III
The Question of Authenticity
Scholars contesting the authenticity of On the Jews have put forward more than a dozen different arguments. Some fail to prove the case. For example, the facts that Hecataeus was credited with the forged book On Abraham and that Philo of Byblos had doubted whether Hecataeus wrote the treatise On the Jews only illustrate the general problem, but cannot be used as evidence.[1] The enthusiastic description of the Jewish people was, as one might expect, also introduced as an argument against authenticity, but this was rejected in light of certain general parallels to idealized accounts of oriental peoples known from Hellenistic ethnographical literature, and the description of the Jews as "philosophers" by early Hellenistic authors.[2] The evident idealization of Mosaic Judaism in Strabo's ethnographical excursus (XVI.2.36-39) is even more relevant here.[3] Two other arguments, based on a sentence ascribed to Hecataeus by Pseudo-Aristeas (31) and a reference to the Jewish tithes in one of the fragments (Jos. Ap. I.188), are by themselves inconclusive and have been rightly rejected.[4] It has also been pointed out that there is no quotation from the book ascribed to Hecataeus in the collection of Hellenistic writings on the Jews compiled by Alexander
[1] See Lewy (1932) 118-19; Guttman (1958-63) I.66-67; M. Stern (1974-84) I.23; Holladay (1983) 280-82; Goodman in Schürer et al. (1973-86) III.672-73.
[2] See esp. Lewy (1932) 118; Gager (1969) 131-34. On the Jews, see Theophrastus ap. Porphyr. Abst. II.26; Megasthenes ap. Clem. Strom. I.15; Clearchus ap. Jos. Ap. I.179.
[3] On this excursus and its origin, see further pp. 212-13 below.
[4] See pp. 140ff., 159-60 below.
Polyhistor (first century B.C. ), but this argument from silence is even less significant for the debate.[5]
The difference in general tone and attitude toward the Jews between the treatise and Hecataeus's Jewish excursus in the Egyptian ethnography, as well as the contradictory references to the priests' income (Diod. XL.3.7, Jos. Ap. I.188), deserves more attention. It has been argued in defense that On the Jews was written by Hecataeus at a later date, after he had become better acquainted with Jews and Judaism, or had made a special study in preparation for his treatise on the Jews.[6] Unfortunately these assumptions can be neither proved nor disproved: if On the Jews is authentic, it must have been written after the battle of Gaza (312 B.C. ), which is explicitly mentioned (Ap. I.184, 186), and before the final reconquest of Judea by Ptolemy I (302 B.C. ), in which the king treated the Jews harshly and deported many of them to Egypt.[7] As far as Hecataeus's Egyptian ethnography is concerned, it seems to have been written between 305 and 302.[8] There is thus still some room for dating the composition of the Jewish excursus earlier than the Jewish treatise.
The positive evidence brought forward so far to support authenticity is quite meager It has been argued that the author must have been a gentile, since, while demonstrating an apparently thorough acquaintance with Greek culture, he seems to make a basic mistake concerning the Jewish deportation to Babylonia (Ap. I.194). This, however, could well be expected of a Hellenized Jew; we know of such cases in Jewish Hellenistic literature. But, as a matter of fact, the statement about the deportation has already been shown to be reliable,[9] and a close examination of the passages proves that the author had only a partial and inaccurate knowledge of Greek heritage and practices.[10]
On the other hand, a number of arguments against authenticity based on a historical analysis of statements in the fragments themselves still seem in principle to be valid. All of them were mentioned in one way or
[5] Contrary to the opinions of Graetz (1876) 344; Willrich (1900) 111; cf. Schaller (1963) 27-28.
[6] See esp. M. Stern (1974-84) I.24, and there also other explanations.
[7] See the sources and discussion, pp. 71-77 below.
[8] See pp. 15-16 above.
[9] See pp. 143-44 below.
[10] See below, pp. 148-59.
another by Willrich in his Judaica (1900), and have since been repeated or elaborated on by other scholars. Nevertheless, the analysis has not always been sufficiently convincing and has also frequently been accompanied, especially in the case of Willrich, by mistaken assumptions and inexactitude. The older arguments, therefore, need far more evidence and elucidation. It is also necessary to scrutinize the counterarguments and solutions offered by the proponents of authenticity.
In discussing the various passages, the following considerations will concern us:
1. Do the views expressed or implied in the passages accord with the conceptions and convictions of Hecataeus?
2. Are the data about Greek practices incorporated in the treatise confirmed by extant knowledge, meaning that they could have been written by Hecataeus?
3. In view of his position in the court, Hecataeus must have been acquainted with, or striven to know, the truth about certain details relating to the Jews (e.g., information having a military significance, Jewish leadership, and the like); can these be verified? We may observe that had Hecataeus not served in the Ptolemaic court, and had he actually resided on the Greek mainland, as one scholar (unjustifiably) maintains,[11] the whole issue of authenticity would have been decided at the outset: Hecataeus's position in the Ptolemaic court is emphasized in the passages (in addition to Josephus's introductory notes).
4. Does the presentation of major events that took place in the time of Hecataeus agree with hard evidence from other sources concerning that time? And if not, could it be that Hecataeus was interested in distorting the real facts?
5. Could all the described historical events and developments relating to Jewish history have taken place before or during the lifetime of Hecataeus?
Unfortunately, a stylistic comparison with Hecataeus's Egyptian ethnography and the Jewish excursus would not be of much help: Diodorus's involvement in shaping the vocabulary and style of the epitome was too great to allow a reliable basis for comparison.[12] One should also be cautious in applying arguments from silence and the like.
[11] See p. 8 n. 2 above.
[12] See p. 24 and n. 49 above.
Thus the absence from the passages of any reference to Moses as well as of philosophical and social reasonings, which are so predominant in the excursus, may support the claim of forgery, but can be used only as a second line of evidence. On the other hand, caution should also be exercised regarding the detailed and astonishingly accurate knowledge of the Temple and its cult objects demonstrated by the author, which in itself need not necessarily indicate that he was Jewish.
The discussion of this chapter will examine one by one the passages that have appeared suspect to previous scholars, and two additional fragments that have been virtually neglected in the scholarly debate but furnish new evidence. These are Ap. I.195-99 and 201-4, containing the geographical account of Judea and Jerusalem, and the Mosollamus story (see sections III.1, 8). We shall keep to the order of the passages as they appear in Against Apion, with one exception, the Mosollamus story: though it is the last of the fragments quoted in the first book of Against Apion (201-4), it will be placed at the start of the discussion. Being the most complete and comprehensive fragment, it provides a wider range of considerations for evaluating the question of authenticity.
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):
If it [the bird] stays there, it is expedient for all to wait still longer, and if it rises and flies ahead, to advance, but if [it flies] behind, to withdraw at once.
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):
How, then, could this [bird], which did not provide for its own safety, say anything sound about our march? For had it been able to know the future, it would not have come to this place, fearing that Mosollamus the Jew would draw his bow and kill it.
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.
[13] See the discussion, p. 184 below.
[14] Geffcken (1907) xv; Jacoby, RES.V. "Hekataios (4)," 2766-67; Reinach (1930) 39; Rappaport (1965) 142-43; Hengel (1971) 303.
[15] The only attempt so far to reach a conclusion on the question of authenticity by referring to the details of the story is a short note by W. Burkert in Hengel (1971) 324. However, it could not possibly decide the issue. See the comments in nn. 41 and 50 below.
[16] J.G. Müiller (1877) 177-78; Lewy (1932) 128-29; Holladay (1983) 333-34 nn. 51-52. See also p. 64 below on the episode in the letter attributed to Diogenes.
[17] See the discussions and summaries of Wachsmuth (1860); Bouché-Leclercq (1879-82) I.14ff.; Nilsson (1940) 121-39; Cumont (1960) 57ff.; Flacelière (1961) 103-18; Pease (1963) 75, 206-9, 312; Nock (1972) II.534-50; Pfeffer (1975); Pritchett (1974-91) III.48-49, 141-53.
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" (
[18] The relevant sources: Eus. PE XIV.18.26 (Pyrrho preparing a sacrifice for his sister); ibid. 24 (Pyrrho's real or alleged visit to Delphi or Oropus to consult the oracle; see Long [1978] 73-74); Diog. Laert. IX.64 and Hesychius of Miletus FHG IV.174 (Pyrrho being appointed high priest). The first two references evidently drew on testimonia from the time of Pyrrho (Antigonus of Carystus and Timon via Aristocles), and the same may be true of the third one (Antigonus of Carystus?). Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. I.17 ("to live according to the traditional customs and laws") reflects the later Skeptical tradition.
[19] See p. 8 n. 5 above.
[20] On Hecataeus and Diodorus's Egyptian ethnography, see in detail P. 14ff. and esp. Extended Notes, n. 1 p. 289. The narrative material and comments quoted below are definitely Hecataean and not additions by Diodorus (see nn. 21, 22 below).
[21] There is no involvement of Diodorus in the contents of the passage, which is part of the rationalization and praise of the Egyptian animal cult; see below p. 99 n. 138 referring to Diod. I.83.8. Porphyry mentions only the hawk as an Egyptian bird of omen (Abst. IV.9). He may have drawn on Hecataeus. See further nn. 33 and 53 below.
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
[22] The last reference, as well as para. 25.3, mentioned above, which are decisive for the argument, undoubtedly originate in Hecataeus's work. The same applies to the criticism of Herodotus on Egypt. It is agreed that Diodorus did not usually bother to consult more than one source for a single subject, certainly not for minute details, and that he did not indulge in source criticism.
[23] See pp. 16-17 above.
[24] See pp. 98-99 below.
[25] See the sources on p. 98 n. 137 below.
[26] On this book as affecting Hecataeus's social, political, and religious ideals, see, e.g., Susemihl (1891) I.314; Jacoby, RES.V. "Hekataios (4)," 2755; id. (1943) 52ff.; Guttman (1958-63) I.42-45.
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]
Never once do they sing a discordant note or out of tune, but as though they had been given the key by the leader they chant in unison with the natives, who are skilled in the sacred melodies.
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
[27] See Bolton (1962) 22ff., 106ff., et passim.
[28] The translation: Scholfield (1958-59) II.357-59 (LCL ).
[29] See the sources in Pollard (1977) 145-46 and 195 n. 59.
[30] See esp. Plato, Phaedo 84b; Arist. HA IX.615 2.
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" (
He [Socrates] was introducing nothing newer than were those believers in divination who rely on bird omens, oracles, coincidences, and sacrifices. For they do not believe that the birds or those met by accident know what will happen to the inquirer, but that the gods indicate what will happen to him through them.
The same explanation for omens, sometimes with specific reference to birds, is known from quite a number of sources.[33] This understanding
[31] Two stories, which might appear to be similar to the Mosollamus episode, an Aesopean fable (no. 170 ed. Hausrath [Leipzig, 1970]) and a tale about Diogenes of Sinope (EG, Diog. no. 38 [p. 253]), ridicule streetcorner soothsayers who were not able to foresee their own troubles. The authors do not record the technicalities of divination, since they were not necessary for the moral. What matters for the present discussion is that they do not distort the basic facts. For the difference in motifs between these two stories and the Mosollamus episode, see pp. 64-65 below.
[32] The vulgar opinion is recorded by Philo, Spec. Leg. I.60-63, who explicitly relates it to the "mob" (para. 60).
[33] Xen. Hipp. IX.8-9, Cyr. I.6.1; Plut. Dion 24; Sollert. Anim. 975A-B; Sen. NQ II.32.3ff.; Orig. C. Cels. IV. 88; Amm. Marc. XXI.1.9; cf., e.g., Cic. Div. I.118-19, II.35-39 on the Stoic doctrine of the divination of entrails. Two later sources of the Roman period attribute "understanding" to birds: Pliny states that of all birds, only ravens are able to understand the meaning of the omens they convey (NH X.33), while Porphyry attributes this ability to "all mantic birds" (Abst. III.5.3). This, however, does not contradict the former sources: certain birds understand the omen themselves, but this does not mean that they know anything beyond the specific event referred to by the omen. The omen in the Mosollamus story applies only to the question of whether or not to continue the march. The relevance of Porphyry, an author of the third century A.D. with strong mystical inclinations, to the accepted view of educated Greeks in the fourth century B.C. is by itself highly doubtful. (One cannot determine the source of his statement, though in the same passage he clearly uses Roman sources.) Pliny for his part stresses that only ravens are gifted with "understanding." It should also be noted that whooper swans, which in addition to being "mantic birds" were believed to know (and sing) when they were about to die (Ael. NA V.34, X.36), are an exceptional case described as such. Yet this faculty can be regarded as activated instinctively at the onset of a natural death only, and not by the prospect of an unexpected, sudden death, as in the case of the bird in the Mosollamus story.
gave rise to a number of theological problems. Cicero thus records the deliberations of the Stoics (Div. I.118):[34]
But it seems necessary to determine the way [by which these signs are given]. For the Stoics do not believe that god is involved in every fissure of the liver or in every song of a bird; quite obviously that would be neither seemly nor proper for a god and furthermore would be impossible. But, in the beginning, the world was so created that certain results would be preceded by certain signs, which are given sometimes by entrails and by birds, sometimes by lightning, by portents and by stars, sometimes by dreams, and sometimes by utterances of persons in a frenzy.
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
[34] The translation: Falconer (1923) 351-55 (LCL ), with a number of changes. Cf. Sen. NQ II.32.3-4.
[35] See especially the direct philosophical arguments against bird divination in Div. II.16, 53, 56-57, 76, 80, 82-83, and, indirectly, 9ff., 18-21, 25. Cf. 30, 36, which actually could also be used against bird omens.
inter alia by short notes, like the rhetorical question of Carneades and Panaetius preserved by Cicero (Div. I.12):[36]
Therefore let Carneades cease to press the question, which Panaetius also used to urge, whether Jupiter had ordered the crow to croak on the left side and the raven on the right.
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
[36] See also Div. I.85; II.56, 72, 80. For a somewhat similar line of argumentation with regard to another subject, cf. Philo, De Mutatione Norninurn 61; Quaest. et Solut. in Genesim II.79.
[37] On the question of Panaetius's attitude toward divination, see the summary and bibliography by Pease (1963) 62-63, and p. 64 on Carneades.
[38] Lewy (1932) 129 and n. 4. The letter: EG, Diog. no. 38 (p. 253).
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
[39] See, e.g., Cic. Div. II.9ff.; Jos. Ap. I.258; Luc. Deor. Dial. 16.1 (244). Without referring to the attitude toward divination of Diogenes himself, it is noteworthy that Plutarch, who has a favorable opinion of portents and omens (see, e.g., n. 33 above; cf. Nock [1972] II.538ff.), deplores streetcorner soothsayers (Pyth. Orac. 407C, Cic. 17.5, Lycurg. 9.5).
[40] See the latest collections of material in Pollard (1977) 116-29; Pritchett (1974-91) III.101ff.
[41] W. Burkert (in Hengel [1971] 324) argues that the story could not have been written by Hecataeus, since military ornithomantics was not practiced in the Hellenistic period. This is to overlook the fact that the Mosollamus story, whether genuine or not, was in any case composed during the Hellenistic period, indicating that the interpretation of bird omens still was resorted to by armies when a "mantic bird" was observed. Moreover, ornithoscopy was well known and practiced in the Hellenistic period (see some of the sources nn. 48, 49 below), and the disappearance of bird mantics from the Hellenistic battlefields in a period when Greco-Macedonian troops were confronting Roman armies, which adhered so much to their own auguric traditions, is by itself implausible. Polybius's negative attitude toward omens and portents (see esp. VI.56.6-12, IX.19.1, XXXIII.17.2) is chiefly responsible for the absence of references to bird omens in extant accounts of Hellenistic battles, most of which are derived (directly or indirectly) from his version. Burkert seems also to be inaccurate in stating that the inspection of entrails for military purposes was declining. See, e.g., Polyaenus IV.20 and Onasander X.24. Plut. Aem. 19.4 and Polyb. V.24.9, XXIII.10.17 may also be taken to indicate sacrifice divination. Be that as it may, bird divination could not have disappeared as early as the beginning of the Hellenistic period.
[42] E.g., Il. I.168-84, VII.247ff., X.274ff., XII.195-250, XIII.822, XXIV.315; Xen. Anab. VI.1.23, 5.2; Plut. Them. 12; Cic. Div. I.74, 87. Onasander X.26 ("signs of sight and sound") may also hint at bird omens.
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
[43] The use of just the word ornis in incidental or one-time references to birds of omen is not exceptional. See, e.g., Il. XIII.821; Od. X.242; Hesiod, Erg. 828; Aesch. SCT 26, Agarn. 112; Soph. OT 52; Eur. Phoen. 839; Aristoph. Birds 719. However, the only subject of the Mosollamus story is bird omens, and the word is mentioned more than once.
[44] See Holliday (1911) 270; Pollard (1977) 120, 126-27.
[45] Cf. Cic. Div. II.76; Sen. NQ II.32.5.
[46] See Pritchett (1974-91) III.101ff., 105ff. Add Diod. XXII.3 for owls. The carnivorous bird or raven mentioned in Arr. Anab. II.26.4-27 and Curt. IV.6.12 is an exception. The nature of the occurrence (the bird dropped a stone on Alexander's head while he was making a sacrifice) could not but be taken as a warning.
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):
[(If) the bird is flying from right to left:] if it disappears—fortunate. But if it raises the left wing: whether it (only) rises or disappears—ill. And (if) it is flying from left to right: if it disappears in a straight (course)—ill, but if after raising the right wing—[fortunate] ...
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
[47] See Wilamowitz (1931) I.145; Pollard (1977) 121; and the opposite view by Holliday (1911) 269 n. 4; Pritchett (1974-91) III.103-4.
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
[49] Among the relevant sources, see, e.g., Il. X.274-77, XII.200ff., 237-40, XIII.821, XXIV.315-20; Od. XV.525-26; Plut. Them. 12; Xen. Ahab. VI.1.23; Cic. Div. II.80, 82; Ael. NA I.48; Michael Psellus (see n. 48), lines 30ff. The main discussions: Bouché-Leclercq (1879-82) I.135-38; Jevons (1896) 22-23; Pollard (1977) 121. For Roman practices, see Pease (1963) 76-77, 482, and further bibliography there.
[50] This is what is probably meant by W. Burkert's short, sharp note (without references): "Die Geschichte ... wie der Jude Mosollamus den weissagenden Vogel erschiesst, unterstellt der Vogelschau eine Simplizität, für die es keiner seherischen Kunst bedurft hätte.... Hier wird, ohne Kenntnis yon der Sache, ein Popanz aufgebaut und lächerlich gemacht" (in Hengel [1971] 324).
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]
[51] The passage in paras. 60-62 refers to the vulgar opinion of the mob (cf. n. 32 above).
[52] The only typological parallel I can find for gentile mantics does not relate to bird omens. Lucian of Samosata describes the statue of Atargatis in Syrian Hieropolis, which served as an oracle: the statue is carried by the temple priests, and the high priest presents the question. If the statue drives its carriers forward, the sign is positive; if it forces them to retreat, negative (De Syria Dea 36-37). A similar oracular technique is known from a later temple in Heliopolis (Macr. Sat. I.23.13), and the same may hold for the oracle associated with Alexander's visit to the Ammon temple (Diod. XVII.50-51; see Harmon [1925] IV.392 n.1). The interpretation of such an oracle was based on what were believed to be involuntary movements of the priests, in which a manifest intervention of the deity seemed evident. This was obviously very different from natural, expected, and elementary motions of birds. If this was indeed the former practice in the celebrated Ammon temple, this may suggest a possible source of inspiration for the Mosollamus story. At the same time the "instructions" could also be a product of the author's imagination. After all, it would not take much imagination to invent such an interpretation if the question presented was whether to advance or not.
[53] It might be suggested that the author was actually describing an Egyptian, not a Greek, seer. But this still does not resolve the main difficulties. The very possibility that the Ptolemaic army relied on the interpretation of an Egyptian seer in making important military decisions is by itself rather remote, especially at that early stage in the history of the dynasty (despite the number of Egyptian soldiers and service troops; see Diod. XIX.80.4). It is even less plausible in view of the apparently rare resort to bird omens in ancient Egypt. The only extant reference in the plentiful Egyptian texts (and the numerous references to birds) appears in a "civilian" context in one of the el-Amarna letters. (EA35.26; see Brunner [1977]. Cf. Buchberger [1986] 1047, 1050 n. 23. Brunner's statement that this is the only reference can be trusted, given the encyclopedic knowledge of the Egyptian sources possessed by that prominent Tübingen Egyptologist.) It is surely no accident that this practice does not figure in the numerous Egyptian battle accounts, which contain much information about divination and magic. The references to Egyptian birds of omen by Hecataeus (Diod. I.87.6-9) need not be taken at face value, and may be one of the numerous mistakes and inaccuracies in his Egyptian ethnography, specifically, one of the inaccuracies attributable to (deliberate?) confusion with Greek practices. In any case, Hecataeus does not mention military application. Porphyry (Abst . IV. 9) may have drawn on Hecataeus, or may reflect Hellenistic influence.
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,
[54] See pp. 100-1 and 120-21 below.
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
[55] For a more detailed reconstruction of the contents of paras, 188-89 see pp. 221-25 below. See also pp. 225-26 below for the refutation of the hypothesis that the passage records not an emigration but only a trip to Egypt.
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
[56] E.g., Willrich (1895) 22-33, (1900) 99-100; Jacoby, RE . s.v. "Hekataios (4)," 2767.
[57] See J. Hornblower (1981) 27-43, 62, and earlier references there. Cf. also Seibert (1983) 2-8.
[58] J. Hornblower (1981) 12.
[59] Ibid. 107ff.
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):
The cities suffered ill and lost many of their inhabitants in the struggles, so that Syria at the hands of Ptolemy son of Lagus, then called Soter ["Savior"], suffered the opposite of [what is indicated by] his surname.
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
[60] See the text in Brugsch (1871) 1-13, 59-61; Sethe (1904) 11-22; Kamal (1905) I.168-71; Roeder (1959) 100-106; Kaplony-Heckel (1985) 613-19. The better-known translation of Bevan (1927) 29ff. is unreliable.
[61] The comprehensive studies of the stele are Wachsmuth (1871), Goedicke (1984), and Winnicki (1991). Preferable to other reconstructions is the suggestion of Wachsmuth and Winnicki that the reference in line 5 is to either Syria or Phoenicia or both. However, Winnicki's hypothesis that line 6 refers to the same region as line 5 is unacceptable, and the identification of the region in line 6 remains anyone's guess. Wachsmuth (1871) 469-70 connects line 5 with Diodorus's report on the destruction of cities in Coile Syria and Phoenicia by Ptolemy I and his transfer of whatever property he could to Egypt (XIX.93.7). This is possible.
[62] See, e.g., Lewy (1932) 121; Guttmann (1958-63) I.67; Doran (1985) 916.
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
[63] See Volkmann, RE s.v. "Ptolemaios (1)," 1631-35; and also the bibliography and survey in Murray (1972) 141-42; and Seibert (1983) 224-25.
[64] On this question, see J. Hornblower (1981) 55, 63. Cf. Sacks (1990) 78-79 et passim .
[65] On philanthropia as a Hellenistic ideal, see Rostovtzeff (1940) III.1358 nn. 4-5; Bell (1948) 33-37; Sinclair (1951) 291; Meisner (1970) 145-78; Aalders (1975) 22-23, 90; Préaux (1978) I.207. For sources, see, e.g., Isocr. Nic . 15; Polyb. V.11.6; Pseudo-Aristeas 265. Cf. further pp. 152-53 below, and Meisner (1970) 162-78 on its appearance in Jewish Hellenistic literature.
[66] It was not that easy to do: see Dion. Halic. De Comp. Verb . IV.30.
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
[67] Cf. also the abbreviated version of Josephus' in Ant . XII.6. On the superiority of the version in Against Apion , see M. Stern (1974-84) I.109; Bar-Kochva (1989) 479 and nn. 11, 14. For an interpretation of the sources and the question of defensive war on the Sabbath, see Bar-Kochva (1989) 477-81.
[68] Contrary to A. L. Abel (1968) 254 n. 2, 257, who argues that Pseudo-Aristeas's story about the deportation and enslavement originates in Agatharcides. Josephus's quotation, which recounts only Ptolemy's entry into Jerusalem, contains Agatharcides' version in its entirety. Had there been any additional information in Agatharcides, Josephus would certainly have quoted it as well, since he was so interested in proving that the Jewish nation was mature and involved in world events at the beginning of the Hellenistic period. Agatharcides did not refer to this event anywhere else: the episode about the conquest of Jerusalem does not appear in the correct historical sequence but incidentally in the context of third-century Seleucid history. He reports the unfortunate end of Stratonice, the Seleucid princess, caused by her superstitious beliefs, and compares it to the Jewish adherence to the rules of the seventh day, which facilitated the occupation of Jerusalem by Ptolemy I. It stands to reason that had the events also been recorded in the context of the Successors period, the account would have been much more detailed, and Josephus would then have preferred to quote that rather than the short version. See also M. Stern (1974-84) I.104 and n. 3 against the conjecture that Agatharcides was used as an authority on Jewish matters by later writers.
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.
[70] See Willrich (1895) 23; Hadas (1951) 98; Tcherikover (1961) 56-57; as opposed to Droysen (1877-78) II.103; Reinach (1895) 43 n. 1; Lewy (2932) 121 n. 1; Klausner (1950) II.111.
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]
[71] See Tcherikover (1961) 57; Hengel (1976) 33. For the dating of the event in 312, see Willrich (1895) 23, 26; Meyer (1921) 24; E M. Abel (1951) 31; Marcus (1943) 5 n. a; Hadas (1951) 98-99.
[72] As opposed to A. L. Abel (1968), who draws the conclusion that there was no deportation and enslavement in the time of Ptolemy I. See also M. Stern (1974-84) I.108.
[73] I would refrain from seeking support in Agatharcides' statement that the Jews came under "a harsh master" (Ap . I.210). This statement does not necessarily indicate a continuous long period of rule and could also have been applied to a period of a few months, even by an author like Agatharcides, who was celebrated for his accuracy of expression (for details, see Phot. Bibl . 213 = FGrH IIA p. 260, no. 86 T 2.6). Similarly the use of the attribute Soter in Josephus (Ant . XII.3) cannot be used to determine the time of the event. On its first application in 305, see Paus. I.8.6, and cf. Diod. XX.100.3, Athen. XV.616; and see Kornemann (1901) 72; Moser (1914) 72.
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
[74] As opposed to Lewy (1932) 121 n. 1; Guttmann (1958-63) I.67; Tcheri-kover (1961) 56; M. Stern (1974-84) 1.40.
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
[75] See in detail pp. 234-36 below.
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
[76] On the "satrap stele" of 312/11 see nn. 63, 64 above. On the Pithom stele, which records the events of the battle of Raphia, see Gauthier and Sottas (1925) 30 line 23; Thissen (1966) 19, 60-63.
[77] See E. Schwartz (1885) 258ff.; Wendland (1900a) 2; Hadas (1951) 43-45; Murray (1970). 168-69 and there the parallels to Hecataean Egyptian ethnography.
[78] The quotation could not have been taken from the book On the Jews . See below, pp. 140-42, esp. p. 141.
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,
[79] Hengel (1976) 32; Schäfer (1977) 570; Hengel (1989) 50, 190; Hegermann (1989) 131-32. Cf. Tcherikover (1961) 57; Sterling (1992) 89. The variation by Winnicki (1991). 157 ignores the explicit references to Hezekiah in paras, 187-89.
[80] See p. 256ff. below. The identification of Hezekiah as governor and not as High Priest (pp. 89-90 below) does not affect the main arguments given above.
[81] The reference in Hieronymus (In Dan . XI.14) to an emigration of the "optimates " to Egypt after the battle of Panium (200 B.C. ), mentioned by some scholars, offers no good parallel. The internal and external circumstances of the Fifth Syrian War were entirely different, and the High Priest was not among the emigrants. The information itself is rather dubious, and was not taken from Porphyry (as M. Stern [1974-84] II.462 and others suggest), at least not in its present form. The "optimates ' are said to have been taken to Egypt by the returning Scopas, the Ptolemaic general, while another piece of information, which certainly originates in Porphyry, reports that Scopas was trapped in the siege of Sidon and was forced to surrender (Hieron. In Dan . XI.15). Gera (1987) suggests that the reference is erroneous, and actually reflects a deportation of pro-Seleucid Jews to Egypt before the battle of Panium.
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
[82] On Antigonus's liberal and conciliatory policy toward the native Asian peoples, see Billows (1990) 305-11.
[83] See, e.g., Zornius (1730) 15; Eichorn (1793) 439-41; J. G. Müller (1877) 172; Willrich (1895) 31-32, 107; Reinach (1930) 36; Jacoby (1943) 62.
[84] The arguments were summarized by Grabbe (1987) 231-46, together with earlier bibliography.
[85] Cross (1975); cf. id . (1983) 89-91. The paponymic principle can also be observed in the Zadok family during the Hellenistic period (but see Ackroyd [1984] 159 n. 1).
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)
[86] See pp. 263ff. below.
[87] The discussion about the paponymic system (and the names Johanan and Jaddua in particular) should be separated from the controversy over the reliability of the stories in Ant . XI.302-47. The verification of the two names still does not prove the historicity of the stories. See also D.R. Schwartz (1990). The results of the recent excavations at Mt. Gerizim, which showed that the Samaritan city was built around the year 200 (see Magen [1990] 83, 96; id . [1992] 38-40), strengthen the position of the many scholars who rejected them as tendentious legends. This appears also from the remains of the Samaritan temple itself, discovered in 1994 (findings still unpublished).
[88] See Middot 5.4; Sifri, Numbers 116; Tosefta, Hagiga 2.9; and Lieberman (1962) 172.
[89] Bloch (1879) 147-50; von Destinon (1882) 29-36; Momigliano (1934) 886; Hö1scher (1940) 73-75; as opposed to Willrich (1895) 107-15. See more recently D.R. Schwartz (1982) 252-54, with special reference to the section listing the High Priests from the Restoration to Antiochus V.
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
[90] In Book XI of Antiquities : Joshua, Joiakim, Eliashib, Jehoyada, Johanan, Jaddua, Onias. In Book XII: Simeon, Eleazar, Menasseh, Onias, Simeon, Onias, Jason, Menelaus. D.R. Schwartz (1982) 254 has cogently argued that the aforementioned list was the basis for Josephus's chronistic information in Books XI and XII of the Antiquities . The absence of the names Jaddua and Johanan (the First), the late fourth-century High Priests mentioned in Nehemiah (12.22), from Josephus's account has already been explained by Cross (1975) as caused by haplography in the copy of the list used by Josephus. Unlike these two, there is no textual reason for the omission of the name Hezekiah from that list.
[91] See in detail p. 226 below.
[92] Schlatter (1893) 340; Büchler (1899) 33; Grintz (1969) 46 n. 23; M. Stern (1974-84) I.40; Schäfer (1977) 570; Rappaport (1981) 15-16; Doran (1985) 915.
[93] See Thackeray (1926) 238 n. a; Reinach (1930) 36 n. 1; Gauger (1982) 45-46; cf. Holladay (1983) 326 n. 12.
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
[94] See the survey of the material in Klausner (1950) IV.300-301; Schürer et al. (1973-86) II.227-36, esp. 232-36.
[95] Ma'aser Sheni 5.15; Sota 9.10; Yadayim 4.1; cf. Shqalim 6.1.
[96] Noted by Tcherikover (1961) 425 n. 46. The explanations of Gauger (1982) 45-46 do violence to the essence of the sentence in Diodorus.
[97] See e.g., Sellers (1933) 73; Albright (1934) 20-22; Sukenik (1934) 178-82 (1935) 341-43; Olmstead (1936) 244; Vincent (1949) 281-94; Schalit (1949) 263 n. 22; Avigad (1957) 149; Albright (1957) 29; Tcherikover (1961) 425-26; Aharoni (1962) 56-60; Kanael (1963) 40-41; Gager (1969) 138-39; Kindler (1974) 76; M. Stern (1974-84) I.40; Wacholder (1974) 268; Holladay (1983) 325 n. 11; Meshorer (1982) 33; Goodman in Schürer et al. (1973-86) III.673; Hegermann (1989) 131.
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
[98] Pp. 256-66.
[99] In some discussions of the Hezekiah coins it is argued that the human and zoomorphic images do not permit the identification of Hezekiah as High Priest (e.g., Rappaport [1981] 7, 11). However, images also appear on the coins of Johanan the High Priest (Pl. I no. 7 below) and on a coin of Yaddua, probably a former High Priest of the early fourth century (Spaer [1986/7] 1-3). The prohibition "You shall not make a graven image for yourself nor the likeness of any thing" (Exod. 20.4) was still strictly interpreted in that generation (based on verse 5) as applying to idols alone. See also Hengel (1976) 33; Barag (1986/7) 20. With the influx of Greek art in the Hellenistic period, it became difficult for Jews to distinguish between human and divine images. Hence the new, wider interpretation, prohibiting all representations of the human form.
[100] This has rightly been observed by Rahmani (1971) 160; Rappaport (1981) 15-16; Barag (1985) 167.
[101] Against Aharoni (1962) 58-59 and others.
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
[102] Zech. 6.13; Neh. 13.7-13, 28; and the absence of Eliashib in chap. 10. See also Cowley (1923) nos. 30-31 lines 1, 17-18; and no. 32.
[103] See the list in Avigad (1976) 35; Barag (1986/7) 20. Cf. Aharoni (1962) 56-59.
[104] On this revolt and its influence on the Jews see Schürer (1901-9) III.7 n. 11; Klausner (1950) II.13-14; Barag (1966) 6-12; E. Stern (1982) 254-55; M. Stern (1974-84) II.421; Barag (1986/7) 14 n. 58. The arguments of Grintz (1957) 13-15 and Widengren (1977) 501 against the involvement of Palestinian Jews in that revolt do not hold up against the evidence of the sources and the archaeological findings. Cf. pp. 143-44 below on the reference to the deportation of many Jews to Babylonia by the Persians (Ap . I.194).
[105] See pp. 263-64 below.
[106] See Millar (1979) 7-8. Cf. Avigad (1976) 29.
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
[107] Millar (1979) 8 suggests that Hezekiah went to Egypt in 312 for negotiations and came back as High Priest. He further raises the possibility that Hezekiah is absent from the list of High Priests because, having been appointed by Ptolemy, he was not universally recognized by the Jews. For the rejection of Millar's main thesis, see pp. 225-26 below. Notably even notorious High Priests like Jason and Menelaus, who were appointed by gentile rulers and were certainly hated by the majority of the people, appeared on the authoritative list of the fifteen High Priests of the period from the Restoration to the religious persecutions (Ant . XX.261; and see p. 83 above). The same is true of High Priests of later periods like Alcimus, and a good number of notorious High Priests of the Roman period.
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
[108] It should be added that there could not be any real historical connection between the Hezekiah who appears in the medieval Samaritan chronicle as the Samaritan High Priest said to have met Alexander and the Jewish governor Hezekiah. It has already been established that the Samaritan story is only a reversal of Josephus's legend about the meeting between the Jewish High Priest and Alexander or of its later Jewish adaptations. The name Hezekiah may be an invention inspired directly or indirectly by Against Apion , but the identity of the names may be also coincidental. On the Samaritan story, see, e.g., Adler and Seligsohn (1902-3); Montgomery (1907) 302; Gaster (1925) 33; Grabbe (1987) 238-40, and further bibliography there.
[109] See Zornius (1730) 15.
[110] Lewy (1932) 122; Kasher (1985) 40 n. 47.
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
[111] See the examples and sources assembled by D.R. Schwartz (1984) 159 and n. 21.
[112] Willrich (1895) 32, 80-82; id . (1924) 29; cf. Jacoby (1943) 62; Schaller (1963) 27; Denis (1970) 266.
[113] See pp. 166, 247 below.
and settlement of Onias had some influence on the shaping of the Hezekiah story[114]
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):
So for example ... all being insulted by their neighbors and by those who came into [the country], and being frequently abused by the Persian kings and satraps, they could not be persuaded to change their way of thinking [dianoia ], but being exposed because of [their adherence to] them [the laws], they faced tortures and the most horrible deaths rather than deny their ancestral [laws].
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
[114] Suggested by Hengel (1971).303, (1989) 50. See in more detail p. 244 below.
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]
[115] As opposed to Guttman (1958-63) I.68, Wacholder (1974) 268-69, and Gauger (1982) 44, who quote the refusal of Alexander's Jewish soldiers to help in clearing earth for the rebuilding of the temple of Bel (Ap . I.192). and the Jerusalem Jews' failure to protect themselves properly when attacked by Ptolemy I on the Sabbath (see pp. 74-75 above).
[116] This evaluation of the Achaemenid policy has been accepted by all prominent Iranologists. See the summaries of the material in Boyce (1984); M. Schwartz (1985); Dandamaev and Lukonin (1989) 320-67. See also Posner (1936) 171ff.; Kienitz (1953) 53-61; Oppenheim (1984); Bresciani (1985) 504-7.
[117] Eichorn (1793) 439-40; Willrich (1895) 21, (1900) 92-94, 104; Jacoby (1943) 65, 72, followed by many others. See, e.g., Schaller (1963) 18; Hengel (1971) 302; Walter (1976) 147.
[118] J.G. Mü11er (1877) 173; M. Stern (1974-84) I.42; Holladay (1983) 328 n. 20; Doran (1985) 915; Goodman in Schürer et al. (1973-86) III.673. And see also the references in n. 115 above.
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
[119] See pp. 263-65 on the coin of Johanan the High Priest.
[120] Kaufmann (1937-56) IV.1.440ff.
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
[121] For a survey of research on these questions, see Lebram (1974); Koch (1980). For the more recent, see Delcor (1971) 10ff.; Schäfer (1977) 539-41; Hartman and Di Lella (1978) 9ff.; Nickelsburg (1984) 34-35; Collins (1984) 27-39; Goodman in Schürer et al. (1973-86) III.687; Ginsberg (1989).
[122] BT Sanhedrin 93.1 ("all the people of Israel save Hananiah, Michael, and Azariah bowed to the idol") is just an incorrect interpretation.
[123] Cf. the notes of Kaufmann (1937-56) IV.1.420-22, where he rejects for similar reasons the comparison of the Daniel stories with events in the time of Antiochus IV.
[124] As opposed to M. Stern (1974-84) I.42.
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
[125] On the last two motifs, see Bickerman (1967) 86-91.
[126] For references, see Bickerman (1967) 136 n. 12.
[127] See Kuhl (1930) 81; Bentzen (1952) 39.
[128] See the references in n. 116 above.
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
[129] Wendland (1900) 1200.
[130] Lewy (1932) 124-26; cf. Doran (1985) 914-15.
[131] Strabo XV.1.68 (717); Diod. XVII.107; Curt. VIII.9.32; Plut. Alex . 69. Cf. Cic. Div . I.47, Tusc . V.77; Mela III.65.
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):
They destroyed all the temples and altars constructed by those coming to the land against them, for some of which they paid a fine to the satraps, and for others they obtained forgiveness. And he adds that it is just to admire them for these [actions].
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
[132] See M. Stern (1973) 163.
[133] See p. 55 above.
[134] See M. Stern (1974-84) I.47.
[135] See, e.g., Willrich (1895) 21; Hengel (1971) 302; Wacholder (1974) 269.
[136] Guttman (1958-63) I.68-69; Holladay (1983) 282.
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
[137] Hecataeus himself mentions that animal cult was looked upon by most people as "abnormal" (paradoxon , Diod. I.83.1). For extremely negative evaluations, see Isocr. Bus . 5.10; Strabo XVI.2.36; Plut. De Is. et Os . 379E. ff. (despite 380F); Ael. NA XII.5; Cic. Nat. Deor . I.36; Plin. NH II.21; Juv. XV.1-13; Sext. Emp. Pyrrh . III.219; Celsus ap . Orig. C. Cels . III.19. Cf. the implied reservation in Hdt. II.65.2. For Jewish contempt and scorn, see Pseudo-Aristeas 138; Sap. Sal. 11.15, 13.14, 15.18-19; Philo, Deca . 76-80; Vit. Mos . II.161-62, 169, 270; Contempl . 8-9; Sibyll. III 75, 79; Jos. Ap . I.254, II.81. But see the explanations by Artapanus ap . Eus. PE IX.27.9, 12; Philo, Vit. Mos . I.23. Cf. Orig. C. Cels . III.18. The positive approach of Porph. Abst . III.16, IV. 9-10 stems from his mystical tendencies (cf. p. 63 n. 33 above). The tolerant reference of Theophrastus (ap . Porph. Abst . II.26) is explained by the context, the Egyptians' abstention from animal flesh, a habit advocated by Theophrastus. On early Christian comments, see Lightfoot (1899) II.2.510ff.; Zimmermann (1912) 87-137.
[138] The word "superstition" in Diod. I.83.8 is a comment by Diodorus himself. The passage describes an episode from the time of his visit to Egypt (see para. 9). This rules out the possibility that the positive attitude toward animal cult reflects not Hecataeus's view but that of Diodorus himself.
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,
[139] See esp. pp. 59-60.
[140] Cf. pp. 60-61 and n. 27 above.
[141] See Diod. II.47.2 (the spherical shape of Apollo's temple), 47.5 (the reputedly greater size of the moon compared with the earth as seen in the land of the Hyperboreans).
[142] The exaltation of Apollo should not mislead us: he is honored more than other gods, but he is not the only divine figure. See, e.g., the references to Leto (Diod. II.47.2) and to Boreas and Chione (Ael. NH XI.1).
[143] Cf. also FGrH IIIA 264 F 10.
[144] On the interpretation of the sentence, cf. p. 39 above.
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
[145] See p. 5 n. 11 above.
[146] Cf. Philo, Spec. Leg. I.53; Vit. Mos. II.205; Quaest. Ex. II.5; and LXX to Exod. 22.27. See also Philo, Hyp. ap. Eus. PE VIII.6.6-7; Artapanus ap. Eus. PE IX.27.4, 9, 10, 12; and p. 169 below. For Egyptian accusations in Hellenistic literature, see, in addition to Manetho, Lysimachus in Jos. Ap. I.310.
[147] Strabo's celebrated excursus on Judaism (XVI.2.35-37) was not taken from a Jewish adaptation of Posidonius, as claimed by one or two scholars, but directly from Posidonius's writings. For a detailed discussion, see Bar-Kochva, Anti-Semitism and Idealization of Judaism, chap. VI.
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."
[148] See p. 55 above.
[149] See p. 70 above.
[150] Cf. Jacoby's comment in a rather similar context: "es ist wirklich sehr gleichgiltig, ob er [the Jewish author] Hekataios nun auch 'benutzt' hat" ([1943] 65).
[151] On the possible background and date of this deportation, see pp. 143-44 below.
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 Hasmonean[155] and Roman[156] rule. It was also the official administrative
[152] This is evident from Josephus's accounts of the Great Revolt in the Bellum and Vita and from his geographical excursus in Bell. III.35-40. The later information in rabbinic sources about several Jewish sites on the west coast of Galilee is irrelevant to the period of the Second Temple. Syncellus I.559 mentions a siege of Tyre by Alexander Jannaeus, which is not recorded by any other source. Be the historicity of this information as it may, there is no reason to believe that Jannaeus made territorial gains in the neighborhood of the great Phoenician cities. Ptolemaïs (Acre) and its chora , which were much closer to Judea proper, were not occupied by the Hasmoneans.
[153] See pp. 124-28 below.
[154] In the first half of the Persian period, the Greeks used the term "Phoenicia" for the northern coast of Syria and the Holy Land, while the southern coast was called "Palaestina" (Hdt. III.5.91, VII.89). As a result of the attachment of a number of southern cities to Sidon and Tyre in the late Persian period, the whole coastal plain seems to have been regarded as one unit named after its rulers, the Phoenicians. See Kahrstedt (1926) 5, 37, 39-40, based mainly on Pseudo-Scylax (GGM I.79). This is also accepted by M. Stern (1974-84) I.290. The counterarguments of Leuze (1935) 204-7 (supported by Galling [1964] 168) fail to convince. They also ignore the statement of Strabo XVI.2.21 (see nn. 156, 158 below), which, reflecting the Ptolemaic period, may also be indicative of the principal arrangements in the late Persian age.
[155] See Ant. XIII.350, 395-96 (both references based on Strabo); Syncellus I.548. On the later source, p. 125 below.
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
[157] See Diod. 1.78.5, drawing on Hecataeus.
[158] On the borders of Phoenicia during the Ptolemaic period, see Strabo XVI.2.21. The specification "from Orthosia to Pelusium" was taken from Artemidorus (according to 2.33), who flourished ca. 100 B.C. It can only refer to the Ptolemaic period, when the coast up to Pelusium was under one rule. The northern border of Phoenicia as described also accords with the available information on the Ptolemaic border in the north (see, on the line Tripolis-Heliopolis or the river Eleutherus, Tcherikover [1937] 110; Bagnall [1976] 11-13). The inclusion of the Sinai coast in Phoenicia is somewhat surprising, but it may have its demographic and military reasons; and in any case, Ptolemaic Phoenicia certainly was subdivided into smaller units. It should be added that Strabo's account of Coile Syria and Phoenicia is, by and large, a contamination of data on the Hasmonean kingdom (e.g., 2.28) mixed with information from the Ptolemaic period (see, e.g., the names Bucolopolis and Crocodilopolis in 2.27; the mention of Strato's Tower and the absence of Dora in the same paragraph, which accords with the data from the Zeno papyri of 259 B.C. ).
[159] See II Macc. 4.21-22. The administrative district called Paralia founded by the Seleucids in the wake of the Maccabean Revolt, or perhaps even earlier, to the south of the old Phoenician cities (I Macc. 10.50, 15.38; II Mace. 13.24), was still part of "Phoenicia." The latter was after all one of the two components of "Coile Syria and Phoenicia," the official name of the Seleucid satrapy that included the Holy Land. On Paralia, see Bengtson (1964) II.176; Bar-Kochva (1989) 239.
[160] So Kahrstedt (1926) 37 on the Phoenician synedrion according to Diod. XVI.41.1. It stands to reason that the council naturally held authority over the annexed cities on the Palestinian coast, although each of the major cities constituted a political unit in itself (on which see Avi-Yonah [1966] 23-31, [1971] 233-34).
[161] On the Hasmonean period: Ant. XIII.324-25, Bell. I.66; Strabo XVI.2.28. For Roman rule: Jos. Vit. 31,Ap. II.116, Bell. III.35; Pliny, NH V.69; Ptol. Geogr. V.14.3. On the latter, see Z. Safrai (1981) 272.
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.
[162] So Willrich (1900) 94: "Weiterhin hören wir, nach Alexanders Tode seien nicht wenige Myriaden Juden nach Ägypten und nach Phönizien geflohen wegen der Kämpfe in Syrien. Aber haben diese Kämpfe nicht Phönizien viel mehr betroffen als das abseits der grossen Heerstrasse gelegene Jerusalem? Nach Phönizien zu flüchten wäire ungefähr das verkehrteste gewesen, was die Juden damals hätten tun kännen, wenn sie Ruhe finden wollten." Cf. Hengel (1971) 303.
[163] See p. 124 and n. 7 below.
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
[164] Willrich (1900) 96-97. Cf. Reinach (1930) 37 n. 4; Stein (1934) 10.
[166] On Beth Zur, see Bar-Kochva (1989) 287; I Macc. 9.52. The last verse refers to the reinforcement of existing fortresses (see F. M. Abel [1949] 172-73). On the Jerusalem citadel, see Bar-Kochva (1989) 445-65 and bibliography, 445 n. 1. On Gezer (Gazara): I Macc. 4.15, 7.45, 9.52, 13.43-48.
[167] Klein (1939) 38 tries to explain the sentence as meaning that the fortresses in Judea were manned only by Jews, as with the employment of Jews in Ptolemaic fortresses in Egypt. This is, however, not what is written, and Hecataeus would have been aware of the difference. And in general, garrisoning fortresses in an occupied country with natives is incomprehensible for the period of the Successors. In any case, there were not "many fortresses" in Judea in the time of Hecataeus.
[168] This is also realized, though not explicitly said, by Stein (1934) 8.
[169] See below p. 273ff.
[170] So argued by Gauger (1982) 42.
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]
[171] In contrast to Gauger (1982) 42. Cf. Stein (1934) 9-10. Hans Lewy, who did not realize that the geographical account is mistaken, went so far as to suggest that Hezekiah the High Priest was Hecataeus's source for the geography of Jerusalem ([1932] 122-23, 132). Notably, Hecataeus's Jewish excursus does not contain a geographical section. (See below, pp. 208ff.)
[172] See Alt (1953-59) II.94-95; Avi-Yonah (1966) 13ff.; E. Stern (1982) 245-48. See also Map 4, p. 124 below.
[173] Kallai (1960) 88ff., (1983) 78-79; and see p. 117 below.
[174] On these occupations, see pp. 124-28 below, and Map 5, p. 126 below.
[175] See p. 272 and nn. 4-6 below.
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
[176] On the connection of this information to the siege of Jerusalem by Antiochus VII Sidetes in the early years of John Hyrcanus, see M. Stern (1974-84) I.134-35, and in detail, Bar-Kochva, Anti-Semitism and Idealization of Judaism, chap. VIII.
[177] The number in Timochares, as recorded by Eusebius (PE IX.35.1), is forty. The paraphrase of Strabo reads "sixty." As the first figure recurs three times in Timochares' small fragment, Strabo's version may better reflect the original.
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,
[178] See J. Bernays (1861) 56 ( = Gesammelte Abhandlungen II [1885] 256ff.); Norden (1913) 664ff.
[179] On the question whether Tacitus used Josephus in one way or another, see M. Stern (1974-84) II.3-4, and bibliography in n. 3.
[180] On the circumference of the Jerusalem wall at the time of Nehemiah and its extension under the Hasmonean rulers, see Tsafrir (1983) esp. 69. For the Hasmonean period, see Avigad (1984) 64ff.; and for the time of the Great Revolt against the Romans, Avi-Yonah (1957) 319; Broshi (1982) 22.
[181] Strabo XVII.1.8; Pliny, NH V.62-63. See the discussion of Fraser (1972) I.11ff.
2.
Jerusalem in the period of the Second Temple.
or similar considerations, may have inspired the figure in the treatise On the Jews .[182]
[182] Additional estimates of the size of the Jerusalem wall are known from other sources. The SchoinometresisSyriae, written around the year 100 (see M. Stern [1974-84] I.137), mentions 27 stadia (Eus. PE IX.36.1), which correctly records the circumference of the city at the peak time of the Hasmonean state. Josephus is accurate in relating 33 stadia to the wall of Herod Agrippa I (Bell. I.159). Timochares' 40 stadia (Eus. PE IX.35.1; see n. 177 above) is a quite exaggerated figure for his time, the early Hasmonean period, his intention being to exalt the achievement of Antiochus VII Sidetes in subduing the city. (Cf. his statements that the city was enclosed on all sides by steep ravines, and that the city's source of water was inside its walls while the region outside was extremely arid.)
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
[183] According to Avi-Yonah (1954) 239-48; Broshi (1975) 9-10, (1977) 68; Avigad (1984) 61-63.
[184] See the summary of the various methods of calculating the size of urban populations in antiquity by Broshi (1975) 5-9, (1977) 66-67; Broshi and Gophna (1984) 184ff., (1984a) 4-5.
[185] And see Broshi's estimate ([1975] 13, [1977] 71) for the late Persian period: 4,800 inhabitants. Klein (1939) 13 draws attention to Nehemiah chap. 12, from which it appears that after the reinforcement of the city population by Nehemiah, the number of its adult male inhabitants stood at 3,044. Klein estimates the overall population at around 15,000, on the basis of 5 persons per family. However, it is still doubtful whether the list does indeed belong to the time of the Second Temple; even if it does, it is not inevitable that the priests, numbering 1,192 (verse 12), and the 284 Levites (v. 18) served in Jerusalem in rotation (see v. 20) and therefore did not live in the city with their families. It is also possible that at least part of the reinforcements from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin did not stay permanently in the city, because their fields were in the "cities of Judea" (so perhaps according to verse 3).
[186] See the summary of the various data on the size of the city in Broshi (1977) 68-69. His population estimates, based on 200 persons per acre (p. 71), are somewhat low. The numbers offered by Josephus for the casualties and captives in Jerusalem at the time of the Great Revolt (Bell. VI.420; cf. V.567)—all in all 1.2 million—are grossly exaggerated and irrelevant for the discussion. Josephus himself states that most of them were not permanent residents of the city, but pilgrims who were trapped by the siege, and that the abnormal population density led to epidemics. See also Tac. Hist. V.13.3 (600,000). On the more reliable data in Bell. V.248, VI.420, see Broshi (1982) 23.
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):
[187] Ezra 6.3 obviously cannot be of much help (see also Zipser [1871] 79). Jeremias (1934) 110 argues that the figures are authentic, quoting as evidence Ezek. 40.47 and 41.13-14. However, the perimeter of the holy precinct according to the vision of Ezekiel stood at 500 x 500 cubits (about 25o x 250 m; see 45.2 and 40.5).
[188] On the author's source of inspiration for locating the Temple, see p. 146 n. 23 below.
Because of the fairness and loyalty shown to him [Alexander the Great] by the Jews, he annexed the land of Samaria [Samareitis ][189] to them free of tribute [aphorologetos ].
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
[189] The region is named by the sources Samareia and Samareitis. The first form appears in Polybius (V.71.11, XVI.39), the Septuagint references to Mt. Shomron throughout the entire biblical period, the narrative of Judith (4.4), and the first two books of the Maccabees (I.3.10, II.15.1), and Samareitis is known from the documents of I Maccabees (10.30; 11.28, 34) and Pseudo-Aristeas (para. 107). Josephus uses both forms (see the concordance, Schalit [1968] 105). Samareitis was the official name under the Ptolemies (see Avi-Yonah [1971] 239-40, 449-50), and therefore that form was sometimes preferred by authors and translators living in Egypt, especially with regard to documents. Josephus uses Samareitis even in his geographical excursus on the districts of Judea on the eve of the Great Revolt against the Romans (Bell. II.37, 48), which may indicate that both forms were current in the Roman period (cf. the preservation of the ending -itis for the districts of Trans-Jordan in the Roman period, Avi-Yonah [1971] 449-50).
[191] Thus Jacoby (1943) 74; Wacholder (1974) 265-66; Goodman in Schürer et al. (1973-86) III.672 n. 268; Gauger (1982) 38-39. Cf. Holladay (1983) 284-87.
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]
[192] Only Wacholder and Gauger (locc. citt., n. 191) have tried to prove their claims. The first mistakenly assumes that the quotation from Hecataeus (para. 43) also included the subsequent passage (paras. 44-47), which reports, inter alia, the favorable attitude of Ptolemy II toward the Jews. The latter passage also refers to the freeing of Jewish slaves by Ptolemy II, which indicates that they were enslaved by his predecessor. This contradicts the enthusiastic report in the Hezekiah story of the relationship between Ptolemy I and the Jews. Wacholder therefore concludes that the sentence on the attachment of Samaria to Judea was not taken from the same work as the Hezekiah story. However, Josephus attributes to Hecataeus only the sentence about the attachment of Samaria. Paragraphs 44-47 are based on Pseudo-Aristeas (see esp. the mention of Demetrius of Phaleron, Andreas, and Aristeas in para. 46; and cf. Ant. XII.12-118). Cf. Ant. XII.9, where Josephus quotes information from the book attributed to Hecataeus, following a sentence based on Pseudo-Aristeas (paras. 7, 8; and see p. 226 below). The same mistake lies behind Wacholder's other arguments (nos. a and b, p. 265). Cf. Walter (1976) 148 n. 25, 157 n. 43a. See further below, and p. 220 n. 99.
[193] See pp. 188-89 below.
[194] Gauger ([1982] 38-39) argues that had the sentence been taken from the same work as the quotations in Ap. I.183-204, it would have been incorporated there, and not separately, as it could well have served his purposes in quoting those passages. However, Josephus had to choose where to put it. The sentence was the only evidence (as indirect and flimsy as it may be) to substantiate his statement that Alexander settled the Jews in Alexandria, a key point in his struggle for the rights of the Jews in Alexandria. On the other hand, the quotations in I.183-204 were quite sufficient to support his main claim in that context, that the Jews were already a mature nation by the time of Alexander and the Successors (I.22, 175, 185).
[195] Such information would have been quoted in Book II of Against Apion, and could well have supported Josephus's argument in Book I, certainly more than the references to two waves of Jewish immigration to Egypt (I.188-89, 194).
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]
[196] See esp. Stein (1934) 3-8; Momigliano (1975) 94. Cf. Willrich (1900) 97; Jacoby (1943) 62; Hengel (1971) 302; Walter (1976) 147-48. Even Lewy (1932) 120 n. 4, 131 doubts whether the passage is Hecataean.
[197] See further Bar-Kochva (1989) 202-3, 353.
[198] For the status of Samareitis under the Hasmoneans, see Schalit (1969) 201-2. Cf. Ant. XIV.48 (if Josephus uses there Hasmonean terminology). For the Roman period, see Bell. III.48-51; Pliny, NH V.70.
[199] For the dating of the destruction of the Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerizim, see p. 131 n. 29 below.
[200] On the date see p. 132 n. 30 below.
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
[201] Kahrstedt (1926) 9, 43; Lewy (1932) 120-21; Grintz (1969) 13; Gager (1969) 136; M. Stern (1974-84) I.44; Gauger (1982) 39.
[202] Thackeray (1926) 309 n. d.; Beyer (1933) 233ff.; Zeitlin (1950) 172; Alt (1953-59) II.348, 352; Gager (1969) 136; M. Stern (1974-84) I.44; cf. Kahrstedt (1926) 64-66; Kallai (1960) 99-105; Holladay (1983) 334 n. 55. And see the variation in Schlatter (1925) 311; M. Stern (1965) 110; Sterling (1992) 86 n. 120.
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
[203] M. Stern (1965) 110; Avi-Yonah (1966) 56; Goldstein (1976) 410; Gauger (1982) 39 n. 79. As a parallel example of a retroactive confirmation Gauger quotes II Macc. 11.25 (which is not exactly the same).
[204] The letter of Alexander Balas to Jonathan as quoted in I Maccabees (10.18-20) is extremely brief and only announces the appointment of Jonathan as High Priest. Since Jonathan was by then in control of the Temple in any case (10.7-14), this recognition alone could not have been tempting enough to secure Jonathan's support for Alexander Balas in the face of Demetrius's previous generous concessions (10.3-6), not to mention the succeeding ones (10.25-45). It seems therefore quite clear that the document of Alexander Balas is sharply abbreviated, and it may well have originally included the attachment of the three toparchies. Significantly enough, the paragraph in I Macc. 10.30, which is one of the first paragraphs of Demetrius's letter, declares that the three toparchies, together with Judea as a whole, are to be exempt from taxes, but does not proclaim their attachment. This is referred to as an established fact. A confirmation of the new situation appears only at the end of the document (10.38). Cf. 11.34, where Demetrius II refers to the concession offered by his father.
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
[205] See, e.g., Alt (1953-59) II.99ff., 420; Avi-Yonah (1966) 55-56; M. Stern (1965) 110; Schalit (1969) 197; Goldstein (1976) 410. In view of the use of formulas and the special historical circumstances, there is no justification for the argument that the documents in I Macc. 10.25-45 and 11.30-37 were falsified (so, e.g., Willrich [1924] 39; M. Smith [1971] 199). For arguments in favor of their authenticity, see M. Stern (1965) 85-86, 95-110, and further references on p. 86 n. 2; Goldstein (1976) 405ff. At the same time, some allowance must be made for minor mistakes in the translation of the document from the original Greek to the Hebrew of I Maccabees and back again.
[206] See I Macc. 10.30; Hölscher (1903) 54, 82; F. M. Abel (1933-38). II.134; Avi-Yonah (1966) 25. Jos. Ant. XIII.50 is an inaccurate free paraphrase (see F. M. Abel [1949] 187; Goldstein [1976] 407).
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
[207] On the polis and royal taxes see Heuss (1937) 108-24, 186-87; Bickerman (1938) 118ff.; Rostovtzeff (1940) I.528; Jones (1940) 101-2. See, e.g., OGIS I.223, 228; Polyb. IV.84, XV.24.
[208] See I Macc. 10.29-30, 11.34-35, 13.39, 15.8. On the question of the phoros in the time of Jonathan, see p. 134 n. 42 below.
[209] Jos. Ant. XII.143. Cf., e.g., P. Tebt. I no. 5, line 93; SIG[3] I no. 344, line 70; Holleaux (1938-57) II.109.
[210] Ant. XII.151; cf. OGIS I 229, lines 100, 104. And see Schalit (1960) 308ff.; Bar-Kochva (1976) 57-58; G. Cohen (1978) 60-62; Ihnken (1978) 118-22; Bar-Kochva (1989) 85 n. 49.
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.
[211] See p. 5 n. 11 above. Particularly referring to the sentence under discussion: M. Stern (1974-84) I.44; Goodman in Schürer et al. (1973-86) III.673 n. 272.
[212] See esp. pp. 70-71 and 100-1 above. There is no reason to think that Josephus misunderstood or misinterpreted any of the other paragraphs.
[213] Loc. cit.
[214] P. 101 above.