III. Historical Literature

III. HISTORICAL LITERATURE
The literary productions as yet discussed are in part compilations in part imitations of older scriptural works. Hence there is but little specifically “Hellenistic” to be observed in them. The peculiarity of Judaeo-Hellenistic literature is apparent in an entirely different manner in those works which incline in form towards non-scriptural Greek models and are thus found in the department of historical poetic and philosophic literature. And first for the historical. Pharisaic Judaism as such had scarcely an interest in history. It saw in history merely an instruction a warning how God ought to be served. Hellenistic Judaism was certainly in a far higher degree interested in history as such. A knowledge of the history of the past formed part of the culture of the times. And no people could lay claim to he reckoned among the civilised nations unless they could point to an old and imposing history. Even nations hitherto regarded as barbarian now compiled their histories and clad them in Greek garments for the purpose of making them accessible to the entire cultured world. The Hellenistic Jews also took their part in such efforts. They too worked up their sacred history for the instruction of both their own fellow-countrymen and the non-Jewish world. The most comprehensive work of the kind with which we are acquainted is the great historical work of Josephus. He had however a series of predecessors who laboured some upon longer some upon shorter periods of Jewish history in various forms. Of these some set to work in modest annalistic manner (Demetrius) some with fantastic and legendary embellishments in majorem Judaeorum gloriam (Eupolemus Artapanus) while some sought in a philosophical manner to represent the great Jewish lawgiver as the greatest of philosophers nay as the father of all philosophy (Philo). But the Greek Jews occupied themselves not only with the older Jewish history but also depicted—as Pharisaic Judaism had ceased to do—important occurrences which they had as contemporaries experienced for the purpose of transmitting them to posterity (Jason of Cyrene Philo Josephus Justus of Tiberias). Many who carried on authorship as a vocation were active in both departments. We therefore here place together historical works of both kinds viz. compilations of the older sacred history and delineations of contemporary events.
The most ancient of these Judaeo-Hellenistic historians have been only rescued from utter oblivion by Alexander Polyhistor. This voluminous writer who lived about the years 80-40 B.C. (according to the statements of Suidas Lex. s.v. Ἀλέξανδρος and Sueton. De gramm. c. 20 comp. Müller Fragm. iii. 206 and Unger Philologus 1884 p. 528 sqq.) composed among other works one περὶ Ἰουδαίων in which he strung together apparently with scarcely any additions of his own extracts from foreign authors concerning the Jews. Eusebius in his turn embodied in his Praeparatio evangelica (ix. 17-39) a large portion of this collection of extracts. And it is to this circumstance that we are almost entirely indebted for our acquaintance with the oldest Judaeo-Hellenistic and Samaritan compilations of scriptural history whether in poetic or prosaic form with those of Demetrius Eupolemus Artapanus Aristeas Kleodemus Philo Theodotus and Ezekiel. Besides Eusebius Clemens Alexandrinus also once quotes Alexander’s work περὶ Ἰουδαίων (Strom. i. 21. 130); and he undoubtedly makes use of it even when he quotes Demetrius Philo Eupolemus Artapanus and Ezekiel from whom Alexander gives extracts (Strom. i. 21. 141 23. 153-156). The quotation also in Josephus Antt. i. 15 is certainly derived from the work περὶ Ἰουδαίων with which Josephus elsewhere betrays his acquaintance (contra Apion. i. 23 and various traces in the Antiquities). But this is all that is preserved of independent quotation from Alexander’s work. The extracts in Eusebius are in chronological order. They begin with fragments on the history of Abraham from Eupolemus Artapanus Molon Philo Kleodemus. Then follow portions on the history of Jacob from Demetrius and Theodotus then others on Joseph from Artapanus and Philo. That this order is not first derived from Eusebius but was followed by Alexander Polyhistor is shown by the nature of the text. For the single portions are joined together by the connecting words of Alexander himself.
This is moreover confirmed by a comparison of the quotations in Clemens Alexandrinus. For as in Eusebius so in Clemens Alexandrinus the extracts on the history of Moses follow each other in direct succession:—
Eupolemus = Euseb. ix. 26 = Clemens Str. i. 23. 153.
Artapanus = Euseb. ix. 27 = Clemens Str. i. 23. 154.
Ezekiel = Euseb. ix. 28 = Clemens Str. i 23. 155 156.
Hence we see that this is the original order of Alexander Polyhistor. The genuineness of Alexander’s work has of late been frequently disputed especially by Rauch and Cruice. It is thought inconceivable that a heathen author like Alexander should have had so special an interest in Jewish affairs; it is also thought strange that he should call the Old Testament Scriptures ἱεραὶ βίβλοι (Euseb. ix. 24 29. 15) and that he should here give such detailed accounts of Jewish history while he elsewhere betrays the strangest ignorance of it. Its genuineness has been defended against these objections by Hulleman (p. 156 sq.) Müller (Fragm. iii. 209) and especially with convincing proofs by Freudenthal (pp. 174-184). The question is moreover one of minor importance since it is tolerably indifferent whether these extracts were collected by Alexander or by some one else; for in either case the extraordinary differences in form and contents existing in these fragments is a guarantee that we have here to deal with extracts from works then actually existing and not with the single work of a forger. Only the determination of the date would be affected if it could be really proved that the collection was not the production of Alexander Polyhistor inasmuch as the time of Alexander would then cease to be a limit. The fragments in themselves furnish no cause for relegating them to a later date. For the most recent of the authors from whom the extracts are made and whose date can be determined independently of Alexander is Apollonius Molon (Euseb. ix. 19) a Greek orator of probably about 120-100 B.C. (see No. VI. below).
References to Jewish affairs are also found in other works of Alexander Polyhistor. He quotes the Jewish Sibyl in his Chaldaean ancient history (Euseb. Chron. ed. Schöne i. 23. Cyrill. adv. Julian. ed. Spanh. p. 9c. Syncell. ed. Dindorf i. 81. Comp. Joseph. Antt. i. 4. 3; Freudenthal p. 25 sq.). In his work on Italy is found the odd assertion that the Jewish law was derived from a female named Moso (Suidas Lex. s.v. Ἀλέξανδρος. Müller Fragm. n. 25); and to his work on Syria belongs probably the information that Judaea received its name from Juda and Idumaea the children of Semiramis (Steph. Byz. s.v. Ἰουδαία. Müller Fragm. n. 98-102). It is just these strange statements which have given rise to the denial of Alexander’s authorship of the work περὶ Ἰουδαίων—but very incorrectly for he simply copied what he found in his authorities. Consequently according to their nature his information is now correct now incorrect. It rests upon only a somewhat wanton combination when the pseudo-Justinian Cohort. ad Graec. c. 9 ascribes also to Alexander a statement concerning the date of Moses (see my article on “Julius Africanus as the source of the pseudo-Justinian Cohortatio ad Graecos” in Brieger’s Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch. vol. ii. 1878 p. 319 sqq.).
The text of the fragment περὶ Ἰουδαίων is in Euseb. Evangelicae Praeparationis libri xv. ed. Gaisford 4 vols. Oxford 1843. Clementis Alex. Opera ed. Dindorf 4 vols. Oxford 1869. Müller Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum vol. iii. pp. 211-230. The prose fragments partly according to a recent collation of manuscripts are best given in Freudenthal Alex. Polyhistor pp. 219-236. On the manuscripts and editions of Eusebius see Freudenthal pp. 199-202.
Comp. in general: Rauch De Alexandri Polyhistoris vita atque scriptis Heidelb. 1843 quoted by Müller and others as “Rumpf.” Cruice De Fl. Josephi in auctoribus contra Apionem afferendis fide et auctoritate (Paris 1844) pp. 20-30. Hulleman “De Corn. Alexandro Polyhistore” (Miscellanea philologa et paedagoga edd. gymnasiorum Batavorum doctores vol. i. 1849 pp. 87-178). C. Müller Fragm. hist. Graec. iii. 206-244. Vaillant De historicis qui ante Josephum Judaicas res scripsere nempe Aristea Demetrio Eupolemo Hecataeo Abderita Cleodemo Artapano Justo Tiberiensi Cornelio Alexandro Polyhistore (Paris 1851 Didot) pp. 88-98 (a follower of Cruice). Creuzer Theol. Stud. und Krit. 1853 p. 76 sqq. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael iii. 570 sqq. Westermann in Pauly’s Real-Enc. der class. Alterthums-wissensch. i. 1 (2nd ed. 1864) p. 734 sq. Freudenthal Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste judaischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke Bresl. 1875. Reuss Gesch. der heiligen Schriften A. T.’s (1881) § 520 521. Unger “Wann schrieb Alexander Polyhistor?” (Philologus vol. xliii. 1884 pp. 528-531).
1. Demetrius
In the same century in which Berosus composed the ancient history of the Chaldaeans and Manetho that of the Egyptians but about sixty years later Demetrius a Jewish Hellenist compiled in a brief chronological form a history of Israel his work being equally with theirs according to the sacred records. Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 21. 141 states its title to have been περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ βασιλέων. And it can be scarcely a reason for doubting the correctness of this title that the fragments deal almost all with only the most ancient period (so Freudenthal p. 205 sq.). For Justus of Tiberias e.g. also treated of the time of Moses in his Chronicle of the Jewish kings. The first fragment in Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 21 concerns the history of Jacob from his emigration to Mesopotamia till his death. At the close the genealogy of the tribe of Levi is carried on to the birth of Moses and Aaron. Chronology is made a special aim. Nay the whole is far more a settlement of chronology than a history properly so called. The date of every single circumstance in the life of Laban e.g. the birth of each of his twelve sons and such matters is precisely determined. Of course many dates have to be assumed for which Scripture offers no support. A large portion of the chronological statements is obtained by combinations and in some instances very complicated combinations of actual dates of Holy Scripture. A second fragment (Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 29. 1-3) from the history of Moses is chiefly occupied in proving that Zipporah the wife of Moses was descended from Abraham and Keturah. This fragment is also used in the Chronicon paschale ed. Dindorf i. 117 and is quoted from Eusebius in the Chron. Anon. in Cramer Anecdota Paris ii. 256. In a third (Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 29. 15) the history of the bitter waters (Exodus 15:22 sqq.) is related. Lastly the chronological fragment preserved in Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 21. 141 gives precise statements concerning the length of time from the carrying away into captivity of the ten tribes and the tribes of Judah and Benjamin to Ptolemy IV. It is just this fragment which gives us also a key to the date of Demetrius. For it is evident that he chose the time of Ptolemy IV. (222-205 B.C.) as a closing point for his calculations because he himself lived in the reign of that monarch. Hence we obtain also an important standpoint for determining the date of the LXX. For that Demetrius made use of the Septuagint translation of the Pentateuch is acknowledged even by Hody although such acknowledgment is unfavourable to his tendency of pointing out the limited diffusion obtained by the LXX. A glance at the contents of the fragment renders it needless to prove that its author was a Jew. It would certainly never have entered the mind of a heathen to take such pains in calculating and completing the Biblical chronology. Nevertheless Josephus took him for one and confounded him with Demetrius Phalereus (Contra Apion. i. 23 = Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 42; comp. Müller Fragm. ii. 369a. Freudenthal p. 170 note). Among moderns too e.g. Hody is found the mistaken notion that he was a heathen. The correct one is however already met with in Eusebius Hist. eccl. vi. 13. 7 and after him in Hieronymus De vir. illustr. c. 38 (ed. Vallarsi ii. 879).
Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 21. 141: Δημήτριος δέ φησιν ἐν τῷ περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ βασιλέων τὴν Ἰούδα φυλὴν καὶ Βενιαμὶν καὶ Λευὶ μὴ αἰχμαλωτισθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ Σεναχηρεὶμ ἀλλʼ εἶναι ἀπὸ τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας ταύτης εἰς τὴν ἐσχάτην ἣν ἐποιήσατο Ναβουχοδονόσορ ἐξ Ἱεροσολύμων ἔτη ἑκατὸν εἴκοσι ὀκτὼ μῆνας ἕξ. ἀφʼ οὗ δὲ αἱ φυλαὶ αἱ δέκα ἐκ Σαμαρείας αἰχμάλωτοι γεγόνασιν ἕως Πτολεμαίου τετάρτου [B.C. 222] ἔτη πεντακόσια ἑβδομήκοντα τρία μῆνας ἐννέα ἀφʼ οὗ δὲ ἐξ Ἱεροσολύμων ἔτη τριακόσια τριάκοντα ὀκτὼ μῆνας τρεῖς. The text of this fragment is in many instances corrupt 1. It is impossible that Demetrius with his minute accuracy in scriptural chronology could have reckoned from 573-338 i.e. 235 years from the carrying away of the ten tribes to the carrying away of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah when the interval amounts to about a hundred years less. Hence the number 573 must either be reduced or that of 338 increased by one hundred. The latter is undoubtedly correct since it may be shown that other ancient chronologists have made the post-exilian period too long (see above on Daniel p. 54). If Demetrius therefore put down about seventy years too much for this time there is for just this reason utterly no motive for doing away with this mistake by altering “Ptolemy IV.” into “Ptolemy VII.” For even in the accurate Demetrius such a mistake concerning the length of the post-exilian period cannot seem surprising since the scriptural figures here leave him in the lurch. 2. By abbreviation of the text arose the absurdity that an αἰχμαλωτισθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ Σεναχηρείμ is first denied and then that this αἰχμαλωσία is computed from. The thought of the original text undoubtedly is that the tribes of Judah and Benjamin were not made captives but only laid under contribution by Sennacherib; and that 120 years elapsed between this pillaging expedition of Sennacherib and the carrying away of Judah and Benjamin. With this computation it best agrees that from the carrying away of the ten tribes to that of Judah and Benjamin 573 - 438 = 135 years are reckoned. For the carrying away of the ten tribes by Shalmanezer actually took place about seven or eight years before Sennacherib’s attack upon Judah (2 Kings 18:9-13).
Comp. in general: Vigerus’ Anmerkungen to his edition of the Praep. evang. of Eusebius (1628). Huetius Demonstr. evang. (5th ed. Lips. 1703) Prop. iv. c. 2 § 22 30. Hody De biblior. textibus (1705) p. 107. Valckenaer De Aristobulo p. 18. Dähne Geschichtl. Darstellung der jüd.-alex. Rel.-Phil. ii. 220 sq. Cruice De Fl. Josephi fide (1844) pp. 53-58. C. Müller Fragm. hist. Graec. iii. 207 sqq. Vaillant De historicis gui ante Josephum Judaicas res scripsere (Paris 1851). pp. 45-52. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael iii. 486-488 575 sq. M. Niebuhr Gesch. Assur’s und Babel’s (1857) pp. 101-104. Freudenthal Alexander Polyhistor (1875) pp. 35-82 205 sqq. 219 sqq. Mendelssohn Anzeige Freudenthal’s in der Jenaer Lit.-Ztg. 1885 No. 6. Siegfried Zeitschr. f. wissenschaftl. Theol. 1875 p. 475. Gutschmid Jahrbb. für Protestant. Theol. 1875 p. 744 sqq. Grätz Monatsschr. f. Gesch. u. Wissensch. d. Judenth. 1877 p. 68 sqq. Bloch Die Quellen des Fl. Josephus (1879) p. 56 sqq.
2. Eupolmus
In place of the dry chronological computations of Demetrius we find in Eupolemus a chequered narrative which freely handles the scriptural history and further embellishes it with all kinds of additions. Formerly three different works of this writer were spoken of: 1. Περὶ τῶν τῆς Ἀσσυρίας Ἰουδαίων; 2. Περὶ τῆς Ἠλίου προφητείας; and 3. Περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ βασιλέων (so Kuhlmey p. 3). The first of these falls away because in the fragment in Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 17: Εὐπόλεμος δὲ ἐν τῷ περὶ Ἰουδαίων τῆς Ἀσσυρίας φησὶ πόλιν Βαβυλῶνα πρῶτον μὲν κτισθῆναι ὑπὸ τῶν κ.τ.λ. the words τῆς Ἀσσυρίας certainly refer to what follows (Rauch p. 21; Freudenthal p. 207). The title περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ βασιλέων is certified by Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 23. 153. To this work also undoubtedly belongs the fragment referring to the history of David and Solomon in Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 30-34 which Alexander Polyhistor asserts that he took from a work περὶ τῆς Ἠλίου προφητείας (Freudenthal p. 208). Thus we in truth obtain only one work instead of the supposed three. The first fragment (Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 17) probably does not belong to Eupolemus at all (comp. hereon No. 6 below); a second almost verbally identical in Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 26 and Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 23. 153 represents Moses as the “first sage” who transmitted to the Jews the art of alphabetical writing which was then handed on by the Jews to the Phoenicians and by the latter to the Hellenes. The Chronicon paschale ed. Dindorf i. 117 also has this fragment from Eusebius and Cyrillus Alex. adv. Julian. ed. Spanh. p. 231d has it from Clement. The long passage in Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 30-34 refers to the history of David and Solomon. It commences with a summary of chronology from Moses to David then briefly relates the chief events of the history of David (Euseb. ix. 30) and then gives a correspondence between Solomon and the kings Uaphree of Egypt and Suron of Phoenicia about assistance in the building of the temple (Euseb. ix. 31-34; comp. Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 21. 130; Chron. pasch. ed. Dind. i. 168); and lastly describes in detail the building of the temple (Euseb. ix. 34). The correspondence with Suron = Hiram is taken from 2 Chronicles 2:2-15 comp. 1 Kings 5:15-18; and that with Uaphres freely imitated from this model. Probably the fragment in Euseb. ix. 39 in which it is related how Jeremiah foretold the captivity and how his prediction was fulfilled by the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar also belongs to Eupolemus. The fragment is according to the reading of the best manuscripts anonymous but may on internal grounds be ascribed to Eupolemus (Freudenthal p. 208 sq.). A chronological fragment in Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 2114. 1 which computes in a summary manner the time from Adam and Moses respectively to the fifth year of Demetrius or the twelfth of Ptolemy gives us information concerning the date of Eupolemus. For by this Demetrius we must probably understand (see below) Demetrius I. Soter (162-150 B.C.) and hence Eupolemus would have written in the year 158-157 B.C. or shortly afterwards. He may therefore be as many have supposed identical with the Eupolemus mentioned 1Ma_8:17. In this case he would be a Palestinian which is certainly favoured also by the circumstance that he seems besides the translation of the LXX. of which the Book of Chronicles was certainly in his hands to have made use also of the original Hebrew text (Freudenthal pp. 108 119). Concerning his nationality whether Jew or heathen opinions are as also in the case of Demetrius divided; Josephus c. Apion. i. 23 (= Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 42) esteemed him a heathen as do also Hody and Kuhlmey. On the other hand Eusebius Hist. eccl. vi. 13. 7 and Jerome De viris illustr. c. 38 regard him as a Jew. And this as Freudenthal has recently shown is undoubtedly correct (pp. 83-85).
Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 21. 141: Ἔτι δὲ καὶ Εὐπόλεμος ἐν τῇ ὁμοίᾳ πραγματείᾳ τὰ πάντα ἔτη φησὶν ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ ἄχρι τοῦ πέμπτου ἔτους Δημητρίου βασιλείας Πτολεμαίου τὸ δωδέκατον βασιλεύοντος Αἰγύπτου συνάγεσθαι ἔτη ͵ερμαʹ. ἀφʼ οὗ δὲ χρόνου ἐξήγαγε Μωυσῆς τοὺς Ἰουδαίους ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐπὶ τὴν προειρημένην προθεσμίαν συνάγεσθαι ἔτη δισχίλια πεντακόσια ὀγδοήκοντα. [ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ χρόνου τούτου ἄχρι τῶν ἐν Ῥώμῃ ὑπάτων Γαΐου Δομετιανοῦ Κασιανοῦ συναθροίζεται ἔτη ἑκατὸν εἵκοσι]. In this fragment also the text is defective. Above all it is certain that the number 2580 must be corrected to 1580 since Eupolemus could not have reckoned 2580 years from Moses to his own time. Then the synchronism of the fifth year of Demetrius with the twelfth of Ptolemy causes difficulties. For no twelfth year of any Ptolemy coincides with the fifth year of Demetrius II. (= 142-141 B.C.). The twelfth year indeed of Ptolemy VII. (= 159-158) concurs with the fifth year of Demetrius I. (= 158-157 B.C.). But Ptolemy VII. Physcon was at that time only ruler of Cyrenaica. He reigned in Egypt contemporaneously with his brother Ptolemy VI. Philometor who however began his reign four years previously. We must therefore either regard with Gutschmid the whole statement concerning Ptolemy as a gloss or which is more simple alter the number. However this may be the supposition that Demetrius I. Soter is intended is especially favoured by the circumstance that at all events such was the view of Clemens Alex. For he reckons from the fifth year of Demetrius to the consulship of Cn. Domitius Calvinus and C. Asinius Pollio (these names being certainly hidden under the corrupted words Γαΐου Δομετιανοῦ Κασιανοῦ) i.e. to the year 40 B.C. in which Herod was named king (Joseph. Antt. xiv. 14. 5) 120 years which of necessity reach back to Demetrius L even if the reckoning is not quite accurate. Gutschmid has best restored the closing words by the complement Γναίου Δομετίου καὶ Ἀσινίου ὑπὸ Κασιανοῦ συναθροίζεται. Cassianus is mentioned as a chronologist by Clem. Strom. i. 21. 101.
Comp. in general: Huetius Demonstr. evang. Prop. iv. c. ii. § 29. Hody De biblior. textib. p. 106. Valckenaer De Aristobulo pp. 18 24. Dähne Geschichtl. Darstellung ii. 221 sq. Kuhlmey Eupolemi fragmenta prolegomenis et commentario instructa Berol. 1840. Rauch De Alex. Polyh. pp. 20-22. Cruice De Fl. Jos. fide pp. 58-61. C. Müler Fragm. hist. gr. iii. 207 sqq. Vaillant De historicis etc. pp. 52-59. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael iii. 481-483 572-574. M. Niebuhr Gesch. Assur’s pp. 353-356. Cobet in Λόγιος Ἑρμῆς ἐκδ. ὑπὸ Κόντου vol. i. (Leyden 1866) p. 168 sq. Ewald Gesch. d. V. Isr. i. 76 vii. 91 92. Freudenthal Alex. Polyh. pp. 82 sqq. 105-130 208 sqq. 225 sqq. Siegfried Zeitschr. f. wissenschaftl. Theol. 1875 p. 476 sqq. Gutschmid Jahrbb. f. prot. Theol. 1875 p. 749 sqq. Grätz Monatsschr. f. Gesch. u. Wissensch. d. Judenth. 1877 p. 61 sqq. Bloch Die Quellen des Fl. Josephus (1879) p. 58 sqq.
3. Artapanus
In his work περὶ Ἰουδαίων Artapanus is still farther removed than Eupolemus from the sober and unadorned style of Demetrius. The sacred history is quite methodically embellished or to speak more correctly remodelled by fantastic and tasteless additions—and this recasting is throughout in the interest of the tendency to a glorification of the Jewish people. One chief aim is directed towards proving that the Egyptians were indebted to the Jews for all useful knowledge and institutions. Thus the very first fragment (Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 18) relates that Abraham when he journeyed into Egypt instructed the king Pharethothes in astrology. A second (Euseb. ix. 23) narrates how Joseph when raised by the king to be the chief governor of the country provided for the better cultivation of the land. And finally the long article concerning Moses (Euseb. ix. 27) gives detailed information of his being the real founder of all the culture and even of the worship of the gods in Egypt. For he it was whom the Greeks call Musaeus the instructor of Orpheus the author of a multitude of useful inventions and attainments of navigation architecture military science and philosophy. He also divided the country into thirty-six provinces and commanded each province to worship God; he also instructed the priests in hieroglyphics. He introduced order into State affairs. Hence he was beloved by the Egyptians who called him Hermas διὰ τὴν τῶν ἱερῶν γραμμάτων ἑρμηνείαν. King Chenephres however sought out of envy to get rid of him. But none of the means he used succeeded. When Chenephres was dead Moses received commandment from God to deliver His people from Egyptian bondage. The history of the exodus and of all that preceded it especially of the miracles by which the permission to depart was extorted is then related at length and in accordance with the Scripture narrative but at the same time with many additions and embellishments. Single traits from this history are related with express appeal to Artapanus in Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 23. 154 in Chron. pasch. ed. Dindorf i. 117 and in the Chron. anonym. in Cramer Anecdota Paris ii. 176. Traces of the employment of this work may be pointed out especially in Josephus (see Freudenthal pp. 169-171). The more plainly its Jewish authorship is manifested by the tendency of the whole work the more strange does it appear that Moses and the patriarchs should be exhibited as founders of the Egyptian worships. Jacob and his sons are represented as founding the sanctuaries at Athos and Heliopolis (23. 4). Moses directs each province to honour God (τὸν Θεὸν σεφθήσεσθαι); he prescribes the consecration of the Ibis (27. 9) and of Apis (27. 12). In a word the religion of Egypt is referred to Jewish authority. This fact has been explained by Freudenthal by the surely incorrect notion that the author was indeed a Jew but wanted to pass for a heathen and indeed for an Egyptian priest (pp. 149 sq. 152 sq.). For nowhere does such an attempt come plainly forward. And with such a tendency an entirely unknown name such as Artapanus would certainly never have been chosen as a shield. Nor does it at all explain the phenomena. For if the work had appeared under a heathen mask we should surely expect that it would have energetically denounced in the name of this acknowledged authority the abomination of idol-worship as is actually done e.g. in the case of the Sibyllist (iii. 20) and of pseudo-Aristeas (pp. 38 14 sq. ed. Mor. Schmidt). Thus under all circumstances the strange fact remains that a Jewish author has represented Moses as the founder of Egyptian rites. But however strange this may appear it is explained by the tendency of the whole. Moses was the introducer of all culture even of religious culture. This and nothing else is the meaning. Besides it must be considered that the heathen worship is in reality represented in a tolerably innocent light. For the sacred animals are not so much worshipped as on the contrary “consecrated” for their utility—τῷ Θεῷ as we cannot but conclude. But even thus we certainly have still to do with a Jewish author who cared more for the honour of the Jewish name than for the purity of divine worship. Perhaps too an apologetic purpose co-operated in causing the Jews who were decried as despisers of the gods to figure as founders of religious worship. Considering the marked prominence of Egyptian references there needs no other proof that the author was an Egyptian. With regard to date it can only be affirmed with certainty of him and of those who follow that they were predecessors of Alexander Polyhistor.
Comp. in general: Huetius Demonstr. evang. Prop. iv. c. ii. § 62. Valckenaer De Aristobulo p. 26. Dähne Geschichtl. Darstellung ii. 200-203. Rauch De Alexandro Polyhistore p. 22 sq. C. Müller Fragm. iii. 207 sqq. Vaillant De historicis etc. pp. 74-83. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael iii. 483-486 574. Cobet in the Λόγιος Ἑρμῆς i. 170 171. Ewald ii. 129. Freudenthal Alex. Polyh. pp. 143-174 215 sqq. 231 sqq. Bloch Die Quellen des Josephus p. 60 sqq.
4. Aristeas
A fragment from the work of one otherwise unknown Aristeas περὶ Ἰουδαίων in which the history of Job is briefly related in accordance with the Bible is given in Euseb. Praep. ev. ix. 25. The history itself presents nothing worthy of remark but the personal accounts both of Job and his friends are supplemented on the ground of other scriptural material. Thus it is said of Job that he was formerly called Jobab Ἰώβ being evidently identical with Ἰωβάβ Genesis 36:33. Upon the ground of this identification Job is then made a descendant of Esau for Jobab was a son of Serach (Genesis 36:33) and the latter a grandson of Esau (Genesis 36:10-13). According indeed to the extract of Alexander Polyhistor Aristeas is said to have related that Esau himself “married Bassara and begot Job of her” (τὸν Ἤσαυ γήμαντα Βασσάραν ἐν Ἐδὼμ γεννῆσαι Ἰώβ). Most probably however this rests upon an inaccurate reference of Alexander Polyhistor; for Aristeas who was quoting from the Bible must certainly have called Jobab not the son but correctly the great-grandson of Esau. From Genesis 36:33 is also derived the name Bassara as the mother of Job (Ἰωβὰβ υἱὸς Ζαρὰ ἐκ Βοσόρʼῥας where indeed Bosra is in reality not the mother but the native place of Jobab). Our author already used the LXX. translation of the Book of Job. It is moreover remarkable that in the supplement to Job in the Septuagint the personal accounts of Job are compiled exactly after the manner of Aristeas. Freudenthal thinks it certain that this supplement was derived from Aristeas.
Comp. in general: C. Müller Fragm. iii. 207 sqq. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael iii. 488 sqq. 577-579. Ewald vii. 92. Freudenthal Alex. Polyhistor pp. 136-143 231.
5. Cleodemus or Malchus
The work of a certain Cleodemus or Malchus of which unfortunately only a short notice is preserved seems to have presented a classic example of that intermixture of native (Oriental) and Greek traditions which was popular throughout the region of Hellenism. The notice in question is communicated by Alexander Polyhistor but is taken by Eusebius Praep. evang. ix. 20 not directly from the latter but from Josephus Antt. i. 15 who on his part quotes literally from Alexander. The author is here called Κλεόδημος ὁ προφήτης ὁ καὶ Μάλχος ὁ ἱστορῶν τὰ περὶ Ἰουδαίων καθὼς καὶ Μωϋσῆς ἱστόρησεν ὁ νομοθέτης αὐτῶν. Both the Semitic name Malchus and the contents of the work prove that the author was no Greek but either a Jew or a Samaritan. Freudenthal prefers the latter view chiefly on account of the intermixture of Greek and Jewish traditions. But about 200-100 B.C. this is quite as possible in a Jew as in a Samaritan. In the work of this Malchus it is related that Abraham had three sons by Keturah Ἀφέραν Ἀσουρείμ Ἰάφραν from whom the Assyrians the town of Aphra and the land of Africa derive their names. The orthography of the names (which I have given according to Freudenthal) vacillates considerably. Hence אַשּׁוּרִם עֵיפָה and עֵפֶר Genesis 25:34 are evidently identical with them. But while in Genesis 25 Arab tribes are intended our author derives from them entirely different nations which were known to him. He then further relates that the three sons of Abraham departed with Heracles to Libya and Antaeus that Heracles married the daughter of Aphra and of her begat Diodorus whose son again was Sophonas (or Sophax) from whom the Sophaki derive their name. These last traditions are also found in the Libyan (or Roman?) history of King Juba (Plutarch. Sertor c. ix. also in Müller Fragm. hist. gr. iii. 471); only that the genealogical relation of Diodorus and Sophax is reversed: Heracles begets Sophax of Tinge the widow of Antaeus and Diodorus is the son of Sophax.
Comp. in general: C. Müller Fragm. iii. 207 sqq. Vaillant De historicis etc. pp. 72-74. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael iii. 489 575. Ewald vii. 91. Freudenthal. Alex. Polyh. pp. 130-136 215 230. Siegfried Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol. 1875 p. 476 sq.
6. An Anonymous Writer
Among the extracts of Alexander Polyhistor are found Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 17 and 18 two which to judge by their contents are evidently identical although the one is much shorter than the other. The longer (Euseb. ix. 17) is given as an extract from Eupolemus who relates that Abraham descended in the [thir]teenth generation from the race of giants who after the deluge built the tower of Babel that he himself emigrated from Chaldaea to Phoenicia and taught the Phoenicians τροπὰς ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα. He also proved of assistance to them in war. He then departed by reason of a famine to Egypt where he lived with the priests in Heliopolis and taught them much. instructing them in τὴν ἀστρολογίαν καὶ τὰ λοιπά. The real discoverer however of astrology was Enoch who received it from the angels and imparted it to men. We are told the same virtually but more briefly in the second extract Euseb. ix. 18 which Alexander Polyhistor derived from an anonymous work (ἐν δὲ ἀδεσπότοις εὕρομεν). If this parallel narrative is itself striking it must also be added that the longer extract can scarcely be from Eapolemus. Eupolemus was a Jew but in the extract Gerizim is explained by ὄρος ὑψίστου. Also according to Eupolemus Moses was the first sage (Euseb. ix. 26) while in the extract Abraham is already glorified as the father of all science. Hence the supposition of Freudenthal that the original of both extracts was one and the same viz. the anonymous work of a Samaritan and that the longer extract of Alexander has been ascribed by an oversight to Eupolemus is one which commends itself. In this work also as remains to be mentioned Greek traditions and Scripture history are again blended.
Comp. in general: C. Müller Fragm. iii. 207 sqq. Freudenthal Alex. Polyh. pp. 82-103 207 sq. 223 sqq. Siegfried Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1875 p. 476.
7. Jason of Cyrene and the Second Book of Maccabees
The authors from whom extracts were made by Alexander Polyhistor compiled chiefly from the older Scripture history. The work of Jason of Cyrene on which our second Book of Maccabees is based is an example of the treatment of those important epochs of later Jewish history in which they had themselves lived by Hellenistic Jews. For this book is as the author himself informs us only an abridgment (ἐπιτομή 2Ma_2:26-28) from the larger work of a certain Jason of Cyrene (2Ma_2:23). The original work comprised five volumes which are in our second Book of Maccabees condensed into one (2Ma_2:23). Thus the contents of the former seem to have been parallel with those of the latter. The abridgment handed down to us tells first of an unsuccessful attack upon the treasury of the temple undertaken in the time of Seleucus IV. (B.C. 175) by his minister Heliodorus; it then relates the religious persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes and the apostasy of a portion of the Jews; and lastly recounts the Maccabaean rising and its progress down to the decisive victory of Judas over Nicanor (160 B.C.). Thus the book comprises a period of not much more than fifteen years 175-160 B.C. The events related are for the most part the same as in the first Book of the Maccabees. But the narrative differs in many particulars and in some parts even in the order of the events from the account in the first book. The differences are of such a kind that an acquaintance with that book can hardly be assumed on the part of our author (Hitzig Gesch. des Volkes Israel ii. 415 holds the opposite view). At the same time there can be no doubt that on the whole the simple narrative of 1 Macc. based as it is on good native sources deserves the preference over the rhetorical narrative of the second. On the other hand the latter offers a copiousness of independent detail especially in the preliminary history of the Maccabaean rising the historical truth of which there are no grounds for doubting. The view must therefore be accepted that contemporary sources of information were at the disposal also of Jason of Cyrene but that these were probably not in writing but only the oral accounts of contemporaries who narrated from memory the events of those fifteen years. If such narratives reached Jason not directly but through a series of intermediaries this would explain both the copiousness and the inaccuracy of the details.
If the view that Jason of Cyrene derived the history he relates from the lips of contemporaries is correct he must have written not long after 160 B.C. At all events unless we are willing to allow for the use of written documents also we must not make the interval between the events and the date of the author too long as otherwise an acquaintance with such numerous and yet relatively correct particulars would be no longer possible. Nor does the mythical character of many of the narratives (e.g. the martyrdom of Eleazar and the seven brethren 2 Maccabees 6-7) tend against the view of so early an origin. For a period of a few decades—especially at a distance from the scene of the events—is more than sufficient for the formation of such myths. The unhistorical notice xv. 37 that after the victory over Nicanor Jerusalem remained in the hands of the Hebrews can indeed only have been written by one at a great distance from the events. But on the other hand this scarcely affects Jason but his epitomizer. Why the narrative breaks off at the victory over Nicanor is somewhat enigmatical. Perhaps this ending was not contemplated by Jason.
With respect to the date of the epitomizer it can only be said that he is certainly more ancient than Philo who seems to have been acquainted with this book. Both the original work and the epitome were without doubt originally written in Greek. For it is very characteristically distinguished by its rhetorical Greek style from the annalistic Hebrew style of the first Book of Maccabees. The second book is very unlike the first in another respect also; it aims directly at edification by the narrative of the heroic faith of the Maccabees and of the marvellous events by which God preserved the continuance of the Jewish religion and worship.
The two letters which are now placed before this book (2Ma_1:1 to 2Ma_2:18) stand in no connection with it. They are letters of the Palestinian to the Egyptian Jews in which the latter are summoned to the feast of the Dedication. They are evidently two originally independent pieces of writing afterwards combined by a later hand but not that of the epitomizer with this second Book of Maccabees. Their purpose is to influence the Egyptian Jews with respect to the feast of the Dedication.
In Philo’s work Quod omnis probus liber § 13 (Mang. ii. 459) is described the manner in which many tyrants have persecuted the pious and virtuous. The several features of this description so greatly recall that of Antiochus Epiphanes in the second Book of Maccabees that an acquaintance with this book on the part of Philo can scarcely be doubted; comp. Lucius Der Essenismus (1881) pp. 36-39. Josephus has indeed a few points in common with this book which are absent from 1 Macc. (see Grimm Exeget. Handb. zu 2 Macc. p. 13). It is nevertheless very improbable that he was acquainted with the second Book of Maccabees (see Grimm p. 20). On the other hand the philosophical exhortation known as the fourth Book of Maccabees is entirely based upon it.
Christian testimony begins with Hebrews 11:35; for ἐτυμπανίσθησαν evidently refers to 2Ma_6:19-28 (ἐπὶ τὸ τύμπανον προσῆγε ἐπὶ τὸ τύμπανον εὐθέως ἦλθε) while other allusions in Hebrews 11:35 sq. recall 2 Maccabees 6-7 Comp. Bleek Stud. und Kritik 1853 p. 339 and Bleek’s Commentary on Hebrews 11:35. The oldest quotation is Clemens Alex. Strom. v. 14. 97: Ἀριστοβούλῳ … οὗ μέμνηται ὁ συνταξάμενος τὴν τῶν Μακκαβαϊκῶν ἐπιτομήν (comp. 2Ma_1:10). Hippolytus in his work de Christo et Antichristo c. 49 (Lagarde p. 25) refers to this book in the words: καὶ ταῦτα μὲν … σεσήμανται ἐν τοῖς Μακκαβαϊκοῖς.
Origen appeals in many passages to this book in proof of important doctrines: 1. Of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo to 2Ma_7:28 (ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐποίησεν αὐτὰ ὁ Θεός): Comment. in Joann. vol. i. c. 18 (Lommatzsch i. 37); de principiis ii. 1. 5 (Lommatzsch xxi. 142). 2. Of the doctrine of the intercession of saints to 2Ma_15:14 (ὁ πολλὰ προσευχόμενος περὶ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ τῆς ἁγίας πόλεως Ἱερεμίας): Comment. in Joann. vol. xiii. c. 57 (Lommatzsch ii. 120); in Cant. Cant. lib. iii. (Lommatzsch xv. 26); de oratione c. 11 (Lommatzsch xvii. 125). 3. He also makes special and very full mention of the history of Eleazar and the seven Maccabaean brothers (2Ma_6:18-27 fin.) as glorious examples of dauntless martyrdom in the Exhortatio ad martyrium c. 22-27 (Lommatzsch xx. 261-268); comp. also Comment. in epist. ad Rom. lib. iv. c. 10 (Lommatzsch vi. 305). 4. Other quotations in Origen: fragm. in Exod. (Lommatzsch viii. 302); contra Cels. viii. 46 fin. (Lommatzsch xx. 176).
Cyprian also quotes the history of the Maccabaean martyrs 2 Maccabees 6-7 (ad Fortunatum c. 11 and Testim. iii. 17). The Fathers in general have delighted in treating of these Maccabaean martyrs (often with the use of the so-called fourth Book of Maccabees); nay they were at last transplanted among Christian saints. For material bearing on this see Wetstein’s notes on Origen Exhort. ad martyr. c. 23 (Lommatzsch xx. 262) and the Vitae Sanctorum (Lipomannus Surius Bollandist. Nilles’ Kalendarium manuale 1879 to August 1); some also in Freudenthal Die Flavius Josephus beigelegte Schrift über die Herrschaft der Vernunft (1869) p. 29 sqq. Creuzer Stud. und Krit. 1853 p. 85 sq. Bähr Die christlichen Dichter und Geschichtschreiber Roms (2nd ed. 1872) p. 50 sqq.
Its title as the second Book of the Maccabees is first found in Euseb. Praep. evang. viii. 9 fin.: Ἀριστόβουλος … οὗτος δʼ αὐτὸς ἐκεῖνος οὗ καὶ ἡ δευτέρα τῶν Μακκαβαίων ἐν ἀρχῇ τῆς βίβλου μνημονεύει. Hieronymus Prol. galeatus to the Books of Samuel (Vallarsi ix. 459): Machabaeorum primum librum Hebraicum reperi. Secundus Graecus est quod ex ipsa quoque φράσει probari potest.
With respect to manuscripts editions and ancient translations what was said above p. 10 in the case of the first Book of Maccabees applies in most instances to the second. We need only remark: (1) that the second Book of Maccabees is not contained in the cod. Sinaiticus and (2) that besides the old Latin translation which has passed into the Vulgate (and which alone Sabatier Biblior. sacror. Lat. versiones antiquae vol. ii. knows) there is another in a cod. Ambrosianus from which Peyron has published it (Ciceronis orationum pro Scauro pro Tullio et in Clodium fragmenta inedita 1824 p. 73 sqq.); the edition of the same text promised for Ceriani’s Monumenta sacra et prof. vol. i. fasc. 3 has as far as I know not yet made its appearance.
The exegetical and critical literature also of this book is almost entirely the same as that of the first Book of Maccabees (see above p. 11 sq.). In the Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen (Leipzig 1857) the fourth part compiled by Grimm treats of the second third and fourth Books of the Maccabees. We mention besides: [H. Eberh. Glo. Paulus] “Ueber das zweyte Buch der Maccabäer” (Eichhorn’s Allg. Biblioth. der bibl. Literatur vol. i. 1787 pp. 233-241). Bertheau De secundo libro Maccabaeorum Gotting. 1829. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael ii. 443-456. Patrizzi De consensu utriusque libri Machabaeorum Romae 1856. Cigoi Historischchronologische Schwierigkeiten im zweiten Makkabäerbuche Klagenfurt 1868. Kasten Der historische Werth des zweiten Buches der Makkabäer Stolp 1879 (Gymnasialprogr.).
On the two letters at the beginning of the book see (besides the above-named literature): Valckenaer De Aristobulo pp. 38-44. Schlünkes Epistolae quae secundo Macc. libro i. 1-9 legitur explicatio Colon. 1844. The same Difficiliorum locorum epistolae quae 2 Macc. i. 10-ii. 18 legitur explicatio Colon. 1847. Grätz “Das Sendschreiben der Palästinenser an die ägyptischjudäischen Gemeinden wegen der Feier der Tempelweihe” (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1877 pp. 1-16 49-60).
8. The Third Book of Maccabees
The so-called third Book of Maccabees may here be mentioned along with the second as having at least the form of an historical narrative of a supposed episode of later Jewish history. In truth it is a tolerably insipid piece of fiction founded at most on an entirely unascertainable historical fact. It relates how Ptolemy IV. Philopator after his victory over Antiochus the Great at Raphia came to Jerusalem and entertained the desire of entering also the interior of the temple. As he was not to be turned from his purpose by any representations the Jews in their distress cried to God who heard their prayer and struck Ptolemy so that he fell stunned to the ground (1-2:24). Ptolemy exasperated returned to Egypt and meditated revenge. He deprived the Alexandrian Jews of their civic rights and commanded that all the Jews in Egypt together with their wives and children should be brought in chains to Alexandria where they were confined in the racecourse. Their number was so great that the clerks who were to write down the names of each had not after forty days’ labour come to the end and were obliged to leave off for want of writing materials (2:25-4 fin.). Ptolemy now commanded that five hundred elephants should be intoxicated by wine and incense and incited against the people in the racecourse. When all preparations had been made the execution was delayed till the next day because the king had slept till the time for his chief meal. On the second day too nothing was done because the king had through the dispensation of God suddenly forgotten everything and was very angry to find that hostile designs were entertained against his faithful servants the Jews. On the same day however he repeated at his repast the former order for the extirpation of the Jews. When then on the third day matters at last seemed getting serious and the king was already approaching the racecourse with his troops two angels appeared from heaven at the prayer of the Jews and paralysed the troops of the king with terror. The elephants then rushed upon the troops of the king trampled on and destroyed them (5-6:21). The king was now much irritated against his counsellors and commanded the Jews to be liberated from their chains nay to be entertained for seven days at his expense. Then they celebrated their deliverance with feasting and rejoicing and resolved to keep these days as festivals for ever. And the king issued a letter of protection in favour of the Jews to all governors in the provinces and gave the Jews permission to put to death such of their fellow-countrymen as had apostatized from the faith. They made abundant use of this permission and returned joyfully home (6:22-7 fin.).
This narrative is not only almost throughout a mere fiction but it belongs among productions of the kind to those of the weakest sort. The author evidently revels in keeping up psychological impossibilities. The style also corresponds being bombastic and involved. The only foundation for the author’s fiction seems to have been an old legend which we still read in Josephus. For he relates (contra Apion. ii. 5) that Ptolemy VII. Physcon cast the Jews of Alexandria who as adherents of Cleopatra were his political opponents to intoxicated elephants who however turned instead against the friends of the king whereupon the king gave up his purpose and the Jews of Alexandria celebrated the day in remembrance of the event. According to this account the celebration of this festival which is also mentioned in the third Book of Maccabees (6:36) seems at all events to be historical. And some unascertained fact may certainly be the foundation of the legend the older form of which seems to have been in the hands of Josephus since all is in his account simpler and more psychologically comprehensible and he was evidently unacquainted with the third Book of Maccabees. When then the latter refers the history to Ptolemy IV. instead of VII. this is already a divergence from the older legend and still more so are the other additions with which the author has enriched his narrative.
As to the date of the author the utmost that can be ventured is a conjecture. The contents and tendency of the book seem to presuppose a persecution of the Alexandrian Jews on account of which the author desires to comfort and encourage his co-religionists. This leads our thoughts to the time of Caligula when such a persecution on a large scale took place for the first time. Hence Ewald Hausrath Reuss and others place the composition of the book in his reign. But then it would be strange that the author does not make Ptolemy lay claim to divine honours which was the chief stumbling-block in the case of Caligula. On the whole we should expect in it more special references to events under Caligula. Hence we can but approve of Grimm’s reservation though he has every inclination to agree with Ewald’a hypothesis (Exeget. Handb. p. 218 sq.). In general we may say that the book originated at the earliest in the first century before Christ at the latest in the first century after Christ; the former because the author already knows the Greek additions to Daniel (6:6); the latter because it would otherwise have found no acceptance with the Christian Church.
The oldest Christian testimony is the Canones apost. (in Cotelier Patr. apost. 2nd ed. i. 453) canon 76 (al. 85): Μακκαβαίων τρία. The stichometry of Nicephorus also reckons: Μακκαβαϊκὰ γʹ (in Credner Zur Gesch. des Kanons p. 119). In the Synopsis Athanasii stands instead Μακκαβαϊκὰ βιβλία δʹ Πτολεμαϊκά (Credner p. 144) where according to Credner’s conjecture καί is perhaps to be read instead of the number δʹ so that our third Book of Maccabees would have to be understood by Πτολεμαϊκά. For other testimony see Eichhorn Einl. in die apokr. Schriften des A. T. p. 288 sq. Grimm Handb. p. 221 sq. The book seems never to have been known in the Latin Church on which account it is absent from the Vulgate. On the other hand it found approbation in the Syrian Church as the existing old Syriac translation proves. The name “Book of Maccabees” has been very inaptly given to the book merely because here also a persecution of Jews faithful to their religion is the subject.
The book is as a rule found in the manuscripts of the Septuagint so especially in the cod. Alexandrinus. Hence it is also found in most editions of the Septuagint and in the separate editions of the Greek apocryphal books (see above p. 10 sq.). Of ancient versions the old Syriac need only be mentioned here (see above p. 11).
For the exegetical aids in general see above p. 11. Commentary: Grimm “Das zweite dritte und vierte Buch der Maccabäer” (Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des A.T.’s Part 4) Leipzig 1857. Investigations: Eichhorn Einl. in die apokryphischen Schriften des A.T.’s pp. 278-290. Bertholdt Einl. in sammtliche kanon. und apokr. Schriften des A. u. N. T. vol. iii. pp. 1082-1091. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel iv. 611-614. De Wette-Schrader Einl. in das A.T.’s p. 572 sq. Keil Einl. in das A.T. 3rd ed. p. 720 sq. Hausrath Neutestamentl. Zeitgesch. 2nd ed. ii. 262-265. Reuss Gesch. der heil Schriften Alten Testaments § 574.
9. Philo’s Historical Works
Philo the philosopher must also be named here as a writer of works on Jewish history. Indeed he has left us narratives not only from the more ancient history but also from that of his own times.
1. With respect to the former a large work which has been preserved almost entire viz. a comprehensive delineation of the Mosaic legislation must first be mentioned. It is not indeed an historical narrative properly so called but a systematic statement; still it is one so made that Philo attempts therein to give a survey of the legislative labours of Moses himself i.e. of the virtual contents of the Pentateuch. That he does not do this without being essentially influenced by his own philosophical views is a thing self-evident. But still his purpose is simply to give in an objective historical manner; a survey of the Mosaic legislation. The several parts of this work have come down to us in the manuscripts and editions under special titles as though they were separate books. It will be shown below § 34 that the plan of the whole work is as follows: (a) The first book refers to the creation of the world. For Moses treated of this in the beginning of his work to make it plain that his legislation was according to the will of nature. (b) The following books treat of the lives of Enos Enoch Noah Abraham Isaac Jacob and Joseph but so that the first three are only briefly treated in the introduction to the life of Abraham while the last four have each a separate book devoted to them. The lives of Abraham and Joseph have been preserved. The histories of all these individuals is related because by their lives they exhibit the universal types of morality “the living unwritten laws.” (c) Next follows the legislation proper the ten chief commandments first in one book and then in four books the special laws arranged according to the rubrics of the ten commandments (particulars § 34). Thus a survey is really taken of the actual contents of the Pentateuch. The tendency of the entire work is everywhere to hold up the Jewish law as the wisest and most humane. The ritual and ceremonial laws are not passed by; but Philo always knows how to realize their rational side so that he who perfectly observes them is not only the best but also the most cultured man the true philosopher. This also makes it clear that the work if not solely was chiefly intended for non-Jewish readers. The educated of all nations were to be brought by it to the perception that the Jewish was the most perfect law the law by which men were best trained to be good citizens and true philosophers.
In a separate work which does not as has been usually supposed belong to this collective work Philo has also written a life of Moses himself. In this also the manner and object are the same as in the systematic work. Moses is described as the greatest and wisest of lawgivers and as raised above all others by mighty deeds and miraculous experiences.
2. Philo also described in a lengthy work the most important and the saddest episode of the Jewish history of his times the persecutions of the Jews under Caligula. By way of introduction he spoke also in it of the persecutions brought about by Sejanus in the reign of Tiberius. The work according to Eusebius contained five books. The two which have come down to us (in Flaccum and de legatione ad Cajum) probably formed the third and fourth (particulars § 34). Philo having been an eye-witness of the events he narrates nay as leader of a Jewish embassy to Caligula a prominent sharer in them his work is a first-class authority for the history of this period.
10. Josephus
The best known historian of Jewish affairs in the Greek language is the Palestinian Josephus properly Joseph the son of Matthias a priest of Jerusalem. Of his two chief works one is the Ἰουδαϊκὴ Ἀρχαιολογία a comprehensive delineation of the entire Jewish history from the beginning to his own times. It is the most extensive work on Jewish history in the Greek language with which we are acquainted and has on that account so retained the lasting favour of Jewish heathen and Christian readers as to have been preserved entire in numerous manuscripts (particulars see above Div. i. vol. i. § 3). Notwithstanding its great difference from the philosophizing delineation of Philo its tendency is similar. For it is the purpose of Josephus not only to instruct his heathen readers for whom it was in the first instance intended in the history of his people but also to inspire them with respect for the Jewish nation both as having a history of hoar antiquity and a long series of celebrities both in peace and war to point to and as able to bear comparison in respect of laws and institutions with any nation (comp. especially Antt. xvi. 6. 8). The other chief work of Josephus the History of the Jewish War from A.D. 66-73 gives the history more for its own sake. The events of these years are in themselves so important that they seemed worthy of a detailed description. Perhaps it was written by command of Vespasian from whom Josephus received an annual salary (Vita 76) and to whom the work was delivered as soon as it was completed (contra Apion. i. 9; Vita 65). If a tendency to boasting is detected in it this refers rather to the individual Josephus and the Romans than to the Jewish nation.
11. Justus of Tiberias
Justus of Tiberias a contemporary and fellow-countryman of Josephus was also his fellow-labourer. He too devoted himself to authorship after the destruction of his nation but having been less successful therein than Josephus his works were less read and have therefore been lost. He has this in common with Josephus that he too treated both of Jewish history as a whole and of the events of his own times each in one work. His History of the Jewish Kings from Moses to Agrippa II. was according to the statement of Photius who was still acquainted with it (Biblioth. Cod. 33) “very brief in expression and passed over much that was necessary.” As it was made use of by Julius Africanus in his Chronicle it may well be supposed that its form was that of a chronicle in which stress was chiefly laid upon the settling of the chronology.
In another work Justus seems to have presented whether wholly or partly the History of the Jewish War in a manner by which Josephus felt himself compromised since in his Vita he enters into a very warm controversy against Justus.