Scriptural Mormonism: Robert Doran on 2 Maccabees 12:43-45

In his commentary on 2 Maccabees, Robert Doran provided the following translation of 2 Macc 12:43-45:

Consequently, he made a collection from each man, and he sent about 2,000 silver drachmas to Jerusalem to bring a sacrifice for sin. He acted very correctly and honorably as he considered the resurrection. For if it were not expecting that the fallen would rise, [it would have been] superfluous and silly to pray on behalf of the dead. If he was looking at the most noble reciprocation placed for those who fall asleep piously, the thought was holy and pious. Wherefore, concerning the dead he made atonement to be absolved from the sin.

He provides the following commentary on 43b-45:

43b–45a This section begins another reflection by the author on the events. Just as Eleazar took up the high-principled position (6:23: ὁ δὲ λογισμὸν ἀστεῖον ἀναλαβών) to be sent into Hades rather than transgress the law, so Judas’s considerations are honorable. The author uses the adverb πάνυ (“very”) in 15:17, where I have translated it as “exceedingly,” to describe Judas’s speech. Elsewhere, in 9:6 and 13:7, it is used in the description of how God justly, that is, by means of just deserts, repays sins. The two participles πράττων … διαλογιζόμενος are in asyndeton, as action is linked to thought.

Two thousand drachmas, about one-third of a talent. The amount sent by Jason for the sacrifice to Herakles was three hundred drachmas (4:19), so this is decidedly more.

This section has been the subject of much discussion. The first conditional clause is an unreal past conditional without ἀν in the apodosis. For the second conditional clause, I have read εἰ τέ rather than the particle εἲτε. A disjunctive particle makes no sense in this context. With the two conditional sentences of vv. 44 and 45a, the reflection continues. Elmer O’Brien and Abel see these two sentences as the result of several glosses made to an original text and follow the Latin text of La^L: “because [reading ὅτι instead of εἰ μὴ γάρ] he hoped that the fallen would rise (superfluous and silly to pray for the dead), considering that the best reward was reserved for those who die piously (a holy and pious thought).” The phrases in parenthesis would have been made by later editors, the first by a skeptical reader, the second by someone who believes in resurrection. However, I have chosen to follow the text as found in Hanhart’s critical edition and see these two conditional sentences balancing one another. As in previous reflections, the author counters opposing positions, as in 5:18 and 6:12–13. Here the author first refutes the opinion that it is pointless to pray for the dead and then encourages people to live and die piously.

Throughout all this section on the fallen, the author has emphasized the communal aspect. Judas and his followers wanted to return the fallen to their ancestral graves with their kinsfolk (12:39). Each member of the force contributes to the sacrifice so that the sin might be completely taken away from the community (12:42–43). Goldstein refers to rabbinic procedures whereby the community had to make a special offering to pay for the sacrifice for a community purification offering and extra money would be used as a donation to the temple (t. Šeqal. 2:6; b. Menaḥ. 52a). What is interesting here is that Judas believes that the community reaches beyond the grave. Whereas later rabbinic thought would see death itself as an expiation, here the author sees those dead who acted against the law as requiring purification. Grimm already pointed to the fascinating passage in 1 Cor 15:29: “What do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?” One could also mention the prayer of Perpetua for her dead brother. In a vision, she saw him disfigured and in pain, but after her prayer, she saw him healthy and joyful (Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas 7–8). The idea that the dead had a disembodied existence after life was widespread in the Hebrew Bible. However, 1 Enoch 22 holds that the dead are already separated into the righteous and unrighteous, with no hope of movement from one camp to the other, as one sees also in Luke 16:26. The sense of ethnic identity seems predominant for our author. Here one is reminded of the way that Vergil portrays those in the underworld as still belonging to one camp or the other—one is either on the Trojan side or on the Greek side (Aen. 6.644–50).

Schwartz emphasizes that the author says “to pray” rather than “to sacrifice,” which he sees as a sign of diasporan usage. But there does not seem to be such a huge divide between the two. Isaiah had emphasized that the temple is for prayer: “The temple shall be called a house of prayer” (Isa 56:7). Solomon asked that if the people were defeated because of their sin and turned to God and prayed in the temple, God would forgive them (3 Kgdms 8:33–34). Isaiah 60:7 reads: “All the sheep of Kedar shall be gathered and the rams of Nabioth will come, and they will be offered up on your altar, and my house of prayer will be glorified.” It is true that the noun and verb used here are προσευχή, προσεύχεσθαι, but the simple εὔχεσθαι fits the rhythm of this sentence better.

The second conditional clause puts forth an exhortation to live piously, so that one will not need such an expiation. Here “fall asleep” is a euphemism for “die.” I have translated χαριστήριον with the rather clumsy “reciprocation.” Literally it means “thanksgiving” and is normally found in the context of a thank offering to the gods, even in the works of Philo and Josephus.⁶⁸ Goldstein was right to note that the term usually refers to a thank offering to the gods. However, it is important to recognize that this term belongs to the language of euergetism and reciprocity so well studied by Ma. While cities normally gave thanks to their kings for favors granted, Ma has also noted how “a city could represent itself as the euergetes of the king, and speak of royal eucharistia instead of the (more familiar) reverse situation.” It is this reverse situation that is present here. God is perceived as bestowing thanks on those who have died piously. The situation is different for those who fell in the battle wearing idol images. Note the paronomasia of εὐσεβείας … εὐσεβής.

■ 45b The language here is particularly close to that of Lev 4:13–35. In Lev 4:20, 26, 35, the formula used for a purification offering for the people, the priest, and an individual is ἐξιλάσεται περί, comparable to the present τὸν ἐξιλασμὸν ἐποιήσατο περί (“made atonement”), where the author again uses the periphrasis of ποιέω + noun. The author has Judas think that the efficacy of the purification offering reaches beyond the grave and reunites kinsfolk.(Robert Dorman, 2 Maccabees: A Critical Commentary [Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2012], 246-48)