AN INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF THE APOCRYPHA. By W O E Oesterley D D Litt D. © W O E Oesterley 1935. First published S.P.C.K. 1935. - This edition prepared for katapi by Paul Ingram 2003.


HOME | I Macc: Title | Original Language | Date | Sources | Documents relating to the times | Characteristics | Contents | Introductory | Beginning of the Maccabaean Revolt | Judas, called Maccabaeus | Jonathan | Simon | Greek Text and Versions | Literature | Chronology: Table I | Table II


In the Septuagint MSS. the title is Μακκαβαίων α´.
The book figures in two uncials (א A), otherwise only in cursives.
Cod. B contains none of the books of the Maccabees since it follows the Canon of Athanasius in which they are not included.
[Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, pp.203 f. (1900).]

Origen, in his list of Biblical books (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., vi.25, 2), gives the title as τὰ Μακκαβαΐκά,
i.e. the Maccabaean Acts, and he adds ἅπερ πιγέγραφαπται Σαρβηθ Σαβαναιέλ;
if we may suppose the last word to be a corruption of "Israel" the words would represent the Hebrew שַר בֵית יִשְרָאֵל, "a prince of the house of Israel".
[Cp.xiv.27, 28. Asaramel = Saramel, in Hebrewשַר עַס אֵל  "prince of the people of God".
It is true, the MSS have
ἐν before the name,
but this must be an error on the part of some copyist who thought that it was a place-name,
not realizing that it was a title given to Simon.
The Syriac Version has "a prince of Israel."]

The meaning, however, of Σαρβὴθ Σαβαναιέλ must be regarded as very uncertain.
[See further, Hastings' D.B., iii.188 note.]


Origen's title would suggest that the book was written in Hebrew,
and this is definitely stated by Jerome to have been the case,
for in the Prologus Galeatus he says:
Machabeorum primum librum Hebraicum reperi
This is entirely borne out by the study of the Greek text, which again and again betrays translation from the Hebrew;
and many curious expressions in the Greek are fully accounted for on the supposition of a Hebrew original.
Moreover, Hebrew, rather than Aramaic, would be the natural language to be employed for a literary purpose by a Palestinian Jew, especially in this case, where the writer's intention was to follow the pattern of the Old Testament historical books.


The approximate date of our book is not difficult to determine.

It must have been written before the capture of Jerusalem by Pompey in 63BC as there is no hint in the book of Roman enmity or overlordship.
On the contrary, the friendly relationship existing between Rome and the Jews is taken for granted.
On the other hand, since the history is brought down to the death of John Hyrcanus in 104/3BC (xvi.24) it was written after that date.

Not only so, but it must have been some time after this year that it was compiled, since it is a written account of the reign of John Hyrcanus that is mentioned in xvi.24;
so that some years must have intervened to allow time for this Chronicle to have been compiled.
It must also be added that the general impression conveyed by the book is that it was written some appreciable time after the events recorded; see, e.g., i.30:

"This is the sepulchre which he made at Modin, (and it is there) unto this day."

The approximate date may therefore be given as 90-70BC, the later limit being the more probable.
This is, however, not to deny that some portions of the book have been interpolated at a much later date (see further ? IV)
[On the coins of the Maccabaeans see Willrich in Z.A.T.W., 1931 pp.78 f.]

 On the other hand, it is only right to point out that, while this date is widely accepted, some scholars hold a different view, notably Torrey, who says:

The theory best accounting for all the facts -
and no really plausible argument can be used against it -
would seem to be, that the greater part of this history was composed and written under the inspiration of Simon's glorious reign, and that it was finished in the early part of the reign of John Hyrcanus.

That is, the book was probably written between 140 and 125BC. [Encycl. Bibl. iii.2860.)

To say, "no really plausible argument can be used against" this view is an over-statement.
We recognize the strength of his own arguments, which would take up too much space for quotation here, but they do not wholly convince us.


Inasmuch as the history of our book covers a period of over seventy years -
apart from the references to Alexander the Great in the introductory verses -
and that it was not compiled, in all probability, until some twenty or thirty years after the death of John Hyrcanus in 104/3BC, it is evident that the compiler must have made use of written documents.
He may well have utilized the reminiscences of some who had lived during the troublous times,
and he may himself have witnessed some of the occurrences which happened towards the end of the period;
but there can be no doubt that he was mainly indebted to written sources for his compilation.

For the most part, we have no means of knowing what these sources were, but some few indications there are.

Direct mention is made of one source in xvi.24, already referred to, viz. the Chronicles of John Hyrcanus' High priesthood.
True, the compiler made no use of this, but the mention of it shows that the utilization of sources was in his mind.
A possible source may be implied in ix.22 where it is said:

"And the rest of the acts of Judas,
and his wars, and the valiant deeds which he did, and his greatness,
they are not written",

by which the writer may have meant unrecorded acts as distinguished from those which had been written down.
The fact that he uses the phraseology of the Old Testament, which in this connexion is always used in reference to written sources, would support this.
But more definite, though of a different kind, are the sources mentioned in xi.37, xiv.18 ff., 27.

It is also possible that excerpts from sources of a yet different character may be discerned in such passages as: i.25-28, 36-40; ii.8-12, 44; iii.3-9, 45; ix.41; xiv.6-15.
These are clearly poetical pieces.
And while it is, of course, possible that they were the work of the compiler himself, their very different character and style from the rest of the book point rather to their being quotations from some popular collections of lyrics or religious poems.
That in one instance this can be proved to have been the case supports this, for vii.17 is a quotation from Ps.lxxix.2, 3.

But, quite apart from what has been said, there are a larger number of what purport to be original written documents, or rather copies of these.
Before discussing these important sources, it will be well to enumerate them;
they fall into different categories:

I.   Documents relating to internal Jewish affairs: I Macc.
  (a) A letter from the Jews in Gilead to Jonathan and his brethren v.10-13.
  (b) The decree making the High-priesthood hereditary in the Hasmonaean family xiv.27-45.
II.   Documents concerning the relations between the Jews and Rome:  
  (a) A letter from the Roman Senate to the Jewish People viii.23-32.
  (b) A circular letter from the Romans "to the kings and to the countries" xv.16-21.
III.   Documents concerning the relations between Sparta and the Jews:  
  (a) A letter from Jonathan to the Spartans .6-18.
  (b) A letter from the king of Sparta to the High-priest Onias I .20-23.
  (c) A letter from the Spartans to Simon xiv.20-23.
IV.   Documents purporting to be communications from the Syrian kings to the Jewish High-priests :  
  (a) Demetrius I to Jonathan x.3-6.
  (b) Alexander Balas to Jonathan x.18-20.
  (c) Demetrius I to Jonathan, representing the Jewish people x.25-45.
  (d) Demetrius II to Jonathan xi.29-37.
  (e) Demetrius II to Simon i.36-40.
  (f) Antiochus VII Sidetes to Simon xv.1-9.

Regarding I and II, there is every reason to believe in their authenticity.

But as to those under II some difficulties present themselves.

The first purports to contain the details of a "league of amity and confederacy" between Rome and "the nation of the Jews".
The date is 161BC, and it is Judas who is said to have taken the initiative in proposing the pact (viii.1, 17), although he represented only a section of the Jews, and that in opposition to the recognized Jewish government.
One would have expected the negotiations for a league of this kind to have been conducted and concluded with the official head of the nation, the High priest.
That he, together with the governing body and their following, were called the "ungodly" by the Maccabaean revolters would not have been likely to have affected the Roman Senate;
so that an initial suspicion is raised regarding this document.
It must also be objected that for Rome to recognize the independence of the Jewish State would have meant war with the Syrian power.
It is true that Rome had given Timarchus "verbal recognition, but no material help."
[The Cambridge Ancient History, viii.521 (1930).)
So that it might be said that Rome merely recognized Jewish independence in order to embarrass Demetrius, without intending to go to the length of fighting on behalf of the Jews.
To this, however, it must be said that the two cases are hardly parallel.
There is a great difference between the "verbal recognition" of Timarchus and a formal written engagement in which it is definitely stated that Rome will fight "by sea and by land" on behalf of the Jews (viii.3 2).
So that the objection holds good that for Rome to have recognized the independence of the Jewish State would have meant war, for it is evident that at this period Rome had no intention of becoming embroiled in a Syrian war.
It must also be pointed out that the reference to ships in viii.26, 28, and therefore harbours, is quite inappropriate during the leadership of Judas.
These objections, dealt with by Willrich, support his contention that while, in itself, the document in question may be genuine enough, it does not belong to this period of Jewish history.
(See further, Willrich, Urkundenfalschung in der hellenistisch-jadischen Literatur; pp.44 ff. [1924).
It is also to be noted that the subject is not mentioned in II Macc.;
but see Josephus, Antiq..414-419.)

It was inserted in the text at a much later time with the object of enhancing the prestige of the Maccabaeans.
Chap.ix follows logically after chap.vii. 

The second document under II (xv.16-21), containing the circular letter from Rome, has also been inserted in the text for a similar reason, as can be seen from Josephus, Antiq. xiv.143ff.
It really belongs to the time of Hyrcanus II (75/4-40BC) 

The third class of documents, which deal with the supposed relations of the Jews and the Spartans, cannot be regarded as authentic.
And for these reasons:
(it must first be noted that the three passages concerned are obviously not an indispensable part in their respective contexts, thereby suggesting the possibility of their having been subsequently interpolated.)

The letter from Jonathan to the Spartans (.6-18) is, on the face of it, pointless in its present connexion.
In order to see that the letter of Arcus, the Spartan king, to the High-priest Onias (.20-23) cannot be genuine.
It is sufficient, apart from other objections, to point to what is said in verse 21 about the Spartans and the Jews being all descended from Abraham.

The letter from the Spartans to Simon (xiv.20-23) must likewise be regarded as a later insertion;
in the preceding verses, which purport to explain the reason why this letter was sent, reference is made (verse 18) to a previous "confederacy," said to have been made between the Spartans and Judas.
But there is no earlier reference to this.
If such a treaty had ever been entered into it would undoubtedly have found mention.
Further, it is said in verse 22 that Numenius came to renew friendship; but, according to verse 24, it was only after the letter had been received that Simon sent Numenius to Rome. 

The irrelevances and inconsistencies of these letters make it highly improbable that they belonged to the book as originally written. 

As to the fourth class, comprising letters purporting to have been written by Syrian kings to the Maccabaean leaders, Willrich has subjected these to a rigorously critical examination. [Op. Cit., pp. 36-44.)
To go into the details of this here would take up too much space.
It must suffice to say that his arguments are most convincing, and it is difficult to see how they can be refuted.
With his conclusions we must confess ourselves to be in entire agreement.
All these letters, and to them must be added the correspondence with the Spartans, are, in all probability, excerpts from the work of Jason of Cyrene (see below, p. 315), and were interpolated into the text of I Maccabees by a scribe at a later period.
His object was, doubtless, that to which reference has already been made, viz. the glorification of the Maccabaean leaders. 

Our conclusion, then, is that the compiler of I Maccabees relied, in the first instance, on one or more written sources, of which, otherwise, we have no knowledge.
The extracts from these he supplemented by details gathered from the reminiscences and accounts of eyewitnesses of some of the events that he records.
It is probable, further, that the compiler inserted here and there quotations from familiar collections of religious poems in order to enhance the effect of his accounts.
In at least two instances he quotes from Jewish documents (v.10-13; xiv.27-45). 

The other official documents quoted (and this applies especially to the communications from some of the Syrian kings to the Maccabaean leaders) do not belong to the original form of the book.
Someone who desired to glorify the first heroes of the Maccabaean family added them in later times.
His probable purpose, though unexpressed, was to contrast them with the later degenerate scions of the Hasmonaean dynasty.


The way in which the history is presented invites confidence in its general veracity.
The narrative is sober and straightforward.
There is, as a rule, a noticeable absence of exaggeration, and especially of the miraculous element that is so marked in Il Maccabees.
The compiler was concerned with stating the facts in their bare simplicity.
And they were, in truth, from the Jewish point of view, sufficiently remarkable not to need embroidery of any kind.
The reliability of the record is confirmed by the numerous dates that are given.
[Regarding these dates it must be pointed out that Kolbe (Beilrdge zur syrischen und judischen Geschichte [1926]) has proved that the Seleucid era began in the spring of 311BC (not 312BC as has been hitherto held).
The dates given in the margin of the Revised Version must be put forward one year.

See also Schurer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes, i.32 ff. (1901), Nowack, Hebraische Archaologie i.218-220 (1894).]

The writer was a loyal adherent of the Law, though not in the later, Pharisaic sense.
While evincing an ardent belief and trust in God (iii.53, 60; iv.8-11, 30-33; ix.46; .15 and elsewhere), it is noteworthy that he never ascribes the victories of the Maccabaean leaders to any act of divine interposition.
Success in battle is due to good generalship and political foresight.
That the name of God is never mentioned in the book is far from implying any lack of religious belief.
It is simply due to the conviction that if men play their part faithfully in the affairs of the world an over-ruling divine guidance will aid them.
That is implicit.
There is no need to talk about it. 

Another characteristic appearing throughout the book is the writer's glorification of the Maccabaean family.
The outstanding achievements emphasized are: the securing of religious freedom, gained by Judas, the acquisition of territory owing to the genius of Jonathan, and the yearned-for position of political independence achieved by Simon.
These are the culminating events of the Maccabaean struggle, which in each case receive due emphasis, showing the special tendency on the part of the writer.


A brief summary of the contents of the book:

I Introductory i. 1-64. Antiq. ii Macc
  Alexander's conquest of the Persian Empire;
his death, and the division of his world-empire among his generals.
i.1-9,   cp. iv.7.
  The accession to the Syrian throne of Antiochus IV Epiphanes;
his Egyptian campaign.
The plundering and desecration of the Temple in Jerusalem.
The attempt on the part of Antiochus, aided by the hellenistic Jews in Jerusalem, to stamp out the religion of the Jews.
i.10-64,   cp. v.11-21.
II The beginning of the Maccabaean revolt I Macc. ii. 1-70. Antiq. II Macc.
  Mattathias, a priest of the house of Asmonaeus, initiates the revolt. ii.1-70, .265-285.  
III The leadership of Judas, called Maccabaeus 1
(Usually explained as meaning the "Hammerer.")
I Mac. iii. 1-ix.22. Antiq. II Macc.
  The victories of Judas over the Syrian forces under Apollonius and Seron iii.1-26; .287-292; cp. viii.1-7.
  Antiochus Epiphanes, having gone into Persia, appoints Lysias to take charge of affairs in Syria during his absence. iii.27-37; .293-297; cp. v.1.
  Lysias commissions Ptolemy, Nicanor, and Gorgias to attack Judas. iii.38-60; .298-304, viii.8, 9, 23-29. cp. viii.8-29; x.14; xi.1-15;
  The victory of Judas over Gorgias. iv.1-25; .305-312  
  Judas defeats Lysias. iv.26-35; .313-315; cp. xi.1-13.
  [Kolbe (Op. cit., pp.79 ff.), by a careful comparison between I Macc.iv.26-35 and Il Macc.xi.1-15, as well as between I and Il Macc.i.1-26, concludes that Lysias undertook one campaign only.
That mentioned below.)
  The re-dedication of the Temple, and the inauguration of the feast of Hanukkah. iv.36-61; .316-326; cp. i.18, (viii.31 f, x.1-8).
  Judas punishes the Idumaeans, the Baeans and the Ammonites. v.1-8; .327-329 cp. x.15-23.
  The Jews in Gilead entreat the help of Judas against the Gentiles;
Judas sends his brother Simon against the latter;
he, with his brother Jonathan, goes to Gilead;
both are successful in subduing the Gentiles.
v.9-54; .330-340.  
  During the absence of Judas and his brothers, two "rulers of the host," Joseph and Azarias, who had been charged to defend Judaea (see v.18, 19), "thinking to do some exploit," moved towards Jamnia with their forces to attack Gorgias;
but they are defeated.
v.55-62; .350-352; .1, 2.
  Further successes of judas in the south of Palestine. v.63-68; .353.  
  An abortive attempt on the part of Antiochus Epiphanes to plunder Elymais, a rich city in Persia;
he returns to Babylon.
vi.1-13; .354, 355; cp. i.12, 13.
  News is brought to him there of the defeat of Lysias by Judas;
he is represented as having been so affected by this that he died, after having first repented for having robbed the Temple in Jerusalem and having caused the death of so many Jews.
vi.1-13; .356-359; cp. i.14-17, x.9.
  Philip, having been appointed regent by Antiochus Epiphanes before he died, during the minority of Antiochus Eupator, is ousted by Lysias, who himself assumes the regency. vi.14-17; .360-361.  
  Judas besieges the citadel in Jerusalem. vi.18-27; .362, 363.  
  Lysias, who is accompanied by the boy-king Antiochus Eupator, undertakes another campaign [See footnote 2 on p.308.) against Judas. Lysias is successful.
But being called back to his own country owing to the threatening attitude of Philip, he makes a treaty of peace with Judas
vi.28-63; .366-382; cp. i.1-26.
  Demetrius I becomes king of Syria.Antiochus Eupator and Lysias are put to death. vii.1-4; .389-390; xiv.1, 2.
  Alkimus, at the head of the Jewish Hellenistic party, seeks the High priesthood.
He is appointed to the office by Demetrius I. Bacchides is sent with an army to Judaea to support him.
(But the course of events is confused in II Macc.)
vii.5-9; .385, 393; xiv.3-14.
  The treachery of Bacchides and Alkimus;
Bacchides returns to Antioch.
vii.5-20; .394-397.  
  Judas and Alkimus;
the latter again appeals to the Syrian king for help.
vii.21-25; .398-401.  
  Nicanor is sent to Judaea by Demetrius I.
He attacks Judas.
The battle of Adasa;
Nicanor is defeated and slain.
vii.26-50; .402-412; xv.1-36.
  The course of the narrative is broken by the insertion of an account of a treaty between Judas and the Romans. viii.1-32.    
  The history is taken up again;
Demetrius I, hearing of the death of Nicanor, sends Bacchides into Judaea again;
the battle of Elasa;
the death of Judas.
ix.1-22; .420-434.  
IV. The Leadership of Jonathan I Macc.ix. 23-. 53. Antiq.
  The evil plight of the orthodox party on the death of Judas;
Jonathan is chosen in his place.
ix.23-31; i.1 -6. 
  The conflict between Bacchides and Jonathan;
initial successes of the former.
ix.32-53; i.7-21. 
  The death of Alkimus. ix.54-56; .414. 
  Bacchides makes peace with Jonathan, and returns to Antioch. ix.57; i.22. 
  Two years of peace, after which Bacchides, stirred up by the hellenistic Jews, again attacks Jonathan;
Bacchides is worsted by Simon, in consequence of which a peace is arranged.
Bacchides returns to Antioch;
"and Jonathan began to judge the people,
and destroyed the ungodly out of Israel".
ix.57-73; i.22-34.
  Alexander Balas aspires to the Syrian throne.
Thereupon Demetrius I seeks the support of Jonathan, promising him various privileges.
x.1-14; i.35-42. 
  Alexander Balas outbids Demetrius I by appointing Jonathan to the High priesthood. x.15-21; i.43-46. 
  Demetrius I makes a further bid for the support of Jonathan by offering him extravagant privileges.
These Jonathan spurns as being unworthy of credence.
He remains faithful to Alexander Balas.
x.22-47; i.47-57;
(Josephus does not refer to Jonathan's refusal of the terms).  
  The battle between Demetrius I and Alexander Balas;
death of the former.
x.48-50; i.58-61,
Antiq: a more detailed account). 
  The treaty between Alexander Balas and Ptolemy VI, king of Egypt. x.51-58; i.80-82. 
  The favour shown by Alexander Balas to Jonathan. x.59-66; i.83-85. 
  Demetrius II, the rightful heir to the Syrian throne, appears in Syria to make good his claim.
He is supported by Apollonius, who threatens Jonathan as the partisan of Alexander Balas.
x.67-73; i.86-90.
  The struggle between Apollonius and Jonathan, in which the latter is victorious.
Alexander Balas rewards him.
x.74-89; i.91-102. 
  The alliance between Demetrius II and Ptolemy VI against Alexander Balas. xi.1-15; i.109-115. 
  The death of Alexander Balas, followed by that of Ptolemy VI.
Demetrius II becomes undisputed king of Syria.
xi.15-19; i.117-119, 120. 
  Jonathan besieges the citadel at Jerusalem.
The Hellenistic Jews appeal to Demetrius II.
Jonathan counters this move.
He gains the favour of Demetrius II, who grants him privileges.
xi.20-37; i.121-128. 
  Tryphon, a military adventurer, champions the cause of the son of Alexander Balas, Antiochus (VI), as a claimant to the Syrian throne. xi.38-40; i.131. 
  Demetrius II seeks the help of Jonathan.
This is granted.
But soon after Jonathan transfers his allegiance to Tryphon.
For this Tryphon rewards him.
xi.41-62; i.133-153;
Josephus gives a more detailed account.  
  Demetrius II sends an army against Jonathan;
victory of the latter.
xi. 63-74; i.154-162). 
  Jonathan's renewal of the league of friendship with Rome, and with the Spartans. .1-23; i.163-170. 
  Jonathan successfully attacks the army of Demetrius II. .24-38; i.174-178. 
  Tryphon, fearing the growing power of Jonathan, sends an army against him.
A battle is avoided, but Jonathan is treacherously murdered.
.39-53; i.187-196, 209. 
V. The Leadership of Simon I Macc. (i. 1-xvi. 24). Antiq.
  Simon is chosen as leader in place of his brother. i.1-11; i.197-201.  
  Tryphon determines to attack Simon, but thinks better of it, and retires. i.12-24; i.203-209. 
  Simon erects a monument in honour of Jonathan. i.25-30; i.211, 212.  
  Tryphon murders Antiochus VI and assumes the diadem. i.31-34; i.218, 219. 
  Demetrius Il grants independence to Simon, and confirms him in the High-priesthood.
(He had been taken prisoner by the Parthians in whose hands he was held, though well treated, from 139/8-129BC, when he once more ruled in Syria.)
i.35-42. Josephus does not mention this.
  Further successes of Simon. i.43-53. Josephus does not mention this. 
  Demetrius II makes an expedition into Parthia;
he is captured by king Arsaces.
  (This section is clearly out of place) See:   i.184-186.) 
  A period of peace for the Jews. xiv.4-15; Cp. i.227.  
  Renewal of the league of friendship with Rome, and with the Spartans. xiv.16-24; cp. i.227. 
  The High priesthood made hereditary in the Hasmonaean family. xiv.25-49. Josephus does not mention this.
(but Simon is referred to. i.213). 
  The letter of Antiochus VII Sidetes, to Simon, granting him various privileges. xv.1-9;  
  (With this contrast what is said in   i.223, 224) 
  Antiochus VII attacks Tryphon, and besieges him in Dor. xv.10-14; i.223. 
  A circular letter from the Romans to Simon and other rulers. xv.15-24. Josephus does not mention this. 
  Dor; Simon offers him support, but this is refused. Antiochus VII breaks his friendship with Simon, and sends Athenobius to receive tribute.
This Simon refuses.
xv.25-37. Josephus does not mention this. 
  Antiochus VII sends Kendebaeus against Simon;
Simon's sons, Judas and John, defeat him.
xv.38-xvi.10; i. 225-227. 
  The murder of Simon. xvi.11-22; i.228.  
  A reference to the reign of John Hyrcanus. xvi.23, 24; i.229, 230. 



The Greek text of I Macc. is contained in three uncials:
Cod. א (fourth century), Cod. A (fifth century), and Cod. V (eighth or ninth century)
[Swete, The Old Testament in Greek, iii.594-661 (1899), gives the text of Cod.A with the various readings of Cod. אV.],
and in fifteen cursives, ranging from the fifth to the fourteenth centuries
(See Holmes and Parsons, Vetus Testamentum Graecum cum variis lectionibus. v. (1827) for the variant readings of these.].

Where the text, in essentials, has been so well preserved there is not much to choose among the three uncials, though, upon the whole, those of [N] and V, especially the former, are better than A.
There can be no doubt that all three are the offspring of a single Greek MS, which must belong to a time soon after the original Hebrew was written.

Probably the most important of the cursives is that numbered 55.
This MS in a number of instances has retained a better form of text than the uncials or other cursives
(e.g. in iii.47, 48, 49; iv.61; v.22, 67; vii.7, 38);
it may well represent some early MS differing from that which was the parent of the three uncials.

The cursive numbered 71 is also interesting for a different reason, viz. its omissions, which are evidently not due to carelessness, but of set purpose, for they do not disturb the course of the narrative.
On the contrary, the text is not infrequently improved by the omission.
This may represent an attempt at abbreviation;
or it may be the echo of some early Greek recension.
Together with the cursives numbered 19, 64, and 93, this MS is Lucianic in character, a curious fact, inasmuch as Lucianic MSS tend to contain additions rather than omissions.

There are only two versions, which come into consideration
(On the absence of I, Il Macc. In the Ethiopic Version see Rahlfs in Z.A.T.W. for 1908, pp.63 f.):

  1. The Syriac:

this exists in two forms;
that contained in the Peshitta, which, following the cursives 19, 64, 93, represents the Lucianic recension;
(Edited by Lagarde, Libri vet. Test. apocryphi Syriace ... (1861).]
and that which is represented in the sixth-century Cod. Ambrosianus.
This follows, in the main, the text of the Greek uncials;
it is preserved only up to I Macc.xiv.25."
(Edited by Ceriani in photographic facsimile 1876.

See G. Schmidt "Die beiden syrischen Obersetzungen des i. Makkabaerbuchs," in Z.A.T.W. for 1897, pp.
I ff.233 ff.] 

  1. The Latin:

this is also preserved in two forms;
that contained in the Vulgate, and a text represented in Cod. Sangermanensis (up to the beginning of chap.xiv);
both these are forms of the Old Latin, i.e. pre-hieronymian;
and they are translated from the Greek
(Edited by Sabatier, Bibl. sacra Latine versiones antique, ii.1017 ff. (1743, etc.);
see also De Bruyne-Sodar, Les anciennes traductions latines des Machabees (1932).]



Grimm, in Kurzgefasstes Exeget. Handbuch ... iii.pp.i ff. and I ff. (1853).
Bissell, in Lange-Schaff's Commentary ... (1880).

Rawlinson, in Wace, op. cit., ii.373 ff. (1888).
Zockler, Die Apokr. des Alten Testamentes ...
Fairweather and Black, The First Book of Maccabees (1897).
Weiss, Judas Makkabaus (1897).
Kautzsch, op. cit., i.24 ff.
Schurer, op. cit., i.32-40 (1901), iii.192-200 (1909).
Andre, op. cit., pp.65 ff. (1903).
Knabenbauer, "Commentarius in duos libros Machabacorum" (in Cursus scripture sacrae) (1907).
Bevenot, in Feldmann und Herkenne, Die heilige Schrift des Alten Testamentes (1931).