Introduction

The subject of this study is the treatise On the Jews ascribed to Hecataeus of Abdera, the great ethnographer of the early Hellenistic age. The treatise itself has not survived. All we have are a number of fragments and testimonia in Josephus's celebrated apologetic book Against Apion (I.183-204, II.43). All the passages but one appear in the context of Josephus's polemic against anti-Jewish authors of the Roman period, who argued that the Jews were not mentioned by Greek historians and that they were "newcomers" to the society of nations (Ap . I.2-5). The material was selected by Josephus to prove, on the contrary, that early Hellenistic authors had in fact referred to and even admired the Jews and their religion. He was also trying to show that the Jewish people had already flourished at least as early as the time of Alexander and the Successors (I.185).

Josephus seems to have believed sincerely that the passages he quotes or summarizes were written by Hecataeus. He repeatedly states that he is citing Hecataeus. In two places he explicitly mentions the latter's book on the Jews (I.183, 205), and once he even advises his readers to consult the book for further information, saying that it is "readily available" (I.205). The existence of the treatise was mentioned by Herennius Philo (Origen, C. Cels . I.15), a pagan author of the second century A.D. , who seems to have been directly acquainted with it.^[1]

The surviving material describes the history and main characteristics of the Jews. The passages open with a report of a voluntary migration to Egypt of many Jews, led by Hezekiah the High Priest (186-89). This

[1] On this question, see the discussion, p. 185 below.

is followed by passages referring to three subjects—(a) religion: the Jews' loyalty and devotion to their religion, their readiness to sacrifice themselves for their faith, and their intolerance toward pagan cults in their country (190-93); (b) the Jewish land and Jerusalem: demographic, military, political, administrative, and geographic information (194-97); (c) the Temple: its location, defense, and construction, sacred objects, and cult (198-99). Josephus closes the quotations with a poignant anecdote about an Egyptian Jewish soldier named Mosollamus and bird omens, which illustrates Jewish disdain for gentile divination (201-4). There is also an abbreviated sentence from On the Jews in Book II of Against Apion (II.43) stating that Alexander annexed the region of Samaria to Judea.^[2]

An enthusiastic tone permeates almost every paragraph of the excerpts and paraphrases. The individual Jews mentioned are wise and competent in various activities (I.187, 201); the Jews of Judea and Egypt are said to have been greatly favored by Alexander and Ptolemy I, and to have enjoyed special rewards (I.186, 189; II.43); the Jews demonstrated supreme courage, endurance, and loyalty in the face of "tortures and horrible deaths" at the hands of the Persians, who tried to force them to renounce their faith (I.191); their country is beautiful and most fertile (I.195); the city of Jerusalem excels in splendor and is well fortified, large, and populous (I.196-97); the Jewish Temple is without any material representation of the divine or anything that might be interpreted as such (I.199); the priests maintain absolute purity and sobriety (I.199). The author even goes so far as to state that the Jews deserved to be admired for destroying pagan altars and temples (I.193). He further recounts with obvious delight how the clever Jew Mosollamus once made a public mockery of gentile principles and practices of divination (I.200-204). The passages neither criticize nor express reservations about the Jewish way of life and religious convictions. The author is evidently convinced of their superiority and perfection.

The treatise On the Jews was not the only monograph on Jewish issues ascribed to Hecataeus of Abdera. Josephus once mentions such a book entitled On Abraham (Ant . I.159). Several lines preserved from this book (Clement, Strom . V.14.113) contain verses pronouncing

[2] See pp. 114-15 on the origin of this paragraph in the book On the Jews .

strong monotheistic and antipagan convictions. The author claims to quote them from Sophocles. They are, of course, nowhere to be found in Sophocles' extant works, and seem typically Jewish. It has therefore been universally accepted that the book On Abraham is a Jewish forgery.^[3] So in at least one case a Jew evidently tried to promote his ideas and lend them authority and prestige by attributing his work to Hecataeus of Abdera. Hecataeus's reputation and influence, and the famous account of the Jews included in his Egyptian ethnography, could well have tempted Jewish authors to use his name for their pseudonymous compositions.

Hecataeus of Abdera was the leading Alexandrian literary figure at the beginning of the Hellenistic period, and served in the court of Ptolemy I. Of his indisputably authentic writings, we are acquainted only with his monumental ethnography of the Egyptians and the utopian book On the Hyperboreans . The first work set an example for later Hellenistic ethnographers. It has been preserved in an abridged paraphrase by Diodorus Siculus in Book I of his Historical Library .

Hecataeus incorporated into his Egyptian ethnography an excursus on the Jews. The excursus was recorded in another book of Diodorus's historical work (XL.3.1-8). Diodorus explicitly stated that he had drawn on Hecataeus (3.8), and this has rightly been accepted as true. This version of Jewish history and practices was well known in antiquity, but there is no trace of the treatise On the Jews in the gentile literary tradition, except for the reference to it by Philo of Byblos. In the excursus, the attitude toward the Jews is not particularly enthusiastic and even includes one major reservation, characterizing the Jewish way of life as "unsocial to a certain extent, and hostile to strangers" (3.4).^[4]

The evident difference in general tone between the excursus and the treatise, as well as the apparent anachronisms in the latter, made the passages in Josephus a bone of contention for many generations of scholars. The authenticity of the treatise had already been challenged in the Roman period by Philo of Byblos (ca. 50-130 A.D. ). The discussion was renewed at the beginning of the seventeenth century, and Josef

[3] See the discussion and bibliography in Holladay (1983) 284-85, 296, 302; Doran (1985) 905-12, 912-13; Goodman in Schürer et al. (1973-86) III.661, 674-75; Sterling (1992) 84-85.

[4] On this reservation, see further p. 39 below.

Scaliger, the celebrated Dutch philologist, expressed the view that the treatise was spurious.^[5] In 1730 the German scholar Peter Zorn published a comprehensive book on all the surviving material about Jews and Judaism ascribed to Hecataeus, supporting the authenticity of On the Jews .^[6] A number of classical scholars and theologians contributed some minor points to the debate from the end of the eighteenth century, being divided over the question of authenticity.^[7] The controversy heated up in the late nineteenth century. An important landmark was reached in 1900 with a detailed study by Hugo Willrich, who summarized the previous arguments against authenticity and added a number of his own. The discussion has been carried on into our century, with the weight of scholarly opinion shifting from time to time in either direction.^[8]

In 1932 Hans Lewy published a widely acclaimed paper about On the Jews , regarded as a watershed by the advocates of authenticity. His arguments gained support with the discovery in the same year of the first Hezekiah coin.^[9] Lewy's article was rediscovered in the late 1950s, and gradually tilted the balance. Increasingly; scholars have come out in favor of authenticity, the opponents being reduced to a small (but prominent) minority.^[10] The inherent difficulties appeared to be

[5] In his letter to Casaubon of November 1605 (Scaliger [1628] 278-79). But see his uncritical reference to the passages, Scaliger (1598), Fragmenta, Notae , p. xij; id . (1629) Fragmenta, Notae , p. 12. Cf. Zornius (1730) Commentarius , pp. 2-3.

[6] Zornius (1730). The book contains no less than 352 pages, comprising an introduction, the Greek texts, a Latin translation, and detailed commentaries. Zorn, who was a professor of Greek and biblical history at the Carolingian gymnasium of Hamburg, concentrates in his commentary on theological questions, also referring to the positive views of former scholars.

[7] References in J. G. Müller (1877) 170-72; cf. Schürer (1901-9) III.608. 8.

[8] Bibliography in Schürer, ibid.; and M. Stern (1974-84) I.25.

[9] For details, see the discussion pp. 85ff. below.

[10] See the bibliographical lists in M. Stern, ibid.; Holladay (1983) 298-300; Goodman in Schürer et al. (1973-86) III.676-77; Feldman (1984) 396-99. To these should be added the following entries: Burkert in Hengel (1971) 324; Fraser (1972) II.968 n. 115; Wacholder (1974) 80-82, 85-96; Momigliano (1975) 94; M. Stern (1976) 1105-9; Hengel (1976) 18-20, 31-33, 120ff.; Troiani (1977) 117-20; Millar (1979) 6-9; Conzelmann (1981) 56-58; Attridge (1986) 316; Bickerman (1988) 16-18, 27-28; Gabba (1989) 628-30; Sterling (1992) 78-91; Feldman (1993) 208-9; Pucci Ben Zeev (1993). Among the few scholars who still regard the book as a forgery, noteworthy are Burkert, Feldman, Fraser, Hengel, and Momigliano.

satisfactorily solved: as even the most ardent supporters of authenticity have been puzzled by the contents of one or two sentences in the passages, it has been suggested that Josephus inaccurately paraphrased the material at his disposal or that he used a Jewish version that "slightly" revised the original book by Hecataeus.^[11] At the same time, despite this new trend and the multitude of contributions on the subject, several scholars have recently expressed the feeling that research on the question has not produced a definitive solution and is actually at a stalemate, calling for a new breakthrough.^[12]

Modern questioning of the passages' authenticity seems to have gained momentum because of its relevance to so-called scholarly anti-Semitism. German scholars and publicists in the past stressed the seemingly unbridgeable gap between Judaism and Greco-Roman culture (the paradigm of the deutscher Geist ) as evidence of the inadaptability of Jews to European surroundings. The notorious anti-Jewish excursus on the Jews by Tacitus in his Histories was frequently quoted to this effect.^[13] Jewish scholars, on the other hand, were eager to point out the apparent admiration for Jews and Judaism expressed by Greek authors at the beginning of the Hellenistic period, of which the passages ascribed to Hecataeus could serve as a primary example. It can be said that with few exceptions, as from the late nineteenth century, Jewish scholars tried very hard indeed to verify the passages, while gentiles, especially Germans, endeavored to undermine their authenticity. Only in the last generation has the discussion been freed of bias, as scholars transcended the barriers of religion and nationality in seeking to reach an objective conclusion.^[14]

[11] This was actually suggested already by Wendland (1900) 1201, (1900a) 2; Schürer (1901-9) III.606. They were followed by M. Stern (1974-84) I.24, (1976) 1104; Gauger (1982); Attridge (1984) 170; Goodman in Schürer et al. (1973-86) III.673; Bickerman (1988) 17-18; Sterling (1992) 91.

[12] Schaller (1963) 22; Gager (1969) 131 n. 5; Holladay (1983) 282-83, 288; Attridge (1984) 170, (1986) 316. Cf. Pucci Ben Zeev (1993) 223-24.

[13] See, e.g., Treitschke (1879) 663ff. Some material about the use of Tacitus's excursus can be found in Hoffmann (1988).

[14] The new tendency started with the important contribution by Gager (1969), which made a number of penetrating observations.

The question of authenticity is invaluable for reconstructing Jewish history at the end of the Persian and the beginning of the Hellenistic period. The available sources on these periods are extremely meager. Consequently they are among the most obscure chapters in ancient Jewish history. If the authenticity of the treatise is verified, we will have a relatively detailed treatment of these two periods, written by a prominent and reliable contemporary Greek historian who claimed even to have witnessed some of the events described. Such a verification would shatter a number of accepted views about the internal development of the Jewish community and religion and the Jews' relations with the major powers of the time, as well as with their pagan neighbors.^[15] In addition, much data concerning the beginning of the Jewish Egyptian Diaspora, the High Priesthood, the administration of Judea, and the defense of the country would have to be revised. No less significant are the implications for the evaluation of the attitudes of early Hellenistic intellectuals toward Jews and Judaism and their reception by later authors. If, however, the treatise was a fabrication by an Egyptian Jew, as quite a few scholars maintain, it would provide an insight into some of the basic questions that preoccupied the Jewish Hellenistic Diaspora and expand our acquaintance with its internal division. This would also contribute to our understanding of the major trends and ideologies in Jewish Hellenistic literature.

The discussion of the passages has so far been limited mainly to the historical examination of certain references suspected of being anachronistic. In the present monograph I have tried to combine a historical examination of all the details included in the passages with an analysis of philological, literary, and ideological aspects relevant to the understanding of the original work. A combined study may help to elucidate the question of authorship and the book's political, cultural, and religious background, and its purpose.

[15] See the interesting recent reconstruction by Millar (1979) 7ff. So far Millar's paper is the only real attempt at utilizing the information found in the fragments for a revision of Jewish history in these periods.