Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T04:49:15.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biblical Chronology in the Hellenistic World Chronicles*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Ben Zion Wacholder
Ben Zion Wacholder
Affiliation:
Hebrew Union College — Jewish Institute of Religion
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Chronography became a discipline of its own during the Alexandrian age. Herodotus and Thucydides still reckoned the remote past by generations. But from 300 B.C. onward learned men of Alexandria attempted to assign more or less precise dates for notable events. Homeric scholars dated the fall of Troy 407 years prior to the first Olympic games in 776 B.C., i.e., 1184 B.C. Eratosthenes of Cyrene asserted that this was the first datable event of human history, giving an unmistakable demarcation line between mythology and history. For the Orientals, whose records reputedly went back to the time when gods and semi-gods held sway over man, Eratosthenes' Greek-colored view of ancient history appeared myopic. Perhaps to match the Orientals, Greek writers manufactured genealogical tables which traced the pedigrees of famous Greek cities to remote antiquity with their autochthonous progenitors. To create order among the conflicting claims, during the second century B.C., the universal chronicle made its appearance. In the universal chronicles the Greek and Oriental genealogical lists followed each other, were synchronized, or even tabulated.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , July 1968 , pp. 451 - 481
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Codex Alexandrinus, Ex. 12:40, emends further: [the Israelites] “and their ancestors,” to make sense out of the corrected text, which, anachronistically, alludes to the patriarchs as “Israelites.” Like LXX and the Samaritan versions, Talmudic exegesis interprets the 430 years to be referring to their stay in both Canaan and Egypt. However, the rabbis counted 220 years for Canaan and 210 for Egypt (Seder Olam 2–3). For the evidence that LXX means to split the 430 years in equal halves, see below, p. 455f. The Samaritan text contains another gloss: “and in the land of Goshen.”

2 Gen. 5:3–31; 11:10–25; LXX repeating the generation of Cainan of Gen. 5:9f.

3 Josephus' chronology for the antediluvian period conforms with LXX (A.J., I, 82–88), but for the Noachites he used the Hebrew (A.J., I, 148–150). All witnesses, except RO, which represent here a compromised emendation, attest that Josephus used the Hebrew. Unhappily, Niese chose to print RO in the body. Thackeray (Loeb Classical Library) was quite wrong in defending Niese. See Von Destinon, Justus, Die Chronologie des Josephus (Kiel, 1880), 5–9Google Scholar. The Samaritan text, disregarded in our discussion, diverges from both the Masoretic and LXX versions in respect of the Adamite generations, but conforms mostly with the Greek tradition as to the Noachites. It is not the intention of this study to exhaust the problems involved in solving the origins of the chronological schemes as they appear in the various LXX, Samaritan, Julibee recensions. See the commentaries ad locum, e.g., Skinner, , Genesis (ICC, New York, 1925)Google Scholar ; Linton, Olof, Synopsis Historiae Universalis, in Festskrift udgivet of Københavns Universitet (1957), 7–41Google Scholar.

4 For Clement, see Stromata, I, 125; Judas in Euseb. H.E., VI, 7 = Jacoby,FGrH 261 F 1, writing in 202; on Africanus, see Gelzer, , Sextus Julius Ajricanus und die byzantinische Chronographie (Leipzig, 1880), I, 24–26Google Scholar; Hippolytus' Commentary on Daniel, passim; cf. note 3. The statement in Seder Eliyyahu (Friedmann, ed.), 6f.; Bab. Avodah Zarah 9a; Sanhedrin 97a, announcing the messianic age in the sabbatical millennium, makes sense only if it is supposed that it was taken from a text which had followed the readings of LXX. For only according to a chronological scheme based upon the LXX was the sixth millennium rapidly approaching. According to the rabbinic chronology, these writers were living only in the beginning of the fifth millennium, too remote from the messianic age.

5 See Ephraem Syrus, in Assemani, , Bibtiotheca Orientalis (Rome, 1719), I, 65f.Google Scholar Cf. also Eusebius, Chronik (ed. Karst, Leipzig, 1911), 27ff.

6 Graetz, H., Fälschungen in dem Texte der Septuaginta von christlicher Hand zur dogmatischen Zwecken, MGWJ, II (1853), 432–36Google Scholar.

7 See note 3. Confronted with two chronological systems, Josephus resolved the problem by using LXX for the Adamite generations but the Hebrew for the Noachites. See also below, p. 454.

8 Euserius, Praeparatio Evangelica, IX, 19, 21, 29; Hist. Eccl., VI, 13, 7; Clement Alex., Strom., I, 141, 1. The fragments are collected by Mueller, , FHG, III (Paris, 1888), 208ff.Google Scholar; Freudenthal, , Hellenistische Studien (Breslau, 1875), 219–23Google Scholar; Jacoby, , FGrH, IIIC 2 (Leiden, 1958)Google Scholar, No. 722 FF 1–7, 666–71. N. Walter is preparing a new edition of the fragments under the auspices of the Deutsche Akademie.

9 Euseb., P.E., IX, 21, 13 = 722 F 1; P.E., IX, 29, 3 = 722 F 2. That the “Kushite woman” was identical with Zipporah, see Ezechielus, Exagoge (ed. Wieneke, 1931), 8, here probably dependent on Demetrius; and Sifre on Num. 12:1 (Friedmann, 99). It does not necessarily follow, though, that Demetrius was the midrash's source.

10 722 FF 1–6; see note 8, but specially P.E., IX, 21 = 722 F 1.

11 Clem. Al., I, 141 = 722 F 6. Mishnah Yadayyim, IV, 4; Tos. Qiddushim, V, 4 (Zuckermandel), 342, 9–11. This does not necessarily imply that rabbinic chronology followed Demetrius' scheme, though the coincidence is hard to explain (see note 9). Cf. Gaster, M., Demetrius und Seder Olam, in Festskrift Simonsen (Copenhagen, 1923), 243–52.Google Scholar

12 Abraham settled in Canaan when 75 years old (Gen. 12:4), begat Isaac at 100 (21:5), who begat Jacob at 60 (25:26), who in turn came to Egypt at the age of 130 (47:9): 25 + 60 + 130 = 215.

13 Euseb., P.E., IX, 21, 19 = 722 F 1.

14 See Wacholder, HUCA 35 (1964), 43–56.

15 The permissive attitude in regard of changing patriarchal datings can be seen in the different biblical versions and the Book of Jubilees. The identity of the numberings in the LXX and Demetrius surely shows dependence. Since the latter displays the rationale behind these numberings, it follows that he (or his school) was the originator of this scheme rather than a mere commentator.

16 Demetrius counted from Adam to the coming of Jacob into Egypt 3624 years; from the flood to the same time, 1360; from then to the exodus, 215 years (P.E., IX, 21, 18 = 722 F 1), 3624 – 1360 = 2264. It becomes clear that he was concerned almost as much with the date of Jacob's arrival into Egypt, his native country, as with the Israelites' departure.

17 See also LXX III Kingdoms 6:1, where the Greek gives 440 years from the exodus to the commencing of the temple's construction, instead of 480 in the Hebrew text. It is generally agreed that the Greek chronological departures from the Hebrew were deliberate corrections (see, for example, Montgomery, J., Critical Commentary on Books of Kings [New York, 1951], 143Google Scholar; De Vries, S. J., Chronology, in Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible [1962], I, 581)Google Scholar. An old but useful study is Preuss, E., Die Zeitrechnung der Septuaginta (Berlin, 1859)Google Scholar.

18 Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, 35–82; Swete, H. B., An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge, 1902), 17f.Google Scholar, 369f.; Schürer, , Geschichte d. jüdischen Volkes (Leipzig, 1909), III 4, 426, 473Google Scholar; Stählin, , in Christ's, Griechische Literaturgeschichte (Munich, 1920), II 8, 588f.Google Scholar

19 Conceivably, but unverifiably, Demetrius, whose chronology was written during the last two decades of III century B.C., was himself one of the so-called “Seventy” translators. That the name Demetrius is not found in the Letter of Aristeas among the seventy-two names is no proof one way or the other, as the list is pure fiction, appended to the text by another hand. I am now inclined to doubt any direct nexus (see sources cited in the previous note) between Demetrius and the midrashic methods, except that both showed an amazingly close knowledge of the Scriptural text. The Book of Jubilees, written perhaps nearly a century after Demetrius, and the recently discovered Genesis Apocryphon (Jerusalem, 1956) both follow a schematic chronology that often overrides the Pentateuchal traditions. The idea that nonlegal texts (even the Pentateuch) of Scripture were authoritative and unalterable is evidently post-Maccabean. Cf. Eupolemus's account of the Temple (FGrH 723 FF 1–5).

20 On Eratosthenes, see Jacoby, , Apollodors Chronik (Philologische Untersuchungen, XVI [1902]), 10 ff.Google Scholar; FGrH 241 FF 1–48.

21 Schwartz, E., Berossos, RE, III (1897), 309–16Google Scholar; FGrH 680 FF 1–22. Manetho, ed. Waddell (LCL, 1940); FGrH 609 FF 1–28. See, also, Pritchard, J., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton, 1955), 265f.Google Scholar

22 On Pseudo-Eupolemus, see Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, 35–82; Gutschmid, , Kleine Schriften, II (1890), 180–95Google Scholar; Wacholder, , Hebrew Union College Annual 34 (1963), 83–113Google Scholar; Walter, N., Zu Pseudo-Eupolemos, Klio (1965), 282–90.Google Scholar

23 Euseb., P.E., IX, 17; 18, 2 (Anonymous) = FGrH 724 FF 1–2.

24 Euseb., P.E., IX, 17, 9 = 724 F 1.

25 Ctesias is preserved primarily in Diodorus II, 1–28, Nicolaus of Damascus, 90 FF iff., and Photius. The fragments are collected in Jacoby, FGrH 688 FF 1–74. It is doubtful that Ctesias had assigned an absolute date for Ninus, though the presumed 52–year reign usually credited to Ninus was made up by Ctesias. For a recent attempt to exonerate Ctesias, see Drews, R., Assyria in Classical Universal Histories, Historia 14 (1965), 129–42Google Scholar. Eusebius' chronology of Assyria follows Ctesias', as did that of Castor (Euseb., Chronik, 26ff.; FGrH 688 F 1a).

26 Or. Sibyll, III, 106–60. See Wacholder, , HUCA 34 (1963), 92fGoogle Scholar

27 Euseb., P.E., IX, 18, 1 = 726 F 1.

28 P E, IX, 27,1 = 726 F 3.

29 P.E., IX, 27 = 726 F 3a. In Clement (Strom., I, 154, 2 = 726 F 3b), the name is spelled Νενεϕρέονς but emended, on the basis of Eusebius, Xενεϕρέονς.

30 Gutman, Y., The Beginnings of Jewish-Hellenistic Literature (Jerusalem, 1963), 135Google Scholar [in Hebrew]. Gutman dates Chenephres on the basis of Artapanus' statement that there then were many pharaohs in Egypt, a rather weak proof.

31 Mueller, C., Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, III (Paris, 1883), 221Google Scholar; Manetho, in FGrH, FF 2–3a–b, IIIC, p. 20, 19, where the text reads Xενερὴς, see app. crit., line 19.

32 See previous note. Euseb., Chronik (Armenian), p. 65.

33 Manetho, in FGrH 609 F 2, IIIC, p. 22 ; Artapanus, 726 F 3b, p. 684, app. crit.

34 Except that he lived before Alexander Polyhistor (flourished 85–35 B.C.), no attempt has been made to date Artapanus. O. Linton, Synopsis Historiae Universalis, 74, dates him in 30 B.C., which must be a misprint. His extreme syncretism coupled with the knowledge of the book of Exodus seems to place him during the first half of the second century B.C., before the Maccabean rebellion reaffirmed the monotheistic belief. A somewhat stronger indication of Artapanus' date is his statement that the pharaoh of the exodus was the first to have been afflicted with elephantiasis (Euseb., PJL., IX, 27, 20 = 726 F 3, p. 684, 10f.). This disease was apparently first named circa 200 B.C. by Bolos Democritus. Artapanus, whose writings show a kinship with those of Bolos, attributed the malady to the Egyptian king in line with the traditional interpretation of Ex. Rabbah, 1, 34 (Diels-Kranz, , Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, II 0 [1952], 216, 9ff.)Google Scholar.

35 Clement Al., Strom., I, 153, 4; Euseb., P.E., IX, 25, 4 = 723 F ia-b. Freudenthal, Hettenistische Studien, 105–30.

36 Clement Al., Strom., I, 150, 4; Euseb., P.E., IX, 6, 9 = Mullach, FPh, III, 166.

37 Manetho, according to Eusebius, counted 13,900 years for the period of the gods' rule, 24,900 years for the semi-gods, followed by the 30 dynasties lasting (according to Africanus) 1050 years totaling 39,850 years (Euseb., Chronik, 63ff.; FGrH 609 FF 2–32; Anlage I, 56–63). These numbers of years were in part reduced by the Jewish chronographers to months (see Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus, II, 59ff).

38 Ctesias, in Diodorus (Book II; 688 F ib); Plutarch (688 FF 15a; 17–23; 26; 28–29) became the authority of Babylonian history, while Berossus of Babylon (290 B.C.) was ignored. Manetho (609 FF 1–28) had been preserved only by Jewish and Christian writers. The interest in Egypt, however, never ceased completely in the Graeco-Roman world, but declined sharply from its high point in the 4th and 3rd centuries. See Aegypten in Jacoby, FGrH, IIIC, pp. 1–277.

39 Clement Al., Strom., I, 141, 3–4 = Philo, 729 T 2 ; 723 F 4. For Demetrius' chronology see above.

40 Stählin, Clemens Alexandrinus (Stromata, Berlin, 1960), II, 88; Freudenthal(Hellenistische Studien, 213, 230); Jacoby (723 F 4); and Walter (forthcoming publication). This emendation, however, is perhaps not justified. For the manuscript's date of the exodus according to Eupolemus, 2569 anno mundi is not much different from that of the Book of Jubilees, 2410 anno mundi, and the rabbinic 2448. If so, the problem is why Eupolemus dated the exodus 2738 B.C.

41 Euseb., PE., IX, 30, 1 = 723 F 3b. For Joshua's rule, see Josh. 24:29 (30); 14:7; Num. 14:30–34.

42 Euseb., P.E., IX, 30, 2, 8 = 723 F 3b; cf. LXX III Kingdoms 2:12.

43 Jacoby, FGrH, IIIb (Suppl.), I, 380–83. See also, on the whole subject, Jacoby, , Atthis: The Local Chronicles of Ancient Athens (Oxford, 1949)Google Scholar.

44 Polybius, XII, 11, 1 = Timaeus, 566 T 10. This was the first use of an era for historical purposes. Cf. Brown, T. S., Timaeus of Tauromenium (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1958), 10–13Google Scholar.

45 Jacoby, Apollodors Chronik, 75–77.

46 Jacoby, Apollodors Chronik, Iff.; FGrH 244 FF 1–87.

47 244 FF 83–87. E. Schwartz, Königlisten (see next note), dated Pseudo-Apollodorus in 100 B.C.; Gutschmid, , Kleine Schriften, I (Leipzig, 1889), 164Google Scholar, in 63 B.C. But, as noted above, the use of the chronicle by Alexander Polyhistor makes a second-century B.C. date probable. Conceivably, this world chronicle had been a Jewish fabrication, as is indeed suggested by FGrH 244 FF 83–87.

48 Schwartz, E., Königlisten des Eratosthenes und Kastor (Göttingen, 1894)Google Scholar; Kubitschek, , Kastor, R.E. 10 (1919), 2347–56Google Scholar; Jacoby, FGrH 250 FF 1–20.

49 Eusebius, Chronik, 26ff., 81ff.; FGrH 250 FF 1–4; see also Jacoby's comment in IIIb (Suppl.), I, 380–90. The invention of the Sicyonic kingdom's supposed antiquity indicates that Castor revised the traditional Greek chronology to make it as ancient at least as Assyria.

50 Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus, II, 89; cf. Posidonius, 87 FF 69–70; Apollonius Molon, 728 FF 1–3.

51 A disliked people was usually not ignored, but vilified. There is nothing to indicate that Castor attacked the Jews in his writings.

52 The treatment of Jewish history by pagan historians during the second and certainly the first century was quite extensive, considering the political insignificance of the Jewish state. Posidonius (87 FF 69–70), Teucrus of Cyzicus (274 T 1), Timagenes (88 FF 4–6), Diodorus, XL, 3, to mention a few, either wrote monographs on Jewish history or summed up their history. See FGrH 737 FF 1–23; and below, note 100.

53 Berossus in Eusebius, Chronik (Karst), 4ff.; 680 F 32, pp. 374–77. Cf. also Abydenus, in Euseb., Chronik, 15f.; Ctesias, 688 F 2.

54 Euseb., Chronik, 4, 26ff. (680 F 3, p. 374a), in Karst's translation, quotes: “von Alores [scil. Assyriens] dem ersten Konig, bis zum Xisuthron, unter welchem, sagt er, die grosse und erste Sintflut gewesen sei, deren auch Môe̱ses Erwähnung tut.” “Sagt er” can here refer to either Berossus or Alexander Polyhistor, from whose work Eusebius was quoting Berossus. Jacoby, FGrH IIIb (Suppl.), II, 282, n. 50, differentiates between die grosse und erste flood (p. 4, 27), which he attributes to Alexander Polyhistor, and die grosse flood (pp. 5, 22; 10, 24), which Jacoby ascribes to Berossus. But it is more reasonable to assume that the epithet “the first” antedates Alexander, and was found in a world chronicle, where it was quite fitting. See also next note and note 89.

55 Pseudo-Apollodorus is cited by Eusebius(Chronik, 4, 18; 244 F. 83a–b) as having identified the Xisuthrus flood with that recorded by Moses. Conceivably, Pseudo-Apollodorus, composed during the end of the second century B.C., was a work written by a Jewish author. See note 47.

56 Eusebius, Chronik, 12f.; Alexander Polyhistor, 273 F 79, IIIA, p. 110; Berossus, 680 F 4, IIIC 382f.; Abydenus, 682 F 4; Orac. Sibyll. 3:97ft.; cf. Josephus, A.J., I, 118.

57 See previous note. Hesiod, Theogony, 421ff.

58 See FGrH 724 FF 1–2; Wacholder, , HUCA 34 (1963), 90–94.Google Scholar

59 Diodorus, II, 1, 4ff.; Euseb., Chronik, 28 = 688 F la-b; Euseb.-Jerome (ed. Helm, Berlin, 1956), 20a–b, 6.

60 Euseb., P.E., 10 (see Mras, I, 592, on lines 9–18) = Alexander Polyhistor, 273 F 101a-b. In this passage Africanus cites quite an array of authorities: Acusilaus (2 F 23), Diodorus (?), Thallus (256 F 7), Castor (250 F 6), Polybius (254 F 3), Hellanicus (323a F 10), Phlegon (257 F 6), in addition to Alexander Polyhistor. See also Ps.-Justin, Coh. ad Graec, 9. Jacoby (FGrH IIIb, Suppl., I, 385–87, on Philochorus, 328 F 92) regards Alexander Polyhistor as the author who had dated Moses 1020 years before the Olympic games. Instead, Alexander Polyhistor must be viewed as the first transmitter of this tradition.

61 See, however, supra, note 40, where the Ms. reading of Eupolemus' text would seem to date the exodus in 2738 B.C.

62 Herod., VII, 141; Thuc., II, 15, 1.

63 Strabo, IX, 1. 18; Castor, FGrH 250 F 4.

64 Marmor Parium, FGrH 239, IIB, p. 993, 3f.; Castor, 250 F 4, IIB, p. 1140, 11ff.

65 Philochorus, FGrH 328 F 92 (IIIb, Suppl., I, 383–85).

66 According to Marmor Parium, FGrH 239 A 1, Cecrops died in 1770 B.C.; Castor, 250 F 4, apparently dated his death in 1745 B.C.

67 See previous note.

68 Thus Castor, following partially Ctesias, ascribed a reign of 52 years to Ninus (250 F id) as well as to the first king of Sky on, the oldest Greek monarch (Euseb., Chronik, 30; 81). Inachus, the first king of Argos, is assigned but 50 years (p. 83).

69 Is there a relationship between Josephus' dating of the bondage of the Jews during the Hyksos period of the XVII Dynasty (1800–1550 B.C.) and Alexander Polyhistor's date of the exodus in 1796? Unfortunately, nothing remains of his monograph on Egypt, where Alexander Polyhistor may have treated the issue again. For a recent review of the evidence in Josephus, see Eissfeldt, O., in Cambridge Ancient History, rev. ed., II, Ch. XXVI(a) [Cambridge, 1965], 1–32Google Scholar, who dates the exodus in the XIII century.

70 Jacoby, , Das Marmor Parium (Berlin, 1904)Google Scholar; Rh. M., LIX (1904), 63–107; FGrH 239, IIB, 992–1005; IID, 665–709.

71 Marmor Parium, FGrH A 1–2, IIB, 993.

72 Alexander Polyhistor, 273 F 101.

73 Varro, in Augustine'sCity of Cod, IV, 31, 2. Cf. Norden, Varro über den Gott der Juden, in Festgabe für Harnack (Tübingen, 1921), 298f.Google Scholar; Dahlmann, Varro, R.E., Suppl. VI (1935), 1235.

74 Censorinus, De die natali, 21, quoting Varro, “Hie enim tria discrimina temporum esse tradit. Primum, ab hominum principio ad cataclysmum priorem, quod proter ignorantiam vocetur ἄδηλον; secundum, a catadysmo priore ad Olympiadem primam, quod quia in eo multa fabulosa referentur, μνθικὸν nominatur; tertium, a prima Olympiade ad nos, quod dicitur ἱστορικόν ” There is no reason to assume that Censorinus was quoting here Eratosthenes (so Jacoby, FGrH, IID, 709, 20ff.; Linton, Synopsis Historiae Universalis, 721.), because Varro and Eratosthenes differ here.

75 Censorinus, De die natali, 21.

76 See note 73. Whether or not the Graeco-Roman writers were acquainted with the Greek translations of Hebrew Scripture or received their information from proor anti-Jewish propagandists is still an open question (cf. Heinemann, Antisemitismus, R.E., Suppl. V, 3ff.). There is no doubt, however, that Varro's chronological scheme was based on some earlier chronographer, rather than from a reading of Genesis.

77 Dahlmann(R.E., Suppl. VI, 1240) assumed that Varro's source was Castor, whom Varro cited once. This limiting of Varro to a single source is rightly challenged by Jacoby (FGrH, IIIb, Suppl., I, 387, 12–18), who suggests Alexander Polyhistor as an additional antecedent, because of the mention of Ogygus. The divergence between Varro and Alexander Polyhistor, however, is sufficient to presume that both made use of a world chronicle.

78 Ptolemy of Mendes, preserved in the writings of Tatian (38), Clement of Alexandria (Strom., I, 101, 3), Eusebius (P.E., X, 10, 15–20), and Pseudo-Justin (Cohortatio ad Graec. 9 = FGrH 611 F 1).

79 611 TT i–2b.

80 Apion of Alexandria wrote his work circa 39 A.D., before he headed the Alexandrian delegation against the Jews (Josephus, A.J., XVIII, 257–59 = 614 T 6).

81 See Eupolemus in Clement, 141, 4 = 723 F 4; Gutschmid, Kleine Schriften, II, 192, emends the text to refer to a certain Cassian (Strom., I, 101), whom Clement was supposedly citing. This view is rightly rejected by Walter, N., Der angebliche Chronograph Julius Cassianus, in Studien … Erich Klostermann (Berlin, 1961), 177–92Google Scholar. In my forthcoming study on Eupolemus, I argue that the anonymous historian quoted by Clement in Strom., I, 141, 4, is perhaps Ptolemy of Mendes.

82 611 F 1a-c.

83 Unger, , Chronologie des Manetho (Berlin, 1867), 54Google Scholar, 167, emends 435; Pessl, , Das chronologische System Manethos (Berlin, 1878)Google Scholar, 56, reads 445.

84 Clement, Strom., I, 136, 3–4 = Thrasyllus, FGrH 253 F 1; Reinach, Th., Textes d'auteurs grecs et romains relatijs au Judaïsme (Paris, 1895), 113fGoogle Scholar See next note.

85 Jacoby, FGrH, IID, 830, 2f., 5, citing Gutschmid (Kl. Schr., I, 154f.), believes that the passage quoted in the previous note may have emanated from Ptolemy of Mendes, rather than from Thrasyllus. Only Strom., I, 135, 5, is ascribed to Thrasyllus. Unfortunately, too little is known of either to be certain; in this paper the hypothesis is tentatively accepted.

86 See note 83.

87 Manetho (in FGrH), 609 FF 2–3C, IIIC, pp. 36f.

88 See Jacoby, FGrH, IIIB (Suppl.), I, 386f.

89 Jacoby, FGrH, IIIb (Suppl.), I, 387, 18ff.: “The question may remain open whether it was he [Alexander Polyhistor] who created the syncretistic combination of Greek and Oriental tradition which counts the floods and puts the first under the name of Ogygus, or whether the Jewish chronographers preceded him, the knowledge of whom in Christian chronography may entirely derive from Alexander Polyhistor.” The first alternative, that Alexander Polyhistor had fused Jewish and Greek mythology, must be rejected. For, as far as we can judge from the fragments, his works consisted of gluing together diverse quotations rather than of concocting the material himself. Moreover, there is nothing to suggest that a heathen on his own would have put Moses in such favorable light. The synthesis of Greek and Jewish chronology antedates Alexander Polyhistor. The Jewish chronicles, it would seem, were known as οι τὰ Σύρια, paralleling οι τὰς Ατθίδας (EUSEB., P.E., X, 10, 8 = Alexander Polyhistor [273 F 101]). For the vulgar forms, see Mras, Rk.M., XCII (1944), 226F.

90 Tatian, Oratio adversus Graecos, 38; Clement Al., Strom., I, 101 (Euseb., P.E., X, 12, 2–4); Africanus in PM., X, 10 (Ps.-Justin, Coh. ad Grace, 9) = Alexander Polyhistor, 273 F 79; Ptolemy of Mendes, 611 F 1; Apion, 616 F 2a-c

91 Castor in Euseb., Chronik (Karst), p. 86 (FGrH 250 F 4, p. 1140), makes Cecrops the first Athenian king, as does the Marmor Parium (Jacoby, FGrH 139 A 1–2). Castor, however, antedated Sicyon before Argos.

92 Ptolemy of Mendes in Eusebius, quoting Africanus, P.E., X, 10, 16ff. = 611 F 1.

93 Clement Al., Strom., I, 102, 4; Euseb., PE., X, 12, 8; Chronik, 31, 3; 85, 14.

94 Ctesias, as preserved in Castor (see previous note) 250 ic-d; Cephalion, 93 F 1. None of these sources mention Ctesias by name. But there is no question he was the ultimate authority for both Castor and Cephalion, as indicated by Diodorus (II, 23, 1 = Ctesias, 688 F 1) and Nicolaus of Damascus (90 F 2).

95 Eusebius-Jerome, Chronik (Helm), pp. 14, 20a; Eusebius, P.E., IX, 10, 11; X, 9, 10; Malalas, V, 7c; Epiphanius, Pan. Haer., III, 12.

96 Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus, I, 4, 20, 118, 265; Gutschid, Kl. Schr., II, 203; Wachsmuth, , Einl. der alten Geschichte (Leipzig, 1896), 439Google Scholar; cf. Schürer, Gesch. d. jüd. Volkes, I4 61f.

97 On Justus, see the inadequate study of Luther, H., Josephus und Justus vom Tiberias (Halle, 1910)Google Scholar. Known mainly from Josephus'Vita, he is cited also (aside from passages quoted below) in Photius, Bibl. 33. Since Valesius, it is assumed that the Suda, s.v. Phlegon, contains a reference to Justus' work (Gutschmid, Kl. Schr., IV, 349; Schürer, I, 61). But, if the text of the Suda needs emendation, the reading of Josephus perhaps makes more sense than Justus (see Jacoby, FGrH 737 F 3, app. crit. to 19–20).

98 Eusebius-Jerome, Chronik (Helm), 7b (Syncellus) = 734 F 2.

99 Syncellus, p. 116 = 734 F 3. Both fragments (see previous note) are marked by Jacoby as defective.

100 The treatment of Jews in Greek heathen texts had begun with Hecataeus of Abdera, in the end of the fourth century B.C. (Diod., XL, 3 = FGrH 264 F 6). Megasthenes, writing in the period of the Diadochi, likewise glorified the Jews (Josephus, A.J., X, 227 = 715 F 1; Clement Al., Strom., I, 72, 4f. = 715 F 3). Theophrastus discussed the priestly code (Pötscher, W., Theophrastos [Leiden, 1964], Fragment 13, pp. 172–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar). Aside from Alexander Polyhistor, Teucrus of Cyzicus also wrote a monograph on the Jews in the first century B.C. (274 T 1) ; and so did Conon (26 F 4). For other treatment, see the now inadequate work of Reinach, Textes d'auteurs grecs et romains relatifs au Judaïsme; and Jacoby'sFGrH, passim. Cf. above, n. 52.

101 Polybius, FGrH 254 FF 1–4; Thallus, 256 FF 1–8; Phlegon of Thralles, 257 F 16– See also supra, notes 55–56; 73–75; 78–80, and passim.

102 Porphyry in Adversus Christianos, Harnack, ed. (Berlin, 1916)Google Scholar, fragment 40; Jacoby, FGrH 260 F33; Eusebius-Jerome (Helm ed.), p. 8: “Porphyrius… post Mosem Semiramin fuisse adfirmat, quae apud Asyrios CL ante Inachum regnavit annis. Itaque iuxta eum DCCC paene et quinquaginta annis Troiano bello Moyses senior inuenitur.” Jacoby, FGrH, IID, p. 878, on F 33, points out that Porphyry merely repeated the older tradition, since his own chronicle began with the Trojan Wars.

103 The view gained from Josephus'Contra Apionem and repeated by Reinach(Textes d'auteurs grecs et romains, VIII–XX) that, with a few exceptions in the early period, the Greek heathen writers were anti-Jewish is decidedly misstated and overstated. The dominant treatment was decisively pro-Jewish.

104 Apion, 616 F 4a-c.

105 Gutschmid, Kl. Schr., IV, 402, 439f.; Laqueur, R., Manetho, R.E., XIV, (1928), 1064ff.Google Scholar, proposes that Josephus (C. Apionem, I, 74–92) utilized a Pseudo-Manetho written by a polytheistic author, whom Josephus believed to have been real. See Jacoby, FGrH, IIIC, 84, app. crit. Cf., also, Meyer, E., Aegyptische Chronologie (Berlin, 1904), 71Google Scholar; Weill, R., La fin du moyen age Egyptien (Paris, 1918), 68ff.Google Scholar

106 Contra Apionem, 86–90 = FGrH 609 F 8, pp. 87f. See the authorities cited in the previous note, especially, Meyer, Nachträge (1907), 34, n. 5.

107 Ptolemy of Mendes, 611 F ia-c.

108 Lysimachus is known only through Josephus, C. Apionem, I, 304–11; II, 16f., 20, 14s, 236 = 621 FF 1–4. He antedates Apion, but is later than Ptolemy of Mendes.

109 C. Apionem, II, 16 = 621 F 2.

110 Manetho in Eusebius, Chronik, p. 68, “under whom the lamb spoke” (609 FF 2–3C, pp. 46f.). Diod., I, 45, 2; 65, 1; 79, 1; 94, 5, makes him the greatest lawgiver of Egypt or even the world.

111 Apion in C. Apionem, II, 17 = 616 F 4.

112 Tatian, 38; Clement Al., Strom., I, 101; Eusebius, P.E., X, 10 = Jacoby, Apion 616 F 2a-c.

113 Gutschmid, Kl. Schr., IV, 362. Mueller, FGH, III, p. 509, F 3, suggested that this fragment (C. Apionem, II, 16 = FGrH 616 F 4a) was not in Apion's fourth book of his history of Egypt, where the anti-Semitic texts were collected. Jacoby (616 F 4) also questioned the title of the book in which Apion dated the exodus.

114 Because Josephus' biblical chronology has been subjected to several studies, its treatment has been excluded from this essay. M. Bueddinger, Die Exodus nach Manetho, Sitzungsber. d. k. Akad. d. Wissensch., LXXV (Vienna, 1873); Justus von Destinon, Die chronologischen Systeme im alten Testament und bei Josephus (Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschajt, 1908, 2, Berlin); Linton, Synopsis Historiae Universalis, 76–86; as well as in discussions of Josephus and the Bible relating to chronology. Moreover, as evidently felt by the Church Fathers, Josephus' chronology was frequently contradictory and unrelated to the main stream of biblical historiography antecedent to him.

115 See C. Apionem, I, 218, where Josephus groups several Graeco-Jewish historians with those heathen writings. At any rate, it is clear that Josephus made no use of his Graeco-Jewish predecessors, including Philo of Alexandria, whom he mentioned once (A J., XVIII, 259f.).

116 Tacitus, Hist., V, 3,1.

117 Apionem, II, 17 = 616 F 2a; Timaeus, 566 F. 60 = Dionysius of Halicarnassus, A.R., I, 74, 1. Timaeus had placed the foundation of Carthage and Rome in the same year (814 B.C.), a view which rightly mystified Dionysius. Apion followed Timaeus in the synchronism of the foundation of Carthage and Rome, but modified the date.

118 Cf. the Suda, s. v. Apion, 616 T I.