AtheistGamer

So I've run across a claim that 2nd Macabees predicts that the 2nd Temple will fall around 70 A.D.

I can't find an online copy of 2nd Macabees and I can't find where it predicts the fall of the 2nd temple. Little help please?

Toto

2 Macabees on EarlyJewishWritings.com

I don't know anything about predicting the fall of the second Temple.

AtheistGamer

Thanks Toto. A quick google search on 2nd Macabees brings up nothing. I guess I'll have to read the whole book in order to see if the claim is right or not. *sigh* I hate being sent on these wild goose chases, by christians, 911 truthers, etc.

Doug Shaver

I've stopped going on them. As far as I'm concerned, if they can't produce a relevant quotation or say exactly where the quotation can be found, they haven't made their point.

On the other hand, sometimes I use it as an excuse to buy a book that I want to read for other reasons. Some time ago on TWEB I remarked in one thread that no reputable historian accepts the principle that ancient documents must be presumed reliable until proven otherwise. One poster responded that J. P. Meier endorsed the principle in A Marginal Jew (or via: amazon.co.uk). I asked for a citation. He said he couldn't give me one because he no longer had the book. But, he said, he was sure it was in the first part of the book, where Meier explained his historiographical criteria. I said I'd read the book when I had a convenient opportunity, and we let it go at that.

Several months later I had some extra cash and bought the book. There was no endorsement of "reliable until proven otherwise." I found the thread and posted an update about what I'd found. There has no been no response since then.

AtheistGamer

Doug it's good to know someone else shares my pain.

DCHindley

What if I told you there are some 4-5 volumes of Marginal Jew out there or in process of being published?!

There have been similar exchanges about the *right* way to examine intentionally transmitted sources on Crosstalk2. Some folks prefer to assume that the author is deceptive or in error about facts or has a strong agenda. Others prefer to assume that the author is being sincere and has his facts straight to the best of his ability.

Some while back, I outlined a textbook on the subject, and this is what I came up with about sources:

3.2. Criticism of data.*

3.2.1. Veracity of sources.

3.2.1.1. External a.k.a. Lower Criticism. Is the document under consideration a genuine one?

3.2.1.2. Internal a.k.a. Higher Criticism. Is the information contained in the document trustworthy (i.e., accurate, consistent, etc)?

3.2.1.2.1. Positive internal criticism. Researcher momentarily assumes that the author of the document was accurate, competent and acting in good faith (although keeping in mind that he may be speaking figuratively), and seek literal meaning of the statements of the document.

3.2.1.2.2. Negative internal criticism. Researcher momentarily assumes that the author of the document is fallible, foolish or faking and seeks evidence that this is so.

I vaguely remember someone suggesting that Meier prefers to initially apply positive internal criticism, modifying his appraisal if he encounters inconsistencies or errors in fact. The textbook seems to suggest the researcher has to do both positive and negative internal criticism. I don't know if that is what Meier is really doing, though. In the very front of the introduction to volume #1, he states that he tries to "bracket out" his Catholic faith when examining the evidence, and he does a great job of picking theough sources and criticism of sources. The parts of his books I like best are the chapter endnotes.

DCH

*[G. C. Helmstadter, _Research Concepts in Human Behavior_, Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1970, pp 41-49] <It may behoove me to say at this point that my major in college was Psychology, not history or biblical studies>

DCHindley

AG,

Offhand I cannot think of any direct statement in 2 Maccabees, which is a historical chronicle, that might suggest that. On the other hand, I could see it cited in order to refute someone who sees the prophecy of the "70 weeks" of Daniel 9 as referring to events surrounding the persecution of Jews by Antiochus IV between 171 and 164 BCE,* as if that vindicates some dispensationalist doctrine that the 70 weeks predicts the fall of the temple in 70 CE. This is fallacious reasoning, but since when do fundies let that bother them? Well I'll be damned if I don't find the exact source of this nonsense right here.

DCH

*For example, here is one that I proposed many years ago:

The seventy weeks of Dan 9 can be understood as a sophisticated cryptogram:

597--------------<434 yrs>-------------164
597 <49 yrs> 548 <378 yrs> 171 <7 yrs> 164

The governing period of the cryptogram is actually 62 weeks of years, starting with the year in which Jeremiah 29:10 *appears* to have been uttered (circa 597/6 BCE, based on Jer. 29:2), and thus ending 163/2 BCE. A "seventy" year-week cryptogram was formed by taking the 62 year-week base period, plus the initial seven year-weeks plus the final year-week that are actually contained within it, and arbitrarily adding them together.

Daniel 9:24 "Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city:
to finish the transgression,
to put an end to sin,
and to atone for iniquity,
to bring in everlasting righteousness,
to seal both vision and prophet,
and to anoint a most holy place.
25a Know therefore and understand:
25b from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (Jer 29:10, ca. 597 BCE) until the time of an anointed prince (Cyrus, as in Isa 25:1), there shall be seven weeks (49 yrs, making this ca 548 BCE);
25c and for sixty-two weeks (starting in 597 BCE) it (Jerusalem) shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time.
26a After the sixty-two weeks (ca. 597 - 434 = ca. 163 BCE), an anointed one (Menelaus) shall be cut off and shall have nothing,
26b and the troops of the prince who is to come (Antiochus IV) shall destroy the city (Jerusalem) and the sanctuary (ca 169-168 BCE). Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.
27a He (Antiochus IV) shall make a strong covenant with many for one week (ca 171 BCE with the appointment of Menelaus, to ca. 164 BCE when Judas displaced him for a high priest of his choosing),
27b and for half of the week (6 Dec 167 BCE, or earlier, to 13 Dec 164 BCE, not exactly 3.5 years but just over 3 years) he shall make sacrifice and offering cease; and in their place shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator (Judas' defeat of Antiochus' forces which resulted in the rededication of the temple, 14 Dec 164 BCE)."

Here's the whole story of the events of 175 - 162 BCE, from all the known sources:

175, Sep 1 Macc. 1:10 & 2 Macc. 4:7
Antiochus IV Epiphanes succeeds Seleucus IV Philopator.

175 2 Macc. 4:7
Jason outbids High Priesthood from Antiochus and succeeds his brother Onias III.

175-172 2 Macc. 4:10ff.
Jason begins Hellenizing Judean life.

172 2 Macc. 4:21
Antiochus greeted with pomp in Jerusalem on way to secure the Philistine border with Egypt (the imputed “1st invasion” of Egypt in 2 Macc.) after the coronation of Egyptian King Philometor in 172.

172-171 2 Macc. 4:23-26
Menelaus, son of Simon, a Tobiad, outbids Jason, an Oniad, for the High Priesthood and drives Jason as a fugitive into the land of Ammon.

172/1-169 2 Macc. 4:27-32
Menelaus has trouble delivering his promised tribute to Antiochus, resorting to theft of holy vessels from the Temple.

172/1-169 2 Macc. 4:33
Onias III protests this theft and retreats to the place of sanctuary of Apollo and Artemis at Daphne, a city 5 miles from Antioch.

172/1-169 2 Macc. 4:34
Menelaus, by means of Antiochus’ regent Andronicus, has Onias III lured from his sanctuary and killed.

172/1-169 Josephus, Antiq, Book XII, Chapter 10 (edition of W. Whiston)
Onias III’s son, Onias IV, flees to Ptolemy VI Philometor and Cleopatra in Egypt where he is allowed to erect a Temple to God at Heliopolis.

172/1-169 2 Macc. 4:35-38
The Jews protest, and Antiochus IV has Andronicus executed.

169 1 Macc. 1:16-20; 2 Macc. 5:1-6
Jason, thinking Antiochus was killed while invading Egypt, rebels against Menelaus, to try and secure back the High Priesthood, and attacks Jerusalem, taking much of the city. Menelaus retreats to the Citadel which is held by a Syrian garrison.

169 2 Macc. 5:10-14,7-10
Antiochus hears of this and takes the city back from Jason and forces him back into exile in Ammon.

169 1 Macc. 1:20-23; 2 Macc. 5:15-21
The traitor Menelaus lets Antiochus enter the Temple itself to steal the votive offerings of prior kings.

169 2 Macc. 5: 22-23
Antiochus leaves Menelaus in charge of civil government as High priest, but established military governors (Phillip in Jerusalem and Andronicus over Samaria) and kills many who practice the Jewish Law.

168 1 Macc. 1:29-35
Antiochus invades Egypt again, and demands tribute from Menelaus, sending his general Apollonius to extract it from the populace by extreme means if necessary.

168 or 167 1 Macc. 1:41-53; 2 Macc. 5:24-26
Antiochus commands that all peoples in his empire follow Hellenic ways, and forbids the practice of the Jewish Law on pain of death. Apollonius enforces the decree.

168/7 1 Macc. 2:1-48
The priest Mattathias, a priest of the order of Jorarib, defies Antiochus IV’s order and starts a guerrilla war against the Syrians and those who apostatized with Menelaus.

167, Dec 6 1 Macc. 1:54-64; 2 Macc. 6:1-7:42
The Temple is profaned by the erection of a “desolating sacrilege/horrible abomination” (i.e., the “abomination of desolation” in Daniel 9) upon the alter of burnt offerings.

166/5 1 Macc. 2:49-69
Mattathias dies.

166/5 1 Macc. 3:1-4:35; 2 Macc. 8:1-7
Judas, son of Mattathias, takes over the resistance movement and upgrades the fight to full scale rebellion.

165/4 1 Macc. 3:35-37
Antiochus IV’s general Lysias was sent against Judas’ forces.

164 1 Macc. 3:38-4:35; 2 Macc. 8:8-36
Judas succeed in defeating the main portion of the Syrian forces in the country.

164 1 Macc. 4:35; 2 Macc. 9:13-29
Defeat of Lysias. Lysias offers peace terms to Judas. Antiochus IV ratifies them as he was busy with a floundering campaign in Persia and/or going insane from a disease.

164, Dec 1 Macc. 6:1-17, 2 Macc. 9:1-12
Antiochus IV was defeated at Elymias in Persia, and on way back to Babylon contracted a disease that killed him. (1 Macc. 6:16, though, erroneously dates his death in the year 163/162 unless his source dated it according to a calendar that started the 149th year of the Seleucid era in the Fall of 164 instead of the Spring of 163 as was the Seleucid norm.)

164, Dec 14 1 Macc. 4:36-60; 2 Macc. 10:1-8
Rededication of the alter in the temple and fortification of Jerusalem and key towns in Judea.

164/163 1 Macc. 4:35; 2 Macc. 10:10-11
Lysias heads to Antioch to secure throne for his puppet Antiochus V Eupator, and get reinforcements to resume battle with Judas.

164 or 163 2 Macc. 10:12-13
Good relations with Ptolemy, an advisor to Antiocus V, until he is denounced as a traitor and he commits suicide.

164-162 1 Macc. 5:1-68; 2 Macc. 10:14-38; 12:1-45
Judas fights off attacks by the Syrian generals Gorgias, Timothy, and Nicanor. In the process, Judas carries the battle for Jewish freedom to foreign soil to strengthen his rebel Jewish government and protect Jews from persecution by their neighbors in Gentile towns and villages.

163/162 1 Macc. 6:18-28
Judas lays siege to the Citadel in Jerusalem, which is still held by the Syrians, and Beth-zur, eventually taking that latter town.

163, Fall 1 Macc. 6:29-54; 2 Macc. 13:1-22
Taking advantage of the Jewish Sabbatical year (Fall 164-Summer 163), Antiochus V and Lysias return with a large force fortified with mercenary troops and they lay siege to Jerusalem and Beth-zur. Due to a lack of provisions, Beth-zur was abandoned to the Syrians and Judas’ forces defending the Sanctuary are seriously reduced.

163/2 1 Macc. 6:55-62; 2 Macc.11:1-38; 13:23-26
Lysias finds out that there is a contender to Antiochus V’s throne and makes peace with Judas in order to be able to head for Antioch, but tears down the city walls.

163/2 2 Macc. 13:3-8
Menelaus, who had joined Lysias’ and Antiochus V’s war party, is accused by some of having started the rebellion through his mis-rule, and Antiochus has him executed.

162/1 1 Macc. 7:1-4; 2 Macc. 14:1-2
Demetrius I escapes from Rome where he was a hostage, and claims the kingdom. The Syrian army unilaterally arrests Antiochus V and Lysias, and then executes them on Demetrius I’s orders.

162/1 1 Macc. 7:5-9
Alcimus is appointed High Priest by Demetrius I and sent with general Bacchides with a large force to re-take Judea from Judas and install Alcimus. The treacherous execution of 60 Hasidean priests/scribes by Alcimus. Unable to secure an advantage, they return to Antioch.

161 1 Macc. 7:26-42; 2 Macc. 14:3-46
Demetrius now sends his general Nicanor, who mocks the Alter of God when some priests try to mediate by offering to make sacrifices in the name of the King as a token of submission.

161, Mar 9 1 Macc. 7:26-50; 2 Macc. 15:1-39 (end of 2 Macc.)
Judas meets Nicanor and defeats his army, which is routed and utterly destroyed.

160 or 159 1 Macc. 9:1-22
Bacchides and Alcimus again invade Judea and kill Judas. Alcimus now was installed as High Priest

Etc., etc.

Doug Shaver

I'm aware that there is more than one. I do not know how many. But, I got the clear impression from my interlocutor that he was referring to the first volume. And, Meier did set forth his historiographical criteria in that volume.

And then there are those of us who don't think we should assume anything one way or the other.

Why do I suspect that with just a little effort, I could find "a textbook on the subject" that disagreed with your textbook?

Uh, I'm quite OK with bad-mouthing assumptions about foolishness or fakery. But fallibility? You think it's wrong to assume that an author is fallible?

I remember that. Good for him.

Yes, I agree that he does that. Not that I agree with all his conclusions, but I think he presents his case very competently.

DCHindley

Hey, I only have the first three myself. Personally, each succeeding volume gets a little less interesting for me.

Actually, I doubt you will find a textbook that teaches how to treat historical sources that will describe a different process than this one. In Psychology, researchers and therapists often conduct and publish "case studies" of individuals and groups, and these were the types of historical documents that were of interest to the authors. However, the methodology is not specific to that discipline.

Fallible is just a nice way of saying the author is just plain wrong about some or all of his facts. Garbage in => garbage out.

During the cold war era, the Communist Party of the USSR would periodically publish this or that work about the history of Russia, or photos of famous events. Nobody approached these without assumptions, but even if you were to have none, you would eventually tease out the inconsistencies when compared to other historical sources, or early photos where Trotsky is right there next to Lenin when the later photo does not have any of him but the tip of one of his shoes. If its is true/good info, why does it omit this or that figure, or tell the story so differently, etc? If it is deceptive, these same comparisons tell a story of who is or isn't in favor in Moscow, or what the party line is today about its history.

DCH

PhilosopherJay

Hi DCHindley,

History is constantly being suppressed and rewritten for a multitude of purposes by different groups.

For example, in the Spring and Summer of 1932, tens of thousands of World War I veterans marched on Washington D.C. demanding a promised bonus. Wikipedia picks up the story:

Hoover and MacArthur both claimed that communists and criminals were behind the bonus marchers.

The following year, Franklin Delanor Roosevelt also opposed the request of the veterans for their bonus money.


More interestingly, media czar, William Randolf Hearst produced a movie called "Gabriel Over the White House". In the film, the president grabs dictatorial powers and grants the veterans their wish for a jobs program. Thus the capitalist dream factory rewrote history to give the veterans what they wanted while the real capitalist government suppressed them in a savage and brutal fashion.

Here is a contemporary example of deceptive capitalist mass media practices that exists today


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay