V. Philosophy

V. PHILOSOPHY
In the departments of history and poetry it was chiefly only the external form that was borrowed from the Greeks but in that of philosophy a real internal blending of Jewish and Greek thought a strong actual influencing of Jewish belief by the philosophy of the Greeks took place. We perceive this the most plainly in Philo. He exhibits a completely double aspect; on one side he is a Jew on the other a Greek philosopher (particulars § 34). But we should be much mistaken if we took him for an isolated phenomenon in the history of his people and age. He is but a classic representative of a current flowing through centuries and necessarily implied by the nature of Hellenistic Judaism. To Greek culture belonged also an acquaintance with the great thinkers of the Greeks. The Hellenistic Jews in appropriating the former thereby placed themselves also under the influence of Greek philosophy. We have certain proofs of this since the second century before Christ. But we may assume that the fact mentioned is in general as old as Hellenistic Judaism itself. The Jew whom Aristotle met in Asia Minor was already Ἑλληνικὸς οὐ τῇ διαλέκτῳ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τῇ ψυχῇ (see vol. ii. 225).
The Jewish feature of this Judaeo-Hellenistic philosophy appears chiefly in the fact that like the Palestinian חָכמָה it pursued essentially practical aims. Not logic or physics but ethic was in its sight the chief matter. This ethic was indeed often founded upon the theoretic philosophy of the Greeks. Still the latter is but a means to an end the proper end of Jewish philosophers viz. the practical one of educating man to true morality and piety.
Also in the choice made of the literary form the Jewish foundation is still apparent. The case here is exactly the reverse of what it is in poetry. The contents exhibit a strong Greek influence but the literary form is derived from Palestine. The author of the Wisdom of Solomon chooses the form of proverbs Philo gives his discussions in the manner of Rabbinic Midrash i.e. in prolix learned commentaries on the text of the Pentateuch from which the most heterogeneous philosophic ideas are developed by the help of allegorical exegesis. The so-called fourth Book of the Maccabees is a hortatory address of which the synagogue sermon may perhaps be regarded as the model. Only in a few smaller pieces does Philo choose the form of inquiry and dialogue after Greek models.
In the mixture of Jewish and Greek notions in these writers the proportions of course vary. In some the influence of Greek ideas is stronger in others weaker. But even those which are most saturated with Greek ideas are essentially rooted in the soil of Judaism. For they not only insist upon the unity of a supramundane God and the control of Divine Providence which punishes the wicked and rewards the good but they also firmly adhere to the belief that the most perfect knowledge of things human and divine is given in the Mosaic revelation so that Judaism is the way to true wisdom and virtue. And not only does the amount of Greek influence vary but different Greek systems are preferred now one now another being more agreed with. Plato Aristotle the Stoics and Pythagoreans have all furnished material to the sphere of ideas of these Jewish philosophers. Especially in the Platonico-Pythagorean and in the Stoic teaching did Jewish thinkers find many elements capable of being assimilated with the Jewish faith. That the appropriation of these was always eclectic is self-evident. But here Jewish philosophy only participates in the fundamental characteristic of later Greek philosophy in general.
1. The Wisdom of Solomon
We place the so-called “Wisdom of Solomon” first not because it is certainly the oldest of the literary productions to be here discussed but because it most closely resembles in form the ancient Palestinian proverbial wisdom. In like manner as Jesus the son of Sirach does the author praise true wisdom which is to be found only with God and is imparted to man by God alone. But the execution is quite different from that of Jesus Sirach. While the latter shows how the truly wise man comports himself in the different circumstances of practical life this book is properly only a warning against the folly of ungodliness and especially of idolatry. Around this one theme do the contents of the whole book revolve and consequently the proverbial form is not strictly adhered to but often passes into that of connected discourse.
According to chap. 9:7 sqq. Solomon himself is to be regarded as the speaker and those addressed are the judges and kings of the earth (1:1: οἱ κρίνοντες τὴν γῆν; 6:1: βασιλεῖς δικασταὶ περάτων γῆς). Thus it is properly an exhortation of Solomon to his royal colleagues the heathen potentates. He the wisest of all kings represents to them the folly of ungodliness and the excellence of true wisdom. Its contents may be divided into three groups. It is first shown (chaps. 1-5) that the wicked and ungodly although for a period apparently prosperous will not escape the judgments of God but that the pious and just after having been for a time tried by sufferings attain to true happiness and immortality. In a second section (chaps. 6-9) Solomon directs his royal colleagues to his own example. It is just because he has loved high and divine wisdom and has united himself to her as his bride that he has attained to glory and honour. Hence he still prays for such wisdom. The third section (chaps. 10-19) points out by referring to the history of Israel and especially to the different lots of the Israelites and the Egyptians the blessing of godliness and the curse of ungodliness. A very long tirade on the folly of idolatry (chaps. 13-15) is here inserted.
The work being in its chief contents a warning against the folly of ungodliness it can only be so far intended for Jewish readers as ungodliness was to be found among them also. But we should be hardly mistaken if we were to suppose that the author had heathen readers at least as much in view. The numerous allusions to Scripture history seem indeed to presuppose Jewish readers (so e.g. Grimm Exeget. Handb. p. 27). But then what is the purpose of the garment chosen according to which the kings and potentates of the earth are addressed? Why the long-winded discourse on the folly of idolatry for which there was no occasion with Jewish readers who still deserved the name? The contents recall in many respects the Sibylline oracles which going forth under a heathen authority were certainly intended for heathen readers. As in these so in the book in question the folly of an ungodly life is set before its readers. At all events its warning and instruction are addressed to heathen-minded readers whether these are by birth Jews or heathen and chiefly indeed to the great and mighty of this world.
The special theological standpoint of the author agrees with that of Palestinian proverbial wisdom as we find it in the Proverbs of Solomon and in Jesus the son of Sirach. Divine Wisdom is the supreme good the source of all truth virtue and happiness with our author also. But while like the author of the Book of Proverbs and Jesus Sirach he starts from the assertion that this Wisdom is first of all present with God it becomes in his conception almost an independent person beside God. His utterances indeed do not seem to really exceed what we already read in Proverbs 8-9. But what is there more a poetic personification becomes with him a philosophic theory. Wisdom is according to him a breath (ἀτμίς) of God’s power a pure effluence (ἀπόρʼῥια) from the glory of the Almighty the brightness (ἀπαύγασμα) of the everlasting light (7:25 26). It is most intrinsically united with God (συμβίωσιν θεοῦ ἔχουσα) is initiated into the knowledge of God (μύστις τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπιστήμης) and a chooser of His works (αἱρέτις τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ) i.e. chooses among the works of which God has conceived the idea which shall be carried into execution (8:3 4: comp. Grimm on the passage) is assessor on God’s throne (9:4: ἡ τῶν σῶν θρόνων πάρεδρος) understands the works of God and was present when He created the world knows what is well-pleasing in His eyes and right according to His commandments (9:9). Wisdom is thus not only represented as the special possession of God but as an assistant of God originating from His own nature. Together therewith “the almighty word of God” (ὁ παντοδύναμός σου λόγος) is also personified in a manner which approaches hypostatic union (18:15 sq.). Thus we have here already the elements from which the Philonian doctrine of the λόγος (= reason and word of God) as a hypostasis mediating between God and the world is formed. For Wisdom occupies in our author a position similar to that of Philo’s Logos with respect to the world also. She has a spirit which is easily moving all-overseeing all-pervading (7:22-24: εὐκίνητον πανεπίσκοπον διήκει καὶ χωρεῖ διὰ πάντων etc.). She works everything (8:5; τὰ πάντα ἐργαζομένη) rules all things (8:1: διοικεῖ τὰ πάντα) makes all things new (7:27: τὰ πάντα καινίζει). “By passing from generation to generation into holy souls she prepares friends of God and prophets” (7:27). It is she who was manifested in the history of Israel e.g. in the pillar of fire and cloud which led the Israelites through the wilderness (10:17 and chap. 10 in general). Hence Wisdom is in a word the medium by which God works in the world. The tendency of this whole speculation is evidently the same as in Philo viz. to secure by the insertion of such an intermediary the absolute supramundane nature of God who cannot be conceived of as in direct contact with a sinful world. But it must not be lost sight of that it is by no means our author’s concern to dwell upon this thought. He desires on the contrary to exhibit Divine Wisdom as the supreme good. He does not seek to show that Wisdom is different from God but on the contrary how near it is to Him. While then he is moving in this sphere of thought he merely takes up a view already current among his associates.[2425]
[2425] Compare on this “doctrine of Wisdom” in general: Lücke Commentar über das Ev. Joh. i. p. 257 sqq. Bruch Weisheitslehre der Hebräer ein Beitrag zur Gesch. der Philosophie Strassb. 1851. Oehler Grandzüge der alttestamentl. Weisheit Tüb. 1855. Grimm Exeget. Handb. zu den Apokr. Pt. vi. p. 1 sq.
The influence of Greek philosophy is moreover shown in the details of execution. The formulae with which the rule of wisdom in the world is described (7:24: διήκει χωρεῖ; 8:1: διοικεῖ) recall the Stoic doctrine of the world-spirit of God as the wisdom of the world immanent in and pervading it.[2426] The enumeration also of the four cardinal virtues (8:7: σωφροσύνη φρόνησις δικαιοσύνη ἀνδρεία) is to be referred to Stoic influence (see Zeller as above). The psychology of the author on the other hand is Platonico-dualistic. The soul of man is pre-existent. If it is good it enters an undefiled body (8:20: ἀγαθὸς ὢν ἦλθον εἰς σῶμα ἀμίαντον). The body is only an “earthly tabernacle” for the νοῦς (9:15: γεῶδες σκῆνος). After a short time the body must restore the soul like a loan and then fall to dust (15:8). In this anthropology the territory of the Jewish view is entirely forsaken. Instead of a resurrection of the body we have here the Greek view of the immortality of the soul.
[2426] Zeller Die Philosophie der Griechen iii. (3rd ed. 1881) p. 271. Heinze Die Lehre vom Logos p. 192.
With respect to the author’s date it must be regarded as certain that he succeeds Jesus the son of Sirach but precedes Philo. For his standpoint is a preliminary step to Philo’s. This would not in itself prove a higher antiquity. But with the near affinity of the two it is not conceivable that our author would have remained unaffected by Philo if he had succeeded him. There is absolutely no foundation for the notion (as e.g. by Weisse) of Christian origin. That the author was an Alexandrian may by reason of the great prominence of references to Egyptian matters be regarded as certain. On the other hand it cannot be imagined that Philo was himself the author of this book as was believed by some even in the time of Jerome (Hieron. praef. in vers. libr. Salom. Opp. ed. Vallarsi ix. 1293 sq.: “Nonnulli scriptorum veterum hunc esse Judaei Philonis affirmant”); and also by many moderns as Luther Joh. Gerhard Calovius and others (see Grimm Handb. p. 21 sqq.). The authorship of Philo is entirely excluded by the difference of his sphere of thought.
The book has been used from the beginning in the Christian Church. Even in the Pauline Epistles such loud echoes are found as make St. Paul’s acquaintanceship with the book probable (see Bleek Stud. und Krit. 1853 pp. 340-344; on the other side Grimm Exeget. Handb. p. 35 sqq.). It is tolerably certain that it was known to Clemens Romanus (Clem. Rom. xxvii. 5 = Sap. Sal. 12:12 and 11:21; comp. also Clem. lx. 1 = Sap. 7:17). In Tatian Oratio ad Graecos c. vii. init. the same is said of Christ as is said (Sap. 2:23) of God. Irenaeus in his large work on heresy nowhere quotes indeed Sap. Sol. but borrows from it (iv. 38. 3) the saying: ἀφθαρσία δὲ ἐγγὺς εἶναι ποιεῖ θεοῦ (Sap. 6:20). With reference to this Eusebius (Hist. eccl. v. 8. 8) says of Irenaeus: Καὶ ῥητοῖς δέ τισιν ἐκ τῆς Σολομῶνος σοφίας κέχρηται μονονουχὶ φάσκων· Ὅρασις δὲ θεοῦ περιποιητικὴ ἀφθαρσίας ἀφθαρσία δὲ ἐγγὺς εἶναι ποιεῖ θεοῦ. In the βιβλίον διαλέξεων διαφόρων which has not come down to us Irenaeus according to the testimony of Eusebius expressly quoted from the Book of Wisdom (Hist. eccl. v. 26: τῆς λεγομένης σοφίας Σολομῶντος μνημονεύει). Canon Muratorianus lin. 69-71: “Sapientia ab amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsius scripta.” See also Hesse Das muratorische Fragment (1873) p. 239 sqq. Tertullian adv. Valentinianos c. 2 refers to Wis_1:1 in the words: “ut docet ipsa Sophia non quidem Valentini sed Salomonis.” Tertullian also made use of the Book of Wisdom. Clemens Alexandrinus quotes it nine times and frequently makes use of it besides. The express quotations are introduced as either sayings of Solomon (so Strom. vi. 11. 93 14. 110 14. 114 15. 120-121) or of the σοφία (Paedag. ii. 1. 7; Strom. ii. 2. 5 iv. 16. 103-104 v. 14. 89) or with the formula εἴρηται (Strom. vi. 14. 113). Hippolytus repeatedly quotes the book as a genuine προφητεία Σολομῶν περὶ Χριστοῦ (adv. Judaeos § 9 and 10 = Lagarde p. 66 sq.) especially the passage 2:12-20 which is also frequently interpreted in a Messianic sense by moderns (see vol. ii. p. 139).
Origen is after the author of the Muratorian Fragment the first to intimate a doubt with respect to the Solomonian authorship. He quotes it with the sceptical formula as ἡ ἐπιγεγραμμένη τοῦ Σολομῶντος σοφία (in Joann. vol. xx. c. 4 = Lommatzsch ii. 202) ἡ σοφία ἡ ἐπιγεγραμμένη Σολομῶντος (in Jerem. homil. viii. 1 = Lommatzsch xv. 193) ὁ περὶ τῆς σοφίας εἰπών (Selecta in Jerem. c. 29 = Lommatzsch xv. 453) ἐν τῇ ἐπιγεγραμμένῃ Σολομῶντος σοφίᾳ (contra Cels. v. 29 = Lommatzsch xix. 216) “in sapientia quae dicitur Salomonis qui utique liber non ab omnibus in auctoritate habetur” (de principiis iv. 33 = Lommatzsch xxi. 472 sq.). But he quotes it almost as frequently simply as a work of Solomon. And that it is to him a canonical book is especially shown by the entire section de principiis i. 2. 5-13 where he uses the passage Wis_7:25-26 together with Colossians 1:15 and Hebrews 1:3 as fundamental passages from which he develops his Christology. The whole section de princ. i. 2. 9-13 is nothing but an exegetical discussion of Wis_7:25-26. On the whole there are about forty quotations from this book in Origen.
Cyprian uses the Book of Wisdom as in the fullest sense canonical. He quotes it as Sapientia Salomonis (Testim. ii. 14 iii. 16 53 58 59 66; Ad Fortunatum c. 1) scriptura divina (De habitu virginum c. 10; Epist. vi. 2) scriptura sancta (Ad Demetrianum c. 24) or with the formulae as scriptum est (De zelo et livore c. 4; Epist. iv. 1 Leviticus 22) per Salomonem docet spiritus sanctus and the like (De mortalitate c. 23; Ad Fortunatum c. 12). He quotes two or three times passages from the Proverbs with the formula in Sapientia Salomonis (Testim. iii. 1 6 16 56); and once a passage from Wisdom with the formula in Ecclesiastico (Testim. iii. 112); but both from inadvertence since he elsewhere decidedly distinguishes between Proverbs Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom.
The manuscripts editions and ancient translations (together with their editions) are the same for this book as for Ecclesiasticus (see above p. 29) the two books being as a rule combined with each other. The cod. Vaticanus has been used for our book in Fritzsche’s edition of the Apocrypha but apparently only according to the data in Reusch (Observ. crit. 1861) which on their part rest upon the untrustworthy edition of the codex by Mai (see upon this p. 11 above). Valuable contributions to the textual criticism are given in Reusch Observationes criticae in librum Sapientiae Frib. 1861. The separate edition (Reusch Liber Sapientiae graece Frib. 1858) gives the text of the Sixtine edition. An edition of the Greek text with the old Latin and the Authorized English translation: Deane Σοφια Σαλωμων The Book of Wisdom the Greek text the Latin Vulgate and the Authorized English version with an introduction critical apparatus and a commentary Oxford 1881.
The exegesis in general see above p. 11. Commentaries: Bauermeister Commentarius in Sapientiam Salomonis Götting. 1828. Grimm Commentar über das Buch der Weisheit Leipzig 1837. J. A. Schmid Das Buch der Weisheit übersetzt und erklärt 1858 (Cathol.). Grimm Das Buch der Weisheit erklärt (Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen 6 pts.) Leipzig 1860 (not a new edition of the former work but an entirely new one). Gutberlet Das Buch der Weisheit übersetzt und erklärt 1874 (Cathol.). Deane in the above-named separate edition. The older literature in Fabricius Biblioth. graec. ed. Harles iii. 727-732. Fürst Biblioth. Jud. iii. 219-221. Grimm Exeget. Handb. p. 45 sq. Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. i. 496.
Separate investigations: Salthenius Diss. critico-theol. de auctore libri Sapientiae Philone potius Alexandrino quam seniore Regim. 1739. Bretschneider De libri Sapientiae parte priore c. i.-xi. e duobus libellis conflata. Pts. i.-iii. Viteb. 1804. Winzer De philosophia morali in libro Sap. exposita Viteb. 1811. Grimm De Alexandrina Sapientiae libri indole perperam asserta Jen. 1833 (subsequently withdrawn by himself). Gfrörer Philo vol. ii. (1831) pp. 200-272. Dähne Geschichtl. Darstellung der jüd.-alex. Religionsphilosophie vol. ii. (1834) pp. 152-180. Bruch Weisheitslehre der Hebräer Strassb. 1851 pp. 322-378. Schmieder Ueber das B. der Weisheit 1853. Weisse Die Evangelienfrage (1856) p. 202 sqq. Noach Psyche iii. 2 pp. 65-102. Nägelsbach in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. xvii. 622 sqq. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel iv. 626 sqq. The same Jahrbb. der bibl. Wissensch. iii. 264 sq. ix. 234 sq. x. 219 sq. xi. 223 sqq. Zeller Die Philosophie der Griechen iii. 2 (3rd ed. 1881) pp. 271-274. Kübel “Die ethischen Grundanschauungen der Weisheit Salomo’s” (Stud. und Krit. 1865 pp. 690-722). Heinze Die Lehre vom Logos (1872) pp. 192-202. Fritzsche in Schenkel’s Bibellex. v. 647 sqq. Hausrath Neutestamentl. Zeitgesch. 2nd ed. ii. 259 sqq. Grätz Gesch. der Juden vol. iii. (3rd ed. 1878) pp. 628-630 (note 3). Perez La Sapienza di Salomone saggio storico-critico Firenze 1871. The same Sopra Filone Alessandrino e il suo libro detto “La Sapienza di Salomone” Palermo 1883. The Introductions of Jahn Eichhorn Bertholdt Welte Scholz Nöldeke De Wette-Schrader Reusch Keil Kaulen Kleinert Reuss (see above p. 12).
2. Aristobulus
The author of the Wisdom of Solomon is one whose views are still chiefly based upon the Palestinian Proverbial Wisdom which in him is only peculiarly modified by the influence of Greek philosophy. The Alexandrian Aristobulus on the contrary is a Hellenistic philosopher in the proper sense. He is acquainted with and expressly quotes the Greek philosophers Pythagoras Socrates Plato and is at home with their views as a philosopher by profession.
The statements of the ancients do not indeed entirely agree as to his date. It may however pass for certain that he lived in the time of Ptolemy VI. Philometor and therefore towards the middle of the second century before Christ (about 170-150 B.C.). He himself says in one of his works addressed to a Ptolemy that the Greek translation of the Pentateuch was made “under King Philadelphus thy ancestor” (Euseb. Praep. evang. xiii. 12. 2 ed. Gaisford: ἐπὶ τοῦ προσαγορευθέντος Φιλαδέλφου βασιλέως σοῦ δὲ προγόνου). Thus he at all events wrote under a descendant of Ptolemy II. Philadelphus. But both Clemens Alexandrinus and Eusebius in his Chronicle distinctly mention Philometor.[2427] The same chronology is also presupposed when Clemens Alexandrinus and Eusebius identify this Aristobulus with the one who is mentioned in the beginning of the second Book of Maccabees (2Ma_1:10).[2428] In opposition to such evidence it cannot be taken into consideration that Anatolius places him under Ptolemy II. Philadelphus[2429] and that the only manuscript of the Stromata of Clemens Alexandrinus has erroneously Philadelphus instead of Philometor in one passage.[2430]
[2427] Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 22. 150: Ἀριστόβουλος ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν πρὸς τὸν Φιλομήτορα. The reading here is guaranteed for in Eusebius also who in the Praep. evang. ix. 6 gives this passage from Clemens the manuscripts all have Φιλομήτορα. Euseb. Chron. ad Olymp. 151 (ed. Schoene ii. 124 sq.). The Greek text which is preserved in the Chronicon paschale is as follows: Ἀριστόβουλος Ἰουδαῖος περιπατήτικὸς φιλόσοφος ἐγνορίζετο ὃς Πτολεμαίῳ τῷ Φιλομήτορι ἐξηγήσεις τῆς Μωϋσέως γραφῆς ἀνέθηκεν. So too the Armenian and Jerome. The 151st Olympiad = 176-172 B.C.
[2428] Clemens Alex. Strom. v. 14. 97. Euseb. Praep. evang. viii. 9 fin.
[2429] Anatolius in Euseb. Hist. eccl. vii. 32. 16.
[2430] Clemens Strom. v. 14. 97. The cod. Laurentianus i.e. the only manuscript in which the Stromata of Clemens has come down to us (for the Parisinus saec. 15 is only a copy from it) has here Φιλάδελφον. Modern editors have however correctly replaced it by Φιλομήτορα.
According to Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 14. 97 this Aristobulus wrote βιβλία ἱκανά. Probably Clemens does not mean to say that he wrote several books but that the one work which he knew of his was an extensive one. We are indebted for further particulars to Clemens Alexandrinus (Strom. i. 15. 72 i. 22. 150 v. 14. 97 vi. 3. 32) Anatolius (in Euseb. Hist. eccl. vii. 32 16-19 Anatolius was an older contemporary of Eusebius) and Eusebius (Praep. evang. vii. 14 viii. 10 xiii. 12). Aristobulus is also briefly mentioned by Origen (contra Cels. iv. 51). The only two passages which are verbally preserved are in Euseb. Praep. evang. viii. 10 and xiii. 12. For whatever other verbal quotations are found (Clemens Strom. i. 22. 150 = Euseb. Praep. ix. 6. Clemens Strom. vi. 3. 32 = Euseb. Praep. vii. 14) are certainly contained also in the text of these larger fragments.[2431] The passage which Cyrillus Alex. (contra Julian. p. 134 ed. Spanh.) ascribes to Aristobulus is derived from the third Book of the Indica of Megasthenes and has been only ascribed to Aristobulus in consequence of a very inconsiderate use of Clem. Al. Strom. i. 15. 72.
[2431] Namely: (1) Clem. Str. i. 22. 450 = Eus. Pr. ix. 6 = Eus. Pr. xiii. 12. 1. (2) Clem. Strom. vi. 3. 32 = Eus. Pr. viii. 10. 14. (3) Eus. Pr. vii. 14 = Eus. Pr. xiii. 12. 10-11.
The work which was in the hands of these Fathers is designated as an explanation of the Mosaic laws.[2432] According however to the fragments preserved we must conceive of it not as an actual commentary on the text but as a free reproduction of the contents of the Pentateuch in which the latter is philosophically explained. Hence it is not Philo’s allegorical commentaries on single passages of the text but his systematic delineation of the Mosaic legislation the characteristics of which have been described p. 219 above which is analogous to it. Like Philo Aristobulus already seems to have given a connected representation of the contents of the Pentateuch for the purpose of showing to the cultured heathen world that the Mosaic law if only correctly understood already contained all that the best Greek philosophers subsequently taught. The work was first of all intended for King Ptolemy Philometor himself[2433] who is therefore addressed in the text (Eus. Pr. viii. 10. 1 sqq. xiii. 12. 2). Hence it is self-evident that it is addressed simply to heathen readers. His chief object was as Clement says to show “that the peripatetic philosophy was dependent upon the law of Moses and the other prophets” (Strom. v. 14. 97: Ἀριστοβούλῳ … βιβλία πεπόνηται ἱκανὰ διʼ ὧν ἀποδείκνυσι τὴν περιπατητικὴν φιλοσοφίαν ἔκ τε τοῦ κατὰ Μωυσέα νόμου καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἠρτῆσθαι προφητῶν). This is substantially confirmed by the fragments preserved only instead of the peripatetic the Greek philosophy in general should rather be spoken of. For Aristobulus is not contented with exhibiting the intrinsic agreement of the Mosaic law with the philosophy of the Greeks but roundly asserts that the Greek philosophers a Pythagoras a Socrates a Plato derived their doctrines from Moses nay that even the poets Homer and Hesiod borrowed much from him for that the essential contents of the Pentateuch had been rendered into Greek long before the Greek translation of the Pentateuch made under Ptolemy Philadelphus.[2434] This bold assertion that Moses was the father of Greek philosophy and culture was embraced also by later Jewish Hellenists. Especially do we again meet with it in Philo.
[2432] Euseb. Praep. evang. vii. 13. 7 ed. Gaisford: τὴν τῶν ἱερῶν νόμων ἑρμηνείαν. Euseb. Chron. ad Olymp. 151 (ed. Schoene ii. 124 sq.): ἐξηγήσεις τῆς Μωυσέως γραφῆς (this Greek wording preserved by means of the Chron. paschale is confirmed by the Armenian [enarrationem librorum Moysis] and by Jerome [explanationem in Moysen commentarios]). Anatolius in Euseb. Hist. eccl. vii. 32. 16: βίβλους ἐξηγητικὰς τοῦ Μωϋσέως νόμου.
[2433] Clemens Al. Strom. i. 22. 150 = Eus. Praep. evang. ix. 6. 6: ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν πρὸς τὸν Φιλομήτορα. Euseb. Praep. evang. viii. 9 fin.: ἐν τῷ πρὸς Πτολλεμαῖον τὸν βασιλέα συγγράμματι. Euseb. Praep. evang. vii. 13 fin. Anatolius in Euseb. Hist. eccl. vii. 32. 16.
[2434] See especially Euseb. Praep. evang. xiii. 12. 1 = Clemens Strom. i. 22. 150 = Euseb. Praep. ix. 6. 6-8. Pythagoras Socrates and Plato: Eus. Pr. xiii. 12. 4 ed. Gaisford. Homer and Hesiod: Eus. Pr. xiii. 12. 13.
The fragments preserved give us at least an approximate notion of the execution in detail. A large portion of the passages are employed in settling the true sense of the Biblical anthropomorphisms. Thus e.g. the long passage in Euseb. Pr. evang. xiii. 12. 1-8 which according to the parallel passage in Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 22. 150 = Euseb. Pr. ix. 6 is taken from the first book of Aristobulus’ work and evidently belonged to the explanation of the history of the Creation shows that nothing else is meant by the words “God said and it was” than that everything came to pass by the operation (δυνάμει) of God as indeed was taught by the Greek philosophers Orpheus and Aratus. The following passage (Eus. Pr. xiii. 12. 9-16) which also belonged to the explanation of the history of the Creation treats of the seventh day as the day of rest and explains its meaning by an appeal among other things to supposed verses of Hesiod Homer and Linus.[2435] Another passage (Eus. Pr. viii. 10) shows what we are to understand when the hands arms face and feet of God or a walking of God are spoken of.[2436] Lastly the extract from Anatolius given in Euseb. Hist. eccl. vii. 32. 17-18 is occupied with the Passover which is celebrated when both the sun and moon are in the equinox viz. the sun in the vernal and the moon opposite him in the autumnal equinox. Just this fragment shows that Aristobulus by no means occupied himself with only philosophically explaining away the text of the Pentateuch but that he really gave a description and explanation of the Mosaic law. While endeavouring however to settle its meaning he often enters as Origen especially intimates (contra Cels. iv. 51) into the region of allegorical interpretation.
[2435] A small portion of this (Eus. Pr. xiii. 12. 10-11) is also found Pr. evang. vii. 14.
[2436] A small sentence from it is found in Eus. Pr. viii. 10. 14; also in Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. 3. 32.
The fragments give no further disclosure concerning the philosophical standpoint of Aristobulus. It may without any hesitation be assumed that he was an eclectic. The fragment on the meaning of the Sabbath “enters into a Pythagorean-like dilation on the power of the number seven.”[2437] Elsewhere Aristobulus appeals not only generally to Pythagoras Socrates and Plato but when entering more into detail to the peripatetic doctrine in particular.[2438] That he the more closely adhered to the latter is vouched for by the Fathers who unanimously call him a peripatetic.[2439]
[2437] Zeller Die Philosophie der Griechen iii. 2. (3rd ed.) p. 264.
[2438] Eus. Pr. ev. xiii. 12. 10-11 = vii. 14.
[2439] Clemens Strom. i. 15. 72 v. 14. 97. Euseb. Praep. evang. viii. 9 fin. ix. 6. 6. Chron. ad Olymp. 151 (ed. Schoene ii. 124 sq.).
It is almost incomprehensible that many more recent scholars (e.g. Richard Simon Hody Eichhorn Kuenen Grätz Joel) should have disputed the genuineness of the whole work of Aristobulus. The picture which we obtain from the fragments of the work that have come down to us so entirely coincides with all that we elsewhere learn of the intellectual tendency of Hellenistic Judaism that there is absolutely no occasion for any kind of doubt. The sole reason against the genuineness which at all deserves mention is the certainly indisputable fact that Aristobulus cites supposed verses of Orpheus Hesiod Homer and Linus which are certainty forged by a Jew. It is thought that such audacity is inconceivable in a work intended for King Ptolemy himself. The assumption on which the argument starts is that the verses were forged by Aristobulus himself—an assumption not only incapable of proof but in the highest degree improbable. The verses were probably derived from an older Jewish work (see on this point No. VII.) and adopted by Aristobulus in all good faith in their genuineness. Aristobulus only did what later Christian apologists have also done without thereby affording a ground for doubting the genuineness of their works.
The entire work of Aristobulus is said according to a marginal note in the cod. Laurentianus of Clemens Alexandrinus’ Stromata to have been still extant towards the dose of the Middle Ages in a library at Patmos (on Strom. i. 22. 150 a hand of the fifteenth or sixteenth century remarks: Ἀριστοβούλου βίβλος αὕτη ἡ πρὸς τὸν Φιλομήτορα ἐστὶν εἰς τὴν Πάτμον ἣν ἔγωγε οἶδα; see the note in Dindorf’s ed.). Whether this note is worthy of credence is however very doubtful.
Compare in general: Richard Simon Histoire critique du Vieux Testament pp. 189 499. Hody De bibliorum textibus p. 50 sqq. Fabricius Biblioth. graec. ed. Harles i. 164 iii. 469 sq. Eichhorn Allgem. Bibliothek der biblischen Literatur vol. v. (1793) pp. 253-298. Valckenaer Diatribe de Aristobulo Judaeo philosopho peripatetico Alexandrino Lugd. Bat. 1806 (chief work). Gabler’s Journal für auserlesene theolog. Literatur vol. v. (1810) pp. 183-209 (advertisement of Valckenaer’s work). Winer in Ersch and Gruber’s Allgem. Encydop. § 1 vol. v. (1820) p. 266. Lobeck Aglaophamus i. (1829) p. 448. Gfrörer Philo ii. 711-21. Dähne Geschichtl. Darstellung der jüd.-alex. Religionsphilosophie ii. 73-112. Fürst Biblioth. Jud. i. 53 sq. Herzteld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael iii. 473 sqq. 564 sqq. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel iv. 335 sqq. Teuffel in Pauly’s Real-Enc. i. 2 (2nd ed.) p. 1600. Cobet in the Λογιος Ἑρμης i. (1866) pp. 173-177 521. Zeller Die Philosophie der Griechen iii. 2 (3rd ed.) pp. 257-264. Ueberweg Grundriss 4th ed. i. 240 sqq. Binde Aristobulische Studien 2 pts. Glogau 1869-1870 (Gymnasialprogr.). Heinze Die Lehre vom Logos (1872) pp. 185-192. Kuenen De godsdienst van Israël ii. (1870) pp. 433-440. Freudenthal Alexander Polyhistor pp. 166-169. Grätz Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1878 pp. 49-60 97-109. Joel Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte zu Anfang des zweiten christlichen Jahrhunderts (1880) pp. 77-100.
3. Philo
Philo the more recent fellow-countryman of Aristobulus by two centuries represents the same tendency. His main effort also is to prove that the views derived from Greek philosophers were genuinely Jewish. And this he does now for heathen now for Jewish readers; for the former to inspire them with respect for Judaism for the latter to educate them to such a Judaism as he himself represents. It may safely be assumed that there were between Aristobulus and Philo other representatives of this tendency. For it presented itself in Philo with such assurance and in such maturity of form as would not be conceivable without historical connection. Nothing however of the supposed literary productions of such individuals has come down to us.
Since Philo by reason of his eminent importance and the extent of his extant works demands a separate delineation (§ 34) we will here only briefly mention those writings of his in which philosophical instruction and discussion form the main object. Among these are in the first place two of his principal works on the Pentateuch viz.: (1) the Ζητήματα καὶ λύσεις a short explanation of Genesis and Exodus in the form of questions and answers; and (2) the Νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίαι the extensive allegorical commentaries on select passages of Genesis in the form of Rabbinical Midrash. These form Philo’s chief philosophical work properly so called and constitute in extent about the half of Philo’s still extant writings. (3) The work Περὶ τοῦ πάντα σπουδαῖον εἶναι ἐλεύθερον (Quod omnis probus liber) properly only the second half of a work whose first half which is lost dealt with the theme περὶ τοῦ δοῦλον εἶναι πάντα φαῦλον was also occupied in the discussion of philosophical questions. (4) Περὶ προνοίας. (5) Ἀλέξανδρος ἢ περὶ τοῦ λόγον ἔχειν τὰ ἄλογα ζῶα. Particulars concerning all these works will be found in § 34. The two last-named are also of interest because Philo in them chooses the form of the Greek dialogue in discussing the theme.
4. The Fourth Book of Maccabees
To philosophical literature belongs also the so-called fourth Book of Maccabees. For the Judaism which the author recommends is influenced by the Stoic philosophy.
In its form this piece of writing is a discourse. It directly addresses its hearers or readers (1:1 18:1).[2440] The contents being of a religious and edifying kind it might even be called a sermon and the choice of this form referred to the custom of religious lectures in the synagogues. But when Freudenthal (pp. 4-36) emphatically insists that we have here an actual specimen of synagogue preaching this is not only incapable of proof but also improbable the theme discoursed on being not a text of Holy Scripture but a philosophic proposition.
[2440] I quote according to the division into chapters and verses of Fritzsche’s edition of the Apocrypha.
The author had only Jews in view whether as hearers or readers (18:1: ὦ τῶν Ἀβραμιαίων σπερμάτων ἀπόγονοι παῖδες Ἰσραηλῖται). He desires to show them that it is not difficult to lead a pious life if only they follow the precepts of “pious reason.” For “pious reason is the absolute ruler of the motives” (1:1: αὐτοδέσποτός ἐστι τῶν παθῶν ὁ εὐσεβὴς λογισμός). This proposition is the proper theme of the discourse; its meaning is first explained and its truth afterwards proved by facts from Jewish history especially by the laudable martyrdom of Eleazar and the seven Maccabaean brothers. A large portion of the contents is therefore devoted to a description of the martyrdom of these heroes of faith. In his grossly realistic delineation of the several tortures the author shows even greater want of taste than the second Book of Maccabees and the psychology assumed is as contrary as possible to nature. His authority seems to have been the second Book of Maccabees. At least it cannot be proved that he drew as Freudenthal (pp. 72-90) supposes from the larger work of Jason of Cyrene (2Ma_2:23).
The author’s own standpoint is influenced by Stoicism. The fundamental idea of the whole discourse is that of Stoic morality viz. the rule of reason over impulse. The setting up too of four cardinal virtues (φρόνησις δικαιοσύνη ἀνδρεία σωφροσύνη) is derived from Stoicism. But this influence of Stoicism does not anywhere penetrate more deeply with the author. Even the fundamental idea is transformed in Jewish fashion. For the reason to which he ascribes dominion over desire is not human reason as such but pious reason: ὁ εὐσεβὴς λογισμός (1:1 7:16 13:1 15:20 16:1 18:2) i.e. reason guiding itself according to the rule of the divine law (comp. also 1:15 sq.). He also goes his own way in the description and division of the affections (see Freudenthal p. 55 sqq.; Zeller iii. 2. 276). But it would be doing him too much honour to designate him as an eclectic philosopher. He is but a dilettante in philosophicis somewhat after the fashion of Josephus who also knows how to give his Judaism a philosophic tinge. Of all Jewish philosophers known to us our author stands relatively nearest to Pharisaism for just what he extols in the Maccabaean brethren is their punctilious adherence to the ceremonial law. Two of his Jewish views in particular may be brought forward as worthy of notice—(1) his belief in the resurrection the form of which is not that of the Pharisaic belief in that doctrine but the form met with among other Jewish Hellenists of a faith in an eternal and blessed life of pious souls in heaven (13:16 15:2 17:5 18 fin.);[2441] and (2) the notion that the martyrdom of the righteous serves as an atonement for the sins of the people (6:29: καθάρσιον αὐτῶν ποίησον τὸ ἐμὸν αἷμα καὶ ἀντίψυχον αὐτῶν λάβε τὴν ἐμὴν ψυχήν; 17:29: ὰντίψυχον γεγονότας τῆς τοῦ ἔθνους ἁμαρτίας).[2442]
[2441] For further particulars see Grimm Exeget. Handb. p. 289 and Freudenthal pp. 67-71. Caution is however needed in the settlement of details because the text seems to be not quite free from Christian interpolations. See Freudenthal p. 165 sqq. Such an interpolation are the words εἰς τοὺς κόλπους αὐτῶν which are wanting in the cod. Alex. and Sin. The thought however remains the same even without these words.
[2442] Comp. Freudenthal p. 68.
Josephus is named by Eusebius and other Church writers as the author of this book. This view however has only the value of a hypothesis. For the book still appears in many manuscripts anonymously and was therefore certainly at first issued without the name of the author. The entirely different style and the circumstance that Josephus in his Antiquities nowhere makes use of the second Book of Maccabees and thus seems not to know it while the work in question is entirely based upon it speak against his authorship. The first century after Christ is generally accepted as the date of composition chiefly because the book must have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Though the latter cannot be proved this view must be pretty nearly correct since a more recent book would no longer have been accepted by the Christian Church.
Eusebius speaking of the writings of Josephus says concerning the title and authorship Hist. eccl. iii. 10. 6: Πεπόνηται δὲ καὶ ἄλλο οὐκ ἀγεννὲς σπούδασμα τῷ ἀνδρὶ περὶ αὐτοκράτορος λογισμοῦ ὅ τινες Μακκαβαϊκὸν ἐπέγραψαν κ.τ.λ. Hieronymus De viris illustr. c. 13 (Vallarsi ii. 851): “Alius quoque liber ejus qui inscribitur περὶ αὐτοκράτορος λογισμοῦ valde elegans habetur in quo et Machabaeorum sunt digesta martyria.” The same contra Pelagianos ii. 6 (Vallarsi ii. 749): “Unde et Josephus Machabaeorum scriptor historiae frangi et regi posse dixit perturbationes animi non eradicari (= 4Ma_3:5).” The article in Suidas Lex. s.v. Ἰώσηπος is taken from the Greek translation of Hieron. de viris illustris c. 13. For other authors who attribute this book to Josephus see Grimm Handb. p. 293 sq. It is also frequently attributed to Josephus in the MSS. (Grimm as above. Freudenthal p. 117 sqq.). Its title as the fourth Book of Maccabees (Μακκαβαίων δʹ) is found in Philostorgius and Syncellus and in some Scripture MSS. and indeed in the latter without the mention of Josephus as its author (so esp. cod. Alex. and Sin.). For further particulars see Freudenthal pp. 117-120. On the use of the book in Christian ascetic literature see above p. 214.
The manuscripts in which our book has come down are some of them manuscripts of Scripture some of Josephus. The former are not numerous since as a rule only three books of Maccabees were received as canonical (Freudenthal pp. 118 119). Still the two most important manuscripts for our book are Scripture MSS. viz. the codex Alexandrinus (No. iii. in Fritzsche) and Sinaiticus (No. x. in Fritzsche). On the editions of these manuscripts see above p. 166. More concerning them will be found in Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. graec. v. 26 sq. Grimm Handb. p. 294 Freudenthal pp. 120-127 169 sq. 173. Fritzsche Prolegom. p. xxi. sq. Collations chiefly in Havercamp’s edition of Josephus ii. 1. 497 sqq. ii. 2. 157 sqq. A fragment in Tischendorf Monumenta sacra inedita vol. vi. 1869. Various readings of a Florentine MS. (Acquis. ser. iii. No. 44) are given by Pitra Analecta sacra vol. ii. (1884) pp. 635-640.
The text is printed in accordance with the manuscripts on the one hand in some editions of the Septuagint and in separate editions of the Apocrypha on the other and chiefly in the editions of Josephus. Most of the editors have troubled themselves very little about the manuscripts. The first attempt at a recension of the text from the best authorities is made in Fritzsche’s edition of the Libri apocryphi Vet. Test. graece (Lips. 1871). For more on the editions see Grimm Handb. p. 294 sq. Freudenthal pp. 127-133.
Erasmus compiled a Latin paraphrase of this book (printed e.g. in Havercamp’s Josephus ii. 2. 148-156). Nothing reliable is as yet known of any ancient Latin translation on which it is based. See Grimm p. 296. Freudenthal p. 133 sqq. The old Syriac translation is published in Ceriani’s photo-lithographic edition of the Milan Peshito manuscript (see above p. 92).
Grimm has given a careful commentary on this book in his Exeget. Handb. zu den Apokryphen 4 parts Leipzig 1857. Freudenthal’s Die Flavius Josephus beigelegte Schrift Ueber die Herrschaft der Vernunft (4 Makkabäerbuch) eine Predigt aus dem ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhundert untersucht Breslau 1869 is a complete monograph. A German translation is contained in the Bibliothek der griechischen und römischen Schriftsteller über Judenthum und Juden in neuen Uebertragungen und Sammlungen 2 vols. Leipzig 1867.
Comp. in general: Gfrörer Philo ii. 173-200. Dähne Geshichtl. Darstellung der jüd.-alex. Religionsphilosophie ii. 190-199. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel iv. 632 sqq. Langen Das Judenthum in Palästina (1866) pp. 74-83. Geiger Jüdische Zeitschr. für Wissensch. und Leben 1869 pp. 113-116. Fritzeche in Schenkel’s Bibellex. iv. 98-100. Keil Einl. in’s A. T. 3rd ed. (1873) p. 722 sqq. Grätz Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1877 p. 454 sqq. Reuss Gesch. der heil. Schriften A. T.’s § 570. Zeller Die Philosophie der Griechen iii. 2 (3rd ed. 1881) pp. 275-277.
VI. APOLOGETICS
The peculiarity of the Jewish people involved the circumstance that the Jews were felt to be more than other Orientals an anomaly in the framework of the Graeco-Roman world. Denying all authority to other religions they were paid in the same coin and their right of existence upon the soil of Hellenistic culture disputed. The town municipalities tried to get rid of such inconvenient fellow-citizens; the populace was always ready to lift up a hand against them while by the educated they were despised and derided (see vol. ii. pp. 273-276 291). Hellenistic Judaism thus found itself continually at war with the rest of the Hellenistic world; it had ever to draw the sword in its own defence. Hence a large share of the entire Graeco-Jewish literature subserves apologetic purposes. Especially does the historic and philosophic literature essentially pursue the design of showing that the Jewish nation was by reason of the greatness of its history and the purity of its teaching if not superior at least equal to others. Besides these indirectly apologetic works there were also some which sought in a systematic manner to refute the reproaches with which Judaism was assailed. These were called forth by the sometimes utterly absurd fables propagated by certain Greek literati concerning the Jews and generally by the direct accusations brought against them in Greek and Latin literature. These accusations had their rise in Egypt (Joseph. contra Apion. i. 25). Alexandrian literati were the first to write against the Jews. From these turbid waters later writers especially Tacitus drew. In what follows we shall speak in the first place of literary opponents and afterwards of the apologetic works and the points of dispute themselves (Attack and Defence).
1. The Literary Opponents
1. Manetho (comp. Josephus contra Apion. i. 26-31). The Egyptian priest Manetho composed in the time of Ptolemy II. Philadelphus therefore about 270-250 B.C. a learned work on Egyptian history in the Greek language derived from the sacred records themselves (Joseph. contra Apion. i. 14: γέγραφε Ἑλλάδι φωνῇ τὴν πάτριον ἱστορίαν ἔκ τε τῶν ἱερῶν ὡς φησὶν αὐτός μεταφράσας. Ibid. i. 26: ὁ τὴν Αἰγυπτιακὴν ἱστορίαν ἐκ τῶν ἱερῶν γραμμάτων μεθερμηνεύειν ὑπεσχημένος). From these Αἰγυπτιακά of Manetho Josephus gives in two places long fragments which however as Josephus himself states are of very different character. The portions (from the second Book of the Αἰγυπτιακά) in i. 14-16 which treat of the rule of the Hyksos in Egypt make by the copiousness of their contents and the conciseness of their form the most favourable impression. Nothing in them gives occasion for doubting that their contents are really derived from the ancient records. Of quite another kind are the portions in i. 26 27. These do not indeed pretend to be authentic history but only give according to Manetho’s own confession the legends current concerning the Jews (i. 16: ὁ Μανεθὼν οὐκ ἐκ τῶν παρʼ Αἰγυπτίοις γραμμάτων ἀλλʼ ὡς αὐτὸς ὡμολόγηκεν ἐκ τῶν ἀδεσπότως μυθολογουμένων προστέθεικεν. I. 26: μέχρι μὲν τούτων ἠκολούθησε ταῖς ἀναγραφαῖς ἔπειτα δὲ δοὺς ἐξουσίαν αὑτῷ διὰ τοῦ φάναι γράψειν τὰ μυθευόμενα καὶ λεγόμενα περὶ τῶν Ἰουδαίων λόγους ἀπιθάνους παρενέβαλεν). It is here related how King Amenophis of Egypt assembled in one place all the lepers of the country 80000 in number and sent them to work in the stone quarries east of the Nile. After they had laboured there a long time they petitioned the king to assign to them the town of Auaris which had formerly been inhabited by the Hyksos as a place of residence. The king granted their request. When however they had taken possession of the town they were attacked by the king and chose a priest of Heliopolis named Osarsiph as their head who gave them new laws in which they were especially commanded to worship no gods and to kill the sacred animals. He also invoked the aid of the Hyksos from Jerusalem as allies. With their assistance the lepers now drove away King Amenophis and ruled Egypt for thirteen years. The priest Osarsiph then took the name of Moses. After the thirteen years the Hyksos and the lepers were driven out of Egypt by King Amenophis. This history concerning the origin of the Jews was therefore read in his text of Manetho by Josephus. Whether it is derived from Manetho himself is questionable. Many recent investigators e.g. Boeckh Carl Müller Kellner regard it as a later insertion.[2443] The possibility of its being such cannot be disputed since this much read work already existed in various recensions even in the time of Josephus.[2444] This view does not however appear to me to be probable in the case in question. For if an enemy of the Jews had subsequently inserted the passage he would scarcely have been so truthful as expressly to bring forward the fact that he was not giving a history accredited by ancient records but only τὰ μυθευόμενα καὶ λεγόμενα περὶ τῶν Ἰουδαίων. In these words we hear the strict investigator who indeed as an enemy of the Jews cannot deny himself the reporting of these tales but expressly distinguishes them as legends from authentic history. At any rate Josephus read the section in all the copies known to him of Manetho; for he says nothing of any difference in this respect.[2445]
[2443] Boeckh Manetho und die Hundssternperiode p. 302. Müller Fragm. hist. graec. ii. 514b. Kellner De fragmente Manethonianis p. 52 sq.
[2444] In the passage i. 14 Josephus gives a long extract from Manetho in which the name Hyksos is explained by “Shepherd Kings.” On this Josephus remarks that “in another copy” (ἐν ἄλλῳ ἀντιγράφῳ) another explanation is given. Ἐν ἄλλῃ δέ τινι βίβλῳ (i. 14 near the end) must be understood in the same sense i.e. of another manuscript not of another part of Manetho’s work.
[2445] It must not be urged (as by Kellner) against the origin of the section in question that it is contradictory to the passage given i. 14. Such a contradiction only exists if the Hyksos are identified—as by Josephus—with the Jews which is certainly a mistake.
The fragments of Manetho are best collected in Carl Müller Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum vol. ii. (1848) pp. 511-616. Comp. on Manetho in general: Böckh Manetho und die Hundssternperiode ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Pharaonen Berlin 1845. Bähr in Pauly’s Real-Enc. iv. 1477 sqq. Nicolai Griechische Literaturgeschichte 2nd ed. vol. ii. (1876) pp. 198-200. Krall “Die Composition und die Schicksale des Manethonischen Geschichtswerkes” (Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akademie philos.-histor. Classe vol. xcv. yearly course 1879 pp. 123-226) treats pp. 152-169 especially of the fragments in Josephus.
On the fragments in Josephus: Hengstenberg Die Bücher Moses und Aegypten with an appendix: Manetho und die Hyksos Berlin 1841. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel (3rd ed.) ii. 110 sqq. Kellner De fragmentis Manethonianis quae apud Josephum contra Apionem i. 14 and i. 26 sunt. Marburg 1859. J. G. Müller Des Flavius Josephus Schrift gegen den Apion (Basel 1877) pp. 120 sqq. 185 sqq. 214 sqq.
2. Apollonius Melon (or Molonis?). Among the literary opponents of Judaism Josephus frequently names one Ἀπολλώνιος ὁ Μόλων (contra Apion. ii. 14 ii. 36) in a later passage ὁ Μόλων Ἀπολλώνιος (comp. ii. 7: Apollonium Molonis) whose full name he also abridges so as to write either only Ἀπολλώνιος (ii. 14 and ii. 37 twice) or only Μόλων (ii. 2 ed. Bekker 226. 13; comp. ii. 33 and ii. 41: Μόλωνες). This adversary of the Jews in Josephus is undoubtedly identical with him from whom Alexander Polyhistor gives a passage (in Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 19: ὁ δὲ τὴν συσκευὴν τὴν κατὰ Ἰουδαίων γράψας Μόλων).[2446] An orator of the same name (Apollonius Molon) is elsewhere frequently mentioned as the teacher of Cicero and Caesar and as a writer on rhetoric.[2447] It seems however that some discrepancies had already crept in concerning him among the ancients. For Strabo distinguishes two orators an Apollonius and a Molon evidently by reason of a more accurate knowledge of the matter. He mentions both (xiv. 2. 13 p. 655) as eminent men who lived in Rhodes and remarks that both came from Alabanda in Caria but that Molon came to Rhodes subsequently to Apollonius on which account Apollonius said to him “ὀψὲ μολών.” Thus they were not only fellow-countrymen but contemporaries. Strabo also distinguishes them in another passage in which he is enumerating the eminent men of Alabanda (xiv. 2. 26 p. 661). Cicero too mentions both and indeed so that he calls the one only Apollonius and the other who was Cicero’s tutor only Molon.[2448] Hence we must certainly distinguish between the two. Apollonius however was called by his full name Ἀπολλώνιος ὁ τοῦ Μόλωνος (Plutarch. Cicero 4 Caesar 3; Joseph. Apion. ii. 7); and he seems by placing his father’s name beside his own according to a custom which may be pointed to elsewhere to have called himself Ἀπολλώνιος ὁ Μόλων.[2449] This gave rise to his being frequently confounded with Molon. Cicero had probably heard both but his own teacher was Molon. We are here concerned not with the latter but with his older fellow-countryman Apollonius who according to Cicero was already a noted teacher 120 years before Christ.[2450]
[2446] The form Μόλων is given by Gaisford according to the better manuscripts; other editions have Μήλων.
[2447] Quintilian xii. 6. 7. Sueton. Caesar 4. Quintilian iii. 1. 16. Phoebammon in Rhetores graeci ed. Walz viii. 494 (here Ἀπολλώνιος ὁ ἐπικληθεὶς Μόλων).
[2448] For proof see Riese Molon or Apollonius Molon? (Rhein. Museum 1879 pp. 627-630) from which the above details concerning the distinctness of the two men is taken.
[2449]a Comp. Quaestiones epicae 1837 p. 23 note (with appeal to Sturz Opp. p. 14). The supposition of Riese that the name Apollonius Molon originated in a misunderstanding of the title-superscription Ἀπολλωνίου τοῦ Μόλωνος is according to what has been said neither necessary nor probable.
[2450] Cicero makes Scaevola say De orat. i. 17. 75: “Quae cum ego praetor Rhodum venissem et cum illo summo doctore istius disciplinae Apollonio ea quae a Panaetio acceperam contulissem irrisit ille quidem ut solebat philosophiamque contempsit” etc. Scaevola was praetor about A.U.C. 633 = 121 B.C. (see Pauly’s Enc. v. 183). Cicero also mentions this same Apollonius De oratore i. 28. 126 (Alabandensem Apollonium) and i. 28. 130 De inventione i. 56. 109.
There existed before the end of the second century before Christ in Caria and Rhodes sufficient occasion for the composition of a polemical work against the Jews by a living orator. For we know that just here the Jews were already numerously dispersed during the second century B.C.[2451] The work of Apollonius was according to Alexander Polyhistor a συσκευὴ κατὰ Ἰουδαίων (Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 19). Hence it dealt not merely occasionally like Manetho’s Αἰγυπτιακά but exclusively with the Jews. As Josephus says Apollonius did not like Apion heap up his accusations in one place but calumniated the Jews in many passages and throughout the work now in one manner now in another (contra Apion. ii. 14: τὴν κατηγορίαν ὁ Ἀπολλώνιος οὐκ ἀθρόαν ὥσπερ ὁ Ἀπίων ἔταξεν ἀλλὰ σποράδην καὶ διὰ πάσης τῆς συγγραφῆς … λοιδορεῖ) hence it must be supposed that the work was not a purely polemical one but that in connection with statements concerning the Jews it contained much polemical invective. This is also thoroughly confirmed by the fact that the fragment in Alexander Polyhistor (Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 19) is occupied in a purely objective manner with the history of Abraham. It follows from the allusions of Josephus that the history of the exodus from Egypt was also treated of (contra Apion. ii. 2) and that the work “contained unjust and untrue reports concerning our legislator Moses and our laws” (ii. 14). In the latter respect we learn also that Apollonius reproached the Jews with “not worshipping the same gods as others” (ii. 7) with having no fellowship with those who believed differently (ii. 36) and with being therefore ἄθεοι and μισάνθρωποι also as at one time cowardly at another fanatic as the most incapable among barbarians and as having furnished nothing towards general culture (ii. 14). Josephus on his part repays Apollonius in his own coin reproaching him with gross want of sense arrogance and immoral conduct (ii. 36 37).
[2451] Comp. 1Ma_15:16-24 and . The Carian towns of Myndos Halicarnassus and Cnidus and the neighbouring islands of Cos and Rhodes are presupposed (1Ma_15:16-24 and elsewhere) to be abodes of the Jews. On Halicarnassus comp. also (Joseph. Antt. xiv. 10. 23).
Comp. on Apollonius in general: C. Müller Fragm. hist. Graec. iii. 208 sq. Creuzer Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1853 p. 83 sq. Teuffel in Pauly’s Real-Enc. l. 2 (2nd ed.) p. 1318. J. G. Müller Des Flavius Josephus Schrift gegen den Apion (1877) p. 230. Riese “Molon oder Apollonius Molon?” (Rheinisches Museum vol. xxxiv. Jahrg. 1879 pp. 627-630).
3. Lysimachus (comp. Josephus contra Apion. i. 34-35). The fragment which Josephus ibid. gives from the work of a certain Lysimachus relates to the departure of the Jews from Egypt and narrates concerning it similar fables but still more absurd than those told by Manetho. The few occasional notices which Josephus elsewhere (contra Apion. ii. 2 twice and ii. 14) gives refer to the same fact. According to contra Apion. ii. 2: Ἀπίων … τὸν αὐτὸν Λυσιμάχῳ σχεδιάσας he seems to have been Apion’s predecessor. From the tenor of the fragment it may be assumed that he was an Egyptian. According to Cosmas Indicopleustes the work from which the fragment is taken is said to have been a “History of Egypt.”[2452] Since however Cosmas evidently derives his information only from Josephus and erroneously reckons Apollonius Molon among the Αἰγυπτιακὰ συγγραψάμενοι and nothing else is known of the Αἰγυπτιακά of Lysimachus the matter must be left uncertain. Two works Θηβαϊκὰ παράδοξα and Νόστοι (returns reversiones i.e. of Greek heroes from Troy) of an author named Lysimachus are frequently cited elsewhere in ancient literature. As the author of the Νόστοι seems to have been an Alexandrian and to have lived in the first century before Christ he is probably identical with this Lysimachus.
[2452] Cosmas Indicopleustes Topograph. christ. lib. xii. (by Gallandi Biblioth. patr. xi. 572): Οἱ δὲ τὰ Αἰγυπτιακὰ συγγραψάμενοι τουτέστι Μανεθὼν καὶ Χαιρημὼν καὶ Ἀπολλώνιος ὁ Μολῶν καὶ Λυσίμαχος καὶ Ἀπίων ὁ γραμματικὸς μέμνηνται Μωϋσέως καὶ τῆς ἐξόδου τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ τῆς ἐξ Αἰγύπτου.
The fragments of Lysimachus (both those from Josephus and those of the Φηβαϊκὰ παράδοξα and the Νόστοι) are collected in C. Müller Fragm. historicorum Graecorum iii. 334-342. The fragments of the Θηβ. παράδ. are also in Westermann Παραδοξογράφοι (Brunsvigae 1839) p. xxx. sq. 164 sq. Comp. in general: Westermann in Pauly’s Real-Enc. iv. 1311. Stiehle “Die Nosten des Lysimachos” (Philologus vol. iv. 1849 pp. 99-110; v. 1850 p. 382 sq.). J. G. Müller Des Flavius Josephus Scrhift gegen den Apion p. 208.
4. Chaeremon (comp. Josephus contra Apion. i. 32-33). The fragment from Chaeremon also refers to the departure of the Jews from Egypt and is with respect to its contents nearer to the narrative of Manetho than Lysimachus is. Josephus in this case expressly says that the fragment was taken from the Αἰγυπτιακὴ ἱστορία of Chaeremon (contra Apion. i. 32) This Chaeremon is also elsewhere known as an author on Egyptian matters. In the letter of Porphyrius to the Egyptian Anebon from which Eusebius Praep. evang. iii. 4 and v. 10 gives extracts two portions which relate to the Egyptian mythology and theology are cited from Chaeremon. In the second (Euseb. v. 10. 5 ed. Gaisford) Porphyrius designates Chaeremon as ἱερογραμματεύς. In the work of Porphyrius which has come down to us De abstinentia iv. 6-8 a detailed description of the life of Egyptian priests is given from Chaeremon which Porphyry introduces with the words: “Chaeremon the Stoic in treating of the Egyptian priests who as he says are esteemed philosophers among the Egyptians relates that they chose the sanctuaries as the place for philosophizing (Τὰ γοῦν κατὰ τοὺς Αἰγυπτίους ἱερέας Χαιρήμων ὁ Στωικὸς ἀφηγούμενος οὓς καὶ φιλοσόφους ὑπειλῆφθαί φησι παρʼ Αἰγυπτίοις ἐξηγεῖται ὡς τόπον μὲν ἐξελέξαντο ἐμφιλοσοφῆσαι τὰ ἱερά).… Despising every other occupation and human pursuit they devote their whole life to the contemplation of things divine” etc.[2453] At the end of this account Porphyrius calls Chaeremon a truth-loving trustworthy and intelligent Stoic philosopher (iv. 8 fin.: ἀνδρὸς φιλαλήθους τε καὶ ἀκριβοῦς ἔν τε τοῖς Στωικοῖς πραγματικώτατα φιλοσοφήσαντος). All these portions may well have stood in an “Egyptian History.” From it are also derived the communications from Chaeremon in a treatise of Psellus published by Sathas (1877). The same Chaeremon also wrote a work which is taken up in explaining the hieroglyphics (διδάγματα τῶν ἱερῶν γραμμάτων). From this the Byzantine Tzetzes has given extracts in his historical work (v. 403 in Müller Fragm. iii. 499) and in his commentary on the Iliad (ed. Gottfr. Hermann 1812 pp. 123 and 146). Tzetzes also designates Chaeremon as ἱερογραμματεύς and says that according to Chaeremon’s view “the φυσικὸς λόγος concerning the gods their physical signification is allegorically exhibited in the hieroglyphics” (Zeller). This also characterizes Chaeremon as a Stoic. Hence there can be no doubt that he is identical with our ἱερογραμματεύς who in a few other citations (e.g. in Origen’s contra Celsum l. 59. Euseb. Hist. eccl. vi. 19. 8) is simply called Στωικός. He is on this account a very remarkable personage for his age: an Egyptian priest and at the same time a Stoic philosopher. Since he was according to Suidas the instructor of Nero (Suidas’ Lex. s.v. Ἀλέξανδρος Αἰγαῖος) and also the instructor and predecessor of Dionysius of Alexandria who lived from Nero to Trajan (Suidas’ Lex. s.v. Διονύσιος Ἀλεξανδρεύς) he must have lived towards the middle of the first century after Christ. He was according to Suidas the predecessor of Dionysius in the office of librarian at Alexandria. He cannot by reason of the chronology stated be identical with the Chaeremon who is mentioned by Strabo (xvii. 1. 29 p. 806) as a contemporary of Aelius Gallus. Besides the latter has been described as a man who made himself ridiculous by his ostentation and ignorance which are certainly not characteristics of a philosopher.
[2453] The description does not refer to all Egyptian priests but as is declared at the conclusion (iv. 8) only to the élite among them the προφῆται ἱεροστολισταί ἱερογραμματεῖς and ὡρολόγοι. Hieronymus adv. Jovinian. ii. 13 borrows the description from Porphyrius (Vallarsi ii. 342 sq.).
The fragments of Chaeremon are collected in C. Müller Frag. hist. graec. iii. 495-499. To these are to be added: (1) the extracts given in Tzetzes Draconis Stratonicensis liber de matris poeticis et Joannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem 1st ed. Godofr. Hermannus Lips. 1812 pp. 123 and 146; and (2) those in the treatise of Psellus published by Sathas (Bulletin de correspondance hellénique vol. i. 1877 pp. 121-133 194-208 309-314). Comp. in general: Bähr in Pauly’s Real-Enc. ii. 298 sq. Birch “On the lost book of Chaeremon on Hieroglyphics” (Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature second series vol. iii. 1850 pp. 385-396). Bernays Theophrastos’ Schrift über die Frömmigkeit (1866) pp. 21 sq. 150 sq. Zeller “Die Hieroglyphiker Chäremon und Horapollo” (Hermes vol. xi. 1876 pp. 430-433). Nicolai Griechische Literaturgesch. 2nd ed. ii. 559 561 677 690 iii. 383. J. G. Müller Des Flavius Josephus Schrift gegen den Apion (1877) p. 203 sqq.
5. Apion (comp. Josephus contra Apion. ii. 1-13). Apion the grammarian who was distinguished among all the opponents of the Jews for his special malevolence and was therefore treated with special harshness by Josephus was a contemporary and fellow-countryman of Chaeremon. His full name was Ἀπίων ὁ Πλειστονίκης.[2454] According to Suidas Πλειστονίκης was the name of his father (Lex. s.v. Ἀπίων ὁ Πλειστονίκου) which he afterwards took as a surname. When Julius Africanus (in Euseb. Praep. evang. x. 10. 16 ed. Gaisford; and in Syncellus ed. Dindorf i. 120 and 281) and after him the pseudo-Justinian Cohortatio ad Graecos c. 9 call the name of the father Ποσειδώνιος this is certainly but a corruption of Πλειστονίκης. According to Josephus (contra Apion. ii. 3) Apion was born in the oasis of Egypt and hence was not as he gave himself out to be a native of Alexandria. He afterwards however received the rights of Alexandrian citizenship (Jos. l.c.) and acquired some fame in Alexandria as a grammarian. He taught temporarily in Rome also in the time of Tiberius and Claudius (Suidas Lex. s.v. Ἀπίων). In the reign of Caligula he travelled through Greece as an itinerant orator delivering lectures on Homer (Seneca epist. 88). It was also under Caligula that on the occasion of the sanguinary conflict of the Alexandrians with the Jews he came to Rome as the ambassador of the former (Joseph. Antt. xviii. 8. 1). According to Josephus (contra Apion. ii. 3) his death was caused by ulcers in the genitals against which circumcision was of no avail. He is described as having been ridiculously vain. Tiberius called him cymbalum mundi. He himself said without embarrassment that those to whom he addressed a work became thereby immortal[2455] and congratulated Alexandria on having such a citizen as he was (Joseph. c. Apion. ii. 12).
[2454] Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 21. 101 (= Euseb. Praep. evang. x. 12. 2): Απίων τοίνυν ὁ γραμματικὸς ὁ Πλειστονίκης ἐπικληθείς. Clem. Rom. Homil. iv. 6: Ἀππίωνα τὸν Πλειστονίκην ἄνδρα Ἀλεξανδρέα γραμματικὸν τὴν ἐπιστήμην. Plinius Hist. Nat. xxxvii. 5. 75: Apion cognominatus Plistonices. Gellius Noct. Att. v. 14: Apion qui Plistonices appellatus est. Ibid. vi. 8: Ἀπίων Graecus homo qui Πλειστονίκης est appellatus.
[2455] Plinius Hist. Nat. praef. § 25: Apion quidam grammaticus (hic quem Tiberius Caesar cymbalum mundi vocabat cum propriae famae tympanum potius videri posset) immortalitate donari a se scripsit ad quos aliqus conponebat.
The works of Apion were manifold. The best known seem to have been his works on Homer (Commentaries and a Dictionary). We are here only concerned with his Egyptian History (Αἰγυπτιακά) which according to Tatian comprised five books of which Josephus cites the third Tatian and his successors the fourth and Gellius the fifth book.[2456] This Egyptian History evidently contained all those attacks upon the Jews to which the reply of Josephus refers (c. Apion. ii. 1-3). Josephus says at the beginning of his discussion that it was not easy to go through the discourse (τὸν λόγον) of Apion because he brought forth all in the greatest disorder. But that about three points might be distinguished: (1) the fables concerning the departure of the Jews from Egypt (2) the malicious assertions concerning the Alexandrian Jews and (3) the accusations in respect of worship and legal customs. Of the latter Josephus says that they are mixed up with the accusations of the first two categories (ἐπὶ τούτοις μέμικται ii. 1 fin.). Thus it appears that a single λόγος of Apion containing all these accusations and divided by Josephus for the sake of order into three categories was in question. Josephus after entering successively into all three categories (c. Apion. ii. 2-3 relates to the first ii. 4-6 to the second ii. 7-13 to the third) leaves Apion and begins to give a positive delineation of the Mosaic legislation. At its commencement he once more touches incidentally upon Apion and says of him that he has heaped his indictments all together (ii. 14: τὴν κατηγορίαν … ἀθρόαν … ἔταξεν) in distinction from Apollonius Molon whose polemic pervades his whole work. There can therefore be no doubt that the polemic of Josephus refers to only one work of Apion’s and indeed to only one section of a larger work. This work was as Josephus expressly says in the beginning of his discussion (ii. 2) the Egyptian History. In it Apion apparently took occasion in narrating the departure of the Jews from Egypt to give a hostile description of them in like manner as Tacitus does in his Histories (Hist. v. 1-12). When consequently Clemens Alexandrinus and later Church authors mention a special work of Apion κατὰ Ἰουδαίων this rests only upon a mistaken inference from the information of Josephus. It is just the silence of Josephus which proves that no such work ever existed. That these Church authors also had no actual acquaintance with it is made evident by a more accurate comparison of the text. For Clemens Alexandrinus in the passage where he mentions it is in fact only copying from Tatian who on his part is only quoting Apion’s Egyptian History. And all subsequent writers who pretend to know anything of a work of Apion κατὰ Ἰουδαίων obtain their information from either Clement or Josephus.
[2456] Joseph. c. Apion. ii. 2: φησὶ γὰρ ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ τῶν Αἰγυπτιακῶν. Tatian Oratio ad Graecos c. 38 (= Euseb. Praep. ev. x. 11. 14): Ἀπίων ὁ γραμματικός άνηρ δοκιμώτατος ἐν τῇ τετάρτῃ τῶν Αἰγυπτιακῶν (πέντε δέ εἰσιν αὐτῷ γραφαί) κ.τ.λ. In agreement herewith Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 21. 101 = Euseb. Praep. evang. x. 12. 2. Julius Africanus in Euseb. Praep. evang. x. 10. 16 and in Syncell. ed. Dindorf i. 120 and 281. Pseudo-Justin. Cohortat. ad Graec. c. 9. Gellius Noct. Att. v. 14: Apion … in libro Aegyptiacorum quinto scripsit.
Tatian Oratio ad Graecos c. 38 (= Euseb. Praep. evang. x. 11. 14 ed. Gaisford): Μετὰ δὲ τοῦτον Ἀπίων ὁ γραμματικός ἀνὴρ δοκιμώτατος ἐν τῇ τετάρτῃ τῶν Αἰγυπτιακῶν (πέντε δέ εἰσιν αὐτῷ γραφαί) πολλὰ μὲν καὶ ἄλλα φησὶ δὲ ὅτι· Κατέσκαψε τὴν Αὔαριν Ἄμωσις κατὰ τὸν Ἀργεῖον γενόμενος Ἴναχον ὡς ἐν τοῖς Χρόνοις ἀνέγραψεν ὁ Μενδήσιος Πτολεμαῖος.
Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 21. 101 (= Euseb. Praep. evang. x. 12. 2 ed. Gaisford): Ἀπίων τοίνυν ὁ γραμματικὸς ὁ Πλειστονίκης ἐπικληθεὶς ἐν τῇ τετάρτῃ τῶν Αἰγυπτιακῶν ἱστοριῶν καίτοι φιλαπεχθημόνως πρὸς Ἑβραίους διακείμενος ἅτε Αἰγύπτιος τὸ γένος ὡς καὶ κατὰ Ἰουδαίων συνπάξασθαι βιβλίον Ἀμώσιος τοῦ Αἰγυπτίων βασιλέως μεμνημένος καὶ τῶν κατʼ αὐτὸν πράξεων μάρτυρα παρατίθεται Πτολεμαῖον τὸν Μενδήσιον καὶ τὰ τῆς λέξεως αὐτοῦ ὧδε ἔχει· "Κατέσκαψε δὲ τὴν κ.τ.λ." (here follows verbally the same quotation as in Tatian whom Clemens had just before expressly quoted).
Julius Africanus in Euseb. Praep. evang. x. 10. 16 and in Syncell. ed. Dindorf i. 120 and 281: Ἀπίων δὲ ὁ Ποσειδωνίου περιεργότατος γραμματικῶν ἐν τῇ κατὰ Ἰουδαίων βίβλῳ καὶ ἐν τῇ τετάρτῃ τῶν ἱστοριῶν φησὶ κατὰ Ἴναχον Ἄργους βασιλέα Ἀμώσίος Αἰγυπτίων βασιλεύοντος ἀποστῆναι Ἰουδαίους ὧν ἡγεῖσθαι Μωσέα.
Pseudo-Justin. Cohortatio ad Graec. c. 9: Οὕτω γἀρ Πολέμων τε ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν ἱστοριῶν μέμνηται καὶ Ἀππίων ὁ Ποσειδωνίου ἐν τῇ κατὰ Ἰουδαίων βίβλῳ καὶ ἐν τῇ τετάρτῃ τῶν ἱστοριῶν λέγων κατὰ Ἴναχον Ἄργους βασιλέα Ἀμώσιδος Αἰγυπτίων βασιλεύοντος ἀποστῆναι Ἰουδαίους ὧν ἡγεῖσθαι Μωϋσέα. Καὶ Πτολεμαῖος δε ὁ Μενδήσιος τὰ Αἰγυπτίων ἱστοριῶν ἅπασι τούτοις συντρέχει.
The mention of Apion’s supposed work κατὰ Ἰουδαίων was first introduced in this connection by means of Clement. But Clement only says that Apion wrote such a work; for the rest he simply quotes as Tatian does Apion’s Egyptian History as his authority for the statement that Amosis reigned in the time of Inachus. Julius Africanus on the contrary now ventures to assert on the foundation of the passage of Clement that this statement was found in both the supposed works of Apion and at the same time drags in Moses also who is not even spoken of in the passage quoted from Apion. Finally the author of the Cohortatio again copies only from Julius Africanus. This latter fact I have I think proved in Brieger’s Zeitschrift für Kirchengesch. ii. (1878) pp. 319-331. Comp. also Donaldson History of Christian Literature ii. 96 sqq. Harnack Texts und Untersuchungen vol. i. Nos. 1 2 1882 p. 157. Neumann Theol. Literaturzeitung 1883 p. 582. Renan Marc-Aurèle 1882 p. 107 note. The dependence of the Cohortatio upon the text to which Julius Africanus had access is at any rate indubitable. Hence Gutschmid starting from the mistaken assumption that the Cohortatio was more ancient than Julius Africanus supposed that both had a common source (Jahrbb. fü class. Philologie 1860 pp. 703-708). Some moderns also acquiesce in this view more through faith in Gutschmid than on sufficient grounds. So Völter Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1883 p. 180 sqq. Dräseke Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch. vol. vii. p. 257 sqq.
Eusebius Hist. eccl. iii. 9. 4 in enumerating the works of Josephus says that his work Ueber das hohe Alter der Juden (i.e. contra Apion.) was written “against Apion the grammarian” who had then composed a λόγος against the Jews (πρὸς Ἀπίωνα τὸν γραμματικὸν κατὰ Ἰουδαίων τηνικάδε συντάξαντα λόγον). Evidently this is only inferred from Josephus. The same applies also to Hieronymus De viris illustr. c. 13 (Opp. ed. Vallarsi ii. 851): adversum Appionem grammaticum Alexandrinum qui sub Caligula legatus missus ex parte gentilium contra Philonem etiam librum vituperationem gentis Judicae continentem scripserat. The account of Eusebius which Jerome as his custom is copies is here only enlarged by the combination that Apion’s book was directed against Philo. This combination is founded on Joseph. Antt. xviii. 8. 1. From the Greek translation of Jerome (Sophronius) again arise the statements in Suidas Lex. s.v. Ἰώσσηπος. When it is at last said in the Clementine Homilies that Apion wrote πολλὰ βιβλία against the Jews this statement must of course not be taken seriously.
Comp. on Apion in general: Burigny “Mémoire sur Apion” (Mémoires de l’Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres ancient series vol. xxxviii. 1777 pp. 171-178). Lehrs “Quid Apio Homero praestiterit” (Quaestiones Epicae 1837 pp. 1-34). Cruice De Flavii Josephi in auctoribus contra Apionem offerendis fide et auctoritate (Paris 1844) p. 9. Schliemann Die Clementinen (1844) p. 111 sqq. C. Müller Fragm. hist. Graec. iii. 506-516. Volkmann in Pauly’s Real-Enc. i. 1 (2nd ed.). p. 1243 sq. Creuzer Theol. Stud. und Krit. 1853 p. 80 sq. Paret Des Flavius Josephus Werke übersetzt 7 vols. (1856) pp. 741-745. Hausrath Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte 2nd ed. ii. 187-195. Nicolai Griech. Literaturgesch. 2nd ed. ii. 345-347. J. G. Müller Des Fl. Josephus Schrift gegen den Apion (1877) pp. 14-17. Lightfoot art. “Apion” in Smith and Wace Dictionary of Christian Biography i. 128-130.
6. The literary opponents of the Jews hitherto mentioned have been here treated of more thoroughly because the polemic of Josephus is directed chiefly against them. An exhaustive enumeration of all the Greek and Roman authors who from the beginning of the second century after Christ expressed themselves in a hostile manner against the Jews would furnish a list of distinguished names. Almost all the authors who have to speak of the Jews at all do so in a hostile manner. Among pre-Christian Greek authors Josephus chiefly names the distinguished historian and philosopher Posidonius as an adversary of the Jews (c. Apion. ii. 7). In his great historical work (see on it Div. i. vol. i. § 3) he probably somewhere seized the opportunity of giving a polemical excursus against the Jews and afterwards many subsequent writers as Diodorus (xxxiv. 1) and Trogus Pompeius who comes down to us through the extract of Justin (xxxvi. 2 3)[2457] drew either directly or indirectly from his much read work. The works too of Nikarchus (Müller Fragm. iii. 335) and Damokritus (Müller Fragm. iv. 377) which are scarcely known by name were also polemical. Of Roman historians besides Trogus Pompeius already mentioned prominence must be given to Tacitus whose description of the Jews (Hist. v. 2 sqq.) is dictated by the most profound contempt. The Roman satirists Horace Juvenal and Martial have also notably made the Jews the butt of their wit.
[2457] Comp. on Posidonius as the source of subsequent writers the article of J. G. Müller Stud. u. Kritik. 1843 p. 893 sqq. and his commentary on Joseph c. Apion. (1877) pp. 214 sqq. and 258 sq.
2. Apologetic
Jewish Apologetic followed a twofold way of defence a direct and an indirect one against the many attacks which Judaism had to undergo. A large portion of the historic and philosophic literature of Hellenistic Judaism is of an indirectly apologetic character; it seeks to show that the Jewish nation need in no respect shrink from a comparison with other nations. But this was not thought enough; the attempt was also sometimes made to refute point after point in a systematic manner the accusations raised against the Jews. Two of such systematically apologetic works are known to us one (that of Philo) only by a short fragment the other (that of Josephus) in the complete text. (1) Eusebius gives in the Praep. evang. viii. 11 the description of the Essenes from Philo’s ἀπολογία ὑπὲρ Ἰουδαίων. From this however we can form no idea of its whole design. The work of Philo περὶ Ἰουδαίων mentioned in Euseb. Hist. eccl. ii. 18. 6 is certainly identical with it. (2) The work of Josephus to he mentioned in this connection is known to us by the title of contra Apion. This title which did not originate with Josephus himself gives an erroneous idea of its contents. For it is by no means occupied with Apion alone but undertakes a comprehensive and systematic defence of the Jewish people against all the accusations raised against them (further particulars Div. i. vol. i. § 3).
In endeavouring in what follows to give a sketch of the main substance of the indictment and defence we must chiefly restrict ourselves to the material afforded by Josephus his work being the only one handed down to us which both contains a survey of the points of accusation and furnishes a view of the method of apologetic demonstration. The disposition of the Graeco-Roman world towards the Jews has been already described (). Here only the actual accusations and the Jewish answer to them will be brought forward.
1. Extensive and learned matter is furnished by Josephus in the first section (i. 1-23) to prove that the Jewish nation was not inferior in point of antiquity to other cultured nations. He says that to maintain that it is of recent origin because the Greek historians say nothing of it is foolish even if the assumption were correct. For even the silence of all the Greek historians would prove nothing against the early existence of the nation since the Jews as dwelling in an inland country might easily remain unknown to the Greeks. In truth however the Jewish nation was already known in very ancient times by the best historians of he Egyptians Phoenicians Chaldaeans (Manetho Dios Menander Berosus and others) nay even by Greek historians themselves. The zeal which Josephus exhibits and the large amount of matter he brings forward show how important this point was in his eyes. The assertion of modern origin was equivalent to the assertion of historical insignificance. A nation which had but recently appeared upon the stage of history had of course also no importance in history. It received its culture from the more ancient nations. But this was to strike at the roots of Jewish honour and hence the Jewish apologist regarded it as his first duty thoroughly to repel such an insult.[2458]
[2458] On the motive for the proof of antiquity see contra Apion. ii. 15. It is well known that Christian apologists also lay great stress upon it. See Tatian c. xxxi. 36-41. Theophilus ad Autol. iii. 20 sqq. Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. i. 21. 101-147. Tertullian Apolog. 19. Pseudo-Justin Cohort. ad Graec. c. 9. Eusebius Praep. evang. x. 9 sqq. And more in Semisch Justin i. 134.
2. While the Greeks in general were satisfied with denying the high antiquity of the Jewish nation the Alexandrians related very unfair things concerning the origin of the Jews. The quintessence of their fictions was that the Jews were leprous Egyptians who succeeded in a very dishonourable manner in forming themselves into a separate nation in leaving Egypt and settling in Palestine.[2459] Josephus felt himself master of the situation in opposing these fables. With dignified superiority he pointed out to the Alexandrians the absurdity and the internal discrepancy of their assertions (i. 24-35 ii. 1-3).
[2459] So with much variation of detail: Manetho (contra Apion. i. 26) Lysimachus (i. 34) Chäremon (i. 32) Apion (ii. 2). Also Justin xxxvi. 2 and Tacitus Ilist. v. 3. Comp. also .
3. With the imputation of recentness of origin was connected the assertion that the Jews had done nothing for culture. Apollonius Molon said that they were the most incapable of barbarians and had therefore contributed no useful invention to general culture (contra Apion. ii. 14: ἀφυεστάτους εἶναι τῶν βαρβάρων καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μηδὲν εἰς τὸν βίον εὕρημα συμβεβλῆσθαι μόνους). Apion said that they had produced no eminent men such as inventors of arts or men distinguished for wisdom (contra Apion. ii. 12: θαυμαστοὺς ἄνδρας οὐ παρεσχήκαμεν οἷον τεχνῶν τινῶν εὑρετὰς ἢ σοφίᾳ διαφέροντας). These reproaches were encountered with the older Jewish legend that the Jews were on the contrary the originators of all culture. According to Eupolemus Moses was the first sage the inventor of alphabetic writing (see above p. 203). According to Artapanus Abraham instructed the Egyptians in astrology Joseph undertook the improved cultivation of the land and Moses introduced culture of every kind (p. 206). The philosopher Aristobulus already declares Moses to be the father of Greek philosophy and that Pythagoras Socrates Plato and the rest all derived their philosophy from him (p. 240 sq.). The same assertion is repeated by Philo and Josephus takes just the same tone though making no use in his Apology of the legends of Eupolemus and Artapanus. He lays the chief stress upon proving besides the high antiquity the wisdom and excellence of the Mosaic legislation.
4. The special accusations against Judaism were above all in respect of its religious worship which was always connected with the refusal to acknowledge any other worship as legitimate. This last was in the era of heathenism a thing unheard of. “To live and let live” was the motto in the province of religion. The most opposite kinds of religious worship were readily tolerated if only the adherents of one cultus would hold others legitimate. Especially was it taken for granted as a thing self-evident that the citizens of the same town should besides any private worship of their own participate in honouring the gods of the town. What an abnormity then must it have been felt that the Jews should entirely reject every kind of worship except their own and absolutely refuse to take part in any other! From the standpoint of Hellenism this was synonymous with Atheism. If they are citizens why do they not worship the gods of the city? This accusation of ἀθεότης of contempt for the gods recurs in almost all adversaries of the Jews from Apollonius Molon and Posidonius to Pliny and Tacitus;[2460] and from it certainly arose in great part the conflicts of municipalities with the Jews especially in the towns where they possessed rights of citizenship. It was easy in theory but difficult in practice for apologetic to hold its ground in presence of this accusation. With an educated reader it was not very difficult to make manifest the advantages of the monotheistic and spiritual view of the nature of God especially as Greek philosophy offered an abundance of thoughts which came in this respect to the aid of Jewish apologists. In this sense does Josephus proceed simply exhibiting the Jewish idea of God in its superiority (contra Apion. ii. 22). In practice however the masses were not to be influenced by such considerations. For the reproach still adhered to the Jews that they absolutely rejected what others regarded as the worship of God. Hence the chief weapon of Jewish apologetic upon this point was a vigorous attack. When the Jews were reproached for despising the gods they showed on their part what kind of gods they were whom others honoured; weak images of wood stone silver or gold the work of men’s hands or animals of every kind or at best beings who were affected with manifold human weaknesses. The Jews might well feel themselves superior to the worshippers of such gods (comp. e.g. pseudo-Aristeas in Havercamp’s Josephus ii. 2. 116. Sap. Salomonis c. 13-15. The Epistle of Jeremiah Joseph. contra Apion. ii. 33-35 and especially the Sibyllines).
[2460] Apion in Joseph. contra Apion. ii. 6: quomodo ergo inquit si sunt cives eosdem deos quos Alexandrini non colunt? Posidonius and Apollonius Molon ibid. ii. 7: accusant quidem nos quare nos eosdem deos cum aliis non colimus. Apollonius Molon ibid. ii. 14: ὡς ἀθέους … λοιδορεῖ. Plinius H. N. xiii. 4. 46: gens contumelia numinum insignis. Tacitus Hirt. v. 5: contemnere deos.
Of less practical importance than the charge of ἀθεότης were certain ridiculous fables which were related concerning the Jewish worship; that they paid divine honours to an ass’s head and that they annually sacrificed a Greek and fed upon his entrails (see above § 31 notes [2461] [2462] [2463] Such fables were indeed believed only in small circles and Josephus very easily proves their absurdity (contra Apion. ii. 7-9).
[2461] Joseph. contra Apion. ii. 7.
[2462] Tacitus Hist. v. 3-4. On the ass-worship comp. further Damocritus in Suida’s Lex. under Δαμόκριτος (Müller Fragm. hist. graec. iv. 377). Tertullian Apologet. c. xvi.; ad nationes i. 11. Minucius Felix Octav. c. ix. Rösch Caput asininum (Stud. u. Krit. 1882 p. 523 sqq.) and the literature quoted there.
[2463] Joseph. contra Apion. ii. 8. Comp. also Damocritus in Suidas’ Lex. under Δαμόκριτος (Müller Fragm. hist. graec. iv. 377). J. G. Müller Des Flavius Josephus Schrift gegen Apion (1877) p. 263 sqq. As is well known similar charges (as for example that the Jews murdered people who were not of their own faith to use their blood for sacrificial purposes) continue to be alleged against them down to the present day. Christians were also charged with holding Θυέστεια δεῖπνα (circular of the churches of Lyons and Vienne quoted by Euseb. H. E. v. 1. 14. Athenagoras Suppl. c. iii. Justin. Martyr. Apol. ii. 12. Minucius Felix Octav. c. ix. Tertullian Apolog. c. viii.; ad nationes i. 7. Origen contra Cels. vi. 27).
5. Of greater weight on the other hand was another point connected with the ἀθεότης of the Jews viz. their refusal of the worship of the emperor. Subsequently to Augustus all the provinces emulated each other in the practice of this cult (see sq.). Zeal for this was the standard of a loyal and Rome-loving disposition its entire rejection was synonymous with not showing due respect to the authorities. Such was at least the view of the Hellenistic population who according to the customs of the Hellenistic period freely offered their worship to the emperor. The Jews were in a favourable position in this respect inasmuch as the emperors of the first centuries with the sole exception of Caligula did not directly demand this worship. Nor apart from the short episode under Caligula was it ever required of the Jews whose mode of worship received legal protection together with the legal recognition of their communities from Caesar onwards (see above ). For the adversaries of the Jews however it was always a welcome point of attack that they proved themselves bad citizens by their refusal of worship to the emperor.[2464] Jewish apologists could in answer to this charge appeal to the fact that a sacrifice was daily offered for the emperor in the temple at Jerusalem (Joseph. c. Apion. ii. 6 fin.; Bell. Jud. ii. 10. 4; comp. ) and that on special occasions even hecatombs were offered for the Roman emperor (Philo Leg. ad Caj. § 45 Mang. ii. 598). Thus in fact was a certain equivalent furnished for that worship of the emperor which was impossible to Jews. Josephus besides does not neglect pointing on every occasion to the favour which the Jews enjoyed both from the Ptolemies and from Caesar (c. Apion. ii. 4 5; Antt. xiv. 10 xvi. 6). This surely would have been impossible unless they had been loyal citizens!
[2464] Apion in Joseph c. Apion. ii. 6 med.: derogare nobis Apion voluit quia imperatorum non statuamus imagines. Tacitus Hist. v. 5: non regibus haec adulatio non Caesaribus honor.
6. With this religious isolation was connected a certain amount of social isolation. Judaism expressly repudiated the idea now more and more making its way in Hellenism that all men are brethren and therefore equal before God. It saw in the unbeliever only the sinner who has incurred the judgment of God and referred the fatherly love of God only to the seed of Abraham on which account only the children of Abraham are brethren to each other. If this particularism was not held in its full rigour by philosophic and Hellenistic Judaism in general it gained on the other hand a support from the view that the heathen as such were unclean that in the interest of Levitical purity intercourse with them was as far as possible to be avoided and from the anxiety with which contact with everything that stood in any kind of relation to idolatry was abhorred (comp. Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 51-56). If then the Jew was already directed in theory to regard the non-Jew as only an “alien” it was also impossible to him in practice if he desired to observe the law to live in any close social intercourse with the heathen. This theoretical and practical ἀμιξία which was in opposition to the entire tendency of the Hellenistic period was constantly and very specially made a reproach against the Jews. To the Greeks and Romans who were unacquainted with its deeper motives it appeared only as a want of humanity of true philanthropy nay as criminal misanthropy. And it may indeed not infrequently have really manifested itself in such forms.[2465] The process adopted in this respect by apologetic writers was on the one hand chiefly that of pointing to the humane appointments of the law especially with regard to strangers (Joseph. c. Apion. ii. 28-29) and on the other that of showing how the ancient laws of other States went much farther in the exclusion of strangers than the Mosaic law did (c. Apion. ii. 36-37).
[2465] The councillors of Antiochus Sidetes already pointed to the ἀμιξία of the Jews (Joseph. Antt. xiii. 8. 3 and Diodor. xxxiv. 1 probably after Posidonius). Justinus xxxvi. 2. 15: caverunt ne cum peregrinis conviverent. Apollonius Molon in Joseph. c. Apion. ii. 14: ὡς … μισανθρώπους λοιδορεῖ. Ibid. ii. 36: ὁ Μόλων Ἀπολλώνιος ἡμῶν κατηγόρησεν ὅτι μὴ παραδεχόμεθα τοὺς ἄλλαις προκατειλημμένους δόξαις περὶ θεοῦ μηδὲ κοινωνεῖν ἐθέλομεν τοῖς καθʼ ἑτέραν συνήθειαν βίου ζῆν προαιρουμένοις. Lysimachus asserted (Joseph c. Apion. i. 34) that Moses had directed the Jews: μήτε ἀνθρώπων τινὶ εὐνοήσειν etc. According to Apion (Joseph. c. Apion. ii. 8) the Jews were accustomed at the annual sacrifice of a Greek to swear ut inimicitias contra Graecos haberent or as it is said ii. 10: μεδενὶ εὐνοήσειν ἀλλοφύλῳ μάλιστα δὲ Ἕλλησιν Tacit. Hist. v. 5: adversus omnes alios hostile odium: separati epulis discreti cubilibus … alienarum concubita abstinent. Juvenal Sat. xiv. 103-104 (see ).
7. The peculiarities of the Jews already mentioned viz. their ἀθεότης and their ἀμιξία are those which came forward the most prominently in public life. It was on this account that the Jews appeared to be the enemies of such public regulations and institutions as had then been formed nay as the opponents of all other human intercourse. Hence it is on these points that attacks are most seriously directed. Other peculiarities gave occasion rather to derision and contempt than to actual accusations. Among these were (a) circumcision (b) abstinence from swine’s flesh and (c) the observance of the Sabbath.[2466] Even the most malicious of their other opponents did not venture upon the reproach of that special immorality to which Tacitus alludes.[2467] Apologetic writers oppose to the derision shown towards these several peculiarities an ideal picture of the entire Mosaic code. As Philo by his idealistic representation of the Mosaic legislation (see above p. 219 sq.) already gave an indirect apology for it so also does Josephus endeavour by a connected and positive statement to show that the precepts of the Mosaic law are in every respect the purest and most ideal (c. Apion. ii. 22-30). In doing this he does not enter into these objectionable points but contents himself with referring his opponent the Egyptian Apion to the fact that the Egyptian priests also were circumcised and abstained from swine’s flesh (Ap. ii. 13). To show the value and excellency of the law he points out in general its high antiquity (ii. 15) the blameless character of Moses the lawgiver and also the fact that this law really fulfilled its object being known and obeyed by all which astonishing result arose from its being not only taught but practised (ii. 16-19). Finally Josephus brings forward the circumstance that no Jew is ever unfaithful to his law which is again a proof of its excellence (ii. 31-32 38). The deficiencies found in this treatise inasmuch as it does not further enter into those points which were objected to by the heathen are abundantly compensated for by Philo who in his special delineation of the Mosaic law treats all these points very thoroughly and everywhere proves their reasonableness.[2468]
[2466] Circumcision: Apion in Joseph. c. Apion. ii. 13 init. Horace Sat. i. 9. 69 sq. Swine’s flesh: Apion in Joseph c. Apion. ii. 13 init. Juvenal Sat. vi. 160 xiv. 98. Observance of the Sabbath: Juvenal Sat. xiv. 105-106. Tacit Hist. v. 4.
[2467] Tacit. Hist. v. 5 projectissima ad libidinem gens … inter se nihil illicitum.
[2468] On Circumcision: de circumcisione = Opp. ed. Mang. ii. 210-212. Sabbath observance: de septenario § 6-7 = Mang. ii. 281-284. Prohibition of unclean animals: de concupiscentia § 4-9 = Mang. ii. 352-355. On the observance of the Sabbath compare also Aristobulus in Euseb. Praep. evang. xiii. 12. 9-16 on unclean animals pseudo-Aristeas in Havercamp’s Josephus ii. 2. 117.