Skip to main content

Full text of "An Aramaic Text of the Scroll of Antiochus"

See other formats


Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 

Read more about Early Journal Content at 
journal-content . 

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 



Among many Cambridge Cairoan fragments of the 
medieval story of the Maccabean revolt is one of more than 
usual interest. It is here printed, with the continuation 
as contained in a Paris MS. I hope in future numbers of 
this Review to print some other fragments. It may suffice 
to mention now that several of the fragments are accented ', 
and one contains part of the Arabic version, written con- 
tinuously, and not alternating verse by verse with the 
Hebrew or Aramaic, as is the case in previously known 
MSS. 2 

The importance of the text here printed consists chiefly 
in its offering a distinct type. Its variations from the 
common text are at least as important as are its co- 
incidences. It is not disfigured by some of the worst 
historical blunders of the common text. Positively, it 
gives interesting evidence as to the knowledge possessed 
of the Apocrypha by medieval Jews. As will be seen later 
on, the present text contains some very clear reminiscences 
of the First Book of the Maccabees. Further, the text has 
some bearing on Saadiah's references to the Book of the 
Hasmoneans. Finally, it helps us to fix the position which 
the Scroll once occupied in the ritual of the Synagogue. 

1 There are complete texts of the common version at Florence and 
Oxford, punctuated and accented. I shall speak of these texts in a 
subsequent article. 

' A recension of the Arabic version is given by Dr. Hirschfeld in his 
Arabic Chrestomatky (London, 1892, pp. 1 seq.). 


No argument is needed to show that the present text is, 
in a sense, quite independent of the common version. 
Even where it is shorter, it is not an abbreviation, and it 
contains matter not contained in the longer form. Some, 
but not all, of these new points are indicated below. The 
present text is free from the blunders regarding the foun- 
dation of Antioch (verse 3 of Dr. Gaster's edition 1 ), the 
pseudo-city Bagras (verse 4), the exaggeration of Antiochus' 
reign (verse 5). There is here none of the Messianic touch 
(verse 7). Further, though there are several interesting 
identities of expression, there are many curious variations 
(e. g. the use of the word "U'N in line 54, the phrase K'B¥0 
'fcOKlOT in line 48). The order of the incidents differs too. 
Then the numbers of those slain by Jochanan (line 26) 
differ from those in the ordinary version (verse 27). 
Jochanan is not associated with the name Makkabi (as 
in verse 28), but a new epithet Mekkanm (wpo) is used 
(line 27). In line 55 niJ3 is an excellent variant of '33 
(verse 36). Again, the whole passage, lines 69 onwards, 
is independent, and there is nothing in this text parallel to 
the contents of verses 65 to 76 of the common version. 

The present text is obviously not the one known to 
Saadiah, for it does not contain the quotation which he 
makes in his Sefer Haggcdui (ed. Harkavy, p. 180) 2 . On 
the other hand, the ordinary text is certainly unlike 
Saadiah's. Not only is his reading TV ?lt3p' 1 (in the passage 
cited by him) different from all known MSS., but Saadiah 
calls neither Jochanan nor Mattathias "High Priest." It 
is, however, impossible to base any argument, as Dr. Krauss 
{Revue des Etudes Juives, vol. XXX, p. 215) has done, on 
the use by Saadiah of the title 'MDKTi »» 3xna, for the 
extant Scroll is described as *K3»BTi *J3 nP'SB in the colophon 
of two of the Cambridge fragments, in the Bodl. MS. Opp. 
Add. 139 (Cat. Neub. 2333), and no doubt in other MSS. 

1 See Transactions of the Oriental Congress, London, 1891, vol. II, p. 1 seq. 

2 It is possible that the Geniza text contained the passage ; the 
Cambridge fragment breaks off before the place is reached. 


as well. Nor do the various uses of the names Hashmonai 
and Mattithya throw any light on the question, for Saadiah 
seems (p. 150) to call the five sons both sons of Hashmonai 
and sons of Mattathias. There is not more force in Dr. 
Krauss' argument, that Saadiah, when comparing the 
Scroll to Daniel, must have meant that it was written 
partly in Hebrew and partly in Aramaic. For Saadiah 
unreservedly says that the book was written in Aramaic 
ptOD^N fabi. 

But a conclusive argument in confirmation of the belief 
that the common text differed materially from Saadiah's 
lies ready to hand. In the common text (e. g. ed. Gaster, 
p. 25) Judah, son of Mattathias, is slain miif pruo ^Dpnai 
before the dedication of the Temple and during the lifetime 
of his father. The language used about Eleazar leaveB it 
doubtful (as is the case also in the text published below) 
whether he, too, was thought to have died comparatively 
early in the revolt. But of the early death of Judah there 
is no question. Now, if Saadiah's text had contained the 
incident of the early death of Judah, he could not possibly 
have said that the Scroll was written by all the five brothers. 
On p. 163 of Sefer Haggalui he names the "WOWi *J3 as the 
authors, and to leave no doubt that he means the whole five, 
he names them in full. Thus on p. 151 he says distinctly : — 

rwino *» -itj^ni \nm pirn py»Bi rrnrv wvvn "a inanx 

.Dm id nd ••a N3NrD 

Saadiah could not have said this had his text contained 
the incident of Judah's death. It is well worth noticing, 
that in the text printed below the false account of Judah's 
death is not found, and in this respect the new text agrees 
better with the version known to Saadiah. 

Incidentally it may be pointed out that the same remark 
of Saadiah's regarding the authorship of the Scroll is at 
variance with the statement in the Halachoth Gedoloth. In 
the latter (ed. 18 10, fol. 104), the Scroll of the Asmoneans is 
attributed to the " Elders of the house of Shammai and the 


Elders of the house of Hillel." The bearing of this dis- 
crepancy on the general question of the age of the Scroll 
must be left for a future article. 

The text printed below has, as was already said above, 
several reminiscences of i Maccabees not displayed in the 
common text. Though the compiler certainly did not write 
with i Maccabees before him, he is in some details more 
accurate than the writer of the common text. The reader 
can detect these points for himself. Some of the worst 
mistakes of the common text are absent from the new text. 
It will only be necessary to point out here a few of the 
more striking reminiscences of i Maccabees. 

Line I of text: 'Dli p pan. The writer knows that 
previously to ascending the throne of Syria, Antiochus 
Epiphanes was resident in Rome (i Mace. i. 10). 

Lines 9 and 10 : P«31 fix D^BTVD 1^031. An exact and 
very striking reminiscence of 1 Mace. iii. 45 nal e£e'A.enrei> 
avKos Kal Kivvpa. 

Lines 10 and 11 : xenip ivdmi xnraDi ttrby ktmo frosi 
paiD^l . The abolition of the sacrifices (not mentioned in the 
common text) here reminds us of 1 Mace. i. 45 nal kcoASoui 
6\oKavT<&ix,aTa Kal Qvoias Kal crnovhrp £k tov ayiaoyxaTO?. 

Line 32 : pjnino wnpb and whole incident. Cf. 1 Mace 
ii. 15. The ordinary text knows nothing of the con- 
nexion of Mode'in with the Maccabean story, nor of the 
striking incident of 1 Mace. ii. 23 eeq. It may well be 
that the epithet "WpD (line 27 of text) is a reminiscence of 
1 Mace. ii. 26-7. The order of the incidents, too, resembles 
that in the passage cited. The word "wp» may possibly 
be a mistake for *3p». 

It is very noticeable that the text printed below falls off 
towards the end, and that its chief merits are confined to 
the opening parts. The Geniza specimen only extends till 
the twentieth line, and it may well be that this text did 
not continue quite as in the Paris MS. from which the 
remainder is taken. On the other hand, it must be 
admitted, that, so far as the Geniza text goes, it agrees very 


exactly with the Paris codex. The variations of the latter 
are marked P. in the footnotes. 

Of other details in the text the following may be noted : — 

Line 3 : jWiriNl . Cf. Targum to Prov. xxvii. 24. 

Line 13: vbvvn WBK by nw nn. Cf. Targum to Judg. 
iii. 16. 

Line 20: to»3»n. Cf. Dan. v. 7. 

Line 66. Cf. Targum to Hosea ii. t. 

Line 78. Cf. Targum to 2 Sam. i. 22. 

Finally, the title as well as the conclusion of the MS. 
shows that it was inserted into the Targum of the Haftara 
for the Sabbath occurring during the feast of Chanuka 
(Zech. ii. 14). The heading Vtcm »ni> DVnn nSDW occurs 
in the Geniza fragment and the words are also used at the 
close of the Paris Codex (which M. Israel Levi kindly copied 
for me). This heading throws fresh light on the origin of the 
Scroll of Antiochus. The Scroll is, in truth, nothing but 
an interpolated Targum to a haftara, and must be classed 
with some other medieval compilations in Aramaic. That 
Targumim to haftaras were used liturgically is shown, 
among other evidence, by the Machzor Vitry (ed. Hurwitz, 
pp. 165-172), though the Antiochus Targum is a longer 
interpolation than these. Such a Targum may have replaced 
the older derashoth such as are contained in the Pesikta 
Rabbathi (ed. Friedmann, p. 160 a), while, finally, another 
replacement occurred and piyutim were substituted for the 
Targum. But on the relations between these various forms 
of the Chanuka story (including the Chanuka Midrashim), 
I hope to write more fully in another article. 

The text of the first twenty lines is from the much 
mutilated Geniza fragment, the insertions in square brackets 
being from the Paris MS. (Bibliotheque Impenale, no. 75, 
fol. 300). In every case where these brackets occur there 
is a gap in the Geniza fragment, showing that the word 
was originally present. The colophon with which the 
Paris text concludes is in a different hand to the rest of 
the MS., and has no historical value. 


"]bu\ W }D PS3T ntOV Kata DWBJK 13 DttVDJK 'DV3 mm 
NWO*! NC i>33 tD^n pn[» »3B>]l pBTfl HNB BID "Tyi ttrtB 

pi 'oy D^en^ pD^ irnss *ib»i jwinNi [pnnai] pana S>a caai 
Dio^n wju wim in NBy nw 2 p,nnyBB> |>6n moy!?] ^bk 

5 ^3]^33i jin^j? pD»ai w« ;ya s *ODnw jb pet pmDi[BJ] pnnaiy 
[!>a vini] n^bbj? [i>a] -inbo pn^i jimmfB]^ b^aji prm3i[y 
Kate 4 pjn majw [rv pmi>y -np Kjnytso n3 in ipb NyiN 
ina&w !>a i^api ptm[-6 n^y men] 6 vbwnb into 5 mBy mni^m 
p^>na "fftarvo i^aai Npw6 [pijnooi] 7, m33 p^tap pbii pn 

losnmBi «ni>y 10 mv3(b) i^B3i [nbhipi nib? '•rB ^ai] 'puai 
two^n's 12 anai "wo [no i>y ltapnw ptwm paiD'oi] kbhip nDa^i 
ann nayi tnni? [3-1 K?j]ro nan ^Brnx mnra 13 pnv 18 pi>Nn 
"won ^y nm rnn pBia pn "mma «mn namx xmt wiann 
nnxi "D^crm j>y]nn onp[b ^m]i Dpi mtsnab n[in]n» n^beh 

15 [-»«]p*a mb 17 ib[n]i [i]i3p ,| 3 dip mm l^ysi Nynn [n]oj .w 
total «nr>B p mnnB »J3B mb -ibni a^B nx nbj? [ptn]b 
mb -iBNi lupj yy N[ai>]BT wnym imy-i [nayjB^ wn« [;ya] 
i>y "pot* [tno]m NDa pn^K [^y nn njn] n?P [oajna t6 
n'-did !>y aaiB^ [to^Bi ot p "ma '•nm »nm pin saia 

ao mi> -iBNi pnv ^y tinix 19 ] by tamn w^Bm mena^ bo^bi tcbm 

I P. -von. ! P. proon;. 

3 P. movcn jo pw prTDio':i pa> pmaw cio'n. 

* P. p>n. 5 P. rrnrs?. • P. Dtow 1 !. 7 P. ma pSnop ran. 

4 P. Dtorro. * P. pm, 10 P. HTPl jo. 

II The gap is not large enough for all these words. Probably plD'31 
was absent from the Geniza fragment. 

a P. iroi. " P. j'b'Mn N<n:riD. " P. adds nVi. 

15 P. rmvH. u P. rtwnn. " P. io». 

18 P. p'Dis. The reading in the Geniza fragment may be p'CN Hnm »CC. 

19 From here to the end is from the Paris Codex. 


-13 pmn btrw manb pa»i pbp xh imp }d -aa ba ppa'i mpa 
ba ipasi mpa twin wwa na Kama by toom xoa ptjk mnno 
abNoen .tddn by ww mi 11 m pnv ts^N pa Tnonp p -\2i 
ypni xnbn pb^D nby -udki pyo'a xnbn na yDsi tain m 3'Dai 
tob^p pa^D mm tnnb nai xbop pna bDpi mbapi mapm ma^a 25 
ikwi pabx wibm nwo nbn Ninn kdiu mnno -o janv bopn 
nw sppni DiavojN yor wrm Nnyea wage mot? m npi mop 
nby iien Bbwb insi mcy mnibm tobo prn onaa pmby men 
Npiob payDDi mab pb'Dp vom pn ram p ba i^tapi jvrmb 
pnn* nnxT btoe* ya p pssnip noa^i Nnnaoi xn^v wva p i^oai 30 
pnnvpo ins"i btoB* 'oa p p^jdi Nmyob pnb inbaxi tcDoy 
m snip *aipna Nina uai Timi mnno inn nriN pymno «mpb 
by iDpDi cxp btw *aa p n-oj am Knaoy nb u'-dkt NnaiD 
hi b^Dpm Kabo ^d "ray sb n id" pnai an bpa rnaDi wioa 
"tamx twin xnyca wo mnDpa 3Tjamn xabo nan^a msy xb 35 
nan pa iaai tnua Tp 11 pna^b mm width wan viuai mnnD 
•bap) mam by main naa nnto pmanap by pnnyon nnnai tnnb 
py-inoi Dbervb mw vrnam ana yvrww winb nan xbop pna 
~inim Nn Dnasb now btasr* »aa» n-oj wito Dbn-m tow m 
'myoi NDia by worn onas brto wny» ua peo»*i pwnm 4° 
xaonb p lbiatci wim lpia pnb pioxi mua poison pw>im psnpi 
Nnye>a na Nabo '^ob [ljyDnt^Ni kjj'b ina 11m Nanon p me'i 
ibd3 aTia pam xanax p-ioi nosi pna^a Nn3D sn^o nbaa 
jyai man nsya^ n»V31 inT'S^y T3yn pov sn^c ntwn Nnms 
pmaia wbcNi nsd Nnstn nov m ^na vb) torn '•bpnan Nab 3D 45 
NDia by xnt^N ip^bnNi py« wnarn Dna3 nTjai Nnt^xs noo^b 
nra iyDB» ia unn^b 13a p3 eibxa wdi torn pnn 1 ibpi Nmyci 
\no Nnaa «m ^3nidt N^asob inxi pnnns p ipaa mnno »aa 
nopi mcN nTT 1 n3ioai pov N-aon 13 iim Ni3 mnn^N nT'b' 1 bxn^ 
yabi Dna3 tunDN i? hidn pnai 31 bpa xnao Npi ntt by 5° 
Nnflbvri apjr maio pb^ tny xb pns piDTn n^D^yn nvmbTi 
T»pan rwon Nnms by n3^ya sbi moan xab ao jya bs-it?" 1 n'aio 
nbmy by ww* nbaai mnbmjn nido mta' 1 nwDn ndvsi sam 


jo nnna n$>aai bbwri toie> tm* jo nnv tu& rwv mm n-o 

S5 to^y pnna inayn $>toe* naso jtwDi snna njw ten rovoi tow 
pmo»a jo Drnatn rwp nyn t<h new sennit* no^ ^ns 
onas arww tnrb nm t6op pn3 itapi nmno '33 nensn wnai 
-iron "wn bn p^n b .t!> pnos pi uy DiaroaK an? iopi rnram 
note, nnan sppn DiavoaK yoe> nai nmno <n nrana pba* «^ 

60 dn n^ ion pi yj? monp Dpi Dnaa spite. nmn<e>o bs re KDpoi> 
xn^o ^ yeen dn pni»K nnnn panp "^ayn dni nmaam !>nm 
hn pirata i>y ^ nw toooy i>y pyx ama iS> t6» mm too 
nmno *a3 twyon oy taip nsyoS nvoi> prranp nay i>yi pn'o^e' 
xey N»y ipaai iyn Nnane b ^y pwc tiw Tpan no ^ nanai 

6 5 n^n nd 1 - spa i»j?-» t6na t6na wu oWv i»y into nnnt* jo 
tecfaN b ppanoi tbvrci toie> rv pmnoi pae «h (!) p t6 pna 
Npo 5>y umn twayn nm nmno »aa iyotn t6a\n rv- (!)pnddoi 
lnawiKi iaai pn»e>iai> by pnnyon nnnai pn<e>n i»y ndc? iteien 
wan nnm» tnaia nmno "osn pnnnoe> pi»N ntd»y tabo onp 

70 pni3N pnn* "pai nryfo ntce»on mav nxyan janv nsn^n pyoe> 
lanrnw ;nd3 n3 mi.T nna nmn^ -ioni 'ay pnn» pDnt< nan «ppm 
jsea *33 pyot? Ntrvra xnto ne> tnnn 3pjr -0 nmn<3 lawx 
3nnt<i -non i»cap n^apin ^nsn 3py na pyoea lawt* iroTK 
Stn nTiiDip^ tonpij ^i»y nan "\: na i3aN3 la^on^ ns pni" 1 Dae» 

75 ion 'ni^yn b)W 13 jnan ^'•on'M ns jruv irnno Ni> *nnmN?i 
biNK» 3-im mnx jib'j xi? jnam* nK»p Dnuj 3^no D^^n ono Nip 
p-inriD" 1 © n!' jnjinn xncp pi3»j 3ino p^op ono opn 3ibti n!> 
iron^N T.3 ,, on , N jnd3 ns ->ty^N jpn xs'n i6 hstn N3nm unn^ 
nnin» "oy \monp joi potd p^op nmn ^e' nan rrnx na axi-a 

soo^pi ^aa iv nnDD njn Ntna n^i ^ n^ tun n^ ninsi) -idni 
Njn t<b ninNi> ioni pyDB* ^y nbvnf by inxn Na^o y«3*n , a3N3 
y3B»i picyi nso »bjki d^npi ^aa rr 1 nnoo xas nbhs «bi ^ rr'N 
t«h "b rvx xan xi> ninsi* -ioni pnp ^y abww by intn pai>o 
inxn pnoni pa^D nntn i>a 'aato D^pi '•B'aa rv nnDD xas Nana 

85 tot* xtna si>i ii» n^s Nan ab nin^ -ioni jnai" 1 "oy oi'Km'' f>y 
"ay obBTi* by into tn^ai xncp ninxn i>a »aata D^xpi ns>aa rT 1 nnDD 


'psu rv nnDD tot* kbhb xbi >b rvx wn «b ^ninxb -into irybN 
mw yy Dbe>w by intn «bnan towtsa peoboi »djn3 D^pi 
xnyea ra N'Doya ntn •jj'd'o -psi xbxDBa int?p »it? TiinN pyr>^ 
jt> it^jen ptntsN paxbo nyat? N^D^yn o*p ibo Tnby ~n& NTin 9° 
nun '•DJxa rrnrv nroi pra ivnnD '33 inrm pnrm^n m <tuv 
bs »wta pynt? nroi p^opi Dbw by idnt psbn yaen pe>jn 
nnsT bs »bjn3 pnv nrai pawi tabem" 1 by iriNi N3bn wti 
nn*n bs >S3N3 jrov nroi pjntai nbam* by intn pnoni pa^D 
pb'a bz , a3N3 -irybN nroi pjnsni abw\ s by into trwn xncp 95 
p3 -nybx iy3i jtfnpyi DbtJTV by in&n Nbna3 wv-Ptsa peaboi 
nm n* •i"" 1 pom enao N3n3 pism vnrotyN xbi N"n pai nwd 
Dbwo *iiy twi Ntmpn NyiN by pnpbin rniff 
new •'ban^n kjn nh ns p»xn Nnt^M ^nin iyu *rwi yi 
>TDy by ptWD p»Dy paDWi to cu nbii " ids "p ua W3e> 100 
nx py*mi ym was? new Dyb '•oip prvi N^nn to*rya "i 
D13VD3N wa mni min» ns « broi 76 nN3jnwb "onbt? nitm « 
''• mp p wtri ba ibd ib>3 bs dh 'ibi3i ntw Nabio dwbjn na 
tuna yityin'' n* wito yew nx ytm rT'tnip "ihdd 'banw nn 

NTB'DS 3'n3T HD3 rvbl3 N^y «bl31 "l N3NbD Qlp D'Np H31 105 

t033 xny 13 n^is 13 nnar nsu33 icy nn3 
• • • • "nossn yn b^ Dunn maDin obw 
obiy ntoisb ntwni D^nban D^abx ny3is row ncn ann3 


In a later number of the Jewish Quabterly Review 
I hope to describe the many other Geniza fragments of this 
book, which (through the kindness of Prof. Schechter and 
Dr. Neubauer) I have been able to examine and collate. 
I shall then also offer some further conclusions regarding 
tho date and origin of the Scroll of the Hasmoneans. 

I. Abrahams. 

vol. XI.