Here are what the authorities say concerning the dating of 4 Maccabees (research courtesy of John Pacheco and Jacob Michael):

(1) "For IV Maccabees, the date is between B.C.E. 5 and C.E. 70, probably about C.E. 37." Link

(2) "...The first century after Christ is generally accepted as the date of composition, chiefly because the book must have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Though the latter cannot be proved, this view must be pretty nearly correct, since a more recent book would no longer have been accepted by the Christian Church." (Emil Schurer. The Literature of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus, p. 246) Link

(3) "The Fourth Book of Maccabees was included in many Greek Bible manuscripts. It is not considered canonical by the Roman Catholic Church, nor is it part of the "Apocrypha" in the Anglican tradition. In Greek Orthodox Bibles it is included as a an appendix. At one time, but no longer it was assigned to Josephus and called On the Supremacy of Reason. For the most part it consists of an account of Judaism in terms of Stoicism. It dates from some time between 63BCE and 70CE." [see New RSV/Oxford Anotated Bible, AP 341.] Link

(4) Scholarly consensus suggests that this piece was delivered orally, though the circumstances under which it was delivered remain disputed. The work most likely derives from Antioch, a Hellenized city with a large Jewish population, sometime between 63 BCE and 38 CE, and its message appears to be directed to a Diaspora Jewish population confronting Greco-Roman influences. Link

(5) Probable place(s) and date(s) of composition: Though Alexandria has been put forward as the place of composition by some scholars, it is more generally accepted to have been originally written in Antioch of Syria in the first century C.E. However the text has come through the uncial manuscripts of the Septuagint, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and later in the Codex Venetus. Link

(6) IV Maccabees has scanty historical information and belongs to the Maccabees series only because it deals with the beginning of the persecution of Jews by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. It possibly was written during the reign of the emperor Caligula (AD 37-41). Throughout the early Christian period, IV Maccabees was wrongly attributed to the 1st-century-AD Jewish historian Josephus. Link

(7) 4 Maccabees: First Century A.D. Link

So here we have seven (7) separate authoritative sources that, although they dispute the exact date, say 4 Maccabees falls within the 100BC to 100AD parameters that Svendsen imposed upon this discussion. Thus, we have accommodated Svendsen as no one else has done. We have found a reference to heos hou within his own crucial time period, but which shows a continuation of the main clause of a Greek sentence.

Knowing that if he were to admit such a possibility his whole thesis on Matthew 1:25 would have to be rejected, Svendsen did his best to eliminate 4 Maccabees 7:3 from the running.

Here is what he says on page 64 and into page 65.

The writer of 4 Maccabees may also have intended this meaning when he writes: "[The reason of Eleazar] in no way turned the rudder of godliness until it sailed into the harbor of victory over death (7:3). The metaphorical nature of this passage makes it exceedingly difficult to make a firm decision as to the continuation/discontinuation of the action of the main clause. Do we assume Eleazar's reasoning did or did not "turn the rudder of godliness" after it "sailed into the harbor of victory over death"? Or do we assume that the question itself is moot since no reference to cessation or continuation is in mind? Even the meaning of the phrases themselves ("turn the rudder of godliness"; "sailed into the harbor of victory over death") remains uncertain. It would therefore be unwise to uphold this isolated passage as an example of one meaning or the other.

Now, let's analyze what Svendsen is trying to do with this passage:

First, he is trying to confuse the issue by appealing to the metaphorical language of the passage, suggesting that, because of the metaphors, we are not exactly sure what the passage really means. Ladies and gentlemen, the metaphors have no bearing whatsoever on the meaning of heos hou in this passage. Heos hou is a prepositional phrase. It's meaning is not affected by metaphors, but only by the syntax of the sentence. It would make no difference if the writer of 4 Maccabees 7:3 said: (#1) "Eleazar did not turn the rudder of godliness until he sailed into the haven of immortal victory" or (#2) "Eleazar did not turn aside from God until he went to the afterlife." Both sentences mean the same thing. The word "until" functions the same in each sentence, since it serves to connect the main clause with the subordinate clause, and in this instance, it shows that the action of the main clause continues into the realm of the subordinate clause, not cease when it reaches the subordinate clause. The only difference between the above sentences is that sentence #1 is just a poetical way of saying what sentence #2 says more literally, that is, that Eleazar did not turn aside from God and thus entered into a glorious afterlife.

We have already shown by our citing of various Psalms and the Song of Solomon that metaphors do not change or disrupt the meaning of heos hou when such language is used.

To solidify this point, let's look at a poetic passage where heos hou clearly does terminate the action of the verb, Song of Solomon 2:7:

I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, By the gazelles or by the hinds of the field, That you do not arouse or awaken my love UNTIL [heos hou] she pleases.

In this instance, heos hou does indeed intend the action to be terminated, for when love desires, the implication is that it should be awakened and stirred up.

As such, no appeal can be made to the metaphors in order to alter the force of heos hou. Grammar is grammar. Whether the subject and verb are metaphors or not, makes no difference. A prepositional phrase will do its duty and connect the surrounding clauses, either ceasing the action or continuing the action - whether it ceases or continues metaphors, or ceases or continues non-metaphors.

I think it is also worth mentioning that in his attempt to neutralize 4 Maccabees 7:3 Svendsen tries to evade the issue by creating additional categories of doubt. For example, regarding Eleazar's mind set, Svendsen states:

"Do we assume Eleazar's reasoning did or did not "turn the rudder of godliness" after it "sailed into the harbor of victory over death"?

This question is a feeble attempt to confuse or dissuade the reader. Obviously, if Eleazar turned the "rudder of godliness" once he entered the haven of victory, he would be rejecting godliness, the very thing that allowed him to enter the haven of victory. Who in their right mind would say that once Eleazer reached the haven of victory he then decided to chuck it all and reject godliness? Svendsen cannot escape this logic by the mere fact that since he posed the above question about what Eleazar decided once he reached the haven of victory, he admits that the haven of victory is where Eleazar can either cease or continue the action of the main clause. If he ceases it, then he has turned the rudder of godliness. But if he turns the rudder of godliness, he is no longer fit for the haven of victory, by the mere fact that NOT turning the rudder put him in the haven of victory in the first place.

Svendsen also asks another question:

"Or do we assume that the question itself is moot since no reference to cessation or continuation is in mind?"

This is a rather convenient way of trying to escape the issue, but it can be settled by turning the tables on Svendsen. For if Svendsen thinks this way about the use of heos hou in 4 Maccabees 7:3, why doesn't he think the same way about the use of heos hou in Matthew 1:25? Other scholars have suggested the same thing, that is, that Matthew 1:25 is concerned neither with cessation nor continuation, but only with indicating that Joseph and Mary were celibate during the process of Jesus' conception, and makes no commentary, either way, of what happened after Jesus' conception.

But here's the rub: if Matthew 1:25 is not speaking about cessation or continuation of the main clause, then Svendsen cannot demand that Catholics, in order to prove the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, are required to find a usage of heos hou in intertestamental literature which continues the action of the main clause! It's that simple.

Moreover, the fact that 4 Maccabees was written around the same time as the gospel of Matthew means that the concept of using heos hou in places where the author had no intention of indicating cessation or continuation of action was a practice in common usage during this time! Thus it would be no coincidence to see this in Matthew 1:25.

Hence, by Svendsen's opening up the possibility that heos hou may neither cease or continue the main clause, he has just made the Catholic position on Matthew 1:25 that much more impregnable.

Once again, Svendsen's thesis is soundly defeated. Let it be known to all that we will continue to hold and advance the real meaning of heos hou UNTIL Eric Svendsen has admitted his mistake.

Robert Sungenis
Jacob Michael

PS: Note the use of "UNTIL" in the last sentence that continues the action of the main verb :)

END

1 2