1 Introduction
A small jewel of educated and refined Greek in the multiform (but not always elegant) world of the Septuagint and the work of a geschwätzig1 writer who loves lexical variatio and displays an unwavering commitment to the values of Judaism—this is how the Second Book of Maccabees, the summary of the historical work of Jason of Cyrene (an otherwise forgotten author who lived in the second century BCE), still comes across today, over 150 years after the publication of Grimm’s (1857) commentary.
Establishing the causes of the Maccabean revolt continued to arouse the interest of scholars in the twentieth century. Momigliano (1931, 1931–1932) began by highlighting the phenomenon of resistance to the denationalization imposed on the Jews of Judea within the context of complex political relations among the Ptolemies, Seleucids, and various internal currents of Judaism.2 Some years later, Bickermann’s (1937) book Der Gott der Makkabäer represented a significant breakthrough. Its author firmly maintained that the persecution unleashed by Antiochus IV on the Jewish world began internally.3
In recent years, new contributions have come from scholars belonging to different fields. The commentaries by Habicht (1976), Goldstein (1983), Schwartz (2008), Doran (2012), and Troiani and Balzaretti (2018) revisit old interpretations and improve our understanding of the book within its Hellenistic context. The book’s linguistic and stylistic aspects have also gained increasing attention. Indeed, besides the historical issues that it addresses, the work is remarkable within the Septuagint corpus for its unique linguistic quality, which has often been compared with Polybius’ prose.4 Its language is correct but also rich in innovative Koine forms, which made this
Despite excellent work on this topic, it is still difficult to determine a plausible chronology from the linguistic evidence. For instance, in his dissertation on the neologisms of 2 Macc., Domazakis (2018) uses internal lexical evidence to support a date in the first century BCE or around the turn of the Common Era.5
The question depends on how the book is classified in terms of literary genre, models, and target audience. Although it is often (and properly) considered an Asianic book6 and the only surviving example of so-called tragic historiography,7 2 Macc. also deserves attention as a product of Hellenistic rhetoric. The prologue, for instance, has attracted much interest, especially the point at which the epitomist compares the author of the narrative, Jason of Cyrene, to an architect (2.29
As a matter of fact, the author is fond of most common Hellenistic rhetorical devices, including paronomasia, tricolon, alliteration, homoioteleuton, metaphor, litotes, parallelism, antithesis, chiasm, asyndeton, and prose-rhythm elements.9 He also displays a lexical inventory rich in poetic language that is otherwise not attested in the Septuagint. By focusing on some of these Septuagint hapax legomena, it is possible to assess the formal originality of the author in comparison with Polybius and other Hellenistic prose writers.10 The multifarious style of the book shows the potential of the Greco-Judaic culture of the second century BCE to teeter between everyday Koine, bureaucratic or formal language, and literary Koine, as well as the possibility of isolating some extravagant stylistic choices.
This chapter further explores some of the linguistic and stylistic issues related to 2 Macc., focusing on three major stylistic aspects—phonetics, morphology, and, most importantly, lexicon—to determine to what extent a trend towards grammatical correctness (that is, Atticism) can coexist with the clearly Koine features found in an Asianic book such as 2 Macc.
2 Some Phonetic Features
The phonetic features of the book contribute only in a limited way to the present research. One relevant example concerns the treatment of the -
Even before the Atticist revival, in high-level Koine, individual words often presented the cluster -
These moments of finesse, however, are not enough to suggest the presence of systematic linguistic Atticism. In fact, the text also includes Hellenistic forms, such as
3 Morphological Features
It is worth considering a morphological phenomenon related more to Ionic than to Attic features. The uncontracted genitive plural
As a matter of fact, the author elsewhere employs the common forms
The overall impression is that we are dealing with a relatively common Koine feature that originated from the Ionic Grundlage of the language, perhaps with some stylistic pretensions, and then expanded significantly in the Hellenistic period as a useful alternative to the contracted form and for the sake of rhetorical rhythm.
In addition to this Hellenistic trait, several other low Koine features can be identified in the book’s verbal morphology. One example is the -
Such morphological inconsistencies between hypercorrect and vernacular usage set the tone for the narrative, although there are a few cases of proper balance, as with the forms
4 Lexicon
Regarding lexicon, it is even more difficult to clearly identify a major trend in the book.27 Although Domazakis (2018) concludes that some of the noteworthy lexical similarities between 2 Macc. and Polybius’ Histories are best explained if one posits that the author was a reader of Polybius,28 2 Macc.’s independence from contemporary prose can be demonstrated by focusing on Septuagint hapax legomena, some of which are not attested in the Polybios-Lexikon.29
Among the rare terms and hapax legomena in the Septuagint, I shall focus on a few examples that I deem useful for clarifying the author of 2 Macc.’s lexical choices. These terms are sometimes shared with Polybius, but in other cases, they are independent choices. Finally, some words are clearly Hellenistic and balance the book’s scholarly pretensions with Koine components.
4.1 ληρώδης
One of the most interesting hapax legomena in the Septuagint is the adjective
12.44
εἰ μὴ γὰρ τοὺς προπεπτωκότας ἀναστῆναι προσεδόκα, περισσὸν καὶ ληρῶδες ὑπὲρ νεκρῶν εὔχεσθαι .
For if he were not expecting that the fallen would rise, it would have been superfluous and silly to pray on behalf of the dead.
This is, in fact, the first scriptural reference to the existence of a supernatural kingdom designed for the purification of sins. We come, then, to the use of
Even more scarce occurrences are attested in successive centuries. There is one from the third-century BCE doctor Erasistratus (fr. 79.10 Garofalo), but the testimony is indirect, transmitted by Galen. An ancient scholion on Pindar (Pyth. 3.52b.10 Drachmann) indirectly transmits a passage from the second-century BCE historian Artemon of Pergamum related to the myth of Coronis, defined as
In documentary papyri, the only recorded case dates to the second century BCE (BGU 3.1011, a letter relating to a dispute between officials) and is found in dittology with
The noun
In short, our author’s expression
4.2 γοῦν
Further evidence of the author’s zeal for literary prose, particularly Attic Greek, comes from the use of the particle
5.21
Ὁ γοῦν Ἀντίοχος ὀκτακόσια πρὸς τοῖς χιλίοις ἀπενεγκάμενος ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τάλαντα θᾶττον εἰς τὴν Ἀντιόχειαν ἐχωρίσθη οἰόμενος ἀπὸ τῆς ὑπερηφανίας τὴν μὲν γῆν πλωτὴν καὶ τὸ πέλαγος πορευτὸν θέσθαι διὰ τὸν μετεωρισμὸν τῆς καρδίας .
Antiochus then carried off one thousand eight hundred talents from the temple and quickly went away to Antioch. He arrogantly supposed that he could make the land navigable and, because of his heart’s haughtiness, the sea walkable.
As in Polybius and, later, Diodorus,
This very common Attic Greek particle, with its limiting semantic value of ‘at least’ or its emphatic one of ‘precisely’ or added explanation, occurs a handful of times in the Septuagint (2 Macc. 5.21, 4 Macc. 2.2, 2.5, 2.8, 3.6),35 while it occurs in Polybius and Diodorus 18× and 16× respectively, compared with 18× in Thucydides, 75× in Xenophon, 223× in Plato, and, significantly, 98× in the Atticist Dionysius of Halicarnassus.36
4.3 Some Hellenistic Terms
Nevertheless, the case of
The first example is the noun
A second example of a primarily Hellenistic form is the adverb
Even more so, the very rare formation
4.4 A Kind of Stylistic Balance
It is often difficult to classify these lexical developments as belonging to either a low or a high Koine. The former is most open to morphological, syntactical, and semantic innovations from the spoken language, such as the infrequent use of the optative (3× or 4×).45 However, even in these cases, there are some caveats: if we look at the diminutive
Some of these innovations were accepted in an unsystematic manner by writers, specifically Polybius, Diodorus, and other historians of the second and first centuries BCE. Thus, it is not easy to determine in each case when the natural censorship of spoken language in favor of written language would have kicked in. This is especially true for written language that has literary pretensions. Examples are the prefixed
This was not the case for
The second level is that of high Koine, as attested by the broad and at times even stilted lexical variety as well as by the dismissal of terms deemed too common. The scholastic and erudite aspects of our author’s experiment are obvious; he is ashamed even to use the trivial (and common at his time)
A series of grammatical features conspire towards the same effect: the preservation of the demonstrative
Among the latter, the rare word
However, beyond these attempts to achieve a literary register, which are even more striking coming from a Hellenized Jew, another important Hellenistic cultural component stands out in the text, as evidenced by a precise repertoire of forms. I am referring to a type of vocabulary that I would describe as intellectualistic, often confined to bureaucratic use and consisting of abstract words or definitions belonging originally to philosophy (specifically, Stoic philosophy) and then used more widely (e.g.,
Much of this Hellenistic culture is documented in both 2 Macc. and Polybius, but, interestingly, there is a part that Polybius seems to refuse in toto. For example, the historian disliked some typical Hellenistic forms of Koine, such as
The epitome also offers original vocabulary drawn from a rhetorical register, including
The possibility of nods towards literary culture are based on the author’s multifarious readings. Thus, beyond some scholars’ insistence on the author’s reliance on Polybius, which remains difficult to verify—as Domazakis (2018) admits61 —it will be useful to focus on the work’s more original literary claims to grasp its actual stylistic level. An emblematic case is that of the prologue, in which the author presents the book as the summary of the most extensive work of Jason of Cyrene. There, he claims to willingly give up precision and to strive for brevity; it has been suggested that a Thucydidean model (1.22.2:
However, the allusion to Thucydides in the prologue is only one prose tile in a mosaic that shines mainly in its use of poetic terms, which can only be summarized here. Some of these, such as
Impressed by the impact of the Maccabees’ rebellion and Judah and his men’s heroism, the author also aspired to an epic flair through adverbial forms such as
5 Conclusion
The overall impression from this survey is that our author strove to observe several standards, including Classical Greek literary and Hellenistic rhetorical devices, but failed to achieve a coherent style and often resorted to low Koine features. His main concern was
Indeed, it is difficult to deny the Hellenistic (that is, Asianic) features of the work thoroughly described by Gil (1958). The epitomist did nothing but write according to the taste typical of his time, with all the linguistic care of a scholar. This is a likely explanation for the co-presence of terms taken from classical authors and undeniable Hellenistic novelties as well as the grammatical zeal evident in some of the author’s choices, such as the avoidance of
On the other hand, the emergence of low Koine features, such as new lexical formations and the ending in –
It might be surprising to note some similarities with Dionysius of Halicarnassus in these contradictory data since he strove for grammatical Atticism (e.g., reviving the classical
Moreover, and most importantly, partly because it depends on the date to which we wish to assign the book, the epitomist would not have known that his way of writing was ‘Asian’; as we have seen, this category was a later invention. Did he have any knowledge of Atticism? If we accept the theory of a grammatical Atticism that preceded that of Dionysius of Halicarnassus,70 the answer could be affirmative. Nevertheless, in the case of a later date than the first century BCE or even as late as the 40s CE, as suggested by Domazakis (2018), the author of 2 Macc. would have been far removed from the debate about Atticism that flourished at the time of Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Indeed, this is the most likely case; coming from Cyrene, Jason must have lived in Jerusalem or the Diaspora (Alexandria or Antioch),71 as did his epitomist—or the unknown late redactor hypothesized by Habicht (1976, pp. 174–177).
However, it is not in the Roman but in the Hellenistic period that we need to look for the literary models of the narrative and reconstruct the tastes of its reading public. A look at other works that flourished in the world of second-century BCE Hellenistic Judaism may be helpful.
The first author to write about Jewish history in Greek was Demetrius (perhaps of Alexandria), author of the work
Moreover, they were not the only Greek-writing Jewish authors of the time. The Greek-speaking Judaic elite of the Hasmonean age, so proud of the political independence of their kingdom, also read Philo’s epic poem
Thus, despite ungenerous assessments, whether the author of 2 Macc. was stylistically inferior to Polybius and Diodorus is at least questionable.78 What he really lacked was an original approach to historiography—as he himself admits in the preface (2.19–32)—his main aim being to write an embellished epitome, a rhetorical work rather than a historical one. Paradoxically, just like Hegesias, a confessed emulator of Lysias79 and the first to be labeled an Asianic writer, the epitomist (or late redactor) of 2 Macc. pursued a style that would later be called Asianism at a time when it was gradually falling out of fashion in favor of early Atticist doctrine. His grammatical zeal, however, represents early steps in the rebirth of grammar and Attic correctness in Hellenistic Jewish literature.
Bibliography
Bickerman, E. J. (2007). The Jewish Historian Demetrios. In A. Tropper (Ed.), Studies in Jewish and Christian History: A New Edition in English Including the God of the Maccabees (Vol. 2, pp. 618–630). Brill. (Reprinted from Christianity, Judaism, and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty (Vol. 3), pp. 72–84, by J. Neusner, Ed., 1975, Brill.)
Coetzer, E. (2015). A Rhetorical Analysis of 2 Maccabees [Doctoral dissertation]. North- West University.
Connolly, L. (1983). Atticism in Non-Literary Papyri of the First Seven Centuries AD: A Study on Several Features of Ortography and Syntax [BA thesis]. University of Sydney.
Favi, F. (2022a). γίγνομαι, γιγνώσκω (Moer. γ 3). In O. Tribulato (Ed.), Digital Encyclopedia of Atticism. https://doi.org/10.30687/DEA/2021/01/018.
Favi, F. (2022b). εἶμι, ἐλεύσομαι (Phryn. Ecl. 24, Phryn. Ecl. 161, Poll. 5.155, Moer. α 29). In O. Tribulato (Ed.), Digital Encyclopedia of Atticism. https://doi.org/10.30687/DEA/2021/01/001.
Gerbi, G. (2023). ἀνθέων (Antiatt. α 137, [Hdn.] Philet. 7). In O. Tribulato (Ed.), Digital Encyclopedia of Atticism. https://doi.org/10.30687/DEA/2974-8240/2022/01/005.
Le Moigne, P. (2012). Le caractère hétérogène du grec de la LXX: L’exemple de 2M. In S. Kreuzer, M. Meiser, & M. Sigismund (Eds.), Die Septuaginta: Entstehung, Sprache, Geschichte. 3. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 22–25 Juli 2010 (pp. 249–272). Mohr Siebeck.
Richnow, W. (1967). Untersuchungen zu Sprache und Stil des 2. Makkabäerbuches. Ein Beitrag zur hellenistischen Historiographie [Doctoral dissertation]. Georg-August-Universität Göttingen.
Sebastiani, B. B. (2015). Droysen’s Concept of Hellenism Between Philology and History. Aitia, 5(1). http://journals.openedition.org/aitia/1336.
“Wir müssen den geschwätzigen Schriftsteller nehmen so wie er ist” (Niese 1900, p. 14).
“The epitome is a somewhat incoherent conglomeration of six main motifs: tribal warrior spirit; miracles and, more specifically, intervention of supernatural beings in events relating to the temple; some basic beliefs about God’s intervention in history; the solitary leadership of Judas Maccabaeus; mixed attitudes to foreigners; and the importance of martyrdom” (Momigliano 1975, p. 85).
“Die Religionsverfolgung des Epiphanes war weder zufällig noch aus dem Geist des Heidentums hervorgegangen. Sie ging von den Juden selber aus, die eine Reform des Glaubens der Väter im Sinne einer Abkehr vom Einzigkeitsglauben erstrebte, ohne daß sie dadurch den Gott der Väter ganz verlassen und Zion untreu werden wollte” (Bickermann 1937, p. 8). For historical background, see Avi-Yonah (1976), Bar-Kochva (1989), and Grabbe (2020, pp. 340–387).
The linguistic peculiarity of 2 Macc. when compared to the other books of the Septuagint is not a modern discovery. Jerome had already noted the Greek origin of this text: secundus graecus est, quod ex ipsa quoque
Domazakis (2018, pp. 357–358). Before Domazakis, there was broad agreement for a date at the end of the second century or during the first half of the first century BCE; see Richnow (1967, p. 71). According to Momigliano (1975, p. 83), who postulates a date of 124 BCE, “In 124 BCE an official of the Jerusalem council was asked to reiterate the invitation to the Egyptian Jews to join in the festival of 25 Kislev […] II Maccabees, as we have it, would be the result of a joint effort by an official of the Jewish community of Jerusalem, whose native language was Jewish or more probably Aramaic, and a writer whose native language was presumably Greek.” According to Habicht (1976, pp. 174–177), three layers can be distinguished in the book: the story of Jason, written between 161 and 124 BCE; the epitome, which must have been written not long before 124 BCE, when it was attached to the first letter and sent to Egypt; and the third layer, which can be dated between 124 BCE and the destruction of the Temple (70 CE), when an unknown redactor reworked the epitome into its present form. On the time of composition, see also Nicklas 2016, pp. 310–311.
This book can be rightly considered “suma y compendio del asianismo” (Gil 1958, p. 31) as it blends the two major trends of Asianism identified by Norden (1898, pp. 131–149) based on Cicero’s review of the leading literary movements of his time (Brutus 325). However, Doran (1981, p. 45) argues that “there is no reason to apply the label of ‘Asianic’ to 2 Maccabees” since Asianism was not properly a literary movement. On the genesis of ‘Asianism’, a term coined by the Atticist movement as a polemical Schlagwort, see also Wilamowitz (1900, pp. 1–8), who uses a date between 55–46 BCE, Hidber (1996, p. 36), and Lucarini (2015, pp. 22–23), who suggests a date around 110 BCE.
“Das zweite Makkabäerbuch stellt für uns das einzige Beispiel dieser Litteraturgattung dar, von der sonst keine Werke vollständig erhalten sind” (Bickermann 1937, p. 147). For a reconsideration of this time-worn category in relation to 2 Macc., see Doran (2012, pp. 3–4); a comprehensive rethinking of the topic is found in Marincola (2013).
All Greek quotations are from Hanhart & Kappler’s critical edition. Translated texts are from Doran’s edition.
The best stylistic analysis is that of Gil (1958, pp. 20–30); for a summary, see Doran (2012, pp. 4–5).
Recall Deissmann’s (1908, p. 45, n. 5) recommendation concerning the abused category of hapax legomenon: “Es sind
More precise data about this book is found in Thackeray (1909, pp. 121–122). “The substitution of Attic ⟨-
Thackeray (1909, p. 184).
Cf. Phryn. Ecl. 52.
In the LXX, “
For further details, see Domazakis (2018, p. 178).
“In Hellenistic and early Imperial prose,
On the difference between Ionic and Attic inflection in this case, see Chantraine (1961, p. 69). Considering that a reasonable margin of error must be allowed due to manuscript transmission, it is interesting to read the different positions still taken by scholars on this issue at the beginning of the last century. “Diese offenen Formen scheinen besonders dem Osten des Sprachgebrauchs anzugehören (ohne jedoch hier ausschliesslich zu herrschen) und dürften aus diesen wie andern Erwägungen jonischen Ursprungs sein” (Thumb 1901, p. 63). Moulton (1901, p. 435) emphasizes the comparison with genitives such as
Horrocks (2010, p. 138). As noted by Thackeray (1909, p. 151), “The
Similarly, Xenophon often employs the form
Cassio (1996, p. 161). In a funeral inscription from Smyrna dated between the second and first century BCE, it is possible to find the uncontracted genitive plural
Mayser (1938, p. 37).
This is a very common phenomenon in inscriptions from the third century BCE, as evidenced, for example, by documents from Pergamon (Mandilaras 1972, pp. 13–14) and the LXX (Thackeray 1909, p. 212). Sextus Empiricus (Adv. Gramm. 213) classifies the form of the perfect in -
Shaw (2016, p. 415).
Le Moigne (2012, p. 252).
Shaw (2016, p. 413).
The former at 4:14, 6:2, 9:16, 10:3.5, 13:23, 14:33; the latter at 8:2, 10:5, 14:35, 15:18.33; see Doran (1981, p. 27). On Polybius’ use, see de Foucault (1972, p. 65); on the Septuagint, see Thackeray (1909, p. 144).
The text’s unique lexicon has already been noted by Grimm (1857, p. 7). Most later studies privilege the historical and theological dimensions of the text, as does Abel’s commentary (1949, p. XXXVI).
Domazakis (2018, p. 340).
To my astonishment, LEH records 375 Septuagint hapax legomena in this book (Shaw 2016, p. 409), whereas Domazakis identifies only 68 neologisms (Domazakis 2018, pp. 404–405).
On the suffix –
It is worth saying a bit more about the Platonic passage. After recounting the story of Thales, who fell into a well and elicited laughter from a Thracian servant, Socrates discusses the eradication of the philosopher from society: ‘As to laudatory speeches and the boastings of others, it becomes manifest that he is laughing at them—not pretending to laugh, but really laughing—and so he is thought to be a fool (
De ira (2× or 3×): P. Herc. 182 (fr. 17 Indelli); De poematis 2 (1×): P. Herc. 994.
Note that
According to Denniston (1954, p. 450), “
According to Muraoka (2009, p. 136 s.v.),
As with most Greek particles,
See Usher (1960, p. 364), who provides data for
“2 Maccabees betrays its vacillation between vernacular and more cultivated speech” (Walters 1973, p. 113).
For a classification of the different levels of Koine, see Cassio (1998) and Kaczko (2016, pp. 387–389).
According to Suda
“D’autres composés de la même famille sont usuels dans le vocabulaire philosophique: les stoïciens appellent
Meecham (1935, pp. 65–66).
Meecham (1935, p. 230), who also identifies papyrological evidence (e.g., PTebt. I 27, 45, dated to 113 BCE:
On the few nouns in –
However, the rare use of the optative has also been explained by the lack of direct speech in the narrative (Shaw 2016, p. 412).
However, note that “compared to other Hellenistic works, 2 Maccabees is found to have a very low number of diminutives, which indicates its author’s concern to avoid colloquial diction” (Domazakis 2018, p. 167).
This is particularly evident in the first case; in the phrase
It is well known that Dionysius’ style retains many Hellenistic traits. “Le vocabulaire porte doublement la marque de la langue hellénistique: d’une part il admet des vulgarismes […], d’autre part il recherche les mots composés ou dérivés et les poétismes, typiques d’une évolution qui commence dès l’époque alexandrine” (Lasserre 1979, p. 145).
For more details on the expression
These are listed by Domazakis (2018, p. 178), who also points out that the Greek Enoch has been assigned to a period either between 150 and 50 BCE (Larson 2005, pp. 87–88) or before the end of the first century BCE (Nickelsburg 2001, p. 14).
Doran (1981, pp. 32–33) considers the use of the future participle in the book “evidence of literary stylization”. In fact, it is almost absent from the LXX outside the “literary works” (Thackeray 1909, p. 194).
On the last type, note that “sein Gebrauch gehörte wohl niemals der lebenden Volkssprache, sondern der literarischen Kunstsprache und dem auf attischer Grundlage stehenden Kanzleistil an” (Mayser 1926, pp. 359–360).
See also Domazakis (2018, p. 365).
In Septuagint Greek, there are no examples of
The foundational study of
However, this construction was subsequently avoided by the Atticizing Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Palm 1955, p. 97).
A hapax in the Septuagint,
Meecham (1935, p. 68).
“Epicurus re-introduced the words, and his example was followed by subsequent writers, Plutarch, Josephus, Appian, Philo, and others. Cleomedes, Cycl. Theor. 2, p. 112, ed. Bak., expressly mentions
“The examination of half a dozen morpho-semantic and a few semantic Polybian neologisms which occur in 2 Maccabees provided indications of the deuterocanonical book’s lexical dependence on the Histories, but no strongly conclusive evidence” (Domazakis 2018, pp. 353–354).
Canfora (2013, p. 546).
Among the hallmarks of correct Attic usage listed by Horrocks (2010, p. 138) is the construction of abstract nominals with the neuter article and an adjective in agreement.
On the poetic flavor of the corradical
A hapax in the Septuagint, the preposition
On the preservation of
The adverbial suffix -
Momigliano (1975, pp. 85–86) considers the isolation of Judas a sign of archaism recalling the Book of Judges.
“Mit einem Schlage ging das freilich nicht; es war den atticistisch Gesonnenen gar nicht sofort bewusst, wie vieles sie im Munde führten, was der sehr exclusive Geschmack der attischen Rede des 4. Jahrhunderts verschmäht oder nicht gekannt hatte. Man darf sich also nicht wundern, wenn Dionysios in seiner Geschichte uns oft dem Polybios näher zu stehen scheint als dem Cassius Dio, dessen Griechische ein Pelz von altattischem Allerleirauch ist” (Wilamowitz 1900, p. 39).
See the Introduction to this volume. The theory of a Greek origin of Atticism predating Roman Atticism and Dionysius of Halicarnassus has been defended, among others, by Norden (1898, pp. 149–151), who assumes that the Atticist reaction began around 200 BCE, and Dihle (1977, pp. 167–169). According to Preisshofen (1979), the classicist scheme applied to art history must have been derived from rhetoric in a period before 150 BCE. Lucarini (2015, p. 22) argues that a start date for the Atticist reaction after 150 BCE is unlikely.
For an overview of the different theories about the place of composition, see Doran (2012, pp. 15–17). According to Bévenot (1931, p. 9), Jason came from Cyrene and went to Jerusalem to gather information about the Maccabean insurrection; however, the epitome was probably written in Alexandria. According to Arenhoevel (1967, pp. 115–116), Jason was brought up in Alexandria. Schwartz (2008, pp. 45–55) also considers 2 Macc. a “diasporan book”.
On Demetrius, see Fraser (1972, pp. 690–694), Bickermann (2007, pp. 618–630), and Holladay (1983, pp. 52–53).
On Eupolemus, see Wacholder (1974) and Collins (2000, pp. 46–50).
According to Wacholder (1974, p. 257), “Only the presumed existence of a distinct Judaeo- Greek dialect renders Eupolemus’ Greek tolerable.” Thorough evaluations of Eupolemus’ style are found in Freudenthal (1874, p. 109) and Holladay (1983, p. 95).
For a proper reassessment of Demetrius, Eupolemus, and the beginning of the Hellenistic Hebrew-Greek literary tradition, see Dhont (2020).
The extant texts of Philo and Theodotus (prob. second century BCE) have been edited, among others, by Kuhn (2012). On Philo, see also Faulkner (2014) and Magnelli (2015–2016).
For instance, in Diogenes of Babylonia (Diog. Laert. 7.59.1–3 = SVF 3.24). The earliest known treatise devoted entirely to
“Thus while our author often produces a high level of language, a serious look at his shortcomings reveals that he was no aficionado of Greek. Whatever his level of education, in no way does it equal that of surviving contemporary historians, whether Jewish or Gentile. It is safe to place him on a level of style above that of other writers/translators of the Septuagint (save perhaps Fourth Maccabees), and possibly Ps.-Aristeas too, but clearly somewhere below Polybius, Diodorus, Philo, and Josephus” (Shaw 2016, p. 415). In contrast, Palm (1955, pp. 119–120) writes, “in II Macch. haben wir im grossen und ganzen ein Gegenstück zu der Prosa des Diodorus”.
Cic. ad Att. 12.6.