Seleucus I Nicator in 4 Maccabees

This study argues, against scholarly consensus, that the mention of "Seleucus Nicanor" in 4 Macc 3:20-21 is not a historical error but a reasonably carefully constructed and accurate reference to Seleucus I Nicator. Nicanor was a commonly occurring variant of the official epithet Nicator, and comparison with the passage in 2 Maccabees, on which the author of 4 Maccabees drew, indicates that the author edited the passage to bring it into conformity with the conditions during Seleucus I Nicator's reign. Since this passage is cited as evidence for the alleged historical unreliability of 4 Maccabees, that assessment requires adjustment.(ProQuest: ... denotes non-USASCII text omitted.)Any evaluation of the content and character of 4 Maccabees must consider two passages that appear to contain historical gaffes. Perhaps best known is 4:15, where Antiochus IV Epiphanes is said to be the son, rather than the brother, of Seleucus IV Philopator.1 Another presumed blunder occurs in 3:20-21, where the author of 4 Maccabees introduces a king named "Seleucus Nicanor," even though the royal figure in the subsequent narrative is clearly Seleucus IV Philopator. Scholars have been remarkably uniform in their verdict on this latter passage: this is a mistake of colossal proportions.2The first difficulty that 4 Macc 3:20-21 presents is the word "Nicanor," given that no Seleucid ruler was ever officially named Nicanor. The author seems to have confused Nicanor with Nicator, the latter being the epithet of the famous Seleucus I (Nicator) and the much less prominent Seleucus VI (Epiphanes-Nicator).* * 3 Although the official form of the sobriquet was indeed Nicator,4 confusion with Nicanor was common. Polybius refers to Seleucus I as Seleucus Nicanor in Hist. 10.27.il,5 and many manuscripts read "Nicanor," not "Nicator," when Josephus mentions Seleucus I in Ant. 12.119; 13.213; and 18.372.6 Porphyry of Tyre likewise calls the first Seleucid ruler "Nicanor,"7 and perhaps "Nicanor" refers to Seleucus I in Pliny, Nat. Hist. 6.30 and in Isidorus of Charax, Mansiones Parthicae as well.8 While it is unclear whether the authors or the copyists wrote "Nicanor" instead of "Nicator,"9 there was evidently confusion about this epithet, and the evidence suggests that, at least in the case of Seleucus I, Nicanor was a commonly occurring variant of Nicator.10This by no means entirely solves the historical puzzle of this passage, because neither of the two rulers with this epithet, Seleucus I Nicator (305/304-281/280 b.c.e.) and Seleucus VI Epiphanes-Nicator (96-95/94 b.c.e.), lived around the time of the events described in 4 Maccabees 4, which took place during the reign of Seleucus IV Philopator (187/186-175 b.c.e). The author of 4 Maccabees likely had the earlier king, Seleucus I Nicator, who was far more famous and important than Seleucus VI, in mind, but Seleucus I is separated from Seleucus IV Philopator by about a century of Seleucid political history.11A careful comparison of the language of 4 Macc 3:20-21 with that of the parallel passage in 2 Maccabees (3:1-3) suggests that the author of 4 Maccabees deliberately referred to Seleucus I Nicator. 4 Maccabees introduces the king as follows (3:20-21):....While12 our ancestors were enjoying a deep peace because of their observance of the Law and were prospering, so that even Seleucus Nicanor, the king of Asia, both granted money to them for their religious service and recognized their citizenship, certain persons undertook a revolution against the public concord and caused various disasters.The main source for this section is 2 Mace 3:l-3:13...While the holy city was inhabited in complete peace and the laws were most nobly observed because of the piety of the high priest Onias and his hatred of evil, it happened that the kings themselves honored the place and glorified the temple with the greatest gifts, so that even Seleucus, the king of Asia defrayed from his own revenues all the costs related to the service of the sacrifices. …