The Books of Machabees
The title of four books, of which the first and second only are
regarded by the Church as canonical; the third and fourth, as
Protestants consider all four, are apocryphal. The first two have
been so named because they treat of the history of the rebellion of
the Machabees, the fourth because it speaks of the Machabee martyrs.
The third, which has no connection whatever with the Machabee
period, no doubt owes its name to the fact that like the others it
treats of a persecution of
the Jews. For the canonicity of I and II Mach. see
CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
THE FIRST BOOK OF MACHABEES
(Makkabaion A; Liber Primus Machabaeorum).
Contents
The First Book of the Machabees
is a history of the struggle of the Jewish people for religious and
political liberty under the leadership of the Machabee family, with
Judas Machabeus as the central figure. After a brief introduction
(i, 1-9) explaining how the Jews came to pass from the Persian
domination to that of the Seleucids, it relates the causes of the
rising under Mathathias and the details of the revolt up to his
death (i, 10-11);1 the glorious deeds and heroic death of Judas
Machabeus (iii-ix, 22); the story of the successful leadership of
Jonathan (ix, 23)2, and of the wise administration of Simon
(xiii-xvi, 17). It concludes (xvi, 18-24) with a brief mention of
the difficulties attending the accession of John Hyrcanus and with a
short summary of his reign. The book thus covers the period between the years 175 and 135 B.C.
Character
The narrative both in style and manner is
modelled on the earlier historical books of the Old Testament. The
style is usually simple, yet it at times becomes eloquent and even
poetic, as, for instance, in Mathathias's lament over the woes of
the people and the profanation of the Temple (ii, 7-13), or in the
eulogy of Judas Machabeus (iii, 1-9), or again in the
description of the peace and prosperity of the
people after the long years of war and suffering (xiv, 4-15). The
tone is calm and objective, the author as a rule abstaining from any
direct comment
on the facts he is narrating. The more important events are
carefully dated according to the Seleucid era, which began with the
autumn of 312 B.C.3 It should be noted, however, that the author
begins the year with spring (the month Nisan), whereas the author of
II Mach. begins it with autumn (the month Tishri). By reason of this
difference some of the events are dated a year later in the second
than in the first book. (Cf. Patrizzi, "De Consensu Utriusque Libri
Mach.", 27 sq.; Schürer, "Hist. of the Jewish People", I, I, 36
sq.).
Original Language
The text from which all translations
have been derived is the Greek of the Septuagint. But there is
little doubt that the Septuagint is itself a translation of a Hebrew
or Aramaic original,
with the probabilities in favour of Hebrew. Not only is the
structure of
the sentences decidedly Hebrew (or Aramaic); but many words and
expressions occur which are literal renderings of Hebrew idioms
(ee.g., i, 4, 15, 16, 44; ii, 19, 42, 48; v, 37, 40; etc.). These
peculiarities can scarcely be explained by assuming that the writer
was little versed in Greek, for a number of instances show that he
was acquainted with the niceties of the language. Besides, there are
inexact expressions and obscurities which can be explained only in
the supposition of an imperfect translation or a misreading of a
Hebrew original (ee.g., i, 16, 28; iv, 19, 24; xi, 28; xiv, 5). The
internal evidence is confirmed by the testimony of St. Jerome and of
Origen. The former writes that he saw the book in Hebrew:
"Machabaeorum primum librum Hebraicum reperi" (Prol. Galeat.). As
there is no ground for assuming that St. Jerome refers to a
translation, and as he is not likely to have applied the term Hebrew
to an Aramaic text, his testimony tells strongly in favour of a
Hebrew as against an Aramaic original. Origen states (Eusebius,
"Hist. Eccl.", vi, 25) that the title of the book was Sarbeth
Sarbane el, or more correctly Sarbeth Sarbanaiel.
Though the meaning of this title is uncertain (a
number of different explanations have been proposed, especially of
the first reading), it is plainly either Hebrew or Aramaic. The
fragment
of a Hebrew text published by Chwolson in 1896, and later again by
Schweitzer, has little claim to be considered as part of the
original.
Author and Date of Composition
No data can be found
either in the book itself or in later writers which would give us a
clue as to
the person of the author. Names have indeed been mentioned, but on
groundless conjecture. That he was a native of Palestine is evident
from the language in which he wrote, and from the thorough knowledge
of the geography of Palestine which he possessed. Although he rarely
expresses his own
sentiments, the spirit pervading his work is proof that he was
deeply religious, zealous for the Law, and thoroughly in sympathy
with the Machabean movement and its leaders. However, strange to
say, he studiously avoids the use of the words "God" and "Lord"
(that is in the better Greek text; in the ordinary text "God" is
found once, and "Lord" three times; in the Vulgate both occur
repeatedly. But this is probably due to reverence for the Divine
James, Jahweh and Adonai, since he often uses the equivalents
"heaven", "Thou", or "He". There is absolutely no ground for the
opinion, maintained by some modern scholars, that he was a Sadducee.
He does not, it is true, mention the unworthy high-priests, Jason
and Menelaus; but as he mentions the no less unworthy Alcimus, and
that in the severest terms, it cannot be said that he wishes to
spare the priestly class.
The last verses show that the book cannot have been written till
some time after the beginning of the reign of John Hyrcanus (135-105
B.C.),
for they mention his accession and some of the acts of his
administration. The latest possible date is generally admitted to
be prior to 63 B.C., the year of the occupation of Jerusalem by
Pompey; but there is some difference in fixing the approximately
exact date. Whether it can be placed as early as the reign of
Hyrcanus depends on the meaning of the concluding verse, "Behold
these [the Acts of Hyrcanus are written in the book
of the days of his priesthood, from the time (xx xx, "ex quo") that
he was made high priest after his father". Many understand it to
indicate that Hyrcanus was then still alive, and this seems to be
the more natural meaning. Others, however, take it to imply that
Hyrcanus was already dead. In this latter supposition the
composition of the work must have followed
close upon the death of that ruler. For not only does the vivid
character of the narrative suggest an early period after the events,
but the absence of even the slightest allusion to events later than
the death of Hyrcanus, and, in particular, to the conduct of his two
successors which aroused popular hatred against the Machabees, makes
a much later date improbable. The date would, therefore, in any
case, be within the last years of the second century B.C.
Historicity
In the eighteenth century the two brothers E.F. and G. Wernsdorf
made an attempt to discredit I Mach., but with
little success. Modern scholars of all schools, even the most
extreme, admit that the book is a historical document of the highest
value. "With regard to the historical value of I Mach.", says
Cornill (Einl., 3rd ed., 265), "there is but one voice; in it we
possess a source of the very first order, an absolutely reliable
account of one of the most important epochs in the history of the
Jewish people." The accuracy of a few minor details concerning
foreign nations has, however, been denied. The author is mistaken,
it is said, when he states that Alexander the Great divided his
empire among his generals (i, 7), or when he speaks of the Spartans
as akin to the Jews (xii, 6, 7, 21); he is inexact in several
particulars regarding the Romans (viii, 1 sq.); he exaggerates the
numbers of elephants at the battle of Magnesia (viii, 6), and some
other numbers (ee.g., v, 34; vi, 30, 37; xi, 45, 48). But the author
cannot be charged with whatever inaccuracies or exaggerations may be
contained in viii, 1-16. He there merely sets down the reports,
inexact and exaggerated, no doubt, in some particulars,
which had reached Judas Machabeus. The same is true with regard to
the statement concerning the kinship of the Spartans with the Jews.
The author
merely reproduces the letter of Jonathan to the Spartans, and that
written to the high-priest Onias I by Arius.
When a writer simply reports the words of others, an error can be
laid to his charge only when he reproduces their statements
inaccurately. The assertion that Alexander divided his empire among
his generals (to be understood in the light of vv. 9 and 10, where
it is said that they "made themselves kings . . . and put
crowns on themselves after his death"), cannot be shown to be
erroneous. Quintus Curtius, who is the authority
for the contrary view, acknowledges that there were writers who
believed
that Alexander made a division of the provinces by his will. As the
author of I Mach is a careful historian and wrote about a century
and a half before Q. Curtius, he would deserve more credit than the
latter, even if he were not supported by other writers. As to the
exaggeration of numbers
in some instances, in so far as they are not errors of copyists, it
should be remembered that ancient authors, both sacred and profane,
frequently do not give absolute figures, but estimated or popularly
current numbers. Exact numbers cannot be reasonably expected in an
account of a popular insurrection, like that of Antioch (xi, 45,48),
because they could not be ascertained. Now the same was often the
case with regard to the strength of the enemy's forces and of the
number of the enemy slain in battle. A modifying clause, such as "it
is reported", must be supplied in these cases.
Sources
That the author used written sources to a
certain extent is witnessed by the documents which he cites (viii, 23-32; x, 3-6, 18-20, 25-45; xi, 30-37; xii, 6-23; etc.). But there
is little doubt that he also derived most of the other matter from
written records of the events, oral tradition being insufficient to
account for the many and minute details; There is every reason to
believe that such records existed for the Acts of Jonathan and Simon
as well as for those of Judas (ix, 22),
and of John Hyrcanus (xvi, 23-24). For the last part he may also
have relied on the reminiscences of older contemporaries, or even
drawn upon his own.
Greek Text and Ancient Versions
The Greek translation
was probably made soon after the book was written. The text is found
in three uncial codices, namely the Sinaiticus, the Alexandrinus, and the
Venetus, and in sixteen cursive MSS. The textus receptus is
that of the Sixtine edition, derived from the Codex Venetus and some
cursives. The best editions are those of Fritzsche ("Libri Apocryphi
V. T.", Leipzig, 1871, 203 sq.) and of Swete "O. T. in Greek",
Cambridge, 1905, III, 594 sq.),
both based on the Cod. Alexandrinus. The old Latin version in the
Vulgate is that of the Itala, probably unretouched by St. Jerome.
Part of a still older version, or rather recension (chap. i-xiii),
was published by Sabatier (Biblior. Sacror. Latinae Versiones
Antiquae, II, 1017 sq.), the complete text of which was recently
discovered in a MSS. at Madrid. Two Syriac versions are extant: that
of the Peshitto, which follows the Greek text of the Lucian
recension, and another published by Ceriani ("Translatio Syra
photolithographice edita," Milan, 1876, 592-615) which reproduces
the ordinary Greek text.
THE SECOND BOOK OF MACHABEES
(Makkabaion B; Liber Secundus Machabaeorum).
Contents
The Second Book of Machabees is not,
as the name might suggest, a continuation of the First, but covers
part of the same ground. The book proper (ii, 20-xv, 40) is preceded
by two letters of the Jews of Jerusalem to their Egyptian
coreligionists (i, 1-ii, 19). The first
(i, 1-10a), dated in the year 188 of the Seleucid era (i.e. 124
B.C.),
beyond expressions of goodwill and an allusion to a former letter,
contains nothing but an invitation to the Jews of Egypt to celebrate
the feast
of the Dedication of the Temple (instituted to commemorate its
rededication, I Mach., iv, 59; II Mach., x, 8). The second
(i, 10b-ii, 19), which is undated, is from the "senate" (gerousia) and
Judas (Machabeus) to Aristobulus, the preceptor or counsellor of
Ptolemy (D.V. Ptolemee) (Philometor), and to the Jews in Egypt. It
informs the Egyptian Jews of the death of Antiochus (Epiphanes)
while attempting to rob the temple of Nanea, and
invites them to join their Palestinian brethren in celebrating the
feasts of the Dedication and of the Recovery of the Sacred Fire. The
story of the recovery of the sacred fire is then told, and in
connection with it the story of the hiding by the Prophet Jeremias
of the tabernacle, the ark and the altar of incense. After an offer
to send copies of the books which Judas had collected after the
example of Nehemias, it repeats the invitation to celebrate the two
feasts, and concludes with the hope that the dispersed of Israel
might soon be gathered together in the Holy Land.
The book itself begins with an elaborate preface (ii, 20-33) in
which the author after mentioning that his work is an epitome of the
larger history in five books of Jason of Cyrene states his motive in
writing the book, and comments on the respective duties of the
historian and of the epitomizer. The first part of the book (iii-iv, 6)
relates the attempt of Heliodoris, prime minister of Seleucus IV
(187-175 B.C.), to rob the treasures of the Temple at the
instigation of a certain Simon, and the troubles
caused by this latter individual to Onias III. The rest of the book
is the history of the Machabean rebellion down to the death of
Nicanor (161 B.C.), and therefore corresponds to I Mach., I, 11-vii, 50.
Section iv, 7-x, 9, deals with the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes
(I Mach., i, 11-vi, 16), while section x, l0-xv, 37, records the
events of the reigns of Antiochus Eupator and Demetrius I
(I Mach., vi, 17-vii, 50). II Mach. thus covers a period of only fifteen
years, from 176 to 161 B.C. But while the field is narrower, the
narrative is much more copious in details than I Mach., and
furnishes many particulars, for instance, names of persons, which
are not found in the first book.
Object and Character
On comparing the two Books of
Machabees it is plainly seen that the author of the Second does not,
like the author of the First, write history merely to acquaint his
readers with the stirring events of the period with which he is
dealing. He writes history
with a view to instruction and edification. His first object is to
exalt
the Temple of Jerusalem as the centre of Jewish worship. This
appears from the pains he takes to extol on every occasion its
dignity and sanctity. It is "the great temple", (ii, 20), "the most
renowned" and "the most holy in all the world" (ii, 23; v, 15), "the
great and holy temple" (xiv, 31); even heathen princes esteemed it
worthy of honour and glorified it with great gifts (iii, 2-3; v, 16; xiii, 23);
the concern of the Jews in time of danger was more for
the holiness of the Temple than for their wives and children (xv, 18);
God protects it by miraculous interpositions (iii, xiv, 31 sq.)
and punishes those guilty of sacrilege against it (iii, 24 sq.; ix, 16; xiii, 6-8; xiv, 31 sq.; xv, 32); if He has allowed it to be
profaned, it was because of the sins of the Jews (v, 17-20). It is,
no doubt, with this design that the two letters, which otherwise
have no connexion with the book, were prefixed to it. The author
apparently intended
his work specially for the Jews of the Dispersion, and more
particularly
for those of Egypt, where a schismatical temple had been erected at
Leontopolis about l60 B.C. The second object of the author is to
exhort the Jews to faithfulness to the Law, by impressing upon them
that God is still mindful of His covenant, and that He does not
abandon them unless they first abandon Him; the tribulations they
endure are a punishment for their unfaithfulness, and will cease
when they repent (iv, 17; v, 17, 19; vi, 13, 15, 16; vii, 32, 33, 37, 38; viii, 5, 36; xiv, 15; xv, 23, 24).
To the difference of object corresponds a difference in tone and
method. The author is not satisfied with merely relating facts, but
freely comments on persons and acts, distributing praise or blame as
they may deserve when
judged from the standpoint of a true Israelite. Supernatural
intervention in favour of the Jews is emphasized. The style is
rhetorical, the dates
are comparatively few. As has been remarked, the chronology of II Mach.
slightly differs from that of I Mach.
Author and Date
II Mach. is, as has been said, an
epitome of a larger work by a certain Jason of Cyrene. Nothing
further is known of this Jason except that, judging from his exact
geographical knowledge, he must have lived for some time in
Palestine. The author of the epitome is unknown. From the prominence
which he gives to the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, it
has been inferred that he was a Pharisee. Some have even maintained
that his book was a Pharisaical partisan writing. This last, at tiny
rate, is a baseless assertion. II Mach. does not speak more severely
of Alcimus than I Mach., and the fact that it mentions the
high-priests, Jason and Menelaus, by name no more proves it to be a
Pharisaic partisan writing than the omission of their names in
I Mach. proves that to be a Sadducee production. Jason must have
finished his work shortly after the death of Nicanor, and before
disaster overtook Judas Machabeus, as he not only omits to allude to
that hero's death, but makes the statement, which would be palpably
false if he had written later, that after
the death of Nicanor Jerusalem always remained in the possession of
the Jews (xv, 38). The epitome cannot have been written earlier than
the date of the first letter, that is 124 B.C.
As to the exact date there is great divergence. In the very probable
supposition that the first letter was sent with a copy of the book,
the latter would be of about the same date. It cannot in any case be
very much later, since the demand for an abridged form of Jason's
history, to which the author alludes in the preface (ii, 25-26),
must have arisen within
a reasonably short time after the publication of that work. The
second letter must have been written soon after the death of
Antiochus, before the exact circumstances concerning it had become
known in Jerusalem, therefore about 163 B.C. That the Antiochus
there mentioned is Antiochus IV and not Antiochus III, as many
Catholic commentators maintain, is clear from the fact that his
death is related in connection with the celebration of
the Feast of the Dedication, and that he is represented as an enemy
of the Jews, which is not true of Antiochus III.
Original Language
The two letters which were addressed
to the Jews of Egypt, who knew little or no Hebrew or Aramaic, were
in all probability written in Greek. That the book itself was
composed in the same language, is evident from the style, as St.
Jerome already remarked (Prov. [Galatians).4 Hebraisms are fewer than would
be expected considering the subject, whereas Greek idioms and Greek
constructions are very numerous. Jason's Hellenistic origin, and the
absence in the epitome of all signs that
would mark it as a translation, are sufficient to show that he also
wrote in Greek.
Historicity.-- The Second Book of Machabees is much less
thought of as a historical document by non-Catholic scholars than
the First, though Niese has recently come out strongly in its
defence. The objections brought against the two letters need not,
however, concern us, except in so far as they affect their
authenticity, of which hereafter. These letters are on the same
footing as the other documents cited in I and II Mach.; the author
is therefore not responsible for the truth of their contents. We
may, then, admit that the story of the sacred fire, as well as that
of the hiding of the tabernacle, etc., is a pure legend, and that
the
account of the death of Antiochus as given in the second letter is
historically false; the author's credit as a historian will not in
the least be diminished thereby. Some recent Catholic scholars have
thought that errors could also be admitted in the book itself
without casting any discredit on the epitomizer, inasmuch as the
latter declines to assume responsibility for the exact truth of all
its contents. But though this view may find some support in the
Vulgate (ii, 29), it is hardly countenanced by the Greek text.
Besides, there is no need to have recourse to a theory which, while
absolving the author from formal error, would admit real
inaccuracies in the book, and so lessen its historical value. The
difficulties urged against it are not such as to defy satisfactory
explanation. Some are based on a false interpretation of the text,
as when, for instance, it is credited with the statement that
Demetrius landed in Syria with a mighty host and a fleet (xiv, 1),
and is thus placed in opposition to I Mach., vii, 1, where he is
said to have landed with a few men. Others are due to subjective
impressions, as when the supernatural apparitions are called into
question. The exaggeration of numbers has been dealt with in
connexion with I Mach.
The following are the main objections with some real foundation:
(1) The campaign of Lysias, which I Mach., iv, 26-34, places in the
last year of Antiochus Epiphanes, is transferred in II Mach., xi, to
the reign of Antiochus Eupator; (2) The Jewish raids on neighbouring
tribes and the expeditions into Galilee and Galaad, represented in
I Mach., v, as carried on
in rapid succession after the rededication of the temple, are
separated in II Mach. and placed in a different historical setting
(viii, 30; x, 15-38; xii, 10-45); (3) The account given in
II Mach., ix, differs from that of I Mach., vi, regarding the death of
Antiochus Epiphanes, who is falsely declared to have written a
letter to the Jews; (4) The picture of the
martyrdoms in vi, 18-vii, is highly coloured, and it is improbable
that Antiochus was present at them.
To these objections it may be briefly answered: (1) The campaign
spoken
of in II Mach., xi, is not the same as that related in I Mach., iv;
(2) The events mentioned in viii, 30 and x, 15 sq. are not narrated
in I Mach., v. Before the expedition into Galaad (xii, 10 sq.) can
be said to be out of its proper historical setting, it would have to
be proved that I Mach. invariably adheres to chronological order,
and that the events grouped together in chap. v took place in rapid
succession; (3) The two accounts of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes
differ, it is true, but they fit very well into one another.
Considering the character of Antiochus and the condition he was in
at the time, it is not at all improbable that he wrote a letter to
the Jews; (4) There is no reason to doubt that in spite of the
rhetorical form the story of the martyrdoms is substantially
correct.
As the place where they occurred is unknown, it is hard to see on
what ground the presence of Antiochus is denied. It should be noted,
moreover, that the book betrays accurate knowledge in a multitude of
small details,
and that it is often supported by Josephus, who was unacquainted
with it. Even its detractors admit that the earlier portion is of
the greatest value, and that in all that relates to Syria its
knowledge is extensive and minute. Hence it is not likely that it
would be guilty of the gross errors imputed to it.
Authenticity of the Two Letters
Although these
letters have a clear bearing on the purpose of the book, they have
been declared to
be palpable forgeries. Nothing, however, justifies such an opinion.
The glaring contradiction in the first letter, which represents the
climax of
affliction as having been experienced under Demetrius II, has no
existence. The letter does not compare the sufferings under
Demetrius with those
of the past, but speaks of the whole period of affliction including
the time the time of Demetrius. The legend of the sacred fire etc.,
proves nothing against the genuineness of the second letter, unless
it be shown that no such legend existed at the time. The false
account of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes is rather a proof in
favour of the authenticity of the letter. Such an account would be
quite natural if the letter was written soon after the first news,
exaggerated and distorted as first news often is, had reached
Jerusalem. There remains only the so-called blunder of attributing
the building of the Temple to Nehemias. The very improbability of
such a gross blunder on the part of an educated Jew (the supposed
forger) should have made the critics pause. Nehemias put the last
touches to the Temple (II Esdr., ii, 8; Josephus, "Antiq.", XI, v,
6) which justifies the use of oikodomesas. Codex 125 (Mosquensis)
reads oikonomesas "having ordered the service of the temple and
altar"; this would remove all difficulty (cf. II Esdr., x, 32 sq.;
xiii sqq.).
Greek Text and Versions
The Greek text is usually
found in the same MSS. as I Mach.; it is wanting, however, in the
Cod. Sinaiticus, The Latin version in the Vulgate is that of the
Itala. An older version was published by Peyron and again by Ceriani
from the Codex Ambrosianus. A third Latin text is found in the
Madrid MSS. which contains an old version of I Mach. The Syriac
version is often a paraphrase rather than a translation.
THE THIRD AND FOURTH BOOKS OF MACHABEES
III Mach. is the story of
a persecution of the Jews in Egypt under Ptolemy IV Philopator
(222-205 B.C.), and therefore has no right to its title. Though
the work contains much that is historical, the story is a fiction.
IV Mach. is a Jewish-Stoic philosophical treatise on the supremacy
of pious reason, that is religious principles, over the passions.
The martyrdorm of Eleazar and of the seven brothers (II Mach., vi, 18-vii)
is introduced to illustrate the author's thesis. Neither
book has any claim to canonicity, though the first for a while
received favourable consideration in some Churches.
GIGOT, Spec. Introd., I (New York, 1901), 365 sq.; CORNELY,
Introd., II (Paris, 1897), I, 440 sq.; KNABENBAUER, Comm.
in Lib. Mach. (Paris, 1907); PATRIZZI, De Consensu Utriusq.
Lib. Mach. (Rome, 1856); FRÖLICH, De Fontibus Historiae
Syriae in Lib. Mach. (Vienna, 1746); KHELL, Auctoritas
Utriusq. Lib. Mach. (Vienna, 1749); HERKENNE, Die Briefe zu
Beginn des Zweiten Makkabäerbuches
(Freiburg, 1904); GILLET, Les Machabées (Paris, 1880);
BEURLIER
in Vig. Dict. de la Bible, IV, 488 sq.; LESÊTRE,
Introd., II (Paris, 1890); VIGOUROUX, Man. Bibl., II
(Paris, 1899), 217 sq.; IDEM, La Bible et la Critique
Ration., 5th ed., IV, 638 sq.;
SCHÜRER, Hist. of the Jewish People (New York, 1891), II,
iii, 6 sq.; 211 sq.; 244 sq.; FAIRWEATHER in HASTINGS, Dict. of
the Bible, III, 187 sq.; NIESE, Kritik der beiden
Makkabäerbücher (Berlin, 1900); GRIMM, Kurzgefasstes
Exeg. Handbuch zu den Apokryphen, Fasc. 3 and 4 (Leipzig, 1853,
1857); KEIL, Comm. über die Bücher
der Makkabäer (Leipzig, 1875); KAUTZSCH (AND KAMPHAUSEN),
Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des A. T. (Tübingen,
1900).
F. BECHTEL
Transcribed by Robert H. Sarkissian
The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia
1 The original source gave the reference '(i, 10-ii])' which I interpreted as a scan error. Replaced with '(i, 10-11)'
2 Original reference '(ix, 23-xii)' replaced with '(ix, 23)'.
3 'B. C.' replaced with 'B.C.' in several places.
4 Original '(Prol. Gal.)' replaced with '(Prov. Gal.)'.