1. The Man, the Ethnographic Genre, and Hecataeus's Egyptian Ethnography

Our knowledge about Hecataeus's life is rather patchy. From the few testimonia, the following résumé can be drawn:1 Hecataeus was born in Abdera, a prosperous Greek colony on the Thracian coast, around the middle of the fourth century. He reached maturity, and perhaps already had some reputation, by the time of Alexander the Great. In these years he seems to have received good philosophical training. In

the period of the Successors Hecataeus was occupied in the service of Ptolemy I. His precise position in the court was not recorded. It can only be said that he was close to the satrap-king, took part in military expeditions, and went on diplomatic missions abroad.2 At least one of his works, the Egyptian ethnography, served, in its special way, political goals of Ptolemy I.3

The ancient sources describe Hecataeus as a "philosopher" and critical grammatikos , and refer to his ethnographical works as "history."4 Diogenes Laertius, the biographer-compiler of the Greek philosophers, lists Hecataeus among the people who were taught by Pyrrho and includes him among the "Pyrrhoneans" (IX.69). However, it is doubtful whether Hecataeus was indeed Pyrrho's disciple, or that he adhered to his teaching.5 Another testimonium mentions him as one of the

"Abderites," between Democritus and Apollodorus of Cyzicus (Clem. Strom . II.130.4), which inspired some speculations about Hecataeus's philosophical conceptions.6 No name of a philosophical work by him is known, but there is little doubt that he indeed wrote philosophical works.7 The situation with his contribution as a "grammarian" is not much different: we know that he wrote two books, on Homer and Hesiod (Suda , s.v.

Hecataeus's major contribution was his ethnographical work. It was called history because in antiquity there was no generic name for this sort of writing, and it was included in the framework of history.8 We know of two monographs: an Egyptian ethnography named On the Egyptians (

later ethnographic accounts on the Jews.11 In order to understand the importance of Hecataeus as an ethnographer, we have to preface here a brief survey of the genre.12

Although it did not have a generic name, there is no doubt that Greek ethnographical writing was a genre in its own right, with definite structure, rules, and purposes. Its beginning in the sixth century is connected with Greek colonization and the advance of the Persian empire, which raised the interest of the Hellenes in the surrounding world. Hecataeus of Miletus is regarded as the father of ethnography. His Periegesis , a geographical tour or survey around the Mediterranean, included a number of geographical accounts of the peoples of these countries. It seems that ethnographical writing at that time was not limited to excursuses in works belonging to other genres. There is some information about monographs by Hellanicus of Lesbos and Charon of Lampsacus that may have been predominantly ethnographic.13

The features of the new genre can be defined according to the ethnographical excursuses of Herodotus, especially the comprehensive accounts on the Egyptians and the Scythians. They were composed of the following sections:14 (a) origo-archaeologia , the beginning of the nation; (b) geography; (c) customs; and (d) history. The origo-archaeologia described the descent of the people concerned either from their autochthonous beginnings or with their migration, and their early life as a nation. The geography referred to borders, rivers, fertility of soil, flora, and fauna, and elaborated on, among other things, thaumasia (marvels and curiosities). The customs section was the most important, and was designed to present the main features of the nation. Attention was given to beliefs and cult, social structure, institutions, and everyday practices. The last section, history, included mainly dynastic records with stories of the major achievements of outstanding rulers, usually concerning monumental buildings and successful military expeditions.

The ethnography of the classical period can be described as nonscientific, resembling Herodotus's historiographical methods: unselective accumulation of material, without an attempt to arrive at the factual truth. There is no causal connection between the various sections of the ethnography or between the details in each section, and there is no reasoning to the mass of material. The sources of information were personal impressions of the author (who in some cases visited the countries described and interviewed local people), together with rumors and hearsay, tourist reports, and references in previous Greek literature. No use was made, directly or indirectly, of the literature or written records of foreign nations.

The first ethnographers did not write their works in the service of rulers or cities. They were, by and large, travelers, amateur geographers, seamen, merchants, or historians who had a keen interest in foreign countries and their inhabitants, and wrote at leisure. Their geographical horizon was limited to neighboring countries and the main divisions of the Persian empire. No clear ideology or pragmatic purpose is visible in these accounts. It can be said that they were basically written to satisfy the curiosity of Greeks who came across foreigners or heard about them. The rise of the genre just at the end of the age of colonization and the rather general character of the accounts rule out the possibility that Greek ethnography was initially meant as a guide to planned colonizations. In the case of excursuses incorporated in works belonging to another genre such as history or geography, the ethnographical accounts were introduced as a necessary preface to historical events or geographical descriptions relating to the nation concerned. They also had a literary role—to diversify the writing and provide some relief in the course of a long and monotonous narrative.

A new impetus in the development of the ethnographical genre naturally arose with the conquests of Alexander and Greco-Macedonian settlement in the newly occupied countries.15 Interest in foreign nations grew immensely, and increased knowledge carried with it practical implications. The authors were no longer residents of the old Greek world, and in many cases lived in the countries they described. They could, therefore, consult local written sources, thoroughly interview people of

all ranks of society, and gain firsthand acquaintance and understanding of the subjects referred to. Unlike their predecessors, Hellenistic ethnographers were personally involved with their subject, had definite didactic purposes in presenting their material, and frequently served Greco-Macedonian rulers. Consequently the new writing was no longer a casual accumulation of material arranged into schematized thematic rubrics: its information was carefully selected to fit with Greek literary models, or with premeditated political purposes or philosophical conceptions, or both. The information was not left unprocessed: it received some Greek touches and coloring, and reasoning was provided for the facts. The explanations often disclose the purposes of the writers; in other cases they were just borrowed from Greek tradition. As a result of all these, the final picture may have deviated considerably from the historical truth. By and large, the genre can be described as an interpretatio Graeca of the Orient. The more an author adhered to premeditated purposes, the more he departed from the original information. In some cases the outcome was an odd mixture of realism with sheer fantasy.

As far as the structure is concerned, there was no change in the basic scheme of ethnographical works: the same sections appear in Hellenistic ethnographical monographs and excursuses as in their classical counterparts, although in certain cases one or two sections may be missing. However, in contrast to the old ethnography, the various sections did not remain isolated from each other. Authors stress the causal connection between them: customs result from the special circumstances and conditions of the origo, or the geography, or both; and history arises from all these. The various subjects in each section are also connected by causal reasoning. As a result, there is more flexibility in the order and sequence of the traditional four sections of the ethnographical work.

The philosophical and political character prevailing in many works of the new ethnography motivated the rise of a subgenre, the utopian ethnography. Utopian features in Greek literature were as old as Homer, and were integrated in various genres.16 Undertaking to describe remote or legendary peoples, utopian ethnographies were planned and constructed according to the rules of Hellenistic ethnography; but the material was entirely fictitious, designed to illustrate an ideal, nonexistent society. The best-known example is Euhemerus's utopia about the

Panchaeans, set on an imaginary island in the Indian Ocean. It included the celebrated Euhemerist religious conception, according to which the gods were actually deified kings and heroes of the past. Less well known is that this idea was expressed earlier by Hecataeus of Abdera with regard to "terrestrial" gods in his Egyptian ethnography (Diod. I.13ff.).17

We can now turn again to Hecataeus of Abdera.18 The general scheme of his works will be discussed below in Chapter VI.3.19 It will be shown that Hecataeus followed the basic scheme of his Greek predecessors. However, apart from this structural similarity, all other features differed substantially, marking a new phase in the development of the genre. There is an obvious expansion of scope. Hecataeus increased the sources of information, the geographical horizon, and the types of the genre, and expanded its literary framework. He consulted, directly or indirectly, old Egyptian writings (Diod. 1.69.7, 96.2) and had access to a variety of oral sources. He wrote two comprehensive monographs, one on the Egyptians, the other on the Hyperboreans. The first described the nation among whom he was residing; the second, legendary people imagined to live on the northern outskirts of the inhabited world. The first work was an idealized version of Egyptian history, institutions, and way of life; the second, an imaginary utopia. In addition to monographs, Hecataeus wrote miniature ethnographies of nations believed to have originated from Egypt. These were incorporated as excursuses in the Egyptian ethnography. The nations described were neighboring peoples such as the Jews, or the Babylonians (whose country was then the center of the rising Seleucid empire), and even Hellenic tribes or cities, such as Athens (Diod. I.28-29).

The great contributions of Hecataeus, however, to the development of the genre were the selection of material according to Greek literary and ideological conceptions, the creation of a causal connection between

the sections of the work and between the subjects within each section, and the reasoning provided for many statements. Thus, for instance, in the case of an emigrating nation, its experiences in the country of origin and the circumstances of its emigration would influence its everyday life, institutions, language, and attitude toward other nations. The life, history, and character of autochthonous peoples would be dictated, to a great extent, by geography, especially soil, water, climate, and fauna. Cult and beliefs, which were referred to without comment by earlier ethnographers, received rational explanations. Even the notorious Egyptian animal cult was given a detailed rationalization, pointing out the benefits brought by the animals to the Egyptians (Diod. I.86ff.). The like applies to other subjects. The reasoning often drew on Greek experience and thinking. In this respect Hecataeus's ethnography may appear to strive for scientific presentation, but the selection of the material, its coloring, and its reasoning were not necessarily guided by a wish to record absolute historical truth.

This loss to political history and ethnography was a gain for the history of ideas. It would be rather speculative to reconstruct the utopian model envisaged by Hecataeus in his Hyperborean ethnography. The scant surviving material allows only a few conclusions with regard to Hecataeus's religious stance. He seems to have adhered to the traditional cult of classical Greece and was evidently highly tolerant.

The state of preservation of the Egyptian ethnography is much better Apart from some fragments and testimonia,20 its contents are to be found in Book I of Diodorus's Historical Library , which is devoted to Egyptian ethnography. Following the studies of Eduard Schwartz and Felix Jacoby it has been accepted that Book I of Diodorus (from I.10 onward) is basically an abbreviated paraphrase of Hecataeus's Egyptian ethnography, though it also contains a long section taken from Agatharcides of Cnidus (the description of the Nile, I.32-41) as well as notes and additions by Diodorus himself.21 This conclusion has been challenged from time to time; arguments have been raised against the attribution of certain passages to Hecataeus, and there have also

been those who have tried to minimize Hecataeus's share in Diodorus's version.22 These attempts have been rightly refuted, and one has to note especially the contribution of Oswyn Murray, who reestablished the old, accepted theory.23

The dating of Hecataeus's Egyptian ethnography has been disputed. While some have suggested the early years of Ptolemy's independent satrapy (320-315) others have preferred the first years of his monarchy (306/5-300).24 The arguments in favor of the first possibility are not decisive. On the other hand the year 306/5 as a terminus post quem appears from the introduction to the account of the borders of Egypt (Diod. I.30.1):

A comparison is obviously being made with the regions occupied by the other satraps who declared themselves kings after the naval battle of Cyprian Salamis in 306. Given the general context, an account of pharaonic Egypt, the sentence seems to have been written by a contemporary of the Successors, and certainly not by Diodorus, in the days of Augustus. It stands in fact at the head of two definitely Hecataean chapters (30-31.8),25 and this would appear to clinch the argument. The year 302/1 (not 300) as terminus ante quem is suggested by the unbiased attitude toward Jews and Judaism manifested in the Jewish excursus incorporated in the Egyptian ethnography:26 after the confrontation between Ptolemy I and the Jews in that year, the subsequent harsh treatment of the population, the banishment of scores

of thousands to Egypt, and the sale of many into slavery,27 a positive account of the Jews without any reference to these developments is hardly to be expected of an author serving in the court.

The very writing of the work and its main message were dictated by the circumstances of the hour: the official end of provincial rule and the establishment of new kingdoms in oriental countries with long monarchic traditions. Ptolemy saw himself as the successor of the pharaohs, a legitimate king of the Egyptians. The predominant feature of the Egyptian ethnography was, therefore, the glorification of Egypt. The country is described as the land of human origins, the cradle of civilization, and of wisdom. Useful inventions such as fire, agriculture, language, and writing, as well as most of the arts, originated on Egyptian soil (I.13ff., 69.5-6). Many nations came from Egypt and were deeply influenced by its culture. The most outstanding of these were the Greeks (including the Athenians) and the Babylonians (I.28-29). Mythical cult figures, lawgivers, poets, and philosophers, such as Orpheus, Musaeus, Solon, Lycurgus, Homer, Protagoras, Democritus, and Plato, visited Egypt, explored its laws and institutions, and drew substantially from them (I.69.3-4, 96ff.). Pharaonic rule appears as a law-abiding monarchy, guided by priests, with the king maintaining virtues like justice, magnanimity, and piety (I.70-71, 73.4). The Egyptian judicial system and its procedures are said to have been planned in a way that facilitated reaching the absolute truth with the utmost objectivity (I.75ff.). Egyptian gods are equated with Greek ones and rationalized: two are explained as representing the great celestial bodies; five others, the basic elements (fire, spirit, etc.); and the rest, renowned mortal heroes and inventors of the past. The rehabilitation of practices deplored by Greeks included not only animal cult (I.86-90) but also incest (I.27.1-2). These were toned down and given rational explanations that made them acceptable to Greek ears.

The tribute paid to the greatness of Egypt was meant to help in establishing the image of the Ptolemaic regime. It raised the prestige of Ptolemy, the new king of this great, old civilization, in the eyes of Greco-Macedonians living under other Hellenistic rulers. This in turn helped to attract to Egypt competent European manpower and the intellectual elite of the Greek world. As for the Greco-Macedonians settled in

Egypt, the enthusiastic account of the pharaonic past brought home the royal policy of respecting Egyptian traditions, including superstitions, in order to avoid ugly confrontations with the natives and their strong priesthood.28 It has been suggested that the work was also intended to flatter the Egyptians themselves. This is quite doubtful: the language barrier was still too high at the end of the fourth century to expect the book to circulate among Egyptians, let alone influence them. Moreover, the glorification of the pharaonic past could have sparked off Egyptian nationalism, and the recurring references to the role of the priests as advisers of the king would only have encouraged the Egyptian priests not to be content with their religious duties. Other suggestions offered for the purpose of the book, such as to establish a general model of government and society for the developing Hellenistic world, or to present an idealized version of the Ptolemaic regime, do not stand up to criticism.29 The role of the priests is not the only feature refuting these suggestions. Various points in the book have evident didactic purposes, but they do not carry its main message.

It would take us far afield to refer to every thematic aspect of this fascinating ethnography. It is a mine of theological, philosophical, political, and social ideas. I shall restrict myself to noting a number of points that have some relevance to an understanding of the Jewish excursus:

1. The information is based by and large on Egyptian priestly oral and written sources.30

2. In certain cases it reflects not historical facts but ideals circulating among those priests.31

3. The interpretation of the facts is Hecataean, and is inspired by Greek tradition and modes of thinking, apart from a few cases where the author explicitly says that an explanation is Egyptian.

4. The interpretation is frequently complimentary, and apologetic in some cases. It includes explicit expressions of praise. The tendency to idealize is evident.

5. The author himself divides the customs recorded in the book into two categories: "extremely strange [paradoxotata ] customs," and those that might be "most useful" to the reader (I.69.2; cf. 30.4). He introduces customs of the first type in order to provide reasoning for well-known curiosities and to arouse interest in others. The "useful" customs are brought in to serve as models for imitation, to point out their superiority over existing Greek practices, or just for the sake of comparison.32

6. Despite his desire to present an appealing, favorable picture of Egyptian life, Hecataeus does not refrain from expressing reservations about Egyptian hostility toward strangers, although he tries to "soften" it (Diod. I.67.10-11, 69.4, 88.5)

2. The Jewish Excursus

Hecataeus's Jewish excursus was much discussed in the last century. Being actually the first comprehensive account of Jews and Judaism in Greek literature, it was used by later gentile authors as a basic source of information on the subject. Some features of this account, especially the attribution to Moses of the settlement in Judea and the establishment of basic Jewish institutions and practices, became a vulgate in Greco-Roman literature.33 In the present monograph, a review of the excursus and its problems is relevant not only to the question of the authenticity of On the Jews , but also to the shaping of one of its sections. Be that treatise a forgery or not, its author was certainly acquainted with the excursus.

Like his major works, Hecataeus's original ethnographic account on Jews and Judaism has not been preserved. Diodorus incorporated an abbreviated paraphrase of it in Book XL of the Historical Library

(3.1-8), which is itself now lost, but his version of Hecataeus's Jewish ethnography is preserved by Photius, the Byzantine patriarch of the ninth century. Photius attacks Diodorus for "telling lies" about the Jews. To illustrate this accusation, he cites two extracts. The first is a story about the siege of Jerusalem by Antiochus VII Sidetes (in 134 or 132 B.C. ) and the anti-Jewish libels and accusations voiced on that occasion by the king's advisers (cod. 244, 379a-380a = Diod. XXXIV-XXXV.1.1-5). Then comes the Jewish ethnography. The text of Photius runs as follows (cod. 244, 380a-381a):

From the fortieth book [of Diodorus], about the middle:34

[3.1] Now that we intend to record the war against the Jews, we consider it appropriate to give first an outline [

] of the foundation [ktisis ] from its beginning, and of the customs [nomima ] practiced among them.

When in ancient times a pestilence arose in Egypt, the ordinary people ascribed their troubles to the working of a divine power [

]; for indeed with many strangers of all sorts dwelling in their midst and practicing different habits of rites and sacrifice, their own traditional observances in honor of the gods had fallen into disuse. [3.2] Hence the natives of the land surmised that unless they removed the foreigners, their troubles would never be resolved. At once, therefore, the aliens were driven from the country, and the most outstanding [

] and active among them banded together and, as some say, were cast ashore in Greece and certain other regions; their leaders were notable men, chief among them being Danaus and Cadmus. But the greater number were driven into what is now called Judea, which is not far distant from Egypt and was at that time utterly desolate [

]. [3.3] The colony [apoikia ] was headed by a man called Moses, outstanding both for his wisdom and courage. On taking possession of the land, he founded [

], besides other cities, one that is now the most renowned of all, called Jerusalem. In addition he established the temple that they hold in chief veneration, instituted their forms of worship and ritual, drew up the laws relating to their political institutions, and ordered [

] them. He also divided the people into twelve tribes, since this is regarded as the most perfect number and corresponds to the number of months that make up a year [3.4] But he had no images whatsoever of the Gods made for them, being of the opinion that God

is not in human form [

]; rather the heaven that encompasses [

] the Earth is alone divine, and rules everything [

]. The sacrifices that he established differ from those of other nations, as does their way of living, for as a result of their own expulsion [

] from Egypt he introduced a [way of] life which is somewhat unsocial and hostile to strangers [

]. He picked out the men of most refinement and with the greatest ability to head the entire nation, and appointed them priests; and he ordained that they should occupy themselves with the temple and the honors and sacrifices offered to their God. [3.5] These same men he appointed to be judges in all major disputes, and entrusted to them the guardianship [

] of the laws and customs. For this reason the Jews never [

] have a king, and the leadership [

] of the multitude [

] is regularly vested in whichever priest is regarded as superior to his colleagues in wisdom and virtue. They call this man high priest [

], and believe that he acts as a messenger [

] to them of God's commandments. [3.6] It is he, they say, who in their assemblies and other gatherings announces what is ordained, and the Jews are so docile in such matters that straightway they fall to the ground and do reverence [

] to the high priest when he expounds the commandments to them. There is even appended to the laws, at the end, the statement: "These are the words that Moses heard from God and declares unto the Jews." Their lawgiver was careful also to make provision for warfare, and required the young men to cultivate manliness, steadfastness, and, generally, the endurance of every hardship. [3.7] He led out military expeditions against the neighbouring tribes, and after annexing much land apportioned it out, assigning equal allotments to private citizens and greater ones to the priests in order that they, by virtue of receiving more ample revenues, might be undistracted and apply themselves continually to the worship of God. The common people were forbidden to sell their individual plots [

], lest there be some who for their own advantage should buy them up, and by oppressing the poorer classes bring on a scarcity of manpower [

]. [3.8] He required those who dwelt in the land to rear their children, and since offspring could be cared for at little cost, the Jews were from the start a populous nation. As to marriage and the burial of the dead, he saw to it that their customs should differ widely from those of other men.35 But later, when they became subject to foreign rule, as a result of their mingling with men of other nations—both under Persian rule and

First of all, some comments on the transmission of the text, its preservation, and its original location. Photius explicitly says that the extract was taken from Diodorus's fortieth book. In view of his declared purpose to expose Diodorus's "lies" and considering the typically Diodorean style and turn of phrase, it has rightly been assumed that Photius faithfully transmitted the text of Diodorus.38 As noted by Diodorus at the head of the extract (3.1), he incorporated the excursus on the Jews at that point to serve as an introduction to his account of the confrontation between the Romans and the Jews, that is, the events surrounding the Roman occupation of Judea in the year 63 B.C. It followed the appeal alleged to have been made by a Jewish delegation to Pompey to dispose of the Hasmonean rulers and restore the Jewish "ancestral constitution" (XL.1a). The extract indeed provides background material for this claim: it elaborates on a Jewish patrios politeia , stressing its theocratic character and categorically stating that the Jews "never have a king."39 The excursus also deals with the military preparation of

the younger generation for war, the motivation of the Jewish farmers to fight, and their abundance of manpower, which obviously are relevant for the coming military confrontation.

Diodorus's extract closes with the statement "this is what Hecataeus of Miletus narrated." "Miletus" instead of "Abdera" is certainly a slip of Photius or a copyist.40 The original ethnography by Hecataeus was not an independent monograph, but an excursus. It was included in his great ethnographical work on Egypt, most probably as an appendix at the end of the origo-archaeologia section, the first of the four sections of the Ae-gyptiaca (Diod. I.28-29).41 The Jewish excursus was just one of a number of miniature ethnographies of nations, tribes, and cities supposed to have originated from Egypt that were treated in the same context.

Diodorus states in the preface to the excursus that he intends to report on the "founding" (ktisis ) and "customs" (nomima ) of the Jews. The excursus indeed contains these two sections; it opens with the founding, namely the origo : the expulsion of the Jews together with other aliens (XL.3.1-2), the settlement of the Jews in Judea and Jerusalem under the leadership of Moses (2-3), and the establishment of political and religious institutions (3). Then follows the section on customs: Jewish faith (4), sacrifices (4), attitude toward strangers (4), the duties of the priests (4-5), the role of the High Priest and his authority (5-6), the organization of the army and military expeditions (6-7), the distribution of land (7-8), child rearing and demography (8), marriage and burial (8).

These were also the components of Hecataeus's original excursus. It included only ktisis and nomima , without geographical and historical sections, which were common in Greek ethnographies. These sections were also absent from the other minor ethnographies in the appendix to the Egyptian archaeologia-origo . Hecataeus was primarily concerned in that context to illustrate the origin of certain nations in Egypt, with the evidence of Egyptian influences on their customs to prove it. Geography and history of the new lands would have been quite out of place.42

At the same time, it is clear that the original content of the nomima section was not preserved by Diodorus in its entirety:43 the account of the daily customs was omitted. This is evident with regard to circumcision (Diod. 1.28.2), sacrifice (XL.3.4),44 and marriage and burial customs (XL.3.8),45 and may also have happened to explicit references about Jewish exclusiveness (XL.3.4). The first four were omitted because they could not contribute to the aforementioned purposes for which the excursus was incorporated. Illustrations of the Jewish attitude toward strangers were left out, probably because they were very moderate in comparison with the sharp accusations and libels quoted by Diodorus from another source in a previous book (XXXIV-XXXV.1.1-3). Left in the nomima section are statements about Jewish institutions and remarks pertaining to Jewish military potential (training, motivation, manpower).46 The account of Jewish belief was recorded not only because of its uniqueness, but chiefly owing to its relevance for understanding the Jewish theocratical system of government as described by the delegation to Pompey.

Hecataeus's original excursus thus opened with the origo , in this case the alleged expulsion of Jews from Egypt. Then came the nomima section, which seems to have comprised two main subjects: institutions and provisions made by Moses, and a collection of daily customs. As became customary in the new, Hellenistic, ethnography, the author uses one section to explain another. Here he stresses the influence of the origo on the creation and development of Jewish customs. The expulsion explains the "hatred of strangers" (XL.3.4). Daily customs

are compared with those of the Egyptians, with some, like circumcision, being described as originating in Egypt (1.28.3). Others, like marriage and burial customs, were contrasted with those of the Egyptians.47 Jewish beliefs, governmental institutions, and social provisions were not just listed but were given a causal reasoning.

Apart from the omission of the customs mentioned above, the references to the Jewish origo and nomima seem to represent the contents of the original text. In three cases there is a striking similarity between the excursus and references to Egyptians and Jews in Hecataeus's Aegyptiaca .48 They indicate that even if some of the statements and explanations were abbreviated by Diodorus, the original meaning was not distorted. Significantly, Diodorus was not tempted by the vicious libels about Jewish origins and attitude toward strangers included elsewhere in his work (XXXIV-XXXV.1.1-4), nor by his own prejudice (XL.2.2, "lawless behavior of the Jews"): the Jews are not described as lepers, and the reason given for their expulsion is not in-suiting; the reference to Jewish hostility toward strangers expresses just some reservation. These passages certainly reflect the original Hecataean text.

The question whether Diodorus adhered to Hecataeus's vocabulary and syntax is more problematic. It can only be said that there is much of the Diodorean style in the excursus.49 One sentence, however, is clearly an addition by Diodorus: it is agreed that the statement "but later, when they became subject to foreign rule, ... many of their traditional practices were disturbed" (XL.3.8) could not have been written by Hecataeus. It records changes in the Hasmonean period and is connected with the alleged complaints of the Jewish notables to Pompey. The reference to the "rule ... of the Macedonians who overthrew the Persians" indicates that it was written long after the end of Macedonian rule in Judea. A similar note was supplemented by Diodorus at the end of his epitome of Hecataeus's Egyptian ethnography (I.95.6).

The contents of the excursus raise a number of questions that have continually attracted the attention of scholars.50 Did Hecataeus have real knowledge about Jewish antiquities? What were his sources of information? What were Hecataeus's guidelines in selecting the material? Does the account reflect Jewish life in the period of Hecataeus? To what extent was the account inspired by Greek practices, conceptions, and literary traditions? Does the excursus carry certain messages or didactic purposes? Did Hecataeus intend to idealize the life of the Jewish people or certain customs? How should Hecataeus's note about Jewish separatism and "hatred of strangers" be understood? Is it complimentary, or does it express reservation? And finally: what was, after all, Hecataeus's basic attitude toward Jews and Judaism? All these questions are relevant, in one way or another, to various points in the discussion on the treatise On the Jews . However, as they cannot decide the major issues,51 and the purpose of this chapter is simply to introduce the reader to Hecataeus's work and references to the Jews, I shall refrain from examining in detail the numerous suggestions offered so far concerning these and related questions, and shall not attempt to exhaust all the points involved. The following discussion will try to sort out and define the significant problems, survey the relevant source material, and present what seem to me to be the right solutions. Of most interest to us will be the process by which the excursus was composed, and the considerations behind the selection, arrangement, and shaping of the material.

Do the accounts of the Jewish origo and nomima accord with Jewish tradition and history? At first sight the answer is firmly negative. Almost every clause, as it stands, can easily be refuted or found inaccurate. This, however, is a hasty conclusion. One has to distinguish

between the facts and their reasoning. The explanations were provided by Hecataeus himself, and are typically Greek. The facts, except one or two, are based on Jewish tradition and history. What is mistaken is the dating and sequence. Hecataeus conflates three periods of Jewish history: (a) the time of the Exodus and the wandering in the desert; (b) the period of the settlement in Canaan; and (c) the Restoration, the Persian rule, and the days of the Diadochs. The three periods are telescoped into one, under the leadership of Moses, the founder. The account fails to distinguish between periods and stages of development, and ignores other long periods. Such telescoping, centering around the personality of the "founder" (ktistes , oikistes ), was quite common in Greek foundation legends and stories relating to the age of colonization, and even to later colonization activities.52 Events and developments that occurred during long periods, under different individuals, were conflated into one period and attributed to one person, the leader-founder.53 We shall see later that both the collection and the arrangement of the material were indeed strongly influenced by Greek foundation legends. The Judea portrayed is consequently not historical but mythological. It is difficult to know whether Hecataeus had consciously ignored the real sequence, or whether he had received the information sporadically and unsystematically, and presented it the way Greeks were accustomed to record foundation stories.

Disregarding inaccuracies that result from the conflation and the tendency to attribute everything to Moses, the following data reflect the tradition (as distinct from history) about Moses and his period: the Jews were once aliens in Egypt (Diod. XL.3.2); Moses was their leader and great lawgiver (3); they were divided into twelve tribes (3); their cult avoided images and sculptures (4); they believed in the divine origin of the law (5-6; cf. 1.94.2); the High Priest and priests were in charge of

sacrifices and cult (XL.3.4), and were appointed to handle major judicial cases (5; cf. Deut. 17.8-12); the Jews reared their children, and therefore were from the beginning a "populous nation" (Diod. XL.3.8; cf. Exod. 1.7, 11). There is even a paraphrased quotation of a formula that recurs in the Pentateuch (Diod. XL.3.6).54 The second period provided the following data: the Jews settled in their country (3); they went to war against their neighbors and annexed lands (7). The statements that the lots were evenly distributed and were inalienable (7) also have biblical parallels.55

Other data and features recall Jewish life and institutions after the Babylonian exile and in the days of Hecataeus:56 Jews were concentrated in Judea and Jerusalem (3); the Jewish deity was named "Heaven" (4);57 the High Priest was the leader of the nation (5-6); the priests were, in addition to their cult duties, guides and guardians of the Torah (4-5);58 there was no king (5); the Temple stood at the center of Jewish life (3, 5-6); the congregation was occasionally assembled in Jerusalem, and the Pentateuch was then publicly read by priests (5-6; cf. Neh. 8.1-8); the kneeling before the High Priest may be an inaccurate reflection of the practice to fall upon the ground and bow before the Lord on such occasions (Neh. 8.6);59 the belief that the High Priest is a "messenger of

God" (Diod. XL.3.5) is identical to a statement by the prophet Malachi, referring to the "priest" (Mal. 2.7);60 certain priestly families seem to possess great estates, which may account for the statement that the priests were allotted greater lots than common people (Diod. XL.3.7);61 the stress laid on the inalienability of lands may record a tightening-up of the Torah restrictions on selling lands, a likely feature of Nehemiah's social reform;62 in addition to the Exodus traditions, the reference to the rearing of children may also record the situation in a Judea small at that time, and apparently overpopulated.63

These pieces of information were certainly provided by Egyptian Jews, probably of priestly descent.64 Given such sources, what is the reason for the absence of any reference to the period of the Israelite and Judean kings (and the statement that "the Jews never have a king," 3.5)? Hecataeus, who served an absolute ruler and illustrated an ideal monarchy in the Aegyptiaca , had no motive for concealing that major period of Jewish history. The reason seems to be structural and literary: as was already mentioned, the Jewish excursus, like other miniature ethnographies incorporated in the same context, was planned to include just the origo and contemporary customs. It stands to reason that in interviewing his Jewish informants, Hecataeus was interested in collecting material for these sections alone. Consequently he was not informed about (or did not take notes about) matters relating to a historical section. The period of the Israelite and Judean kingdoms, as well as the Babylonian exile, had no place in the excursus. Summing up the implications of the account for the Jewish governmental system, it occurred to Hecataeus that the "Jews never have a king."

In addition to the Jewish informants, the use of Egyptian sources, oral or written, is evident in the statement concerning the expulsion of the Jews from Egypt.65 Hecataeus seems to have preferred a moderate

version of the expulsion story,66 and perhaps even to have "softened" it: to judge from other sources, the Egyptian versions related that the Jews were banished because they suffered from pestilence—leprosy and other diseases—or that they were loathed by the Egyptian gods, or both. In addition, in at least one source the Jews are also accused of impiety.67 From Hecataeus's version it appears that the whole population in Egypt suffered from the plague, because the Egyptians themselves neglected the worship of their gods. They put the blame on the influence of foreigners who worshipped their own deities, and consequently expelled them. The inclusion of Danaus and Cadmus in the account, which did belong to the original Egyptian story,68 by itself demanded a "softening" of the original tradition. Another "softening" is evident in the reference to Jewish hatred of strangers ("somewhat," 3.4),69 which may be based on comments of Egyptians or Greek settlers, but could also reflect Hecataeus's personal impression.

There are, however, other references that could not have been based on Jewish or Egyptian sources, namely the explanations given for Jewish practices. There are also data that do not accord with Jewish traditions known to us: that the Jews settled in an "utterly desolate" land (3.2), that the first priests and all the High Priests were appointed according to merit (4-5), and that Moses made provisions for military training of the younger generation (6). This brings us to the much-discussed question of Greek influence.

It was suggested long ago, and has been repeated since by many scholars, that the excursus is an imaginary account of Jewish history and life based on Greek practices and conceptions. Thus, for instance, it

has been argued that a good number of details actually record Platonic ideals. These statements are too general and sweeping. The whole question of Greek influence requires qualification and more precise definitions. In the great variety of governmental systems, institutions, and political ideas current in Greek civilization, it is not difficult to find a counterpart to almost every clause in Hecataeus's excursus, although these might represent different political models and conceptions. It should be emphasized once more, however, that almost all the data (as distinct from their reasoning) originate in Jewish tradition and history, and that the statements about the dominant role of the priests and High Priests do not accord with Hecataeus's political commitment. The latter references are also specifically Jewish, and the "quotation" from the Pentateuch is the best example for this.

Greek influence can be detected in: (a) the literary structure and sequence; (b) a few details that are absent from or are contradictory to Jewish tradition; (c) the terminology used for the factual material; (d) the explanations provided by the author for Jewish nomima . As far as the literary structure is concerned, we have already mentioned the application of the rules of the ethnographical genre: the division of the excursus into a ktisis (origo ) section and a nomima section, the causal connection between the two, and the reasoning of the facts. No less important was the structural influence of foundation stories. The conflation of three periods into one and the centering of the major historical developments and institutions around the personality of Moses were explained above by reference to the literary tradition of foundation stories. The influence of this tradition, noticed first by Werner Jaeger,70 also dictated the selection and arrangement of the material for the two sections of the excursus.

That Hecataeus treated Moses as a ktistes (founder and builder) and Jerusalem as his colony also appears from the terminology: the first section of the excursus is called ktisis (3.1), which may record Hecataeus's wording. The verb ktizein is explicitly used with regard to the alleged foundation of Jerusalem by Moses (3); Moses is said to have been leading (

Greek settlement initiated by a mother city. Hecataeus uses this term even though he describes the Jews in the ktisis-origo as foreigners who were expelled from Egypt. Moreover, this is certainly not how Jewish informants would have termed resettlement in the land of the Israelite Patriarchs. Moses is described as a leader who excelled in wisdom and bravery (3), two virtues that are required of and attributed to founders (cf. Dion. Hal. II.7.1). He is not praised for "piety" (eusebeia ),71 which Jewish informants might have been expected to stress. Here we have an indication of the selection technique.

Turning to the structure, the similarity with foundation stories is indeed striking. The events and processes recorded in the ktisis section (3.1-3) are known from foundation stories and follow their basic sequence:72 the rise (usually by appointment) of a leader-founder, the emigration, foundation of the city (in foundation stories, building of a wall and then houses), building of a temple, drawing up laws, forming political institutions, and dividing the population into tribes. The nomima section opens with three references that deviate from the usual sequence: they relate to everyday customs unique to Jews (faith, sacrifice, and attitude toward strangers). It may well be that these references were originally located by Hecataeus at the end of the excursus, and were brought forward by Diodorus because of some association. These are followed by an elaboration of some of the institutions and laws founded by Moses that were only generally referred to at the end of the ktisis section. The sequence again principally follows that of foundation stories: establishment of judiciary and governmental system (3.4-6), preparation of the younger generation for war (6), expansion through military expeditions (7), distribution of agricultural lands and prohibition against selling them (7).73 Even the final demand to rear children to increase the population (8) has its parallels in traditional foundation stories.74

The excursus closes with a number of daily customs that are compared with those of the Egyptians (3.8). This may have been the original location of the references to Jewish faith, sacrifices, and attitude toward strangers (4), but they may well have been attached by Hecataeus himself to the ktisis-origo by way of association (temple-sacrifice-[dietary laws]-apanthropia and misoxenia ). The inclusion of an account of daily customs is not typical of foundation stories, but is an essential component of ethnographies. This indicates that the basic structure of the excursus as a whole is that of a miniature ethnography, not of a ktisis . The distinction made by Diodorus between the first section (ktisis ) and the second (nomima ) may derive from Hecataeus himself, and reinforces this conclusion.

It must be admitted that the variety of subjects and their sequence in foundation stories were not so rigid as it might appear, and there were local variations according to the circumstances. The main features and basic order, however, are common to many foundation traditions. Naturally, some of them contained subjects not referred to in the Jewish excursus, since this local variation had no place for them. Most conspicuous is the absence of any consultation of an oracle by the founder before embarking on the expedition. Parallel Jewish information drawn from the Book of Exodus was available, but, Hecataeus having chosen the expulsion story, a consultation, which usually centered upon the question whether to emigrate or not, was redundant.

The influence of foundation stories may help to understand the origin of data that contradict or do not appear in Jewish tradition. The statement that Judea was "utterly desolate" (

concerning the age of colonization mention settlement in both inhabited and uninhabited regions. The latter situation seems to have been the more common, especially in such destinations as the Black Sea area. On some occasions, emigrants were invited by local rulers and did not have to occupy a place by force.76 However, when referring to barbarian emigrations in the archaic age, Greeks tended to describe them as settling desolate lands.77

Another statement, which is not contradictory to but is absent from Jewish tradition, attributes to Moses the making of special provisions for war, especially with regard to the training of the younger generation (3.6). It is followed by the statement that Moses led the nation in wars against neighbors (7), which probably echoes some hazy information about the wars of Joshua. Such wars were frequently mentioned in Greek foundation stories as well. They were preceded by references to intensive military training, especially of the young, as one of the first steps taken in Greek colonies. Having described the Jewish settlement in Judea as a peaceful one, Hecataeus felt it necessary to introduce a stage of military preparations, before the wars of expansion, following the Greek model. We shall see later that Hecataeus also had a special didactic aim in making this point, and that in his Egyptian ethnography he emphasized the need to train the younger generation from childhood (Diod. I.73.9).78 The requirements from the young, "manliness, steadfastness, ... endurance of every hardship," are typical of the Greek paideia .79

More problematic is the statement about the appointment of priests and High Priests. Jewish priesthood and High Priesthood were hereditary. Hecataeus seems to be unaware of this fact. He says that the first priests were appointed by Moses on merit (XL.3.4) but does not refer to later generations. With regard to the High Priesthood he states that it is always conferred upon the priest who excels in "wisdom and virtue" (5). It is hardly believable that the Jewish informants

deliberately misled Hecataeus on these matters. He may instead have misinterpreted certain complimentary references to the qualities of the priests and the High Priests. In addition, as the position of High Priest was sometimes conferred upon the brother of the legal heir,80 some process of formal ratification must have existed. This being reported to him, it may have contributed to the misunderstanding. Hecataeus may also have had parallels in Plato's Laws (759a-b, 947a-b) at the back of his mind.

The Greek coloring of the facts (as distinct from their explanations) was also achieved by the application of classical political and philosophical terminology to Jewish institutions and practices. We have noted above the terms borrowed from foundation stories. To mention just a few more examples: the Jewish settlements are called poleis (Diod. XL.3.3), the position of the High Priest is defined as

As far as the explanations provided by Hecataeus are concerned, here the Greek influence is very much in evidence: the nation is divided into twelve tribes "since this is regarded as the most perfect number and corresponds to the number of months" (3.3; cf. Plato, Laws , 745b-d; Philo, De Fug . 184ff.);83 the Jews are said to deify "Heaven" because it "encompasses the Earth... and rules everything [

not in human form" (4);85 the priests receive greater lots to provide them enough leisure for performing their public duties (7; cf. Arist. Pol . 1269^a 35, 1273^a 34); the lands are inalienable to avoid the creation of great estates and consequent oppression of the poor classes and scarcity of manpower (Diod. XL.3.7);86 a community of landowning farmers can easily rear children, and this secures the necessary manpower for the nation (8).87 The attitude of Jews to strangers is called apanthropia and misoxenia and is explained by their xenelasia from Egypt, which is the term used exclusively for Spartan banishment of strangers.88 Some inspiration was also drawn from Egyptian tradition to explain Jewish practices: the priests are given greater lots to enable them to be free to perform their public duties (7; cf. 1.72.2-3).89

It has frequently been argued that the excursus is an idealization of the Jewish people, and was meant to present a model of an ideal society.90

The model, however, has been variously described as a "theocracy" or "aristocracy," inspired to a great extent by Plato's Laws and Republic respectively, a "Spartan oligarchy," and even an "Egyptian Sparta."91 It has also been suggested that the account describes a "mixed constitution" made of all these. As a matter of fact, none of these conceptions, singly or in combination, perfectly concurs with the contents of the excursus.92 What should really be asked is whether Hecataeus actually aspired at the outset to idealize the account, and present all of it as a model. The answer must be that he did not. Hecataeus, who served Ptolemy I, would hardly have advocated a society without kings, with the power being entrusted entirely to priests. This also stands in contrast with the government presented in his Egyptian ethnography. It should be reiterated that, by and large, Hecataeus recorded the information provided by his Jewish informants. The interpretation is basically what one would expect to be made of the facts by a Greek intellectual who had a good philosophical education, if he was not himself an original philosopher. The account does not include superlatives or even praises, and it is difficult to see features that could be admired or advocated by Hecataeus, except for those pertaining to military manpower.

The latter features were emphasized, supplemented, and explained with much elaboration, having in mind the Greco-Macedonian reader in Egypt. Much stress was laid on military training of the younger generation, allocation of equal lots, inalienability of land, and the great

rate of natural increase that was implicitly praised. A close look at the explanations provided reveals the message: farmers should have viable lots and a sound economic position so that there will be no "scarcity of manpower." The agrarian arrangements are also the way to encourage rearing children. As a result, the Jews are a "populous nation" (3.8). The causal connection in the first point is not made clear, and the advantage of the second is not explained. Hecataeus's original reasoning may well have been cut short by Diodorus. To understand it, we have to turn to the corresponding passages concerning the Egyptian warrior class in Hecataeus's Aegyptiaca . The main features and their explanation are actually identical:93

The distribution of land and the efforts made for the welfare of the settlers are thus intended to provide them with a good motivation to fight. This is the meaning of the argument of the Jewish excursus that economic hardships "bring on a scarcity of manpower." Even more important is the second purpose: to encourage and enable the settlers to rear children and thus "increase the population." The aim is to secure a situation in which "the country will not need to call in any mercenary troops." Here we find what is missing in the Jewish excursus: rearing many children and becoming a "populous

nation" confers a military advantage (cf. Polyb. XXXVI.17.5-11). Just as with the Jews in the excursus, the younger generation of Egyptian warriors was trained for war from childhood. The terminology applied in the passage should also be noticed: machimoi and klerouchiai were the official Hellenistic terms for military settlers of Egyptian descent serving under the Ptolemies, and their settlements, respectively. In the third century, the term klerouchiai

The correspondence of these data and explanations with the situation of the Greco-Macedonian settlers in Ptolemaic Egypt cannot be coincidental. Scarcity of European manpower was the most acute problem facing the young Ptolemaic empire. The Greco-Macedonian conquerors of Egypt were a tiny minority amid the native population, and the possibility of recruiting Greco-Macedonian mercenaries was rather limited, these being divided between the armies of the Successors. In the first generation of the occupation, Ptolemy recruited Egyptians to the army as light troops (e.g., Diod. XIX.80.4), making sure not to provide them with heavy weapons.95 Hecataeus, who was considering the future of the kingdom, must have realized that even this solution could only be temporary. In the long run, arming and training the natives at all might prove dangerous to the very existence of the Macedonian regime in Egypt. Hecataeus, therefore, suggests measures that will invest in the younger generation of Greco-Macedonian settlers: encouraging the birth and raising of children (contrary to the traditional practice in the motherland), allocating equal and sufficient lots to the settlers to enable each one to raise a large family, prohibiting the sale of lands to secure the continuity of this class of farmer-soldiers, and constantly training the descendants of the first generation of settlers. Ptolemaic military settlement was indeed organized along such lines, but gradually deteriorated, neglecting the preparation of the younger generation for war. As a result, in 217, on the eve of the battle of Raphia, Ptolemy IV was

forced to recruit thousands of Egyptians and to train them as phalanx warriors. The success of these troops in the battle of Raphia raised the self-confidence of the local population and generated a revolt that lasted thirty years, leaving the Ptolemaic kingdom at the mercy of its Seleucid rival.96

The assumption that the excursus is a highly idealized account intended to be a model has led a number of scholars to suggest that the reference to the Jewish attitude toward strangers (3-4) was meant to express not reservation but praise.97 However, in addition to the connotations of apanthropia and misoxenia in Greek culture, which could not be favorable, the qualifier

How then should the attitude of Hecataeus toward the Jews be evaluated? Having a basically unbiased attitude, Hecataeus presented the information available to him while interpreting certain features

according to Greek experience and conceptions. This is just how a Greek author-philosopher would have dealt with the facts; it does not mean that the excursus is an idealization or a "model." The account of the preparation of reliable manpower (including the strict agrarian arrangements) is the only part intended for emulation. However, even this is still not a deliberate idealization: the information given by the Jews is presented in the way Hecataeus, as a Greek, understood it.

One should not exaggerate the significance of the excursus. Hecataeus did not attach so much importance to it as might appear from modern scholarly interpretations. The Jewish excursus was just one of a number of minor ethnographies incorporated into the Aegyptiaca. They each presented a different system of government and society. In the way many Greeks viewed most oriental nations at the beginning of the encounter between the two great cultures, so Hecataeus viewed the Jews: he was curious and impartial, attempting to understand the information according to his education and way of thinking. He was indifferent on most topics, but appreciated some features and expressed reservations about others. This discerning evaluation is expressed in a factual style, combined with elaborate reasoning, without explicit compliments, exclamations, or superlatives, and avoiding rhetorical-emotional expressions. Despite the philosophical interpretation of their faith, the Jews are not described as a nation of philosophers, although this appears in contemporary Hellenistic literature.99 After all, even in referring to Egyptian religion, Hecataeus describes their "first god" as being "the same as the universe [

To sum up the discussion: How can the process of composition be imagined? Hecataeus planned an excursus that would include an origo section and a nomima section, to be incorporated among other

miniature ethnographies put together as an appendix to the Egyptian origo-archaeologia. The initial purpose was to show that the Jews, like other nations, originated from Egypt, and that this descent influenced their nomima. For this purpose, in interviewing his Jewish informants, he concentrated on the personality of Moses, the settlement in Canaan, and contemporary Jewish institutions and practices. Consequently, the information related to three periods in Jewish history: the Exodus, the settlement, and the time of Hecataeus himself (i.e., the Persian and early Hellenistic periods). However, he disregarded the Jewish Exodus story, perhaps because it appeared to insult the Egyptians whom he praised so much, or because he wanted to equate the background of the Jewish emigration to that of other nations. For the origo section Hecataeus consulted, therefore, Egyptian stories circulating in his time, preferring a more moderate one, possibly even "softening" it. In addition he did not refrain from expressing his reservations about Jewish exclusiveness and hatred of strangers.

In composing the excursus, Hecataeus had to sort out, select, and arrange the information into the origo and nomima, the two planned sections. His basic editorial conception was to follow the accepted model of a foundation story and supplement it with a number of daily customs illustrating the similarities and differences between Jews and Egyptians. The pieces of information selected were mainly those known from foundation stories. They were arranged and conflated according to the accepted sequence and conception of these stories. Moses was described as the founder of the nation as well as of the country, and all Jewish institutions and practices were attributed to him. The historical development was thus distorted, three distinct periods of Jewish history being conflated into one. The foundation story was divided between the origo and nomima. The origo included the story of the expulsion and the headlines of a typical foundation story. The nomima comprised two parts: the first elaborated on the institution and the provisions indicated in the origo; the second, on a number of everyday customs.

Forming the framework and filling it with information, Hecataeus found it appropriate to complete the picture by adding one or two important statements drawn from foundation traditions, which were not reported by his Jewish informants. Then came the addition of causations and reasoning, according to the rules of the new ethnographical writing. Some customs were explained by the Jewish origo, especially the bad

memories of the expulsion. Others were interpreted according to the Greek cultural and philosophical heritage. Special emphasis was laid on statements referring to provisions made for securing manpower, by which means Hecataeus tried to indicate how he envisaged the organization of the newly established military settlements in Ptolemaic Egypt, just as he had done in his Egyptian ethnography in the account of the pharaonic warriors.

Finally, it would be helpful to emphasize the points that are directly relevant to various questions concerning the treatise On the Jews:

1. An analysis and comparison of the original style and vocabulary of the excursus is precluded by the modifications they have undergone at the hands of Diodorus.

2. The origo section opens the excursus, occupies a major role in it, and is used to explain a number of Jewish practices.

3. The excursus is centered around the personality of Moses, with Jewish institutions and practices being attributed exclusively to him.

4. Moses is not only the leader of the emigration, but also the founder of the new settlements.

5. Allowing for inaccuracies resulting from the literary model, it can be said that Hecataeus collected important, reliable information about the life of the Jews in his time. He deleted details that were redundant or did not fit into the framework he had set for himself.

6. Especially important are the references to the High Priest. Hecataeus knew that there was just one High Priest at a time, and was well acquainted with his unique status in the Jewish community.

7. The priests are said to have earned their living from the greater lots granted to them. There is no reference to tithes of agricultural produce.

8. The account sounds unbiased, certainly not enthusiastic, and was not intended to idealize the Jewish people.

9. Hecataeus did not advocate Jewish misoxenia and apanthropia , but expressed his reservation explicitly.

10. Hecataeus's Jewish ethnography was not meant to portray a model society, although one part of it, the provisions for a competent and sufficient source of military manpower, was emphasized in order to serve as an example.

11. The excursus consistently provides causal reasoning as well as social and philosophical explanations for Jewish institutions and practices.

12. As in the Egyptian ethnography, the reasoning in the Jewish excursus is based on Greek tradition, literature, and modes of thinking. As some scholars have put it, the excursus is, by and large, an interpretatio Graeca of Jewish history and life.

1. Mosollamus the Jew and Bird Omens

The author claims to have participated personally in a Ptolemaic military march to the Red Sea, and to be recording an event that took place in the course of the advance. Among the Jewish horsemen who took part in the expedition there was a certain archer, called Mosollamus. He is described as a man with a robust mind and "as agreed by all, the best archer among the Greeks and barbarians" (Ap. I.201). At a certain point, the whole force halted because a bird was seen flying about nearby and the seer (mantis ) wanted to observe its motions. When Mosollamus inquired as to the reason for the halt, the seer pointed to the bird and explained the rules of interpretation (I.203):

Then Mosollamus, without uttering a word, shot and killed the bird. When the angry seer and certain others cursed him, he took the bird in his hand and retorted (I.204):

The episode already seemed questionable to Philo of Byblos. According to Origen, Philo doubted the authenticity of the book because it stressed the "wisdom" of the Jews (C. Cels. I.15). Philo was certainly referring to the Mosollamus story, and most probably also to other pieces of information, which were not preserved by Josephus.13 The description of the wise Jew who mocks the foolish, superstitious gentiles also convinced some modern scholars that the story was written by a Jew.14 This, however, is still not enough to establish a forgery.15

Other scholars have argued, to the contrary, that the scornful attitude toward omens accords with that of "contemporary educated Greeks" and may therefore represent Hecataeus's own views.16 The available evidence does not, however, justify such a sweeping statement. To say that educated Greeks had a negative attitude toward omens is an exaggerated generalization, even more so than the rhetorical statement of the supporters of divination in the Ciceronian dialogue that divination had been "the unwavering belief of all ages, the greatest philosophers, the poets, the wisest men, the builders of cities, the founders of republics" (Div. I.84; cf. 5, 86).17 In any case, the main question is not whether an educated Greek would have praised the negative Jewish attitude toward gentile divination and bird omens, but what Hecataeus's personal view was.

The tradition about the affiliation of Hecataeus with the disciples and "successors" of Pyrrho (Diog. Laert. IX.69), if accepted, could have provided a clue as to Hecataeus's position: certain contemporary testimonia about Pyrrho indicate at least a tolerant, if not a favorable, attitude toward religious ceremonies and divination.18 However, this tradition is rather doubtful.19 Hecataeus's stand with regard to divination should therefore be deduced only from his ethnographical works.

The surviving material does not contain a thematic discussion of the reliability of divination and bird omens. There are, however, quite a number of relevant references. In his Egyptian ethnography, preserved by Diodorus in an abridged version,20 Hecataeus refers more than a dozen times to Egyptian and Greek divination in a generally positive way. Hecataeus mentions incubation in temples (Diod I.25.3, 53.8), oracles (23.5, 25.7, 66.10; cf. 98.5), inspection of the entrails of sacrifices (53.8, 70.9), dream interpretation (65.5-7), divination in general (73.4), and astrology (73.4, 81.4-6, 98.3-4). One passage reports that hawks and eagles were regarded by the Egyptians as "birds of omen" (87.7-9).21 Most of the allusions are preceded, as customarily throughout his Egyptian ethnography, by such phrases as "they say" (

of an oracle recorded by Herodotus (66.10; cf. Hdt. II.151ff.). His criticism in this case stems not from a rejection in principle of oracles, but from the evident improbability of the story (the circumstances of the rise of Psammeticus to sole rule in Egypt; cf. Diod. I.69.7). On another occasion he even states that the Egyptian sources support their statements with facts, unlike the Greeks, who rely on legends (25.3). There are no reservations with regard to the other references, although Hecataeus does not refrain from criticizing his Egyptian sources when he finds their accounts unreliable (e.g., 23.2; 24.2, 5; 25.2-3). One story recounted by him about divination does not mention sources, and the information given is recorded as objective fact (65.5-7). Above all, Hecataeus precedes three other allusions to divination and astrology (73.4, 81.4-6, 98.3-4) with the statement that he refrained from quoting imaginary tales by Herodotus and other Greek authors, and selected from the records of the Egyptian priests only information "that passed our scrupulous examination" (69.7).22

When evaluating this material, it should also be borne in mind that Hecataeus's Egyptian ethnography is, to a great extent, an idealization of Egyptian life and practices.23 It is therefore hardly credible that the same author would reject or even ridicule pagan divination techniques. The same conclusion is also suggested by Hecataeus's highly tolerant and sympathetic treatment of religious beliefs in the Egyptian ethnography. He even goes so far as to provide explanations for and make favorable comments on the animal cult,24 which was regarded by the Greeks and Romans as bizarre and contemptible.25

Examination of the few fragments of Hecataeus's utopian On the Hyperboreans supports this conclusion.26 The god Apollo plays a central role in the treatise (as in almost all other literary references to

the Hyperboreans).27 Although the material at our disposal elaborates only on his contribution (and that of his cult) to the musical life of the Hyperboreans (Diod. II.47.6; Aelian, Nat. Anim. XI.1), one may assume that Apollo's second main role, as god of divination, was not neglected. Furthermore, Hecataeus enthusiastically describes the regular arrival of "clouds of swans" from afar at the time of the services in the Hyperborean temple. They always join the chorus chanting hymns in honor of Apollo. All is performed in perfect harmony (Ael. NA XI.1):28

That nothing in their behavior is accidental attests to divine inspiration. Hecataeus accordingly accepted the belief that swans were Apollo's sacred birds and messengers,29 and in Greek tradition this also entailed prophetic as well as musical gifts.30

This survey of Hecataeus's direct and indirect references to the techniques of ancient mantics, as well as his attitude toward Egyptian cults (including those viewed by the Greeks as superstitious), seems to suggest that Hecataeus could not have written a derogatory story about bird omens. And it cannot be argued that the author merely quotes the view of Mosollamus the Jew. He clearly enjoys telling the story, without reservation, and praises Mosollamus's "robust mind." The story was probably understood in a similar manner by Herennius Philo, who, therefore, suspected the authenticity of the treatise.

Analysis of the various details of the Mosollamus story further shows that it was not written by a knowledgeable Greek, certainly not by an author of the caliber of Hecataeus. The story either lacks or distorts all the basic facts about Greek bird divination. And it must be recalled that the author presents himself as an eyewitness (Ap. I.200). But before any discussion of the details, an important clarification must be made. It might be argued that the episode is just a joke, and that, consequently, the author was not concerned with accuracy and even deliberately distorted all technical details. This, however, can

be expected of a satire, not of a story—even if it is told as a joke—the whole purpose of which is "to point a moral, or adorn a tale." The last paragraph (204) points the moral. Had the real Hecataeus distorted all the basic facts, he would have spoiled the whole didactic impact of the story. An author who knew his facts would not have done this.31 Besides, the surviving material of Hecataeus's works (and there is enough of it to judge) does not show any traces of satiric writing.

When we turn to the Mosollamus story, the first conspicuous fact is that the episode does not accord with the Greek theological conception underlying bird omens. Mosollamus says that had the bird indeed been able to "know the future" (

The same explanation for omens, sometimes with specific reference to birds, is known from quite a number of sources.33 This understanding

gave rise to a number of theological problems. Cicero thus records the deliberations of the Stoics (Div. I.118):34

The philosophers who rejected belief in omens did not ignore these explanations. Some even tried to refute them point by point. Thus Cicero, in the second book of a long dialogue, examined all aspects of contemporary divination.35 Others expressed their negative view

inter alia by short notes, like the rhetorical question of Carneades and Panaetius preserved by Cicero (Div. I.12):36

Even in this rather cynical remark, the question is not whether the bird "knows" or not, but whether the deity reveals his will to mankind in this way.37 The Mosollamus story, however, does not indicate any familiarity with the accepted Greek conception of bird omens. It has already been explained above why it cannot be argued that Hecataeus simply recorded the Jewish perception.

In this context it would be worth referring to two Greek anecdotes that carry a seemingly similar lesson. Hans Lewy compared the Mosollamus episode with a story in one of the spurious letters attributed to Diogenes of Sinope. The letter relates how, at the time of the Olympic games, Diogenes ridiculed a seer (mantis: either an ecstatic prophet or a soothsayer who interprets signs or dreams). Diogenes lifted his stick and asked the man whether he would strike him or not. When the seer answered in the negative, Diogenes, much to the amusement of the bystanders, struck him with his stick.38 The same motif appears in a fable related by Aesop: a mantis who earned his living from prophesying in the market was alarmed by the news that his house had been broken into. A passerby rebuked him, saying: "While announcing that you knew beforehand the affairs of others, you did not predict your own" (no. 170, ed. A. Hausrath [Leipzig, 1970]).

There is, however, an essential difference between the Mosollamus episode and the two anecdotes: Mosollamus ridicules the "foreknowledge" of the bird; that is, he denies the capability of the mantic "instrument" itself to know the future. However, Greeks did not need to challenge this. The two anecdotes, on the other hand, mock the ability of a dilettante to foretell the future or interpret signs. The argument

is quite different, and was frequently employed against quack prophets, especially streetcorner soothsayers.39

No less instructive than the theological conception are both the terminology of the story and the mantic techniques described by the gentile seer himself. The very reliance on bird omens for military purposes is indeed known not only from the history of the Roman army and from other cultures, but is also found in Greek tradition,40 although it did not take the form of regular, systematic ornithoscopy, but rather of the interpretation of the chance appearance of certain less common birds.41 Such bird omens were occasionally encountered by armies in the course of their expeditions.42 So far there is nothing exceptional in the Mosollamus story. However, when the minute technical details are reviewed, one finds it difficult to believe that the story was written

by a Greek. Curiously enough, the author does not specify the bird, although the general term ornis is repeated four times, and the story is devoted to bird divination.43 The Greeks regarded some ten or twelve species as birds of omen, but others were excluded.44 In the words of the poet: "Many birds fly to and fro under the sun's rays, but not all are [birds] of omen" (Od. II.181). When it came to military affairs, the usual birds of omen were the eagle, Zeus's sacred bird and "the surest bird of augury" (Il. VIII.247),45 the hawk, consecrated to Apollo (Ael. NA VII.9, X.14, XII.4), and occasionally (especially for Athenian troops) the owl.46 Hecataeus himself elaborates in his Egyptian ethnography on the hawk and eagle as birds of omen (Diod. I.87.7-9). The absence of any specification and the repetition of the word ornis indicate, therefore, a lack of exact knowledge about Greek practice. Furthermore, the author does not use the term oionos even once, although it is the more common designation for a bird of omen.

It may be responded that the author wishes to stress that the soothsayer's source of information was just a bird. But one would expect an author—who claims to be an eyewitness—to specify at least once the exact bird he saw; a specific reference to an eagle or a hawk would only have strengthened the didactic effect of the story. Had Mosollamus been able to shoot such a bird, well known for speed, this would have emphasized the whole point of the story. The author would then still have had a few opportunities to express the idea that the bird was just a bird.

As for the rules of interpretation: like the Roman augurs, Greek diviners also had a disciplina auguralis, a set of rules for the interpretation of omens, which differed slightly from place to place. It was a rather complicated "science," the rules defining the meaning of a variety

of movements and their combinations. Thus an inscription found in Ephesus, from the time of the Persian Wars, which contains a sacred law code, elaborates on the meaning of bird movements (SIG 3 1167):

These were not all the rules. The code is only partially preserved, and the complete set must have made decision rather difficult. The seer had thus to set in order and balance conflicting signs and rules. The Ephesian code may indeed represent only a local tradition, as some scholars maintain,47 but there is no doubt that the overall rules applied in the Greek world were quite complicated, as can be deduced from a fair number of sources.48

Then again, the very clarification of the basic facts demanded much effort. Even the simplest question, common throughout the Greek world, whether the bird came from the right or the left, was not easy to establish. The flight of an eagle or a hawk near an army usually came as a surprise and happened very quickly. The reports on the direction of the arrival were consequently often contradictory, and whatever evidence there was had to be sorted out and clarified by the seer In

this context there was also the question of defining and determining right and left. If this was to be resolved in relation to the direction faced by the seer himself, the problem arose as to how the latter could be sure of his own exact position at the moment of the bird's arrival. And if it was accepted that the seer always faced the residence of the gods, was that north or east? Or was there perhaps another rule, referring, for instance, to the general direction of the army's advance? The knowledge and experience of a professional seer were thus indispensable.49 But this was just the beginning. The remaining considerations relating to the bird's overall motions and more particular details could give rise to even greater uncertainties. And there was still the necessity of balancing all the different and complicated instructions.

The seer of the Mosollamus story, however, refers to just three basic positions: flight forward, retreat, and landing. So far as I know, there is no parallel in Greek literature for the application of such rules. These elementary positions could well be regarded as accidental and were therefore discounted as divine signs. Such an interpretation could occur, at most, only to ignorant people unaware of the theological background of bird mantics, not to an official seer, as suggested by the story. In any case, it does not take the expertise of a professional seer to offer this sort of interpretation.50 On the other hand, there is no reference to the traditional rules accepted by the Greek world, not even to the basic question regarding right and left. We thus see that the author could not have been an eyewitness, nor could he have been a knowledgeable Greek—certainly not one who wanted to win the trust of his Greek readers. Even if one ignores the concluding moral and its necessary effects on the shaping of the story, in order to argue that the intention of the author was to ridicule bird omens at any cost, reference to one

or two of the real rules (e.g., raising the right or left wing) would have made the episode even more amusing. Thus Philo, wanting to ridicule pagan mantics, refers to reliance on wing motions (Spec. Leg. 1.62).51 The same appears from the derisive question of Carneades and Panaetius on croaking from right or left. The author's acquaintance with the practice of interpreting bird omens is, then, superficial and vague indeed.52

To conclude the discussion: in view of what appears from his writings, Hecataeus's attitude toward bird omens could not have been negative; the punch line of the story betrays the author's unfamiliarity with the theological doctrine of bird divination; the author neither specifies the bird nor uses the proper term for a bird of omen; and he is ignorant of the rules of interpretation, even of the most basic ones current in the Greek world. All these factors make an attribution of the episode to Hecataeus of Abdera virtually untenable.53

In two of the following sections (III.4, 9), I shall refer to explanations offered by the proponents of authenticity for the presence of certain sentences that evidently could not have been written by Hecataeus. These scholars have postulated various ways in which the original text may have subsequently been altered. The validity of the proposed explanations for those passages will be discussed in due course.54 As far as the Mosollamus story is concerned, they are certainly not applicable. To suggest that the original Hecataean story underwent a "slight" adaptation by an anonymous Jewish author would not resolve the difficulties: a "slight" alteration would not have made all the basic details of the story unreliable. Moreover, Hecataeus had a favorable opinion of Greek mantics; the essence of the story—deriding gentile reliance on omens and divination and praising the wise Jew—could not have been much different in the original. The argument for this interpretation also seems to be supported by the reference of Herennius Philo to Jewish "wisdom." In addition, a Jewish adapter would have had no reason to deviate significantly from the details of the pro-Jewish report; quoting just a few genuine rules of interpretation and specifying the type of bird involved would have been a more effective way of ridiculing gentile divination.

The same arguments also apply against the suggestion that Josephus altered the original text. Furthermore, Josephus twice stresses that he is going to quote Hecataeus (Ap . I.200,

that it is easily available (205). It is hardly possible that Josephus would have repeatedly stressed in this way the authenticity of the passage, even exposing it to comparison, while at the same time significantly diverging from the original text. Given the polemic context, this would have undermined his credibility with the readers. It should also be added that the episode is quoted in direct speech; that the author describes his impressions of the expedition in the first person; and that the story forms a complete and independent literary unit. All these further serve to undermine the possibility of a Josephan adaptation of the original story.

Another recurring explanation for the mistakes in the fragments is that Hecataeus had been misled by Hezekiah the High Priest, who figures in Josephus's quotations (Ap . I.187-89), or by other Jewish sources. This is equally untenable: the author presents himself as an eyewitness, and, in any case, Hecataeus would not have been misled concerning Greek practices, nor would he have been convinced by such sources to change his mind about Greek divination. The only remaining alternative is that the story in its entirety is a Jewish fabrication.

2. Ptolemy I and the Jews

Josephus opens the quotations with the celebrated Hezekiah story (Ap . I. 186-89). Despite the fragmentary transmission of the text, its basic outline can be determined with a high degree of certainty. The background is the period after the battle of Gaza (312 B.C. ) when Ptolemy I became, temporarily, master of Syria. Hezekiah the High Priest and many Jews were so impressed by the "kindliness" and philanthropia of Ptolemy that they decided to emigrate to Egypt. Their purpose was to "take part in the affairs [of the kingdom]." Upon arriving in Egypt, Hezekiah is said to have kept close connections with the Ptolemaic authority and to have served as the leader of the immigrants.55

This ideal picture does not accord with the available information on Ptolemy's treatment of the Jews and other nations and cities in his realm. Consequently a number of scholars have doubted the reliability

of the Hezekiah story and its attribution to Hecataeus.56 However, their analyses do not consider all the possibilities, leaving much scope for attempts to harmonize the story with the historical information. In the following pages I shall present the source material and try to clarify the origin of the information, the mutual relationships and reliability of the sources, and the chronology of the events. The conclusions will aid our examination of the story itself.

First, the information about occupied populations in the Ptolemaic realm: according to Diodorus, Ptolemy son of Lagus had in 312 taken severe measures against the native populations in Cyprus and northern Syria. These included the destruction of cities and deportations (Diod. XIX.79.4-6). The inhabitants of Mallus in Cilicia were even sold into slavery, and the region was pillaged (79.6). The concurrent violent struggle in Cyrene (79.1-3) indicates that the occupied population was outraged over its treatment by Ptolemy. As to Coile Syria and Phoenicia, it is reported that immediately after the battle of Gaza Ptolemy won over the Phoenician cities, partly by persuasion, partly by besieging them (85.5). On his retreat a few months later, in 311, he razed the four "most important cities'—Acre, Jaffa, Samaria, and Gaza (93.7). Of the reoccupation of Coile Syria in 302 it is said only that Ptolemy besieged Sidon and that the remaining cities were subjugated, garrisons being stationed in them (XX.113.1-2). In reporting the reoccupation of the cities, Diodorus uses words that imply reluctance, if not resistance, on the part of the local population.

This information can be trusted. It was paraphrased with considerable accuracy by Diodorus from the work of Hieronymus of Cardia.57 From 317 or 316 on, Hieronymus belonged to the staff of Demetrius,58 who was operating in Coile Syria and Phoenicia and the surrounding area in 312-311 and reoccupied the region after the withdrawal of Ptolemy. Although at that point Hieronymus served the family of Antigonus, he is known to have been impartial in his writing, and occasionally even criticized Antigonus sharply.59 The Ptolemaic "satrap

stele" of 312/11 B.C. indeed confirms the general lines of Ptolemy's policy in the occupied territories as reported by Diodorus-Hieronymus.60 It records, for example, the deportation of soldiers, men, and women from a place whose name is illegible (lines 5-6).61 The handling of the population in the region by Ptolemy is correctly summarized in Josephus's Antiquities as follows (Ant . XII.3):

These statements may be based on the detailed accounts of the period in the books of Hieronymus of Cardia and Agatharcides, which were well known to Josephus (Ap . I.205-11, 213-14; Ant . XII.5), but the author may also have drawn on an additional source.

Parallel to this explicit information on Ptolemy's harsh treatment of the occupied population, Diodorus provides an especially favorable evaluation of Ptolemy's character, which recalls the enthusiastic account of the Hezekiah story. The term philanthropia is repeated with some variations. Diodorus praises Ptolemy's treatment of the Greco-Macedonian commanders and captives from other Hellenistic armies (Diod. XIX.55.6, 56.1, 85._3, 86.3). The same applies to the measures taken against the native Egyptians at the beginning of his reign (XVIII.14.1) and the Greco-Macedonian immigrants (XVIII.28.5-6). These references have misled some scholars who utilized them to support the statement in the Hezekiah story about Ptolemy I's philanthropia .62 However, the practical and political considerations behind

this "philanthropy" toward the Greco-Macedonians are quite obvious, and as far as the Egyptian natives were concerned, Ptolemy's attitude changed after he had consolidated his rule.63 The handling of the occupied populations outside Egypt was from the start quite different. As a matter of fact, it is doubtful whether contemporary sources applied the epithet philanthropos to Ptolemy I, and it seems to have been supplemented by Diodorus himself.64 The term was current in Hellenistic Egypt and was one of the main features of ideal monarchy in Hellenistic (and Jewish Hellenistic) literature.65

Diodorus does not refer to the policy toward the Jews in the days of Gaza and Ipsus, and Josephus notes in Against Apion that Hieronymus of Cardia did not mention the Jews at all in his work (Ap . I.213-14). Since in that context Josephus strives to prove that the first Hellenistic authors did mention the Jews and deplores Hieronymus's silence, we may well believe that he took the trouble to read Hieronymus's writings with care.66 We can therefore accept that Diodorus merely followed Hieronymus in his silence about the relations between Ptolemy I and the Jews.

The fate of the Jews is recorded by a number of other sources. They recount severe treatment of the Jews by Ptolemy I. The sources are gentile, Jewish Hellenistic, and Jewish Palestinian. The most detailed of them, Pseudo-Aristeas, states in brief that the land of the Jews was despoiled (23) and elaborates on the deportation of a hundred thousand Jews from Judea to Egypt, the enslavement of many of these, and the stationing of thirty thousand men in fortresses (12, 22-23, 36-37). The second source is Agatharcides of Cnidus, the celebrated geographer and historian who was employed at the Ptolemaic court in the middle of the second century B.C. In a passage preserved by Josephus (Ap . I.205-11₎ he reports that Ptolemy entered Jerusalem on the seventh

day, on which the Jews refrained from any work, taking advantage of the failure of the inhabitants to take up arms and defend the city on this day (209-10). Agatharcides concludes by stating: "The ancestral land [of the Jews] was delivered into the hands of a harsh master [

A brief look at these sources shows that they are mutually independent.68 The information is transmitted from the viewpoint of the various parties involved: a Palestinian Jew, a gentile from the Ptolemaic

court, and a Jewish Hellenistic author from Egypt. Each recorded the piece of information that concerned him most. Their later date (with the possible exception of the Palestinian Jewish source) does not detract from their general reliability. Although they represent opposing interests and positions, they agree in regard to the essence of the events: Ptolemy I treated the Jews unfairly and cruelly. The story gains special credibility from its recording by Agatharcides: being close to the Ptolemaic court, Agatharcides had access to royal sources. The expression "harsh master" (

The sources do not date precisely the confrontation between Ptolemy and the Jews. Three invasions of Coile Syria are known, in 320, 312-311, and 302/1. It has been established that the year 320 must be discounted: in that year Ptolemy personally led the naval expedition, while the land invasion was entrusted to his supreme commander, Nicanor (Diod. XVIII.43; Ap. Syr . 52 [264]).However, the various accounts indicate the personal involvement of Ptolemy in the events in Jerusalem (esp. Jos. Ant . XII.4, Ap . I.210).70 The choice between the invasions of 312-311 and 302/1 is more difficult. In view of the historical circumstances and indications in the sources, the events could have taken place in either invasion. Those who prefer that of 302/1 point out that Jerusalem is not mentioned in the list of cities destroyed by Ptolemy in 312-311 (Diod.

XIX.93.7).71 The occupation of 302/1 is, on the other hand, only briefly reported (XX.113), which may account for the absence of a reference to the confrontation with the Jews. This argument is not decisive: the destruction of the cities named by Diodorus in 311 was carried out on the eve of Ptolemy's withdrawal from Coile Syria. The events that followed the battle of Gaza, half a year earlier, are, however, recorded only in general terms (an occupation of cities in Phoenicia, XIX.85.5). One may therefore suggest that the capture of Jerusalem took place in the earlier stage of the occupation of 312-311.

Nevertheless, I tend to date the confrontation with the Jews to the year 302/1. What really counts here is the evident absence of any reference to the Jews in the work of Hieronymus of Cardia. Had the event taken place at the time of the battle of Gaza, Hieronymus, who was then nearby at the headquarters of Demetrius, would certainly have mentioned it in one way or another. The drastic measures taken against the Jews by Ptolemy I were no less severe than those taken by him against other natives of the region, actions that were recorded by Hieronymus. The only acceptable explanation for Hieronymus's failure to mention the Jews in the course of his narrative for the years 312 and 311 is that no exceptional events occurred in Jerusalem. However, his silence on such an event in 302/1 is understandable. In that year he was staying with Demetrius in the Aegean and did not return to Coile Syria after its reconquest by Ptolemy I. The account by Diodorus of the occupation of the region in 302 is indeed exceptionally short, probably because he could not find more detailed information in Hieronymus's work,72 and his text for the year 301 has not been preserved. If the Ptolemaic-Jewish crisis did occur in the days of Ipsus, this would seem to place it rather in the year 302/1, before the decision on the battlefield. After the death of Antigonus at Ipsus and the collapse of his army in 301 there was no point in Jewish opposition to Ptolemy.73

Does the last conclusion lend credibility to the information about the cordial relationship between the Jews and Ptolemy in the days of Gaza? Taking a number of considerations into account, the answer is in the negative.74 The account of the attitude of the occupied populations outside Egypt in 312-311 indicates a generally hard-line policy. Had the Jews been favored vis-à-vis other nations, this would have given them a strong motivation to support Ptolemy in 302/1. I do not see how relations between the two sides could have deteriorated to such an extent in the decade before Ipsus, after the great "philanthropy" attributed to Ptolemy in 312, and the alleged enthusiastic response of the Jews, many of whom are even said to have followed Ptolemy to Egypt in order to assist him in state affairs. It should also be kept in mind that Judea was reoccupied by Antigonus half a year after the battle of Gaza, and consequently in the eleven years preceding the violent events of 302/1 Judea was not under Ptolemaic rule, so that there was no opportunity for a buildup of tension. Ptolemy's hostile measures at the time of Ipsus must have been a natural continuation and result of the relationship between ruler and subjects in the previous periods of Ptolemy's reign in Judea.

No less significant than the evidence for harsh treatment of the Jews by Ptolemy I is the absence of any reference to good relations between Ptolemy I and the Jews in Pseudo-Aristeas. It has already been mentioned that the author admired the Ptolemaic dynasty and strove to demonstrate its favorable attitude toward the Jews. He even tried to excuse Ptolemy's role in their deportation and enslavement. Such an author would not have missed an opportunity to prove his case and put the personality of Ptolemy in a better light if he had been acquainted with the Hezekiah story. The story would even have offered him a most attractive demonstration of Jewish good will toward the dynasty and a flattering explanation for the development of the Jewish community in Egypt: a voluntary immigration headed by the High Priest, aimed

at making a contribution to the building of the Ptolemaic kingdom. Would this author, who fabricated the involvement of the Jerusalem High Priest and Ptolemy II in the translation of the Pentateuch into Greek, an entirely internal matter of the Alexandrian community, have passed over such a story? The conclusion from these observations must be that the collective memory and written records of Alexandrian Jewry in the generation of the Letter of Aristeas (whatever its exact date may be) did not contain any tradition of friendly relations between Ptolemy I and the Jews, nor of a voluntary immigration in his day.

Another difficulty inherent in the story brings us one step further toward correctly understanding it: Would Hezekiah, who is described as the Jerusalem High Priest, have emigrated to Egypt of his own free will and brought with him many other Jews besides? All this at the age of sixty-six (Jos. Ap . I.187), despite the explicit biblical prohibition and warnings not to emigrate to Egypt,75 and when Judea had come under the control of a ruler said by the author to have demonstrated his good will to the inhabitants? Any migration from the Holy Land to Egypt was usually brought about by some compelling circumstances such as severe drought, deportation, or invasion by a northern enemy.

When this last consideration is combined with the other data that prove Ptolemy I's hard line toward the populations outside Egypt and his maltreatment of the Jews, the only way any historical value may be conceded to the Hezekiah story is to suggest that in reality the move was a forced deportation and not a voluntary emigration. And if this was indeed the case, it should rather be dated to the days of Ipsus. The author, then, transformed an exile into an emigration. Why did he do this? The question will be answered later on, after we have become acquainted with other aspects of his book. But why did he change even the background of the event and date it to the days of Gaza? Presumably he was well aware that because the traumatic experiences of the exile and enslavement in 302/1 B.C. were deeply rooted in the memory of the Jewish community in Egypt, dating his false version of the events to the days of Ipsus would discredit him at the outset.

We thus see that the information attributed to Hecataeus about the relationship between Ptolemy and the Jews in 312-311 B.C. and the voluntary migration of Hezekiah and his people does not stand up to

historical criticism: it contradicts information from other sources, as well as historical circumstances and Jewish tradition, and was unknown in Jewish Hellenistic circles in the time of Pseudo-Aristeas. This conclusion does not permit us to believe that the Hezekiah story was recorded by Hecataeus of Abdera.

As Hecataeus was close to the court, it might naturally be suggested that he sought to color events in a positive way. But the drastic measures taken by Ptolemy I against the Jews indicate a particularly virulent animosity between the two sides in his time. Why and for whom, then, should Hecataeus have wished to fabricate such a fanciful story about kind treatment of the Jews by Ptolemy and their enthusiastic response? This was not the practice of Ptolemaic courtiers and court historians in such cases, certainly not of authors of his standing. Even the court chroniclers, who lauded the occupation of Coile Syria in 312-311 and 217 in panegyrical terms, did not fail to emphasize the strong opposition the Ptolemaic rulers had to face from the local population after their victory over their Hellenistic rivals, and the severe retaliatory measures taken by them.76

Be that as it may, the absence of any reference to the Hezekiah story in Pseudo-Aristeas comes up here again and decides the issue: the author of Pseudo-Aristeas was well versed in Alexandrian literature and familiar with Hecataeus's works.77 He even quotes a reference to the Jewish Holy Scriptures from one of them (para. 31),78 which indicates that he indeed took great interest in Hecataeus's attitude toward the Jews. A monograph on the Jews by Hecataeus, especially one so enthusiastic, would surely have been known to him, and the Hezekiah story Would not have escaped his notice.

To close the discussion, a recently suggested interpretation of the Hezekiah story deserves attention. According to this, in the days of Gaza the Jewish community in Judea was divided on the issue of political orientation, and Hezekiah the High Priest supported Ptolemy. When

the latter withdrew, Hezekiah, fearful of Antigonus's punishment, chose to leave the country with his followers.79 This reconstruction still assumes a deliberate "inaccuracy" on the part of Hecataeus in describing Ptolemy's general attitude toward the occupied population and the position of the Jewish community as a whole—which, in view of what has been said above on Hecataeus, is a rather remote possibility. It also implies a chronological mistake in the story: the Jewish High Priest and many Jews are said to have migrated to Egypt when "Ptolemy became master of Syria" (Ap . I.186), and not at the time of the withdrawal to Egypt. Such a mistake can hardly be attributed to a contemporary author so close to the court. Furthermore, this theory does not provide an explanation for the absence of any mention of the story in Pseudo-Aristeas. In addition, the numismatic material indicates that Hezekiah remained in office in Judea after the Ptolemaic withdrawal, and still held his position close to the time of the Ptolemaic reoccupation on the eve of the battle of Ipsus.80

Besides, there is no reference in the sources to a political division in the Jewish community in the period of the Diadochs. The later divisions known from the Ptolemaic and Seleucid periods are no evidence: they developed during generations of daily contact with the Ptolemaic regime and were the result of conflicting personal, economic, cultural, and political interests. But even in those periods, except for the days of the religious persecutions by Antiochus IV, High Priests did not leave the country when the balance of power tilted the other way.81 Moreover,

the policy of Antigonus toward the local populations in his realm was not of a sort that would have driven an opportunistic High Priest to flee for his life.82 This policy was well known in Judea in 312 B.C. after three years under Antigonus. The appearance of the name Antigonus in Jewish Orthodox circles already in the third century B.C. (Avot 1.3) indicates at least that Antigonus Monophthalmus did not leave hostile memories in Judea. The strong Jewish opposition to Ptolemy in 302/1 reinforces the impression that Antigonus's policy toward the occupied population, here as elsewhere in his realm, was favorable.

3. Hezekiah the High Priest

Hezekiah, the leader of the alleged Jewish migration to Egypt, is described as High Priest (Ap . I.187-89). As was pointed out already in the eighteenth century, no High Priest named Hezekiah is known from other sources,83 He is not mentioned in Josephus's historical account of the period surrounding the battle of Gaza, nor in his narrative of the Persian and Hellenistic periods as a whole.

Josephus records the names Johanan, Iaddous (Jaddua), and Onias as the High Priests in the late Persian age and in the days of Alexander and the Successors (Ant . XI.297, 302-3, 347). Quite a number of scholars have tried to disqualify the first two names, claiming that they are just duplicates of the names of two High Priests who served two generations earlier, at the end of the fourth century (Neh. 12.22).84 However, E M. Cross, in a celebrated article, has shown the paponymic principle current among the ruling families in Judea and Samaria in the Persian period.85 The authenticity of the name Johanan in Josephus

has recently been decisively established by the coin of Johanan the Priest, which, on clear numismatic grounds, must be dated close to the Macedonian occupation.86 This also lends credence to the name of Iaddous, described as Johanan's successor, who held office in the time of Alexander's conquest.87

The possibility that the name Hezekiah escaped Josephus's notice or was accidentally omitted from the sources at his disposal is highly unlikely. Josephus is proud of his precise rendering of the line of descent (diadoche ) of the High Priests, and regards it as one of his greatest achievements (Ant . XX.261). He testifies to the existence of the pedigrees of the priestly families in the public archives and to their use in practical matters like marriage (Ap . I.31-36_), and says that he himself used such a pedigree (Vit . 6). According to rabbinic sources the pedigree lists of all the priests were kept in a chamber behind the Holy of Holies, and in cases of doubt final decision was passed by the High Court in the Temple.88

Furthermore, in Book XX of his Jewish Antiquities , Josephus gives the number of High Priests in the various stages of Jewish history up to the destruction of the Second Temple (Ant . XX.227ff.). It has been proved that these numbers were based on an authoritative list of the High Priests and not on information scattered in the books of the Antiquities .89 The number quoted for the High Priests from the time of the Restoration until Antiochus Epiphanes (fifteen in all, XX.234)

is identical to that which appears from the chronistic and narrative material in Books XI and XII of the Antiquities , thus rendering the inclusion of Hezekiah impossible.90 Significantly enough, Josephus himself, who not only cited the Hezekiah story in Against Apion , but also inserted a sentence based on it in his account of the Ptolemaic era in the Antiquities (XII.9),91 refrained from integrating Hezekiah in the sequence of his account of the historical events and of the chronistic information on the High Priests. Josephus did not usually apply sophisticated critical methods to his sources, and if he chose to ignore the name of Hezekiah in this case, it must have been only because he was convinced of the authoritativeness of the commonly accepted tradition and of the list of the High Priests of the House of Zadok available to him.

A number of scholars have suggested that the High Priest Hezekiah was merely the leading member of a priestly family or an influential priest, as the title is known to have been applied in the later generations of the Second Temple.92 Other scholars have tried to reinforce this view by arguing that the term appears without the article, which may imply that Hezekiah was only one of the important priests who were active at that time.93 However, in the Persian and Hellenistic periods, "High Priest" designated only the head of the priestly hierarchy, and there is not a single case in which it was applied to other priests. The loosening of the strict meaning of the term in the Roman period resulted from changes in the appointment procedures and status of the chief priest. The right of just one family to the office was rescinded. High Priests were appointed by Herod, Agrippa I, Agrippa II, and

the Roman governors, and deposed in their lifetimes, the office even being occasionally sold for money. Consequently, deposed High Priests continued to bear their former title, and it was even applied to heads of rich, influential families, whose practical power was frequently equal, if not superior, to that of the officiating High Priest.94 As for the absence of the article, this also occurs in Pseudo-Aristeas (35, 41) and the Mishna,95 when referring to the Hasmonean High Priest. The matter is clinched by Hecataeus's Jewish excursus, which describes in detail the qualities and authority of the Jewish High Priest, stating that he was chosen by the people, and designating him without the article (Diod. XL.3.5-6).96 If Hecataeus had been the author of the Hezekiah story, he would certainly have to be interpreted as saying that Hezekiah was the presiding Jewish High Priest. The flexible use of the title "High Priest" in the Roman period can explain why Josephus, who was acquainted with the lists of the officiating High Priests, did not delete the title attached to Hezekiah.

A new dimension to the question of Hezekiah was introduced by the discovery of the Hezekiah coins. The appearance of Hezekiah's name on those coins encouraged the supporters of the authenticity of the Hezekiah story and brought about a new wave of scholarly contributions in that direction, claiming that the information in Josephus's Antiquities was mistaken or incomplete, and that the coins proved that there was indeed a High Priest named Hezekiah at the beginning of the Hellenistic period.97

This deduction, however, is unjustified. To show why, the chronological framework of the Hezekiah coins must first be clarified. These coins are divided into two groups, each including a number of variations. The

legend on the first group reads

This dating means that a man named Hezekiah served as the Persian governor in Judea in the late Persian period, and continued as head of the administration of Judea under Alexander and the Successors. This Hezekiah held his leading position in Judea for thirty-six to thirty-eight years. His title in the Persian period was pehah , but under the Macedonian occupation the official oriental title was probably replaced by a Greek one, which does not appear on the coins.

These data not only do not bolster the claim that Hezekiah served as High Priest; they even contribute to its refutation.99 Hezekiah figures in the first group of coins from the end of the Persian period not as High Priest but as pehah ,100 and it cannot be accepted that he also served concurrently as High Priest.101 The Persians, who usually appointed Jewish governors, refrained from placing full authority in the hands of one man. The High Priest was in charge of religious matters that, because of the character of Jewish law and tradition, covered many

areas of life. The Temple treasures also gave him considerable economic power The rivalry and competition between the Jewish governor and the High Priest saved the Persian authorities from too great an assertion of independence on the part of the pehah and facilitated early exposure of such ambitions. In two cases we have evidence of tension and even a rift between these two officials that certainly served the interests of the Persians, and a similar state of affairs is indicated in a third case.102 Furthermore, we know the names of another seven or eight Jewish governors,103 not one of whom served as High Priest, and none of them seems to have belonged to the Zadok family. It is difficult to imagine a change in the traditional appointment policy in the fourth century, when the Persians suffered from recurring Egyptian revolts—certainly not just a few years after Tennes's rebellion in Phoenicia (348 B.C. ), which spread to Judea as well, and was possibly the cause of the recorded banishment of Jews to Babylonia and Hyrcania.104

Direct numismatic evidence can be found in the coin of Johanan the High Priest, mentioned earlier The numismatic data show clearly that it was struck concurrently with the first group of Hezekiah coins.105 Hence we may deduce that the office of High Priest was indeed separate from that of governor, at least in the late Persian period, and that accordingly Hezekiah could not have been the High Priest at that time.

But could Hezekiah the Governor have served concurrently as High Priest later, in the Macedonian age, or, as has been suggested,106 first as governor and later as High Priest? This would have to mean that he belonged to the line of succession of the Zadok family and that during the Persian period, when he was governor, his father or brother

would have served as High Priest. For the reasons given above, such a concentration of power in the hands of one family is extremely unlikely. Moreover, as appears from the numismatic evidence, Hezekiah governed Judea for a long period, about thirty-six years. He must, then, have been an especially dominant figure. If at a certain period he was concurrently (or only) the High Priest, it does not seem credible that he would have disappeared from the authoritative record of the High Priests, and would also be absent from Josephus's Antiquities (or rather, from its sources).107

Let us turn back now to the main question of our discussion: Can the statement that Hezekiah was High Priest be attributed to Hecataeus of Abdera? Hecataeus knew perfectly well the meaning of the title "High Priest," and elaborated in his Jewish excursus on the preeminence and functions of this position. If he had indeed written a monograph on the Jews, he would have been eager to obtain precise information on the identity of the High Priest of his time. As a prominent figure in the Ptolemaic court he could easily have acquired this information. Is it possible that Hecataeus could have collected so much information about the personality of Hezekiah (character, age, connections with the court, purpose of emigration, influence on the community, and public appearances: Ap . I.187-89) but failed to know or to verify the most important point, the exact position and title of the hero of his story? All this, if, as the story has it, Hezekiah kept close connections with the court and settled in Egypt?

For these reasons, the various attempts to explain the statement that Hezekiah was High Priest as merely a "mistake" of Hecataeus do not hold water Similarly it has been suggested that Hezekiah was a

Samaritan High Priest,108 or the "High Priest" of the Jews in Egypt.109 Even less acceptable is the explanation that Hecataeus exaggerated in describing the position of Hezekiah because of the "tendency to idealization" of the treatise, the wish to ascribe great importance to his subject, and his tendency to rely on "priestly traditions."110 Which "priestly traditions" would have described as High Priest a man who was not? Even from a Greek point of view, how could the Jewish leaders, country, and Temple have been idealized by attributing to the High Priest, whose duty it was to serve in the Jerusalem Temple, initiative for and participation in a migration to Egypt? And would naming Hezekiah as the civil governor of Judea have detracted from the importance of the subject? Finally, how could a Ptolemaic court official attribute to a Jewish secular leader in Egypt a religious position to which he had no claim, with all the implications that that involved for the latter's relations with the authorities?

At the same time, I do not believe that the name Hezekiah in the story is a fabrication by the author of the treatise. As it does not appear among the recurring names of High Priests in the Persian period and is not known even from the biblical name lists of the Zadok family as a whole, the choice of the same name as that of the contemporary governor, who served for such a long period, can hardly be accidental. This suggests that the author was inspired by the name and personality of that governor, but transformed Hezekiah from governor into High Priest, just as he transformed the forced exile to Egypt into a voluntary migration, the harsh treatment of the local population by Ptolemy into "philanthropy," and probably also the time of Ipsus into the time of Gaza. He had good reasons for doing so, and their clarification

may help us later to bring to light the purpose of the book. At this stage, suffice it to say that there are quite a few examples of important personalities whom later Jewish and Christian authors turn into High Priests: Moses, Jeremiah, Ezra, Judas Maccabaeus, Eleazar the Martyr, and even Jesus.111

Notwithstanding these transformations, the Hezekiah story may contain a kernel of truth. There seems no reason not to accept that Hezekiah, the former governor, was indeed among the people banished to Egypt in the year 302/1. The purpose of the forced exile was to deprive Judea of its political leadership and of its potential military manpower. In view of Hezekiah's personality and former position, it stands to reason that he was soon recognized as the leader of the captives, the new settlers in Egypt. But even if one does not accept this attempt at a historical reconstruction and regards the story as complete fiction, the principal conclusions remain valid: Hezekiah the Governor was transformed into the High Priest; and the forced exile, into a voluntary migration.

Finally, Willrich's interpretation of the Hezekiah story should be mentioned. He suggested that it is just an anachronistic version of the emigration of Onias IV and his followers to Egypt and their settlement in Leontopolis at the time of the religious persecutions by Antiochus IV, and that Hezekiah is only a pseudonym for Onias IV. Willrich even went so far as to suggest that the author was one of the settlers of Leontopolis and the "supporters of the Oniad temple."112 Despite some resemblance between Hezekiah's deportation, Onias's flight, and their settlement, this hypothesis cannot be accepted as it stands. The arguments considered above against regarding the name of Hezekiah and the entire Hezekiah story as complete fabrications are equally applicable against Willrich's suggestion. Even more telling, though, is the implied criticism voiced by the author against certain practices known to have taken place in the Leontopolis temple (Ap . I.199).113 At the same time it is highly probable that the migration

and settlement of Onias had some influence on the shaping of the Hezekiah story114

4. Religious Persecutions and Martyrdom

Turning to Jewish customs, we find, first of all, that the author praises the Jews for their adherence to Jewish laws, saying that they "prefer to suffer everything in order not to transgress against them" (Ap . I.190). Illustrating this statement he adds (Ap . I.191):

The phrasing of the passage is unequivocal. Its beginning definitely indicates that it applies to Palestinian Jews. They are said to have suffered frequently, not just once, from the "Persian kings and satraps," and not just from a local mob. The suffering is described as "tortures and the most horrible deaths," suggesting recurrent large-scale attempts to force a certain course on the Jews, rather than occasional punishment. The purpose of these measures is indicated by the Jewish readiness to undergo all the sufferings in order not to "deny their ancestral [laws]," and by the failure of the rulers to convince them to "change their way of thinking." These must have been religious persecutions par excellence . The Persians accordingly tried in vain to force the Jews to change their religious practices and perhaps also their beliefs. Thus the reference cannot be to retaliatory measures against cultic centers, which in the Persian period were occasionally employed to subdue a revolt or unrest. Nor can the text, as it stands, be interpreted as referring to isolated episodes in which Diaspora Jews in royal service may have been punished for refusing to carry out orders contradicting their laws. Similarly it cannot refer just to possible early cases where Jewish adherence to certain laws, such as the Sabbath (and perhaps also

dietary) laws, weakened their defensive capabilities and paved the way for their occupation by an enemy, with all the ensuing sufferings.115

The passage does not accord with our knowledge of the Jews in the Persian period. Nor does it coincide with the abundant material about the liberal Achaemenid policy toward local religions in the occupied satrapies.116 It was therefore suggested long ago that the account is a reflection of the religious persecutions of Antiochus IV.117 The sentence about the attitude of the neighbors and newcomers should in that case refer to the hostility of the population of the Hellenized oriental cities and the Greco-Macedonian settlers in those days, which is reiterated by the Books of the Maccabees. "Being exposed because of [their adherence to] them [the laws]" may possibly be interpreted as referring to cases where certain Jewish groups refrained from defending themselves on the Sabbath against Seleucid troops trying to force them to violate the holy day (I Macc. 22.29-37).

Scholars urging the authenticity of the passage have, however, argued that there may have been cases of religious persecution under Persian rule. They refer to Josephus's report of the fratricide in the Temple and its punishment by the satrap Bagoses (Bagoas) toward the end of the Persian period (Ant . XI.297,301), the story of Esther, and the narrative section of the Book of Daniel. They also note that the sources for our knowledge of the history of the Jews in the Persian period are too scanty to allow us to eliminate the possibility of more occurrences of religious persecution.118

A closer examination of the sources mentioned foils the attempt to trace persecutions and martyrdoms before Antiochus Epiphanes. The Bagoses incident has nothing to do with religious persecution. The Temple is said to have been profaned by the very entrance of the satrap and his men into the holy precinct. Bagoses had done this either to carry out inquiries about the unprecedented murder committed by Johanan the High Priest in the Temple, or to avenge the death of Joshua, his favorite, and prepare punitive measures (Ant . XI.298-99). He did not impose any prohibition on the cult or

The Book of Esther (regardless of its historicity and time of composition) is also irrelevant to our question: as has been cogently argued by Kaufmann in his monumental History of the Israelite Religion ,120 the Jews in the book were not persecuted because of their religion, they were not accused of disparaging the gods of the gentiles, and they were not enjoined to worship other gods. The edict for their annihilation was unconditional: there was no suggestion of pardon for conversion or for adoption of local rites. Moreover, the name of the Jewish God is not mentioned, and there is no explicit reference to the Jews' adherence to His faith, or rejection of pagan cults. The direct cause for the persecution was the struggle for power in the court between an influential Jew and a gentile vizier. The general objection to the Jews arose out of typical xenophobia and ethnic prejudices. The Jews were scattered among the nations and had different customs (esp. Esther 3.8). They were successful and climbed the social and bureaucratic royal ladder. All these factors aroused jealousy and hatred. All in all, the Esther story does not record religious persecution or anything similar to it.

As to the Book of Daniel: the story that may be seen as martyrological is the legend about the three men in the fiery furnace (chap. 3). Its relevance to the passage under discussion depends, first of all, on the solution of the complicated questions that have stood for many years at the center of the study of this book: the unity of the book and its authorship; the connection between its two parts, the narrative section (chaps. 1-6) and the vision section (chaps. 7-12); the dating

of the original composition of the stories, their adaptations, and their redactions; the involvement of the redactor (or author) of the book in the shaping of the stories; and so on. Thus if we accept that the stories as a whole were written by the Hassidic author who (as is universally accepted) composed the vision section, or that they were adapted by him according to a well-calculated plan, this would discount, if not eliminate, the fiery-furnace story as evidence for persecutions in the Persian period. However, as these questions are highly controversial,121 it is also advisable to isolate the story and examine it on its own merits. Does the story, as it stands, correspond to the statements ascribed to Hecataeus?

The contents of the story differ substantially from the historical indications provided by the passage under discussion. It records what is said to have been an exceptional event and not a recurring one; it refers to a few high-ranking courtiers and not to the Jewish people as a whole;122 the cause of the confrontation is an arbitrary order by the king that is not directed at the outset against the Jewish people, but is exploited by jealous courtiers against their Jewish rivals; there are no tortures, no Jew actually suffers, and the Jewish courtiers emerge from the fiery furnace unharmed; at the end the king even publicly proclaims the greatness of the Jewish God. The event occurs (and can take place only) in the Diaspora, and not in Judea, where according to the passage Jews were persecuted.123

The story in Daniel, an early version of it, or ones based on it could not, therefore, have inspired Hecataeus, directly or indirectly, to write the passage.124 One may still argue that the story reflects in a legendary, optimistic way events of the Persian period similar to those indicated in the passage. However, what count are the motifs of the legend. Had the fiery-furnace story been a reaction to religious persecution and martyrdom, this would be discernible from its motifs. But the story was

not designed to tell the reader about martyrdom. After all, there are no real martyrs in it. It was not meant to describe religious persecutions either. The scope of the story is too limited for such a purpose, and the Jewish courtiers are not at the outset persecuted because of their religion: the gentile courtiers only exploit Jewish adherence to certain religious restrictions to get rid of their Jewish competitors.

The story contains three motifs: the natural animosity of gentile courtiers to high-ranking Jewish officials, the dilemma facing Diaspora Jews in royal service with regard to official cults and obligations that stand in contradiction to their faith, and the ordeal by fire by which the truth may be decisively proved.125 The first motif can be discerned even more clearly in the parallel story about Daniel in the lions' den (Dan. 6): the temporary royal prohibition on making a request to anyone save the king is a result of a cunning plot of the gentile courtiers to impede Daniel (6.6-8), and the king himself deeply regrets it upon discovering its implications for Daniel, his favorite (6.15-16).

The first two motifs do indeed fit into the circumstances of Jewish life in the Persian period: Jews served in the administration and the army, and a few of them (like Nehemiah) even reached high-ranking court positions. These courtiers must have been confronted quite often with the difficulty of reconciling their official commitments with their religious convictions. Outbursts of jealousy by gentile (especially Persian) colleagues would also have been only natural, and differing Jewish religious prohibitions and practices would have been utilized against Jewish courtiers by their rivals. The third motif was borrowed from the Zoroastrian tradition, where tests seem to have been carried out by fire,126 the symbol of truth; and it may also have been inspired by certain biblical verses (Is. 43.2, Ps. 66.10-12).127

Could a courtiers' struggle have developed into official religious persecution sometime in the Persian period, and reached the dimensions indicated in the passage attributed to Hecataeus? This must be ruled out in view of the evidence for the policy of the Achaemenids and their treatment of foreign religions.128 Furthermore, religious persecutions of the form, scale, and frequency recorded in the passage could not

have escaped notice in the historiography and literature of the period, however scantily and fragmentarily it has been preserved. One would expect references to such experiences at least in the oratory of the Maccabean martyrs, or in the battle orations in the Books of the Maccabees, which are replete with allusions to the nation's past. More than that, religious persecutions are bound to provoke extensive literary reactions. The essence of martyrdom (as the word also indicates) is, after all, the desire to leave sound witness for the enlightenment of subsequent generations. The passage attributed to Hecataeus remains the only testimony. This is simply not enough, and casts a heavy shadow of suspicion on the authenticity of the work as a whole.

Other advocates of authenticity have raised the possibility of some mistake by Hecataeus. Thus it has been suggested that Hecataeus confused the Persians with the Babylonians.129 This is hardly acceptable for a historian who lived at the end of the Persian era; and in any case there were no religious persecutions under the Babylonians, just deportation (which is not mentioned). Another suggestion: since the Jews were described as descendants of the kalanoi , the Indian philosophers (so Clearchus of Soli; see Ap . I.179), some of their features were also attributed to the Jews.130 The reference to Jewish martyrology is accordingly only a reflection of the tradition about Calanus, who is said to have preached endurance in the face of death, and even to have burned himself to death. However, neither the passages ascribed to Hecataeus as a whole nor the genuine Hecatean Jewish excursus indicate any connection between the Jews and Indian philosophers, or attribute to the Jews any other "Indian" feature. Of itself, the tradition about Calanus's death has nothing to do with religious persecutions and martyrology. On the contrary, he is said to have received much honor from the rulers. The burning was just an appropriate way he chose to end a happy life, and to set an example of self-control.131 Furthermore, the explanation does not take into account the abundant data on the identity of the persecutors of the Jews (the Persian kings and satraps; the neighbors; the newcomers to the country), which exclude any such deduction. Besides, Clearchus's reference to the Jews cannot have preceded the

year 300 B.C. ,132 while if one takes the book On the Jews as authentic, it cannot be dated after the year 302.133 Any influence from Clearchus is, therefore, out of question. Clearchus does indeed put the reference to the Jews in the mouth of Aristotle, but this is certainly apocryphal.134

5. The Destruction of Pagan Temples and Altars

After elaborating on the readiness of the Jews to sacrifice themselves for the preservation of their laws, the author refers to Jewish intolerance toward other religions (Ap . I.193):

Such acts of violence against foreign cults could not have been perpetrated by the Jewish community in Judea under Persian rule. They are, however, well known from the period of the Hasmonean state. Interestingly, the reference to the rather lenient reaction of the Persian satraps does not accord with the preceding statement about the frequent harsh measures against the Jewish religion by the Persian authorities.

What is even more decisive for evaluating the authenticity of the treatise is the note that the Jews deserve to be admired for these actions.135 A Greco-Hellenistic writer brought up in a spirit of religious tolerance and on the sacred principle of immunity and asylum for temples and holy precincts would not have praised such barbarous acts of defilement and sacrilege. To counter this argument it has been suggested that admiration for Jewish opposition to polytheism and to material representation of the divine can be expected of a Greek intellectual at the end of the fourth century B.C. 136 However, this would not have been expressed by lauding the violation of the elementary Greek principle of absolute immunity for sacred places. One may doubt

whether even Xenophanes or Zeno of Citium would have subscribed to such statements.

In any case, this explanation does not agree with what can be deduced about Hecataeus's stance. Hecataeus's interpretation of Egyptian beliefs and cult, being evidently an idealization, is indicative of his attitude toward paganism. In a fragment quoted by Plutarch, Hecataeus says that the Egyptians believe that the "first god" is identical with the universe (

As for the Egyptian cult, Hecataeus explains the material representation of the celestial gods by their special appearance in nature (11.2, 4; 12.9) and refers without any reservation to the Egyptian traditions about the beginning of the sculpting of the gods and the building of temples (15.3-5, 26.6-7, 45.2-4, 49.5, 56.2). He justifies the deification of rulers (90.2-3; cf. 13.1), and even gives sense to the Egyptian animal cult, which was despised and ridiculed by the Greeks,137 using expressions of approval and praise (12.9, 89.4, 90.2-4).138 Hecataeus's

favorable attitude toward pagan divination, in all its manifestations, was discussed above in detail.139 Hecataeus's Egyptian ethnography is thus a monument of religious tolerance.

The same religious position appears in the few surviving fragments of his utopia on the legendary Hyperboreans.140 The Hyperboreans seem to deify the celestial bodies;141 Apollo, their most respected god, is worshipped in "a magnificent sacred precinct and remarkable temple adorned with many votive offerings" (Diod. II.47.2; cf. Ael. NA XI.1),142 and is evidently anthropomorphic and visible, appearing among his admirers once in nineteen years, dancing and playing the cithara (Diod. II.47.6).143 In the Egyptian ethnography Hecataeus describes favorably the Egyptian influence on the statue of the Pythian Apollo in Samos (II.98.5-9). We may therefore assume that an author who made such an effort to accommodate popular polytheistic beliefs with the philosophers' conception of the divine, and bothered to justify even cults deplored by the Greeks, would not have "admired" the destruction of temples and cult centers by the Jews.

And finally: in his original, undisputed excursus on the Jews, Hecataeus describes the Jewish way of life as being "somewhat unsocial [

One may perhaps argue that the praise at the end of Against Apion I.193, following the sentence about the destruction of pagan cult centers,

concludes a section that begins at I.190 about the Jews' devotion to their religion. The praise must, however, refer particularly to I.193, which is closest to it. Even if the praise referred just to the Jews' adherence to their laws, Greek authors—certainly Hecataeus—would not have included a reference to the destruction of temples and altars in the context of laudable religious behavior.

Some proponents of authenticity, aware of the inherent difficulties of the statement under discussion, have suggested that Josephus used a Jewish adaptation of Hecataeus's treatise that "slightly altered" the original sentence, or that Josephus himself modified the text.145

To attribute the sentence to Josephus would be impossible: he prefaces it with the words " and he [Hecataeus] adds that," and at the end of the quotations he advises readers who want to know more about the subject to consult the book itself, "which is readily available" (Ap. I.205). Furthermore, in his Jewish Antiquities Josephus omits biblical accounts of violence against pagan cults committed by the Israelites at the time of the conquest of Canaan, and in Against Apion he bitterly contests Manetho's allegations about profanation and destruction of Egyptian holy places at the time of the Exodus (I.269-70). He even ascribes to Moses a commandment not to plunder temples and not to insult other gods (Ant. IV.207, Ap. II.237-46), which contradicts the recurrent imperatives of Deuteronomy.146

An adaptation of Hecataeus by a Jewish author is in itself a very remote possibility. There is, indeed, no parallel for an adaptation of a Hellenistic treatise on the Jews by a Jewish author.147 Before even considering, then, such a remote possibility with regard to the passages quoted by Josephus, one should really have some positive evidence that these passages ultimately originated with Hecataeus or from his period, or were at least written by a gentile. But none is

available,148 while too many statements and pieces of information sound anachronistic, or contradict the information at our disposal. In the case of the Mosollamus episode, none of its main details could have been written by Hecataeus. Even to suggest that the story was considerably altered, not just "slightly," would still not help to support the claim for a Hecataean origin.149

In practical terms, suggesting that Josephus used a Jewish adaptation of Hecataeus is tantamount to denying the authenticity of the book: an adapter who has gone so far as to have Hecataeus enthusing about Jewish intolerance and ridiculing Greek divination to such an extent may also be suspected of falsifying other reports and statements according to his convictions, purposes, and experiences. The odds are that such an adaptation would have departed considerably from the original. In any case, the passages as they stand are basically a Jewish forgery, and the question whether Hecataeus wrote an account of the Jews in addition to that included in his Egyptian ethnography thus remains one of marginal importance.150

6. Jewish Emigration to Phoenicia

Illustrating the overpopulation of the Jews in Judea, the author mentions the deportation of "many tens of thousands" of Jews to Babylonia by the Persians,151 and adds that after Alexander's death "no fewer emigrated to Egypt and Phoenicia because of the disturbance [stasis ] in Syria" (Ap. I.194). The context obviously allows for many thousands emigrating to Phoenicia alone. The sentence explains that the Jews moved from Judea to Phoenicia because their country was suffering from the recurring wars in the region in the time of the Successors. This means that Phoenicia was not affected by the "disturbance."

1.
Phoenicia, the coastal plain, and the regions of the
interior in the Hellenistic period.

Before commenting on the statement itself, the meaning of "Phoenicia" in this context should be elucidated. There was no substantial Jewish settlement in Phoenicia proper—that is, in the area of Tyre and Sidon—nor even on the coast north of Mount Carmel, at any period in the days of the Second Temple.152 At the same time we have ample evidence for a great concentration of Jews in the coastal plain south of the Carmel during certain periods.153 Greeks indeed had applied the term "Phoenicia" as a geographical name to the coast of the Holy Land since the late Persian period,154 a usage that was also preserved under Hasmonean155 and Roman156 rule. It was also the official administrative

designation under the Successors,157 Ptolemies,158 and Seleucids,159 and possibly also in the late Persian period,160 but under the Hasmoneans and the Romans the political-administrative border was pushed northward to the Carmel coast.161 Whether a geographical or an administrative term, the author refers to the coastal plain to the west and northwest of the Judean Hills.

Turning back to the sentence under consideration, the explanation provided for the Jewish emigration to Phoenicia seems rather odd. It

must have been much safer for Jews to stay in the Judean Hills than to move nearer the sea.162 The struggle between the Successors, like the later one between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids for control of Syria and the Land of Israel, was mainly concentrated on the coastal plain (including the area of Tyre and Sidon). That strip of land was most important for the Successors because of its position on the road leading to Egypt and because of the Phoenician naval tradition. Almost all the military confrontations took place along the coast. The Jewish population was clustered mainly in the Judean Hills, which were isolated and relatively remote from the main arena. The statement that the Jews left for Phoenicia to escape the "disturbance" just proves that the author was not properly cognizant of the circumstances in the area after Alexander's death. This certainly would not be expected of Hecataeus.

Even without this observation, the very statement about a massive migration of Jews to Phoenicia in the time of the Successors is unacceptable. The available information indicates that Jewish settlements on the coastal plain at the time preceding the Hasmonean state were few and rather small.163 The statement is thus anachronistic, reflecting later developments in the region.

7. "Many Fortresses of the Jews"

After the passages on Jewish religious devotion and fanaticism and the Jews' great natural increase, Josephus quotes a number of passages dealing with the geography of the Jewish land (Ap. I.194-99). One of the passages refers to the defense of the country (Ap. I.197):

There are many fortresses of the Jews [

] throughout the country, as well as villages, but only one fortified city, ... called by them Jerusalem.

Willrich argued that neither the Persians nor the Successors had any reason for building many fortresses in Judea, since it was situated off the main road to Egypt.164 It has rightly been added that only with the foundation of the chain of fortresses by Bacchides, the Seleucid commander, after the death of Judas Maccabaeus in 160 B.C. (I Macc. 9.50-52), were there relatively "many fortresses" in the small territory of Judea.165 The only fortresses in the country before that were the Jerusalem Akra, Beth Zur on the southern border, and Gezer in the west,166 this last being then probably still outside the borders of Judea.

But there is much more in the sentence. The fortresses are said to have belonged to the Jews, which means that at that time the Jews had sovereignty over them. Yet a foreign ruler naturally would not have allowed the Jews to maintain "many fortresses" in their territory, a sure prescription for rebellion, and certainly not amid the delicate situation in the region during the struggle of the Successors.167 The sentence could not have been written before the Jews gained their independence, and thus possessed fortresses of their own.168 A similar anachronistic statement with regard to the Jerusalem citadel appears in Pseudo-Aristeas (102-4).169

This anachronistic information cannot be excused by saying that Hecataeus was not familiar with the country.170 The existence of

many fortresses held by the local population is a politico-military fact of vital importance, and Hecataeus, who served in the court during the period of Ptolemaic rule in the region, could not have been misinformed on that basic subject. The sentence itself seems to have been taken as it stands from the treatise On the Jews, and not paraphrased by Josephus: it opens a long quotation cited in direct speech.

8. The Geography of Judea and Jerusalem

The account of the Jewish land includes many details about Judea (Ap. I.194-95), the city of Jerusalem (196-97), and especially the Temple (198-99). Most of the geographical information is either entirely inaccurate or does not reflect the early Hellenistic period. This is not exceptional: a number of Hellenistic and Roman authors, notably Strabo, the celebrated Hellenistic geographer, report inaccurate information on the Jewish land. Geographical accounts of the neighboring countries were not much better.

However, the author included in his account geographical assertions of the sort that obviously would have had important military implications for the planning and execution of the Ptolemaic reconquest of the country and its day-to-day administration. One of these assertions, referring to the fortresses in the country, was discussed in the previous section. The remaining assertions include the following topics: the size of the country, its fertility and water supply, the circumference of Jerusalem's walls, the population of the city, the location of its Temple, and the size of its wall. All these are instructive for the question of authenticity: the author claims to have written the book sometime after the battle of Gaza (I.187). At that time, after two intervals of Ptolemaic rule in Judea (320-325, 322-311), the Ptolemaic authorities were certainly well informed on these matters, and Hecataeus would not have had any difficulty in acquiring this information. Whatever the purpose of such a treatise, he must have been aware that as the only extant monograph on Judea by a prominent courtier and ethnographer, it would be accepted as authoritative and would mislead his Ptolemaic patrons in the future. For this reason, the explanation that in the absence of accurate information Hecataeus tried to idealize the country

and its capital, or that he relied on idealized accounts of Egyptian Jews,171 cannot be accepted.

According to the account, the Jews possessed "almost three hundred myriad [i.e., three million] arourae.... Such is the extent of Judea" (I.195). This means approximately 8,300 square kilometers. The borders of Yehud (Judea) at the end of the Persian and beginning of the Hellenistic period extended from Beth Zur in the south to Beth El in the north, and from Jericho in the east to the Ayalon Valley in the west,172 all in all only about 1,600 square kilometers, which is just a fifth of the above estimate. Even if one accepts the assumption (which is unwarranted) that in the time of the Successors Judea also included the southern toparchies of Samaria (Aphairema, Lydda, and Ramathaim),173 the territory of Judea would have amounted to no more than one-quarter of that figure. It is noteworthy that this estimate more or less recalls the extent of the Jewish territory at a certain point in the last years of John Hyrcanus (the years 107-104 B.C. ), after the attachment to the Jewish state of Samaria, Idumea, and part of the coastal plain, and before the occupation of Galilee.174 Nevertheless, this correspondence must not be utilized for a precise dating of the book. In view of the numerous mistakes in other statements referring to Judea and Jerusalem, it may well be coincidental.

The three million arourae are described as the "best and most fertile land for all products" (I.195). However, the soil of Judea proper in the early Hellenistic period was for the most part rocky, and of its 1,600 square kilometers, 600 were desert. Only the narrow strip of the Jericho Valley accords with this description. An enthusiastic report also appears in the detailed account of the country in Pseudo-Aristeas (107, 112), and is based on the idealization of the Holy Land in the Pentateuch and the ideal city-state in Greek utopias.175

The image of Judea proper in Hellenistic and Roman literature was not that of a fertile land. On the contrary, it was customary to stress the scarcity of water, and the rocky soil. Timochares, who describes Judea in the period preceding the great Hasmonean expansion,176 even writes that the region of Jerusalem is completely dry and barren for a radius of 40 or 60 stadia (7.5 or 11.2 km) from the city (Eusebius, PE IX.35). This account is twice paraphrased by Strabo (XVI.2.36, 40),177 who uses it on one occasion to illustrate his statement that Moses easily took possession of Jerusalem and its surrounding region, since "it was not a place that would be looked on with envy, nor yet one for which anyone would make a serious fight" (XVI.2.36).

Only the Jericho Valley, one of the districts of Judea proper, was singled out in the Hellenistic and Roman periods for its fertility. We have the account of Diodorus, drawing on Hieronymus of Cardia, the contemporary of the Successors (II.48.9, XIX.98); Strabo, who based his version on Posidonius of Apamea (XVI.2.41); Pompeius Trogus in the generation of Augustus (epitomized in Justin XXXVI.3.1), and historians of the Roman period—Josephus (Bell. IV.456-75), Pliny (NH V.70), and Tacitus (Hist. V.6). All mention only palm trees and balsam, but no other plants. It is interesting that Josephus's detailed geographic excursus on the enlarged Jewish territory on the eve of the Great Revolt (Bell. III.35-58) elaborates on the agricultural qualities of Galilee (41-43), Samaria (48-50), and even the Peraea (44-47). Though he grossly exaggerates the fertility and population density of these regions in order to demonstrate the importance of Vespasian's achievements, he avoids any reference to agriculture in his detailed account of Judea proper (51-58). By and large, Hellenistic and Roman accounts do not even speak favorably of the agricultural features of the enlarged Judea. Apart from the Jericho Valley, Pompeius Trogus praises only the area of Tarichea on the shores of the Sea of Galilee (Justin XVI.2.45). Tacitus, who mentions in a general statement the

fertility of the land, refers specifically only to the vegetation of the Jericho region (Hist. V.6.1). He may have used the book of Antonius Julius, the last governor of Judea before the Great Revolt,178 or drawn (directly or indirectly) on Josephus.179

Having alluded to the extent and agriculture of Judea, the author turns to a description of Jerusalem. According to the passage (Ap. I.197), the circumference of the city was more than 50 stadia (9.3 km). However, in the days of Hecataeus, when the city was limited to the southeastern hill (the "City of David"), the Ophel, and the Temple Mount, its circumference stood at no more than 12 stadia (2.2 km). At the peak of the Hasmonean state, when it included also the Upper City, the circumference stood at about 27 stadia (5 kin), and even on the eve of the Great Revolt, when the city reached its greatest extent, being protected by the "Third Wall," its circumference did not exceed 33 stadia (about 6 km).180 The statement attributed to Hecataeus is thus highly exaggerated and does not accord with any period in the history of the city. The figure is even higher than that quoted by Pseudo-Aristeas. The latter lauds the holy city, but apologizes for its small size—only 40 stadia (105)—and even tries to explain why it was not larger (107, 108-9). It stands to reason that what actually bothered Pseudo-Aristeas was the comparison of Jerusalem to Alexandria, his native city. The circumference of Alexandria was about 76 stadia.181 He had to admit that Jerusalem was smaller, for which he offered his original explanation. But despite the apology, an accurate estimate would have considerably detracted from the importance of the city in the eyes of his readers: hence a figure that is more than half the circumference of Alexandria. Pseudo-Aristeas, who was well versed in Hellenistic literature, could also have been acquainted with the figure 40 quoted by Timochares (Eus. PE IX.35). Direct influence by Pseudo-Aristeas,

2.
Jerusalem in the period of the Second Temple.

or similar considerations, may have inspired the figure in the treatise On the Jews .182

The number of the city's inhabitants—120,000 persons (Ap. I.197 )—is even more inflated. At the beginning of the Hellenistic period, the inhabited area of the city extended over no more than 30 acres.183 The maximum estimate of population density for urban areas in the ancient Near East and the Hellenistic Orient stands at 250 persons per acre.184 Jerusalem in Hecataeus's days could thus not have numbered more than 7,500 inhabitants.185 The figure of 120,000 does not accord with that of Hasmonean Jerusalem (160 acres; about 40,000 persons at the most), nor with that of the period of the Great Revolt against the Romans (450 acres; about 100,000).186 This great exaggeration is

well in line with the tendency to magnify the importance of the city, reflected in the estimate of its circumference. It also accords with the author's earlier note on the overpopulation of the Jews in their land (I.194).

The account of the Temple, which has been preserved at relatively great length, includes information about its location, as well as on its cult and vessels. The topographical details have military significance. The Temple is said to have been located "nearly in the center of the city," being surrounded by "a stone wall" (I.198). The author goes on to give impressive measurements for the wall: "five plethra long, and a hundred cubits wide" (ca. 154 x 51 m). In the absence of any information on the very existence of a wall around the Temple before the days of Judas Maccabaeus (I Macc. 4.59-60), these figures cannot be verified.187 One thing is sure: the Temple was not located "nearly in the center of the city," but to the north of the residential areas. It was built on a hill separate from the "City of David," where most of the population was concentrated. If the Temple was indeed protected at that period by such a wall, as claimed by the author, it was a fortress of formidable magnitude. Its location would not have been described so erroneously by Hecataeus.188

9. The Annexation of Samaria to Judea by Alexander

Separately from the passages discussed so far, which all appear in Book I of Against Apion, Josephus attributes to Hecataeus in Book II the following sentence (Ap. II.43):

Before discussing the historical reliability of the statement, its context and source should be clarified. The sentence is quoted in the context of Josephus's campaign for the rights of the Jews in Alexandria. He states that Alexander settled the Jews in the city and granted them civil rights (II.12). The reference to the assignment of Samaria to the Jews appears as the only evidence to that effect, indicating Alexander's favorable treatment of the Jews.190 It is thus evident that the quotation was taken from a work in which there was no intimation of Alexander's involvement in settling the Jews in Alexandria.

As for the source of the sentence, the suggestion has been made that it was taken from another lost work, which had been ascribed to Hecataeus.191 However, no valid reason has been put forward to

substantiate this suggestion,192 and one would have expected that if such a work did indeed exist, Josephus would have indicated its name or contents, to distinguish it from the treatise of Hecataeus from which he quoted earlier in great detail. This was especially required as the title of the latter treatise is implied by Josephus, if not explicitly named (I.183).193 The content of the sentence under discussion does not contain anything that could not have been included in On the Jews. ¹⁹⁴ Quite clearly, the book did not include any information directly relevant to the relationship between Alexander and the Jews of Alexandria.195

Now to the question of authenticity. Some scholars have gone so far as to regard this quotation as clinching evidence for the inauthenticity of the book.196 It has generally been argued that the information does not make sense historically and politically. At the same time various attempts have been made to explain the sentence in one way or another according to the circumstances of the period, although even the advocates of authenticity admit that it cannot be accepted as it stands.

The alleged annexation of Samaria to Judea is not confirmed by any of the relatively abundant sources on Alexander's period. Even the anti-Samaritan stories in Josephus, which elaborate on the triangular relations Alexander-Jews-Samaritans (Ant. XI.302-46), do not mention an annexation of Samaria to Judea. Nor does the sentence agree with available knowledge on the administrative divisions of the region in the Ptolemaic and Seleucid eras. Judea and Samaria/Samareitis were separate eparchies, each having its own governor. This is clearly indicated for the Ptolemaic period (Polyb. V.71.11, XVI.39; Jos. Ant. XII.133, 154) and is explicitly stated for the Seleucid reign (Ant. XIII.264, II Macc. 14.12).197 The first change known in the territorial arrangements occurred at the time of Jonathan (152/1 B.C. ): the Seleucid rulers approved the annexation to Judea of Aphairema, Lydda, and Ramathaim, three toparchies in southern Samaria, settled by many Jews (I Macc. 10.38; cf. 11.34). A more drastic political change took place late in the reign of John Hyrcanus, when all of Samaria was occupied by the Jews in two military campaigns and integrated in one way or another into the expanding Jewish state.198 The first campaign (112/111 B.C. ) was directed at the south of the region centering around Shechem and Mount Gerizim (Ant. XIII. 255-56).199 The second (108/7 B.C. ) was launched against the north and against the city of Samaria (Ant. XIII.275-83).200

A number of scholars have called attention to the reference in Curtius Rufus (IV. 8.9-11) to the Samaritan revolt against Alexander and the severe punishment that ensued (corroborated by the findings from the Wadi Dâliyeh caves), and have argued that the Samaritans were also punished by having their territory given to the Jews.201 However, this does not make much sense from the military and administrative point of view: an effective measure to counter further unrest would be to tighten direct control over the rebellious region, certainly not loosening it by appending the region to a neighboring semiautonomous nation or district. Such a step would have slowed down and complicated any direct intervention by the central authorities. One would envisage measures such as increasing the military forces stationed in the region, splitting it into small administrative units under military governors, appointing a high-ranking military officer as governor-in-chief, and the like. These principles and practices of imperial rule were demonstrated by Alexander himself, as well as by later Hellenistic kings and governors, and are well known in later times from the provincial policy of Roman emperors.

Other scholars, describing the sentence as "exaggerated," have claimed that the original information referred to an annexation of the three toparchies in southern Samaria. The phrasing of one paragraph in the royal document of Demetrius I, declaring their annexation in the days of Jonathan (I Macc. 10.38), may indicate that the Seleucid king simply restored former arrangements. It has therefore been suggested that these toparchies were annexed by Alexander to Judea mainly because they were populated by Jews, and were later severed from it either by the Seleucids as a punitive measure for the Maccabean Revolt, or perhaps even earlier, by the Ptolemies. Hence their subsequent annexation to Judea in the time of Jonathan.202 However, the phrasing of another paragraph in the same document (I Macc. 10.30) suggests that the attachment of the three toparchies to Judea was an established fact already

3.
Southern Samaria and the three districts in the time of Jonathan.

by the time of that document. Accordingly it has been assumed that the document recognizes a situation that was earlier created by actual Jewish domination of the three toparchies.203 But it is even more likely that the document refers to privileges bestowed by Alexander Balas that preceded the proclamation of the concessions by Demetrius I, his rival for the throne.204 In the absence of real evidence to the contrary, it seems

rather that the three southern toparchies were annexed to Judea for the first time only in the days of Jonathan. The new territorial division came in the wake of demographic change: the constant infiltration of Jewish settlers into the border areas during the pre-Hasmonean period gradually created a Jewish majority in the three toparchies.205

Be that as it may, what matters is that an author like Hecataeus, who was well acquainted with court and state affairs, would not have confused the administrative-political status of a relatively large region like Samaria (which also included Galilee)206 with that of three small toparchies on its southern fringe. He certainly would have been careful not to inflate the territory, thereby providing a precedent that might commit the Ptolemaic administration in the future, especially with the annexation attributed to Alexander.

What is even more instructive is the second part of the sentence under discussion, stating that Samaria was given to the Jews aphorologetos , which means "exempt from tribute [photos ]" and possibly other payments. In the Persian and Hellenistic periods, the annual collective photos symbolized the submission of ethnic groups and nations to

the ruling state or empire. To free them from the phoros meant actually granting independence. Would Hecataeus have indicated that Alexander recognized the Jewish right to independent rule of Samaria, with all its implications for Ptolemy I? Even if Josephus was not accurate in transmitting the text, and the original in fact only referred to exemption from taxes and duties, such a total and permanent exemption of a nation or a province, or even of a polis, was quite rare and was granted only under very special circumstances or when imperial rule was only nominal.207 In the case of the Jews it was granted only by Seleucid kings who already had lost control over the Jews and badly needed their help against internal rivals.208 More common was a temporary exemption after a devastating war,209 or to help a military settlement establish itself.210 With regard to the days of Alexander, Josephus states in the story of the reception of Alexander by the High Priest that the Jews were freed from taxes in the sabbatical year (Ant. XI.338; cf. XIV.202, 206). The enthusiastic tone of this dubious legend merely indicates that an exemption in the fallow year was the most the Jews in Judea could expect from and ascribe to Alexander and other Hellenistic rulers who were in real control of the country. And if Judea proper was not totally exempted from these taxes, such exemption is even less likely for an annexed territory, much larger and more fruitful than Judea itself. Hecataeus would not have confused remission from taxes in the fallow year (which in itself is still doubtful) with an unprecedented permanent exemption, thus committing his notoriously greedy patrons to such a major economic concession. The sentence is thus a later Jewish fabrication.

The two components of the sentence have indeed seemed unacceptable even to some supporters of the authenticity of On the Jews. They have therefore suggested that Josephus or a Jewish adapter greatly

distorted an original text by Hecataeus.211 It is true that the structure of the passage may suggest that the sentence was shortened and rephrased by Josephus himself. However, imputing to Josephus such gross errors, both in the definition of the annexed territory and in the exemption, makes efforts to verify the general authenticity of the sentence extremely labored. And after all, it is just one of a fair number of anachronistic and unreliable statements, most of which could not have been invented by Josephus.212 Similarly, the theory that the text underwent a slight adaptation by an unknown Jew cannot resolve all the difficulties.213 To assume that it was a consistent adaptation is to deny the value of the passages as a reliable source for Jewish history in the early Hellenistic period.214

In conclusion, at the risk of repeating myself: there are too many statements and pieces of information which sound anachronistic, or contradict the information at our disposal, or cannot be attributed to Hecataeus; there is hardly one piece of real, positive evidence that the passages originated with Hecataeus or from his period, or were at least written by a gentile.

1. The Anachronistic References

A terminus post quem for the dating of the book can be provided by five anachronistic references: the religious persecutions and Jewish martyrdom, the destruction of the pagan cult, the Jewish expansion to Phoenicia, the existence of many Jewish fortresses, and the annexation of Samaria to Judea (Chap. III.4-7, 9, above). The first reference proves that the book could not have been composed before the religious persecutions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (168 B.C. ). The other four point to the time of the Hasmonean state (142/1-63 B.C. ). In order to be more precise in determining a post quem

date, a short survey of these major developments in the Hasmonean state is necessary.

The statement that there are "many fortresses of the Jews" in the country (I.197) may reflect the situation found from the later days of Simeon, the last of the Hasmonean brothers.2 In the time of Judas Maccabaeus, after the purification of the Temple (164-160), Beth Zur was the only fortress controlled by the rebels, and even this only intermittently.3 His brother Jonathan (160-143) is said to have fortified Beth Basi, near Bethlehem, in 159 (I Macc. 9.62ff.). Seven of the fortresses established in the Judean Hills by Bacchides in 160/59 (I Macc. 9.50-52) were deserted by their garrisons in 152/1 (I Macc. 10.12, 11.41). They may well have been regarrisoned by Jonathan's standing army.4

A comprehensive fortification project was launched by Simeon (143-135). He is reported to have fortified the Temple Mount (I Macc. 13.53), Beth Zur (14.33), Adida on the fringe of the Shephela (11.38), Gezer (13.48, 14.34), Jaffa, on the sea (13.11, 14.34), and Dok, near Jericho (14.16). He also positioned Jewish soldiers in the former Seleucid Akra in Jerusalem (14.36-37) shortly before totally demolishing it.5 The covenant between Simeon and the people (Sept. 140) praises him for fortifying the "cities of Judea" (14.33; cf. 13.33, 38; 15.7). Apparently this also refers to other fortresses, perhaps to those deserted by Bacchides' garrisons. The later territorial expansion in the time of Simeon's successors added to Jewish control more Hellenistic fortresses.6 Their number considerably grew under his successors.

4.
Jewish fortresses in the time of Simeon.

The paragraph about the great settlement drive of the Jews in Phoenicia (I.194) brings us to the days of John Hyrcanus, Simeon's son (135-104). In the period preceding the Hasmonean conquests there were just a few small Jewish enclaves on the coastal plain.7 Massive Jewish settlement of the region could have started only after its occupation by the Hasmonean rulers. The conquest was carried out in several

stages. Simeon opened a narrow corridor to the sea via Gezer to Jaffa, and expelled the local population (143-142).8 There is no direct reference to the precise date and extent of Hyrcanus's westward expansion. However, the information about the early conquests of Alexander Jannaeus, Hyrcanus's son, indicates that by the late days of John Hyrcanus, the coast between Strato's Tower in the north and Ascalon to the south was in Jewish hands.9 This means that the Hellenistic cities of the region, Apollonia, Iamnia (Jabneh), and Azotos (Ashdod), mentioned in the general summary list of the Hasmonean occupations (Ant. XIII.395), were conquered by Hyrcanus.10 Notably, in summing up Hyrcanus's achievements, Georgius Syncellus, the Byzantine chronographer, states (I.548, ed. Dindorf):

He distinguished himself by many successes and victories against the neighboring Arabs, the Idumeans, the coastland of Phoenicia [

] and Samaria.

The sentence, like two others on the days of Alexander Jannaeus, may well have been drawn from a knowledgeable source.11 The reference to the region as "Phoenicia" is also instructive for interpreting the sentence in Pseudo-Hecataeus.12

5.
The Hasmonean expansion.

The chronology of Hyrcanus's conquests in the region can be established on the basis of two Roman documents and the general background. At the same time, without additional archaeological evidence we may not yet determine which parts of the region were occupied in the various phases. It seems that at least some parts had already fallen

into Jewish hands in the early days of Hyrcanus's reign, probably in the years 135-132. They were temporarily lost with the invasion of Antiochus VII Sidetes in 132. Hyrcanus regained his territorial conquests and seems to have expanded them between 127 and 125. In 113 the Jews again lost control of the area when Antiochus IX Cyzicenus made his brief drive to the south. It was soon restored, in 112, and Hyrcanus may have made some new encroachments in that year, as well as taken further steps to consolidate Jewish control of the region.13

Alexander Jannaeus (103-76) expanded Jewish dominance in the north during the first year of his reign,14 occupying the cities of Strato's Tower and Dora on the Carmel coast (Ant. XIII.326, 335; Bell. I.61). In 102, Jannaeus turned to the area south of Ascalon.15 He conquered Anthedon, Raphia, and Gaza, the later flourishing city being thoroughly destroyed (Ant. XIII.357-64, Bell. I.87). Ascalon was the only gentile city on the coast south of Mount Carmel to retain its independence.16

The pace of Jewish settlement in the region cannot be ascertained. It can only be said that in the time of the Hasmonean state the demography of the region changed decisively in favor of the Jews. This is well attested by Strabo (XVI.2.28), who drew on a Hellenistic source from the time of the Hasmoneans,17 and is evident from Josephus's accounts of the occurrences in the region at the time of the Great Revolt against the Romans.18 The Jewish community in the Judean Hills in the period of the Maccabean uprising suffered from overpopulation and

land scarcity.19 The newly occupied fertile plains near the sea obviously offered new possibilities. Determining the chronology and development of the settlement drive would involve a number of unanswerable questions. Which areas and cities of the region were occupied in each of the above-mentioned phases? Were the Hellenistic cities destroyed? And if so, when?20 And what happened to the local inhabitants? Were they deported as were the inhabitants of Jaffa in the time of Simeon, or the people dwelling in the Scythopolis Valley in the later days of Hyrcanus and elsewhere in the time of Alexander Jannaeus?21 And if so, were they driven out immediately after the occupation? Or were all these drastic measures taken only after the year 112, when Hyrcanus became more confident of himself in view of growing crises in the Seleucid kingdom? Whatever the answers to such questions, the settlement of "many tens of thousands" as per Pseudo-Hecataeus (Jos. Ap. I.194) could not have taken place overnight. This reference could indeed reflect the demographical situation in the coastal plain as early as the middle of John Hyrcanus's reign (ca. 120 B.C. ), but it may also indicate a later post quem date.

A later date does in fact appear from the statement about pagan cults. The Jews are said to have destroyed all (

enlarged borders of the Hasmonean state or to the Holy Land as a whole. Such a campaign is indeed known from the time of the Hasmonean state and has been referred to in one way or another by modern scholars. However, its chronology and development have yet to be clarified.

Acts of violence against the cults of the gentile population became increasingly common after the death of Antiochus IV (end of 164 B.C. ). In his expedition to rescue Jews in the enclaves outside Judea (163 B.C. ), Judas Maccabaeus punished the city of Azotos by destroying its altars and idols (I Macc. 5.68), and burned the temple of Karnayim, in Trans-Jordan, because the enemy found refuge there (5.43-44). For the same reason Jonathan, his brother (160-143), destroyed the temple of Dagon in Azotos in the year 148/7 (10.84, 11.4). All these acts, however, do not seem to have been motivated by a preconceived policy, but were a response to special, local circumstances. They were launched outside the Jewish-controlled area and certainly would not be described as the destruction of "all temples" in the Holy Land.22

A systematic destruction of foreign cults was first carried out by Simeon, who is explicitly said to have "cleared out" the idolatry, probably statues and cult objects, of Gezer (Gazara) and the Akra, the Jerusalem citadel (I Macc. 13.47-48, 50). The same certainly happened in Jaffa, where the local population was expelled, and Jews settled in their place (I Macc. 13.11). However, since the "corridor" occupied by Simeon was rather small, the scale of these operations was still rather limited. And what is more important, there is no reference to the destruction of temples in his time. As the achievements of Simeon were comprehensively recorded by his contemporary admirer the author of I Maccabees,23 and his operations against pagan cult especially lauded (14.7), the absence of such a reference cannot be accidental. It seems, therefore, that there were no impressive temples in the rural areas of the "corridor" As for Jaffa, Simeon, who actually recognized Seleucid

supremacy over the city (15.35), was perhaps careful enough not to provoke too much antagonism at that stage and therefore refrained from demolishing the temple or temples of that celebrated harbor city. This may have taken place sometime later, in the days of John Hyrcanus.

Much more extensive was the destruction of pagan cults by his successors John Hyrcanus (135-104), Aristobulus I (104/3), and Alexander Jannaeus (103-76), covering more regions of the Holy Land. In contrast to the abundant information on the days of the Hasmonean brothers, our knowledge of the days of these later rulers is mainly based on excerpts from secondhand sources, which were badly adapted and arranged by Josephus.24 Consequently not all the conquests are reported, and the destruction of temples is only occasionally mentioned. However, as appears from a number of references, the general policy of the Hasmonean rulers toward pagan cults is quite clear, and we can accordingly assume that after becoming confident of their ability to face possible Seleucid retaliation, they did not spare pagan temples and cults in the occupied territories. This was certainly done in the Hellenized cities reported to have been partly or utterly demolished or whose populations were sent into exile. The same obviously applies to regions whose inhabitants were forced to convert to Judaism.

Hyrcanus's expansion took place in the early and later days of his reign. His campaigns on the coastal plain (in the years 135-132, 127-125, 112) have been referred to above.25 The occupied stretch of land between Ascalon and Strato's Tower included three Hellenistic cities—Apollonia, Azotos, and Iamnia. At least in the first two there were respectable temples of considerable magnitude.26 However, it could be that Hyrcanus was careful, like his father, Simeon, and refrained from destroying temples as long as there was an immediate danger of a Seleucid reaction. The opportunity may have come in the year 112/11, when the Seleucid kingdom sank ever deeper into its longest internal

crisis, the struggle between Antiochus IX Cyzicenus and Antiochus VIII Gryphus.27

For this reason, the second stage of his campaigns, which covered a larger area, was launched at about the same time (112/11-107). At that stage Hyrcanus turned to the regions south and north of the Judean Hills. He first conquered Idumea, totally destroying Marisa and Adora, its main cities, and converting the Idumeans to Judaism (Ant. XIII.257-58, XIV.88).28 This campaign was followed by an expedition against the Samaritans (in the year 112/111). Hyrcanus occupied southern Samaria, demolishing the Samaritan temple at Mount Gerizim (Ant. XIII.254-58).29 In 108/7, Hyrcanus carried out the second phase

of his northern campaign.30 He first laid siege to the city of Samaria and at the same time occupied northern Samaria as well as Scythopolis. The inhabitants of Scythopolis and "its valley" are said to have gone into exile (Scroll of Fasting, 15-16 Sivan), and Jewish settlers were presumably introduced.31 The temple of Zeus in the city (SEG VIII.33) and other cult monuments were certainly destroyed. After a year of siege, the Hellenistic city of Samaria was conquered, and Josephus reports in detail how the Jews obliterated all traces of this great city by flooding it (Ant. XIII.281). The nearby Esdralon (Jezreel) Valley and probably also Lower Galilee may well have been occupied shortly afterwards.32

Hyrcanus's son, Aristobulus I, expanded to the north in his single year as ruler (104/3). He launched a campaign in Galilee (Bell. I.76), probably Upper Galilee, and forcibly converted the Itureans (Ant. XIII.318-19), Arabs residing mainly in the Lebanon Valley.33

Alexander Jannaeus (103-76), the great Hasmonean conqueror, pursued the antipagan policy with much vigor In the year 102 he occupied Strato's Tower and Dora (Ant. XIII.324, 335, 395), the Hellenized Phoenician cities on the Carmel coast, treating the inhabitants harshly (Syncellus I.558, Jos. Ant. XIV.76).34 Shortly afterwards (in the year 102/1) came the turn of Anthedon, Gaza, and Raphia, the coastal cities south of Ascalon (Ant. XIII.357-64, Bell. I.87). The detailed account of the Gaza siege records the killing of the city councilors in the temple

of Apollo and the destruction of the temple itself (Ant. XIII.364). The Hellenistic temple at Beer Sheva may have been destroyed shortly afterwards.35 In the next stage, which took place between the years 96-93 and 83-76,36 Alexander Jannaeus occupied almost all the gentile territories in Trans-Jordan. A fair number of Hellenized cities, as well as Moabite sites, are listed as being destroyed or having their inhabitants deported (Ant. XIII.395-97, XIV.74-76, 87-88), and massacres of the entire population are recorded for most of them (Sync. I.558). In the case of Pella, it is explicitly asserted that the city was destroyed because its inhabitants refused to convert to Judaism (Ant. XIII.397). Excavations at Tel Anafa, an unidentified Hellenistic city on the slopes of the Golan Heights, show that the site was completely destroyed in the year 80.37 This suggests that more Hellenistic cities than those listed in the sources suffered the same fate (perhaps also implied in Ant. XIV.76).38 The campaign against pagan witchcraft conducted by Jews in Ascalon (which was never occupied by them), at the time of Alexander Jannaeus,39 indicates that certain manifestations of idolatry in the Holy Land were persecuted on private or royal initiative even outside the borders of the Jewish state.

The above survey suggests that the statement of Pseudo-Hecataeus, reporting systematic and total destruction of temples, can record events already in the time of John Hyrcanus. A terminus post quem would seem to be provided by his later major campaigns in Idumea and Samaria (112/11-107), rather than by his early conquests on the coastal plain. We do not know whether all the Hellenistic cities between Ascalon and Strato's Tower were already occupied during the early expeditions, and one cannot be sure that their temples were demolished immediately after the conquest. In any case, just a few temples were involved, and such an operation affected only a small part of the Holy Land. However, the total number of temples destroyed by the Jews in 112/11-107 during the conquest of Marisa, Adora, Shechem and Mount Gerizim, Samaria,

Scythopolis, and their chorai, and the size of the newly occupied areas, which was twice as large as Judea proper, are more likely to have inspired the statement of Pseudo-Hecataeus.

The last and perhaps most instructive anachronistic reference is the statement that Samaria was annexed to Judea by Alexander "free of tribute" (Ap. II.43). For its historical background, some scholars have suggested that the sentence reflects, in exaggerated form, the territorial changes in the later years of Jonathan's leadership (from 152 B.C. ), when the Seleucids certified the annexation of the three southern toparchies to Judea, free from many taxes.40 However, the exaggeration is too great, the three toparchies occupying no more than a quarter of the Samaritan Hills and less than 15 percent of the district of Samaria as a whole.41 Moreover, Pseudo-Hecataeus uses the term aphorologetos, which refers to exemption from the phoros, the symbol of foreign rule, while the Seleucids waived only duties and income taxes. Jonathan even offers to pay the phoros when asking for exemption from other taxes (I Macc. 11.28).42

It remains therefore to accept the assumption of other scholars that the sentence was written under the influence of the occupation of the districts of Samaria by John Hyrcanus, that is, in 112/11-107B.C. 43 An instructive typological parallel can be found in the famous Talmudic legend that attributes to Alexander the Great the destruction of the Samaritan temple, although it was actually carried out by John Hyrcanus concurrently with the annexation of Samaria.44

The purpose of Against Apion II.43 is obviously to legitimize the occupation of Samaria by implying that the Jews only restored rights granted to them by Alexander the Great. The principle of precedent played a major role in Hellenistic diplomacy and literary polemics, and had its effects also on Jewish literature. The tendency among Jews and Samaritans to relate some of their later achievements to Alexander can be observed in the series of stories in Josephus on Jewish and Samaritan relations with Alexander (Ant. XI.313-46) and the above-mentioned Talmudic parallel. At the same time one should not rule out the possibility that the author was also inspired by at least some general knowledge of the hostility between the great Macedonian conqueror and the Samaritans.45

The occupation of northern Samaria, or rather the end of the siege of the city of Samaria in the year 107, which completed the conquest of the region, should thus be taken as a post quem date. We could go one step further and ask where and when such a legitimation of the conquest was asked for. The author, an Egyptian Jew,46 was certainly aware of the grievances harbored by the Samaritans against the Jews for destroying the Samaritan temple and annexing their land. The inhabitants of Coile Syria, including the Samaritans, were used to appealing to Hellenistic rulers to spare them from Hasmonean oppression,47 and disputes between Jews and Samaritans in Egypt arising out of events that occurred in the Holy Land are recorded to have been brought before and decided

by the Ptolemaic king (Ant. XII.10, XIII.74).48 In the year 107, at the time of the siege of Samaria, Antiochus IX Cyzicenus applied for help on behalf of the Samaritans to Ptolemy Lathyrus, who was still co-regent with his mother, Cleopatra III (Ant. XIII.278).49 Though Cleopatra was against any intervention, Lathyrus dispatched six thousand troops to support the Syrian king. This was one of the reasons for the breach with his mother (ibid.). It stands to reason that Samaritans as well as Jews would have presented their arguments on that occasion.

Another opportunity for the Samaritans to appeal to the Ptolemaic queen came immediately before and during her expedition to Palestine in the year 103/2 (Ant. XIII.348ff.).50 The expedition was indeed meant to counter the advancing troops of Lathyrus, who from his base in Cyprus invaded Judea, but she also considered deposing Alexander Jannaeus and renewing direct Ptolemaic rule in Judea. It is told that Cleopatra's counselors advised her not to allow the accumulation of too much power in the hands of Alexander Jannaeus and recommended that she occupy his kingdom, though the Jewish commanders of the Ptolemaic army warned that in doing so she might lose the support of her Jewish soldiers (Ant. XIII.353-54). Egyptian Jews thus played a major role in the discussions about the future of Judea (and Samaria). One would assume that deputations of the local populations, including the Samaritans, were also allowed to present their case. A legitimation of the conquest of Samaria was badly needed for Egyptian Jews in the year 103/2, even more than it was in 107. Year 103/2 as a terminus post quem will also appear from an analysis of the sources of inspiration for

the unique explanation provided by the author of Pseudo-Hecataeus as to the purpose of Jewish residence in the Egyptian Diaspora.51

2. Terminus Ante Quem

An approximate ante quem date can be determined in light of the absence of any echo of the conquests and annexation of districts in Trans-Jordan by Alexander Jannaeus. This cannot be accidental: the Trans-Jordanian campaigns added a new, imperial dimension to the Hasmonean expansion and required far more justification than did the former, much smaller territorial achievements, the annexation of Samaria and the expansion in the coastal plain (Ap. I.194, II.43). All the more so with regard to Moabitis, which had never previously been Jewish or Israelite (apart from a short period of occupation in the tenth century B.C. ), and which the Bible itself does not consider part of the Promised Land. In the case of Ammonitis, likewise not included in the Promised Land, it was even easy to prove former rights by referring to the settlements of Tobias there, which had strong ties with Ptolemaic Egypt and its Jewry.52 An author like Pseudo-Hecataeus would certainly have striven to legitimize these occupations by inventing a precedent or the like. Such a reference would not have escaped Josephus's notice in his persistent polemical effort in Against Apion to demonstrate the good will of Hellenistic rulers toward the Jews and the antiquity of the Jewish nation.

It is true that the occupation of Hebron Hills-Idumea was not recorded either, but that annexation did not require legitimization. It was known in the Hellenistic world that the Idumeans were newcomers to the Hebron Hills (e.g., Strabo XVI.2.34). There is no indication that they ever claimed to be autochthonous, and even Jews who were not well versed in the Bible hardly needed to be reminded of this.

Hasmonean penetration into Trans-Jordan commenced probably in the time of Jonathan, who may have gained official control over the Peraea, the Jewish-inhabited district in the central Jordan Valley and the western slopes of Ammonitis (perhaps according to I Macc. 11.57).

Late in his reign, John Hyrcanus obtained a further foothold, occupying the north of Moabitis (Medeba and Samaga, Ant. XIII.255).53 Alexander Jannaeus carried out his campaigns in the region in three stages. Shortly after year 102/1 or so, he occupied Gadara (Ant. XIII.356, Bell. I.86-87),54 which provided him with a bridgehead for further operations in northern Trans-Jordan.55 The second stage was the most significant: it consisted of the conquest of Ammonitis (Syncellus I.558-59), Moabitis, and Galaditis, as well as the uprooting of the gentile strongholds in the Peraea, the old Jewish enclave east of the Jordan (Ant. XIII.374, Bell. I.89). This stage took place sometime in the years 96-93.56 Most of these territorial gains were given away by Jannaeus in about the year 87, toward the end of the long internal upheaval in Judea (Ant. XIII.382).57

Jannaeus succeeded in restoring his achievements in the third stage of his Trans-Jordanian campaigns, which seem to have started in the year 83, and even strengthened his hold by occupying Gaulanitis and the remaining independent cities in Galaditis (Ant. XIII.393-94, Bell. I.104-5; Syncellus I.558-59).58 We can therefore say that the terminus ante quem for the composition of Pseudo-Hecataeus is to be found in the years 96-93.

This conclusion finds support in the Egyptian background: in the year 88 Ptolemy Lathyrus deposed his brother and gained control over Egypt. He seems to have taken revenge on the Jews, who consistently supported his mother, Cleopatra III, and his brother, Ptolemy X Alexander There is indeed some evidence for persecutions in the same year.59 The favorable account of the Ptolemaic regime and the general atmosphere of Jewish-Ptolemaic cooperation reflected in the passages could hardly be imagined under Ptolemy Lathyrus.

3. Pseudo-Aristeas and Pseudo-Hecataeus

Further evidence for the dating of Pseudo-Hecataeus can be provided by comparing his book with that of Pseudo-Aristeas and elucidating the sequence of each. In the discussion of the relations between Ptolemy I and the Jews (Chap. III.2) it was pointed out that the Hezekiah story was unknown to Pseudo-Aristeas.60 The story opened the treatise On the Jews and played a major role in it.61 This suggests that Pseudo-Aristeas was the earlier of the two. Pseudo-Aristeas, who was au courant with the daily problems and literature of Alexandria and Egyptian Jewry, would have been familiar with Pseudo-Hecataeus's treatise, one of the few literary works composed by an Egyptian Jew, if Pseudo-Hecataeus had preceded the composition of his book. At the very least, he would have become aware indirectly of the Hezekiah story, which would have served his account very well.

This conclusion seems at first sight to be contradicted by a quotation said by Pseudo-Aristeas to have been taken from Hecataeus (para. 31). It has been assumed by many scholars that the citation originated in the treatise On the Jews ,62 and its contents were adduced to deny the authenticity of the book. In order to examine its implications for the dating of Pseudo-Hecataeus, a close look at this text is required. The passage in Pseudo-Aristeas raises and answers the question why Greek authors did not mention the Jewish holy books:

It is for this reason that authors and poets and the mass of historians have abstained from mentioning these aforesaid books and the men who have lived and are living in accordance with them, because the conception presented in them is somewhat pure and exalted [

], as Hecataeus of Abdera said.

Had the passage as a whole been ascribed by Pseudo-Aristeas to Hecataeus, one could indeed relate it only to a forged book. But even so, that could hardly be the treatise On the Jews : Josephus would not have missed the opportunity to include such an enthusiastic comment in his citations, especially as the passages he does quote do not contain any reference to the Jewish holy books.63 Moreover, in the preface to Against Apion Josephus says that the absence of any reference to biblical history in Greek literature was the main argument raised by anti-Jewish authors against the antiquity of the Jewish people (I.2). As it is, Hans Lewy has decisively proved on comparative and philological grounds that the implicit question in the passage was asked by Pseudo-Aristeas himself, and the quotation comprises only the last sentence.64 The quotation from Hecataeus thus reads: "The conception presented in

them is somewhat pure and exalted." It should be added to Lewy's arguments that the cautious language of the sentence ("somewhat") at the outset discounts the possibility that it was originally an answer to the preceding questions. Pseudo-Aristeas obviously utilized a statement that appeared in his source in a different context.

A quotation of this nature is even less likely to have been taken from the treatise On the Jews. An enthusiastic Jewish forger would not have used this cautious language in appreciating the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Besides, Josephus would not have missed the sentence, even in this form, in his quotations,65 as nothing he does quote or paraphrase contains any reference to the Jewish holy books. The first argument also applies to the possibility that the sentence was taken from the book On Abraham (if it were composed so early) or from another forged book that may have been attributed to Hecataeus, or that it is a free invention of Pseudo-Aristeas.66 On the other hand, the sentence accords with the general tone of the genuine excursus on the Jews in Hecataeus's Egyptian ethnography,67 which adheres to an unbiased and detached presentation.68 Moreover, its phrasing recalls the style of Hecataeus in his moderate criticism of Jewish customs, which used the same diminutive adjective: "He [Moses] introduced a [way of] life that is somewhat unsocial and hostile to strangers" (

of the quotation to Hecataeus. The statement by itself does not necessarily express Hecataeus's own attitude but may reflect in his own words Jewish explanations either for their reverent handling of their Scriptures (cf. Ap. I.42),72 or for the restrictions imposed on gentiles wishing to gain access to them, or the like.73 There is thus no reason to date Pseudo-Hecataeus before Pseudo-Aristeas.74

Returning to the question of the date of Pseudo-Hecataeus: in Appendix B at the end of this monograph it is suggested that Pseudo-Aristeas's book was written between the years 116 (or 118) and 113. This sets another post quem date for Pseudo-Hecataeus, and shows that the author of the Letter of Aristeas was his elder contemporary. Accordingly, one to two decades separated the composition of the two books. Writing in the same generation and in the same community,75 it stands to reason that Pseudo-Hecataeus was acquainted with Pseudo-Aristeas. After all, only few literary works were by then written by Egyptian Jews, and as Pseudo-Aristeas was occupied with the legitimacy of the Septuagint, one of the most controversial issues in the life of Egyptian Jewry, one would suppose that the book gained fame among his contemporaries. There are indeed some striking similarities between Pseudo-Hecataeus and Pseudo-Aristeas.76

1. Descent and Provenance

The scholars who regard On the Jews as spurious naturally assume that the author was Jewish. This is indeed unquestionable: a gentile would not have attributed his treatise on the Jews to Hecataeus of Abdera and disguised the anachronistic statements as he did. Nor would he have attempted to justify the Hasmoneans' antipagan policy (the destruction of temples and altars) and to legitimize their territorial expansion (the settlement in the coastal plain; the annexation of Samaria). The analysis of the Mosollamus story also showed that it could hardly have been written by an educated Greek, and the same holds for the author's praise for Jewish violence against pagan cults.

Nonetheless, attention should be given to the arguments of the proponents of authenticity, who have pointed out what they consider to be basic errors in Jewish history and religious practice. These may at first sight suggest that the book was not written by a Jew. Above all, it has been noted that the book speaks about a deportation of Jews to Babylonia by the Persians (Jos. Ap. I.194). If the Judean exile after the destruction of the First Temple in the year 586 is meant, this would seem to be too elementary a mistake to have been made by a Jew.1 However, a similar mistake appears in the Second Book of the Maccabees

(1.19-20).2 Referring undoubtedly to the exile of 586, II Maccabees states that the Jews were deported to Persia. It has been suggested that the mistake in II Maccabees originates in a statement by Eupolemus, the Jewish Hellenistic author of the generation of Judas Maccabaeus, that Jerusalem was destroyed by a Babylonian-Median alliance.3 As a matter of fact, the context of the sentence in Pseudo-Hecataeus indicates that it does not refer to the great Babylonian exile. The subsequent sentence states: "After Alexander's death, no less immigrated to Egypt and Phoenicia" (Ap. I.194). The author, then, could not have had in mind the almost total banishment of Judea to Babylonia after the destruction of the First Temple. It therefore seems correct to accept the view that he is referring to a deportation of Jews from Judea to Babylonia and Hyrcania by Artaxerxes III Ochus (359-338), which was recorded in a number of later sources.4 The deportation has been related to the aftermath of the rebellion led by Tennes, the Sidonian king in the year 348,5 or an earlier event.6 Worthy of note is a tradition about a forced deportation of Jews to Egypt by the Persians, which has been preserved in Pseudo-Aristeas (para. 35).

Hans Lewy draws attention to two references about Jewish practice that in his view are mistaken and reflect Egyptian rituals.7 First, the Jewish priests are said to abstain from drinking wine while in the Temple (Ap. I.199).8 This is, however, explicitly demanded by the Torah, and the penalty for failing to comply is death (Lev. 10.8-11).9 Lewy further argues that the same paragraph speaks of the mortification of the flesh by Jewish priests in the Temple, a practice alien to Judaism. But this is a misrepresentation of the phrase

[rituals] of purification."10 Purity is indeed repeatedly demanded of the priests by the Pentateuch,11 and there is no reason to reject the statement by Pseudo-Hecataeus, as Lewy does, that the priests were engaged in these rituals "night and day":12 priests also performed guard duties at night (Middot 1.2, Tamid 1.1), which required constant purity. Purification rituals were carried out even at night (Middot 1.9).13 There is thus no reason to doubt that the author was Jewish.

The Greek language and the use of the name of a Hellenistic author as a pseudonym, as well as the relative familiarity with Hellenistic polis life and customs by a Jewish author at the turn of the first century, suggest that the book was written in the Diaspora. That it was the Egyptian Diaspora is evident from the author's apparent admiration for the Ptolemaic king,14 the stress laid on Hezekiah's emigration and Jewish settlement in Egypt,15 and the use of the Ptolemaic measure aroura in describing the size of the Jewish land (Ap. I.195).

Though it is universally agreed that the book was written in Ptolemaic Egypt, a few scholars argue that it was composed by a Palestinian Jew who had emigrated to Egypt. They further claim that he was a Jerusalem priest.16 The suggestion is based on the accurate description of the altar stones in the Temple (I.198). We shall later see that the author is indeed well acquainted with a number of other cult objects, but all these could easily have been known, in one way or another, to practicing Jews in the Diaspora. On the other hand, the elementary mistakes of Pseudo-Hecataeus with regard to the geography of the Holy Land and the city of Jerusalem17 do not permit us to accept that he was a Palestinian priest. Unlike the geographical account of Pseudo-Aristeas,

the mistaken description of Jerusalem cannot be excused as an idealization inspired by Hellenistic utopias or biblical associations.18 This applies to the circumference of the city (about 50 stadia, I.197), the number of its inhabitants (120,000, I.197), and the location of the Temple "nearly in the center of the city" (I.198).19 The first two mistakes indicate too large a city, which does not accord with the ideal Greek city-state20 and does not recall any biblical verse. The third differs from Greek utopias, which place the main temple (or the most important one) exactly in the center of the city.21 The latter difference, however slight, spoils the religious-moral principle underlying the location of temples in utopian fictions. For the same reason it also cannot be based, as suggested by one scholar, on a possible but unknown early Jewish midrash.22 The three mistakes seem to be influenced, in one way or another, by personal acquaintance with the demography and geography of Alexandria.23 A respectable Jewish priest from Jerusalem would hardly have so misinformed the reader about his native city, the holy city of the Jewish people, no matter how impressed he was by the great city of Egypt.

It is doubtful whether the author had ever even visited Jerusalem. It is reported in the Mishna that pilgrims usually circled the Temple wall, bowed toward each gate in turn, and then, after the Temple service, made

a tour of the city.24 This would surely have provided a basic knowledge of the city's topography as well as of the location of the Temple. Thus Philo, who visited Jerusalem as a pilgrim,25 quite accurately describes the relative height of the Temple Mount and the Temple,26 despite the rather complicated topography. There is, however, no equivalent piece of information in Pseudo-Hecataeus. Even so, Pseudo-Hecataeus may well be, like Philo,27 of priestly descent, which would help to explain his relative accuracy with regard to the cult objects of the Temple.

The question whether the author belonged to the Alexandrian community or resided in the country (the Egyptian chora ) seems to remain open. His apparent acquaintance with Alexandria cannot be used as conclusive evidence. At the same time, the absence of any explicit reference to the settlement of Jews in Alexandria in the original treatise,28 which elaborated on the beginnings of Jewish settlement in Egypt,29 still does not prove the opposite. This lacuna may be explained in a variety of ways.30 Even so, Willrich's hypothesis that the author belonged to the settlers or to the "supporters" of the Oniad priestly family at Leontopolis31 must be rejected. The account of the Jerusalem Temple contains veiled criticism of certain practices in the Leontopolis temple.32

2. Greek Education

The author was accordingly a native of the Jewish Egyptian Diaspora. In view of his origin, his knowledge of Greek, the use of the name of a celebrated Hellenistic ethnographer as his pseudonym, and what appear to be Hellenistic features in the fragments, it has been assumed that he was a "Hellenistic Jew,"33 and the book has been classified in the category of Jewish Hellenistic literature. Our examination of this assumption will at first avoid the question what Hellenistic Judaism actually was. It should be noted only that the Jewish community in Hellenistic Egypt was not homogeneous, and its major streams advocated diverse and often conflicting approaches to the relationship between Judaism and Hellenism. The traditional image of a Hellenistic Jew has, however, been shaped according to the surviving literary contributions of Alexandrian Jewry, especially the works of Philo. Therefore, the question that will occupy us at this juncture is whether Pseudo-Hecataeus was a Hellenistic Jew similar to the enlightened Hellenistic Jews Aristobulus, Pseudo-Aristeas, and Philo, who utilized their profound mastery of the Greek heritage, each in his own way, to reconcile the two cultures and explain the Jewish Holy Scriptures according to the methods, ideas, and achievements of "Greek wisdom." To answer this, it must be established whether the author's Greek education and knowledge of the Greek literary corpus (especially the philosophical one) was profound and on a level with that of the above-mentioned Jewish authors, and whether Pseudo-Hecataeus indeed tried to apply Greek thinking and traditions to an understanding of Judaism.

The evidence available for answering these two questions is closely related. From the contents of the fragments and testimonia it appears that the author did not have any philosophical education and that his acquaintance with the Greek heritage and Hellenistic life was limited to popular ideas and practices, and that even this knowledge was rather superficial. In addition, there are no associations, parallels, or references to the great corpus of Greek literature, which were so common in contemporary prose writing. What the author knew of Hellenistic culture and civilization was, by and large, no more than could be expected of

an intelligent oriental, living in Hellenistic Egypt or residing in the greatest and most civilized city of the Hellenistic world, who had not completed a comprehensive program of Greek education.34 A grammatical and stylistic analysis of the text corroborates this impression. The author's acquaintance with Greek literature thus fell considerably short of the standard set by the Hellenistic Jewish authors mentioned above. In addition he made no attempt to apply "Greek wisdom" to the interpretation of Jewish beliefs and religious practices.

One is especially struck by the total absence of any philosophical terminology or argument and the ignorance of the Greek philosophical heritage. It would suffice, for instance, to select at random a few passages from Jason of Cyrene, the Wisdom of Solomon, or Pseudo-Aristeas (not to mention Philo and IV Maccabees) to see the difference. Given the wide range of topics mentioned in the surviving material, the fact that only a small part of the original work has come down to us is no excuse. The passages about the Jews' strong adherence to their religion, martyrdom, the destruction of pagan altars and temples, and even the allusions to Jewish overpopulation invite some philosophical interpretation, justification, or parallels. They are lacking here, although their inclusion was a common practice for most Jewish Hellenistic authors. The author, who paraded himself as Hecataeus and must have known that Hecataeus was a philosopher, does not even try to imitate Hecataeus's Jewish excursus, which is full of philosophical and social reasonings. It is true that these passages may be abbreviated, but Josephus had no reason to be so consistent in omitting "philosophical" explanations. On the contrary, he was keen on offering reasons for Torah precepts. In the preface to the laws of Deuteronomy he states that he plans to write a book on Jewish practices and their reasons (Ant. IV.198), and his version in the Jewish Antiquities provides explanations for many laws.

No less instructive is the absence of any philosophical-moral explanation in the references to the construction of the Jewish altar solely of unhewn stones (Ap. I.188). The Torah itself indicates the existence of such a reason: "If you make an altar of stones for me, you must not build it of hewn stones, for if you lift up your sword on

it, you will profane it" (Exod. 20.25, Deut. 27.5-6). Philo provided two symbolic explanations (Spec. Leg. I.275, 287), and later Judaism interpreted it in various moralistic ways (e.g., Middot 3.4, Mechilta ad loc. ). Pseudo-Hecataeus's description of the Temple is detailed and given in direct speech, and Josephus, who was evidently puzzled about this instruction of the Torah,35 would not have missed the opportunity to give an explanation had he found one in the original text. Josephus himself gives allegorical explanations in Book III of the Antiquities for various aspects of the Temple and of the priestly service.

The absence of Greek philosophical terms in the characterization of Jewish personalities is also noteworthy. Hezekiah the High Priest is described as "not unintelligent" (

Hellenistic literature, including that of biblical heroes.38 This applies also to Moses and the High Priest in Hecataeus's Jewish excursus (Diod. XL.3.3, 5). Eulogies (enkomia ), which were among the first school exercises of the rhetorical curriculum and played an essential role in public competitions and funerals, included the virtues as a regular component.39 The personality of Hezekiah seems to reflect the obvious qualities of a good politician or leader in a Hellenistic city and oriental community alike, or of a secular leader in the Jewish Diaspora, rather than to have been inspired by a Greek literary model or reference.40

A direct proof of the author's incomplete and superficial acquaintance with Greek conceptions and practices is provided by the Mosollamus story. The analysis of the episode in Chapter III.1 showed that Pseudo-Hecataeus misrepresented the belief in bird omens, as well as the rules of interpretation, and that he failed to mention either the common term for a bird of omen or the particular species. One may of course argue that he disregarded the Greek features in order to simplify the story for his less knowledgeable Jewish readers and thus make the joke more effective. This explanation may be valid as far as the theological conception is concerned, but not with regard to the practical details. The arguments already raised above in the discussion of the authenticity of the book41

are also applicable here: referring to one or two of the real rules for interpreting omens would have contributed greatly to ridiculing gentile divination. And why would a knowledgeable Hellenistic Jew refrain from specifying the bird in question, or from using the word oionos , the technical term for a bird of omen, and instead repeat four times the general term ornis ("bird")? The Homeric epics stood at the forefront of Hellenistic education in Egypt in all its stages, including the first writing exercises.42 An author who received a systematic Greek education would easily have been inspired by certain Homeric verses to fill these gaps in his story, even if he was not personally acquainted with the practical side of Greek mantics. Whatever the reason for the absence of a real challenge to the theology underlying Greek omens,43 the author certainly differed from Pseudo-Aristeas, his older contemporary, who took great pains to undermine the theological foundations of gentile practices mentioned in his book.

Hans Lewy, in his endeavors to prove the authenticity of the treatise, pointed to a number of references that in his view proved that the author was well acquainted with Greek classical and contemporary literature and trends.44 This has generally been accepted, even by scholars who deny authenticity, and has led them to describe the author as a Hellenistic Jew. It has been shown above that Lewy was mistaken in describing the characterization of the Jewish individuals in the book as typically Greek. Of the other features that have been taken to indicate a broad knowledge of Greek culture, some are known from Jewish literary tradition, while others were commonplace and conspicuous in a Hellenistic city and the Ptolemaic kingdom. Two references were also influenced by Hecataeus's Jewish excursus, a knowledge of which by a Diaspora Jew is only natural and does not indicate that he had an extensive Greek education.

The philanthropia attributed to Ptolemy I (Ap. I.186) indeed appears in Hellenistic literature as one of the basic notions of ideal kingship,45

but this does not prove direct acquaintance with Greek political writing. The term was common in the koine and recurs in Hellenistic documents,46 as well as in Jewish Hellenistic literature,47 including Pseudo-Aristeas (paras. 208, 265, 271), which may well have been known to the author,48 and even in Ill Maccabees (3.18), which was extremely hostile to the pagan world and its culture.49

According to the Hezekiah story, the High Priest "possessed in writing their settling [katoikesis ] and politeia " (Ap. I.189). Chapter VI.4 will discuss what is actually meant in this context by katoikesis and politeia. 50 But whatever the author had in mind, he was influenced by similar terms used by Hecataeus himself in his Jewish excursus (Diod. XL.3.3),51 and by their current and even daily use in Ptolemaic Egypt. The influence of the Hecataeus excursus also appears in the passage on the large Jewish population (Ap. I.197; cf. Diod. XL.3.8).52 In addition, it simply records the demographic pressures in the Judean Hills at the time of the first Hasmoneans,53 as well as the first precept of the Pentateuch. It is not necessarily meant, as might be argued, to be an antithesis to the old Greek practice of infanticide (ekthesis ).54

The account of Jerusalem contains two details that were thought to have been influenced by Greek literary models:55 the city is described as "most beautiful" (Ap. I.196), and the Temple is said to be located

"nearly in the center of the city" (I.198), while in fact it was built on the northeastern hill. However, the beauty of the city and its surroundings are lauded in the celebrated verses of Psalm 48, and could well have been reported by pilgrims from the Egyptian Diaspora. Coming from a flat land, they would certainly have been impressed by the hilly surroundings of the city. As for the location of the Temple, I have already mentioned that the Temple is not said to have been "in the center" as in a number of Greek utopian and philosophical works, but—significantly—"nearly in the center," and that this description accords with the topography of Alexandria.56

With regard to the report on the Temple, it has been argued that it is based on stereotypical temple accounts found in Hellenistic literature. Lewy tried to prove this by a comparison with Euhemerus's imaginary description of the Panchaean temple (preserved in Diod. V.42.6-44.5, VI.1.6).57 However, there is no similarity whatsoever between the two accounts, neither in structure nor in detail.58 A note that closes the report of the Jerusalem Temple has also been quoted as reflecting acquaintance with the "characteristics of a Greek temple":59 Pseudo-Hecataeus states that in the Jewish Temple there are "no statue, nor any votive offerings, and absolutely no plants, resembling neither a grove nor anything similar" (Ap. I.199). However, the predominance of all these in Greek (and Egyptian) temples could not have escaped the notice of Jewish inhabitants in Egypt and in a mixed Greek polis.60

Hans Lewy tried to trace typically Greek features even in the Mosollamus story (I.201-4). That Mosollamus's characterization is not typically Greek, and that the author was ignorant of the theological background, terminology, and practices of Greek divination has been shown above. Lewy's additional argument, that the literary features of the story disclose the direct influence of Greek tragedy,61 is also unwarranted.

Lewy seems to have indicated as an influence the anecdote about Diogenes the Cynic ridiculing a seer,62 but this must be rejected: it is narrated in a fictitious epistle written in the first century B.C. 63 At the same time, although it may have been quite a popular motif, I would not rule out the possibility that the author drew some inspiration from one of Aesop's fables containing a similar moral.64 Fables were, in any case, elementary reading and composition material in Greek education.65

Finally, the linguistic and stylistic quality of the fragments should be examined. The very use of the Greek language is in itself no evidence: Demetrius the chronographer (second half of the third century B.C. ), who wrote a stylistically dull and poor account of Jewish history, certainly does not belong in the same category as Pseudo-Aristeas, Jason of Cyrene, or Aristobulus. The same applies to Eupolemus, whose Greek is rightly characterized as "pompous, crude, and poor," and tending to Hebraic structure.66 The Greek of Pseudo-Hecataeus can be evaluated only on the basis of the passages quoted in direct speech, mainly the two longest and most complete fragments, the account of Jerusalem and the Temple (I.197-99) and the Mosollamus story (I.201-4). This does not provide much material, but the general features are quite clear.

The vocabulary by and large lives up to the norms of the contemporary literary koine . The grammar is, however, less satisfactory; there are a number of instances of grammatical awkwardness. To be on the safe side, here are a few examples just from the Mosollamus episode:

1. Ap. I.201,

2. I.201,

3. I.201,

4. I.204,

The style of the fragments is an odd mixture: the geographic fragment is written in a fluent paratactic style, using simple sentences without subordinate clauses. It resembles the traditional style of itinerary literature. The style of the Mosollamus story is different and syntactically rather diverse: the introduction (I.201) comprises a long, complicated period, employing extended clauses, a common rhetorical device. The episode itself (202-4), which should have been recounted in an entertaining and exciting manner, is told in a monotonous and boring style, two paragraphs (202-4a) sounding especially cumbersome. They contain a cluster of ten participial constructions (including seven genitive absolutes). The use of many participles can be expected in an epitome , and may occur in a historical narrative that tries to compress years and events, but the text is not an abbreviation, since it records in great detail occurrences that took place within a very short time, and even includes an imaginary dialogue. The unusual frequency of the participial forms, the change of the cases, and particularly the recurring changes of subject, make the sentences extremely strained. The style of these paragraphs recalls that of a grammatikos trying to summarize the plot of a tragedy or the like. Only the dialogue between Mosollamus and the seer (203-4) is of a much higher literary quality, using a fluent and simple "periodic" style. Josephus clearly did not rephrase the narrative part of the episode. This is not his style, even when abbreviating accounts of other authors. Moreover, it was pointed out above that Josephus himself stresses that the text of the episode is a quotation (200, 201); that subsequently referring the reader to the treatise itself (205), he must have striven to be accurate; and that the contents of the paragraphs show that they are not an abbreviation.70

This mixing of styles and standards is occasionally also discernible in the employment of expressions and phrases: thus, on the one hand, the author three times uses, in a complimentary context, the word

One must conclude that the author imitated various (even extremely different) styles. These were known to him from historical, geographical, rhetorical, and "grammatical" literature. While having attained some proficiency in these styles, he was obviously no very gifted writer, employing them inconsistently, and at least once not in the right context. The impression is of an author who had received tutoring in the primary subjects of Greek education, but by no means comprehensively. His education did not include, for example, basic poetical texts, and it certainly did not extend to philosophical literature. Consequently the overall effect is only partly satisfactory.

The standard of vocabulary and the very ability to employ a variety of styles should not mislead us in evaluating the author's degree of Hellenization. Even without attending the educational system of the gymnasium, linguistically talented orientals who were brought up using their mother tongue would have been capable of attaining a sufficient degree of proficiency to express themselves in a reasonable Greek style after taking private tuition or the like. The Greek of Pseudo-Hecataeus is far superior to that of Berossus the Babylonian,72 but not to that of Manetho.73 These two, who served in oriental temples at the beginning of the Hellenistic period, had fewer opportunities to communicate with Greeks and practice their language than would a Jew from Alexandria (or even from the rest of Egypt) of the late second or early first century B.C. For determining the position of the author in relation to the cultural and religious divisions within the Jewish community, it is important to stress that his Greek is less impressive, certainly less sophisticated (not necessarily always

less accurate), than that of a number of Jewish Hellenistic authors: Aristobulus and Artaphanus in earlier generations, Pseudo-Aristeas in his time,74 and Jason of Cyrene, who may have written his great work in those years; not to mention later Jewish authors such as Philo, or the authors of the Wisdom of Solomon,75 IV Maccabees, and Joseph and Asenath. A similar level of familiarity with Greek language and culture (though dissimilar in style) is evinced in III Maccabees.76

3. Jewish Education

Just as the author's Hellenistic education has been overestimated, the breadth of his Jewish education has not yet been properly appreciated.77 This appears from the references to Jewish ritual practices. Some of them allude to the priests; others to the Temple. With regard to the priests we have established above the accuracy of the statements about their abstention from wine in the Temple and their indulgence in rituals of purification "night and day" (Ap. I.199).78 To these must be added the reference to the tithes. The author states that the priests receive "the tithe of the produce" (I.188), while according to the Pentateuch tithes were to be given to the Levites (Num. 18.21, 24). The sentence has been much discussed, and scholars have tried to apply it to the controversy over the authenticity of the book.79 Taken by itself, it can support neither of the two opposing views.80 The conclusion that the book was written in the time of the Hasmonean kingdom puts the sentence in the right perspective: it records the practice of the Hasmoneans, which

was contrary to the rules of the Pentateuch. The new practice may already have been introduced before the Hasmonean period, but this cannot be proved. It can only be said with certainty that the Hasmonean rulers insisted on compliance with the new practice and employed tough administrative measures to enforce it.81 We thus see that in this case Pseudo-Hecataeus follows the current practice of his age, and not the old written law.

The number attributed to the Jewish priests (Ap . I.188) also deserves attention in this context, although it is irrelevant to the question of the author's education. Pseudo-Hecataeus states: "All the Jewish priests who receive the tithe of the produce and administer public matters number at most about one thousand five hundred." This estimate considerably falls short of the number of priests at the time of the Restoration (Ezra 2.36-38). It has therefore been assumed that the figure approximately reflects the number of the Jerusalem priests alone (cf. Neh. 11.10-14; I Chron. 9.13).82 The statement, however, refers to "all the priests." As the sentence qualifies the priests as those who are engaged in public matters, it behooves us to accept the alternative that Pseudo-Hecataeus gives only the number of the priests who were occupied in public administration.83 This interpretation gains support from the context: the sentence does not appear in the framework of the account of ritual duties of the priests and the Temple, but follows the passage that elaborates on the leadership and administrative skills of Hezekiah the High Priest (Ap . I.187). The number quoted cannot be verified, but integration of such a number of priests in the royal administration of the Hasmoneans in the generation of Pseudo-Hecataeus does make sense, especially in view of the pro-Sadducean policy of Alexander Jannaeus and his father, John Hyrcanus, in his last years.

The author's knowledge is rather impressive when referring to cult objects of the Temple. Two points deserve attention. First, his version does not contain any allegorical interpretation or any Hellenistic feature. This stands in sharp contrast to Philo, Pseudo-Aristeas, and Eupolemus, the Jewish Hellenistic authors who elaborate on the Temple's

cult objects.84 Second, the fragment basically accords with the available information about cult objects of the Second Temple. They partially differed from those known from the time of the First Temple. This shows that the author drew his information not from the Pentateuch or the Books of Kings, but from contemporary reports.

His account opens with the stone altar. According to Pseudo-Hecataeus it was made of unhewn stones, placed outside the main building, and measured "twenty cubits long and ten cubits high" (I.198). At the time of the First Temple there were stone altars only in the provinces. The offering altar in the Tabernacle and the First Temple was made of bronze. It was replaced in the visionary temple of Ezekiel and at the time of the Second Temple by a stone altar.85 The altar was placed near the entrance to the shrine (Jos. Bell . V.225; Philo, Spec. Leg . I.274). The construction of this altar of unhewn stones, based on the Torah instructions for provincial stone altars (Exod. 20.25; cf. Deut. 27.5-6),86 is known from the period before and after the defilement of the Temple by Antiochus IV (I Macc. 4.47; Josephus, loc. cit. ; Philo, loc. cit. ; Middot 3.4).

No less instructive are the measurements quoted by Pseudo-Hecataeus. They equal those of the bronze altar, its predecessor, built by Solomon, as listed by II Chronicles (4.1), and differ from both the much smaller bronze altar of the Tabernacle (Exod. 27.1) and the visionary altar of Ezekiel (43.13-17). According to Josephus, the stone altar of the Herodian Temple measured 50 x 50 x 15 cubits (Bell . V.225), but the Mishna gives other measurements: for the lower base, 32 x 32; and for the upper surface, 24 x 24 (Middot 3.1). The latter information, which originated from a knowledgeable eyewitness,87 is much more detailed and elaborate, and may therefore be more accurate. As far as the pre-Herodian stone altar is concerned, the only direct piece of

information that may be relevant88 is the number, 20, that survived in a fragmentary account of the stone altar in one of the Qumran Aramaic scrolls.89 In addition to that, the author of the Books of Chronicles may well have based the measurements of Solomon's bronze altar on the size of the stone offering altar of his time, in the late fifth century, as he frequently does when his source, the Books of Kings, does not contain the necessary information.90 It seems probable, therefore, that Pseudo-Hecataeus indeed properly recorded the measurements of the stone altar of his time. That he relied on the information given in Chronicles is a less acceptable possibility: readership of this book was always rather limited. Philo, for instance, hardly ever refers to any biblical book outside the Pentateuch.91

The next item is a golden altar, located in "a great edifice" (Ap . I.198). The reference is to the golden incense altar (Exod. 30.1-10) that was placed inside the Temple.92 The existence of this altar, known from Philo and Palestinian Second Temple sources,93 is not recorded by Pseudo-Aristeas, who was familiar with Jewish religious practices and elaborates on the Temple and its objects. It is noteworthy that even the Mishnaic

tractate Middot, devoted to the Temple, fails to mention the golden altar. Only Mishna Hagiga (3.8) alludes to it.

Together with the golden altar, the author lists the celebrated golden lamp, which is mentioned by many Jewish and gentile sources. This is followed by the statement that the gold of these two objects weighed two talents (Ap . I.198). The lamp of the Tabernacle is said to have weighed one talent (Exod. 25.38-39), but there is no indication as to the weight of the gold of the incense altar. Pseudo-Hecataeus may have conjectured or known that the weight of the gold cover of the altar was equal to that of the lamp. At the same time I would not rule out the possibility that the original text referred only to the weight of the lamp. The Temple Scroll indeed states that the lamp, together with its various utensils, weighed two talents (col. IX, line 11). This may be an interpretation of the biblical verse,94 but it can also accord with the real weight of the lamp and its utensils at the time of the Second Temple.

The allusion to the incense altar and the lamp ends with the sentence "Upon these [

Following the account of the main objects of the sanctuary, the author stresses that there were no statues, votive offerings, plants, or grove in the Temple (Ap . I.199).That statues were forbidden everywhere in the Temple does not require references, and an explicit prohibition on planting trees within the Temple precincts is known from the Pentateuch (Deut. 16.21) and seems to have been strictly

observed.97 The reference to votive offerings requires more elaboration. Oriental and Greek temples abounded with these objects. They were carefully registered in official lists, some of which have come down to us.98 For a monotheistic religion, which also rejected material representation of the divine, votive offerings must have presented an obvious threat. Though the Pentateuch regulates only dedications to the Temple treasury (Lev. 27.1-8, 16-24, 28), there is no explicit prohibition on the public display of votive offerings. On the contrary, Moses is said to have constructed a bronze serpent (Num. 21.8-9), which indeed was soon sanctified and acquired a cult of its own. There is sufficient evidence that votive offerings were not entirely absent from the two Temples, but the impression is that there were not many of them, nothing similar to the numbers found in pagan temples.

At the time of the First Temple we read only of the bronze serpent, which was finally destroyed by King Hezekiah (II Kings 18.4). The weapons of King David were also placed in the Temple (II Kings 11.10; cf. I Sam. 21.9). One may assume that at least during the time of the kings who introduced pagan cults into Jerusalem and the Temple, greater numbers of votive offerings were to be seen.

The only extant piece of information about votive offerings in then pre-Herodian Second Temple refers to "crowns" (I Macc. 1.21-22, 4.57).99 They were placed there already at the time of the Jewish Restoration (Zech. 6.9-15, Middot 3.8). As they are the only items mentioned besides the ordinary Temple cult vessels later plundered by Antiochus IV, it may be that there were no other costly votive offerings in the Temple. If this is correct, it indicates that in the wake of the increasing monotheistic strictness at the time of the Restoration there was opposition to the display of votive offerings in the Temple. The crowns may have been regarded as a special case since they symbolized

the authority of the High Priest as well as hopes for the return of the Davidic dynasty.100 At the same time, allowance must be made for the possibility that the paucity of references to votive offerings in the pre-Herodian Temple is only accidental.101

Much more information about votive offerings is available for the Herodian Temple. A huge golden vine was located at the entrance (Jos. Ant . XV.394-95, Bell . V.210-12; Tac. Hist . V.5), and small private donations were placed on it (Middot 3.8). The vine seems to have symbolized first and foremost the Jewish nation.102 A golden chain donated by Agrippa I was hung in the forecourt of the Temple (Jos. Ant . XIX.294). and the above-mentioned crowns were displayed inside the shrine. The presence of votive offerings in the Temple is also explicitly mentioned in the New Testament (Luke 21.5).103 Phil, who mentions the prohibition on trees within the precincts of the Temple, does not refer to the question of votive offerings, although he endeavors to offer an allegorical explanation for the bronze serpent.104

The statement in Pseudo-Hecataeus, which refers to the pre-Herodian Temple, may then be basically correct, or it may reflect a strict sectarian approach that opposed votive offerings. The danger of votive offerings' tending to acquire a cult of their own was certainly well known to Diaspora Jews. The wish to avoid any resemblance between Jewish and gentile cults is evident in the statement under discussion. Moreover, it may well be that the author wished to express a negative opinion about the practice of the Oniad temple in Leontopolis. Josephus stresses that Onias IV decorated his temple with votive offerings (Bell . VII.428). In a letter said to have been sent by Onias IV to Ptolemy VI, asking for permission to build a temple in Leontopolis, the site chosen for the temple is praised for being "most suitable, ... full of [a variety of] colorful trees" (Jos. Ant . XIII.66). Whether the letter is authentic or not, it may indicate that the trees were later left in the precinct of the temple. If this is true, the reference to the absence of trees in the Jerusalem Temple is also meant to deplore the practice in Leontopolis.

In view of the author's relatively abundant knowledge about the Temple, the absence from the list of the golden table ("show-bread table"), one of its three most celebrated cult objects (Jos. Bell . V.216, Menahot 11.5),105 is rather surprising.106 I would venture to guess that he was reluctant to refer to the golden table because of the detailed (and imaginary) account by Pseudo-Aristeas, his older contemporary, about its design, construction, and decoration by the artisans of Ptolemy II (paras. 51-72). Pseudo-Hecataeus, who was strongly against gentile influence in religious matters, must have been uneasy both about the role of a Ptolemaic king and workmen in constructing one of the holiest objects of the Jewish Temple and about its sources of inspiration in pagan art, no matter which table was in fact used in his time.107 He may have felt that listing the table

would also require some reference to the story circulated among Egyptian Jews concerning its origin, and therefore preferred to omit it altogether.

Another omission can enhance our appreciation of the author's knowledge of the Temple in his day. He does not mention the Ark of the Covenant. The ark played a central role in the Tabernacle and the First Temple, but disappeared at the time of the Babylonian exile and was not replaced in the Second Temple (Sekalim 6.1; cf. Jos. Bell . V.215-21). We see again that Pseudo-Hecataeus did not rely uncritically on the Bible, but based his information on up-to-date knowledge.

The author's acquaintance with Jewish traditions and cult, on the one hand, and his mediocre Greek style and ignorance of "Greek wisdom" and mantic practices, on the other, naturally raise the question of his mother tongue. Analysis of two "sensitive" cult terms suggests that Pseudo-Hecataeus used the Hebrew original of the Holy Scriptures and not the Greek translation. Thus he calls the temple altar bomos (Ap . I.198) after applying the same term to pagan altars (I.193). In the Septuagint the word designates only gentile altars. Wishing to distinguish the latter from the legitimate altars of the Jewish God, the translators invented the term thysiasterion for the Temple altars. They were even careful to differentiate between pagan altars and the "illegal" Israelite altars (bamot in Hebrew) located in the provinces, which were so deplored by the Books of Kings, and consistently refrained from employing the Greek bomoi (despite the obvious similarity with the Hebrew), always using the literal translation hypsela .108 The other case is the word neos , which is used by Pseudo-Hecataeus to designate gentile temples (I.193),109 while the

Septuagint reserves it for the Jewish Temple alone (also in the forms naos and naios ).110

The terminology of the Septuagint influenced early Jewish Hellenistic authors like Pseudo-Aristeas and Jason of Cyrene, who applied only naos , and even the Jewish neologism thysiasterion , to the Jerusalem Temple and altar, respectively, though they wrote an idiomatic and sophisticated Greek and the former even pretended to be a gentile author.111 As Pseudo-Hecataeus demonstrates extreme zealousness against pagan altars and temples and devotion toward the Jewish faith and cult, one cannot believe that he had been brought up on the Septuagint or that he used it regularly. The concurrent use of identical Greek terms for the Jewish and pagan cults would have imposed difficulties mainly in respect to religious services in synagogues. The conclusion is therefore that Pseudo-Hecataeus was brought up on the Hebrew Bible, and used it in religious ceremonies and for study and reference. He would not have felt the need to differentiate in Greek between Jewish and pagan altars and temples, and would have had no theological inhibitions on this point. It is, however, difficult to affirm that Hebrew was his mother tongue or the language he used daily at home.

4. The Religious Division of Egyptian Jewry and the Author's Affiliation

The conclusions about the author's Greek and Jewish education, together with a number of explicit statements in the fragments, make

possible a reconstruction of the religious-cultural position of this Egyptian Jew. The following points are essential:

1. Pseudo-Hecataeus did not have any knowledge of Greek philosophy.

2. He does not apply the Greek cultural and literary heritage when interpreting Jewish traditions.

3. The author's acquaintance with Greek culture and customs is rather superficial.

4. There is no trace of allegorical or symbolical interpretation of the Pentateuch.

5. The Hebrew Bible is his book of study and reference, not the Greek Septuagint.

6. He demonstrates a relatively good knowledge of the cult of the Jerusalem Temple.

7. His book expresses absolute loyalty to the Jewish faith and its religious practices, even to the extent of expressing a readiness to undergo persecution and martyrdom.

8. He advocates extreme intolerance toward pagan cults and even physical violence against their cult objects and places of worship.

In order to realize the significance of these points, it is worth comparing him briefly with Philo Judaeus, the most eloquent and prominent spokesman of Hellenistic Judaism. With regard to points 1-5, Philo differs entirely from Pseudo-Hecataeus. Points 6 and 7 are well in line with Philo's writings. Point 8 stands in sharp contrast to recurring statements by Philo.112 Points 1, 2, and 4 are known to have been matters of contention within the Jewish community of Alexandria. These contrasts and parallels can guide us in locating Pseudo-Hecataeus among the various religious streams and groups of Egyptian Jewry.

The internal religious division of Egyptian Jewry appears from indications and a number of explicit references that have come down to us, mainly in Philo's works, Pseudo-Aristeas, III Maccabees, and the Wisdom of Solomon. They can be supplemented by statements and views expressed in other books and literary fragments of the Egyptian Jewish community, as well as by archaeological findings. It should,

however, be stressed that the precise dating of these sources and the question of the integrity of certain literary works impose considerable difficulties. Most of these are to be dated to the first century A.D. , a number of generations after the composition of Pseudo-Hecataeus.

There is still no comprehensive study of the subject. Some important papers have been devoted to certain aspects,113 and others are referred to in the numerous studies on Jewish Hellenistic literature (mainly on Philo),114 or on the history of the community and its external struggles.115 This is not enough: essential questions have not been discussed, or the evidence offered has been unsatisfactory.116 However, despite the difficulties connected with the sources and the lacunae in research, a general picture can be sketched of the main streams and the characteristics of certain religious groups belonging to Egyptian Jewry. As the subject deserves a comprehensive study, which cannot be made within the framework of this book, I shall try to avoid making references to information and conclusions that are well known, and shall refrain from technical discussions that cannot significantly change the general picture. At the same time, it must be admitted that not all the statements made in this survey are supported by firm textual evidence. Some are based rather on general impressions and historical deductions.

Scholars usually refer to three main streams among the Jews of Hellenistic Egypt: conservatives, allegorists, and nonpracticing Jews. They are also named "orthodox" (or "traditionalists," "literalists"), "Hellenistic Jews" (or "liberals"), and "atheists" (or "assimilators"), respectively. To these should be added another stream (or rather trend): the "syncretists."117 Each of these streams was divided into groups and

subgroups. The "syncretists" and the different nonpracticing groups ("Yore Kippur Jews," apostates, hedonists, assimilators, atheists, etc.) do not concern us in this context. I shall also skip over the extreme conservative (or "orthodox") group and the extreme groups of allegorists such as the antinomians, on the one hand, and the therapeutai , who sought solitude and kept strictly to the religious precepts, on the other In order to locate the author of Pseudo-Hecataeus among the religious divisions of Egyptian Jewry, we must concentrate our attention on the moderate allegorists and on two conservative groups, the "moderates" and the "progressives."118

It should be stressed that we are still puzzled about certain essential questions, and there is some uncertainty in the definitions suggested for the various groups. The boundaries between them were not always clear-cut, and they were not homogeneous. People who belonged to one group could also show features characteristic of the other groups. There were also splinter groups. This was reflected in the communal organization. It is recorded that there were many synagogues in Alexandria (Philo, Leg. ad Gaium 132; cf. Spec. Leg . II.62), each serving as a community center.119 As was customary in later generations, membership in a synagogue was determined first and foremost by a person's affiliation to a religious subgroup, and only secondarily by socioeconomic class and place of residence.120

The many synagogues in Alexandria represented the streams, groups, and subgroups.

The moderate allegorists are considered to have been the most important and distinguished group among the Jews in Egypt. Their great contribution to literature, especially the copious works by Philo that have been preserved, is mainly responsible for this evaluation. In contrast, only a few writings of their opponents have reached us, and they are of lesser merit. For this reason many scholars tend to identify the moderate allegorists with Alexandrian Jewry by and large, and unjustifiably regard them as the numerically dominant group among the Jews of the community.

The most characteristic feature of the moderate allegorists was their language of religious study and cult: the Pentateuch was read in synagogues in the Greek versions of the Septuagint. Greek was also the liturgical language of the synagogue, used in prayer, biblical exegesis, and sermons. The allegorists even argued for a divine inspiration and special sanctity of the Septuagint and its advantages over Hebrew copies of the Pentateuch that were available in Alexandria (Pseudo-Aristeas 30;121 Philo, Vit. Mos . II.37-40). Their mother tongue and literary language was Greek. For most of them this was their only language, and even the few who had knowledge of Hebrew did not all use it correctly.

The allegorists acquired a comprehensive knowledge of Greek culture. This included the basic disciplines of the Hellenistic curriculum (grammar, dialectics, geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and music),122 and beyond these, first and foremost, philosophy. Such a Jew had broad acquaintance with Greek literature from Homer onwards. Consequently he was at home with both Greek mythology and Greek philosophical writings. His practical training and reading provided him with an adequate style and vocabulary.

The allegorists employed their acquaintance with Greek tradition (particularly with Greek philosophy) in the interpretation of the Holy

Scriptures. Their explanations filled the Pentateuch with new meanings and created a fusion between the two cultures. The purpose of this was to make the old tradition more acceptable to contemporary Jews so as to prevent assimilation, while at the same time helping Jews to integrate themselves into the life of Hellenistic society. Certain Jewish Hellenistic authors, like Philo, seem to have believed sincerely that this was theologically the right method and that they thus correctly served the divine. In order to reach their goal, the allegorists applied the interpretive methods customary in the Greek world that were so favored by the interpreters of Homer Philo was not the first Jewish allegorist, and he mentions interpreters who preceded him.123 The allegorical interpretation supplemented the literal meanings of Pentateuch verses with new and entirely different meanings. Among the allegorists there were authors who applied more moderate methods of interpretation, such as Aristobulus the philosopher (second century B.C. ), who preferred the "metaphorical explanations" the interpretation mainly of biblical anthropomorphisms as metaphors, and the author of Pseudo-Aristean who offers symbolistic explanations for certain precepts without neglecting their literal meanings.124 The name "allegorists," which employed to designate this stream, is thus somewhat misleading. At the same time it may well be that in the first century A.D. , in the wake of Philo's monumental contribution, the allegorical interpretation became the dominant method among Jews who were trying to build a bridge between Judaism and Hellenism.

Alongside their "flexible" method of interpretation, the moderate allegorists adhered to the main theological principles of Second-Temp-Judaism. They invested much effort in refuting pagan beliefs, including the more enlightened versions like the Euhemeristic interpretation and the Stoic religious conception.125 Nevertheless they refrained from advocating violence, both physical and verbal (apart from reference to the Egyptian animal cult and the mysteries), and explicitly warned against publicly insulting and ridiculing pagan beliefs and cults.126 Philo

was even uneasy about the violent conquest of Canaan by the Israelites and its "purification," and therefore explained that the "Syrian and Phoenician" natives had left their lands to the Israelites of their own free will, out of respect and reverence for the Israelites' spiritual superiority (Hyp. ap . Eus. PE VIII.6.6-7).

As for the practical precepts, we are less certain. At least Philo strictly adhered to the precepts and treated the trivial commandments with as much care as the cardinal ones.127 There is no doubt that the moderate allegorists observed the basic religious practices such as Sabbath, holidays, circumcision, and dietary laws. However, it may be that others (like mezuzah, fringes, and tefillin)128 were neglected by some of them. Certain scholars think that the allegorists had a good knowledge of their Jewish past and that they were acquainted with Palestinian halachic and midrashic traditions.129 The nature of their halachic system is a matter of controversy: though there is no doubt that they were influenced by Palestinian Pharisees as well as Sadducees, it seems that they developed certain local practices of their own.

The moderate allegorists were well integrated into the economic systems and administration of Hellenistic Egypt, and some of them held senior positions in the government. A man such as Philo attended the theater, chariot races, and boxing and wrestling competitions.130 If one can judge from Pseudo-Aristeas, the "allegorists" did not refrain from dining in the company of gentiles and participated in symposia after taking the necessary precautions with regard to kosher food.131 The range of their occupations is not known, but there are reasons to

believe that they belonged to the upper class.132 The heavy expenses involved in acquiring a comprehensive Greek education support this assumption. It is hard, therefore, to think that the allegorists comprised a majority in the Jewish community of Alexandria, and they certainly did not in the country as a whole. At the same time, it seems that the socioeconomic status of the allegorists, as well as their relations with the governments, made them the most influential group in the community, to an extent greatly disproportionate with their numbers. Good examples of this are Philo himself and his brother Alexander, the rich customs agent, who both served as leaders of the Alexandrian community.

Despite the relatively abundant information scattered throughout Philo's writings on pedagogical matters, we are in the dark with regard to the institutional framework in which his group (and Egyptian Jews by and large) received their Greek and Jewish educations.133 The regular educational institution in Hellenistic cities was the gymnasium, or rather the ephebeion , the gymnasium for adolescents. As pagan cult occupied an important role in the life of the gymnasium, a number of scholars find it difficult to believe that Jews who strictly adhered to Jewish beliefs and precepts sent their children to the gymnasium. They think, therefore, that the Jewish community had its own institutions for Greek education, or that this education was acquired through private tutoring. As for Jewish education, it is thought that it was mainly based on attendance in the synagogue for many hours on the Sabbath, where the Torah was publicly read and interpreted and sermons were delivered (Philo, Hyp. ap . Eus. PE VIII.7.12-13; Spec. Leg . II.62). One scholar has suggested that a day school was operated in the synagogue. Private tutors and the transmission of traditions from fathers to sons certainly also played an important role in providing Jewish education. It seems that among the private tutors and preachers there were also Palestinian Jews.134

The characteristics of the moderate allegorists help us to understand the positions of the "moderate" and "progressive" conservatives.135 The information available on the conservative stream is quite scant in comparison with the material on the allegorsts. The sources are mainly casual references by opponents like Philo and Pseudo-Aristeas. These references find proper illustration in III Maccabees, which was probably written by a moderate conservative,136 and the Wisdom of Solomon, which could be attributed to the "progressive" conservatives.

The moderate conservatives rejected the use of the Septuagint in the synagogue. They read and studied the Pentateuch in its original Hebrew, as they did prayers that consisted of selected passages from the Holy Scriptures. We do not know whether interpretation and preaching in their synagogues was also done in Hebrew. It may well be that there was no uniformity of practice. In the synagogues of recent immigrants from Palestine, however, Hebrew was surely the dominant language.

Just as they opposed the use of the Septuagint, the moderate conservatives also rejected the allegoristic method. According to Philo, they adhered strictly to literal exegesis and even paid particular attention to every word and letter.137 This approach, differing as it did from that of the allegorists, accorded with the methods of the Sadducees and Pharisees alike. Groups and individuals who belonged to these two trends immigrated to Egypt from Palestine during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. The constant flow of traffic between the Holy Land and the Diaspora also helped to spread the influence of these major trends in Egypt. The moderate conservatives in Egypt may also have been divided between Sadducees and Pharisees, although there is no evidence to that effect. It is only natural that both subgroups held strictly to the practical precepts, presumably more than the moderate allegorists did.

The moderate conservatives not only rejected the allegorical method of interpretation; they also refrained from any attempt to explain Jewish faith and practices according to conceptions and ideas taken from the

Greek heritage. Moreover, they avoided the study of philosophy, which occupied a major role in the thinking of the allegorists. Philosophy was not included, as a matter of principle, among the disciplines studied by the moderate conservatives. It has to be borne in mind that philosophy was not one of the basic disciplines of the Hellenistic curriculum, being left to the discretion of the more talented students who had the proper intellectual abilities and the interest to pursue it after graduation.138

However, even the study of the basic Greek disciplines posed great difficulties for the moderate conservatives. The Homeric poems, which were the cornerstone of Greek education even in the first stages of learning to read and write, contained too much mythology and paganism to be suitable for their children in their formative years. It seems possible that the Greek curriculum was modified for the use of these conservatives. They may have preferred as reading material historical narratives, geographical and ethnographical works, and rhetoric as opposed to poetry. This was also more practical for everyday needs in Hellenistic Egypt. An examination of III Maccabees reveals that the author had a reasonable knowledge of Greek prose, but there is no sign that his education had included philosophy, poetry, or mythology.139

There is no possibility of knowing how these Jews acquired their Greek education—certainly not in the Hellenistic gymnasium. The various possibilities mentioned above for the Jewish education of the allegorists apply also to the conservatives. The need to study Hebrew probably required an additional framework for Jewish studies.

An important element of the conservatives were people who arrived as refugees and immigrants from the Holy Land in the Seleucid and Hasmonean periods, when there was already a flourishing Jewish community in Egypt. Just to mention a few: Onias IV and his family escaped to Egypt in the time of the religious persecutions and founded the temple in Leontopolis;140 Pharisee sages who fled from Alexander Jannaeus found refuge in Alexandria;141 the grandson of Ben Sira emigrated to

Egypt. This last then translated the book of his grandfather into Greek, but found it necessary to express in the prologue his reservations about the Greek translations of the Bible; a priest named Dositheus, together with two others, arrived from Palestine in 77 B.C. and brought with him a Greek translation of the Esther Scroll. The translation itself had been made by a Jerusalem Jew.142

As appears from III Maccabees and the Wisdom of Solomon, the socioeconomic status of the conservatives, or at least of a substantial proportion of them, was lower than that of the allegorists.143 This also makes sense in view of the expenses involved in acquiring a comprehensive Greek education and the number of recent immigrants among the conservatives. Nevertheless, among these immigrants were also to be found people like the Oniads, who soon found ways of integrating themselves into the Ptolemaic system, mainly as senior and influential army commanders; and it may well be that they brought their fortunes with them from Palestine. We do not know to what extent the conservatives adopted Greek manners, clothing, and the like in everyday life and in their contacts with gentiles.

As was said above, the convictions of the "progressive" conservatives can be inferred from the pseudepigraphic Wisdom of Solomon. They differed from the moderate conservatives mainly in their favorable attitude toward Greek philosophy and its application to the understanding of Jewish theological principles. Similar contrasts in the attitudes of orthodox groups toward philosophy are well known from later periods in Jewish history, inter alia from Egypt itself in the Middle Ages. It also seems that the Greek education of the progressive conservatives was more comprehensive and included poetic-mythological literature. In addition, they were well acquainted with the Septuagint and used it in their writings, if not for services in the synagogue.144 On the other hand, they shared the opposition of the moderate conservatives to allegorical interpretation, their strict fulfillment of everyday precepts, and their aggressive attitude toward paganism.

The author of the Wisdom of Solomon explicitly lists philosophy among the disciplines he studied (7.17), and his book abounds in philosophical terminology, as well as in philosophical arguments and ways of thinking.145 Philosophy is applied by him mainly to the explanation of the Creation and the meaning and role of Wisdom as described in Proverbs and Job. In his list of the Greek disciplines, in addition to philosophy he mentions astronomy, dialectic, psychology, zoology, and botany (7.17-20). He demonstrates a good knowledge of Homer and Greek tragedy, and integrates mythological terms into his verses.146 The Holy Scriptures are known to him from the Septuagint, which he uses even in cases where it differs considerably from the Hebrew original.147

As opposed to all these, there are features shared by the author and the moderate conservatives that distinguish him from the allegorists. He usually refrains from applying philosophy to the interpretation of the Pentateuch, and reserves it for the interpretation of Wisdom. Moreover, he avoids allegorical interpretations, despite the many quotations and references to historical events in his book and his detailed midrashic version of the Ten Plagues of Egypt. The few symbolic interpretations he makes148 do not exclude him from the camp of the literalists. He uses strong expressions, recording in detail the harsh treatment of the poor by the rich of the community, the contempt of the latter for the Jewish faith and its practices, and their hedonistic and immoral way of life (chaps. 1-3). He insists on one's absolute duty to fulfill strictly the precepts of the Torah (e.g., 2.12, 6.10), and does not think it necessary to explain and justify them.

The attitude of the author toward Greek and Egyptian religions is very aggressive. He advocates all-out war against paganism (chaps. 2, 14). Like Pseudo-Aristeas and Philo, he criticizes the rationalization of the Greek gods. However, unlike them, he does this in an extremely intolerant way. Against the Stoics he employs insulting language, and against the Euhemerists he argues that the cult of the heroes and kings involved the practice of a number of moral crimes, including ritual murder and sexual perversion (13.1-9, 14.15). Moreover, in contrast

to Philo he praises the annihilation of paganism and of the peoples of Canaan by the Israelites and justifies these in much detail (12.3ff.). His aggressive campaign against paganism and his loyalty to the precepts of the Torah, on one hand, and the frequent use of mythological terms, on the other, find parallels in the Third Sibylline Book. Other noteworthy features of the latter book are the absence of allegorical interpretations and the stress on the need to help the poor. At least part of that book originated in the same circle that produced the Wisdom of Solomon (though in another generation).149

On the basis of the features of the three groups surveyed above, we can say that Pseudo-Hecataeus belonged to the moderate conservatives. He read and wrote Greek, and was acquainted with certain genres of the Greek literary corpus (historiography, ethnography, geography, rhetoric, and the grammarians), but the stylistic quality of his work does not rise to that of the allegorists'. He deliberately refrains from using Greek wisdom and culture to explain Jewish tradition, does not suggest any synthesis of Greek and Jewish culture, and adheres to the literal interpretation of the Scriptures. Furthermore, it seems that he did not have any philosophical education, and there are signs that he was not acquainted with Homer or later poets, at least not where the content was primarily religious or mythological. He studied the Torah only in its Hebrew original, and not in the versions of the Septuagint. It may well be that he belonged to a synagogue in which Hebrew was also the liturgical language.

Living in Hellenistic Egypt, Pseudo-Hecataeus was acquainted with basic Hellenistic practices. However, it seems that his direct contacts with Greek society did not include cultural relations. From the fragments it appears that contacts had to be limited to economic and state affairs alone. These contacts were necessary for everyday existence, and, moreover, they served the national goal that in his view justified the very residence of Jews in Egypt.150 The Greek language was a necessary instrument for maintaining contacts with the regime and the local population. At least part of the Greek literary corpus was an aid to acquiring the proper means of expression and gaining knowledge about the practical world of the ruling nation.

Pseudo-Hecataeus opposes any philosophico-theological dialogue with the Greek world and any possibility of profiting from its achievements. Pagan religions, their cult, practices, and beliefs, are portrayed by him as harmful superstitions. Nothing can be learned from them; there is no point in trying to understand them, and they deserve only mockery and disdain. The Jews must avoid them and, if possible (as in the Holy Land), annihilate them from the face of the earth. This justification of contemporary physical violence stands in sharp contrast to the view of the allegorists, who prohibit even verbal violence and insults. Pseudo-Hecataeus displays no semblance of elementary political sensitivity in his references to the customs and institutions of the state religion.

The celebrated statement by Pseudo-Aristeas according to which God "fenced us about with impregnable palisades and walls of iron, to the end that we should mingle in no way with any of the other nations" (para. 139) properly expresses the point of view of Pseudo-Hecataeus. In the case (and context) of Pseudo-Aristeas this sounds rather exaggerated and does not accord with the positions presented in his book.151 We can thus conclude that the author of Pseudo-Hecataeus was not a "Hellenistic Jew" in the strict sense. The term has been specifically reserved (and so it should remain) for the circles that created a synthesis between Hellenism and Judaism. Pseudo-Hecataeus can be listed in the category of Jewish Hellenistic literature only if the term designates merely language and place of composition.

1. Monograph or Excursus?

Josephus emphatically states that Hecataeus wrote a book that was devoted entirely to the subject of the Jews. He does this in three places. (a) In the preface to the quotations, Josephus contrasts Hecataeus with Clearchus, who had been quoted by him before. (He also implicitly contrasts him with other Greek authors quoted from Ap . I.161 onwards.) He states that while Clearchus mentioned the Jews only "in a digression" (

instructive note: "To those who want to learn more the book is readily available." (c) Farther on, Josephus notes that Hieronymus of Cardia, though he was the governor of Syria, did not mention the Jews at all, while Hecataeus "wrote a book about us" (I.214).2

A number of considerations rule out the possibility that Josephus exaggerated in describing an excursus as a monograph. The statement that Hecataeus wrote a book on the Jews would have aroused particular curiosity among his potential readers and a desire to check it. Against Apion was written for Greco-Roman intellectuals who had an interest (positive or negative) in the Jews, and for emperors, governors, and political personalities who had to decide on the status and rights of Jewish communities (mainly in Alexandria). Even casual readers who were not involved with the Jewish question would have been interested in information about the existence of an independent monograph by an author of Hecataeus's reputation. These readers could easily have ascertained whether or not such a book existed: they could have used bibliographical handbooks like those based on the Pinakes of Callimachus and later works. These handbooks provided data about all Greek books collected in the Library of Alexandria, such as the title, the author, a short biography, the opening words, the number of lines, and so forth.3 Guides of this sort were available in Roman public libraries, as well as in the two large libraries of Alexandria.4

Josephus would therefore have been careful in stating that Hecataeus wrote a book on the Jews, and that it was "readily available." Certainly he would have been even more cautious in advising his readers to consult it further Reference to a nonexistent book would have undermined his credibility. The note that the book was "readily available" also discounts the possibility that Josephus did not use the treatise directly but found the passages in a secondary source.5

In addition to Josephus, Origen refers in his Against Celsus to a book on the Jews attributed to Hecataeus. The passage, which has a number of implications occupying us more than once, reads (C. Cels . I.15):

And it is also said that there is a book on the Jews [

] by Hecataeus the historian in which still more is attributed to the wisdom of the nation, so much so that Herennius Philo in his treatise On the Jews [

] first doubts whether the treatise [

] belongs to the historian, and then states that if it is his, it seems likely that he had been carried away by the persuasiveness of the Jews and conformed to their principles.

Herennius Philo, accordingly, called the work "a book," or at least a "treatise." The question is whether this was based on direct acquaintance with Pseudo-Hecataeus or only through the Josephan testimonia and quotations. The balance tends in favor of the first possibility: the passages in Against Apion alone would hardly have created the impression that the author exaggerated in referring to Jewish "wisdom," of all things, and this also applies to the Mosollamus episode. The exaggerated admiration of Jewish hostility toward pagan cult is much more striking, and, after all, the "wisdom" of ancient nations was a rather common motif in ancient ethnographic literature.6 One should note that at the beginning of the same paragraph Origen elaborates on the "wisdom" attributed to the Jews by a number of Greek writers, especially Hermippus and Numenius, who posited a decisive Jewish influence on Greek philosophers such as Plato and Pythagoras and stressed the uniqueness of Jewish lawgivers and prophets.7 Origen further states that the Jewish "wisdom" was emphasized by Hecataeus even more than by those authors. This evaluation may be based on some further comments by Herennius Philo. Origen himself certainly

was not directly acquainted with Pseudo-Hecataeus.8 Some clear and far-reaching expressions about "Jewish wisdom" must have been found in the original treatise of Pseudo-Hecataeus.

In this context it should be made clear that Herennius Philo referred only to the same treatise quoted by Josephus in Against Apion : the spuriousness of the book On Abraham , which was also attributed to Hecataeus, is evident even from the single preserved extract, since it contains forged verses of Sophocles promulgating the unity of the divine and abolition of idolatry.9 Herennius Philo would have disqualified this book with more decisive arguments, and would not have raised the possibility that Hecataeus "had been carried away by the persuasiveness of the Jews." There is no justification for positing another forged book attributed to Hecataeus.10

The trustworthy testimonia of Josephus and Herennius Philo (besides a number of other reasons) thus finally discount the view (obviously of scholars who support authenticity) that Josephus took the material from an excursus included in a comprehensive historiographical work,11 from Hecateus's Egyptian ethnography,12 or from a travelogue.13

The conclusion that the treatise was not written by Hecataeus, but by an Egyptian Jew at the time of the Hasmonean state, is in itself sufficient to show that Josephus's source for these quotations was primarily concerned with Jews and Judaism.

At the same time, the argument raised by those scholars who claim that the material contained in the Josephus passages is too brief to have comprised an independent work deserves examination. Josephus does not claim to have quoted the whole book, but explicitly states that he intends to quote only "the highlights of some of the things said" (Ap . I.183; cf. 205). The phrasing of a number of passages, some of which appear in indirect speech, clearly indicates abbreviation and condensation of the original text.14 Furthermore, the passages do not embrace all the subjects covered by Pseudo-Hecataeus. In the second book of Against Apion Josephus quotes a sentence from the treatise that recounted the granting of Samaria by Alexander to the Jews (II.43),15 and we have already inferred that some references of Pseudo-Hecataeus to Jewish "wisdom" were not quoted. Josephus, in accordance with the purpose of his book (I.57-59), chose to cite only passages that demonstrated the maturity of the Jewish people at the beginning of the Hellenistic period (I.186): their good relations with Ptolemy I, their numerical strength, their well-established settlements, the role and importance of the Temple, and their profound faith. As can be seen from the absence of the reference to Samaria in Book I of Against Apion , even the coverage of these subjects was not comprehensive.

As a matter of fact, the extant passages alone may indicate a quantity of material equal to that of a typical book of the Hellenistic-Roman period. The length of books was variable and may have been no more than that of a modern pamphlet. A papyrus scroll could have contained even more than two such books, and even works of different authors (symmiges ). After the standardization of the scrolls by the scholars

of the Alexandria Museum, an average scroll measured thirty feet in length and contained about fifty thousand letters.16 There were scrolls that were far shorter, and Pliny states that a scroll was no more than fifteen feet long (NH XIII.72). The number of letters in the Josephus material, a quarter of which is occupied by the Mosollamus story (I.201-4), is 10 percent of a standard Alexandrian scroll, or 20 percent of a standard book. In contrast to other passages, the Mosollamus story is quoted at relative length, but it illustrates just one feature (and not a central one) of the Jewish people—their disdain for pagan techniques of divination. The Hezekiah story and the description of Jerusalem, Judea, and the land of Israel, for instance, were certainly much longer than Mosollamus's episodic anecdote. We can thus be quite sure that the original treatise was of a length acceptable for a Hellenistic book, if not for an "unmixed" scroll.

2. The Title of the Treatise and the Literary Genre

The passages in Josephus, which deal with Jewish customs and traditions, suggest that the book had an ethnographic character. This, however, is not enough to establish its genre. Besides ethnographic material, the book contains a report of a fictitious historical event—the Hezekiah story. This combination may at first sight recall Pseudo-Aristeas, a story (which could even be disguised as a letter) centered around an event in Jewish life in the Hellenistic period, and supplemented, in one way or another, by plentiful ethnographic material, as well as symposia, travelogues, and the like. We must therefore clarify whether the book belongs to the ethnographic genre par excellence , or to a related genre that also included ethnographic features.

The title of a book in Hellenistic and Jewish Hellenistic literature, if not just fanciful in an attempt to catch the eye (Plin. NH pref. 24-25), indicates its literary genre.17 To mention just a few titles: Philippica, Hellenica, Anabasis, Chronicon, Periplous , "For ...," "Against ...," "Letter to [or "of"] ...," "Memories of...," "History of ...," "Art

of...." It is clear from some of the titles that they were modeled after the scheme of a celebrated book, while others simply specify the genre or the contents.

Scholars who have accepted that the passages were taken from a monograph devoted to the Jews alone assume that the book was named Peri Ioudaion ("On the Jews").18 However, as it is not clearly stated in the sources, the question of the title requires some elaboration.

Josephus's statement that Hecataeus of Abdera "wrote a book about the Jews themselves" (

No less instructive is the passage in Origen (C. Cels . I.15), quoted in the previous section, where Hecataeus's book is referred to without the article ("there is a book on the Jews by Hecataeus"). The words

have used the same phrase in referring to a book by someone else unless it was indeed its title. Finally, Hecataeus's known ethnographical books were named On the Hyperboreans and On the Egyptians , or Aegyptiaca .21 The wish to create an impression of authenticity would have led the forger to imitate external features of Hecataeus's books such as their titles. We can thus conclude that though there is no unequivocal statement to this effect, the name of the book was On the Jews , or less probably Ioudaika .

These names indicate that the book was an ethnogrpahic work. Hellenistic ethnographies were usually entitled with the name of the nation or the land in one of two basic forms: "[Affairs of] ..." (Aithiopike , Indike , Persike , Skythike , and the like) or "On the ..." (Peri ton Indikon , Peri Kyprou, Peri Sikelias, Peri ton Aithiopeon , Peri Aiolikon ).22 Significantly enough, almost all the ethnographic books devoted to the Jews known to us were called Peri Ioudaion . They were written in the Hellenistic period by both Jews and gentiles. The best-known among them is the book by Alexander Polyhistor (Eus. PE IX.17), a gentile contemporary of Pompey and Sulla, who compiled material from monographs on the Jews by Jewish as well as gentile authors.23 This was probably also the name of Apollonius Molon's anti-Jewish book.24 The treatise On the Jews by Herennius Philo, written in the first half of the second century A.D. , belongs to the same category. From the brief fragments of two books called On the Jews by two otherwise unknown authors, Damocritus the Tactician and Nicarchus son of Ammonius, it also appears that they belonged to the ethnographic genre, and were perhaps written in the first century A.D. 25 Of the Jewish authors who

wrote books entitled On the Jews ,26 we know about Artapanus, Aristeas the Exegete, Theodotus the Poet,27 and Pseudo-Eupolemus, who was probably a Samaritan.28 These books were written between the middle of the second and the middle of the first century B.C. ²⁹

The fragments of the works named On the Jews confirm that they were indeed ethnographic works containing the common components of the genre.30 Those written by Jewish authors report on the patriarchs, leaders, and kings: Abraham, Job,31 Joseph, Moses and the Exodus, Solomon and the building of the Temple, the last kings of Judea, and the destruction of the First Temple. Stress is laid on the theoretical and practical wisdom of Moses and the patriarchs. Thus the invention of astrology is attributed to Abraham, and that of philosophy, together with a number of useful technical inventions, to Moses. In addition to stories about the leaders, we hear about Jerusalem, the Jewish holy books, the origin of the name "Judea," and the like.

The books named On the Jews written by gentiles contain similar topics, although the contents and attitudes frequently differ. Alexander Polyhistor probably did not contribute much of his own and was content with quotations from earlier ethnographies. The fragments and

testimonia of Herennius Philo contain mainly folkloristic-etymological notes: the origin of the words "Judea" and "Jews," the name of the Jewish God, a derogatory nickname ascribed to Moses,32 and reservations about Jewish "wisdom" and the authenticity of the treatise attributed to Hecataeus. From the works of Damocritus and Nicarchus we have references to the "blood" libel against contemporary Jewish cult and the leper libel against Moses and the Israelites in Egypt. The remaining fragments of the works entitled On the Jews thus reassure us that they were indeed ethnographical books commenting on the beginnings of the nation and the achievements of its leaders, as well as on the customs (including faith and religious practices) and the land of the Jews. The last two components are also to be found in Pseudo-Hecataeus.

3. The Structure of an Ethnographical Work

We have seen in this chapter that the passages quoted by Josephus were taken from an independent monograph called On the Jews . The title and the contents of the material indicate that it was an ethnographical treatise. Pseudo-Hecataeus was acquainted with ethnographical literature, certainly with the writings of Hecataeus. Even Berossus, the Babylonian historian-ethnographer, and Demetrius, the Jewish chronographer, whose knowledge of Greek language and culture was far worse, were influenced by Greek literary models.33 Like other genres of ancient literature, the ethnographical work had a conventional scheme and structure, so much so, that their elucidation can contribute to an understanding of the structure of Pseudo-Hecataeus's treatise and the nature of its contents. The few extant discussions of Greek ethnography do not provide a satisfactory and comprehensive analysis of the structure.34 We must therefore digress from the discussion of the treatise itself and examine the structure of works belonging to this genre. Other features of the genre were surveyed above, at the beginning of this book.35

The following discussion will attempt to establish the conventional scheme of the genre by analyzing the structure of several independent monographs, as well as that of a few ethnographical excursuses that properly represent the genre. The difference between the two is by and large only one of length, although occasionally the structure of an excursus is dictated by the context in which it is inserted and may therefore differ somewhat from the conventional scheme. The discussion does not deal with works of a semiethnographical character. These actually belong to other genres: for example, Ctesias's Persica , classified as a historical novel; the book of Manetho on Egypt, apparently an expanded chronicle;36 or Berossus's monograph, which is largely a historical account of Babylon and its people.37 In order to follow the development of the genre, the survey is arranged in chronological order, and includes examples of various types of nations described in this literature: nations residing in the centers of civilization as against peoples (including legendary ones) on the periphery of the known inhabited world, and autochthonous nations as against nations of immigrants. To keep the discussion within reasonable bounds, it is limited to the four outstanding ethnographical authors preceding Pseudo-Hecataeus: Herodotus, Hecataeus of Abdera, Megasthenes, and Agatharcides. In addition, the structure of half a dozen ethnographical accounts of the Jews will be analyzed.

The genre seems to have originated in Ionia during the late sixth and the early fifth century. Hecataeus of Miletus is universally acknowledged as its originator. However, only relatively short fragments of his writings have survived.38 The first real evidence for the rules and structure of ethnographical works is to be found in the excursuses on various nations included in the Histories of Herodotus. The most detailed of these excursuses, and the ones most similar to Hellenistic ethnographies, are the logoi on the Egyptians (II.2-182) and the Scythians (IV.5-82).

Many conjectures have been proffered as to the sources and original forms of the two excursuses, which by themselves contribute to our understanding of the development of the ethnographic genre. It has been suggested that the contents of the Egyptian excursus were basically influenced by the Egyptian ethnography of Hecataeus of Miletus included in his Periegesis . If this is correct, the structure of the Herodotean excursus may resemble that of its predecessor However, the extent to which the "father of ethnography" influenced the "father of history" is disputed.39 Similarly, there is no unanimity as to the stages of composition of Herodotus's ethnographies. In the past many scholars were of the opinion that the two excursuses were originally written as independent logoi and only later incorporated by Herodotus into his great work. Others think that the excursuses were never meant to be independent, but were first written as "rough drafts" planned for inclusion in existing sections of the Histories .40 Be that as it may, the composition of the excursuses, as they now stand, was dictated by a clear conception as to the structure and contents of the ethnographical work.41

The Egyptian excursus, which is the longer of the two, contains the following sections:42 (a) the origo of the Egyptian people, or rather their archaeologia , describing the antiquity of the Egyptians and their contribution to the beginnings of civilization (II.2-4);43 (b) the geography of Egypt (5-34); (c) customs (35-98), with Egyptian cult and beliefs described in the middle of the section (37-76); (d) history, recounting stories about famous Egyptian rulers and their major achievements (99-182). The first three sections appear in the same order in the Scythian excursus: (a) the origo , offering various speculations on the descent of the Scythians, who are introduced, unlike the Egyptians, as

the youngest of all nations (IV.5-15);44 (b) the geography of the various Scythian regions and tribes (16-58: this section is interrupted by two accounts that do not directly relate to the Scythian territories [32-36; 36-45]; a description of the Scythian coast and borders appears separately in the course of the historical narrative that follows [99-101]); (c) customs (59-82), including at the beginning an account of cults and beliefs (59-63). In contrast to the Egyptian ethnography, there is no survey of Scythian rulers and their achievements, presumably because of a lack of sufficient material.45

Close acquaintance with the oriental world in the wake of Alexander's expedition naturally stimulated much ethnographical writing and set new standards for the genre.46 The pioneer of the new ethnography was Hecataeus of Abdera, who provided a model for ethnographical writing and was for many years widely imitated by Hellenistic ethnographers.47 Nevertheless, Hellenistic ethnography did not entirely depart from the Ionian tradition. The basic schematic structure of the Herodotean ethnographical excursus (especially that of the Egyptian logos ) still guided Hellenistic ethnographers.48 This applies not only to authors like Agatharcides of Cnidus, who expressed admiration for Herodotus's achievements, but also to Hecataeus, who did not greatly appreciate him. The latter even occasionally drew on Herodotus, although he had opportunities to consult much better sources.

Of Hecataeus's two ethnographical books known to us, On the Egyptians was the longer and more important. It was preserved, in an abbreviated form, in Book I of Diodorus's Historical Library , which contains the ethnography of Egypt.49 Diodorus's lack of originality

in transmitting the narrative material of his sources must also be characteristic of the structure of his books. We can therefore assume that the scheme of the ethnographical account in Diodorus's Book I reflects that of Hecataeus's original work.

The structure of Hecataeus's book has already been surveyed and analyzed by quite a number of scholars.50 The general division is supported by the captions (epikephalaia ) that precede Diodorus's Book I, the internal division of that book into two parts, and the prefaces and endnotes to the sections (I.29.6, 41.10, 42.1-2, 69.1-2; II.1-2). Consequently, there are no significant differences between the various reconstructions. All of them assume that Hecataeus's book was divided into four sections: (a) theologoumena , that is, theology (Diod. I.10-29);51 (b) geography (30-31; on 32-41 see below); (c) history (42.2-68); (d) nomima , or customs and manners (69-98). In the following pages the titles of the sections will be examined, as well as the arrangement of material and emphasis in each of them.

The title theologoumena for the first section is derived from an expression used by Diodorus in its closing sentence: "This is what can be said about the theological matters [

elements (12), the deification of past Egyptian heroes and kings and their achievements (13), the introduction of civilization to Egypt and the inhabited world by Osiris (14-20), and a series of mythological tales about Osiris and Isis (21-27). However, all these components are clearly meant to show the development of early Egyptian civilization in the mythological age, before the historical period of the kings, and particularly its great contribution to the beginnings of humanity. The contribution is demonstrated by the very creation of belief in gods, and by a number of useful inventions attributed to Egyptian personalities, said to have been consequently deified. Similarly, the Egyptian contribution to early civilization (including the invention of religion) occupies a substantial part of the first section of Herodotus's Egyptian ethnography (II.4), which is only natural for an origo-archaeologia section on an autochthonic nation. Significantly Hecataeus does not describe the role of the animal gods according to Egyptian beliefs in this section, which would have been expected of a proper theological account, nor does he elaborate on Egyptian cult (apart from occasional references and etiological hints).52 He does these, and with much detail, only in the fourth section, the nomima .

In contrast to the first section, the Diodorean titles of the other sections properly reflect their purpose and contents. Nevertheless, some clarification is still necessary. The second section of Diodorus's version, the geography (30-41), opens with an account of the boundaries of Egypt and refers to its great population (30-31.8). This was taken from Hecataeus. Then comes a sentence by Diodorus (31.9) in which he indicates that although his source (i.e., Hecataeus) passed on to the history section, he will insert a detailed report on the Nile. It is assumed that the long digression on the Nile, which follows (32-41), was drawn from Agatharcides of Cnidus.53 Hecataeus did not devote much attention to the subject, presumably because it could not contribute much to the social and political purposes that guided him in writing his book.54 If so, we see that an ethnographical work does not necessarily include a comprehensive account of all geographical features, even if they are in themselves of special interest. Their inclusion

depends on their relevance to the purposes of the ethnographical work as a whole.

The third section comprises the major achievements of outstanding kings (I.42.2-68). Diodorus himself so defines the contents of the section (I.44.4-5), which is actually neither a history nor a chronicle. Like Herodotus, the author mentions only those kings whose achievements included impressive, monumental, building projects (temples, palaces, pyramids, dams, canals, etc.) as well as leading military expeditions beyond the borders of Egypt (cf. 71.5). In addition, he refers here and there to kings known for such curious and exceptional actions as the accumulation of numerous treasures, excessive cruelty, hospitality to foreigners, metamorphosis into animals or trees, and the like.

The fourth and last section (I.69-98) is defined by Diodorus as nomima ("customs," 69.2), "habits and laws" (69.6), and even "everyday life" (bios , 41.10). According to the contents it should rather be called "customs, laws, and institutions." The location of the nomima in the fourth place is exceptional. In other ethnographies it precedes the history, and sometimes even the geography. The reason for this may be that part of the customs are explained by the section about the rulers (especially the account of the practices of the Egyptian royalty, which opens the nomima ). Naturally that section also includes many typical Egyptian customs (e.g., the building of pyramids).

The material included by Hecataeus was rather selective, and consisted only of curiosities or information that might be "most useful" (69.2). Diodorus made a further selection from this material (72.6, 84.4, 89.4). The section contains the following subjects: everyday life of the kings, describing regular daily sacrifices and the role of the priests, subordination to laws, the loyalty of the people, funerary and mourning ceremonies (70-72); agrarian arrangements and social classes (73-74); jurisprudence, including judges, procedure, offenses, and penalties (75-80.2); marriage and child rearing (80.3-81); health and medicine (82); animal worship (83-90); mourning and funeral customs of ordinary people (91-93); a list of Egyptian lawgivers (94-95); and finally, famous Greek poets, lawgivers, and philosophers who visited Egypt and were inspired by its customs and culture (96-98). As was mentioned above, Egyptian cult was not included by Hecataeus in the first section, but among the nomima . The survey indeed refers only to animal worship, but one can assume that it also included other cult forms. Diodorus

hints that he abbreviated the account of Egyptian cult (84.4, 89.4), presumably deleting practices that were not "curious" enough.

Far less has been preserved of Hecataeus's second ethnographical work, On the Hyperboreans . It was not just a short treatise, but, as appears from a reference in a scholion to Apollonius Rhodius (FGrH IIIA, 264 F 10), it comprised at least two books. However, all we have is a brief summary by Diodorus (II.47) and a few short fragments and testimonia in Hellenistic and Roman authors, as well as ones found in Byzantine lexicons and scholia.55 Diodorus's summary suggests the following sections: geography (II.47.1-2); nomima (2-6)—beliefs and cult (2-

3); customs and other characteristics (4-6).56 The inclusion of the origo section can be deduced from a scholion to Pindar (FGrH IIIA, 264 F 9). It quotes different views of the origin of the Hyperboreans, and says that Hecataeus had another version of their descent. Hecataeus's version itself is not recorded. The scholion to Apollonius Rhodius states that according to Hecataeus there were three Hyperborean tribes (ethne ). One can consequently assume that Hecataeus discussed the origin of the three Hyperborean tribes and the foundation of Hyperborean society.57 The Hyperboreans being an imaginary, utopian nation, their origo may well have been described as autochthonous, considered the ideal descent, as was that of the Panchaeans in Euhemerus's celebrated ethnography-utopia (Diod. V.42.5). The other fragments provide additional material on the geography of the Hyperborean country (e.g., Strabo VII.3.6; Pliny, NH IV.94), on their religion (mainly Ael. NA XI.1), and on other customs (Plut. QC IV.3.1).

In view of the structure of other ethnographies, it is very likely that Hecataeus's Hyperborean ethnography also opened with an origo section. Its absence in Diodorus's summary does not impose a particular difficulty: Jacoby has already shown that Diodorus was not directly acquainted with Hecataeus's treatise, but rather knew of it through

a secondary source that preceded the abstracts with the question of whether the Hyperboreans lived in Asia or in Europe.58 It is therefore only natural that the intermediate source omitted the origo , and opened with the geographical section. From geography it continued on to customs (including religion). That author did not return to the origo , either through negligence or because it was not important for his case.59 It should be noted that the origo section heads Euhemerus's Panchaean ethnography, and is followed by geography and customs (Diod. V.42.4-46.7).

Hecataeus's counterpart at the Seleucid court in the first generation of the Hellenistic kings was Megasthenes.60 Like Hecataeus, he also went on diplomatic missions, first and foremost to the Indian king Sandracottus (Candragupta). His Indica served as the main source of information for the accounts of India written by Diodorus, Strabo, and Arrian, and its influence can also be traced in fragments from other authors.61 The work was not exactly an eyewitness account, as might be expected, but was based on hearsay, folklore, and local legends, as well as on information drawn from Megasthenes' predecessors—Herodotus, Ctesias, Nearchus, and others. All these were occasionally supplemented by the author's own experiences. Hecataeus's influence

can be recognized in the structure, the author's approach and etiological techniques, and above all in his tendency to idealize the political and social structure and practices of the subjects of his ethnography.62

Of all the accounts that drew on Megasthenes, the most important for our discussion is Diodorus's Indian excursus, included in Book II of his Library (II.35-42). It was taken solely from Megasthenes,63 and so it stands to reason that Diodorus, more than others, preserved the original structure of Megasthenes' ethnography. The various attempts at reconstructing Megasthenes' Indica are consequently based chiefly on Diodorus.64 This is, however, not particularly easy, since Diodorus drastically abbreviated the original work. Furthermore, the complementary extracts preserved by Strabo and Arrian are themselves part of concise versions (see, e.g., Arrian, Indica XVII.6), and what is worse, they evidently did not adhere to Megasthenes' sequence.

Diodorus's excursus opens with the geography of India (II.35-37). He surveys the borders, terrain, flora and fauna, minerals, precipitation, and rivers. To these has to be added the description of Palimbothra (Pataliputra

Diodorus's second section deals with the origo-archaeologia (II.38-39; cf. Arr. Ind . VII.1-3)—the inhabitants' being autochthonous and the

life of the first human beings—and, as in Hecataeus, it elaborates on the development of civilization. In this framework the role of Dionysus and Heracles in introducing civilization to India is described in detail. There is also a reference to religious matters: Dionysus is said to have taught the Indians to respect the gods (Diod. II.39). It may well be that in this context, Megasthenes, like Hecataeus, expanded on Indian beliefs, although he later returned to the subject in the account of Indian castes, included in the section on customs. Further supplements, especially with regard to the contributions of Dionysus and Heracles, are mainly provided by Arrian (Ind . V. 9-13, VII-IX.8).65

The determination of the origo as the second component in Megasthenes' work faces an obstacle: Josephus writes in the Jewish Antiquities (X.227) and Against Apion (I.144) that in Book IV of his Indica Megasthenes tried to prove that Nabuchodonosor (Nebuchadnezzar) "exceeded Heracles in his heroism and the greatness of his deeds." This statement has been brought forward as (sole) evidence for the accepted view that Megasthenes' work consisted of four books. As it mentions Heracles, it was naturally assumed that the reference is to the account of his Indian expedition, recorded by Diodorus in the origo section. Hence the conclusion of some scholars that the origo was included in the fourth book of the Indica .66 As we shall see later, the nomima were undoubtedly included in Books II and III. It therefore may appear that the origo was placed at the end of the ethnography. This by itself would be rather strange,67 and would not correspond with the location of the origo in Diodorus.

An examination of the reference to Nebuchadnezzar indeed suggests that it was not included in the origo : a similar allusion to Nebuchadnezzar, which is attributed to Megasthenes, appears in Strabo (XV.1.6-7), in an extract much longer than the Josephus reference. Megasthenes states that the Indians never undertook military expeditions and had never been occupied by foreigners, apart from the occupations by Dionysus, Heracles, and Alexander the Great. He then continues by listing a number of celebrated oriental emperors, including Nebuchadnezzar, saying that despite their great achievements elsewhere, none of them had invaded India.68 In this context he notes that the Babylonian emperor had a greater reputation among the Chaldaeans than even Heracles and that he led an expedition to the Pillars. The context indicates that the passage was taken not necessarily from the account of Heracles' contribution to the development of Indian civilization (i.e., from the origo ), but from a section on the kings and their achievements.69 A passage quite similar to that quoted by Strabo (though making no mention of Nebuchadnezzar) indeed appears in Arrian at the end of a short survey of the Indian kings (Ind . IX.10-12; cf. V.4-8), based on Megasthenes (VIII.6, IX.8).

The contents of this survey (Ind . VIII-IX) in themselves prove that Megasthenes' work did include a section on the kings and their achievements, though it is missing from Diodorus's Indian excursus. The extract records the names of several kings who reigned after Dionysus, their years of rule, the number of generations from Dionysus to Heracles, the rise of the dynasty related to Heracles' daughter, the number of kings and years from Dionysus to Sandracottus, Megasthenes' contemporary, and some notes on attempted invasions and foreign occupations. The references to Dionysus and Heracles in this survey, and especially to the role of the former in introducing civilization to India, which

were described in detail in the origo section (Diod. II.38-39), do not prove that it was taken from the origo . Similarly Hecataeus opens his section on Egyptian kings with a short recapitulation of the main stages in the development of Egyptian civilization and the roles (and reigns) of mythological god-kings like Isis and Horus (I.43-44) before elaborating on the historical kings, although the former were already described in detail in the origo section. Like Megasthenes, he appends on this occasion summary numbers of kings and years, and even briefly mentions the foreign occupations.

Arrian refrains from quoting the subsequent detailed account of the Indian kings. As he himself testifies, the ethnography in his Indica is only a preface to the main purpose of the book—recounting the story of the naval expedition initiated by Alexander from Persia to India. Therefore he recorded only the "most notable" of the nomima he had found in Nearchus and Megasthenes (XVII.6-7). The emphasis was accordingly laid at the outset on customs, and even these were carefully selected and considerably abbreviated. He was not interested in the detailed history of the nonmythological kings. Diodorus, on his part, did not incorporate the section on the kings in his version, probably assuming that the names of Indian kings would not mean anything to the Greek reader, in contrast to those of the Egyptian and Mesopotamian kings. The detailed report by Herodotus (and possibly also by his predecessors) about the achievements of the latter introduced them into the corpus of Greek historical knowledge.

Diodorus's ethnographical excursus closes with a section on customs (II.39.5-42.2). It briefly comments on the absence of slavery in India (39.5), surveys the seven castes (40.1-41.5), and gives a long description of Indian elephants and their habits (42.1-2). Apart from the description of Indian elephants, Diodorus greatly abbreviated the nomima , omitting most of them. A number of subjects that Strabo explicitly attributed to Megasthenes can help in reconstructing this section: the simple life of the Indians, their self-restraint, oral laws and their characteristics, abstinence from alcoholic drinks, eating in solitude, physical activity, burial customs, body ornaments, clothing, attitude toward elderly people, marriage customs, and court practices (XV.1.53-55). Some of these subjects have parallels in Arrian, who supplements them with descriptions of urban construction, transportation, courting customs, and dining practices (Indica VIII.17). All these are likewise said to have been taken from Megasthenes.

The tenets and practices of Indian religion, which were already briefly referred to in the origo , are scattered among the nomima (e.g., sacrifices), mainly in the framework of the account of classes. Especially detailed is Strabo's version of the first caste, that of the philosophers (XV.1.58-60), drawn from Megasthenes (58.1, 59.1). It proves their connection with the Dionysian religion (58), distinguishes between the Brachmanes and the Garmanes, and elaborates on their unique ethics, way of life, and beliefs, especially on death and the creation and governance of the universe.

The account of elephants, their characteristics and habits, and elephant hunts appears in Diodorus after the survey of classes (cf. Arr. Ind . XIII-XV). In contrast to the views of some scholars, I do not think it was taken from an independent section dealing with thaumasia ("wonders," "curiosities"). In Strabo's version it is included in the account of the third class—that of farmers and hunters (XV.1.42-45)—and this may well have been its place in Megasthenes' ethnography. It could also be that the account of hunting and taming methods, which were described in particular detail, was attached as an appendix to the survey of the classes, as in Diodorus and also in Arrian (Ind . XIII).70 An appendix to a section is also known from Hecataeus's Egyptian ethnography. It is almost certain that Megasthenes' work included accounts of hunting methods and the behavior of various wild animals: Strabo, attributing his information to Megasthenes, describes wild animals that had been domesticated in other countries, as well as unusual horses, monkeys, tigers, snakes, and scorpions (Strabo XV.1.37, 44-45, 56; cf. Ael. NA XVI.41; Pliny, NH VIII.14.1). Parallels for these descriptions can be found in references to wild animals, birds, and reptiles by Strabo and Arrian, which are attributed by them to Nearchus (Strabo XV.1.15; Arr. Ind . VIII.15.1-2, 8-12).71

Which of Megasthenes' books included the nomima section? Athenaeus (IV.153d) quotes a piece of information from Megasthenes' Book II about table setting as practiced by Indians. Clement of Alexandria (Strom . I.15) takes from Book Ill of the Indica a comparison between the views of Greek philosophers on nature and those of the Indian Brahmans. It can hence be accepted that Book II included the customs that were common to Indian society as a whole, and that Book III was devoted to those of individual castes.

To conclude: Megasthenes' work on India included the following sections: geography, origo , customs, and history of kings. The geography appeared in Book I; the origo , in the second part of that book or at the beginning of Book II. The nomima section was located in Books II and III, and the history of kings in Book IV. Wild animals were surveyed at the end of the nomima , as an appendix to the description of the castes, and the Indian religion in the origo , as well as in the nomima (in the latter section in relation to the class of philosophers). Geography was located at the head of the work, because Megasthenes believed it to exert a decisive influence on the other components.

Having dealt with Hecataeus and Megasthenes, the two great ethnographers of the beginning of the Hellenistic era, let us turn to Agatharcides of Cnidus, the most important figure in Alexandrian historiography, geography, and ethnography of the second century B.C. ⁷² Most of the fragments and extracts from his works are preserved in Diodorus's Book III, in Photius's Bibliotheca (213, 250), and in various books of Athenaeus's Deipnosophistae . The ethnographical passages deal with regions to the south of Egypt. The longest and most complete of them is the ethnographical account of the Ethiopians residing on the Upper Nile (Diod. III.2-10).

Diodorus himself states at the end of his excursus on the Ethiopian state that he drew his material from Agatharcides (III.11-12), adding that it was included in Book II of the work On Asian Matters . In the same sentence he also mentions Artemidorus of Ephesus as his source. It has already been accepted that Diodorus used Agatharcides indirectly

through the work of Artemidorus, who himself held closely to the original account by Agatharcides.73 There is no reason not to assume that Diodorus's version properly reflects the structure of Agatharcides' ethnographical account, despite the obvious abbreviation.74

The excursus by Diodorus-Agatharcides opens with the origo-archaeologia of the Ethiopians (III.2-7). They are described as an autochthonous nation, and as the first human beings (2.1). The author stresses that they were the originators of religious beliefs and cults (2.2-3) and emphasizes their piety, and the resultant difficulty of conquering and controlling them (2.4-3.1). The section closes with an appendix similar to that attached to the origo of Hecataeus's Egyptian ethnography, on the origin of mankind from Ethiopia. However, only the colonization of Egypt by Ethiopians is described, with Agatharcides clearly accepting Hecataeus's version on the dispersion of other nations from Egypt. As evidence for the Ethiopian origin of the Egyptians, the author points out similarities in customs, physical features, and the development of script (3.1-5.4). Religious beliefs and cult are referred to in both this section and that on customs. There is a great resemblance between this origo section and the first section of Hecataeus's Egyptian ethnography, which indicates the influence of the latter,75 and supports the conclusion above that Hecataeus's first section is not a theologoumena but is an origo-archaeologia : both sections open with the autochthonous origin of the nation described and the creation of mankind there. Next they discuss the development of civilization, laying stress on the rise of religious beliefs and the family of gods. The accounts close with migration from the country and the creation of new nations. Evidence is provided mainly by comparisons of customs.

The second section describes the Ethiopian nomima (Diod. III.5.1-9.4). The first part deals with the civilized Ethiopians (5-7), the second with the wild tribes (8), and the third with practices common to all the Ethiopians (9). The section concentrates on unique, curious customs

attributed to the Ethiopians. It also includes the Ethiopian belief in various gods interpreted according to the Euhemerist conception (9.1-2), though the religious originality of the Ethiopians was already surveyed in the origo . The last section deals with geography (10). It appears in Diodorus in an extremely abbreviated version, which certainly does not properly reflect Agatharcides' original account.76 The excursus does not include a section on Ethiopian rulers, perhaps because Agatharcides was acquainted only with the names and deeds of the kings of the Hellenistic period (see on Ergamenes, Diod. III.6.3-4). As he could have sought support in royal Egyptian records (see III.38.1), it is possible that he did not bother to incorporate them into his account because the ancient Ethiopian kings had not had contacts with the Greek world in the past,77 and were not mentioned by Herodotus. It may also be that it was Diodorus who omitted the section on the kings, for similar reasons, as he had done with regard to the survey by Megasthenes on the Indian kings.

Other fragments of Agatharcides, which also refer to Ethiopia (Photius, Bibl . cod. 250; GGM I.111-95), were taken from his book On the Red Sea . They do not deal with political entities, but with primitive tribes in the region. The account includes only geography and customs, and lays stress on thaumasia , namely miracles, curiosities, and exceptional phenomena. This focus indicates a shortage of authoritative information. The narrative inclines to the paradoxographical, rather than to ethnographical writing,78 and therefore does not concern us here.

Having so far discussed some of the most important ethnographical monographs and excursuses of the classical and Hellenistic periods, we turn now to excursuses on Jews and Judaism in Hellenistic and Roman literature. The first comprehensive account on Jews and Judaism was the Jewish excursus by Hecataeus of Abdera, preserved by

Diodorus (XL.3.1-8) as an ethnographic introduction to the first Jewish confrontations with the Romans (63 B.C. ). The variety of subjects connected with this version concerning ancient Judaism was discussed above in Chapter I.2. With regard to the genre it was argued that the excursus is basically an ethnography and not a "foundation story" (ktisis ), despite the evident influence of Greek colonization traditions.79 In the framework of the present chapter, I shall refer only to the general scheme of the excursus and related questions.

The excursus, as explicitly stated by Diodorus (XL.3.1), comprised a ktisis ("foundation") section (1-3) and a nomima section (3-8). The titles may well have recorded Hecataeus's original nomenclature. The excursus does not include sections on geography and history. Despite the abbreviation of Jewish daily practices by Diodorus,80 it is quite certain that the two sections were missing in the original version. Diodorus would not have omitted historical and geographical accounts, had there been any, when he incorporated the excursus into Book XL. They would have served to introduce the reader to the geographical background of the Roman occupation. The absence of a historical section is not exceptional. A geographical section, however, is included in the conventional scheme of an ethnographical work, and in all later Jewish ethnographical excursuses. To understand this lacuna, the original location of the Jewish account in Hecataeus's work must be established. The discussion may reveal a subtype of the ethnographical excursus.

As has been universally accepted, the excursus could be taken only from Hecataeus's great Egyptian ethnography. It has been suggested by Jacoby that its exact location was in the framework of the appendix to the origo section, which described the migration of various nations from Egypt (Diod. I.28-29).81 To examine this suggestion and its implications for the structure of the original Jewish excursus, let us take a closer look at the appendix.

The appendix opens with the statement "Now the Egyptians say that also after these events a great number of apoikiai were spread

from Egypt over all the inhabited world" (28.1; cf. 29.5). Then comes a short account of an emigration from Egypt to Babylon, led by the eponymous Belus, his appointment of priests, and the establishment of their rights and practices (28.1). It is followed by a short sentence about the emigration to Argos led by Danaus (28.2) and a statement that the Colchi in Pontus, as well as the Jews, were also emigrants from Egypt (28.2). To justify this statement, the author mentions the practice of circumcision as common among the Egyptians, the Colchi, and the Jews (28.3; cf. Hdt. II.104). The discussion then turns to the Athenians (Diod. I.28.4-29.5). Diodorus provides evidence as to their origin in Egypt: linguistic parallels, the similarity of political institutions and religious rituals, the Egyptian descent of some Athenian rulers, and some evidence for an Egyptian origin of two Athenian families. The appendix closes with the observation that the Egyptians attributed Egyptian origin to many other nations, but since they did not provide real evidence, he chose to ignore their claims (29.5).

It seems rather clear that the appendix was drastically abbreviated by Diodorus. Writing a universal history, he did not find it appropriate to include in the framework of the Egyptian ethnography detailed accounts about nations or cities that were to figure later in the course of his historical narrative. The passage on the Babylonians is evidently a shortened version of an ethnographical account that included their origo and nomima . Diodorus, for his own reasons, preferred to preserve only the information concerning the priests originally included in the nomima section. There is no reason not to think that the references to the Jews and the Colchi are likewise remnants of more detailed accounts. The case of the Athenians was different: Hecataeus was content with quoting evidence for their Egyptian descent, because there was no point in introducing an Athenian ethnography (or a comprehensive nomima section) to his prospective Greek readers. The same may apply to the Argives. It is difficult to know whether the original appendix included accounts of other nations. On the one hand, the note at the end of the appendix (29.5), casting doubt on Egyptian stories about the descent of other nations and cities from Egypt, does not seem to be Diodorean. On the other hand, the Jewish excursus mentions Cadmus as one of the leaders of Greek emigrants from Egypt, which indicates some account concerning Thebes. Be that as it may, the references to nations in the appendix reflect two types of account in the original text: (a) ethnographical accounts containing

only the origo and nomima ; (b) statements concerning migration and evidence pointing to it, especially common customs and institutions, and linguistic similarities. The absence of a geographical section and an account of rulers in both types is not accidental: after all, the author was primarily concerned in this context to stress the origin of certain nations in Egypt, with the evidence of Egyptian influences on their customs to prove it. Moreover, historical and especially geographical sections on foreign lands would have been quite out of place in a work on Egypt and the Egyptians.

The suggestion made by Jacoby, that the Jewish excursus had been taken by Diodorus from Hecataeus's appendix to the Egyptian origo , was based on the conclusion that the appendix included a series of ethnographical accounts of nations said to have migrated from Egypt; on the reference to the Jews in the appendix; on the reference in the excursus to the expulsion of foreigners to "Greece and other regions" and the explicit mention of Danaus (3.2), which recalls the information about the emigration to Greece and Asia Minor headed by Danaus found in the appendix (28.2); and finally, on the appearance of the phrase

It should be added that the absence of any reference to circumcision in the Jewish excursus as preserved by Diodorus, though it is mentioned in the appendix (I.28.3; cf. 55.5), does not detract from the validity of the above conclusion. The passage in the appendix about circumcision among the Egyptians, the Jews, and the Colchi may have been a general preface by Hecataeus to his more detailed account of the latter two nations, which made the listing of circumcision among their nomima rather redundant. It could also be that it was Diodorus who omitted circumcision from the excursus, as he had done with all Jewish practices re-

lating to private life (XL.3.8). Citing these practices could not contribute to the main purpose for which the excursus was quoted by Diodorus.

Another difficulty with Jacoby's suggestion is the apparent discrepancy between the excursus and the appendix with regard to the cause of the emigration: the excursus speaks about the expulsion of Jews and Greeks from Egypt (Diod. XL.3.1-2), while the appendix does not mention an expulsion, but describes the settlements founded by the Jews and other nations as apoikiai ("colonies") "spread from Egypt" (I.28.1) and "founded by emigrants from Egypt" (28.2). However, the absence of a reference to the expulsion can be attributed to the drastic abbreviation of the appendix by Diodorus, which is especially evident in its first paragraphs.83 As for the terminology, the fact is that even a settlement of exiles was called an apoikia .84 Moreover, such inconsistency exists in the excursus itself, which shortly afterwards uses the same term for the settlement of Jews by Moses in Judea (XL.3.3). We have already seen that the terminology, like other features in the excursus, was deeply influenced by foundation traditions.85 The same naturally applies to the appendix, which deals with emigrations.

To sum up: Diodorus took the excursus from Hecataeus's appendix, and like other ethnographical accounts in that appendix, the original text contained only two sections: the origo and the nomima . With regard to the general question of the structure of ethnographical works, it appears that there was a subtype of ethnographical excursus, which, because of the special context, consisted of only two of the major components: the origo and the nomima .

Hecataeus's Jewish excursus deeply influenced, directly and indirectly, the contents of almost all ethnographical accounts of and references to the Jews and Judaism written by Hellenistic and Roman authors. Although they had the possibility of acquiring better and more accurate knowledge, they preferred to adhere to the earliest account. A similar tendency can also be observed in ethnographies of other nations, which are merely expanded adaptations of earlier ethnographies.86 However, the structure of later Jewish ethnographies

follows the conventional scheme of an ethnographical treatise, as reflected in Hecataeus's account of the Egyptians, and not the shortened, exceptional one of his Jewish excursus and his other "miniatures." As the Jewish ethnographies were written in the time of the Hasmonean state and afterwards, a section on Jewish rulers was also included.

Strabo's ethnographical excursus on the Jews, incorporated in his Geography (XVI.2.34-39), is the best example of Hecataeus's influence. The excursus, which was taken from Posidonius of Apamea, is a consistent adaptation (frequently also a deliberate reversal), following Hecataeus step by step. Hecataeus's information is reshaped in the spirit of the Middle Stoa. Mosaic Judaism, which Posidonius contrasts with later Judaism, is clearly a utopian society intended to serve as a model. Its way of life is actually a reflection of the social, religious, and political ideals of Posidonius himself. Posidonius's purpose from the outset was not to provide information on the Jews, but to show that his own theoretical ideals were not impractically utopian but could be (and were) realized in practice.87

Strabo's excursus opens with the statement that Moses was an Egyptian priest. Then follows a description of the Jewish faith and the story of the migration from Egypt (XVI.2.35-36). The integration of theology into the origo is necessary for his original explanation of the Exodus: Moses and his followers, who are introduced as what might be called "intellectual Egyptians," left Egypt because they were dissatisfied with the local cult and aspired to establish a new religion, free of any material representation of the divine. In order to explain why the Jews chose to settle in Jerusalem, the author includes a few sentences on the water supply and soil of the city and its surroundings (2.36).

A comprehensive geographical account of the Jewish land appears in the sequence of Strabo's general geographic narrative, preceding and following the Jewish excursus (2.34, 41-45), but not in the excursus itself. This geographical account combines two sources, Posidonius and Artemidorus,88 and is artificially separated into two parts by the ethnographical excursus. It includes, among other things, a repetition

(with one addition) of the references to Jerusalem and its surroundings that have already appeared in the ethnographical excursus (2.40). Thus it is possible that in Posidonius's original Jewish excursus there was a detailed section on the geography of Judea that followed the origo , and not just a few sentences on Jerusalem.

The next section, the nomima , lists a number of Stoic-influenced practices and ideals, which the author attributes to Moses: refraining from military exercises and armament, from excessive expenditures on the religious cult, and from establishing governmental institutions (2.36). The section is rather short in comparison with its equivalents in other Jewish ethnographies. This is not surprising in view of Posidonius's purpose: he took from Hecataeus only those customs that he could bring into conformity (or reverse to fit) with his Stoic conceptions and ideals. The excursus closes with a section on Jewish rulers after Moses, the founder. The author refers mainly to the Hasmonean leaders and kings, described as tyrants who departed from the Mosaic heritage (2.37, 39). An appendix to the section on the Jewish rulers elaborates on famous ancient prophets and lawgivers. The appendix was taken by Strabo not from Posidonius but from an unknown source.89

A Jewish excursus that ignored the Hecataean tradition altogether was written by Pompeius Trogus, the Augustan historian. The excursus, originally included in Trogus's Historiae Philippicae , has come down to us in an abbreviated version in the epitome of Justin, from the third century A.D. (XXXVI.2.1-3.8), and it appears to be a rather confused mixture of information from various sources.90 The structure is, however, identical to the conventional scheme of Hellenistic ethnographical works.

The excursus opens with a complicated, long version of the Jewish origo , which combines several traditions (2.1-14): the Jews are said to have arisen from a royal dynasty ruling in Damascus. The author refers specifically to Abraham, Israel and his twelve children, and the creation of the twelve tribes (in Damascus?). After this he goes on to describe the sale of Joseph to the Egyptians and Joseph's success in Egypt. Moses, according to Trogus's story, was Joseph's son, and is said to have left

Egypt at the head of all the Egyptians who suffered from pestilence and leprosy. The account of the Jews wandering in the desert and the relation of the Jews to Mount Sinai is no less distorted.

The second section is devoted to Jewish customs (2.14-15). It is directly connected with the origo : Jewish practices are explained by the circumstances of the residence in and expulsion from Egypt. Thus, for instance, the Sabbath is said to have been established as a fast day to commemorate a seven days' fast at the time of the wanderings in the desert. Moreover, Jewish religious practices are characterized as typically Egyptian. Consequently the excursus devotes just one short sentence to the Jewish faith and cult. Egyptian beliefs themselves were probably described, in a manner similar to that of Hecataeus, in the framework of the Egyptian origines known to have been included in Book I of Pompeius Trogus's historical work (according to his Prol . I). The Jews are said to be ruled by kings who also served as priests. Pompeius Trogus was informed on this point by sources referring to the Hasmonean period. Contrary to the accounts of other gentile authors, however, this system of government is presented by him as traditionally Jewish, originating with Arruas (Aaron, Moses' son in his version).

After the customs comes the geography (3.1-7). Justin's version is not comprehensive. It relates only to what he calls the sources of Jewish wealth—the balsam of the Jericho Valley and the natural resources of the Dead Sea. It is possible that the original account included a comprehensive geographical section and that Justin omitted most of it, as he had done with other geographical excursuses.91 Justin preserved only the passages that described the districts and features unique to Judea. The references to Jewish wealth may indicate that Pompeius Trogus also used the geographical excursus to illustrate and explain other features of Jewish life.

Justin closes the excursus with a short passage on the period of Jewish subjection, from Xerxes (instead of Cyrus) up to the gaining of independence, dated to the time of Demetrius (I or II; unspecified). The section does not record the deeds of Jewish rulers, because in this case an account of the Hasmonaeans would have been redundant: the excursus was preceded in the same book by a description of the campaign of

Antiochus VII against John Hyrcanus (Prol . XXXVI), and the same book later recorded events in the days of his successors (Prol . XXXIX, Justin XL.2.4). Those chapters in Pompeius Trogus's original book must certainly have expanded on the characteristics of the Hasmonean dynasty from the viewpoint of the Hellenistic world.

The best-known and most detailed Jewish ethnography at our disposal is Tacitus's notorious excursus in Book V of his Histories (V.2-10). It served as a preface to his account of Titus's siege and conquest of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple.92 The contents of the excursus were influenced by Hecataeus, as well as by later hostile references and rumors about Jews and Judaism, all carrying Tacitus's strong imprint. The structure follows the conventional scheme of four sections. However, their sequence and contents, and the internal order of each section, differ from those of other Jewish ethnographies. They are dictated by the context of the excursus, Tacitus's tendency to arrange topics associatively in his ethnographical works,93 and his extremely negative opinion of Jews and Judaism.

The excursus opens with the origo . Tacitus raises a number of conjectures as to the origin of the Jews. All are connected with stories of migration, expulsion, or flight from Crete, Ethiopia, Assyria, and Asia Minor (Hist . V.2). Tacitus himself accepts the anti-Semitic Egyptian-Greek versions of the Jewish Exodus from Egypt (3). The origo is followed by customs (4-5), and not by the geography as is usual in Tacitus. The reason is first and foremost the thematic association: Tacitus opens the customs section with those Jewish cult practices that could be explained by events from the time of the expulsion. Furthermore, contrary to his practice in other ethnographies (e.g., Germania 5.1ff., Agricola 11), Tacitus does not apply geographical explanations to Jewish customs. He therefore did not have any reason to place the geography before the customs.

The customs section breaks down into two parts: the first (Hist . V.4) deals with Jewish cult and religious customs (some alleged), which are explained by the Jewish origo . The second (5) contains customs that are not connected with early Jewish history, but arise from what

Tacitus calls the Jewish pravitas ("corrupted character").94 It ends with a reference to Jewish monotheism, which is followed by the statement that the Jews refrained from making graven representations of the divine and from deifying kings. These features of the Jewish cult and creed were discussed at the end of the section because of association with the preceding material on Jewish customs.95 Since Tacitus mentioned there the similarity between the burial customs and the belief in immortality of Egyptians and Jews, he also found it appropriate to stress the fundamental differences in the cults of the two nations. It stands to reason that Tacitus deferred the account of Jewish beliefs to the end of the customs section because of his lack of appreciation for Jewish religion: in his view Jewish religious conceptions did not originate in authentic, positive religious and moral thinking, but from hatred for mankind and anything sanctified by the civilized world. In his view this negative motivation also characterized most Jewish religious practices (mainly 3.1; 5.1, 5).

The geography occupies the third part of the work (Hist . V.6-8). The survey covers the borders of Judea, climate, flora, and terrain—soil, mountains, rivers, and lakes. Special attention is given to the balsam of Jericho and the unique phenomena of the Dead Sea. The description of Jerusalem (8) is rather short, relative to the rest of the section, because the report on the beginning of Titus's siege, which follows the excursus, is accompanied by a detailed description of the city: its hills and walls, and the Temple fortifications (11-12). As was said above, in contrast to other ethnographies, Tacitus in the Histories does not use the geography in any way to explain Jewish character and customs. He was obviously unable to connect the pleasant features of the land and its climate with his hostile characterization of its inhabitants. The account, therefore, remains cool and "neutral," unlike the other sections of the excursus.

The historical discussion makes up the fourth section, the very last in the excursus (Hist . V.8-10). Contrary to the usual practice in non-Jewish ethnographies, it is not an account of rulers alone, but a summary of later Jewish history. In this respect Tacitus's version is similar to other Jewish ethnographies, but it differs from them in the emphasis laid on periods of foreign rule. The report opens with

the subjection of the Jews to the oriental empires and the Macedonian kingdoms (8.2-3), continues with a brief, condensed reference to the Hasmonean rulers (8.3), and closes with the development of Jewish-Roman relations from the occupation by Pompey up to the Great Revolt (9-10). Tacitus deviates from the accepted scheme in this section because of his overall purpose and because of the context. The first period of Jewish subjugation serves as evidence for the inferior, "servile" position of the Jews in history (8.2), and the period under Roman occupation is a preface to the story of the Roman-Jewish war. It ends in the Year of the Four Emperors and is thus naturally integrated into the account of the siege of Jerusalem. For reasons related to the context (although in an entirely different manner), Tacitus's excursus on the British in Agricota (13ff.) also expands on the history of Roman rule in Britain and mentions only in passing that in the past the British had had kings of their own.

To sum up the discussion: the above survey of ethnographical monographs and excursuses shows that the conventional ethnography was composed of three or four sections, in the following order: origo-archaeologia , geography, customs, and history of rulers. The origo almost always opened the ethnographical work, and only in one case was it replaced by the geography. The geographical account usually preceded that of customs, while in the Jewish excursuses the customs section comes before the geographical account. The fourth component, the history of rulers, was sometimes absent, and in a number of Jewish excursuses it takes the form of a concise history of the nation in the time of the Second Temple. A cursory glance at some Roman ethnographies suffices to show that they followed the same basic scheme (e.g., Tacitus's Germania and Agricola ; Atom. Marc. XV.9-12).

The origin of the nation heads the ethnographical work because according to the conception of ethnographical literature the origo was the main clue to understanding the character, customs, and history of a nation. All these were thought to have been deeply influenced by the special circumstances of the nation's birth.96 The origin may be autochthonous or connected with a migration. In the case of

autochthonous peoples (Egyptians, Ethiopians, or Indians), the origo-archaeologia section includes the claim for the genesis of the human race (or life in general) in their countries and the early stages of civilization. These accounts include the beginnings of the belief in gods and the role of certain gods and mythological figures in the introduction of civilization. With regard to migrating nations, the basic beliefs are recorded in the customs section. Only Strabo's Jewish excursus records the Jewish faith and some basic religious practices in the framework of the origo , for, according to the author's view, the very migration was motivated by philosophical-religious aspirations.

The origo-archaeologia of an autochthonous nation is sometimes supplemented by appendixes on nations created by migration from its land. Such an appendix consists of a series of independent ethnographical accounts. Unlike the ordinary ethnographical monograph or excursus, they contain only the two sections required by the context: the story of the migration (i.e., the origo ) and the nomima . Hecataeus's account of Jews and Judaism belongs to this exceptional category. In the case of famous Greek cities like Athens, the ethnographical account is replaced by a statement about the migration and indirect evidence that it did in fact occur, based mainly on language, customs, and institutions.

The geography usually appears as the second section. Ethnographers attributed to geography great influence (though usually less than to the origo ) on the shaping and development of a nation. Climate, soil, topography, and water are described as decisive factors.97 Hence the prominent position of the geographical section in second place, before customs. Geography was considered to have a greater impact on autochthonous than on migrating nations. In the case of Megasthenes this even caused him to place the Indian geography before the origo .98

The section on customs, the nomima , is as a rule located third, after the origo and geography. In some cases, customs precede the geography, despite the influence of the latter component on the life of a nation. This happens, for instance, in the Jewish excursuses, where the connection between the customs and the origo is too evident to be deferred to a later stage in the account. The nomima are actually the "heart" of an ethnography. Ethnographical works were written first and foremost either to teach the reader about the characteristics and everyday life of a nation or to achieve some political, social, or religious goal. The customs section also includes religious creeds and practices, if these are not recorded in the origo .

An ethnographical work usually closes with a historical section. For reasons connected with the specific contents, Hecataeus's Egyptian ethnography places history before the nomima . The ordinary historical section covers only the most famous rulers, laying stress on their major achievements, especially great military expeditions and building projects. In the case of the Jews this is replaced by a general historical outline, mainly of the changes in the political status of the nation from subjection to independence and back to subjection, without naming individual rulers. Later ethnographers comment on the policies of the Hasmoneans.

The historical section is missing in the ethnographies of some nations. The authors either did not know much about their rulers, or assumed that the reader would not be interested in the names of rulers who were not mentioned by Herodotus or other classical authors.

For the sake of the following discussion on the structure of Pseudo-Hecataeus's treatise, it should be repeated that apart from one case, the surveyed ethnographical works all open with the origo . Only in Megasthenes' Indian ethnography does the origo-archaeologia appear in second place, after geography. It should also be stressed that the origo opens Hecataeus's two ethnographies, his excursus on the Jews, and all the surviving excursuses on Jews and Judaism.

4. The Structure of on the Jews: the Place and Role of the Hezekiah Story

Hecataeus's passages in Against Apion contain at least two sections of the four common in ethnographic literature: (a) customs (including

religion: Ap . I.188, 190-94, 201-2; II.43;99 Orig. C. Cels . I.15);100 (b) geography (including descriptions of the Temple and demography, Ap . I.195-200).

The passages do not make any reference to the traditional Jewish origo —the patriarchs, the former Jewish residence in Egypt, Moses' personality and accomplishments, the Exodus, and the settlement in Canaan. Nor is there any mention of Jewish rulers, the kings or later secular and religious leaders (except for Hezekiah). There is no doubt that all these were absent from the treatise: the very quotation of the passages by Josephus is meant to prove that Greek and Hellenistic authors were acquainted with and acknowledged the antiquity of the Jewish people (Ap . I.22, 175). Had there been any account of these events and personalities, Josephus would certainly have quoted it at length. His emphatic statement that Hecataeus's report about Hezekiah proves that the Jewish people were already flourishing by the time of Ptolemy I (Ap . I.185) further strengthens this conclusion.

The Hezekiah story cannot belong to the two components inherent in the other passages. Hezekiah being the only Jewish leader mentioned, the story could not be part of a section on rulers' histories either.101 What then is the role and place of the story in the schematic structure of the book? In order to answer this question we have to understand the contents of the story precisely, especially the passage about Hezekiah's activity in Egypt.

This, however, is not easy. The original text was only partly cited by Josephus. The quotations contain four separate excerpts (I.186-89), each paragraph constituting another excerpt. Certain conjunctions used by Josephus indicate considerable omissions between the excerpts.102 As appears from the contents, significant omissions have been made at the end of the first excerpt, as well as at the beginning and the end of the fourth. In addition, the phrasing of the fourth excerpt is quite condensed, containing twice as many participles as finite verbs, which may indicate abbreviation by Josephus. The last two sentences are especially concise, and there is an evident lacuna in one of them. These shortcomings of the present text have to be taken into account in trying to understand it.

The general contents of the first and second excerpts (I.186-87) are quite clear: after the battle of Gaza, many Jews, among them Hezekiah the High Priest, decided to follow the king to Egypt and participate in the building of the kingdom. The third excerpt (I.188) refers to the number of priests engaged in public duties and does not concern us here. Hezekiah's activity in Egypt is described in the fourth excerpt, the text of which is rather problematic:

[189] This man ... had obtained this time ["honor"? "appointment"? "authority"? "reward"?], and being well acquainted with us, he assembled some of his men and read to them the whole diaphora ["difference"? "advantage"? "profit"?]. For [he? it?] held [

] in writing their settling [katoikesis ] and politeia .

The great stumbling block is the word diaphora . Whatever its meaning, it can hardly stand alone as the object of "he read." Hans Lewy emends

the Torah (politeia ). Lewy's emendation and interpretation have been accepted by the majority of scholars.104

The emendation itself is not free from difficulties of grammar and substance. First, the particle

To interpret the author as referring to the reading of the Pentateuch, and consequently the katoikesis as the story about the settlement in Canaan, poses a number of other questions: Why did Hezekiah assemble only "some of his men" for the reading of the Pentateuch, which was usually performed before large crowds? How could Hezekiah have read "the whole scroll"—that is, the Torah—in one session? Moreover, the Pentateuch does not record the story of the settlement in Canaan, but closes at the eve of the occupation. The Jewish author, who demonstrates good knowledge of the Scriptures, must have known this basic fact, if only from the ordinary communal religious service.106 And above all, would a leader who initiated Jewish emigration to Egypt have assembled his followers on that occasion just to read them the story of the Exodus and the settlement in the Holy Land, a story whose very

essence is the negation of Jewish residence in Egypt? The author must have been aware of this, and would not have attributed to Hezekiah the performance of such a ceremony in the midst of the emigration and settlement in Egypt. Surely he would not have described it as the climax of Hezekiah's activity upon arriving in Egypt.

Consequently, the emended reading

In view of all these considerations the existing reading,

Instead of

the permission to settle and the rights of the settlers,110 but other terms and variations are also possible. The general meaning of the sentence remains the same. The lacuna may have been caused by a homoiographon (

The interpretation of the second part of the fourth excerpt illuminates its first part. They seem to be closely connected, the second resulting from the first. Hezekiah is said to have been "well acquainted with us" (

(Ap . I.183, 186). Thus probably after negotiating with the Ptolemaic authorities, Hezekiah obtained the time , authority or reward, and was able to present his achievements to his close friends. The contents and phrasing of the excerpt show that details about Hezekiah's negotiations and an account of the realization of the right to settle were included in the original version of the story preceding and following the excerpt, respectively.

We should at this point digress to examine a different interpretation of the whole story recently made by a distinguished scholar. Fergus Millar has argued that the phrasing of the text does not necessarily imply a permanent migration.114 In his view, Hezekiah traveled to Egypt after the Ptolemaic occupation of Judea in the year 312 to negotiate with Ptolemy about his appointment as High Priest and about future arrangements in Judea. Accordingly he was accompanied on this mission by just a few friends and advisers.

This interpretation depends upon emending

First of all, the opening excerpt states that "many people" followed the king to Egypt (Ap . I.187). Given the context, the author could hardly have meant anyone other than Jews. Second, the sequence of events must be considered. After his victory at Gaza, Ptolemy stayed in Coile Syria for a few months to conduct various operations. He returned with his troops to Egypt only seven or eight months later, upon hearing the news of the arrival of Antigonus in Upper Syria (Diod. XIX.93.4-6).115 According to the Hezekiah story, the Jewish High Priest and his men "followed" (I.186) Ptolemy to Egypt. What sense was there after the Ptolemaic withdrawal in carrying on negotiations in Egypt about the High Priesthood or other subjects relating to the Jews in Judea? And if the word "followed" is not to be accepted literally, and Hezekiah had

come to Egypt before Judea was abandoned, would he have negotiated there on the affairs of Judea while Ptolemy himself and his staff stayed in Coile Syria?

Furthermore, Josephus, who could read the full text of the Hezekiah story, surely knew its correct meaning. His version of the story elsewhere in his writings may be instructive. In the consecutive account of the beginning of the Ptolemaic period in Judea in Jewish Antiquities (XII.3-9), Josephus deplores the attitude of Ptolemy toward the inhabitants of Syria, including the Jews, calling him despotes , and elaborates on the occupation of Jerusalem by Ptolemy, his harsh rule in the city, and the banishment of many captives to Egypt and their settlement there. Immediately after this account, Josephus adds (Ant . XII.9):

But not a few [

] of the other Jews came voluntarily [

] to Egypt because the quality of the places and Ptolemy's prodigality [philotimia ] "invited" them.

The sentence contradicts the preceding account: the immigration is a voluntary one and not a deportation, and the evaluation of Ptolemy's character is the opposite of the despotism stressed in the earlier paragraphs. It recalls the Hezekiah story:116 a great number of people were involved, they went to Egypt voluntarily, and they were attracted by Ptolemy's generous character. It seems clear, therefore, that the sentence was written under the influence of the Hezekiah story, and we can thus conclude that Josephus understood the story as recording a permanent migration of a great number of Jews to Egypt. The fact that Josephus introduced this sentence, despite its blatantly contradicting his own preceding account, indicates that he was confident of the meaning of the story and that it was based on unambiguous statements. These must have been found mainly in the missing passages of the original story.

The next step required for understanding the role of the Hezekiah story would be to clarify the dimensions of the settlement and its status according to the author. It has been suggested that the Jewish

community in Alexandria or a certain military settlement is meant.117 However, as was said above, Hezekiah's activity in Egypt—that is, the emigration and negotiations, and the very settlement—was certainly recorded in the missing sentences (or passages) preceding and following the fourth excerpt. Had it been the founding of the Jewish community in Alexandria, Josephus would not have missed such a reference. In Book II of Against Apion , where he strives to prove the antiquity of Jewish settlement in Alexandria and the rights granted to it, Josephus cannot adduce any direct evidence from Pseudo-Hecataeus, but only the scarcely relevant passage about the granting of Samaria to the Jews by Alexander (Ap . II.43). It also appears from Josephus that the Jews of Alexandria claimed to have been settled there earlier, since the founding of the city (Bell . II.487, Ap . II.35; cf. Philo, Flacc . 46).

As for the other suggestion: the High Priest and his followers are said to have emigrated to Egypt in order to "take part in the affairs [of the kingdom]" (Ap . I.186), and Hezekiah is introduced as a man especially competent in these matters (187). The placement of the immigrants in a single military settlement, which was normally relatively far from the center of the Ptolemaic regime, does not accord with the purpose of the emigration and the personality and status of Hezekiah. Moreover, the author mentions an emigration of "many people" (186), while the Ptolemaic military settlements were, naturally, rather small.118

In considering the two suggestions, it should be noticed that the story is a clear antithesis to the version of the Exodus in the Jewish excursus of Hecataeus of Abdera (Diod. XL.3.1-3), and the meaning of katoikesis can therefore be deduced from its parallel in Hecataeus: Moses takes the people out of Egypt, and Hezekiah leads them back to Egypt; the Jews were expelled from Egypt by the Egyptians, while the Ptolemaic regime accepted them in Egypt most favorably; Moses is said to have established the Jewish apoikia in Judea and given it a politeia , while Hezekiah received both the right to establish Jewish settlements in Egypt and

their politeia . Now, the term apoikia in Hecataeus means, as the author himself elaborates, not a single city or locality, but the whole settlement of the Jews in Judea, Jerusalem, and other cities (Diod. XL.3.3).119 This parallel indicates that the author attributed to Hezekiah and his men a settlement undertaking of remarkable dimensions, certainly not a single rural settlement. The very modeling of the Hezekiah story after the Moses tradition and its place at the head of the original treatise also show how important it was to the author Limiting Hezekiah's practical achievements to the foundation of just one military settlement or the like considerably reduces the story's importance.

Despite what might be thought, I do not believe the author presented the Hezekiah migration as the historical beginning of the Jewish Egyptian Diaspora. Jewish readers would not have accepted such an inaccuracy. The existence of a Jewish community in Egypt already in the time of the great oriental empires, recorded in the Bible and the Elephantine papyri, was well known to Egyptian Jews and was recorded in their literature (e.g., Pseudo-Aristeas 13, 36). In another passage, Pseudo-Hecataeus himself recounts Jewish emigration to Egypt "after Alexander's death," caused by the stasis in Coile Syria (Ap . I.194), which could not have meant the emigration attributed to Hezekiah, nor a later emigration. Thus according to Pseudo-Hecataeus, the settlement of Hezekiah and his followers was not the first emigration of Jews to Egypt, but a wave of emigration and settlement of special importance and considerable extent, which made the Jewish community there an important factor, well integrated in state affairs.

From the historical point of view, this seems to be a proper assessment. I have already noted in Chapter III.2 that the story about the voluntary emigration is a reversal of the deportation of many Jews from Judea by Ptolemy I and their forced settlement in Egypt.120 As usual in deportations of this kind, which were intended to insure the future stability of the provincial regime, those exiled naturally comprised the elite of the Jewish community in Judea. Their arrival in Egypt not only made a major numerical contribution to the building of Egyptian Jewry, but, given their quality, must also have decisively influenced its future cultural, religious, and social development.

With its contents clarified, the location of the Hezekiah story in the book requires attention. Josephus quotes it at the head of the passages cited. Along with the fact that the story is an antithesis to the Exodus story that opens Hecataeus's authentic Jewish excursus, this suggests that the Hezekiah story was the first subject dealt with by Pseudo-Hecataeus. Furthermore, the Hezekiah story is quoted by Josephus at the outset as evidence that the Jewish people were already "mature" at the time of the battle of Gaza. However, this could be proved by references to other events, which preceded the battle of Gaza and were adduced by Josephus in the context of Jewish customs, such as Jewish martyrology in the Persian period (Ap . I.191), the participation in Alexander's army of Jews firmly committed to their beliefs (I.192), the granting of Samaria to the Jews by Alexander (II.43), and the massive emigration to Phoenicia and Egypt after his death (I.194). The placing of the Hezekiah story at the head of the passages can thus be explained only by its original place in the treatise. Josephus just followed the original sequence of his source.121

The dimension and importance of the settlement attributed to Hezekiah and the place of the story in the book, and, even more, its formulation as an antithesis to the Exodus story in Hecataeus's excursus, lead to the inevitable conclusion that the Hezekiah story served as a substitute for the origo component, which heads most ethnographic surveys and usually centers around an emigration and foundation. The Hezekiah story does this in a unique way: it does not report the origo of the Jewish people as such, but only that of the hard core (both numerical and qualitative) of the Jewish Egyptian Diaspora. The odd mixture of an "origo " that deals only with Egyptian Jewry together with the geography of the Holy Land and a general Jewish nomima section will be understandable once we clarify the purposes of the book. And after all, one would not expect the author of a Jewish ethnography to replace in his treatise a Palestinian geography with an Egyptian one. Pseudo-Aristeas, admittedly not an ethnographical author in the strict sense, similarly opens the Letter with an account of an event in the life of the Egyptian Jewry and inserts a detailed geographic excursus on the Holy Land (83-120). For an ethnographic book proper this is certainly

an extraordinary mixture, but the omission of the Exodus and the personality of Moses from a Jewish ethnography is also unparalleled.

The omissions of Moses and the Exodus could not have occurred accidentally. The author, apart from being well acquainted with Hecataeus's excursus, knew perfectly well that the beginning of a nation as a whole is always the first (and frequently the most significant) component of an ethnographical work, and this also applies to the story of the Exodus in Jewish ethnographies. The omission can be understood in light of the contents of the Hezekiah story. The laudatory story of emigration to Egypt initiated by the High Priest could not coexist with the tradition about the sufferings in Egypt, the Exodus, and the settlement in the Jewish land. This is also why the component of the rulers' achievements was omitted: a description of the glorious days of past Jewish independence in the Holy Land could not be harmonized with an idealization of the emigration and settlement in the Egyptian Diaspora—certainly not in the period of the Hasmonean state, when the treatise was composed. The omission of these fundamental traditions, together with the use of the Hezekiah story as the origo component, once more underlines the major importance of the story in the framework of the book, and indicates that it contains the main message.

It should be added that even if we are wrong, and the treatise was not an ethnographical work par excellence , the absence of any reference to Moses could not but be deliberate. Moses stands at the center of almost every paragraph in Hecataeus's Jewish excursus, and was described as the initiator and lawgiver responsible for all Jewish practices. How was it that the Jewish forger, who tried to convince his readers of the authenticity of his work, and was evidently acquainted with Hecataeus's original excursus, did not mention Moses in his detailed account of Jewish practices, not even in the report about the Jewish priests and their regulations (Ap . I.188), attributed by Hecataeus explicitly to Moses (Diod. XL.3.4)?122

A final note about the genre: despite the major role of the Hezekiah story, the treatise cannot be classified as a "foundation story" (ktisis ). This genre, which saw its beginning in ancient Greece and acquired

considerable popularity in the Hellenistic period, was composed in metrical poetry, and only a few works were written in prose, using similar stylistic-artistic features. The books are named after a country, a region, or, most often, a city. Stress is laid on etiological explanations for the foundation of the settlement and its names, cult, and customs.123 The account centers around the personality of the "founder," to whom the establishment of all institutions and customs is attributed.124 None of these features can be found in Josephus's passages. Besides, inclusion of detailed accounts on the nomima and geography of a mother city is less understandable in a "foundation story" than in an ethnography. In preferring to use the ethnographic genre, for which Hecataeus was celebrated, the author was motivated, among other things, by the wish to create an impression of authenticity.