk.1 ch.4 Judas is said to have purged the temple in the 148th year, that is, one year before the death of Antiochus, who died in the 149th year as is said in Maccabees bk.1. But this opposes Maccabees bk.2 ch.10 where it is said that Judas purged the temple two years after the death of Antiochus. Besides in bk.1 ch.6 Antiochus Epiphanes is said to have died in Babylon in his bed, through grief of soul, because his affairs had not succeeded as he had wanted; but in bk.2 ch.1 it is said he was slain limb from limb with many of his men in the temple of Nannes; and again in bk.2 ch.9 it is said he died with pain in his internal organs, because he fell from the chariot on the journey. Finally bk.2 ch.9 Judas is said to have died in the year 152, but in bk.2 ch.1 he is said to have written a letter in the year 188 which, if it were true, he would have written it in the 36th year after his death. Since all these things badly cohere with each other, they provide manifest signs of falsehood.
In order to reply to the first part of this argument Sixtus Senensis writes in bk.8 of the Sacred Library that the purgation of the temple was done twice; but this seems neither to be true, nor to be necessary to solve the argument. And indeed that it is not true is sufficiently indicated by Scripture since everything it reports about this purgation in one place it reports also in the other. That it is not necessary is proved from this that when one purgation alone is posited there is still in this book no repugnance in either place. For although the purgation of the temple in bk.1 ch.4 is narrated before the death of Antiochus and in bk.2 ch.10 it is narrated after the death of Antiochus, yet in the latter place, while it is narrated after the death of Antiochus, yet it does not assert that it was done after the death of Antiochus. For the author wanted to finish what he was going to say about Antiochus, and then finally to return to Judas and the purgation of the temple. And as to its being said to have been done after two years, this does not signify two years after the death of Antiochus, but two years after the profanation. For the temple was profaned in the year 145, as is said in bk.1 ch.1, and after the end of two years in the 148th year it was purged, as is said in bk.1 ch.5. Wherefore rightly do Eusebius in his Chronicle and Josephus Antiquities bk.12 ch.10 write that the temple was purged in the third year from the profanation, that is, after the end of two years.
As to what concerns the second part of the argument, almost all agree that it is the same Antiochus, namely Epiphanes, whose death is described in bk.1 ch.6 and bk.2 ch.9. For he could during the journey have been seized by internal pains and fall from the chariot, as is said in bk.2 ch.9, and afterwards reach Babylon thus sick and there, with the added pain of soul from the message brought to him about how badly things had gone for his men in Judea, finally die. But about the Antiochus whose death is described in bk.2 ch.1 there is very great question. Some want it to be Antiochus the Great, as Lyranus and certain others do on this place. But this is not possible. For Antiochus the Great died before Judas, who wrote this letter, was leader of the Jews, nor was there any war between the Jews and Antiochus the Great. Others want it to be Antiochus the son of Demetrius, who is also called Triphon or Griphus by Eusebius. So Rupert in bk.20 on the Victory of the Word ch.6. But this is not possible either. For in the time of this Antiochus not Judas but John Hircanus was leader of the Jews, and yet Judas writes the letter. Besides the letter is written to Aristobulus, master of Ptolemy Philometor, who it is clear from Eusebius existed in the time of Judas, that is, long before the time of Antiochus Griphus.
Therefore one must say that this Antiochus is Antiochus Epiphanes, that very man who is treated of in bk.1 ch.6 and bk.2 ch.9. For then Judas was alive, who wrote the letter, and also Aristobulus to whom it was written. Besides he first and supremely among the kings of Syria was enemy of the Jews, so that there was deservedly very great happiness in Judah about this death.
Then as to what is said in bk.2 ch.9 about Antiochus Epiphanes, that he wanted to despoil the temple in Persia and was basely put to flight, agrees completely with what is said of this Antiochus, that he fell in the temple of Nannes and was pierced through and that many of soldiers were cut limb from limb. But it is not necessary to affirm that he died there when it is said that he fell; for he can be said to have fallen since his army was routed and put to flight. Just as in Genesis 14 the king of Sodom is said by divine Scripture to have fallen in battle, and yet a little after he is introduced as living and meeting Abraham. Therefore in this sense is Antiochus said to have fallen, since his army was cut and struck down, and he himself escaped by a base flight, was even perhaps wounded, fell from the chariot on the journey itself, and died a little later.
To the third proof some reply that it was not Judas Maccabaeus but some other Judas who wrote the letter. So Rupert bk.10 on the Victory of the Word ch.15. But this does not seem to be true. For in the 188th year not Judas but John Hircanus was leader of the Jews; nor was there any among the leaders of Jews who was called Judas besides Judas Maccabaeus; nor is it likely that, along with the senate and the people at the head of the letter, some other was named besides the prince. Others want this Judas indeed to be Maccabaeus, but that the years which are put at the beginning of the letter are counted, not in the manner of the Greeks from Seleucus, but in the manner of the Hebrews from the twelfth year of Assuerus, when all the Jews were liberated from slaughter by the work of Esther the queen. So Lyranus and Cardinal Hugo on this place, whom almost all the more recent authors follow. But first it does not seem credible that in these books the years are always counted in the manner of the Greeks save in this one place; second, even when numbering from the twelfth year of Assuerus, one cannot reach the year 188 in the times of Judas Maccabaeus. For Lyranus, whom the rest follow, thus computes, that from the twelfth year of Assuerus up to the end of his reign there are 29 years. To these the 6 are added during which Darius, son of Assuerus, reigned, and they make 35. To which if the 148 are added that are from the beginning of the reign of the Greeks up to Judas, there will be 188 years.
But in this calculation there are three very grave errors. First that from 29 and 6 and 148 are not made 188 but 183, as is plain. Second, that these authors omit the 19 years that are from the beginning of the Monarchy of Alexander up to the reign of Seleucus; for those 148 years of the Greeks, which are counted in Maccabees bk.1 ch.4 up to the victory of Judas, are counted from Seleucus, not from Alexander, as we said above. If therefore you add the 19 years that are from Alexander to Seleucus, all the years from the twelfth year of Assuerus will be 202 and not 188 as the authors themselves wish. The third error is that in this calculation they make Assuerus the penultimate king of the Persians, having followed the fancy of the Jews against the opinion of all the Latins and Greeks. Eusebius in his Chronicle puts three more kings of the Persians after Assuerus; Josephus, whom I followed above, numbers seven kings after Assuerus; from which it follows that from the twelfth year of Assuerus up to Judas not 188 but far more than 200 years flowed by.
Therefore with Melchior Cano and certain others I reckon that the question is to be solved thus, that we should say the words “in the 188th year” are not the beginning of the letter that follows and which Judas wrote, but the end of the preceding letter, which was written by the whole people of the Jews when John Hircanus was leader. This is plainly indicated by the Greek codices, which after the words “in the 188th year” mark a distinct stop. And reason certainly requires it, so that, since those words come between the beginning of one letter and the end of another, and since the number of years is wont to be placed at the end rather than at the beginning, we may refer the words to the preceding letter and not to the following one.
The seventh objection is taken from the fact that the first book of the Maccabees seems to conflict with the Gospel. For in bk.1 ch.1 the author of this book affirms that the prophecy of Daniel about the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place was fulfilled when Antiochus Epiphanes placed an idol in the temple of the Lord. But Christ in Matthew 24 asserts that the prophecy is to be fulfilled in the last days. I reply that in the books of the Maccabees no mention is made of the prophecy of Daniel, but the idol of Antiochus is only called an abominable idol of desolation, as indeed it was.
The last objection that some assert is from the fact that in these letters those seem to be commended who killed themselves, of which sort was Eleazar in bk.1 ch.6 and Razias in bk.2 ch.14. St. Augustine long ago solved this problem in epist.61 to Dulcitius, and in bk.2 Against the Epistle of Gaudentius ch.23, and the sum of the response is that the deaths of these men are told in Scripture but are not praised; or certainly they are not so praised as if what they did they did with piety and holiness, although they did it with bravery and manliness, and in the judgment of men it cannot be denied that they acted bravely.
Robert Bellarmine’s: Controversies of the Christian Faith – Volume 1: On the Word of God — HOME