AJBI Vol. XLVI (2021), 5–38

Dying for God and the Ancestral Laws:
Jewish Identity Formulation
through the Martyrdom Episodes
in the Second Maccabees

Nozomi Sophia MIURA, rscj
Boston College
miuran@bc.edu

Introduction
In the Second Temple period and beyond, the Jewish self-definition underwent a transformation in the wider context of the Greco-Roman world. The diversity of texts during this period exhibits not only an opposition to but also anappropriation and assimilation of “the Other” in terms of the texts’ self-understanding and their rhetorical strategies. The texts of Hellenistic Judaism creatively shaped Judaism in the Second Temple period. Focusing on the relationshipbetween identity formulation and textuality, this paper explores how the narrative text of 2 Maccabees attempts to construct Jewish identity, and especially
how identity formulation and maintenance are described and constructed in themartyrdom of Eleazar (2 Macc 6:18–32) and that of the seven sons and theirmother (7:1–42).

1. The Second Maccabees as a Constructed Text1
Scholarly consensus holds that 2 Maccabees’ composition (formation) had
1

The four books are known as “Maccabees” in the Septuagint (LXX), which we may
5Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute XLVI 2021

a multi-staged development, with its final stage being a reworking of the epitomist.2 Along with the date and provenance of the book,3 historical criticism has
call ‘the Maccabean Corpus.’ The Fifth Maccabees (which was probably originallyin Hebrew and lost) is extant in Arabic and in Syriac. Cf. Henry Cotton, Five Booksof Maccabees (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1832): xxx–xxxiv. Although the
Hebrew Bible includes none of these books, 1 and 2 Maccabees are accepted as thedeuterocanonical books in the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox,
and Coptic Churches. Moreover, Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox Canons include both 3 and 4 Maccabees. Protestant Churches deem all the Maccabean Corpus
Apocrypha. Sometimes, however, 3 and 4 Maccabees are categorized as pseudepigraphas (“falsely superscribed” in Greek). The definition and classification of the Old
Testament pseudepigrapha is devised by scholars. Charlesworth and his team are theforerunners who endeavored to clarify the definition and categorization of these books;
however, the boundary between Apocrypha and pseudepigraphas is not clearly drawn.
Regarding 1 and 2 Maccabees, 2 Macc was probably written in Greek, whereas
1 Macc was originally in Hebrew (which is not extant) and translated into Greek. 2
Maccabees, however, is not a sequel to 1 Macc, although 2 Macc covers approximately
the same events and period of time (=1 Macc 1:10–7:50). Further, 2 Macc 2:23–28
articulates that it is an abridgement of a five-volume work by the author, Jason ofCyrene, about whom we know nothing except his name, and this five-volume work is
no longer extant. Thus, the author of 2 Macc is called the “epitomist” (or the “abridger”). Many scholars postulate that, in terms of historicity, 2 Macc is less trustworthy
than 1 Macc, but this view is questioned by contemporary scholars. Cf. John J. Collins,
Daniel, 1–2 Maccabees; with Excursus on the Apocalyptic Genre, OTM 15 (Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazer, Ins., 1981), 263–264; Robert Doran, 2 Maccabees: A
Critical Commentary (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2012), 14–16; Jonathan A.
Goldstein, II Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB
41B (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1983), 3–5;
2

Jonathan A. Goldstein, I Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 41 (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1976), 545–
557; Klaus D. Schunck, Die Quellen des I. und II. Makkabäerbuches (Halle: Niemeyer, 1954), 99. Cf. David S. Williams, “Recent Research in 2 Maccabees,” CBR 2.1(2003, 69–83).

3

The majority of scholars date 2 Macc between 124 BCE and 63 BCE (Pompey’s invasion to Jerusalem), with its composition probably taking place in a Diaspora locale
6

N. S. MIURA, rscj: Dying for God and the Ancestral Laws

focused on the chronological issues of 1 and 2 Maccabees,4 historical sources,5and the relationship between the letters (2 Macc 1:1–9; 1:10–2:18) and the epitome.6 Recent scholarship features the structure of the epitome (i.e., the narrative
section and the epilogue; cf. Table 1).7 Yet, the literary aspects of 2 Macc havenot been fully explored: to my knowledge, Himmelfarb provides the first such

(e.g., Alexandria). Cf. Goldstein, II Maccabees; H. Attridge, “2 Maccabees,” in Jewish
Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. M. E. Stone, CRINT (Philadelphia: FortressPress, 1984); J. R. Bartlett, The First and Second Books of the Maccabees, Cambridge
Bible Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973); C. Habicht, “2Makkabäerbuch,” JSHRZ 1.3 (1976, 165–285); Collins, Daniel, 1–2 Maccabees; W.
Dommershausen, 1 Makkabäer [und] 2 Makkabäer (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1985);
Daniel R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, CEJL (Berlin/ New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008);
Doran, 2 Maccabees: A Critical Commentary.
45

Bartlett, The First and Second Books of the Maccabees, 45–49.
Goldstein, I Maccabees, 90–103; idem, II Maccabees, 37–41; Schunck, Die Quellen
des I. und II. Makkabäerbuches, 116–126; J. G. Bunge, Untersuchungen zum Zweiten
Makkabäerbuch: Quellenkritische, literarische, chronologische, und historische Untersuchungen zum 2. Makkabāerbuch als Quelle Syrisch-palästinensischer Geschichte
im 2.Jh.V. Chr. (diss. phil. Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, 1971),
206–263. See also footnote 22.

6

Elias Bickermann, “Ein jüdischer Festbrief vom Jahre 124 v. Chr. (II Macc. 1: 1–9),”
ZNW 32 (1933, 233–253); idem, “Makkabäerbucher (I. und II.), in Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 14 (Munich: A. Druckenmüller,1980), 779–797; V. Parker, “The Letters in II Maccabees: Reflections on the Book’s
Composition,” ZAW 119 (2007, 386–402); Doran, 2 Maccabees, 1–3; J. Sievers, The
Hasmoneans and Their Supporters: From Mattathias and the Death of John Hyrcanus
I (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990), 4ff.

7

George E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), 118; Robert Doran, Temple Propaganda: The Purpose
and Character of 2 Maccabees, CBQMS 12 (Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical
Association, 1981), 47–76; idem, 2 Maccabees, 11–13; Jan Willen van Henten, The
Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People: A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees(Leiden/New York/ Köln: Brill, 1997), 25–26.
7

Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute XLVI 2021

study, focusing on the book’s rhetorical strategies and characterization.8 Despite
current scholarly attention to martyrdom narrative, surprisingly few studies havetaken up the martyrdom narrative in 2 Macc; the study of Doran and van Henten
remain the landmark in this area.9
1.1. Narrative Structure of The Second Maccabees
The Second Maccabees is a type of

Narrative Structure of 2 Macc

historiography, but it is characterized as (1) the introductory letters (1:1–2:18)
pathetic history with its own ideological (2) the preface (2:19–32)
perspectives on the events; the epitomist (3) the narrative section (3:1–14: 46)“strove to entertain his reader by playing(4) the epilogue (15: 37–39)

strongly upon the emotions [Gk. pathos], with vivid portrayals of atrocities andheroism and rhetoric.”10 The epitomist comments and articulates his perspectives
on this work in the preface (2:19–32) and the epilogue (15:37–39).11 Furthermore, 2 Macc has a number of reflective passages — that is, “short interludes inwhich the events which have just been recounted are summarized and interpreted
8

Martha Himmelfarb, “Judaism and Hellenism in 2 Maccabees,” Poetics Today
19 (1998, 19–40). Recent commentaries examine 2 Maccabees’ literal aspect. Cf.
Schwartz, 2 Maccabees; Doran, 2 Maccabees.

9

Doran, Temple Propaganda; van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of theJewish People. Van Henten refers to a “dislike” among Jewish scholars/readers of martyrs and martyrdom in the post-Shoah world, especially along with Christian interests
in Maccabean martyrs; “Many Jewish readers have developed a dislike for the reportsof these noble deaths, since associations with the horrible and unnumbered deaths ofJews during the Second World War are obvious.” Cf. van Henten, The Maccabean
Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People, 2.

10 Jonathan A. Goldstein, I Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 41A (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1976), 34.
11 Collins, Daniel, 1–2 Maccabees, 259–260; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the
Bible and the Mishnah, 118.
8

N. S. MIURA, rscj: Dying for God and the Ancestral Laws

from a religious or moral point of view” (3:1; 4:16–17, 26, 38, 42; 5:10, 17–20;
6:12–17, 31; 7:42; 15:32–33).12 These passages reveal Deuteronomic theology.13
Scholars agree that these reflective passages demonstrate the epitomist’s ideological perspectives on the events, through which he tries to promote certain values and identity formulations.14 The epitomist himself calls the narrative sectionof 2 Macc 3–14 dihvghsi~ (2:32; 6:17; cf. iJstoriva~ dihvghsi~, 2:24, 30, 32[x2]);
12 van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People, 25; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah, 118.
13 George E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah, 118;
Schwartz, 2 Maccabees (2008), 20–21; van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs, 23–36.
With regard to the structure of 2 Maccabees, there is little consensus on the structure of the narrative section; however, many scholars point out that 2 Macc has arepeated narrative pattern. According to George E. Nickelsburg, 2 Macc follows theDeuteronomistic pattern as follows: (1) blessing: the priesthood of Onias (3:1–40),(2) sin: the innovations of Jason and Menelaus (4:1–5:10), (3) punishment: the persecution by Antiochus IV (5:11–6:17), (4) the turning point: the martyrdoms and thepeople’s prayer (6:18–8:4), (5) judgment and salvation: God brings about victory for
the People. On the other hand, grounded in Daniel Schwartz’s four divisions of the narrative body (Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, xx), Robert Doran postulates a different pattern— namely, “challenge to the deity, battle, victory of the deity, celebration concerning
the temple”(Doran, 2 Maccabees, 7), which is certainly pervasive in the Hebrew Bible(e.g., the Exodus story). Cf. Frank M. Cross, “The Divine Warrior in Israel’s Early
Cult,” in Biblical Motifs: Origins and Transformations, ed. Alexander Altmann (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966, 11–30); Patrick D. Miller, The Divine
Warrior in Early Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973); Paul D.
Hanson, “Jewish Apocalyptic against Its Near Eastern Environment,” RB 78 (1971,
31–58); idem, Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish
Apocalyptic Eschatology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979).
14 For the relationship between text and identity-formulation, see the following: Judith
M. Lieu, Christian Identity in the Jewish and Greco-Roman World (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2004), 27–61; eadem, Image and Reality: the Jews in the World of
the Christians in the Second Century (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986); eadem, Neither
Jew Nor Greek? Constructing Early Christianity, second edition (London/New York:
Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016).
9

Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute XLVI 2021

he is aware of the distinction between the body of the narrative (abridgement of
Jason’s work) and his reflective passages.15 In this sense, the reflective passages
are extradiegetic, to which the internal level of narrative (= diēgēsis) subordinates.16 Thus, the epitomist is not simply trying to describe history — “a written
account of certain events.”17 Van Henten claims that the epitomist “did not focus
on an accurate reproduction of the events, but on the significance of these crucial events of the past for contemporary Jewish politics, religion, morality andself-understanding”18; he also presents other examples of this type of “historical narrative.”19 The epitomist is trying to present an ideological construct for
identity-formulation through his abridgement text.
The martyrdom episodes in 2 Macc are located in the middle of the book. 1
Macc has no such episodes.20 The epitomist carefully inlays these episodes in his
abridgement. In this sense, the martyrdom episodes play an important role in theepitomist’s rhetorical strategy. Therefore, with these martyrdom episodes, alongwith the preface, epilogue, and the reflective passages, the epitomist reconstructs
Jason’s five-volume work and constructs an ideological text for the formulationof Jewish identity. Given that, some scholars question whether the designation of
15 Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 285.
16 Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan, Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics (New York:
Methuen, 1983), 91. Cf. Gérard Genette, Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method,trans. J. E. Lewin (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1980), 216–220; Mieke Bal,
Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative, trans. C. van Boheevan (Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1985), 135.
17 Van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs, 20.
18 Van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs, 25. The bracket ( ) is mine.
19 E.g., Polybius 1.1.2; 1.4.11; Cicero, De Orat, 1.46. 202; Seneca, Quaest. Nat, 3. ; Josephus, Antiq. 14:2–3; Lucian, Hist. Constr. 13; 39; 42; 61; 63, et al. Van Henten, The
Maccabean Martyrs, 25, footnote 25. Also, Doran, Temple Propaganda, 79; idem, 2Maccabees, 8; Collins, Daniel, 1–2 Maccabees, 263–264.
20 1 Macc 2:19–38 could be comparable to the martyrdom episodes. See the argument
below.
10

N. S. MIURA, rscj: Dying for God and the Ancestral Laws

“the epitomist” (the abridger) is appropriate for this writer.21
The Second Maccabees recounts three martyrdom episodes; the martyrdom of Eleazar (6:18–31), the martyrdom of the seven sons and their mother(7:1–42), and the suicidal martyrdom of Razis (14:37–46). Scholarly opinions inhistorical criticism concur that the martyrdom episodes in 6:18–31 and 7 derivefrom one or two independent sources.22 Nickelsburg discusses the developmentof the traditions of 2 Macc 7, proposing two possible sources for this episode —Test. Mos. 9 (the death of Taxo and his seven sons) and 1 Macc 2:15–28, 49–68.23
Both texts also exhibit a Deuteronomic scheme, interpreting Deut 32.24 Just like
21 Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 20–21; van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs, 20.
22 Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah, 119–121; idem,
Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early
Christianity, expanded edition (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Divinity School, 2007),
124–130; Christian Habicht, “Royal Documents in Maccabees II,” Harvard Studies inClassical Philology 80 (1976, 1–18); Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 20–24; Van Henten, The
Maccabean Martyrs, 17–18; Goldstein, II Maccabees, 50–51.
Van Henten recapitulates the reasons for this scholarly view: (1) both episodes
appear in 4 Macc, (2) the episode of 2 Macc 7 is also taken up in rabbinic literature(e.g., b. Git. 57b), (3) theological differences between 2 Macc 6:18–7:42 — such as theconcept of atonement and (arguably) the usage of ÔEbrai'oi vis-à-vis ∆Ioudai'oi, (4) the
prominence of the law in 6:18–7:42, (5) the lack of focus on the temple in 6:18–7:42,(6) 2 Macc 5:27 (a reference to Judas Maccabeus) and 6:11 naturally link to 8:1, and(7) a relatively poor Greek style in 7 (compared with other sections) as well as its
Semiticism. Van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs, 17–18. Cf. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees(2008), 19; Collins, Daniel, 1–2 Maccabees, 260. Jonathan A. Goldstein, II Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 41A (Garden City,
New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1983), 49. The usage of ÔEbrai'oi is more
conspicuous in 4 Macc.
23 Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaismand Early Christianity, 124–130.
24 “This sinlessness of Taxo and his sons as well as their trust in the Lord at the eschatological hour clearly mark them as the ‘Remnant of Israel’ (cf. Zeph. 3:12–13), that is,as the few who by their steadfastness to the covenant uphold it, thereby ensuring the11Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute XLVI 2021

the death of innocent Taxo and his seven sons, the death of these innocent people
in 2 Macc (cf. 7:40)25 is framed by a Deuteronomic scheme and employed as acatalyst for the change of God’s attitude toward the Jewish people.26
Regardless of the original sources of these episodes, scholars unanimously
agree that the martyrdom episodes in 6:18–7:42 are the centerpiece of 2 Maccabees’ entire narrative, and that they mark the turning point of the narrative.27“Martyrs, rather than soldiers, are the real heroes of the book, and the long central section of the book, Chapter 6–7, dedicated to martyrs, provides the turning
point; after those scenes, and because of the blood of those martyrs (7:38; 8:3–4),
everything changes.”28
In 2 Macc 6:12–17, right before the martyrdom episode of Eleazar, thecontinuation of God’s mercy and the fulfilment of his promises to the patriarchs withregard to Israel (cf. As. Mos. 12:12). Moreover, it is Taxo’s innocence and his morally impeccable descent that give his suffering the atoning effect that the exaltation of‘Israel’ in 10:8–10 implies.” Johannes Tromp, The Assumption of Moses: A Critical
Edition with Commentary (Leiden/New York: Brill, 1993), 223.
25 2 Macc 7:40, kai; ou|to~ ou\n kaqaro;~ methvllaxen pantelw`~ ejpi; tw`Ê kurivw/ pepoiqwv~.
26 2 Macc also illustrates other small episodes of the innocent victims who died for theirpiety: two women who circumcised their babies (6:10) and people who gathered in the
cave and observed the Sabbath day (6:11).
27 Van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs, 27; Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 20–23; Doran, 2Maccabees, 12; idem, Temple Propaganda, 20; Collins, Daniel, 1–2 Maccabees, 260.
28 Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 50. Italic is mine. Cf. Van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs,
57; Collins, 314; Goldstein, II Maccabees, 303. While Schwartz highlights the martyrs are “the real heroes,” I would rather think that the heroes are (1) Onias III, (2)the martyrs, and (3) Judas Maccabeus. Onias III is depicted as the last legitimate andideal high priest, sharply contrasted with Jason and Menelaus (5:15, “a traitor bothto the laws and his country”). The narrative formulates an inclusio by Onias III (3:1
and 15:12) and Jeremiah (2:1–8 and 15:13–15); these figures (the high priest and theprophet) guarantee the holiness of the Jerusalem Temple. Also, 2 Macc focuses on
Judas Maccabeus only, with no reference to Mattathias, which may suggest an antiHasmonean perspective. Judas is illustrated as the soldier and characterized as theleader of Hasideans (14:6), which qualifies him as being pious regarding the laws.
12

N. S. MIURA, rscj: Dying for God and the Ancestral Laws

epitomist elucidates his hermeneutical perspective on the martyrdom episodes
as follows:
ejntug-Now I urge those who read thiscavnonta~ thÊ`de thÊ` bivblw/ mh; sus-

book not to be depressed by suchtevllesqai dia; ta;~ sumforav~, lo-calamities, but to recognize thatgivzesqai de; ta;~ timwriva~ mh; pro;~these punishments were designedo[leqron, ajlla; pro;~ paideivan tou`

not to destroy but to discipline (togevnou~ hJmw`n ei\nai

educate) our people.

Parakalw~

ou\n

tou;~

(6:12)
Clearly, the passage demonstrates a deuteronomic understanding: unfaithfulness
to God and the ancestral laws results in punishments (ta;~ timwriva~). Second
Maccabees 8:5 also enhances this shift (“the wrath of the Lord has turned into
mercy,” th`~ ojrgh`~ tou` kurivou eij~ e[leon trapeivsh~). The last martyr’s prayer isheard (7:38); after the death of martyrs, God acts, helps, and fights for the Jewish
people (9:5; 10:29; 11:8, 10; 12:11, 16; 13:14, 17).
1.2. Identity Formulation in the Second Maccabees: Dying for God andthe Ancestral Laws
In this narrative framework, 2 Maccabees delineates the struggle of the Jewish people to survive the oppression of the foreign tyrant who tried to destroy
Jewish identity. This Jewish identity — being a ∆Ioudai'o~29 — is tied up with
29 ∆Ioudai`o~: 1 Macc [36] 2:23; 4:2; 8:20, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31; 10:23, 25, 29, 33, 34, 36;
11:30, 33, 47, 49, 50, 51; 12:3, 6, 21, 36, 42; 14: 20, 22, 33, 34, 37, 40, 41, 47; 15:1,
2, 17; 2 Macc [54] 1:1 [x2], 7, 10; 3:32; 4:11, 35, 36; 5:23, 25; 6:1, 6, 8; 8:10, 11, 32,
34, 36; 9:4, 7, 15, 17, 18, 19; 10:8, 12, 14, 15, 24, 29; 11:2, 15, 24, 27, 31, 34; 12:1, 3,
8, 17, 30, 40; 13:9, 18, 19, 23; 14:5, 6, 14, 37, 39; 15:2, 12; 3 Macc [27] 1:3, 8; 2:28;
13

Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute XLVI 2021

the Jerusalem Temple, faithfulness to the ancestral laws, and the covenant with
the God. Famously, Robert Doran postulates that 2 Maccabees is “temple propaganda.”30 The entire narrative of 2 Macc is certainly “Temple-oriented,”31 andthis narrative underlines the significance of the Temple, as well as of Jerusalem.
However, 2 Macc 5:19–20 clarifies that the Jewish people are of central importance.32 John J. Collins articulates this point: “As in 1 Maccabees, the Jewish
3:3, 27, 29; 4:2. 17, 21; 5:2, 3, 6, 13, 18, 20, 25, 31, 35, 38, 42, 48; 6:17, 18; 6:30; 7:3,
6, 10; 4 Macc [1] 5:7.
However, ÔEbrai`o~ (Hebrew) is used in the martyrdom episode (2 Macc 7:31;
also, in 11:13; 15:37). As shown above, based on this evidence, scholars argue for thesource theory of the martyrdom episodes (See note 14 above). This self-designation
is more conspicuous in 4 Maccabees (4:11; 5:2; 8:2; 9:6, 18; 17:9). The exception is
4 Macc 5:7, where Antiochus calls the Jewish people ∆Ioudai`oi, which reveals theperspective of and designation to the Jewish people by “the Other.”
Furthermore, there have been substantial disputes about the proper translationof ∆Ioudai`o~. In this paper, however, I prefer the translations “Jew” and “Jewish,” not“Judean,” because some passages indicate a ‘religious’ overtone — while it is anachronistic to refer to ‘religion’ in late antiquity; it points to “ethnicity” — rather than a‘geographical’ overtone (for example, Antiochus IV became a Jew through his conversion [2 Macc 9:17]). It also involves an issue of English translation. Cf. Steve Mason,“Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History,”
Journal for the Study of Judaism 38 (2007): 457–512; Shaye J. D. Cohen, “Judaism
and Jewishness,” in The Jewish Annotated New Testament, ed. Amy-Jill Levine andMarc Zvi Brettler (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 513–514.
30 Doran, Temple Propaganda. His thesis is based on a structural analysis that divides
2 Macc into three major divisions: 3:1–40 (the repulse of Heliodorus), 4:1–10:9 (theprofanation of the Temple and its renewal), and 10:10–15:36 (the defense of the Temple). 2 Macc is structured as a series of attacks on the Temple. Moreover, the introductory letters consolidate the importance of the Temple, and 15:37 concludes that “eversince the city was taken over by the Hebrews it has been their hands.”
31 Doran, Temple Propaganda, 111.
32 2 Macc 5:19–20, 19 ajll∆ ouj dia; to;n tovpon to; e[qno~, ajlla; dia; to; e[qno~ to;n tovpon oJ
kuvrio~ ejxelevxato. 20 diovper kai; aujto;~ oJ tovpo~ summetascw;n tw`n tou` e[qnou~ duspe­
thmavtwn genomevnwn u{steron eujergethmavtwn ejkoinwvnhsen, kai; oJ kataleifqei;~ ejn
14

N. S. MIURA, rscj: Dying for God and the Ancestral Laws

people is of prime importance. The temple is a symbol of the covenant. It sharesin the misfortune and glories of the people. The destiny of the people … is boundup with the covenant, and the people’s fidelity to the law.”33
The central issue in the persecution is the ancestral laws, as opposed to the
newly imposed laws. The Second Maccabees 6:1–11 details the adoption of the
new ways, ÔEllhnismov~, as the cause of “the onslaught of evil” (6:3). However,“Hellenism is not evil in itself; rather, it is bad for Jews because it leads themastray from their proper way of life.”34 Three aspects of this way of life areparticularly prominent in 2 Macc — that is, (1) Sabbath observance (6:6, 11),(2) circumcision (6:10), and (3) Kosher regulations (6:7).35 Yet, the martyrdom
narrative features (3) — food.
The Second Maccabees innovated a new term, ∆Ioudai>smov~ (‘Judaism’).36
thÊ` tou` pantokravtoro~ ojrghÊ` pavlin ejn thÊ` tou` megavlou despovtou katallaghÊ` meta;
pavsh~ dovxh~ ejpanwrqwvqh.
But the Lord did not choose the people on account of the place (=the Temple), but
the place on account of the people. Therefore, the place itself, having shared in thedisasters that befell the people, later shared also the benefactions, and that which wasabandoned in the wrath of the Almighty, was once more restored with all glory when
the great Sovereign was reconciled.
33 Collins, Daniel, 1–2 Maccabees, 264.
34 Martha Himmelfarb, “Judaism and Hellenism in 2 Maccabees,” Poetics Today 19(1998): 27.
35 Robert Doran, “The Persecution of Judeans by Antiochus IV: The Significance of ‘Ancestral Laws’,” in The “Other” in Second Temple Judaism: Essays in Honor of John
J. Collins, ed. Daniel C. Harlow et al. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 2011), 432; John J. Collins, The Invention of Judaism: Torah
and Jewish Identity from Deuteronomy to Paul (Oakland, CA: University of California
Press, 2017), 15–17.
36 ∆Ioudai>smov~: 2 Macc [3] 2:21 (in the preface; for the description of “to those whofought bravely for Judaism” [toi`~ uJpe;r tou` Ioudai>mou` filotivmw~ ajndragaqhvsasin]);
8:1 (for the description of Judas Maccabeus); 14:38 (for the description of Razis); 4
Macc [1] 4:26// ÔEllhnismov~: 2 Macc 4:13.
15

Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute XLVI 2021

∆Ioudai>smov~ is used vis-à-vis ajlofulismov~ (‘foreign ways’ 4:13; 6:24), the latter being paired with ÔEllhnismov~ (‘Hellenism’/ ‘Greek manners’[Goldstein])in 4:13, although the adjective ÔEllhnikov~ appears more often (4:10, 15; 6:9;
11:24; 13:2). Some scholars contend that 2 Macc never juxtaposes Judaism with
Hellenism;37 however, this term had no earlier reference, and 2 Macc probablycoined this term with a new connotation — “the Jewish way.”38 In 4:15, “ancestral honors” (ta;~… patrwv/ou~ tima;~) is an antipode to “Greek glory” (ta~ ÔEllhnika;~ dovxa~). Taking into consideration the same suffix structure (-ismo~ [-ism]),∆Ioudai>smov~ forms an antithesis with ÔEllhnismov~ in 2 Macc.39 Hellenism is a
new threat to Jewish identity.
Both 1 and 2 Maccabees reiterate their being a “∆Ioudai'o~.” As a constructed
text, 2 Macc functions to mark identity; simultaneously, the rhetorical assertionof “the self” (the One) exerts the denial of “the non-self” (the Other).40 1 Macc
37 Eric S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition, Hellenistic Culture and Society 30( Berkeley: University of Califonia Press, 1998), 3–4;
Y. Amir, Studien zum antiken Judentum, BEATAJ 2 (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1985),
101–113.
38 Goldstein points out that the term ÔEllhnismov~, although it was “used earlier to mean‘use of a pure Greek style or idiom’ …, but this (2 Macc 4:13) is the earliest known
occurrence of the word in the extended sense of ‘Greek culture,’ as in the modern
term ‘Hellenism.’” (230). Also, this word was a Greek invention during the Persian
War (492–449 BCE) and meant “to be loyal to the Greek cause” as an antithesis to“Medism” (Mhdismov~), which means to be loyal to the Persian cause. Goldstein alsopresumes that the epitomist was familiar with this antithetical use of the term, ÔEllhnismov~. Goldstein, II Maccabees, 230.
39 Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 173, 224; Doran, 2 Maccabees, 67; Goldstein, II Maccabees,
192, 230; Himmelfarb, “Judaism and Hellenism in 2 Maccabees,” 27–28; M. Hengel,
Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period, vol. 1 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), 1–2.
40 Lieu, Neither Jew Nor Greek, 209. “All identity is, … , about exclusion; the erectionof boundaries against ‘the other,’ and so at the same time the labelling, the rhetoricalconstruction of, the other” (209).
16

N. S. MIURA, rscj: Dying for God and the Ancestral Laws

employs a relatively simple binary opposition of the Jew and the non-Jew; for
1 Maccabees, non-Jews are straightforwardly “evil” (1 Macc 1:9–10), and thus,
the Other. For 2 Maccabees, however, it is not that simple.
The First Maccabee’s binary opposition involves Jews and non-Jews, orgood people and evil people, which is somewhat similar to Bickerman’s classic dichotomy between Israel and the nations. For 1 Macc, it is impossible tobe a Jew and evil, or a non-Jew and good. Contrastingly, in 2 Macc, “these twopairs of criteria should yield four types of people (good Jews and bad Jews,
good non-Jews and bad non-Jews),”41 and there are crossings of the four types.
Simply put, in 2 Macc, the Other is Hellenizers (=bad Jews), whereas in 1 Macc
Hellenizers are described in positive terms (1 Macc 1:11; 1:42–42). On the other
hand, 2 Macc presents non-Jews as neutral or basically positive (1 Macc 1:11;
1:41–42); they can be either good or evil. In most cases, however, it is a villainous Jew who causes the evilness of the non-Jews to the fellow Jews, and “[t]his
general exculpation of Gentiles conforms to a major theme of 2 Maccabees andone totally absent from 1 Maccabees, namely the explanation of general Jewish
suffering as a result of general Jewish sinfulness, God having used the Gentiles
as the rod of his anger.”43

41 Schwartz, “The Other in 1 and 2 Maccabees,” 33.
42 The institutionalized Hellenization because of “the impious/abominable” Jason [4:13,
19]; the profanement of the Temple by Antiochus through the aid of Menelaus “thetraitor” [5:15], et al. In 2 Macc, even a non-Jew can become a ∆Ioudai'o~ throughconversion (e.g., Antiochus IV, 2 Macc 9:17; pro~ de; touvtoi~ kai; Ioudai`on e[sesqai
kai; pavnta tovpon oijkhto;n ejpeleuvsesqai kataggevllonta to; tou` qeou` kravto~). In
this sense, 2 Macc demonstrates that being a Jew is not necessarily a result of one’s
birth (ethnicity) but, more importantly, a result of one’s commitment and adherence to
Judaism (even Antiochus!).
43 Daniel R. Schwartz, “The Other in 1 and 2 Maccabees,” in Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity, ed. Graham N. Stanton and Guy G. Stroumsa(Cambridge/ New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 33.
17

Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute XLVI 2021

1 Maccnon-Jews
the Nations

2 MaccJews
Israelgood non-Jews**

good Jews

bad non-Jews

bad Jews**(Hellenizers)** 1 Maccabees does not have these possibilities

In 2 Macc, what makes a ∆Ioudai'o~ is one’s adherence to ∆Ioudai>smov~ — theJewish ways. Reverence to God and the strict observance of the ancestral/fatherly laws (pavtrioi novmoi)44 constitute this Jewish way; these two features are
the two sides of the coin whose inscription (ejikwvn) is ∆Ioudai'o~.
Thus, eujsebhv~ (pious) which expresses the attitude of faithfulness to God
and the ancestral laws is presented as a crucial virtue in 2 Macc. “The adjective
eujsebhv~ expresses the principal virtue in 2 Maccabees and would have been applicable to all persons described positively in the book.”45
In fact, both 1 and 2 Maccabees give prime importance to the defense of
Jewish identity, and thus, they both underline total devotion to the ancestral laws.
However, 1 Macc has one exception for this application. After the tragic massacre of the innocent people on the Sabbath day (1 Macc 2:19–38), Mattathias
and his comrade decided to fight on the Sabbath day (1 Macc 2:41).46 The Second
44 This term, pavtrioi novmoi, is a typical Greek term: “every city had its own pavtrioi
novmoi, and every reader of Greek knew how reprehensible it was to violate or suppress
them.” Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 275. Yet, here lies a seemingly contradictory hybridity to express their ancestral laws in Hellenistic political language. Cf. Himmelfarb,“Judaism and Hellenism in 2 Maccabees,” 19–40.
45 Van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs, 55. In 2 Macc, Onias III is an epitome of eujsevbeia, being contrasted with Jason. See the adjectives used to illustrate the villainsof the narrative: “impious” (ajsebhv~, 4:13 [Jason]; 8:2; 10:10); “abominable” (miarov~,
4:19 [Jason]; 5:16 [Antiochus]; 7:34; 9:13; 15:32 [Nicanor]); “unholy” (ajnovsio~,
7:34; 8:32).
46 1 Macc 2:41, Pa`~ a[nqrwpo~, o}~ eja;n e[lqh/ ejf∆ hJma`~ eij~ povlemon thÊ` hJmevra/ tw`n sabbavtwn, polemhvswmen katevnanti aujtou`
18

N. S. MIURA, rscj: Dying for God and the Ancestral Laws

Maccabees, however, does not admit this exception; rather, 2 Macc insists on fullobedience to the law under any circumstances. Thus, the martyrdom episodes areinevitable consequences of their piety.

2. The Martyrdom Episodes in the Second Maccabees
The martyrdom episodes focus on the Kosher regulations. The speech ofeach martyr encapsulates a theological perspective on one’s death, revealing
what each martyr envisions with respect to death. H.A. Fischel observes thatthe words or vision of a martyr before his/her death present the gist of his/hertheological point. 47
2.1. The Martyrdom of Eleazar (2 Macc 6:18–31)
In the narrative, the death of Eleazar serves as an exemplary model for the
young martyrs to follow. The term uJpovdeigma is repeated (6:28, 31). Eleazar
himself, being an elderly and prominent scribe (6:18), determined to set an example for the young people (6:28).48 The epitomist underscores that Eleazar’s
paradigmatic death is “an example of nobility and a memorial of virtue, not only
to the youth but also to the multitude of his people” (6:31).49 Indeed, the followLet us fight against him, if anyone comes to attack us on the Sabbath day.
47 H.A. Fischel, “Martyr and Prophet (A Study of Jewish Literature),” JQR 37 (1947,
265–280). Cf. Jan Willen van Henten and Friedrich Avemarie, Martyrdom and Noble
Death: Selected Texts from Greco-Roman, Jewish and Christian Antiquity (New York:
Routledge, 2002), 26–27.
48 2 Macc 6:28, toi`~ de; nevoi~ uJpovdeigma gennai`on kataleloipw;~ eij~ to; proquvmw~ kai;gennaivw~ uJpe;r tw`n semnw`n kai; aJgivwn novmwn ajpeuqanativzein. tosau`ta de; eijpw;nejpi; to; tuvmpanon eujqevw~ h\lqen.
49 2 Macc 6:31, kai; ... ouj movnon toi`~ nevoi~, ajlla; kai; toi`~ pleivstoi~ tou` e[qnou~ to;neJautou` qavnaton uJpovdeigma gennaiovthto~ kai; mnhmovsunon ajreth`~ katalipwvn.
19

Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute XLVI 2021

ing episode of the martyrdom in 7:1–41 “focuses on youth and on a woman andthus allows Jews of all ages and both sexes to share in martyrdom.”50... ma`llon de; th`~ aJgiva~ kai; qeo­

…yet rather, of [worthy of] thektivstou nomoqesiva~ ajkolouvqw~

holy and divine-established legis-

ajpefhvnato tacevw~ levgwn propevm­

lation, accordingly, he declared im-pein eij~ to;n a{/dhn

mediately to send (him) to Hades.

(6:23)Eleazar, refusing the swine flesh (non-Kosher food, cf. Lev 11:2–8; 17:10–
12),

51

prefers “death in good reputation” (v.19, to;n met∆ eujkleiva~ qavnaton)and to die for “the holy and divine-established legislation” (v.23, th`~ aJgiva~ kai;qeoktivstou nomoqesiva~). In 6:31, Eleazar is depicted as an “example of nobility” (uJpovdeigma gennaiovthto~). The Second Maccabees evinces the characteristic usage of gennai`o~ and its cognate words.52 The book employs gennai`o~
to delineate “courage in the face of force, whether of tortures or an opposing
army.”53 Himmelfarb observes that these derivatives in 2 Macc represent an ap50 Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 298.
51 However, 2 Macc emphasizes that Eleazar refused not simply to consume the swineflesh but to pretend (uJpokriqh`nai) to consume it (2 Macc 6:21, 24. cf. 4 Macc 6:15,
17). This passage harks back to 2 Macc 5:25, where the Mysarch Apollonius “pretended to be peaceful” in Jerusalem on the Sabbath day, and massacred the multitude treacherously. In terms of moral virtue, “simple-mindedness” is underlined. Cf.
divyuco~, Jas 1:8; 4:8; Hermas Comm IX, 1:6.
52 Cf. ‘noble’; 6:28; 7:21; 12:42; ‘nobly’; 6:28; 7:5 [the mother and sons], 11; 8:16 [Judas]; 13:14; 14:31, 43; 15:17), and eujgenw`~. (‘noble-bornly’; 14:42 [Razis]. Rasiz isalso described as “prefer(ing) to die noble-bornly” and “of noble birth.” Cf. 2 Macc
14:42: eujgenw`~ qevlwn ajpoqanei`n h[per toi`~ ajlithrivoi~ uJpoceivrio~ genevsqai kai;th`~ ijdiva~ eujgeneiva~ ajnaxivw~ uJbrisqh`nai.
53 Martha Himmelfarb, “Judaism and Hellenism in 2 Maccabees,” Poetics Today 19(1998): 34.
20

N. S. MIURA, rscj: Dying for God and the Ancestral Laws

propriation of Greek values.54 In fact, a “Noble death” is a popular topos in classic Greek literature — its well-known example is Socrates, as is well represented
in Eleazar’s case.55 Although Eleazar’s case is not exactly a trial scene, his lastwords invoke God as his witness — God being the foundation of truth (TwÊ` kurivw/twÊ` th;n aJgivan gnw`sin e[conti). Himmelfarb points out the irony of 2 Maccabees;“despite its claim of opposition between Judaism and Hellenism, 2 Maccabees
embodies a far more complex relationship between the two cultures in which thedefining features of Hellenism undergo a transformation that makes them central
aspect of Hellenism.”56
In Jewish tradition, Hades (a{/dh~) — the LXX translation of Sheol (lwav) —is the underworld, where the deceased people become “shadowy existence” (Gen37:35; 1 Kings 2:6; Ps 88:10–12; Job 3:13–19; 17:16).57 In this context, Deut
32:22 [LXX] may be indicated. Jewish literature in the Second Temple period
describes Sheol as the land of shadow and oblivion (Cf. 1 Enoch 102:6–8, 11; 2
Bar 10:6–12:4; Prov 7:27), which is more or less similar to the Greek tradition ofHades. Sometimes, Sheol refers to a chamber of the dead until judgment (2 Bar
36:11). The Jewish character of Hades is its relation to judgment and postmortem punishment. The Second Maccabees 6:23 gives the impression that Eleazar
shares the postmortem worldview shared by the Jewish people, although the lastwords of Eleazar, the focal point of the narrative, brings about a new perspective.
TwÊ' kurivw/ twÊ' th;n aJgivan gnw`sin

To the Lord who possesses holye[conti fanerovn ejstin o{ti dunav-

knowledge, it is clear that, thoughmeno~ ajpoluqh`nai tou` qanavtou

I could have been released from54 Himmelfarb, “Judaism and Hellenism in 2 Maccabees,” 33–35.
55 Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 290; Doran, 2 Maccabees, 154. Himmelfarb, “Judaism andHellenism in 2 Maccabees,” 19–40.
56 Himmelfarb, “Judaism and Hellenism in 2 Maccabees,” 35.
57 Van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs, 172; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 178, 307 (cf. Tob 13:2).
21

Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute XLVI 2021

sklhra;~ uJpofevrw kata; to; sw`madeath, I endure these severe suffer-ajlghdovna~ mastigouvmeno~, kata;ings in my body, but suffer themyuch;n de; hJdevw~ dia; to;n aujtou` fov-gladly in soul because of the fear

bon tau`ta pavscw

of him.

(6:30)In Doran’s interpretation, this phrase points to immortality in the light of Wis
3:1–4. Yet, it would be an overstatement, although he rightly suggests that Eleazar’s speech indicates a more Hellenistic view of postmortem reality.58 Certainly,
2 Macc uses the term “body and soul” (sw`ma kai; yuchv), which is a typicalGreek usage. This expression is conspicuous in 2 Macc, especially in the context
of martyrdom and faithfulness to the ancestral laws (6:30; 7:37; 14:38; 15:30).
Through this juxtaposition, however, 2 Macc features the unity between sw`ma
and yuchv (cf. 3:16);59 thus, 2 Macc differs from Wisdom of Solomon (cf. Wis
9:15), which assumes “sōma sēma” (cf. Plato, Crat. 400c; Phaedo 62b).
Although Eleazar refers to some kind of afterlife, his martyrdom lacks areference to resurrection or immortality; he died for “for the revered and holylaws” (v.28, uJpe;r tw`n semnw`n kai; aJgivwn novmwn). And here lies the gravity of
his “noble death;” it is and should be independent from the hope of an afterlife.
Eleazar’s death points to the crucial point of human dignity — namely, human
58 Doran, 2 Maccabees, 154–155. “Whereas earlier Eleazar had been ready to be escorted
to Hades, to the shadowy underworld, the introduction of the body-soul distinction
seems to reflect a worldview akin to that of Wis 3:1–4: The souls of the righteous arein the hand of God, and no torment will ever touch them. … For though in the sightof men, they were punished, their hope is full of immortality.” Eleazar’s distinction
between body and soul thus looks forward to the possibility of a future life.”
59 2 Macc 3:16, h\n de; oJrw`nta th;n tou` ajrcierevw~ ijdevan titrwvskesqai th;n diavnoian:hJ ga;r o[yi~ kai; to; th`~ crova~ parhllagmevnon ejnevfainen th;n kata; yuch;n ajgwnivan:(it pierced the mind to see the high priest’s face, for his appearance and the changes ofcoloration revealed the distress of soul).
22

N. S. MIURA, rscj: Dying for God and the Ancestral Laws

will and the freedom to choose what to believe in and stand for at the cost of
one’s life, and the inability of anyone to violate this commitment or coerce one
to believe or do otherwise. Again, Greek ἀρετή (excellence, virtue) is evidently
an undercurrent of his pious attitude.
2.2. The Martyrdom of the Seven Sons and their Mother (2 Macc 7:1–
42)
The speech of each martyr is summarized below:
the martyr

theological point(s)the first son

ready to die; reference to Deut 32:36, 43

the second sonhope of resurrection

the third sonhope of resurrection of bodythe fourth son

hope of resurrection; no resurrection to Antiochus

the fifth son

no resurrection to Antiochus

the sixth son

death because of the Jewish people

the motherGod the Creator; resurrection as God’s recreation

the seventh sonsummary of the major theological points

2.2.1. The First Son
At the onset of their trial, the first son — as their spokesman (prohvgoro~;
7:2, 4) — informs Antiochus that they are “ready to die rather than to transgress
the ancestral laws” (7:2, e{toimoi ga;r ajpoqnhv/skein ejsme;n h} parabaivnein tou;~
patrivou~ novmou~). The first son’s statement summarizes their attitude and expresses their determination to follow the model of Eleazar (6:19), thus provingthat his death was not in vain.60
60 Schwartz points out that “ready to die” is a typically Diasporan stance: “we are readyto die, not to fight.” Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 301.
23

Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute XLVI 2021

ÔO kuvrio" oJ qeo~ ejforaÊ` kai; tai`~

The Lord God watches over us

ajlhqeivai~ ejf∆ hJmi`n parakalei`tai,and is in truth becoming comfort

kaqavper dia; th`~ kata; provswpon

with us, as Moses said clearly inajntimarturouvsh~ wjd/ h`~ diesavfh-

the song which faces to face bears

sen Mwush`~ levgwn Kai; ejpi; toi`~witness against us, saying, “And hedouvloi~ aujtou` paraklhqhvsetai.

61

will encourage his servants.”

Second Maccabees 7:6 — “an opening bracket for the chapter”62 — quotes Deut
32:36 [LXX]. The repetition of the motif that “God watches over us” is repeatedin 2 Macc (cf. ejforavw, 1:27; 7:6, 35; 8:2; 9:5; 12:22; 15:2)63 The first son’s statement refers to Deut 31:19 [LXX],64 calling for God as their witness, as God himself promised through Moses (Deut 31:18–21). Their martyrdoms are indicatedin Deut 32:43 [LXX],65 which evokes God’s vengeance. In fact, 7:33 responds
to 7:6, where the seventh son declares that “if for the sake of punishment and61 The meaning of parakalei`tai (translated from µj;n<t]yI < µhn) is rather difficult tograsp in this context. Its English translations also vary: “reconciles” (Schwartz), “havecompassion” (Collins), “be relent” (Goldstein). However, this verb functions to reinforce their determination to die (cf. 7:6).
62 Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 22.
63 Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 205.
64 Deut 31:19, kai; nu`n gravyate ta; rJhvmata th`~ wj/dh`~ tauvth~ kai; didavxete aujth;n tou;~
uiJou;~ Israhl kai; ejmbalei`te aujth;n eij~ to; stovma aujtw`n, i{na gevnhtaiv moi hJ wj/dh; au{theij~ martuvrion ejn uiJoi`~ Israhl. (Now, therefore, write this song, and teach it to theIsraelites; put it in their mouths, so that this song may be a witness for me against the
Israelites.)
65 Deut 32:43, o{ti to; ai|ma tw`n uiJw`n aujtou` ejkdika`tai, kai; ejkdikhvsei kai; ajntapodwvsei divkhn toi`~ ejcqroi`~ kai; toi`~ misou`sin ajntapodwvsei, kai; ejkkaqariei` kuvrio~th;n gh`n tou` laou` aujtou`. (For he will avenge the blood of his children, and takeavenge on his adversaries; he will repay those who hate him, and cleanse the land forhis people).
24

N. S. MIURA, rscj: Dying for God and the Ancestral Laws

edification our living Lord briefly became angry, He will again be reconciledwith his own servants” (7:33).
2.2.2. The Second Son
After the tortured death of the first son, Antiochus asks the second son
if he would eat swine flesh (7:7). “But, answering in the ancestral language(ajpokriqei~ thÊ` patrivw/ fwnhÊ`), he said forth ‘No!’” (7:8). Here, the Hebrew language is clearly a sign of defiance.
ejn ejscavth/ de; pnohÊ` genovmeno~

But in his last breath, he said, “You,ei\pen Su; mevn, ajlavstwr, ejk tou`

Avenger, free us from the present

parovnto~ hJma`~ zh`n ajpoluvei~,oJ de;life, but the King of the cosmos

tou` kovsmou basileu;~ ajpoqanovn-

will raise us up to an everlastingta~ hJma`~ uJpe;r tw`n aujtou` novmwn

revivification of life, since we haveei~ aijwvnion ajnabivwsinzwh`~ hJma`~

died for his laws

ajnasthvsei (7:9)
The use of ajpoluvw goes back to 6:22 and 30, but with a reversal. Eleazar’s
friends attempt to free him from death, but Eleazar refuses to be freed fromdeath (ajpoluqhÊ` tou` qanavtou [v.22], ajpoluqh`nai tou` qanavtou [v.30]). Now,
the second son asserts that Antiochus, the king of the earth, frees them fromtheir present life (ejk tou` parovnto~ ... zh`n), but that “the King of the cosmos”66
66 This term kovsmo~ (the universe/ the world) is a typical Greek. In the Hellenistic period,
the Greek term kovsmo~ infiltrated Jewish thought, interacting with the Jewish term
µlw[, (which is translated mostly to aijwvn in LXX) and giving this term a more spatialconnotation. By the first century CE, µlw[/aijwvn came to mean “the universe,” alongwith kovsmo~. Cf. H. D. Preuss, “µlw[,” in TDOT vol. X, ed. G. J. Botterweck et al.,trans. D. W. Stott (Grand Rapids, Michigan/ Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans,
1999), 530ff; E. Jenni, “Das Wort ‘ôlam im AT,” ZAW 64 (1952, 197–248); (1953,1–
35). Hermann Sasse, “aijwvn, aijwvnio~” in TDNT vol. I [8th edition], ed. Gerhard Kittel,
25

Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute XLVI 2021

will bring them “to an everlasting of life” (eij~ aijwvnion ajnabivwsin zwh`~). The
Second Maccabees underscores heaven (oujranov~; cf. “God of Heaven”), andthe martyr narrative takes on cosmic proportins, envisioning the universality of
the Israelite God — and simultaneously, enabling a-topological access to God.67
In the backdrop of the implied antithesis between the cosmos/heaven and theearth, the hendiadys body and soul is transformed into a cosmological and soteriological dichotomy — this present life and the life to come. The martyrs
also juxtapose their future vindication with Antiochus’ punishment (2 Macc 7:9,
16–17, 19, 31, 34–37), thus converting their earthly trial scene into the cosmic
and eschatological divine judgment.
His speech introduces “resurrection” in 2 Macc, an event to which otherbrothers and the mother also testify (7:11, 14, 23, 29, 36). The verb ajnivsthmi
is used 11 times in the Maccabean Corpus, yet only 2 Macc witnesses the reference to “rise up” as a postmortem existence; the noun ajnavstasi” occurs onlyin 2 Macc, nothwithstanding.68 Scholars agree on the influence of Dan 12:2
(LXX) here, which refers back to Is 26:14, 19; 66:24 (cf. Wis 3:3–4).69 However, ajnabivwsi~ implies a difference from Dan 12:2 in terms of resurrection.
First, while Daniel pictures the exaltation of the righteous as “astral beings” (Dan12:3), 2 Macc emphasizes the bodily resurrection. Seeing ajnabivwsi~ (‘cometo life again’ [Perkins] ajnabiwvskesqai) in Plato’s work (Phaedo 71e–72d),trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiby (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1977),
197–209; T. Holz, “atjwvn,” in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. H. B.
G. Schneider (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1990), 531.
67 “heaven” (oujranov~): 2 Macc 2:10, 18, 21; 3:15, 20, 34, (39); 7:11, 28; 8:20; 9:4, 20;
10:29; 11:10; 14:34; 15:3, 4, 8, 21, 23, 34. “cosmos” (kovsmo~): 2 Macc 7:9, 23; 8:18;
12:15; 13:14.
68 ajnivsthmi: 1 Macc [11] 2:1, 38; 3:1, 43; 9:8, 31, 44; 13:14; 14:41; 16:15; 2 Macc [4]7:9, 14; 12:44; (14:33); 3 Macc [1] 2:27. There is no reference in 4 Macc. ajnavstasi~:
2 Macc [2 out of 6] 7:14; 12:43.
69 Goldstein, II Maccabees, 306.
26

N. S. MIURA, rscj: Dying for God and the Ancestral Laws

Pheme Perkins points out that “2 Macc 7:9 combines resurrection, eternal life,and resuscitation.”70 In this “redundant” and “inelegant” phrase,71 especially withajnabivwsi~, 2 Macc unmistakably speaks about the resurrection of the body.72
Second, Daniel arguably assumes the resurrection of all people (universal resurrection) at the end time, but 2 Macc seems to presume “only the resurrection of
the martyrs”73 (cf. 7:36). On the second point, however, the paucity of evidence(in both Daniel and 2 Macc) leaves obscure what kind of resurrection they are really dictating, and what kind of “end time” and “divine judgment” they envision.
2.2.3. The Third Son
The third son also envisages a world beyond this world.
Meta; de; tou`ton oJ trivto~ ejnepaiv­

After this one, the third was beingzeto kai; th;n glw`ssan aijthqei;~

mocked, and when the tongue wastacevw~ proevbalen kai; ta;~ cei`ra~demanded, he immediately stuckeujqarsw`~ proevteinen kai; gennaivw~

it out, and courageously stretchedeu\pen ∆Ex oujranou` tau`ta kevkthmai

forth his hands, and said nobly, “Ikai; dia; tou;~ aujtou` novmou~ uJperorw`

acquired these from the heaven andtau`ta kai; par∆ aujtou` tau`ta pavlin

I look beyond (ignore) these on ac-

ejlpivzw komivsasqai. (7:10–11)

count of his laws, and hoping toreceive these again from him.

Oujranov~ is an epithet for God.74 His statement indicates God in the heaven
70 Pheme Perkins, Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection(Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Ins, 1984), 38.
71 Goldstein, II Maccabees, 307.
72 Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaismand Early Christianity, 209.
73 Van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs, 173.
27

Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute XLVI 2021

(cf. 3:39, oJ thn; katoikivan ejpouravnion e[cwn). “God of Heaven” is characteristic
to 2 Macc (2:21; 3:15, 20, 34, 39; 8:20; 9:4, 20; 10:29; 11:10; 14:34; 15:3–4, 8,
21–24).75 The martyrdom narrative reconstructs the worldview, by transforming
their trial and suffering into the cosmological/mythological dimension, expanding the arena of conflict vertically into heaven and the divine sphere and thus
reassuring transcendence of life and divine victory over the world. The notionof resurrection is strongly bound to “hope” (ejlpivzw, ejlpiv~, cf. v.11, 14, 20);76
which postulates a future resurrection. The Second Maccabees describes the retrieval of the third son’s lost body (or bodily parts) along with the resurrection.
Through hope, the martyrs’ brutal death is connected to a form of life that transcends death. It is this hope that gives them the freedom required to respond to
the demand for adherence to the ancestral laws.
The Second Maccabees exhibits “the most extreme form of resurrection.”77
The words of the martyrs repeatedly emphasize the physicality of resurrection(2 Macc 7:9, 14; especially, Razis’ words in 14:46).78 The persistent dreadfuldescriptions of bodily torture are counterbalanced by this bodily resurrection.
74 Goldstein, II Maccabees, 306.
75 Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 47.
76 In contrast with 7:34 (ajdhvloi~ ejlpivsin). However, Antiochus at his death wrote in a
letter to the Jewish people, “I have my hope in heaven” (eἰ~ oujrano;n th;n ejlpivda e[cwn,9:20).
77 Goldstein, II Maccabees, 307. Compare with 4 Macc which has no notion of the resurrection (as shown in footnote 56; no reference to ajnivsthmi or ajnavstasi~. The Fourth
Maccabees presumes the immortality of the soul (4 Macc 7:3; 9:22; 14:5–6; 16:13;
17:12), eternal life (15:3), and the immediate exaltation (assumption) of the martyrs(9:22; 13:17; 16:25; 17:18–19). For the usage of “immortality”: ajqanavto: 4 Macc 7:3;
14:6; 18:23 (Wis 1:15; Sir 17:30); ajqanasiva: 4 Macc 14:5; 16:13 (Wis 3:4; 4:1; 8:13,
17; 15:3); ajfqarsiva: 4 Macc 9:22; 17:12 (Wis 2:23; 6:18, 19).
78 2 Macc 14:46; ejpikalesavmeno~ to;n despovzonta th`~ zwh`~ kai; tou` pneuvmato~ tau`ta
aujtwÊ` pavlin ajpodou`nai tovnde to;n trovpon methvllaxen (calling upon the lord of lifeand spirit to give them [=intestines, ta; e[ntera] back to him again).
28

N. S. MIURA, rscj: Dying for God and the Ancestral Laws

2.2.4. The Fourth Sonkai; genovmeno~ pro;~ to; teleuta`n

and getting to die, he said in thisou{tw~ e[fh AiJreto;n metallavs-

way, “It is desirable to pass away

sonta~ uJp∆ ajnqrwvpwn ta;~ uJpo; tou`from among men to look forwardqeou` prosdoka`n ejlpivda~ pavlin

the hope (given) by God, (namely)

ajnasthvsesqai uJp∆ aujtou`: soi;

to be raised up again by him. But

me;n ga;r ajnavstasi~ eij~ zwh;n oujk

for you there will be no resurrec-e[stai (7:14)

tion to life!

The verb metallavssw (to pass away) is used in relation to all the martyrs in
the narrative (7:7, 13, 14, 40; also, 6:31 [Eleazar]; 14:46 [Razis]).79 Only here isthe verb followed by uJp∆ ajnqrwvpwn, meaning “those who already departed” (=themartyrs).80 Contrastingly, those who “passed away from life” (metallavxanto~
to;n bivon; 4:7; 5:5) are just finishing their life (oJ bivo~; in the case of Antiochus andPtolemy aka Macron in 9:28; 10:13). “That is, the martyrs depart from among
men alone, but they go on living — as opposed to others, especially the wicked,
for whom death is the end of life.”81 Thus, his last words rightfully declare that
Antiochus has no resurrection to life. The fifth son also reinforces the same point,underscoring the punishment of Antiochus and even his descendants (7:17).82

79 Other examples include the following: 1 Esdr 1:29; Esth 2:7, 20; 2 Macc 4:7, 37;
5:5. This verb has a Hellenistic background. Cf. C. Spique, Notes de lexicographie
néo-testamentaire vol. II, OBO 22/1–3 (Fribourg, Suisse: Éditions universitaires, andGöttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), II–553.
80 Cf. Wis 3:3–4.
81 Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 303.
82 7:17, su; de; kartevrei kai; qewvrei to; megalei`on aujtou` kravto~, wJ~ se; kai; to; spevrma
sou basaniei`.
29

Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute XLVI 2021

2.2.5. The Sixth Son
The sixth son declares, “— for we are suffering these things on our own account, having sinned against our own God” (7:18, hJmei`~ ga;r di∆ eJautou;~ tau`ta
pavscomen aJmartovnte~ eij~ to;n eJautw`n qeovn). The notable repetition of “ourown” makes it clear that 2 Macc presumes “general Jewish suffering as a resultof general Jewish sinfulness.”83 The book’s theology is conspicuously Deuteromonic. As mentioned above, 2 Macc constructs the Hellenizers (bad Jews) as the
Other. Antiochus’ superficial success over the Jewish people demonstrates that
he was an instrument of God sent to punish them. However, Antiochus is also“fighting against God” (7:19); thus, he will be punished for his arrogance (cf.
7:34, 36; uJperhfaniva).
2.2.6. The MotherFinally, the mother’s speech, especially 7:22–23, recapitulates 2 Maccabees’
basic tenets — its theological and cosmological propositions.
Oujk oi\d∆ o{pw~ eij~ th;n ejmh;n ejfavnhte

I do not know how you appeared in

koilivan, oujde; ejgw; to; pneu`ma kai;

my womb, nor was it I who gaveth;n zwh;n uJmi`n ejcarisavmhn, kai;

you breath and life; or it was not I

th;n eJkavstou stoiceivwsin oujk

who arranged the elements within

ejgw; dierruvqmisa: toigarou`n oJ

each of you. Therefore the Creatortou` kovsmou ktivsth~ oJ plavsa~

of the cosmos, who shaped the be-ajnqrwvpou gevnesin kai; pavntwn

ginning of humankind and devised

ejxeurw;n gevnesin kai; to; pneu`mathe origin of all things, will in his

kai;pavlinmercy give both breath and life

ajpodivdwsin met∆ ejlevou~, wJ~ nu`nback to you again, since you now

uJperora`te eJautou;~ dia; tou;~

look beyond (ignore) yourselves

th;n

zwh;n

uJmi`n83 Schwartz, “The Other in 1 and 2 Maccabees,” 33.
30

N. S. MIURA, rscj: Dying for God and the Ancestral Laws

for the sake of his laws.

aujtou` novmou~.
(7:22–23)

She envisions “the Creator of the cosmos.” Together with her ensuing speech(especially, v.28, oujk ejx o[ntwn ejpoivhsen aujta; oJ qeov~),84 she asserts that theCreator who created everything in the cosmos can surely create it again — pointing to her assurance of God’s Re-creation. The resurrection and the vindicationof the righteous people in 2 Macc presume the Creation and Recreation by God
the Creator.85 Creation as a salvific motif refers back to the Deutero-Isaiah (Isa
43:1–2, 6–7; 44:1–2, 24; 46:3–4),86 whose creative redemption is not only eschatological but also universal, envisioning the redemption in a cosmic dimension.87
Given the vindication of the righteous (through resurrection) and the eternalpunishment of the wicked, the cosmic dimension points to an incipient “cosmic
dualism.” The retribution is placed in a cosmic context.88
84 2 Macc 7:28, ajxiw` se, tevknon, ajnablevyanta eij~ to;n oujrano;n kai; th;n gh`n kai; ta;
ejn aujtoi`~ pavnta ijdovnta gnw`nai o{ti oujk ejx o[ntwn ejpoivhsen aujta; oJ qeov~, kai; to; tw`najnqrwvpwn gevno~ ou{tw givnetai. Christian writers since Origen deemed these passages“the first unequivocal statement in scripture of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo.”
Goldstein, II Maccabees, 307. Cf. Origen, Commentarius in Johannem, i, 17. 103,
De principiis, ii,1.5. However, it is difficult from this text to predicate that the author
presumed it.
85 Van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs, 175. Cf. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity, 135–136.
86 Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaismand Early Christianity, 135–136.
87 Carrol Stuhlmueller, Creative Redemption in Deutero-Isaiah (Rome: Biblical InstitutePress, 1970), 235.
88 While 2 Maccabees does not use apocalyptic terminologies, it describes the angelic
figures (supernatural powers) who assist in Judas’s fighting, postmortem life, and thefuture resurrection of the dead. Taking into consideration the contemporaneous Jewish apocalyptic literature (Daniel and Enoch), 2 Macc at least shares a similar cosmic
worldview.
31Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute XLVI 2021

To; pneu`ma kai; th;n zwhvn underscores that human existence fundamentallydepends upon God’s work of Creation — in the juxtaposition between the mother (who gave birth to her sons in a physical sense; cf. the repetition of “not I”)
and God the Creator (who created them in a metaphysical/ontological sense).
The same expression is repeated in 7:23 and 14:46 (in reverse form), which arepossibly grounded in Gen 2:7 [LXX],89 emphasizing that humans are beings created by God’s imbuing breath (also, Gen 6:17; 7:15 pneu`ma zwh`~; 7:22 pnovhn
zwh`~. Cf. Wis 15:11 pneu`ma zwtikovn). The verb plavssw, derived from Hebrew
axy, supports it (Gen 2:7, 8, 15). The repetition of gevnesi~ reiterates that God is

the Creator of humankind (ajnqrwvpou) and all things (pavntwn), thus guaranteeing God’s capacity for Re-creation (Cf. 7:28b, 29c).
The Second Maccabees buttresses God’s Creational power through a pairof philosophical terms; stoicei`on, which points to a component or elementarypart of matter (Cf. Gal 4:3, 9; Plato, Tim. 48b; Theaet. 201e; Aristotle, Metaph.
998a 28; 1059b 3, et al.) and dierruvqmisa (“literally means ‘arrange in rhythm
or proportion’”90; Aristotle, de Caelo, 3.8. 306b 22–29).
The mother encourages her last son “to look up” (ajnablevpw; Schwartz[raise up your eyes]) and see the world beyond, even though they are obliged
to suffer for a while (bracuvn, 7:36) in this world. Her upward-looking eyes
meet God’s gaze upon his people. Together with ὑπερορῶ (7:11, 23 [Schwartz:“to look beyond”]), the mother’s instruction raises the viewpoint of the martyrdom episodes high above to heaven (cf. Acts 7:55–56). The Second Maccabees
formulates “otherworldliness” as the martyrs’ true topos (2 Macc 3:39, cf. Phil
3:20); thus, the last son declares that they are tou;~ oujranivou~ pai`da~ (“childrenof heaven,” 7:34).
Doran makes an intriguing comment on the absence of the father in this89 However, Gen 2:7 (LXX) is not to; pneu`ma kai; th;n zwhvn, but pnoh;n zwh`~ that constitutes yuch;n zw`san.
90 Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 310.
32

N. S. MIURA, rscj: Dying for God and the Ancestral Laws

anonymous martyred family:91
Their anonymity makes them not so much individuals as representativesof the underdog before the oppressor. … Even more interesting is that no
mention is made of her husband, the boys’ father. However, the adjective
pavtrio~ substantive for the father, pathvr, is found throughout their story:
the ancestral/fatherly voice is used (7:8, 21, 27); they do not transgress theancestral/fatherly laws (7:2, 24, 37). This emphasis on “fatherly” and theabsence of a human father leads me to suggest that the story is a contest
about who is the father of the children. … God is thus the true father ofthe children.
The martyrs die for the ancestral laws (patris nomoi), proving they are the children of God and thus asserting their true identity — being a Jew means being achild of this familia Dei.
The martyrs prove themselves to be “pious” (eu;sebhv~). In Greco-Romansociety, piety was a social virtue. “Piety and dutifulness are closely related values, as one sees in the frequent use of the epithet pius to describe the hero of the
Aeneid, who is dependable, faithful and dutiful with regard to the requirement offamily, country and divinities.”92
Jews in the Greco-Roman world had a long history of demonstrating their“piety.” Although this group of terms, including “pious” (eujsebhv~) and “Godfearing” (θεοσεβής), was originally “alien to the biblical revelation,”93 it denotes
true and authentic worship of God (religion) in contrast to pagan superstition.94
91 Doran, 2 Maccabees, 166.
92 David A. deSilva, 4 Maccabees (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 82.
93 Lieu, Neither Jew nor Greek?, 68.
94 G. Betram, θεοσεβής, θεοσέβεια, TDNT III, 124. Cf. Lieu, Neither Jew nor Greek? ,33

Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute XLVI 2021

Jews were caricatured for their obstinate observance of the ethnic way of life
prescribed in their ancestral laws: Jews are characterized as “hostile,” “antagonistic,” and “different”— a well-attested critique of Jews (cf. Diodorus Siculus,
Bibliotheca historica 34.1–4; 40. 3.4; Tacitus, Historiae 5.5; Juvenal, Satirae
14.100–104; cf. Josephus, Apion 2.121, 258) — and thus, as a potential menace
to the social stability and unity of the government where they reside. Hellenistic Jewish literature demonstrates “the theme of ethnic hostility legitimated byreligious claims”— the cultural/ethnic antagonism of the Greco-Roman society
toward Jews (cf. Esth B [LXX] 13:4–5; 3 Macc 3:1–7).95
From the Gentiles’ perspective, “atheism” (ἀσέβεια, impiety)96 — Jews’ devotion to only One God — is the most distinctive and negative marker of Jewish
identity. Against ethno-cultural antagonism, the literature of the Hellenistic Jews
endeavor to underline their “piety.” The Fourth Maccabees, for instance, dem68. The LXX has 34 examples of eujsebhv”, and 7 examples of θεοσεβής.
eujsebhv”: Jdt 8:31; 2 Macc 1:19; 12:45; 4 Macc 1:1; 6:31; 7:16; 10:15; 11:21; 13:1;
15:23; 16:1; 17:22; 18:2; Prov 12:12; 13:19; Sir 11:17, 22; 12:2, 4; 13:17; 16:13;
23:12; 27:11, 29; 28:22; 33:14; 37: 12; 39:27 et al; Pss. Sol. 13:5; Is 24:16; 26:7; 32:8.
95 David A. deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance(GrandRapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2002), 123. See also below, deSilva, 4Maccabees, 34–35.
The Greeks and Romans understood piety toward the gods as a reflection of loyalty
to the city, as a marker of reliability. The person who knew how to pay proper
respect to the gods would know his or her duty in a civic crisis, or would be areliable partner in business, or would be no fomenter of division in the city. The
Jews did not participate in the worship of these gods and were thus never freefrom suspicion and slander — their devotion to the One God allegedly reflected
their concern for the one people, the Jews, and their lack of concern for the publicwelfare … . While usually benefiting from official edicts of toleration, Jews were
nevertheless frequently the objects of the dominant culture’s hostility on accountof these threatening differences, which were usually subsumed under the headingof misoxenia, ‘hatred of outsiders.’
96 Or, dussevbeia (impiety).
34

N. S. MIURA, rscj: Dying for God and the Ancestral Laws

onstrates Jewish “pious reason” (eujsebh;~ logismov~, cf. 1:1), which exhibits aunique combination and appropriation of Hellenistic Judaism and Greco-Roman
philosophy. The Fourth Maccabees asserts not only that Jews are adaptable andobedient to poleis, but also that their “pious reason” is equivalent, or even superior, to Greco-Roman piety.97 Jews’ self-designation of “pious” thus has political significance, asserting (appealing to) their social appropriation of and “equalcitizenship” (isopoliteia) with Greeks/Romans — particularly, in those cities like
Alexandria, Caesarea, and other Hellenistic poleis.98
2.2.7. The Seventh Son
Lastly, the seventh and youngest son reviews and integrates the major elements of his brothers’ speeches. Yet, his speech lacks the creational-redemption
motif, which probably only the mother is entitled to testify to — the mother who
carried her sons in her womb for nine months, nursed them for three years, andraised and sustained them until their present age (7:27).
The martyrdom episode is concluded by the youngest son’s prayer (7:37–
38). Although he addresses Antiochus (“you”), his statement is in fact a supplication to God (ejpikalouvmeno~ to;n qeo;n i{lew~ tacu; twÊ` e[qnei genevsqai), thus
linking together all his mother’s and all his brothers’ statements and offering
them under God’s mercy.
The epitomist concludes the entire section with a reflective passage (7:42),
which refers to both martyrdom episodes (“eating the swine flesh” [tou;~ splagcnismov~] and “exceeding torture” [ta;~ uJperballouvsa~ aijkiva~]), and thus unifies
them.

97 deSilva, 4 Maccabees, 81–85.
98 deSilva, 4 Maccabees, 35.
35

Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute XLVI 2021

Conclusion and Further Implications
The martyrdom episodes present the paradigmatic examples of being a Jew.
This identity is inseparable from piety (eujsevbeia) — reverence for God and theadherence to the ancestral laws. The martyrdom episodes embody this piety even
unto death.
“Pious” (eujsebhv~) is double-edged — in Greco-Roman society, this epithet
justifies Jews’ alignment with familial, social and divine obligations and responsibilities, whereas in a Jewish sense, it evokes the ideal Jewish piety, that is,faithfulness to their customs and value system. The martyrs’ piety thus evinces
the hybridity of both Jewish and Greco-Roman piety. Ironically, 2 Maccabees
exhibits a Hellenized overtone. The Second Maccabees asserts being ∆Ioudai'o~(‘a Jews’) and ∆Ioudai>smov~ (‘Judaism’) — to construct the self-understandingof Jewish identity over against the Other — Hellenism. And yet, 2 Maccabees’
linguistic and cultural influences show the deep infiltration in Hellenization. The
Hebrew language is the symbol of their defiance, but this narrative text is written
in Hellenistic Greek. Thus, 2 Macc shows both opposition to and appropriationof Hellenism. In this sense, the martyrdom narrative is a powerful representationof “diaspora-ism” in the Hellenistic milieu; “they are willing to die, not necessarily to fight (and even when they do fight, they are of course willing to die -).”99
In terms of its intense piety, 2 Maccabees is closer to Daniel. They share thebasic ideas of martyrdom, and more importantly, the belief in resurrection, whichis lacking in 1 Macc. As in Daniel, the belief in resurrection in 2 Macc is the hopeand the reward of death (cf. 2 Macc 7:14), which provides one of the earliest
descriptions of a future resurrection and divine judgment in the cosmologicaland eschatological scheme.
The cosmic scheme envisions the true residence of the martyrs; the cos99 Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 50.
36

N. S. MIURA, rscj: Dying for God and the Ancestral Laws

mological and mythopoetic description of the trial scene imbues their identitywith otherworldly significance. The Second Maccabees shares the tripartite andspatial understanding of the cosmos (heaven, earth, and underworld), as the
backdrop of the postmortem concept. The Second Maccabees demonstrates theprevalent concept of the cosmos and the incipient cosmic dualism in Hellenistic Judaism, upon which contemporaneous apocalyptic literature depends. As ashared conviction, resurrection is “a mode of transcending death whereby humans participate in the heavenly sphere of reality.”100
The two episodes are well constructed. The death of Eleazar embodies thearchetypal noble death; he risks the total loss of his existence for the ancestrallaws without any repayment for his death, pointing to the crucial point of humandignity — and vulnerability as well. Upon this exemplary model, the anonymous
martyred family exhibits a general application of intense piety in the hope of
future resurrection — a hope that God the Creator will re-create humans at theend time, restoring their original blessed state, prevalently observed in Jewish
literature of the Second Temple period.
In the Deuteronomic scheme, the death of the martyrs expiates sin — the sinof Hellenization. In this narrative, martyrdom functions as an atonement for sin.
However, this point is still incipient in 2 Macc — whereas 4 Macc develops andin which the martyrs are clearly depicted as “atonement” for the sins (cf. 4 Macc
employs a series of cult-related terms: “purification” (4 Macc 6:29, kaqavrsion),“ransom” (6:29; 17:21, ajntivyucon), and “atonement” (17:22, iJlasmov~).
The martyrdom narrative of 2 Macc stands at the incipient point of Jewish
diaspora literature, which could be placed within a larger frame of Jewish historiography.101 Although recent scholarship has undermined the distinction between
100 Perkins, Resurrection, 22.
101 Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 47. Cf. idem, “From the Maccabees to Masada: On Diaspora
Historiography of the Second Temple Period,” in Jüdische Geschichte in hellenistisch37

Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute XLVI 2021

Palestine and Hellenistic (Diaspora) Jewish literature,102 the contrast between
1 and 2 Macc exhibits at least a different perspective on the self-constructive
discourse. The martyrdom narrative of 2 Macc enacts its characteristic identity
formulation through textuality.

römischer Zeit, ed. A. Oppenheimer and E. Müller-Luckner (Munich: Oldembourg,
1999), 29–40.
102 Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during
the Early Hellenistic Period (London: SMC, 1974).
38