Conclusion

The passages attributed to Hecataeus of Abdera in Against Apion cannot be accepted as authentic. The discussion raises a number of major arguments against authenticity, based on the following points: the details of the Mosollamus episode as well as of the Hezekiah story; the mention of, and praise for, the destruction by the Jews of pagan cult centers; the description of religious persecutions and martyrdom; certain data of military significance in the geographical account of Judea; the reference to immigration to Phoenicia and the statement about the annexation of Samaria. The suggestion that Josephus used a Jewish adaptation that slightly altered the original text fails to save the authenticity of the treatise; the alternative that Josephus had done this himself does not stand up to criticism.

The anachronistic references, the striking absence of certain allusions, and considerations related to the purpose of On the Jews , all taken together, indicate dating the passages between 107 and 93 B.C. , or rather taking 103/2 as a post quem date. This means that composition took place sometime between the late years of John Hyrcanus, or the first years of Alexander Jannaeus, and the great Jewish conquests in Trans-Jordan. For the Jews in Judea this was a period of territorial expansion and prosperity, with a setback in the year 103/2, when Judea was invaded by Ptolemy Lathyrus. An analysis of certain passages of Pseudo-Aristeas shows that it was written in the same generation as Pseudo-Hecataeus, preceding it by a decade or two.

The author of the passages was a Diaspora Jew living in Egypt. He seems to have belonged to the moderate conservative stream, which significantly differed from the "allegorists," the typical representatives of

Hellenistic Jewry. Pseudo-Hecataeus demonstrates a profound knowledge of Jewish tradition, particularly of the cult in the Jerusalem Temple, but his Hellenistic education is incomplete and suffers from significant lacunae. His Greek is a mixture of different styles, and in at least two paragraphs is rather poor. He evidently did not have any philosophical education, and probably avoided reading poetical-mythological literature. There are no traces of allegorical, moral, or philosophical interpretations of Jewish traditions, even when such are badly needed. The author was probably brought up with the Hebrew Bible and went on to use it in religious services, to the exclusion of Septuagint versions. The treatise strictly adheres to Jewish practices and Torah precepts, and advocates intolerance toward pagan cult and beliefs, even violence when possible. The author resides in Egypt, but his heart is given to the Holy Land, demonstrating constant interest in current events there as well as loyalty and reverence for the Jerusalem Temple.

The passages were quoted by Josephus from a book named On the Jews. It was an ethnographical treatise of a modest size, composed according to the basic scheme of the ethnographical genre developed in the classical and Hellenistic periods. Such a work is almost always headed by an origo section, which describes the descent and beginning of the nation concerned. This is usually followed by a geographical account of the land, and a section on nomima ("customs"). The closing section is often a historical sketch that concentrates on the achievements of outstanding rulers. The order of the four sections sometimes differs, and the historical section is occasionally absent. Pseudo-Hecataeus opened his treatise with something like an origo , went on to the nomima , and closed the treatise with the geography. The placement of the geography at the end is known also from other Jewish ethnographies.

The Hezekiah story serves as a substitute for a true origo section. It does not describe the descent of the Jewish people as a whole, but claims to record the origins of the Jewish Diaspora in Hellenistic Egypt, or rather the most significant migration (quantitatively and qualitatively) from Judea to Egypt at the beginning of the Hellenistic period. This "origo " is influenced by, and is actually a reversal of, the origo section in the genuine Hecatean excursus on Jews and Judaism in the Egyptian ethnography, which recounts the Exodus from Egypt and the settlement in Canaan, both said to have been headed by Moses. The very kernel of the Hezekiah story is the great deportation of Jews from Judea to Egypt by Ptolemy I in the year 302/1. The real historical facts were

reversed by the author: Hezekiah, actually the civil governor of Judea, is described as High Priest, and the forced exile of many Jews to Egypt as a voluntary migration; Ptolemy I's harsh and cruel treatment of the Jews is turned into philanthropia , and the background—he time of Ipsus (302/:1 B.C. )—into the time of Gaza (312). According to the story, Hezekiah the High Priest, who was touched by the benevolence of Ptolemy, initiated a great migration to Egypt in order to involve the Jews in "the affairs [of the kingdom]." He is said to have headed the move personally, and to have established Jewish settlements in Egypt after receiving from the authorities their charter and constitution.

The Hezekiah story is the focal point of the book and contains the main message. The book was written in order to legitimize and justify Jewish residence in Egypt. This was essential for conservative Jews in view of the implicit prohibition of the Torah against returning to Egypt. The quandary became acute in the generation of Pseudo-Hecataeus: the Diaspora could no longer be described as compulsion when the Jewish state had consolidated its independence, become economically prosperous, and considerably expanded its borders. Moreover, the Hasmoneans badly needed additional qualified manpower, especially Jewish military men, who were so successful in Ptolemaic Egypt. The role of Hezekiah, the so-called High Priest, in the migration and settlement of Jews in Egypt provided the religious legitimization, just as the involvement of the High Priest, according to Pseudo-Aristeas, in the preparations for the translation of the Pentateuch legitimized the Septuagint.

But legitimation of the existing situation was not enough. Contemporary Jews needed a justification for remaining in Egypt. The justification was also provided by the Hezekiah story. Hezekiah's purpose in emigrating to Egypt was to create there a great concentration of Jews occupying key positions in the army, court, and economic life. In this way, local Jews would be able to exert their influence on the Ptolemaic authorities on behalf of the Jews in the Holy Land. The justification for the continued residence of Jews in Egypt is thus their contribution to the existence and security of their brethren in Judea. This certainly was not why Jews migrated to and remained in Egypt. But the fact is that they were deeply involved in state affairs at certain periods, and in the two generations preceding the composition of Pseudo-Hecataeus they even held the highest positions in the royal army. These Jews, indeed, used their "lobbying power" on various occasions to help the Jewish state. At least in one case—in the year 103/2—their influence

upon a Ptolemaic sovereign saved the Jewish state from Ptolemaic occupation, when Alexander Jannaeus was virtually on his knees. The events of the year 103/2 may have inspired the author to provide this justification for the existence of the Diaspora. Pseudo-Hecataeus thus contains the oldest extant evaluation of the secular, national role of the Jewish Diaspora.

The treatise also carries a number of other religious and national messages. Most of them concern Diaspora Jews. Thus, for instance, it preaches adherence to Jewish traditions in the way of the contemporary conservatives and commitment to the Jerusalem Temple by the Diaspora, and justifies the territorial expansion of the Hasmonean rulers, even their brutality toward religious centers of the occupied population. The treatise attended to the basic facts and concerns of Egyptian Jewry and the Hasmonean state from the viewpoint of a conservative Diaspora Jew. Pseudo-Hecataeus's On the Jews can thus be regarded as a manifesto of conservative Judaism in Hellenistic Egypt.